Derek Uzzell Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 RogerC - 2014-03-22 7:51 PM Basically the thinking that A frame fittings/alterations being dangerous is forum conjecture nothing more, nothing less. I agree. Mike "recoiled in horror" when he realised that the adaptations made to his Toyota Aygo had reduced the vehicle's designed-in passive safety features. But modifications to allow a car to be towed on an A-frame need to be strong, which translates to heavy-gauge chunks of metal. Some A-framers may not be fully aware of the metal towing structure because it's not externally visible, but you'd need to be mechanically very innocent to think there'll be no structure there, or that it might be made of knicker-elastic. The simple fact (as I said earlier) is that the metal structure fitted to the car MUST reduce 'safety' in an accident involving a frontal impact. However, any suggestion that this reduction automatically turns the car into a death-trap, or that driving an A-frame-modified car is a cardinal sin, is ridiculous. An A-frame-modified car will be less 'safe' in a frontal impact than the same vehicle unmodified, but the reduction in safety is unquantifiable. Everybody knows that big vehicles hit harder. On that basis we are all irresponsible in choosing to drive motorhomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 takeaflight - 2014-03-22 8:55 PMRogerC - 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. Where did I mention 'structural change'? I tried to explain by saying if the word 'changing' was looked at more broadly a pilot who causes an aircraft to exceed the design specification would be asking the aircraft to do something it was not designed to do thereby 'changing' the safety parameters. In a case such as this then no there is no actual structural change (which I didn't say in the first instance) but there is a change in the 'allowance for error' factor built into all aircraft limits ergo once those limits are exceeded control will be lost. My previous 'life' was flying....having accumulated over 7000 hours on C130 and in the region of 2000+ hours on various Antonov aircraft including the 124 and 225. Amongst other things I was involved in planning, loading and dispatching of airdrop loads ranging from 50 lb bags up to 32000lb platforms which involve a high degree of testing and analysis so I am commenting from a little knowledge and experience regarding aircraft and aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeaflight Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 RogerC - 2014-03-23 12:50 PMtakeaflight - 2014-03-22 8:55 PMRogerC - 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. Where did I mention 'structural change'? I tried to explain by saying if the word 'changing' was looked at more broadly a pilot who causes an aircraft to exceed the design specification would be asking the aircraft to do something it was not designed to do thereby 'changing' the safety parameters. In a case such as this then no there is no actual structural change (which I didn't say in the first instance) but there is a change in the 'allowance for error' factor built into all aircraft limits ergo once those limits are exceeded control will be lost. My previous 'life' was flying....having accumulated over 7000 hours on C130 and in the region of 2000+ hours on various Antonov aircraft including the 124 and 225. Amongst other things I was involved in planning, loading and dispatching of airdrop loads ranging from 50 lb bags up to 32000lb platforms which involve a high degree of testing and analysis so I am commenting from a little knowledge and experience regarding aircraft and aviation.Pilots can and do make errors, but it would be a dangerous one who deliberately went out of his way to do so, as one does when they change in this case the crumple zone on a car.I guess from your flying experience you was a load master in a previous life. If so, you more than most people should know about exceeding limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 takeaflight - 2014-03-23 1:39 PM but it would be a dangerous one who deliberately went out of his way to do so, as one does when they change in this case the crumple zone on a car.I guess from your flying experience you was a load master in a previous life. If so, you more than most people should know about exceeding limitations. For the sake of clarity here is what Derek posted above: However, any suggestion that this reduction automatically turns the car into a death-trap, or that driving an A-frame-modified car is a cardinal sin, is ridiculous. An A-frame-modified car will be less 'safe' in a frontal impact than the same vehicle unmodified, but the reduction in safety is unquantifiable. The above in blue is all I am trying to get across. The 'what if' brigade are over reacting. What is 'dangerous' about having an A frame fitment on a vehicle? There might or might not be a reduction in the deforming characteristics of the crumple zone (up to now it is all conjecture) but it isn't going to kill you, me or anyone else. If an impact is sufficiently violent to kill anyone involved the colission the addition of an A frame fitment isn't really going to matter one way or another. Yes I was a Loadmaster, amongst other things so you are quite correct. Analysis, assessment and safety are, after so many years of working on loads that if done wrong would kill me and the rest of the crew, inbred but I don't let it rule my life by taking it to extremes as the risk averse 'what if' brigade seem to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickydripin Posted March 23, 2014 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 The OP thought that his Aygo was 'weakened' by the substitution of the steel 'Honeycomb' ( because that is what it is like,) ------------------------------------------------ Hi Rayjsj, I would like to point out that it was not the substitution of a steel honeycomb section that worried me but the removal of the large steel convex box section (Bumper) behind the front body cover with the crumple zones on each side that they removed to substitute it with the (IN MY OPINION) inferior protection of the A frame fitting. Please read my post I did not mention anything about a steel honeycomb section. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 RogerC - 2014-03-23 1:59 PM If an impact is sufficiently violent to kill anyone involved the colission the addition of an A frame fitment isn't really going to matter one way or anothe/> In one of the presenatations I saw the substitution of the manufacturer's bonnet lid with a "pattern"part made a big difference to the impact resistance and so what might have been a survivable impact could become a fatal accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Muswell - 2014-03-23 2:15 PMRogerC - 2014-03-23 1:59 PM If an impact is sufficiently violent to kill anyone involved the colission the addition of an A frame fitment isn't really going to matter one way or anothe/> In one of the presenatations I saw the substitution of the manufacturer's bonnet lid with a "pattern"part made a big difference to the impact resistance and so what might have been a survivable impact could become a fatal accident. My point preciously......'might'....'could'..........it is all conjecture. If those giving your presentation said 'would have been survivable' and 'would have become fatal' and backed it up with relevant research and reliable references it would be a different matter. If the risk involved in A frame fitments, or in the case you cite 'pattern parts', were deemed to be of sufficient concern regarding safety or the exacerbation of the effects of an accident/incident the relevant safety bodies/government agencies such as H&S would be investigating and looking to ban them. As there is, to my knowledge no such investigation or legislation underway I can only surmise that the 'what if' brigade on here are overreacting. To clarify my thinking.....Bull Bars were extremely popular on 4X4's etc some years back. However research 'proved' them to exacerbate the result of impacts and actually cause death whereas had they not been fitted the victim would otherwise have survived. Although the reports cited less than 3 'extra' fatalities and up to 40 having to go to hospital for either treatment or merely a cautionary check up it was deemed sufficient for the EU to issue a directive specifying what can and can not be fitted. There has been no such research or reports (to my knowledge) on the effects of A frame fitments in such cases. Ergo the authorities do not see a problem with them so I maintain the 'what if' brigade is overreacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeaflight Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 It's true, if you go down the road to far of "what if " you wouldn't leave your house, that said I think on a public forum it's only right to present all opinions and then should someone be interested in a particular item in this case an A aframe then they can make their own risk assessment. Probably if not 100% then 99% of drivers have committed an offence of one sort or another! until about eighteen months ago I didn't realise until I was pulled by VOSA that I was committing an offence towing a box trailer with a 4 x 4 that put me over 3500kg for business without a tachometer. And of course at one any one time there's probably only a very small amount of motorhomes on the road that are towing with an Aframe, so until something happens nothing will happen, if you get my drift. I just wished it would be sorted one way or another, I for one would buy one tomorrow, but as I said before with no major manufactures making them I will stick with the trailer. When I use the motorhome I am on holiday, can't be thinking to much about what ifs. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 "What if" is an essential question to ask if trying to manage risks. Had people asked "what if" in the early days of car design, they would have invented crumple zones. They did not, and we have had to suffer innumerable avoidable deaths and injuries as a consequence. In the end, faced with those deaths and injuries, legislators forced manufacturers to research their causes. Crumple zones were the result. Ray mayn't like them, but they may well one day save his life, where a car designed to his recipe would be liable to kill him, or at least leave him seriously injured. A rigid object subjected to an impact stops dead. Anyone in the object then continues travelling at the original speed until they hit the rigid object. A crumple zone allows parts of the object to progressively deform, so reducing the secondary impact of the occupant upon the object. However, the passenger cell of a car is designed to be rigid, to protect its occupants as Ray desires. So, in an impact, the protective rigid cell now stops progressively as the crumple zone is crumpled. In conjunction with airbags and seat belts this type of design has allowed people to walk away from accidents that, 50 years or so ago, would have been fatal. Of course it isn't true that bolting on the A frame attachment totally negates the crumple zone, any more than it is true that in a frontal accident the outcome would automatically become fatal. Too many potential variables. It does, however, alter the risk profile of the vehicle in an accident. The question should not, IMO, be "what if", but "are you feeling lucky?" Well, are you? :-) Mike wasn't, so he did the wise thing, at no small cost to himself. I think he deserves great credit for that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-03-24 10:49 PM ...Of course it isn't true that bolting on the A frame attachment totally negates the crumple zone, any more than it is true that in a frontal accident the outcome would automatically become fatal. Too many potential variables. It does, however, alter the risk profile of the vehicle in an accident. The question should not, IMO, be "what if", but "are you feeling lucky?" Well, are you? :-) Mike wasn't, so he did the wise thing, at no small cost to himself. I think he deserves great credit for that decision. I believe the sequence was that Mike - having ceased motorcaravanning - made the decision to have the A-frame adaptations removed from the Toyota Aygo car he'd been towing with his motorhome in the past. (What prompted that decision he does not say.) Only then did he appreciate that the modifications made when fitting the A-frame metal towing structure to the front of his car had compromised the car's designed-in passive safety features. As I understand it, Mike did not have the A-frame structure removed because he recognised that it was potentially dangerous in a frontal impact. He just decided to have the car 'de-A-framed', was shocked by what he saw and then chose to warn forum members of the 'safety' risks that a car A-frame conversion might involve. It's creditable that Mike should warn forum members about this, but I'm doubtful that Mike's decision to have his car de-modified was based on a risk assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebiker Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 hi i agree with the last posting with regard to risk assesment/ it has to be calculated when having an a frame device fitted, or indeed any modifications to any vehicle large or small, in the event of an accident, was greater than before the device or modification was carried out i ride a motorbike, a large one! the risk of injury in an accident is given. its just how bad, it does not stop me or a great many others, riding bikes its a risk but it is worth the risk for the enjoyment and freedom riding bikes bring. i know it is not the same but the analogy is in my mind towing my car behind my rv is much easier and convienient than on a trailer and the way mine is fitted by car a tow does not intifere with the crumple zone it runs underneath it linking the chassis legs i stress this is my opinion only and i respect the decesion of others who would not risk it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.