MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 17:09:07 GMT
|
In terms of passenger safety it all depends on which vehicle dissipates inertia and maintains cabin rigidity best. Old cars simply absorb the energy in an impact in the wrong places such as the bulkhead, sills, floor and roof. Passing more energy into the occupants increasing the chances of injury and trapment. Old vans are very good at rigidity. Had a Mk2 transit luton rear ended by an artic on a French motorway. It was shoved up the bank, flipped over, slid on it's roof (ripping the top of the body off) and yet the driver and passenger still walked away. The van was 19 years old at the time, mid way between MOTs, and the driver and passenger were not even wearing seat belts. Vans do well in rear impacts because the whole rear end works like a big crumple zone. Front impacts are more of a worry, especially if loaded up. Glad to hear the occupants where OK, it's very easy to go out of a van window in a crash.
|
|
|
|
|
MrSpeedy
East Midlands
www.vintagediesels.co.uk
Posts: 4,789
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 18:19:51 GMT
|
The biggest thing i notice is that on my modern astra van, the A-pillar is so bloody thick it creats a massive blind spot when turning out junctions etc and the power steering is vague and unconnected. On the Retro fleet, they have much thinner pillars and lower waistline, so visibilty is better all round and you feel more 'connected' with the car. This to me, feels safer (in an impact i know it's not!) as i can feel/see what is going on. It seems to me that moderns are beefed up by way of thicker pillars/higher waist lines at the cost of visibilty.
On a similar note, have a look at a modern convertable with the roof down, and see how much of the driver you can see above the body work. I bet it ain't much more than their shoulders/neck and higher, then compare that to say a 'spridget or spitfire !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 18:24:26 GMT
|
Coming in from a slightly different angle, I was in training to be a Driving Instructor a few years ago (I won't say why I'm not doing it now, but it's something to do with an oversight, big fine and many points....). The College used Rover 25's as training cars, then went over to Astras. Not one person liked the Astra, because rear visibility was(is) diabolical and the 'styling' of the car made the interior pillars a hazard to vision. Apart from that, the trim and fit was cr@p. But, during this time we had an in-house magazine delivered that rated cars not on 0-60 etc, but on what they are like to drive. I always remember one of the newer Pugs got slated for having handling that got "dangerously erratic at any reasonable speed", a Toyota for vague steering and the good old Corsa for being almost "impossible to see out of without using a periscope". Modern cars are built to an average, so that they handle 'reasonably', are comfortable (some new BMW's don't count in this category - back-ache city or what and where have my kidneys gone.....) and by any chance that the driver (distracted by all the toys or satnav) hits anything, they can 'walk-away'. I know when I'm in my Ital exactly what the tyres are dealing with, exactly how big a bump I've just gone over and exactly how hard I can do that round-a-bout in the wet before the back end starts to slide. Modern cars distance the driver from that and that is dangerous......
Slightly off topic, I was at a Steam Rally a few years ago with family and one of the local Landrover Clubs was doing rides. Chatting to one of the guys, he reckoned newer Defenders get damaged and have bigger crashes than old leaf-sprung Landys purely because you know your spine will snap before the older Landy does, where as the newer ones hide it too well. Good analogy for road cars, really....
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 12, 2009 18:25:27 GMT by marinanut
Rover Metro - The TARDIS - brake problems.....Stored Rover 75 - Barge MGZTT Cdti 160+ - Winter Hack and Audi botherer... MGF - The Golden Shot...Stored Project Minion........ Can you see the theme?
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 18:59:59 GMT
|
The exception being the Ax GTi as that has harnesses, buckets and a cage The only problem with roll cages on the road is the chance of impacting your un-protected head into them in a crash. It's worth padding the bars if they aren't already. They can also make it harder for rescue crews to cut their way into helping you. Cages in road cars are usually a bad idea, they cause all sort of issues in a crash for the occupants as they are generally not restrained like they would be in a race car, if your strapped into your seat properly you can't reach most of the dash controls on most cars so most people don't strap in tight and are liable to be whacking bits of themsleves into the cage, the other problem is how close yor head is to any part of it, race scrutineers want 5cm's clearance between the cage and your helmet let alone your head.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
tri
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,572
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 21:26:18 GMT
|
Strange this popped up now.
I was having exactly this conversation at work while this topic was posted. I picked up a new rented Astra SRI to use for work for the week as I had a lot of meetings this week.
It's supposed to be a sports hatchback, and it's just painful to drive.. as has been said - you just feel SO unconnected to what the cars doing. Everything you do goes through 200 computers and a hundred thousand servos.
I don't see what's wrong with mechanical stuff. I like to control what the car is doing, not just give it vague suggestions as to the general direction and speed I'd like to be going.
|
|
I forgot how to retro...
|
|
|
|
|
I feel not so much safer, but more in control of an older vehicle- possibly because the design of most of my older vehicles were less precise, less refined, and would begin to let go at a lower speed, and giving greater feedback over the duration.
Safer as far as everyday driving and getting into a wreck? I'd rather something designed on a computer, rigorously tested and not possibly full of rust and bad spotwelds done by Grumpy Jack from Luton in 1973 just before going on strike.
I know my Vauxhall Victor FD would fold up in a much nastier fashion than my Renault 9 in a head-on wreck. In the Renault I think I'd be keeping my legs and neck intact... my FD would probably keep my legs below the knee in the vehicle and eject the rest of me from the door!
--Phil
|
|
|
|
berendd
Europe
why do I need 3 keys for one car?
Posts: 1,449
|
|
|
A while ago I drove back from the workshed and thomas was behind me in his starlet 16v, I drove the daily modern diesel on a decent pace but not extremely fast.. And it's a very twisty FUN road.
He had to push it to keep up..
so I guess a modern Diesel is a lot better and safer when you drive it sensibly..
but if you push a modern to it's limit, the limit is a bit higher so the impact does a lot more damage..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had heard mk2 grannies were so strong because it was the first car Ford designed on computer so they erred on the side of caution and over engineered them, i've had a fair few of em and they are pretty hard to stop, my cousin hit the back of one of mine in his sierra, and tottaled the front of his car, even pushing the rad onto the fan, all he did to the granny was lift the bumper enough to chip the bottom corner of a rear light.
As for driving feel i reckon it completely depends on what your driving, i bet a brand new RS Focus has way more road feel than my 20 year old Range Rover, or the 35 year old stack light Benz i had before it.
You cant generalise, you have to compare like for like, put a new Mondeo up against an old Cortina, or a new golf against an old beetle and see which one handles better.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
tri
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,572
|
|
|
I'd say Astra SRI vs 1.6 Escort is about as fair as comparisons get, lol. edit: my brain started ticking when I hit post. It's NOT a fair comparison at all Despite them being in similar leagues - to get my car to handle like it does, I've had to do a fair few modifications. When I first got my car, I fell like I was going to fall out the window when I cornered hard, and it didn't much understand the concept of grip. I still stand by the idea that I'd rahter that, than have to rely on a bunch of computers.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 13, 2009 8:44:27 GMT by tri
I forgot how to retro...
|
|
timasorus
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 439
Club RR Member Number: 90
|
car safetytimasorus
@timasorus
Club Retro Rides Member 90
|
|
ok well hows this for a comparison
corsa b (not retro but not that new) -V- new corsa d.
corsa b: 15"x 6.5" alloys fitted by my mate at his house no other mods.
corsa d venom 17"x 7" alloys up rated breaks stiffer suspension all work done by specialists
both cars driven by same mate on same stretch of road that we use every day. corsa b was slower but u new u had hit the limit when it rattles in certain ways and new u had taken a turn as well as possible by feeling the apex (verg) through the wheels
corsa d no sensation of speed whilst entering corners no way of feeling the road ect ect.............. we ended up side ways lol..................
so for motor way blasting yes modern but for lane blasting or town/ city driving old is where to go for me
|
|
banditos ahoy!
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 10:49:09 GMT
|
mmm is it really fair to judge a cars 'safety' on the basis of how it feels 'blasting down lanes'? Wouldn't it be fair to say that driving on a cars limit is inherently unsafe and in the best of circumstances only excusable by poor judgement?
Is this thread not really yet another excuse to take pot shots at modern cars and their owners? Which in turn only serves to propagate the stereotype that all old car fans are blinkered beardy pedants with an inferiority complex?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 11:02:36 GMT
|
How safe a car feels usually has no bearing on how fast it goes round corners, the fastest cars round a track are usually the twicthy ones that break loose suddenly as they run out of grip rather than the ones that break loose slowy and contrably but have less grip in the first place.
I know race drivers who don't like how the set up of their car feels but stick with it because it gives them half a second a lap over a more pleasant to drive set up.
Many modern cars are set up to be light and easy to drive so they wont be conveying every bump in the road up to the driver, but i'm not having it that modern cars don't handle better than old ones (in the majority of cases) i'm old enough to have had mk1 and 2 escorts, marinas, mk1 grannies, mini's, etc etc as hacks when i was young, flying around southend in a 1.3 mk2 escort estate that can fade its drum brakes to nothing in about 2 mins flat, a top speed of about 80mph and handling best described as "an interesting blend of under and over steer"
yeah at low speeds it felt quite nice and precise, but try and push it like you could push a new Fiesta or Focus these days and you would have died almost straight away.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
car safetyDeleted
@Deleted
|
Aug 13, 2009 11:53:23 GMT
|
Is this thread not really yet another excuse to take pot shots at modern cars and their owners? Which in turn only serves to propagate the stereotype that all old car fans are blinkered beardy pedants with an inferiority complex? no sorry i don't think people are taking pot shots at the modern cars its a valid point that has been made how can a car that gives no feel as to what is going on underneath it till its to late irrespective of the speeds the cars are capable of be regarded as safe which is why you always find people who drive older cars will say they feel safer in an older car knowing what their car is going to do before it gets past the point of being able to stop it it has nothing to do with a car having more safety features its to do with the FACT old car feel better by telling the driver more about whats going on ergo they feel safer to drive which is what the original question was about . i'm not against new car but a feel new car are just transport and not about driving
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 12:12:19 GMT
|
Is this thread not really yet another excuse to take pot shots at modern cars and their owners? Which in turn only serves to propagate the stereotype that all old car fans are blinkered beardy pedants with an inferiority complex? no sorry I don't think people are taking pot shots at the modern cars its a valid point that has been made how can a car that gives no feel as to what is going on underneath it till its to late irrespective of the speeds the cars are capable of be regarded as safe which is why you always find people who drive older cars will say they feel safer in an older car knowing what their car is going to do before it gets past the point of being able to stop it it has nothing to do with a car having more safety features its to do with the FACT old car feel better by telling the driver more about whats going on ergo they feel safer to drive which is what the original question was about . i'm not against new car but a feel new car are just transport and not about driving Well said Nightmares, couldn't agree with ya more!
|
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 12:52:57 GMT
|
Is this thread not really yet another excuse to take pot shots at modern cars and their owners? Which in turn only serves to propagate the stereotype that all old car fans are blinkered beardy pedants with an inferiority complex? no sorry I don't think people are taking pot shots at the modern cars its a valid point that has been made how can a car that gives no feel as to what is going on underneath it till its to late irrespective of the speeds the cars are capable of be regarded as safe which is why you always find people who drive older cars will say they feel safer in an older car knowing what their car is going to do before it gets past the point of being able to stop it it has nothing to do with a car having more safety features its to do with the FACT old car feel better by telling the driver more about whats going on ergo they feel safer to drive which is what the original question was about . i'm not against new car but a feel new car are just transport and not about driving Clearly designed for people who have no idea about how a car handles, so feedback would be pointless, they just want it to be easy to park. the biggest problem though is the fact that modern cars are sold on the fact the idiots buying them are told it'll be fine if you crash it. hence newer car are therefor more dangerous because they are mostly driven by people who have no care for what or how they are driving Just drive on the motorway in heavy rain and watch the amount of idiots power past at 80+. But hey, they have abs, ebd, 50 airbags and esp so they can't crash!
|
|
|
|
lae
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,045
|
car safetylae
@frinkmakesyouthink
|
Aug 13, 2009 13:05:27 GMT
|
That's a common miss-conception. At at least according to a friend of mine who does crash testing for a living. Simple law of physics. You get hit by another modern car that's made largely of plastic, if it hits something twice it's weight made of metal, seriously which is going to come off worst? I am not talking about 'lab' conditions here. I am talking about joe public who believes he's invincible cos he's got air bags. See my previous post about people needing to learn to drive first. Does your friend do those kind of tests? How do these modern cars fair running under a fully loaded transit luton? The loadspace end of a luton has not changed in it's construction since the 60s, no crumple zones at the back. Simple law of physics? What on earth are you talking about? More modern cars have safety cells and rigid structures around passenger compartments with multiple crumple zones that are designed by computers. Older cars simply aren't as sophisticated and don't have proper safety cells like more modern cars do. You can't possibly argue against that. Do you really think you know more about car safety than MWF's mate who is an engineer? Furthermore, do you really think that modern cars are half the weight of retros and 'made from plastic'? Um. No, they aren't. Modern cars, on the whole, are much MUCH heavier than retros, that's an absolutely undeniable fact. The MK1 Golf is lighter than the current Polo. A Vauxhall Victor FD weighs 1,052 kgs - a Vauxhall Insignia weighs 1,503 kgs. A mk2 Cortina weighs 857kgs, whereas the most modern Escort weighs 1,105kgs (and is actually a smaller car). Cars aren't conkers - bigger absolutely does not necessarily mean better. You can't ignore lab tests and you can't say that old cars are safer simply because a MK1 Granada might weigh more than a VW Lupo (not that weight is the most important factor anyway). Most of us here accept that old cars might fold up in a crash that you would be able to walk away from in a modern car - if you want to ignore common sense, the knowledge of hundreds of engineers and the beliefs of your fellow retro car enthusiasts, it's fine by me, but don't ever try to give advice on car safety because you simply don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
Currently: Mk1 Focus blandmobile
Formerly: 1969 MG Midget 1972 Avenger GT 1981 Datsun Cherry 1989 Corolla 1979 Mercedes W123 200D 1995 Ford Falcon 1996 Ford Telstar (bet you had to google that one)
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 13:14:29 GMT
|
A lot of the extra weight in modern cars is down to 'improvements' like comfier seats, or at least I have to say at least they are in the transit. A Mk2 seat is heavier than a Mk1 seat, and a Mk5 seat is twice the weight of the Mk1. That's just the seats. Trust me if I rammed a smart car with a Mk2 transit (as if) the smart would not come off better. Somebody further back said the Mk2 granada was the first car Ford designed on computers, so it was well over engineered. If modern cars are so good at taking a hit, how come not many models turn up on the banger track? And before you say anything, I don't banger race, wouldn't even go and watch, but I know plenty of people that do race. Sorry you are not going to change my mind about this, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 13:35:49 GMT
|
A lot of the extra weight in modern cars is down to 'improvements' like comfier seats Actually a lot of the extra weight in modern cars is down to safety protection. The outer plastic panels are also often there to be safer in pedestrian impacts. Trust me if I rammed a smart car with a Mk2 transit (as if) the smart would not come off better. If you fired a Smart car fast enough the passenger cell would actually go straight through most of Mk2 Transit. If modern cars are so good at taking a hit, how come not many models turn up on the banger track? Modern cars aren't bangered because they are designed to crumple up (in the right places) in an impact to absorb the energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 13:37:44 GMT
|
A lot of the extra weight in modern cars is down to 'improvements' like comfier seats, or at least I have to say at least they are in the transit. Yeah, I'm quite happy with my heavy, comfortable Mondeo seats with steel anti-submarining bases, adjustment every which way and seat belt pretensioners in. Trust me if I rammed a smart car with a Mk2 transit (as if) the smart would not come off better.. How about Transit vs. a Volvo FL16? Is this a fair comparison? Somebody further back said the Mk2 granada was the first car Ford designed on computers, so it was well over engineered. If modern cars are so good at taking a hit, how come not many models turn up on the banger track? Because crumple zones save lives. They're not for winning banger races. It's not about car's "taking a hit", it's about people surviving. Simple really. Car design has come a long way since the late '70s! <Edit: MWF beat me to it, damn my slow connection!>
|
|
My fleet: Suzuki GSX-R600Y SRAD with bald, melted tyres A borrowed Mondeo
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 13, 2009 13:48:31 GMT
|
Video of a Renault Modus vs a Volvo 940
|
|
|
|
|