Bit of a worry for the Kit Car Community

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman)]

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.

The same reasoning played a big part in  my kit choice too.

[Thrustyjust]

I must watch out around Reading for this guy and any other RH's 'on the road'.That looked a complete disaster.I do feel sorry for the guy.He has put a lot of time and effort into something,to which he obviously isn't 'that' mechanically endowed.I suppose that when your local area club come round and visit and obviously said nothing to the guy,as they own the same type of engineered vehicle,they all think it's a bed of roses.The issue with Robin Hood,is the that of cost.It will entice many people in to thinking they can build a car for a very low cost.I know and many of us here,that with everything,you get what you paid for.My boss,thinks that the cheapest he can find is always the best,whether its the TV at home or the washing machine.People are drawn to that,especially the people who know no better.I think its great that companies can offer the Kitcar build and ownership to more people,as it helps our cause for possible future grey government issues on vehicle breaking and recycling etc,but that has to be the worst piece of engineering I have had the want to look at.

[Blatman]

QUOTE

Bit of a worry for the Kit Car Community

The only worry is that there are companies out there producing that crap. RH should be sanctioned under the Sale of Goods Act for selling an item that is not fit for the purpose. If I ever see one on the road, I'm turning round and heading in the opposite direction. Rapidly...

[chazpowerslide]

That'd be no good, you'd run over all the bits that have fallen off it.

Chaz.

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman)]

That'd be no good, you'd run over all the bits that have fallen off it.

Chaz.

     

[Blatman]

It's a good point well made

[Toby Mack]

not wishing to side with RH here but it is worth pointing out that there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the RH lightweight. The SVA guy and VOSA have just indicated that they are not convinced and asked for proof that it is ok.

but then I am sure anyone reading this realises that any adverse comments here are just individuals opinions and not meant to be a statement of fact. If you get my drift............

On the other hand, I can see why the sva man was worried and will be very interested to see how this is resolved!

[chazpowerslide]

I think it goes a little deeper than that Toby.

In the thread on RHOCAR it was stated that all RH needed to do was to pass on the stats for the Tug Tests and ridgity tests results to VOSA or the owner for presentation the SVA centre.

This IRRC was posted up by the owner of the failed car.

On inspection of these test results (if they prooved to be adequate) the car in question would be allowed to pass on re-test on the structural points it failed on.

So far from what I have read RH have not submitted the relavent documentation to the owner or VOSA (again information posted up by the owner)

There is reference in the thread from the builder concerned who was told by RH that the documents had been lost/mislaid/around here somewhere but we don't know where.

Two complete "development/prototype" chassis turn up on Ebay being sold by the factory selling at about £300 substantially below RH own kit price.

This would really p*** me off if I'd have paid full price for a kit.

It was commented on that neither of these looked like they had been "tested" there was no reference to the fact that they had undergone (potentially destructive) testing in the ads.

They of course could be totally different chassis to the ones RH may have tested (there is no evidence either way)

There is also no reference that the strurture has been crash tested.

Surely it's up to the factory that designed and developed the kit to proove it's integrity PRIOR to marketing it rather than waiting for issues to arise after the customer has brought it and then failing to resolve them as it looks so far.

At present there is no evidence in the public domain that the kit is up to scratch other than RH own lightweight and a couple of others have passed SVA and have not failed structurally, there is also no evidence to the contray either.

Maybe thats enough proof for some BUT I'd want more than that and a LOT more proof that the structure has at least as good fatigue life as a "conventionally built" 7.

As it's a new kit it won't pass that test many years.

All of the above is my own opinion formed from what I have read and researched on the subject.

Chaz.

[steve_m]

Trouble is that things like this reinforce the case for a more stringent SVA test, or even limiting the modifications you can make to a car before an MOT or mini-SVA is required, all things the Govt have had suggested to them and they are considering.

Responsible kit car manufacturers like Westfield and Dax (and probably others) that have analysed crashed cars will possibly loose out when they are put under stricter rules because of the likes of Robin Hood who have created a car which if not technically sub-SVA standard, gives the SVA testers some reasonable cause for concern.

I would like to see the kit car industry get together to propose a voluntary crash test system which is cheaper than paying for (unnecessary) full production car testing but offeres an appropriate level of testing.  I think STATUS may already provide some testing ( STATUS testing ) and I know Dax are a member of STATUS but I don't believe they do full crash testing.

I suspect that if the kit industry doesn't do it, the Govt will, with or without industry cooperation.

[chazpowerslide]

In effect each manafactur would have to submit the product to a sort of limited type testing.

Once passed the SVA would then only be concerned with the build quality (stuff that the builder has done) and the functionally (everything works as it should)

Chaz.

[Al Yupright]

That'd completely kill off Locosts (where you weld up your own chassis, rather than buy one from MK etc) and any other more exotic one-offs though.

[jeff oakley]

Some of the comments on here are a little risky to say the least and some restraint is probably due. Most on here are not structual engineers and we all have opinions but that is not fact. Until the investigation and conclusion of this case is made public we will not know. In the past robin hood was always a "cheaper" alternative and you paid for what you got, i looked at them and was unimpressed but could see for most occasional user with limited funds they would be okay. The fact they sold more than any other manufacturer suggests that if this is a isolated case concerning a particular new chassis design, not every RH ever made. I remember Tiger had an isolated problem with front wishbones some years ago, but recalled and made good, so no problem long term.

The concern I have here is that once again we are slinging mud at a car which is not mainstream, some have mentioned there should be additional tests, fine but when they then want additional costs how far before we all go sod it and buy a ready built mainstream car.

I hope they sort it out quickly so that the facts can be known and the guy who has worked hard can either get his money back or get a car on the road in a safe and sound condition.

[Toby Mack]

QUOTE

In effect each manafactur would have to submit the product to a sort of limited type testing.

which would prevent one off cars ever being made (unless the builder has a lot of time and money. And how strict should the requirement be, perhaps it would be sensible to make it meet all the passenger safety requirements that a mass production car does?

I don't think we should be going there although I do take the point that the SVA man can only use his judgement as there is no need to prove the integrity of any design.

But this doesn't worry worry me. I drive a 1992 westfield. I know for a fact it would not pass SVA and the chassis is not as safe as current cars. But then if I was that worried I would stick to my Mondeo with airbags everywhere etc etc.

QUOTE

I think it goes a little deeper than that Toby.

In the thread on RHOCAR it was stated that all RH needed to do was to pass on the stats for the Tug Tests and ridgity tests results to VOSA or the owner for presentation the SVA centre.

etc

Well, it has only been a week or so since this all started so maybe people are jumping on RH a bit quick. That said, they don't appear to be doing themselves any favours so I tend to agree with you.

However, my point was nothing to do with how good a company is to deal with, but to do with whether their design is fit for purpose. Which I don't think has been proven either way yet.

Toby

[chazpowerslide]

I certainly don't want my comments to be taken as "slagging off" or "jumping on" Robin Hood.

I have formed my opinions on what I have seen with my own eyes and read "from the horses mouth" as it were (the owner concerned).

I have been very carefull to say that what I have written it is my opinion and I believe that I have been factually accruate in what I have written in terms of the facts I have taken from RHOCAR.

Toby, you are of course completly right the integraty of the design has not been proven either way and I'm watching with interest too as to how things turn out.

I certainly hope that the design is found to be adequate for all parties concerned as it's in nobodies best interest if it's not.

I think what I was trying to say that it must be incumbent on RH at this point to proove that the design of the car is adequate to pass SVA after it had failed on what the tester believes are some (as far as I can tell from the copy of the fail form posted on RHOCAR) serious structrual design issues, not up to the customer to make it so after the build by way his own modifications or swap chassis numbers and go to a different test centre (it's all been discussed on the relavent thread on RHOCAR)

Up till this point, as far as I can tell from the last threads the builder posted on RHOCAR, at least as far as he's concerned RH have been mute on the subject.

Yes It's only been a week and I appreciate that company policy/politics may dictate that things often move slower with these things than we as customers think they should.

For all we know the Email and fax lines between RH,  VOSA and Southampton SVA have been buzzing all week in an effort to resolve this, we shall see.

The reason whay I'm so interested in this is two fold, poor customer service really makes me see red, I have been caught on several occasions but I don't give up untill the issues have been resolved to my satisfaction.

I like to see people who stand up to companies/individuals who thay feel have wronged them and get a satisfactory outcome to the situation.

Secondly I'm intrigued as to how the design/development/testing side of the kit car indutry works and how that relates into a marketable car that is SVA compliant.

IE who tests what and to what standard, what are the guidelines for stress testing chassis/suspension components, is there set figures that have to be equalled or suppased by the test piece, what is an adequate figure for a seat belt tug test, how floppy does a chassis have to be before it's deemed un-safe.

These things interest me, sad I know but they do.

I had'nt thought about how a manafacture limited type approoval would affect Locost builers or one off specials good point Toby and Al

Chaz.

[steve_m]

I had'nt thought about how a manafacture limited type approoval would affect Locost builers or one off specials good point Toby and Al

This would work in the same way that kits cars are excluded from the same type approval as production cars at the moment, based on type and volume.

In Australia a kit car has to be inspected at various stages by a Govt appointed "Engineer" - I guess this is a bit like an SVA test over a period of time.  (Anybody from Oz know anymore about this ?)

The point I was making is that if the industry don't put something in place then it'll be done for them, this Govt has a track record of doing that and especially where minority, single issue lobbying groups are concerned, like the anti-motorist groups that are so virulent at the moment.