I was chatting with my buddy about how modern cars sacrifice their lives to protect the passengers using crumple zones. Modern cars will smoosh up to absorb the energy of the impact to protect the people inside. However, sometimes relatively minor collisions can completely disable a automobile. There was a big discussion on another forum when the new Wrangler came out and one was totalled in a 20 mph crash.
So while it's super safe for people inside, it's not great for EOTWAWKI or even emergency situations. If you are trying to escape a mob or a tornado or lava flow or whatever, you don't want your vehicle down because you had to run over a sign post or a small tree or fence post or whatever. Which led us to ponder- what were the last vehicles that were manufactured without crumple zones? Even though I'm a car enthusiast and a prepper, I didn't know the answer.
I do know that I had a 1991 Wrangler that was hit by a mid 2000's Rav 4 (or maybe CRV). The other vehicle was totally smashed and had to be towed away, while I finished my commute to work and never ended up fixing the damage. My frame bent a bit and made my doors sticky, but it was an old Jeep and not worth putting that insurance check into it to bend the frame back. As mentioned, modern Wranglers certainly aren't that durable, but I don't know when they, or any other car for that matter, changed.
Any input is appreciated!
Every Yugo, motorcycle and motor scooter lacks a crumple zone... :clownshoes:
I do remember when all of the sudden in the 1980's that car safety, (side impact zones, crumple zones and such) suddenly became a mass selling tool. Prior to this Volvo was the main company using safety as a sales tool.
Crumple zones have been around since the 1950's. I am not sure any passenger vehicle made for sale in the US lacks crumple zones. If you look at cars made in and for 3rd world countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano) you will find some there.
I figured this topic would have been discussed on other forums or something, but literally nothing. I can say that my grandpas 85 f150 has none. So if you're looking for a vehicle to use as a BOV that would probably be a good one.
Mahindra Roxor?
They're not necessarily street legal (varies by state), but they're basically an old Jeep with a 4-cylinder diesel and very low gearing.
Over here it was the Land Rover Defender. A basic body-on-frame design that can be traced back to 1948. They were only allowed to keep making and selling them because they were a legacy design from before safety standards were a thing ;D
Sadly discontinued in 2016, although ex-mil ones still trickle onto the market (for silly prices; they were about £4k but now it's more like £14k!).
Quote from: sheddi on June 30, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Over here it was the Land Rover Defender. A basic body-on-frame design that can be traced back to 1948. They were only allowed to keep making and selling them because they were a legacy design from before safety standards were a thing ;D
Sadly discontinued in 2016, although ex-mil ones still trickle onto the market (for silly prices; they were about £4k but now it's more like £14k!).
Sounds like old Willys jeeps over here. When I was a kid you could buy 'em for a couple thousand or so, now they're dear as gold.
1997 F250 vs 2018 Audi Q4 didn't turn out well for the Audi... I got a new bumper and pulled out the front fender.
Quote from: sheddi on June 30, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Over here it was the Land Rover Defender. A basic body-on-frame design that can be traced back to 1948. They were only allowed to keep making and selling them because they were a legacy design from before safety standards were a thing ;D
Sadly discontinued in 2016, although ex-mil ones still trickle onto the market (for silly prices; they were about £4k but now it's more like £14k!).
Yeah, those Defenders have never been cheaper than $25k in the US for a used one and now the cheapest one is more like $40k. They stopped selling them long ago here and the demand has always exceeded the supply on the used market.
Thanks for the input so far! I may have to start searching individual truck forums to see what changes were made to the frame when.
:I do know that the last body on frame car was the 2012 Ford Crown victoria if that helps.
Quote from: sheddi on June 30, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Over here it was the Land Rover Defender. A basic body-on-frame design that can be traced back to 1948. They were only allowed to keep making and selling them because they were a legacy design from before safety standards were a thing ;D
Sadly discontinued in 2016, although ex-mil ones still trickle onto the market (for silly prices; they were about £4k but now it's more like £14k!).
Beat me to this answer. A sad day, I've been able to drive Defenders but not own one and I think that is just the way it might be :(
Quote from: boskone on June 30, 2021, 03:33:11 PM
Mahindra Roxor?
They're not necessarily street legal (varies by state), but they're basically an old Jeep with a 4-cylinder diesel and very low gearing.
Wow I was just looking at the web site for this vehicle. (https://www.roxoroffroad.com/)
Those are neat.
This may be the answer I was looking for on my farm.
I have been looking for a replacement for an old Polaris side by side that is too costly and old to warrant repair; the cost of new one is silly for what I get. I want a work vehicle not a toy.
This looks more durable and cheaper than an old 4x4 PU truck. A 15 year old 4x4 with 150,000 miles on it is likely more than the Roxor is new.
In my area I cannot use it on the dirt roads (a.k.a."streets") in my area, but honestly I would not be comfortable driving it on the road anyway for obvious reasons. However it can tow a trailer and can be used it to bring a utility trailer to the road if necessary. That who cares if it get dirty and beat up as long as it runs.
Back to the OP's question in a PAW a vehicle like this likely to be more useful
https://www.atvtrader.com/listing/2018-Mahindra-RETRIEVER-5016941777
This uses a 750cc Kohler engine. The engine is a simple air cooled 25 hp engine. It is simple to work on and easy to replace. The key problem with my ATV is the transmission.
https://kohlerpower.com/en/engines/product/command-pro-ch750
This may be more practical assuming you could import it. A Mahindra Bolero
https://www.mahindratruckandbus.com/light-commercial-vehicles/jayo/jayo-tipper-specification.aspx
(https://www.mahindraboleropickup.com/images/bolerocamper/gallery/bolero_camper_style.jpg)
Quote from: Raptor on June 30, 2021, 02:41:08 PM
Every Yugo, motorcycle and motor scooter lacks a crumple zone... :clownshoes:
Sometimes the driver
is the crumple zone.
Quote from: NT2C on July 01, 2021, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: Raptor on June 30, 2021, 02:41:08 PM
Every Yugo, motorcycle and motor scooter lacks a crumple zone... :clownshoes:
Sometimes the driver is the crumple zone.
Yep...Now in the case of the Yugo the lack of a crumple zone would not be problem...unless it was rolling down hill.
Quote from: Raptor on July 01, 2021, 11:50:27 AM
In my area I cannot use it on the dirt roads (a.k.a."streets") in my area, but honestly I would not be comfortable driving it on the road anyway for obvious reasons.
I don't know if your area has a similar law, but in TX UTVs can be used on-road for agricultural purposes if within--IIRC--25 miles.
They wouldn't be my first choice for a road vehicle without some additions, but if home->farm is within that range I think the cost of lights and mirrors might be worthwhile.
Quote from: Raptor on July 01, 2021, 01:46:57 PM
Quote from: NT2C on July 01, 2021, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: Raptor on June 30, 2021, 02:41:08 PM
Every Yugo, motorcycle and motor scooter lacks a crumple zone... :clownshoes:
Sometimes the driver is the crumple zone.
Yep...Now in the case of the Yugo the lack of a crumple zone would not be problem...unless it was rolling down hill.
The last Yugo I saw ( bout five years back ) on the street. The hood, one front fender and opposite side door had been replaced with chain link fence
I know someone that has a gremlin in excellent condition they'd take offers on. :clownshoes:
Yeah, I agree a modern side by side, like a Roxor or Honda Pioneer, would be an ideal PAW vehicle. Lots of suspension travel for unmaintained roadways, easy to get in and out, easy to repair, smaller to fit through places a full size vehicle would not.
For this thread I was more thinking of a daily commuter that can escape a riot without getting disabled. I mean, the obvious choice is the right motorcycle, but pondering what 4 wheeled vehicle can jump a curb and go over a couple parking meters without being damaged enough to render inoperable if that is the only path to safety. Not that it's terribly likely to happen, but it's an interesting mental exercise. It led me to read a lot about truck frames, in which I learned modern mid size trucks have crumple zones in the rear of their frames and often get bent in relatively minor rear end accidents. Keeps the occupants safer for sure, but leaves them without a working vehicle.
FYI, Mahindra sells a street legal version of the Roxor with some added safety equipment. It's a couple grand more than the base model Roxor, though.
And the Roxor can be made street legal in some states. All it takes is adding things like turn signals and other little bits.
Oh? Last I'd heard they were UTVs and never street legal. That's interesting.
Quote from: PistolPete on July 02, 2021, 10:58:43 AM
For this thread I was more thinking of a daily commuter that can escape a riot without getting disabled. I mean, the obvious choice is the right motorcycle, but pondering what 4 wheeled vehicle can jump a curb and go over a couple parking meters without being damaged enough to render inoperable if that is the only path to safety. Not that it's terribly likely to happen, but it's an interesting mental exercise. It led me to read a lot about truck frames, in which I learned modern mid size trucks have crumple zones in the rear of their frames and often get bent in relatively minor rear end accidents. Keeps the occupants safer for sure, but leaves them without a working vehicle.
For this I think a low profile (read not fancy) white Ford (or Chevy) work truck like an Ford XL with appropriate front "brush guard" and skid plate/oil pan shield would be ideal. It would not attract attention you could attach some made up magnetic signs to the doors with a fictitious company logo on it to further blend into a situation. A dirty white truck with a "Fred & Ethel's Portapotti & Sewer Cleaning" sign on it will not be a target for anyone. Paint the front guard and skid plate gray to blend in better or put a sign on it and it will not look out of place. A 4X4 is not necessary to climb over curbs but maybe lift it up just a bit to get more ground clearance. The ground clearance is what you want in a urban setting.
Another alternative may be a small SUV with the push bars mounted to the frame. I would also suggest a Crown Victoria with the same treatment but it would stand out like a sore thumb.
One final point. Driving in a car is likely the most dangerous thing most of us will do (statistically speaking). One thing to consider is vehicles without crumple zones are inherently less safe to occupants than those with crumple zones. If you are using this vehicle daily as opposed to only during a "crisis" then you may actually be increasing your risk to car accidents by seeking to have a good urban issues vehicle.
My $.02
Truthfully, situations like this are one of the reasons I bought our Jeep and went with the particular model that I did. It has some additional shielding underneath to protect the oil pan, transmission, etc. Add the full-time 4x4 and the air suspension and it's more than capable of taking a detour off the highway or down a sidewalk (and oddly enough, wouldn't be my first time as I've done it quite a bit driving ambulances). I would like to beef up the front a bit though. There are some nice bits of armor that can be added to really mitigate the potential for damage off-roading. I just don't have the $$$ to do them at the moment. A cutoff for the airbag system is also something I'd like to add.
Quote from: Raptor on July 02, 2021, 12:14:19 PM
One final point. Driving in a car is likely the most dangerous thing most of us will do (statistically speaking). One thing to consider is vehicles without crumple zones are inherently less safe to occupants than those with crumple zones. If you are using this vehicle daily as opposed to only during a "crisis" then you may actually be increasing your risk to car accidents by seeking to have a good urban issues vehicle.
My $.02
Yeah, what started the conversation with my friend was me installing a light bar / brush guard on my Subaru. I mentioned the mounting plates certainly added some structure to the front end and we started chatting about durable cars currently made. Would I use it to push another car? Nope. Would it make my car driveable after a 15 mph collision where the old threshold was 14 mph? Maybe. Same goes for the trailer hitch, it connects to 6 points on the unibody and adds some structure where it may help distribute forces in an impact. Will it be enough to matter? Maybe. Maybe not.
The light bar and trailer hitch do give me hard mounting points to tie off my canoe though, which is the main reason I installed the light bar- to save the paint on my hood when I carry a canoe. If it offers even a tiny bit of structure integrity that's a bonus.
And agreed. Driving a car is one of the most dangerous thing most people do, outside of eating bad food and sitting on the couch too much. However, since I commute 40 - 50% on a motorcycle, that's my most dangerous activity by a long shot, so if my car isn't as crash worthy as it once was it still pales in comparison to the danger of being on a bike. Last I saw a person is 18x more likely to be seriously injured or die in a serious traffic accident on a motorcycle vs a car.
But hey- if not for us there wouldn't be any organ donors at all anymore in the US. :)
But yeah, making a vehicle more durable will certainly result in lower crash worthiness. In most times that's a bad tradeoff, I agree. That doesn't mean I won't do it one day though, lol.
I did do a deep dive into truck frames after I posted this and it seems modern mid size trucks, especially Chevy, Jeep and Toyota, have crumple zones built into the frames in the rear. Even a minor rear end collision can bend the frame rather substantially. Full size trucks, the Ranger and the Frontier don't seem to have those problems. Of course, that means in the Ranger and Frontier you may be more at risk for whiplash from a minor rear end accident.
Also, the whole "C Shape vs Fully Boxed" argument seems to come down entirely to what type of steel is used. The steel used by Ford in the modern F150 has more flex than the fully boxed frames used by Chevy and Dodge, but that actually makes for better crash results, both minor and major, since the flexing can absorb energy. In NHTSA crash tests, both Dodge and Chevy had deformation to the rear part of the frame during a front end collision, where the Ford appeared to flex and come back to the original shape.
But overall, it comes down to mass. A car that weighs 1,800 lbs needs more crumple zones than one that weighs 6,000 lbs, for reasons of math. So the heavier vehicles don't need as much crash absorption because the weight alone absorbs more energy. Of course, extra mass = garbage gas mileage, so there is always a trade off. It seems the best course when trying to escape a mob is to drive an Expedition with an upgraded bumper backwards over obstacles, which should keep the air bags from deploying and disabling the ignition.
Quote from: PistolPete on July 02, 2021, 03:12:46 PM
Driving a car is one of the most dangerous thing most people do, outside of eating bad food and sitting on the couch too much. However, since I commute 40 - 50% on a motorcycle, that's my most dangerous activity by a long shot, so if my car isn't as crash worthy as it once was it still pales in comparison to the danger of being on a bike. Last I saw a person is 18x more likely to be seriously injured or die in a serious traffic accident on a motorcycle vs a car.
Not sure what the stats are in the US but here in the UK, riding a motorcycle is the only common means of transport more dangerous than walking.
From this link (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448037/road-fatalities-2013-data.pdf):
Quote from: UK Govt reportPer billion vehicle miles travelled, the greatest risk of death is for motorcyclists. This group accounts for less than 1 per cent of traffic but 19 per cent of fatalities. The risk of death for a motorcyclist is at least 57 times than that for a car occupant.
Quote from: boskone on July 02, 2021, 11:50:49 AM
Oh? Last I'd heard they were UTVs and never street legal. That's interesting.
I actually looked the Roxor up when I saw a commercial and apparently Mahindra sells two versions of it.
Or at least they did at one point. Mahindra may have ceased production of the street legal model.
Well, right now they sell no versions in the US. :)
They're re-dressing it after a dust-up with Jeep, which I find a bit annoying as modern jeeps aren't anything to write home about: complex and expensive.
Well, that explains why the local Indian Motorcycle dealership hasn't had any on their lot in awhile.
I had figured they just stopped selling them to focus more on the Polaris UTVs they sold alongside the Roxors.
From what little research I did on the old FJ series landcruisers, it sounds like Jeep has gone after everybody that licensed the old willy's jeep from the army and kept evolving it from there. I didn't research enough to figure out what their legal argument was. I'm not really a car person.