Roll Over Protection discussion

Guran · Postby **Guran** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:18 am

Mr Morlock wrote:Lets be quite clear about the hoop bars on NC's. Mazda list all items related to the safety of their vehicle - and no mention of the bars- in other words they are not regarded as a safety feature

You have repeatedly made yourself clear. You are still wrong.

But let's just humour you for a second. If the steel hoops concealed behind plastic covers are NOT functional rollbars, then what are they there for? If Mazda were only interested in the aesthetics of the plastic hoops, they would never have put heavy steel hoops underneath them just for the sake of adding extra weight.

If anyone claims they are safety item then where is this information coming from?

When Mazda first launched the NC in 2005, they provided photographs, schematics and information to the media who used that as the basis for their articles and reviews. I have already referred you to the WHEELS issue from 2005 which clearly showed schematics of the steel hoops behind the seats and clearly described them as "rollbars". The same information was also published elsewhere at the time. It would not have been reported as such without clear guidance from Mazda on their function.

Mr Morlock · Postby **Mr Morlock** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:20 pm

Guran is the master of stats ( like the MUARC data) and logic but in this instance and with respect I do not quite follow the thinking. What Wheels says is here nor there - you do not believe all you read in glossy mags- what Mazda says is the arbiter. If they produce a roll bar for safety they would acknowledge it and promote it- but they do not. I can perhaps guess that it is in place for some structural bracing eg like the brace over the engine bay-and convenient for aesthetics . On the former point some have already pointed out how the aftermarket bars do a good job tying older cars together.

Perhaps a Mazda sales person or better still an engineer could comment or write to Mazda Aust. If it aint claimed as a safety feature in their own literature then I would not be telling anyone to ignore it and rely on gut feel.

de Bounce · Postby **de Bounce** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:31 pm

When one is presented with information that doesn't agree with their argument

Locutus · Postby **Locutus** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:58 pm

Mr Morlock wrote:what Mazda says is the arbiter.

mazdausa.com, circa 2008 wrote:

http://goo.gl/fEr4V
click safety, then click structural safety

Guran · Postby **Guran** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:08 pm

Good find Locutus!!! :lol:

Pamex · Postby **Pamex** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:19 pm

Wait... let me get this straight. You won't believe magazine propaganda.

Ok.

But you'll believe the propaganda of car companies?

Carry on then.

Old Dude · Postby **Old Dude** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:38 pm

It is possible that some Mazda agencies, won't list the bars as roll over protection due to legal liability should a roll over occur and someone died, having said that I totally agree with Guran, why add extra weight in two steel hoops if it is not for roll over protection. If it was purely for chassis strengthening why add the substantial metal hoops.

Cheers
Dale

Mr Morlock · Postby **Mr Morlock** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:01 pm

locutus find is indeed very interesting- but everyone else merely believed it without any info and probably never read Mazda Au brochures- sceptical fits comfortably for me.

So what is the explanation- why does USA list this info and Mazda Aust not use it / list it- just a slip of the pen?? I think Old Dude may have a point about the safety claim- has it been tested here? I would not characterise Mazda brochures as propaganda - people make decisions sometimes relying on data and info contained in them. Some motor magazines are often just overheated hype.

Pamex · Postby **Pamex** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:34 pm

No, car company brochures aren't propaganda to sell cars at all.

I do take offence that you think that we have not thought or researched this topic Morlock... I come from a university research background. It really isn't in my nature to just believe what people say when it comes to issues such as these.

I've spend countless hours reading literature from different bodies on the subject. I've worked in a car dealership and have seen how many corners get cut. I do believe the person I bought my roll bar off may have had quite an influence in the design and testing... if I remember correctly too. I have also talked to those that have had accidents with roll bars installed correctly and have walked away. This is what I base my opinion of roll bars on.

For my situation (taking into consideration height and seating position) a roll bar has a slim chance of injuring me in an accident and a very good chance of protecting me from serious harm. I may have an accident and suffer trauma, broken bones and the like... but I'll most likely still be alive.

I'm interested to see what you have read on the subject Morlock. What reports have you read against the use of roll bars? If you have any links or titles, please share them as I'd be genuinely interested in having a look.

deviant · Postby **deviant** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:52 pm

Mr Morlock wrote:locutus find is indeed very interesting- but everyone else merely believed it without any info and probably never read Mazda Au brochures- sceptical fits comfortably for me.

So what is the explanation- why does USA list this info and Mazda Aust not use it / list it- just a slip of the pen?? I think Old Dude may have a point about the safety claim- has it been tested here? I would not characterise Mazda brochures as propaganda - people make decisions sometimes relying on data and info contained in them. Some motor magazines are often just overheated hype.

Without contacting the Mazda press department it would only be theory as to why Mazda Aus do not specifically mention roll over protection.

It could just be PR guff, manufacturers don't like to admit that their cars might crash.

If Aus crash testing does not call for a roll over test then Mazda may never have done one here and as such can not then say their car is fitted with ROP's. As mentioned by Guran only the US do roll over crash tests so I guess US consumers are interested to know these things when buying a car.

Maybe they do not meet Aus standards for ROP so they can not be listed as a safety device.

Guran · Postby **Guran** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:13 pm

Found this photo on miata.net which nicely shows the structure of the NC rollbar.

Also, the following thread from miata.net in 2005 provides some valuable insight into the subject:
http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=135296

I tend to agree that Mazda's general reluctance to say that the NC rollbar is in fact a functioning rollover protection system comes down to legal liability.

deviant wrote:As mentioned by Guran only the US do roll over crash tests so I guess US consumers are interested to know these things when buying a car.

Those dynamic rollover tests in the US are actually only done in cases where the ratio of track-width to centre-of-gravity-height is below a certain value. In other words, the dynamic tests are only done on high and narrow SUVs and pick-ups, etc. Furthermore, they are only testing whether or not the vehicle will tip over. They don't test the structural integrity of the vehicle when it does rollover.

deviant · Postby **deviant** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:04 pm

Looks like it would survive a soft roll over which I suppose is typical of what might happen on the road at road speeds. It also looks like it could be unbolted and all those mounting points used to bolt in something a bit more substantial!

snshami · Postby **snshami** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:45 pm

I have a slightly different viewpoint on this topic. One of the reasons why I bought a roadster is because I am sick and tired of being scared by the nanny state I live in. Every year driving becomes safer but we are increasingly fed by more and more graphic messages about how death is around the very next corner. For so many years I had grown more and more fearful and paranoid, insisting and demanding stability control and ten airbags all the while forgetting that my parents went through life without these technologies and I have survived most of my life without them as well.

Under the guise of keeping me safe our governments is taxing me more and trying to control me more.

Sure one has to take care but that is my responsibility and I will not give up my freedom for a feeling of being molly coddled.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not reckless. I do not intend to be anything less than totally responsible and completely careful. I just refuse to continue living my life in fear.

That is why I will not use a roll bar unless I intend to race on a track.

Locutus · Postby **Locutus** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:18 pm

i agree with deviant & Guran. they are not mentioned most probably due to legal reasons. perhaps they don't meet AU standards, or if there are no such standards, perhaps the legal department determined that they might have a hard time convincing a court that the strength or height of the hoop design offers sufficient passenger protection in the unlikely event of a roll over.

there has also been mention of other convertibles equipped with OEM pop-up ROPS. clearly these competitors have superior occupant protection, from a ground clearance perspective at the very least, in the event of a roll over - why would mazda's marketing department outline one of the few inferior aspects of the MX5?