Thread: Airbags Defender

I think a lot of it has to do with available dash space. Toymota didnt have any intentions of airbags in the new cruiser range either as the fitmant required too much dash modification to accomodate it and available space was just not there. However, increased pressure forced Toyota to change their stance AFAIK and there is an option now or will be in the near future due to Workplace Safety in the mining sector. The Rolux sort of took over in sales for the time being as SRS is available on them. Think PAT303 or BMKal knows more about this being in the mining sector in Kalgoorlie and having some first hand experience.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

I've seen lots of discussion about why Defenders won't be continued after such and such a year, partly because they aren't airbag compatible.

Can anyone explain why they can't have airbags?

Cheers
Simon

The main reason is that the cost of engineering the Defender for airbags would be prohibitive, bearing in mind that the design cannot survive other safety regulations which will become mandatory in the medium term.

Already the Defender cannot be sold in certain markets (eg. USA), and one can only hope that the new owners of Landrover will see fit to develop a new model, preserving the utilitarian virtues, and incorporating "state of the art" safety and environmental features.

With the current financial meltdown, I wouldn't hold your breath!

Cheers,

Lionel

I thought that LR had said ages ago that the next gen Defender was to be based on a variation of the D3 platform.

Pretty much as stated. Problem is not just the dash - the windscreen is too close to the driver/passengers especially in the utility cab version to make it easy, and the chassis is too rigid at the front. Certainly airbags could be fitted, particularly now that the vents have gone, but there is a lot of design work needed. Trigger mechanisms would also need to be designed and tested for certification separately for each body style. It seems unlikely that this will ever be done for the existing structure, as the investment for a design that is at least 25 years old, and structurally is 55 years old (introduction of 86/107) is almost impossible to justify.

The current structure is labour intensive to assemble, although tooling is minimal compared to any new design - this is what has allowed it to continue so long. It is also what gives it its unique "meccano set" character.

It is virtually certain that any new Defender design will be of conventional structural design (or at least a new unconventional type of structure), so that it will involve a minimum of labour to assemble at the expense of a major tooling investment. This implies a much larger production run, which is difficult to see for anything resembling the current Defender. This implies a vehicle that is built on a platform shared with other vehicles, most likely the D3 or a successor to that, but possibly the Freelander (!!!) or a Tata commercial platform (?). And it is at least possible that a new platform may appear first in a new Defender (D3 replacement?). Whether the name would be kept is presumably up to marketing - after all, the name Defender is less than twenty years old for a basic design that is sixty years old.

The only way that I can see for a new Defender that is designed from the ground up to meet the original Landrover market is if there is a very large more or less guaranteed market for it. The only possibility I could see for that is the Indian Defence Forces, which could possibly place a large enough order to underpin a new Defender that is not largely based on some other model.

The only possible alternative is to find some way of cobbling the current Defender to meet requirements of various authorities. Again, this could probably be done, the same as that airbags can be fitted - but I regard it as very unlikely to happen, although further short extensions may be possible.

But overall, Landrover seems to be determined to move away from their original market, to concentrate on what is, after all, the market that Rover has aimed at for most of its history prior to Leyland, and returned to with the Discovery, and even more with the Freelander. Whether Tata will keep this stance is impossible to say.

John

John has hit the nail on the head.LR as a company cannot spread development costs around such as toyota as it is just not big enough,another problem is that workplace laws in the resource sector are a law until themselves,a good example is that LC's were allowed but hilux's weren't,now hilux's are allowed with airbags but LC's aren't.If you had to make a vehicle compliant it would be very hard as the rules can change overnight,as they stand most of them contradic one another which is a problem if a rule is broken.To me the biggest problem is that to many rules are written to appease the nutters,things like making a vehicle safer if it hits a person crossing the road or having every type of safety feature to correct the vehicle if it looses control,I always thought that was the drivers job.I have yet to get an answer as why on sites that only have a 40km/hr speed limit you need airbags or how they will help you when a mine truck weighing 300+ tonnes drives over you. Pat

Originally Posted by PAT303

John has hit the nail on the head.LR as a company cannot spread development costs around such as toyota as it is just not big enough,another problem is that workplace laws in the resource sector are a law until themselves,a good example is that LC's were allowed but hilux's weren't,now hilux's are allowed with airbags but LC's aren't.If you had to make a vehicle compliant it would be very hard as the rules can change overnight,as they stand most of them contradic one another which is a problem if a rule is broken.To me the biggest problem is that to many rules are written to appease the nutters,things like making a vehicle safer if it hits a person crossing the road or having every type of safety feature to correct the vehicle if it looses control,I always thought that was the drivers job.I have yet to get an answer as why on sites that only have a 40km/hr speed limit you need airbags or how they will help you when a mine truck weighing 300+ tonnes drives over you. Pat

I guess if its anything like the mine here... where safety is the No.1 priority and there is a big sign at the front indicating the number of days since the last permanent injury..... then airbags would be a priority, even if the vehicles spend most of their time (but not all) in and around the mines rather than on the road.

would the balloons trigger at decelerations from 40 kays???? Slunnie, when i used to work in O Town I remember the Cadia boys and girls getting bonuses for not having injuries at work... we still got our share of bonus stoppers through the ED though!
Sorry for the dribble, too many shifts, too much call.

S

Even vehicles that are site only must be fitted with airbags.Just to add,those vehicles would spend 99% of their time at a speed were airbags wouldn't deploy if there was a crash. Pat