Cracked Sump Guard

Rally said:
The factory one is a splash guard. Anything extra is just a bonus. The issue I have is that while thee are scrape marks on the guard, the guard has not been given an unduly hard life. Yes, it did protect the sump, so yes it did do it's job. But what if after one or two applications of your brakes you had to go and buy brand new discs and calipers. Yes, they stopped the car but I really need them again in a few hundred metres
Click to expand...

Thats very true what your saying. Maybe we(us as a forum) could send some suggestions to Subaxtreme. Their bars are the best money can buy for Subaru's but there sumpguards could do with some improving.
Rally explained it as a great metaphor with the brakes thing :iconwink:
 
G'day T

thunder039 said:
i dont think the plastic guard would so much on rock either
Click to expand...

Depends on the rock ...

I carry my portable HDDs in padded/neoprene cases. The HDDs will resist shocks of 100s of gravities deceleration rate without damage (usually). Unfortunately, when you drop one on concrete, for just a microsecond or so the deceleration rate is around 1,000+ gravities ...

In their carry cases, the absolute deceleration is still the same, just spread out over a far longer time (fraction of a second instead of a microsecond or so ... ). Because of this, the actual g-shock is far less than the maximum they will tolerate.

Same would apply with the OEM sump guard.

As Taza said upthread (IIRC), if the guard is strong enough to withstand ALL ill-treatment, it WILL cause body/frame deformation. I have had this exact thing happen. Zero damage to the sump guard; but the entire sub-frame/body moved backwards about 2". If you think this was flaming expensive to repair, you would be exactly right ... took about 6 weeks to repair the vehicle (including insurance assessing etc).

Then they had to pull it all apart and do it again because they didn't get it straight the first time. Austin 1800s were flaming strong ...
 
Ratbag said:
G'day T

Depends on the rock ...

I carry my portable HDDs in padded/neoprene cases. The HDDs will resist shocks of 100s of gravities deceleration rate without damage (usually). Unfortunately, when you drop one on concrete, for just a microsecond or so the deceleration rate is around 1,000+ gravities ...

In their carry cases, the absolute deceleration is still the same, just spread out over a far longer time (fraction of a second instead of a microsecond or so ... ). Because of this, the actual g-shock is far less than the maximum they will tolerate.
Click to expand...

Very true, I don't really take mine very far anymore like I used to.

As Taza said upthread (IIRC), if the guard is strong enough to withstand ALL ill-treatment, it WILL cause body/frame deformation. I have had this exact thing happen. Zero damage to the sump guard; but the entire sub-frame/body moved backwards about 2". If you think this was flaming expensive to repair, you would be exactly right ... took about 6 weeks to repair the vehicle (including insurance assessing etc).

Then they had to pull it all apart and do it again because they didn't get it straight the first time. Austin 1800s were flaming strong ...
Click to expand...

I reckon a 3-4mm thick steel or 7-8mm thicks alli/alloy would do just right. Whether it affects the airbags or not is another story... But it should allow some flex in my opinion but im not sure. I know the rear mounting point for all sumpguard on all subarus is the next thing that will bend or break as its only 1-2mm thick/thin steel but is made in such a way that it speads the weight/pressure of the SG.
 
G'day again Rally

Rally said:
Did not appear to
Click to expand...

I have just been carefully examining your pics again.

It seems to me that the longitudinal rib fractures are due to the bottom leading edge of the guard hitting the object, causing the front panel of the guard to flex inwards, and therefore tearing the ribs ...

I reckon that the guard could be modified in such a way as to have little, if any, effect on the airbag deployment system, while rectifying it weaknesses.

Some 3~4 mm drawn half-hard aluminium bar about 30~40 mm wide could be shaped to fit down the sides of the guard and bolted to its inside surface with about 4 Brownbuilt rack system style cup head bolts. These would tear out in the event of a serious accident.

Similarly reinforce the guard down the centre with two strips of the same running along the inside of the existing ribs.

These would effectively turn the guard into a composite/laminate material, adding much needed tensile strength to complement the cast plate.

Just a few off the cuff thoughts.

I really should drop these pics onto a stick and ask an engineer mate about it. I am absolutely certain that he would know heaps more about this than I will ever know.
 
Ratbag said:
G'day again Rally



I have just been carefully examining your pics again.

It seems to me that the longitudinal rib fractures are due to the bottom leading edge of the guard hitting the object, causing the front panel of the guard to flex inwards, and therefore tearing the ribs ...

I reckon that the guard could be modified in such a way as to have little, if any, effect on the airbag deployment system, while rectifying it weaknesses.

Some 3~4 mm drawn half-hard aluminium bar about 30~40 mm wide could be shaped to fit down the sides of the guard and bolted to its inside surface with about 4 Brownbuilt rack system style cup head bolts. These would tear out in the event of a serious accident.

Similarly reinforce the guard down the centre with two strips of the same running along the inside of the existing ribs.

These would effectively turn the guard into a composite/laminate material, adding much needed tensile strength to complement the cast plate.

Just a few off the cuff thoughts.

I really should drop these pics onto a stick and ask an engineer mate about it. I am absolutely certain that he would know heaps more about this than I will ever know.
Click to expand...


Send some of the info you have come up with to Subaxtreme as a suggestion to what alot of us have experience (cracking).
 
Rally said:
The factory one is a splash guard. Anything extra is just a bonus. The issue I have is that while thee are scrape marks on the guard, the guard has not been given an unduly hard life. Yes, it did protect the sump, so yes it did do it's job. But what if after one or two applications of your brakes you had to go and buy brand new discs and calipers. Yes, they stopped the car but I really need them again in a few hundred metres
Click to expand...
Out of curiocity -- how old is your sump guard? I really am surprised they haven't offered a replacement.

Regardless of how old it is, the way I see it is that you're a genuine customer who has used their product for its designed purpose. You haven't given your car **** and gone over and above what the sump is designed for. And yet it has failed.

If this were any other type of product, the manufacturer would be replacing it.
 
Exactly one year old. I advised them earlier- just had to wait till my next Canberra trip to drop it in.
 
While cast alloy may be air bag compatible it is subject to cracking. My cast guard is waiting to be welded up for the 3rd time (and it's been off for a long time). The solid plate alloy home made job has proved a lot more durable.
 
Gidday Rally

Rally said:
Exactly one year old. I advised them earlier- just had to wait till my next Canberra trip to drop it in.
Click to expand...

Sale of Goods Act (s.16/17/18/19 - depends on State ... ) requires that goods be of merchantable quality and be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are sold ...

These provisions are in addition to any manufacturer's warranty, and cannot be contracted out of.

e.g.: s.19 Sale of Goods Act NSW:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/...s19.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=merchantable

****
SALE OF GOODS ACT 1923 - SECT 19

Implied condition as to quality or fitness
19 Implied condition as to quality or fitness

Subject to the provisions of this Act, and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows:
(1) Where the buyer expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether the seller be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:
Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.
​
(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether the seller be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality :
Provided that if the buyer has examined the goods there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed.
​
(3) An implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.
​
(4) An express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith.

*****
emphasis added - RB

Hope this helps someone ... :iconwink: :lildevil:
​
 
Sump guards & engineers

Gidday Rally & All

I have sent off your pics plus the contents of my two relevant posts above to the engineer I know via email.

Of course I will let you all know if and when he replies.
 
Ratbag said:
Gidday Rally & All

I have sent off your pics plus the contents of my two relevant posts above to the engineer I know via email.

Of course I will let you all know if and when he replies.
Click to expand...

Just don't go suing them mate. That happened to Scorpion Subaru after they made a extremely high lift kit for a Sube and the guy/girl had an addicdent in their car. Something along the lines of the lift kit being illegally high and sued the company. I don't think they are even around anymore but the did make some really good looking products!

We don't want to loose Subaxtremes bars thats for sure!
 
Gidday Taza

taza said:
Just don't go suing them mate. That happened to Scorpion Subaru after they made a extremely high lift kit for a Sube and the guy/girl had an addicdent in their car. Something along the lines of the lift kit being illegally high and sued the company. I don't think they are even around anymore but the did make some really good looking products!

We don't want to loose Subaxtremes bars thats for sure!
Click to expand...

Never even occurred to me, Taz.

Besides, I do not (yet) own one of their sump guards.

I am just looking for an appraisal of what I have thought about from someone who ought to know after a lifetime owning his general engineering company.

As regards Scorpion Subaru, they should have known better than to offer an illegal product for sale.

This is the same thing I, and a few others here, keep on stressing about insurance and the legality of modifications. The ultimate onus is on you, the owner, to ensure that your vehicle complies with all relevant standards. If it does not, and someone else is driving it and injures someone else or themselves, or someone else is injured by it, you could well lose everything you own as a result of voiding whatever insurance you may have had, but for the non-complying modifications.

These things are very important in life.
 
Ratbag said:
This is the same thing I, and a few others here, keep on stressing about insurance and the legality of modifications. The ultimate onus is on you, the owner, to ensure that your vehicle complies with all relevant standards. If it does not, and someone else is driving it and injures someone else or themselves, or someone else is injured by it, you could well lose everything you own as a result of voiding whatever insurance you may have had, but for the non-complying modifications.

These things are very important in life.
Click to expand...
since reading your thread about insurance i have called my insurance and told them about my springs. quick question, if all of your modifications are legal and you dont tell your insurarer will you still be covered?
 
thunder039 said:
since reading your thread about insurance i have called my insurance and told them about my springs. quick question, if all of your modifications are legal and you dont tell your insurarer will you still be covered?
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge I bloody hope so. If they declined a your claim due to a pari of spot lights or the like I would be pretty darn pissed off!
 
Gidday Thunder

Ratbag said:
This is the same thing I, and a few others here, keep on stressing about insurance and the legality of modifications. The ultimate onus is on you, the owner, to ensure that your vehicle complies with all relevant standards. If it does not, and someone else is driving it and injures someone else or themselves, or someone else is injured by it, you could well lose everything you own as a result of voiding whatever insurance you may have had, but for the non-complying modifications.

These things are very important in life.
thunder039 said:
since reading your thread about insurance i have called my insurance and told them about my springs. quick question, if all of your modifications are legal and you dont tell your insurarer will you still be covered?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You should be covered.

The problem arises if the insurer considers something a grey area, and they want to fight about it.

You are legally obligated to tell your insurer anything and everything that may effect their insured risk. It is written right there in your policy document ...

IMO, this means that you tell your insurer everything in writing, and you get confirmation from them in writing.

This can save enormous angst later, and costs all round. Going to court is always fraught, and you may lose even if you are in the right morally because of some technical issue that should have been resolved in writing beforehand with your insurer.

If you are in doubt, it is always better to pester them until you are happy. If nothing else, it demonstrates that you have tried to do things properly, and that can be sufficient to swing matters your way in a stoush.

Good on you for checking with your insurer.
And let me guess ... Your insurer was glad you spoke to them?

They should now send you a modified policy document with that notation on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top