Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

Even if they hadn't strategically picked that model of old car for maximum crunch factor anyone without a seat belt may as well be on a motorcycle.

Edit: Deleted the rest of the comment, It is not worthwhile to have a nuanced discussion about the merits of the various safety improvements with this community.

View on HN

>...by not doing a offset test or picking literally anything but a GM X-frame car (notoriously bad at overlap crashed, even by 1950s standards)

So you are mad that they used a street legal car of the day to show that things have improved?

A fun historical fact I just discovered, "Ford offered seat belts as an option in 1955. These were not popular, with only 2% of Ford buyers choosing to pay for seatbelts in 1956" [0]. Which reads to me that many 1959 drivers would have been unlikely to have or use a seatbelt.

[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt

I think the point is that an X-frame is extremely weak, so they showed one of the worst cars in 1959 to be in a crash with; many other cars of the time had full perimeter frames:

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automot...

It’s a useful piece of context but it’s not really like the x-frame was niche and cherry-picked for this example. They sold a lot of these things (the platform, not just bel-airs)

If you step through the video with the "," and "." keys, you'll see that the steering wheel ends up in contact with the drivers seatback. A seatbelt that holds the driver in place doesn't help if there is no safe space for a body.

The 59 GM Full Sizes with an X frame did particularly poorly in overlap crashes - it would have performed better with a full head on - or a slimly later one with a permitter frame.

Most cars do particularly poorly in overlap crashes. It's why those get tested specifically. it's harder to absorb than a full overlap crash.

It's also a more likely type of crash to occur. Not many cases where one would square off the hit straight on, I'd imagine rather most cases at least one occupant is trying to avoid the crash by moving to the right.

A seatbelt wouldn't have helped much; maybe the Bel-Air driver would've been flung around a bit less, but one would still be crushed within what's effectively a giant crumple zone.

And that’s if you weren’t already dead from having your chest caved in by a non-collapsible steering column (Remember, a seat belt in this era meant a lap belt only.

The article states this was to “celebrate” the 50th anniversary of the test institute in 2009. I agree with your point about controlling for variables but it does not seem to be the goal of the video.

The 64 sedan had 3 point lap belts and a roll cage reinforcing the passenger compartment. Not really a particularly compelling example of a typical ‘64 sedan…

Neither my 1965 coupe or 1966 convertible Mustangs came from the factory with lap belts. Both have subsequently been modified to have (2 point) lap belts, which still feel sketchy as hell to me.

Have you used aftermarket 3 point belt? A family member's Ranchero had them; the shoulder restraint slid into the lap belt near the buckle, but if you moved it would slip out. I can't imagine that being helpful in a crash, just a tethered weight to fly around.

I fitted the lap belts to my 'vert, which was already very much not-stock when I bought it, so I didn't feel bad making even more modifications (hydraulic clutch, modern T5Z trans, electronic ignition). There isn't a good, above-the-shoulder mounting point for the shoulder belt, unless you weld in a cage or mount one to an aftermarket seat.

The coupe is a close to correct C-code, which I've driven under 1000 miles in the last decade, so I've decided to leave it with period-correct 1965 belts that a prior owner installed rather than modify the B-pillar as my exposure isn't very high on that car due to very low annual miles.

That's interesting. My 66 coupe definitely had Ford branded lap belts complete with the Mustang logo on the button.

There's very little evidence for more complex belts having safety advantages over lap belts, FWIW.

Really? That’s surprising given the guarantee of a face impact in a hard collision (and these two cars having non-collapsing steering shafts).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com