[manual_tranny]

Originally Posted by dukegrad98

Wait... You're worried about eliminating the clutch safety switch, but not about building a car on a cut unibody that has undergone zero post-chop testing? Thanks for the chuckle.

Cheers, John

I can still clearly remember getting into my stepfather's Model A pickup after church and being impatient for him to get to the car. One of the pedals on the floor (more of a button really) was the starter. I figured that it wouldn't work, and I was wrong. I was 9 years old, my sister was 7. The truck lunged forward under sudden and torquey electric power and caught me and my little sister off-guard. It was in first gear, and I was lucky that I was able to take my foot off the pedal before there was a real accident. Nobody was hurt, and the Model A was fine too, thank goodness. Of course, the main reason that the clutch interlock switch exists is to prevent children from hurting themselves or others while they are in the car unattended. Enough children have died from a lack of clutch interlock switches to make the switch a required item on all newer cars. I say we should keep it.

Lets talk about this "post-chop testing" you are suggesting. This has been discussed before! Here's the most recent crash-test discussion on Facebook:

Originally Posted by Adam Griffin

Have you / or do you plan on crash testing these kits or have you at least simulated a crash with modeling software like PAM-Crash 2G kit?

With the intensely cut up unibody and the elimination of engineered crumple zones, I really question how this car would do in the standard front, offset, side , rear impact and roll over tests.

There's a lot to be said about OEM engineering in this regard. Also, does the OEM front airbag system still function without needing to be re-calibrated due to the weight and CG changes?

Originally Posted by Smyth Performance

I think the car will crash better than your average kit car due to retaining so much of the bumper to dash OEM steel and soft dash materials. The world of home built hot rods is not a world of factory crash testing. The decision on whether or not to run air bags is yours as the builder...the safest approach is to take them out and wear good seat belts. Hot rod guys deal with these issues all the time...if you need a crash tested car you will have to settle for an corporate offering like a tt Audi....this is the world of home built cars here....and that is the fun and challenge. In our world YOU decide how safe or light or bright this car is for your needs.

Originally Posted by Andrew Edick

@Adam you buy the cars and crash test them . . . how about that.

Originally Posted by Adam Griffin

I fully understand that one off customs, hot-rods etc.. are commonly subject to backyard engineering practices, and that you take that on as a risk when you apply the welder and grinder to anything in the motorsports world, but this isn't a one off project. Its being sold as a fully conceived, packaged, reworked automobile solution with little to no builder interpretation or influence on chassis strength, integrity and rigidity.

I saw a Factory Five Cobra kit hold up very well after a fairly high-speed crash in SoCal 2 years ago, but those are ground up engineered tube framed cars. Until I see one of these crash hard and see how/if the whole thing folds up on the driver, I'll trust my body to OEM engineering for now.

I don't think it's that much of a stretch to at least ask the question if the modifications have at least been run through a simple crash simulation program (heck, the sub assemblies are already drawn in a CAD program). For all the talk of speed, etc... with this car, I'd like to know if I might at least be able to walk away after a 30mph head on collision with a wall at the track (or a tree on the street).

I still very much support the idea of these types of kits, and this is one of the coolest going, but I wish the kit car community would take safety to the next level by at least considering (and documenting) the crashworthiness of their products.

Originally Posted by Smyth Performance

Adam I completely agree that oem cars are the safest choice...period.

Originally Posted by Michael Lewis Gallant

On the other hand, if you type "fire" into Jalopnik's search... you will see that factory cars aren't always the safest. http://jalopnik.com/5894966/did-jeep...bout-fire-risk

Old Yosemite climbers have a saying: "Don't Fall". It's wiser to climb below your limits and never fall than it is to test your gear again and again by taking big falls. I apply this philosophy to driving and many other aspects of my life. I like to climb routes within my skill level and drive within my limits. Yes, a rock may fall and kill me or a semi driver may run a red light and squish me. BUT! Life is too short. Climb. Drive kit cars. Drive motorcycles. Drive ATVs. Go skydiving. Go skiing. LIVE.

If you're not comfortable with the engineering of the G3F that's fine! We have lots of enthusiasts out there who are. I'm an engineering student and one of our first customers and beta builders. I am a student ambassador for Kettering University, (#2 in Mechanical Engineering and #1 in Manufacturing Engineering). My vote says that the G3F is one hell of beautiful feat of engineering. It's also a better idea than turning 5.0 Mustang parts into a kit car. Don't get me wrong, I still have my FF literature at home from when I was 17 and first heard of them. I've always wanted a Mark Smith vehicle, and now I'm going to have one that I helped design. How flippin' cool is THAT?!

Cheers,

Michael Gallant

Smyth Performance Intern

P.S. Sorry for the thread hi-jack, Bill!