Thread: The value of roll over protection.

LandRover may have made subtle structural changes to the Puma series that I'm not aware of, but based on personal professional experience maintaining, repairing and wrecking previous models, there is no way IMO that Defenders could be considered a comparitively safe vehicle to be in, regardless of the type of accident.
The bodywork has the structural integrity of a wet cardboard box, and I beleive they weren't permitted to be sold in the USA unless fitted with a Safety Devices full roll cage.The authorities should compell LandRover to do that here also.
Bill.

Originally Posted by newhue

That's a pretty flat cab for a relatively low speed roll, and one roll at that.

Does anyone recall a you-tube vid of a prado rolling several times down a hill after sliding whist reversing down a dirt track. I just wonder how the trusty 130 would cope. I'm pretty sure the good wife won't.

Take a close look at the back panel of your truck cab. Aside from windows there's nothing but a thin sheet of aluminium with no vertical or horizontal reinforcing.
I extensively rebuilt a rolled 130 Double cab some years ago, but used the much stronger back panel from a series 2 truck cab.No substitute for a bar or cage though.
Bill.

Originally Posted by wagoo

LandRover may have made subtle structural changes to the Puma series that I'm not aware of, but based on personal professional experience maintaining, repairing and wrecking previous models, there is no way IMO that Defenders could be considered a comparitively safe vehicle to be in, regardless of the type of accident.
The bodywork has the structural integrity of a wet cardboard box, and I beleive they weren't permitted to be sold in the USA unless fitted with a Safety Devices full roll cage.The authorities should compell LandRover to do that here also.
Bill.

This is certainly correct - but the fact remains that they have a very good safety record. This probably reflects the fact that, by and large, they attract owners who drive sensibly, and avoiding accidents in the first place is clearly much more effective at reducing deaths and injuries than is building vehicles that are more survivable. "Safety" specifications do not correlate at all well with accident statistics.

John

I have been following this post on Pirate4x4 regarding roll cages in Disco's.

roll cage advice? - Pirate4x4.Com Bulletin Board

http://fusionmoto.blogspot.com/2009/...per-rover.html

The pictures they show look quiet good with the majority of steel work being behind trim and not too noticable.

Originally Posted by wagoo

LandRover may have made subtle structural changes to the Puma series that I'm not aware of, but based on personal professional experience maintaining, repairing and wrecking previous models, there is no way IMO that Defenders could be considered a comparitively safe vehicle to be in, regardless of the type of accident.
The bodywork has the structural integrity of a wet cardboard box, and I beleive they weren't permitted to be sold in the USA unless fitted with a Safety Devices full roll cage.The authorities should compell LandRover to do that here also.
Bill.

I suppose if LR are compelled to make the defender stronger maybe the Japanese should be compelled to change thier utes to a 500kg payload instead of 1000 and make GVM upgrades on cruisers no more or Patrols chassis made so they don't snap in two and handbrakes that work and wheel studs that don't snap off and have both axles the same width so they don't crab down the road or the two dozen other things that make non LR vehicles unsafe?.The facts show defenders are safe,not as safe as they should but safe all the same. Pat

Originally Posted by PAT303

I suppose if LR are compelled to make the defender stronger maybe the Japanese should be compelled to change thier utes to a 500kg payload instead of 1000 and make GVM upgrades on cruisers no more or Patrols chassis made so they don't snap in two and handbrakes that work and wheel studs that don't snap off and have both axles the same width so they don't crab down the road or the two dozen other things that make non LR vehicles unsafe?.The facts show defenders are safe,not as safe as they should but safe all the same. Pat

Sounds to me like you are exaggerating the faults of the other vehicles you mention, where the incidence of failures is quite low relative to the number of units sold.
The fact is Defender bodywork is made from cheese. lay them on their roofs and they WILL collapse every time, not one time in 50, 100 or 1000.
Landrover with their Defenders, previous Counties and earlier Series vehicles have been allowed to sell vehicles in this and some other countries that would not comply with ADR specifications for crash worthiness, particularly in rollovers, simply on the basis that they fall into the multi purpose commercial vehicle category. As if drivers of these vehicles are less worthy than the rest.
Rationalise your choice of vehicle to yourself anyway you like, but the criticism i have made here about the structural integrity of Defender body construction is irrefutable, and I do hope that you and your family never have to find out exactly how weak they are before you install that cage.
Bill.

So, what is involved in getting a roll cage certified for rego? Is is merely a matter of getting an engineer to certify it or is there more to it?

Originally Posted by alittlebitconcerned

So, what is involved in getting a roll cage certified for rego? Is is merely a matter of getting an engineer to certify it or is there more to it?

If you installed a non certified one who is going to know? I would rather roll with an uncertified one than none at all.

Dave.