Talk:Moose test/Archive 1

Older discussion
Re the Trabbi: "older" can refer to either the design or the individual unit tested, and this imprecision is unencyclopedic. (The editwhere the word was introduced offers no hint of the author's intent; we need a source to know whether they know what year (in the '90s) the test was done, which could imply a minimum age, or whether the age or date of the individual one is specified.) --Jerzy (t) 22:07, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * According to this (in Swedish), the Swedish term was undanmanöverprov until the infamous A-Klasse incident, when Germans (journalists? Merzedes people?) dubbed it Elchtest (Swedish: Älgtest). That also fits better with what I remember from those days, that that name initially was intended to mock the test ("Only in Sweden you find such animals running around on the roads. In civilized parts of the world, you never need to do such a manouver in that kind of speed", that kind of arguments...)  \Mike(z)  15:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But is there anyone who knows how fast they go? At most, that is? \Mike(z)  16:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The cars are pushed to the limit until they all fail. The speed is increased every round so actually no car can pass this test, all cars fail (at different velocity ofcourse). So the Trabbi section in this article makes no sense. Even if there is an offial name for the test the most Swedes has call it Älgtest. Swedish motor journalists have also flipped the Skoda 105 when it was new. Recently the newspaper Aftonbladet flipped a Toyota Yaris while doing the elk test. The article http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/bil/story/0,2789,555909,00.html Limpan 22:18 3 jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Trabi passed the test at the same speed the A-Class flipped over? I never heard of this comparison between the Trabi and A-Class on this test before, though. --Zilog Jones 20:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I know you wrote ur posts for a looong time ago but, the test was at 60 km/h for both the mercedes and the trabant. Just check at http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=9663. There you go.--84.217.122.24 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Update needed
from info found here:
 * "It is a general misconception that the Swedish traffic security test failed miserably by Mercedes-Benz A class is called moose test. There is a moose test in Sweden, which involves crashing a car into a suspended bundle of cables, simulating the impact of a moose's body, as the high-legged mooses will not, unlike a deer or roe, smash your car's hood in a crash, but come through the windshield and crush you under its bulk. Fatal crashes with mooses are common in Sweden, thus every Swedish-manufactured car will have to pass the moose test (that's why Saabs have such a long hood). The test failed by the A class is called child test in sweden, as it simulates a driver's violent evasion attempt when a kid runs suddenly into the car's path."

http://trichoplax.tripod.com/apage.html --Quiddity 10:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that there is no need for an update. Plz read this article http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=9663. You can see there that Mercedes spokesman talked about it "Swerve test" did they call it back then, but I'm from Sweden and I can assure you that we call it Älgtestet. You can apply the Älgtest if a kid runs into the car's past but that wasn't why they started doing the test.--84.217.122.24 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article contradicts itself. The first sentence "The Moose test, also known as the Elk test, Älgtest in Swedish, has been used in Sweden for decades" more or less implies, that for decades this test has been called moose test in Sweden. Later, it states "The name 'Moose test' (German 'Elchtest') was invented by German journalists after" [the A-class failed the test]. In the German wikipedia, I have found a source, unfortunately of course in German, but I will update this article now accordingly. The article http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=9663 does not realy prove, that it's called Älgtestet before 1997. --Cyfal (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing the target
This article doesn't give much information about how the test is performed. I need to know is what happens in a failure. Does the rear slide forward and hit the moose? If anyone who sees this article has some experience with this test please add to this °°→××←····66.97.203.200 08:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article currently describes it like this:
 * "the car skids down the cones or spins around"
 * Does that answer your question? —Bromskloss 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename article
In Sweden, the country of origin, there are no mooses. There are elk. This is why it is called the "Elk Test".

To be quite honest, I've never even heard the Elk Test referred to as a "Moose Test" before. Is the "Moose Test" a similar Canadian test? If not, I really think it is inaccurate to redirect "elk test" to "moose test". This article should be renamed "Elk Test", and "moose test" should redirect here.


 * Saab Exec calls it a moose 70.243.82.221 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, according to the article Moose, the name Elk is used to refer to the same species in Europe. --Quiddity 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go again, another International Food Fight! I don't care what you call them, if more cars in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan had Saab-type windshields I wouldn't be seeing 2-3 cases/mo. of "Deer vs. Car" in the Emergency Room.  We were driving home on the two-lane from Traverse City at 0300 and when we came around a curve, there must have been a heard of at least thirty deer standing all over the road just like they owned it, (matter of fact, they did).  I'm sure glad I saw them in time to stop and say, "howdy folks--nice night for strolling down the road!"  While much smaller that elk or moose, deer (or should that be elks, meese and deers?) are much more likely to jump into your lap when startled by your speeding car.--W8IMP 10:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A fight between the usage of British or American English has happened before on English WP. Saab call them moose since they are used to US English (owned by guess who). There is a Manual of Style, saying that no variant of English is preferred unless there are "Strong national ties to a topic". Otherwise "Retain the existing variety". Besides, there are no Moose/Elk/Alces alces in the UK/Ireland, and in Sweden they are called "Älg". -- BIL (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find some arguments for one or the other name. Here are the results: Thus, for me this seems to induce a small preference for elk instead of moose. Nevertheless (keeping Manual_of_Style in mind), we should perhaps leave it as it is because the creator of this article created it as Moose test.
 * Wikpedia Moose says that this is the North American name for the animal called Elk in Europe.
 * Wikipedia Elk says that this is the North American name for another animal (Waipiti) as well as the European Elk.
 * Google has about 5200 hits for '"moose test" -wikipedia' and about 7600 for "elk test" -wikipedia.
 * Assuming that the name spread from the German newspapers, here are the translations from two German online translaters: LEO and FreeDIC.net: both display both elk test and moose test.
 * Here an Canadian interviewer uses the word "moose test" in a question to Saab's head of design, his answer is "I don’t know about Canadian moose, but Swedish moose..." (not "...but Swedish elks...") By the way, there is a link to "elkparts", the saab original parts store, on this very page.
 * Volvo uses the word "Elk Test", see here.
 * In Sweden, it is called Älgtest, which is obviously more related to elk than moose.

--Cyfal (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It should obviously be “elk test”. — Chameleon 04:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, in Swedish the test is rather called "undanmanöverprov" (avoidance manoeuvre test). I rather believe that it was the Germans who popularized the term "elch test" and that we later re-imported that term back to Sweden. In usage it is considered colloquial and when used in newspapers it is often equipped with citation marks. Steinberger (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Serious testing facilities in Germany call it "Ausweichtest" (avoidance manoeuvre test), the so called "Elchtest" was indeed popularized by a newspaper (and it's them who continue to use that term) and has been integrated in the colloquial language (not just for car related tests, but for every sort of test that can be remotely linked to Scandinavia). In my opinion we should rename this article to "avoidance manoeuvre test" (or maneuver), since this is the technical term. Then we redirect both moosetest and elktest to that page. We should also keep in mind that the Swedish do also test how cars behave when they crash with a heavy static object (like an elk, which is not uncommon in Sweden). --Mirrakor (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saabmoosetest.jpg
Image:Saabmoosetest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Selecting cars
You need an RS to identify why specific cars have been selected in the comparison. Sure, the Citreon gets in because it is the fastest, but any other cars need to have an RS for the REASON for their selection. Greglocock (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read up on WP:POINT to understand why this is not necessary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but answer the question. On what grounds, using an RS, do you have for selecting those two cars? You don't. WP POINT says do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion. Greglocock (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that you showed no such concern until your own entry was removed, I believe you have no reason other than "If I can't have my car, you can't have yours", and as such I refer you back to WP:POINT - "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You pointed me at POINT, where I found a guideline at that fitted the case for this and other fanboi lists. I hadn't remembered seeing it before. So I applied it. You aren't a mind reader. Now, since my latest edit explicitly abides by that guideline you've got a month to find RS for those two cars being selected or out they go. It is obvious to the less obsessed that if a car is #1 it has beaten all the others. Greglocock (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Only just noticed your edit that removed a source listing the car rankings, and replaced it with a tag.  That's not on, and is against BRD and discussion is ongoing here.  You gave me a month - just be patient.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the version before any of the contested edits. Once discussion has ended, that will define what the article contains - but until then the original stays in place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was not a valid RS for the selection criteria for those two cars which is what is explicitly required when adding members to lists by arbitrary criteria. That is, there is no reason to include #7 or #8 in a list, and excluding #2-#6, unless you can find an RS to justify that particular selection. #1 and #last are the only obvious candidates, #1,#2 and #3 are probably also choices that need no particular justification (not so sure about that). I have tried to find any discussion of the results of the test with some sort of comparison, but cannot find anything that is not a blog and not proprietary. O/T Not that it makes any odds but simulating this test is one of my jobs. The elk test itself is a mess, getting the car up on 2 wheels is regarded as bad, running off the course is seen as preferable. This kills the child running into the road or smashes into the oncoming car. Greglocock (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The references recently added do not explain WHY they need to be mentioned, and how they were selected, for this list. You've had your month, out they go. Greglocock (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * read this as well [] Greglocock (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They were chosen because they're track cars and thus expected to handle well, that was the criteria - and those were the sources provided. If you're changing the goal posts, then you need to allow more time for the new targets to be achieved.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional - WP:LISTCRITERIA is not applicable as this is not a list. Merely showing the leader and two examples of cars expected to outperform a family hatch does not a list make.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * LC does apply in my opinion, it is an inline list. I haven't actually changed what I requested, a rationale for including those particular cars supported by RS. This RS would have to say some thing like, 'interestingly the citreon beat cars such as x y and Z". So, i'll give it another month. I have time. Greglocock (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of interpretation. Having distilled it down I see this as a much simpler content dispute.  You want a change and car X included because it's the second place, or cars Y & Z removing because they're not second place, whereas I want the status quo of cars Y & Z to remain because they're identifiable to the general public as sports cars that would be expected to perform better than a family hatchback in a handling test.  Thus I see no need for sources to uphold your request and maintain that your insistence is still verging on being POINTY - as I maintain, you only asked this after your own addition was reverted.  Rather you should seek out WP:3O or WP:DR in order to gain support for your proposal.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't give a shit about extending the list beyond first place. One month. Greglocock (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that. You want to change content - not challenge sources - so the way to go is to bring it up with either WP:DR or WP:3O, and see what another viewpoint is, as we are deadlocked here.

3O/Dispute resolution rationale
My viewpoint on the Xantia, Porsche and McLaren is that sitting alone, there is no context as to whether the Xantia is performing well or not. To provide context the Manufacturer and model Porsche & McLaren are used to show that high-end track-oriented cars are unable to match the performance of a family hatchback. Whilst the second place car is impressive, it's also a Nissan Qashqai - another family car, (albeit a top of the range version) and again, context is lost. By comparing the results with that of a well-known to the man in the street performance marque, it gets across the impressive performance of the leading car.

There is no requirement to provide a source for comparing Porsche and McLaren against the Xantia - although strictly speaking that's already been done as the initial Moose test list does this. Additionally, LISTCRITERIA is inapplicable as this is not a list, but three examples from a list - done so to prevent any list-creep. However, if you insist:
 * 1) If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
 * Yes - removing Porsche & McLaren reduces the level of casual understanding as to the performance of the Xantia


 * 1) Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
 * That's subjective, but again, yes I'd expect to see some sort of easily-related comparison to show whether a time or speed was notable


 * 1) Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
 * Again, subjective, but it is sourced, and the McLaren & Porsche are well-known and sourced as track cars, with well-reviewed praise of their handling. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What a load of bollocks. One month. Greglocock (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comments are becoming repetitive. I've told you what you need to do.  I suspect that in one month, I will be doing the same again.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Kangaroos
As the lede suggests, although it is called the elk test the reality is that it is supposed to represent the violent manouevre one might make if a child runs out onto a street chasing a ball. Therefore the fact that the Australia used to use a kangaroo as a crash test dummy is NOT the same reasoning at all. Greglocock (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're suggesting or trying to get across here? Are you advocating removal of the Kangaroo comment?  I'd support that, as the source says "Make sure you meet the crash test dummies, there’s a whole family and even a crash test kangaroo which is used to ensure Ford cars meet the unique Australian conditions" which is too vague to confirm that the kangaroo is used specifically for the moose/elk/evasion test.  Not sure of your geographical location, but for me in my part of the UK, I'm far more likely to meet sheep on the road but I wouldn't advocate also calling it the sheep test.  Although to be fair, the accompanying texts do use the child as a "for example", which is inclusive, not exclusive - it could be any reason that causes a sudden lane change.  From reading the texts (and watching Mythbusters) it seems likely that the moose was chosen as it has the potential to cause more damage than striking a child or even a car.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No dummies are used in the elk test, just traffic cones. The crash test into an animal dummy is a completely different test with different test setup and requirements. Greglocock (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I think it's just confusion over the concept of using animals as part of a test process, and animals as the cause of the necessity of a test process, which are not the same thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and instead of removing the section have given it its own section of "Actual Moose collision testing", as the topic is broadly sourced and can easily (as the content shows) be confused between avoiding an object and hitting an object. Not especially precious over this, but I agree that as previously shown it was inaccurate to remain.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

witches hats in diagram
I think the diagram is misleading, there should be both an entry gate, and the two rows of obstacles should also have a maximum width eg https://www.researchgate.net/figure/ISO-3888-course-part-2-obstacle-avoidance-manoeuvre-DLC_fig1_263274107 The reason for that is that a cunning driver could get through the pattern shown by hitting the loud pedal in a RWD, which is not the intent of the test. Greglocock (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)