Lightweight Sva

[Longboarder]

My thoughts.

Jon, I think many people who looked at the lightweight when it first appeared at shows had concerns about strength. Seems that the Southampton tester reacted similarily. I would have thought his proper course of action was to suspend the test while he sought more information from Robin Hood on the design and construction. I would have thought some sort of dialogue between the SVA people and RHSC was appropriate at that stage. The tester must have been aware that the lightweight was not a 'one of' but a factory produced kit and that his decision would have far reaching ramifications.

I don't believe Richard came up with the design on the back of a fag packet and just put it into production without a considerable amount of modeling and testing to prove the strength of the chassis to his satisfaction. The performance of the factory demonstrator to the best of my knowledge suggests that Richard was right.

The tester had no information about panel thicknesses, types of materials used or directions of all the forces and how the chassis reacts to these. He made an on the spot decision to fail it for no chassis box sections and the types of fixings used. This is not a properly considered failure after carefull examination of all the relevant structural details but gut feeling flat earther type rejection.

I hope that Robin Hood will support their design with all the evidence at their disposal and sort out this problem with VOSA/DVLA or whoever is the right agency to deal with. If they are unable to prove the case then I'm sure they will come up with some package for lightweight builders although they would probably be reluctant to consider that scenario in detail at this stage. It is a difficult situation and it does leave lightweight builders in limbo but I can't see any alternative at the moment.

 

Nigel

[Jon Bradbury]

Well said, Nigel.

 

I'm not suggesting there are no test figures that would support Trev's case, only that we have not seen any so far.

 

Jon

OK lets put it the other way round, what if "Your" tester was right about the fitting of trim on the bonnet ducts and every other tester in the country was wrong, does this mean that there will be hundreds of people all over Britain cutting themselves on the unprotected Hoodys Pride and Joy?

 

No I do not think that Richard Number 1's knowledge of car design is obviously not that bad considering how many happy Hoodies there are all over the place.

 

What are the credentials of this "Southampton Inspector" then?

Has he ever built a Kit Car? I doubt it

Is he one of the few testers who openly dislike's Robin Hoods? Possibly

 

I would still be inclined to go with the "Jobs worth" theory myself: lol:

 

Fair enough, Bill. I just want to point out that if my tester is wrong about the bonnet trims, I'm not likely to die in an accident, am I? But if he passes a car with a dangerously weak chassis.... well, I'd rather have a fail than a MAC if I'm going to be taking my children out in it.

 

I'm not saying here that the Lightweight is weak. I'm saying "what if", which is what we ought to be asking (as well as challenging the inspector's opinion). I am not encourged by RHSC's announcement, because it implies it's not their fault and does not give a clear indication of how they plan to assist Trev and the other LW builders.

[Guest Mike400]

Ive been watching this topic pretty closely as I intend buying a lightweight at some point in the future.....

 

By what ive seen on trevs build blog, he has done a pretty pro looking job, I couldnt fault his build and it really does look to be by the book, so its really unfortunate that such a commited builder be let down in this way.

 

A few questions are being raised over the structural strength of the lightweight. Personally I think it must be fine - after all a couple of lightweights have already passed including robin hood's own demonstrator.

 

If there was something so obviously lacking about the design it would have been picked up straightaway with the other lightweights which have been svad. After all if theres any uncertainty or doubt about any aspect of the construction, they would have failed these cars, no question.

 

Therefore it is my humble opinion that the cars that have already passed must be safe, and trev is just the victim of a particularly short sited tester - this tester is obviously used to 2b's, and when he seen trevs car was probably expecting a similar construction, i.e tubular chassis with panels rivited on.

 

He has then noticed a lack of tubular chassis and this has set alarm bells ringing. Now rather than realise that this is the way its supposed to be built, and investigate the design further, he has just failed it, no questions asked.

 

 

As for marketing the car as track only - this might have a difference where such items as lights etc are concerned, but if anything you would need a stronger chassis for track use due to the added stresses induced by driving a car on the limit.

Therefore if the chassis was designed as a track only chassis, there should be no reason why it shouldnt be strong enough for use as a road car.

 

No, this is clearly an issue of ignorance on the part of the tester.

 

But Robin Hood should be doing more to highlight this fact, if anything they should very publicly be pushing the relevant bodies to prove that their product is upto the job, otherwise sales will drop for the lightweight, plus the bad publicity could very well have a knock on effect on the rest of the range.

 

Any large car company will tell you that bad publicity can ruin you. When applied to a smaller company like robin hood, something like this, if handled badly, could be very very hard to shake. When you are building your own car you really want confidence in the parts supplied.

 

Sorry for going on a bit!!

 

Mike

[Mitch]

"But Robin Hood should be doing more to highlight this fact, if anything they should very publicly be pushing the relevant bodies to prove that their product is upto the job, otherwise sales will drop for the lightweight, plus the bad publicity could very well have a knock on effect on the rest of the range."

 

 

Nail on Head, im afraid RHSc needs to now prove to VOSA the cars are road compliant.

 

Yes others have passed, but at the end of the day its the testers views on the day, and now VOSA are involved i would be suprised if any more pass until they have been assured by RHSC that the car is strong enough for road use.

 

He is not happy with the design (not build quality) of the car, which was highlighted by many on here when it first appeared,(some of the problems/worries where addresed, but those early chassi's are now for sale on ebay??) only the tester was in a position to halt the regestration of a car which HE thinks is not upto the standard to be allowed onto the road and to pass his findings onto his boss's.

 

The ball is firmly in RHSC court and they need to sort this out ASAP before damage is done to the Marque.

 

 

Mitch

[peter_m7uk]

As a Lightweight builder, I am following all of this with great concern/interest.

 

The points that came to my mind have all been made already, but just to add to

the point about RH adverts for the Lightweight, I have lots of back issues of the

kit car mags and I'm sure I remember an "SVA friendly" tag on there... I'll find

it tonight and post on here. If this is the case, then RH are breaching some

advertising regulations, although their argument would be that they've passed at

Nottingham so their claim was made in good faith. Hopefully they'll take some fast

and positive action, but if not I think Steve Hole, Peter Filby and all the other kit

mag journos should get to know about this. For the sake of potential customers, we

can't have any more sales of the Lightweight until this is resolved. I would hate to

get RH into trouble as a company, but I'm feeling pretty perturbed about what's sitting

in my garage now. I've reached the stage of finishing the chassis and will soon

attach the donor components - What I'm thinking is "Do I go ahead and risk an SVA

fail next year or use a completely different chassis?" Not the position I wanted to

be in

 

Having said all of this, I believe that the LW is a sound design and I think that the

tester has overreacted when faced with an apparently "chassisless" design. The

overalling boxing and bracing within the chassis provide a lot of torsional and bending

resistance in my opinion. I would agree that in a side impact, the protection offered

is not much, but motorbikes are allowed on the road and other kit cars are not exactly

Euro NCAP standard! We really need to get RH to make their chassis test figures public..

The more they delay, the more sceptical the public will become and the less chance we

have of convincing VOSA of the design's validity.

 

Pete

[Mitch]

"although their argument would be that they've passed at

Nottingham so their claim was made in good faith".

 

Thats the SVA part sorted, no claim there.

 

"Hopefully they'll take some fast

and positive action,"

 

We would like to think they are sorting this as we type, but things monve slowly when you watching closey, and its a goverment body

 

 

 

"" but if not I think Steve Hole, Peter Filby and all the other kit

mag journos should get to know about this. For the sake of potential customers"""

 

No dont go this route yet, Lets see how RHSC get on first, give them a chance to sort it out, If it becomes aparent there could be future trouble then they will get to know.

And they would be a bit wary at the moment in loseing the advertising revenue

 

mitch

[Guest warwick7735]

Hi all

 

 

Dont you think people responsible for producing kit car mags might actually read this site, if so look out for an article in the near future.

 

Warwick

[Guest Mike400]

I think my main point was that in the cases of the kits that passed, the testers obviously deemed the construction and design of the chassis to be strong enough, otherwise there is no doubt they would have been failed.

 

In such a critical area, I find it hard to understand how strict one tester could be when others have already approved the design good enough for road use?

 

In a way im kinda glad im not at the stage where I can buy a kit - selfish I know, but I can empathise with those currently building a lightweight, it must be hard (especially for those who are near sva stage of their build) to think that they may never be able to drive their creation as is.

 

 

I think all we can do as enthusiasts of the kit car scene is to give as much support as we can.

 

RH have a lot to take responsibility for, but at the end of the day you cant blame them as their own car made it through the SVA without a problem, so as far as they were aware (until now) the design was sound.

 

There is one other aspect we have yet to discuss:

 

Say for arguments sake there is a problem with the design of the chassis. Is it not a scary thought then that of the cars that have passed SVA, the testers deemed them safe for the road? Surely this would highlight a potentially fatal lack of knowledge and or training on the part of these testers?

[Guest Stevebn2]

RH have a lot to take responsibility for, but at the end of the day you cant blame them as their own car made it through the SVA without a problem, so as far as they were aware (until now) the design was sound.

 

Since April I have been following the build progress of Trevor's Lightweight, both on his blogspot and by visiting his garage.

The kit seemed very well designed, and assembly is relatively straightforward, as a result I have ordered my own Lightweight kit(ie deposit paid), but have not yet arranged collection.

 

Today I rang RHSC and asked them what actions they are taking to resolve the current situation, as I am still a fan of the kit and would like to proceed.

They stated that they were in discussions with the SVA test centre, but also asked for any positive ideas the community might have. They did have the chassis stress tested, so I asked them to make the results available.

I suggested that replacing the self tapping screws that attach the suspension tubes, with bolts would overcome one failure point.

 

Has any one else got any constructive ideas?

 

[Guest stu205]

Today I rang RHSC and asked them what actions they are taking to resolve the current situation,

 

wow you got through to them, should have said Mark Segal was asking about them!

[Snapperpaul]

The ball is firmly in RHSC court and they need to sort this out ASAP before damage is done to the Marque.

 

I would think that in law, as the lightweight has been passed before, is also a VOSA problem as well.

As they have already passed a few lightweights and it was not the builders techniques that were in question but the structural integrety of the design. Then presidence in law should be applied.

 

I would persue this point whilst also investigating the stuctural integrity of the design, perhaps Cranfield University could be of help here.

 

Bureaucracy can always be challenged with precidence and evidence.

 

RHSC stand to loose a lot if this testers views are upheld by VOSA.

 

We as builders of kit cars will also loose if an individual tester can just right off a design because he does not like the look of it.

 

Lets all work together and resolve this.

[Guest zoomzoom]

Hi

I'm building a lightweight and am also very concerned about this, if i can't use my car on the road it is in fact useless to me.The statement in NEWS by rhsc doesnt say much at all, and i like a lot of other people have tried to phone the factory with no luck. It also worries me they are asking the people in this community for ideas on how to resolve this matter, I know many great ideas are generated on here but I don't think this is the way to proceed.

As designer and manufacturer of this kit they should have all the answers or be able to locate the answers in house.

 

P.S. look at the number of views for this thread

[Guest ReadingTrev]

Hi People,

 

I’m not exactly sleeping well at the moment, so have decided to take a long look through every piece of VOSA related paperwork I have, trying to find a legal way round this. I *may* have found one…….

 

 

On the back of the failure form, it states:

 

An application for re examination can be made up to 6 calendar months following the issue date of the first notification of refusal in respect of the original application. In any other case a new application and a full fee must be submitted.

When modifications have been completed, an application for re examination may be made, in the case of an amateur built vehicle, only to the test station that issued this notification. At the time of submitting the vehicle for a re examination a fee will be payable.

 

 

If I’m reading that correctly, the inspector is correct in saying that a retest MUST go back to Southampton, (for six months), but it certainly implies I can made a “new application”, to anywhere.

 

 

I will ring VOSA Swansea (applications dept) first thing to double check.

 

 

 

 

There *might* be some light at the end of this tunnel after all…………

 

 

I know this doesn’t answer the issue of the questions raised at Southampton in the test, but I’ve got to make the best of a bad situation. (Legally)

 

 

Lightweight Trev.

[Guest salty_monk]

I may be completely wrong here but looking at Trev's fail list I can't see that it is that big a deal to modify the chassis to pass even this tester's stringent standards.

 

The areas in question could be modified by either closing the "u" to make a box section or by adding further box section supports underneath the U as "side rails" & further extending them down to the seat belt mounts.

 

I haven't had time to thinking about this in any large degree but it would seem to me that Hoodies as resourceful people & RHSC as a resourceful company will be able to develop a "bolt in" chassis modification that will bring the chassis up to standard. It cannot be that difficult & may not even add to the weight that much if done in Aluminium.

 

Lets not over react. Either it gets sorted out with existing design with VOSA or they add some other bits in to make it comply.

If Robin Hood do not put some of their technical dept on this to come up with a "back-up" solution then they are not good business men.... As stated above, reputation is everything, especially where safety is concerned.

 

Our American friend "Scotmac" was already moving forward with something similar to this when I last spoke to him as well as strengthening up the box for the differential.

 

Dan

[Guest Andy Hamilton]

As with all government paperwork, there is an element of poetic licence!

 

You DO NOT have to retest at the same test centre. I recently had my initial SVA test at Chelmsford, and retested at Gillingham as Chelmsford couldn't do the retest soon enough for me.

 

Maybe because of your failure list, this might be different, but give Nottingham a call and see what they say. I spoke to Gillingham directly, and they arranged to get all of the paperwork sent over in time, and even cancelled the appointment I had tentatively made at Chelmsford. (which was another month away)

 

They only retested the failed items as well, and the tester clearly said that if he thought any of the original items were failures (after all it is down to discression as you found out to your cost) he could not fail them as they had already passed. He isn't going to do a £150 job for £30 now is he??