Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:33:09 +0100
From: Edward Newman
Subject: [imps] Crash Safety
A couple of months ago I was present at a talk by the head of crash research at TRL. He mentioned a couple of points which maybe of interest.
The first was that the imp is a very safe car. He picked it out as being very pedestrian friendly, in fact he even went so far as to say that it would pass the pedestrian impact regulations which are coming in as part of the Euro NCAP program. The final pedestrian tests no car presently in production has passed although the imp would pass with flying colours along with the beetle, one of the older fiats (can't remember which one) and a couple of other older cars. So next time somebody says that the imp is unsafe you can state without any doubt that it's one of the safest cars on the road.
I asked the guy doing the talk about the fitting of harnesses and bucket seats and how they affected safety. He said that the fitting of either of these greatly improved the chance of survival. He even went so far as to say that with a decent bucket seat and a 3/4/6 point harness fitted the chances of surviving were far superior to that offered by the fitting of any of the fancy features like side impact bars, airbags or any other safety devices.
He also said that they would quite easily meet all of their targets for occupant safety if all cars were fitted with these. The only problem is actually getting people to put a harness on and to put up with the discomfort of it.
From: Graham Miller
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:55:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
This makes sense to me. The only bad Imp crash I was involved in, if I'd been securely strapped to a decent seat I would have been fine. The front makes an excellent crumple zone to absorb the impact, much nicer than having an engine pushed into your legs. I was in a head on collision, flat out in second (didn't look at the speedo!), and broke my left wrist cos only my right shoulder was held back against the seat...
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:24:37 +0100
From: Andrew W. MacFadyen
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
In full frontal collision with flat objects Imps were quite strong, vertical impacts with solid things like lamp post were a different story -- the main safety concern with Imps was always the steering column being driven backwards, potentialy very nasty indeed.
From: Martin Bristow
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:48:21 +0100
Subject: [imps] Crash Safety
Andy mentioned that one of the greatest potential problems is that the steering column could be forced rearwards in a frontal impact...
So, is there any way around this?
I would assume that some of the spaceframe racers etc might have adapted parts from a different car to reduce this risk.
Does anyone know what or how?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:29:00 +0100 (BST)
From: Rich Candler
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
Modern cars, I think, have a collapsable column. This came about after people being decapitated in frontal impacts - the engine block would be forced into the column, which would send the wheel rapidly towards the drivers head. Nasty. You'd have to hit something damn solid and with a lot of force for this to happen though. I really wouldn't worry about it in the Imp - there's all that boot to crush before the column moves. I'd be more worried about getting the petrol tank in my lap!
From: Gary and Carol Henderson
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:46:53 +-1200
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
Even worse, many cars had the steering-column going well forward, to linkage or rack in front of the sump. (e.g. Mk1 Es***t). No need to budge the block first - and these were at a nice low angle, pointed straight at your heart....
At least the Minxes, Arrow-family etc had a short column with just a thinnish track-rod behind the block. The Imp's short, relatively-upright & slightly angled affair should be much less of a hazard.
Of interest, I read that Skoda had great difficulty achieving crash-test passenger G as low as their last rear-engined models, when they shifted their engine to the wrong end. I think the EC requirement at the time was 36G for the barrier at 50 km/h; the rear-engined model had achieved 25G. So much for the 'protection' of a lump. Have to concede possible value against walking lampposts though...
A multi-piece articulated column could be made using Avenger bits, but it would need to be certified if it was done here - don't know UK situation. The wheel could then be square-on!
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:36:06 +1000
From: Darcy Maddock
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
If you look at the cover of the Apex book there is a photo of an Imp being crashed into a solid block of concrete. The steering wheel is designed to move forward in a pivot movement away from the driver and actually it comes forward enough to punch the windscreen out.
By the way the Imp was crash tested at much much higher speeds than a modern car is. An example of how well the design worked is the story of the apprentice Rootes mechanic that took on a steam roller at 60mph. The goose neck of the steam roller was snapped and the roller took a bow. The Imp was smashed up to the front wheel arches and the mechanic walked away. Try that in these cheap buzz boxes that are flat out handling a 30kph test crash.
From: Graham Miller
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:52:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
Now, that would explain the very small scar I have on my knuckle... when I hit the front of a Talbot Horizon in my Imp, about ten years ago, my right hand actually got a cut where I punched the windscreen. I can't remember now if the windscreen shattered or not, but I just assumed that I'd bent the steering wheel far enough as I was thrown forwards to touch the screen, but if it was designed to pivot up and away that would have pulled me forwards a bit...
From: Nickcleak@aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:30:24 EDT
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
I bought a pair of doors off a 1976 (primrose yellow) imp in 1977 from a scrap yard. the car had only done 5000 miles. It had hit some sort of post and the steering column was almost vertical , but the inside was still fairly in shape ..
I feel the rear of the Imp is stronger than many new cars. there are box sections all around the rear window ....under the rear seat etc ..
it's from the B post forward which need improving .. and the roof rails are flimsy.
we have side impact beams don't we - our door pockets :-)
In the 70s, I was in an imp which crashed into a wall at 45 degrees at about 60 mph. It spun around after. The actual impact felt quite soft. The right front was pushed in but we drove home ...
i have had three cars go into the back of my Imp over the years: a triumph herald; a citoen GS club; and a Pug 205 ..
in all cases the worst damage i had was a bent bumper and mildly dented engine cover. The herald headlamp cowl dented the rear part of the rear wing
The citroen front disintegrated - plasic and glass all over the road. The pug fared almost as bad
By the way , NO cars today or yesterday are SAFE as advertisers like us to think . Some are merely less unsafe than others ...
From: Nick
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:30:25 EDT
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
> The final pedestrain tests no car presently in
> production has passed
the Volvo S 80 has , maybe the lecture was a few months ago ..
From: Richard Murtha
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:16:25 +0100
Subject: Re: [imps] Crash Safety
I shouldn't worry too much about getting a petrol tank in your lap - though it can happen, they are damned tough... Some years ago when I regularly co-drove an Imp on National Stage Rallies, we crashed very heavily on the South - North big-dipper straight in Wythop forest in the Lake District.
Basically the rear shockers weren't set right (first outing for rebuilt car) and the back end bounced us off the road into the (wide) ditch which we ran along until hitting an uprooting a tree stump about 18" in diameter, at which point we pirouetted gracefully to land on the roof about 30' up the ditch. I don't know speed of impact but we were pulling 90 mph on the downhill bit immediately before bouncing off the road. (Co-drivers don't have much to do on straight bits so I had the chance to look at the speedo!)
Anyway, the car was a mess, not surprisingly, and the tank did punch through the bulkhead, but did NOT deform or rupture. Admittedly the filler neck was directly into the tank rather than mounted on the front panel as standard, but I was impressed (and relieved) with the strength of the tank.
A word of warning to anyone tempted to emulate this crash test - my driver smashed his kneecap on the steering lock on the column - and that's caused him many problems since - he says it was his fault 'cos he was still trying to brake when we hit and the pedal moving back pushed his knee into the column.
Of course if we hadn't had a strong car, a full cage, good seats and full harness belts we'd probably have been dead.....
If you want any more 'daft tales' - I once completed a stage sat on the off-side rear wing of the Imp to counterbalance the lack of nearside front wheel, which we'd taken off to reduce drag as the steering arm had broken and the wheel turned hard left as soon as you moved - I wasn't too successful though (I weighed a lot less then!) because by the end of the stage the drum, brake shoes and bottom wheel cylinder had gone as well. That was one rally we didn't win our class on......
Then again some years later, I did two-thirds of a stage at Pembrey on the Welsh under the bonnet of a Lada, operating the throttle linkage which had fallen apart, whilst the driver tried to see where he was going and I alternated trying to hold on with wondering why the stupid s*d wasn't slowing for the bends before remembering that I was operating the accelerator......
Perhaps fortunately they now throw you out of a rally if either member of a team is not securely belted in inside the car!
Oh to be young and foolish...instead of older and foolish!