Ferraris and crash safety

well I have a problem in that I love the cars from the late 60s and 70s but they weren't built with crumple zones on the most part (unless you "like" ugly Mercs, ) so their secondary safety is poor compared to their modern cousins but Ferrari/Porsche/Lamborghini type cars from that era had brilliant primary safety (the ability to get out of an accident).

I don't believe for one minute that Ferraris are track only cars and having survived a double rollover with the family on board is enough testament to me that they are structurally sound and the only reason the car was written off was because the fire brigade cut the roof off.

Take into account the car has a full chassis, upper/lower A arm suspension, well sorted handling, 255hp 3litre engine capable of pushing 1500kg to 250kph and flipped 10-12' into the air TWICE, and the car was still in one piece until the top got the chop and this happened at a genuine 87kph as the police accident team attested to.

I think in hindsight, if I had of had a helmet on I would have had a headache and sore neck plus the broken chest and arm from the seatbelt but I would have walked away, it was only because the head hit the road in the rollover that I was injured badly and the structural strength on the passenger side is evident in the photos as you can see that side held up incredibly well, to the extent that my wife and son literally crawled out the front windscreen unscathed bar some bruising.

This is a 70s car and I defy anyone to show how many cars would go thru that with 3 people in it and survive.

The one thing that amazes me is why the car didn't catch fire as the sides were hit hard enough to rupture the tanks and there are plenty of ignition sources for fire ? I put it down to the full chassis in the back end as the motor and all the rear are totally intact.

Also, how long have crash tests been conducted ?

I'm sure even Ferrari has to pass these tests

 

John,

Heck I can fully understand that time is required to get your confidence back mate. Don't rush it. I've had track accidents and a few road ones, and with the track ones my helpers almost forced me into a car again to ensure I did not dwell on it ...

I also had a big road one when 16 and it took me a long time before I drove again. That was an injury accident, but no where near as bad as you ... but car completely destroyed so was very lucky.

Regarding your 308GT4, gee it looks almost fixable from those photos ... if you could find another roof. It would cost big bucks though . My father rolled his race car and the roof was simply chopped off (er, thanks to the fireman that step has already happened to your car, so a few bucks saved ) and another welded back on. He did not even miss a round and amazed all by turning up after only 2 weeks to race again

Regarding Crown St ... I work in North Sydney (Miller St), maybe your road test could include North Sydney . I think you have my mobile number, if not PM me

Good luck mate.
Pete
ps: Maybe a few go kart races with ya mates might be a laugh and a good tonic.

 

Interestingly the rear of a 105 series Alfa Romeo is a collapsable zone, but like you say not many 60s and 70s enthusiasts cars had this feature. I must say that a BMW 2002 is one strong car (my fathers race car that was rolled ...)

Me too.

Yes ofcourse they would. But this is the biggie. When you have an accident in a Toyota or Volvo you are more likely doing 50 mph ... when you have an accident in a Ferrari er, you are more likely doing 100 mph. Ferrari have to pass the same accident test as all other cars, BUT (and this is not a knocking Ferrari comment) they are more likely to have a harder hit.

BTW: Has anybody seen a Toyota/Holden Commodore/insert just about any modern car here, except Mercs/BMW/Volvo, etc. after a high speed crash or a head on ... if you can find the badge I would be amazed. We get shown these accidents on Aussie TV all the time and the engine is on one side of the road and the rear of the car on the other, and the passenger compartment is FNCKED!!

Come on guys. You buy any fast car and USE that capability and have an accident ... don't blame Ferrari. Remember to go fast and be nimble the car has to be light ... you cannot have this cake and eat it too.

Pete

 

I'm well aware of the fact that Holdens/Fords/Toyotas/Mitsubishis have substandard safety compared with the top European manufacturers. That's why I have never, and will never own them. As for Hyundai, Kia, Diahatsu, Daewoo, Suzuki... well they're not even worth mentioning. Have a crash in them beyond 50kmph or so, and the chances are very high you'll suffer a debilitating injury or death.

I accept that Ferrari's are usually involved in higher speed accidents. And most of the time they hold up very well when they roll. It's only when they have accidents commonly found on the street by road cars, such as collisions with other cars and unmoveable roadside objects, that their level of safety often fails to protect the occupants from cabin intrusion and injury.

 

In the older Ferrari's espeacialy the 308/328 and Mondial..all you have to do is remove the door trim panel and have a look inside. Then you tell me if you would survive a t-bone accident. Drive a Euro car? Forget it..you might aswell drive without a door. The frames themselves maybe strong but the rest of the car is tin. Have look what the front bumpers are bolted to. Nothing to substantail there either. The 348 and 355 use such a thin lousy metal that it's a wonder you don't see more of them with the fronts ends on one side of the road and the backends on the other!!.


Moetti I'm so glad that you and you're family are safe. That is the most important thing of all. But I feel you were EXTREMLY lucky to get out of that car with the injuries you sustained. I have seen cars fall off of bridges and land on there roofs,only to have the driver crawl out and light a smoke. Somtimes the angels above are looking out for us. On this day I beleive you had them on your shoulder. God Bless...

 

Thanks Tom,

I was told by the doctors that I was lucky to have a thick skull (they said to take this as a compliment ) and that if either my wife or boy had the same done to them they would have died instantly. The doctors that stitched the head back together told my wife in no uncertain manner that I WOULD be brain damaged and never be able to type on a computer or troubleshoot networking issues for my job ever again.

Well, I can type but I'm still just as bad at troubleshooting as I ever was so how do I know if that part is right ?

You're right about the anti-intrusion bars in the doors of the 308/328 cars being non-existent but just how much do they help in a full blooded hit ?

I've seen modern cars with them still split open like a tin can that has exploded although I do believe that in conjunction with side airbags the occupants have a high survivability rate.

It still comes down to Fcar primary safety=excellent, secondary=poor and given my record I'll go for primary as I prefer to be able to say "you should have seen the accident I avoided" rather than reporting the injuries sustained because the car wasn't good enough to avoid the accident, mine was a freak accident and the car has avoided more serious situations that make it a safe car in my book.

Mind you I'd still prefer to have been in the BMer with all the secondary safety when all is lost

 

John ... just using your answers to make a point ... hope you do not mind, not picking on ya

Mercedes cars do not have side intrusion bars as required by New Zealand law ... and yet they are very safe in a side hit. Just installing a piece of metal in a door does not make it safer. What needs to happen is side impact tests.

I have seen replicas built in NZ that comply with the requirement and all they have done is put say a 1" x 1" RHS along the door ... which is going to do bugger all.

This is a very relevant paragraph and relates a lot to the driving environment of where the car originated or was designed/built.

Volvos are designed to have a crash. It is 100% expected and they do not consider cars to be anything but people transportation and thus car dynamics do not exist (until recently). I have friends from Sweden and they say the driving ability is completely hopeless over there ... and my wife having witnessed their driving, er, we agree.

I have also heard stories from a Swedish mechanic and because of the horrible environment for cars ... they really are seen as expendable things that move people around. He told stories of doing brake rebuilds on cars that involved gas axing the calipers off, etc. as the car was just fncked thanks to the snow, etc.

Italians (and many other cultures) see cars as a toy, another chance to add quality to ones life ... but they also like to live life on the edge. I doubt honestly whether Italian companies even thought much about driver safety until they HAD to in more modern times. All they cared about was power, handling and other emotive things.

I, like John, have always been in the 'give me a car that can dodge the accident' camp, but then I grew up in a petrol head family with the fantastic roads of New Zealand which require a dynamic car (if you want to make it around the first corner ). BUT I guess if I grew up with the Swedish attitude to transportation and their conditions ... yep, I'd drive a tank to work.

What we are seeing now with modern vehicles (and even Volvo) is that a safe car can be dynamic ... but many of us like the older cars, and thus have to accept that compromise.

Pete

 

Since we have two threads going about this...I am making a cross-post.

----------------------------

I personally witnessed a high speed accident on a Spanish highway at around 180-200 kmh.

The Porsche 993 I was driving was directly behind another 993 being driven during the introduction of this model to worldwide Porsche dealers back in November 1993. I'll try and find a pic and post it.

The guy hit some standing water in a corner as he pulled out to pass another 993, and he flipped about 5-6 times end over end and when the car finally stopped it was resting on it's roof. The two occupants climbed out virtually unharmed and unmarked, except for the peculiar brown spotting on the back of their pants..........

I have seen many a photograph of Ferrari 355 and 360 coupes (a couple here in Calgary even) that had crashed at slower speeds where the car was torn in half and the passenger compartment was severly mangled. I personally know one of the guys who smacked up his car, and he was seriously injured and lucky to be alive.

My story is FWIW.........statistics can...and have been...manipulated. I put my trust in first hand accounts.....especially the ones that I have seen. I have no axe to grind with Ferrari....I love the cars.

Government crash standards are crap..........every manufacturer builds their cars to those same standards........and many stop when they get there. And I suspect Ferrari is one that does just that. But like someone so succintly pointed out in another post....."the cars are not brought here on the wings of angels wrapped in love".....but rather shipped like any other consumer product....I suspect this is another reality people will not want to face.

Low volume production......that is always sold out......cost of serious accident R&D somewhat prohibitive as a result of low volume.......you figure it out. All of the other issues that crop up in these cars lead back to that pattern.....why would not crash safety be one of them ?

 

it is totally true that a merc can protect anyone in a car crash serious of minor much better than a ferrari.

 

I have no facts to prove that ... but if I was a crash test dummy, I'd get into the Mercedes

Pete