Doua observatii:
1. in cazul NHTSA impactul frontal este la 56 km/h pe cand in cazul tuturor celorlalti este la 64 km/h.
"ceilalti" -> EuroNCAP, ANCAP= Australia NCAP, JNCAP-Japan NCAP, IIHS=cealalta institutie americana care se ocupa cu siguranta traficului.
2. Impactul frontal "offset" pe 40% din structura este mai complicat pt structura de rezistenta decat cel full-frontal din cauza ca, in cazul celui "offset", structura de rezistenta nu participa integral, o aceeasi cantitate de energie trebuind absorbita de 40-50% din structura de rezistenta fata de 100% din structura la un full-frontal.
Pe de alta parte, impactul full-frontal solicita intr-o masura mai mare centurile si/sau airbag-urile.
Motivul pt care cam toata lumea a renuntat la impactul full-frontal in zid de beton - nu e reprezentativ pt accidentele reale (de cate ori ati avut ocazia sa vedeti un zid de beton periculos de aproape, in fata si de cate ori ati vazut pe unul intrand pe sensul vostru si revenind pe sensul lui in ultimul moment?).
Din acest motiv, s-a evoluat inspre impactul "offset", ce simuleaza o ciocnire cu o masina identica, venind cu aceeasi viteza , de pe contrasens.
(*) desi modelul fizic este al celor 2 masini identice, venind cu aceeasi viteza, modelul sustinut de EuroNCAP este: 2 masini identice, fiecare avand 55 km/h, deci cu 9 km/h mai putin decat modelul fizic, probabil pt a-si pastra o marja de eroare suficienta.
In legatura cu faptul ca modelul NHTSA este invechit ("obsolete"): http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/usncap/idx.htm
(site-ul este american si e un fel de "Trillian" al tuturor crash-test-urilor)
Citez:
"USNCAP Testing Needs Revision - The NHTSA testing regimen remains virtually the same now, 23 years later, as when it began. The only major addition has been a side-impact test (adopted from the Euro-NCAP side-impact test).
Recent testing by the International NCAP Agencies has shown that the the full-width frontal crash test does not show how effectively a vehicle's safety cage or occupant restraint systems will protect the occupants of a vehicle in real-world collisions. It is possible for a NHTSA test to result in "good" head and chest injury measurements (and therefore a good star rating) even though the structure performs poorly or becomes unstable. In these cases the risk to life in a slightly different crash configuration, or slightly higher speed, could result in a much higher risk of serious injury.
In the US, mandatory airbag legislation has substantially equalized the testing results of most full-width collisions. For example, ALL of the vehicles tested by the NHTSA in the past few years have earned a minimum of 3 stars in their full-width collision. With no significant variation in results, it's significantly harder for consumers differentiate between vehicles.
In summary, the US NCAP needs to adopt a more modern method of testing. Australia has already abandoned the NHTSA full-width test and has gone with the Euro NCAP (EEVS) system. Adoption of the IIHS or European EEVS testing system is clearly indicated in the case of the US NCAP (NHTSA). "
