Discussion
I know kitcars are usually safe.
But when you tell someone you have got one or your thinking about it they always turn around and tell you there not safe go ahead and get killed or somthing. maybe because they think its gotta have airbags to be safe?
Or maybe they just haven't got expeirence in kitcars.
Sometimes its annoying when they tell you don't get that its not safe.
But when you tell someone you have got one or your thinking about it they always turn around and tell you there not safe go ahead and get killed or somthing. maybe because they think its gotta have airbags to be safe?
Or maybe they just haven't got expeirence in kitcars.
Sometimes its annoying when they tell you don't get that its not safe.
Edited by KitCar.. on Thursday 19th February 09:44
Safety is relative. In my Westie I know I can comfortably out steer, brake and accelerate most things on the road so you can get yourself out of and avoid danger more easily than I can in my old Merc for example. Mainly due to the lack of mass involved. However I'm also much more aware that if something of the mass of my old Merc were to hit me, I'd be f**ked.
Using that mentality we should all drive Volvos and bikers would be committed for being suicidal. However if everything in life was without some element of danger, there'd be no fun.
Using that mentality we should all drive Volvos and bikers would be committed for being suicidal. However if everything in life was without some element of danger, there'd be no fun.
Edited by juansolo on Thursday 19th February 11:03
I'm not convinced by the argument that making cars safer improves safety, in fact recent car safety improvements have been coupled with a reduction in general driving standards.
I remember some research that was carried out in Canada that ended up showing that people acted at a percieved level of risk, so if you made something safer then they found a way to increase the danger to achieve the same overall level of risk as before. The study was at an ungated level crossing with irregular rail traffic, the approaching trains could only be seen at a very late stage by an approaching car. The authorities cut avenues through the trees to allow car drivers to have more warning. This should have increased the safety of the crossing, however, the car drivers average speed increased so the risks remained the same.
For myself, I had a Westfield SE and did 38,000 miles, then I replaced the Westfield with a Fiat Coupe and my driving got noticeably worse. I think that driving something like a Westfield improves your situational awareness and you appreciate the risks more having less driver and safety aids. Yes, being hit by a salesman blasting along in his BMW 318 juggling his phone and blackberry will result in you comming off worse but you stand a better chance of being aware of his approach and taking avoiding action than if you are sat in the Volvo listening to Radio 2.
I remember some research that was carried out in Canada that ended up showing that people acted at a percieved level of risk, so if you made something safer then they found a way to increase the danger to achieve the same overall level of risk as before. The study was at an ungated level crossing with irregular rail traffic, the approaching trains could only be seen at a very late stage by an approaching car. The authorities cut avenues through the trees to allow car drivers to have more warning. This should have increased the safety of the crossing, however, the car drivers average speed increased so the risks remained the same.
For myself, I had a Westfield SE and did 38,000 miles, then I replaced the Westfield with a Fiat Coupe and my driving got noticeably worse. I think that driving something like a Westfield improves your situational awareness and you appreciate the risks more having less driver and safety aids. Yes, being hit by a salesman blasting along in his BMW 318 juggling his phone and blackberry will result in you comming off worse but you stand a better chance of being aware of his approach and taking avoiding action than if you are sat in the Volvo listening to Radio 2.
juansolo said:
In my Westie I know I can comfortably out steer, brake and accelerate most things on the road so you can get yourself out of and avoid danger more easily
Yep. Its what engineer's call 'primary safety'; ie. make sure you don't crash in the first place.It's the overwhelming design approach used in aircraft (which are, as we all know, the safest form of transport bar none). No one has ever even attempted to build an aircraft which is designed to be able to crash safely...
Whereas most production cars place at least equal emphasis on 'secondary safety', ie. trying to make sure that injury will be minimised once the primary safety measures have failed and a crash has occurred.
To be fair, I think we all acknowledge that some degree of secondary safety is necessary with cars, but better primary safty does mitigate to some extent the fact taht secondary safety is not so good.
I know I am much more focused on the task at hand in the TVR than in a normal car, without consciously thinking about it. Cue the Advanced Driving painting by numbers folks saying that I should have the same level of awareness in any car under any circumstances yadda yadda. Well maybe, but there's gotta be a disstinct advantage in that level of awareness and concentration coming naturally rather than having to consciously forcing myself to it.
juansolo said:
Safety is relative. In my Westie I know I can comfortably out steer, brake and accelerate most things on the road so you can get yourself out of and avoid danger more easily than I can in my old Merc for example. Mainly due to the lack of mass involved. However I'm also much more aware that if something of the mass of my old Merc were to hit me, I'd be f**ked.
Using that mentality we should all drive Volvos and bikers would be committed for being suicidal. However if everything in life was without some element of danger, there'd be no fun.
Id think along these lines. Especially that last bit. Been a biker since I was legal on the road and raced bikes since I was a young boy. I know the whole open feeling and the dangers but the element of danger makes me both a better and safer person for it.Using that mentality we should all drive Volvos and bikers would be committed for being suicidal. However if everything in life was without some element of danger, there'd be no fun.
Edited by juansolo on Thursday 19th February 11:03
Im a car salesman too though ^^^ reading another post about the BMW bit made me laugh. I drive NCAP 5 star cars all the time having all the latest technology etc. It does make you lazy at times!
Sam_68 said:
juansolo said:
In my Westie I know I can comfortably out steer, brake and accelerate most things on the road so you can get yourself out of and avoid danger more easily
Yep. Its what engineer's call 'primary safety'; ie. make sure you don't crash in the first place.It's the overwhelming design approach used in aircraft (which are, as we all know, the safest form of transport bar none). No one has ever even attempted to build an aircraft which is designed to be able to crash safely...
Whereas most production cars place at least equal emphasis on 'secondary safety', ie. trying to make sure that injury will be minimised once the primary safety measures have failed and a crash has occurred.
To be fair, I think we all acknowledge that some degree of secondary safety is necessary with cars, but better primary safty does mitigate to some extent the fact taht secondary safety is not so good.
juansolo said:
In my Westie I know I can comfortably out steer, brake and accelerate most things on the road so you can get yourself out of and avoid danger more easily than I can in my old Merc for example.
I know it's hardly a 'Seven, but when I first got my Quantum (literally the day after) someone pulled out in front of me as I was coming down the main road. I had just enough time to think 'great, it's going to get written off after 24hrs', but then I went past them, albeit somewhat sideways with two wheels on the grass. In my previous car (my mum's Saxo
) I'd have understeered straight into the side of them.As for actual crash safety I guess that depends on what type of impact it is and how well you're secured. Given some sort of crash structure and a 6 point harness you should be pretty safe. What's more I'd rather roll a Fury with a full rollcage than a standard factory MX5 (or indeed my TVR) without.
I suspect on the whole production cars are safer, but it's not as if a decent modern kit car is unsafe in a crash and you're probably a lot more likely to successfully avoid one.
I was out in a mate's 1937 AJS "Light Car" a while back. Cable brakes (and then only at one end!) a plate glass windscreen, no seat belts and a "passenger safety cell" made (as far as I could see) largely out of wickerwork! I don't think there's ANY doubting that neither it's primary, nor secondary safety characteristics were anything to write home about!
There is little doubt, in my mind, that most kit cars would struggle to get ANY stars if submitted for a EuroNCAP safety test. HOWEVER, like the AJS, they tend not to do many miles and they tend not to do those miles in adverse weather conditions. Very few people use a kit car for taxi work or "repping"! They are generally driven short distances and by people who have some sort of interest in cars and some sort of pride in how they drive. On the whole, they therefore have a very good safety record.
As has been said, bikes are not particularly inherently "safe" but their shortcommings can be largely made up for with good defensive driving. Lots of mainstream cars and as "safe" as they could be too. It would be a poor state of affairs if everyone was only allowed to drive something with a 5 star safety rating! And what happens as those 5 star cars age? Are they always as safe as the day they left the factory? I doubt it! Taking this argument to it's logical conclusion, we'd all have to drive 5 star rated cars and throw them away after 1 year!
There is little doubt, in my mind, that most kit cars would struggle to get ANY stars if submitted for a EuroNCAP safety test. HOWEVER, like the AJS, they tend not to do many miles and they tend not to do those miles in adverse weather conditions. Very few people use a kit car for taxi work or "repping"! They are generally driven short distances and by people who have some sort of interest in cars and some sort of pride in how they drive. On the whole, they therefore have a very good safety record.
As has been said, bikes are not particularly inherently "safe" but their shortcommings can be largely made up for with good defensive driving. Lots of mainstream cars and as "safe" as they could be too. It would be a poor state of affairs if everyone was only allowed to drive something with a 5 star safety rating! And what happens as those 5 star cars age? Are they always as safe as the day they left the factory? I doubt it! Taking this argument to it's logical conclusion, we'd all have to drive 5 star rated cars and throw them away after 1 year!
Has anyone got any pictures of crashed 7 type cars? I've searched but can't find much. I'm interested to see how they hold up to different types of crash.
I guess you might have an advantage in offset frontal collisions as you're more likely to get deflected away from the oncoming vehicle by the pointyness of the chassis.
I think while I feel a bit exposed and vulnerable in my Westy, it is more a case of modern cars giving us a false sense of security. Side airbags aren't going to be much help in any car if you hit a tree sideways.
I guess you might have an advantage in offset frontal collisions as you're more likely to get deflected away from the oncoming vehicle by the pointyness of the chassis.
I think while I feel a bit exposed and vulnerable in my Westy, it is more a case of modern cars giving us a false sense of security. Side airbags aren't going to be much help in any car if you hit a tree sideways.
I have to say this subject was on my mind this weekend while driving my tiger and i have to say i kept my head lights on for most of my miles, i guess due to me only owning this type of vehicle since september last year and not realy going anywhere in it until this weekend made me realise how unsafe it can be unless i changed my driving style and drived like i was back on a bike. I like to drive fast but at the same time trying not to underestimate any corner,crest,junction or car...
I seem to remember that Westfield used to perform its own crash tests and is the only manufacturer to have done so...I have seen pictures of it but cant find any on google. I should imagine its all done on a computer now.
I would think that most kit cars are reasonably safe due to most of them being constructed around a spaceframe. Also lots of them are developed with motorsport in mind or options for everything from a Pinto to a Rover V8 so have enough strength built in to them to support that.
Having said that a very stiff chassis means that crash forces are going to be transferred through your body so if your strapped in tight with a full harness your going to have a very sore neck for a while!
IMO rollover protection on some is somewhat pathetic, I'm no expert on roll cage design but the single hoop things with no bracing and just bolted to the top rail of the chassis makes me shudder!
I would think that most kit cars are reasonably safe due to most of them being constructed around a spaceframe. Also lots of them are developed with motorsport in mind or options for everything from a Pinto to a Rover V8 so have enough strength built in to them to support that.
Having said that a very stiff chassis means that crash forces are going to be transferred through your body so if your strapped in tight with a full harness your going to have a very sore neck for a while!
IMO rollover protection on some is somewhat pathetic, I'm no expert on roll cage design but the single hoop things with no bracing and just bolted to the top rail of the chassis makes me shudder!
I think Westfield (and possibly a Midas) might have done the old "full frontal" crash test - now obsolete for most cars and replaced by the "offset frontal" test. As far as I'm aware, none have done that - although I guess Caterham MIGHT have!
The authorities wouldn't accept computer simulations - they need to see the real deal if it's part of a proper type approval programme.
It's certainly true that you could pass the old full frontal crash test and still puree the occupants. That's one of the reasons it was dropped. Some specialst manufacturers used to brag about how there was very little worng with the test car that a bottle of T-Cut wouldn't put right after the test, but they were missing the point! As has ben said, the car ought to crush to try and protect it's occupants. Easier to do with sheet steel than a tubular chassis!
The authorities wouldn't accept computer simulations - they need to see the real deal if it's part of a proper type approval programme.
It's certainly true that you could pass the old full frontal crash test and still puree the occupants. That's one of the reasons it was dropped. Some specialst manufacturers used to brag about how there was very little worng with the test car that a bottle of T-Cut wouldn't put right after the test, but they were missing the point! As has ben said, the car ought to crush to try and protect it's occupants. Easier to do with sheet steel than a tubular chassis!
Avocet said:
As has been said, the car ought to crush to try and protect it's occupants.
To be fair, to a certain extent thats to do with crap lap-and-diagonal inertia reel seatbelts allowing occupants to be thrown about in a crash. If you're tightly strapped in using full harnesses, then you can sustain higher decelerations without injury... in which case there is something to be said for having a stiffer structure, so that there is less risk of intrusion into the cockpit area. It's no good preventing whiplash if the occupants have their legs severed by intrusion. 
It's got to be said, though, we're kidding ourselves if we think our light, stiff cars with negligible side intrusion protection, no crumple zones and no airbags are going to fair particularly well in a biggie.
I have an awesome picture of my Fury buried through a French armco at 50mph, but do not know how to post pictures here! If anyone would like to send me an e-mail adress and post them for me that would be greast. If is a good indication of how strong they are in a crash, as both of us did not even have a scratch!
20 years ago I built a Pilgrim Bulldog.
About 10 miles away lived another member of the owners club.
He was going home one day and was waiting in a central right turn space for traffic to clear when a large Royal Mail lorry smashed into the back of him at 30-40 miles an hour.
The result was a mashed Bulldog body, and a completely unaffected chassis.
He was fine, if annoyed....
About 10 miles away lived another member of the owners club.
He was going home one day and was waiting in a central right turn space for traffic to clear when a large Royal Mail lorry smashed into the back of him at 30-40 miles an hour.
The result was a mashed Bulldog body, and a completely unaffected chassis.
He was fine, if annoyed....
Sam_68 said:
Avocet said:
As has been said, the car ought to crush to try and protect it's occupants.
To be fair, to a certain extent thats to do with crap lap-and-diagonal inertia reel seatbelts allowing occupants to be thrown about in a crash. If you're tightly strapped in using full harnesses, then you can sustain higher decelerations without injury... in which case there is something to be said for having a stiffer structure, so that there is less risk of intrusion into the cockpit area. It's no good preventing whiplash if the occupants have their legs severed by intrusion. It's got to be said, though, we're kidding ourselves if we think our light, stiff cars with negligible side intrusion protection, no crumple zones and no airbags are going to fair particularly well in a biggie.
Safety can be assessed in much the same way as suspension IMO - for every improvement you make in one place you'll detract in another.
loafer123 said:
...The result was a mashed Bulldog body, and a completely unaffected chassis.
He was fine, if annoyed.
Was the Panther Lima a kit car? I remember hearing that it was the only car they'd tested at the time which was driveable after the 50mph head on test.He was fine, if annoyed.
Also know someone who used to use their vintage Hornet Special for towing, which meant having a tow bar attached directly to the back of the chassis. When someone crashed into him it punched a whole clean nto the front of their car, but his was undamaged.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff