Not a nice end for a Caterham

[Nick.Petty]

Totally agree with Bazzer et al. It amazes me when people spend all the dosh buying/building a nice car then usually more dosh on fancy upgrades but still have a standard bar on. They are not even that expensive, and not that difficult to fit, even for a numptie like moi.

You know it makes sense, get a PROPER bar on.

 

[studbuckle]

(all IMHO of course*).

* Have you noticed that when people use that phrase, they're usually are being anything but humble?  

In My HONEST opinion most westfield drivers (me included) don't have a clue about 'materials and physics' and so would not know that their expensive looking safety device is indeed far from ideal.

I agree completley that the factory should make the FIA/RAC upgrade a far painless upgrade and therefore encourage buyers to take this option.

Ignorance is no defense i know but has the factory ever been challenged on their 'decorative' 'chocolate fire guard' roll bar and how, clearly from what people have said it must've contributed to the death or serious injury of Westfield owners in the past. If this is not the case then where is the argument for fitting a motor sports part on a road car other than the so far 'give it a wiggle' and mild steel and two bolts can't be good.

BTW, I should add that i'm not trying to say that the RAC bar isn't worth every penny, i'm trying to argue the point for every one of us driving road cars with standard roll bars and in some ways accepting that the safety of the car is limited to its design.

Bazza, I certainly don't think you're being rude... I would just like some conjecture (I think)

[SteveF]

This picture has already apeared.

Have a read of this thread - which covered a lot of the arguments about roll bars - and gives a few pictures.

One comment in there about "One photo is shown of one roll bar - what about the other many thousands sold and used without a problem " - does anybody know of a standard bar that has been "used" without a problem?

Steve

[studbuckle]

good picture and proves the need for the rear stays in that instance. BUT, that's a Narrow body car with the old style standard roll bar which from memory is about half the diameter of the new one and not shouldered.

[Bazzer]

Bazza, I certainly don't think you're being rude... I would just like some conjecture (I think)

Good I was not trying to upset anyone, was just trying to inform.

Why not give the factory a call and ask them.

"Do they consider the standard roll over bar to be a peice of safety equipment"

"Do they think that the standard roll bar was likely to remain intact in the event of an accident where a roll occured"

Then you will know what there position is !!!!

Bazzer

[Bazzer]

good picture and proves the need for the rear stays in that instance. BUT, that's a Narrow body car with the old style standard roll bar which from memory is about half the diameter of the new one and not shouldered.

Trust me the same thing would happen to the new standard bar one on a wide bodied car.

You are correct it needs the rear stays and idealy a diagonal brace as well.

Give the factory a call !!!

Bazzer

[oioi]

that also comes back to my point about changing away from the three bolt welded plate to the new single bolt system.  perhaps that particular weak point has been strengthened

obviously the ultimate strengthening is bracing bars before someone jumps down my throat...

[mb893]

i'm trying to argue the point for every one of us driving road cars with standard roll bars and in some ways accepting that the safety of the car is limited to its design.

Probably being a bit dim I know, but exactly what are you arguing here, is it that the standard bar is 'safe' in an inversion?

[Ian Podmore]

Just a few comments from me!

1. The 3 bolts is an RAC MSA specification.

2. The Cateringvan bar like the one in the accident does not have a diaganol bracing bar IMO.

3. The Cateringvan rear stays do NOT meet the vertical parts of the bar, but meet 'some way' inboard of the uprights.  This is a considerably weaker solution in my opinion as it will have greatly increased the bending forces where the weld failed at the bottom of the upright.  That is because in my opinion the rear stays are not properly forming a triangulated structure with the main hoop.

These comments are purely my opinion

[SteveF]

Been doing a bit of digging to find out if there are any tests / regulations which cover roll-over tests, and the worrying answer is no

I've checked The Vehicle Certification Agency who run the 'Type-Approval' scheme for production' and 'low volume' (<500 per yr) cars. For production cars - they talk about frontal and lateral impacts, and for low volume - which I guess is where wesfield sit (<500 factory finished cars per yr) - impact tests aren't mentioned. Euro NCAP tests are explained here - and again - they just look at front / side impact tests NOT rollover.

So it looks like all the rollbars could "pass the crash tests" - mainly because there are none which cover the types of crashes we're concerned with

[studbuckle]

Probably being a bit dim I know, but exactly what are you arguing here, is it that the standard bar is 'safe' in an inversion?

No, and Yes, I'm arguing that apart from a couple of pictures of accidents, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the standard roll bar is any less safe than being in a tin top designed 10 years ago.

There's no argument that the RAC is bar is superior, but is it enough of an improvement to go around suggesting to everyone that they're putting their lives at risk unless they make this change?

[adhawkins]

No, and Yes, I'm arguing that apart from a couple of pictures of accidents, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the standard roll bar is any less safe than being in a tin top designed 10 years ago.

Someone made the point above...does anyone have any pictures or anecdotal evidence of the standard roll bar doing its job in an (inverted obviously) accident?

Andy

[neilwillis]

It's better to err on the side of caution I'd say, so calling a standard bar safe may be putting people into a false sense of security.   The pictures speak louder than words in this case I suggest.

[Blatman]

So it looks like all the rollbars could "pass the crash tests" - mainly because there are none which cover the types of crashes we're concerned with

Whereas, the Blue Book goes in to a lot of detail about what materials to use, how to secure them, and how to make sure that corners, welds and joins are properly formed so that they can stand up to the impacts expected in a racing car.

I think it's wise to follow the RACMSA in these instances, as they are far more likrly to know what's what.

I'll check later (unless some-one has a blue book to hand) but I don't think any roll bar drawings or dimensions that could be applied to Se7ens are missing the rear stays...

Studbuckle.

Your unbraced bar will be fine in a roll over, as long as you're not moving forwards or backwards when you roll. Any movement fore or aft when the roll bar is on the ground, or against a barrier during a roll, and it'll fold up. Trust us, we aren't guessing or postulating theories. There is simply to much inertia and mass (kinetic energy) in the car for the standard roll bar to stand up very well at anything much above walking pace. You're unlikely to roll the car at walking pace.....

As Mark has said, grab it, and give it a hard tugging....

[mb893]

No, and Yes

Glad we cleared that one up then.

but is it enough of an improvement to go around suggesting to everyone that they're putting their lives at risk unless they make this change?

Er, yes.