↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home > Off Topic > Had a crash yesterday...glad i WASN'T in the 110
Post Reply  Down to end
Page 3 of 6 <123456>
Print this entire topic · 
Cheshire110



Member Since: 26 Jul 2013
Location: Cheshire/London
Posts: 2746

United Kingdom 
borderterrier wrote:
I too love my Defender, but it cannot compete with modern cars in an accident. The only structural integrity it has is within the ladder chassis. This is a simple box section design with no impact absorption, save that of the metal itself. No side impact protection, no airbags, seatbelt pre-tensioners and hard facias are all a recipe for pain if you are unfortunate to be in a Defender during a major impact.

I have had a crash in an MOD Defender several years ago and I was very lucky not to be very seriously injured in the crash. I was hit by a VW Passat, the occupants of which were just shock up and walked away. I spent time in hospital.

Look at this Discovery which is similar in terms of construction to a Defender.

Dont kid yourselves, Defenders cannot compete with modern vehicles for safety.


Ridiculous test that though, people don't walk away from effectively decelerating 80mph-0 instantly, whatever car your in.

Agree airbags etc would be very good and are a ridiculous omission, but if I had to chose between being in my 110 and say a fiesta or something in a crash, know where I'd rather be! You just can't make up for weight in an accident

And in smaller accidents, strength can be better than crumple zones/airbags. Have seen/heard of vehicles crumple zones severing fuel lines, electrically etc and starting fires. But if you really want to be safe, buy an XC90 or a range rover! Thumbs Up Cheers, David
Land Rovers of all shapes S3 onwards… Daily is a 110 V8.
Post #288755 9th Dec 2013 2:01am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Likeomg



Member Since: 29 Jun 2012
Location: Lake District / Newcastle
Posts: 2637

2010 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 HT Stornoway Grey
unfortunately David, its not the weight its more the structural arrangements, theres a test video on youtube somewhere which is a old heavy volvo (maybe 240 estate) against a small euro box, about half its weight... in that case id much rather be in the eurobox, the results of that crash test did shock me.


found this, even a defender in the background lol.
Post #288756 9th Dec 2013 2:21am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Cheshire110



Member Since: 26 Jul 2013
Location: Cheshire/London
Posts: 2746

United Kingdom 
Yeah, wow.

I guess the only way to stay safe is to assume everyone is an idiot , keep your wits about you and keep your speed appropriate. Cheers, David
Land Rovers of all shapes S3 onwards… Daily is a 110 V8.
Post #288757 9th Dec 2013 2:45am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
blackwolf



Member Since: 03 Nov 2009
Location: South West England
Posts: 17305

United Kingdom 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 DCPU Stornoway Grey
davidwhittaker wrote:
...
Ridiculous test that though, people don't walk away from effectively decelerating 80mph-0 instantly, whatever car your in.

...


Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.
Post #288766 9th Dec 2013 8:14am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
tookaphotoof



Member Since: 18 Mar 2013
Location: dordrecht
Posts: 1279

Netherlands 2013 Defender 130 Puma 2.2 HCPU Santorini Black
I don't need the youtube examples to know it's not a 'safe' car.
I know enough by looking at the flimsy doors or when sitting behind the steering wheel with my arm against the window. In an unfortunate crash you might end up with your head through the front and / or side window.
No crash box at the front means it's probably going to hurt badly.
Same goes for my Caterham, but it never stopped me enjoying the car.
I love to ride my racing bike. The only safe way is during winter time when it's standing on a Tacx in my bedroom.
Anyways, I just got an overly luxourius Evoque to take with me while the dealer is going to change the heater for me coming week. It simply is not my cup of tea. To quiet and comfortable to my taste.

However, Marcus, I respect your decision selling the 110. If you can't life with the fact it being a dangerous car and if you can't enjoy driving it because of that selling is the only right way for you. Whatever eurobox you end up with, I hope you will never need to try its safety again. Have a safe journey! Very Happy
Post #288775 9th Dec 2013 9:19am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
borderterrier



Member Since: 09 Dec 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1677

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 XS CSW Aintree Green
Likeomg wrote:
unfortunately David, its not the weight its more the structural arrangements, theres a test video on youtube somewhere which is a old heavy volvo (maybe 240 estate) against a small euro box, about half its weight... in that case id much rather be in the eurobox, the results of that crash test did shock me.


found this, even a defender in the background lol.


A more comparable test; good find. Shocked
Post #288777 9th Dec 2013 9:49am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
MartinK



Member Since: 02 Mar 2011
Location: Silverdale (Lancashire/Cumbria Border)
Posts: 2665

United Kingdom 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Orkney Grey
jimbob7 wrote:
Not so much speed kills but over confidence leading to inappropriate driving, either way, replace the drivers airbag with a steel spike watch the accident rate plummet Thumbs Up .


Thumbs Up

I have a County, with no ABS...certainly makes me think about stopping, especially on slippy roads. There is (IMHO) a case to suggest that safety features provoke less care.

Same using a chainsaw, I'm much more cautious when I don't have proper protective gear on, and a bit less cautious (read scared) when I have the protective kit on... Defender "Puma" 2.4 110 County Utility (possibly the last of the 2.4's)
Post #288781 9th Dec 2013 10:00am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Cheshire110



Member Since: 26 Jul 2013
Location: Cheshire/London
Posts: 2746

United Kingdom 
blackwolf wrote:


Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.


No it's exactly like one car doing 80 and hitting the other while stationary. The forces exerted are equal to the rate of change of momentum. The only thing that matters is the relative speeds of the objects and the rate at which they slow down. So it would be exactly like hitting a (somewhat squashy) object at 80.

Also I find the 40% overlap thing a bit odd, it's possibly a near worst case scenario. It's removed the effect of having a 'strong' car. Head on a strong car won't crumple up on one side completely as the discovery did, and at a smaller overlap (10-20%) I think the cars would probably deflect one another aside more reducing the force.

But anyway it's kind of irrelevant I guess as every accident is different and the only way to be safe is not to crash. But if I had to chose 110 over a small European hatchback I think I'd still pick my 110 although I don't think anyone would come off ok in a head-on at the speeds above.

For small bumps and prangs I think that a defender is probably fairly good, although there isn't much legroom to lose if the passenger compartment buckles and I really would like an airbag to be honest!

It's all just a reminder to stay safe I guess, and I hope none of us ever know what it's like! Cheers, David
Land Rovers of all shapes S3 onwards… Daily is a 110 V8.
Post #288788 9th Dec 2013 10:27am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Naks



Member Since: 27 Jan 2009
Location: Stellenbosch, ZA
Posts: 2625

South Africa 2010 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 SW Alpine White
Read this harrowing recollection of someone seeing his loved ones die in an accident: http://4x4community.co.za/forum/showthread.php?t=164459 --
2010 Defender Puma 90 + BAS remap + Alive IC + Slickshift + Ashcroft ATB rear
2015 Range Rover Sport V8 Supercharged



Defender Puma Workshop Manual: https://bit.ly/2zZ1en9
Discovery 4 Workshop Manual: https://bit.ly/2zXrtKO
Range Rover/Sport L320/L322/L494 Workshop Manual: https://bit.ly/2zc58JQ
Post #288795 9th Dec 2013 10:42am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
blackwolf



Member Since: 03 Nov 2009
Location: South West England
Posts: 17305

United Kingdom 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 DCPU Stornoway Grey
davidwhittaker wrote:
blackwolf wrote:


Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.


No it's exactly like one car doing 80 and hitting the other while stationary.

...


No, I am sorry but it nothing whatsoever alike.

If in the world of theoretical mechanics you take two identical vehicles both travelling towards each other at 40mph and they hit head on, they will both crumple identically and equally against the theoretical contact plane, exactly as they would if they both ran into opposite side of a wall at the same instant. The deformation of each vehicle will absorb the whole of that vehicle's pre-impact kinetic energy and the decelleration will be from 40mph to stationary over the deformed distance. For each vehicle it makes absolutely no difference if they run into an oncoming identical car with a closing speed of 80mph or a solid indestructible object at 40mph.

Your assertion that this is the same as "decelerating 80mph-0 instantly" is misleading, since firstly it isn't instant (ok it is very rapid) and secondly the only way in the two-car scenario in which that level of decceleration could become involved is if one vehicle retains 100% of its velocity throughout the experience, ie it is travelling at exactly the same speed after the impact as before. For this to happen, despite the deformation occuring to both vehicles as before, the immediate post accident dynamic is that the two crumpled vehicles are now still travelling at 40mph - one hasn't altered, the other has reversed its direction. In the latter vehicle, the oocupants will have experienced the same accellertion as if they hit a wall at 80mph, in the former, the occupants will have experienced no decelleration whatsoever.

However, even in this (technically implausible) case the energy released in the collision will come nowhere close to that of a single vehicle 80mph impact. Remember also that the kinetic energy, being of course the energy which has to be absorbed by deformation and destruction during an accident, is proportional to the square of the velocity. One car travelling at 80mph therefore has far more kinetic energy than two cars each travelling at 40mph do. A single car at 80mph hitting a stationary identical car will introduce something like twice as much energy into the accident as two cars hitting at 40mph will do.

Of course in reality the whole matter is academic.

As this thread states there can be no doubt that the Defender is a worse place to be in the event of a serious accident than many other vehicles. The best approach is to drive well, defensively and with good anticipation, and avoid accidents. Defenders generally have a good accident record despite being "unsafe", perhaps this is because the drivers are aware of the lack of crash protection and therefore drive in a manner to minimise the likelihood of being involved in an accident.

It can be demonstrated that as cars become "safer", drivers take more risks and the standard of driving worsens. Ultimately the cause of nearly all accidents is inept driving, and nothing else. Although (sadly) and absurd idea which no-one woudl seriously propose, fitting a sharp prong instead of a driver's airbag would undoubtedly be the single most effective safety improvement as far as driving standards are concerned - if you know you will certainly die in the event of an accident, you will take great care to avoid having one.
Post #288812 9th Dec 2013 11:51am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
jimbob7



Member Since: 06 Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 2055

davidwhittaker wrote:
blackwolf wrote:


Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.


No it's exactly like one car doing 80 and hitting the other while stationary. The forces exerted are equal to the rate of change of momentum. The only thing that matters is the relative speeds of the objects and the rate at which they slow down. So it would be exactly like hitting a (somewhat squashy) object at 80.

Also I find the 40% overlap thing a bit odd, it's possibly a near worst case scenario. It's removed the effect of having a 'strong' car. Head on a strong car won't crumple up on one side completely as the discovery did, and at a smaller overlap (10-20%) I think the cars would probably deflect one another aside more reducing the force.

But anyway it's kind of irrelevant I guess as every accident is different and the only way to be safe is not to crash. But if I had to chose 110 over a small European hatchback I think I'd still pick my 110 although I don't think anyone would come off ok in a head-on at the speeds above.

For small bumps and prangs I think that a defender is probably fairly good, although there isn't much legroom to lose if the passenger compartment buckles and I really would like an airbag to be honest!

It's all just a reminder to stay safe I guess, and I hope none of us ever know what it's like!


I would say a full 100% head on crash is rare,odds are clearly in favour of only part of your vehicle hitting hitting an oncoming car/object so a 40% overlap is more realistic.
I would also say one of the most common high speed crash scenarios is a car overshooting or cutting in on a fast bend, with an easily achievable combined speed of 80mph so again it is a relevant test.
One of the reasons you can't buy a new Defender in the USA is coz of the poor crash protection. Pov.spec,ftw. 2006, 110,TD5.
Post #288814 9th Dec 2013 12:09pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Cheshire110



Member Since: 26 Jul 2013
Location: Cheshire/London
Posts: 2746

United Kingdom 
blackwolf wrote:


No, I am sorry but it nothing whatsoever alike.

If in the world of theoretical mechanics you take two identical vehicles both travelling towards each other at 40mph and they hit head on, they will both crumple identically and equally against the theoretical contact plane, exactly as they would if they both ran into opposite side of a wall at the same instant. The deformation of each vehicle will absorb the whole of that vehicle's pre-impact kinetic energy and the decelleration will be from 40mph to stationary over the deformed distance. For each vehicle it makes absolutely no difference if they run into an oncoming identical car with a closing speed of 80mph or a solid indestructible object at 40mph.

Your assertion that this is the same as "decelerating 80mph-0 instantly" is misleading, since firstly it isn't instant (ok it is very rapid) and secondly the only way in the two-car scenario in which that level of decceleration could become involved is if one vehicle retains 100% of its velocity throughout the experience, ie it is travelling at exactly the same speed after the impact as before. For this to happen, despite the deformation occuring to both vehicles as before, the immediate post accident dynamic is that the two crumpled vehicles are now still travelling at 40mph - one hasn't altered, the other has reversed its direction. In the latter vehicle, the oocupants will have experienced the same accellertion as if they hit a wall at 80mph, in the former, the occupants will have experienced no decelleration whatsoever.

However, even in this (technically implausible) case the energy released in the collision will come nowhere close to that of a single vehicle 80mph impact. Remember also that the kinetic energy, being of course the energy which has to be absorbed by deformation and destruction during an accident, is proportional to the square of the velocity. One car travelling at 80mph therefore has far more kinetic energy than two cars each travelling at 40mph do. A single car at 80mph hitting a stationary identical car will introduce something like twice as much energy into the accident as two cars hitting at 40mph will do.

Of course in reality the whole matter is academic.

As this thread states there can be no doubt that the Defender is a worse place to be in the event of a serious accident than many other vehicles. The best approach is to drive well, defensively and with good anticipation, and avoid accidents. Defenders generally have a good accident record despite being "unsafe", perhaps this is because the drivers are aware of the lack of crash protection and therefore drive in a manner to minimise the likelihood of being involved in an accident.

It can be demonstrated that as cars become "safer", drivers take more risks and the standard of driving worsens. Ultimately the cause of nearly all accidents is inept driving, and nothing else. Although (sadly) and absurd idea which no-one woudl seriously propose, fitting a sharp prong instead of a driver's airbag would undoubtedly be the single most effective safety improvement as far as driving standards are concerned - if you know you will certainly die in the event of an accident, you will take great care to avoid having one.


ok that all makes sense to be fair, i seem to be thinking about it from a point of view of momentum and i see that energy is a better method really. i guess i thought that the opposing nature of the cars' momentums would increase the deceleration but actually its more about how the car crumples and the cars energy

i guess this is less accurate at low speeds? surely due to the lack of crumpling/energy dissipation at say 10-20mph the collision is more like two billiard balls/bricks? can't help feeling that a head on crash at 10mph (closing speed 20) would be significantly worse than hitting a wall at 10? but as you just proved my mind was wrong before!

in reality i guess though its all very chaotic and almost completely unpredictable, specific impacts onto the body by car interior parts as well as angles, rolling or not and safety devices fitted clearly make a huge impact. Cheers, David
Land Rovers of all shapes S3 onwards… Daily is a 110 V8.
Post #288818 9th Dec 2013 12:32pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Cheshire110



Member Since: 26 Jul 2013
Location: Cheshire/London
Posts: 2746

United Kingdom 
Naks wrote:
Read this harrowing recollection of someone seeing his loved ones die in an accident: http://4x4community.co.za/forum/showthread.php?t=164459


thats just horrific, can't imagine a worse situation to go through.

the 'elk' manoeuvre as some call it (swerving at high speed and straightening up) seems to be a controversial topic, and from watching a few youtube videos its interesting to see the vast range of responses from a vehicle. needless to say smaller, newer 4x4s do a lot better but some are uncharacteristically bad! (see the jeep cherokee mentioned a few posts above)

EDIT: see for example here

Toyota hilux, citroens, renaults all doing fairly badly at such a test!

can't deny that you'd probably be better off in one of those if they did roll than a defender though... Cheers, David
Land Rovers of all shapes S3 onwards… Daily is a 110 V8.
Post #288819 9th Dec 2013 12:35pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
jst



Member Since: 14 Jan 2008
Location: Taunton
Posts: 7977

 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Stornoway Grey
Well, good to hear you are OK Marcus. Cheers

James
110 2012 XS Utility
130 2011 M57 bespoke Camper
90 2010 Hardtop
90 M57 1988 Hardtop
Post #288980 9th Dec 2013 9:19pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
I had a quick look through this..... I would NEVER change a car unless it had a serious safety defect which no modern cars do (last 10 years).

The biggest safety issue with the Defender is roll-over- the main reason (among others) it isn't sold in US. I recognised this and within 1 year of ownership I had a full roll cage fitted- this also strengthens up the sides if involved in a side impact.

From personal experience- an accident where I was hit by a speeding vehicle (about 30-40mph at impact) and I wasn't even shook. The occupants in the other vehicle which was written-off were injured by the their airbags and were generally very shook up. After all the details were sorted I continued on my journey (another 4,000 miles).

As mentioned before a few years ago the Defender was classified as the SAFEST vehicle to drive. This had nothing to do with how they performed in an accident, but the fact you were something like 90% less likely to have an accident due to slower acceleration, cornering and a better view of the road.
A very quick search came up with this:

Click image to enlarge


The majority of accidents are due to driving styles-'keeping within speed limits' means nothing. It is all about driving to the conditions. Driving at 30mph through a busy street (30 limit) when it is cold and wet/ damp is asking for trouble even if you are abiding to the law.

Glyn Dog :sheep:

Admin note: this post has had its images recovered from a money grabbing photo hosting site and reinstated Mr. Green
Post #289041 9th Dec 2013 11:08pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Post Reply  Back to top
Page 3 of 6 <123456>
All times are GMT

Jump to  
Previous Topic | Next Topic >
Posting Rules
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 vote in polls in this forum



Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
DEFENDER2.NET RSS Feed - All Forums