John:
I don't have any structural engineering specs on the cars, so my comments
are opinions not fact.
In parking lots with speeds < 5mph the rubber bumpers are going to survive
without damage. That's what they were designed for. In these cases a
chrome bumper car is going to have expensive chrome and sheet metal damage
as the over-riders are forced back into the shell. Been there, done that.
At speeds high enough to be a danger to the occupant I feel the two cars are
comparable with a slight edge to the RBB cars as they have a bit more
reinforcement to the front frame sections. The MGB is a very safe car, as
the shell is very strong and has good crumple zones. In a front impact the
engine assembly will dive down below the tunnel just as in a Volvo, rather
than coming through the firewall and saying hello to you. In a rear
collision the big liability is the fuel tank, and the rubber bumper car may
have a bit of an edge, but it is arguable.
In side impacts, the 1973 on doors are much stronger and have anti-burst
features, definitely an asset.
No matter what the comments about looks, the 1968 on crash dash and
collapsible steering column do make surviving major collisions more likely.
The single most important safety feature no matter what the year are SEAT
BELTS!!!!
Wearing a 3 point seat belt is going to give you the best edge there is.
Rubber or chrome bumper. The inertia reel belts fitted to the late cars are
relatively easy to use and probably make more difference than anything else.
Wearing a lap belt only is a good way to get to find out what windshield
frames taste like.
I worked in a British Sports Car scrapyard for many years and could always
tell who was wearing the belts and who wasn't.
just a thought
Kelvin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zubrovka [mailto:zubrovka@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:55 AM
> To: mgs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Rubber Bumper B
>
>
> Asthetically, the chrome bumper B looks better to me, but I was
> wondering what happens to a chrome bumper B in a BUMP versus the RBB?
> Would the car sustain more damage in a collision than a RBB?
> Are there any stats on that?
> The RBB makes the car a bit heavier, but if it was lowered a bit,
> would it not still be safer than a CBB?
> John
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|