Don't Crash Your Rover 100/ Metro @ 40mph....

[0ldCh0d]

If this thread needs moved by mods, feel free to do so, Because i was not sure where to post it.

 

Anyway...Here is an interesting article about the NCAP crash protection thing, it is 20 years old now., & the advancement in car safety since 1997...

 

I knew the Rover 100 was shit at the time it was first crashed in a NCAP test......But seeing it now....HOLY SHIT!! 

 

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/car-safety-scheme-hailed-success-12543576

 

 

 

 

A 1997 Rover 100 is crash tested at Thatcham Research in Berskshire, to mark 20 Years of the official crash test facility

[Guest Hooli]

I once hit a tree sideways at 25-30mph in a '83 Metro. The impact was right on the side of the bulkhead, it moved the steering column 3" left!

[MarvinsMom]

hmm, its not just the metro that has "interesting" crash test results....

 

behold, the VW crew cab, just don't tell them dub-likkas!

 

https://youtu.be/TPpU5azjCB8?t=13

 

 

a search of you tube finds all sorts of gems like this. usually involvoing some old vehicle some, many or more of us would like to own.

 

in that case, it would be best to avoid having a crash!

[Supernaut]

hmm, its not just the metro that has "interesting" crash test results....

 

behold, the VW crew cab, just don't tell them dub-likkas!

 

https://youtu.be/TPpU5azjCB8?t=13

 

I've seen that video before. I thought it was a Chinese knock off of a VW crew cab, and it was fully laden.

 

I could be mistaken though.

[0ldCh0d]

hmm, its not just the metro that has "interesting" crash test results....

 

behold, the VW crew cab, just don't tell them dub-likkas!

 

https://youtu.be/TPpU5azjCB8?t=13

 

 

a search of you tube finds all sorts of gems like this. usually involvoing some old vehicle some, many or more of us would like to own.

 

in that case, it would be best to avoid having a crash!

 

Offfft......That is scary....

[D Spares & Tyres]

That VW was fully laden with concrete, not to test the truck but the facilities themselves.

 

As for Metros, you should of seen `Metro bangers` back in the day. 20 or so Metros on the oval. I`m amazed nobody died

[smellypoo]

I don't think the Rover 100 was that much different under the skin to the original Metro... 

 

It was pretty much the bottom of it's class in '97 for crash safety anyway, wasn't it? A fairer comparison would have been something equivalent that was 'new' in '97 such as a Citroen Saxo (although it could be argued that the 106 underpinnings are still earlier than that) or a Seat Arosa.

[Rusty_Rocket]

 

The Metro 'anniversary' crash. Another example of Rover/ Austin/ BL junk that stayed in production too long.

 

[MarvinsMom]

I don't think the Rover 100 was that much different under the skin to the original Metro... 

 

It was pretty much the bottom of it's class in '97 for crash safety anyway, wasn't it? A fairer comparison would have been something equivalent that was 'new' in '97 such as a Citroen Saxo (although it could be argued that the 106 underpinnings are still earlier than that) or a Seat Arosa.

as i understand it, the Rover Metro from the windscreen back is pretty close to identical to the original Austin Metro,

 

and shock-horror- a car designed in 1975 did poorly in a 1997 spec crash test!

 

in its development the car was crashed head on into a concrete block at 30mph, that crash test is an offset crash at 45mph, so no wonder that the car did poorly.

 

as memory serves, the Citroen AX and the Fiat Cinquecento also did badly, and they were both much, much younger cars. the fiat had even been designed with the offset crash test in mind!

[garethj]

Offset crash test didn't exist when that car was designed so no surprise it did badly.  In other exciting news, my bakelite telephone doesn't send text messages and my 1997 fridge doesn't Bluetooth with my heating system.

 

Also, today's cars with a million NCAP stars won't pass the crash tests in 2025 and people will look back at you with a mixture of pity and horror that you put your family in such appalling danger.

[Rusty_Rocket]

Exactly- the Metro should have been redesigned in the mid 80s..

[AlabamaShrimp]

What a load of utter bollocks

 

"old car squashes to shit when it hits something really hard!" fuck me I bet it took Sherlock himself to work that one out.

 

To say car safety is getting better is only partly true. Cars are getting better at the crash tests as they have those in mind when designing it. But the world isn't a crash test.....

[0ldCh0d]

I am not knocking the Metro, It was just how far car crash safety has come since 1997 that is all.

[DodgyBastard]

ALL OLD CARS ARE SHIT!

[Tamworthbay]

Why do I feel some people spell pistonheads A U T O S H I T E, what other possible explanation could there be for some posts.

[Cleon-Fonte]

To be honest I reckon plenty of chod ten or twenty years older would probably fare much worse than a 100 if it came to it, so the thread title should really be 'Don't crash virtually anything on this forum @ 40mph'.

[DSdriver]

ALL OLD CARS ARE SHIT!

No, old cars are so good that they don't need MOTs any more

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I am not knocking the Metro, It was just how far car crash safety has come since 1997 that is all.

 

 

Indeed, and it's worth remembering how weak a lot of these cars are. Imagine a typical Metro (or similar) that's been welded up from arsehole to breakfast time doing that same test. After all, that amount of damage could be caused by some speeding youth in a financed up 1 Series. He's got whiplash, you're in a pine box.

[Rusty_Rocket]

Tamworth, if you disagree with any of my comments, please let me know. The fact is, the Metro was produced until, what 1997? So if you compare it to another late 90s supermini like the Corsa or Clio etc, I'm sure you'll understand that these cars were seriously lacking at this point.

 

Mind you, they were cheap by then. I had three.

[Richard]

To be honest I reckon plenty of chod ten or twenty years older would probably fare much worse than a 100 if it came to it, so the thread title should really be 'Don't crash virtually anything on this forum @ 40mph'.

Best to try not to crash at any speed in anything really, that never seems to be suggested as an option.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Tamworth, if you disagree with any of my comments, please let me know. The fact is, the Metro was produced until, what 1997? So if you compare it to another late 90s supermini like the Corsa or Clio etc, I'm sure you'll understand that these cars were seriously lacking at this point.

 

Mind you, they were cheap by then. I had three.

 

 

When I think of the average speed I set in a 1981 998 Metro from Swindon to Trowbridge back in the eighties..................

 

SLO172W was anything but slo on that trip.

[Guest Hooli]

Biggest safety feature on newer cars has nothing to do with crash protection - it's comedy sized tyres so you can stop a lot quicker when needed.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

....and ABS, and airbags, side impact bars..........

[They_all_do_that_sir]

Lots of us ride motorcycles, it would be interesting to see a video of a bike being put through the same tests as the car!!

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

[Bren]

Poor NCAP performance is what did for the metro / 100 in the end.

 

All cars have strengths and weaknesses - in a 30 mph frontal impact a Rover Sd1 will have doors that still open. However, side on they have little protection.

[Bag'O'Spanners]

My sunny, rather gormless outlook is... If you enjoy driving it, enjoy it. If you are worried about your bum hole becoming part of your face, don't drive it. 

 

Older cars are downright scary if you look around 'em properly, I don't look if I like them. Motorbikes have far less protection and we still ride them with big stupid grins don't we?

[LostnotFound]

Crash testing is interesting and yes I agree cars are now designed to pass the tests but for all its faults ncap must have made cars safer overall.

 

That the metro should have been redesigned before 97 isn't as criminal as the fact they never actually bothered to replace the one segment people would still buy from them (whilst trying to push up market which was always a losing battle if time and money is against you.)

[MarvinsMom]

Exactly- the Metro should have been redesigned in the mid 80s..

this was the original plan, the LC8/ADO88 metro would have made way for this the AR6 sometime around 1988

 

this is one of the preproduction prototypes now in Gaydon museum.

 

sadly as the meastro and montego didn't generate anywhere near the cash that the company needed to put something as advanced as this into production, we got the warmed over R6 Rover Metro instead. it was intended to be a short term thing until the Rover R3  200/25 was ready after which the Metro would be quietly dropped. But Rover got greedy, they priced the R3 too high, and then reheated the Metro over again to become the Rover 100. sad really.... priced at the correct (lower level than they did originally) as a natural replacement for the metro, then Rover would again have had a proper super mini contender.

 

and it must be remembered too, that each time Longbridge was successful, it was with a proper, neat and clever SMALL car leading the charge!

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

^^ That's a real stunner. Would have done well against the Clio and 205.

[MarvinsMom]

the AR6 program is all very sad, it another might have been from the history of ARG/Rover.

 

when Graham Day was put in charge, the only thing that Rover had that was worth anything was the tie up with Honda, so Rover's own design and development department was run down, in preparation for the groups sale to anyone (eventually BAe with a big bung.... sorry, sweetener deal) and that is why the project jay/landrover discovery was developed incrementally and in secret by landrover without the group's board knowing what they were upto!

 

AR6 was very, very clever, it used i think an aluminium body and the running prototype had a 3 cylinder engine which eventually became the k-series. but the cost of getting it production ready wouild have been astronomical, and the money just wasn't there.

 

this is a stying buck looking at what the finished product would have looked like, very similar to the suzi swift from a generation or 2 ago

 

at that time the only models in Rovers range that were really selling where the Metro and the SD3 Rover 213/216. so i can see what Day was thinking, but it was both short sighted and a waste of the talent that Rover could draw on from their very small team of engineers.

 

as i said, its all very sad really.... what a shame.