| Author |
Message |
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:00 am Post subject: TOYOTA LANDCRUISER DESTRUCTION |
 |
|
If you see this photo, for the previously mentioned TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, knowing nothing about the above mentioned facts, can you conclude anything about the grade of its passive safety?
_________________
The Syncro Heresy
Last edited by hellenic vanagon on Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
1621
Samba Member
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hellenic vanagon wrote: |
| 1621 wrote: |
| Not my van, nor do I know anything about this accident. I saw this a few years ago at the parts yard in SE Portland. It looks like a horrific accident, though surprisingly, it appeared the driver's compartment was relatively intact. By this I mean the lower door was crushed, but the upper part of the compartment seemed to hold up. |
It is very dangerous to make conclusions if we do not have the facts of an accident, such as the velocity of the two vehicles, the crash angle, the second car to see the grade of its destruction, etc..
Because there are, equally, images of catastrophe of any vehicle of any category but we cannot say that all cars are equally safe or unsafe. |
I have made no claims about the outcome of this accident for either vehicle's occupants, rather I share the photos to offer another example of a Vanagon in an accident. Up until now the focus has been primarily on frontal impacts, while this offers a glimpse of an impact from a different angle.
Draw your own conclusions carefully, but please note that I have made none in regards to the safety of the Vanagon.
_________________
'85 Westy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1621 wrote: |
| Not my van, nor do I know anything about this accident. I saw this a few years ago at the parts yard in SE Portland. It looks like a horrific accident, though surprisingly, it appeared the driver's compartment was relatively intact. By this I mean the lower door was crushed, but the upper part of the compartment seemed to hold up. |
It is very dangerous to make conclusions if we do not have the facts of an accident, such as the velocity of the two vehicles, the crash angle, the second car to see the grade of its destruction, etc..
Because there are, equally, images of catastrophe of any vehicle of any category but we cannot say that all cars are equally safe or unsafe.
_________________
The Syncro Heresy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1621
Samba Member
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not my van, nor do I know anything about this accident. I saw this a few years ago at the parts yard in SE Portland. It looks like a horrific accident, though surprisingly, it appeared the driver's compartment was relatively intact. By this I mean the lower door was crushed, but the upper part of the compartment seemed to hold up.
_________________
'85 Westy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IdahoDoug
Samba Member
Joined: June 12, 2010
Posts: 10251
Location: N. Idaho
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great info. The Vanagon is an example of solid structural engineering. The comments on mass are also worth noting. Go big.
On the PDXWesty accident - was the driver of the Chrysler minivan wearing a seatbelt? Looks like I can see the driver's head hit the windshield pretty hard. If not, then that driver's injuries were due to lack of restraint and they might have walked away. Wear your seatbelt, boys and girls. I have a habit of cinching mine tighter absently when I'm in dangerous conditions - high speed curves, rush hour fast urban areas with people taking chances, etc.
DougM
_________________
1987 2WD Wolfsburg Vanagon Weekender "Mango", two fully locked 80 Series LandCruisers. 2017 Subaru Outback boxer. 1990 Audi 90 Quattro 20V with rear locking differential, 1990 burgundy parts Vanagon. 1984 Porsche 944, 1988 Toyota Supra 5 speed targa, 2002 BMW 325iX, 1982 Toyota Sunrader |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Howesight
Samba Member
Joined: July 02, 2008
Posts: 3274
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a pretty interesting discussion. When I have seen accident reconstruction reports in the past, one of the most critical elements the engineer needs is the mass of each vehicle.
Mass is key in establishing the deceleration of the respective vehicles. After that, occupant deceleration is largely a function of the crumple zone effectiveness. Seat belts and airbags enable the passenger to benefit from that deceleration forces absorbed by the crumple zone.
That crumple zone deceleration is very small in comparison to the primary deceleration created by large differences in vehicle mass. So in the Van versus Audi pics, there are a 3,200 lb Audi and a 5,000 lb Vanagon/T3. The Audi would have had to decelerate to a stop (negative acceleration) and would have reversed direction, whereas the Vanagon would only decelerate at a lesser rate.
I once had the displeasure of witnessing a left- turning 1980's toyota car get t-boned by a loaded 18-wheeler at an intersection. The truck clearly saw the car, hit the horn and the brakes, and by the time it hit the Toyota, was, I reckon, going only about 25 MPH, maybe less. The Toyota and the occupants were, due to the mass of the truck, accelerated to 25 MPH instantly as there is no side "crumple zone". The front passenger was killed instantly. It was bloodless.
I arrived to assist and the driver and driver's side rear seat passenger were moaning. The woman in the front passenger seat was dead, eyes wide open, with tiny shards of windshield/side window glass embedded in her open eyes.
Mass is key. It's a killer.
_________________
'86 Syncro Westy SVX |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GWTWTLW
Samba Member
Joined: April 22, 2008
Posts: 2174
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| randywebb wrote: |
| Also, bumper ht. is irrelevant to the tendency to rollover. The metal and glass above the center of gravity and the roll center is much larger in a Van than in a passenger car. |
When I rolled my AdventureWagen, the only glass that broke was the windshield, drivers window and rear hatch. All the glass in the rear passenger compartment was completely intact. All the doors except for the rear hatch opened with ease.
_________________
89 Syncro Westy - GW 2.5, now with a double knob job
@gwtwtlw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
randywebb
Samba Member
Joined: February 15, 2005
Posts: 3815
Location: Greater Metropolitan Nimrod, Orygun
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
Also, bumper ht. is irrelevant to the tendency to rollover. The metal and glass above the center of gravity and the roll center is much larger in a Van than in a passenger car.
_________________
1986 2.1L Westy 2wd Auto Trans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PDXWesty wrote: |
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... |
Sir, the other car, is a DODGE CARAVAN 1990-1992?
Because I have some IIHS data, and trying to see how they are connected to this accident.
Generally speaking, VANAGON has three unique pros for such an offset crash:
1)The wheel supports the frame, and is not tending to intrude in the cabin against left foot, as happens in many "conventional" cars.
2)There is no danger of a monoblock mass, with zero absorbing capabilities, (engine), to cutin the cabin. A very present danger for the most cars.
3)No fuel lines ready to spill over petrol, causing fire.
And the, unavoitable "if":
If the camper was a Syncro, having the front subframe reinforced by a well
adapted spare wheel carrier,
"sitting" higher,
having a "cruncher", (which is double the deformation element),
#4 in picture
the results could were even better.
_________________
The Syncro Heresy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:21 pm Post subject: NHTSA: VANAGON HAS, (1980-1990), THE BEST CHEST DECELERATION |
|
|
NHTSA about VANAGON:
This characteristic reduces the possibilities for internal trauma.
_________________
The Syncro Heresy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jake de Villiers wrote: |
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. |
You are welcome!
_________________
The Syncro Heresy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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:
_________________
The Syncro Heresy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PDXWesty
Samba Member
Joined: April 11, 2006
Posts: 6247
Location: Portland OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
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...
_________________
89 Westy 2.1 Auto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake de Villiers
Samba Member
Joined: October 24, 2007
Posts: 5911
Location: Tsawwassen, BC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IdahoDoug
Samba Member
Joined: June 12, 2010
Posts: 10251
Location: N. Idaho
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________
1987 2WD Wolfsburg Vanagon Weekender "Mango", two fully locked 80 Series LandCruisers. 2017 Subaru Outback boxer. 1990 Audi 90 Quattro 20V with rear locking differential, 1990 burgundy parts Vanagon. 1984 Porsche 944, 1988 Toyota Supra 5 speed targa, 2002 BMW 325iX, 1982 Toyota Sunrader |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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
_________________
The Syncro Heresy
Last edited by hellenic vanagon on Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:22 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T3 Pilot
Samba Member
Joined: January 10, 2011
Posts: 1507
Location: Deep South of the Great White North
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IdahoDoug
Samba Member
Joined: June 12, 2010
Posts: 10251
Location: N. Idaho
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________
1987 2WD Wolfsburg Vanagon Weekender "Mango", two fully locked 80 Series LandCruisers. 2017 Subaru Outback boxer. 1990 Audi 90 Quattro 20V with rear locking differential, 1990 burgundy parts Vanagon. 1984 Porsche 944, 1988 Toyota Supra 5 speed targa, 2002 BMW 325iX, 1982 Toyota Sunrader |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellenic vanagon
Samba Member
Joined: December 28, 2007
Posts: 283
Location: ATHENS GREECE
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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!
_________________
The Syncro Heresy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
randywebb
Samba Member
Joined: February 15, 2005
Posts: 3815
Location: Greater Metropolitan Nimrod, Orygun
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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?
_________________
1986 2.1L Westy 2wd Auto Trans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
