@thedarkone2134 Believe it or not, but after Citroën stopped production, insurance companies said that the 2CV had the lowest percentage of accident (deadly or not) compared to other cars, and this is true from the 50's and 60's, when it was like the only car on the roads, from the 90's when the 2CV was still easily spotted but was just a small part of the car population in France.
@thedarkone2134 Well, during all the 50's, the max speed of the 2Cv was 60 Km/H, then 90/100 in the 70's and eventually 120 km/H in the 80's.
Then, as you can guess, it's SLOW. very slow.The latest 625cc 2CV needed 24 seconds to reach 100 km/h.
So, no "crazy fast driving" with it.
Most owners were proud of their new car, and took great attention to it. And for little damages it was better to just pay the new piece, and not telling the insurances to avoid their malus :p
@thedarkone2134 Well, during all the 50's, the max speed of the 2Cv was 60 Km/H, then 90/100 in the 70's and eventually 120 km/H in the 80's.
Then, as you can guess, it's SLOW. very slow.The latest 625cc 2CV needed 24 seconds to reach 100 km/h.
So, no "crazy fast driving" with it.
Most owners were proud of their new car, and took great attention to it. And for little damages it was better to just pay the new piece, and not telling the insurances to avoid their malus :p
I saw another vid in this series of a contemporary Renault Dauphine. Unlike the Citroen, which actually held up pretty well, the Dauphine's driver compartment completely collapsed... it was pretty ugly.
The seat obviously comes loose too. If equipped with seat belts, though, it's quite possible both driver and passenger could survive (but would they ever be sore the next day!).
A Citroen 2CV wasn't the safest car ever built, but equipped with seat belts it's not the worst either.
Very interesting clip. My first car was a 2CV, and of course it was designed *long* before modern crash-safety rules. A 2CV's body was essentially a non-structural "tent" of thin metal, and all the strength was in two massive "girders" running the entire length of the chassis. In the clip you can see how the chassis hardly gives at all, and any passengers would probably have been thrown through the fabric roof if not wearing seatbelts, and subjected to very heavy deceleration if they were.
Also, the car didn't jumped back an inch. That is bad, since all the energy was absorbed by the car during the crash. A good car like a Volvo or a Mercedes would jump back.
A 1974 Holden is always safer than a 2CV. Beetle probably too. You cant compare three totally different crash test, thats absurd.
There is not much on the road, that is unsafer than a 2CV. The only structural strenght of this car is the frame and it sits very low. The bodywork is just for style and protection of weather. Just try not to crash it, then it would be fun. ;)
The Smart jumps back on a crash, even considering that the energy is absorbed by the front. But keep in mind that the structure where the passengers are doesn't deform at all. That's why a Smart jumps back. Even the formula 1 cars are designed to behave that way. A Citroen 2CV is different, very different. It doesn't protect the passengers at all, with or without G force.
Come on, this was an utilitarian car, built to be efficient in the countryside and do the job on the road. Never designed to be fast. And it was really great for what was designed to. By the way, did you notice how well the passengers cell supported the impact?
Yeah, whenever you crash, you think an airbag is like landing on a pillow, but it hurts very bad. My dad had to go to a hospital after crashing a 1999 Mitsubishi Space Wagon at 60kmh. The only part that got injured was his face. Cant remember what really happened to him, but he spent a week in a hospital.
anybody seen the video where a lorry goes into the back of a 2cv? a cardboard box could put up a better fight, it was so flat you simply couldnt see it anymore! not that i dont love these cars.
The 2CV does not handle great, but it is more stable in a straight line. The VW Beetle corners much faster than a 2CV. In fact Beetle corners faster than an early VW Golf.
Not really, its just a case of form coming after function. it was the french answer to the morris minor, vw beetle or the model T ford. it was a tool to do a job, nothing more. never really thought of rovers as being ugly, most of the recent ones were Hondas in disguise anyway
Haha, look at that suspension bouncing. No wonder Citroens are famous for them. Despites what people think of them, I kinda like it. Like the Franch answer to people's car, like Beetle was to the Germans.
Look at the cabin, it's virtually intact, the car is safer than rumours say. And handles well too.If you know how to manage the huge amount of power they have. Clearly Billy Joel didn't...
A 1960s vw t2 pickup a 4 wheel death trap
MrConor159 3 months ago
A Citroen 2CV wasn't the safest car ever built, but equipped with seat belts it's not the worst either.
What could possibly be worse?
MilibandDavid 3 months ago
And people complain about small cars today being unsafe. Driving a 2CV is like tempting death.
thedarkone2134 5 months ago
@thedarkone2134 Believe it or not, but after Citroën stopped production, insurance companies said that the 2CV had the lowest percentage of accident (deadly or not) compared to other cars, and this is true from the 50's and 60's, when it was like the only car on the roads, from the 90's when the 2CV was still easily spotted but was just a small part of the car population in France.
Of course, stupid accident can always happen...
LeSarthois 4 months ago
@LeSarthois I'm actually surprised by that :)
thedarkone2134 4 months ago
@thedarkone2134 Well, during all the 50's, the max speed of the 2Cv was 60 Km/H, then 90/100 in the 70's and eventually 120 km/H in the 80's.
Then, as you can guess, it's SLOW. very slow.The latest 625cc 2CV needed 24 seconds to reach 100 km/h.
So, no "crazy fast driving" with it.
Most owners were proud of their new car, and took great attention to it. And for little damages it was better to just pay the new piece, and not telling the insurances to avoid their malus :p
LeSarthois 4 months ago
@thedarkone2134 Well, during all the 50's, the max speed of the 2Cv was 60 Km/H, then 90/100 in the 70's and eventually 120 km/H in the 80's.
Then, as you can guess, it's SLOW. very slow.The latest 625cc 2CV needed 24 seconds to reach 100 km/h.
So, no "crazy fast driving" with it.
Most owners were proud of their new car, and took great attention to it. And for little damages it was better to just pay the new piece, and not telling the insurances to avoid their malus :p
LeSarthois 4 months ago
this car is a deathtrap on weels! but i still like it!
battisa 7 months ago
@kenanvideos there is no dashbord in a 2cv
maxil0lz 9 months ago
It is safer than a brand new chinese car of course =P
clarksonfan92 1 year ago 6
Comment removed
Redgrant80 1 year ago
I thought that poor car was going to get destroyed completely. It surprised me how well it did.
SketchbookStudios1 1 year ago
My neighbour has one.
plynix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I watched a woman take a cock balls deep in her ass at tiny(.)cc/lesbian715
DugoreqZozecehy 2 years ago
I had a 3CV in Argentina, amazing car for one the worst city roads ever, but they used to crack the chasis right behind the engine
FSW2000 2 years ago
I saw another vid in this series of a contemporary Renault Dauphine. Unlike the Citroen, which actually held up pretty well, the Dauphine's driver compartment completely collapsed... it was pretty ugly.
The seat obviously comes loose too. If equipped with seat belts, though, it's quite possible both driver and passenger could survive (but would they ever be sore the next day!).
A Citroen 2CV wasn't the safest car ever built, but equipped with seat belts it's not the worst either.
Threetails 3 years ago
Do u know what the most unsafe car is?
Rocktecho 2 years ago
Very interesting clip. My first car was a 2CV, and of course it was designed *long* before modern crash-safety rules. A 2CV's body was essentially a non-structural "tent" of thin metal, and all the strength was in two massive "girders" running the entire length of the chassis. In the clip you can see how the chassis hardly gives at all, and any passengers would probably have been thrown through the fabric roof if not wearing seatbelts, and subjected to very heavy deceleration if they were.
AndiJF 3 years ago 13
@AndiJF Plus there were NO seatbelt.
rugbytlse 1 year ago
lol
pendulumx 3 years ago 2
Material damage seems rather light.
However, the driver and passenger probably just would nut survive the shock...
FrightfulAccountant 3 years ago
Also, the car didn't jumped back an inch. That is bad, since all the energy was absorbed by the car during the crash. A good car like a Volvo or a Mercedes would jump back.
cumesoftware 4 years ago
Well you have to admit it faired a lot better than a VW Beetle! Or a 1974 holden. Both vids are right here on youtube.
joness105639 4 years ago
A 1974 Holden is always safer than a 2CV. Beetle probably too. You cant compare three totally different crash test, thats absurd.
There is not much on the road, that is unsafer than a 2CV. The only structural strenght of this car is the frame and it sits very low. The bodywork is just for style and protection of weather. Just try not to crash it, then it would be fun. ;)
swordfish1986 2 years ago 2
"You cant compare three totally different crash test, thats absurd."
tell that to to the DOT, consumer reports, and the IIHS, they do that all the time.
joness105639 2 years ago
it is not true. the more energy is absorbed, the better is the car. if it jumps back, it puts an extra g-force on you.
In fact formula-1 cars are designed to fall apart totally in a crash, so more energy can be absorbed in the crash.
But i agree, its not a volvo. watch "2 cv vanish" :)
zagyex 3 years ago 3
The Smart jumps back on a crash, even considering that the energy is absorbed by the front. But keep in mind that the structure where the passengers are doesn't deform at all. That's why a Smart jumps back. Even the formula 1 cars are designed to behave that way. A Citroen 2CV is different, very different. It doesn't protect the passengers at all, with or without G force.
cumesoftware 3 years ago
Its a damned 2CV. Its not going to jump back
4411ed4411 3 years ago
Indeed, since the car is all crumble points. The thing is too fragile.
cumesoftware 3 years ago
0 to 100Km/h in 30 seconds. But what amused me was the rear axle.
cumesoftware 4 years ago
Come on, this was an utilitarian car, built to be efficient in the countryside and do the job on the road. Never designed to be fast. And it was really great for what was designed to. By the way, did you notice how well the passengers cell supported the impact?
aenigmate 4 years ago 5
The driver's door came open. That's not good.
the06bug 4 years ago
No airbags. Probably no seatbelts. They would've been thrown around alot.
suicidehummer 4 years ago
Airbags in 1948?? are you stupid or something? and they fitted seatbelts in 1982..
bvh89 4 years ago 3
Who needs airbags?! Ya might aswell drive strapped to a pillow!
CyDaSnake 4 years ago
Yeah, whenever you crash, you think an airbag is like landing on a pillow, but it hurts very bad. My dad had to go to a hospital after crashing a 1999 Mitsubishi Space Wagon at 60kmh. The only part that got injured was his face. Cant remember what really happened to him, but he spent a week in a hospital.
schumisatokubica 3 years ago
@schumisatokubica Well I still wouldn't want to hit the dashboard again
KenanVideos 1 year ago
Ya, you're right.
Why the fuck did I say that?
I feel like an ass...
suicidehummer 4 years ago 8
@suicidehummer haahahaha
KenanVideos 1 year ago
anybody seen the video where a lorry goes into the back of a 2cv? a cardboard box could put up a better fight, it was so flat you simply couldnt see it anymore! not that i dont love these cars.
SantaHul 4 years ago
even the windows didnt break...
zagyex 4 years ago
actually the main part of the car in wich the driver is sitting, survied the crash!!!
joas92 4 years ago
Ya, and the driver was thrown all over.
suicidehummer 4 years ago
The 2CV does not handle great, but it is more stable in a straight line. The VW Beetle corners much faster than a 2CV. In fact Beetle corners faster than an early VW Golf.
LeonSzillard 4 years ago
hehe you would be thrown out through the open roof
klovnenkalle 4 years ago
ouh:P
TwoFlyingBird 4 years ago
heap of absolute shit , just like those ugly as fuck Rovers !
MrMusic1970 5 years ago
Not really, its just a case of form coming after function. it was the french answer to the morris minor, vw beetle or the model T ford. it was a tool to do a job, nothing more. never really thought of rovers as being ugly, most of the recent ones were Hondas in disguise anyway
mrspivvy 4 years ago 3
wow
my dad drove one of those, he hated it
every corner he took he said it felt like it was going o turn over!
XD
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
They have to handle well. with a 602cc 2 cylinder engine the last thing you want to do is slow down for a corner
mrspivvy 5 years ago
Nice one - and its true too having been in a few, carrying the speed is vital
willski7 4 years ago
Haha, look at that suspension bouncing. No wonder Citroens are famous for them. Despites what people think of them, I kinda like it. Like the Franch answer to people's car, like Beetle was to the Germans.
CoolioMasta 5 years ago
But far more advanced than the Beetle..
And with a less shady background.
Look at the cabin, it's virtually intact, the car is safer than rumours say. And handles well too.If you know how to manage the huge amount of power they have. Clearly Billy Joel didn't...
meharidude 5 years ago
great peice of history
axe600 5 years ago
What!?
ROCKSOLID19 4 years ago