Thread: The real reason Defenders don't have an ANCAP rating

Like this?



Jeff

Got to say, I'm with Solmanic on this one.

You want to see some old car crash tests. Bear in mind, the ADR's do not require seat belts to be installed in these models. Mine do have seat belts installed.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpsVqW-4pwU[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO10OzJPC3U[/ame]

Now, who wants an old Merc?

Ive seen a few Defender outcomes where it has rolled and the occupants have walked away. One around Rockhampton and his aftermarket rim exploded whilst doing 110km/hr. Collapsed the roof and he still walked away. Another was posted on here where his friend rolled his 90 and did a good job on the vehicle as well and walked away. In a head on situation it is hard to think that any amount of safety can help when you consider alot of the modern 4WD's have the ability to do silly speeds and do so. That amount of mass coming to a sudden halt isnt going to have much hope. I appreciate DSC, ABS and mechanical safety measures really can be the difference between life and death but speed and mass at the end of the day is probably always going to be the most contributing factor.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Over the last thirty or so years, the motoring world has pushed crash survivability as the only criterion for safety. Admittedly there have been marked improvements in other areas, such as better brakes, better tyres, better steering, better suspension and handling, but these have been countered by steady increases in power/weight ratio, deteriorating driver vision, insulation of the driver from road conditions etc.

The Defender has a consistently good accident record, mainly, I suspect, because the major factor in accidents is the driver, and drivers that choose Defenders are generally safer drivers. But the low power/weight ratio and good vision for the driver undoubtedly help.

John

I agree that drivers who choose Defenders are generally safer frivers, but the concern comes from other road users.

A defender has nothing but aluminum sheets for protection in a side collision situation.

Originally Posted by lebanon

I agree that drivers who choose Defenders are generally safer frivers, but the concern comes from other road users.

A defender has nothing but aluminum sheets for protection in a side collision situation.

Yes, but in a side collision with most vehicles, the collision would be largely below the passenger space. A collision which penetrates the passenger space of a Defender would be protected by glass rather than the side intrusion protection in a conventional car. And perhaps a little emotive to refer to the side protection as aluminium sheets, considering they have had steel doors since 2007, unless I am mistaken.

John

Don't get me wrong, I love defenders.. but..

I work as a crash test engineer in melbourne and vehicle safety is the single reason I don't own a defender. In fact it is the single reason I don't even drive a land rover regularly any more (as the newest I could afford was a SII disco).

The real killer in Australia is run off road crashes into a roadside objects (especially when combined with a roll over). Hence there is no other cars crumple zone when you hit a tree, or embankment. Especially considering the defenders I've looked at haven't had stability control the likelihood of hitting the tree on an angle is quite high.

Frontal impacts -; I do think the chassis of a defender is going to be rigid enough to maintain occupant space in the case of a large overlap frontal impact, but there is almost no way there is enough space and enough 'cushion' to provide a controlled deceleration to the occupants head/chest in anything but the most minor or controlled incident, especially considering the stiffness of the chassis leading to bigger accelerations in the cabin.

Frontal slightly angled impacts -; I would think the chance of injury or death would be massive in a defender. firstly there is little strength in the A-pillar to protect the occupant from anything that doesn't catch the chassis rail. Secondly there is no soft impact available for the A-pillar, no curtain airbag to attempt to reach the A-pillar etc and little padding for head, feet, knees, etc..

Rear impact-; you want an extremely good seat that stops you climbing over the top and supports each part of your vertebrae.

Side impact (other vehicle) you'll want a rigid side structure to maintain your occupant space and something soft to accelerate you out of the area (i.e. foam/plastic or an airbag..) Defender really has none of that. Just hope whatever hits you goes under the seat..

Side impact (roadside object) Usually requires a rigid side structure, head protection and side cushioning (airbags), and the ability for the seat to move into the centre of the vehicle (out of the deformation).

Rollover -; deaths occur here from head impacts leading to spine and brain injuries, curtain airbags, strong pillars with padded roof and very good seatbelts with pre-tensioners are best.

Sorry.. I should probably be banned now..

I've seen vehicles without airbags do quite well occasionally. But the truth is vehicles like the proton jumbuck are the worst I've seen, and it wasn't because of a lack of airbags. It was just that is was designed in the late 80's before anyone really invested millions into CAD simulations and vehicle safety.

Jumbuck
[ame=http://youtu.be/Uh22Pm7GwW4]Proton Jumbuck 2003 ANCAP Crash Test (1 star) - YouTube[/ame]

airbags comparison-;
[ame]http://youtu.be/NACA1W2A5Wk[/ame]

Disco II -;
[ame]http://youtu.be/AIJFLVkCuuI[/ame]

And I was an Ambulance officer for three years and my experience was it doesn't matter what you drive,hit a tree above 60 or a similar object/vehicle and all the air bags,crumple zones etc wont save you,Ambo's just joke that most safety devises just keep the body in one piece,you get a sick sense of humour seeing what we see,I've also experienced people with the latest 5 star vehicle suffer injury and people driving vehicles that aren't even road worthy walk away,in the lab you can test all you want but I've never been to two crashes the same,real world crashes can only be compared to real world crashes. Pat

This thread started out as a light hearted picture, but if we're going down these lines we might as well compare facts.

Looking at all the crash test data I must be one of the unlikely survivors then! A bit of a long post, but bear with me...

In 1999 I was working in the northern province of Zambia on a road project. Travelling between the regional "capital" and the project compound I was travelling at a decent speed between 60 and 70 km/h in my work Defender trying to beat sun down (a lot more stuff to hit in the dark in that part of the world).

Coming around a sweeping right hand bend there were three small children playing in the road. I immediately came off the accelerator and headed to sweep around them on the left hand side. Unfortunately, that is exactly where they ran to so I tightened up on the turn to try and go inside them. At this point they stopped and turned around and again ran straight in front of the car.

No other option I "monkey grabbed" the steering wheel in a left hand turn in a desparate attempt to miss them, which started and uncontrolled slide towards to V drain on the left hand side of the road. The first tree I hit with the left hand corner of the bulbar (no crumple zones remember) turned the Defender square to the direction of travel and the right hand wheel hit a termite mound sending the Defender into a flying driver side first roll.

First impact was the roof corner next to my head which obviously gave me a decent whack to the head and the rest was a green and brown blur until the fourth roll stopped with the Defender driver's side down. I was a bit whoozy, but I switched the engine off, undid the seatbelt and stepping on the cubby box scrabbled up and out of the passenger side window.

Sitting next to the car, at least 50km from camp, 200km from the nearest town and just starting to get dark in Africa... Luckily a crowd of locals materialized from the bushes and after a bit of negotiation about ten of us rolled the Defender back on its wheels. Surveying the damage, the bulbar was 95% straight, the passenger side window pillar was bent enough to have the windscreen popped out (cracked, but intact), but the roofrack (1997 Front Runner) was cactus and so was my roof top tent.

After about an hour, I thought the engine oil would have settled back into the sump and if it was going to start, that was as good a time as any. The Defender started first swing and was happily ticking over. I took the windscreen out and placed it in the back and we set off gently heading to camp wearing clear goggles and a shirt tied on my lower face to try and keep every bug in Africa from hitting me in the face!

Next morning we assessed the damage - The roof rack had to be cut off as it was knackered and over the next three day we did some botch repairs to the car, including mounting the cracked windscreen back. 2 weeks later a convoy headed back to Lusaka the capital and I drove the Defender back on the 1100km journey to have it repaired for the total of 1425 GBP (USD or GBP only in that part of the world)

So as Pat said, according do crash test data I should probably not have made it, but real world situation very seldom if ever reflects lab data and I will still prefer my Defender if I have to be in a similar situation.

Copy from Land Rover's Wiki Page:

Model-by-model road accident statistics from the UK Department for Transport show that the Land Rover Defender is one of the safest cars on British roads as measured by chance of death in two-car injury accidents.[44] The figures, which were based on data collected by police forces following accidents between 2000 and 2004 in Great Britain, showed that Defender drivers had a 1% chance of being killed or seriously injured and a 33% chance of sustaining any kind of injury. Other four-wheel-drive vehicles scored equally highly, and collectively these vehicles were much safer for their passengers than those in other classes such as passenger cars and MPVs. These figures reflect the fact that drivers of large mass vehicles are likely to be safer, often at the expense of other drivers if they collide with smaller cars.

Cheers,

Lou