Conference terri::cars_uk

    Well having crash tested and new Rover 214 Sli, I was *VERY* impressed
    with how well is stood up to the accident.  The damage at the time looked
    quite bad, but ended up being only superficial.
    
    Top marks to Rover.
    
    
    Shaun.

    I've entered notes on this topic quite sometime ago.  A friend of mine
    is a traffic cop on the M1, I mentioned to him that 205's that I'd seen
    in accidents came off very badly.  He said that from what he had seen the 
    205 is one of the weakest hot hatches.  Hot hatches being of particular
    interest as they tend to be going faster than other cars when they have
    a prang.  Also bear in mind that most accidents and fatalities occur in
    built-up areas.
    
    When I last had these safety discussions (a couple of years ago), the
    Golf seemed very good, the Escort not too bad, no idea about the Astra
    and R5 just seems so small.  Enough said about the 205.
    
    Not a scientific evaluation, but I saw a head-on between a Golf and old
    style Cavalier (not old at the time), both doing around 45 - 50, the Golf 
    driver suffered slight injuries, the Cavalier drive was killed, the 
    engine came through into the passenger compartment.
    
    Saftey is high on my list too, I enjoy interesting cars, but not at the
    expense of my life.  Driving 30,000 miles per year, this is a topic
    that interests me.

    
    Yawn.
    
    Does anyone have any facts to back up these purile prejudices?
    
    Mark

�                         -< Small cars = Unsafe cars? >-
�    
�    Yawn.
    
    Ditto.  Safety isn't unimportant, but stats prove bu??er all.
    
    Why consider only the 'hot' versions of hatches ?
    I know previous reply mentioned that they may well be
    travelling faster than others (but not necessarily so),
    but that means nowt when another car hits you...
    
    If you are concerned, fit a roll-cage.  That'll beat the pants
    off the much-publicised Volvo safety cell !
    
    J.R.

    Shaun will be pleased to note that its not only Golf GTi's which are
    safe. I once saw a 911 targa which had been in a crash�
                               
    	The engine had spun on its axis though 90�.
    	The front end of the car was non existant (nothing at all infront
    of the passenger shell)
    	Both sides had signes of (serious) impact.
    
    	Both passenger door still opened and had there been anyone in the
    back seats thay would have been OK (The engine hadn't even penetrated the
    fire wall !) Both the front and rear windows had poped out and there
    was no signeds of glass inside the car.
    
    	This car looked like it was the subject of some crazed Volvo crash ad.
    and yet and been capable of 150, 0-60 in 5 secs and 100+ in 3rd.
    
    	The 911 is one hell of a car
    		- its a pity they look so cr&p inside :-)
    
    	Rik
    
    �Euphamism for being hit by an express train.

    
    Keith,
    
    Mark has a point, you've seen that a particular car performed
    well in a particular accident. This doesn't mean that other
    cars wouldn't perform just as well, and it doesn't mean that
    your car would be safe in another type of accident - that's
    just conjecture...
    
    William.
    

>>    Yawn or Mark same thing really,
>>       If you don't care about the safety of your car or value your life 
>>    then you must be a yawn. 
    
    I thought Mark was saying he was fed up of people saying small cars are
    unsafe, and not that he was fed up with hearing about saftey issues !
    
    I that were the case I presume he would have hit <NEXT UNSEEN> instead
    of replying.
    
    
    Shaun.
    

    
    Keith,
    
    I suspect that my Calibra would withstand a crash at least as well as a
    piddly little Golf, and don't dispute that the Golf is a safe car (some
    friends of mine rolled down an embankment in one and walked away), but
    as Bill said just because one car is safe, doesn't mean another is not.
    You said you suspected that you wouldn't have survived the same
    accident in an XR3i, Pug (never have never will), or a Renault 5GT
    Turbo, but offered NO evidence to support such supposition.
    
    I never crashed my Renault 5GT Turbo, but have seem many subjected to 
    very high speed crashes (at races) and have been impressed by the
    inherent strength of the underlying structure. One noter had a head on
    with a lorry in an MR2 and survived and cars don't get a lot smaller
    than that. Another noter reported seeing a Granada/Renault 5 smash in 
    which the Granada was badly damaged and the Renault barely. I wouldn't
    suggest that that proves that a Granada is weaker than a 5, but it is
    more evidence of a small cars strength, than you've provided of their 
    weakness.
    
    Mark
    

    >>>                     -< Small cars = Unsafe cars? >-
    >>>
    >>>   
    >>> Yawn.
    
    Sorry you find self preservation boring, have you ever been in a major
    car accident? ie where injuries may occur.
    
    Small doesn't have to be unsafe, but when you rely upon crumple zones
    to absorb energy, size won't be a disadvantage.
    
    I don't want to drive around in a tank, but I do want to drive around
    in car where saftey comes higher in the priority list that that light
    weight, fuel economy and performance.  All cars are compromises, I have
    my own view of what suits me.
    
    By the way, the 205 couldn't be sold in the US because it was too
    expensive to modify it to pass crash tests.  Don't know if this
    position has changed now.

    Regarding comments about pure conjecture.  It would be far better to go
    by varied, scientific testing, but as this isn't done properly, we have
    to make subjective judgements.  The best tests I've recently were the
    much discussed "front corner" crash tests for BMW 520, Merc, Carlton
    etc.  This is only one good test, others are needed.
    
    As every crash sitaution will be different, it would be difficult to
    scientifically predict how a car will behave in a proang, so back to
    conjecture.
    
    Or do you give up and not bother.

    Ah, good we're beginning to discuss things now.
    
    I wouldn't be awfully suprised to find out that you could dent a
    Renault 5 door by slamming the door (although I've never experienced 
    that), but the external skin of a car does nothing to protect you in 
    a crash (except, possibly, a very slow speed one). What matters is the
    strength of the underlying structure of the car. I've been quite
    concerned to see how the shells of Clios seem to peel apart, despite
    the stronger metal used in the outer panels.
    
    Saying a car is unsafe because it is small IS prejudice (like saying
    it's unsafe because it's RWD/FWD). Each car would (or should) stand
    on its own merit, based on fact, not conjecture.
    
    Mark

    
    I have both a 205 and a Porsche , and I know which one I would rather
    be in when involved in an accident. Its true about the roof of the 205
    I managed to crease the roof on mine despite the special roof rack.
    However I dont think .0 was 'picking' on 205 owners or any hot hatch in
    general just stating his opinion and asking for others experiences.
    It would be valid if people said they had had bad experiences of a golf
    1.6l vs an escort 1.6l but you cant compare one car with another which
    cost 4 times as much, and I'm not saying a F40 should be mega safer then a
    skoda just cos it cost 15 times as much.
    
    

    >Each car would (or should) stand on its own merit, based on fact, 
    >not conjecture.
    
    From where can we get these facts?  Taking crash statistics only tells
    you about the car / driver combination.  Crash tests are not thorough
    enough.  We don't seem to be making progress.

    Re .0
    
    > I was told after the accident by a ploiceman that 'I was lucky to get
    > out of the car alive.
    
    I think this is a tactic by the police to try and make you feel better
    about writing off your car :-} I was told exactly the same a few years
    ago when I was in a bad car accident. Luckily no one was badly hurt,
    but the cars (both new Escorts) were both written off. I was in the
    passenger seat and the front passenger door took most of the impact. We
    were stationary, the other car was doing about 60 mph. Made a right
    mess but the nothing touched me (apart from the door pillar, sideways
    whiplash). I was very glad to have been in a strong car. I've loved
    Escorts ever since ;-)
    
    Lisa.
    

I managed to demolish two and a half brick walls in my car and still drove home
and then to work the next day. She is now in for some bodywork and steering
alignment checks and repairs. All paid for by the other party's insurance you
see.

Simon

    
    I agree with Mark that facts need to be considered and not conjecture.

    Insurance stats measure drivers, not cars and peoples recollections
    or stories in no way relate to the 'real' safety of the car. 
    
    Any car that is to be mass produced has to go through a series of crash
    tests. These tests are carried out at 35mph. They involve crashing
    into barriers forwards, backwards, sideways, and 45deg impacts as
    well. 
    
    An additional test that some manufacturers carry out (Mercedes,
    BMW and Volvo for certain) is known as the 'offset barrier crash
    test'. This involves driving forwards into a barrier on which only
    one half (left or right) of the frontal area of the car makes contact.
    Some of the results from this test, which I believe could easily
    happen in reality, make sorry reading.
        
    I would like to see, for every new car produced (with a production
    say of greater than 1000 vehicles per annum) a series of test results
    published for every car (just like fuel consumption) of how the
    car performed in the various safety tests at 35, 50 and 70mph.
    From the reports I've read, I would like the 'offset' test to be
    included as mandatory.

    No doubt the motor industry would be dead against this, but better
    them dead against than me dead.
    
    Richard.

I agree with Mark on most things so far.

I don't disagree with .0 that safety is not important. But I do think
your "My Golf was wonderful, Calibras & 205's are rubbish", is a pretty
stupid attitude to take. Who the hell is interested in the Calibra
having small headlights. So What!

As Mark said, despite having thin metal panels, the Renault 5 seems
to stand up well to crashes. I know 2 people who have had serious
accidents in R5GTT's, and they have both been completely uninjured.

They are all the facts I know, I'm not going to judge *ANY* other
car's safety.

You cannot rationally say that one car is safer than another from
the thickness of the metal, the country of manufacture, how badly
equipped it is, or how boring it looks.

Mark.

>>    If you think that is what I am saying then it's your attitude that is
>>    stupid and needs changing not mine. Very much the same thing could said
>>    of saying 'My Calibra
    
    Getting a little personal here methinks !
    
    
    Shaun.
    

Keith,

I have no information whatsoever to base my judgement, on what I choose as
the safest car : Golf, Tipo, R19, or Pug 309.

You are happy with the Golf, I suspect you'd also be safe in the Renault.

I haven't a clue about the Tipo or Peugeot.

The last reply was my first reply put in.

I have no difficulty seeing your point of view. I do have difficulty agreeing
with it.

Mark.

    I was uder the impression that the Tipo was very sturdily built and
    quite strong . Consider this ,Fiat are building quite a few other cars
    on the Tipo chassis including the new Lancia Delta when it comes out.
    They will be racing the new Delta and one can only assume that they
    wouldn't race a car that wasn't fairly crashworthy.
    
                    Niall
    

�    an accident ? The (piddly) Golf GTi, Pug 309 GTi, Tipo 2.0i or the 19 16v.
    
    I'd rather not be in an accident in the first place, which of these
    is better in the 'primary safety' aspect, ie avoiding a crash ?
    
    My choice would be an Audi Coupe...but I wouldn't buy any of them.
    
    To my mind, none of these are 'hot' enough, so you should change
    your criteria to drop the 'hot hatch' bit and just say 'hatchback'
    or should that be 'shopping car' ?
    
    J.R.

>    my car. The car is a write off and writing off a Golf means it had a hell

Not really true.   It's easy to write off a Golf/Polo.  It's the way they are
constructed.

They are built with crumple zones front and rear that are supposed to absorb 
most of the impact. 

I had �2000 worth of damage from a 20mph impact on *1* wing on my Golf.
With that sort of expense entailed in re-building VW's, insurance companies 
have no trouble them "writing-off".

    Regarding crash tests carried on cars, whilst I'm not a crash expert,
    I've seen several times experts asking for offset type tests to be
    included (the ones described earlier).  Also Top Gear last year ran a
    bit on crash tests being done with the engine switched on.  Now there's
    a novel idea - realistic testing!  This seems specifically aimed at
    injection systems that inject fuel onto a hot engine.
    
    A real problem is that safety in general doesn't sell cars, those
    mandatory publication of results might change this.
    
    I should be the one blamed for mentioning the 205, I was relating what
    I (and a police friend) had observed.  The US experience is fact. 
    Where facts or figures aren't available we do have to be subjective or
    become Ostrich like.
    
    Certainly crashability of a car is complex, actually I'm not too
    worried if it's easy to write a car off, providing the damage is
    outside the passenger cell.  A car needs to collapse to absorb energy.
    
    In the well publicised offset crash tests the car that came off worst
    had an engine compartment with little room for to absorb an impact.  I
    won't mention the make - some sensitive person is bound to take
    offence. :-) 

    
>    In the well publicised offset crash tests the car that came off worst
>    had an engine compartment with little room for to absorb an impact.  I
>    won't mention the make - some sensitive person is bound to take
>    offence. :-) 

Oh, go on...I'm interested anyway, even if no-one else is :-)

    Keith,
    
    You started off this topic by telling us about an accident you'd had 
    in your Golf and how happy you were with the way the Golf stood up
    to it (all fair enough), but then proceeded to say that you doubted
    the ability of other cars to stand up to such an accident (to the 
    point that they would threaten your life), picking particularly on
    Renaults, Peugeots and Fords. You offered no evidence to support you
    criticisms of these cars. 
    
    Somebody else said that they couldn't see how a small car could be
    safe, that (to my view) is nothing more than prejudice.
    
    You also went on to say that someone is as 'safe as houses' in a 
    Golf, but you seem to base that on the evidence of one accident and
    it's not really reasonable to assume any car will be safe in any
    accident (As I said earlier, some friends of mine had a roll-over
    accident in a Golf, from which they also emerged safely).
    
    In reply .17 you go on to quote some test crash figures which are 
    of some interest, but as I recall, again only relate to one form of
    accident. I have very little experience of Renault 25s so couldn't
    say whether they are safe or not, but you AGAIN say they are no better,
    but where's you evidence that smaller Renaults are unsafe?
    
    Unfortunately you then plumbed the depths in your childish little
    outburst about the Calibra's lights. The lights on my Calibra work
    very nicely thank you and I believe the Cavalier is considered quite
    a safe car by the people who do crash tests, so I don't have any
    problems with my car being based on a Cavalier.
    
    � production cars you can buy. Nor did I say or imply 'My Golf was
    � wonderful and Calibras and 205's are guff'. If you think that is what I
    � I am saying then it's your attitude that is stupid and needs changing
    � not mine. Very much the same thing could said of saying 'My Calibra
    � could withstand a crash as well if not better than a piddly little Golf'. 
    � Please, leave the 'my car's better that your car bit out of this'. 
    
    Quite right, but it doesn't seem you've really got the hang of this
    valuing difference lark yet!
    
    Interestingly, you then had a go at Mark Jeffrey, because, it seems,
    he agreed with me rather than you. Naughty boy, Mark. You obviously
    have a death wish and no interest in road safety!
    
�     If you want to be fair answer this. Of these four medium sized Hot Hatches
�    which would you rather be in if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in
�    an accident ? The (piddly) Golf GTi, Pug 309 GTi, Tipo 2.0i or the 19 16v.
�    I know which I'd choose, maybe not the best handling or performer of the
�    group but it's certain to be the safest.
	
    I'll explain my use of the word 'piddly', if you like. I used it to
    mean small. Compared with a Calibra (crappy old stretched Cavalier with
    little lights, though it is) the Golf is small. This was in response to
    your supposition (again totally with support) that I drove a small Peugeot,
    which you accuse of being unsafe.(I don't know about that, but they
    are a popular car which have passed the standard crash tests for
    Europe). 
    
    I'll be honest in answer to your question. Of these 4 cars I wouldn't
    really want to be involved in an accident in any of them, but equally
    I don't really believe that I'd be in any more danger in any of them as
    opposed to another. What happened in your accident? All too many people
    seem to believe that safety is all about how a car stands up to an
    accident, but from your comments it sounds as if something strange
    happened. I'd rather have a car which avoids accidents than stands up
    well to having them. You might be right that a Golf is stronger than 
    the Pug, Renault or FIAT, but then again you may well not be.
    
    Mark

�    won't mention the make - some sensitive person is bound to take
�    offence. :-) 
    
     Yeah, go on.  I'm sure we aren't really all that sensitive.
    
    Maybe we like being a bit verbose, but at least that's better
    than everyone being silent...
    
    J.R.

> Oh, go on...I'm interested anyway, even if no-one else is :-)
    
    Alright, if you insist.  It was the Honda Legend?, the big Honda that's
    the same as the Rover 800.  The version with the problem had the 2.7l
    engine.  Maybe a 2.0l version would be a different story.  Also, Rover
    may have made changes, so please don't assume the Rover is indentical.
    
    The article went on the same that the Japanese are very good at what
    they do, they've just not concentrated on being the world's best a
    safety.  When then believe it'll sell cars, we can expect them to
    excel.

    
    Re .33
    
    Hondas unsafe? Now that does suprise me! They seem to sell very well to
    the kind of just-retired person who Volvo pitch their safety first
    advertising at (sorry if you've got a Honda and haven't just retired!
    :^)). Perhaps this is a case of big cars being less safe than little
    cars? (Going on what someone said earlier about the strength of the 
    Honda based Rover 214).
    
    Mark

>    Somebody else said that they couldn't see how a small car could be
>    safe, that (to my view) is nothing more than prejudice.
    
    I suspect you're referring to my comments.  I'm not trying to say small
    cars can't be safe, but designing saftey into physically smaller body
    where weight has been an important criteria too, makes more demands on
    the designer.  Now that some manufacturers are prepared to go for extra
    refinement and quality (usually resulting in extra weight) we may being
    seeing cars that have saftey more easily designed in.
    
    Most of my cars have been small cars.  I assure you I've got nothing
    against small ones. :-) 

>    Hondas unsafe? Now that does suprise me! They seem to sell very well to
    
    Only the exact model I mentioned was tested.  I have no facts or
    observations to make judgements on other Hondas.  Only the 2.7l
    Legend.

    If a disproportionate amount of Hot Hatches are involved in car
    crashes, what does that tell us about the ability and responsibility of
    the drivers of these cars?
    
    Dougie
    

    
    Clive,
    
    I'd agree that making a small car safe is harder than building in a
    margin of error (ie lots of space and weight) to a large car, but it
    (as you say) is not an insurmountable problem. The comment on the
    Leg-end seems to suggest that problems can occur just as easily with
    big, heavy cars.
    
    Mark

>>    If a disproportionate amount of Hot Hatches are involved in car
>>    crashes, what does that tell us about the ability and responsibility of
>>    the drivers of these cars?
    
    I take offence at this !
    
    I don't drive a hot hatch, are you implying that I am not a bad driver?
    
    Shaun.
    
    

       <<< Note 1589.39 by CHEST::LEECH "Someones Pulled My Pilsner !" >>>
                                    -< ;^) >-

>>    If a disproportionate amount of Hot Hatches are involved in car
>>    crashes, what does that tell us about the ability and responsibility of
>>    the drivers of these cars?
    
    I take offence at this !
    
    I don't drive a hot hatch, are you implying that I am not a bad driver?
    
    Shaun.
    
Er, probably! I'm not very good on negatives. Double Negatives are
completely beyond me!

Dougie

    

    Rut can up with a good point a few back which no one seems to have
    caught on to.
    
    	A safe car (independent of size :-) is one which get you OUT of
    trouble hence avoiding the need for a crash.
    
    	On those lines the faster the car the safer (Vas generalisation)
    the following would be in my list of cars to have an incident (not a
    crash) in :
    
    	Porsche 911 Carrera 4
    	Audi Quatro Sport
    	Lotus Carlton
    	Porsche 959
    
    All these cars have one thing in common absoluly tons and tons of low
    down torque (Below 4000 rpm is low down too me). If anything happens in
    any of these cars you could safely employ the right foot to get you the
    hell out of the way. (This includes round corners - these cars can
    handle)
    
    	I know none of these are hot-hatches but they are probably driven
    by the same kind of driver (though richer and older :-)
    
    	Rik (A Honda owner, who has never written a car off in his life,
    or made and insurance claim� - and feeling quite safe thank you)
    
    �If you think this because I'm a slow blue-rinse Honda owner you are
    invitded to spend some time at 7000 rpm (red line 6800 rpm, no rev
    limiter, not my car :-) in the little beast with me.

    
    Re .41
    
    Quite right, so shall we end it now and discuss the realities of car
    safety?
    
    Jane has crashed Golfs. She wasn't too impressed. Does that mean she's
    an idiot?
    
    What you really meant was "In the crash I had in my Golf it stood up
    better than the Renault (18, you said?) did in the crash I had in
    that"? 
    What actually happened in your accident? You mentioned a roll and 
    other damage.
    
    As for cars which can avoid accidents. There's a recent note in here
    complaining about poor brakes on RHD Golfs. That's a good example,
    IMHO, of a none too safe car!
    
    Mark

    
    I'm interested that people think conjecture about passive safety
    is pointless, surely its only annoying when its presented as
    fact (as happened in this note). We tend to rely on a feeling of
    solidity being indicative of a well built, crash worthy, car.
    Maybe, as in the case of the Honda, we're not always right. That
    said, of the cars mentioned, I think I'd rather prang the Golf.
    I wonder though, is money better spent buying a car that will
    perform better in a crash, or on training that will hopefully
    improve your chances of avoiding the accident in the first place?
                      
    William.
    
    As an aside, Rik, I realise you may not have driven, or even sat in,
    some of the cars you describe, but you may be interested to know
    that the new Carrera engine isn't over endowed with low end torque.
    Its got plenty by normal car standards, but it definitely performs
    better at higher revs.
    

>>    As an aside, Rik, I realise you may not have driven, or even sat in,
>>    some of the cars you describe, but you may be interested to know
>>    that the new Carrera engine isn't over endowed with low end torque.
>>    Its got plenty by normal car standards, but it definitely performs
>>    better at higher revs.
    
    William,
    
    Rik's not around at the moment, but I'm sure he'll reply when they've
    finished his rinse and set ;^)
    
    Shaun.
    

    Bill,
    
    There's no doubt that some cars impart a feeling of safety, but
    is that neccesarily a good thing? A while back there was a discussion
    on ABS and the biggest arguement against it was that it made the driver
    feel he was safe and therefore take less care. Perhaps the same is true
    of cars which have an image of safety?
    
    Mark

�                        -< Nice Pink tinge today Rik ! >-

    Well it's blue today to match your tie :-)

    Re Carrera-2:

    	Your right William, I've never been in one, I was basing my
    comments on the 2.7 Carrera and 3.0 SC (Race Prepaired) both of these
    cars had a massive amount of torque at 2500-3000 and a second comming
    at just below 6000. Second gear in either of these cars left you with a
    permanent grin on you face and pressure on you back. I just assumed
    (wrongly it would seem) that the Carrera-2/4 would be more of the same :-(
    
    	Rik

    I just asked my tame traffic management policeman for his subjective
    opinion on this.....
    
    Safest = Volvo
    Riskiest = Trabant
    
    No, seriously, he said he did not know of any published material on
    survivability. And if you hit a wall at 95mph in any car, you were
    probably dead.
    
    Hot hatches claim a large number of victims, cause of their
    performance, popularity and tendency to be driven agressively.
    
    JK

>>    Smashed the car head on in to a thick and ancient wall which held up
>>    as well as the Golf did (IMHO).
    
    Well, looks like my next car is a wall ! ;^)
    
    Rik,
    
    From talking to a few people while looking at 911's, and having tried a
    few SC's, the standard SC's are'nt reputed for their torque either.
    
    Shaun.
    

    
    Re .50
    
    Presumably the Wall is made in Germany?
    
    Mark

>    
>    I take offence at this !
>    
>    I don't drive a hot hatch, are you implying that I am not a bad driver?
>    
>    Shaun.
>    

	Given what you *do* drive Shaun - I'd keep out of the 
	conversation! :-)  ;-)

	Paul.

>>    Presumably the Wall is made in Germany?
    
    Of course !  Only the best and safest will do ;^)
    
    
    Shaun.
    

    Surely the cars contribution to safety comes under two headings:
    
    1. Accident Avoidance
    
    Example features:
    Good lighting
    Good brakes, ABS
    Balanced power/weight/suspension/tyres to give good handling
    Adequate mirrors - with built in blind spot mirror
    Correct maintenance to keep up to original spec
    4WD ??
    
    2. Survivability
    
    Crumple zone - surely all cars have this?
    Strong construction rather than light weight
    Padded interior, esp. Steering wheel
    Crash bars in doors
    Seat belts which are automatically tensioned in a crash
    Procon (Audi)
    Air bags
    
    
    I have studied various reports from Which?, Folksam (Swedish insurance
    co.) and a US organisation. These seem to agree that the heavier the
    car, the better the survivability, although there are big differences
    within each weight class. SAAB, BMW 5-series, Audi and Mercedes seem to
    come out top. Surprisingly, Volvo are less good, although still better
    than average.
    
    These reports concentrate on survivability. Accident avoidance seems to
    attract less attention. I suppose its more difficult to measure
    objectively, and the differences between cars may be less pronounced. 
    
    To complete the picture: I drive a SAAB 9000. 

          <<< Note 1589.55 by KIRKTN::KCORMACK "Toxic butt lives !" >>>
                       -< Vursprung durch Technick !!! >-

    
    .51,
       Mark,
           No the wall was built in Scotland many moons ( I think it was
    the last time the English beat us at Murrayfield, couldn't possibly
    have been before that, the wall wasn't that old. ago.

You mean the accident happened since Saturday?

>     Jane, sorry to hear of her accidents. No she I do not think she is an
>    idiot cause she wasn't impressed with the Golf.

ah, the value of chinese whispers...



Just to put the record straight.  

It was one accident.  I was happy enough with the way the golf handled the 
accident.  What I wan't impressed with was the *amount* of damage resulting 
from a less-than-20mph impact and the cost to repair the damage.

I would have prefered to feel more of the accident in favour of a little more
rigidity in the structure of the Golf.

�I would have prefered to feel more of the accident in favour of a little more
�rigidity in the structure of the Golf.
    
    Got suicidal tendencies, Jane ?
    
    J.R.

    
>    Got suicidal tendencies, Jane ?
    
No, but I would prefer the crumple tendencies of an Astra to the collapse 
tendencies of a Golf...

    
    The Golf, as well as a few other cars, has 'crumple zones' designed into
    it which de-form and absorb some of the energy of the impact
    hence a relatively low-speed shunt may produce what appears to be a
    large amount of damage in certain areas.
     
    If the areas had been rigid the full energy of the impact would be 
    transmitted into the passenger shell of the car. 
    
    Jeff K.

    � I have never felt, as was mentioned earlier, that the brakes on the Golf 
    � were never powerful enough to bring the Golf to a halt.
    
    Why did you use this ancient Scottish wall then?
    
    Mark :^)

    If you want  to protect  your passengers you have to have crumple zones
    to absorb all the energy. The trouble is though that they  tend to be
    expensive to sort out after a shunt because a lot of metal folds about.
    When I bumped my Golf at the O/S front the first thing the insurance
    assesor did was check the roof at the  C-pillars for ripples because
    that is where all the energy is  transmitted though to.
                                                           
    The trouble Peogeot  have with the 205 is  that it is hard to build
    crumple zones in a cube of  Bacofoil!! Hence if you drive one (oh dear 
    I do) it is worth keeping away from anything more solid than a sheet of
    paper. In fact 205GTI's never get used by "ram raiders" because they
    haven't got the strength to get through a plate glass window without
    falling in half :-) :-)
    
    
    Jimbob

Hey look,

this is unfair!! I only put in two notes (now three!), and I'm
pretty indifferent to Peugeot's.

What I do find interesting is the other Mark's experience watching
the Clio 16V's racing. The Metal in a Clio 16V's body is thicker than
a Renault 5 GT Turbo, but they don't stand up so well to being smashed
up on a race course.

It's the standard thing with car bodies. If you took the metal used for
a Volvo Body in it's flat sheet form, you could bend it. As soon as you
form a shape, it is a lot more rigid. The design of the car is a lot
more important than the thickness of the metal. It makes sense to
cut down on car weight to improve economy.

BTW I'm not sure I like the idea of blind spot mirrors. If I had one,
I'd still look over my shoulder before overtaking, but I'm sure that
a lot of people would rely on the blind side mirrors. Its human
nature innit!

Mark.

    
    
    
    
    Safe to whom?
    
    As someone somewhere mentioned Volvo's in this topic ....
    
    It's about time they were made of thin tin, rather than reinforced.
    Might help reduce the number of Volvo drivers who seem to feel
    that 'cos they are invulnerable in a in tank they can attack all 
    around them (especially 2 wheelers).
    
    Subjective, but proven true for me far too often.
    
    (BTW, personal experience shows the tendency is much more pronounced
    the larger/gruntier the Volvo in question.......)
    
    Hot hatches seem to be relatively safe towards others road users. They
    seem respectful/aware of other peoples high power/weight ratios, rather
    than resentful/blind as in certain executive vehicles (excluding mine,
    of course :-)  ) 
    
    At least, I assume it is the cars that exhibit the behaviour -- couldn't 
    possibly be the drivers, could it.
    
    

    Dear Keith,
              Reading your story about your accident in your"PIDDLY LITTLE GOLF"
    reminds me of my accident when I owned my VW Golf Gti,and may I say not
    a word of this story is a lie..........................................

    I was traveling a steady 100mph when I hit black ice which sent me 
    smashing through a fence and I fell about a quarter of a mile down the
    side of the mountain onto the road below.
    Lying upside down and slightly dazed,I just opened my eyes in time to
    see the snow plough that hit me at a tremendous rate making the car
    roll about 35 times and finally landing on it's 4 skinny tyres.
    I may I say not a second was I scared because I knew I was in a VW
    Golf.
    And Keith may I say that was a very Intelligent thing to say about
    the Calibra's light's.
    
                                                      Josh.

    
    
    Keith,
         I`ve heard that a good way to avoid injury when in a car-smash 
        is to remain completely pissed at all times.The only problem with
        this is that it can cause you to collide with immovable objects
        and impairs your ability to make rational comments afterwards.
                                                                    Doogz
        P.s. Standby for a spate of "MR2`s are crap" retorts.8*) 8*)

    Since he's not in today, I'll answer for him -
    
    	Shaun had his prang in a Rover 214
    
    I've been hit by a largish van when driving a Mark 1 Escort (aaagh,
    a Ford !   ;-) and the whole side of the car was destroyed.  The fact
    that no-one was hurt, I put down to the way the accident occurred,
    rather than any particular vehicle design considerations.
    The van sort of 'slid' across the side of my car, from front wing
    through to the rear.  The panelwork was knocked in about 8 inches,
    the rear axle was pulled back enough for the propshaft to come out
    of the back of the gearbox, other side of the car bounced of a
    telegraph pole and was also badly dented.  The four occupants,
    including myself, were not hurt at all - although I was sick later,
    a delayed form of shock.  The one thing which was quite bad in this
    incident was that the petrol tank was in the right, rear wing and
    was split open.  This resulted in a lot of petrol in the area, which
    sure made us hurry to get out of the vehicle !
    
    I've also had a smash in a Cavalier Coupe (Manta) whereby a car hit
    my front wing as I came through a bend at about 50 mph.  Since this
    knackered by front wheel, the car automatically took a right turn
    into a nice solid tree !  It hit it dead centre on the front bumper
    and bounced off, with the back having swung aroung in the road.
    In this accident, I realised I was about to meet this tree, so put
    my arms over my head - steering was out of the question.  The result
    this time was that my arm was quite badly bruised and I had a one-inch
    gouge out of my shin - caused by the ignition key.  That's why they
    have rubber tops on keys nowadays...  The car was a complete write-off,
    as one would expect.  The engine was pushed back into the bulkhead,
    which gave way a bit, with the pedal box getting shifted so that the
    pedals were pointing dangerously close to my groin.  The rest of the
    damage seemed to be caused by all of the panels of the car trying
    to shift back, resulting in creases in every panel in the car,
    especially in the area where they joined the chassis rails.
    
    That's my two accidents.  I could say I was very lucky in both of these.
    In the first, I think it was more luck than anything.
    In the second, I feel that the size, structure and strength of the
    vehicle may well have helped to save my life.  Having said that, I am
    sure a lot of other vehicles would have coped with the second accident,
    but I doubt my Mk1 Escort would have stood up to it so well.
    
    J.R.

>>	In .52 Shaun was asked what he drove. No reply.
    
    In .52 I was not actually asked what I drove.  Paul knows what I drive so
    has no need to ask.
    
    Shaun
    
    
    P.S.  I now drive a 911.
    

    Let's face it, there's just a conspiracy of silence from the Government
    and manufacturers on any request for statistical information on
    relative car safety.
    If everyone knew what the accident statistics were for each type of
    car, I expect most of us would either walk to work or take a train (if
    the Beeching cuts of the '60's hadn't meant digging up half the rail 
    network).
    There's too much money at stake to divulge the information.
    We'd probably end up driving SAAB's or LADA's!
    
    Tim

    
    Dear Tim,
    
    I deeply resent the remarks that you made about Lada's.  I am the proud
    owner of one.
    
    What I do like about Lada's:
    
    1. Cheap and economical.
    
    2. Very roomy as nobody else will go in it with you so you have plenty
       of space.
    
    3. Excellent security, cos nobody wants to steal it.
    
    4. Free and much used 200 piece tool kit.
    
    5. You'll never suffer from drivers fatigue cos they are so
       uncomfortable.
    
    What I don't like:
    
    1. The 0-60 acceleration is from home to work.
    
    2. Handles like a shopping trolley.
    
    3. Having to wear a hat and sunglasses when having to drive. 
    
    4. It's easier to get rid of herpes than it is to get rid of a Lada.
    
    5. being laughed at by Skoda driver's.
    
    
              Carol, the Lada in red.