On Oct 10, 9:47 pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
tommytoyz wrote:
I've seen a crash test of a smaller Renault against a Land Rover and
the Land Rover was in worse shape after the head on collision test -
especially the occupants.

If that was a series 1,2 or 3 Landrover its not at all surprising
because these models had almost no energy absorbing capability: that
beam across the rear is the rear chassis member and the front bumper may
look strong, but its bolted directly onto the main chassis box members.

They had a neat simple and foolproof design principle for
minimising the damage to the car when travelling over rough
terrain. The stiff suspension caused the occupants to
bounce around so much that they would voluntarily keep the speed
below that at which the car would be damaged. Well, I'm sure
there's an element of truth to that anyway, particularly without
seatbelts.

The Land Rover's crumple zone was built into the other
vehicle, of course.

I owned a series 2a long wheelbase model and was told that, if I had to
hit anything, to make sure I hit it square on because anything else
would twist the chassis. As a result, Landrovers are not as tough as
they look.

Yes, but they would still get you home even with a twisted chassis.
And the chassis could be repaired by the local blacksmith.