What was the last vehicle without crumple zones?

[NT2C]

Truthfully, situations like this are one of the reasons I bought our Jeep and went with the particular model that I did.  It has some additional shielding underneath to protect the oil pan, transmission, etc.  Add the full-time 4x4 and the air suspension and it's more than capable of taking a detour off the highway or down a sidewalk (and oddly enough, wouldn't be my first time as I've done it quite a bit driving ambulances).  I would like to beef up the front a bit though.  There are some nice bits of armor that can be added to really mitigate the potential for damage off-roading.  I just don't have the $$$ to do them at the moment.  A cutoff for the airbag system is also something I'd like to add.

[PistolPete]

One final point. Driving in a car is likely the most dangerous thing most of us will do (statistically speaking). One thing to consider is vehicles without crumple zones are inherently less safe to occupants than those with crumple zones. If you are using this vehicle daily as opposed to only during a "crisis" then you may actually be increasing your risk to car accidents by seeking to have a good urban issues vehicle.   

My $.02

Yeah, what started the conversation with my friend was me installing a light bar / brush guard on my Subaru.  I mentioned the mounting plates certainly added some structure to the front end and we started chatting about durable cars currently made.  Would I use it to push another car?  Nope.  Would it make my car driveable after a 15 mph collision where the old threshold was 14 mph?  Maybe.  Same goes for the trailer hitch, it connects to 6 points on the unibody and adds some structure where it may help distribute forces in an impact.  Will it be enough to matter?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

The light bar and trailer hitch do give me hard mounting points to tie off my canoe though, which is the main reason I installed the light bar- to save the paint on my hood when I carry a canoe.  If it offers even a tiny bit of structure integrity that's a bonus. 

And agreed.  Driving a car is one of the most dangerous thing most people do, outside of eating bad food and sitting on the couch too much.  However, since I commute 40 - 50% on a motorcycle, that's my most dangerous activity by a long shot, so if my car isn't as crash worthy as it once was it still pales in comparison to the danger of being on a bike.  Last I saw a person is 18x more likely to be seriously injured or die in a serious traffic accident on a motorcycle vs a car. 

But hey- if not for us there wouldn't be any organ donors at all anymore in the US.   

But yeah, making a vehicle more durable will certainly result in lower crash worthiness.  In most times that's a bad tradeoff, I agree.  That doesn't mean I won't do it one day though, lol. 

I did do a deep dive into truck frames after I posted this and it seems modern mid size trucks, especially Chevy, Jeep and Toyota, have crumple zones built into the frames in the rear.  Even a minor rear end collision can bend the frame rather substantially.  Full size trucks, the Ranger and the Frontier don't seem to have those problems.  Of course, that means in the Ranger and Frontier you may be more at risk for whiplash from a minor rear end accident.

Also, the whole "C Shape vs Fully Boxed" argument seems to come down entirely to what type of steel is used.  The steel used by Ford in the modern F150 has more flex than the fully boxed frames used by Chevy and Dodge, but that actually makes for better crash results, both minor and major, since the flexing can absorb energy.  In NHTSA crash tests, both Dodge and Chevy had deformation to the rear part of the frame during a front end collision, where the Ford appeared to flex and come back to the original shape.

But overall, it comes down to mass.  A car that weighs 1,800 lbs needs more crumple zones than one that weighs 6,000 lbs, for reasons of math.  So the heavier vehicles don't need as much crash absorption because the weight alone absorbs more energy.  Of course, extra mass = garbage gas mileage, so there is always a trade off.  It seems the best course when trying to escape a mob is to drive an Expedition with an upgraded bumper backwards over obstacles, which should keep the air bags from deploying and disabling the ignition. 

[sheddi]

Driving a car is one of the most dangerous thing most people do, outside of eating bad food and sitting on the couch too much.  However, since I commute 40 - 50% on a motorcycle, that's my most dangerous activity by a long shot, so if my car isn't as crash worthy as it once was it still pales in comparison to the danger of being on a bike.  Last I saw a person is 18x more likely to be seriously injured or die in a serious traffic accident on a motorcycle vs a car.

Not sure what the stats are in the US but here in the UK, riding a motorcycle is the only common means of transport more dangerous than walking.

From this link:

Per billion vehicle miles travelled, the greatest risk of death is for motorcyclists. This group accounts for less than 1 per cent of traffic but 19 per cent of fatalities. The risk of death for a motorcyclist is at least 57 times than that for a car occupant.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Oh?  Last I'd heard they were UTVs and never street legal.  That's interesting.

I actually looked the Roxor up when I saw a commercial and apparently Mahindra sells two versions of it.

Or at least they did at one point. Mahindra may have ceased production of the street legal model.

[boskone]

Well, right now they sell no versions in the US. 

They're re-dressing it after a dust-up with Jeep, which I find a bit annoying as modern jeeps aren't anything to write home about: complex and expensive.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Well, that explains why the local Indian Motorcycle dealership hasn't had any on their lot in awhile.

I had figured they just stopped selling them to focus more on the Polaris UTVs they sold alongside the Roxors.

[RoneKiln]

From what little research I did on the old FJ series landcruisers, it sounds like Jeep has gone after everybody that licensed the old willy's jeep from the army and kept evolving it from there. I didn't research enough to figure out what their legal argument was. I'm not really a car person.