Bolt Safety

[Anonymous]

Greetings,

I test drove the Bolt the other day and love the car. It is great fun to drive, super comfortable and very stylish. I have solar energy at home so would have zero energy costs.

I have a 2004 Prius which is still running fine, but I'm ready to move on. I usually drive about 15 miles a day, but several times a month need to travel 150-200 miles in a day. In a way the Bolt is somewhat overkill for my daily electric needs - the Volt would make more practical sense for me and I could get it for less money, but I did not enjoy driving the Volt - poor visibility and somewhat boring experience.

I know I have to pay a premium for the Bolt now, especially if I lease, but the only thing holding me back is the safety issue. It's a small car and there's very little distance between the front bumper and the driver. In a head-on collision, what happens? There are no crash ratings yet, and they may not come out for another 4-5 months from what I've read. It looks like the closest thing comparable is a Honda Fit.

I have a small child and safety is an important factor in the car. I haven't seen much discussion about this and was wondering if anyone had any special information about the relative risks of driving this vs. a larger car such as a newer Prius. (I can't bring myself to get a Volt, even though it's crash-tested safe, because I just don't enjoy driving it and actually feel the visibility issue is a safety one).

I appreciate any advice or comments readers may have.

Thanks!

 

[drdiesel1]

Watch this for a structural idea :mrgreen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFOxgBDuB8

 

[SeanNelson]

I appreciate any advice or comments readers may have.

We're really not going to know for sure until the crash tests come out. But one thing in the Bolt's favour is that even though it's small, the battery makes it pretty massive. So if you crash into anything that's moveable (other cars, fences, etc.) it's going to undergo smaller deceleration forces than a lighter car would.

If you're concerned about your children then the smart thing to do is to have them ride in the rear seat, which is generally a much more protected position.

 

[Nagorak]

For crash tests you probably should look at other Chevy cars. The engineers that design them probably follow a similar play book. The Volt for example has top safety marks from the IIHS. I'd say the Leaf is probably more similar than the Fit, but it has poor small offset numbers--then again so do a lot of other Nissan's from that era (Leaf model is pretty dated), which is why I say to compare to other contemporary cars by the same manufacturer.

My guess is safety is pretty good but we won't know for sure until the tests come back. Also keep mind that safety is relative. Most modern vehicles will be significantly safer than a car from a decade ago.

Is the Prius really a significantly larger car? The Bolt is about as large as the Leaf, which I feel is fairly sizable. That said if you usually drive 15 miles the Prius Prime could meet your needs if you're not satisfied with the Volt or Bolt.

 

[phil0909]

there's very little distance between the front bumper and the driver.

I don't think this is true. The hood is very short, but the dashboard in front of the driver/passenger is very long. I had the same concern at first, but then I looked at a side view of the Bolt to compare with standard sedans/SUVs and the Bolt seems to have just as much car in front of the driver as a typical larger vehicle.

I don't know for sure about overall safety of the design, but I'm optimistic because it is a very heavy car for its size as mentioned above. Also, the rigid battery compartment should provide some crash protection, and cars are continually getting safer as designers and engineers improve their efforts. Crash tests don't tell the whole story, but I bet the Bolt does well on tests and overall safety. I feel fine driving my child in one.

 

[ScooterCT]

Lots of the stuff said above is just invalid. Not slamming anybody - but some of the statements above would fail engineering 101 and physics 100 final exams.

If you really want safety for your family, buy the longest, largest, heaviest, best engineered vehicle you can find. Physics 100 will tell you what happens when 5,000 lbs meets 3,000 lbs. 3,000 lbs goes backwards. Big generally has more crush depth. Tall keeps the accident beneath you.

Engineering 101 will tell you that the highway safety test cases only cover about 10% of actual accident test cases. I sometimes think they do more harm than good, because engineers will (under orders) design the car to ace the crash tests. And they may do that at the cost of real world safety. You just have to understand structural engineering to even have a clue. And consumers will see 5 stars and feel all proud of themselves for choosing wisely, when in fact the car might be a death trap. Also, those tests are for one specific model in a range. For instance, Ford was caught testing one variant of the F150, then leaving out structural members on the other F150 variants.

You want ultra-safe for your family? It ain't the Bolt (or my own Miata - aka my rolling death wish). It doesn't matter if it earns 5 stars. It loses based on physics. Your Bolt meets Yukon, Bolt loses. If you hit the federal crash rig at precisely defined parameters, yea, your car is really safe.

Sorry guys. The simple fact is you don't know if your car is safe in the real world until you have 5 years of crash data from the real world. Forget the Fed ratings. They're a weak indication at best.

Here's one of dozens of write-ups you can easily find with a Google search. Also look for the insurance industry ratings and historic ratings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-safe-is-that-car-with-the-5-star-crash-test-rating/

s

 

[phil0909]

Lots of the stuff said above is just invalid. Not slamming anybody - but some of the statements above would fail engineering 101 and physics 100 final exams.

If you really want safety for your family, buy the longest, largest, heaviest, best engineered vehicle you can find. Physics 100 will tell you what happens when 5,000 lbs meets 3,000 lbs. 3,000 lbs goes backwards. Big generally has more crush depth. Tall keeps the accident beneath you.

Engineering 101 will tell you that the highway safety test cases only cover about 10% of actual accident test cases. I sometimes think they do more harm than good, because engineers will (under orders) design the car to ace the crash tests. And they may do that at the cost of real world safety. You just have to understand structural engineering to even have a clue. And consumers will see 5 stars and feel all proud of themselves for choosing wisely, when in fact the car might be a death trap. Also, those tests are for one specific model in a range. For instance, Ford was caught testing one variant of the F150, then leaving out structural members on the other F150 variants.

You want ultra-safe for your family? It ain't the Bolt (or my own Miata - aka my rolling death wish). It doesn't matter if it earns 5 stars. It loses based on physics. Your Bolt meets Yukon, Bolt loses. If you hit the federal crash rig at precisely defined parameters, yea, your car is really safe.

Sorry guys. The simple fact is you don't know if your car is safe in the real world until you have 5 years of crash data from the real world. Forget the Fed ratings. They're a weak indication at best.

Here's one of dozens of write-ups you can easily find with a Google search. Also look for the insurance industry ratings and historic ratings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-safe-is-that-car-with-the-5-star-crash-test-rating/

s

Hello Scooter -

Why so belligerent?

I don't see that you have made a single useful point that was not made already above your post:
- Bigger is better
- Heavier is better
- Crash tests ton't tell you everything

You are basically agreeing with all the points made above, while belittling those who made them. You may or may not have taken Physics 101. I would recommend you now take Reading Comprehension 101.

 

[drdiesel1]

Hello Scooter -

Why so belligerent?

I don't see that you have made a single useful point that was not made already above your post:
- Bigger is better
- Heavier is better
- Crash tests ton't tell you everything

You are basically agreeing with all the points made above, while belittling those who made them. You may or may not have taken Physics 101. I would recommend you now take Reading Comprehension 101.

At least a crash course anyways!

 

[boltage]

If you really want safety for your family, buy the longest, largest, heaviest, best engineered vehicle you can find. Physics 100 will tell you what happens when 5,000 lbs meets 3,000 lbs. 3,000 lbs goes backwards. Big generally has more crush depth. Tall keeps the accident beneath you.

Some of the big heavy vehicles have poor crash avoidance characteristics (i.e. worse handling and braking).

Also, a large percentage of crashes are single vehicle -- crashing into a pole, tree, building, barrier, etc., or rolling over. More weight is not necessarily an advantage in such a case.

Be careful with insurance loss rates, since driver demographics or factors other than the car characteristics affect the rates at which vehicles are crashed. For example, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates shows very different driver death rates for the 2008-2011 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis (under "very large" "four-door cars"). For 1999-2002, the Toyota Corolla and Chevrolet Prizm also have significantly different driver death rates.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Large and LIGHT is the safest combination, all else being equal.

There is no substitute for GOOD ENGINEERING to get the safest car. Crumple zones - and if possible deflection rather than engagement.

Safety first means avoiding the accident, and if it cannot be avoided, it means the slowest deceleration time possible. Dissipate the energy over the longest time possible will mean lower peak G's.

Light weight means that braking is easier and more speed can be scrubbed over a given time. Light weight means that there is LESS energy to dissipate, if an impact occurs.

Head on collisions are the ONLY time when greater weight makes a difference. In ALL OTHER collisions, greater weight is LESS safe. And greater weight makes it harder to avoid / limit a collision.

Brakes, suspension, tires, low Cg, visibility - and lots of other factors affect safety.

 

[phil0909]

Head on collisions are the ONLY time when greater weight makes a difference. In ALL OTHER collisions, greater weight is LESS safe.

Really? This is different from what common sense would suggest. If a big,heavy SUV speeds thru a red light and hits my little Bolt in the side at 60 mph, I would rather be driving a Humvee. Or, preferably, an M1 Abrams battle tank. Would you pick the Bolt?

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Really - many accidents involve only one car hitting things, and what I said apply.

 

[phil0909]

Really - many accidents involve only one car hitting things, and what I said apply.

Well, that's very different from ALL except head-on collisions! I'm still not buying it, though. If I were to hit a tree, parked vehicle, garage door or wall, fire hydrant, etc. -- I'd still rather be in a Land Rover than a Bolt. There's some possible advantage for light vehicles in collision avoidance ability, but overall, heavy cars are far superior to light cars when it comes to passenger safety. No doubt about it. See here, for example:
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-heavier-pricier-vehicles-safer.html

The Bolt is no heavyweight, but I do take some comfort in the Bolt's half-ton (almost) battery assembly. Should make the car safer than a conventional car of similar dimensions.

 

[SeanNelson]

Light weight means that braking is easier and more speed can be scrubbed over a given time.

That's terrific if you have enough advance warning to hit the brakes, and if the brakes are really more effective (which isn't necessarily a given just based on weight). But if you don't have time to react and if you hit something that's not fixed in place then you're going to suffer a lot more intense acceleration forces in a light vehicle than a heavy one - and those are the forces that will injure or kill you.

 

[boltage]

Head on collisions are the ONLY time when greater weight makes a difference. In ALL OTHER collisions, greater weight is LESS safe.

Really? This is different from what common sense would suggest. If a big,heavy SUV speeds thru a red light and hits my little Bolt in the side at 60 mph, I would rather be driving a Humvee. Or, preferably, an M1 Abrams battle tank. Would you pick the Bolt?

Design matters. In IIHS side crash testing (where the test vehicle is hit by something shaped like a large pickup or SUV), older vehicles like the 2007 Chevrolet Silverado did not do that well.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/silverado-1500-crew-cab-pickup/2007

Neither did the Ford Crown Victoria:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victoria-4-door-sedan

However, the current Chevrolet Sonic was rated good:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/sonic-4-door-sedan

 

[phil0909]

Design matters. In IIHS side crash testing (where the test vehicle is hit by something shaped like a large pickup or SUV), older vehicles like the 2007 Chevrolet Silverado did not do that well...

However, the current Chevrolet Sonic was rated good

Yes, design matters very much. You can watch on youtube new subcompacts slice through old land yachts more than twice their size/weight from the 50s or 60s or 70s. Those collisions tend to resemble a hot knife going through butter.

 

[oilerlord]

Your Bolt meets Yukon, Bolt loses.

Three years ago, my Ninja 650 met Infiniti SUV. The other driver was texting and blew through a stop sign. Her SUV was fine other than minor damage, but my bike was written off. I still haven't fully recovered from that crash. From experience, I agree with Scoot - bigger is safer.

Best advice... pay attention to the road and put down the G-Damn phone. You can't safely do both at the same time.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

The safest vehicles are the ones that are designed for safety.

Heavy vehicles are not nearly as safe. Tall heavy vehicles flip over much more easily - or more accurately, vehicles that have a Cg that is higher off the ground will flip over more easily. And they have much higher death rates than safe vehicles.

Lighter vehicles will brake more quickly than a heavier vehicle, all else being equal.

Lighter vehicles have less kinetic energy at any given speed - so there is less energy that needs to be dissipated - making them safer, all else being equal.

When a vehicle hits a stationary object, it is safer if the vehicle is lighter, all else being equal.

TIME is one critical factor in a collision - and the total of all energy involved in the collision is another critical factor. It is the RATE of deceleration that matters - and having longer time period and having less total energy that determine the rate of deceleration, all else being equal.

 

[SeanNelson]

Lighter vehicles have less kinetic energy at any given speed - so there is less energy that needs to be dissipated - making them safer, all else being equal.

The problem is that this means the deceleration forces are higher, and those are the forces that cause injury.

That doesn't matter if you're hitting a fixed object like a bridge abutment, because then it's up to the body design to gracefully dissipate momentum. A heavy vehicle can dissipate momentum just as well as a light vehicle can if it's designed properly.

But it does matter if you strike a moveable object (or if a moveable object strikes you). The heavier your vehicle is, the more energy will be transferred to whatever you're hitting (or, if you're being hit, the more it will resist that energy), which reduces the forces on you and makes the accident more survivable. This is especially important in t-bone collisions, because the brain is particularly susceptible to severe lateral acceleration.

Of course all of this presupposes an effective vehicle structure and restraint design.

 

[michael]

Lighter vehicles have less kinetic energy at any given speed - so there is less energy that needs to be dissipated - making them safer, all else being equal.

The problem is that this means the deceleration forces are higher, and those are the forces that cause injury.

That doesn't matter if you're hitting a fixed object like a bridge abutment, because then it's up to the body design to gracefully dissipate momentum. A heavy vehicle can dissipate momentum just as well as a light vehicle can if it's designed properly.

But it does matter if you strike a moveable object (or if a moveable object strikes you). The heavier your vehicle is, the more energy will be transferred to whatever you're hitting (or, if you're being hit, the more it will resist that energy), which reduces the forces on you and makes the accident more survivable. This is especially important in t-bone collisions, because the brain is particularly susceptible to severe lateral acceleration.

Of course all of this presupposes an effective vehicle structure and restraint design.

You are right about this. That's why when they show crash tests of tiny little cars and claim that minimal deformation of the cage structure shows safety, I cry for the future owners. This means all the deceleration is performed by the driver's soon-to-be-dead body.

When the baseball hits the bat, it's the baseball that sees acceleration, not the bat. Which would you rather be?