Towing small car

[StuartO]

Derek Uzzell - 2014-12-31 2:23 PM

 

StuartO - 2014-12-31 9:31 AM

 

...But there have been cases of being stopped and fined in France as well as Spain and I think he's being a bit too blinkered about these aspects...

 

While UK motorcaravanners have certainly been fined for A-framing in Spain, I’m not aware of anyone (of any nationality) being fined for A-framing in France (yet).

 

Where does your information come from, please?

 

Can't remember the specifics I'm afraid, I just remember reading it somewhere.

[Derek Uzzell]

If anyone French had been fined for A-framing in France, it’s near certain that this would have been reported on French motorhome forums and/or in French motorhome magazines, but there doesn’t appear to be any such reports.

 

I also believe that, if there had been any report (credible or otherwise) of a UK motorcaravanner being fined for A-framing in France, it would have been immediately and loudly advertised on UK motorhome forums. There’s no sign of this.

 

There’s little doubt that, since the French National Assembly’s May 2014 clarification

 

http://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/actualite/infos/la-voiture-tractee-par-le-camping-car-il-faut-y-renoncer.html

 

an A-framer could legitimately be prosecuted and fined under French law, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually happened.

 

[StuartO]

Maybe I just remembered mention of the definite illegality in France; I cannot be sure and would hate to have to swear an oath about it. *-)

 

I know you are a wizard at searching the internet Derek but even by your standards an exhaustive search of all French forums where it might have been reported is quite a feat. Not sure that even a completely comprehensive search of all forums, all local French newspapers and allother places were it might have been reported would actually prove the negative, would it?

 

 

[Rayjsj]

pepe63 - 2014-12-31 9:56 AM

 

Car manufacturers go to great lengths to design and build vehicles that are as safe as possible and so that they will meet all of the current safety regs etc (with all their crumple zones, smooth(ish) front ends etc)..

 

So how anyone can square the above, with small fabrication firms, just removing these specially designed(and tested!)front "crumple beams" and replacing them by bolting on chunks of crude box section and then just screwing in a couple of towing eyes, beats me... :-S

 

Mickydripin's experience, is worth another read...

 

https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/A-frame-removal/34372/

 

(and if they "concern" the likes of Nick(euroserve), then they should concern every A frame user.... :-S)

 

I much prefere to have a ' Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too,I might add) sitting in the front of my 'every day' car, than the original thin tin honeycomb that it replaces, which I still have in my shed, ready to replace with the original bolts, when the time comes to change the car for a new one. On which I will do exactly the same procedure.

It's not many years ago that 'kit cars' were all the rage, low Caterham sevens, with various choices of differant engines, and tubular welded chassis, still roadworthy and whats more SAFE. Stop worrying and enjoy motoring. I do.

Stuart O, As for 'Playing down the costs of an A-frame system', I am simply stating what it actually cost me, in the same way that you commented how easily you bought a second hand trailer, for £800. My system cost me £5 less. When I was looking (before I found out that I didn't have the Towing capacity) Trailers I was looking at, were Approx £1500 new, and not much less second hand , with 1200 kg capacity. (for a Toyota Yaris). So, not a lot of differance. And much less hassle. (IMHO).

Ray

PS I also commented on mickydripins original post.

 

Just seeing in the New Year away in the Van (+ Car+ A-Frame). at CC site at Chapel Lane Birmigham. Happy New Year ALL !

[Muswell]

Any car is safe until you hit something. You can bet your bottom dollar that your " Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too) "will have made your car less safe if you have a head-on accident.

[Derek Uzzell]

StuartO - 2014-12-31 7:07 PM

 

Maybe I just remembered mention of the definite illegality in France; I cannot be sure and would hate to have to swear an oath about it. *-)

 

I know you are a wizard at searching the internet Derek but even by your standards an exhaustive search of all French forums where it might have been reported is quite a feat. Not sure that even a completely comprehensive search of all forums, all local French newspapers and allother places were it might have been reported would actually prove the negative, would it?

 

 

You said "But there have been cases of being stopped and fined in France as well as Spain...” You did not say “I think I have read somewhere that there may have been cases of being stopped and fined in France...”

 

There’s no need for a comprehensive internet search of French forums as, if people had been fined for A-framing in France, it’s near certain that this will have been complained about loudly and widely. There’s no sign on-line of such complaints.

 

Similarly, if A-frame fining had taken place in France, it should be anticipated that this would have rapidly been reported in French motorhome magazines. As there are members of UK motorhome forums who subscribe to those magazines, such reports should have been mentioned by now on UK forums like this one. To the best of my knowledge this has not happened.

 

I don’t have to prove that A-frame fining has not taken place in France. I‘m just reasonably confident that, to date, it has not.

 

However, you spoke authoritatively and unequivocally and, if you were actually aware of instances of A-frame fining in France (most A-framers will be well aware this has happened in Spain) this should concern anyone planning to A-frame tow in that country.

[rupert123]

Rayjsj - 2014-12-31 11:20 PM

 

pepe63 - 2014-12-31 9:56 AM

 

Car manufacturers go to great lengths to design and build vehicles that are as safe as possible and so that they will meet all of the current safety regs etc (with all their crumple zones, smooth(ish) front ends etc)..

 

So how anyone can square the above, with small fabrication firms, just removing these specially designed(and tested!)front "crumple beams" and replacing them by bolting on chunks of crude box section and then just screwing in a couple of towing eyes, beats me... :-S

 

Mickydripin's experience, is worth another read...

 

https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/A-frame-removal/34372/

 

(and if they "concern" the likes of Nick(euroserve), then they should concern every A frame user.... :-S)

 

I much prefere to have a ' Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too,I might add) sitting in the front of my 'every day' car, than the original thin tin honeycomb that it replaces, which I still have in my shed, ready to replace with the original bolts, when the time comes to change the car for a new one. On which I will do exactly the same procedure.

It's not many years ago that 'kit cars' were all the rage, low Caterham sevens, with various choices of differant engines, and tubular welded chassis, still roadworthy and whats more SAFE. Stop worrying and enjoy motoring. I do.

Stuart O, As for 'Playing down the costs of an A-frame system', I am simply stating what it actually cost me, in the same way that you commented how easily you bought a second hand trailer, for £800. My system cost me £5 less. When I was looking (before I found out that I didn't have the Towing capacity) Trailers I was looking at, were Approx £1500 new, and not much less second hand , with 1200 kg capacity. (for a Toyota Yaris). So, not a lot of differance. And much less hassle. (IMHO).

Ray

PS I also commented on mickydripins original post.

 

Just seeing in the New Year away in the Van (+ Car+ A-Frame). at CC site at Chapel Lane Birmigham. Happy New Year ALL !

Sorry Raymond but you are plain wrong. Crumple zones are just that and the safety of the occupants depends on them, the front valance area is just part of the whole zone, if you replace it with a solid bar you completely destroy the whole concept. As to Caterhams they are not and have never been safe by modern standards, they will withstand a 'roll' fairly well but a head on, no chance. I was not aware you had to do this to fit an 'A' frame but as I have always considered them mad anyway it did not matter to me. Now I am not to much of a worrier but you might as well disconnect your airbags while you are at it, no this would be one chance to many for me, far better to buy a caravan and leave the road car alone.

[Colin Leake]

Rayjsj - 2014-12-30 10:42 PM

 

Colin Leake - 2014-12-30 5:00 PM

 

The alternative is to change to a motorhome with a proper garage at the back into which you can simply drive the car. Severial such motorhomes are available or you can have one custom built.

 

Much better solution in my view.

 

 

The only ones I have seen are the Carthago's, which at something like £150,000 plus extra's. are a bit too rich for my taste, I'll take my £195 A-Frame Thanks. Ray.

 

There's an Italian one that comes with a small Farrie slung underneath which is very nice and in the UK no doubt RS could sort something out for you.

[Den]

The front of the car is now designed to assist with accidents with pedestrians, crumble zones also aid the car occupants. Fitting a piece of box section and hitting and seriously hurting a pedestrian could possibly be seen in the eyes of the law to be avoidable.

We did have a A frame, but stopped using it and now use good quality electric bikes.

[Brian Kirby]

Muswell - 2015-01-01 9:02 AM

 

Any car is safe until you hit something. You can bet your bottom dollar that your " Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too) "will have made your car less safe if you have a head-on accident.

But you can't really, can you? There are far too many variables that would come into play to be so categorical. Speed, angle of impact, type of other vehicle etc etc. The box is relatively low mounted, so is more likely to deflect the other vehicle than to take the full impact. Whether that would do any more than take a slightly bigger chunk out of one or other of the vehicles' front crumple zones seems a moot point. What can be said with some certainty is that the presence of the rigid box section would unpredictably alter the way the body-shell behaved in an accident, but whether that would be to anyone's advantage or disadvantage would lie in the lap of the Gods.

 

So, yes, the risks are altered, but only the original designers could say with any certainty how and to what extent. I doubt that they have been consulted. One has to remember that these bodyshells are designed to resist statutory impacts, which are not the same as real life impacts, in much the same way that government fuel consumption figures do not mirror real life. Personally, I'm somewhat amazed that a spohisticated, fully engineered, crash tested, type approved vehicle, can be modified legally in this way by someone who seems little more than the modern equivalent of a village blacksmith, but that is a different matter. I would not be happy with what Ray describes above being done to any car of mine; but that is me. Otherwise, I'm inclined to the same view as Derek, it won't be likely to have turned to car into any more of a mobile death trap than it currently is. Overall, small storm in a small teacup, I think!

[Rayjsj]

Any Posts about A-Frame Use always ends like this. The fact that there are hundreds of happy, safe, users of these devices trundling about the Country, doesn't seem to count.

We do not want : A caravan, A Trailer, or Electric Bikes (lol) where would the 2 Labradors go ? and the missus is Disabled. What might suit your way of Motorhoming does not suit everyone.

And I will always give any enquiry on these forums about A-Frames the benefit of my personal experience of purchasing and using one, Thats what Forums are for surely ?

Ray

 

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2015-01-01 12:34 PM

 

Muswell - 2015-01-01 9:02 AM

 

Any car is safe until you hit something. You can bet your bottom dollar that your " Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too) "will have made your car less safe if you have a head-on accident.

But you can't really, can you? There are far too many variables that would come into play to be so categorical. Speed, angle of impact, type of other vehicle etc etc. The box is relatively low mounted, so is more likely to deflect the other vehicle than to take the full impact. Whether that would do any more than take a slightly bigger chunk out of one or other of the vehicles' front crumple zones seems a moot point. What can be said with some certainty is that the presence of the rigid box section would unpredictably alter the way the body-shell behaved in an accident, but whether that would be to anyone's advantage or disadvantage would lie in the lap of the Gods.

 

So, yes, the risks are altered, but only the original designers could say with any certainty how and to what extent. I doubt that they have been consulted. One has to remember that these bodyshells are designed to resist statutory impacts, which are not the same as real life impacts, in much the same way that government fuel consumption figures do not mirror real life. Personally, I'm somewhat amazed that a spohisticated, fully engineered, crash tested, type approved vehicle, can be modified legally in this way by someone who seems little more than the modern equivalent of a village blacksmith, but that is a different matter. I would not be happy with what Ray describes above being done to any car of mine; but that is me. Otherwise, I'm inclined to the same view as Derek, it won't be likely to have turned to car into any more of a mobile death trap than it currently is. Overall, small storm in a small teacup, I think!

Storm in a teacup, I think not Brian and as for the design being statuary impacts well maybe right but they are subject to pretty rigorous tests these days, not just the old crash it into a cement block one. The proof of these measures is very evident in the fatality figures for road accidents, which due to the design of modern cars has dropped drastically. This would seem to be you being pedantic again and actually disagreeing with yourself in a few sentences.

[rupert123]

Rayjsj - 2015-01-01 2:37 PM

 

Any Posts about A-Frame Use always ends like this. The fact that there are hundreds of happy, safe, users of these devices trundling about the Country, doesn't seem to count.

We do not want : A caravan, A Trailer, or Electric Bikes (lol) where would the 2 Labradors go ? and the missus is Disabled. What might suit your way of Motorhoming does not suit everyone.

And I will always give any enquiry on these forums about A-Frames the benefit of my personal experience of purchasing and using one, Thats what Forums are for surely ?

Ray

Their may be hundreds of happy A frame users but safe when driving their car, no. You are correct it does not count and does not alter the fact that by cutting out chunks of the front of the car is not a good idea. It would not matter if there were thousands around it proves nothing but as long as they are willing to risk it guess it is up to them. When answering an enquiry it may be good to point out the very real risks involved.

[Rayjsj]

Muswell - 2015-01-01 9:02 AM

 

Any car is safe until you hit something. You can bet your bottom dollar that your " Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too) "will have made your car less safe if you have a head-on accident.

 

You know this catergorically do you ? OR is it just your OPINION ?

 

I make no profession to be a structral engineer, but have designed and built Moto-cross sidecar outfit Chassis, which I then went on to race successfully (so my life quite literally depended on the frames integrity). And in MY OPINION, the section which was replaced in the front of my Toyota Yaris increased the structral strength of the vehicle. So much so that I am prepared to risk my own life, and those of my Family in the car. To be brutally honest, I don't care what the extra strength does to anything I might hit or be hit by. But thats just me. If I could afford to,I would only drive on our motorways in an Armoured Humvee, especially when I see HGV drivers doing everything BUT concentrating on their Driving. Ray

[Rayjsj]

rupert123 - 2015-01-01 2:55 PM

 

Rayjsj - 2015-01-01 2:37 PM

 

Any Posts about A-Frame Use always ends like this. The fact that there are hundreds of happy, safe, users of these devices trundling about the Country, doesn't seem to count.

We do not want : A caravan, A Trailer, or Electric Bikes (lol) where would the 2 Labradors go ? and the missus is Disabled. What might suit your way of Motorhoming does not suit everyone.

And I will always give any enquiry on these forums about A-Frames the benefit of my personal experience of purchasing and using one, Thats what Forums are for surely ?

Ray

Their may be hundreds of happy A frame users but safe when driving their car, no. You are correct it does not count and does not alter the fact that by cutting out chunks of the front of the car is not a good idea. It would not matter if there were thousands around it proves nothing but as long as they are willing to risk it guess it is up to them. When answering an enquiry it may be good to point out the very real risks involved.

 

I will answer the enquiries based on MY experiences, nothing else. I will leave the Pedantic advice and warnings to you. Happy new Year .

[Muswell]

Brian Kirby - 2015-01-01 12:34 PM

 

Muswell - 2015-01-01 9:02 AM

 

Any car is safe until you hit something. You can bet your bottom dollar that your " Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too) "will have made your car less safe if you have a head-on accident.

But you can't really, can you? There are far too many variables that would come into play to be so categorical. Speed, angle of impact, type of other vehicle etc etc. The box is relatively low mounted, so is more likely to deflect the other vehicle than to take the full impact. Whether that would do any more than take a slightly bigger chunk out of one or other of the vehicles' front crumple zones seems a moot point. What can be said with some certainty is that the presence of the rigid box section would unpredictably alter the way the body-shell behaved in an accident, but whether that would be to anyone's advantage or disadvantage would lie in the lap of the Gods.

 

So, yes, the risks are altered, but only the original designers could say with any certainty how and to what extent. I doubt that they have been consulted. One has to remember that these bodyshells are designed to resist statutory impacts, which are not the same as real life impacts, in much the same way that government fuel consumption figures do not mirror real life. Personally, I'm somewhat amazed that a spohisticated, fully engineered, crash tested, type approved vehicle, can be modified legally in this way by someone who seems little more than the modern equivalent of a village blacksmith, but that is a different matter. I would not be happy with what Ray describes above being done to any car of mine; but that is me. Otherwise, I'm inclined to the same view as Derek, it won't be likely to have turned to car into any more of a mobile death trap than it currently is. Overall, small storm in a small teacup, I think!

 

If you reduce the crumple zone in one vehicle involved in a collision then you reduce the energy absorbed by both vehicles and increase the deceleration for both vehicle's occupants. The business I worked for before retiring is at the leading edge of vehicle impact design and I can assure you that even the smallest change can have a significant effect, not just by the immediate behaviour but by the way one component can alter the load path. On a short vehicle the problem is hard enough without making it worse. What you don't want, for example, is a wheel to be rammed back on to the front seat passengers' legs as I saw in the test of one Far Eastern vehicle before it was redesigned.

[Muswell]

Rayjsj - 2015-01-01 2:56 PM

 

Muswell - 2015-01-01 9:02 AM

 

Any car is safe until you hit something. You can bet your bottom dollar that your " Strongly manufactured 'Chunk of box section' (heavy gauge steel too) "will have made your car less safe if you have a head-on accident.

 

You know this catergorically do you ? OR is it just your OPINION ?

 

I make no profession to be a structral engineer,

 

Well I am a chartered structural engineer, and I would rather trust my own judgement than that of the small companies who sell A frames.

 

The point is that if you change the structure you will change the behaviour and extra strength is not necessarily helpful in a crash....what you need is lots of deformation outside the cabin. Whether the effect of an A frame is enough to worry about no one knows without some very expensive analysis and testing.

[Brian Kirby]

Muswell - 2015-01-01 3:17 PM........................If you reduce the crumple zone in one vehicle involved in a collision then you reduce the energy absorbed by both vehicles and increase the deceleration for both vehicle's occupants. The business I worked for before retiring is at the leading edge of vehicle impact design and I can assure you that even the smallest change can have a significant effect, not just by the immediate behaviour but by the way one component can alter the load path. On a short vehicle the problem is hard enough without making it worse. What you don't want, for example, is a wheel to be rammed back on to the front seat passengers' legs as I saw in the test of one Far Eastern vehicle before it was redesigned.

Not sure you can so reduce the energy absorbed, can you? The energy released in our hypothetical accident (whether or not the box beam were present) would be the same surely, and must be absorbed by the two vehicles. Is that not where the increased deceleration comes from? I am not questioning that the more violent decelerations involved would then transmit to the occupants, but is that not a secondary effect? First the vehicles stop, absorbing the energy over a now diminished timescale, and then the occupants stop, adding their energy to the car structure (one hopes via airbags and belts!).

 

But, what I was trying to argue was what you apprear also to be saying: that the consequence of the modification is not (at least easily) predictable. So, the behaviour of the car will be altered for the worse relative to design conditions, but whether that would translate into a measurably worse outcome for those involved would depend on the actual circumstances of the accident. It seem to me that one would have to have the "wrong kind of accident" for the outcome to be dramatically changed. As I said, I wouldn't brook this alteration but, as a non-engineer, I can't see that the consequence would inevitably be disaster. It might, but it might not. Eventually, if one had sufficient accidents, there is little doubt in my mind that the outcome in one of them would be worse, but that seems to me a slightly different prospect. The risk surely lies in whether a) one has the accident and b) whether one has the "wrong" one first! Back to Dirty Harry (sort of), is Ray feeling lucky? :-D

[Brian Kirby]

rupert123 - 2015-01-01 2:49 PM...................Storm in a teacup, I think not Brian and as for the design being statuary impacts well maybe right but they are subject to pretty rigorous tests these days, not just the old crash it into a cement block one. The proof of these measures is very evident in the fatality figures for road accidents, which due to the design of modern cars has dropped drastically. This would seem to be you being pedantic again and actually disagreeing with yourself in a few sentences.

I agree, including that I am being pedantic: deliberately so. Pedantry is essential to understanding because the consequences are potentially serious, but hang on such small changes. Have a look at my attempt to explain better what I meant to Muswell, and see if I have been any clearer. I don't think I am arguing against myself, I am trying to get to the difference between what may generally be expected to happen statistically, and what is likely to happen in reality, in one specific event: an accident involving Ray's car. There is a chance, or if you prefer risk, of disaster, but that risk may not materialise. That it may not does not mean it does not exist, just that it seems to me an unlikely outcome, even though its outcome might be catastrophic. Same coin, but opposite sides, if you like.

[StuartO]

Rayjsj - 2014-12-31 11:20 PM

.... Stuart O, As for 'Playing down the costs of an A-frame system', I am simply stating what it actually cost me, in the same way that you commented how easily you bought a second hand trailer, for £800. My system cost me £5 less. When I was looking (before I found out that I didn't have the Towing capacity) Trailers I was looking at, were Approx £1500 new, and not much less second hand , with 1200 kg capacity. (for a Toyota Yaris). So, not a lot of differance. And much less hassle. (IMHO).

 

You bought a used A Frame unit for £195 and got it fitted for £600. I paid roughly the same for my used trailer but those are not representative of what a typical motorhomer would pay for an A Frame or a trailer.

 

I asked about the retail cost of getting a new A Frame supplied and fitted at a Show last year and as I recall it was over £1,200. That was from Caratow I think. As you said, a new trailer for a small car costs from about £1,400 - but more like £2,000 if you buy an Ifor Williams. An Ifor Williams will be more durable and will sell more easily (and fetch more) second hand than other makes. Apart from a towbar on the motorhome, which an A Frame also requires, there is of course no fitting cost for a trailer. You do need to buy a set of tie-down straps for about £80.

 

Used trailers in good condition sell from about £1,000, so quite a high proportion of the purchase cost is recoverable. The considerable fitting cost of an A Frame (three quarters of the cost in your case) is entirely lost unless you are able to recover some of it by selling the car with A Frame as a towable unit. Even then you will incur a substantial loss when selling. I think A Frames depreciate quite a bit more than trailers, although of course if you really want an A Frame that might not matter to you very much.

 

Whether trailers or A Frames are less hassle to tow with is of course a matter of opinion.

[Brian Kirby]

Rayjsj - 2015-01-01 2:37 PM

 

Any Posts about A-Frame Use always ends like this. The fact that there are hundreds of happy, safe, users of these devices trundling about the Country, doesn't seem to count.

We do not want : A caravan, A Trailer, or Electric Bikes (lol) where would the 2 Labradors go ? and the missus is Disabled. What might suit your way of Motorhoming does not suit everyone.

And I will always give any enquiry on these forums about A-Frames the benefit of my personal experience of purchasing and using one, Thats what Forums are for surely ?

Ray

Indeed they do, Ray. Views are too polarised, which doesn't help proper understanding. I understand your liking of the A-frame: it is a very attractive concept. I have to ask you to accept that I am neutral in my view, while being sceptical about their overall safety and legality. My scepticism relates to operation of the braking system vis-a-vis the trailer regulations, to the ability of car braking systems to be safely modified to maintain the legally required degree of braking, and with the ability of drivers to reverse their car/trailer under control under all conditions. This is not being anti A-frame, it is just being unconvinced, by what I read and know of such systems, that they truly meet the claims made for them.

 

That there are hundreds of satisfied users is beyond dispute. If you say none have had accidents to which the "toad" has contributed, I have no grounds for disagreement. But, if you were to say this proves their "safety", I would disagree. "Safety" is a negative; it is the absence of risk, which makes it an unattainable absolute. If you were to say instead their "reasonable safety" I should still disagree. Reasonable safety is the absence of reasonably foreseeable risk. I foresee risks that you do not. This concerns me because the risks that I can foresee have not been taken into account by the desginers of the A-frames and their braking systems. They too discount them, apparently without assessing them or evaluating them. IMO, that disqualifies them from commenting on such risks. It seems to be just a question of strong willed people pushing aside reasonable objections, because they cannot, or do not want to, confront them and eliminate them, avoid them, or manage them. If they would do that under supervision, and could demonstrate how and why their designs answered the risks, I should be convinced. But, they do not, so I am not.

 

As they say, an absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. To the suposed fact that no A-framing motorhomer has had an accident to which his "toad" has contributed, I would therefore add - yet! Sorry!

[Muswell]

Brian Kirby - 2015-01-01 4:07 PM

 

Not sure you can so reduce the energy absorbed, can you? The energy released in our hypothetical accident (whether or not the box beam were present) would be the same surely, and must be absorbed by the two vehicles.

 

Quite right, I think I changed what I was writing and abbreviated it so that it ended up not making sense. *-) What I meant to say was that by reducing the efficiency of the 2 crumple zones you reduce the energy absorbed by the soft part of the crumple zones and increase the deceleration of the occupants.

 

Like you say the effect is unknown but why take a chance, especially in a tiny car which has already got the odds stacked against it if hit by a heavier vehicle?

[Brian Kirby]

Definitely agree on the last point, and thanks for the clarification. I'm no engineer, but GCE physics (dimly remembered) was nagging at me! Glad I asked now (in some trepidation, I must add!), memory must be better than I feared! I may even go out for a drink on that! :-D

[cleddytanhouse]

Many thanks to all who have provided their views. I have now decided that an A frame that has minimal work being done to my new car is what I will get.

This would appear to have two main benefits, as it will not affect the appearance of the car, or affect the designed crash characteristics of the car.

I am now looking for advice on retro fitting cab air con and hope that I get similar responses to that thread.

[Derek Uzzell]

If “minimal work” is carried out on a car to allow it to be A-frame towed, it’s near certain that that the result will be an unsafe installation. If the work carried out on a car makes it safe to A-frame tow (which, realistically, means that a sturdy steel structure will need to be added to the car) this will inevitably affect its crash-safety.

 

Towing a trailer with a car on it is uncontroversial. There are no discussions about potential illegality of the practice in the UK or abroad, or the ‘safety’ of the practice, or the car’s warranty, or pedestrian safety, or crumple zones.

 

Towing a car on an A-frame is a nest of worms. If it were not there would be no need for this endless argument about it.