Discussion
There's one vehicle I'd feel a bit safer in a roll over/ roof impact -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
mikey k said:
julian64 said:
This is why I think the euro NCAP is slighty suspect. It gives the impression that all modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
You may have a pointHowever when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
many years ago I had something similar with a large sheet of wood and a Citroen BX on the M25, it smashed the screen and dented the roof, but was repairable.
Unlike my trousers!
Cars today are crash tested against, amongst other things, themselves, so the added mass of the car is not a factor in it being "safer" than older cars as the car mainly has to deal with its own mass when crashing and not the mass of a lighter car.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
julian64 said:
This is why I think the euro NCAP is slighty suspect. It gives the impression that all modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
Agreed, completely. However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
A decade ago a close friend lost his life in an R53 Cooper S. His car span, and the rear of his car collided with the front of a Corsa C.
The front end of the Corsa was a mess, but completely survivable. IIRC, the doors were intact, and the A pillar and roof were crease free.
His Mini on the other hand was, and I kid you not, left about a foot wide at the rear, and the roof was crushed up like a Coke can. This was a 5 Star NCAP car.
It's all well and good calling a car 5 star NCAP, but there are more than 5 crash scenarios.
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Wednesday 22 May 10:18
FiF said:
OP here. Just to say quite a few years back, decades back now, did some work involved with the investigations into lost and loose wheel collisions. Situation in terms of numbers of incidents was worse than it is today, and lots of reasons for that. However for a time afterwards it completely freaked me out, just the concept of hammering up a dark motorway on the way to something and the prospect of an HGV wheel appearing out of nowhere. With the closing speeds involved and the unpredictability of the bounce it's bad enough to make an avoidance in daylight having picked it up earlier.
BTW, suspect the other vehicle involved is parked in the background on the other carriageway with a traffic unit behind it.
That's really interesting, when I was at VOSA there was talk that whoever designed a way to prevent this happening on HGVs would become a billionaire overnight. I have seen so many proposed solutions from indicators on the nuts daisy-chained together to complete redesigns of wheels and hubs. No one is a billionaire yet.BTW, suspect the other vehicle involved is parked in the background on the other carriageway with a traffic unit behind it.
And I agree with you that the possibility of a stray wheel, brick, pole, plank, vehicle etc. appearing at motorway speed from either the opposite carriageway, a wagon in front or a bridge, and being unavoidable, is hugely sobering.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
There's one vehicle I'd feel a bit safer in a roll over/ roof impact -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
The roof rails, pillars, etc. are doing all of the work there; roof skin might as well be foreskin for all that it matters. I suspect that an XC90 would have met the same fate as the Peugeot (?) in the OP.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
P.S. First sentence sounds harsh but I am so please with crowbarring foreskin into the answer that I'm leaving it like that; really no offence meant at all
echazfraz said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
There's one vehicle I'd feel a bit safer in a roll over/ roof impact -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
The roof rails, pillars, etc. are doing all of the work there; roof skin might as well be foreskin for all that it matters. I suspect that an XC90 would have met the same fate as the Peugeot (?) in the OP.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
P.S. First sentence sounds harsh but I am so please with crowbarring foreskin into the answer that I'm leaving it like that; really no offence meant at all
Dog Star said:
SpeckledJim said:
I don’t know, but I suspect a pano roof might actually be stronger than that normal roof.
I'm on my 4th car with a pano roof (all Mercs) and they have pretty big beams. What with the mechanism for the sliding etc I suspect they're stronger.LeoSayer said:
I wasn’t there so I don’t know any different.
Maybe it could have been avoided, maybe not.
Maybe the wheel had been bouncing down the road for 5 seconds, or maybe it had just flown off.
Maybe the wheel was heading off the carriageway but it hit another car and bounced into the path of the unlucky victim
But you can take some measures to give yourself the best chance of avoiding such a random event.
Before you set out:
Do you know how your car handles extreme steering and braking inputs?
Are your tyres, brakes and suspension in good condition?
Do you have any loose heavy objects in the car?
Whilst driving:
Keep a constant look out close ahead and into the distance
Is traffic ahead is behaving unusually eg. swerving or braking?
Do you have space to swerve into another lane if necessary?
Are you aware of what vehicles are behind and to the side of you?
Are you far enough from the car or lorry in front to see past them?
I can’t think of any scenario where I would prefer to crash a 20 year older version of a car versus its modern day equivalent.
What an odd post. Maybe it could have been avoided, maybe not.
Maybe the wheel had been bouncing down the road for 5 seconds, or maybe it had just flown off.
Maybe the wheel was heading off the carriageway but it hit another car and bounced into the path of the unlucky victim
But you can take some measures to give yourself the best chance of avoiding such a random event.
Before you set out:
Do you know how your car handles extreme steering and braking inputs?
Are your tyres, brakes and suspension in good condition?
Do you have any loose heavy objects in the car?
Whilst driving:
Keep a constant look out close ahead and into the distance
Is traffic ahead is behaving unusually eg. swerving or braking?
Do you have space to swerve into another lane if necessary?
Are you aware of what vehicles are behind and to the side of you?
Are you far enough from the car or lorry in front to see past them?
I can’t think of any scenario where I would prefer to crash a 20 year older version of a car versus its modern day equivalent.
How does not having any loose heavy objects in the car prevent the wheel of a lorry travelling in the opposite direction of a motorway hitting your car?
The closing speed of the 2 objects would be about 130 mph with the tyre coming at an angle. You would barely see it before impact, let alone have time to assess your options and move out the way. By the grace of god and all that.
mac96 said:
echazfraz said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
There's one vehicle I'd feel a bit safer in a roll over/ roof impact -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
The roof rails, pillars, etc. are doing all of the work there; roof skin might as well be foreskin for all that it matters. I suspect that an XC90 would have met the same fate as the Peugeot (?) in the OP.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
P.S. First sentence sounds harsh but I am so please with crowbarring foreskin into the answer that I'm leaving it like that; really no offence meant at all
"roof...more rigidly attached to...body" - it depends what is meant by "rigidly" and to some extent "attached"! I can see that broadly, in this scenario, if that roof skin had been "more rigidly attached" and thicker, different material (carbon fibre as someone else said) it would have a better chance of deflecting that tyre.
Carbon fibre especially is strong stuff - the FIA's sciency-bit fired F1-car wheels and tyres going very quickly at prototype "halos" when investigating halos' efficacy as a driver protection aid. The halos did well, but that's a completely different shape to a roof.
Basically everything in car design (which I don't do, so others may correct me), including safety, is a compromise of many factors including cost and there will be very few models of tyred-wheels t
tting roofs (rooves?) being brought into the equation when making design decisions.buggalugs said:
Dog Star said:
SpeckledJim said:
I don’t know, but I suspect a pano roof might actually be stronger than that normal roof.
I'm on my 4th car with a pano roof (all Mercs) and they have pretty big beams. What with the mechanism for the sliding etc I suspect they're stronger.Whereas metal deforms, absorbs, etc. and can be used to "control" things more.
Many years ago I had to recover a vehicle that was involved in a roof collision .
A swan versus a Morris Marina . The Marina lost , the Marina was doing less than 30mph and the Swan had mistaken the road for the river that ran alongside. The swan was still alive but was put down by a vet . The Marina was scrap having lost all its glass and every thing above bonnet height was bent or buckled including all the door frames .
A couple of months later we recovered a nearly new XJ6 that had collided with a piper aircraft landing at an airfield .
The jag had its roof peeled like a sardine tin , the piper had lost a wheel and leg but managed to get on the ground with only minor further damage . The jag driver was pissed as a fart and attempted to drive away even with the top arc of the steering wheel bent 90 degrees .
A swan versus a Morris Marina . The Marina lost , the Marina was doing less than 30mph and the Swan had mistaken the road for the river that ran alongside. The swan was still alive but was put down by a vet . The Marina was scrap having lost all its glass and every thing above bonnet height was bent or buckled including all the door frames .
A couple of months later we recovered a nearly new XJ6 that had collided with a piper aircraft landing at an airfield .
The jag had its roof peeled like a sardine tin , the piper had lost a wheel and leg but managed to get on the ground with only minor further damage . The jag driver was pissed as a fart and attempted to drive away even with the top arc of the steering wheel bent 90 degrees .
Bonded in, flush mounted windscreens must surely be one of the best things that has happened in car design. They add strength to both the screen pillars the bulkhead and the top of the roof. If that lorry wheel had hit an older car with the screen held in with a rubber seal, I shudder to think just how bad the damage would have been.
In the late 1970s, I had the misfortune to be an apprentice @ a simply dire B.L.Garage in Woodford Green, Essex.
There was a long retired old timer there called Harry, who used to come in for a few hours a day to clean and make the tea etc etc. He had been a senior mechanic all of his working life. One day, he told me that years before, he had been called out to recover a Police car from a crash scene. The car had been involved in a heavy impact, which had dislodged the windscreen. The screen had come back and sadly decapitated both of the police officers. Their heads were still in the back of the car when he arrived.
In the late 1970s, I had the misfortune to be an apprentice @ a simply dire B.L.Garage in Woodford Green, Essex.
There was a long retired old timer there called Harry, who used to come in for a few hours a day to clean and make the tea etc etc. He had been a senior mechanic all of his working life. One day, he told me that years before, he had been called out to recover a Police car from a crash scene. The car had been involved in a heavy impact, which had dislodged the windscreen. The screen had come back and sadly decapitated both of the police officers. Their heads were still in the back of the car when he arrived.
FiF said:
Shakermaker said:
Yeah this was on "Truck and Driver" facebook page a couple of days ago. A lorry tyre that was lost from the drive axle, apparently, of an HGV travelling on the opposite carriageway, came over the central reservation and lodged itself in the Peugeot.
Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
That's clearly not a drive axle tyre, if it came off a drive axle then wrong type of tyre fitted. Which is potentially another issue, it's most likely just had a wheel changed, have they fitted the wrong equipment, e.g. trailer wheel on a drive axle, different fittings? Incorrect size spigot hole? Who knows.Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
This is an example of a drive axle tyre.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
julian64 said:
This is why I think the euro NCAP is slighty suspect. It gives the impression that all modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
Agreed, completely. However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
A decade ago a close friend lost his life in an R53 Cooper S. His car span, and the rear of his car collided with the front of a Corsa C.
The front end of the Corsa was a mess, but completely survivable. IIRC, the doors were intact, and the A pillar and roof were crease free.
His Mini on the other hand was, and I kid you not, left about a foot wide at the rear, and the roof was crushed up like a Coke can. This was a 5 Star NCAP car.
It's all well and good calling a car 5 star NCAP, but there are more than 5 crash scenarios.
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Wednesday 22 May 10:18
I had one of the very first Cooper S, back in summer 2004 and although I loved that car, I definitely would not have wanted to have been in an shunt in it. I also had a 2006 Corsa 1.2SXi which I also loved and it did feel more solidly built than the Mini.
julian64 said:
SOL111 said:
Not really. Cars ARE orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
Might not be relevant to you, but its where I would put my money in that accident. If I can stand on an old car, but on a modern car I cant, then I know which car I'd rather be in when a dirty great wheel hits the top of my car.I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
If your figures tell you otherwise then good luck to you.
I saw the OP's original pics on the Lancs Road Police twitter feed at the weekend (I believe they took the pics):
Second one makes you realise how lucky the driver and his (non-passenger) child were!
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130461...
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130463...
Second one makes you realise how lucky the driver and his (non-passenger) child were!
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130461...
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130463...
gazza285 said:
FiF said:
Shakermaker said:
Yeah this was on "Truck and Driver" facebook page a couple of days ago. A lorry tyre that was lost from the drive axle, apparently, of an HGV travelling on the opposite carriageway, came over the central reservation and lodged itself in the Peugeot.
Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
That's clearly not a drive axle tyre, if it came off a drive axle then wrong type of tyre fitted. Which is potentially another issue, it's most likely just had a wheel changed, have they fitted the wrong equipment, e.g. trailer wheel on a drive axle, different fittings? Incorrect size spigot hole? Who knows.Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
This is an example of a drive axle tyre.
PurpleTurtle said:
I saw the OP's original pics on the Lancs Road Police twitter feed at the weekend (I believe they took the pics):
Second one makes you realise how lucky the driver and his (non-passenger) child were!
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130461...
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130463...
Read an article on this, and the drivers son was meant to be with him and would have been in that crushed child seat.Second one makes you realise how lucky the driver and his (non-passenger) child were!
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130461...
https://twitter.com/LancsRoadPolice/status/1130463...
echazfraz said:
mikey k said:
julian64 said:
A decade ago a close friend lost his life in an R53 Cooper S. His car span, and the rear of his car collided with the front of a Corsa C.
The front end of the Corsa was a mess, but completely survivable. IIRC, the doors were intact, and the A pillar and roof were crease free.
His Mini on the other hand was, and I kid you not, left about a foot wide at the rear, and the roof was crushed up like a Coke can. This was a 5 Star NCAP car.
It's all well and good calling a car 5 star NCAP, but there are more than 5 crash scenarios.
EuroNCAP is not, never has been, and never will be a catch-all. It is limited, as are all testing protocols that need to be commercially viable, to a number of scenarios that cover a wide range of variables. It's completely true to say that there are more than 5 crash scenarios and it's really important for buyers to educate themselves as to the limitations of the NCAP rating as much as how many stars their car has. I'm sorry to hear about your friend in this situation.The front end of the Corsa was a mess, but completely survivable. IIRC, the doors were intact, and the A pillar and roof were crease free.
His Mini on the other hand was, and I kid you not, left about a foot wide at the rear, and the roof was crushed up like a Coke can. This was a 5 Star NCAP car.
It's all well and good calling a car 5 star NCAP, but there are more than 5 crash scenarios.
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Wednesday 22 May 10:18
echazfraz said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
There's one vehicle I'd feel a bit safer in a roll over/ roof impact -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
The roof rails, pillars, etc. are doing all of the work there; roof skin might as well be foreskin for all that it matters. I suspect that an XC90 would have met the same fate as the Peugeot (?) in the OP.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8
P.S. First sentence sounds harsh but I am so please with crowbarring foreskin into the answer that I'm leaving it like that; really no offence meant at all
Don't think about googling. It's a grim story.
julian64 said:
Might not be relevant to you, but its where I would put my money in that accident. If I can stand on an old car, but on a modern car I cant, then I know which car I'd rather be in when a dirty great wheel hits the top of my car.
If your figures tell you otherwise then good luck to you.
You do realise that the body panels on a car (irrespective of age) serve no other purpose than cosmetic? That's why they're paper thin nowadays, as it's a waste of money having the ability to stand on a bonnet when all the clever engineering needs to be elsewhere.If your figures tell you otherwise then good luck to you.
You're comparing a static load to a dynamic one, which bear no relation to each other. Personally I'd take a modern car over old any day of the week.
Although ultimately the majority of cars are an irrelevance when it comes to this kind of freakish accident as none are designed for random wheel/tyre impacts. It's as random as being hit by a falling branch and pure luck whether you live or die. Thank goodness these people lived as anything slightly different and they might not be.
Redline88 said:
Since when are rollcages not legal on the road. plenty of track focussed cars have them as standard - 911 gt3 rs, Megane R26r to name two...
InitialDave said:
I was about to say they're just fine on the road, but then I clocked your username. I assume this is another example of Oz's attitude problem with cars?
It always amazes me that Australia seems to maintain this image of easy going, freewheeling, she'll-be-right kind of attitudes, yet whenever I see anything relating to motoring law, it comes across as just an irritating, interfering, top-down, computer-says-no approach to everything.
I should have mentioned not legal in Australia. The supposed reason for no roll cages is that it makes it less safe for the other car if you have an accident because your car is now significantly stronger. However my thinking is i am not all that bothered about the other car if it means i am safer. It always amazes me that Australia seems to maintain this image of easy going, freewheeling, she'll-be-right kind of attitudes, yet whenever I see anything relating to motoring law, it comes across as just an irritating, interfering, top-down, computer-says-no approach to everything.
It makes even less sense when you consider you can pay more money and buy a car with a higher safety rating, so why cant i pay more money and make my car safer?
You have got me wondering about how cars fitted with factory roll cages fit into that rule.
I would love to put a cage in my car as it spends loads of time on the track but i also need to drive to work in it every day so i cant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff