|
|
May 30, 2006 11:43:53 GMT
|
A lot of the problem is other peoples self defence motoring. covering a few points lightly here. The massive soft roaders, minbus MP3's, and Luxury Golf carts/kiddie rides, are some of the worse, have you seen how bad they drive! If you're lugging that much extra car around ad taking up that much more space, as well as wobbling around in the sky and blocking view, you carry a lot more responibility to drive more carefully but it often makes the driver relax and use the phone, ave a cig or just drive round like a tw@ or in a daze. not good. some generalisations there. I know of a young student crushed by a 4x4 on a motorway recently. not good. Back to the question, Minis etc - Roll Cage Req'd for modern motoring FTW IMO
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 13:12:23 GMT
|
I think the problem is that although old cars are very 'solid' that does not necessary translate well to a larger crash. I've been a low speed incident in a Mini and it emerged unscathed- a similar impact in a MINI would have meant £££s of bent metal in the crumple zones but I don't think anyone would argue that it would be much better to be in the new model in a high speed accident.
Basically a new car is designed to fold in the appropriate places and divert energy from the passenger cell in order to minimise the impact on you. Did anyone see the Fifth Gear in which they crashed the old Espace into the new one? That pretty much illustrates the point!!
That said, if looking to get a retro that is safe as possible I get the impression that the more expensive the car of the time the more likely it is to have decent, ahead-of-it's-peers safety kit. So I'd go with the larger BMWs, Saabs, Volvo's et al.
This would make a good topic for an article but I guess the funding may be an issue!
|
|
|
|
|
Safe retro's?oldbird
@GUEST
|
May 30, 2006 14:17:58 GMT
|
We bought our first classic/retro when our eldest (James) was just turned 2, it was a Sunbeam Rapier. Good sized boot and rear seat belts. A year later the family grew and much to the amazement of several friends we used the Rapier when Lizzie was only a couple weeks old. Her first stage car seat went in the back a treat, much better fit than in the Punto. We've now got the Super Snipe, added seat belts and use it pretty much every weekend. No worries. As someone else when you've got kiddies you tend to drive a bit more safely anyway. Classics's and kiddies do go togther.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 14:46:04 GMT
|
I've driven a mk2 Golf 3 door head on into a wall at 30mph and walked away (to the pub in fact). I was gutted I'd totalled my exceptionally clean and nice car but it stopped me from being reshaped
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 18:41:15 GMT
|
FWIW I think a lot of the early Volvo saftey image was marketing more than fact. I think you will find that Volvo's safety reputation was earned, not created. The first cars to have three point seatbelts were Volvos (one of their engineers invented them) in 1959, and their cars incorporated features like padded dash tops long before many other car manufacturers. The 140 series (launched in 1966) was fitted with crumple zones, dual circuit brakes & a collapsible steering column - at the time, only Mercedes could equal this level of safety innovation & engineering. Volvo's continued pioneering work in vehicle safety lead to Ford buying the car division, & the Ford boss at the time is quoted as saying that the price they paid for Volvo would have been worth it just for the S80 platform, due to the safety features it had. It can't be a coincidence that Ford only really started marketing the safety features of their cars once they had Volvo's technology! I can personally vouch for the abilty of Amazon's to withstand damage - mine has a small crease in the driver's door (didn't break the paint) however the modern Peugeot had to be towed away.... Also, the wife of one of my old school teachers owes her life to the Volvo 7 / 9 which she was driving when a large lorry went into the back of it, & basically tried to drive over / through it. The car was totalled, but it did it's job as she was able to walk away, much to the surprise of the emergency services. For the very same reason we bought our first 7 series Volvo. Found we liked them so much we are now on our third (actually a 940). Wife finds them easy to drive, despite their size. The second one we sold to a very pregnant lady Wish I could find the pictures somebody posted where a 740 had tangled head-on with a Range Rover. And won. Buy a 2.3 turbo and IMO they are a bit Q-car. They are so uncool, they are almost back around to cool again Couldn't agree more! When / if I have to get a 'modern', a 740 (less complicated than a 940) estate is very high up the list, especially since a friend has just bought one that is in great mechanical condition for just £100 - a replacement light lense later, and it went straight through the MOT. Oh, and it's got a 300,000 miles on the clock.... ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 18:55:54 GMT
|
If you are looking for a safe retro you cant not consider a volvo. Even the 1980 345 I owned had designed in crumple zones and side impact bars. But again safety is not a concern of mine when I buy a car. I make sure the car is well maintained and brakes and tyres, steering and suspension are all in good condition but as to the safety record of the car I don't look into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 18:58:02 GMT
|
^^^Just to add to that I would even happily drive a Corvair as a daily driver ;D
|
|
|
|
Jenn
Part of things
Posts: 929
|
|
May 30, 2006 19:41:20 GMT
|
Saab 900 all the way- early use of side impact bars, before most other manufacturers thought of them- the old trend of safety features being optional extras before they are required, like the new brake management systems some are advertising.
The thing I hate is insurance companies charging you extra to fit a roll cage, I understand they assume it means you'll be racing but it's a safety measure advisable in an older car.
Non-seatbelt cars are a bit of a grey area in the classics scene, quite a few people I know prefer not to wear belts due to the being trapped in car vs. being thrown from car scenario.
But yeah, Saab 900 FTW.
|
|
Last Edit: May 30, 2006 19:42:04 GMT by Jenn
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 20:24:53 GMT
|
My choice ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 20:59:55 GMT
|
Yep volvos were way ahead of the rest. why do you think they've gor 'boring' image?!
If its not for the flashing lights giving you a bo11ocking for not putting seat belts on, the side impact bars, the tank like construction, the wipers on lights, its the crash test dummy family hounding you to give the car back they are safe in!
Safe driving does account for a lot, I'm a million times safer and slower with kiddy winks, bambino's etc in the car.
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 21:48:45 GMT
|
I'll bung a spanner in here - how's about a Marina or Ital estate? They scored above the Ford Sierra in a crash test data, are built strong (especially the Mk1's, 47thou" thick steel for outer panels!) and I know of three that were drivable after bad crashes; one head on with a Volvo 240 (Volvo immobile, Marina drove home); one hit in the side by an XJS at 60mph - of the five occupants, four walked away but the driver sadly died - but the car was still mobile; another that went through a drystone wall, took out a stand of trees and rolled three times - the four occupants got out, rolled it onto its wheels and drove to the nearest village where the Plod stopped them (hardly surprising given there was no glass or lights left!). They are tough, have seatbelt mounts for all seats and were the first BL cars to be built with crumple zones - also the doors open out to nearly 90 degrees from the body giving good access.
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 22:31:38 GMT
|
i get 2 little ladies comfortably in the back of my w123. i didnt buy one specifically, i already had one. considering selling my s class coupe in favour of a saloon, getting the kiddie seats in it is a nightmare. dunno yet, il have a think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trick is, as Mr B says, to not drive like an eejyit. One of the things with retro cars, is you've gotta accept they are not moderns, and you need to treat them as such. My view of moderns, is that people become dependant on the ABS, the air-bags and crumple zones, and so drive a little less carefully. I'm yet to see a mint classic stove into another car, but I've seen plenty of moderns do just that, as the driver has given themselves too little time to brake, or become far too reliant on the safety features, and therefore become a little lax with their driving. I'll agree with that. My choice of first car is a Beetle, and I'm bloody glad I chose one now - I've learnt so much more than I would have in a modern motor. Right from the off I've had to actually read the road and think about where I need to brake, and I've had to learn how to threshold brake properly. Coming back from Gurston Down on the weekend I was 'chasing' a mate in a MK4 Golf down a very muddy country lane in Salisbury, a car came the other way and he dropped the anchor as the road wasn't really wide enough... ABS went absolutely nuts where there wasn't much traction and I actually came to a stop a fair bit quicker than he did when I felt the fronts lock up and took action, no doubt he just slammed on the brakes and hoped for the best. Still get VERY worried at times though, as it's the other buggers on the road you have to watch out for. It's not going to take much to turn you in to worm food in a lot of old motors
|
|
Last Edit: May 31, 2006 0:17:52 GMT by Dan 1641
|
|
Bioshock
Posted a lot
It aint hip to be square.
Posts: 1,861
|
|
|
Agree with how you drive older cars,i've been tooling around in my wifes Rav 4.The other day when i popped down the shops in the variant ,some blind curse word in vectra pulled straight out in front of me at a junction(usualy happens on the bike) slammed my brakes on and the whole thing locked up and skidded about 25ft in the dry doing about 20mph.Thing is i'd got used to her car with its big tyres & ABS. Certainly gave me a wake up!
|
|
Almera GTI = ugly bird who turns out to be great in the sack = Win
|
|
mako
Part of things
Posts: 271
|
|
|
Thanks for all the input guys. Volvo would be the number one choise, obviously. But like I said, I don't really feel anything towards them (excluding P1800's, Amazons, PV's and Duetts!). Maybe it's because my parents have owned a 240, a 850 and now own a V70. Rovers and other "exotics" don't really work here due to limited parts availability.
Just looking for something a bit tougher for my girl and the larvae. I consider myself a safe and sane driver, but there are so many dickheads around driving under the influence / thinking they're the next Grönholm or Räikkönen..
|
|
'77 Datsun 100A, '79 Mitsubishi Sapporo 2000 GSR
|
|
|
|
|
roll cages and insurance.... this is why (and feel free to disagree, but this is why the insurers usually will decline cover or charge you an arm and a leg for a climbing frame install....)
1. Roll cage sugggests the car will be used for cometition use and this is specifically disallowed in most policies.
2. Roll cage suggests that if its just a raod car you expect to get in a really bad smash!
3. Roll cage makes it difficult for emergency services to remove you from the car in a safe manner, increases the risk of them having to cut the roof off and thus write off a car they might have got away with a repair payout on and also percieved increased risk of injury as they can't get you out in their normal manner.
4. Increased risk of injury in minor accidents as roll cages are designed to be used in cars where the driver and navigator wear crash helmets and full harnesses. Impacts in cars with cages result in more head trauma and injury to flailing limbs hitting the bars
5. Solid cage fitted to ropey rusty old car (or cage incorrectly fitted) can cause problems with the car folding around the cage or pulling out of the floor on impact and causeing trap injuries to occupants.
6. Badly designed / home made / adapted cages may not work with the cars ownstructual loading points and cause ennergy to be disipated in ways the car designer envisaged which can compromise thhe structural rigidity of the car resulting in greater risk of injury to coccupants.
7. reduced visibility (!)
there were some others as well.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Good points alistair, wondering if i should put one in the 3 door, some good reasons not to there, however the many mods mean it needs to be on a special policy! I'd have some back up plan in a mini.
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
|
I saw a beautiful cage install done in a '69 Camaro. I don't usually like cages as they are ugly and especially in a pillarless car they look off. This one had been fitted in such a way you coould harly see it and it did not in any way impede access to the front seats at least. It had been computer modeled or something to ensure it had the right loading and all that. It actually fitted in behind the dash and down the A panel closers. Very nicely done. Then they trimmed over much of it to hide it further. Really slickly done.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Old Volvo's and Saab's are still 30% safer than the average car according to Swedish insurance site - www.folksam.se/engelsk/trafik_eng/sakrabilar2005.pdf. Old E30 BMW 3 series was one of the worse. This is 'real world' insurance crash data. Lovers of old sierra's will be pleased to know their car is still 15% safer Volvo is usually credited for pioneering safety. But Mercedes introduced the first airbags and ABS. Saab too pioneered several items like standard dual circuit brakes, headlamp wipers and side impact beams. Also the 'heated seat' - apparently thats a safety item too
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 1, 2006 23:14:50 GMT by chrissyb
'98 e36 316i lux '97 mx5 harvard '87 Saab 900 T16s
|
|
|
|
|
Volvo is usually credited for pioneering safety. But Mercedes introduced the first airbags and ABS. I thought Chevrolet introduced the first airbags, this was in 1971. They were optional extra on the Caprice and Impala, ironically these cars now get airbags of a different nature fitted to them. I was also under the impression that BMW developed and introduced the first ABS. I have a brochure which is all just about ABS from the local BMW dealer when I was a kid in about 1978.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|