Southampton SVA fails Robin Hood Lightweight

[locostv8]

<span ="post">This is not my car, I have no connection to the builder or seller, this is only offered as information.





Southampton SVA fails Robin Hood Lightweight for structural design.





This morning I received the failure sheet through the post.





I must stress there ARE some other failure points of my own silly doing
- none major, and certainly nothing that a leisurely weekend pottering
in the garage wouldn't rectify.





Listed below are the structural failures. Copied exactly off the failure sheet with examiners notes in brackets








FAILURE SECTION 5

A seat belt anchorage or the surrounding vehicle structure is of
inadequate strength and likely to fail. (No box section in areas of
seat belt mountings or associated component attachments, no
triangulation or bracing of thin panels, pop rivets used near seat belt
anchorage strengths.)





FAILURE SECTION 15.1

When driven, the safe control of the vehicle is or is likely to be
impaired due to design or construction feature or characteristic
(Monocoque has absence of structural box section in construction)





FAILURE SECTION 15.1

The vehicle structure is of inadequate strength and likely to fail
prematurely. (vehicle construction not considered to withstand forces
and vibration to which it is likely to be subjected to.)





FAILURE SECTION 15.1

A suspension unit anchor, shackle or attachment bracket of
inadequate strength and likely to fail prematurely. (All suspension
components in box sections bonded and fixed with pop rivets and self
tapping screws to main panels.)











So there we have it. A chassis built to the letter following RHSC build DVD's, with this as a result.











Trev.



>
http://locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7815#7815 (http://locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7815#7815)




>http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=12786&amp;st=15 (http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=12786&amp;st=15)





>http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=50113&amp;page=1 (http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=50113&amp;page=1)





>http://www.robinhoodsportscars.com/kitrange.php (http://www.robinhoodsportscars.com/kitrange.php)





>http://www.coveland.com/motorsports/index.cfm?ID=61 (http://www.coveland.com/motorsports/index.cfm?ID=61)</span>
<edited><editID>locostv8</editID><editDate>2006-08-20 16:38:12</editDate></edited>

[slngsht]

I'm not familiar with Robin hoods - certainly no first hand experience, nor have I ever seen one...



What's the material thickness used?



Images:

http://www.robinhoodengineering.co.uk/images/LW5B.jpg

http://www.robinhoodengineering.co.uk/images/LW6B.jpg

[locostv8]

I don't have any technical knowledge but after reading an 11 page
thread I thought a heads up might be in order since RH LW is sold in
the US by Coveland.&nbsp; Also this might help the vendor to do the
right thing by thier customer.

[slngsht]

I read the thread on the RH forum as well. I'd be pretty PO'ed if I had just finished a brand new car and had that as a the inspection result.

[Al Navarro]

Well, hmm.



How about this...I bought my car from an Authorized Cat USA Dealer and still failed in NJ for a number of what seem to be less crucial reasons. And I still love my builder/dealer.



My point is that I don't see how a kit car builder can get that bent out of shape given that every state has different regs. And from what I understand, the Robin Hoods are not even American in origin (so what would the mfg know?).



That said, I think it does fall to the US distributor to address and help remedy for this particular owner.

[slngsht]

I think none of this was in the US.



If the inspector says the basic design is unsafe, that'll be hard to correct by the distributor. This should involve the manufacturer, based on the little I know about it.

[locostv8]

All of this occured in the UK.&nbsp; The RH light weight is being
marketed in the US by Coveland so this posting is intended as a heads
up.&nbsp; A structural defect would be just as much a problem in the US
as in the UK.&nbsp; To my way of thinking at least the seat belt mount
http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=12786&amp;st=120

item 123 is a defect.&nbsp; Items like rubber boots to cover bolt
threads and edge covr to cover the louvers are the property of the
builder but when basic structural design is failed it is time for the
Manufacturer to step up though so far it seems they have been rather
unavailable.

[slngsht]

The manufacturer is in a really tough place. Their only course of action is to challenge the inspector's findings.



The problem is how does the inspector arrive at the conclusion that the chassis is weak? Chances are that neither side has data to disprove the other.



I think a crash test is in order. http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/wink5.gif

[locostv8]

>
http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?act=Attach&amp;type=post&amp;id=6118 (http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?act=Attach&amp;type=post&amp;id=6118)



>http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?act=Attach&amp;type=post&amp;id=6119 (http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?act=Attach&amp;type=post&amp;id=6119)

<edited><editID>locostv8</editID><editDate>2006-08-21 18:02:28</editDate></edited>

[slngsht]

if the results of their load test (with appropriate safety factors to give adequate fatigue life) are good, they should have no trouble with challenging the findings of the inspection.

[locostv8]

That is my thought.&nbsp; The problem seems that they have not been
forthcoming.&nbsp; My further thought is that the US disstributor might
be able to exert a bit more pressure than 1 customer.
<edited><editID>locostv8</editID><editDate>2006-08-21 18:05:32</editDate></edited>

[Al Navarro]

The clarifications help me better see the context, and cause for alarm. If the mfg can't make a product that passes in its home country, that's pretty bad.



It does underscore one universal issue though — that some inspection centers are more lenient than others, even within a coutry or state. Obviously the RH folks must have gotten quite a few of their products passed at some SVA station at some point, right?



This reminds me of what I went through in NJ last summer right about this time. Where other folks had passed inspection easily at other insepction stations (only a few are approved "kit car" inspection station) while I got tripped up on a few technicalities at the one closest to me.

[covelandmotorsp]

I would like to reply to the posts about the Lightweight. I am the Distributor of RH products in the USA as well as manufacturing our own frames and pieces. We stock parts and kits to suit people working on their own frame to checkbook builders looking for a quicker build, and factory finished look.

The Lightweight is a new and very unique product in that it is a TRUE aluminum monocoque. This product is not for everyone. I see the primary markets to be those looking for the lightest autocrosser, bike engine builder, even electric powered cars. The daily driver still is best suited to a full frame car.

In our own build with the lightweight, we saw some areas to reinforce. We have added steel to the differential and suspension section, added box sections and have bonded several layers of aluminum in others. The added weight is minimal.

Our feeling is that most builders make changes to kits, upgrade components on their own. In RH defense, many kit car companies have come and gone, RH is still there. They have come up with many good ideas and make kits with good quality pieces at very reasonable prices. If quality was upgraded at the kit level, the pricing would dramatically go up. This would knock out many people from getting involved in a very enjoyable hobby.

Coveland STOCKS parts that we have found to be of good quality from the UK that make sense to OUR market and our builds.

Yes, dealing with UK companies can be difficult, and customer service is lacking by our standards. That's where we come to the rescue with a combination of UK sourcing and our own manufacturing.

We will be communicating with RH about the issues, and be sure our products are well suited to our market.

jim chamberlain

[covelandmotorsp]

Sorry, contact info...

Jim Chamberlain

COVELAND MOTORSPORTS, INC

www.coveland.com

[Al Navarro]

Jim-



Welcome to the forum. I think you deserve serious props (that's a good thing!) for addressing this issue directly. Well done.



Additionally, your post made me click through to the Coveland site, where I was able to learn that you offer parts for the more traditionally framed LSiS cars. Perhaps you'd be interested in joining the merry band assembling next July in North Carolina?



Best,



Al N.<edited><editID>Al Navarro</editID><editDate>2006-08-22 13:07:18</editDate></edited>

[slngsht]

Jim, welcome to the forum and thanks for the info.

[locostv8]

I just
had a phone conversation with Jim Chamberlain at COVELAND MOTORSPORTS,
INC. and reinterated that the posts weren't directed at his
organization rather at Robin Hood.&nbsp; The sole intent is a heads up
to a POSSIBLE problem that Robin Hood needs to address.&nbsp; If they
have the data they need to provide it to Trev and if they don't they
need to get it.

[Al Navarro]

V8-



From what I can read, it looks like Jim C. took things in the the spirit intended and addressed things properly. You were very good about framing the situation, BTW.



-Al