VAUGHN REVUE LETARA
The magazine that goes out to all of you Letarans driving a Vaughn, Wraith or VCV
Spring 1962
EDITORIAL
This time we are giving you more than just an editorial. This is also kind of an open letter, to the government and to other car importers/manufacturers, that like us are seeing the need for change.
What needs to be changed is in our opinion the safety regulations and the taxation system. At Vaughn, we see no conflict in having a tax system based on the safety of the car, since of course it will lead the buyers into making better, more informed choices. Also, minimum safety requirements is probably necessary to keep an acceptable standard on the vehicle fleet of this country.
Now, Safety is something we are taking very seriously at Vaughn. For example, sled tests performed in the United States, with cabs from ex-government VCV Enforcers, are currently conducted for development of the “Nitro-Sack” system that will make the safety belt obsolete, probably at the end of this decade. An easy description of the system, is that the steering assembly (and the space normally occupied by the glovebox) contains a container of compressed nitrogen gas, and a nylon sack. At impact, the container releases the gas into the sack, creating an effective restraint system. Tests with the system pre-inflated have shown great potential, and at the moment it is just a matter of making the system able to release the gas quick enough and at the right time, which is something our engineers are working hard with at the moment. It solves the problem some scandinavian manufacturers have tried to cure by adding an upper, diagonal portion to the seatbelt. While effective, we don’t believe in them at Vaughn, since the struggle with using such a seatbelt system is probably going to leave the belts unused. The Nitro-Sack also probably has potential to protect children riding in the front seat that are too small to use a seatbelt.
What we feel needs to be changed is how the current system works. At the moment, it is based on a complicated points system, which punishes for example small cars, cars using jump seats, convertibles and vehicles with ladder frames. That means that to lower taxation, or to even be allowed to be sold, such vehicles (that all have their niches to fulfill) needs to have all the latest safety equipment. On the other hand, a large unibody 2-seater coupé could, by a less serious manufacturer, as well get lead weights bolted to the floor instead of having even the most rudimentary safety equipment, since weight is such a heavy factor in the scoring system. Even if we only make large cars at Vaughn, we can admit that weight is only a factor working in your favour in a head on collision between two cars, and the advantages will be evened out if everyone drives a heavy car. To put it this way, in a rollover a seatbelt may save you regardless of the size and weight of the car, lead weights bolted to the floor will absolutely not do it.
Being forced to remove jump seats if the vehicle is seen as being “on the limit” by the government is another factor that has questionable effect and is more effective on paper than in real life. Even if a full size seat obviously is a safer place to be in, being seated in a proper seat is always better than riding in the cargo area, which people will be tempted to do if vehicles does not offer the desired seating capacity. Accident investigation we have been doing in the US shows that in the accidents either involving a VCV enforcer, and/or having a pickup truck as the opposite vehicle, the worst injuries have been sustained by people riding in pickup beds.
Our suggestion is that regardless of the size and construction of the car, the regulations should be based on a minimum of safety equipment instead of an illogical scoring system. A good side effect: If all the cars are required to have a certain level of safety equipment, it will make every car from the most tiny to the most large one on the market safer, if it is forced only into small cars, it will only make the small cars safer, which means less of a safety benefit.
Our suggestion is that from 1/1 1964, all new cars should be required to have a safety equipment that consists of (1). Those regulations should be updated with an interval of (2), since progress is made all the time (for example, in 10 years a requirement of Nitro-Sack probably will be more actual than requiring a seatbelt). Also, we suggest that vehicle using (3) safety should get a higher sales tax of 10%. Vehicles using (4) safety should be tax exempt while the rest keeps the 5% tax. That would allow for some diversity on the market when needed, while still leading consumers into choosing safer cars when possible.
Until next time, happy motoring!
Taking this OOC because it would be hard to get a realistic flavour on it.
-
Either (A), the latest unlocked basic safety at the starting year of the round at the allowed techpool, (B), standard safety that is at least one notch below the latest unlocked one during the same circumstances, or (C), advanced safety that is at least two notches below the latest unlocked one during the same circumstances.
-
At the start of every new round, but using the same rules for how it should be applied, to make it fair and easy
-
Cars using any kind of basic safety, or using the worst allowed variant of standard safety
-
Cars using advanced safety, that should be of at least the best possible variant unlocked at the allowed techpool at the start of the round.