general safety of a roadster

[nking79]

How safe are these cars? Will I survive an accident? Are there any modifications that can be done make the car safer?

[spl310]

It depends on the accident and your definition of safe. The early cars had a solid steering column - aka the death spear - while the later cars had the safety collapsing version. Late cars also have the dual circuit brakes - early cars did not (at least one went off a cliff when they lost their brakes...), so that is a thought. Early cars had no shoulder belt, late cars did. The bumpers are chrome trim - made to withstand the impact of a raging bumble bee while tumbling through the slipstream going 80mph or so - but not made to stop the car careening wildly through a parking lot and coming to rest at a light pole. (did that with a chrome bumper car - not a Roadster, but a vintage Mustang. Same type of bumper. the damned light pole won...)

Safety is relative. Oh, since they don't have tops, you really don't want to roll one without a REAL roll bar in it....

Still, they are fun to drive!

[nking79]

I guess the year of the car wuld be helpful - its a 67 or 67.5 Datsun 1600. The seatbelts are lap belts only. Is there any way to upgrade to shoulder belts?

As for a 'real' roll bar - any suggestions as to where to get it?

[Minh]

The key cutoff is 1967. This is when the newly formed federal Department of Transportation (DOT) put a lot of safety feature that were required by law.

To add:

The early Roadster had portuding door "handles"; the later ones have recessed door handles very similar to today's modern cars. So if you into knocking out people's elbow or hips for kicks get an earlier one .

The later have have a larger foam non-UV resistant dash board if your into banging your head or repairing cracks.

The later models had reflectors installed to be seen at a distance when moving or parked.

The later models had a higher windshield to deflect the wind off you forehead if you were too tall.

All the Roadster had metal post side view mirrors do not collapse on impact. So sliding in between cars in a narrow garage is not ideal.

The later models put the rearview mirrors monted at the top of the windshield for better viewability.

It was not until the 1600 that front disk brakes were standard. That is important if you live were is snows and rains a lot.

It's not just Roadster that had these issues EVERY SINGLE CAR IN AMERICA for that era had safety issues.

I can tell you from other people experiences the handing on these Roadster are great. You can definitely avoid colliding a stray cat and make sudden sharp turns when your freind goes, "Turn here!!!"

Can we say, "Thank you, Mr. Nader? Being and looking cool while considering safety are not always parrellel.

You can always add on items to provide more safety... Just ask what you are conerned about and we can tell how you can go around that problem. Maybe even adding modern parts.

[Guest]

nking79, are you a 'pumpkins fan?

[nking79]

My main concerns are:

1. structural integrity of the body of the car during an impact. (I'm more concerned about me surviving.)
2. stopping
3. ability to drive in snowy/rainy weather (not a daily driver... but just in case)

[nking79]

guest,

yes, I love the pumpkins. You can see a list of my pumpkins/zwan material at http://db.etree.org/nking79

[Datsa 66]

Little two seat sports cars are always at risk in this world full of behemoth SUVs. For my car, I tried to do everything I could to increase my safety including a volvo brake conversion, roll bar, shoulder belts and sticky tires.

Drive defensively, and make sure the SUVs know you are there!

Andrew
1967.5 2000 SRL311-00489

[Revbang]

In 1977 a semi ran over me and my first Roadster. How many can write about that? Who am I foolin? Had nothing to do with safety, everything to do with God having something else in store for me. I was young and foolish. Best safety feature is a careful, mature driver (and a good God watching out for you.) Mark

[Minh]

1. structural integrity of the body of the car during an impact. (I'm more concerned about me surviving.)
2. stopping
3. ability to drive in snowy/rainy weather (not a daily driver... but just in case)

Structural integrety... Back then they did have a thing called crumple zones. So frontal and rear collisions aren't so bad so long as the speed is too fast. Sorry if I can give an exact speed. The rear has a lot of room crumple but the fuel tank I'm not sure. Can someone say anything about the fuel tank?

On a side impact, wel what can I say at least you got a door.

Stopping is not a problem.

Driving in the rain depends on tires and your ability to mind if you interior get wet. They are not water tight. If leaking is an issue you have better luck with a hardtop.

Don't know anything about snow... I live in sunny California. Everytime I go to Tahoe in the winter is in my SUV.

Reinforcements can always be added but it will add weight.

The car wieghs about 2100 lbs. So driving past a 18-wheeler on a very windy day can you wonder if you have thrill issues. Any vehicle that size will. A lower profile ride helps a lot on that.

Hey man, this things are to be expected in a vintage sports car.

But hey! No SMOG, low registration fees, no depreciation, and lots of fun.

[esmeby]

I read a line in the most recent issue of Classic Motorsports in regards to the safety of a Meyers Manx. In response to the questions of the cars safety, the owners would reply
"it is a very safe motorcycle"

That is pretty much how I think of it. My head is constantly swiveling when in traffic looking for the inatentive driver.

I installed a roll bar and shoulder belts with the idea that it was better than not having them, but it didn't make my car a Volvo. Both were very easy to get and install -roadster vendors for the bar. JC Whitney for the belts.
On that token, I would not own any car without head rests, even though it screws up the look of many cars that didn't come with them (imagine a 60's Mustang convertable with high-back buckets, it just doesn't work)

I still don't feel "safe" in my car, but I doubt I would feel much safer in a Miata, which likely has a much better crash rating.

Snow? Don't know, doubt I will ever find out.
Rain? A bit of an adventure. Was caught in a major storm once. had water hitting my face from all angles (soft top up), and would get a stream of water on my legs every 2 minutes or so. It did drive just fine.
Stopping? I have no fears about the roadster brakes. The car stops quite well.

[nking79]

I was put in contact with someone in CA who has restored two Radsters and he gave me his opinion on my concerns and noted a few other things:

SAFETY:

"...the 310's and 311's were quite ridged and strong compared to other convertible cars in a similar weight class. That having been said, I think that we can all assume that death or injury is a real risk in any car and even more so in anything so small as a Datsun 1600. Yes, if you get hit hard, it might ruin your whole day.

Still, if safety is really a primary concern for you, it's probably not the
car for you.

But, is this car to be your primary means of transportation? If so, I might want to waive you off the whole idea."


The entire e-mail was a turn off to the idea of fixing up the car. He said the car will have an ambilical cord attached to my wallet. We'll see. Several times it was noted that these cars are not dependable and should not be a primary means of transportation. I live in Brooklyn, NY and work from the home. The car would be a weekend car and used to drive out to Long Island or Eastern PA, which is only an hour and half drive from my apartment.

[nking79]

The VIN of the car is SPL31117575 which I think is a '68 - is there any way to confirm that?

[S Allen]

It is a '68 according to the VIN. There is a listing of VINs by year on the main page.


Steve

[Minh]

http://www.datsun.org/roadster/info/production.html