Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:03:43 -0500
Reply-To: Greg Potts <greg@POTTSFAMILY.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Greg Potts <greg@POTTSFAMILY.CA>
Subject: Re: VW bus and beetle on Yahoo's 10 deadlies car list. Any
thruth? Bay vs. Vanagon
In-Reply-To: <8CB5DBAC949FCD0-1118-1E43@WEBMAIL-DY09.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Volks,
I think the bay is getting an unfairly bad rap here. I've owned three
bays before I got my vanagon. I drive both regularly. The bay is not
dangerous at all as long as you run the correct tires with correct
inflation. It's a one-ton truck; and should be treated as one, not as a
sports car. With the correct (185R14 dual-ply sidewall) tires, the
roll-under described simply does not happen.
In 2007 I had my Bay westfakia on the track and Watkins Glen, and it
handled fine as long as you kept it within its limits. Complaining about
handling after upgrading the engine with an extra 2 cylinders and 50%
more power is hardly reasonable; the vehicle simply was never designed
for it. Try putting 3000lbs of cargo in a Vanagon and see how it
handles; I bet you wouldn't be too happy with that either. But that's
not the Vanagon's fault, is it?
Happy Trails,
Greg Potts
1973/74/79 Westfakia "Bob the Tomato"
1987 Wolfsburg Weekender Hardtop
www.busesofthecorn.com
www.pottsfamily.ca
Frank Grunthaner wrote:
> This typical media ill informed regurgitation of popularly accepted
> wisdom does contain a kernel of truth. The attack on the beetle and
> the bay is not totally unfounded. The splittie and the bay designs
> had little if any frontal impact protection. The rear swing axle
> designs of the beetle, bay and splittie all offered problems for the
> inexperienced or ignorant driver, as did the Corvair and many
> contemporary european designs. The Renault Dauphine and various Fiat
> rear engine designs come to mind readily. The high center of gravity
> in the bay and design exaggerated the roll under rear tire problem.
> The splitty couldn't go fast enough in stock form to be rollover
> prone, so safety was achieved through moderate performance.
>
> I came to appreciate the drivelive geometry limitations when I built
> a 178 HP at the wheels version of the corvair engine and 4 speed
> transaxle and installed same in my Safare Bay Window Camper.
> Fortunately after the adrenaline rush, my experiences racing Porsches
> at Riverside and Willow Glen helped save my bacon. At speeds above 70
> mph, steering could only be described as tacking. Accelerating from
> 70 to pass completely changed the front steering characteristics as
> the front of the bus would rise and seriously capture air nearly
> lifting the front tires. I retired that experiment quickly. Purchased
> a Peugeot 504 Diesel Wagon for the family after being treated to a
> design session at the factory and spending two days watching their
> high speed frontal crash tests. The car was built to transfer as much
> of the net crush energy to the other offending vehicle as physically
> and economically feasible. Superb safety design.
>
> As noted by Martin (Poppie?) Jagersand, the T3 or vanagon is actually
> a very safe design for a forward control vehicle as demonstrated in
> the technical paper on the safety design of the Vanagon in the files
> I have alluded to previously on Alistair's site. Note that the
> figures and the abstract are in English! The VW approach and that of
> the 504 come from the same school of tank design.
>
> Frank Grunthaner
>
| 
