Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:01:16 -0700
Reply-To: marcus <marcus46@FREEWWWEB.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: marcus <marcus46@FREEWWWEB.COM>
Subject: Re: Vanagon Safety?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Good post Larry although I don't understand 100% I get your point.And I would add to
the person trying to convince his wife.Check out a few junk yards with Vanagons most
of them are there because engine and trans problems the po didn't understand or just
couldn't afford the repairs. Marcus
Lawrence Johnson wrote:
> Listees,
> I have recently been reluctant to open any discussion for fear of where it will
> lead. I don't like flaming and I don't want to start any. On the other hand,
> this list is for discussing our Vanagons and that is what I want to do. To me,
> safety is VERY important. I and my wife have spent the past 15 years
> participating and giving advanced driving courses where our main concern is
> accident avoidance (all be it in Saabs but the crossover applies).
>
> So let's keep it clean and stick to the subject: SAFETY. Here are some of my
> personal opinions which I put forward only to start the discussion: don't attack
> me, attack the ideas.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Is the Vanagon a safe vehicle? What makes a safe vehicle?
>
> 1) relative weight - actually relative momentum (momentum = mass times
> velocity). On the average, the heavy Vanagon wins and suffers relatively less
> damage. If the occupants are fastened in with SEAT BELTS then they share in this
> momentum. If they are not seat belted, then they are on their own, literally.
> They have their own momentum and suffer the consequences of being the lightest
> objects flying around in a collision.
>
> 2) braking and steering. If you see it coming and have a chance to do something,
> then steering, braking and tire adhesion are most important. The Vanagon has
> relatively poor brakes for its weight. The steering is responsive but the high
> momentum tends to keep the Vanagon going in a straight line; it's reluctant to
> make crisp maneuvers. The better the tires, the better the adhesion and the
> better the grip in braking and steering. For those of you opting for larger
> diameter tires, not only to you lose torque while accelerating but you also lose
> torque while braking. The larger the tire diameter, the longer distance it takes
> to come to a standstill. So the Vanagon is not so great at avoiding collisions.
> The correct maneuver is to SLOW DOWN. Remember that the impact energy is
> proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. A collision at 65 mph is 40% more
> destructive than 55 mph.
>
> 3) structural integrity - the Vanagon is built like a tank. This is one solid
> vehicle. The syncro, having a front differential and half shafts, is more
> structurally sound that 2wd Vanagons. In a collision, you are not likely to get
> injured from the body collapsing inward.
>
> 4) structural design - controlled impact energy absorption. The Vanagon was
> designed before the perfection of the beer can. They didn't plan on collapsing,
> not much anyway. This is a tank, remember. The driver and front passenger sit
> above the axle and have relative safety from side impacts. Front impacts are
> another thing: being above the height of most cars means that your legs get it
> and your more vital parts don't; having no engine compartment in front mean that
> the initial, most violent part of the collision is closer. The testimony of
> those who have been through a collision is that this last, most scary, part is
> not as important and instinct would suggest.
>
> 5) active restraints - air bags, tensioning seat belts, reactive head
> restraints. Nada. IMHO: I'll drop the air bags, take the tensioning seat belts
> and hold off on the reactive head restraints until I have some real evidence.
>
> 6) traction control, ABS and such. Nada. IMHO: traction control is great if done
> well (e.g. Mercedes) but both traction control and ABS can't beat a good
> attentive driver (but who's all that attentive all of the time).
>
> In summary, my wife and I drive our syncro Westfalia at a sightseer's pace and
> enjoy relative safety and comfort. When we drive our MR2 turbo we face the
> opposite set of parameters: it's light weight (relatively), very maneuverable,
> excellent tires/steering/stopping, has ABS (no air bags) but it's never driven
> at a sightseer's pace and it's not all that comfortable. Which is safer? I can't
> make a call. As mentioned before, the Volvo is a good compromise in all of these
> categories and is a very safe vehicle. I think the Volvo it probably safer that
> either our Westfalia or MR2.
>
> Larry
> '86 Syncro Westfalia
> '91 Toyota MR2 Turbo
> '86 Subaru GL
> '80 Saab 99 GL (sold)
> '86 cat (came with the Subaru)
| 
