Is the right-hand drive (converted by HSV) Camaro safe in Australia? HSV has decided to inflict another 1000 of these locally right-drive converted Camaros on the Australian public, following the release of series two. (The one with the 10-speed auto.)
HSV was required to perform all four government regulatory crash tests prescribed under Australian Design Rules 69 (that’s the full-frontal crash), 72 (side impact), 73 (offset frontal crash) and 85 (pole impact). They’re essentially all harmonised versions of overseas regulatory crash tests.
ADR tests are required but are comparatively easy to pass. ANCAP tests are optional but they identify excellence. Passing the regulatory ADR tests is no guarantee of decent protection for you and your family.
“The ADRs don’t necessarily relate to ANCAP. It’s a different set of crashes, and there’s all other criteria. We’re not going to do an ANCAP [assessment] in this [Camaro] program.” - HSV engineering manager Joel Stoddart
HSV managing director Tim Jackson cited the Camaro’s lack of autonomous emergency braking as the main factor in play in respect of not submitting the Camaro to ANCAP.
“If you understand the ANCAP rating, what you’ll see is this car doesn’t have AEB. We don’t have the ability to change that. It doesn’t have lane-keep assist. So, in that criteria, we’re not going to go terribly well.
“It’s just the reality. In terms of how it actually performed in the crash, it’s actually very, very good. To do the ANCAP test, it’s probably another million dollars in that process. If your buying criteria is … I need AEB or I need lane-keep assist, it’s probably not the car for you.” - Tim Jackson
So - let me get this straight - because I don’t want to ‘straw man’ Mr Stoddart or Mr Jackson here. HSV is officially not submitting the car for ANCAP testing because it lacks AEB and will not thus get five stars. And that’s apparently the only reason.
“It doesn’t mean we don’t take safety seriously, and I think that’s why we’re particularly proud of the ADR testing. From our perspective, what we didn’t want it to have is the integrity of the vehicle compromised, and we believe we’ve retained the integrity of the vehicle.” - Tim Jackson
I’d say: Appalling choice of words for somebody who’s had media training.
There’s no epistemic dimension to structural integrity. It’s not a question of belief. Nobody gives a shit if you believe you can fly. If you can actually fly, however, that’s pretty fuckin’ Jedi, I think we’d all agree.
We believe we’ve retained the structural integrity of the vehicle is simply not the same thing as ‘we’ve retained it’.
I doubt GM’s engineers ever designed the Camaro to offset crash on the right side. It’s not engineered for right-hand drive. So: Why would they even bother? Therefore: What structural integrity?
IIHS is not about to do a small overlap crash test on the friggin’ passenger side. It’s just not how they roll in the US.
Two of the crash tests are common between the ADRs and ANCAP - that’s the oblique pole test where the vehicle gets slammed into a rigid steel pole at 75 degrees and impacts near the driver’s head at 32 kilometres per hour. It’s a severe test.
The other one is the side impact test at 50 kilometres per hour. It’s as old as the hills. The assessment protocols might be different between ANCAP and the ADRs, but the data on those crashes is in. They’ve done those tests. HSV knows exactly how the structure performs in those tests, and what the homonid dummy responses were.
The full frontal regulatory crash test for ADRs is at 48 kilometres an hour. For ANCAP it’s 50. It’s not a big difference in speed, but the difference in terms of impact severity is 8.5 per cent. (Energy is proportional to the square of speed, obviously.)
The difference in the offset frontal crash is even more significant. 56 kays an hour for government compliance. 64 for ANCAP. The ANCAP impact is therefore 30.6 per cent more severe. It’s a significantly bigger hit.
But the point here is: To engineer that car to pass the ADR offset front crash test, you need to know the structure. Meaning you need a precise mathematical model that can be subjected to virtual loads and rigorously modelled.
They’re specifically not saying ‘we’re sure the Camaro would do very well in the ANCAP crash tests, but we’re not going to bother with those because it lacks AEB and would therefore do poorly when a star rating is ultimately awarded.’
The ‘do very well in ANCAP crash tests’ part of that statement is conspicuously absent. And they know exactly how well or poorly it would do.
Would you not say: ‘We’re thrilled with the vehicle’s crash performance - in that domain we can assure you the Camaro is one of the safest cars on the road.’ I’m hearing crickets.
0 Comments