VeeshanVault

Funkmasterr wrote:And I don't give a fuck about environmentally friendly, call me whatever the hell you want. I want a mid sized car that is as fast and luxurious and comfortable as possible for what I can afford.

Tell me, sir. Are you planning to have children some day? You're such a conscientious guy, I'm certain that if you had a child their welfare and the environment they exist in would be the of the greatest of importance to you.

The fortunate thing is that it's totally acceptable for you to feel this way because there is a larger majority that does care. The laws will change, the standards for automobiles will change, and the rest of the people will take care of the environment while you're busy issues that I'm sure are so much more important to the greater good than even the environment.

No, I just don't buy into the farce that is global warming. The earth goes through it's cycles, and eventually there will be an ice age. Do I think it's going to make a fraction of a bit of difference if we speed this process up by 1000 years? No, I don't.

Excuse me if that post was not up to your standards for information, but I'm drunk and high right now - maybe you can lecture me on that too? Lord knows I need the attention.

Funkmasterr wrote:No, I just don't buy into the farce that is global warming. The earth goes through it's cycles, and eventually there will be an ice age. Do I think it's going to make a fraction of a bit of difference if we speed this process up by 1000 years? No, I don't.

Excuse me if that post was not up to your standards for information, but I'm drunk and high right now - maybe you can lecture me on that too? Lord knows I need the attention.

I hope you puke in your car!

Funkmasterr wrote:If you actually read what I have written - I said that I'm sure these would be a great car for an urban environment at speeds probably not over 30mph, but above that I have a totally different opinion.

I've read what you've written, in cases like these it's pretty funny. You'll make nonsensical arguments and stand by your uninformed opinion regardless of the mountain of easily available facts showing it to be wrong.

At least Funk is always good for something. Amusement and entertainment.

Aabidano wrote:I've read what you've written, in cases like these it's pretty funny. You'll make nonsensical arguments and stand by your uninformed opinion regardless of the mountain of easily available facts showing it to be wrong.

Well, that certainly explains this:

Funkmasterr wrote:No, I just don't buy into the farce that is global warming. The earth goes through it's cycles, and eventually there will be an ice age. Do I think it's going to make a fraction of a bit of difference if we speed this process up by 1000 years? No, I don't.

In this case, I am not wrong. I have not seen a shred of proof presented to say otherwise yet in this thread. If you are all so confident that this thing would perform miracles in a collision, then hows about we sit you in it, strap you up, and have a ford F250 (or even the car that hit me at the same speed) t-bone you at 55mph? Then I can show up to your funeral to say I told ya so.

Funkmasterr wrote:In this case, I am not wrong. I have not seen a shred of proof presented to say otherwise yet in this thread.

The shred of proof is that it passed, with flying colours all EU, Canadian and US crash tests.

If you are all so confident that this thing would perform miracles in a collision, then hows about we sit you in it, strap you up, and have a ford F250 (or even the car that hit me at the same speed) t-bone you at 55mph? Then I can show up to your funeral to say I told ya so.

If any vehicle is struck at 50+ mph, the actual force of the impact is what is going to cause the majority of injuries. Being thrown from the vehicle in such a crash is the next most likely cause of injury. Intrusion into the passenger compartment would be the third.

What you fail to realise is that the Smart is made of the same materials as a SUV or a large truck.
The chassis, body and frame are made from the same type of steel. They don't use weaker or thinner steel to make these cars. They aren't made of plastic or wood.
A Smart being hit by a 2 ton truck actually has to absorb less force than a 2 ton truck being hit by a 2 ton truck.
The fact that the passenger compartment is smaller actually means that it is stronger, more rigid and can more efficiently absorb the force of an impact.

If you can't grasp the most fundamental concepts of physics and inertia, there's no point in trying to explain to you why vehicle size has no correlation with veicle safety.

Funkmasterr wrote:If I was trying to prove the point of a large SUV not being as safe, I wouldn't use an explorer.. More like an expedition or navigator. (being as they are 2-3 times the size of the explorer.. hence large)

A Navigator (and Expedition, they're about the same size. My dad has a Navigator and my mom an Expedition) is 14" longer and 7" wider than an Explorer, and weighs about 1400 lbs more (~5800lbs vs. ~4400lbs).

You are 100 times stupider than anyone else who has posted on this thread.

The Smart Car is as safe as an E Class Mercedes. Check the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuJyJ7FjoSQ

This guy totally doesn't get the point of buying a Smart Car!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLVQtK04lig

Check the very end of the video where they roll up the Smart Car into the back of a normal sized van for transportation.

Here's Ferrari vs Smart Car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtWeSa3naKk

Sylvus wrote:A Navigator (and Expedition, they're about the same size. My dad has a Navigator and my mom an Expedition) is 14" longer and 7" wider than an Explorer, and weighs about 1400 lbs more (~5800lbs vs. ~4400lbs).

You are 100 times stupider than anyone else who has posted on this thread.

You are entitled to your opinion, but in America your so-called "facts" are just a different opinion. We are all entitled to our own opinions, too. The fact that I believe, which Funkmasterr supports, is that the Expedition is twice as long, twice as heavy, at least four times as safe, and one hundred times more American than those ridiculous SmartCars.

Winnow wrote:I'd like to see a safety feature for these little cars where external airbags deploy right before an impact, allowing them to bounce along the ground similar to how the Mars Observers landed, until the vehicle settled in a safe place!

That's actually a really cool idea. They already have pre-collision systems on expensive vehicles. Aside from the expense of repacking an airbag on a false alarm, it probably could help a lot, espcially if you're a pedestrian.

People did rag on the honda fit because... well maybe they missed the conversation, cause that car is ugly as shit. It is however marginally larger than the Smart car, not that that matters because it ugly as shit...(The gas mileage is less that some of the less abusively ugly options on the road as well so don't defend it from that angle)

I actually think the car looks pretty cool. Plain but cool. But it is not just margainally larger than the smart, it is much larger. I'm pretty sure the gas mileage is plenty acceptable by most anyone's standards, especially given it's amazing utility. They still don't have any sitting in the showrooms of the 3 honda dealers w/in 10 miles of my house because they are all sold on shipping

People did rag on the honda fit because... well maybe they missed the conversation, cause that car is ugly as shit. It is however marginally larger than the Smart car, not that that matters because it ugly as shit...(The gas mileage is less that some of the less abusively ugly options on the road as well so don't defend it from that angle)

I actually think the car looks pretty cool. Plain but cool. But it is not just margainally larger than the smart, it is much larger. I'm pretty sure the gas mileage is plenty acceptable by most anyone's standards, especially given it's amazing utility. They still don't have any sitting in the showrooms of the 3 honda dealers w/in 10 miles of my house because they are all sold on shipping

You can't get a Fit for 3 months in Northern California unless a deal falls through on one. The car is ugly, there is no doubt, it is some weird sort of abortion of the last generation Si with 4 doors but get inside it and it is a great little fucking car. Nimble and responsive for what it is, drop the current Civic Motor in it imo but it is decently peppey as is. The seeting and such are astounding, the safety features through the roof for the price point and still gets mid 30's gas mileage all day long. If I had 50 of them I'd have 50 cars out this month by the the 7th of the month, this is what... 15 or so months after release?? The next gen Fit should be good with the new designer on board and the new A-Vtec motors coming down the pipe.

I thought the Fit looked pretty sharp myself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19244490/ that there is ironical

These consumers formed their impressions of small car safety at a time, decades ago, when their ability to protect occupants in a collision left much to be desired. Small cars used to fare poorly in laboratory crash tests and produced grossly higher fatality rates in real-world driving.

But that notion is outdated. Crash protection has been growing, along with the size of the small cars themselves, over the years.

Crash fatalities in the smallest cars on the road fell by 15 percent between 1985 and 1995, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That was the period when airbags went from a novelty on luxury vehicles to standard equipment on all cars.

Today, small cars feature an array of impressive technologies and thoughtful design touches aimed at maximizing their safety, including front and side airbags. High-strength steel withstands blows with less intrusion into the cabin, and electronic driver aids such as antilock brakes and electronic stability control help reduce crashes.

Unlike full-size pickup and SUVs with rigid bumpers and trailer hitches, a small car is more likely to show visible damage in a crash, as the crumple zones collapse to absorb the blow. Too many consumers still equate a badly damaged vehicle with badly injured occupants, when in fact the vehicle is suffering so the passengers don’t have to explains Natae Rayner, senior product education and development administrator for Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

“There are crush zones and crush boxes in the front of the vehicles used to absorb the impact then distribute that force in the proper places,” he said.

This kind of design could, over time, lead to lighter, more efficient cars that still provide the needed protection for a car’s occupants said S.M. Shahed, a corporate fellow for Honeywell Turbo Technologies who researches fuel-saving technologies.

The Fit is a very nifty little car. Extremely practical and roomy inside for the exterior size. While driving my mom's I kept forgetting how small the car actually is. It feels a LOT bigger. I really like it and think it is an insane amount of car for the money.

People did rag on the honda fit because... well maybe they missed the conversation, cause that car is ugly as shit.

Well apparently you can't even fucking read because I was talking specifically about ragging on other vehicles about safety... not design.

Oh no! SUVs and trucks get poor grades in whiplash tests!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/02/autos/w ... 2007070305

For Miir,

Clearly you aren't psychic. If you were you would have understood that the sentence should have read they didn't rag on the fit.

Alternatively you could have come to that conclusion based on the overall flow of the previous statements.

More than likely you did catch it and simply wanted something to bitch about given that this is flamevault and that was the best retort you could come up with.

Somali wrote:If you were you would have understood that the sentence should have read they didn't rag on the fit.

What in the name of holy fuck does that mean?

Main screen turn on!

I understood the part "the sentence should have read they didn't rag on the fit"... but a number of people (myself included) did rag on the styling/design of the Fit. So I'm pretty sure that Funk meant exactly what he said...

But "If you were you would have understood that" is a real head scratcher.

Here's a refresher for understanding this sort of thing:

Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was beginning.

Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Someone set us up the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's you !!
CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
CATS: All your base are belong to us.
CATS: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Operator: Captain !! *
Captain: Take off every 'Zig' !!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'Zig'.
Captain: For great justice.

For Miir,

Clearly you aren't psychic. If you were you would have understood that the sentence should have read they didn't rag on the fit

Ok. Allow me to break this down for you.

"If you were..." - If you were [psychic]. The brackets mean it is an implied word. Clairvoyant perhaps would have been more descriptive. Then again, it may be too big of a word for you. After all, you did have issues with "Understood." I should probably also explain brackets. These are brackets: [ ]. When used in a sentence, brackets are used to denote an implied word or phrase. You may also see me use ( ) on occasion. Typically I will use these to talk a bit off topic, perhaps to ask a question, or to further explain a concept that I felt was rudimentary. Let me know if any of these words are too big for you and I'll offer some alternatives. There are also some web resources you can use to find their meanings: Dictionary.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com, etc... (Note: etc... is not a web page. Please don't try to use that and blame me for not finding an online dictionary)

"...you would have understood..." - Clearly I see how you could have missed the meaning here. Understand: to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend. Just in case that is unclear due to the differences in spelling understood is a past tense of understand.

Beyond that, I never actually looked at the other various threads. The contextual purpose of my original statement was to explain why people may not have picked on the other vehicles described in your post.

Hopefully that made it a bit more clear. If not, I will restate the sentence for you: Had you been psychic, you would have interpreted the sentence was a typographical error. It should have read, "They didn't rag on the fit..."

How that was in any way unclear baffles me. Perhaps it was the lack of punctuation? You did understand/comprehend/grasp that I was referring to the Honda Fit and not some random fitness program, right? Were you incapable of following the transition from read to they without a comma and quotation marks? I truly hope that your ability to reason and comprehend are not so limited that they are incapable of such interpretation. For someone that makes a regular attempt at selling themselves off as an intellectual, that would significantly hamper your argument. I suppose you could still claim to be autistic.

It still makes no sense.


I'm not sure what being psychic has to do with any of this... unless you're implying that one needs to be psychic to take a statement out of context and assume that the person making the statement meant exactly the opposite of what they actually said.

That is exactly what it meant. Clearly, I made a typo. I think most rational people could have concluded both from the relative flow of the previous sentences, and from the remaining verbiage of the sentence in question. Honestly, I think you probably understood that as well but it would have been less fun to leave alone my typo.

Had you been psychic (clairvoyant) you could have read my mind and known with absolute certainty that I intended to say didn't rather than did.

it would have been less fun to leave alone my typo

Wow... I typed that... What can I say? I don't really wake up until sometime after 10AM. I'm more or less on autopilot before then. I stand by my statement though. It would have been less fun had you left the typo alone.

Funktarrd wrote:Did I not ask how this car is going to fare against being hit by a huge suv or pickup truck (that are what, 10 times it's size and weight?) at highway speeds??

As per your claim, a HUGE SUV/Pickup is:
FIFTY feet tall, FIFTY feet wide, EIGHTYTWO feet long and weighs close to EIGHT tons.


LOL, could you imagine?
You'd need like 4 highway lanes to drive one of those.

Why are you so dead set on being an annoying asshole, oh - wait, you can't help it. Besides, aren't you a little bit late, hasn't something to the effect of what you just wrote already been posted in this thread.

When I say large truck/suv, I am assuming the biggest of them all. SO I am talking about a diesel pickup with the double back wheels and all that, or for suv, I don't know - probably a expedition/navigator would be the biggest.

Say whatever you want, but I will take my chances in my car being hit by one of the above any day over the smart car.

Funkmasterr wrote:
When I say large truck/suv, I am assuming the biggest of them all. SO I am talking about a diesel pickup with the double back wheels and all that, or for suv, I don't know - probably a expedition/navigator would be the biggest.

The words you are seeking are a 3500/F350 or simply put a 1 ton with DRW which comprises far less than 1/2 of 1% of the trucks sold. Rare vehicles are really not worth worrying about, never mind that in a bad crash the 1 ton would transfer a lot of the energy of the crash into the cabin as opposed to a more modern car which squishes far more like a race car than what you think a normal car would leaving the driver and passengers far safer.

Pherr the Dorf wrote:

Funkmasterr wrote:
When I say large truck/suv, I am assuming the biggest of them all. SO I am talking about a diesel pickup with the double back wheels and all that, or for suv, I don't know - probably a expedition/navigator would be the biggest.

The words you are seeking are a 3500/F350 or simply put a 1 ton with DRW which comprises far less than 1/2 of 1% of the trucks sold. Rare vehicles are really not worth worrying about, never mind that in a bad crash the 1 ton would transfer a lot of the energy of the crash into the cabin as opposed to a more modern car which squishes far more like a race car than what you think a normal car would leaving the driver and passengers far safer.

Sorry, edited your post instead of quoting on accident.

1- They may account for less than whatever percent of trucks that are sold, but again, what matters to me is what directly effects me, and there are a ton of those trucks around here.

2- You can bore me with all the physics you want, I have seen many accidents involving large pickup trucks and small cars around here and the one in the truck is never the one leaving in the ambulance.

You can bore me with all the physics you want

So you're basically admitting that you know nothing about how crash test ratings are acheived.
You trust what you believe in your own mind more what has been scientifically proven.

Gotcha!


Just wanted to be perfectly clear about that.

i just got here



where are you seeing the poor ratings on Lancers? notably the 2 star side impact


they just offered a free installation of a feature to keep both doors closed during an accident.. about 2 months after the official launch... most of the places i'm looking at dont even register that change yet (i dont know if they should or not anyway), and theyre still putting it at 4 stars on side impact



unless youre talking about 06 or previous models.. in which case yes. They are abysmal with side crash tests

unless youre talking about 06 or previous models.. in which case yes. They are abysmal with side crash tests

Yes, you are correct.
The new model fared much better in side impact crash tests.


So after 3 months, how are you liking your new car?

im still loving it. i'm getting better at driving it and using the momentary fuel consumption tool on the LCD screen.. rarely getting under 30 MPG on my hour long commute and currently trying to beat my record of 37.2 MPG

haven't really developed any more complaints about it- i still feel how weak the engine is when accelerating compared to what I'm used to, but the MPG meter is my paper bag to breathe into. One common complaint is that the weather stripping is scratching tint on the windows. Haven't experienced it first hand.. but hey.

miir wrote:

You can bore me with all the physics you want

So you're basically admitting that you know nothing about how crash test ratings are acheived.
You trust what you believe in your own mind more what has been scientifically proven.

Gotcha!


Just wanted to be perfectly clear about that.

Just to be perfectly clear, the Smart car has not undergone any official US crash testing. It also has not apparently undergone any official European crash testing since a prior model in 2000. It achieved three out of five stars then. Three is not good.

Oh, and Funk isn't the only one to doubt the safety of this Smart car.

Tiny Smart car faces safety questions

It achieved three out of five stars then. Three is not good.

Here are some other vehicles with 3 star, poor or lower crash test ratings (in frontal or side impact).
Some of the SUVs are actually flagged with "Saftey Concern" warnings.
The first pic (the sedan) actually got a one-star rating.

Was there a point, or did you just feel like linking several images? I had a point. My point was that safety concerns are valid. The claims that crash testing had shown them to be safe was not accurate, since the testing has not been done.

What IS that sedan in the first picture? I don't recognize the emblem, but I am guessing an asian manufacturer due to the plate.

The point is that loads of other vehicles have similar crash test ratings... many of them are SUVs.
The point is that when it comes to large vehicles with average-to-poor crash test ratings, nobody ever seems to voice a concern.
I'm still trying to make the point that vehicle size has no correlation to vehicle safety.

The Smart has also had significant safety improvements in the past 8 years.



The sedan is a Brilliance BS6.
A Chinese manufactured car that they are hoping to one day sell outside of China.
Here's a video of the crash test.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/crash-test-v ... 272111.php

The commentary is in German, but you don't need to understand what he saying to be horrified by the results. The passenger compartment crumples and buckles, the door bends, the a-pillar folds up, there is violent intrusion into the passenger cell. The side impact results speak for themselves.
This is a car that weighs almost twice as much, and is twice as long as a smart. It's essentailly a coffin on wheels.

miir wrote:The passenger compartment crumples and buckles, the door bends, the a-pillar folds up, there is violent intrusion into the passenger cell. The side impact results speak for themselves.
This is a car that weighs almost twice as much, and is twice as long as a smart. It's essentailly a coffin on wheels.

Well, at least you can be buried in the car. Maybe they can be sold by funeral homes? I am guessing that the pricing would be in line with the price of a low to mid level casket.

As for the Smart Car, my point was that the car has not proven it's safety features are sufficient in a market with larger vehicles (let alone in the current euro market). The physical effects of an accident are different when hitting a 2500 lb vehicle vs a 5000+ lb vehicle. The article I linked specifically addressed how little protection the driver would have inside the "safety capsule" of the Smart car in the event of a collision. Sure, the capsule will be "okay," but the driver inside will not.

As for the Smart Car, my point was that the car has not proven it's safety features are sufficient in a market with larger vehicles (let alone in the current euro market). The physical effects of an accident are different when hitting a 2500 lb vehicle vs a 5000+ lb vehicle. The article I linked specifically addressed how little protection the driver would have inside the "safety capsule" of the Smart car in the event of a collision. Sure, the capsule will be "okay," but the driver inside will not.

Once again, I'm just trying to dispel the myth that vehicle size is related to vehicle safety.
The article you linked was based on 7+ year old crash test results. In that time, there has been significant safety improvements made in the Smart Four-Two.
There has been 8 inches added to the length, primarly to increase the crumple zone at the front. Additional safety cage reinforcement. Door reinforcement has also been improved and side impact air-bags have been added. Side-impact airbags in many cases give an automatic one-star improvement in side-impact ratings.

Nobody is claiming that these are the safest cars on the road, but the Smart is pretty close to the middle of the pack in regards to passenger and driver safety in the event of an accident.

It's frustrating that people automatically question the safety of this car because of it's size. They assume that it's unsafe. I don't think many people would question the safety of a Tacoma or an Escalade eventhough they are less safe than the popular subcompacts (Yaris, Versa, Fit).

why is it frustrating to you? do you own stock in smart car? why do you care?

do crash test ratings really seal the deal for you in car purchases? i don't think the tests mirror reality, and i think reality has led us to believe bigger car = more safer (sic) even if it's not entirely true. i just can't imagine competing on the highway against a tractor trailer in a car that size, since apparently they have trouble seeing my full size pickup truck at times.

regardless, i almost never wear a seatbelt, so it doesn't matter how safe the vehicle is, i'm fucked if i get in a high speed collision. to die in a car crash is acceptable (i mean hey it's better than suicide) as far as legacies go.

Of course there's always the chance you'll be braindead and on life support the rest of your life. Best get that living will in place if not already there. Or you could just be paralyzed. Wheelchairs are cool if you put some Type-R stickers on them. I hope that's acceptable to you and your loved ones.

Now, I don't know much of anything about care safety, physics, or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. But...

miir wrote:Once again, I'm just trying to dispel the myth that vehicle size is related to vehicle safety.

Russ Rader wrote:Still, in an accident, "the laws of physics can't be repealed," said Russ Rader of the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "Even with modern safety features like multiple air bags, people in small, light cars are always at a disadvantage in crashes."

This guy seems to be saying that there is a direct relation between vehicle size and vehicle safety. Quote's from that article Boogahz linked, by the way.

Russ Rader, the same fellow who said:

Side airbags with head protection and electronic stability control are in a class of safety feature that is extremely rare. These are features that reduce the risk of death by significant margins

Both features are present on a current model Smart Four-Two.
He also has a said a ton of negative crap concerning SUVs and safety.
So perhaps size does play a factor in vehicle safety... but I believe it's far less of a factor than crucial safety features that cars like the Smart have incorporated... and less of a factor than the false sense of safety one might have when driving a larger vehicle.

do crash test ratings really seal the deal for you in car purchases? i don't think the tests mirror reality, and i think reality has led us to believe bigger car = more safer (sic) even if it's not entirely true.

Actually, I do pay attnetion to crash test ratings.
What about the tests do think do not mirror reality?
As for your last comment, I think the term you're looking for is misconception.

i almost never wear a seatbelt, so it doesn't matter how safe the vehicle is, i'm fucked if i get in a high speed collision. to die in a car crash is acceptable (i mean hey it's better than suicide) as far as legacies go.
why is it frustrating to you? do you own stock in smart car? why do you care?

do crash test ratings really seal the deal for you in car purchases? i don't think the tests mirror reality, and i think reality has led us to believe bigger car = more safer (sic) even if it's not entirely true. i just can't imagine competing on the highway against a tractor trailer in a car that size, since apparently they have trouble seeing my full size pickup truck at times.

regardless, i almost never wear a seatbelt, so it doesn't matter how safe the vehicle is, i'm fucked if i get in a high speed collision. to die in a car crash is acceptable (i mean hey it's better than suicide) as far as legacies go.

You've said a lot of stupid shit in the past, but you're gonna have a hard time topping that.

miir wrote:Both features are present on a current model Smart Four-Two.
He also has a said a ton of negative crap concerning SUVs and safety.
So perhaps size does play a factor in vehicle safety... but I believe it's far less of a factor than crucial safety features that cars like the Smart have incorporated... and less of a factor than the false sense of safety one might have when driving a larger vehicle.

I agree with this. I'm not saying that the Smart is less safe than any other particular much larger vehicle. You can have a big vehicle which is poorly designed safety-wise and it will be less safe than a small vehicle which is well designed safety-wise. And I'm sure that the engineering decisions behind the vehicle's design have an awful lot more to do with how safe it is than how big the vehicle is. Nevertheless, he seems like he's saying that, all else being equal, bigger = safer. It's just that the "all else being equal" bit makes the "bigger = safer" bit largely irrelevant.

miir wrote: You've said a lot of stupid shit in the past, but you're gonna have a hard time topping that.

give me some time, i'm sure I can do it.

btw i wasn't serious.

miir wrote:Actually, I do pay attnetion to crash test ratings.
What about the tests do think do not mirror reality?

Pretty much everything. Sure, if you decide to run head first into a brick wall then the tests are pretty conclusive, but that's rarely the case. Side impact crash tests do a better job than standard front side tests. Crash tests rarely (because it would be way to costly) take into consideration, angles of impact, varying speeds of not only the tested car, but the object it's hitting, using car vs car instead of a wall or whatever they use, the sizes of cars that could hit the car, etc. that happen in almost every real life crash.

You would have to test every car against every other car made then. How do you know that Car A will crumple in the same place as Car H in an impact with Car B? Heck, what about Car K, where will it crumple, and where will it resist doing so when it impacts your car?