Australian Atom - are we getting close?

[apollyon25]

[quote="Todka"]
Gents,

I've been a paid up deposit holder for some years now, and there is still no end in sight to an AU Atom on the road.
The wait is getting very tired indeed.
The problem lies with project management (historical lack of focus) and responsiveness of Ariel (Simon) to a structural weakness with the car chassis. The car deforms unacceptably at seatbelt anchorage points under CAD stress tests and will not be approved as is.
Hopefully the appointment of Angus (new project manager) will speed the resolution of this and the other issues faced with AU ADR compliance.
[/quote]

I disagree. I think that Ariel are not the ones who should be blamed over this.
As both Wisp and I have noted, the previous importer tried to get road legal status over many months of effort with the red tape brigade inserting new issues after each of the old issues were solved. I know from talking to Andrew at OWI that he has encountered similar resistance.

[quote="Todka"]
The failure is for Atom 3 chassis under forward deceleration.
Is the crash you refer to similar?
The AU atom project has been very low visibility historically. Perhaps the input of the broader atom community could be harnessed more to help achieve the elusive compliance.  I will suggest to Angus.
[/quote]

Chassis CAD stress test failure under forward deceleration?
Where? you mention deformation of seatbelt anchorages? and under what circumstances? what deceleration g-force?
As I play with various CAD packages and simulation tools - the results are only ever as good as the model to begin with.
The difference between theory and practice is - in theory, there is no difference. In practice, there is.

As someone who has seen the various photos of chassis deformation of Atoms on here, at no point has 'deformation of seatbelt anchorages" been an issue. This just reeks of the red tapers adding more tape to the ravelled pile.

Give it up as a lost cause and move to NZ.

[Driver]

[quote="Todka"]
The problem lies with project management (historical lack of focus) and responsiveness of Ariel (Simon) to a structural weakness with the car chassis. The car deforms unacceptably at seatbelt anchorage points under CAD stress tests and will not be approved as is.[/quote]

How do you know this? Specifically: Did Simon submit cad drawings? Is CAD stress testing normal during these situations? Where does one look to see the results of this "testing"? This is the first I'e ever seen where someone claimed that the car had ever been tested in such a way and had issues.

[apollyon25]

In fact a third party (student) remodeled the chassis from photos and did subject it to some FEA stress analysis.
This simulation didnt highlight an issue.

Where does this information you state come from?

The evidence to the contrary:
Pascal's crash...
Slowcharles crash...
The Atom that hit the barrier at Pukekohe...
All attest to the strength of the chassis and the belt mounting.

If I had to believe Simon (who used to design for Porsche and Aston Martin) or some pencil pusher...
Red tape person = FULL OF sh1t.

[Todka]

Nice to see such interest in this.

Getting the Atom Chassis through a FEA test in Australia has been an outstanding issue since at least July2007 with the problem being deformation at seat belt anchorage points. This is for an Australian spec car that complies to AU seatbelt requirements. OWI and Evotive (the company comissioned to help achieve compliance) have made 2 or 3 suggested modifications to the chassis to try and strengthen it which require Ariel to review/approve since they need to be able to manufacture it.

Red tape and nonsensical regulations in part explains the difficulty in achieving compliance. Also in the mix is a significant amount of time where no activity was taking place trying to resolve this problem. And since the total size of the order of Atoms for Australia is only 25 (at least in the first instance), clearly Simon does not have a strong financial incentive to modify the Atom chassis to help achieve compliance in a small market when he can probably sell all the atoms he can build anyway. Entirely understandable and I do not blame him for this, but for me and the others very keen to get an Atom on the road here, it is unfortunate.

A full history of compliance efforts is available to all deposit holders in the Australian Atom forum run by Andrew.

To answer your question, the CAD model comes from Simon and the result of the FEA tests from Andrew Mackie.

[John Lloyd]

[quote="Todka"]


A full history of compliance efforts is available to all deposit holders in the Australian Atom forum run by Andrew.

To answer your question, the CAD model comes from Simon and the result of the FEA tests from Andrew Mackie.


[/quote]

Why do you need your own forum?

[wisp]

[quote="apollyon25"]
Pascal's crash...
Slowcharles crash...
The Atom that hit the barrier at Pukekohe...
All attest to the strength of the chassis and the belt mounting.

[/quote]

You forgot the motorway crash when the car wiped out into the barrier.

Anyway 'polly don't worry about it. The Aussies are grossly misinformed. Someone posted, in July of this year, the following on an Aussie car forum...

"The Atom 3 being released sometime next year will be taking a lot more of our local requirements on board, making it so that minimal changes are needed to pass ADR (as opposed to the 60 or so from the Atom 2)."

NEXT YEAR!! The Atom 3 will be released NEXT YEAR (2009).    Get a grip. 

And there are 60 things non compliant with the Atom2? 

The same poster also wrote...
"I'm on the secret compliancing forum"

Why's it secret. Whose hiding what from whom 

How well informed are the secret squirrels. NOT!!!

[apollyon25]

[quote="wisp"]
[quote="apollyon25"]
Pascal's crash...
Slowcharles crash...
The Atom that hit the barrier at Pukekohe...
All attest to the strength of the chassis and the belt mounting.

[/quote]

You forgot the motorway crash when the car wiped out into the barrier.

Anyway 'polly don't worry about it. The Aussies are grossly misinformed. Someone posted, in July of this year, the following on an Aussie car forum...

"The Atom 3 being released sometime next year will be taking a lot more of our local requirements on board, making it so that minimal changes are needed to pass ADR (as opposed to the 60 or so from the Atom 2)."

NEXT YEAR!! The Atom 3 will be released NEXT YEAR (2009).    Get a grip.   :D

And there are 60 things non compliant with the Atom2? 

The same poster also wrote...
"I'm on the secret compliancing forum"

Why's it secret. Whose hiding what from whom 

How well informed are the secret squirrels. NOT!!!


[/quote]

Im not worried about it at all. My Atom is tucked up safely in my garage.
Though publishing of mis-information does annoy me.

The fact remains that ACTUAL CRASH information is, and always will be, more informative than CAD stress analysis.
Seatbelt anchorages have remained solidly fixed in ALL cases.

I would suggest that these secret forum people actually join this forum (where only a few things are secret) and get some accurate information.
Between the large number of engineers on this forum, and its close ties to the factory, I'm sure a solution exists.

[quote="Todka"]
A full history of compliance efforts is available to all deposit holders in the Australian Atom forum run by Andrew.

To answer your question, the CAD model comes from Simon and the result of the FEA tests from Andrew Mackie.
[/quote]

Andrew "secret squirrel" needs to start communicating with the rest of the Atom community.
I think that a lot of the delay for Oz compliancing has been through his waning enthusiasm...
Who has the CAD model?

[Driver]

I doubt seriously that any official CAD models have ever been tested or that a actual Atom has been crash tested. I don't think Simon would release said drawings much less CAD ones out in the public (where they become public record) and more importantly I've never heard of any gov't actually using computer generated files in place of a actual car for real Certification testing. The Atom 3 would make any A2 stuff obsolete as the frame changed. Maybe it's just me thinking this though, maybe I'm just thinking of US compliance where they actually crash the real thing and not point to a handful of incidents of used vehicles, in multiple countries, with unspecific reports and photographs in various non controlled situations.

[wisp]

[quote="apollyon25"]
Im not worried about it at all. My Atom is tucked up safely in my garage.
Though publishing of mis-information does annoy me.

The fact remains that ACTUAL CRASH information is, and always will be, more informative than CAD stress analysis.
Seatbelt anchorages have remained solidly fixed in ALL cases.

[/quote]

By don't worry I meant about what the Aussies believe. You are right and someone is feeding them a load of bollocks. Or they are only getting half the story and incorrectly filling in the blanks.

I agree with everything you say about actual crash statistics verses theoretical what if. Take Pascal's crash. The fact that both driver and passenger only suffered leg injuries speaks volumes for the car's seat belt strength.

[xr_ated]

[/quote]

By don't worry I meant about what the Aussies believe. You are right and someone is feeding them a load of bollocks. Or they are only getting half the story and incorrectly filling in the blanks.



[/quote]

That is the big problem.  I haven't put my money down as I still don't know what car if any will be coming to Australia so I can't get onto the secrete forum.

The only information out there is half baked, half truth fill in the gaps yourself.

There is a world of information out there, I hope OWI are tapping into it.

[Todka]

Agreed and also somewhat exasperated that the AU project is not more open. This is an issue only Andrew and Angus can resolve.

My experience of good special interests forums has always been very positive and I have found the helpful input of strangers quite heartening.

The responses I am seeing here however seem do not seem constructive. The car need to pass AU standards to get approved. Strongly opinionated statements as to the strength of the car in real crashes does not change the fact that the car fails a necessary safety test in AU that must be passed to be approved. Regulation won't be changed, so if we are going to see an Atom on AU roads the chassis need to be modified in a way that both passes AU standards and Ariel will agree to manufacture.

I doubt if Andrew read this thread it would encourage him to join in.
I have already made about my disappointment with progress and transparency to Andrew in person. I commented on this thread because it is wrong to say that the delay is simply a matter of red tape. I want OWI to succeed in getting the car complianced, and it would be very nice indeed if anyone on this forum had constructive input.

I hear Simons name bandied about like everyone knows him, so please, involve him, get the facts, and if possble, HELP!
It is entirely possible that improvements made for the AU car could benefit someone on this forum in the event of a head on accident.

[Driver]

[quote="Todka"]
fact that the car fails a necessary safety test in AU that must be passed to be approved[/quote]

You keep saying this but have yet to show proof that a actual test was ever conducted. That's what concerns me. Just because someone puts it on a forum doesn't mean it's factual. I can understand if it's because it's lacking a wiper or this or that, but you are putting into doubt the structural design of the car with nothing to show.

[apollyon25]

[quote="Todka"]
Agreed and also somewhat exasperated that the AU project is not more open. This is an issue only Andrew and Angus can resolve.

My experience of good special interests forums has always been very positive and I have found the helpful input of strangers quite heartening.

The responses I am seeing here however seem do not seem constructive. The car need to pass AU standards to get approved. Strongly opinionated statements as to the strength of the car in real crashes does not change the fact that the car fails a necessary safety test in AU that must be passed to be approved. Regulation won't be changed, so if we are going to see an Atom on AU roads the chassis need to be modified in a way that both passes AU standards and Ariel will agree to manufacture.

I doubt if Andrew read this thread it would encourage him to join in.
I have already made about my disappointment with progress and transparency to Andrew in person. I commented on this thread because it is wrong to say that the delay is simply a matter of red tape. I want OWI to succeed in getting the car complianced, and it would be very nice indeed if anyone on this forum had constructive input.

I hear Simons name bandied about like everyone knows him, so please, involve him, get the facts, and if possble, HELP!
It is entirely possible that improvements made for the AU car could benefit someone on this forum in the event of a head on accident.

[/quote]

I suggest you re-read the posts as there is lots of information in there.
4 major crashes - no seatbelt anchorage issues - all occupants survived.
Previous simulation of stresses on chassis - no seatbelt anchorage issues.
All the pictures and simulations are on this forum, so when you post the sort of comments you did - those of us that know of the above just mutter 'Bullshit'.

But of course we dont know the exact details of the tests (you didnt post them) - 'forward deceleration' means what? Under braking? What actually was the test? Speed? Impact? Decel time? What failed? deformed?

I dont have access to a) the CAD model (Simon wont give it to me) or b) the relevant Australian legislation that details the requirements for the stress tests or c) the list of issues the Australian legislation have against the Atom. If you can get them - we can help you considerably more.

I understand the red tape, its processes and how futile it is to get them to change anything...

However, my point is, if its just a simulation - and it fails, yet CLEARLY does not in practice - the model is wrong.
This is fundamental to simulating anything in the first place. Know what to expect before you begin.

Eg.
If I calculate 1+1 and the calculator gives me 11 - am I to blindly accept that 1+1 does actually equate to 11?
No, of course not. Does the calculator work? Yes (presumably). Does the addition function work? Yes (presumably).
Then you re-test... does it repeat? Yes? Then clearly the problem exists between the keyboard and chair... because we all know it doesnt.
So, do the seat belt anchorages deform in real life? No. Then the input data is just plain wrong.

Back to the point...
Some of the US guys have had similar problems getting road legal status but they will take the risk and buy one and then get it modified it so that it meets local regulations.
The Atom as it stands is legal in Australia for track use. So why dont you buy one and then work with the powers that be and local fabricators on getting it on the road?
This will be quicker than going through Andrew and the factory for several reasons - Andrew is a notorious secret squirrel and the factory are busy with building cars, servicing cars, designing the next revision, and bringing TMI online. They are also 12hrs behind Aust/NZ so communication just takes longer.
It just depends on how badly you want one...

I hope you find this with the intent that it was provided - more constructive...

[wisp]

[quote="Todka"]
The responses I am seeing here however seem do not seem constructive. The car need to pass AU standards to get approved. Strongly opinionated statements as to the strength of the car in real crashes does not change the fact that the car fails a necessary safety test in AU that must be passed to be approved. Regulation won't be changed, so if we are going to see an Atom on AU roads the chassis need to be modified in a way that both passes AU standards and Ariel will agree to manufacture.

I doubt if Andrew read this thread it would encourage him to join in.
I have already made about my disappointment with progress and transparency to Andrew in person. I commented on this thread because it is wrong to say that the delay is simply a matter of red tape. I want OWI to succeed in getting the car complianced, and it would be very nice indeed if anyone on this forum had constructive input.

[/quote]

Firstly Andrew has joined this forum but not been active in almost a year. Nor has he ever requested input from AAOC members to solve the Australian compliance problem or even to assist with raising the cars profile in NZ, after the loss of the NZ demo car.

His profile for contact in this forum are... OWI or owiandrew

What's more is that some of us are aware that other people have tried to gain compliance and the battle with Aussie bureaucrats has been going on for 8 years.

My car has a different steering column fitted, that has an ignition lock, because the Ariel one was not up to ADR specs. I also have side indicators on my head lamps.
At one stage it was said that having a nose cone would not allow the car on the road. Then it was noise levels. The poster, I previously quoted, mentioned 60 things wrong with the Atom2. Hell the car doesn't even have 60 major components. So it must be all little issues. I'm sure that if members of this forum were asked for advice on specific issues there would be constructive advice given. However, it surprises me that with the right amount of determination it has not been possible to sort out all the issues in 8 years. This makes it look more like the Atom must need to be a different car in order to meet ADR.

I don't blame Ariel or OWI for this as I'm sure Simon and Andrew would love to sell cars in Oz. IMO the problem must be with the Aussie bureaucrats who obviously don't want the Atom. The previous Australian dealer told me they spent in excess of A$30k trying to get the original cars through compliance.

I do feel sorry for Andrew having spent a lot on promoting the car in Oz and NZ. Plus losing the demo car in a crash at Pukekohe. Since then Atom promotion in NZ has been nil. This personally disappoints me as I believe something could be achieved with the owners cars that are currently in NZ. I think, even for the small number of sales here, that raising NZ numbers firstly will also add to changing the attitudes of the rule makers in Aussie.

As 'polly mentioned, there is nothing to stop Aussie customers buying the car for track use. After all you can't drive an Atom, like it should be driven, on the road without breaking the law.

[Driver]

If they lost the car in a crash then why didn't they rebuild it? Not like it's rocket science and that would get their demo back on the road. Last person I heard that did it took about 2 days of work to strip it off the old and onto the new.