borderterrier wrote:

I too love my Defender, but it cannot compete with modern cars in an accident. The only structural integrity it has is within the ladder chassis. This is a simple box section design with no impact absorption, save that of the metal itself. No side impact protection, no airbags, seatbelt pre-tensioners and hard facias are all a recipe for pain if you are unfortunate to be in a Defender during a major impact.

I have had a crash in an MOD Defender several years ago and I was very lucky not to be very seriously injured in the crash. I was hit by a VW Passat, the occupants of which were just shock up and walked away. I spent time in hospital.

Look at this Discovery which is similar in terms of construction to a Defender.

Dont kid yourselves, Defenders cannot compete with modern vehicles for safety.

Ridiculous test that though, people don't walk away from effectively decelerating 80mph-0 instantly, whatever car your in.

Agree airbags etc would be very good and are a ridiculous omission, but if I had to chose between being in my 110 and say a fiesta or something in a crash, know where I'd rather be! You just can't make up for weight in an accident

And in smaller accidents, strength can be better than crumple zones/airbags. Have seen/heard of vehicles crumple zones severing fuel lines, electrically etc and starting fires. But if you really want to be safe, buy an XC90 or a range rover!  Cheers, David
Land Rovers of all shapes S3 onwards… Daily is a 110 V8.

davidwhittaker wrote:

...
Ridiculous test that though, people don't walk away from effectively decelerating 80mph-0 instantly, whatever car your in.

...

Likeomg wrote:

unfortunately David, its not the weight its more the structural arrangements, theres a test video on youtube somewhere which is a old heavy volvo (maybe 240 estate) against a small euro box, about half its weight... in that case id much rather be in the eurobox, the results of that crash test did shock me.


found this, even a defender in the background lol.

A more comparable test; good find.

jimbob7 wrote:

Not so much speed kills but over confidence leading to inappropriate driving, either way, replace the drivers airbag with a steel spike watch the accident rate plummet .

I have a County, with no ABS...certainly makes me think about stopping, especially on slippy roads. There is (IMHO) a case to suggest that safety features provoke less care.

Same using a chainsaw, I'm much more cautious when I don't have proper protective gear on, and a bit less cautious (read scared) when I have the protective kit on... Defender "Puma" 2.4 110 County Utility (possibly the last of the 2.4's)

blackwolf wrote:

Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.

davidwhittaker wrote:

blackwolf wrote:

Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.

No it's exactly like one car doing 80 and hitting the other while stationary.

...

davidwhittaker wrote:

blackwolf wrote:

Where did you get the figure of 80mph from?

Despite the very popular misconception, two cars colliding at 40mph head-on is nothing like the same as one car hitting a solid object at 80mph* and is in reality not significantly different to one car hitting a solid object at 40mph.

*To achieve the 80mph effect one of the two cars would have to end up travelling back the way it came at 40mph.

No it's exactly like one car doing 80 and hitting the other while stationary. The forces exerted are equal to the rate of change of momentum. The only thing that matters is the relative speeds of the objects and the rate at which they slow down. So it would be exactly like hitting a (somewhat squashy) object at 80.

Also I find the 40% overlap thing a bit odd, it's possibly a near worst case scenario. It's removed the effect of having a 'strong' car. Head on a strong car won't crumple up on one side completely as the discovery did, and at a smaller overlap (10-20%) I think the cars would probably deflect one another aside more reducing the force.

But anyway it's kind of irrelevant I guess as every accident is different and the only way to be safe is not to crash. But if I had to chose 110 over a small European hatchback I think I'd still pick my 110 although I don't think anyone would come off ok in a head-on at the speeds above.

For small bumps and prangs I think that a defender is probably fairly good, although there isn't much legroom to lose if the passenger compartment buckles and I really would like an airbag to be honest!

It's all just a reminder to stay safe I guess, and I hope none of us ever know what it's like!

blackwolf wrote:

No, I am sorry but it nothing whatsoever alike.

If in the world of theoretical mechanics you take two identical vehicles both travelling towards each other at 40mph and they hit head on, they will both crumple identically and equally against the theoretical contact plane, exactly as they would if they both ran into opposite side of a wall at the same instant. The deformation of each vehicle will absorb the whole of that vehicle's pre-impact kinetic energy and the decelleration will be from 40mph to stationary over the deformed distance. For each vehicle it makes absolutely no difference if they run into an oncoming identical car with a closing speed of 80mph or a solid indestructible object at 40mph.

Your assertion that this is the same as "decelerating 80mph-0 instantly" is misleading, since firstly it isn't instant (ok it is very rapid) and secondly the only way in the two-car scenario in which that level of decceleration could become involved is if one vehicle retains 100% of its velocity throughout the experience, ie it is travelling at exactly the same speed after the impact as before. For this to happen, despite the deformation occuring to both vehicles as before, the immediate post accident dynamic is that the two crumpled vehicles are now still travelling at 40mph - one hasn't altered, the other has reversed its direction. In the latter vehicle, the oocupants will have experienced the same accellertion as if they hit a wall at 80mph, in the former, the occupants will have experienced no decelleration whatsoever.

However, even in this (technically implausible) case the energy released in the collision will come nowhere close to that of a single vehicle 80mph impact. Remember also that the kinetic energy, being of course the energy which has to be absorbed by deformation and destruction during an accident, is proportional to the square of the velocity. One car travelling at 80mph therefore has far more kinetic energy than two cars each travelling at 40mph do. A single car at 80mph hitting a stationary identical car will introduce something like twice as much energy into the accident as two cars hitting at 40mph will do.

Of course in reality the whole matter is academic.

As this thread states there can be no doubt that the Defender is a worse place to be in the event of a serious accident than many other vehicles. The best approach is to drive well, defensively and with good anticipation, and avoid accidents. Defenders generally have a good accident record despite being "unsafe", perhaps this is because the drivers are aware of the lack of crash protection and therefore drive in a manner to minimise the likelihood of being involved in an accident.

It can be demonstrated that as cars become "safer", drivers take more risks and the standard of driving worsens. Ultimately the cause of nearly all accidents is inept driving, and nothing else. Although (sadly) and absurd idea which no-one woudl seriously propose, fitting a sharp prong instead of a driver's airbag would undoubtedly be the single most effective safety improvement as far as driving standards are concerned - if you know you will certainly die in the event of an accident, you will take great care to avoid having one.

Naks wrote:

Read this harrowing recollection of someone seeing his loved ones die in an accident: http://4x4community.co.za/forum/showthread.php?t=164459