Maybe I Should Get the Accord
#21
01-21-2012, 01:01 AM
honda fit front impact test
2009 Honda Fit side impact test - YouTube
While a hummer had only acceptable results:
2008 Hummer H3 frontal offset test - YouTube
Obviously if they hit each other the bigger heavier car would most likely win, but there's always gonna be a bigger vehicle out there. By that logic are you gonna end up driving a Peterbilt semi or an M1 tank to feel totally safe?
But seriously, I've avoided so many near accidents because I had a smaller highly maneuverable car and knew how to use it...
Last edited by phrancis; 01-21-2012 at 01:03 AM.
#22
01-21-2012, 05:06 AM
it's not a good judge to tell how the car did without examining the drivers/passenger's compartment. The front of a modern car is engineered to crumple, shatter and disperse energy so things always look worse then how the driver fairs.
This video is completely misleading as "CrashTestVids" or whoever uploaded the video seems to have prepended a title screen that says Fit=Poor, Accord=Good.
But when you actually do the tiniest bit of research and go to IIHS, who are the people on the stickers of the cars who conducted the test and evaluated what happen, they say the ratings are good. so WTF?
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.a...6&seriesid=593
So I conclude, this is the internet looking for attention and re-scoring the crashes "poor" or "good" depending on how each car 'sploded rather than any science.
Taking this one step further, since this is crash test porn rather than scientific research, to me it seems the rating system is completely backwards. The Fit should have actually been rated as the "good crash" since it 'sploded more and had better action over ho-hum accord. Unless again this is backwards internet rating system where you're looking for the best "fail" which is actually "winning" at failing, err hmm..
Also, while I will admit Fit probably didn't come out as well as the accord (even though passenger areas not shown), it's not just because of the "heavier car is safer" at all. More important is if the car is modern and has all the modern safety features. In this case, since both are Hondas and same model year, most importantly they have all the same safety features. So only after those cancel out does it come down to the size/mass that makes the difference.
This doesn't mean you can go play chicken with a semitruck, you aren't going to win, but point is, don't jump to size as giving you safety, your first line of defense is safety technologies, then size/mass comes after.
cue 4year old 5th gear video demonstrating what 25years of safety technology provides
1980s designed volvo "torchbearer-of-safety" station wagon vs 2000s Renault "so-so-but-not-really-known-for-safety-but-hey-we-have-a midtier-F1-team" subcompact:
Fifth Gear - Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test - YouTube
This video is completely misleading as "CrashTestVids" or whoever uploaded the video seems to have prepended a title screen that says Fit=Poor, Accord=Good.
But when you actually do the tiniest bit of research and go to IIHS, who are the people on the stickers of the cars who conducted the test and evaluated what happen, they say the ratings are good. so WTF?
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.a...6&seriesid=593
So I conclude, this is the internet looking for attention and re-scoring the crashes "poor" or "good" depending on how each car 'sploded rather than any science.
Taking this one step further, since this is crash test porn rather than scientific research, to me it seems the rating system is completely backwards. The Fit should have actually been rated as the "good crash" since it 'sploded more and had better action over ho-hum accord. Unless again this is backwards internet rating system where you're looking for the best "fail" which is actually "winning" at failing, err hmm..
Also, while I will admit Fit probably didn't come out as well as the accord (even though passenger areas not shown), it's not just because of the "heavier car is safer" at all. More important is if the car is modern and has all the modern safety features. In this case, since both are Hondas and same model year, most importantly they have all the same safety features. So only after those cancel out does it come down to the size/mass that makes the difference.
This doesn't mean you can go play chicken with a semitruck, you aren't going to win, but point is, don't jump to size as giving you safety, your first line of defense is safety technologies, then size/mass comes after.
cue 4year old 5th gear video demonstrating what 25years of safety technology provides
1980s designed volvo "torchbearer-of-safety" station wagon vs 2000s Renault "so-so-but-not-really-known-for-safety-but-hey-we-have-a midtier-F1-team" subcompact:
Fifth Gear - Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test - YouTube
Last edited by raytseng; 01-21-2012 at 05:42 AM.
#23
01-21-2012, 08:03 AM
The point I was attempting to make, which was obviously lost in translation, is that even when things go south on the Honda, regardless of model, its small potatoes, compared to what it could be.
My M5 is a great car, but there is always something to fix. If I were driving a 10 yr old Honda Accord with under 50k on it, I doubt that would be the case.
Oh, and can someone please explain to me the facepalm photo? I know what it means, but I can't really fathom where that applies in this thread. Here is a suggestion, though it may be asinine to you: post something constructive to add to the discussion, or don't post. It makes the bread much easier to read through for someone who might ne looking for anything worthwhile, though this thread certainly is lacking in that category.
My M5 is a great car, but there is always something to fix. If I were driving a 10 yr old Honda Accord with under 50k on it, I doubt that would be the case.
Oh, and can someone please explain to me the facepalm photo? I know what it means, but I can't really fathom where that applies in this thread. Here is a suggestion, though it may be asinine to you: post something constructive to add to the discussion, or don't post. It makes the bread much easier to read through for someone who might ne looking for anything worthwhile, though this thread certainly is lacking in that category.
#25
01-21-2012, 09:27 AM
I saw that vid while researching the fit, but in a fair crash test the fit's results were "good":
Obviously if they hit each other the bigger heavier car would most likely win, but there's always gonna be a bigger vehicle out there. By that logic are you gonna end up driving a Peterbilt semi or an M1 tank to feel totally safe? But seriously, I've avoided so many near accidents because I had a smaller highly maneuverable car and knew how to use it...
Obviously if they hit each other the bigger heavier car would most likely win, but there's always gonna be a bigger vehicle out there. By that logic are you gonna end up driving a Peterbilt semi or an M1 tank to feel totally safe?
But seriously, I've avoided so many near accidents because I had a smaller highly maneuverable car and knew how to use it...I was wondering the same thing about the IIHS Fit results.
Great point thanks!
#26
01-21-2012, 09:30 AM
it's not a good judge to tell how the car did without examining the drivers/passenger's compartment. The front of a modern car is engineered to crumple, shatter and disperse energy so things always look worse then how the driver fairs.
This video is completely misleading as "CrashTestVids" or whoever uploaded the video seems to have prepended a title screen that says Fit=Poor, Accord=Good.
But when you actually do the tiniest bit of research and go to IIHS, who are the people on the stickers of the cars who conducted the test and evaluated what happen, they say the ratings are good. so WTF?
IIHS-HLDI: Honda Fit
So I conclude, this is the internet looking for attention and re-scoring the crashes "poor" or "good" depending on how each car 'sploded rather than any science.
Taking this one step further, since this is crash test porn rather than scientific research, to me it seems the rating system is completely backwards. The Fit should have actually been rated as the "good crash" since it 'sploded more and had better action over ho-hum accord. Unless again this is backwards internet rating system where you're looking for the best "fail" which is actually "winning" at failing, err hmm..
Also, while I will admit Fit probably didn't come out as well as the accord (even though passenger areas not shown), it's not just because of the "heavier car is safer" at all. More important is if the car is modern and has all the modern safety features. In this case, since both are Hondas and same model year, most importantly they have all the same safety features. So only after those cancel out does it come down to the size/mass that makes the difference.
This doesn't mean you can go play chicken with a semitruck, you aren't going to win, but point is, don't jump to size as giving you safety, your first line of defense is safety technologies, then size/mass comes after.
cue 4year old 5th gear video demonstrating what 25years of safety technology provides
1980s designed volvo "torchbearer-of-safety" station wagon vs 2000s Renault "so-so-but-not-really-known-for-safety-but-hey-we-have-a midtier-F1-team" subcompact:
Fifth Gear - Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test - YouTube
This video is completely misleading as "CrashTestVids" or whoever uploaded the video seems to have prepended a title screen that says Fit=Poor, Accord=Good.
But when you actually do the tiniest bit of research and go to IIHS, who are the people on the stickers of the cars who conducted the test and evaluated what happen, they say the ratings are good. so WTF?
IIHS-HLDI: Honda Fit
So I conclude, this is the internet looking for attention and re-scoring the crashes "poor" or "good" depending on how each car 'sploded rather than any science.
Taking this one step further, since this is crash test porn rather than scientific research, to me it seems the rating system is completely backwards. The Fit should have actually been rated as the "good crash" since it 'sploded more and had better action over ho-hum accord. Unless again this is backwards internet rating system where you're looking for the best "fail" which is actually "winning" at failing, err hmm..
Also, while I will admit Fit probably didn't come out as well as the accord (even though passenger areas not shown), it's not just because of the "heavier car is safer" at all. More important is if the car is modern and has all the modern safety features. In this case, since both are Hondas and same model year, most importantly they have all the same safety features. So only after those cancel out does it come down to the size/mass that makes the difference.
This doesn't mean you can go play chicken with a semitruck, you aren't going to win, but point is, don't jump to size as giving you safety, your first line of defense is safety technologies, then size/mass comes after.
cue 4year old 5th gear video demonstrating what 25years of safety technology provides
1980s designed volvo "torchbearer-of-safety" station wagon vs 2000s Renault "so-so-but-not-really-known-for-safety-but-hey-we-have-a midtier-F1-team" subcompact:
Fifth Gear - Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test - YouTube
Thank you for this. Great point about the conclusion of the test which does not match the IIHS. And not checking the condition of the "passenger" like the Volvo-Renault video.
Maybe I should get a Renault but no dealers in the US.
Thanks!
#27
01-21-2012, 10:30 AM
I saw that vid while researching the fit, but in a fair crash test the fit's results were "good":
honda fit front impact test
2009 Honda Fit side impact test - YouTube
While a hummer had only acceptable results:
2008 Hummer H3 frontal offset test - YouTube
Obviously if they hit each other the bigger heavier car would most likely win, but there's always gonna be a bigger vehicle out there. By that logic are you gonna end up driving a Peterbilt semi or an M1 tank to feel totally safe? But seriously, I've avoided so many near accidents because I had a smaller highly maneuverable car and knew how to use it...
honda fit front impact test
2009 Honda Fit side impact test - YouTube
While a hummer had only acceptable results:
2008 Hummer H3 frontal offset test - YouTube
Obviously if they hit each other the bigger heavier car would most likely win, but there's always gonna be a bigger vehicle out there. By that logic are you gonna end up driving a Peterbilt semi or an M1 tank to feel totally safe?
But seriously, I've avoided so many near accidents because I had a smaller highly maneuverable car and knew how to use it...I'm not sure I buy the (pre-11) Fit being good at avoidance though. Honda skimped on the stability control for all but the most expensive trim levels.
Over at Inside Line:
2009 Honda Fit
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 34
60-0 mph (ft.) 136
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.82
2011 Scion tC
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 31
60-0 mph (ft.) 118
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 63.6
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.84
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.86
In my case, better braking, better headlights (not hard to be better than the Fit's headlights). More safety equipment (ESC, knee airbags), and even simple things, like seat bolsters that hold my securely in place when the situation goes bad, and more space between my knees and the dashboard if the situation goes completely tits north and dashboard intrusion becomes a concern. Also note that the Fit is scored 4-stars overall in NHTSA crash testing, and the tC scored 5. Both are top safety picks at IIHS
But this is all academic, really. I didn't trade in the Fit because I felt unsafe (I never did). I certainly wouldn't motorcycle if I were that worried. Here's the thing... If you're trusting the safety features in the car to save you, you're behind the curve. If you're counting on split second reaction times to save you, you're STILL behind the curve. The best 'avoidance' maneuver is keeping a space cushion around you, and developing your sense of traffic logic. If I have to react quickly to something that happens to me in traffic, I feel that I've failed. i should have known about it before I was put in an emergency reaction situation.
The "fortress" defense requires a large car, often at the expense of reaction ability.
The "reaction" defense requires a smaller car, often at the expense of protection after the fact.
The "proactive" defense doesn't care about your car. It requires YOU be attentive.
/Crap you learn riding a motorcycle.
#28
01-21-2012, 12:02 PM
I believe that the IIHS ratings are class-dependent. So you can't compare a small car's Good rating to a large car's Good rating, they're not the same.
Frontal offset test information
Frontal offset test information
#29
01-21-2012, 02:30 PM
In a head-on collision, mass wins. The tests are not comparable between classes of cars. Head on collisions are relatively rare though. Think about it... it requires two drivers to be incapable of not driving directly into one another!
I'm not sure I buy the (pre-11) Fit being good at avoidance though. Honda skimped on the stability control for all but the most expensive trim levels.
Over at Inside Line:
2009 Honda Fit
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 34
60-0 mph (ft.) 136
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.82
2011 Scion tC
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 31
60-0 mph (ft.) 118
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 63.6
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.84
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.86
In my case, better braking, better headlights (not hard to be better than the Fit's headlights). More safety equipment (ESC, knee airbags), and even simple things, like seat bolsters that hold my securely in place when the situation goes bad, and more space between my knees and the dashboard if the situation goes completely tits north and dashboard intrusion becomes a concern. Also note that the Fit is scored 4-stars overall in NHTSA crash testing, and the tC scored 5. Both are top safety picks at IIHS
But this is all academic, really. I didn't trade in the Fit because I felt unsafe (I never did). I certainly wouldn't motorcycle if I were that worried. Here's the thing... If you're trusting the safety features in the car to save you, you're behind the curve. If you're counting on split second reaction times to save you, you're STILL behind the curve. The best 'avoidance' maneuver is keeping a space cushion around you, and developing your sense of traffic logic. If I have to react quickly to something that happens to me in traffic, I feel that I've failed. i should have known about it before I was put in an emergency reaction situation.
The "fortress" defense requires a large car, often at the expense of reaction ability.
The "reaction" defense requires a smaller car, often at the expense of protection after the fact.
The "proactive" defense doesn't care about your car. It requires YOU be attentive.
/Crap you learn riding a motorcycle.
I'm not sure I buy the (pre-11) Fit being good at avoidance though. Honda skimped on the stability control for all but the most expensive trim levels.
Over at Inside Line:
2009 Honda Fit
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 34
60-0 mph (ft.) 136
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.82
2011 Scion tC
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 31
60-0 mph (ft.) 118
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 63.6
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.84
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.86
In my case, better braking, better headlights (not hard to be better than the Fit's headlights). More safety equipment (ESC, knee airbags), and even simple things, like seat bolsters that hold my securely in place when the situation goes bad, and more space between my knees and the dashboard if the situation goes completely tits north and dashboard intrusion becomes a concern. Also note that the Fit is scored 4-stars overall in NHTSA crash testing, and the tC scored 5. Both are top safety picks at IIHS
But this is all academic, really. I didn't trade in the Fit because I felt unsafe (I never did). I certainly wouldn't motorcycle if I were that worried. Here's the thing... If you're trusting the safety features in the car to save you, you're behind the curve. If you're counting on split second reaction times to save you, you're STILL behind the curve. The best 'avoidance' maneuver is keeping a space cushion around you, and developing your sense of traffic logic. If I have to react quickly to something that happens to me in traffic, I feel that I've failed. i should have known about it before I was put in an emergency reaction situation.
The "fortress" defense requires a large car, often at the expense of reaction ability.
The "reaction" defense requires a smaller car, often at the expense of protection after the fact.
The "proactive" defense doesn't care about your car. It requires YOU be attentive.
/Crap you learn riding a motorcycle.
And remember we're comparing the Fit to an Accord, not your wannabe sports car.
#30
01-21-2012, 03:24 PM
If it weren't for the way the Fit handled, allowing me to swerve from the impact, it would have been much worse.
#31
01-21-2012, 03:31 PM
why do you even think of something breaking before even getting one, bad omen I say..
don't get a car and walk..you won't crash into something I guess..
don't get a car and walk..you won't crash into something I guess..
#32
01-21-2012, 03:35 PM
Such a moot video, IIHS doesn't take into consideration what the car looks like after a crash, but the damage that passenger takes. The front end of the fit completely collapses to absorb all of the energy of the collision and keeps the passenger cabin intact.
The Fit has garnered a top safety pick by IIHS in 2012: IIHS-HLDI: Honda Fit
What more do you want? The car to look good after a crash or you to survive? Pick one, stop trolling and buy a stupid car already.
The Fit has garnered a top safety pick by IIHS in 2012: IIHS-HLDI: Honda Fit
What more do you want? The car to look good after a crash or you to survive? Pick one, stop trolling and buy a stupid car already.
#33
01-21-2012, 04:39 PM
We bought a 12 accord se for my wife the same day that we bought my 12 fit sport, while the accord is a little more comfortable with the heated leather seats my mt is far more fun to drive and toss around curves.
#35
01-21-2012, 06:29 PM
I believe that the IIHS ratings are class-dependent. So you can't compare a small car's Good rating to a large car's Good rating, they're not the same.
Frontal offset test information
Frontal offset test information
Ideal would be to use, for both, would be around a 4000 lbs vehicle. For the side impact, that would be simple. For the front impact, it would be more complicated... I would suggest adjusting the speed of the sled to account for the difference in energy transferred (i.e. run the sled faster for lighter vehicles), so that it would always simulate an offset/frontal crash with a 4,000 lbs vehicle.
If I have loused up on the Spidey-sense and have to swerve to avoid hitting anything, I want a car with fully independent suspension, good tires, beefy sway bars, firm side bolstering, a low center of gravity, and ESC to keep the car under control if I make any serious blunders in the heat of the moment. I was scared from time to time in the past with my Element... and absolutely horrified in my Wrangler!
By the way, from Consumer Reports, maximum speeds in MPH for avoidance maneuvers:
(First, a short video demonstrating their avoidance maneuver)
Electronic Stability Control Demo - YouTube
Honda Fit Sport: 53.0 (above average - half-red circle)
Honda Fit Base: 51.0 (average - solid white circle)
Honda Accord EX-L: 53.5 (above average - half-red circle)
Honda Accord LX: 50.0 (average - solid white circle)
The Accord and Fit are pretty even there.
And for a good feel for the range:
Mazda MX-5 Miata: 58.0 mph
Mini Cooper S: 57.5
Mustang GT: 55.0
Civic Sedan EX: 54.5
Scion tC: 54.0
Buick Lucerne: 53.0
Honda CR-V: 52.5
Dodge Grand Caravan: 49
Honda Pilot: 47.5
Chevrolet Tahoe LTZ: 46.5
Jeep Wrangler: 45.0 mph
In the end, the difference in emergency handling prowess between a Fit and an Accord is negligible. . Brag about fuel economy, lower emissions, lower ownership costs.. but with almost identical avoidance abilities, and near identical IIHS ratings, and 5-star all around NHTSA ratings instead of the Fit's 4 star all around, safety is in the Accord's favor.
#36
01-21-2012, 07:23 PM
By the way, from Consumer Reports, maximum speeds in MPH for avoidance maneuvers:
Honda Fit Sport: 53.0 (above average - half-red circle)
Honda Fit Base: 51.0 (average - solid white circle)
Honda Accord EX-L: 53.5 (above average - half-red circle)
Honda Accord LX: 50.0 (average - solid white circle)
The Accord and Fit are pretty even there.
And for a good feel for the range:
Mazda MX-5 Miata: 58.0 mph
Mini Cooper S: 57.5
Mustang GT: 55.0
Civic Sedan EX: 54.5
Scion tC: 54.0
Buick Lucerne: 53.0
Honda CR-V: 52.5
Dodge Grand Caravan: 49
Honda Pilot: 47.5
Chevrolet Tahoe LTZ: 46.5
Jeep Wrangler: 45.0 mph
In the end, the difference in emergency handling prowess between a Fit and an Accord is negligible. . Brag about fuel economy, lower emissions, lower ownership costs.. but with almost identical avoidance abilities, and near identical IIHS ratings, and 5-star all around NHTSA ratings instead of the Fit's 4 star all around, safety is in the Accord's favor.
Honda Fit Sport: 53.0 (above average - half-red circle)
Honda Fit Base: 51.0 (average - solid white circle)
Honda Accord EX-L: 53.5 (above average - half-red circle)
Honda Accord LX: 50.0 (average - solid white circle)
The Accord and Fit are pretty even there.
And for a good feel for the range:
Mazda MX-5 Miata: 58.0 mph
Mini Cooper S: 57.5
Mustang GT: 55.0
Civic Sedan EX: 54.5
Scion tC: 54.0
Buick Lucerne: 53.0
Honda CR-V: 52.5
Dodge Grand Caravan: 49
Honda Pilot: 47.5
Chevrolet Tahoe LTZ: 46.5
Jeep Wrangler: 45.0 mph
In the end, the difference in emergency handling prowess between a Fit and an Accord is negligible. . Brag about fuel economy, lower emissions, lower ownership costs.. but with almost identical avoidance abilities, and near identical IIHS ratings, and 5-star all around NHTSA ratings instead of the Fit's 4 star all around, safety is in the Accord's favor.
Very interesting thank you for providing.
#37
01-21-2012, 09:31 PM
Looking at the list, it would appear that weight and wheelbase are secondary to the width-height ratio. I'd love to go through and calculate the ratios, and see if the order remains the same. It would explain why the grey-balls-express Lucerne is still fairly agile in a swerve (it's built fairly low and wide, in the traditional American fashion).
The Fit is kinda tall and tippy (though it's more psychological than anything, thanks to the tall seats... there's a trend I wish would die. I want to sit in the car, not on it! ;-) ). Proportionally, it's about the same as a CR-V (Right around 1.11:1). The Accord is around 1.26:1. The tC is 1.27:1. I guess that's why so many people lower them around here.
The Fit is kinda tall and tippy (though it's more psychological than anything, thanks to the tall seats... there's a trend I wish would die. I want to sit in the car, not on it! ;-) ). Proportionally, it's about the same as a CR-V (Right around 1.11:1). The Accord is around 1.26:1. The tC is 1.27:1. I guess that's why so many people lower them around here.
Last edited by Occam; 01-21-2012 at 09:43 PM.
#39
01-23-2012, 03:24 AM
In a head-on collision, mass wins. The tests are not comparable between classes of cars. Head on collisions are relatively rare though. Think about it... it requires two drivers to be incapable of not driving directly into one another!
I'm not sure I buy the (pre-11) Fit being good at avoidance though. Honda skimped on the stability control for all but the most expensive trim levels.
Over at Inside Line:
2009 Honda Fit
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 34
60-0 mph (ft.) 136
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.82
2011 Scion tC
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 31
60-0 mph (ft.) 118
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 63.6
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.84
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.86
In my case, better braking, better headlights (not hard to be better than the Fit's headlights). More safety equipment (ESC, knee airbags), and even simple things, like seat bolsters that hold my securely in place when the situation goes bad, and more space between my knees and the dashboard if the situation goes completely tits north and dashboard intrusion becomes a concern. Also note that the Fit is scored 4-stars overall in NHTSA crash testing, and the tC scored 5. Both are top safety picks at IIHS
But this is all academic, really. I didn't trade in the Fit because I felt unsafe (I never did). I certainly wouldn't motorcycle if I were that worried. Here's the thing... If you're trusting the safety features in the car to save you, you're behind the curve. If you're counting on split second reaction times to save you, you're STILL behind the curve. The best 'avoidance' maneuver is keeping a space cushion around you, and developing your sense of traffic logic. If I have to react quickly to something that happens to me in traffic, I feel that I've failed. i should have known about it before I was put in an emergency reaction situation.
The "fortress" defense requires a large car, often at the expense of reaction ability.
The "reaction" defense requires a smaller car, often at the expense of protection after the fact.
The "proactive" defense doesn't care about your car. It requires YOU be attentive.
/Crap you learn riding a motorcycle.
I'm not sure I buy the (pre-11) Fit being good at avoidance though. Honda skimped on the stability control for all but the most expensive trim levels.
Over at Inside Line:
2009 Honda Fit
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 34
60-0 mph (ft.) 136
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.82
2011 Scion tC
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 31
60-0 mph (ft.) 118
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.4
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 63.6
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.84
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.86
In my case, better braking, better headlights (not hard to be better than the Fit's headlights). More safety equipment (ESC, knee airbags), and even simple things, like seat bolsters that hold my securely in place when the situation goes bad, and more space between my knees and the dashboard if the situation goes completely tits north and dashboard intrusion becomes a concern. Also note that the Fit is scored 4-stars overall in NHTSA crash testing, and the tC scored 5. Both are top safety picks at IIHS
But this is all academic, really. I didn't trade in the Fit because I felt unsafe (I never did). I certainly wouldn't motorcycle if I were that worried. Here's the thing... If you're trusting the safety features in the car to save you, you're behind the curve. If you're counting on split second reaction times to save you, you're STILL behind the curve. The best 'avoidance' maneuver is keeping a space cushion around you, and developing your sense of traffic logic. If I have to react quickly to something that happens to me in traffic, I feel that I've failed. i should have known about it before I was put in an emergency reaction situation.
The "fortress" defense requires a large car, often at the expense of reaction ability.
The "reaction" defense requires a smaller car, often at the expense of protection after the fact.
The "proactive" defense doesn't care about your car. It requires YOU be attentive.
/Crap you learn riding a motorcycle.
As far as the pre-11 Fit not being good at avoidance, I don't agree with that. Your comparing a tall econo-box b-segment car against a lower to the ground newer higher priced sport coupe (ok, sporting pretensions at least) You can't have all the same safety gear and expect it to be priced low. The only reason esc is standard on the 12 fit sport is probably new gov mandates or having to keep up with the korean offerings. The fit sport is widely regarded as the best handling b-segment car (at least until the new fiesta came out) and those Inside Line stats aren't that far behind the Tc.
I've had my Fit for a month now and hand only one close call, but it handled beautifully. I was afraid that after driving my Prelude SH for 10 years I would hate the Fit's handling, but not so. The power, grip, and brakes are still way better on the lude of course. For a 15 year old daily driver, that thing's still a fun weekend car! It's stats aren't so bad, even after all these years. Ok, no side airbags or esc, but it did have an earlier form of torque vectoring - a precursor to Acura's SH AWD sys... 1997 Honda Prelude Type SH - First Test - Motor Trend
Last edited by phrancis; 01-23-2012 at 03:28 AM.
#40
01-23-2012, 02:09 PM
I didn't even need to read the thread to know that you belong in an Accord or Camry, crash results nonwithstanding.
The 8th Generation - Drive Accord Honda Forums
Have fun!
The 8th Generation - Drive Accord Honda Forums
Have fun!