Why Do Modern Cars Weigh So Much?

F1 cars weigh how much and how fast do they crash? What are their crash survival rates?

I always like to point people to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I) when they talk about how their car, made in the early '90s, is far superior to the cars of today due to its gas mileage.

Quoting 7driverAuthor Profile Page on July 9, 2009 9:33 AM :: "F1 cars weigh how much and how fast do they crash? What are their crash survival rates?"

Ye, but how much do F1 cars cost in comparison to normal everyday cars? Even mass production of carbon fibre (which currently is not possible) would still have unbelievably high costs - ala the all-carbon fibre McLaren SLR

F1 cars weight how much? 1000 lb? How much do they cost? $1 million? What are they made of? Carbon fiber, titanium, aluminum, beryllium?
That's a fantastic idea. We should have all cars made like F1 cars.
In fact, I'm going to buy one tomorrow.

http://www.fastmachines.com/f1/the-price-of-formula-1/

F1 cars cost how much? Much of F1 carbon fiber technology is not relevant for cars constructed primarily of steel and thus affordable to the average consumer.

A carbon fiber Honda Civic would be safe and get great mileage, but nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Unfortunately, a car that meets today's higher crash standards will be heavier, in spite of the use of high strength steel and the latest computer design tools. This has hurt fuel economy, but greatly increased safety for small car drivers.

For example, a 1995 1.5L Honda Civic CX was rated at 46mpg on the highway and I regularly achieved at least that, however this car weighed only 2,108 pounds. The current car (1.8L) weighs 2,608 pounds and is EPA rated at 34 mpg highway.

I know this isn't a fair comparison due to the larger size and higher equipment levels of the latest Civic, but it is illustrative of how the market has changed. However, even the current Fit weighs almost 2,500 pounds and is EPA rated at only 33mpg on the highway.

That was so gnarly.

It's easier to design safety into a Formula 1 car when you know the driver's going to be wearing a fire suit, helmet, and HANS device, and will be very well strapped in. In the real world we still have people complaining about seat belt laws...

Refinement is another issue. Not just noise and sound insulation, but a nice cushy ride. To get a good ride without a very soft suspension, you need a rigid chassis so that the suspension does all the work in a predictable manner. The Civic went from a lightweight to a medium weight car in 2001 when Honda decided that it had to be much stiffer than ever before. After safety, rigidity for suspension tuning is probably the #2 reason for weight gain.

What kind of car is that and what year was the video made?
Definitely shows how far cars have come when it comes to safety.

If I recall correctly, this was up on another site, and it mentioned that this was a mid-70's Commodore doing a crash test at roughly 65mph to test the drivetrain strength primarily. The results, however, speak for themselves...

If it was at 65 mph then this post is very misleading.

We've seen many posts here showing crash tests at 35 to 40 mph. That's what everyone automatically thinks of when they see that car crumple. However the difference in energy between the 35 to 40 mph tests you see normally and a 65 mph test is huge. Unless you show a simular new car in the same test then it's just tabloid news stuff.

Even in a modern car a crash like that at 65 mph is likely to be fatal.

And people complain because "they don't build them like they used too". Ill take the extra weight and my life please.

"However the difference in energy between the 35 to 40 mph tests you see normally and a 65 mph test is huge. Unless you show a simular new car in the same test then it's just tabloid news stuff."

Firstwagon, I agree with you to a point, however I'm 100% sure a modern car wouldn't crumple up like the one above.

Safety is just one part of it.

Also adding to weight: the 20 heated/cooled cupholders we just "need", 20+ inch chrome wheels, 20- way power seats, 20 of everything luxurious.

The cars have simply grown larger. Today's compact is yesterday's midsize.

The layers of plastic engine covers used in the place of actual engine compartment design could have something to do with it.

Kinda reminds me of the Mercedes Princess Diana died in.

To 7driver: Robert Cubica from BMW Sauber team crashed his F1 car going 180m/h and survived it with only mild concussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M3XLh1tV4A
The F1 safety technologies are really amazing.

Very misleading...apparently it was a test of the drive system, not the car, and it was done at 100 km/h (62 mph). If you go to the Crashlab site, it has a link comparing a modern car at 60 km/h vs. 100 km/h on the main page. Never mind that hitting anything with a vehicle at 60 mph is going to do serious damage.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/crashlab/

@stovt001 "Safety is just one part of it.

Also adding to weight: the 20 heated/cooled cupholders we just "need", 20+ inch chrome wheels, 20- way power seats, 20 of everything luxurious.

The cars have simply grown larger. Today's compact is yesterday's midsize."

All very true. Increased customer expectation for noise & vibration (N&V) also has a lot to with weight gains. Nearly all of today's cars have the refinement of luxury cars from the 1960's-70's.

While one can find higher strength steels to help crash, they are all the same stiffness (a big influence on N&V). So increasing stiffness means increasing metal thickness, even if strength improves. And while aluminum is 1/3 as heavy as steel, it is also 1/3 as stiff.