MikeRJ
|
| posted on 14/8/06 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
I think I said before that the Lightweight is easily the best looking LSIS that RH have ever designed.
If it really is so badly lacking in structural integrity that it will not pass an SVA, the fact that several have already passed speaks volumes about
the effectiveness of the SVA test.
As someone said to me once, if your chassis fails at high speed, the person you run over probably isn't going to be particularly concerned about
the radius of your wiper arm...
|
|
|
|
|
Guinness
|
| posted on 14/8/06 at 04:25 PM |
|
|
Trevor,
I sincerely hope that you get this resolved to your satisfaction.
I think Robin Hood are going to have to step in and get a car stress analysed or tested to prove the suitability or not of the chassis. If they
can't I'd be getting lawyered up and getting a big chunk of money, expenses and time back off them!
I was tearing my hair out waiting the four days between passing the SVA and taking it to the DVLA and the registration docs arriving in the post. I
can't imagine potentially having to wait 6 months for a re-test.
All the best.
Mike
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 14/8/06 at 05:59 PM |
|
|
Hi Trev, one irony is that you have done a better job building yours than RH managed on their own one
It looks very well done mate.
My advise.......sue the arse off RH and then rip the car apart and use the good bits to build a Locost
Just kidding dude, all the best.
Scotty.
|
|
|
ASH3
|
| posted on 14/8/06 at 06:49 PM |
|
|
I think many people will be watchin
the out come of this one. If a major
car manufacture have a problem they
recall there vehicles what will RH do
with this one it aint good for business!!
how many are running round wit this
problem? A 7s chassis has to be right
if it aint get it off the market. Do hope
you get sorted asap come on RH were
are you...... other than missin from Harrogate BAD BAD BOYS!!!
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 15/8/06 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LightweightRobinHood
Hi people,
My name is Trevor Bennett, and I am the person with the failed Robinhood Lightweight.
I have built the chassis to the letter using RH's build DVD's - To say I'm gutted is an understatement.
For my extensive build website go to
I am dealing with RH to try and get a speedy outcome to this, but it is a hugely disappointing setback.
Thanks for all your kind words so far guys,
Trevor.
Hi Trevor,
Best of luck getting it sorted out.
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 15/8/06 at 11:26 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
As someone said to me once, if your chassis fails at high speed, the person you run over probably isn't going to be particularly concerned about
the radius of your wiper arm...
Exceot most accidents are at under 20mph and then you're likely to end up with broken bones and serious cuts - a nicely radiused wiper arm
reduces the chances of the cuts .......... that was the explanation a traffic police man i knew a few years ago on TOL gave me.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 15/8/06 at 02:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
As someone said to me once, if your chassis fails at high speed, the person you run over probably isn't going to be particularly concerned about
the radius of your wiper arm...
Exceot most accidents are at under 20mph and then you're likely to end up with broken bones and serious cuts - a nicely radiused wiper arm
reduces the chances of the cuts .......... that was the explanation a traffic police man i knew a few years ago on TOL gave me.
The point being made was that making a fuss over radii and lamp positions is a little pointless if the chassis is dangerously weak, and the state of
the chassis is purely down to the testers opinion rather than any defined VOSA test.
Whilst you can probably get a reasonable idea of strength and quality looking at a bare chassis, on a completed car where many of the chassis members
are hidden it's a very different matter.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 15/8/06 at 02:35 PM |
|
|
What VOSA test would you like to see introduced? crash test? detailed mathematical analysis? Engineer reports during the build (like the
Australians) None of those is locost friendly, and the manufacturers would have to pass on the costs.
99.9% of the time an SVA inspector will be able to correctly assess if a chassis is safe visually (quality of welds and a basic knowledge of correct
triangulation of a spaceframe will give you that). It's only the weird/different designs (metal or composite moncoques being a complex
engineering area) that cause the occasional problematic result like this one.
SVA tester discression is vital IMO otherwise the system will become unworkable for the amateur.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 15/8/06 at 06:31 PM |
|
|
Well, having seen a build diary of a horribly built 4WD locost some time ago that somehow scraped through it's SVA, I think there should be some
written rules about the basic structure and method of construction. If something unusual such an alloy monocoque is involved perhaps the manufacturers
should be sending details of their testing to VOSA?
Discretion is a great thing when applied to trival/non-safety related matters, but this episode just goes to prove how that same discretion has either
allowed several potentialy dangerous chassis on the road, or (hopefully) has unfairly penalised the builder of a perfectly safe car.
[Edited on 15/8/06 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 15/8/06 at 10:53 PM |
|
|
Trev,
First off, yeah what an absolute pain in the derriere, and all the best for a speedy resolution.
I'm sure there's a great many on here who have thought about a RH, as they always seemed to be very competitive price wise. I'm sure
quality was as much related to the effort of the builder as a substitute for a higher purchase price.
The idea of the lightweight is great, and agree with others' comments that it is, indeed, a good looking car - a testament to you perhaps.
Have taken out legal cover with your "tintop", it may be worth contacting them, to see if they would be willing to help, should the need
arise.
As for waiting six months, I'd forget that. I would be surprised if VOSA/SVA testers didn't have a "newsletter" of sorts that
will be doing the rounds like wildfire iro the lightweight.
Unfortunately, I think it's all going to be down to RH and a bit more patience on your part.
Feel incredibly sorry for you, and others who, I've no doubt had their enthusiasm dampened somewhat.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
JamJah
|
| posted on 18/8/06 at 05:09 AM |
|
|
This has been a matter i have been thinking about several times recently.
Surely the main point (sorry if its repetition) is that the tester should airon theside of caution. After all if it is unfitfor thejobthen they would
be the first under criticism.
Id give that tester a handshake if i met him. surely he's doing the right thing... getting the builder (whose getting the manufacturer) to
supply proof.
I honestly dont think theres anything wrong in being over cautious. Id prefer no car to a hearse....
... hang on! too close to truth! the only car i have i physically cant work on atm! but for thoseof you who dont know, thats another issue.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 18/8/06 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
having read the thread on rhocar, i think its disgusting the lack of attention RHSC are paying the to the matter. VOSA have said that all they need is
stress testing figures or a chassis to be tested on a seatbelt puller, and the problem is solved, but RHSC cant even answer the bloody phone. What
muppets...
|
|
|
Scotty
|
| posted on 19/8/06 at 09:20 AM |
|
|
i feel sorry for the people who have bought these particular kits.
"potentially" a kit that will not pass sva without some serious modifications
rh dont (on the surface) seem to care a toss !!
the owners club is getting a bit heated about it now !!
PLEASE NOTE! All comments made by this person are to be considered "Tongue in Cheek" and are not meant to be taken seriously in any way - so there!
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 19/8/06 at 09:29 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
VOSA have said that all they need is stress testing figures or a chassis to be tested on a seatbelt puller, and the problem is solved, but RHSC cant
even answer the bloody phone. What muppets...
<speculation>
Surely RH are just taking the time to make sure all their ducks are in a row(*) before submitting something, it failing, and them being in an even
more sticky situation.
(*) Selling off any old chassis (recent eBay ad) which may have be sitting around outside yet were the ones used for any stress analysis and therefore
due to age hardening would fail any tests. Having sold them they can't be called on for submittal. If they "lost/destroyed" them
they would be in a difficult position. Having sold them they are OK.
</speculation>
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 19/8/06 at 09:51 AM |
|
|
How this applies to the kit industry I'm not sure, but seems to be ignored blatantly and constantly...
It is illegal to sell a development prototype vehicle, or an R&D vehicle to a second user.
They MUST be destroyed, or put in a museum or similar.
Cheers,
Syd.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 19/8/06 at 01:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
It is illegal to sell a development prototype vehicle, or an R&D vehicle to a second user.
They MUST be destroyed, or put in a museum or similar.
Really? Why is that? Big companies don't sell their prototypes because they don't pay tax on them. They are often used for mileage
accumulation or for potentially destructive tests. Cars are used for assembly staff training and so are dismantled 100 times or more.
Rover sold off a load of 75s that were prototypes as they had paid the tax and had used them as company cars for a year or two.
A prototype has no special legal status. If it has had tests performed on it that may have weakened it then it should not be used on the road but if
not then it is perfectly saleable.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 19/8/06 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
It is illegal to sell a development prototype vehicle, or an R&D vehicle to a second user.
They MUST be destroyed, or put in a museum or similar.
Really? Why is that? Big companies don't sell their prototypes because they don't pay tax on them. They are often used for mileage
accumulation or for potentially destructive tests. Cars are used for assembly staff training and so are dismantled 100 times or more.
Rover sold off a load of 75s that were prototypes as they had paid the tax and had used them as company cars for a year or two.
A prototype has no special legal status. If it has had tests performed on it that may have weakened it then it should not be used on the road but if
not then it is perfectly saleable.
Presumably if what you say is true Syd, there must be different categories of prototype and development vehicles as there were quite a few sold on
behalf of MG Sport and Racing at a recent auction, and only one road car specifically said it couldn't be used on the raod and that was just
because it was a 2000 model Rover 200 which had not been registered until 2005 so would not meet emissions reuirement for an MOT and no insurance
company would recognise it. Can you expand any more?
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 19/8/06 at 06:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Really? Why is that? Big companies don't sell their prototypes because they don't pay tax on them. They are often used for mileage
accumulation or for potentially destructive tests. Cars are used for assembly staff training and so are dismantled 100 times or more.
Rover sold off a load of 75s that were prototypes as they had paid the tax and had used them as company cars for a year or two.
A prototype has no special legal status. If it has had tests performed on it that may have weakened it then it should not be used on the road but if
not then it is perfectly saleable.
Presumably if what you say is true Syd, there must be different categories of prototype and development vehicles as there were quite a few sold on
behalf of MG Sport and Racing at a recent auction, and only one road car specifically said it couldn't be used on the raod and that was just
because it was a 2000 model Rover 200 which had not been registered until 2005 so would not meet emissions reuirement for an MOT and no insurance
company would recognise it. Can you expand any more?
Firstly, I'll answer your statements.
This all applies to manufacturers only.
A prototype is different to a production development, it is a one-off original.
If Rover sold off cars that were a year or more old, had been used daily on the road by staff, and were fully homologated, then they were not
prototypes or true development vehicles; but production variants.
The MG racing shells which were sold off were, most likely, fully homologated vehicles awaiting modification for motorsport.
It is not uncommon for manufacturers to pull bare shells off the normal production lines, to turn into racecars.
'A prototype has no special legal status.'
By its very nature and name, a prototype is not a production model, and would not be homologated. So, can not be normally registered. That
doesn't mean that you couldn't buy it, put it through SVA, then register it. This is the route that some manufacturers take today when
getting mileage mules on the road before full production.
Lastly, about 16 years ago I fell into the trap of registering the first car I built as a manufacturer as a Prototype. The paperwork came back marked
as such, and made it quite plain that I could not sell the vehicle on.
Eventually I did, but as a 'Racecar', that the owner then registered as a self built kit.
Less than a year ago, I was involved in a prototyping project. When finished, the owner then went and registered his new car,
'pre-production', quite proudly as a prototype. His papers came back marked as a prototype, and he was stuffed if he wanted to sell it.
If none of you want to believe this, then build a car, call yourself a manufacturer, then register the vehicle as a prototype. Wait and see what
happens.
I'll be happy to be told, with proof, that the laws have changed in the last year, and all that I've just written no longer applies.
Cheers,
Syd.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 20/8/06 at 06:49 PM |
|
|
Thanks Syd - that clears things up a bit, and I know not to register mine as a prototype!! Presumably there must be some benefits of doing so for the
actual manufacturers though.
I think the MG Sport and Racing cars sold were probably development cars, but there may have been a few prototypes which were not registered at all
included - i can't remember the details.
[Edited on 20/8/06 by andyps]
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/8/06 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_fbi
<speculation>
Surely RH are just taking the time to make sure all their ducks are in a row(*) before submitting something, it failing, and them being in an even
more sticky situation.
(*) Selling off any old chassis (recent eBay ad) which may have be sitting around outside yet were the ones used for any stress analysis and therefore
due to age hardening would fail any tests. Having sold them they can't be called on for submittal. If they "lost/destroyed" them
they would be in a difficult position. Having sold them they are OK.
</speculation>
Surely your comments are highlighting a fundamental problem here though, and one that the tester is considering in his overall verdict. If a chassis
is going to fail an important safety test simply by sitting outside for a few months, that alone would vindicate the SVA tester's decision to
fail it, you can't assume it will be kept dry and out of sunlight for the rest of its life!
I do feel very sorry for the likes of Trevor and other builders who are now in limbo not knowing if their builds will ever be SVA'able, but Ive
given my opinion on the design on here and elsewhere having seen a Lightweight in various states of build, so Im sadly not suprised that this has
happened because in my opinion pretty much all the points the SVA man has raised are valid areas of serious concern 
[Edited on 20/8/06 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
JamJah
|
| posted on 21/8/06 at 02:38 AM |
|
|
Would build insurance cover this? Or is it more of a TPFT?
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/8/06 at 03:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamJah
Would build insurance cover this? Or is it more of a TPFT?
More of a TPFT. Quote from MSM website:
quote:
Maximum sum insured = Cost of kit, accessories, parts (new / re-conditioned) for which valid receipts available.
Risks insured: Fire, Theft, Malicious Damage, Aircraft, Explosion, Riot, Impact, Storm, Flood, Burst Pipes.
Car under construction must normally be kept in a locked garage/workshop.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 21/8/06 at 03:53 PM |
|
|
What actually is the weight of the Lightweight?
Would be interested to know if there's much saving over a spaceframe Seven.
Presumably it got weighed as part of the failed SVA test, Trevor, could you tell us how much the car came in at?
Thanks,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/8/06 at 04:01 PM |
|
|
Doing a search on rhocar.org finds a quote from "diyer"
"Mu lightweight 2.0l zetec powered hood weighed in at 590kg"
Light compared to a 2b, but not that impressive IMO.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 21/8/06 at 04:44 PM |
|
|
I've been holding off asking this question, but as we're getting more generic ......
i was under the impression that Ali has an issue that it has no elastic limit. Every time it flexes it work hardens. How have robin hood modified the
design to take this into account when mounting suspension etc?
|
|
|
