Friday 13th July 2012
Sports car makers to govt: help us drive down cost
Brit sports car industry says complicated emissions and crash regs are causing crippling costs
Crash test dummies agree rules are difficult for low-volume sports cars
Britain's specialist sports car manufacturers have called on the government to help lower often crippling development costs by doing more to push for a global standard on emissions and safety regulations.
"There are small differences around the world that cause us to do the work two or three times," Aston Martin chief commercial officer Michael van der Sande told PistonHeads at a meeting held at the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) on Wednesday. "It is an inefficient use of funds and any help we can get from the government to simplify the system would be appreciated."
Radical SR3 SL: type approval challenges
In an industry worth £25 billion, Britain's specialist manufacturers produce around 25,000 cars a year. Of those, 70 per cent are exported, meaning foreign markets are crucial for their survival.
America is one of the worst offenders in terms of stringency, and their inflexible approach frustrates British makers. Morgan is one that doesn't sell cars there because of it (the 3-Wheeler is classed as a motorcycle and will be sold in the US).
Development engineer Matthew Welch gave us the head-in-hands example of the advanced airbag approval. "It's our Achilles heel. You have to do lots of out-of-position testing as though there are children sat in the passenger footwell and half the time you can't even get the dummies in position to do the test!"
Radical sells 70 per cent of its annual production of 230 cars abroad, and will have to go through the tedious approval process next year when it launches a new road and race car.
"For a company as small as ours, it's time consuming, difficult and very costly," said Radical's Roger Green. "If they could be adapted to pass one test that was then accepted around the world it would make our job very much easier."
Morgan sells only the 3 Wheeler in the US
The SMMT, the body that looks after manufacturer interests in situations such these, is trying to change it. "There is a UN/EC process in Geneva that is working toward a global type approval process," SMMT head Paul Everitt told Pistonheads. "But getting everyone to agree on the concessions is very difficult."
No one is looking to duck the safety regulations, but there's a feeling that rules being applied to cars selling in their millions should be modified (as they are in Europe) to those selling in the hundreds or below.
"We did a survey and on average our owners do around 1000 miles a year," said Welch at Morgan. "The chances of any of them knocking a pedestrian over are very, very small."
However, makers faced with re-engineering costs will struggle to top those of Rolls-Royce when it first tried to sell the LWB Phantom in China. It was so long it was classified as a truck and Rolls had to lop six inches off for it to be ranked as a car again.
|
WillBrumBrum
Original Poster
581 posts
67 months
|
I think that specialist car owners (I am one) should have to sign a disclaimer saying that they can't use the NHS services in the event of a crash and that anyone they hit by mistake should be given the car as compensation.
|
|
|
Tuvra
3,550 posts
94 months
|
In fairness legislation and H&S procedures are crippling most business sectors, the worlds gone mad...
|
|
|
MarJay
1,716 posts
44 months
|
Do you think the car as a method of transportation would be allowed these days if it wasn't already established? No of course not because of the nannying by governments. Its all so that their taxpayers and voters don't injure themselves and can continue to pay tax and vote for them.
If people want to drive cars with no airbags or ABS, why should they be stopped?
|
|
|
w8cko
87 posts
91 months
|
WillBrumBrum said: I think that specialist car owners (I am one) should have to sign a disclaimer saying that they can't use the NHS services in the event of a crash and that anyone they hit by mistake should be given the car as compensation. This is far too sensible and doesn’t account for the lowest possible denominator i.e. the one legged, blind, lesbian who couldn’t drive your car away as compensation, so it’ll never work. Anyway don’t we just love having big, fat, heavy, mobile panic rooms for cars these days?! 
|
|
|
Gatsods
243 posts
37 months
|
So why would a Morgan Aero 8 not be allowed somewhere where say a Bentley Blower race car is road legal (Brian Johnson's was the example I had in mind)?!
I think I know what I'd rather be run over by!!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
CedricN
102 posts
14 months
|
Safety development is in general great, its so nice that you can walk away from an accident that 20years ago would have killed you or put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. But the rules has to be more felxbile if we want to keep any smaller car produceras. The RnD costs for new platformsis a steeply escalating curve, with this system we effectively kill all form of small scale car production (look at the 60s for example, insane ammounts of car proucers). But maybe small scale prodution isnt what the legislators want?
Its the same with the fleet Co2 thing, why should a car procuer that makes 2000 cars per year even have to bother, it will not make ANY effect on the environment compared to a car producer pumpning out miljon of passenger cars per year.
|
|
|
WorAl
10,877 posts
57 months
|
Gatsods said: So why would a Morgan Aero 8 not be allowed somewhere where say a Bentley Blower race car is road legal (Brian Johnson's was the example I had in mind)?!
I think I know what I'd rather be run over by!! I do believe in the good old US of A, you're allowed to have an old car which is lethal, just not a new one.
|
|
|
Munich
928 posts
65 months
|
The US is a good example of how daft it can be. Cars sold in the US have to have a headlining that provides more protection to an occupants head in an event of an accident compared to the EU. This headlining is more expensive to develop and manufacture then the EU type therefore European manufactures tend to develop both and only offer the one required in the respective market. When I heard this, my first thought was why is the EU not so safe, but the reason being is that the US assume the occupants will not be wearing a seatbelt and therefore have to provide better protection elsewhere in the car for their own safety.
I would have through, therefore, that it would be simpler and safer for everyone to just wear a seatbelt.
|
|
|
Munich
928 posts
65 months
|
WorAl said: Gatsods said: So why would a Morgan Aero 8 not be allowed somewhere where say a Bentley Blower race car is road legal (Brian Johnson's was the example I had in mind)?!
I think I know what I'd rather be run over by!! I do believe in the good old US of A, you're allowed to have an old car which is lethal, just not a new one. Which is the same in about 99% of the rest of the world...
|
|
|
Denorth
415 posts
40 months
|
WillBrumBrum said: I think that specialist car owners (I am one) should have to sign a disclaimer saying that they can't use the NHS services in the event of a crash and that anyone they hit by mistake should be given the car as compensation. I would agree as soon as they stop taking that part of tax that goes to NHS 
|
|
|
leef44
260 posts
22 months
|
Surely for the USA this policy is to protect its economy. It makes foreign cars more expensive and helps balance the trade deficit. US manufacturers are focused on their domestic market rather than export.
|
|
|
Bill
26,460 posts
124 months
|
WillBrumBrum said: I think that specialist car owners (I am one) should have to sign a disclaimer saying that they can't use the NHS services in the event of a crash and that anyone they hit by mistake should be given the car as compensation. 
|
|
|
IDrinkPetrol
105 posts
27 months
|
Surely most "specialist" cars are inherently safer to pedestrians in that they can be heard!
The number of time that I've been snuck up on by some modern globe killing smug-mobile that makes no sound above the sneeze of a newborn kitten leaves me terrified. Can't imagine i'd ever suffer that with a radical or similar.
|
|
|
LandingSpot
2,053 posts
82 months
|
Bill said: WillBrumBrum said: I think that specialist car owners (I am one) should have to sign a disclaimer saying that they can't use the NHS services in the event of a crash and that anyone they hit by mistake should be given the car as compensation. "Sorry you lost both your legs there, chap! Would you like my bent, manually operated vehicle which also bears you flesh and blood on the paintwork as some form of compensation?"
|
|
|
garypotter
551 posts
19 months
|
CedricN - good valid point regard to the escalating costs of producing new platform designs, companies such as VAG can use the same platform for skoda/seat/vw/audi/ and any others which greatly reduces their cost per unit, on a small scale builder their set up/tooling/design costs are no where near the monies spent by the big producers but are probably alot more per unit sold.
I am sure someione here can confirm this
Also the market for these small number built vehicles, why do they need to meet the latest levels of beaurocracy and ncap ratings as a company that sells millions o f cars per year, also these type of small built cars are also 2nd/3rd cars and only travel a few hundred miles a year on a dry sunny day, do they need to have airbags in front side top of the driver and passenger, I appreciate an accident can be when not if but even so.
I love seeing small number built cars on the road being driven by enthusiast bring it on.
|
|
|
Greg 172
174 posts
70 months
|
Um, sorry to go a bit OT, but is that 3-wheeler in the picture driving itself?
|
|
|
Beefmeister
10,817 posts
99 months
|
Greg 172 said: Um, sorry to go a bit OT, but is that 3-wheeler in the picture driving itself? Or, just maybe, it's a LHD example.
|
|
|
Greg 172
174 posts
70 months
|
Beefmeister said: Greg 172 said: Um, sorry to go a bit OT, but is that 3-wheeler in the picture driving itself? Or, just maybe, it's a LHD example. Yeah, I know - it was just I couldn't see anything in the tiny little pic!
|
|
|
odyssey2200
17,485 posts
78 months
|
Here's my prediction. The Gov't will spout platitudes and fain support and do the square roof of f  k all. no one should be allowed any car, least of all a sports car. All cars are EVIL and must be destroyed All industry is EVIL and must be destroyed. Won't somebody please think of the Polar Bears?
|
|
|
Life Saab Itch
34,076 posts
57 months
|
WillBrumBrum said: I think that specialist car owners (I am one) should have to sign a disclaimer saying that they can't use the NHS services in the event of a crash Bit extreme and doesn't really solve the problem. WillBrumBrum said: and that anyone they hit by mistake should be given the car as compensation. Did you really mean to type that, or is it a case of infinite monkeys...?
|
|
