What happens to a BX in a side impact

This is the Forum for all your Citroen Technical Questions, Problems or Advice.

Moderator: RichardW

Post Reply
DLM
Posts: 524
Joined: 13 Aug 2001, 03:01
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

What happens to a BX in a side impact

Post by DLM »

I seem to remember some discussion on the "safest Citroen" thread recently about what might happen to a BX when hit from the side. Now BBC forum members can see for themselvet hits in a trailer for a forthcoming athletics event featuring runners striding through a "hazardous" urban setting.
The trailer shows a large Vauxhall hitting the side of a stationary silver BX, showing the results viewed from above (the point, if there is one, is that the runner who was striding past the BX a moment before doesn't get hit).
Not a pretty sight, but would anyone who sees it care to comment from a professional point of view on the damage incurred?
David
tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 14:46
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by tomsheppard »

I am most distressed to hear that the BBC arranges this sort of vandalism. wonder if the struts are all right?
mark_sp
Posts: 230
Joined: 13 Apr 2003, 00:47
Location:
My Cars:

Post by mark_sp »

I've only seen the add once but a few things spring to mind:
As it was staged we don't know if the bx had been structurally weekened for effect or the video footage computer enhanced.
Also I don't recall seeing the bx move during the impact, I would have thought it would have been carried forward but it appears to have been anchored.
I can't remember what the impacting vehicle was but if it was a 4x4 then the effect is not surprising as they are built for off road stresses and don't crumple like a normal car.
I'll try and catch the ad again for a better look.
By the way how sad is this, my initial reaction was that the bx was much too nice to do that too.
As I mature I have become more safety conscious and it is easy to be lulled into a false sense of security with cars that bristle with air-bags and side curtains but I still remain sceptical. There is a very interesting book by Colin Chapman (I can't remember the title but thats a reflection on me not the book) about car design and in it he discusses the merits of cars of light construction compared to heavy including impacts.
Mark_sp
alan s
RIP 2010
Posts: 2542
Joined: 26 Jan 2001, 15:53
Location: Australia
My Cars:
x 6

Post by alan s »

Oh, I don't think BXs are all that bad in a prang. You have to remember that a lot of the set up type tests are often sponsored by or supported by some facet of the car industry or a manufacturer either way, someone who can benefit from looking better than others or be shown sublimely or otherwise that their products are the beez knees.
Here's a real life one; Ireland, car hit be a 40 foot Daf Lorry coming from the opposite direction & the driver walks away with a couple of cuts & bruises. Naturally, he's presently swapping his good bits into an average 16V he bought to replace it with.
This one gives you a bit of confidence as this car looks exactly like the blue car with the crash test dummies on the BX brochure; seems to have done everything the designers intended upon impact.
Alan S
Image
tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 14:46
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by tomsheppard »

Cars are heavy because they are designed to crash: aeroplanes are light because they are designed not to.
User avatar
benj
Posts: 154
Joined: 14 Jul 2003, 19:30
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:
Contact:

Post by benj »

aeroplanes are light because they wont get off the ground otherwise
vanny
Posts: 767
Joined: 16 May 2002, 21:08
Location: BXProject
My Cars:
x 1
Contact:

Post by vanny »

Ive not seen the add, but if its as horrific as it sounds then im guessing its staged. The BX wasnt designed with modern EU rules were by everything is made of paper and crumples. From a side impact most of the body would crumple on a modern car (ripples in the roof, probably force one or more windscreen out, generally bend the car) Where as the BX (as can be seen above) has a rudimentry 'safe box' between the wheels. The 'B' pillar is very strong, and the door structure takes a lot of pounding, you can see in the picture that the roof isnt rippled at all (except for that BIG crease). If youve ever had a good look at a BX roof its violently thin (2 maybe 3mm), you cant pick it up without it bending, suggests that from the side it can take a lot of beating.
Then again, a quick cut to the botom of the 'B' pillars and the car is gonna simply collapse when hit. Maybe someone could contact the BBC? They can be quite good at explaing little things like this :)
algieuk
Posts: 127
Joined: 07 Apr 2003, 14:56
Location:
My Cars:

Post by algieuk »

Hmmm, no, cars could be much lighter if they were not designed to resist a crash, and I've not heard of planes being designed to crash since WW2 and Japan. Therefore to say that planes are light because they are not designed to crash is quite correct as they would have to be much heavier if they were, and cars are heavy because they are designed to crash is also true as they could be much lighter if they were not designed to. All down to priorities really. A tank can resist a crash pretty well but we don't all drive them do we?
Post Reply