Board logo

One rule for Caterham and another for the rest of us.....
oldtimer - 25/3/09 at 11:06 AM

I don't know if this has come up before......but whilst searching for SVA suitable collapsible steering bosses I came accross a SVA memorandum:

IM 14 - SVA CATERHAM CARS - ISSUED 23/09/98
Please ensure this note is seen by all SVA Examiners.
A recent test on a Caterham 7 resulted in a fail due to the lack of evidence that the steering wheel/column gave equivalent protection to
the driver to that of an approved component.
The steering wheel was padded over the "Boss" but did not incorporate a collapsible feature in the wheel or upper column.
Caterham Cars have a "Low Volume" approval for there Seven and Super Seven models where use is made of either Moto-lita, Mountney or
Momo steering wheels that do not incorporate a collapsible feature. In respect of these vehicles only, due to the existence of the approval this
situation will be considered acceptable.
In any other case, where a non approved steering wheel is fitted, it should be considered highly unlikely that the wheel/ column would
provide
equivalent protection to that of an approved component unless the wheel or upper column incorporate a collapsible feature

So that's all right then!..............


Staple balls - 25/3/09 at 11:11 AM

Well, that's easy enough.

*buys Caterham badge*


oldtimer - 25/3/09 at 11:16 AM

I just wonder how many SVA safety features you can avoid if you have 'Low volume' approval, and, why?


matt_claydon - 25/3/09 at 11:26 AM

quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
I just wonder how many SVA safety features you can avoid if you have 'Low volume' approval, and, why?


None, but where SVA has to be very black-and-white to keep cost low and avoid destructive testing, Low Volume approval will involve a combination of engineering assessment, calculation/simulation and destructive testing which are not practical for SVA.


DarrenW - 25/3/09 at 12:15 PM

Good reply andys101.

I have seen type approved vehicles about too that sport particular features that would fail SVA. At the end of the day they are seperate tests and the criteria for each is well publicised. If Caterham have done additional testwork that proves their arrangement is acceptable then hats off to them for taking the time out to do so.


oldtimer - 25/3/09 at 12:20 PM

All right, all right - just asking!


chrisg - 25/3/09 at 12:50 PM

That's all very well but it does mean that two cars which use identical components are tested differently.

Cheers

Chris


mangogrooveworkshop - 25/3/09 at 12:52 PM

One only has to look at the Ariel Atoms mud guards to see one rule broken


oldtimer - 25/3/09 at 01:01 PM

I suppose my comment and question sounded anti-Caterham. Really the question maybe should have been how come this wasn't known by some SVA inspectors? SVA has been around a long time. My own car has a Caterham quick rack onto a Caterham column onto a Caterham supplied Mountnay wheel.


chrisg - 25/3/09 at 01:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
I suppose my comment and question sounded anti-Caterham. Really the question maybe should have been how come this wasn't known by some SVA inspectors? SVA has been around a long time. My own car has a Caterham quick rack onto a Caterham column onto a Caterham supplied Mountnay wheel.


Then your car acts as the perfect example.

All the components on your car are identical to those on a Caterham.

But it isn't a Caterham.

So you wouldn't get this exemption.

I suppose you could argue that the Caterham has had the chassis crash tested but the note is specifically about the steering system with no mention of the chassis.

Cheers

Chris


ReMan - 25/3/09 at 04:03 PM

Bear in mind the mention of a collapsible column. Nearly all our cars have these and very easy to see I would have thoiught?


Mix - 25/3/09 at 04:28 PM

Bonzer ........... I have a Motolite wheel with a Caterham horn push badge ......... I'm exempt

Mick


Mix - 25/3/09 at 05:19 PM

Hi Andy

It's really refreshing to see well informed advice on here rather than well intentioned re-iteration of other's, (mine included), inturpretation / experience.

Please keep advising us ........... we will all benefit greatly.

Regards Mick


Vindi_andy - 25/3/09 at 05:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mix
Hi Andy

It's really refreshing to see well informed advice on here rather than well intentioned re-iteration of other's, (mine included), inturpretation / experience.

Please keep advising us ........... we will all benefit greatly.

Regards Mick


Fully agree with your comments Mick I suspect andys has something to do with the legislation side of the fence and his input is fully appreciated.

The SVA is there to save us, our passengers and god forbid anyone we run into from serious harm or worse and shouldn't be avoided or "worked around" but complied with to the best of our abilities and understanding.


oldtimer - 25/3/09 at 05:39 PM

Agreed, good advice is always appreciated.


NS Dev - 26/3/09 at 08:21 PM

probably missed some bits on my quick scan of the thread but does the caterham column not contain suitable angles of deflection to negate the need for a collapsible section anyway??

( I don't know the answer by the way, never measured on our racer, but I would be surprised if it needed a collapsible section to comply with current SVA, but then equally one would think caterham would know that! )


oldtimer - 30/3/09 at 04:49 PM

The Caterham column does have 2 UJs, the angle change is very shallow on mine so I may have to tweek the mounts some. I'm not trying to avoid safety items - I was actually thinking of doubling up.