I do not doubt that there are far worse on the market, so I guess what I am really questioning is just how safe can a plastic tank be in a crash, if it can be pierced so easily by a needle or small nail? This "crush" philosophy is all good, but assumes that the tank is merely crushed. As we all know though, there are lots of splinters in an accident, snapped and sheared components of the cars chassis etc. Are these not factored into the design as a danger too? My other point is this. This design is, as I said, based upon a powerful collision, which thankfully, doesn't happen an most of us in our life times and if it does, only once. I'm sure there are people who have had more, so let's not get carried away arguing about that.
Anyway, something that we all do in our cars everyday is drive them along roads, littered with all kinds of projectiles and such nasties. Would you agree, that taking this into consideration, there is a greater risk of fire, to far more people in the world, due to easily punctured, Plastic Fuel tanks. For example, you drive home from work on Friday night, put the car in the garage, kick back and watch TV until Monday. Ring any bells??? However, on this occasion your super special plastic fuel tank, got a pin hole in it and is dripping petrol all over your garage floor at a rate of 2 litres per day. Then the hot water service come on, or your ever rebellious daughter sneaks out for a crafty cigarette (or worse), with her loser boyfriend. I'll leave the rest to you imagination, but it is not pretty.
There are lots more examples, but you get my drift.
I just don't think that car manufactures like VW, should be cutting costs by using cheap Asian plastic on such a critical component of the vehicle and it surprises me that the crash test scientists and indeed, vehicle designers, do not feel the same. Or is it once again, a case of those clever little multi-tasking Accountants, showing the pro's how it really should be done?
Last edited by: Goddess of Bun on Wed 28 Apr 10 at 12:05
|
