interestedparty
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 09:25 AM |
|
|
unavoidable accidents in Locosts
Anybody have any anecdotal evidence about what sort of accidents are more likely to occur than others?
I know that head-on happens sometimes, because the other driver has pulled out of a side road (I didn't see you). Anything else?. Anyone know of a
seven-style car that has been hit in the side?
My reason for asking is that I am constructing a mid-engined car and I am trying to decide the best place for the fuel tank. I had planned to put it
behind the cockpit but that does put it close to the engine and I am not entirely happy about that, especially as I my wish to turbo-charge the engine
in the future.
I know some MEC's have the tank in front, and some have one or two in the sides. Both of these places are available to me at the moment as my car
will have full width bodywork
I expect I will get at least one post saying that I should drive to avoid accidents, and that is certainly my intention. Perhaps now that I've said
that I will only get sensible replies
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
|
|
sg_frost
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 09:51 AM |
|
|
why not use the tunnel space, depending on the size of tank you require. I once had a mk1 Toyota MR2, these tanks are in the tunnel. It is the
safest position in an accident.
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
 posted on 7/11/02 at 02:56 PM |
|
|
Where do you have the most room available?
Admittedly the central tunnel would be the safest, but it's not always possible to fit there.
If you put them in the side pontoons you could always use "exlosafe" filling in the tanks.
My tank will go above the front suspension hopefully.
What about behind the engine?
Most Lotus 7 style cars don't have a problem with there!
Wherever you put it will be a compromise.
Terry
mere GP Spyder owner 
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
interestedparty.
cumon, your a seven replica driver.
They are all good drivers by birthright.
you can drive fast and go round corners on the ragged edge.
Nothing bad will ever happen to you.
And if it does, those six lengths of 1 inch rhs between you and whatever you hit will hold up really really well.
ATB
steve
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sg_frost
why not use the tunnel space, depending on the size of tank you require. I once had a mk1 Toyota MR2, these tanks are in the tunnel. It is the
safest position in an accident.
what if the prop breaks and mashes up the tnak with a few sparks to go with it?
On my car I put the tank as close to the rear bulkhead as I could behind the driver. There are also some really strong 2 inch rhs members taking any
rear impact load into the bulkhead.
There isnt any really safe places on a locost. For a road car the safest place is generally under the rear seats.
atb
steve
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 08:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
My tank will go above the front suspension hopefully.
right in the frontal impact zone ?
Have you thought of fitting abs to reduce the possible frontal collisions?
atb
steve
|
|
|
bsilly
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 08:39 PM |
|
|
abs ??? surely a top quality sound system with bass tube and 10 disc changer would be a much better road safety option....just look in any saxo... i
rest my case
mainly digger drivin me
|
|
|
Steve Bird
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 09:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
quote:
Originally posted by sg_frost
why not use the tunnel space, depending on the size of tank you require. I once had a mk1 Toyota MR2, these tanks are in the tunnel. It is the
safest position in an accident.
what if the prop breaks and mashes up the tnak with a few sparks to go with it?
atb
steve
Surely in a mid engined car there is no prop in the tunnel, I think this would be an ideal location.
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
quote:
Originally posted by sg_frost
why not use the tunnel space, depending on the size of tank you require. I once had a mk1 Toyota MR2, these tanks are in the tunnel. It is the
safest position in an accident.
what if the prop breaks and mashes up the tnak with a few sparks to go with it?
Actually my car is going to be midengined, so the propshaft isn't a problem. The tunnel is an interesting idea, the space forward of the gearchange
is available.
It will depend a bit on the width of the footwells, but I'm hoping there will be enough total width available to allow for a tank, albeit probably a
triangular one.
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
well, there you go then - its gotta be in the tunnel.
BTW
wasnt it a discussion on TOL (and here) that a Locost IS a mid-engined design?
Mid engines was defined as the engine being behind the front axle line.
Also, it seems a fine line between what people consider mid engined and rear engined.
Anyone know what the 'proper' definitions are?
atb
steve
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 10:17 PM |
|
|
I'm pleased to hear that nobody yet has much to say about accidents in Locost-style cars. I would guess that the car coming out of a side turning
into one's path is the most common, all agreed?
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 10:28 PM |
|
|
Is it perhaps because that only a small proportion of the site actually has a finished car?
From my biking days I can confirm that the majority of incidents ARE people coming out from side roads.
there are less than 100 or so people in the poster list with 80+ postings, and I guess only 20 % max might have finished cars, so its not much of a
sample rate to go on.
I dont recall anyone on this list or TOL in 2 years reporting a serious accident - but then little accidents are kept embarrasingly quiet, and the big
ones leave the user with more things on their mind than getting to a keyboard.
atb
steve
|
|
|
bsilly
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 10:56 PM |
|
|
and overtaking on the inside of traffic when mavis decides to turn left.... .. you must have done that too.when tha was a young 'n... but yer
never do it again .. my leg hurts just thinkin about it
mainly digger drivin me
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 7/11/02 at 11:43 PM |
|
|
I work as the estimator in a car bodyshop and have had 15 years looking at about 8-15 crashed cars a day, and about 85% of accidents are just minor
scrapes the locost chassis will take without any structural damage. Its the other 15% that we have to worry about.
1, rear enders. most of these happen at roundabouts. you know when you are behind another car, waiting to pull out into the roundabout flow, you are
looking right at the cars already on the roundabout, a gap appears and you are still looking right and assume the car in front has also seen the gap,
or assumes the gap is big enough, you pull away, but the car in front is asleep or has stalled BANG you have rear ended him. They tend to be
relatively minor, usually a rear bumper and back panel. In a locost I suspect that the fuel tank will be pushed into the rear axle, both wheel arches
will be destroyed, and the rear supports will be bent. occupants will have minor whiplash.
2, frontal corner damage. mainly due to cars pulling out of side roads (N/S) or turning right against the stream of traffic (O/S). I think we would
probably loose a wheel/hub assy and twist the chassis beyond repair
3, full frontal. very rare. probable total chassis damage. Hopefully the nose cone then rad will absorb much of the energy, the suspension collectors
are so stiff that they will it will move back into the rest of the chassis in one piece, the upper and lower rails will then bend/break welds
absorbing (hopefully the rest) energy. I would expect to see leg injuries and facial due to flying fibreglass etc and bad whiplash.
4, side swipes. these account for about half of the repairable stuff that I see. because the bodyworkof the locost is inboard of the outer track line,
I think suspension damage is most likely. injuries probably minor
The shop where I work is Churchill approved (amongst others) who own NIG, most brokers who sell locost policies are underwritten through NIG, but our
local engineer who covers the whole south west area has never assessed a locost. Perhaps because the cars we drive (in my case, future case!) cannot
be replaced as easily as a MK5 escort!, and the time and effort we put into the build, the underwriters assume we will not be as cavalier in the way
we drive as joe bloggs in his tintop. The underwriters calculate exclusively on past results and probability. They employ the best mathematicians
aviailable(because they can afford it) to work out the potential claims outlay over any given year.
I hope I never have to assess a locost, but if I do, be assured i will do it sympathetically
Mark
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 12:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bsilly
and overtaking on the inside of traffic when mavis decides to turn left...... you must have done that too.when tha was a young 'n... but yer
never do it again .. my leg hurts just thinkin about it
actually, i dont rember doing that.
I do remember flying through the air 2 times after cars pulled out on me.
And driving doewn the white line of a normal road with oncoming traffic coming.
Thats the difference between 18 and 43 - you hopefully get older and wiser.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bsilly
abs ??? surely a top quality sound system with bass tube and 10 disc changer would be a much better road safety option....just look in any saxo... i
rest my case
Yes I like this method!
They have to stop and wait for you to pass, cuz it hurts there ears too much otherwise!
If they can't see you they will certainly hear you.
Terry
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
quote:
My tank will go above the front suspension hopefully.
right in the frontal impact zone ?
Have you thought of fitting abs to reduce the possible frontal collisions?
atb
steve
There will be a fair amount of bodywork in front of suspension area, so not an immediate danger. Look at image on left.
Now! ABS! That is a good idea!
Glad I thought of that!
Terry
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 02:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
............
Anyone know what the 'proper' definitions are?
atb
steve
Yes, I do.
The traditional locost is ALWAYS front engined even if the engine is exactly in the centre of the car. If the engine is in FRONT of the driver it is
FRONT engined. Only if it is behind the the driver and between the front and rear axle lines is it MID engined. Behind the driver and behind the rear
axle line is REAR engined.
Whether these make sense or not I'm not debating, but these are the recognised industry definitions.
I've heard the term front-mid-engined used for front engines set well back, but IMO opinion this is confusing and uneccesary. Nothing wrong with
being called front engined IMO.
|
|
|
philgregson
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 03:11 PM |
|
|
I knew someone once who had a W********. They bought it second hand and the day they bought it he floored it comming out of a roundabout on a dual
carriage way, lost control and span, nose first, into the armco on the central reservation.
(A heady mix of youthful exhuberance, inexperience and downright incompetence I feel.)
Anyhow the front of the car went under the barrier and the chap in question, and his passanger, both walked out no more than a few pounds of the brown
stuff lighter.
I saw the car afterwards and it was, as you might expect a right bloody mess. The nose cone was gone, the front suspension broken, the bonet trashed,
the dash and scuttle both smashed, the engine had sustained damage and the rest of it was looking none too shiny.
He stripped it down to rebuild it and wisely, IMO, sent the chassis to the nether world that is the land of W******** who reported that iafter putting
it on a jig it was completely true, sufering no more than cosmetic damage!!
This is either:
a) remarkable. or
b) a comment on how good the chassis are when they leave the factory in the first place!
I have heard that losing the rear end in wet conditions (a problem less likely to affect Alan than most of us!) is one of the more common ways of this
type of car meeting it's demise. However the lack of experience of this sort of incident perhaps belies this idea, unless of course most of the cars
are sneaked home in embarrasment and repaired in secret.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
Phil,
I'll go for c)...lying
I cannot believe so much damage and no chassis deformation. It's very hard to break front suspension off without any chassis distortion
whatsoever.
IMO of course.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 03:50 PM |
|
|
Or of course assuming the total truth then it would be a) remarkable
There is no shame or failing in the chassis design/manufacture in having some chassis deformation BTW.
...it is a good thing, as I'm sure you are aware.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by philgregson
I knew someone once who had a W********. They bought it second hand and the day they bought it he floored it comming out of a roundabout on a dual
carriage way, lost control and span, nose first, into the armco on the central reservation.
My son's friend has a Caterham Superlight, which he managed to roll - now that's not easy! He booted it in a tight corner on a wet road, slid into
the kerb at some speed sideways and it flipped.
He walked away uninjured, which wasn't too bad as the roll bar on a Caterham is pretty light-weight, and there's no windscreen either.
He had the car repaired by Caterham - yes, he's a typical mechanically inept Caterham owner - and, £3000 later, it's back on the road. Not sure
what got bent or broken, but it's good to know that it wasn't the driver!
rgds,
David
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 8/11/02 at 11:33 PM |
|
|
funnyest thing I saw was 3 years ago when I had my mazda 323 zxi 24v 2.0L V6.
(I had to get rid of it cos i lost my voice telling everyone what it was :0) )
In reality, it went off lease and the 318 beemer I have is shyte in comparison.
I digress.
(Anyone know that Mazda is the japanese god of light - so now you know why the lightbulbs are called that.)
Back to the subject.
I was driving said mazda 323 zxi 24v 2.0L V6 into a roundabout. The nissan 200sx turbo (RWD) that was in front of me saw me as a threat. He floored it
coming off the roundabout on a damp road. Quick as a flash, he did a 270 degree spin, and shot backwards of the road and up the grass sloped
embankment on the kerb side of the road. He hit nothing and would have just driven away. But boy was it funny.
My Jag xj-s V12 would break away on a mini roundabout on just 1/3 throttle at low speed in the wet - a lot of torque isnt always a good thing.
ATB
Steve
|
|
|
philgregson
|
| posted on 9/11/02 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
Alan
Option C) would have been my first choice but I can't see that he had any reason to lie (mind you - can't see any reason to drive so stupidly in the
first place - but he did!)
However if you think about it the top chassis rails probably just slid under the underside of the armco and the superstructure breaking off (and
engine tearing off it's mounts) probably absorbed a lot of the energy.
Can't explain the front suspension though - I can't remember what damage it had sustained in all that detail.
I don't really think it was what you would call a typical accident and I shouldn't imagine we can learn a lot from the results (except don't drive
like a T***)
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 9/11/02 at 03:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by philgregson
Alan
Option C) would have been my first choice but I can't see that he had any reason to lie (mind you - can't see any reason to drive so stupidly in the
first place - but he did!)
It might have been Westfield who didn't impart full information, rather than the chap you knew
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
