

CRUNCH!
#16
Posted 14 March 2006 - 01:48 PM

#17
Posted 14 March 2006 - 02:47 PM
I think that is realy classed as a write off, too much work for it to be worth rebuilding and repairing. IMHO
If i did this to my current mini (heaven forbid!) I reckon I now have the skills to replace the whole twisted front-end (probobly). I don't know about the deformed bulkhead where the engine hit it though?
Plus the footwells were all pushed up from the sumframe moving back.
So actually it might have been a profesional repair job if i had kept it!
oh, and the roof and B post were all bent from the side impact with the floor and the cill was crushed.
Bit of a mess then!
Still. When i say 'scrapped' i do mean that Mr angle grinder and I recycled every part (see picture). I sold most of the mechanicals and weighed in what was left. There's still a Lad in my neighbourhood driving around with my original engine!
Al
Thats what I mean
Too much body damage and an impact like that will twist and distort the body totaly out of shape requiring acurate jigging. the cost would out weigh you buying another of similar condition even more so if you have it proffesionaly repaired. Thats what is meant by insurance write off. Its just not worth repairing, some times it just has to be scrapped
#18
Posted 14 March 2006 - 04:15 PM

#19
Posted 15 March 2006 - 01:29 PM
So what did you say was wrong to the student, and what was actually wrong?
I told him the floorpans had dissolved and the engine was a no-hoper.
Al
I rescued Him from a student.....
i actually scrapped the car!
How does that work then???Kind of mean of you to rob the student of his car >
![]()
and then write it off![]()
karma maybe.
Thinking the same just didn't want to be the first to say it.
Probobly was a bit of karma.
But this particular student caused over £1000 of damage to my Auntie's student house (where he was a tenent).
He then

I tracked him down by asking around in pubs and when i found him, he told me that my aunt would not be getting any money from him, and that he expected the council would 'remove' the car free of charge for him!!
This is why i releived him of the vehicle in such a dishonest way.

Al
#20
Posted 15 March 2006 - 01:38 PM
#21
Posted 15 March 2006 - 06:52 PM
I'm interested because this may be another example of the inherent safety of the mini, as it looks like the passenger cell was not penetrated in any way. Is this correct?
It looks like all the impact was absorbed by the outside tyres, thus protecting the occupants. Any thoughts anyone?
#22
Posted 15 March 2006 - 07:40 PM
#23
Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:26 PM
#24
Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:01 PM
#25
Posted 17 March 2006 - 10:51 AM
What speed do you reckon you were doing just before and then at impact? (but only feel like answering if you were at the speed limit etc so as not to admit speeding of course!)
I'm interested because this may be another example of the inherent safety of the mini, as it looks like the passenger cell was not penetrated in any way. Is this correct?
It looks like all the impact was absorbed by the outside tyres, thus protecting the occupants. Any thoughts anyone?
We calculated that the car impacted the wall at 50mph+/-5.
This was worked out by the length of my skid marks and my known speed when halfway through the bend (just before i lost traction).
A lot of the force was absorbed by the wall itself as the stones (which are not cemented together) were scattered into the field. The passenger side wing then collapsed like If you stamp on a toilet roll tube thats end up. As we all know from Blue Peter though, toilet roll tubes are very strong under compression! I reckon that the strength in those wings pretty much saved us from any injury whatso-ever.
I would never have a flip front without a serious roll cage for this reason!!
Al
#26
Posted 21 March 2006 - 12:45 PM



1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users