Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 03:16

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7264155.stm
Quote:
Testers say recall 'unsafe' truck

Euro NCap crash tests cars on sale in Europe
The European body responsible for testing new cars has demanded a pick-up truck be recalled after it received one of the worst ever crash safety scores.

Euro NCap said the Nissan Navara's poor design presented a "high-risk of life-threatening injury".

The tests showed its airbags opened too slowly and seatbelts did not provide enough protection during a collision.

But Nissan said the airbag problem was limited to 2008 models and invited owners to have settings changed.

The Nissan Navara scored just one star out of a possible five in the Euro NCAP test. The Isuzu D-Max pick-up truck also scored poorly, gaining only two stars.

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said the Navara was marketed as a "rough and tough" off-road vehicle, which has become increasingly popular as a recreational motor.

He said the tests also found that the "body shell wasn't strong enough and the foot well deformed on impact putting the driver at risk of injuries from the foot pedals".

Euro NCap is an independent body that crash tests cars on sale in Europe, and Nissan has asked it to publish test results for the modified Navara.

Given the possible off road use, this would appear to be more serious than the report suggests, and perhaps more widespread among similar models.

In my experience they should re-test some of the drivers of such vehicles too!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 14:18 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Personally I don't much care that it scored a 1 in the test, as I don't intend to drive into the flippin' wall in the first place :roll:

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 17:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:06
Posts: 301
Location: Swindon
Thats not a truck, it's a pickup. :p

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 01:30 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Given the possible off road use

*sits at the back of the class and sniggers*

(Seriously though, I'd be suprised if there were more than a handful of Navaras that were intentionally taken off-road, unless driveways count.

The crash test makes for pretty scary viewing though, I particularly like about 42 seconds into it where the passenger's head slides under the airbag and cracks into the dashboard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEwF-SDQNk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 19:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
I wonder how much this is due to old fashioned chassis rail engineering that presumably a pickup truck has? 4x4's also need greater emphasis on structural rigidity than cars which can have more cumple zone.

Still a woefull score mind, I'm just wondering if a vehicle like that can be as good as the best cars.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 19:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
hairyben wrote:
I wonder how much this is due to old fashioned chassis rail engineering that presumably a pickup truck has? 4x4's also need greater emphasis on structural rigidity than cars which can have more cumple zone.

Still a woefull score mind, I'm just wondering if a vehicle like that can be as good as the best cars.


Perhaps not, you can't make the bed into a crumple zone as that would be a great way for the occupants of the cab to get impaled by copper pipe if that's what happened to be in the bed at the time. I have occasionally wondered what happens in that situation when you see an estate car where the boot is crammed full of stuff from floor to ceiling. Sure kids toys and buggies will crush ok, but what about when those are full of wood and pipe, or a sofa or something?

There's no excuse for that passenger airbag though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 01:08 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Currently, just about all EC-type approved passenger cars do a "luggage retention" test on the backs of the rearmost seats. There are various test "missiles" placed behind the seats and then the shell is decelerated violently and the bits and pieces mustn't penetrate the backret. Obviously there's a limit to what can be accomplished with this kind of test and it has to be said that the objects aren't particularly sharp. There's also the problem with estate cars about the space betwen the top of the rear seat and the roof.

I don't think it should be any harder to make a traditional "ladder" chassis to crumple either. At least most vehicles with separate chassis tend to be large - so they do have space - a luxury that small hatchbacks don't have when it comes to crumpling. I've seen a number of chassis members where the front section has pressed indentations in it to ensure that it "concertinas" in a nice controlled way as it hits something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
It is ironic that most or at least alot of these pickups get bought by people that don't use them as pickups for their rufty, tufty image and the fact that they are "safer" than a small car...

Those japaness pickups are pretty good utility vehicles, a friend of mine has one of another brand and it works hard and no self respecting muslim fundamentalist would drive his mates through the desert in anthing else. But they are not cars. Would a ladder chassis that has to put up with hauling stuff, towing too heavy trailers and serious off roading while loaded be able to deform in a collision? The L200, I think is used as a chassis for one of the Mitsubishi SUV's, would that vehicle have or need the same deforming charicturistics (sp) as the pickup donour vehicle?

As a side issue on big = safe. I used to drive one of 4 identicle American lorries. One day we had to do something behind the dash. Lurking behind the dash on a 377 is a horizontal aluminim plate about 0.25 inches thick. I said at the time that if anyone ever crashed one of them into something big enough to stop one of them the people in the cab would loose a leg. Last year I heard that one of them did crash into the back of another truck and the driver lost his leg. :cry:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 18:09 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Lets not get carried away..

1) The airbag issue was software related, resulting in the delay in deployment. This has been fixed.

2) The Nevara is classed as a commercial vehicle not a passenger car. Euro Ncap does not test commercial vehicles. I expect the this vehicle does considerably better than a van derived people carrier or the like.

If you drive pick truck up that’s exactly what you get....a truck, not a Range Rover with a pick-up bed in the back.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 23:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
adam.L wrote:
...Would a ladder chassis that has to put up with hauling stuff, towing too heavy trailers and serious off roading while loaded be able to deform in a collision?


I don't see why not. It's only the front bit that needs to deform. A quick look at the EuroNCAP site suggests that there are plenty of 4X4s that get 4 and 5 star ratings (although I'm not sure which of them have separate chassis).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:37 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
i dont see how the off road capabilities are relevant. if you are into serious off roading you buy a landrover. anything else is a school run mobile :bunker: :lol:

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 13:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
scanny77 wrote:
i dont see how the off road capabilities are relevant. if you are into serious off roading you buy a landrover. anything else is a school run mobile :bunker: :lol:

I'd probably agree with you. I have a Discovery 3 Diesel loaned to me at the moment and it certainly isn't fit for ON road use. :twisted:

It has so much turbo lag that pulling away smartly is nigh on impossible. Even attempting more rapid progress on twisty roads is frightening due to the insecure feeling you get from body roll and the absence of steering feedback.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
i have just had a thought on this subject. im not an engineer and know little about mechanics so my opinion is based solely on logic and knowledge of military vehicles (the army trained me well) BUT:

surely crumple zones would be a contradiction in design terms to off road capabilities :?:

a serious off roader requires a strengthened chassis to cope with the demand of what it is used for therefore crumple zones would compromise chassis strength making it impossible to have a strong chassis that crumples on impact. it can be strong OR it can crumple but i fail to understand how it could do both.

maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on engineering would correct me but this is my understanding of the physics involved at the moment :?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 00:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Up to a point, I'd agree, but the crash loads tend to be largely ALONG the direction of the main longitudinal chassis members whereas the suspension loads when offroading tend to be mostly vertical. Put another way, if you had a massively stiff girder running along the length of the vehicle at each side, it wouldn't be impossible to bolt a crushable bit to the front of those members - which wouldn't need to be at all strong once it was in front of the foremost suspension attachment point and / or engine mounting.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.281s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]