This is part of an advert for fitting seatbelts and child safety seats circa 1982. Two Princesses were used, V2 without seatbelts and V3 with seatbelts. The two crashes and what happenned to the dummies were compared.
The two Princesses may even have been the last on the production line as in late 1981 British Leyland switched over to the Ambassader but several Princesses were not registered until 1982.
mjt38 - "fatal shock" (I assume ruptured aorta) from a lack of crumple zones ? It all depends... If old Volvos are anything to go by, I`ll stick with torsional stiffness ! "Crumple" technology was new when the Princess was designed, but modern "crumple"cars still struggle to answer ; "crumple from where" ? In a high speed collision, stiffness is purely relative (ie Princess Di`s crushed but very strong Merc) . Best always to wear that inertia reel seatbelt as your personal "crumple zone".
The Princess was like 'made bad' but designed good. The Austin 18.22 could have made the British auto industry if launched with the designer's hatchback, but the boot made the body stronger, hence the higher torsional stiffness that some would like to quote and take too much credit for - hey pal it was meant to be a hatchback and they gave it a boot so it didn't steal sales from the ancient Austin Maxi favorite! Let's have some English honesty for once like how American V8 engines saved Rover!
Well andycarr75 you're right, 'Buick V8 didn't save Rover', just like the Concorde engine didn't save the TSR.2! The French came up with designs to make both the British scrap wonder-Jet and tilting trains work for others, while the British people who turned Frank Whittle from being a socialist into a Conservative 'turncoat', saw to it that all the 'too little too late' efforts of Rover couldn't save the British motor industry! Austrialians made the U.S. Buick V8 great not Rover, know the P76?
Erm Rover made it great. Rover were the people who developed sand casting to make the bloody engine! It was originally going to be expanded as a 4.4V8 for the Rover P8 that cancelled last moment (literally after all the tooling had been ordered). I'd argue that Rover was certainly great - and the ex buick V8 was a good engine that Rover developed into a brilliant engine.
andycarr75 - disgusting arrogance, the technology for sand casting is mainly American with some input from DISA of Denmark. Rover's V8 engine was made great by the Australian firm Repco, reducing its stroke, giving a single overhead camshaft instead of pushrods and fitting Daimler con rods. Folks like you need to look far deeper into the complex world of engineering, to begin to appreciate what made Great Britain seem so great! After the year 1900 England was not the cutting edge of Industry.
!!How come Rover owned the patent for sand casting then!!! ? I think YOUR knowledge is rather lacking.
I can find a hundred and one references to Rovers work on it - not one on DISA.
It amazes me the people from all different countries trying to claim that they made the Rover V8. Germans claiming that it was a BMW engine, the Americans saying that Rover just used it stock and now the Dutch/Australiann claiming that they made it.
Wrong. I think your lack of knowledge is disgusting.
Point 1
Rover paid the original designer of the engine, Joe Turley, to come and live in the UK to help them rework the engine. (Ref:Rover P5 the complete story)
Point 2
Rover owned the patent for sandcasting as a result of their work on it.
Point 3
Rover had to engineer it to 'British' standards. Why would they use a Australian firm to do this for them?
andycarr75 - the story of Rover and Lotus involvement with gas turbine engines makes for the real disgust! But I guess you picked up the wrong end of the stick in that book of yours - 'Rover P5 the complete story.' Maybe Rover owned a patent for sandcasting the engine in the U.K., but if it used some special sandcasting process, you maybe ought to say what that was and call it by name. But I guess, you don't read too well, Australians never developed their V8 engine for Rover, give it a rest!
The Princess had one of the highest if not THE highest torsional stiffness ratios of any car in its day as did its "landcrab" predecessor. Result ? Very strong in a crash !
This viseo was an advert if i remember correctly something to do with child restraints and seat belts not a crash test .RThese cars are reported as being quite safe in an accident if you do a bit of research .
Believe it or not this car was better than the standard of the day demanded. This test was at 30mph and done to show what happened to unrestrained passengers. The standard of the day demanded that the steering wheel move no more than 5" inwards. The cabin remained intact and the steering wheel moved only 2/half" upwards. In '76 TRRL did a crash test comparison with 10 cars of this class and this car came 2nd. It looks bad by today's standards but back in its day many cars were worse than this.
yup it looks like a r12 (i have a '79 TL version, great cars, very thought : D) but its not: the r12 has a bit smaller passenger compartment and a different dashboard, the front looks the same although..
If memory is correct this test was carried out in 1982. As others have said it was to show what happened to unrestrained children. The car was crashed at 30mph. The car itself stood up well with little stearing wheel movement (for its day). The limit for stearing wheel movement back then was no more than a max 5" at 30 mph. This car was in production from 1975 to 1981
The car isn't in production form. It has no doors but has beams welded in. As said earlier, it seems to be a demonstration of what can happen to unrestrained occupants.
Cada vez que veo coches llenos de niños sin cinturones me vienen a la cabeza éstos vídeos. Deberían emitirlos cada día a la hora de los programas de marujas para que las marujas los vean.
Perdon, ahora que lo pienso y me fijo........ ESO NO ES UN R-12, es un austin princess como bien pone en el titulo XD eso me pasa por no fijarme bien en el coche, el morro es bastante mas bajo, y los faros mas estrechos, ademas de que el interior no se le parece casi na
Like banger134 says it is an Austin Princess, the whole point of this video is not to crash test the car, just to show what happens if there is an unrestrained child in the back seat.
Fascinante. Y eso que el choque no es a mucha velocidad: Mirad donde queda el volante. En un impacto de cierta severidad en un R12 el volante terminaba tocando el techo.
El niño perforando el parabrisas con su cabeza debería de ser una secuencia emitida a diario en todas las televisiones por la DGT. Huelga decir que todos los ocupantes sin cinturón morirían de forma instantánea.
baby wonted to see what the wall looked like
MsCrazyboyz 6 months ago
3mph crash test in a Princess= not good....
e575fho 7 months ago
no laminated windscreen on that layland so far as i could see
becky334 7 months ago
That's interesting, thanks for that. I remember seeing this piece of film years ago.
zebedep 8 months ago
This is part of an advert for fitting seatbelts and child safety seats circa 1982. Two Princesses were used, V2 without seatbelts and V3 with seatbelts. The two crashes and what happenned to the dummies were compared.
The two Princesses may even have been the last on the production line as in late 1981 British Leyland switched over to the Ambassader but several Princesses were not registered until 1982.
warship821 9 months ago
everyone died
Jonny1239 9 months ago
mmm...not bad
1372cc 1 year ago
I LIKE THE WAY THE CHILD WENT THROUGH THE WINDSCREEN, I MUST GET ME ONE OF THOSE CARS!
2009jimmy2009 1 year ago
No wonder the car crashed, there was nobody driving it - let the message be clear, cars without drivers will crash!
mondyboy81 1 year ago
The Austin Princess, fitted with rear ejector seats!
j101saar 1 year ago
Safety glass?
leckmich0815a 1 year ago
Laminated windscreen would have helped.
kazimann 1 year ago
mjt38 - "fatal shock" (I assume ruptured aorta) from a lack of crumple zones ? It all depends... If old Volvos are anything to go by, I`ll stick with torsional stiffness ! "Crumple" technology was new when the Princess was designed, but modern "crumple"cars still struggle to answer ; "crumple from where" ? In a high speed collision, stiffness is purely relative (ie Princess Di`s crushed but very strong Merc) . Best always to wear that inertia reel seatbelt as your personal "crumple zone".
stylophobia 2 years ago
The Princess was like 'made bad' but designed good. The Austin 18.22 could have made the British auto industry if launched with the designer's hatchback, but the boot made the body stronger, hence the higher torsional stiffness that some would like to quote and take too much credit for - hey pal it was meant to be a hatchback and they gave it a boot so it didn't steal sales from the ancient Austin Maxi favorite! Let's have some English honesty for once like how American V8 engines saved Rover!
keplermission 2 years ago
What? The Buick V8 didn't 'save' Rover. It was just quite handy - and Rover's work on it made it a top class engine.
andycarr75 2 years ago
Well andycarr75 you're right, 'Buick V8 didn't save Rover', just like the Concorde engine didn't save the TSR.2! The French came up with designs to make both the British scrap wonder-Jet and tilting trains work for others, while the British people who turned Frank Whittle from being a socialist into a Conservative 'turncoat', saw to it that all the 'too little too late' efforts of Rover couldn't save the British motor industry! Austrialians made the U.S. Buick V8 great not Rover, know the P76?
keplermission 2 years ago
Erm Rover made it great. Rover were the people who developed sand casting to make the bloody engine! It was originally going to be expanded as a 4.4V8 for the Rover P8 that cancelled last moment (literally after all the tooling had been ordered). I'd argue that Rover was certainly great - and the ex buick V8 was a good engine that Rover developed into a brilliant engine.
andycarr75 2 years ago
andycarr75 - disgusting arrogance, the technology for sand casting is mainly American with some input from DISA of Denmark. Rover's V8 engine was made great by the Australian firm Repco, reducing its stroke, giving a single overhead camshaft instead of pushrods and fitting Daimler con rods. Folks like you need to look far deeper into the complex world of engineering, to begin to appreciate what made Great Britain seem so great! After the year 1900 England was not the cutting edge of Industry.
keplermission 2 years ago
What? Where is your evidence for this?
!!How come Rover owned the patent for sand casting then!!! ? I think YOUR knowledge is rather lacking.
I can find a hundred and one references to Rovers work on it - not one on DISA.
It amazes me the people from all different countries trying to claim that they made the Rover V8. Germans claiming that it was a BMW engine, the Americans saying that Rover just used it stock and now the Dutch/Australiann claiming that they made it.
andycarr75 2 years ago
Wrong. I think your lack of knowledge is disgusting.
Point 1
Rover paid the original designer of the engine, Joe Turley, to come and live in the UK to help them rework the engine. (Ref:Rover P5 the complete story)
Point 2
Rover owned the patent for sandcasting as a result of their work on it.
Point 3
Rover had to engineer it to 'British' standards. Why would they use a Australian firm to do this for them?
Get your facts right.
andycarr75 2 years ago 2
andycarr75 - the story of Rover and Lotus involvement with gas turbine engines makes for the real disgust! But I guess you picked up the wrong end of the stick in that book of yours - 'Rover P5 the complete story.' Maybe Rover owned a patent for sandcasting the engine in the U.K., but if it used some special sandcasting process, you maybe ought to say what that was and call it by name. But I guess, you don't read too well, Australians never developed their V8 engine for Rover, give it a rest!
keplermission 2 years ago
No laminated front windscreen!
kazimann 2 years ago
1 to 2 stars euroncaps for old cars
lavi8686 2 years ago
The Princess had one of the highest if not THE highest torsional stiffness ratios of any car in its day as did its "landcrab" predecessor. Result ? Very strong in a crash !
stylophobia 2 years ago
@stylophobia Or more likely fatally shock all of your internal organs as there is little controlled crumple zone to gradually slow the impact?
mjt38 2 years ago
never sit in the middle seat or your going through the window
MasterBattle2000 2 years ago
have a look at the Delorean...rather be in the Princess than that !
ukeuro23 2 years ago
This viseo was an advert if i remember correctly something to do with child restraints and seat belts not a crash test .RThese cars are reported as being quite safe in an accident if you do a bit of research .
paulb4uk 3 years ago
flying babes!!!
777deathgod777 3 years ago
kids first
t0xictreasure 3 years ago
Ay Caramba!
blazercrawdad 2 years ago
Not bad for a car at 1970? A chuck wagon from the mid 1800s could have done better than that!
Mustangchargd 3 years ago
Not bad for a car named Princess.
rct1113 3 years ago
Not quite a queen yet though
Mustangchargd 3 years ago
Believe it or not this car was better than the standard of the day demanded. This test was at 30mph and done to show what happened to unrestrained passengers. The standard of the day demanded that the steering wheel move no more than 5" inwards. The cabin remained intact and the steering wheel moved only 2/half" upwards. In '76 TRRL did a crash test comparison with 10 cars of this class and this car came 2nd. It looks bad by today's standards but back in its day many cars were worse than this.
bommmmmmmm 3 years ago 15
@bommmmmmmm Better than my Hornet I bet.
I've got a modern seatbelt fitted, better than nothing.
G1NZOU 1 year ago
wow. that not bad for a car at 1970
lavi8686 3 years ago
No es un Austin, es un Renault 12
perchaski 3 years ago
yup it looks like a r12 (i have a '79 TL version, great cars, very thought : D) but its not: the r12 has a bit smaller passenger compartment and a different dashboard, the front looks the same although..
R12 great car : D
Pikansokamikaze 3 years ago
you can see british leyland wing badge at 0:03
nipperoid 3 years ago
Sure it crashed. There was no driver in the car.
eltfell 3 years ago
en caso de que usted don´t sepa esta prueba del desplome fue hecha por el TRL
Wiishit23456withvids 3 years ago
The kid just wanted to get out of that piece of shit.
Volkskraft 3 years ago
Ah haha, ha, ha, ho ho, hee hee, ho ho, haaa, rapier like wit like that should be kept in its sheath.
charlieflint 3 years ago
I´m glad you like it, few people did not.
Volkskraft 3 years ago
the windscreen was totalled yet the cars structural integrity was not compromised this would increase survivability
hamster700 3 years ago
Leyland Princess 2, not austin princess
youbeenhurt 3 years ago 7
If memory is correct this test was carried out in 1982. As others have said it was to show what happened to unrestrained children. The car was crashed at 30mph. The car itself stood up well with little stearing wheel movement (for its day). The limit for stearing wheel movement back then was no more than a max 5" at 30 mph. This car was in production from 1975 to 1981
bommmmmmmm 4 years ago
I see the Princess was still sporting it's BL wing badge!
volvomantom 4 years ago
if you think about it, that is a 30 year old car and it performed quite well! they only went through the windscreen because there is no seat belts!
brettdude92 4 years ago
Makes me laugh, an advert to wear your seat belts, but untill 1985 you didn't require them in new cars in the back.
my 1982 BL Metro doesn't have any rear ones.
MetroMartin 4 years ago
1985? Wow, behind the times. Our kids deserve better than that. In the US it was 1968.
ASSTARDS
whattheheck1000 3 years ago
Er, what?
charlieflint 3 years ago
this is from the 1970s seatbelt campaign,, cus back then not many people bothered using them,
chrisofthetube 4 years ago
röno nun amana koyyim
daturkishulan 4 years ago
Thats what you get you lazy buggers that don't clunk click and why an Austin Princess
michaelc6012 4 years ago
The car isn't in production form. It has no doors but has beams welded in. As said earlier, it seems to be a demonstration of what can happen to unrestrained occupants.
lewis72 4 years ago
Cada vez que veo coches llenos de niños sin cinturones me vienen a la cabeza éstos vídeos. Deberían emitirlos cada día a la hora de los programas de marujas para que las marujas los vean.
JordiAMX 4 years ago
Perdon, ahora que lo pienso y me fijo........ ESO NO ES UN R-12, es un austin princess como bien pone en el titulo XD eso me pasa por no fijarme bien en el coche, el morro es bastante mas bajo, y los faros mas estrechos, ademas de que el interior no se le parece casi na
erbarbas 4 years ago
¿donde se ve el volante dando en el techo? Porque yo no lo veo en ningun momento :S jejejeje
Bueno, ya sabemos el cuidado que tenemos que tener los conductores erredoceros ;)
erbarbas 4 years ago
Like banger134 says it is an Austin Princess, the whole point of this video is not to crash test the car, just to show what happens if there is an unrestrained child in the back seat.
True now as it was back then.
cpmisalive 5 years ago
jej, el conductor es al que mejor le va.
ZippoLag 5 years ago
Its an austin princess not a renault 12
banger134 5 years ago
never ride in the rear middle seat!
whattheheck1000 5 years ago
That's a serious ouchy!
the06bug 5 years ago
the baby's head went through the windshield!
Aragon159 5 years ago
Fascinante. Y eso que el choque no es a mucha velocidad: Mirad donde queda el volante. En un impacto de cierta severidad en un R12 el volante terminaba tocando el techo.
El niño perforando el parabrisas con su cabeza debería de ser una secuencia emitida a diario en todas las televisiones por la DGT. Huelga decir que todos los ocupantes sin cinturón morirían de forma instantánea.
Randroide 5 years ago