MINI Gets Acceptable Side Impact Rating

Michael Apr 18th, 2006 Link

It’s still quite an achievement, considering that this lame-duck MINI is nearly five years old. The IIHS side crash test (31 mph, SUV-like barrier) is new and incredibly tough, and an “acceptable” rating is better than that of most competitors and comparable to that of larger cars — the Volvo S40, Volvo S60, Saab 9-5, Merc C-class, Acura TSX, and Infiniti G35 also get an acceptable. Imagine how safe the next MINI will be.

Reply

Josh Wardell Apr 18th, 2006 Link

What was its previous rating? MDSBrain also posted about this, but the whole thing is confusing…did 05/06 minis get worse, or did the testing standards get stricter?

Thankfully EVERY case of smashed, rolled over, crumpled MINI I see reported in the forums, the passenger survives without much injury at all, thanks to the car being so solid.

Reply

Gabe Apr 18th, 2006 Link

No – the MINI didn’t get worse. They are two seperate tests as described above.

Reply

dickdavid Apr 18th, 2006 Link

A few things to keep in mind. As safe as the MINI can be, it’s still one of the lightest vehicles out there.

Crashing into a stationary wall at 40 mph is one thing, but crashing into a LARGER moving vehicle is another. Your MINI will absorb most of the impact force. To them, it’ll feel like they’re crashing into a “soft” wall, but to you, it’ll feel like you’re crashing into solid wall at a faster speed.

Given that, MINIs can take a beating but still keep their passengers safe. Not to mention all the other little safety features you never think about including incredible control for avoiding most accidents. That’s why I’ve returned to the MINI for my daily driver.

Here’s my first MC after a Huge Chevy pickup ran into me. It was nice to walk away from this.

Reply

Z4MINI Apr 18th, 2006 Link

What was its previous rating? MDSBrain also posted about this, but the whole thing is confusing…did 05/06 minis get worse, or did the testing standards get stricter?

The side impact test is new. It think it is supposed to simulate getting hit by an SUV…on the side, of course.

Reply

The Blue Canary Apr 18th, 2006 Link

Anytime I see a MINI smashed it makes me cry a little. But now I have more proof that my friends are just jealous calling it a little death trap.

Reply

renaultf1 Apr 18th, 2006 Link

This has been on the NBC nightly news the last 2 nights. They actually showed a LY Cooper getting smashed. It is just as Z4MINI said…simulates getting broadsided. The interesting thing is that the minivans and suvs they showed did worse than the MINI. Oh, and I believe that the MINI was the only one that had the side airbags as standard.

Reply

INIW - My Upside down MINI experience » Blog Archive » Let’s clear the confusion about Impact Testing! Apr 18th, 2006 Link

[...] There seems to be some confusion about the recent Dateline NBC news story about the recent IIHS testing results for “Side Impact Testing“.  The MINI received an acceptable rating in this test which simulates getting broad sided by a SUV. [...]

Kennedy Apr 18th, 2006 Link

Thanks for posting about this Gabe. Yeah, even an acceptable rating, in my opinion is pretty good for our cars. I was actually up at IIHS last week and saw the car and even snapped a few pictures of it. Overall it held up really well, though there’s nothing cool about a smashed MINI.

IIHS crash tests are widely regarded as much more severe than the gov’t crash test standards. For the frontal tests, the IIHS 40 mph offset (1/2 the car overlaps the wall) test is much more severe than the gov’t (NCAP) full overlap 35 mph test. As others have said, the MINI got a good rating in the IIHS frontal crash, which is their highest score.

The side impact tests are even more remarkable that small cars can receive good scores. Simply put, as dickdavid alluded to, in the frontal impact test, the MINI itself is supplying all the crash energy for the test. So a lighter car brings less energy to the crash, which is less energy it has to absorb during the crash.

For the side impact tests, the barrier (simulated SUV) is the object bringing all of the energy to the test. It is the same size regardless of what type of vehicle they are testing, so it is bringing the same crash energy regardless of whether it is hitting a small car or an SUV.

For a small car that has less room to crush, getting an acceptable or a good score is quite an achievement. I am sure the ‘07 MINI’s will be even better, but even at present I am impressed. There is certainly room to improve, but for the first generation this is good.

MINI did a good job right off the bat and thankfully gave us all head-curtain and thorax airbags, standard. They realized that most people thought small cars were death traps and hopefully tests like this will show they can still protect us if we’re hit. Always surprising people those MINIs… Now if only we can get that good rating like the Honda Civic, Subaru Impreza, or Toyota Prius and still be way more fun to drive…

Reply

Vanwall Apr 18th, 2006 Link

This is great news, actually, and it’s being mis-interpreted all over the place. Some people with agendas will skew the rating to fit whatever argument they wish, but the bottom line is it’s pretty amazing. That said, it doesn’t do to feel invulnerable, or even partly so – MINIs are still usually the smaller part of any accident equation involving other vehicles, and the physics aren’t on our side.

BTW, any fatals I’ve heard about took some truly horrendous impacts, way out of the ordinary, but they still happen. Be careful out there.

             BCNU,
            Rob in Dago

Reply

Nathaniel Salzman Apr 18th, 2006 Link

There was an NPR piece on last year about the rise of the small car in a post SUV-crazy America in the wake of the gas prices going up. The journalist described the MINI as “12 airbags in a 10 foot car, which makes it the most airbags per foot of any car on the road.”

What really makes me smile about that is that it’s all standard. All the safety systems such as all-season traction control, “Alphabet Brakes”, and side-curtain airbags all come on the car at base. On the Scion Tc, for example, of you want side impact airbags you have to pay extra for them.

The other important consideration is that if you transplant the MINI back ten years or so it’s the safest thing on four wheels. Automotive safety has come so far in the recent past, especially in small cars, and it’s a good thing that we have high safety expectations these days. And on a car as small as the MINI, it’s great to see even this “acceptable” side impact rating – a good commentary on this little car. But think about what we were all driving ten years ago. Most of us probably didn’t even have front airbags – I sure didn’t.

I’m also not convinced that the MINI’s small stature doesn’t help it a bit in a side impact. The MINI’s short wheelbase and stiff unibody means that a broadside impact isn’t just taken by the door, but by basically the whole side of the car – almost wheel to wheel if you look at the photos. Also, so long as the car isn’t sandwiched up against something, its light weight will allow it to get pushed a bit rather than just standing there and taking the impact – force transfered to motion and not just into crumple – which means less intrusion into the cockpit. There are stories of the old BMW GoGo Mobile (a car that almost made the Mini seem expansive by comparison) that the car’s virtually one-piece fiberglass body would act like a superball if the car got hit – sometimes bouncing the car across the street but with its occupants relatively unharmed. So size and mass aren’t the only favorable consideration in an impact (though admittedly they do help).

Reply

GSKChicago Apr 18th, 2006 Link

So do we think that after an impact like that, the MINI would be “totaled”?

I would assume cost aside to repair, that just the damage to the chassis would make it beyond repair.

Reply

Kennedy Apr 18th, 2006 Link

Good points Salzman, I totally agree that the short wheelbase helps to keep the side of the car much stiffer and limits intrusion. I think that’s why we’re seeing so many of the minivans do so poorly on the side impact tests. Scaled up, minivans offer less resistance to intrusion, which not only plays into increased injury measures on the dummy, but intrusion itself is rated by IIHS on the crash tests, almost doubly-hurting their scores.

Reply

Vanwall Apr 18th, 2006 Link

The original Mini was very over-engineered for its price, ’specially when compared to its contemporaries. The new MINI is a chip off the old block, as far as that goes! ;-) Any carmaker NOT having at least as many safety precautions as MINI outta be ashamed, as it’s entirely possible to duplicate MINI’s lead.

Super-ball micros, huh? Sounds like somethin’ they’d use in Elephant Polo. Personally, I’d rather not be in a Goggo when it go-goes.;-)

Reply

Vanwall Apr 18th, 2006 Link

BTW – always wondered why BMW took over Glas, and maybe it was to snag a luxury label – Das Goggomobil T-250 Limousine! HeHe! BMW as maker of record for the Isetta AND the Goggo – who’da thunk it?

Reply

Nick Apr 18th, 2006 Link

Was I the only one who cried when the LY MINI got squashed?

Reply

Alex Apr 18th, 2006 Link

I guess the best news really is that they tested the side impact on a liquid Yellow Mini with holies.

Reply

Barry Apr 18th, 2006 Link

My LY 2003 got smacked in the driver’s side by a little lady in a Lincoln Towncar. My first thought when it happened was how solid my Mini felt when it absorbed the hit. I still feel very safe in the car today.

Reply

Andrew Apr 18th, 2006 Link

Michael – be careful comparing ratings across size categories as they are not the same.

“However, don’t compare ratings across vehicle size groups because size and weight influence occupant protection in serious crashes. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford more protection than smaller, lighter ones”

Taken from http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Reply

Alan Apr 18th, 2006 Link

What about rear end collisions? Maybe the most common type and it is not tested. I can’t, in good conscience, put my kids in the MINI because here in Texas, if you’re rear ended there’s a good chance it will be by a Suburban/Hummer/Tahoe, etc. There is no air bag in back. And no crush space.

Reply

Ted S. Apr 19th, 2006 Link

All I have to say is, that I have tried the “Mini CooperFrontal Off-set Testing” with a tellaphone poll, going 50 mph and my freind and me came out fine. The only thing broken were my glasses from the air bag.

Reply

dickdavid Apr 19th, 2006 Link

What about rear end collisions? Maybe the most common type and it is not tested. I can’t, in good conscience, put my kids in the MINI because here in Texas, if you’re rear ended there’s a good chance it will be by a Suburban/Hummer/Tahoe, etc. There is no air bag in back. And no crush space.

I do every once in a while, but to lower my risk of a severe rear end collision, I never get them on the highway. To me the lack of crush space isn’t an issue. The extra 10-12 inches of extra sheet metal from a “regular” trunk isn’t going to make a huge difference outside the passenger cage.

Reply

Kennedy Apr 19th, 2006 Link

What about rear end collisions? Maybe the most common type and it is not tested. I can’t, in good conscience, put my kids in the MINI because here in Texas, if you’re rear ended there’s a good chance it will be by a Suburban/Hummer/Tahoe, etc. There is no air bag in back. And no crush space.

Just to point out, the rear impact ratings for the MINI are seat-only, whiplash prevention, ratings. IIHS has two different tests, one is a static test, strictly measuring the distance between the head and the headrest (it should be pretty obvious that in order to prevent whiplash, the headrest should be close to your head). If it “passes” this test, then they do a dynamic test to simulate a rear-impact, using just a seat and a dummy on a rear-impact sled. This just allows them to see how the seat would perform in a rear impact. So the rear-impact ratings have nothing to do with how your car may or may not crush if you are hit.

Also, crush space is always a good thing, especially if you can crush something without intruding into the occupant compartment. Without an actual test, it is impossible to say for sure, but in a rear-impact the MINI’s size (i.e. mass) may allow it to get pushed more than other cars, but in a very severe rear-impact there will be little crush room.

That being said, the reason no one does severe rear-impact tests is because the fatalities are just not there. I forget the exact numbers, but something like 10% of traffic fatalities are rear impact, even though rear-impacts happen much more frequently than 10% of the time. The fact of the matter is, a severe rear-impact is simply not very common. Most rear-impacts are pretty minor, ~15 mph or less type impacts. Those are very survivable, but frequently the people involved “get” whiplash. Since IIHS is sponsored by insurance companies, they test for whiplash.

So what does this mean for rear-impacts for the MINI? Well, I don’t know. But I’d rather be rear-ended than side-swiped or hit from the front. I wouldn’t want to put my kids back there (if I had any) all the time, but if I had to, I would for a trip every now and again. I’d let the Expeditions get around me though.

The problem is that years ago we just didn’t know better. At least now we know and safety is always improving… And as GI Joe once said, “knowing is 1/2 the battle.”

Reply

DB Apr 19th, 2006 Link

What about rear end collisions? Maybe the most common type and it is not tested. I can’t, in good conscience, put my kids in the MINI because here in Texas, if you’re rear ended there’s a good chance it will be by a Suburban/Hummer/Tahoe, etc. There is no air bag in back. And no crush space.

This happened to me. Not by an SUV, but by an out of control car that was probably travelling at close to 90mph (based on the damage I saw it do to other cars and how hard I was hit) and I was travelling at about 50mph.

The bumper split from end to end. The boot door took some dents and that’s about it. The drivers side seat didn’t do that well, but I’m a pretty big guy and when the seat belt grabbed and pulled me back it broke. I would have to guess this to be by design as well. All of the airbags remained entact too.

I walked away with nary a sore muscle and even managed to get my MINI to the shop, broken seat and all.

Reply

Boutros Apr 19th, 2006 Link

I have been back on the road for 5 days after my 2002 MCS spent 5 weeks in the body shop following an encounter with a Ford Escort wagon. I was going about 35 mph when the other car shot out from a stop sign in front of me. I hit the brakes and they took the impact amidships in the pillar between driver and rear seat. My front airbags deployed and may have grazed the tip of my nose. $8,500 worth of damage. The last thing to be repaired was the battery cable from under the seat to the positive terminal under the hood. Apparently there is a pyro charge to disconnect it in the event of an accident in order to prevent fire. My iPod was still playing through the interface as the smoke from the airbags cleared so I am not certain how successful the exploding bolt was in disconnecting power. I feel totally safe in the car but am now wearing these circular stickers with a checkerboard pattern on the sides of my head.

Reply

Michael Apr 20th, 2006 Link

[quote]Michael – be careful comparing ratings across size categories as they are not the same.

“However, don’t compare ratings across vehicle size groups because size and weight influence occupant protection in serious crashes. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford more protection than smaller, lighter ones”

Taken from http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx/quote

For front crashes, that is true, but for the side crash, every car is hit by the same trolley.

Reply