Crash Safety

[Mike Drew]

Appears the force of the impact spewed the fuel out of the fillers.

I'm coming to this thread late.

There is a three-page spread in Dave Freidman's book 'Shelby GT40' which covers this test in detail.

The person who conducted the test, Bill Holbrook, shares his memories, and besides the above photo (in color) there are several photos of the car after the impact test.

He says that they used Stoddard Solvent in the tanks because it replicates fuel almost perfectly. They wanted to crash the car into the barrier at 60 mph but they were hampered by all the cars and cables; it actually hit at 51 mph. The wheels crushed into the front of the rocker panels, and the pressure causes the fuel to go up the filler neck and blow the fuel lids off, spraying the whole car with fuel.

After the test, they fitted thicker, stronger rubber fuel bladders and installed stronger roll cages.

The various replicas out there typically don't have any sort of protection at all; the fuel just sloshes around in bare metal tanks, like a 1950s F-1 car/time bomb. Rubber bladders are probably a good idea, but they have longevity issues, and cost a fortune to boot.

I guess the ultimate solution is to just not crash?

Try as I might, I can't positively identify which chassis was used for this test. Although Holbrook says the car was a write-off, the various registries make no mention of it that I can see. By the tail end of the '66 season, the GT40s that were being raced by Shelby and Holman-Moody had been retrofitted with rather hefty roll cages (barely visible in the photo above, but very clear in the still photos). Still, the roof is visibly tweaked and the rake of the windshield is much steeper after the crash, which would lead me to speculate that this tub was history.

The car in the photo has one very unique distinguishing feature--the cutouts behind the front wheel. So far as I can tell, that only appeared on P/1016. It is present throughout the 1966 season, but then when the car re-appears in '67 they're gone. There's no mention of P/1016 being used for crash-testing in any of the books I have--but then again, there's no mention of ANY specific Mk II being used for crash testing and yet obviously one was.

So, barring any contrary evidence, I'm speculating that it's P/1016 that got mauled by the barrier. I'm no expert though, I'm just a dork who looks at a lot of books and tries to piece evidence together. :laugh:

 

[Jac Mac]

106 & 107 , two of the light gauge early FE cars also had those triangle shape vents... 107 was the tub that had its rear portion used in the dyno load simulator for testing of the FE/T44 trans, so there would be a good chance that that was removed from the 107 chassis after the crash test, wonder if that test rig is still around, I could use it to test my trans..if I ever get time to finish it

I probably read the same books... then someone like Jay C comes along and posts a photo of the stuff sitting on a shelf in the back of his shop..

 

[Lloyd]

i think of gt40 a very slight step above a motorcycle in terms of survivability. like a motor cycle its probably some idiot in an SUV that's going to take you out.

but they are as much fun to drive as a motorcycle.

Lloyd

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

I look at people all the time after motor vehicle crashes, and I have to say that modern motor vehicles are FAR safer than their predecessors. Impact cells, crushable front and rear ends, air bags, better seat belts, ABS brakes... the list goes on and on. People now walk away from crashes which would have killed or seriously injured them in the past. In the not too distant past, a restored Duesenberg (I think- or some other large classic car from the thirties) was in a collision with a Volvo station wagon. If I am not mistaken, everyone in the Duesenberg died. No one in the Volvo did. Modern cars are MUCH safer than earlier ones.

But a GT40 is not in any way a modern car. It has no bumpers, no impact cell, no air bags, and it is much lower than anything it is likely to run into. It is, as pointed out appropriately above, essentially a motorcycle- OK it has seat belts and a roof and four wheels, but in terms of safety it is basically a bike.

So you drive it like you ride a bike- watch out, stay aware, assume everyone doesn't see you, and avoid distractions. It's a driver's car for driving, not a grocery-getter. And honestly folks that are not comfortable with this degree of risk- which is not avoidable in a car like a GT40- shouldn't be driving one.

All that said, GT40s were in some serious wrecks and virtually all the drivers survived. Miles and Hansgen and McLean died- I think everyone else lived. For their time, GT40s were very safe race cars. But their time was a long time ago.

 

[Dalton Veitch]

That's a pretty good summary, Jim.

 

[Paul]

Having done a little more research into this issue it strikes me that there are some things that you can do to make your car a lot safer:

1. Install a heavy duty roll cage -it might be a nusiance getting in and out. But I rather suspect it could go a long way to prevent you 'submarining' under another vehicle.

2. Fuel Cells -having proper flexible fuel cells that will stay intact after an impact.

3. One way valves fitted on the fuel tanks themselves to prevent fuel surging out through the filler lines in a front on collision.

4. Fit side intrusion beams.

5. Five point harness rather than standard seatbelts to prevent you submarining under the dashboard.

6. On Board fire extinguisher system.

If your getting a new car built for you -why not ask if they can make a heavier stronger front end? -i.e try to create an armoured central core that will hopefully stay intact in a crash.

This will add a little more weight to your vehicle, but if you are using it on a public road I think that it is well worth doing this. Certainly if you buy or own one of these vehicles you should think seriously about spending money on the above before spending money on how to get more power out of your engine -after all its your life.