TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:22 am

PDXWesty wrote: randywebb wrote: but far less safe than a new MB, Volvo, BMW etc.

I for one (from very personal experience) would have to take exception to that statement.

Honestly man, thats not based on any kind of good scientific evidence.

Now thats not to say you didn't fair well, or that the van is unsafe. But can you honestly tell me that a 30 years newer mercedes, with umpteen airbags, more hours of crash testing simulation than what went into designing the van, led by the most anal retentive engineers in the world isn't better?

I know if I had to pick a vehicle to be in an accident in I would pick a brand spankin' new mercedes, not a 30 year old van.

Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:40 am

There have been several accounts on here in the last several years where vans have been in extreme accidents, including t-bone, head-on, and rollover. All of the occupants walked away uninjured. The vanagon was designed with a rigid frame intended to protect the occupants, like a roll cage in race cars. I'm a mechanical engineer and I believe in the concept. I'm not convinced modern cars with air bags and crumple zones are any safer. Those cars are designed to prevent major injuries, but minor injuries still occur. If the vanagon was subjected to modern day crash tests, I think it would fair well. It's not up to insurance standards to minimize damage, but I believe it is a very safe vehicle for its occupants.

p.s. just as a side note, I've seen several pictures of other vanagons that have been in head on collisions and the driver window didn't even break. My door crumpled but the window stayed in tact. unbelievable.

Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:51 am

I am not convinced that anything built in the last 15 years has been built stronger. Look at accident pictures and see how the vehicles collapse like accordions. Air bags are an absolute necessity on modern vehicles for reasons I mention.

When I owned two different 1954 A40 Austins, when I was 18 and another when I was 24 , it was a sherman tank. The body was solid, sure the lights were small and I have flapper signals but if anyone had hit me with a newer car with fins and other appendages, trust me they would have come out the worse.

Like others I say that if you keep your van in good shape with proper functioning mechanics combined with observant diligent driver, then you have a safe vehicle. I'd rather be in a vanagon than a new Mercedi SUV! I believe that the vanagon would be the sherman tank :)

Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:03 am

DAIZEE wrote: I am not convinced that anything built in the last 15 years has been built stronger. Look at accident pictures and see how the vehicles collapse like accordions. Air bags are an absolute necessity on modern vehicles for reasons I mention.

Ya, collapse like accordians......obsorbing all that energy.

Look that kinetic energy has to go somewhere, either to the vehicle or to the occupants. The thinking in designing vehicles used to be "lets make the vehicle as rigid as possible so when it is in a collision it doesn't bend/break etc" Now the thinking is "lets transfer all that energy into the body of the vehicle, let the vehicle take all the deformation, not the passengers"

Airbags are critical to safety, but even without airbags I don't see how anyone can deny that modern vehicle structures aren't safer than anything on the road 30 years ago.

Once again I'm not saying I think the van is unsafe, I'm saying I think its irrational to think its safer than a brand new vehicle(all things being equal in a hypothetical test).

This is a poor comparison for our case(even to the point where its not worth pulling up), but it does illustrate my point:

http://colorado4wheel.com/images/misc/crash.wmv

PDXWesty wrote: There have been several accounts on here in the last several years where vans have been in extreme accidents, including t-bone, head-on, and rollover. All of the occupants walked away uninjured. The vanagon was designed with a rigid frame intended to protect the occupants, like a roll cage in race cars. I'm a mechanical engineer and I believe in the concept. I'm not convinced modern cars with air bags and crumple zones are any safer. Those cars are designed to prevent major injuries, but minor injuries still occur. If the vanagon was subjected to modern day crash tests, I think it would fair well. It's not up to insurance standards to minimize damage, but I believe it is a very safe vehicle for its occupants.

p.s. just as a side note, I've seen several pictures of other vanagons that have been in head on collisions and the driver window didn't even break. My door crumpled but the window stayed in tact. unbelievable.

I'm a mechanical engineer as well and I believe the concept too(that is making a structure around the occupants to protect them, but putting an egg in an unbreakable ball and dropping it 30 feet is not as safe as surrounding it with pillows and dropping it), I also believe that 30 years of engineering have produced vehicles that are safer than they were thirty years ago.

To make this an apples and apples comparison(or as much as it can be), between a Vanagon and T5 I would pick the T5.

Between a smart car and a vangon......well thats a tough one and it depends on the circumstances. We have plenty of anecdotal evidence for the safety of the vanagon, and I don't doubt it. But by the same regard there is just as much anecdotal evidence for the safety of new vehicles(more really, but thats mostly to do with the numbers of new vehicles vs older ones like our vans).

Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:26 am

Please keep in mind that any vehicle may be destroyed under specific circumstances in crashes, even a tank!

Driving a T3 since 1980, I can say that the next photos represent it's typical behavior, in "logical" situations, meaning in cases within the limits of expectations for a very safe car:

Both cars are posted here, in order to have your conclusions.

Because , to see a severly damaged car, (Vanagon or anything else), saying that it is not safe enough, knowing nothing about the real evidences, cannot be accurate!

Syncro:(1979 passive safety design) minor damage.

Audi: (2000 + passive safety design) almost demolished.

In fact, the SYNCRO is better than 2WD VANAGON, having a second, parallel, chassis, under the main unibody construction.

2WD or SYNCRO, in a lot of real life crashes, you get the notion of a very strong and safe car. (P.ex. the well known case with FOLKSAM-VOLVO).

In cases where the "deformation element" does not play role, the picture is not so good.

Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:38 am

it looks like you are OK, any more details about the crash? did the Audi hit anything besides your van? looks like a lot of damage compared to your syncro.

I guess you will be now on the list to buy the Projekt Zwo foglight repros. God thing the nice headlights and grill seem to be OK

Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:46 am

madspaniard wrote: it looks like you are OK, any more details about the crash? did the Audi hit anything besides your van? looks like a lot of damage compared to your syncro.

I guess you will be now on the list to buy the Projekt Zwo foglight repros. God thing the nice headlights and grill seem to be OK

It is not my case.

You can read about it here:
http://www.vwt3.co.at/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3584

(They asked him if the AUDI hit a wall, besides SYNCRO) :van_blue:

Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:22 pm

madspaniard wrote: it looks like you are OK, any more details about the crash? did the Audi hit anything besides your van? looks like a lot of damage compared to your syncro.

I guess you will be now on the list to buy the Projekt Zwo foglight repros. God thing the nice headlights and grill seem to be OK

the guy said he had just dropped off his kids a few minutes earlier, and he hurt his left knee, black eyes, (maybe no seat belt?), undercarriage damage.
12,000 euros damage estimated :cry:
but, this all happened almost 7 years ago!

Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:34 pm

levi wrote: madspaniard wrote: it looks like you are OK, any more details about the crash? did the Audi hit anything besides your van? looks like a lot of damage compared to your syncro.

I guess you will be now on the list to buy the Projekt Zwo foglight repros. God thing the nice headlights and grill seem to be OK

the guy said he had just dropped off his kids a few minutes earlier, and he hurt his left knee, black eyes, (maybe no seat belt?), undercarriage damage.
12,000 euros damage estimated :cry:
but, this all happened almost 7 years ago!

1)Unfortunately says nothing about seat belt.

2)It was a really strong shock, some consequences are expected.

3)The car may be driven as it is, apart from aesthetics and lighting. AUDI is demolished.

4)Still it is a representative example of it's behavior in moderate crashes.

Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:38 pm

Agreed on all points!, and thank you very much for posting this here.

It is a good reflection of just how well these vans fare in crashes against those who turn in front of us.

Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:46 pm

The results, for both vehicles, are similar to those of an early '80s test, where, again, they called T3 knalleffekt, (=bombshell), because it demolished the K70, although, after that, the very surprised from the unexpected result reporter, says that T3 was ready for...expeditions!

Have a look to this, rather, unknown semi-official test:

Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:48 pm

Crash std.s have gone up quite a bit since the Vanagon was last sold.

Moreover, that only refers to passive safety.

Active safety consists of avoiding an accident and that covers all sorts of sports car or sports sedan type 'stuff' including that a low center of gravity means a vehicle is less likely to roll over, high hp/wt. means it can accelerate out of danger sometimes, and communicative suspension & steering can help too.

Many new active safety systems have been required on later vehicles, including electronic stability control and ant-lock brakes. Then there are options or std. equipment today such as radar warning systems for vehicles in the blind spot, or ahead, etc.

Also, how many people have claimed on this thread that the Vanagon is the ultimate in safety, yet moaned on other threads about the inadequacy of the brakes?

Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:14 pm

randywebb wrote: Crash std.s have gone up quite a bit since the Vanagon was last sold.

Moreover, that only refers to passive safety.

Active safety consists of avoiding an accident and that covers all sorts of sports car or sports sedan type 'stuff' including that a low center of gravity means a vehicle is less likely to roll over, high hp/wt. means it can accelerate out of danger sometimes, and communicative suspension & steering can help too.

Many new active safety systems have been required on later vehicles, including electronic stability control and ant-lock brakes. Then there are options or std. equipment today such as radar warning systems for vehicles in the blind spot, or ahead, etc.

Also, how many people have claimed on this thread that the Vanagon is the ultimate in safety, yet moaned on other threads about the inadequacy of the brakes?

1)AUDI (A6?), is year 2000 + car.

2)SYNCRO has 140 kgr. extra weight, under body, and resists 45o +, in it's top loaded camper configuration, to rollover. It is an A+ grade for any vehicle category.

3)Although this thread is about passive safety, T3 has a lot of active safety measures, such as, very, special geometry, independent, front and rear suspension, 50%-50% front-rear weight distribution, (better than many fast cars), rack and pinion drive, (yes, even today million, (billion?), cars, of it's category running without), first car of it's category with ABS, (optional), brake weight, front/rear, pressure regulator, 1.6 m2 windshield + body part in slope, acting as, (secret), spoiler, exceptional driver visibility, skidpad and slalom grades equal or, with proper tires and SYNCRO, better than the best passenger cars.

4)The brakes must be upgraded to the, 1992-2002, Southafrican edition. (At least).

5)Not saying anything about the standard engine, which is not proper for this car at all! But, in nowdays, there are a lot of excellent, after market, solutions, inline 4, inline 4 turbo, inline 5, inline 5 turbo, flat 6, V 6, V6 biturbo, V8, even W 12! The car is worthy, especially SYNCRO!

Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:22 pm

While I will not disagree that the Vanagon's front end is very strong - it is - it is worth noting that the collision with the Audi highly favored the Syncro for purposes of pictures. The Syncro's front bumper over rode the Audi's, which means the harder bits of the Syncro (bumper level structure) sank deeply into the soft upper part of the Audi. From a pictorial standpoint, this exaggerates the strength of the Syncro vs the Audi. But it literally says nothing about occupant safety, and I'd bet the Audi occupants experienced less G force. At the end of the day it's who walks away without a limp that matters.

As a LandCruiser driver with a stock suspension, my bumper is much higher than other vehicles. It is common for members of our club to experience similar advantages when they are in collisions. The other car is towed away drooling fluids to a junkyard, while the LandCruiser is driven home after the police forms are filled out.

That is not to say the Van's front structure is not phenomenally strong, but it's worth pointing out that these photos exaggerate it because the Audi's bumper structure did not even engage the Syncro.

The Van's front end HAS to be strong because there is precious little crush space to use with the driver's legs 6" behind the headlights. However, that stiff front end would not work so well against a fixed object such as a bridge, tree or large truck where crush space is critical to reduce the occupant's peak G loads. It certainly works well against smaller cars, though!!

DougM

Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:33 pm

Check out this Van on Van action........

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175672

Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:51 am

IdahoDoug wrote: While I will not disagree that the Vanagon's front end is very strong - it is - it is worth noting that the collision with the Audi highly favored the Syncro for purposes of pictures. The Syncro's front bumper over rode the Audi's, which means the harder bits of the Syncro (bumper level structure) sank deeply into the soft upper part of the Audi. From a pictorial standpoint, this exaggerates the strength of the Syncro vs the Audi. But it literally says nothing about occupant safety, and I'd bet the Audi occupants experienced less G force. At the end of the day it's who walks away without a limp that matters.

As a LandCruiser driver with a stock suspension, my bumper is much higher than other vehicles. It is common for members of our club to experience similar advantages when they are in collisions. The other car is towed away drooling fluids to a junkyard, while the LandCruiser is driven home after the police forms are filled out.

That is not to say the Van's front structure is not phenomenally strong, but it's worth pointing out that these photos exaggerate it because the Audi's bumper structure did not even engage the Syncro.

The Van's front end HAS to be strong because there is precious little crush space to use with the driver's legs 6" behind the headlights. However, that stiff front end would not work so well against a fixed object such as a bridge, tree or large truck where crush space is critical to reduce the occupant's peak G loads. It certainly works well against smaller cars, though!!

DougM

1)A common misunderstanding: VANAGON, even SYNCRO, are not higher than the average car!

Here you can see bumper height for SYNCRO:

And here for the 2wd:

The middle of their bumpers, (average bumper height), is 44.5 cm for 2wd, 48.5 cm for SYNCRO, (we can see the lowest bumper point which coincides to the vertical marked, near bottom, side line), + 5 cm, which is half the bumper's profile.

Finally, it is 49.5 for 2wd and 53.5 for SYNCRO.

Now, these are some average height bumper measurements, of some cars, made by me, in cm:

Passenger cars:

Huyndai Getz

Front: 47
Rear: 50

Skoda Felicia

Front: 47
Rear: 50

VW GOLF 4

Front: 45
Rear: 55

Renault Sandero

Front: 52

Rear: 62

ΒΜW 316

Front: 45

VW POLO

Front: 45

Rear: 53

4x4

Toyota Land Cruiser (2000 model)

Front: 68 (The mountings on chassis much lower).

Rear: 61

Νssan xtrail

Front: 57

Rear: 51

Now, consider that in T3, because of its design, (front passengers over the front wheels), for a 75 kgr, person, the height is reduced about 1 cm.

Another, at least, 1-2 cm is reduced from braking.

The clear bumper height is, somehow, more or less, within the average limits.

And if in the case of SYNCRO-AUDI, there wasn't absolute compatibility, between 2wd VANAGON and K70 there was.

Results? The same!

2)Talking about the HIC, (head injury criterion), in real life crashes, the things are much different than the concrete tests.

This is the reason that although NHTSA measured a HIC of 1300, (about), in concrete tests with their standard procedure, (50 km/h or more),

in the well known VOLVO-VANAGON 50% offset collision, similar to the one with AUDI, the HIC for the VOLVO driver was...3.868, and for the VANAGON, (CARAVELLE), only 155!

This is why IIHS said:

a)Vanagon proved 60% safer than expected, (!), and
b)Vanagon, safest car, with less deaths than any other for '80s, death coefficient 0.6! (Better than many nowdays cars with airbags!)
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2604.pdf

(Jeep LIBERTY, 2002, 0.86, lAND ROVER DISCOVERY SERIES II 1.19, CHEVROLET BLAZER 2WD, 2 DOOR, 3.08 (!), adjusted to '80s way of measurement).
http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf

And if you consider the crash photo, you will see that no airbag was able to save the "poor" VOLVO "driver", when VANAGON's "saved" with minor injuries:

http://www.vanagon.com/info/safety/volvo-crash/index.htm

Finally
3)Between the lights and the driver's legs are more than...air:

outer

and inner
[/b]

And the total thing works well against higher trucks

and..trees: (within the specifications limits).

no harm for the driver

Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:21 am

I don't doubt your measurements of other vehicle bumpers, but everywhere I parked near other vehicles and happened to look, my Syncro bumper was clearly much higher than others. Another consideration regarding the way Vanagons tend to override other bumpers may be the lack of the weight of an engine up front favors their ability to move upward without the inertia of the engine as the collision begins. Though they are close to a 50/50 weight balance, the lack of weight right at the front bumper (vs traditional car) may allow the front of vanagons to rise more easily - favoring them in subsequent damage. A good thing if you are in the Vanagon.

I have never seen that Volvo picture, but from that angle it seems quite clear the Vanagon is again over riding the Volvo's front structure. I guess Vanagons like it on top!! Heh.

Just measured the bottom edge of the frame on my Cruiser at 17" and the top of my bumper at 27".

DougM

Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:00 am

That's really good information HV - thanks!

The cutaway photo that shows just how far the driver's knees are from the front of the van is really good.

Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:30 am

Vanagon Driver (no airbag): Not Injured.

Minivan Driver (airbags): Left the scene in an ambulance and spent 4 days in the hospital.

You tell me which vehicle you'd rather be driving...

Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:27 pm

IdahoDoug wrote: I don't doubt your measurements of other vehicle bumpers, but everywhere I parked near other vehicles and happened to look, my Syncro bumper was clearly much higher than others. Another consideration regarding the way Vanagons tend to override other bumpers may be the lack of the weight of an engine up front favors their ability to move upward without the inertia of the engine as the collision begins. Though they are close to a 50/50 weight balance, the lack of weight right at the front bumper (vs traditional car) may allow the front of vanagons to rise more easily - favoring them in subsequent damage. A good thing if you are in the Vanagon.

I have never seen that Volvo picture, but from that angle it seems quite clear the Vanagon is again over riding the Volvo's front structure. I guess Vanagons like it on top!! Heh.

Just measured the bottom edge of the frame on my Cruiser at 17" and the top of my bumper at 27".

DougM

1)I gave you the official VW's data for T3 and some measurements of some cars which were in a specific moment in my neighborhood, trying to be as much possible accurate as I could, considering separately the height left and right and implementing an average number.

So the middle height point of your Cruiser bumper is 55.88 cm or 22 inches, much lower than I measured. Which era model is it?

This is like that I measured:

2)Please consider this train crash: the engine, although much heavier than the wagon, climbs on it!

So it is not a matter of weight, which really plays an important role, but rather a matter of a relationship of the strength of the material and the construction which comes in contact.

The train engine is much harder, as construction, to the wagon, so the last one crumbles and makes a kind of ramp, which is "used" by the engine to climb on.

And this is really the case with the VANAGON, which has chassis stiffness grade of 7, when passenger cars have, up to, lets say 90%, no more than 3: