Regards
I saw a car yesterday that had a front lower wishbone fail in normal use. The items were provided by MK 3-4 years ago.
I don't know if the design has been revised since then. But, I have also seen discussion on the racers area regarding the same thing. ie failure
of the MK style wishbones under non-impact conditions.
I know MK would and will address this situation.
But, I urge EVERY owner of a car with these wishbones to check the front lowers before every use, and every time you get out of the car. Check under
the tubes at the joint with the plate, for signs of movement and bending. eg. Cracked paint.
The driver of the car I saw was extremely fortunate not to have been hurt, or worse, in what ended up as a monumental shunt into a hedge.
I'm not trying to cause trouble here, or slag MK. But, someone will end up in a mortuary if these aren't seen to.
Regards,
Syd.
[Edited on 17/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
Edited the subject and moved to 'Locost Related' - ChrisW
[Edited on 18/10/04 by ChrisW]
My wishbones are from MK and are 3 years old. They are the 'lightweight' round design. Where these the same type?
Regards
Syd,
Be careful what you say. How can you be sure that if they had a monumental shunt into a hedge that it wasn't that that caused the wishbone to
break and not the other way round?
Give me some credit for having at least half a brain ,Darren.
The right hand w'bone didn't go anywhere near the hedge, and is bent like a banana.
Also, read the tech stuff on the Locost racing. There has been some concern over non-impact failures of these items for some time.
Cheers,
Syd.
I hope yours aren't similar, or are they?
They did up the spec to 3mm wall seamless from their original material not long after starting Indy production. All credit to Syds half a brain but the car must be at least 4 years old. Is it still with its original owner Syd and has it had any prehious history. I had a Maxi balljoint fail in my home made wishbone and the car still steered with only 3 wheels on the road.
[Quote
Also, read the tech stuff on the Locost racing. There has been some concern over non-impact failures of these items for some time.
do you have a link to the locost racing tech stuff your on about syd
and has he consulted MK? It would be better to hear from the horses mouth so to speak Syd not from a friend of a friend of a bloke who knows him. Who, where and when . Has it been used for shopping and church visits only or has it been kerbed a few times previous to failure? We need to know more.
wrote a Mk chassis off last year beacause the wishbones where too strong, had they given way they would'nt have pulled and twisted the chassis
like they did, as disscused early this year we have actually built in a weak point this time, weak point as in will break before the chassis is
twisted.
1st iv'e heard of this problem.
does anyone have the link to the racing bit syd was on about
I heard this prob with bottom wishbones some time back,maybe 2/3 years ago.
1st i've heard of it being an MK thing though,more a book error as some of the failiures have been home builds.
Maybe a search for bottom wishbone fail would throw something up
[Edited on 17/10/04 by bob]
I read about this on one racers site in some newsletter... Personally I'm not convinced although I do like to check the wishbones and brackets
before and after driving. I think failure in a racing scenario is heightened by kerb impacts and other forces.
I've given my car some fair abuse since March on the track and off and on close visual inspection the wishbones are holding up well. I know this
isn't a particularly sound from an engineering viewpoint but short of destructive or x-ray testing how can you tell?
Cheers
Peteff,
No, he can't post re the wishbones, as future events may show. And if you read what I wrote....I was stood, and kneeled beside the thing, and saw
it with my own eyes not 2' away. Not words 'from a friend of a friend'. My words, my eyes.
Below is an extract of the Locost Technical Committee, as taken from the desandal site, of the minutes from a meeting at Pembrey of June this year.
Notice that Luego are mentioned as well.
This is not a problem from 3-4 years ago, but appears to be current.
Locost Technical Committee
Technical Concerns. Concerns were raised about: • MK style lower wishbones which fracture in use • Lugeo style lower wishbones which bend in use •
Cars which don’t have Side Impact Bars • Side impact bars which mount onto the chassis in line with the driver’s pelvis.
I'm not trying to slander, malign, or otherwise bring MK engineering,(or Luego) into disrepute.
This matter MUST be brought out into the public arena, so that anyone with similar wishbones can ensure that they are operating SAFELY. If you
don't hurt yourself, you may end up seriously hurting some bystander.
Put your heads in the sand if you must, but first, please, check that your wishbones are not bending. Please.
We do not need to have this brought out by the tabloids, misquoting a coroners report, at some time in the future.
Regards,
Syd.
And now that I've made it public, responsibility for what ensues passes to those primarily concerned.
[Edited on 17/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
surely it's all a bit loose in the fact it says 'mk style' and 'luego style' wishbones......is there 100% proof they are
actually manufactured by the mentioned companies?
without getting ott, and i fully repsect that you have brought this up as a safety issue and i'm sure many ppl with their cars on the road will
now be taking greater notice of these parts but bringing the quality of the companies into question without hard proof is maybe a little harsh?
just my 2p worth anyway
Syd,
You are the biggest mouth on this site.
If you had half a brain cell you would realise that the wishbones sold by MK that the racers use are nothing like the wishbones on an Indy.
I've seen similar failures on Ford Escorts, and they will have spent a lot more on development than any Kit car company can, so back off them.
Also you have no idea what other impacts and stresses that bone went through before it failed. Had it had wacks with kerbs or something before hand.
You don't know its history. You can't build something totally idiot proof and with the sort of industry we have with kit cars you have to be
more understanding.
Its not only MK that have the problems either, but Luego, Stuart Taylor and no doubt Westfield, who have a terrific reputation and who all of us have
copied to make the Locost and its various derivatives.
Get the problem in some sort of proportion MK make an awful lot of kits, 8 per month according to my calculations, and we read very few problems with
the parts on here.
Gentlemen
It seems clear from this thread the the original post was not and has not been used to malign or question the quality of the companies in question.
I find it quite funny that every time somebody even coughs in the direction of MK the usual collection of friends associated and other people with
their heads too far up a certain passage jump on the band wagon and start getting quite aggressive about the virtues of MK.
This is supposed to be an open forum and a harmless posting relating to the safety of drivers in kit cars seems perfectly reasonable to me. It seems
however some people wish to turn this into the usual MK's friends against the world arguement.
As others have said major manufacturers have had these sort of design problems, anyone who has even the slightest clue about engineering should
understand that mistakes are made and corrected. This is how items evolve and improve. Indeed Mr Ison remarks the new items for the GT1 were too
strong. Mistakes or possible faults should not be covered up and indeed need to be brought to light to allow the people with those component to
perform adequate checks.
It is obviously far from certain that this problem is a design flaw rather than a one off component failure but in an industry such as kit cars where
safety is fairly critical that even the hint of potentially life threatening issues be raised without the usual "you're full of s***"
attitude normally encountered.
Rant over!!! Feel much better now thanks.
Nice first post... don't be too shy!
quote:
Originally posted by tiffshaw
I find it quite funny that every time somebody even coughs in the direction of MK the usual collection of friends associated and other people with their heads too far up a certain passage jump on the band wagon and start getting quite aggressive about the virtues of MK.
have to agree with tiffshaw, safety is of the upmost importance, from what I have seem of my MK chassis craftmanship / welding is of a very good
standard, however flaws in raw material / de lamination of steel plate/ the odd 'cold' weld does happen and without expensive x ray flaw
detection no one can be 100% sure about the soundness of any welded joint so as paul said best have a look - better safe than sorry.
correction sorry guys syd not paul - to many red wines - time for bed - goodnight.
You can't accuse me of being a friend of MK as i'm a rival manufacturer, and yet i'm sticking up for them as a matter of principle, you don't know the history of the car, and you have made an error in your comment Syd. That and the fact you make these annoying inflamatory comments as a matter of course, leads me to defend MK most strongly on this point.
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Give me some credit for having at least half a brain...
quote:
Originally posted by dozracing
You can't build something totally idiot proof and with the sort of industry we have...
When someone is seriously hurt, or worse, by one of these failures 'in normal use', then this thread, and my initial comments will become
very relevant.
I pointed out that I'm not anti anyone, but this is a vital safety issue, and needs to be publicised.
All i'm asking, again, is that people check these items regularly. And particularly if you drive regularly on rough B type roads.
Regards,
Syd.
I'm not a Locost style car manufacturer, nor do I wish to be. So ChrisG's comment is irrelevant. The owner of the vehicle concerned is well
enough qualified to know failure mode and its analysis, so as to know what happened. Just check your cars, and be safe.
[Edited on 18/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
Maybe this whole thread would be less inflammatory to some, if it were in 'Locost Related'.
Could you do that, Chris?
Regards,
Syd.
If people read the original post none of this was meant to be a slander or dig at any manufacturer. It was mearly a comment that wishbone suspension
should be checked regularly.
It seems many people posting here have missed the intend and decided syd is trying to make it sound like MK's have design or component flaws.
This is not the case he has only bought to light a one off incident that has obviously concerned him and from the sounds of it several others.
I have never doubted the quality of MK's chassis and wishbones, if i had i wouldn't be building one. But these are the sorts of components
we should all be checking occassionally as a fatalities due to suspension failures are things none of us in the Kit industry need.
Tiffshaw, Bollox ! You read the thread title!!!
Post a comment about wishbone failure by all means BUT not with a manufacturers name when many other wishbones have been subject to the same failure.
A 'book' failing.
Syd
This subject has been discussed many times before and the same advice given to check wishbones based upon book design. There seems to be no reason to
mention MK as a singled out manufacturer.
Snoopy has explained the book design is flawed but the 'powers that be' in racing are always slow to react.
I don't think anyone would jump up if it was posted as just 'wishbone failure' rather than a specific manufacturer.
Incidentaly, I've had the same failure. Mine occured mid bend when suspension was under compression and hit a pothole. There was nowhere for the
resultant bottoming out loads to go but to bend the lower wishbone at the weakest point, the plate /tube junction. I'm currently making heavier
gauge oval tube design as a stronger component.
Car will 'bounce up'next time and probably pitch me sideways into hedge.
[Edited on 18/10/04 by Rob Lane]
Remove the thread. Delete the first message and start it again under locost related.
Snoopy, from your own comments, you have been aware of this problem for some time.
Why have you not made this public, so that anybody with these wishbones on a road car, can take steps to rectify what could be a vital safety
issue?
Also, you say that you make(made) the Locost wishbones to THE BOOK design.
I've just had a copy of The Book put in front of me. This is a year 2000 issue, so the following pages may differ in other years.
On page80 is an illustration of the front suspension, showing upper and lower wishbones, and hub/upright. That picture shows a very distinct radius
on the inner edge of the coilover bracket plate, which straddles the two tubes.
A similar picture of the lower wishbone on pages 81and 82 shows the same design, with a very distinct radius to the inner edge.
Why do you say you build to The Book, when the wishbone I saw was not to this basic design?
If the wishbone I saw was to The Book design, there is every probability that it would not have failed, because the stress concentration would not be
anywhere near as severe.
Did a Qualified Structural Engineer, or design equivalent, sign off the changes?
As I'm going to get slandered by all and sundry for asking these questions, one last question. To Darren also.
Any punter walking in off the street to spend his money with you is entitled to ask for proof of your Product Liability Insurance.
Please give the name of your insurer, and the policy number. This should put you in everyones 'good books'. Because then we would all know
that you are the only two in the kit industry who carry Liability Insurance, next to one or two others who I know of.
Regards,
Syd.
Blimey, this thread seems to have got a bit out of hand!
Why don't we just leave it there and if you want to check your wishbones then do and if you don't then don't. Why bother with all the
back biting.
Probably fair to say everyone should do a quick visual check of their cars every now and again, only takes a couple of secs.
Personally I have every faith in MK and am very happy with the quality of the kit I have bought and I have also seen some of the MNR stuff and that
looks good too.
Rich.
OOPPS
This whole thread is outrageous.
The topic has been well discussed before and there are no secrets about wishbones failing.
There can be only one reason this thread was started: because one malevolent individual likes to grandstand, and even in the face of virtually
unaminous condemment, this imbecile continues to prattle on.
I can forgive any idiot, but what really grates me, is this vicivious hyena, realising his bubble has burst, starts lashing out wildly like a cornered
rat, casting aspersions on a well respected and genuinely helpful contributor and his successful business.
I have had no dealings with Darren (dozracing) but respect his extensive, unbiased knowledge and his right to better treatment on this forum.
I propose Syd be banned from this forum because of his continual foul-mouthing, cowardly attacks and general poo stirring. I for one have had enough
of him. I'm all for discourse, but only if common decency prevails.
I am going to petition Chris W to have Syd banned and I recommend others consider the same action.
Steve, if you read my post carefully, I'm not denying the seriousness of potentially dangerous suspension, but like many threads here,
they've been covered at least once before.
I totally respect all others' rights to voice their opinions within the realms of common decency and I wouldn't normally suggest someone be
gagged.
I'm just really mad and fed up with the cavalier way in which Syd continually pours vitriol on people and trashes their livelihoods.
After reading all this topic has to offer my input is
Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention and i will be checking my wishbones every time i drive!!!
enough said and i dont even know who made them!!
I have read the first post a number of times and i still dont think there is any malice intended I treat it like all advice on here take it or leave
it
Barrie
OOOOwwww - Matron!
now now ladies, handbags at fifty paces is it ?
Obviously the bottom wishbone bolts were too tight.
Like i said earlier we have been here before.
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=12587
plenty of input on this subject here.
I for one check before and a fter a run in my car,even if its a short distance.I may even make a small check list as in pre flight check,bones are
allways looked at as well as brake lines checked.I must admit to getting a bit paranoid before taking my 8 and half year old son out in it too,better
to be safe than sorry.
Unfortunately components will never last for ever, i would say four years on the same set of wishbones in racing was damn right suicidle,
I have been involved in Motoracing both as a driver and team owner for 10 years and every car i have prepared / raced and more often than not
crashed
had always been subject to a lifing program to ensure safety and reliability that is why motoracing is so expensive.
top line single seater teams dismantle the cars after each race to a bare tub to inspect / xray for fractures etc and these are highly developed
machines designed and built by some of the finest engineers around !!! likewise for rally cars and topline tintop teams.
Surely if you are subjecting your car to curb hopping, ditch jumping, gravel trap skipping you expect to injuce some failures would you not ??
Rant over
regards
marc
Mr MNR is right........only so many times a wishbone can take a thump......and as our roads are so crap they will take a pounding.
Make them stronger and in the event of a shunt they will transfer that damage to the chassis rather than confine it to a wishbone/wheel .
I
The owner of the vehicle which I saw has just emailed the following to me-
[Quote]>
The car has never been raced or tracked.
The car has never been out of my sight, it has never been curbed or suffered any form of impact.
The wishbone failed at less than 3000miles of normal road usage.
The wisbones, brakes, fasteners and joints are checked every 100 miles or so. there was NO onset of failure evident when last checked around 50 miles
previous, my technique was checking with a square edge for ant beam deformation
The suppliers DO NOT DEFINE FATIGUE LIFE FOR COMPONENTS.
As you suggested these are NOT INDY WISHBONES, but the locost type as pictured in the book which when purchased were described as suitable for my
application.
The particular design is not "detailed in the book" there is merely a picture.
[End Quote]
I put this statement on here, as these are the words of the owner of the vehicle concerned, and should answer a lot of the statements concerning how
the wishbones, and car were previously treated.
Cheers,
Syd.
[Quote]>
The wisbones, brakes, fasteners and joints are checked every 100 miles or so. there was NO onset of failure evident when last checked around 50 miles
previous, my technique was checking with a square edge for ant beam deformation
If you want to be totally paranoid, you could paint all critical components light grey (like the old-time racers did) 'cos it's really easy
to spot cracks.
The ones that broke weren't chrome plated, were they? (reference to a previous thread! )
David
Or you could just make them from the stuff they make black box flight recorders out of.
regards
Dave
I hesitated to stick my twopennyworth into this thread but there is another thread running on the LOCUST SITE right now regarding wishbone tubes
cracking.
These are definitely not made to BOOK spec being replacements for cortina wishbones.
locustenthusiasts.fs.net.co.uk
Kipper.
My final words on this matter.
After another look at the book, it's the style of wishbone on page 172 which failed, at the inner joint with the plate. This is similar to the
one which was discussed a little while ago. Anyone with this style of construction, regardless of who made the things, might wish to add some extra
metal to these, to make them more like the Book items.
I am disappointed, and more than a little intrigued, that neither Snoopy nor Darren, have made any attempt to answer the simple questions I put.
Not having insurance is nothing to be ashamed of, 99% of the kit industry is with you.
Whereas, knowing of a potentially dangerous design issue, and doing little, or nothing, to let the public know; is showing little regard for those who
put their trust in you and your products.
If the industry, and the 'Lotus Seven Style' car community cannot police and rectify this situation themselves, then Big Brother will. There
are already rumblings at the VI in this direction. Woe to all, if we end up with a draconian system similar to Australia; or even worse, Europe.
It won't be long before our cars will be failed at MOT for unsafe construction, and not just wishbones, due to new rulings which may be
introduced.
Cheers,
Syd.
For Big Bum and the couple of others who seem to have taken a dislike to anything I say: This is not a 'Dig' at anyone. I am genuinely
concerned, and disappointed, that a respected builder has chosen the path which he has. He now has the opportunity to rectify this, and I can only
hope he does so.
In the meantime, let's just hope it's not you who's invalided due to these parts.
Syd, I'm sorry that its your final word, I finally read this thread after thinking 'Oh, no not a repeat argument on the last one'
Blew the dust off my book and looked at page 172, a bit of relief that the bones were not like mine!
I am not a designer, but have many years experience as a welder and as a welder fabricator, the design on 172 is bound to have problems, as all the
forces are focused at one point, exactly where you noted the fail.
The true book design lower bones are a better design as the loads are spread over a larger area by the curve in the stress plate. I cannot believe
that the design is by Uncle Ron, as it shows a bit of understanding of how metal works.
The picture shows my wishbones and a set given to me to hold my car up until I made my own. These have been passed onto another local builder with the
same intention. These old bones passed the SVA on a car, which was later rebuilt with a new chassis and running gear(!).
Your comments would be most welcome
Rescued attachment Wishbone Comparason.jpg
If the wishbone was a pure triangle, the tubes would be in compression and tension only. The addition of the plate (which is obviously required for
mounting the damper) no longer makes the wishbone a pure triangle, and adds bending stresses to the two tubes.
By putting the curve in, the stiffness of the plate is essentialy graduated, and any bending stress is distributed evenly along the bend, rather than
being concentrated at one point as it is with the flat plate design.
[Edited on 20/10/04 by MikeRJ]
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
...... I cannot believe that the design is by Uncle Ron, as it shows a bit of understanding of how metal works.....
Spot on Mike, That why I don't like the page 172 bones. the load path hits the tubes at damn near 90° - just asking for tears
So...hypotheticaly speaking....
If one should find oneself in the unfortunate position of owning a pair of wishbones with this less than desirable trait, would it be acceptable to
weld a second plate in (with curve cut in) behind the first and butt weld them together? My gut feeling says that the welding may add in a load more
stresses anyway, defeating the object somewhat.
[Edited on 20/10/04 by MikeRJ]
IMHO, you could take a lower bone with the 90 degree shocker plate, and strengthen it by REMOVING some of the plate. by tapering them together, the area will flex more and have less of a stress focus. sometimes less is more i guess...
Ron copied a Westfield, there is nothing intelligent about the book, or Ron. The Westfield is a well proven product.
In the race series i have spoken to some guys who have had these wishbone problems (as well as other component problems) and they have tried beefing
things up, and ended up causing themselves grief, because stress can increase. They actually found better results by reducing the stiffness of the
certain parts of the wishbones, obviously reducing the stresses at the problem weld areas.
Des and Al in the racing section will probably be able to explain the modifications they have made and had more success with.
I think its obvious that MK have react as you have requested Syd. You asked them to make design changes when a problem is spotted and that is exactly
what they have done. They realised the weakness of the book style wishbones and when the Indy was released the wishbones were radically different.
Insurance matters not a jot in the case that you are able to prove negligence. From your comments you are obviously trying to assert the opinion that
Martin at MK has been negligent.
What you must try to understand everyone is that the kit industry does what it can, and like i stated above, Martin has revised the design when he
realised there was a problem. The industry is not big enough to take people throwing their weight around especially if you are talking about legal
matters, the UK kit industry will be a thing of the past if US style litigation take off.
As a kit manufacturer and i'm sure MK and MNR will back me up on this, we use our considerable experience to design and make components with the
best intentions always. We are enthusiasts like you, we don't live in big houses and make a fortune, we do it because we like tinkering with cars
and want to do it for a living.
If we spot a problem (see Tiger's recall back in the summer) we make the best judgement we can and redesign etc. I personally have a small enough
customer base and i'm in regular contact with most of them, that i could easily alert customers to any problems i have discovered.
What i really dislike about Syd's comments are that i think the underlying expression is to make people think that MK are at serious fault and
deserve to have their knuckles wrapped. Do this by all means but be prepared to see the kit manufacturers all disappear.
You should check your cars regularly, i dispute the claim that anyone actually gets a straight edge out every 100 miles to measure the wishbones for
bending.
Have the good grace to accept that these incidents are rare, the nature of a home built car is such that quality is hard to control in all aspects,
and the car has been SVA'd and is MOT yearly. If anything was obviously fundamentally flawed these checks would point it out. The car must be
roadworthy to pass and if the authorities thought there was a serious problem then you can bet they would highlight it.
If a car has been used sensibly for 3000 miles and then fails under normal driving conditions, only one of two things can have occured. Either it has
fatigued (run out of life) or the wishbone has been subjected to a load higher than it has seen in the previous 3000 miles. If it has fatigued then MK
would not be expected to have alerted all its previous customers to the problem, because obviously it has only just come to their attention. If the
wishbone has seen an increased load, then it suggests Syd was wrong in saying that it hasn't been kerbed etc. Obviously something about the
driving conditions on that day increased the load.
At the end of the day it is obvious that over time the book style design is a bit marginal.
Remember also that many factors about the cars specification can have implications on the suspension load. Weight, dampers, springs, brakes, tyres and
wheels will all have an effect on the loading in the wishbone. It is for you the builder to determine whether the parts are suitable for you
application, and if you do not feel qualified to make this judgement you should consult an independent expert.
For me the end user must take responsibility for deciding whether the parts are fit for their purpose. There is no point complaining once the parts
have failed and injurred you, then saying i was worried enough to measure them every 100 miles. This to me says thay you are looking for something to
complain about. If you are concerned enough to measure them very regularly you should have removed them and replaced them with something that allows
you to sleep at night.
MK have acted exactly as you could reasonably expect under the circumstances. The issue is now well and truely in the public domain, everyone should
now be aware of any dangers, and i'm sure if you approach MK with good grace that Martin will bend over backwards to accommodate your needs.
I have held of replying to this thread to see how it has developed, but now feel it is time to voice my support to Darren, MK, MNR and the like.
I do not wish to dispute what has been said or further the arguement.
The only point I wish to add that hasn't been said already is what about the state of our roads?!!
I have heard stories of people that go and have new tyres put on a road car, have the tracking done then a few thousand miles later the tyres have
scrubbed out. You go back to the garage and they won't do anything as there is no way to prove they didn't set the tracking properly.
Normally this is blamed on hitting a pothole and putting the tracking out. If a pothole can put out a cars tracking, presumably the loading involved
could put extra stresses onto a cars bottom wishbone?!
The driver may be as careful as they come, but pushing on a bit, enjoying your car, come round a corner and hit a pothole, who knows or can measure
the shock loading on a bottom wishbone? I would imagine (though cannot quantify this) that this could contribute to fatigue or premiture failure of
such a part. Perhaps this is something that we can't very easily predict or see from vehicle checks, but is a possibilty we should be aware of
nonetheless.
Ned.
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
on the other hand....... how many ford escorts, astras blah de blah regularly trash wishbones hitting bumps.
here's just a few ford/opel recalls for you to ponder
In the mid 90's, Vauxhall had a major problem with front lower wishbones, especially Mk2 Astra's and Mk3 cavaliers. They were prone to cracking, Vauxhall put this down to cars being jacked up on them, but we knew different.....
It looked like they had economised on spot welds on the one he had and the two parts had seperated. The aftermarket one was better made.
hi i have not yey posted on this thread and i myself am very involed with the mk side of the industry and i have sat and read all this thread and my
conclusion is that this SID BLOKE SHOULD STOP TALKING BO**OX NO WAY IS THIS AN MK FAULT
SO I RECOMEND THAT SID SHOULD JUST KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT AS IT SEEMS QUITE CLEAR THAT NOBODY ON HEAR LIKES HIM
MY CONCLUSION ON THIS BLOKE IS 1 WORD !!!!!PRICK!!!!
As my dad has a subaru, we are also members of the Scoobynet forum.
There they have a special section called 'Super Muppets' for people who talk out of their
. Maybe we should have one of those.
Adam
Careful though, it might get you.
Basicly, anything that gets moved to there is no longer a serious matter.
Sticks and stones...la la la...
If it was YOUR car with the bent bones, and YOU who came close to his maker, I'd bet the story would be very different!!! You'd be beating a
path to those lawyers advertising on TV!!
What you make and put on your own car is up to you, your problem.
As soon as you sell them as a commercial product, you have particular obligations in law. All becomes very different.
As Darren pointed out, the kit industry is mainly enthusiastic individuals. Unfortunately, most forget the business side of things in their
enthusiasm.
I built kits for a few years in the late 80's, so I AM talking from experience.
My main concern, is that a problem has been known for some time, and not made public.
That MK realised the problem and rectified it in further items is expected. To allow many hundreds(if not thousands?) of potentially dangerous items
to remain at large, is .......????????????
This is, more than likely, not just an MK problem. Every manufacturer with a faulty item at large, likely to cause injury or worse, has a duty to
recall the items and rectify the problem.
Be safe, keep an eye on your front lower wishbones. And oh, by the way, pray a lot if you're one of those who thinks I'm talking out of my
rear. (Then again, you'd be one of the people doesn't believe in God.)
Cheers,
Syd.
I was just reading that post of Syd's, and I was picturing him with bright orange hair, coke bottle, black rimmed glasses, and ink stains on his
shirt pocket.
Sorry Syd, what was that again?
I am just saying that this post has gone past seriousness. When I was reading it I was laughing at how irate some people got.
So lets just let this post drop to the bottom, and let everyone think what thry want to think.
[Edited on 22/10/04 by phelpsa]
I think by now any regular forum visitors will have seen the weight of popular opinion and the strength of arguments involved, and know to take syd's opinions with a generous pinch of salt.
is it just me, or is this forum getting less tollerant every month?
We know the MK Mafia will defend Martin and his merry band until the cows come home. I've come to expect this, and the brand loyalty makes me
smile.
however, i dont think that WRITING POST IN CAPITALS which call other posters dicks, pricks, arses etc etc. are really needed.
And who brought up expelling folk from the forum? get a grip. This is a discussion forum. Ocassionally, people will say things you dont agree with.
Thats life.
MK, Darren, Luego etc. are all big enough and ugly enough to defend themselves.
As for the original post, Syd makes a point. It, by everyones admission, is valid. (Darren, MK, Luego have all modified to suit)
Surely, thats it???
Steve,
my point exactly ! whats wrong with pointing out a failure?
Most companies, mine included, go to great expense and effort to find out the faults of the goods they produce.
we have a system that checks with customers for complaints and failures....
Better to find the faults now, and deal with them, than after a crash fatality.
As Steve says, we're not criticising a fellow amateur. Darren, MK, Luego etc all make money out of us. Its a business.
It's not unreasonable to expect the stuff to be fit for purpose.
Nice one Jumpy...I was waiting for a post that was close my view...this is that post.........
quote:
Originally posted by Jumpy Guy
is it just me, or is this forum getting less tollerant every month?
We know the MK Mafia will defend Martin and his merry band until the cows come home. I've come to expect this, and the brand loyalty makes me smile.
however, i dont think that WRITING POST IN CAPITALS which call other posters dicks, pricks, arses etc etc. are really needed.
And who brought up expelling folk from the forum? get a grip. This is a discussion forum. Ocassionally, people will say things you dont agree with. Thats life.
MK, Darren, Luego etc. are all big enough and ugly enough to defend themselves.
As for the original post, Syd makes a point. It, by everyones admission, is valid. (Darren, MK, Luego have all modified to suit)
Surely, thats it???
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
especially when the block caps and abuse are coming from an MK employee!
Surely the main point is all that these home-built 7-style cars are not mass-production vehicles and as such require far more routine inspection and
maintenance. This holds whether we are talking about MK, Luego, ST, GTS, Westfield or Caterham.
My Toyota has 10000-mile service intervals, and I feel no need to take wheels off to inspect the suspension. We should not expect such reliability in
cars made from parts of donors that originally had 3000-mile service intervals - in my case, Cortina Mk IV and Escort Mk II. I intend to inspect
major components on my car every 1000 miles, probably more often.
Regarding the current wave of intolerance - when TOL was all-powerful we used to get seasonal flame wars on topics such as this: eventually they
killed it dead. At least on this forum people can ignore an annoying topic (as I have been with this one, up 'til now). Have you noticed that
it's less than a dozen people out of several hundred active posters that are getting out of their pram about this? - everyone else is keeping out
of it.
<rant over, now to get back behind the parapet>
rgds,
David
I thought it came FROM you - according to some of the posters!
(joking, of course... )
David
I think the basic point of checking your wishbones periodically is a good one.
It shouldn't, however, been made out to be the fault of one manufacturer.
Cheers
Chris
I would also doubt whether a case for damages could be made against any kit wishbone manufacturer, unless it was plainly their fault (e.g. bad
welding, wrong materials). Almost no-one uses the same shocks, springs and wheels for every car, every builder will assemble the components using
different torque settings etc, and no-one could prove that the parts had not received damage through normal road wear and tear.
No - I stick with my original statement, that it's an owner's responsibility for ensuring that the whole car gets regular, thorough checks
and servicing. After all, as far as the DVLA is concerned, the kit builder is the manufacturer.
rgds,
David
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
if the cars are slightly dodgy by definition, cos they are home built, thats an argument for Aussie type rules. Or ballistic insurance.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
I would also doubt whether a case for damages could be made against any kit wishbone manufacturer, unless it was plainly their fault (e.g. bad welding, wrong materials). Almost no-one uses the same shocks, springs and wheels for every car, every builder will assemble the components using different torque settings etc, and no-one could prove that the parts had not received damage through normal road wear and tear.
No - I stick with my original statement, that it's an owner's responsibility for ensuring that the whole car gets regular, thorough checks and servicing. After all, as far as the DVLA is concerned, the kit builder is the manufacturer.
rgds,
David
You appear to be confusing wishbones with axles...
Sometimes I think that you are perpetuating this topic for the sake of it - or do I have a suspicious mind?
Anyway - I'm bored with this topic...
DJ
Most of us got board 8 pages ago!
quote:
david - think you will find there are only really 30 or so posters that post that often.
Ian, some of us have too much time on our hands, thats why I hate half term!
Look at my signiture
Adam
Oooops, post 387!!
it says we'e sad bastards steve! im here cos i like most of the people on here. its a laugh, and im lucky enough to have free time and an
understanding missus. (she send me out to the garage sometimes!)
as for the topic of this thread, i couldnt care less. i love it when they go O/T!
and yes, i know i shouldnt post on political threads etc, but i just cant help myself...
just noticed you've gone sailing pask 5k posts! that came and went fast...
[Edited on 22/10/04 by JoelP]
i have to admit there is a bit of devils advocacy as well as seriousness in my posts in this thread
in the the words of basil fawlty
'dont mention the post count'
atb
another saddo
in common with all the high posters, being on here keeps us out of the womens clothing and gay bars. so it cant be a bad thing
[Edited on 22/10/04 by stephen_gusterson]
Ah Gay bars, better nites entertainment value than sitting in front of a gogglebox watching Eastenders.
Shug.
No one chose to respond to my point that anyone who is that worried about the strength of their wishbones that they feel the need to make checks for
signs of bending every 100 miles, ought to take responsibility for removing them and replacing them with some that allow them to sleep at night. Not
wait for it to fail as they expect it will and then moan about it.
I agree with the principle that once a problem is known then alerting the customers who are likely to have an issue with them is a good thing to do.
But the other point i made that no one responded to was that the manufacture might sell them fit for a purpose, but, you the builder always make your
cars very individual. Different wheels, tyres, driver, springs, shocks, weight, brakes etc, all effect the loadings in the wishbones and we can't
always know what effects this will have on our components. In this case the customer needs to make a judgement and live with the consequences of
whether the parts are fit for their car, if they can't make an informed judgement they should seek expert advice.
Insurance companies are aware of the effect of these kind of modifications, and it effects your premiums if you mod the car. Therefore i see nothing
wrong with putting the responsibility on the kit car builder in these circumstances to determine for themselves whether the specification of the
equipment they use to build the car is suitable.
Luckily in 8 years of F1 design i didn't once have a part fail in a race, and since i have been in kitcar world i have not yet had a part break.
At some stage no doubt if things are successful and the number of parts sold increases then i may have to address the problem in the same way that
Martin has to at the moment. I hope that the customer i'm dealing with at that time is supportive and understandind, because the kit car industry
will die if people take legal action as a matter of course. Overall that is not of benefit to any of us.
Apparently Formula 27 was sold, to pay the legal fees of an action brought against them by a customer that claimed the kit couldn't be built, and
the customer won, despite other builders testifying that they had successfully complete a car. This is bizarre and damages the industry and will
eventually bring and end to it.
Kind regards,
Darren
without critising anyone, surely public indemnity insurance is quite important? in my work as a kitchen fitter we have a million pounds of cover, and
a well fitted kitchen (though i say so myself...!) is less dangerous than a kit car! then again, the general public at large are probably more
litigatious (or whatever the word is...)
i personally would never sue a kit car manuf, or indeed anyone really, unless they had directly caused me a specific loss. ie, RTA claim for damage
and expense but no whiplash etc.
[Edited on 27/10/04 by JoelP]
surely public indemnity insurance is quite important? in my work as a kitchen fitter we have a million pounds of cover, and a well fitted kitchen
(though i say so myself...!) is less dangerous than a kit car! then again, the general public at large are probably more litigatious (or whatever
the word is...)
I wholeheartedly agree with Darren.
The builder of a car has to take responsibility for his build, for both safety and suitability.
It's why the SVA was first introduced, to at least obtain some kind of standard.
Each and every build is different, in the case of wishbones on an open suspension car they are very exposed.
Different loadings on suspension caused by different rate springs, shocks, wheel size, leverage points, further welding of parts can all contribute to
a possible failure of some description. However in the case of wishbones I doubt whether it would be sudden and dramatic.
This has not been a major issue, one or two 'racing' wishbones maybe bent in use under race conditions. As far as I'm aware none
failed completely.
Just the same happened to me, I hit a large pothole mid corner at speed and the wishbone bent severely, no accident, no loss of control.
Cause: Bottomed spring on shocker left suspension with no further movement. This, a standard book chassis and wishbones with usual limited suspension
movement range.
I've had a well publicised accident whereby I managed to write off a Rover when I hit it in 'B' pillar. The Rover faired worse. (Not
my fault and admitted by driver)
My wishbones were damaged but only the top wishbone was destroyed, even then not fully until I pulled it off.
The bottom wishbone was bent on both rails but still intact. I still have the photos and they were in Locost Club newsletter at the time. They took
the major brunt of the impact.
As far as mainstream manufactured cars such as Ford go, they are designed to accept a wide range of abuse, from drivers who go 'offroad' to
'kerbers'.
The Locost was built as a performance enthusiasts car with racing heritage. It was probably not designed for any of the above abuse. That appears
self evident.
It's virtually impossible for any driver to state catagorically that he did not hit a heavy bump during a journey, he did not hit a pothole, he
did not kerb the car.
Pure driving concentration and a familiarity with 'normal' driving incidents mean that such occurances are forgotten within seconds of them
fleetingly entering our conciousness.
If you have new tyres fitted and travel out of the depot and cover say approx 5 miles home. Then notice a 'bleb' in tyre sidewall and return
to depot to complain. They will not entertain the claim, as the wishbone issue, they have no way of knowing from the moment you leave what happens to
that car in normal road use.
I'm surprised that a person that checks his wishbones every 100 miles hasn't changed them. He was obviously concerned about them and as
such has only himself to blame if he didn't change the wishbones.
[Edited on 23/10/04 by Rob Lane]
Rubber bump stops were fitted to shocks
They are OK as cornering lean is accomodated but not for a sudden heavy load change which transfers all loading to wishbone.
I'm currently making oval heavy wall tube lower wishbones.
I'm not sure this is a good idea really, as should the above occur again the shock loads are transferred to chassis. This would cause the whole
car to lift and loose traction.
To be honest, it's not been a factor but I like the look of the oval tube, so I'm going that way. I would quite happily make another set
using round tube as before.
When my original wishbone bent it did so upwards in a linear fashion, as all will do when both arms bend.
It did not cause loss of control but added further negative camber to front wheel and caused car to take on a lean.
Locosts have very limited suspension travel in book form, especially droop front and rear.
This is due to lower chassis rails fouling lower wishbones and trailing arms respectively in both instances.
My GTS shock kits are all supplied with a rubber bump stop.
I don't know the ins and out of the F27 case, but, i guess that either the offer of a refund was turned down, or that as you said it wasn't
offered. If you come up against arseholes like this though, refund aren't good enough for them they want blood.
For Marc Nordens benefit and others, the insurance won't cover you if they bring a claim of negligence, which most times is the only case they
will try to bring against you. You can't even escape by being LTD, if its negligence they get you for they will come after the directors.
Nice to see things don't change in the enforced absence of the hippy...
HI GUYS I THINK YOU VE GONE WRONG SUM WHERE AS I AM NOT MARTINS BROTHER AND DO NOT WORK FOR HIM EITHER. SO GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
CHEERS
Ide worked that one out pretty quick, that was unless some people had changed there names on the quiet,
Phil at MK signs his emails phil2 have we got 2 phil2's?
I wasn't going to continue this, but couldn't pass this one up..........
Read Darren's 'Terms and Conditions'.
Guess who's just sh*t himself about liability????
All the guff says that you are responsible for what you put on your car, regardless of who you bought it from, and what they told you it can do.
He even goes so far as to say you have got to test it yourself, prior to fitting!!!!.
And he says he can sell you what he wants, of any standard and suitability, then wash his hands of it.
Your 'terms and Conditions' don't absolve you from your Statutory Obligations, Darren, no matter how officious and daunting your
'T&C's' may appear to be.
The only thing you can do is put a Big sticker on your parts, just like Wilwood.
WARNING: FOR RACING USE ONLY. or WARNING: NOT FOR USE ON PUBLIC ROADS.
Get some Product Liability Insurance, then engineer your stuff properly! Are you a member of STATUS? Dr.George and Denzil and the team would be more
than happy to test and certify your products.
All that guff wouldn't stand up in court. Get a refund from the solicitor who told you it will.
You make it. You sell it. You're responsible for it.
Cheers,
Syd.
Just wait until Euro Law gets its grubby hands on us. You won't be able to 'pass wind', without taking responsibility for emissions and
standards!!!!
Dunno why but I thought I would add my two pence worth.
The aircraft world takes failure of components rather seriously. Guess we have too. And having just spent the two week's fixing a duff sea
harrier that just happened to lose a drop tank during a flight for no apparent reason has really annoyed me. The release unit took it apon itself to
open it's jaw's and BOMBS AWAY! releasing the tank, trashing half of the plane and then nearly falling onto the A303. The point is the whole
Sea harrier fleet was grounded within minutes of this accident happening, just in case. The inquiry has only just worked out that the release unit
cocking handle was 1 degree out of alignment. 4 other harriers were found with the same problem.
I'm all up for people advertising possible serious fault's with vehicle's on this website, regardless whether they have been covered
before, as I don't have the time to trawl through 4 year's of past post's to see if my wishbone's, engine mount's or any
other part of the car will fail, and the last thing I want to do is go around a corner, have a component fail then trash some innocent family on a
drive.
My wishbone's are not from MK but are based apon their design. And if anything on my car (when it's eventually finished) seriously failed,
regardless of whether I brought it from someone or made it myself I will stick it up here so it my help other people. Safey should be
everyone's issue, because if you turn a blind eye to it, it will come back and bite your ass. I doubt anyone on here has the money or resources
to fully test the locost design to the same standard as manufactures can, but if we all pool together then serious/potentially fatal problem's
can be indentified and rectified.
I thought this was the whole point of this forum. Not a venue for people bashing.
Cheers
Kiwi
As far as I can see, we have:
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to not react to Syd's posts, unless he says something reasonable and fair. Otherwise, treat him in the same way as you would treat a blatent troller in a newsgroup - ignore him and don't respond. Skip over his topics and pay attention to the real, sociable world of Locosts.
Best regards,
David
[Edited on 27/10/04 by David Jenkins]
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
I disagree with you about Syd's literacy though.
snoopy you most definitely know the car is not mine as you have already spoken to the owner and seen pictures as relayed to me your reply was not
considerate caring or polite if it were mine you surely would have seen pictures on this forum i wanted to take pictures but was not allowed due to
possible impending action
For the rest of the forum,
Snoopy, you most definitely know the car is not mine, as you have already spoken to the owner and seen pictures. As relayed to me, your reply was not
considerate, caring, or polite. If it were mine, you surely would have seen pictures on this forum. I wanted to take pictures, but was not allowed due
to possible impending action.,
[quote
Syd's words are thought out, and clearly convey his meaning, however inflamatory or malicious.
DJ
) quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Thank you David, I do try and think about what I say.
Just sitting and enjoing my after lunch coffe at the same time browsing the forum. Suddely i find this thread which i have toally missed.
So what to do guys? Should i throw my wishbones away and buy/make new once?
[Edited on 27/10/04 by Micael]
quote:
Originally posted by Micael
So what to do guys? Should i throw my wishbones away and buy/make new once?
Originally posted by David Jenkins
quote:
I was comparing him with some regular posters (who I will not name) who obviously find it hard to put words together, and sometimes unintentionally say things they shouldn't. Invariably those people correct their errors one they are pointed out.
DJ
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
I disagree with you about Syd's literacy though.
I was comparing him with some regular posters (who I will not name) who obviously find it hard to put words together, and sometimes unintentionally say things they shouldn't. Invariably those people correct their errors one they are pointed out.
SYd's words are thought out, and clearly convey his meaning, however inflamatory or malicious.
DJ
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
quote:
Originally posted by Micael
So what to do guys? Should i throw my wishbones away and buy/make new once?
Yes, I would definitely throw those wishbones away. They're painted black for a start!
I do like your shocks though.
quote:
Originally posted by colmaccoll
Sorry DJ couldn't resist!
Dom (Type R1)
I for one DID pay attention to what you said in your "accident report". For example, I haven't removed the centre pad from my steering
wheel, nor have I removed the padding from my steering column brace. My dashboard radius padding is quite thick, and I made it tidily so that it can
stay in place.
I do listen occasionally, especially when it's important...
David
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
quote:
Originally posted by colmaccoll
Sorry DJ couldn't resist!
Just making sure that everyone was paying attention!
David
quote:
Originally posted by Micael
So what to do guys? Should i throw my wishbones away and buy/make new once?
in fact, i might post a piccy soon. but, no point being slack.
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh JarceYes, I would definitely throw those wishbones away. They're painted black for a start!
I do like your shocks though.
think i'll buy a volvo fl10 that way i'll be nice and safe. it's a 38ton tractor unit by the way. could get killed riding me bike lifes
to short to worry about what if's
tony
No, they are not Lolocost, I bought them from Caterham.. I think I did a real good deal with these.
Actually, I have real shocks and real
springs
A very entertaining thread,I particularly liked the bit about the guy checking his wishbones every 100 miles, with a straight edge, superb....
Syd, after reading the previous posts (I've just come back from my holidays)I'm amazed at your Brass neck.
Bringing problems up into the light of day is one thing,laying the law down as you seem to do is downright annoying and bloody annoying to all on the
forum.
You're silly little quips have obviosly rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way,and no I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD!so what does that make me?
Yes I am a friend of Martins before anyone says anything,and I have seen the photo of the car,and since when did a wishbone bending ever cause a
SHOCKER STRUT ROD to snap in normal road use without an impact! In my opinion NEVER!
YES SYD I'm an engineer as well! Yes syd I have been involved in accident investigations in the motor industry,next question please?
Also seeing as Snoopy works for MK sportscars why should he have seen the letter and photo sent to Martin Keenan,who now runs MK Engineering which is
now a seperate business,you seem to know all the answers but you dont know all the facts!First rule of discussion (argument) that I was taught was to
gain ALL the facts before engaging in any discussions and never inflame the situation with unfounded arguments!
These of course are my own feelings as a customer of MK,and a builder of a one of their products,and in all probability will buy another as a big
believer in their product and quality.
Also I completely agree with both ROB LANES comments and JON ISONS about wishbones giving under IMPACT,if they dont the IMPACT is imparted into the
chassis and indirectly to the driver,modern production cars are designed to crumple in zones just for this same purpose SYD!
Yours rubbed up the wrong way,DEAN C.
quote:
Originally posted by DEAN C.
Syd, after reading the previous posts (I've just come back from my holidays)I'm amazed at your Brass neck.
Bringing problems up into the light of day is one thing,laying the law down as you seem to do is downright annoying and bloody annoying to all on the forum.
You're silly little quips have obviosly rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way,and no I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD!so what does that make me?
Yes I am a friend of Martins before anyone says anything,and I have seen the photo of the car,and since when did a wishbone bending ever cause a SHOCKER STRUT ROD to snap in normal road use without an impact! In my opinion NEVER!
YES SYD I'm an engineer as well! Yes syd I have been involved in accident investigations in the motor industry,next question please?
Also seeing as Snoopy works for MK sportscars why should he have seen the letter and photo sent to Martin Keenan,who now runs MK Engineering which is now a seperate business,you seem to know all the answers but you dont know all the facts!First rule of discussion (argument) that I was taught was to gain ALL the facts before engaging in any discussions and never inflame the situation with unfounded arguments!
These of course are my own feelings as a customer of MK,and a builder of a one of their products,and in all probability will buy another as a big believer in their product and quality.
Also I completely agree with both ROB LANES comments and JON ISONS about wishbones giving under IMPACT,if they dont the IMPACT is imparted into the chassis and indirectly to the driver,modern production cars are designed to crumple in zones just for this same purpose SYD!
Yours rubbed up the wrong way,DEAN C.
I think this post may make me unpopular in the forum, but I feel I have to add my piece.
Syd and Rorty have had their disagreements in the past. I did agree with Rorty on the bush discussion, but Syd is involved in this side of the
automotive industry in some way, I think in one of the LeMans teams. I think his energy in this series of threads is related to the backlash he may
get if one of the 7 manufacturers does have a fatality due to design or fabrication of a component, and the subsequent regulation that may result.
His post have the feel of a worried man, rather than an arrogant one. More of a 'for f****s sake get your act together' than a poo stirring
for no reason one. Or am I reading this all wrong? I suspect he is in the higher levels of the industry, if the locals do not regulate themselves,
regulations will be imposed. this will be no good for any of us. I think this would also harm Syd - hence the not 'suffering fools gladly'
attitude.
I think the same way I treat the local one man band 'bodyshops' that dispose of their waste thinner in the drains - we will all get tarred
with the same brush, and if the local authority get a shitty on, it will have repercussions for us.
I am not saying ANY of the 7 manufacturers are not responsible or are making any product or component that is less than suitable for its purpose, but
I think we really need to know where Syd is coming from to understand what is going on here to understand his approach.
Rorty,
why is Dean more qualified to comment on this matter than Syd?
I dont have the impression that you know either of them personnaly.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
I think we really need to know where Syd is coming from to understand what is going on here to understand his approach.
Hi,I must agree with Syd in one thing he mentioned and only people like Status can really test and investigate problems like this,indeed I think this
is where this will end up.
Now Syd has gracefully retired things can hopefully get back to a normal discussion group,although I'm pretty sure he is keeping quiet for
external reasons.
All the best to everyone,
DEAN C.
quote:
Originally posted by Micael
So what to do guys? Should i throw my wishbones away and buy/make new once?
[Edited on 27/10/04 by Micael]
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
Rorty,
why is Dean more qualified to comment on this matter than Syd?
It seems Rorty that it all turns down to "what to believe" based on....what others tell you.
There is no way for example that you will be able to tell if the pictures of my car in the photo archive are actually my car and that it is me in that
car.
I dont know Dean(other than from this forum) and i dont know Syd.
I will or will not believe that Dean is an engineer and has vast experience.I have to base this on things that i read in this forum rather than
"in flesh" experience.
I totally agree that Syd has a very rude way of putting things on this forum and regularly seems to offend people but this has nothing to do with his
knowledge.
As far as i am able to tell, both Dean and Syd are very knowledgable people who have a different way of expression.
Hi ,I still think this could only be done by a truly independant body with structural test facilities,that being STATUS.
I have also mentioned that I am a friend of Martin Keenan and therefore would appear to be biased.
People such as Darren (Doz) and Martin are far more experianced than myself in fabrication and suspension knowledge.
I merely stood up for what I thought was right for us all,especially as I personally think that after looking at the photos that the damage was caused
due to impact or during the accident,my own opinion of course!
My experiance has mainly been with light and heavy commercials trying to work out whether operator,component or pre impact,usually by visual
means,occasionally by sending items for strucural analysis. All this of course is whilst running large maintenance contracts to decide who is
paying.
I have also rebuilt hell of a lot of write offs and sold them ,and broke them as well,this still doesn't give me the right creds though.My paper
knowledge only goes to HND level, and 24 years in various engineering jobs,strangely enough I'm changing jobs next week again to look after a
commercial contract at workshop manager/foreman level.
DEAN..........