Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:28:45 -0400
Reply-To: Lawrence Johnson <ljohnson@HALHINET.ON.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Lawrence Johnson <ljohnson@HALHINET.ON.CA>
Subject: Vanagon Safety?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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)