Volkswagen ID Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

Registered User
Joined
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been watching the Youtube videos where Sandy Munro reviews the ID.4 that he received.
He is pretty famous as a car structural design engineer.
He did mention that it is odd that some of the design appears to be not as if it was designed from the ground up and i wonder if that is a sacrifice that needs to be made due to the MEB platform hosting other cars (ID.3, etc.).
I was wondering what others thought?
I found it interesting that he compares the ID.4 to a Tesla.
I would argue that the ID.4's closest competitor is the Honda CRV and Toyota Rav4, neither of which are electric.
I don't believe you should compare the German built VW ID.4 as its quite clear that VW had to cut costs in order to deal with import costs, etc where as Tesla does not.
I would be interested to see if the ID.4 structural design is updated once it begins being built in the USA next year. Cheapest Tesla Model Y currently - $49,990, Cheapest VW ID.4 $39,990 (minus $7500 Federal Tax Credit = 31,490).
Although lease pricing is actually more similar due to Tesla high residual value / VW low residual value.
He is testing the First Edition I believe so that would be a higher price point.
Links to youtube videos. He still has more videos to come...


He is a big Tesla fan now that he has seen better structural designs from Tesla now.
 

Registered User
ID.4 RWD Pro S Dusk Blue
Joined
112 Posts
It is funny that he keeps comparing how the ID.4 is built to a Tesla, not really understanding that they are two different EV philosophies. Tesla is about providing the customer a sports car EV, while keeping costs low, whereas VW is about providing the customer a daily driver, and still try to keep the costs low. Different end goals mean different build requirements. Also, VW has built many, many cars over the years, and they know what works when it comes to design. (Software, not so much though.) If they have parts that work, why change them just for the sake of 'new'.

When I watch reviewers in a Tesla, they are all bouncing around like when I used to drive a Focus ST, and I eventually hated. This car, from my test drives, is more like my current sedan, maybe even a little more heavy/floaty feeling, which is what I would rather drive every day.
 

Premium Member
Joined
59 Posts
The thing that strikes me is no matter how the suspension "engineering" of the ID.4 was done compared to the Model Y, many people report the ride in the MY as a bit too firm or harsh, while most ID.4 drivers say they like the smooth ride. It was not designed for the track, but rather for everyday people driving on everyday roads. BTW, Munro's criticism of the aluminum struts in the rear suspension revealed he didn't understand why VW chose this. IMO, VW did this for a good reason since it is more costly than stamped steel. One of VW's strongpoints is their history of making cars that are reassuring in their handling and ride.
 

Registered User
Joined
150 Posts
Maybe part of the reason VW is going with a heavier car is safety. Run a lighter vehicle head-on into a heavier one and the heavy one will have less rebound per laws of momentum and likely less severe injuries/death. The Europeans are more into safety and test for injury to child passengers and pedestrians in EuroNCAP. Munro complained that the front hood was too heavy, but he acknowledged that the baffles under the hood had to do with European pedestrian safety standards.
He felt that there was too much cross-bracing underneath the car which adds to weight, but this could be to distribute forces in a side collision for example. Anyway, except for my '65 or '66 VW bug that I once owned, all German cars I've been around seem to be overly complex -- the ID.4 probably no exception. Don't know if EuroNCAP will crash test ID.4 this year, but NHTSA will. I think I heard that IIHS will as well. In any case, even though they aren't as efficient, I like heavier cars.
 

Registered User
ID.4 FE
Joined
88 Posts
The thing that strikes me is no matter how the suspension "engineering" of the ID.4 was done compared to the Model Y, many people report the ride in the MY as a bit too firm or harsh, while most ID.4 drivers say they like the smooth ride.
My GTI is more comfortable on crap roads than the Model Y, and that's not a compliment for either car.
 

Registered User
Dusk Blue ID.4 FE, 2X - 2004 Phaeton V8
Joined
430 Posts
Maybe part of the reason VW is going with a heavier car is safety. Run a lighter vehicle head-on into a heavier one and the heavy one will have less rebound per laws of momentum and likely less severe injuries/death. The Europeans are more into safety and test for injury to child passengers and pedestrians in EuroNCAP. Munro complained that the front hood was too heavy, but he acknowledged that the baffles under the hood had to do with European pedestrian safety standards.
He felt that there was too much cross-bracing underneath the car which adds to weight, but this could be to distribute forces in a side collision for example. Anyway, except for my '65 or '66 VW bug that I once owned, all German cars I've been around seem to be overly complex -- the ID.4 probably no exception. Don't know if EuroNCAP will crash test ID.4 this year, but NHTSA will. I think I heard that IIHS will as well. In any case, even though they aren't as efficient, I like heavier cars.
Excellent points and my Phaeton is waaayyyy over built and heavy, but in the pictures of crashes involving it, all of that mass and bracing does an incredible job of keeping people safe. I would rather have a heavy "overbuilt" car than a light one designed on the margins. But then again I think the ID.4 is light and will be the lightest thing I own! :D
 

Premium Member
Joined
59 Posts
Maybe part of the reason VW is going with a heavier car is safety. Run a lighter vehicle head-on into a heavier one and the heavy one will have less rebound per laws of momentum and likely less severe injuries/death. The Europeans are more into safety and test for injury to child passengers and pedestrians in EuroNCAP. Munro complained that the front hood was too heavy, but he acknowledged that the baffles under the hood had to do with European pedestrian safety standards.
He felt that there was too much cross-bracing underneath the car which adds to weight, but this could be to distribute forces in a side collision for example. Anyway, except for my '65 or '66 VW bug that I once owned, all German cars I've been around seem to be overly complex -- the ID.4 probably no exception. Don't know if EuroNCAP will crash test ID.4 this year, but NHTSA will. I think I heard that IIHS will as well. In any case, even though they aren't as efficient, I like heavier cars.
I agree and I would add that the structure under the hood and at the front where he seem to be saying there should be a frunk like the Tesla (which has a longer hood) seems to me to be a safety crush zone since the front of the ID.4 is shorter than average.
 

Registered User
2021 VW ID.4 1st Edition, Dusk Blue <3
Joined
415 Posts
My GTI is more comfortable on crap roads than the Model Y, and that's not a compliment for either car.
This got quite a chuckle out of me

Somewhat related, I drove my Golf Alltrack and my Chevy Bolt on the same semi-rough long dirt road nearly back to back last year and the difference was honestly huge (in VW's favor). I don't have much experience with actual offroading or driving lots of different cars, but my impression of VW suspension is quite positive, with how the Alltrack manages to feel so comfortable and controllable on bumpy dirt roads but also still feels like it handles so nicely on pavement.
 

Registered User
Dusk Blue ID.4 FE, 2X - 2004 Phaeton V8
Joined
430 Posts
Run a lighter vehicle head-on into a heavier one and the heavy one will have less rebound per laws of momentum and likely less severe injuries/death
Heavy car versus light car

 
  • Like
Reactions: egsell

Registered User
Joined
94 Posts
Maybe part of the reason VW is going with a heavier car is safety. Run a lighter vehicle head-on into a heavier one and the heavy one will have less rebound per laws of momentum and likely less severe injuries/death.
I'm not a huge fan of this arms race. The heavy car's occupants may fare better, but the light car's occupants could turn out much worse. Look at the Polo in @RocketVol's video. And if they buy a heavier car to "keep up", everyone else, including pedestrians and cyclists ("vulnerable road users" for European NCAP), is in a much worse position.
 

Registered User
2021 VW ID.4 1st Edition Dusk Blue
Joined
75 Posts
Maybe part of the reason VW is going with a heavier car is safety. Run a lighter vehicle head-on into a heavier one and the heavy one will have less rebound per laws of momentum and likely less severe injuries/death. The Europeans are more into safety and test for injury to child passengers and pedestrians in EuroNCAP. Munro complained that the front hood was too heavy, but he acknowledged that the baffles under the hood had to do with European pedestrian safety standards.
He felt that there was too much cross-bracing underneath the car which adds to weight, but this could be to distribute forces in a side collision for example. Anyway, except for my '65 or '66 VW bug that I once owned, all German cars I've been around seem to be overly complex -- the ID.4 probably no exception. Don't know if EuroNCAP will crash test ID.4 this year, but NHTSA will. I think I heard that IIHS will as well. In any case, even though they aren't as efficient, I like heavier cars.
This is a complicated issue. Full head on collisions are (thankfully) pretty rare. Mass / weight is actually working against you in virtually ALL OTHER types of multiple vehicle crashes. And in single car crashes, more mass is definitely a disadvantage. What is the most important for the safety of people in a vehicle crash - is how the vehicle is engineered.

More mass = more energy
Speed X more mass = even more energy
More energy in a crash = more forces on the body / head of occupants

Safety in a crash comes from lower forces on the body / head of the occupants. Lower forces come from reducing the speed of the vehicle before the crash i.e. braking - and braking a lighter car is easier / quicker, all else being equal. In fact, a lighter car also has a better chance to avoid a crash, or to reduce the directness of a crash, because a lighter car is easier to steer, as well.

Safety in a crash comes from a longer period of time after impact, taken to slow the vehicle to a stop. So, how the crumple zones are engineered is critical.

In a single car crash, a lighter car hitting a stationary and/or fixed object has less energy to dissipate. So, less energy to dissipate also then means that any given space can be used over a slightly longer period of time to have the occupants body / heads come to a stop = greater safety.

Another important piece of engineering that is rarely mentioned, is deflection vs engagement. When a vehicle is in a crash, if it deflects away from whatever it hits, rather than wrapping around that object and "locking" onto it - then it allows more time to elapse for the energy to be dissipate = lower forces on the body / head of the occupants.
 

Registered User
2021 1st
Joined
777 Posts
This is a complicated issue. Full head on collisions are (thankfully) pretty rare. Mass / weight is actually working against you in virtually ALL OTHER types of multiple vehicle crashes. And in single car crashes, more mass is definitely a disadvantage. What is the most important for the safety of people in a vehicle crash - is how the vehicle is engineered.

More mass = more energy
Speed X more mass = even more energy
More energy in a crash = more forces on the body / head of occupants

Safety in a crash comes from lower forces on the body / head of the occupants. Lower forces come from reducing the speed of the vehicle before the crash i.e. braking - and braking a lighter car is easier / quicker, all else being equal. In fact, a lighter car also has a better chance to avoid a crash, or to reduce the directness of a crash, because a lighter car is easier to steer, as well.

Safety in a crash comes from a longer period of time after impact, taken to slow the vehicle to a stop. So, how the crumple zones are engineered is critical.

In a single car crash, a lighter car hitting a stationary and/or fixed object has less energy to dissipate. So, less energy to dissipate also then means that any given space can be used over a slightly longer period of time to have the occupants body / heads come to a stop = greater safety.

Another important piece of engineering that is rarely mentioned, is deflection vs engagement. When a vehicle is in a crash, if it deflects away from whatever it hits, rather than wrapping around that object and "locking" onto it - then it allows more time to elapse for the energy to be dissipate = lower forces on the body / head of the occupants.
This is contradicted by IIHS. They demonstrate the role of size and weight using these 2019 crash tests.
 

Registered User
2021 VW ID.4 1st Edition Dusk Blue
Joined
75 Posts
The distinction is "larger" vs "heavier". Crumple zones take space, and they allow the energy to be absorbed over a longer period of time. What I wrote is correct, and it is not contradicted by the data; because it is based on data.

It is a misconception that it is the mass that makes a vehicle safe, when it is actually engineering. A lot of larger vehicles have a poor safety record, because of things like a high center of gravity. Other larger vehicles get badly bent because their structure can't handle all the weight.
 

Registered User
2021 1st
Joined
777 Posts
The distinction is "larger" vs "heavier". Crumple zones take space, and they allow the energy to be absorbed over a longer period of time. What I wrote is correct, and it is not contradicted by the data; because it is based on data.

It is a misconception that it is the mass that makes a vehicle safe, when it is actually engineering.
Your claim is contradicted by the first sentence and paragraph:

A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences. The longer distance from the front of vehicle to the occupant compartment in larger vehicles offers better protection in frontal crashes. Heavier vehicles also tend to continue moving forward in crashes with lighter vehicles and other obstacles, so the people inside them are subject to less force.
Also, anecdotally mass has always 鈥渨on鈥 in collisions long before the current safety measures engineered into cars. It seems like you rejected the data without reading the science quoted because the source I cited explicitly stated that safety is a function of mass.

Here is Car and Driver's analysis over twenty years ago:

The thought that a bite-size two-seater made of aluminum and plastic can take the same punch as those big Detroiters really changes everything. Why not get 65 miles to the gallon if you can do it without risk?

Real safety experts will throw the red flag right here. Why? The stars are based on crash tests staged in the laboratory. If you're going to have a lab crash, by all means look to the stars. But if you're driving in the real world, the stars are overwhelmed by one rule - bigger, heavier cars are safer than smaller, lighter cars.

This rule is solidly backed by real-world experience. Here's just one of many supporting examples from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: For 1994-97 four-doors, the driver death rate (expressed in deaths per million registered vehicle years) in the less-than-2500-pound class was 101; each 500-pound step up through the weight classes reduces the rate, first to 85, then to 73, then slightly less reduction to 75 for the 3500-to-3999-pound class.

The rule is also backed by physics. Big cars are usually also heavy cars, but size and weight protect in different ways. Large vehicles usually have more crushable distance surrounding the passenger cabin, more self-cushioning. They also have more empty interior space around the occupants, which gives more room for them to move against their restraints during the impact without smacking anything hard. Vehicle size protects in both single-vehicle and car-to-car crashes, says IIHS.

Weight softens impacts by forcing the other object to crush. This is the big-hammer effect. If you fall off the road, a heavy vehicle more readily deforms hedges and fences. And the big hammer is extremely important car to car. "In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backward, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one," says IIHS. In other words, the lighter car crashes harder than the heavy one, even though they're both having the same crash. "All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle crashes."
[emphasis mine]
 

Registered User
2021 VW ID.4 1st Edition Dusk Blue
Joined
75 Posts
I agree that larger is better - but not heavier. The data of number of deaths per miles traveled, show that the safest vehicles are not necessarily the heaviest ones.

Vehicles are made safer by having well designed crumple zones, collapsing steering columns, good seat beats and air bags, having good brakes, having a low center of gravity. Old cars before we had these things, were massive and very heavy - and they were death traps.
 

Registered User
2021 1st
Joined
777 Posts
I agree that larger is better - but not heavier. The data of number of deaths per miles traveled, show that the safest vehicles are not necessarily the heaviest ones.

Vehicles are made safer by having well designed crumple zones, collapsing steering columns, good seat beats and air bags, having good brakes, having a low center of gravity. Old cars before we had these things, were massive and very heavy - and they were death traps.
Between the two of us, I'm the only one citing any data.

I don't see the point of sourcing my claims if you're not going to read them and instead reject those data out of hand. Your claim is rebutted in both sources I cited and the last two sentences couldn't be more clear:

the lighter car crashes harder than the heavy one, even though they're both having the same crash. "All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle crashes."
[emphasis mine]
 

Registered User
2021 VW ID.4 1st Edition Dusk Blue
Joined
75 Posts
Mercedes patented the passenger safety cell and the crumple zones in 1952. In the late 1950's Volvo put shoulder belts in cars. The 1968 Volvo 144S had four disk brakes. Air bags started in the 1970's and got much better in the late 1980's. The collapsing steering column was put into production cars in the 1960's I think.

Before these, cars were plenty big and heavy - but they were not safe at all, as a rule. It took a lot of engineering to make cars safe.

Formula 1 cars are very light, and yet they are quite safe for the driver - because of good engineering.

As I said above, all else being equal, in a head on crash, the heavier car has an advantage. This is the fact that I stated, and your sources confirm. We don't disagree.

But in single car crashes, greater weight is worse. And, if a car can be slowed, or steered to avoid / minimize a crash, then a vehicle with lower weight also has an advantage.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top