Airbags - only last 10 years ?

Andrew Ratcliffe (Default) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

TV motoring show in "Waste of Space!" shocker...

The message from "Andrew Ratcliffe" contains these words:

Newer than any car I've owned!

Everyone who drives sitting behind one every day is betting his life on it.

Huw

Quite right. All European, Japanese and Korean manufacturers committed to make ABS standard fit on all their cars by something like July 2004. So it is a commitment not a compulsion.

Huw

Huw (hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I have a suspicion that I read somewhere that TVR either didn't answer the phone or had their fingers crossed - and won't be honouring it.

Good for them.

They could well include ABS on their cars but with an 'off' switch such as fitted to my old Audi Quattro of '88. Not to fit it is idiosynchratic at the least. It is, after all, even fitted to my new 'cheap as chips' Fiat Panda. Not having it fitted also means that TVR don't have other driving aids that supplement and are based on abs, like traction control, vehicle stability control and others that can be so useful if only seldomly. They could always be switched off on track days.

Huw

Ian Johnston wrote on 30 Dec 2005 22:46:14 GMT:

Why not? It turns out wikipedia was right, he misread it.

It seems that these days it's cool to slag wikipedia off for no particular reason.

Huw (hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

They *could*, yes...

Absolutely. It is not expensive these days. Volume does that.

Umm, absolutely. I rather think you're missing the point of TVR...

I don't think so. If the point is to have an overly powerful car that corners tail-out on ordianary public roads during ordinary journies then I do not see the point. If however a TVR driver wished to do so when he judged it safe to do so then he could switch it off if it was so fitted, then yes, I would see the point [of the off switch]. However I suspect that the real reason is indeed the cost. Not the cost of the hardware but the cost of setting up the control alogarithms for such low volume cars. Whatever the reason is, you can probably tell that I don't agree with it and would not buy one when there is plenty of choice out there that are not based on stone-age technology and safety systems.

Huw

Choice is good. You don't have to buy one, but the fact that it exists for those who want it is, IMO, a good thing.

Huw (hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Like I said...

David Taylor ( snipped-for-privacy@yadt.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

There's a very good reason.

: Ian Johnston wrote on 30 Dec 2005 22:46:14 GMT: : > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:39:00 UTC, "mrcheerful : > ." : > wrote: : > : > : I looked on wikipedia : > : > Say no more. : : Why not? It turns out wikipedia was right, he misread it. : : It seems that these days it's cool to slag wikipedia off for no particular : reason.

I slag it off because it's a pile of s*it, based on the premise that teenage geeks in their bedrooms are likely to know more than anyone who has ever studied a subject.

Just for fun, I made one edit to a Wikipedia entry once. It was a fairly technical entry on thermodynamics which contained a gross, stupid, ignorant, basic mistake which I would not expect or accept from a first year engineering undergraduate. So I corrected it.

Half an hour later, it had been reverted.

Anyone who uses Wikipedia is simply being too lazy to do real research.

Ian

: Ian Johnston wrote: : > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:11:23 UTC, "Huw" : > wrote: : >

: >> Ian Johnston wrote: : >

: >>> Old Johnston's Motoring Prophecy Number One: This is going to be a : >>> Big Problem. : >

: >> It is only a problem in that regard if the devices do not : >> 'fail-safe' In fact they might not fail at all within the useful : >> life of 99% of cars and then fail-safe with a warning light. : >

: > If the devices do not 'fail-safe' ... might not fail at all ... : >

: > Wanna bet? Wanna bet your life? : >

: >

: : Everyone who drives sitting behind one every day is betting his life on it.

... is betting his life on a new one, not one which has been around beyond its design, inexorably deteriorating.

Ian

But there is absolutely no point in NOT having abs and other aids most of the time. If the driver of a TVR or other performance car wanted to do without it for a specific journey he could switch it off, like is possible with most other such performance cars. Ordinary car journies, even with performance cars, are not undertaken with the intent to test the performance envelope but it is easier to accidentally breach the limit in a performance car. That is when the driver of the car driving innocently towards the sliding TVR would be wishing that it was a Ferrari with all the stability and other aids switched on so it could keep to the correct side.

My point being that the abs and other aids are not there to be tested daily. They are there to help prevent or lower the severity of a serious and unexpected accident, probably a couple of times in the lifetime of the vehicle on average.

Huw

Huw (hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Like I said...

The whole car deteriorates and so does the drivers mind and reaction time as it ages. There is a small but significant chance that even new airbags could deploy for no reason. I believe that there is currently a significant re-call from one manufacturer because of this. Life is never risk free. It is a question of weighing risks up and taking the least risky route through life.

If you think that airbags older than say 10 are unduly risky either because of premature detonation or because of their possible non deployment when needed, then weigh the risks up and act accordingly. You could perhaps just drive newer cars, older cars with no airbags, disable the old airbags or replace them with new ones. I am all for the individual making the choice unless there is significant proof of dangerous and spontaneous malfunctions, in which case some compulsory action would be needed. All through life you make choices on risks whether you know it or not. In this case I would have no hesitation in continuing to drive behind an old airbag but perhaps not expect it to deploy in an accident. If it did deploy then that would be a bonus indeed. In any case I would be no worse off than if the car was not fitted with an SRS airbag in the first place.

Huw

It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history if it cannot compete on equal terms in safety matters. I can only think of one volume model that is of a different and inferior era in safety terms and still in production. That is the Land Rover Defender. Even that can have abs and traction control these days though, but it is not safe enough to be sold in America and it shouldn't be considered to be good enough for us this side of the Pond. Unless we are inferior and less deserving of safer vehicles?

Huw

So why not fit it to a TVR unless your point is that TVR's, their drivers, other road users in the vicinity are expendable and not deserving of safety afforded by my Fiat Panda by default? Even if fitted and enabled in a TVR by default, the driver could actively choose to disable the systems as is done in competitive cars. Some competitors even let the driver choose different levels of electronic intrusion to suit their mood and situation. The only choice given by stone-age-and-stuffy old TVR is to go without or buy something else. Guess why so many buy something else?

I suspect the ones that do buy TVR do not make the choice based on it *not* having driving and safety aids offered by others but buy it just to be different. This is again not a reason for TVR not to offer what is offered by virtually all their competitors.

Huw