How do TVR's rate in the..
Discussion
I would think NCAP rating wouldn't be very good due to pedestrian tests etc. But my car has a rollcage in it which I would believe would be pretty good at keeping myself and passengers protected from side impacts/rolls etc? I would guess the older cars plus convertibles wouldn't do to well?
PetrolTed said:
I suspect they would fare very well in the head on impact test. All those crashed Tuscan race cars are testament to the strength of the chassis in those types of crashes.
Yeah, but the poor crash-test dummy would have its face redistributed against an odd-looking (air-bag free) steering wheel!
If you go searching on here or in back-issues of Sprint you'll see references to a Tuscan that was crash tested.
It's the only time they've been able to use the same car for both the head-on and side-impact tests.
It wasn't an official test (because of low volumes) so you won't see any star rating anywhere.
It's the only time they've been able to use the same car for both the head-on and side-impact tests.
It wasn't an official test (because of low volumes) so you won't see any star rating anywhere.
srebbe64 said:
Yeah, but the poor crash-test dummy would have its face redistributed against an odd-looking (air-bag free) steering wheel!
Remember that airbags were only ever introduced as a measure to save Americans who refused to wear that most eeevil of liberty infrigements, the seatbelt. Good belts will look after you, aspecially if they're harnesses, but a nice comfy crash pillow would still be the better option.
I'd fancy my chances in a head on in the Griff so long as it wasn't into something 2' taller (like most cars are
) and providing it didn't spin me off into a subsequent side impace (like most of them do ) Oh. Maybe not.
I just tell myself how much safer then a bike it is and try to remember that a Tuscan recently underwent frontal impact testing and the same car (!) was apparently unharmed enough to be used for the side impact test immediately after.
Marco
Having rode a push bike for many years, I don't get worried about car accidents.
It either happens, or it doesn't. Chances are, the more attention you pay to the road, the lower your chances of being involved in an accident are.
No point in having all that safety bumf when you're tailgating and eating a banana while talking on the phone and changing the radio with your knee.
It either happens, or it doesn't. Chances are, the more attention you pay to the road, the lower your chances of being involved in an accident are.
No point in having all that safety bumf when you're tailgating and eating a banana while talking on the phone and changing the radio with your knee.
V8 Archie said:
If you go searching on here or in back-issues of Sprint you'll see references to a Tuscan that was crash tested.
It's the only time they've been able to use the same car for both the head-on and side-impact tests.
It wasn't an official test (because of low volumes) so you won't see any star rating anywhere.
This is indeed true, and often overlooked; I was told the same by Neil Anderson (who designed the chassis). Lets say it again so everyone gets the full impact.
Every other car, from every other manufacturer that gets put forward for crash testing gets mashed on the head-on test the manufacturer has to supply another for the side impact to get mashed too. The Tuscan wsa sufficiently intact from the frontal test that it could be used for the side test. No other car has fared this well.
Just because they're glassfibre doesn't make them weak. The chassis is hugely strong, and the glassfibre destroying itsfle is great at absorbing the impact.
It's OK to say some other makes have doorbars etc., but have you taken the inner panel off a 'normal' car and seen what's in there? Often no more than a 'u-shaped' profile length of steel, backing up a doorskin not much thicker than tinfoil. On half the cars these days (particularly smaller hatchbacks) you can distory doorskins, boot, bonnet and roof just be pressing. You don't distort road-going TVR panels that easy.
Saw a banana shaped boxter on thr back of a car transported the other day. Whatever it had impacted site on had gone right throgh the passenger door and the floorpan was buckled right up to the transmission tunnel. Granted, griffs and chimaeras have sod-all side impact protection, but wedges, cerbs and all the current models do (so I beleive), and they are all immensely string in head-on and rear-on impacts.
WB
tvrolet said:
Saw a banana shaped boxter on thr back of a car transported the other day. Whatever it had impacted site on had gone right throgh the passenger door and the floorpan was buckled right up to the transmission tunnel. Granted, griffs and chimaeras have sod-all side impact protection, but wedges, cerbs and all the current models do (so I beleive), and they are all immensely string in head-on and rear-on impacts.
I'm not convinced a Tamora or Tuscan would fare any better than a Boxster in a side impact. The Porsche has side impact bars too, and some even have side airbags.
A T350/Cerbera with the roll cage might help, as long as the impacting object was something like a wall or lampost and not a car's bumper or similar.
As for head on - the car might be strong which is nice, but there is nothing to deccelerate your organs if the car deccelerates so quickly (i.e. does not fold and buckle in the crash). The science of crash protection is all about crumpling enough to allow your giblets to stay in place but not too much so your legs don't get trapped and so on. New TVRs are strong, but thats only part of the equation.
I reckon we'd get a 2 or 3 star crash rating under NCAP. Not because the car crumpled, but because of the forces exerted on the passengers and the possibility of the passenger wiping their lipstick on the steering wheel etc.
Pedal box - good
body structure - good
intrusion into cabin - probably OK
Forces on passenger - bad
Check out the NCAP site and you'll note them mentioning this stuff in every test result writeup.
tvrolet said:
Granted, griffs and chimaeras have sod-all side impact protection, but wedges, cerbs and all the current models do (so I beleive), and they are all immensely string in head-on and rear-on impacts.
WB
Not only immensely string; some are also largely BluTak, predominantly parcel tape and copiously Cataloy too...
V8 Archie said:
If you go searching on here or in back-issues of Sprint you'll see references to a Tuscan that was crash tested.
It's the only time they've been able to use the same car for both the head-on and side-impact tests.
It wasn't an official test (because of low volumes) so you won't see any star rating anywhere.
It's in the genes.
Back in the 70s, the 3000M was the only car still steerable after being crashed into a concrete block. Can't remember the speed though. Maybe 30 or 40 MPH?
Paul.
Nuggs said:
Having rode a push bike for many years, I don't get worried about car accidents.
[devilsadvocate]
But push bikes tend not to travel at speeds of up to 160mph plus...
[/devilsadvocate]
Ahh, but neither do I in my Chim
Can I just ask, what is the most common form of traffic accident anyway? I'd think its at junctions?
parrot of doom said:
Can I just ask, what is the most common form of traffic accident anyway? I'd think its at junctions?
From my own experience of producing detailed medico-legal reports for personal injury cases over several years (mostly RTAs, no surprise) by far the most common senarios are, as you suspected, people in stationary cars at junctions, roundabouts and waiting to turn right getting shunted up the backside by some dosey git for whom the activity of driving is just another unwelcome chore, deserving the minimum amount of effort and attention which he (she) can get away with - until...
.....squeal (or patter of ABS)..... CRUMP!!!!
Sadly you only have to look at other peoples driving or talk to them about it to realise that they have NO INTEREST or ENTHUSIASM for driving and so as with most things we don't like doing, aren't very good at it. They'd rather be doing almost anything else and the last thing they are actually thinking about is, what is in fact probably the most lethal activity they are ever involved in. Incredibly frightening really. Why can't some government have the balls to say, "Right, from now on people are going to have to prove quite convincingly that they are competent to drive" and make the driving test into a real test, where a significant proprtion of people will simply never be able to achieve the minimum acceptable standard. Thereby ridding the roads of 90% of those responsible for stupid avoidable collisions, death and injury and at the same time at a stroke, solving the traffic congestion problem.
We still seem to be stuck with the concept that people have a God-given-RIGHT to be able to drive a vehicle on a public highway, that is such total crap. Getting a licence to fly a light aircraft (JAR PPL) is not especially hard but it is a REAL test of competence and knowledge, most reasonable motivated and intelligent people would not have a problem with that, but those who fundamentally aren't up to it will get weeded out. The real paradox there is that it is probably a damn sight harder to kill and maim using a Cessna 152, either on the ground or in the open sky (just think of the odds of a collison in the air compared with those on a busy road!!)than with a Ford Fiesta. Does anybody agree??
Sorry to rant , that just seemed to come out once i started typing
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff