Saxo banana'd by lamppost......
Discussion
skyrover said:
At 70mph into a big tree... in a defender you are dead.
Fortunately, the only way a series is likely to see 70 involves the edge of a cliff... so you'll be landing in the canopy of the tree and it might even break your fall.skyrover said:
20mph into the tree though, and you simply replace the front bumper 
You'll need to replace the tree, too.skyrover said:
Indeed... the land rover is terrible for crash protection at anything less than low speed impacts where the other vehicle becomes the crush zone.
At 70mph into a big tree... in a defender you are dead.
20mph into the tree though, and you simply replace the front bumper
My mum had a head on with an Artic down a country lane in our old Ninety van when I was a kid. The lorry was written off but the Defender only needed a new front bumper, headlight and wing. At 70mph into a big tree... in a defender you are dead.
20mph into the tree though, and you simply replace the front bumper
Mum had huge purple bruises from the belts that lasted for weeks though!
TooMany2cvs said:
And, blimey, if a Paxo/106 is viewed as lethally flimsy, then what the heck is an AX?
Back in the late 90s I had a Citroen and used to be given either an AX or a Saxo when mine was in for a service. The Saxo was considerably more solid than the AX which felt like it was made from soggy cornflakes packets.When EuroNCAP crash tests were first introduced it was noticeable that there was a correlation between the age (of the design) of the car being tested and the test result. Cars that were still on sale but had first gone into production several years ago performed badly (BMW E36, MB W202) and more contemporary designs fared a lot better. I think that the Saxo is fairly typical of cars of a similar age.
There were also some anomalies in the crash results. You could improve the result of a car by adding equipment to the standard specification. The VW Golf Mk4 only score 3 stars in its original crash test. VW realised that this might impact sales and the cause was EuroNCAP testing the lowest spec car to try and prevent manufacturers from making safety features optional extras. All cars with twin front airbags were awarded an extra star. VW quickly upgraded production of all cars to include twin airbags as standard. Buyers of early models without the twin airbags were given a new replacement car and the old one taken away. The Golf was then re-tested (at VW's expense) and awarded 4 stars. The similarly aged Ford Focus scored 4 stars but would have been given 5 if it wasn't for the very cheapest model having the passenger airbag as an option.
I think they stopped this in the end as some manufacturers were taking the piss. A few years ago SEAT were called out by EuroNCAP for deleting some safety equipment from the standard specification of a car not long after it was tested.
The Wookie said:
skyrover said:
Indeed... the land rover is terrible for crash protection at anything less than low speed impacts where the other vehicle becomes the crush zone.
At 70mph into a big tree... in a defender you are dead.
20mph into the tree though, and you simply replace the front bumper
My mum had a head on with an Artic down a country lane in our old Ninety van when I was a kid. The lorry was written off but the Defender only needed a new front bumper, headlight and wing. At 70mph into a big tree... in a defender you are dead.
20mph into the tree though, and you simply replace the front bumper
Mum had huge purple bruises from the belts that lasted for weeks though!
Got to love that modular construction
Blakewater said:
lord trumpton said:
Awful
Bolton seems a miserable place to live - every story on that site is one of misery
It has plenty of nice bits but it also has the bit where I encountered a teenage girl far gone on drugs curled up in a ball in the middle of the road with drivers steering round her.Bolton seems a miserable place to live - every story on that site is one of misery
The comments below the article wishing the guy a horrible death show many of the local yocals to be very nasty, judgemental types.
- it's the miserable attempt at a local rag (staffed by the hard of thinking)* which paints a poor picture 
.And as for the usual suspects who write comments...
It's a fairly grim place for road accidents though, inappropriately high speed and weaving in and out through the traffic is all too common. And traffic lights? Just like speed limits, they don't matter to a fair few.
*For example, there are often two identical accidents reported on parallel roads (the A666 and A675 north of the town) - until it is established which of the two roads the accident took place on, whereupon the erroneous 'news' item magically disappears.
ralphrj said:
TooMany2cvs said:
And, blimey, if a Paxo/106 is viewed as lethally flimsy, then what the heck is an AX?
Back in the late 90s I had a Citroen and used to be given either an AX or a Saxo when mine was in for a service. The Saxo was considerably more solid than the AX which felt like it was made from soggy cornflakes packets.When EuroNCAP crash tests were first introduced it was noticeable that there was a correlation between the age (of the design) of the car being tested and the test result. Cars that were still on sale but had first gone into production several years ago performed badly (BMW E36, MB W202) and more contemporary designs fared a lot better. I think that the Saxo is fairly typical of cars of a similar age.
There were also some anomalies in the crash results. You could improve the result of a car by adding equipment to the standard specification. The VW Golf Mk4 only score 3 stars in its original crash test. VW realised that this might impact sales and the cause was EuroNCAP testing the lowest spec car to try and prevent manufacturers from making safety features optional extras. All cars with twin front airbags were awarded an extra star. VW quickly upgraded production of all cars to include twin airbags as standard. Buyers of early models without the twin airbags were given a new replacement car and the old one taken away. The Golf was then re-tested (at VW's expense) and awarded 4 stars. The similarly aged Ford Focus scored 4 stars but would have been given 5 if it wasn't for the very cheapest model having the passenger airbag as an option.
I think they stopped this in the end as some manufacturers were taking the piss. A few years ago SEAT were called out by EuroNCAP for deleting some safety equipment from the standard specification of a car not long after it was tested.
Baryonyx said:
Saxos and 106's can be fabtastic driver's cars, but for f
k's sake, don't crash them! This was always the thought in the back of my mind when I was enjoying thrashing my 106 Rallye - the handling was incredible and it was amazing fun but contact with just about anything would see the car fold up like a deckchair.
So ironic that these Saxos would end up as cars for young, inexperienced drivers. They were cheap, quick and dangerous. I remember speaking to a colleague a out six years ago who had just made his 18 year old son sell his Saxo VTR. One of the lads friends, also driving a Saxo had been killed. He'd had a nasty crash resulting in the engine being forced backwards into the cabin, and was speared through the chest and out of his back by shattered metal, pinning him to the seat. Sensible dad said there was no way his son would be driving a Saxo again.
The 106/Saxo combination of dreadful crash protection and occasionally lairy handling on the limit will have seen off more than a few of them. I recall one PH'er, an inexperienced driver, getting a 106 GTi and saying he wanted to learn about oversteer. He promptly crashed it and wrote it off, a fate I'm sure many of these cars have shared.
And young lads wanting to insure them wonder why they're getting quotes for £4k a year...k's sake, don't crash them! This was always the thought in the back of my mind when I was enjoying thrashing my 106 Rallye - the handling was incredible and it was amazing fun but contact with just about anything would see the car fold up like a deckchair. So ironic that these Saxos would end up as cars for young, inexperienced drivers. They were cheap, quick and dangerous. I remember speaking to a colleague a out six years ago who had just made his 18 year old son sell his Saxo VTR. One of the lads friends, also driving a Saxo had been killed. He'd had a nasty crash resulting in the engine being forced backwards into the cabin, and was speared through the chest and out of his back by shattered metal, pinning him to the seat. Sensible dad said there was no way his son would be driving a Saxo again.
The 106/Saxo combination of dreadful crash protection and occasionally lairy handling on the limit will have seen off more than a few of them. I recall one PH'er, an inexperienced driver, getting a 106 GTi and saying he wanted to learn about oversteer. He promptly crashed it and wrote it off, a fate I'm sure many of these cars have shared.
Hope the lad in the crash recovers, looks pretty nasty
[quote=skyrover]
My sisters attempt at a lamp post.
Before
After
Damage (yellow one on the left) you can see the new bumper just fitted. £20 ebay jobbie
Yup that was me in the Rover 800 ! The various councils said things like " we like to find the car that did the damage dead at the bottom of the lamp post, if they can drive off we won't know who to claim off"
It felt really odd deliberately aiming at a 12m lamp post while your brain was telling you "this is a really bad idea"
My sisters attempt at a lamp post.
Before
After
Damage (yellow one on the left) you can see the new bumper just fitted. £20 ebay jobbie
Yup that was me in the Rover 800 ! The various councils said things like " we like to find the car that did the damage dead at the bottom of the lamp post, if they can drive off we won't know who to claim off"
It felt really odd deliberately aiming at a 12m lamp post while your brain was telling you "this is a really bad idea"
I lost a close friend in very similar circumstances in the late 80's. That was a Sierra and a tree though. The poor sod was in the passenger seat and died instantly. The driver died in hospital a couple of weeks later. The two rear passengers were both thrown out of the rear window into a field.
Obviously, it was an horrific time. It will stay with me forever.
Obviously, it was an horrific time. It will stay with me forever.
The Nur said:
I wasnt entirely serious, it's was how it took out the lamppost I was referring to really.
The Saxo vs lamppost and Defender vs lamppost are two very different accidents though. The Saxo is a lightweight monocoque car into a steel tubular lamppost.The Defendar is a big, solid, ladder chassis with bumpers bolted solidly to it, into a brittle cast iron lamp post, which, judging by the ammount of rust on the fracture, already had a crack in it.
ralphrj said:
Back in the late 90s I had a Citroen and used to be given either an AX or a Saxo when mine was in for a service. The Saxo was considerably more solid than the AX which felt like it was made from soggy cornflakes packets.
When EuroNCAP crash tests were first introduced it was noticeable that there was a correlation between the age (of the design) of the car being tested and the test result. Cars that were still on sale but had first gone into production several years ago performed badly (BMW E36, MB W202) and more contemporary designs fared a lot better. I think that the Saxo is fairly typical of cars of a similar age.
There were also some anomalies in the crash results. You could improve the result of a car by adding equipment to the standard specification. The VW Golf Mk4 only score 3 stars in its original crash test. VW realised that this might impact sales and the cause was EuroNCAP testing the lowest spec car to try and prevent manufacturers from making safety features optional extras. All cars with twin front airbags were awarded an extra star. VW quickly upgraded production of all cars to include twin airbags as standard. Buyers of early models without the twin airbags were given a new replacement car and the old one taken away. The Golf was then re-tested (at VW's expense) and awarded 4 stars. The similarly aged Ford Focus scored 4 stars but would have been given 5 if it wasn't for the very cheapest model having the passenger airbag as an option.
I think they stopped this in the end as some manufacturers were taking the piss. A few years ago SEAT were called out by EuroNCAP for deleting some safety equipment from the standard specification of a car not long after it was tested.
Is that SEAT bit true? If so, then surely that's a crime of some sort? The one I can think of off the top of my head is selling products that don't match their description...When EuroNCAP crash tests were first introduced it was noticeable that there was a correlation between the age (of the design) of the car being tested and the test result. Cars that were still on sale but had first gone into production several years ago performed badly (BMW E36, MB W202) and more contemporary designs fared a lot better. I think that the Saxo is fairly typical of cars of a similar age.
There were also some anomalies in the crash results. You could improve the result of a car by adding equipment to the standard specification. The VW Golf Mk4 only score 3 stars in its original crash test. VW realised that this might impact sales and the cause was EuroNCAP testing the lowest spec car to try and prevent manufacturers from making safety features optional extras. All cars with twin front airbags were awarded an extra star. VW quickly upgraded production of all cars to include twin airbags as standard. Buyers of early models without the twin airbags were given a new replacement car and the old one taken away. The Golf was then re-tested (at VW's expense) and awarded 4 stars. The similarly aged Ford Focus scored 4 stars but would have been given 5 if it wasn't for the very cheapest model having the passenger airbag as an option.
I think they stopped this in the end as some manufacturers were taking the piss. A few years ago SEAT were called out by EuroNCAP for deleting some safety equipment from the standard specification of a car not long after it was tested.
Swanny87 said:
Is that SEAT bit true? If so, then surely that's a crime of some sort? The one I can think of off the top of my head is selling products that don't match their description...
I can't find a link but I'm sure it was SEAT. From memory it was to do with electronic stability control (now mandatory but this was a few years ago).Euro NCAP said:
In 2009 Euro NCAP began awarding three Safety Assist points to a car if ESC is fitted as standard across the model range, or if it is an option on every variant and the manufacturer also expects to sell at least 95 percent of cars with the system as standard equipment.
A new model was tested with ESC as standard, was awarded 5 stars, then after a year of production the specification of the model was changed so the either ESC was removed as standard or a budget model was added to the range that didn't include ESC either as standard or as an option. SEAT continued to advertise the car as having a "5 star Euro NCAP rating" which I think is why Euro NCAP went public about it.It isn't the only disagreement between Euro NCAP and a manufacturer. The E60 BMW 5-Series only managed 3 stars when tested (it's closest rival the 211-series Mercedes E-Class had 5). BMW blamed Euro NCAP but re-engineered the car and paid for it to be re-tested where it managed 4 stars. BMW refused to recall the first years production to be modified so Euro NCAP said that consumers had a right to know that 2003 E60s were only 3 star cars. BMW threatened legal action if Euro NCAP released that information but eventually gave in.
ETA: Audi also got in trouble for advertising cars as having "5 star Euro NCAP" when they hadn't even been tested.
http://www.driving.co.uk/news/news-euro-ncap-disap...
The Audi A5 has been on sale for just under 8 years but has never been tested.
Edited by ralphrj on Tuesday 28th April 13:46
I would NOT want to crash in a Defender, from what I've heard they may fare well in certain types of accident (hitting old lamposts head on for example) but are pretty diabolical in other types of crash.
For example, easy to tip, and have little roll over protection with easily collapsible roofs...
For example, easy to tip, and have little roll over protection with easily collapsible roofs...
Blue Oval84 said:
I would NOT want to crash in a Defender, from what I've heard they may fare well in certain types of accident (hitting old lamposts head on for example) but are pretty diabolical in other types of crash.
For example, easy to tip, and have little roll over protection with easily collapsible roofs...
Yes indeed this is very true.For example, easy to tip, and have little roll over protection with easily collapsible roofs...
31mph said:
You can tell this is PH, are people really blaming cheap tyres? 
It's an 18 year old in a saxo, clearly on budget, and looking at the state of it, I doubt any tyres would have made any difference.
Decent tyres might have let him hit the lamp post head on rather than sideways It's an 18 year old in a saxo, clearly on budget, and looking at the state of it, I doubt any tyres would have made any difference.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff