Rovertech 2.0

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/A3 ... ticle.html

I knew this chap, not as a friend, but we had met a few times and he was a decent sort...

Anyway... this happened on one of those retarded junctions on old dual carriageways where traffic queues and crosses the carriageway. And it was in the daytime, so speculation aside (and knowing the person's character) he would not have been driving at 'excessive' speed. But thats not my point...

Old vs new... the old fella in the freelander is relatively unharmed.

The astra driver is not.

All of us who drive older cars should take note. Our cars are NOT safe! Drive them with this in mind.

Even the 'big is safe' argument falls down with some older cars... the 600's 1 star ncap rating is testament to this.

Does look horrific, considering the LR is hardly touched.

A Mk2 Astra was never safe, and even by todays standard a Freelander isnt the best in the world either.

Part of the reason why i changed car recently from a Citroen Xantia to a four star NCAP rating Mondeo was because of this safety issue. I have to think about my family travelling in the car and protecting them from others should the worst happen.

The only decent rated Rover is the R75. I couldnt drive an older car these days on a regular basis, although i still have the Maestro, but thats for nice weekends only.

That's the 4x4 vs normal car argument. I'll bet that a similar incident between two Freelanders, for example, wouldn't be so cut and dry..

its one of the reasons I went from the Ti to the e39.

Same age, similar size... but one is 1 star and one is 4 star.

Sadly I forgot this and swapped it for a stupid car... and its been downhill ever since... But I want another one.


I dont mean this topic as some sort of doom-bringer... More just an observation... the thing that makes a car safe is its driver, mostly.

But there are a lot of factors that remove that element from the equation.

On the same junction that this accident happened, when I had my Ti, someone pulled out on me.

Its on a blind corner, uphill, and has very poor drainage so just in the braking zone on a wet day is a nice sheet of aquaplane... I lost it in the Ti at over 100, a full 4 wheel lockup that saw me drift over from the outside lane to the inside. Oddly (not luckily) it was that drift that saved my life as I missed the guy who pulled out by about the width of the white lines in the middle... but it made me think, and slow down, a LOT.


This accident will be blamed on a lot (as the comments on the site show)... but old man, young man, speed, bad road design, etc aside... if it were a more modern car, the chances would have been better.

I'm not saying slow down, nobody would... we see this everyday, close to home, far from home... it wont happen to us...

But it could. And thus, while our old cars are great fun, great value, and so much better to look at than modern cr*p... they aren't good in a crash. An awareness of this goes a long way.

Equally, however, a blind disregard for basic physics because of the thought that "it's a modern car, so it'll look after me if the worst does happen" is somewhat foolish. No car (even the newest) is 100% safe.

All valid points but it always comes back to one thing - The Driver. And with so many idiots on the road, its difficult trying to avoid them.

We both know how fast we drive on that stretch of road too.

bgunn wrote:Equally, however, a blind disregard for basic physics because of the thought that "it's a modern car, so it'll look after me if the worst does happen" is somewhat foolish. No car (even the newest) is 100% safe.

MGTurbo wrote:All valid points but it always comes back to one thing - The Driver. And with so many idiots on the road, its difficult trying to avoid them.

couldn't agree more.

As I said, the thing that makes a car safe is its driver.

There are other factors... but put it into percentages and the massive majority is the person behind the wheel.

But, worse case scenario and all that malarkey, we are not so safe in our old tin boxes... so being more aware is very important.


This particular case leaves a lot to be explained, a lot of blame to be handed out. The guy in the LR was 80... did he not give enough room? The guy in the GTE was 20, was he going too fast, changing tracks on his ipod? Or was it just down to bad road design?

Any answer to that gives a cause for the accident, but doesnt change the fact that if both cars were more modern, the damage could have been much less.

PJW wrote:We both know how fast we drive on that stretch of road too.

yup. and as such you know how dangerous that stretch is. IMO, junctions like that should be eliminated from our roads.

Though since the aforementioned incident in the Ti and a catalogue of deaths on that single corner in the last few years, for those few corners I tend to take it easy.

Is that the one just after the garage on the left as you come towards plymouth? Ive nearly lost the arse end as it corners to the right and uphill.

The same on the downhill section of dual carriageway racing an old BMW.

yep... heading south you come round an uphill blind corner to people crossing the carriageway... on the way north you crest a hill and find people in the outside lane with their foot on the brake slowing down to queue in the middle...

both ways it is a recipe for disaster. There's a reason motorway junctions dont affect the flow of traffic... and neither do modern dual carriageway junctions.

Remember also that the criteria for NCAP ratings change annually, so something that was 4 stars years ago could well only be 1 star by todays standards, thus the entire system has a basic floor to begin with, unless every previously tested car was retested with the current criteria. Iirc the Laguna is a good example of this.

As said, no car is 100% safe in a collision, and a lot of cars fair better than they're expected to, my Dads old Metro was a good example, having been rear ended by a lorry, driven in to a concrete pillar in an underground carpark with the lighting on a timer, and surviving on until car cancer killed it. Not bad for a car given a 1 star (iirc) rating if you ask me.

Also look at Vards accident in the 216 R8, head on collision at 30mph against another car doing the same speed in the opposite direction, the way the car bent its pillars to absorb the impact was exactly what it was designed to do.

I would imagine the quality of the steel used in a car to also play a significant part in all this, be interesting to see how many manufacturers use Chinese steel...

cant disagree with that stef.

ncap tests are a very very controlled environment.

A 'half n half' front end with something that deforms... wonder how often that happens in the real world.



and dont get me started on chinese cars... a very brief scan of youtube produces some horrifying crash tests involving chinese cars.

Like I said, this isnt a topic blaming the car, its age, the road, or the driver.... just something that made me think, and thought it was worth sharing in the hope it maybe made one person think twice...

I know i found feel safer in this:


Than in one of these:


Regardless of NCAP rating.

What is a 200 bubble rated at The 25 is a 3 star car but thats 2001 but mines 1999 is it the same

PJW wrote:I know i found feel safer in this:
[UK crap]

Than in one of these:
[jap crap]

Regardless of NCAP rating.

If it came to an 'either - or' situation... I'll walk, thanks.

Kia, jap crap? errrrr?

Not just Chinese cars, but any non-Chinese manufacturers using chinese steel in their cars. I don't know if there are any, but with the minimalist attitude in terms of money a lot of manufacturers use to build cars, and the low price* of chinese steel, I find it hard to believe there isn't someone out there making cars on our roads with the stuff.


*Low price for a reason, many really!

munky wrote:

PJW wrote:I know i found feel safer in this:
[UK crap]

Than in one of these:
[jap crap]

Regardless of NCAP rating.

If it came to an 'either - or' situation... I'll walk, thanks.

Haha fair one. It might just be me but ive had a 400 - and this 45 feels about 300% more solid than the previous one. Next door have a post-project drive ZS and the stuff missing off it is shocking.. No rear ARB, no metal sill trims, no arch liners.. Makes me wonder what else is away..

bgunn - yes... cos 'east asian crap' doesn't have the same ring to it... I am aware of the subtle differences.

I'm also aware that a kia was a bad example, since they fare well in crash tests... something genuinely chinese would have been a better example... something like... hmm... let me think.... oh yeah, I got one... the new mg.

rovermadman4825 wrote:What is a 200 bubble rated at The 25 is a 3 star car but thats 2001 but mines 1999 is it the same

yes, but its old 3 star.

I'd guess it doesnt even rate at 1 star by todays standards. Though they take a lot more into consideration... mainly the people you hit... well f*ck them... as long as you survive

Sad to see i used to drive one of those old astra's ..

Nobody wants to get hurt but it wont stop me driving an old car.

I don't understand how a head-on collision happened here?

Old duffy in Flander wants to turn across the dual carriageway, lad in Astra coming along in opposite direction. The most I can see happening the Astra T-boning the Flander?

Or is the news article just missleading?

Anyway, NCAP be damned, you're invincible in an 800

The Herald is the Daily Mail of local news...

'Head-On' sounds much better than 'front-side impact'... and technically the astra hit the LR 'head on'....

munky wrote:bgunn - yes... cos 'east asian crap' doesn't have the same ring to it... I am aware of the subtle differences.

I'm also aware that a kia was a bad example, since they fare well in crash tests... something genuinely chinese would have been a better example... something like... hmm... let me think.... oh yeah, I got one... the new mg.

rovermadman4825 wrote:What is a 200 bubble rated at The 25 is a 3 star car but thats 2001 but mines 1999 is it the same

yes, but its old 3 star.

I'd guess it doesnt even rate at 1 star by todays standards. Though they take a lot more into consideration... mainly the people you hit... well f*ck them... as long as you survive

Well I better make sure I hit them a 150 to go quick and easy nnnooooooo i mean 69.99999 lol

Metro = Instant Death
R8 - Dont seem to bad - Quoting Vards 216
25/ZR seem quite safe tbf!
45/ZS - You wonder why i want harnesses and bucket seats lol

Back on topic, its amazing how bads cars do come off in crashes. And when you start reading the info on what happens inside it scares me.

After i seen This

I never wanted a Golf again.

On the other hand, when i first got my ZS, i thought wahey, big car and 4 airbags.

But then i seen This

Not really a fair impact then. The Astra hit front-on, force concentrated on driver's side, the old duffer got his front passenger wheel struck and spun his car round. Engine-in-lap versus whiplash.

I'd wager that if both cars had been identical astras the young lad would still have been worse off.

One of the reasons I'd like the get rid of the Saxo and get a modern car is the safety factor. It's 1.5 or 2 star, something like that. Basically, crash and die.

However, I'd imagine in something fast and safe, you're probably more likely to get hurt still... I drive so slowly in the saxo the chances of an accident are less than the accord that's for sure.

Think, thats at 40-50

My mate was taking me to my GF's at 120

I suppose a Cinquecento is worse tho

And this is the Seicento which was ment to be safer



Its horrifying to see how far forward whilst wearing a seatbelt you do go. And everyone wants me to get rid of the harnesses!

But in fairness each crash is "unique" in a way. A mate called steve put his 1.1 5 inched big bore exhaust into a wall at 60-70 and walked away from the Saxo. But it was the passenger side..

'Safe' cars to definitely affect people's driving style. I think you take less risks in an old pile of rust.

I certainly felt the opposite of that effect when I had my Volvo - There was just something about it that made you feel utterly immune, and hence subconsciously take more risks. Bizarre.

Personally, I'd much rather drive an older car, mostly because a) I don't have kids, and rarely take anyone else in the car with me, and b) it means I can actually see around the damn A pillars, and have a slightly better chance of not hitting anything else in the first place.

BrackenFox wrote:b) it means I can actually see around the damn A pillars, and have a slightly better chance of not hitting anything else in the first place.

Hear, fecking Hear!

Roverdose214 wrote: Its horrifying to see how far forward whilst wearing a seatbelt you do go. And everyone wants me to get rid of the harnesses!

You really failed to understand and pay attention to comments made in threads before didn't you? 'going forward' isn't necessarily bad, provided you don't hit anything. It's called 'controlled decelleration' - and is very important to avoid the destruction of your body in the crash. You need to remember that it's not about making the car as tough as possible, otherwise the squishy bit inside it (you) falls to bits when subjected to very high forces during a crash.

Yeah... controlled decelleration is where its at... why have small crumple zones when you can use the entire car as one!



There was a box of eggs in the boot, it survived intact. You cant argue with the laws of physics.

holy sh*t! Thats not the clip I thought it was... thats f*cking horrific!

munky wrote:holy sh*t! Thats not the clip I thought it was... thats f*cking horrific!

Whatever car that was, I don't want one!

worryingly, if you type 'chinese crash test' into youtube there are a lot of videos pretty similar to that one... though that is the worst I;ve seen so far. Scary sh*t!

And these are the chaps that will be making the new mg.