SVA and design safety
Discussion
Anyone who believes that an SVA inspection is anything more than a cursory check that the car they have built broadly complies with a high-level check list (and some fairly superficial low-level requirements), is I'm afraid, seriously deluding themselves. If you believe that SVA is a mechanism for spotting engineering design flaws - anywhere else other than in the one or two areas which are probably covered in what could be described as 'acceptable' depth - then I'm afraid you are much mistaken ! The reasons for this are obvious - it would simply be impossible to properly validate the 'engineering adequacy' of an amateur designed / constructed vehicle using a practical test procedure that could be carried out cost-effectively in a reasonable period of time. Practical experience also shows that many SVA inspectors do little more than follow to the letter of the Blue Book and would often seem to have very little engineering expertise. The guy who lifted the bonnet of my Cobra a few years back looked to me to be totally mystified by the whole affair, and his general lack of engineering knowledge was obvious from many of his comments. This is all not to say that SVA is a bad thing - indeed it's probably the best that can be achieved - the next step is that the Nanny State steps in and banns self-build cars completely. When you look at all the would-be Ambulance Chasers in today's society, it's absolutely amazing that there are ANY manufacturers still out there prepared to take on the potential claim liabilities and that in principle completely unskilled members of the public are still allowed to build vehicles which can be driven at high speeds by themselves or indeed anyone else, on public roads .
All this is why the airing of some of the more controversial engineering issues that crop up now and again , on a public form, has nothing whatsoever to do with 'slagging off' manufacturers, but everything to do with a genuine concern for design integrity and human safety.
Finally, we all know that people in the Kit Car world often suffer from an unfortunate 'mine is better than yours' attitude, and will often go to great lengths in order to 'proove' it ! A lot of tiresome crap does indeed get written about all manner of unimportant stuff (even by me!). However, when something important relating to fundamental safety concerns comes up - LETS HAVE THE FULL DEBATE, so that all those interested can examine the evidence, do their own checking and form their own objective opinions on the important subject matter under discussion !
Pete.
All this is why the airing of some of the more controversial engineering issues that crop up now and again , on a public form, has nothing whatsoever to do with 'slagging off' manufacturers, but everything to do with a genuine concern for design integrity and human safety.
Finally, we all know that people in the Kit Car world often suffer from an unfortunate 'mine is better than yours' attitude, and will often go to great lengths in order to 'proove' it ! A lot of tiresome crap does indeed get written about all manner of unimportant stuff (even by me!). However, when something important relating to fundamental safety concerns comes up - LETS HAVE THE FULL DEBATE, so that all those interested can examine the evidence, do their own checking and form their own objective opinions on the important subject matter under discussion !
Pete.
I agree. The SVA is really only a guide to say you've built the car safely not that the car is inherintly (sp) safe or well designed/engineered and will stand the test of time or specific areas are up to the job.
Perhaps engineering integrity and safety checks by some governing body (STATUS?) is the next logical step for the industry where all new (and subsequently modified) kits that come on to the market. Manufacturers kits would need to pass various test and not be allowed to sell before the kit has passed and issued a certificate from the governing body.
A subject in it's own right I guess.
John
www.Madabout-Kitcars.com
Perhaps engineering integrity and safety checks by some governing body (STATUS?) is the next logical step for the industry where all new (and subsequently modified) kits that come on to the market. Manufacturers kits would need to pass various test and not be allowed to sell before the kit has passed and issued a certificate from the governing body.
A subject in it's own right I guess.
John
www.Madabout-Kitcars.com
V8Pete said:
Anyone who believes that an SVA inspection is anything more than a cursory check that the car they have built broadly complies with a high-level check list (and some fairly superficial low-level requirements), is I'm afraid, seriously deluding themselves. If you believe that SVA is a mechanism for spotting engineering design flaws - anywhere else other than in the one or two areas which are probably covered in what could be described as 'acceptable' depth - then I'm afraid you are much mistaken ! The reasons for this are obvious - it would simply be impossible to properly validate the 'engineering adequacy' of an amateur designed / constructed vehicle using a practical test procedure that could be carried out cost-effectively in a reasonable period of time. Practical experience also shows that many SVA inspectors do little more than follow to the letter of the Blue Book and would often seem to have very little engineering expertise. The guy who lifted the bonnet of my Cobra a few years back looked to me to be totally mystified by the whole affair, and his general lack of engineering knowledge was obvious from many of his comments. This is all not to say that SVA is a bad thing - indeed it's probably the best that can be achieved - the next step is that the Nanny State steps in and banns self-build cars completely. When you look at all the would-be Ambulance Chasers in today's society, it's absolutely amazing that there are ANY manufacturers still out there prepared to take on the potential claim liabilities and that in principle completely unskilled members of the public are still allowed to build vehicles which can be driven at high speeds by themselves or indeed anyone else, on public roads .
All this is why the airing of some of the more controversial engineering issues that crop up now and again , on a public form, has nothing whatsoever to do with 'slagging off' manufacturers, but everything to do with a genuine concern for design integrity and human safety.
Finally, we all know that people in the Kit Car world often suffer from an unfortunate 'mine is better than yours' attitude, and will often go to great lengths in order to 'proove' it ! A lot of tiresome crap does indeed get written about all manner of unimportant stuff (even by me!). However, when something important relating to fundamental safety concerns comes up - LETS HAVE THE FULL DEBATE, so that all those interested can examine the evidence, do their own checking and form their own objective opinions on the important subject matter under discussion !
Pete.
Well said Pete!
Just be carefull how far you let the authorities go . here there is no such thing as a cheap kitcar , you have to get an engineer to authorise the start of a project , plans & a build manuel must be created , an current/new engine with cat is required (out of a new vehicle ie recient write off),A chassis torsion & beam test is required then on completion it is roadtested , suspension is checked , bumpsteer must be within tolerances and you have to be within a power to weight ratio to get road legal . I believe its about to get worse as well !!!A normal Locost is over 10 000 pounds
to build
Dave
to build
Dave
I agree with Pete. SVA was conceived merely as the most basic and cheep check possible that the car complies with the minimum Construction and Use Reg and Lighting Reg requirements - nothing more. Before SVA you simply had to get an MOT! To be honest, even now, SVA goes a bit beyond C&U (like the requirement for self-centring steering and the "General Design and Construction" sections) but nothing taxing. Anyone who feels that having got an SVA test they have a "type approved" car is, I feel, deluded!
On the other hand, you really ought to hear the moans out of kit car manufacturers! Many of them feel that VOSA is on a personal vendetta aginst them. Many feel very aggrieved when they fail and yet, in some cases that I have come across, they really shouldn't have been let loose with anything as dangerous as a sharp pencil - never mind a motor car! If SVA has achieved anything at all, it has been to make sure people have at least some sort of sensible brake balance between the front and rear of the car. I was astounded at how many cars failed this most basic safety check in the early days!
The idea that STATUS should inspect and accredit cars is an interesting one. Unfortunately, STATUS is funded by the manufacturers and as such, I think would be unlikely to have any "teeth" in this matter. Furthermore, the sort of failures kit cars tend to have would be fatigue-type durability failures and these are eye-wateringly expensive to test for because the tests take so long. Just to put things into perspective, I know that the late Geroge Read was, for several years pestering the whole industry to at least get their seat belt anchorages tested. He was even pushing an extremely low cost test offer (rather less than the cost of a decent magazine advert) and would anyone like to take a guess at the number of takers? (it was TWO, last time I heard!)
I'd heard about the Australian torsion and beam stifness tests before. Although they seem like a good idea, why is this important? Does anyone know if a Morgan would pass such a test? (or anything made before the war for that matter?) I'm not sure it's that relevant to safety (although undoubtedly essential for good handling on certain designs!)
Finally, to temper all this pessimism, how many people were killed on our roads last year in (or by) kit cars? In these days of nanny-state paranoia, it's always worth keeping in mind whether or not we're actually solving a problem that we haven't got anyway!
On the other hand, you really ought to hear the moans out of kit car manufacturers! Many of them feel that VOSA is on a personal vendetta aginst them. Many feel very aggrieved when they fail and yet, in some cases that I have come across, they really shouldn't have been let loose with anything as dangerous as a sharp pencil - never mind a motor car! If SVA has achieved anything at all, it has been to make sure people have at least some sort of sensible brake balance between the front and rear of the car. I was astounded at how many cars failed this most basic safety check in the early days!
The idea that STATUS should inspect and accredit cars is an interesting one. Unfortunately, STATUS is funded by the manufacturers and as such, I think would be unlikely to have any "teeth" in this matter. Furthermore, the sort of failures kit cars tend to have would be fatigue-type durability failures and these are eye-wateringly expensive to test for because the tests take so long. Just to put things into perspective, I know that the late Geroge Read was, for several years pestering the whole industry to at least get their seat belt anchorages tested. He was even pushing an extremely low cost test offer (rather less than the cost of a decent magazine advert) and would anyone like to take a guess at the number of takers? (it was TWO, last time I heard!)
I'd heard about the Australian torsion and beam stifness tests before. Although they seem like a good idea, why is this important? Does anyone know if a Morgan would pass such a test? (or anything made before the war for that matter?) I'm not sure it's that relevant to safety (although undoubtedly essential for good handling on certain designs!)
Finally, to temper all this pessimism, how many people were killed on our roads last year in (or by) kit cars? In these days of nanny-state paranoia, it's always worth keeping in mind whether or not we're actually solving a problem that we haven't got anyway!
There seems to be some confusion about the torsion test for kit or one off cars in Australia.
There is a legal and binding agreement between the states of Australia (which is also embodied in the laws of each state) that a car licensed in one state will be automatically licensed in another state subject to a road (I say again) road test.
Up until about 24 months ago the only requirement for torsion testing was inflicted by the QUEENSLAND state government on kit or one off cars built and first licensed in QUEENSLAND (thats pronounced "QUIENSLND AY"
which is the DEEEEEEEEEEEEEP North of Australia...a lot like the Deep South of the USA.
Come to think about it, I have been to the Deep South of USA and there is no difference between the DEEEEEEEEP North of Australia and the Deep South of USA. Well, thats almost true; I do tell a lie here.
In truth, the only difference between there and here is that if someone from the Deep South migrated to the DEEEEEEEEEP North there would be a net gain in intelligence in both areas. I speak the bitter truth with a straight tongue here.
Well, that feels good and I feel a lot lighter. So, to continue. The essence of the situation is "inflicted by the QUEENSLAND state government on kit or one off cars built and first licensed in QUEENSLAND". A kit or one off car that is built in any other state and initially licensed in that or any state other than QUEENSLAND AY did NOT have to pass a torsion test upon being presented for licensing in QUEENSLAND AY.
A mass produced car or a kit or one off car that is licensed initially in another state MUST be accepted by the QUEENSLAND AY licencing authorities else said authorities in QUEENSLAND AY will be overturning the agreement between the states of Australia that a car licensed in one state will be automatically licensed in another state subject to a road (I say again) road and not ((I say again) not a design fitness test.
And dont think the B*st*rds in QUEENSLAND AY haven't tried it on....and (deep smile) lost.
That, as I said, was the situation up to 24 months ago. I know of no reason for the situation to have changed since then.
Webrat
(QUEENSLAND AY - hate it or despise it - AY)
There is a legal and binding agreement between the states of Australia (which is also embodied in the laws of each state) that a car licensed in one state will be automatically licensed in another state subject to a road (I say again) road test.
Up until about 24 months ago the only requirement for torsion testing was inflicted by the QUEENSLAND state government on kit or one off cars built and first licensed in QUEENSLAND (thats pronounced "QUIENSLND AY"
which is the DEEEEEEEEEEEEEP North of Australia...a lot like the Deep South of the USA. Come to think about it, I have been to the Deep South of USA and there is no difference between the DEEEEEEEEP North of Australia and the Deep South of USA. Well, thats almost true; I do tell a lie here.
In truth, the only difference between there and here is that if someone from the Deep South migrated to the DEEEEEEEEEP North there would be a net gain in intelligence in both areas. I speak the bitter truth with a straight tongue here.
Well, that feels good and I feel a lot lighter. So, to continue. The essence of the situation is "inflicted by the QUEENSLAND state government on kit or one off cars built and first licensed in QUEENSLAND". A kit or one off car that is built in any other state and initially licensed in that or any state other than QUEENSLAND AY did NOT have to pass a torsion test upon being presented for licensing in QUEENSLAND AY.
A mass produced car or a kit or one off car that is licensed initially in another state MUST be accepted by the QUEENSLAND AY licencing authorities else said authorities in QUEENSLAND AY will be overturning the agreement between the states of Australia that a car licensed in one state will be automatically licensed in another state subject to a road (I say again) road and not ((I say again) not a design fitness test.
And dont think the B*st*rds in QUEENSLAND AY haven't tried it on....and (deep smile) lost.
That, as I said, was the situation up to 24 months ago. I know of no reason for the situation to have changed since then.
Webrat
(QUEENSLAND AY - hate it or despise it - AY)
Hi Avocet,
Go to [url]http://locost7.info/mirror/aussiemods.php[/url] to see a good series of photo's of the test process. Pass or fail is simple - the guages tell the story and the test used to be supervised by the appropriate authorities.
I cant remember the pass value (and some b*gger has borrowed my book; must get it back some time) - its fairly high in comparison to the stiffness of the original Locost chassis design.
The value of a more ridgid chassis is that the suspension will (usually) behave itself and tend to act more like a suspension rather than having the suspension and the chassis acting together....sort of like a gigantic spring, I suppose is the best way to visualise it.
Go to [url]http://locost7.info/mirror/aussiemods.php[/url] to see a good series of photo's of the test process. Pass or fail is simple - the guages tell the story and the test used to be supervised by the appropriate authorities.
I cant remember the pass value (and some b*gger has borrowed my book; must get it back some time) - its fairly high in comparison to the stiffness of the original Locost chassis design.
The value of a more ridgid chassis is that the suspension will (usually) behave itself and tend to act more like a suspension rather than having the suspension and the chassis acting together....sort of like a gigantic spring, I suppose is the best way to visualise it.
The rules are quite simple ,max deflection (after twice the load is applied eg 128kG FOR EACH PERSON , at the site of the seat ) must be below 1.25mm ,
torsional beaming test for 4 Cyl (NA) >4000Nm per %
for larger than 4 Cyl or Turbo then its >6000Nm per %
Queensland rules are in conjuction with the Aus design Rules , therefore cars must be within Bumpsteer , handling tests and signed off by the certifing engineer,likewise glassfibre must be certified and fit within all the other rules. This means cars SHOULD be professional in build, otherwise the engineer is in trouble.
One of the biggest advantages here is its usually not to cold to work on the cars (Today Excepted!!!)
torsional beaming test for 4 Cyl (NA) >4000Nm per %
for larger than 4 Cyl or Turbo then its >6000Nm per %
Queensland rules are in conjuction with the Aus design Rules , therefore cars must be within Bumpsteer , handling tests and signed off by the certifing engineer,likewise glassfibre must be certified and fit within all the other rules. This means cars SHOULD be professional in build, otherwise the engineer is in trouble.
One of the biggest advantages here is its usually not to cold to work on the cars (Today Excepted!!!)
This might lead to a system similar to the building regs for houses.
Will there be regular visits from inspectors?
Will there be a need for some form of qualifications/training/approval before you can build a kit?
I think that ther might be limitations on what exactly can be done by "amateur" builders and what must be done by "professional" e.g. welding by certified welders only?
What about "interim MOT type tests/inspections?
A minefield if ever I saw one. Just think how complex a build would then be
Cost? New parts only with no refurbs especially for some parts more than others?
Goodbye locost if that ever happens.
Will there be regular visits from inspectors?
Will there be a need for some form of qualifications/training/approval before you can build a kit?
I think that ther might be limitations on what exactly can be done by "amateur" builders and what must be done by "professional" e.g. welding by certified welders only?
What about "interim MOT type tests/inspections?
A minefield if ever I saw one. Just think how complex a build would then be
Cost? New parts only with no refurbs especially for some parts more than others?
Goodbye locost if that ever happens.
Well, I'm still none the wiser as to why pasing the torsion and beaming test makes a car better or worse, safe or dangerous! The torsion test seems quite severe- I know of several highly-regarded UK kits that probably wouldn't pass it! Of course, torsional stiffness is a good thing for handling and NVH reasons but there are plenty of perfectly good, durable, serviceable cars out there that aren't particularly stiff.
The beaming test, on the other hand seems incredibly easy. I know I'd want my car to take rather more load at the deflections mentioned! Fair enough, if it makes the authorities there happy but I can't say either test gives me any real reassurance about durability and crashworthiness - the two things I'd be most worried about!
The beaming test, on the other hand seems incredibly easy. I know I'd want my car to take rather more load at the deflections mentioned! Fair enough, if it makes the authorities there happy but I can't say either test gives me any real reassurance about durability and crashworthiness - the two things I'd be most worried about!
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff