Under-bonnet spare wheel carrier

[d_harris]

Hate to say it, but I think he is right.

Then again, I think if you have an accident that forceful in minor you have probabally had it anyway

[jonathon]

He is right and I having seen moggies that have had low speed frontal impacts (upto 30mph) the forces and destruction can be huge. I'd seriously urge Alex and anyone else who have done this mod to re consider.

[MarkyB]

Just restating your opinion and adding simples to the end doesn't mean it's any more valid.
That's why they actually crash cars to test their crash worthiness.
For all we know having the spare there could improve things.
At least it has some shock absorbing qualities unlike most other things under the bonnet, except the radiator.

[linearaudio]

Well said, Marky. As I commented, there is a LARGE chunk of engine to compress first. The sort of impact which centres significantly above bumper height is the going under the back of a 10 ton truck type, in which case you would probably be glad of a swift end!!
But there's nothing like being an alarmist!!
Our school has put the fear of God up all the primary children with a letter about the imminent end of the world, ie what will happen WHEN swine flu gets them! Scaremongering at its best

[jonathon]

Lets just ask the question, if Ford or any other car manufacturer fitted an aftermarket modification with no research and development, which added a 20kilo plus weight to a bonnet using nothing but a few bent pieces of thin steel, a hinge ,garden shed slide bolt and a piece of wood with a rubber bung fitted, would you not be up in arms or at least a tad concerned about the wisdom behind it.
You have to look beyond the idea, and into its design, manufacture, and siutability with regard to the cars structure and basic safety.
I'm afraid that with 20 years of experience in this trade and seeing what actually happens to a Minor in a crash, that I hear warning bells. Alarmist and scaremongering are not the words I'd use ,rather caution and good,suitable design.

[bmcecosse]

The engine and box will slide backwards through the 'tunnel' - more or less avoiding the driver and passenger - there is little to restrain it. That wheel will be in the firing line - there is no 'compressible' structure in the Minor's front wings etc - they will fold up like paper. If the wheel was properly restrained it could indeed be a useful 'buffer' as was done in Hillman Imp/VW etc where the wheel is lower down and fixed in place.

[rayofleamington]

I'm afraid that with 20 years of experience in this trade and seeing what actually happens to a Minor in a crash, that I hear warning bells. Alarmist and scaremongering are not the words I'd use ,rather caution and good,suitable design.

Having been in 2 crashes this past year I'd have no concerns about an underbonnet spare.
In both cases the crumple zones were pointless as the useful structure went under the rear of the car in front.
In both cases the car was only stopped when the front edge of the bonnet (and other bodywork) crumpled up to the engine. Both had banged hard enough to break engine mounts.
Anything behind the front of the engine was untouched (except for Margaret who got a neck injury and 2 broken ribs and a black/blue sealtbelt impression - and I was on my own in the other crash.)
If you're worried about Minor crash protection - the steel bar in the parcel shelf breaks legs and if you've not got a seatbelt on the steering column will harpoon you. If you're wearing a belt you'll probably walk or limp away without serious injuries - unless you're carrying something heavy (or passengers) in the rear that's not strapped down in which case life insurance can be useful.

[jonathon]

Were your accidents in moderns Ray as the Minor has no crumple zones except for the occupants. A slight frontal impact will push the front panel and bonnet rearwards snapping the hinges and allowing the bonnet to ride up over the bulkhead. Add into the equation a 20 plus kilo weight, flying through this apperture having sheared the mallet location point and you have a reciepe for disaster.
Best leave it as an open verdict on this matter then,as it seems that bodging is more acceptable to some that an engineering approach.

[callyspoy]

simplest conclusion...try not to crash. i mean, it's not "that" hard right??

okay i admit that was neither big nor clever. but still...

[jonathon]

Well Ray seems to be a master of the art of crashing

[ASL642]

If this thread continues we'll scare any new members we attract away (and ourselves). The moggies will be left in the garages and everyone will take the bus!

[jonathon]

Agreed , but its no worse than talking about using wrong stud PCD's, suspension mods that split the boot floor, or the quality of panels and trim. I'll say no more on this topic if you think I being pessimistic.

[ASL642]

[linearaudio]

Agreed , but its no worse than talking about........... the quality of panels and trim. I'll say no more on this topic if you think I being pessimistic.

Another quality issue "springs" to my mind, Jonathon Scarey that I've been driving on the rear bumpstops for the last couple of days and not noticed the difference!

I can appreciate both sides of this spare wheel argument, and am standing down!

Oh- you could really wind things up a notch by mentioning the adviability or not of fitting the big W brakes! Good night

[MarkyB]

I have to agree with regaliaqueen. Speculating about what will happen in the event of an accident isn't a very pleasant or fruitful topic.

[rayofleamington]

Were your accidents in moderns Ray as the Minor has no crumple zones except for the occupants.

Thankfully that's not the case! The Minor structure was not designed with crumple zones in mind however it performs very well! The designers were concentrating on shell stiffness and did a great job but without modern FEA packages. In the late 70's cars actually got worse as they became more stiff, and in the 80's the idea of 'crumple zones' became a marketing term, when it became widely known that stiff cars could hurt the occupants more than soft ones.

There is an awul lot of miss information regading crash protection. The standard crash tests are still made into non deformable concrete structures. In reality cars usually crash into each other sometimes giving a very different result. I knew a guy who was an ambulance driver from the 60's to the 80's and they came across the reality, which differs from the test results.

My 2 crashes were in 90's cars. Both had crumple zones and in both cases the crumple zones were untouched as the bodywork above the bumper is relatively soft as butter, allowing the car to have a heavy impact as soon as the upper bodywork crumples back to something hard (engine), rather than a progressive (milder) impact.

Compared to a 90's car the Minor is probably just as well protected. Cars with a high Euro NCAP rating should be much better, however even now there are misleading results - for example the smart For2 gets a good result (e.g. doors open normally after a heavy front impact) but the G-level for occupants is absolutely massive compared to many lower rated cars (i.e. the occupants are not likely to walk away)

[ssnjimb]

iam not putting my spare wheel under the bonnet.

Spare wheels are best left in the boot.