Bit of a worry for the Kit Car Community

[DavidC]

Aluminium, though, is like putty and has little elasticity (mild steel hasn't much but at least it is tougher) and I can foresee holes becoming oval, panels stretching, joints between panels shearing (despite the bonding - adhesives are very variable when applied under less than lab conditions) and the whole will become a rattling heap of milk bottle tops in no time.

Let's not say that an aluminium monocoque is a bad idea as Lotus (Elise) and Jaguar (XJ8 + XK) have done it successfully and safely. The Jag design is indeed a bonded and reivetted structure.

The difference is the skill, knowledge and resource that 2,000 Jaguar engineers have compared to an outfit like RH. Designin a robust and safe aluminium monocoque is simply beyong the capability or their resources.

At only £3140 for a kit that tries to use technology which real car companies have spent millions refining, you've got to ask yourself, are you mad?!?

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

Absolutely DavidC! Both the Jag and the Lotus are put together under controlled conditions and from what I'm certain will be well researched grades of alloy where cost is not the first consideration.

[Guest]

Ali monocoques were used in F1/F2 in the late 60s and throughout the 70s.I raced a March 712 and still own a 78 Chevron B42.BUT they have to be designed to be torsionally rigid with the right grade of ali etc,The Jag and the Elise chassis are a long way removed from what is being discussed here.

[v7slr]

A friend drives a Chevron hill climber made from folded alloy sheet but it's a decent thickness and of a superior grade. When he received the car, the first thing he did (being a perfectionist) was to strip it to the chassis and send it off to Chevron to be remanufactured. I'm not sure what that involves other than the replacement of all rivets which CANNOT be done by a man at home (owing to the type of rivets).

The chassis is bonded and rivetted as were all serious single seaters back then (1970s), and the places where suspension is attached contains a subframe to spread the load as it attaches to the chassis. At these points is it both bonded for sheer and rivetted for peel - the same as the Elise chassis.

Incidentally, comparisons with the Elise chassis sort of stop there as that uses extruded alloy which is an altogether different material.

The sheet alloy making up his Chevron would require *tools* to grip and bend it. It's stiff. That RH looks as though a mild breeze would bend it.

That statement from RH should be qualified with detailed picture from *their* build to compare with those from this chap's blog. I doubt there are differences in material so I maintain that it is a deathtrap. I'd just love to understand where one SVA centre thinks the "official RH" differs in concept from the one linked to in this thread.

It'd be quite funny if it weren't so tragic. The owner *has* to take some responsibility for this. If you set out to build a car you *must* at least understand the boundaries of what's right and what's most certainly not. There are great Se7ens manf's out there selling it at prices not far removed from this RH (MK, Stuart-Taylor and Fisher for a few examples) and yet their fares are superbly designed and utilise time-tested spaceframes. A monocoque costing £3K from a small un-proven manf is madness.

[Blatman]

Comparing a race car made of ally to a road car is kind of moot anyway. A race car will be thoroughly inspected after every track outing. Chances are that RH wouldn't be inspected anything like as often as after every trip...

[v7slr]

I think you're an optimist.

Do you think that RH will manage more than one trip then?  

[james grayley]

So who panelled up and forgot to fit the chassis?

[mb893]

Good examples of MonoC and Spaceframe chassis (for the same car): "Car porn" as well

Have a look at the bottom of the page for the Mono chassis.

[chazpowerslide]

All the comments below are MVHO.

I saw the chassis at Stoneleigh and thought

"f**k me they can't actually be trying to sell that"

I can't imagine how serious Mark J's accident at Mallory would have been if he'd have hit the barriers at a ton in a LW like he did in his SEW

They can do all the torsional/tug tests on it thay want to proove it's integrity but a) you'd never get me in one and b)  it'll never be as crashworthy as a spaceframed 7.

Period.

Those that think that this particular design is anywhere approaching safe and fit for purpose is simply deluding themselves as far as I'm concerned.

It looks to me like it'd fold up like wet cardboard box in an accident and you'd fair really badly in a multiple impact situation even when new.

(I've seen quiet a few really bad accidents in my years on call out recovery vehicles when I worked in garages)

Throw in a few years of corrosion brought on by our weather and salty roads and the continual fatigue on the structure and fixings brough on by regular use and it'd be 10 times more lethal than the downright dangerous it started life out as.

I rekon from (what I have seen and read in the last two hours) the SVA man was right to ring the alarm bells.

I do feel rather sad for the owner/owners of these RH Lightweights.

There are many members on here who did not know much about cars and how they work before they built their Westies and trusted in the design integrity and brand reputation when they parted with their cash, built their cars and then strapped themselves in for a brisk drive.

It seems that this chap was in the same sitruation but chose RH and is now paying the price both in terms of product intrgrity and customer service.  

It's that kind of poor design (IMHO) that give a largely respectable industry a bad name.

If you read the whole thread on the RHOCAR (owners club) website it looks very much like RH has done sweet fa about the situation for the customer involved OR to provide factual information prooving their product is safe save from issuing a statement that basically reads as; Well ours went through SVA so it must be OK.

That in it's self is very worrying as is the fact they seem to be flogging off chassis out the back door on Ebay.

 

I mean judging by what I've read on the RHOCAR wbsite RH do not seem like the kind of company to admit that they got it wrong and do the right thing by their customers.

RH seem to have a bad reputation amongst the owners of their cars (do a bit of reading on RHOCAR) and draw your own conclusions.

I'm so glad I chose Westfield.........................

Chaz.

[Al Yupright]

Imagine the horror we'd be reading this with if Robin Hoods recent bid to buy Westfield had been successfull!

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

It seems to me that the SVA is fundamentally flawed, to use a well-worn cliche. Before any individual car is SVA'd the generic design should be tested (I assume it isn't or this situation wouldn't arise). All 'production' cars are subject to an approval procedure and the individual eaxamples are not. With kitcars it's the other way around it seems to me. If the basic design were approved the only purpose of the Single Vehicle Approval would be to evaluate [a] the quality of the particular build, and, the specific variant, engine, body options, etc.

Robin Hood would have had to submit the prototype for approval long before any marketing or bulk manufacture took place and the people who bought the LW would have been better protected. All IMHO natch!

[Guest]

well said that man!!thats why we crash tested years ago.

Please try talking to VOSA.

[chazpowerslide]

In think that you are right.

For a manafacture to claim SVA compliance it seems that all they have to do is to put the car through SVA and get a pass this does not nessasarily mean the design is safe and fit for purpose.

At present if the design is flawed in the SVA testers opinion (as it seems in this case) it seems he has to ring the alarm bells.

It seems that Southampton SVA was obliged to to pass on the details of the concerns to VOSA (due to the seriousness of the failure) who has informed all the other test centres of the issues with the design.

If they do not allow another RH Lightweight to pass untill the design is altered it leaves the owners high and dry if RH won't play ball.

As you say, if the actual design had to be approoved before the kits went to market the manafactuer would have to get it right in the first place and the customer would be better protected.

Chaz.

[chazpowerslide]

Morning Chris.

Chaz.

[zvezdochka]

A significant point in my decision to build a Westfield was exactly the point made by Chris S; the chassis design has been crash tested. I wanted some re-assurance of safety for me and my family.

Another point is the fact that there are now many WF examples with significant mileage / years demonstrating good fatigue life.  Generally any potential failures such as cracking of welds on suspension brackets are visible before failure.  I suspect a rivetted Ally chassis will give liitle warning and because Aluminium is plastic in bending, will fold when overstressed.

There are some other strong chassis available, eg I saw a Tiger which had been hit on front  OS corner by a bus.  Suspension and front of chasiis deformed and took all the energy, very little deformation of chassis behind the scuttle line. There's no substitute for triangulated steel RHS designs.