Be interesting; clearly various car manufacturers would have done all manner
of experimental research and some have clearly been pro-active in preparing
for ground swell of public opinion that the politicians feed on in their
support for safety and emissions legislation in their cars.
You are testing me now but it was actually USA and Australia that introduced
legal requirements for “crash protection” design with an FMVSS and ADR
design rule respectively that replicated a manikin in the drivers seat
surviving a full-on frontal crash (by way of measurements of deceleration at
various points on manikin body designed to replicate fatal injuries) It
was this type of legislation that required “progressive crumple” type
thinking to absorb more uniformly the crash forces, so that the manikin
would survive the crash. The first Jaguar that was designed for these
regulations was the XJ40.
England and Europe had no similar regulations until some years later, and
claimed a superior test of an “offset-front crash” however clearly Jaguar
needed to comply with all regulations required by USA, their main export
market, well before any need within UK, so everyone benefitted.
Clearly their would have been a long lead time (5 to 10 years) before the US
and Australian legislation would have been required, and I can imagine
Jaguar experimenting with early model XJs, but doubt very much they would
have bothered with an irrelevant (to such legislation) Mark 10
The well known pictures of an E-Type being crashed at MIRA (for example)
would have been to test for the first level occupant protection requirement
of steering column intrusion, where a full-frontal crash had to ensure that
the steering column didn’t “kill” a manikin, and this was generally achieved
by steering column design (collapsible columns) and the geometry of the
steering columns movement in the event of a crash.
You can imagine an ex-XK120 owner deciding there was a need for some
legislation along these lines, although XK120 was by no means the worst in
this respect.
What many people today do not realise is that in 1980s/90s these standards
were achieved by clever design of the strength and progressive deformation
of a car absorbing energy in a controlled way - almost (but not really)
PRIMARY safety, but some manufacturers struggled, so they achieved the
desired end result by adding Air-Bags to compensate for inadequacies in
their structure. The prestige brands generally far exceed requirements by
having well designed structures AND air-bags, the lesser brands do not,
which is a bit of a worry when you realise all AIRBAGS worldwide have a 10
year design/regulation life. A 1993/94 XJ40 will now have AIRBAGS
out-of-their design life, but still has a sound crashworthy structure.
(hands up all those people who religiously fit new air-bags when their car
became 10 years old - the legislators world wide are not politically game to
enforce mandatory replacement of air-bags when car reaches 10 years old).
A lesser brand (and I won’t name the many names) made in 1999 (for instance)
will now have airbags outside their design life/performance and will not
have a basically sound structure back-up capable of providing the legislated
crash worthiness.
Its all relative of course, not black and white, and no one on this list
driving an XK (or other classic car for that matter) are statistically
significant re what this legislation is trying to achieve - improved safety
standards for the masses.
I make all above comments after being Australia’s Principal Engineer
regarding certification of Vehicle Safety and Emission standards which is an
interesting anomaly for someone who drives classic cars - but I wasn’t the
only one amongst by professional peers. I guess we figured we were not
“one of the masses”
Roger Payne - XK140MC OTS; E-Type 4.2 S.1 OTS; DSV8.
Canberra.-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xk@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-xk@jag-lovers.org] On Behalf Of
Ken Green
Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2009 5:05 AM
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [xk] Mk 10 Monocoque
In reply to a message from Roger Payne sent Tue 3 Feb 2009:
Hi Roger,
I’m sorry, I can’t remember where I read it. I remember
reading something about a British manufacture modifying
their car so that it would crumple more sometime back in the
sixties and I thought it was the Mk10, but it’s not
impossible I’m wrong. When I get back to the UK I’ll have a
look and see if it was anywhere obvious.
From your comment I will take it that it was not done for
legal reason, so instead must have been done because it was
felt to be a good thing to do.
I’ll let you all know. I’m back in the UK next week, but
will be busy getting the XK sorted to go into the shop for
an engine swap.
Cheers
Ken
–
The original message included these comments:
Must be some old-wives tale, as it has no substance.
Mark 10/420G pre-date any regulations worldwide that were concerned about
occupant protection that developed progressive deformation considerations.
–
Ken XK150 FHC S824252, see her on xkdata + X300 3.2 Sport
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
I buckle up as soon as I hear
Am I safe?
of that name.