Mickydripin Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Hi to you all, there has been a lot of criticism about A frames on this forum and i for one looked at it and thought well I think it is best for me. I thought about it had it fitted and said on this forum that it was the best thing since sliced bread. What was I thinking I have very little professional training in mechanical engineering but I thought that the people that made, supplied, and fitted them must know what they are doing. well I must admit I was wrong having one fitted and an expensive one it was I have just had it removed from my car. What did I find when I removed the front of my AYGO there was a square 2 inch square steel box section across the front of the engine and radiator fastened at each end with brackets to connect where the had removed the bumper. The bumper that was removed was a large convex box section with crumple zones on each side that was fastened to the rear facing chassis on each side behind the front trim. I recoiled in horror as I thought what if I had had a front impact accident what would have stopped everything from coming through to the cabin and would I have been covered by my insurance. There was no crumple zones on the bar that they fitted it would have been a solid thump in any collision. I hope that anyone that still wants one fitted thinks about this and there safety when driving there car with one on. GET IT OFF.... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 It's very worrying if that's the "industry-standard" way of fitting these things. Removing crumple zones must surely invalidate the type-approval for the car? I'd always assumed they were bolted to the relevant sections of the front axle & steering mechanism with brackets, in a way that didn't interfere with anything else. If there's a company that specialises in removing A-frames and restoring the car to its original, type-approved condition, buy shares now - it could be in for a boom time soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Hi Mike, I am sorry to hear about your expensive mistake. The conversions that I have seen over the last few years have without exception, concerned me greatly. Crumple zones are designed to deform in a specific way to divert energy away from critical structures. This is to increase the integrity of the passenger area and as a bonus they normally prevent more serious damage from being sustained in moderate collisions. Any tampering with these structures will alter the way the vehicle copes with impacts and of course the damage that is sustained by whatever it impacts with. I would not be at all surprised if your insurer were to walk away from a claim and that prosecution could ensue for tampering with such important design features. Airbag actuation sensors are typically found behind front bumpers. I wonder where these were relocated to? Stupid idea. If you need mobility while you are away, a Caravan might be best for you and as a bonus; it's completely legal throughout Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Have been saying this for years Mickey.....imagine hitting a child! *-) Surely any such modifications will void cars type approval? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Tony Jones - 2014-03-21 3:19 PM It's very worrying if that's the "industry-standard" way of fitting these things. Removing crumple zones must surely invalidate the type-approval for the car? I'd always assumed they were bolted to the relevant sections of the front axle & steering mechanism with brackets, in a way that didn't interfere with anything else. I'm afraid that would just give a load path into a more rigid part of the structure and bypass crumple zones. The consultants I worked for had a division which did vehicle design and in various presentations I saw just how much work went into crash design and how sensitive the finished result is to change. Some years ago I saw a before and after study on a mini-car, such as A framers use, and even a minor collision pushed the front wheels up into the passenger compartment and would have crippled the occupants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyishuk Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Makes me wonder how many A-framers answer the question of the Insurers "Has the car been modified" as no, thinking that it may refer to modifying performance. I suppose could find themselves uninsured if they have an accident. Rgds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 My 2010 Toyota Yaris has just had a 'Car a tow' fitment done to allow it to be towed on an 'A -frame', I watched the Process, and still have the 'honeycomb' piece of metal that was removed, It weighs considerably less Than the Steel that replaced it, and is already corroded, so as to question its performance in a frontal collision. I have no such concerns about the steel sections (2) that replaced it. I know that the weight is not always a good guide to structural strength, Carbon Fibre as an example, But the Two steel sections, one internal, one external, are definately stronger than the section they replaced. And I am satisfied as to their structural integrity. And as it is me who travels around in it.? When i buy a vehicle (if price was no object) I want 'No crumple zones' I want a solid metal box, that does NOT crumple at all, even if hit up the backside by a 44 tonne juggernaut doing 56 mph. But thats just me. *-) Ray I am Insured with Caravan Club Insurance, both Motorhome and Car, They are aware that the car and motorhome have been modified, and are being used as a 'Unit' together. no extra excesses either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 euroserv - 2014-03-21 3:23 PM Stupid idea. If you need mobility while you are away, a Caravan might be best for you and as a bonus; it's completely legal throughout Europe. Already Done that, Don't want to Run a large 4x4 to tow a caravan, I prefere to run a small car all of the time, and take it away with me when I go in the Motorhome. Can't have a trailer, as that would go over my vans 'Tow limit' and THAT would be illegal. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffy Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Rayjsj - 2014-03-21 8:12 PM My 2010 Toyota Yaris has just had a 'Car a tow' fitment done to allow it to be towed on an 'A -frame', I watched the Process, and still have the 'honeycomb' piece of metal that was removed, It weighs considerably less Than the Steel that replaced it, and is already corroded, so as to question its performance in a frontal collision. I have no such concerns about the steel sections (2) that replaced it. I know that the weight is not always a good guide to structural strength, Carbon Fibre as an example, But the Two steel sections, one internal, one external, are definately stronger than the section they replaced. And I am satisfied as to their structural integrity. And as it is me who travels around in it.? When i buy a vehicle (if price was no object) I want 'No crumple zones' I want a solid metal box, that does NOT crumple at all, even if hit up the backside by a 44 tonne juggernaut doing 56 mph. But thats just me. *-) Ray I am Insured with Caravan Club Insurance, both Motorhome and Car, They are aware that the car and motorhome have been modified, and are being used as a 'Unit' together. no extra excesses either. You either don't understand or don't care what crumple zones do to look after you and your car passengers if you have a collision.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Watch this space..............it won't be long before the EU demand type approval for A frames as there is with trailers. Then the manufacturers will be stuffed. I still have the whole lot that I removed from my Kia Picanto before I sold it. Anyone want a little used one to fit a Picanto?. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 . You either don't understand or don't care what crumple zones do to look after you and your car passengers if you have a collision.. Probably a bit of both, But I do have experience of building Racing and Moto-cross sidecar chassis, and racing in them, so I am fairly happy with my judgment on strength and rigidity of small metal structures. I suppose that the idea of 'crumple zones' is just an alien concept to me. I always made them so that they didn't crumple or break. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 tonyishuk - 2014-03-21 7:56 PM Makes me wonder how many A-framers answer the question of the Insurers "Has the car been modified" as no, thinking that it may refer to modifying performance. I suppose could find themselves uninsured if they have an accident. Rgds Good point you have to declare any mods made to a car or your insurance is invalid. Some insurers will not insure cars with tow bars, side steps etc., (Swift insurance for example) . Edit: Fitted stow bar to my car Saga had to check with their underwriters before they would confirm it was OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The crumple-zone issue is touched on (briefly) in this TOWtal webpage http://www.towtal.co.uk/motorhome-a-frames/aframes-2014-truth-so-far and it's been mentioned in previous A-frame-related forum threads. For example, JudgeMental brings up the matter in this 2007 discussion https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/-A-Frame-Towing-again-/8914/61/ This New Zealand Transport Agency 2013 document goes into more detail http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/75/docs/75-a-frame-towing.pdf John Wickersham's A-frame-related article in MMM August 2007 included photos of the modifications made (by TOWtal) to his Vauxhall Corsa car. The photos showed how sturdy the metal structure is and JW said "In the conversion, TOWtal designs and fabricates a structure at the front of the vehicle that's every bit as robust as good quality tow brackets that are fitted at the back." It's inevitable that whatever design of towing structure is fitted to a car's front must be strong enough to be safe and, because such structures will, essentially, be 'bespoke' constructions, it's inevitable that the constructor will be unable to carry out the rigorous safety testing that car manufacturers do. I would have thought that it is obvious and unarguable that adding a substantial metal structure to the front of a car must impact negatively on the 'crumple zones' carefully designed into the vehicle by its manufacturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 lennyhb - 2014-03-21 11:56 PM tonyishuk - 2014-03-21 7:56 PM Makes me wonder how many A-framers answer the question of the Insurers "Has the car been modified" as no, thinking that it may refer to modifying performance. I suppose could find themselves uninsured if they have an accident. Rgds Good point you have to declare any mods made to a car or your insurance is invalid. Some insurers will not insure cars with tow bars, side steps etc., (Swift insurance for example) . Edit: Fitted stow bar to my car Saga had to check with their underwriters before they would confirm it was OK. The Caravan Club Insurance are OK with towbars fitted to cars (obviously) and ok with A-frame adapted Towed cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Ray Clffy said to you: ...You either don't understand or don't care what crumple zones do, to look after you and your car passengers if you have a collision To which you relied: Rayjsj - 2014-03-21 10:00 PM Probably a bit of both, But I do have experience of building Racing and Moto-cross sidecar chassis, and racing in them, so I am fairly happy with my judgment on strength and rigidity of small metal structures. I suppose that the idea of 'crumple zones' is just an alien concept to me. I always made them so that they didn't crumple or break. Ray I, and I dare say a few others, find that response somewhat disconcerting...and a little odd... So, firstly you either don't know and/or care much about, the "alien concept" of crumple zones then..? (Worrying, especially from someone claiming to have had a hands-on engineering/fabrication background..). ...and secondly your comments seem at odds with your "but they're safe" mantra you usually stick to, when ever the legality "grey area" is discussed(..anything that compromises or removes the specially designed front "crumple beams" cannot be deemed as truly "safe"). Although presumably you'll now just opt for the ".. I told the my insurance,so they must be okay..", argument ... :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Dont be surprised Pepe, there are many self focused individuals about who conveniently look no further then the end of their nose *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeaflight Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 A young chap on a 125 motor scooter ran into the front right corner of my car with my wife driving. He suffered a broken ankle. The car a new model Mercedes E class, in my inexperience just looking at the car I would have thought it to be a right off, bear in mind each vehicle was doing around 20 mph. This was the effect of a crumple zone. Thank god she wasn't driving her old ML, the bloke would probably have been crippled if not dead. I tow on a trailer, I would love to tow on an aframe, but for me to many risks. If you have the capacity, them the Jeep Wrangler as an us approved A Frame and it goes into detail in the owners handbook how to tow with it. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 takeaflight - 2014-03-22 3:03 PM ....Thank god she wasn't driving her old ML, the bloke would probably have been crippled if not dead. I tow on a trailer, I would love to tow on an aframe, but for me to many risks. Roy ..and that illustrates it all perfectly, doesn't it Roy... He gets to walk(limp) away and your OH isn't carrying around the thought, of having been involved in some lads maiming/death... :-S Unfortunately, I still can't see it having much influence on those with a, "..because I want to !..." mind set. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Risking 'incoming'.....what is it with the 'what if' brigade? It's like the news reporting an aircraft crashes 'just' a mile from a school? So what...it didn't and bears no relevance. The school was not affected nor were the pupils injured. It is simply sensationalist journalism. Likewise with the 'what if' comments regarding the now 'dangerous non crumple zone......deviation from approval etc etc' comments on here. If A frame fittings were found by accident inspectors or insurance assessors to be responsible for the exacerbation of the result of an accident they would by now have put the A frame makers out of business. Similarly if A frame fitments were found to be a contributory factor in any accident or injuries sustained from an accident the 'Ambulance chasing solicitors/claims companies' would have them hemorrhaging pound notes from compensation claims. Seeing as they have not, and with insurance companies being the first to look for a 'cop out' from a claim surely the 'what if' brigade are being overly negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Roger...maybe you and Ray could go into business together..? What with his in depth engineering experience and your, "..So what...? What are the chances eh?" insight, you could act as consultants and advise the major motoring manufactures.. I'm sure you'd probably save them a bundle on all their superfluous safety research.. :-D (There...is that the sort of "incoming" you were hoping for?.. ;-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeaflight Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 RogerC - 2014-03-22 3:36 PM Risking 'incoming'.....what is it with the 'what if' brigade? It's like the news reporting an aircraft crashes 'just' a mile from a school? So what...it didn't and bears no relevance. The school was not affected nor were the pupils injured. It is simply sensationalist journalism. Likewise with the 'what if' comments regarding the now 'dangerous non crumple zone......deviation from approval etc etc' comments on here. If A frame fittings were found by accident inspectors or insurance assessors to be responsible for the exacerbation of the result of an accident they would by now have put the A frame makers out of business. Similarly if A frame fitments were found to be a contributory factor in any accident or injuries sustained from an accident the 'Ambulance chasing solicitors/claims companies' would have them hemorrhaging pound notes from compensation claims. Seeing as they have not, and with insurance companies being the first to look for a 'cop out' from a claim surely the 'what if' brigade are being overly negative. Not quite the same thing, if an aircraft crashed the pilot would not have changed the safety design of the makers. The idea that the authority's would close down the AFrame fitters IMO wouldn't happen, it's the operator who is at fault, if you speed it's not ford or what ever gets prosecuted it's the driver. While I agree on occasions over thinking you would do nothing, but I do believe you shouldn't be naive, have all the facts and then you decide for yourself. Just because you can insure a car with an AFrame I would be careful thinking that alls ok. When my wife was involved in the accident with the scooter, because there was a possibility of a life changing injury to the rider. I was staggered the way an investigation team descended, the lane was closed for six hours, the car, scooter, phones was impounded , we wasn't allowed to touch the car, photographs of the exterior and interior of the car, the riders helmet and visor. Everything was gone through with a fine tooth comb. I would have been even more worried if I had a steel bar at the front of the car that merc hadn't put there. And I have to tell you now I have no doubt what so ever the police would have found it, they even had a moan about the sat nav stuck to the window screen. I would bet the majority of motorhomes on the road are over loaded, a VOSA man told me that if he stoped most Luton hire vans on the road on a weekend, there would be high probability that they would be over weight. So you pays your money and takes your chance. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-03-22 3:51 PM Roger...maybe you and Ray could go into business together..? What with his in depth engineering experience and your, "..So what...? What are the chances eh?" insight, you could act as consultants and advise the major motoring manufactures.. I'm sure you'd probably save them a bundle on all their superfluous safety research.. :-D (There...is that the sort of "incoming" you were hoping for?.. ;-) ) Look pepe63, I have no idea who you are, nor do I care, I don't question your driving expertise nor qualifications to comment on my past Employment or Engineering skills, That isn't what a forum is for, nor is getting into personal comments. I was making a comment into The Structural Integrity of a car once it has been coverted to be towed on an A-Frame. The OP thought that his Aygo was 'weakened' by the substitution of the steel 'Honeycomb' ( because that is what it is like,) , and after personally witnessing the removal of similar and Fitment of the Steel brackets on my vehicle, I did not agree with him. Hundreds and Hundreds of A-frames are in use in this Country and more so in the USA, There is no 'accident epidemic' because of their use, If someone can show me figures to prove that their use is unsafe then I would NOT use one. It seems there is just a group of people to whom the very subject is like a red rag to a bull. They do not like them, Fine, But keep off the 'Slagging off'. It brings the forum down to a low level. Thought : When hit up the backside by a 44 tonne juggernaut (which has no 'crumple zones' only the cars in front of it.) what would YOU rather be in ? an Armoured military 'Humvee' or a Mini with 'crumple zones' and 16 air bags ? Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-03-22 3:51 PMRoger...maybe you and Ray could go into business together..?What with his in depth engineering experience and your, "..So what...? What are the chances eh?" insight, you could act as consultants and advise the major motoring manufactures..I'm sure you'd probably save them a bundle on all their superfluous safety research.. :-D (There...is that the sort of "incoming" you were hoping for?.. ;-) ) My comments should be quite easy to understand.............IF A frame fittings had been found to be an aggravating factor in 'any' accident the ambulance chasing lawyers would hit the manufacturers/fitting shop for 'six' figures which, with the A frame makers being relatively small businesses, would have shut them down. Likewise insurance companies would refuse cover for such fittings and assuming there 'had' been an A frame manufacturer hit with a lawsuit do you honestly think the existing makers would get appropriate third party insurance cover? I doubt it very much. Ergo if it is not an issue for the insurance world it's not really something to be concerned about. Basically the thinking that A frame fittings/alterations being dangerous is forum conjecture nothing more, nothing less. With the level of 'risk aversion' rather than risk assessment shown by some I'm surprised those so concerned about such things ever get out of bed mornings. Takeaflight commented the investigation team were all over the accident scene like a rash. That is exactly my point. Have you or anyone read or heard of an accident where the A frame fitments were in any way complicit in, or contributory to the resulting damage to occupants or other involved parties? His recollections simply go to reinforce the fact that A frame fitment cars involved in accidents, and there surely must have been some, are not treated any differently than other vehicles. If A frame fitments were considered detrimental to either occupant or pedestrian safety they would be treated the same as 'bull bars'.........CE certified and meeting EU Directive 2005/66/EC compliance regulations. As they are not IMO the 'what if' brigade is over reacting. Oh and just to clarify the point made by TAF.....quote...'if an aircraft crashed the pilot would not have changed the safety design of the makers'.....unquote. Actually aircraft accidents are frequently caused by pilots changing (if you interpret 'changing' in a lateral thinking way) the 'design' of the aircraft. Some of the more frequent causes are stalling and being unable to correct it and flying in marginal conditions ( the recent helicopter crash comes to mind). Basically most aircraft accidents are initiated by the pilot causing the aircraft to exceed the manufactures design specification or by exceeding their own 'licenced' operating conditions. So basically yes the pilot is drastically 'changing' the aircraft from something it is designed to do to something it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeaflight Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 RogerC - 2014-03-22 7:51 PMpepe63 - 2014-03-22 3:51 PMRoger...maybe you and Ray could go into business together..?What with his in depth engineering experience and your, "..So what...? What are the chances eh?" insight, you could act as consultants and advise the major motoring manufactures..I'm sure you'd probably save them a bundle on all their superfluous safety research.. :-D (There...is that the sort of "incoming" you were hoping for?.. ;-) ) My comments should be quite easy to understand.............IF A frame fittings had been found to be an aggravating factor in 'any' accident the ambulance chasing lawyers would hit the manufacturers/fitting shop for 'six' figures which, with the A frame makers being relatively small businesses, would have shut them down. Likewise insurance companies would refuse cover for such fittings and assuming there 'had' been an A frame manufacturer hit with a lawsuit do you honestly think the existing makers would get appropriate third party insurance cover? I doubt it very much. Ergo if it is not an issue for the insurance world it's not really something to be concerned about. Basically the thinking that A frame fittings/alterations being dangerous is forum conjecture nothing more, nothing less. With the level of 'risk aversion' rather than risk assessment shown by some I'm surprised those so concerned about such things ever get out of bed mornings. Takeaflight commented the investigation team were all over the accident scene like a rash. That is exactly my point. Have you or anyone read or heard of an accident where the A frame fitments were in any way complicit in, or contributory to the resulting damage to occupants or other involved parties?His recollections simply go to reinforce the fact that A frame fitment cars involved in accidents, and there surely must have been some, are not treated any differently than other vehicles. If A frame fitments were considered detrimental to either occupant or pedestrian safety they would be treated the same as 'bull bars'.........CE certified and meeting EU Directive 2005/66/EC compliance regulations. As they are not IMO the 'what if' brigade is over reacting. Oh and just to clarify the point made by TAF.....quote...'if an aircraft crashed the pilot would not have changed the safety design of the makers'.....unquote. Actually aircraft accidents are frequently caused by pilots changing (if you interpret 'changing' in a lateral thinking way) the 'design' of the aircraft. Some of the more frequent causes are stalling and being unable to correct it and flying in marginal conditions ( the recent helicopter crash comes to mind). Basically most aircraft accidents are initiated by the pilot causing the aircraft to exceed the manufactures design specification or by exceeding their own 'licenced' operating conditions. So basically yes the pilot is drastically 'changing' the aircraft from something it is designed to do to something it is not.You are totally wrong with respect to pilots, yes pilot error can be the cause of the accident but in no way would there have been a structural change to the airframe, even the smallest of modifications have to go through an unbelievable extended testing procedure to become compliant.I like the idea of an A Frame and if Ivor Williams, Alko, or Brian James made one I would most likely buy one, but as they don't that says it all for me. But each to their own and I for one would not condemn anyone for using one, but for me I will stick with the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Mornin' Ray... Didn't mean to offend..and I'm certainly not "slagging" anyone one off... (.the "..go into business" post was meant as a "tongue I cheek" joke.. ;-)) But it was you, who posted to the effect that they neither knew, nor cared much about "crumple zones"... (..if I posetd likewise, concerning elements of driving, then you'd be free to criticise my driving "expertise" .. ;-) ) Re: Your,strong metal box ,approach. Just a 30 sec search, brought up these for starters: http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/why-do-cars-have-crumple-zones.html http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/crumple-zone.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone ..and the OP was "horrified" at the removal of the his "crumple zone" beam...not that he thought it had been "weakened"... ..and just because, eg "..I've never heard of anyone who's been convicted"..or/and "..I can get it insured..", surely doesn't mean that we should ignore all about research into safety...? :-S Anyway, I do hope that you have many trouble and incident free miles "A framing"... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.