X1/9 Crash test data

emrliquidlife

True Classic
Hi all. Lately I have been using my X as a daily driver. With the slow economy I'm looking to save money where ever I can. Three days a week I drive some 150 total miles to go pick/drop off my daughter.

Prior to putting her into the car, I installed D rings for her car seat. So I felt I had updated the car for a more modern fastening down of her seat.

Today, the X whom I am engaged in a four year divorce with gave me a speech about how the car is unsafe etc.

Initally I was pissed she would come at me. But she said one thing that made me want to put her at ease over this. She said she worries about our daughter being in the car because it was a "tin can."

So, does anyone know of any crash test data etc that I can provide? A google search brought up tons of non relavent info.

Thanks,

Ed
 
I am trying to remember where...

But I remember reading a article on the design of the X and how to fall within the new (35+ years ago new) upcoming US Safety regulations the Nader was pushing, the X had a number of changes to it to make it safer. The targa bar and windshield frame are suppose to hold the car up in case of roll over, no engine in the front so no engine plowing into you in case of a head on collision. You do have the gas tank right behind you, and SUV's might think you are a speed bump, but as small cars go, it is pretty darn safe...

I walked away from a head on collision that totaled my X in 02 with not a scratch on me.
 
Found this on WIKI...

"The first models featured a free-revving 75 bhp (56 kW) 1290 cc single overhead cam engine with an aluminium head. In this form, the car had less than dramatic performance, hampered somewhat by the surprisingly heavy body shell. The weight largely stems from the immense strength of the bodyshell, built to give the car the same crash resistance in US crash tests as a sedan. Ironically while the X1/9 passed these tests, many standard US models of the day failed them, and eventually the test criteria were relaxed. However, the design was complete by then and so the bodyshell stiffness is considerable for a car of its type, and it also allows power plants of much greater power to be fitted without modification of the standard shell."

BTW the only other car that passed the proposed US crash standards was a Volvo sedan...
 
It is a tin can....

Of course all cars are tin cans.

Compared to a modern car, an X is not very safe. Compared to the majority of cars from its era, it is very safe. The biggest issue I would have with an X is how low it is and how tall all the SUVs and pickups are, being driven OVER by a much heavier car that bypasses safety structures is not a nice idea.

Unless the late Xs in Europe went through NCAP, there is likely little or no crash data on the X. You might look in AutoZeitung, they used to crash all manner of basic vehicles, they may have crashed an X.

I drove around with my then new born son in the front seat of my X for the first year of his life and never felt particularly worried about it.

To satisfy your ex I would drive your child to and fro in another vehicle, giving an ex more fodder to needle you with is a zero sum game. With gas back down around 2 bucks how much are you really saving.

There is a really illuminating Mythbusters where an X was sacrificed between two semi's that smooshed the X between them. The X did very very well give the energy involved. I will try to find a link.

Its enough to make you cry...

http://www.asemblr.com/player.php?id=770

mythbusters: Compact Compact The Vodka Myths episode 41 Season 3

Episode 41: Compact Compact and Vodka Myths
Two semis trucks can collide, fuse together on impact, and hide a small car between them: mythbusted
Vodka Myths:
Vodka as foot wash: confirmed
Vodka as mouthwash: confirmed
Compact Compact:
Myth: Two semi-trucks are in a head-on collision and get fused together. Awhile later in the junkyard people start to notice a smell coming from the trucks. They pull them apart and find that there was a small European car wedged between them with a dead driver. In a variation of this myth the two trucks were tailgating.

Test setup
Ingredients:

two free cab-over-engine semis that they got for free
two tow trucks
one small European car (donated by fan Jack Friedman)
3/8" cable (20,000lb breaking strength)
pulleys
long strench of open pavement (same as used for Matrix: Reloaded)
5000lb steel plates to weight down each semi's trailer (to simulate full load)
Buster ('driver' for the car)
Simulaids ('drivers' for the semis)
Instead of driving the semis into each other, they decided to use tow cables to pull the semis into each other so that they could get a simultaneous impact. Guidebars were welded to the front of each semi so that they would steer with the cable.

They marked off a T-shaped course with 1500 ft of road in each direction from the collision point. The semis were lined up at each end of the horizontal and attached to the tow cable. Two tow trucks were lined up on the vertical to pull the cables and the small European car was stationed at the intersection. The tow cables were run through pulleys bolted to the pavement underneath the car out to the semis. Ropes were used to attached the tow cables to the tow trucks to breakaway when the semis collided.

Test run
In their test runs for the tow lines the tow rope snapped, sending one of the semis on a runway course into a field as the MythBusters crew went running.

Adam: "I have no idea what your plan was for stopping it"
Tory: "Yeah, there wasn't really a plan"

Jamie: "In this case we saw what we wanted. We narrowly had a little bit of a disaster as far as automobiles getting crunched by a runaway semi-trailer truck, but, you know, details"

Test 1
Jamie: "The second truck is out of control I believe, over"

A tow cable snapped causing one the trucks broke free and roll off into the grass. The other truck stayed on course, slamming into the car and using it as a brake. They pinned the failure on the fact that the tow trucks weren't keeping pace with one another. As the other tried to accelerate to match it may have snapped the cable too hard or caused the truck to run over it's own cable.

They managed to repair a busted guidebar, bent-up pulley system, and cable in 90 minutes so that they could give it another shot. Although the car was damaged, they figured that it was still intact enough for another shot.

Test 2
Jamie: "There is no abort"

BOOM!

One semi hit the car before the other and, as the trucks collided at 35mph, the car got spat got spat out sideways.

Jame: "It wasn't quite right but I don't think we can reset"

The trucks were nowhere near fused together. Instead there was lots of shrapnel everywhere.

Although they hoped the collision would have been more square-on and simultaneous, an important component of the myth -- semis fusing together on impact -- was busted.

mythbusted

Random tidbit: it took the cast and crew (all hands) two days to cleanup after this myth
 
Last edited:
I 've also read a similar article and would like to add that it

is supposed to protect passengers head on at 50 m.p.h. and also survive an 80 m.p.h. rool over. It was also desined primarily as an experimental safety car and not originally meant to be mass produced. Hertzel had posted some side crash pictures which does indeed show it's strenght and rigidity. It also weights just as much as a Toyota Corolla of the same years. The fact it is small also greatly adds to it's strengh as there are no long stretches of metal which would tend to deform easier. Hope this helps.
 
Show her these photos. My Alfa rolls out of the drive way and down the hill and into my wifes Toyota and my yellow Fiat. Look at the damage at the toyota and look at the damage on the Fiat. They were hit pretty evenly and by the one car at the same time...Toyota 3200 dollars damage. Fiat 25 dollars in materials and some beer for Papa Tony...


ee93192c6893.jpg

d9003c32ded2.jpg

100_03521.jpg

100_0305.jpg

EPSON0021.jpg

EPSON0011.jpg
 
I appreciate everyone's input.

JJ, that seriously sucks. Man, the number one rule in cars is never take each other out.

The Alfa decked two at once!

Ed
 
Bigger Is NOT Better

There is an awful lot of big vehicle marketing based on the belief that bigger is better and safer in a crash. It's true to some degree, but the reality is far more complex than simply mass equals safety. Car manufactures are preying on women's insecurities and ignorance of the science and physics involved with what actually happens in a collision, what makes a specific vehicle safe or not. This is one of the marketing tools that I totally despise from the automotive industry. Preying on fear, a drivers ignorance of facts and their lack of real driving skills. Basically, the X IS a very safe car in a crash. I have wrecked more than one over the years and each time walked away from what happened and we are not talking about fender benders. There are a number of Xweb members who have posted what happened to their X in various collisions, some with pictures that shows what happened. In nearly every case, the driver/passenger compartment was quite intact. Until one cuts apart an X, the inner strength of this chassis is not always appreciated. It's also one of the reasons why this chassis has the dynamics it does. The X was designed to survive a 40~50 Mph Barrier test and a 70~80 Mph roll over test proposed by NHSA back in the 60's. No Detroit passenger car from that time could pass this requirement. Only the X1/9 and Volvo 240 series actually passed these test. Eventually these requirements were dropped, but the X1/9 was already designed and done. This is why the X is so heavy for a car it's size. The less considered and appreciated aspect of car safety is active safety. Or, can you drive your way out of a potential crash? Given the X is a very agile car, it is highly likely a competent drive can drive their way our of many a bad situation. This is something an SUV or larger, less agile vehicle is not able to do making them far less safe in this regard. Big vehicles with high roll centers and center of gravity like an SUV are prone to roll overs in quick transient turns. Adding to this problem, roof structures on many SUVs are not very strong and tend to collapse once rolled. Over my many miles of commuter miles on the road, I have witnessed many SUV and truck roll overs with an emergency response crew trying to pry the occupants out of these vehicles with roofs that have been flattened. It is NOT a pretty sight. I will not forget the time when I watched a SUV hit the curb while making a slow (about 15 Mph) left turn and roll over onto it's side and scrape to a stop.
 
Part of the problem

Is the standards being used.

Most SUV and truck designs aren't held to the same safety standards as passenger cars. This means less safety for the occupants (in terms of survivability design of the interior) and others in terms of handling. The average US designed/built SUV or Truck is a body-on-chassis design, with 50 year old suspension design. Air bags and padding just can't make up for a lack of crumple zones as most passenger vehicles have. The bumpers are often nothing more than trim, and the smallest impact knocks them clean off. Explain all this to the average consumer and, if their eyes don't immediately glaze over, they'll get mad and defensive.

Many "cross-over" vehicles, like some Subarus are classified as trucks, because of the cargo space available. These "other" non-passenger standards also let manufacturers slack on fuel economy averages as well. I cringe whenever I hear a Subaru advertised as "fuel efficient". They say that because compared to other "trucks" it is efficient. Not so much so when compared to other people movers.
 
The only safety data I remember reading about (think R&T or C&D circa 1986 thru 1989) was that there were only two cars that ever passed the proposed 55 mph head-on and 80 mph roll-over tests were the Volvo 240 and the x-1/9.

Both passed with 100% occupancy suvivorship.

This may have been reproduced in one of the magazine model specific books like the Gold Series articles.

Best regards,
Kevin
 
I found this thread after searching X1/9 moose test. Does anyone know if the X was ever a subject in the "moose test"?
 
Back
Top