Hacker News Reader

Comment by biohacker42 | Hacker News Reader

Up next, a 1950s computer vs an iPhone, a TV from 1950 vs a modern day TV, what else can we compare? Everything! Technology has progressed, how about that!

Besides the omg look at the crash shock factor, what does this tell us? The only thing I get out of it, is to be reminded that we should rely on the insurance industry's crash tests, not the government's. The insurance industry is much tougher on cars.

View on HN

It's a common belief that old "solid" cars are safer than their light, flimsy modern counterparts. This test dispels that belief fairly dramatically.

Some readers on Jalopnik's site said that the cars actually weigh very similarly. So "lighter" is only perceived.

Well, that would explain the disappointing improvement in average fuel economy.

Is it really that common?

Mostly among the 40 and up crowd, I think. I'm not sure I know anyone younger than me who believed that (I'm 36).

I'm 28 and my primary inclination was to think that newer vehicles crumple while older cars do not, leading to more internal injuries for passengers of older vehicles and more vehicle damage of newer vehicles. However it appears that the older vehicles lose on both fronts.

I don't know and can't provide anything but anecdotal evidence, but I do get the sense that "they don't make 'em like they used to" (== those old cars were solid) is the prevailing belief when I talk to people my dad's age (50+).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com