Watch Motorhomes Get Crash-Tested With Worrying Results

MR. FUSION said:
From memory, the Land Rover Defender (not the new hairdressers one) has the highest real world safety record. As researched by the TRRL in an analysis of actual accidents.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the Volvo XC90??
 
Wack said:
I'm not going to watch that in case it's bad , I absolutely love my smart car. £30 tax, £150 insurance , 50mpg and you really can park it anywhere

I've got my fingers in my ears, la la la la la
Click to expand...
All is good with that little car 👍😎
 
MR. FUSION said:
From memory, the Land Rover Defender (not the new hairdressers one) has the highest real world safety record. As researched by the TRRL in an analysis of actual accidents.
Click to expand...
The two reasons provided for the end of production were emissions and safety. On the safety front many of the built in crash protection on modern vehicles just doesn’t exist on these models. No crumple zones and limited impact protection. I’m not saying they are not iconic or dead easy to repair but if they were invented today in the form they were they would not pass the safety standards. Sometimes continues production with minor modifications can keep that production going. But look at the bumper grill and bonnet they are really pedestrian unfriendly should an old Land Rover Defender hit a person.
 
Returning to the video, there was nothing in the commentary about the test conditions. I checked the details at the swedish traffic website. It was the same as NCAP so 64km/h crashing off centre into a vehicle of the same weight - a pretty tough test. I have never been impressed with the rear seat for 2 passengers and have used it on twice in 5 years.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Coolcats said:
The two reasons provided for the end of production were emissions and safety. On the safety front many of the built in crash protection on modern vehicles just doesn’t exist on these models. No crumple zones and limited impact protection. I’m not saying they are not iconic or dead easy to repair but if they were invented today in the form they were they would not pass the safety standards. Sometimes continues production with minor modifications can keep that production going. But look at the bumper grill and bonnet they are really pedestrian unfriendly should an old Land Rover Defender hit a person.
Click to expand...
I would take most NCAP crash test results with a grain of salt, for example exhibit A: an ex crash test BMW mini!!

SmartSelect_20220601-175248_Samsung Internet.jpg


This BMW Mini has a re-enforced bar at the front specifically designed to pass the NCAP offset frontal crash test, you can actually see on the left hand side, where it has taken the test impact. I expect without that results would be very different. The TRRL Landy Defender results were from real world accident data, not questionable tests. The landy has a solid steel ladder chassis extending the length of the vehicle, compared to the Minis monocoque chassis with a steel bar bolted on at the front, to pass the NCAP test. Personally I know which I would rather be in during a crash!!
 
Last edited:
Really scary to see this, especially now in 2022, with much safety stuff that we didnt have years ago, like seatbelts & airbags.
I Watched the video 2nd time with Auto Translate switched on.:eek:
Don't think we will ever see these videos at any NEC motorhome show, I dont think Douglas Bader with his tin legs would drive one.!
Fatalities in both tests, yet nothing will be done to improve safety in the motorhome world, its a whole new ball game when a standard chassis is converted into something else weighing 4 tonne plus isn't it?
Drive safe everyone, polish up that St Christopher hanging off the rear view mirror if you have one.
LES
 
MR. FUSION said:
I would take most NCAP crash test results with a grain of salt, for example exhibit A: an ex crash test BMW mini!!

View attachment 624815

This BMW Mini has a re-enforced bar at the front specifically designed to pass the NCAP offset frontal crash test, you can actually see on the left hand side, where it has taken the test impact. I expect without that results would be very different. The TRRL Landy Defender results were from real world accident data, not questionable tests. The landy has a solid steel ladder chassis extending the length of the vehicle, compared to the Minis monocoque chassis with a steel bar bolted on at the front, to pass the NCAP test. Personally I know which I would rather be in during a crash!!
Click to expand...
Thats not the point, cars crumple and are designed to help take the energy from the impact as you will see in the NCAP test, if the energy is not absorbed by the vehicle it will be by the driver/passenger inflicting greater injury on the Human........cars can be replaced.

Here is a story from a 17 year old me when working at a workshop, a low loader pulled in with a Lotus Europa on the back, the roof had gone along with the windscreen bonnet wings etc. I was told the passenger and driver survived which I found hard to believe, the body shop manager explained to me that most of the energy had been absorbed and dissipated by the (fibreglass) body work destruction.

Cars that do not crumple are a greater threat to the passengers

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Exactly!, crumple zones on all modern cars are designed to absorb impact, rigid ladder chassis wont do the same, I know which I would rather be driving.
LES
 
Saw a video of a Volvo 940 Vs a renault modus I think the modus came off better than the Volvo 940.

Energy dissipation makes a difference.

 
Jamesh said:
Saw a video of a Volvo 940 Vs a renault modus I think the modus came off better than the Volvo 940.

Energy dissipation makes a difference.
Click to expand...
TinaL said:
Exactly!, crumple zones on all modern cars are designed to absorb impact, rigid ladder chassis wont do the same, I know which I would rather be driving.
LES
Click to expand...
If you are dissipating all that energy with crumple zones, why put a metal bar at the front of it ?
 
MR. FUSION said:
If you are dissipating all that energy with crumple zones, why put a metal bar at the front of it ?
Click to expand...
firstly it can spread the load and on low impact incidents can protect other structures, again on Lotus they do not use a steel bar at the front for impact protection but what they doo have is a composite structure that performs three functions 1) somewhere to bolt on the radiator, 2) it acts as down force as in a front wing and 3) it is the frontal crash/crumple device designed to disintegrate on higher speed impacts this is one for an Exige it will only cost £1,199.5 when you damage one ;)

So in the picture attached the air enters the front of the car and exits (via the crash structure) through the bonnet and over the windscreen and roof. The passengers are essentially sitting in an aluminium tub which is incredibly strong and is akin to your example of the Old Land Rover defender. The front can be obliterated with that body work ad crash structure absorbing the energy. The rear of the car is as equally interesting in that the rear subframe again is designed to both be strong enough for the power train and engine yet in a rear shunt the subframe will distort and absorb an impact whilst protecting the driver an passenger in the Aluminium Tub. ( you may not know but Lotus glues the Tub together and uses rivets...just in case


Screenshot 2022-06-01 at 20.48.19.png
 
MR. FUSION said:
From memory, the Land Rover Defender (not the new hairdressers one) has the highest real world safety record. As researched by the TRRL in an analysis of actual accidents.
Click to expand...
Oh good, we’ve got a Smart and a Proper Defender 😀

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
A few years back, my Transporter T5 was parked outside a house, the weather was very cold with icy conditions.

A girl came along in a (not very old) Renault Clio, she ran slap bang into the front of my van at about 25/30 mph. My van was pushed back a couple of feet and needed a new bumper. Her Clio was a write off, the bonnet crumpled, the front wing on drivers side was crumpled, the drivers door was badly buckled, A pillar buckled, the headlight disappeared, bumper fell off, radiator punctured, windscreen smashed, roof crumpled. She was okay though, I had to help her out of the passenger side door.
 
Coolcats said:
firstly it can spread the load and on low impact incidents can protect other structures, again on Lotus they do not use a steel bar at the front for impact protection but what they doo have is a composite structure that performs three functions 1) somewhere to bolt on the radiator, 2) it acts as down force as in a front wing and 3) it is the frontal crash/crumple device designed to disintegrate on higher speed impacts this is one for an Exige it will only cost £1,199.5 when you damage one ;)

So in the picture attached the air enters the front of the car and exits (via the crash structure) through the bonnet and over the windscreen and roof. The passengers are essentially sitting in an aluminium tub which is incredibly strong and is akin to your example of the Old Land Rover defender. The front can be obliterated with that body work ad crash structure absorbing the energy. The rear of the car is as equally interesting in that the rear subframe again is designed to both be strong enough for the power train and engine yet in a rear shunt the subframe will distort and absorb an impact whilst protecting the driver an passenger in the Aluminium Tub. ( you may not know but Lotus glues the Tub together and uses rivets...just in case


View attachment 624894
Click to expand...
Special investigation today....the front of the NCAP crash tested FIAT 500 at the Trurin museum has a huge heavy grade steel cage at the front (I felt it) with the subframe at the front designed to mittigate an impact into that cage. The rest of the car was lightly framed compared to that very heavy front end assembly. If that front end assembly was not built like the front end of a tank the rest of the car clearly would have deformed really badly in the test. As it was it did deform but not by much.
20220602_124608.jpg




20220602_124847.jpg


20220602_120752.jpg
20220602_120855.jpg
20220602_124753.jpg
20220602_124538.jpg
20220602_124906.jpg



Later on....a race track on top of FIATS old office building......such class :) definately in my automotive top 10!

20220602_134556.jpg


M
20220602_135044.jpg


20220602_135406_01.jpg


20220602_142215.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20220602_134556.jpg
    20220602_134556.jpg
    287.2 KB · Views: 15
  • 20220602_135222.jpg
    20220602_135222.jpg
    331 KB · Views: 15
We seem to have drifted away from the subject of Motor Home Crash Testing, and are now comparing cars.
Until such time as we can get a Volvo XC90 front end on an MH, I cant really see the point of discussing cars, as the fact remains that until such time as converters are made to do something, we will all continue to drive around in potential death traps /leisure vehicles that dont offer enough protection as they are made currently.
Converters should be made to address this, and build additional crash security into their conversions, but until the are made to, it looks like they wont...at any price!
I for one, when purchasing my 1st motorhome, naively thought MH's would have had to still meet crash safety standards of the host vehicle base after conversion....how wrong was I :rolleyes:
LES

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
TinaL said:
We seem to have drifted away from the subject of Motor Home Crash Testing, and are now comparing cars.
Until such time as we can get a Volvo XC90 front end on an MH, I cant really see the point of discussing cars, as the fact remains that until such time as converters are made to do something, we will all continue to drive around in potential death traps /leisure vehicles that dont offer enough protection as they are made currently.
Converters should be made to address this, and build additional crash security into their conversions, but until the are made to, it looks like they wont...at any price!
I for one, when purchasing my 1st motorhome, naively thought MH's would have had to still meet crash safety standards of the host vehicle base after conversion....how wrong was I :rolleyes:
LES
Click to expand...
The reason this drifted to cars was that vans many SUV’s etc are less resilient in a crash than many cars along with the discussion around crumple zones. It is unlikely that MoHo’s will ever be as safe as a car in an accident as most seem to be built like caravans to save weight etc so when involved in a crash they tend to just disintegrate. Many manufacturers do say do not leave the table in place when traveling and the bench seat will have been ‘crash tested’ but that tend later to be in isolation and has to be secured in the van at the appropriate anchor points.
 
Have to say I do wonder what colour airbags I have in my vehicles, but that is one curiosity I hope will always remain a mystery
 
Coolcats said:
Have to say I do wonder what colour airbags I have in my vehicles, but that is one curiosity I hope will always remain a mystery
Click to expand...
I would guess they are Brown, so as to blend in with your knickers, after a front end shunt.:eek:
Sorry couldn't resist that.:giggle:
LES
 
TinaL said:
I would guess they are Brown, so as to blend in with your knickers, after a front end shunt.:eek:
Sorry couldn't resist that.:giggle:
LES
Click to expand...
Brown & pink :eek:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top