A Frame Disaster

[TheBig1]

I agree that cheap thin panels rust regardless of external stresses. However, the significant stresses applied by towing the car via the thin metalwork exerted movement, pushing in, pulling out, pushing in .......

That repeated stressing tore the metal a bit at a time till there was insufficient metal left to take the stresses exerted on it and the final pieces just tore away. The type of rust exhibited on some torn edges takes a long time to develop in a fairly weather protected area behind the plastic of the bumper. I would suggest a matter of years since the first damage occurred and went apparently unnoticed, allowing significant oxidisation. It is not an area like an exhaust where heat and humidity accelerates the oxidising and the obvious signs of crusty rust give a clue.

What most of the posters above are missing is the basic reason this metal is where it is and has been specified to be so thin. It is there to support the plastic bumper and in the event of a collision to bend and collapse in a controllable manner to absorb the energy of the impact, protecting the driver and occupants from a small part of the deceleration forces. Years ago, cars with thick steel bumpers would transfer so much force through that drivers often hit the windscreen, or got legs trapped between pedals and steering, which thankfully is much less common now. The incidence of crash testing and NCAP safety rating all new cars spurred manufacturers to include such crumple zones. However this crumple zone is designed to fail easily and is therefore in no way suitable to mount an A frame to

Think of tow bars on the back of any vehicle, they have to be mounted to a structurally solid part of the chassis or bodywork designed to take the stresses. A frame mounts are still basically a tow bar, so should be treated exactly the same and form a part of any MOT inspection. It appears that when Front mounted towbars were banned, DVSA then discounted checking any front mounts for an A frame from the MOT test, as they should not exist in theory.

It is well overdue that A frame mounts should be both standardised in making them robust and subject to MOT test where installed. The same with any braking system. The interesting part would be how to achieve such testing. But in cases like this one, it would hopefully detect the rusting and imminent total failure of such mounts

 

[Barclaybasher]

The front of a vehicle is supposed to minimise damage to pedestrians also. Strengthening the panel increases risk of injuries to pedestrians so shouldn't be allowed.

 

[DuxDeluxe]

It was only ever 51%
Now it's somewhat less.

No…. I am not interested in who did or did not vote for BXit. In your eagerness to make your point you appear to have misread what I actually said - 99% of people don’t care about A frames. Why you have to introduce our exit from the EU, I have no idea

and by the way…. Yourself and gus-lopez, I am well aware of how the law works; it is one of the great things about the law of England and Wales - it is legal until proven otherwise, like many, many things. That is how law should work, rather than something proscribed by somebody.

 

[pelican]

My suspicion is that they just used the original towing eye fixings, which might be designed to take an occasional direct pull but not the greater leverage exerted by an A frame. From my dim and distant studies of Applied Maths I would imagine that every turn would exert a pulling force on one mounting and a pushing force on the other, which would reverse for a turn in the other direction. Over time I can see the possibility of metal fatigue occurring in such a flimsy looking cross member, with or without rust.

Think you have hit it on the head there.

 

[TheBig1]

The front of a vehicle is supposed to minimise damage to pedestrians also. Strengthening the panel increases risk of injuries to pedestrians so shouldn't be allowed.

The bumper support panel that hosts the towing eye has nothing to do with pedestrian safety, the deformable plastic bumper does though. If you get hit by a car hard enough to collapse the bumper, what is behind it has little bearing on the injuries you will receive. You either go up, over the bonnet or down under, where there is about 8 or 9 inches of clearance between road and the underside of the bumper and splash panel

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ivory55]

It was only ever 51%
Now it's somewhat less.

What is odd that A Frames were not made illegal many years ago in the UK,
As people have pointed out, they exist in a legal gray area.
A Frames have never been legalised, but under English law, not being legalised does not make it illegal (unlike laws in France and Spain)

Don’t you just love democracy, haha

 

[Barclaybasher]

The bumper support panel that hosts the towing eye has nothing to do with pedestrian safety, the deformable plastic bumper does though. If you get hit by a car hard enough to collapse the bumper, what is behind it has little bearing on the injuries you will receive. You either go up, over the bonnet or down under, where there is about 8 or 9 inches of clearance between road and the underside of the bumper and splash panel

<Broken link removed>

So this toad currently on ebay is not going to increase injury?

 

[Conal]

gus-lopez The cable is attached to the frame and projects only to the hitch point, it just starts further back.

 

[Minxy]

My suspicion is that they just used the original towing eye fixings, which might be designed to take an occasional direct pull but not the greater leverage exerted by an A frame. From my dim and distant studies of Applied Maths I would imagine that every turn would exert a pulling force on one mounting and a pushing force on the other, which would reverse for a turn in the other direction. Over time I can see the possibility of metal fatigue occurring in such a flimsy looking cross member, with or without rust.

Exactly, additionally the distance and speed that you are told you can safely tow the vehicle by using the towing eyes is a lot less than then many hundreds/thousands of miles most do and much less than the 60 mph (or more!) they are dragged round at too.

 

[TheBig1]

<Broken link removed>

So this toad currently on ebay is not going to increase injury?

Not all A frame manufacturers have an externally fitted bar that presents such a risk if disconnected from the frame

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Barclaybasher]

Not all A frame manufacturers have an externally fitted bar that presents such a risk if disconnected from the frame

Aren't the attachment points in front of the plastic bumper on most? Or are they removed before using the toad?

 

[Realist]

Aren't the attachment points in front of the plastic bumper on most? Or are they removed before using the toad?

Removable.

 

[Barclaybasher]

Removable.

Are they removed though? - seen others advertised with fixings left on

 

[Realist]

Are they removed though? - seen others advertised with fixings left on

That’s individual preference they unscrew leaving no protection past the bumper.

I remove mine so only the actual subframe behind is attached the eyebolts itself as I said can be unscrewed.

Below is an example but not mine I might add.

 

[Barclaybasher]

That’s individual preference they unscrew leaving no protection past the bumper.

I remove mine so only the actual subframe behind is attached the eyebolts itself as I said can be unscrewed.

Below is an example but not mine I might add.

View attachment 553394

<Broken link removed>

Another on ebay that didn't bother....plenty more

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

<Broken link removed>

Another on ebay that didn't bother....plenty more

OMG, omg .... it's a 'peanut' headlight one ... I absolutely LOVE those ... "get thee away from me Satan!" ...

 

[Realist]

For one if that driver leaves those eyebolts in place in effect it adds to the potential of causing extra damage to a pedestrian or another car.

Leaving them in place is irresponsible and plain right dangerous.

 

[TheBig1]

<Broken link removed>

Another on ebay that didn't bother....plenty more

I somehow think that the eyebolts are in place for the photos to use as a selling point, but they simply unscrew as they are never torqued up tight. Simply take the plastic cap off and screw in the eyebolts to hand tight, leaving them facing the correct way. Connect the A frame and electrics and it's ready to tow. When not needed, you simply unscrew the bolts and replace the covers and the car looks standard and un-adapted

 

[pelican]

Inspected A frame attaching points on 11yr old fitting today.
No sign of corrosion or distortion to cross member.
Plates welded to crossmember with external and internal nuts. threaded section 50mm.
All very solid no deflection.
Unibrake system

 

[HUSKY 499]

This is what I like about this forum, it brings your attention to things on the camper you look at but don't really see,
I will be checking my a frame fixings this week.
The tow bar is also something to be inspected especially on older vans.
Has any one had any hassle A framing in France since Brexit, we hope to get back next year

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[olley]

My eye bolts are tightened up against their sleeves after fitting the A frame.
When I remove the frame I take the eye bolts out as well, to much chance of someone walking in to them.

 

[Realist]

Same here never leave mine in place but I do add a blob of grease now and again and check it’s structure and frame condition.

 

[tonyidle]

My suspicion is that they just used the original towing eye fixings, which might be designed to take an occasional direct pull but not the greater leverage exerted by an A frame. From my dim and distant studies of Applied Maths I would imagine that every turn would exert a pulling force on one mounting and a pushing force on the other, which would reverse for a turn in the other direction. Over time I can see the possibility of metal fatigue occurring in such a flimsy looking cross member, with or without rust.

My view too. The towing eye on a car is designed for very intermittent use: as a recovery aid for a short distance tow. It isn't designed to withstand any lateral force at all - a force which will be very high when on an A frame. I'd go for fatigue failure with the light rusting being irrelevant.

 

[tonyidle]

I agree that cheap thin panels rust regardless of external stresses. However, the significant stresses applied by towing the car via the thin metalwork exerted movement, pushing in, pulling out, pushing in .......

That repeated stressing tore the metal a bit at a time till there was insufficient metal left to take the stresses exerted on it and the final pieces just tore away. The type of rust exhibited on some torn edges takes a long time to develop in a fairly weather protected area behind the plastic of the bumper. I would suggest a matter of years since the first damage occurred and went apparently unnoticed, allowing significant oxidisation. It is not an area like an exhaust where heat and humidity accelerates the oxidising and the obvious signs of crusty rust give a clue.

What most of the posters above are missing is the basic reason this metal is where it is and has been specified to be so thin. It is there to support the plastic bumper and in the event of a collision to bend and collapse in a controllable manner to absorb the energy of the impact, protecting the driver and occupants from a small part of the deceleration forces. Years ago, cars with thick steel bumpers would transfer so much force through that drivers often hit the windscreen, or got legs trapped between pedals and steering, which thankfully is much less common now. The incidence of crash testing and NCAP safety rating all new cars spurred manufacturers to include such crumple zones. However this crumple zone is designed to fail easily and is therefore in no way suitable to mount an A frame to

Think of tow bars on the back of any vehicle, they have to be mounted to a structurally solid part of the chassis or bodywork designed to take the stresses. A frame mounts are still basically a tow bar, so should be treated exactly the same and form a part of any MOT inspection. It appears that when Front mounted towbars were banned, DVSA then discounted checking any front mounts for an A frame from the MOT test, as they should not exist in theory.

It is well overdue that A frame mounts should be both standardised in making them robust and subject to MOT test where installed. The same with any braking system. The interesting part would be how to achieve such testing. But in cases like this one, it would hopefully detect the rusting and imminent total failure of such mounts

You're absolutely correct but I wouldn't wish to be the one trying to frame (!) A frame legislation. At present they slip through legislative cracks and any attempt enshrine them in law is likely to end in them being banned.

 

[gus-lopez]

<Broken link removed>

So this toad currently on ebay is not going to increase injury?

Probably just to show for the sale.Illegal to leave them in place when not being used as an A frame.

Aren't the attachment points in front of the plastic bumper on most? Or are they removed before using the toad?

You are meant to completly remove them.Otherwise it is the same as driving with a wing torn off "dangerous condition" due to likelihood of injuring people.Would /should be issued with a prohibition notice if seen, same as badge bars or bonnet emblems.

That’s individual preference they unscrew leaving no protection past the bumper.

No you can't 'choose' to remove them or leave them as it is illegal using it with them left in place. as above.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Realist]

No you can't 'choose' to remove them or leave them as it is illegal using it with them left in place. as above.

Now leaving the eyebolt in place is illegal and other also claim the whole A frame illegal. As I said people choose to leave them in place and that’s up to them nothing to do with me I remove mine.

Wether it’s legal or not I’m no judge or jury only pass on info and comments.

 

[gus-lopez]

That’s individual preference they unscrew leaving no protection past the bumper.

I remove mine so only the actual subframe behind is attached the eyebolts itself as I said can be unscrewed.

Below is an example but not mine I might add.

View attachment 553394

Now this is where I have a problem.
The difference between towing a purpose built homologated trailer that in many cases has to have been inspected & tested the same as a road veicle before being allowed its certification. As against the above that appears to be a well manufactred system by the looks but requires on being installed & removed & lots of threaded bar.The trailer has one weak point which is the attachment of the ball to the hitch.An A frame has many

Wold you like to be legally towing that at 130km/hr. 80 mph which is the limit on French roads? It isn't on to state that people go slowly etc;etc, most don't.
Having said that on 2 occasions that I have mentioned before I have been overtaken on the M5 by Mh's towing A framed cars in excess of 80mph.

 

[Realist]

Now this is where I have a problem.
The difference between towing a purpose built homologated trailer that in many cases has to have been inspected & tested the same as a road veicle before being allowed its certification. As against the above that appears to be a well manufactred system by the looks but requires on being installed & removed & lots of threaded bar.The trailer has one weak point which is the attachment of the ball to the hitch.An A frame has many

Wold you like to be legally towing that at 130km/hr. 80 mph which is the limit on French roads? It isn't on to state that people go slowly etc;etc, most don't.
Having said that on 2 occasions that I have mentioned before I have been overtaken on the M5 by Mh's towing A framed cars in excess of 80mph.

Again individual preference bud I drive at 56mph while towing anyone else can do what they like, cause a crash and suffer the consequences.

Why go on and on and on about certification, legalities it’s been rammed into people now until starting to become boring and until government says otherwise people will use A Frames.

Next!

 

[gus-lopez]

Why go on and on and on about certification, legalities i

Because in the event of an accident involving me my insurance company ,along with me,will insist on prosecution due to lack of CoC & your right to be on the road whether in the Uk or elsewhere..

 

[Realist]

Because in the event of an accident involving me my insurance company ,along with me,will insist on prosecution due to lack of CoC & your right to be on the road whether in the Uk or elsewhere..

So all the insurance companies that have been informed in the U.K. that a A frame is being used and stated in the insurance policy in black and white ink or blood will prosecute because of a lack of CoC.

Your scare mongering bud because if that was the case no insurance company would agree with it never mind state in on policies.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}