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 used a simple design principle to limit damage to the vehicle
when travelling over rough terrain. A stiff suspension ensured the
occupants realised they were more fragile than the vehicle, so they
instinctively kept the speed down. It is especially effective if the
driver is tall and there aren't any seatbelts.

Of course the Land Rover's crumple zone was built into the other
vehicle.

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 get you home even with a twisted chassis, and the
local blacksmith could bend it back into shape.

There was quite a lot of controversy, IIRC, about the decision for the
later models to have coil springs instead of leaf springs. It is much
easier to repair/replace a leaf spring after it has broken.