Beo,
That the driver's bag did it's work was clear - Scott retains the handsome countenance we Millers are known for. Minimal facial abrasions. No way that would have been the case without it. The passenger bag also deployed (80s deploy together). Must have been a heck of a bang between that and the steel on steel.
The rear doors are designed with an extra lip on their front edges. This helps guide the rear edges of the front doors outward so they overlap like shingles rather than the top half of the door jamming under the rears or worse. The design intent is to enable self rescue in minor crashes, and improve other types of rescue in worse impacts. In this case, they used the hydraulic tool to remove the B pillar, rear door and upper half of the driver's seat to allow plenty of room to get him out safely and quickly. You can see in the picture of the passenger's side that the front passenger door is completely overlaping the rear door as designed and is not trapped by the rear door. This door was untouched. It was compressed so severely that the pinch welds all along the bottom edge of the window blew open and the door opened like an envelope. The anti-intrusion side door bar held, however and tore a chunk out of the A pillar and the B pillar in its defiance. These tubes are usually made of boron steel - not sure on the 80.
On sliders, it would not have contributed in this crash, but I think they can assist in a side impact. My single reservation on them is the left rear area near the fuel tank must be well secured or there could be fuel puncture issues. To pass the German TUV standards, the fuel system cannot leak in a wide variety of crash scenarios and it paid off here as Scott was unable to get out in the event of a fire. With the rockers compressing, would a stiffer slider have torn loose and punched into the tank? Dunno. But as I have stated here before, that is my single reservation with adding a structural member down there that's not crash tested. I would personally still add them as they offer far more protection than risk in most collision types.
I'm not sure that everyone on the list fully appreciates the safety aspects of this vehicle. Because it is sold in over 40 countries, the 80 had to be engineered to meet ALL of them. German offsets, German rollover, US side impact, Japanese Wheel League, blah, blah. Little things like fuel line protection, high strength steel in the roof, and seat frame beef all create a statistical pileup in your favor when the worst imaginable happens. Try it with a domestic SUV that meets, uh, well it meets only US standards. A few years ago, we had a horrible tragedy here when a family in a late model Jeep Grand Cherokee pulled to the side of the freeway because the husband heard a funny noise in his tire (might still come up on a Google search of I90/Coeur d'Alene). While he was standing by the right rear tire, an inattentive driver clipped the Jeep, shoving it a little ways down the shoulder. The husband ran to the Jeep but could not open the doors because the unibody (no frame) had sprung and jammed the doors shut. Within seconds, a fuel leak ignited and he watched in horror as his two young children and his wife burned to death before his eyes. I simply cannot fathom that as I have two young children - in no way. Would an 80's doors open? Would an 80's fuel system allow that leak? I like to think that the 80 is engineered to a higher standard. Thank you, Toyota!!
DougM
