locost_bryan
|
| posted on 15/4/04 at 12:14 AM |
|
|
Side impact protection
Down here in NZ the safety wallahs have added vaguely worded requirements about crumple zones and passenger cells.
Admirable sentiments, but hard to apply to a Locost.
I am intending to add the Cymtriks/Aussie chassis mods (i.e. extra bracing around the front suspenders & engine bay).
Since this will make the front of the car stronger, I want to add some extra bracing around the cockpit to ensure it meets the requirement that
"the passenger compartment be protected from engine intrusion" and "any additional chassis strength must not inhibit the functioning
of the crumple zones".
My thoughts are to
1) upgrade A,B,C,D,K,N, O to 38x25mm
2) weld steel panels inside floor/side/bulkheads
3) add triangulation bottom K1 to top of H (above B2), and triangulate from ends of D1 to P
Would there be any advantage in adding side impact bars or an ali honeycomb panel?
Or am I just being paranoid because my road car has more airbags than parliament? 
Bryan Miller
Auckland NZ
Bruce McLaren - "Where's my F1 car?"
John Cooper - "In that rack of tubes, son"
|
|
|
|
|
Tigers
|
| posted on 16/4/04 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
O, I'm also a bit worried about side impacts. Because that's the most unprotected spot in locost. Also your arms (well, more for
passanger's arms) are over the side walls and are realy unprotected. I suppose roll bar addittions in the sides that's being used in race
locosts can give you a better protection. It would be good to have some sort of pontons on both sides, but then car will look ugly, I suppose.
[Edited on 16/4/04 by Tigers]
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 16/4/04 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
I have examined about 8 accident damaged cars today, as I do every day, and have done for the last eleven years.
I have only seen 3 true side impacts in all that time. The majority are at least an angle of 80 degrees. It would take a very 'accurate '
impact to hit a locost between the wheels. Any amount of angle would mean the wheels would be impacted first. Due to the light weight and the low
centre of gravity, the car is more likely to be pushed away, therefore reducing the G of the impact. Most side on impact injuries are caused by the
occupants heads hitting the upper pillars, again not a problem in a locost.
It does not bother me more than any other sort of collision, but if you are worried, I think that aluminium side steps would be the prettiest, most
effective kind of protection. Have a look at Formula 4x4's website for what is avialable.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 16/4/04 at 10:37 PM |
|
|
Excellent info. Mark....real-life data always beats speculation and ill informed guesswork.....makes me a lot happier...
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 17/4/04 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
Well they cant really be too anal about these things when they have to accept bikes a road legal and i see far less protection than on a locost.
I guess the only saving grace on a bike is that youre limp body will be flung away from further damage while in a locost you will take the punishment.
Ive always had people remarking that theres not much damage protection on a locost but i point out theres more than on a bike and that usually does
for them.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 17/4/04 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
It has to be admitted, that the passive safety of a Locost is less then a Volvo Estate. The active safety is miles ahead, the speed, accelleration,
agility and handling all contribute to not having the collision in the first place.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 17/4/04 at 11:29 PM |
|
|
Mark,
Interesting insight, certainly makes me a bit happier as side impact did indeed worry me a great deal!
Do you have any general advice which you would care to share which might help make the Locost as safe as possible given the design parameters we have?
SVA does a good job of handling the things which can be quantified and measured but there is also the subjective stuff which experience and common
sense can bring to the mix.
For example, to comply with the 19mm radius requirements under the dash, I was going to use some soft wood of an appropriate radius stuck to the
chassis tubes with strong adhesive and covered with foam rubber.
Any areas of the Locost design which worry you from a crash safety point of view? Any suggestions how to minimise the risks?
Cheers,
Craig.
[Edited on 17/4/2004 by craig1410]
[Edited on 17/4/2004 by craig1410]
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:21 AM |
|
|
I know how most production cars fold up in almost any sort of accident because I have seen so many. The only locost/seven accidents I have seen
(images only!), are 2 front ends and one rear end. The wheels take most of the impact from either end, mainly because they are impactable from almost
any angle. This is a good thing, most of the energy will be dissipated by the suspension, and why I made my trailing arm pickup points SO strong, in
fact the whole seating area of my car is massively heavier than most.,
Passenger safety, and dashes, in a front ender, your legs will be thrown upwards. I am going to panel the underside of the upper footwells so the load
will be spread over the full length of the leg, not just the knees on the botton of the dash. My seatbelt mounts are well forward to stop submarining
(body sliding under the belts). This causes spinal injuries due to compression.
I am not obsessed with the safety of the car, just making easy modifications with safety in mind in the construction. I am painting the car yellow
(Saxo yellowy orange) as my first choice (metallic blue) is less easy to see in the rear view mirror of the tintop brigade.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:40 AM |
|
|
Mark,
The bit about the leg protection is a good point as EuroNcap always seem to be moaning about leg injury's due to under-facia projections despite
the fact that these cars are type-approved. I would think that the legs won't be thrown upwards so badly on a Locost due to the very low seating
position with the legs almost horizontal already. Would you agree? I guess the likes of people carriers and 4WD's will suffer more due to the
bus-like seating position.
One of the things which worries me is getting impaled on a chassis tube which breaks free upon impact or getting crushed when the chassis tubes
deflect inwards. I wondered if some load spreading gusset plates around some of the critical weld sites might be worthwhile but most of what I have
read suggests that a good "standard" weld should be ample.
I guess another area worth taking care with is engine mountings as the engine mass on most Locost's, especially Pinto and V8 cars will be a high
proportion of the overall car weight. This might tend to make the engine try to break free upon impact and intrude into the passenger area or come out
completely which might be particularly nasty...
Like you, I'm not completely paranoid and wouldn't have given this stuff a second thought 10 years ago but now I'm a bit older (31)
and have three kids, it tends to make you think twice about safety and eliminate as many risks as possible without losing the essence of what a Seven
should be.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
The leg issue is still valid, as in an acident, the car will get into all sorts of weird angle, at a guess, a 30mph impact, the rear wheels may well
get to over 3 feet off the ground.
My engine mounts are large, and use landrover lower mounts. The lower rubber mounts would detach first, leaving the engine with a foot of
2"x2" RHS attached so it couldn't leave the engine bay unless the impact was severe (in which case all your earthly worries would be
over anyway)
What most people do not expect is the 'velocity spin' effect where an off centre collision will whip the car around, giving you whiplash,
but moving you out of the direct impact zone, it is here that all the crumple zone theory goes out of the window. This is amplified by the low weight
of the car.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
All sensible and valid comments but IMHO too much effort is put into making vehicles 'idiot' proof and not enough on driver skills and
awareness. Good point about the bikes but the EU commission has long been harping on about compulsory leg protectors, air bags and even an ejector
seat to throw the rider clear in the event of a collision....scary.
I ride bikes regularly, I know I am unprotected and that proportionately more 'bikers' die in accidents than the super safe, multiple air
bags, SIPS, crumple zoned car drivers. I also know that over 70% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the same car drivers. (ministry of transport
figures) with this in mind I ride defensively and assume all other traffic doen't know I'm there and use the performance of the bike when
safe to do so. In other words dont ride like like a twat.
We are all driving/building high performance sports cars which are designed for the singular purpose of high thrills driving.
It would be a shame to load them up with all the safety features we enjoy in our daily mules, making them heavier and therefore slower and less
responsive, thus moving away from the whole design principles of the 7 type cars.
Lets not kid ourselves the elected that our concerned for our safety will I'm sure pass laws that insist on air bags for all road vehicles then
adequate side impact protection then crumple zones effectivel ruling out the sevenesque concept.
So, again all IMHO, enjoy your car the way it was meant to be enjoyed but never underestimate the stupidity of other road users.
Phew.....
John
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 01:06 PM |
|
|
John,
I agree which is why I made the point about incorporating safety features WITHOUT losing the essence of the sports car. I don't want to be
smothered in safety (or the illusion of it) and as an example, I have the ABS switched off on my road car as I find it more of a distraction than a
benefit and would rather control my own brakes thanks very much... I only ever use it when driving on snow or ice where I do find it to be slightly
beneficial although in my experience, often the best way to avoid a collision on snow/ice is NOT to brake...
I agree 110% with your point about other road users but we have to appreciate that most people see cars as a way to get from A to B. They have no idea
how to control a skid or how to cadence brake and so need as many gadgets as possible to help them to minimise the effect of a mistake. I'm not
saying the driving enthusiasts like us won't make mistakes but hopefully we have the skills to minimise the risks ourselves when a mistake is
made.
What worries me more than anything is for someone in their big 4x4, on their way to work after dropping the kids at school, to run right over the top
of me because they are too busy blethering on the phone... Almost every "near miss" I have had in my 14 years on the road has been when
driving "normally" in traffic and had something unexpected happen in front of me through no fault of mine. The only accident I ever had
was an offset frontal on a single track road where the other car simply didn't make any room for me and ploughed straight into me writing off
both cars. I was on the grass at my side doing maybe 10-15MPH and the other car hit me and pushed me backwards up the road for 15 meters. The last
thing I remember before the impact was seeing the side of the woman's head as she was clearly talking to her passenger... nuff said! 
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
Basically this is what I meant by active and passive safety
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:54 PM |
|
|
dont you think the speed, and cornering ability of a locost is likely to make any accdent much more dangerous?
Breaking traction around a corner, sliding sideways into a landrover on a country lane is the kinda thing I can see happening.
Alez's accident, where the car tank slappers off a roundabout isnt the first accdent of that kind I have read about. Most std road cars dont get
driven like that.
I wonder who has the better life expectancy, per million miles travelled? A Citroen Saxo driver, or a locost driver?
When people slate driver aids, I find it strange, cos most drivers are not to motor sport standard, and have such levels of concentration. When a kid
steps out between parked cars in the wet, you are more likely to be thinking about your dinner, or listenign to the radio, or talking to your mate /
wife / whatever. Its not the same as a fully focused situation in real life. Does every little 18 year old girle, 19 year old yobbo, 65 year odl
granny, 45 year old housewife, have the same illustrious driving standards?
I donth think so....
atb
steve
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:24 PM |
|
|
Steve,
I agree to a large extent but I've also heard of at least two drivers who have hit the brakes, felt the ABS "buzz" their leg and
jumped back off the brakes only to arrive at the scene of the accident. I am also concerned at the "cotton wool" factor where people
become so accustomed to having all those driver aids that the stop thinking about what is actually going on between the car and the road assuming they
ever thought about it to begin with. They also tend to drive faster because they feel "safer"
Now I've driven various front and rear wheel drive cars, mainly of the older RWD generation (Rover SD1, Sunbeam Lotus, Escort Mk2, Various
Fiat's) and I've also owned a couple of karts including a screaming 100cc and a Villiers 210 with gearbox which I used to play with on an
old airfield. I'm no expert and I have limits like anyone but I strongly believe that I am more at risk from being hit by others than I am from
my own stupidity. I'd also fancy my chancies of surviving longer than the average Saxo driver thanks very much...
However, you are correct in that the vast majority of people out there are probably safer with their driver aids switched on but I'd like to see
some of them having their airbags replaced by a 6 inch spike on the middle of their steering wheel, just to make them think a little bit more about
what they are doing. Perhaps they could have this instead of the big green "P" sticker for the first couple of years on the road 
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
locost_bryan
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:47 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback guys.
There seem to be two types of side impact crashes
1) sliding sideways into a pole or tree
2) getting t-boned at a junction
1) seems to be rare - especially if you drive with a bit of discretion. 2) seems to be fairly common in NZ, but I suspect an impact behind the front
wheels would probably spin the car around (unless the other vehicle was a 4x4).
I once t-boned a guy coming the other way, who turned right across my bows, hit him smack in the passengers door - silly prick.
Anyway, the consensus seems to be "don't panic!" ... but I'll probably still add the steel floor/sides/bulkheads and extra
bracing from my original post.
ps I consider myself a pretty average driver, I've had the sweaty palm tyre-smoking panic stops to prove it  ... and a few minor prangs in my
younger years.
I must find a quiet place to test the ABS ... I haven't felt the pedal "buzz" yet ;-)
Bryan Miller
Auckland NZ
Bruce McLaren - "Where's my F1 car?"
John Cooper - "In that rack of tubes, son"
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:55 PM |
|
|
Hey, I love the idea of a 6" spike. that would steady you up a bit. Bet we'd still need a collapsable boss for SVA though.
|
|
|
thekafer
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 12:41 AM |
|
|
All good points. But lets face it,it's the firey rear "ender" that will do this car in. Lets not fool ourselves here.This is not the
safest thing on the road.That "thrill of driving"thing is just like the "thrill of parachuting"thing. It's the fact that
it IS a risk that makes it a thrill. No, I'm not for stupid risk (like the guys who throw the parachutes out first then jump to catch them).
Everything can be made safer,but unplugging my table saw and putting corks on my scissors makes them useless.(I hate it when goverment does it for
me).
Yes, It's up to us to be safer drivers,builders. I already drive like every Hummer H2/cell phone using twat is out to kill me!!!
Maybe this was one for the rant thread
Fletch.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy...
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
Bet we'd still need a collapsable boss
That sounds like my old gaffer who used to get drunk at dinner times I think the proportion of Saxo drivers to Locost drivers and the different
cross section of peoplewho drive them obviously makes them more likely to be involved in a crash. A lot of blue rinsers drive them round here and they
never get above 40mph, but they do try to do it everywhere.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 10:54 AM |
|
|
I doubt any blue rinser loses a saxo sideways on a spirited drive round a sharp county bend.
The fuel tank at the back bit worried me too.
My car has two large 2 inch beams braced into the bulkhead that mount the diff and act as a load bearer for a rear end crash. There is also a 2 inch
beam that goes across the whole back of the car.
Failing that, the 50 degree slope of the rear will launch any rear ender over the top anyway!
atb
steve
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 11:51 AM |
|
|
Hi,
Sorry I misunderstood the Saxo bit as I thought you were talking about the Saxo VTS, free insurance brigade!!
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 01:23 PM |
|
|
I was looking for the name of a car that was bland and un-inspiring, and the saxo just sprung into my mind. No partiucular model implied.
Now, if I wanted a car thats likely to be crashed, cos they are driven by wallys, then id have chosen a nova or a corsa.
There are some well f^&ked up examples of those driven by boy racer wannabees.
It was quite funny seeing them at the Great Yarmouth seafront on monday.
specially with big spoilers, bass speakers, gold fuses, blah de blah
atb
steve
I wont mention the highly cusomised mini I had when I was 18
[Edited on 19/4/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 02:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson.....will launch any rear ender over the top.......
I do hope this bit doesn't get read out of context...
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 03:03 PM |
|
|
so do i, after reading the sexuality poll.
Id like it on the record I checked 'straight'.
So dream on (or be relievied) boys
atb
steve
|
|
|
thekafer
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 10:39 PM |
|
|
Those of us that checked "sheep" have it noted steve!
[Edited on 19/4/04 by thekafer]
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy...
|
|
|
