Child seats

[David T]

Using a modern child seat, even in a Delorean, is better than nothing but you are probably correct, the safest thing to do is not drive in a Delorean. No air bags, very low profile, terrible crash worthiness. At least most of us do not do it regularly so it reduces the statistical chances of getting into a crash. As for putting a child into the car, I would guess that whoever does it would only do it occasionally for a short trip and very carefully. I know, when I drive in my Delorean, all I can see is lugnuts. No one can see me because when they look in their rear view mirror they look right OVER me! I did add a third brake light though so maybe someone behind me won't hit me. There is a new safety item dealers are pushing now. It is a module to pulse the third brake light. It is supposed to help get a following driver's attention more quickly. The dealer wanted about $320 to put it into my new car. I looked it up and you can buy a tiny module for about $10 and install it yourself in about 10 minutes. I might try one.

[DMCVegas]

If the crash test found on youtube is the final one, it would be a hard fail by modern standards. I've seen hundreds of crash tests and none of them were anywhere near as bad as the delorean one. I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to put a modern child seat in a delorean considering how poorly it already performs in crash testing.

Using a modern child seat, even in a Delorean, is better than nothing but you are probably correct, the safest thing to do is not drive in a Delorean. No air bags, very low profile, terrible crash worthiness. At least most of us do not do it regularly so it reduces the statistical chances of getting into a crash. As for putting a child into the car, I would guess that whoever does it would only do it occasionally for a short trip and very carefully.

There was telemetry data from both of those crashes that is documented at George Washington University. According to one of the research assistants I spoke with a few years ago on the phone, the data from the crash test was actually very positive showing minimal to no injury to the occupants of the DMC-12. Despite how awful the footage appeared. The reason is because JZD was so damn tall. Because of that he demanded more leg and headroom, as well as arm room too for the the ergonomics to keep drivers and passengers of his height comfortable. However, he was above average on height. As a result of that, the energy in a crash is completely transferred around the occupants with the car taking on the majority of the damage.

No, not up to snuff by modern standards. Especially in an offset collision. But the car is a whole lot safer than it appears.

There is a new safety item dealers are pushing now. It is a module to pulse the third brake light. It is supposed to help get a following driver's attention more quickly. The dealer wanted about $320 to put it into my new car. I looked it up and you can buy a tiny module for about $10 and install it yourself in about 10 minutes. I might try one.

I would need to look that up, but I'm pretty certain that those things are actually illegal. Mercedes-Benz back in the late early 2000's had a big push to try and get blinking brake lights to become standard equipment on modern vehicles. Toyota definitely, and I think Honda had started including factory blinking CHMSL's where they dim and brighten. I guess in anticipation of there being a new law. But the DOT struck the idea down stating that it was unnecessary, and I believe as a possible hazard.

Now days, it's just a gimmick to make more money since dealership profit margins are drying up so much. The only proponents of those things that push for them are the people selling them.

[Dangermouse]

I've seen plenty of motorbikes with that sort of flashing brake light, but that could be aftermarket I suppose.

[mr_maxime]

There was telemetry data from both of those crashes that is documented at George Washington University. According to one of the research assistants I spoke with a few years ago on the phone, the data from the crash test was actually very positive showing minimal to no injury to the occupants of the DMC-12. Despite how awful the footage appeared. The reason is because JZD was so damn tall. Because of that he demanded more leg and headroom, as well as arm room too for the the ergonomics to keep drivers and passengers of his height comfortable. However, he was above average on height. As a result of that, the energy in a crash is completely transferred around the occupants with the car taking on the majority of the damage.

No, not up to snuff by modern standards. Especially in an offset collision. But the car is a whole lot safer than it appears.

The door opening is the bigger problem. I don't know what the standards were then, but that's the only way I can tell from the video that it would fail by modern standards. You don't want a poorly secured child seat flying out of the car. Since it doesn't meet today's standard for child seats, only has front seats and doors open when crashed I would advise against child seats. Obviously, you can never be 100% safe in any car, there's just more risk in this case.

[DMCVegas]

The door opening is the bigger problem. I don't know what the standards were then, but that's the only way I can tell from the video that it would fail by modern standards. You don't want a poorly secured child seat flying out of the car. Since it doesn't meet today's standard for child seats, only has front seats and doors open when crashed I would advise against child seats. Obviously, you can never be 100% safe in any car, there's just more risk in this case.

Agreed on the doors opening. Although that video makes me wonder if it's not the real reason as to why we have a "LOCK DOORS" warning light. Something that no other car has...

There were two tests performed: a 35 MPH test, and then a 40 MPH one. In the first test both door remain closed. Even on the second test, the passenger door remains closed. Now I've not seen the write ups or any close up photographs of the wrecked cars, but we do know for certain that the front end recall came about because of these tests because they discovered that the crumple tubes were too weak. But I'm really curious as to what else they discovered, and more to the point just why did that door open? Was it a case of the striker pin coming loose from the tub? Or was the latch not properly engaged in the first place?

Two major changes affected the gullwing doors during production. The first was a revision of vehicle assembly. At first the doors were installed last, but this meant that they had to be aligned with the outer sheet metal instead of the body tub. This caused major problems with the doors sealing resulting in wind noise and leaks, and latching. The solution was then to revise the entire assembly line to install the doors first so that they could properly align for sealing and ease of opening/closing.

The second change was the introduction of guide blocks to further properly align the doors. If the car is parked on too severe of an angle, we know as DMC did that the doors will bend slightly and not properly close, or even open once the vehicle moves and the incline changes. The reason of course being improper alignment of the pins within the latches which results in preloading of the door latches which can bind them and lead to the stuck door symptoms. Especially if the locks bind and refuse to allow the bellcrank to rotate. The other thing to keep in mind is that if the door is NOT properly closed, the doors cannot lock because the latches are not fully engaged. A classic symptom of this is the door lock module repeatedly clicking the lock solenoids as the wiper switches can't set into position. Now on a parked car that results in a drained battery, and even swollen solenoids that can seize. But what about when a car is in motion? Well then the doors just don't latch closed and we can get this problem of the doors opening upon impact.

So what if the fix was to install a "LOCK DOORS" warning light? You close the doors, that light comes on telling you to lock the doors. If the latches are properly aligned and closed, you lock the doors and the lamp goes out. But if you didn't close the door hard enough for whatever reason, the latches don't fully rotate into the closed position to secure the doors, and the locks refuse to operate, and then you can't lock the doors. So you have to re-close the door(s) again until everything finally aligns and you can turn that light off. Thus through the use of an annoying idiot light, DMC found a way to force owners to secure their own doors before each drive in order to avoid the problem of them popping open during a crash.

It's just a theory of course.

[David T]

On most newer cars the doors will lock automatically when you start moving. The car will also warn you in some manner if a door is not closed all the way so the Delorean was an early adopter of at least the warning. My guess on the warning was that the designers were concerned you would drive and both doors would and both latches in each door might not be all the way into the 2nd locking position. The system is designed so when it is all adjusted and working properly, when you go to lock the doors, if all 4 latches are NOT in 2nd locking position, the Central Locking System would not allow the doors to lock and force an unlock of the doors. Seeing the light and not being able to lock the doors would let the driver know a door is not closed all the way. A Delorean is unusual in that it has 2 latches per door and both must get to 2nd locking position for the door to be properly closed.

[nirvanaman]

Yup dude!

IMG_7908.jpg

[Rich_NYS]

My kids ride with me often, but I don't take them on the highway or drive near highway speeds. We stay in town, get ice cream, and cruise around.