We are talking about a removable towball here with no protruding brackets, etc. so pedestrian safety is not affected.
i have a front tow bracket fitted by Wattling engineering ,there is nothing protruding out the front ,the towball is fitted to a square tube about 300mm long which you slide into another slightly larger square tube which is under the vehicle ,which is then held in place by a metal pin , once you have finished using it ,you just pull out the pin withdraw the towball and stow it the boot
It is not just about protrusion.
If the front of the vehicle is made stronger to support the stress and strain of a tow ball the front of the vehicle is more rigid and will not deform to protect the pedestrian in the event of an accident.
If the vehicle has deformable bumpers,bonnets etc and we fit an internal non protruding strut, girder, bar to support the tow hook then we are down grading the pedestrian protection that has been deliberatly engineered into the vehicle.
If the front of the vehicle is made stronger to support the stress and strain of a tow ball the front of the vehicle is more rigid and will not deform to protect the pedestrian in the event of an accident.
If the vehicle has deformable bumpers,bonnets etc and we fit an internal non protruding strut, girder, bar to support the tow hook then we are down grading the pedestrian protection that has been deliberatly engineered into the vehicle.
the front of the vehicle has not been made stronger its a 4x4 with steel box section chassis running from front to back on both side of vehicle they just removed the front tow hook which was built in the vehicle and replaced it with a reciever to recieve the new removeable tow bar ,if any thing i think it would have done more damage with inbuilt towing eye
The towball attachment must be far enough behind the bumper so as not to affect the energy absorbing characteristics of the front end of the car, but even that is not an insurmountable problem.
Joby, I understand what you're saying regarding 4x4's.
However Fenster does have a point, as not all vehicles have a seperate ladder chassis, and they have a monocoque design. The chassis is integral with the bodyshell.
As modern cars are designed with crash impact crumple zones predominatly at the front end, to absorb impact speed and thus reduce personal injury, one does have to be very carefull to ensure that any front tow bar fitment does not compromise the integrity of the original crash test results. The manufacturer being quoted here clearly informs potential customers that in the eyes of the law, as the push bars are not permitted on the highway, they are not CE marked and as such are only made to BSI standards for manufacture.
Once again I'll reiterate, that insurance companies will look very carefully at any possible additional fitment and quite frankly, use such fitments as an escape from obligation to cover an accident.
I'm not against push bars, and have used them in the past. In fat, Lutz has come up with a possible way around the fitment issue by suggesting that car owners use the existing tow eye screw in location. The only stumbling block being that the primary design of the tow eye location is to provide latteral tow strength, and as such a nose weight of 75kgs has not been calculated into the original design process. But using this method would eleviate any additional bracketry being left permanently fixed to the car, thus giving no reason for an insurance company to load your policy.
Steve L.
However Fenster does have a point, as not all vehicles have a seperate ladder chassis, and they have a monocoque design. The chassis is integral with the bodyshell.
As modern cars are designed with crash impact crumple zones predominatly at the front end, to absorb impact speed and thus reduce personal injury, one does have to be very carefull to ensure that any front tow bar fitment does not compromise the integrity of the original crash test results. The manufacturer being quoted here clearly informs potential customers that in the eyes of the law, as the push bars are not permitted on the highway, they are not CE marked and as such are only made to BSI standards for manufacture.
Once again I'll reiterate, that insurance companies will look very carefully at any possible additional fitment and quite frankly, use such fitments as an escape from obligation to cover an accident.
I'm not against push bars, and have used them in the past. In fat, Lutz has come up with a possible way around the fitment issue by suggesting that car owners use the existing tow eye screw in location. The only stumbling block being that the primary design of the tow eye location is to provide latteral tow strength, and as such a nose weight of 75kgs has not been calculated into the original design process. But using this method would eleviate any additional bracketry being left permanently fixed to the car, thus giving no reason for an insurance company to load your policy.
Steve L.
The 75kg (or whatever) static noseweight is supposed to cover dynamic conditions as well and these will be significantly higher than 75kg. However, use of the front towing eye, being only of a temporary nature, is a quasi-static application, so the peak forces involved should be less than what is encountered when the car is towed following a breakdown, for example.
Facebook
Twitter