Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / March 2007
Car bumpers
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Steve - 02 Mar 2007 04:43 GMT Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html
Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following minor fender-benders can be surprisingly steep.
Formerly one-piece steel bumpers are now integrated into the vehicle's front-end design. This happened in part because new rules don't require bumpers to be as strong and protective. That means consumers wind up paying thousands of dollars to fix damage from even a minor collision.
Even the best performers in the tests wound up badly bruised. A 5 mph impact on the front bumper of the top-ranked Mitsubishi Galant resulted in $929 of damage. A similar crash inflicted $3,911 of damage on a Subaru Legacy, $4,535 on a Nissan Maxima and $4,594 on a Volkswagen Passat.
In the tests, each car collides with a steel barrier that is shaped like the front end of a car and is built with a wide plastic cushion and a flexible cover similar to the energy-absorbing bumpers and bumper covers on most cars. The institute recently redesigned its crash barriers to look and respond more like the bumper of another vehicle instead of a flat wall. The full test includes four impacts: front and rear full-width crashes at 6 mph and front and rear corner bumps at 3 mph.
The Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G6 and Volkswagen Passat each sustained damage estimated at more than $4,500 in the frontal test. These cars have bumpers that slid underneath the barrier, allowing their bodies to absorb much of the impact. The costs reflect damage to the cars' hoods, fenders, headlights and even air conditioning condensers mounted just behind their front grilles.
Rear-end tests showed similar patterns of expensive damage when the cars' bumpers weren't tall enough or were mounted too high or low to properly engage the barrier. The Hyundai Sonata performed best in this test with $739 of damage, mostly limited to the bumper. Cars' front bumpers generally were not wide enough to prevent extensive damage in corner impacts. The headlights of all 17 cars were damaged in the 3 mph corner impacts. This is because the bumper bars aren't wide enough to protect those parts.
Many cars appear to have bumpers that wrap around their front corners, but the underlying bumper structure is rarely as extensive as the cover. On many cars there is empty space behind the corners of the bumper cover, so headlights and fenders tend to wind up absorbing the energy of the crash.
Consumers also may not be aware of the differences in the cost of repair parts from one vehicle to the next. The Toyota Camry needed extensive repairs after the rear crash test damaged its body panels and trunk floor. The cost of the repairs was $1,480, which is low compared with some other models that cost more than $3,000 to repair because their parts are more expensive than Toyota's.
 Signature The greatest of faults is to be conscious of none.
...Thomas Carlyle
Bucky - 02 Mar 2007 06:39 GMT > Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles > from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following > minor fender-benders can be surprisingly steep. I reminisce about the old style bumpers, which had nice rubber bumpers to absorb fender benders. Nowadays it's all about style and looks, not about practicality.
Andrew Stephenson - 02 Mar 2007 13:18 GMT > > Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles > > from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to absorb fender benders. Nowadays it's all about style and looks, not > about practicality. In 1989 I was looking for a new car and had pretty much decided on a Volvo. During a visit to the dealer/garage/repairer I was shown a 740 (one of the big blocky jobs with many attributes of a stationwagon) waiting for repair: it had rammed the side of a lorry at around 30mph with its "railway track" bumper -- a slab of aluminium, I was told -- and suffered crumpling as intended, about as far back as the front wheels, nothing worse. FWIW the driver came out intact. The garage expected to fix it up fine.
That decided me -- as it was meant to, I suspect. But a modern car... Hmm. Think I'll avoid crashes for now.
 Signature Andrew Stephenson
Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 17:38 GMT In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision, to protect properly belted passengers, not to reduce damage to the vehicle. What would you prefer a car that receives less damage in a collision, but you get killed or injured?
mike
>> > Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles >> > from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That decided me -- as it was meant to, I suspect. But a modern > car... Hmm. Think I'll avoid crashes for now. Jeff - 02 Mar 2007 17:45 GMT > In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision, > to protect properly belted passengers, not to reduce damage to the > vehicle. What would you prefer a car that receives less damage in a > collision, but you get killed or injured? But it is possible to make a bumper that doesn't begin to absorb forces until say 10 mph. Or absorb them without damage in such a way that injuries are increased. (Kind of like light posts are breakaway so that they don't cause injuries in a high speed crash).
But, I guess the question comes down to what are the benefits to doing this?
I think Mike is right that this is all hype and unreliable data.
Jeff
> mike > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> That decided me -- as it was meant to, I suspect. But a modern >> car... Hmm. Think I'll avoid crashes for now. Andrew Stephenson - 02 Mar 2007 17:57 GMT > But it is possible to make a bumper that doesn't begin to absorb forces > until say 10 mph. Or absorb them without damage in such a way that injuries [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think Mike is right that this is all hype and unreliable data. Bluntly: I wouldn't trust "Mike" to right on anything. He'd want to twist it some way, if only for the sake of twisting.
I saw one of my posts jumbled up with yours and "Mike Hunt(er)"'s thanks to top posting and can't make out who said what, when. So I'll just point out that the Volvo I saw HAD protected the driver by crumpling its front end; but the crumpling had been limited by design so that repairs were easy -- just replace the crumple zone by disconnecting it at the designated points. Or that was what I gathered from the one I saw and the garage bod's remarks.
Can't help thinking things could be made easier by some long hard thinking on how to extend the above principle. Perhaps design in a series of crumple zones, which deform by turns as impact energy increases? The primary zone, for (say) 0..5mph could be a bumper constructed cleverly with burst chambers, like those water tubs a USian overpass is often protected by, but moulded into the bumper as sealed air cells. The thing'll be toast anyhow; recyclability of the mashed materials could justify elaborate tricks that avoid mixing material types. (AIRY WAVE OF HAND) Details, hey?
 Signature Andrew Stephenson
Ray O - 02 Mar 2007 19:10 GMT >> But it is possible to make a bumper that doesn't begin to absorb forces >> until say 10 mph. Or absorb them without damage in such a way that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of the mashed materials could justify elaborate tricks that avoid > mixing material types. (AIRY WAVE OF HAND) Details, hey? I like the segmented idea, however, I don't know how consumers would accept a vehicle with additional lines or segments in front of the A-pillar or behind the C-pillar.
Taxis and buses in the U.S. had bumpers with burst chambers for a while, and they were pretty ugly, with the appearance of the bumper on an amusement ride bumper car. They seem to be a practical solution where style does not matter, but like a good meal, presentation and appearances count for a lot with U.S. consumers.
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 23:46 GMT I supose one could buy the Interceptors 'Push Bar' from Ford parts and put it on one CV/GM if they wanted ;)
mike
>> Can't help thinking things could be made easier by some long hard >> thinking on how to extend the above principle. Perhaps design in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > style does not matter, but like a good meal, presentation and appearances > count for a lot with U.S. consumers. Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 23:38 GMT Thanks for the kind words ;)
That is pretty much how the current bumpers ARE designed to absorb minor impacts, using plastic air pockets. At some point, as the forces are greater, the piston absorbers, that connect the bumper to the chassis take over. If that happens the parts can and must be replaced. After the bumper has done what it was designed to do, the vehicles designed crumple zone must do the job of absorbing the forces of the collision. If they fail to absorb enough of the forces, quickly enough, even a properly belted passengers can be injured or killed when one organs strike ones skeleton
What I tried to point out was the majority of collisions occur at greater speeds, so the bumper becomes moot The problem with their tests is the fact they do not fully strike the bumper, thus making other structural parts take the brunt, NOT the bumper, leading to greater damage to the vehicle than would occur if the bumper was struck fully.
mike
> Perhaps design in > a series of crumple zones, which deform by turns as impact energy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the mashed materials could justify elaborate tricks that avoid > mixing material types. (AIRY WAVE OF HAND) Details, hey? Tegger - 07 Mar 2007 00:52 GMT > Thanks for the kind words ;) > > That is pretty much how the current bumpers ARE designed to absorb > minor impacts, using plastic air pockets. At some point, as the > forces are greater, the piston absorbers, that connect the bumper to > the chassis take over. "Mike", bumpers have not used hydraulic pistons in at least twenty years (too heavy and expensive). These days the rebar is rigidly mounted to the frame. The EPS foam installed atop that is meant to absorb minor impacts.
> If that happens the parts can and must be > replaced. After the bumper has done what it was designed to do, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What I tried to point out was the majority of collisions occur at > greater speeds, Most collisions happen at 40mph or less, mostly at intersections, and mostly on an angle, usually damaging body parts and structure in addition to the bumpers.
> so the bumper becomes moot Body damage is not the insurance companies' bogeyman, liability and injury claims are.
Are you -- and is anyone else -- aware that there are precisely TWO countries on the entire planet that have any sort of bumper standards at all?
I think it was David Hume who said that some things are consecrated by time and become sacred, no matter how stupid the basic idea might be.
 Signature Tegger
John Weiss - 02 Mar 2007 20:26 GMT "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote...
> In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision, > to protect properly belted passengers, not to reduce damage to the > vehicle. What would you prefer a car that receives less damage in a > collision, but you get killed or injured? They are not mutually exclusive. From the mid 70s to the mid 80s Saab managed to engineer bumpers that protected themselves AND the car at low speeds, and "crash zones" that allowed the car to sacrifice itself to protect the passengers in a high-speed crash. After the mid 80s, the self-repairing bumpers went away, but the crash zones remain.
In my '74 99EMS I had a head-on with a pickup that tried to do a left turn in front of me from the opposite direction. Pickup was totaled, Saab had $1500 damage (significant back in '76), only injury was a bruise to my passenger who didn't have his seat belt on.
Mike Hunter - 03 Mar 2007 00:06 GMT I guess I must defer to your superior knowledge on this subject. What do I know, only around eighteen years, of my thirty five years as an automotive structural design engineer, was working to develop crumple zones and bumpers. ;)
mike
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote... >> In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > $1500 damage (significant back in '76), only injury was a bruise to my > passenger who didn't have his seat belt on. Bucky - 05 Mar 2007 07:40 GMT > In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision, to > protect properly belted passengers, not to reduce damage to the vehicle. so you mean the modern painted bumpers that blend into body design are necessary to protect belted passengers? give me a break. that kind of styling is to sell cars. If you were to give a structural engineer the goal of maximum protection to the occupant, it would not look the way current bumpers look.
even if we do assume that the current look is the maximum protection to occupants. Fine, then simply add some soft rubber covering on the outside of that, so that when someone is parallel parking and bumps into your car at 2 mph, you don't have to replace the entire bumper.
Mike Hunter - 05 Mar 2007 18:23 GMT You are talking to the wrong guy, that is exactly what we did to aerodynamically blend the cover over the bumper to aid fuel efficiency. You are free to believe whatever you choose but the underling bumper in the first line of defense in the ultimate goal of a structural engineer. That is to reducing the terminal speed of the killer 'third collision' that takes the life of even properly belted passengers
You premise is faulty, it may damage the cover but one need not to replace the 'bumper' in a 2 MPH collision.
mike
>> In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision, >> to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > outside of that, so that when someone is parallel parking and bumps > into your car at 2 mph, you don't have to replace the entire bumper. Bucky - 06 Mar 2007 04:18 GMT > that is exactly what we did to > aerodynamically blend the cover over the bumper to aid fuel efficiency. ok, that's a valid design goal, but my point was that blended bumper design was not for passenger safety.
> it may damage the cover but one need not to replace > the 'bumper' in a 2 MPH collision. all right, and how much does it cost to replace the bumper cover these days? $500+? I understand the concept of crumple zones and absorbing the energy, and that's what bumpers should do internally. But the exterior should be able to take light bumps (shopping carts, parking) without deforming it or major scratches. That's like having steel-toed workboots made of fine white leather, not very practical.
Mike Hunter - 06 Mar 2007 17:28 GMT You are free to believe whatever you choose.
mike
>> that is exactly what we did to >> aerodynamically blend the cover over the bumper to aid fuel efficiency. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > without deforming it or major scratches. That's like having steel-toed > workboots made of fine white leather, not very practical. SMS - 06 Mar 2007 18:26 GMT > all right, and how much does it cost to replace the bumper cover these > days? $500+? At least. Actually the cover is cheap, but the painting is expensive. Also, painting plastic is very difficult, and the replacement covers quickly show lots of stress cracks in the paint.
Are there any vehicles, other than trucks and a couple of high end SUVs that still have real bumpers?
Mike Hunter - 06 Mar 2007 19:03 GMT What do you mean buy 'real' bumpers. They all build real bumpers that meet the NHTSA standards. The exception is FMC. Ford still builds bumpers to the 5 MPH standard, as an integral part of building above the NHTSA 35 MPH full frontal crash standard. Cars no longer are built with the 'face bar' of old, rather a 'bumper cover' over the bumper that replaced the 'face bar.' The truth be told today, the old less protective chromed steel 'face bar,. would probably cost more to replace. Ash any collector, the cost to simply re-chrome an old face bar is around $800.
mike
>> all right, and how much does it cost to replace the bumper cover these >> days? $500+? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Are there any vehicles, other than trucks and a couple of high end SUVs > that still have real bumpers? Tegger - 07 Mar 2007 01:01 GMT >> that is exactly what we did to >> aerodynamically blend the cover over the bumper to aid fuel [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all right, and how much does it cost to replace the bumper cover these > days? $500+? Usually between two and four hundred dollars.
Painting the skin adds $100 to $200.
> I understand the concept of crumple zones and absorbing > the energy, and that's what bumpers should do internally. But the > exterior should be able to take light bumps (shopping carts, parking) > without deforming it or major scratches. That's like having steel-toed > workboots made of fine white leather, not very practical. Quite true.
But what nobody here has bothered to bring up is the myriad of schizophrenic and conflicting government regulations loaded on to our cars.
CAFE and emissions regulations require that car be as light as possible for maximum mileage and lowest emissions. Impact regulations requre the car to be as heavy and rigid as possible. Bumper regulations require that the light/heavy vehicle not present impossible loads to the bumper assembly.
On top of all that, market forces (that's you, and your wallet) insist the car be as cheap as possible while fulfilling all the foregoing requirements.
Rotsa ruck, Bonzo!
 Signature Tegger
Max - 07 Mar 2007 15:58 GMT <snip>
>Quite true. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Rotsa ruck, Bonzo! I got it! Just put a hybrid engine in a '57 Buick! ;-)
Mike Hunter - 07 Mar 2007 19:32 GMT You have a good point. The safety Nazi and the environuts convinced the wimps in government that it was a good idea to force the automobile manufactures to make cars safer, at the same time we were forced to improve fuel economy. The problem was that led to us spending billions to convert our RWD factories over to the more costly to build FWD, to meet those requirements by a date certain.. Had the government allowed us the time to develop the technology and apply it to new models as they were developed, rather than forcing us to waist time and teh needed research money on retro fitting the requirements into the current models, we would have had the safer more fuel efficient vehicles that we have today, fifteen years sooner than we did and they would cost thousands less to boot.
We are all environmentalist in that we do not wan to 'poop' where we eat. However the environuts, who are trying to run the county, do not want us to eat so we don't make any poop ;)
mike
> But what nobody here has bothered to bring up is the myriad of > schizophrenic and conflicting government regulations loaded on to our [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rotsa ruck, Bonzo! Scott in Florida - 02 Mar 2007 13:23 GMT >> Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles >> from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to absorb fender benders. Nowadays it's all about style and looks, not >about practicality. Another reason I keep my '92 Corolla Wagon....
Real bumpers.
 Signature Scott in Florida
Global Warming....the new Liberal Religion
Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 17:40 GMT I think is you were in a collision with a 2007 Corolla, you would change your opinion of which you would rather be a passenger ;)
mike
>>> Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles >>> from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Real bumpers. Ray O - 02 Mar 2007 17:24 GMT > Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > compared with some other models that cost more than $3,000 to repair > because their parts are more expensive than Toyota's. Because there are variances in front and rear bumper height among vehicles, IMO, using a simulated bumper using an arbitrary height provides less useful information than using a wall, unless the height of the simulated bumper is adjusted to match the vehicle that is being tested.
Also, I believe that the U.S. standard for bumpers is 2.5 MPH, so a 3 MPH test is greater than the law requires. One of the main reasons for moving away from the massive steel bumpers is weight. Automakers look to the entire vehicle to improve fuel economy, and reducing bumper weight by more than half can make a measurable difference in fuel economy.
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
Jeff - 02 Mar 2007 17:35 GMT <...>
> Because there are variances in front and rear bumper height among > vehicles, IMO, using a simulated bumper using an arbitrary height provides [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > entire vehicle to improve fuel economy, and reducing bumper weight by more > than half can make a measurable difference in fuel economy. I bet it is possible to both increase the crash-worthiness that the law requires (e.g., increase the speed to say 5 mph) and to meet the requirements without adding a lot of weight or cost to the vehicles.
Jeff
Ray O - 02 Mar 2007 17:54 GMT <snipped>
> I bet it is possible to both increase the crash-worthiness that the law > requires (e.g., increase the speed to say 5 mph) and to meet the > requirements without adding a lot of weight or cost to the vehicles. > > Jeff In the automobile industry, "crash worthiness" generally refers to protecting the occupants during a crash, through crumple zones, reinforced materials, and restraint systems. Ironically, to make a car safer for the occupants, a greater part of the car outside of the passenger compartment has to deform.
The problem with insurance industry testing is that they always test beyond standards. If the federal standard was 5 MPH, they would test at 7.
 Signature Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
Tegger - 04 Mar 2007 01:24 GMT > The problem with insurance industry testing is that they always test > beyond standards. If the federal standard was 5 MPH, they would test > at 7. In the case of the video earlier referenced, they tested at SIX, this for cars designed to meet a 2.5 mph standard.
The Insurance Institute is run by greedy, crooked, dishonest, lying people. People who are solely interested in protecting their own money at the expense of anyone elses'.
 Signature Tegger
Ray O - 04 Mar 2007 07:01 GMT <snipped>
> The Insurance Institute is run by greedy, crooked, dishonest, lying > people. > People who are solely interested in protecting their own money at the > expense of anyone elses'. My sentiments exactly!
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
Bob Ward - 05 Mar 2007 03:38 GMT ><snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >My sentiments exactly! And this differs from your being concerned only with protecting your own money at the expense of anyone else's how, exactly?
Ray O - 05 Mar 2007 06:52 GMT >><snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And this differs from your being concerned only with protecting your > own money at the expense of anyone else's how, exactly I do not create misleading, self-serving "studies" and use the results as a basis to charge my customers more money. The Insurance Institute changed the bumper test from having vehicles hit a wall to a test bumper fixed at an arbitrary height. A vehicle with a bumper that happens to match the arbitrary height will have less damage than one with a different height. In other words, the results are only valid if the test vehicle happens to strike another vehicle with the same bumper height that the institute used for their test. The previous tests with a wall did not penalize a vehicle with a bumper that was different from the arbitrary bumper height they chose.
I have no problem with testing beyond a government standard as long as the test criteria are clearly explained as being above and beyond government standards and the published results actually provide meaningful information.
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
SMS - 05 Mar 2007 23:48 GMT > I do not create misleading, self-serving "studies" and use the results as a > basis to charge my customers more money. > The Insurance Institute changed the bumper test from having vehicles hit a > wall to a test bumper fixed at an arbitrary height. A vehicle with a bumper > that happens to match the arbitrary height will have less damage than one > with a different height. The height was not arbitrary.
The old test was inadequate expressly because it didn't simulate a real world test.
The IIHS tests beyond the government standard because they have a vested interest in lowering repair costs.
Ray O - 06 Mar 2007 00:50 GMT >> I do not create misleading, self-serving "studies" and use the results as >> a basis to charge my customers more money. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The height was not arbitrary.
> The old test was inadequate expressly because it didn't simulate a real > world test. A look at the test bumper in this IIHS article http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4202.pdf shows that the 4 inch test bumper is much narrower than the bumpers of any of the cars in the photos, and is pretty much guaranteed to over- or under-ride the bumper of any vehicle that doesn't match the 18 inch height. IMO, one does not have run a car into something that doesn't match its bumper height to know that it will become damaged.
> The IIHS tests beyond the government standard because they have a vested > interest in lowering repair costs. As I mentioned before, it is not the fact that the IIHS tests beyond government standards that bug me, it is their implication that the vehicles that do poorly on their tests is sub-standard. If the IIHS really wanted get the public to buy vehicles that incur less damage on their tests, they should highlight vehicles that do well. If the buying public considers good performance in those tests to be a buying factor, they will gravitate towards the vehicles that are less costly to repair.
FWIW, the "bumper guards" that were on some 1950's and 1960's vehicles were supposed to help prevent the kind of over- and under-ride during low speed collisions that the IIHS is testing for. The push bars/bull bars that are on some police cruisers also reduce the effects of bumper height differences and appear to be effective, although I don't know if the buying public would spring for them on their Camry.
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
SMS - 06 Mar 2007 18:15 GMT > As I mentioned before, it is not the fact that the IIHS tests beyond > government standards that bug me, it is their implication that the vehicles [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > performance in those tests to be a buying factor, they will gravitate > towards the vehicles that are less costly to repair. Look at the results they published. The best selling car in the U.S. was #2 in their tests. Maybe they are gravitating, at least partly because of the performance in these tests.
If someone buys a car based on characteristics such as safety, long term dependability, resale value, and repair costs based on bumpers, then the Camry would be the logical choice.
Top 5 in low speed bumper test (Camry is #2, Accord is #13) Top 5 in safety (Camry is #4 in IIHS rating) Top 5 in long term depenability (Toyota is #5, Honda is #7) Top 5 in resale value (for 2006) (Camry was #1 for midsize cars)
Of course buying cars like this means that you're not going to end up with very exciting cars, but many buyers don't care about an exciting car, they just want transportation.
Tegger - 06 Mar 2007 01:01 GMT >> I do not create misleading, self-serving "studies" and use the >> results as a basis to charge my customers more money. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The IIHS tests beyond the government standard because they have a > vested interest in lowering repair costs. The IIHS is misleading viewers because they fail to disclose that they were testing the modern bumpers at energy levels 480% higher than that for which they were designed. The '81 Escort, by contrast, was tested at only 44% greater than design, and had a vastly different style of bumper than the modern cars tested.
Plus most of the damage involved the bumpers underriding the impact beam, so the increased costs were not for the bumper itself, but for lighting, sheet metal and body structure components above the bumpers. And I saw not one word mentioned that the bumpers might simply be too low...
And the IIHS is self-serving. They'd rather pass the buck, making you pay more for the bumper so they don't have to. Stronger bumpers cost more.
Dishonest is the word to describe the IIHS.
 Signature Tegger
SMS - 06 Mar 2007 18:21 GMT > The IIHS is misleading viewers because they fail to disclose that they were > testing the modern bumpers at energy levels 480% higher than that for which > they were designed. That's the whole point, they are upset that the bumpers are designed so poorly. Nothing is stopping auto manufacturers from exceeding the 2.5 MPG standard, or designing bumpers that will not under-ride or over-ride the bumpers on vehicles they may hit. The problem is that it's a race to the bottom in terms of cost unless the government sets a reasonable standard.
> Plus most of the damage involved the bumpers underriding the impact beam, Because the design of the bumper caused it to over-ride or under-ride the beam. It's a very valid test.
> And the IIHS is self-serving. They'd rather pass the buck, making you pay > more for the bumper so they don't have to. Stronger bumpers cost more. A few dollars more for a stronger bumper would benefit both the insurance companies _and_ their policy holders. But yes, the IIHS has a self-interest in promoting vehicles that incur less damage in low speed collisiions.
> Dishonest is the word to describe the IIHS. Clueless is the word to describe some posters.
Mike Hunter - 06 Mar 2007 01:05 GMT I think you mean in raising insurance rates. LOL
mike
>> I do not create misleading, self-serving "studies" and use the results as >> a basis to charge my customers more money. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The IIHS tests beyond the government standard because they have a vested > interest in lowering repair costs. SMS - 06 Mar 2007 18:24 GMT > I think you mean in raising insurance rates. LOL It's all relative. There are already vastly different rates for different vehicles based on their repair costs. The insurance companies use collision repair costs as a basis for setting rates. Since there is intense competition in the auto insurance business, the companies can't arbitrarily increase or decrease rates.
Mike Hunter - 06 Mar 2007 18:49 GMT If you believe that you have not compared All States rates LOL
mike
>> I think you mean in raising insurance rates. LOL > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > intense competition in the auto insurance business, the companies can't > arbitrarily increase or decrease rates. SMS - 06 Mar 2007 23:37 GMT > If you believe that you have not compared All States rates LOL We don't have All States in California.
I've looked at rate comparisons done by a non-profit consumer group (Bay Area Consumer Checkbook) which compared rates for five different driver profiles in six different parts of the Bay Area.
Rates for the worst driver in the city with the highest losses, ranged from $2585 (Safeco) to $14,277 (Farmers).
Rates for the best drivers in the city with the lowest losses ranged from $527 to $1675.
The lowest priced insurers were usually Amica, Horace Mann (school employees and retirees only), Mercury, USAA (members only), and Wawanesa (California/Oregon only).
I have one of the lowest priced insurers, but I was going to get a quote from Wawanesa, but their coverage limits are too low. The Amica web site leads you through the quote process but then errors out.
Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 17:33 GMT Don't fall for that BS, look at WHO is doing the testing. The insurance institutes sole purpose in testing is to establish insurance RATES. Their test are different than the NHTSA requirements.
The Insurance guys tests, just as are their offset tests, are performed at a higher speeds, are not repeatable and therefore meaningless Their test are to a different standard, at higher speeds specifically designed to CAUSE damage.
The original standard for bumpers were 5 MPH front, and 2.5 MPH rear. Since the average speed at which accidents occur is 30 MPH, the only thing the 5 MPH standard did was raise the cost of the average collision repair.. A number of years ago the NHTSA reduced the standard for front bumpers to 2.5 as a result.
Ford motor company is the only manufacturer that still builds to the 5 MPH standard for front bumpers. Ford also is the only manufacture that built to exceed the NHTSA full frontal and rear crash standards, by 5 MPH. Ford builds to a 40 MPH front, and 35 MPH rear collision, protecting properly belted passengers The Interceptor is built to a 50 MPH rear standard to maintain the integrity of the fuel tank, as well
The 'Bumper' they run into is NOT the standard bumper height set by the NHTSA. They reason that since those vehicles not subject to the NHTSA standards, often have slightly higher bumpers, they choose to test against a 'bumper,' that they represent as what they believe to be the AVERAGE bumper height. It is HIGHER than the NHTSA standard If you look videos of their crash tests, you will notice the collision occurs just above the bumper, not in the center of the bumper, of the vehicle being tested. The result is the bumper is pushed down, out of the way, and the grill area takes much of the hit.
The only, repeatable, valid crash tests one should rely upon are those established by the NHTSA
mike
> Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...Thomas Carlyle Ray O - 02 Mar 2007 17:58 GMT <snipped>
> The Interceptor is built to a 50 MPH rear standard to maintain the > integrity of the fuel tank, as well Is the Interceptor built to a higher standard than the non-Interceptor Crown Victoria? Is it done with race car style fuel cells?
 Signature Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
jdoe - 02 Mar 2007 19:36 GMT ><snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Is the Interceptor built to a higher standard than the non-Interceptor Crown >Victoria? yes, this was implemented after numerous police cars exploding after being rear ended at traffic stops
Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 23:43 GMT Only the P71 CV is design to 50 MPH, other are 35 MPH. Fuel cells are an option on the Interceptor only, as far as I know, since they are not listed among the free standing options for the CV/GM..
mike
> <snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is the Interceptor built to a higher standard than the non-Interceptor > Crown Victoria? Is it done with race car style fuel cells? Ray O - 03 Mar 2007 05:15 GMT > Only the P71 CV is design to 50 MPH, other are 35 MPH. Fuel cells are an > option on the Interceptor only, as far as I know, since they are not > listed among the free standing options for the CV/GM.. > > mike If Ford made the P71 CV available to the public, dealers probably wouldn't be able to keep them on the lot. I suppose a detuned engine would be necessary so that LE could catch bad guys, but the car would otherwise be the ultimate sleeper!
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
ameijers - 03 Mar 2007 13:09 GMT >> Only the P71 CV is design to 50 MPH, other are 35 MPH. Fuel cells are an >> option on the Interceptor only, as far as I know, since they are not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > necessary so that LE could catch bad guys, but the car would otherwise be > the ultimate sleeper! It is available to the public, at least at dealers that are willing to jump through the fleet sales paperwork hoop. Not much interest in 17? m.p.g. these days, and the price is a lot higher. It isn't any faster than a regular CV- those days are gone forever. It does handle a little better, due to the de-mushed suspension. Other than that, it is just a ruggedized version, almost the same as the taxicab version, plus certain mods to make running the lights and radios easier. Did they ever actually sell the extended wheelbase version they were talking about a few years ago? Or was that limited to the town car fleet sales? I've never seen one, but the cabs in this city are all retired cop cars. Depending on condition, they go for 3k to 5k here at the auctions, with 100k+ miles on the clock.
They tried to sell a hot rod panther platform as the Mercury Marauder, but the customers ignored it. Same target market as Impala SS. Google for 'P71', and you should come up with the web page that explains it all, in excruciating detail.
I wish they made it in a station wagon version- getting tired of minivans, and SUVs are silly, for those of us who only drive on pavement.
aem sends...
Mike Hunter - 03 Mar 2007 23:58 GMT The Interceptor no longer has the emissions exemption so anybody can buy a P71, however you are not eligible for the$800 fleet discount. See the fleet Sales Manager. Make sure you order the cloth rear seat and floor carperts options.
mike
>> Only the P71 CV is design to 50 MPH, other are 35 MPH. Fuel cells are an >> option on the Interceptor only, as far as I know, since they are not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > necessary so that LE could catch bad guys, but the car would otherwise be > the ultimate sleeper! Ray O - 04 Mar 2007 07:02 GMT > The Interceptor no longer has the emissions exemption so anybody can buy a > P71, however you are not eligible for the$800 fleet discount. See the > fleet Sales Manager. Make sure you order the cloth rear seat and floor > carperts options. > > mike Hmmm, tempting!!
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
John Weiss - 02 Mar 2007 20:21 GMT "Steve" <teu@qprc.inv> wrote...
> Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles > from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Even the best performers in the tests wound up badly bruised. There have been some significant advances in bumper design, but it appears most of them have gone by the wayside in favor of "style"...
The Saab 99 and 900 models from about 1974-1983 had front AND rear bumpers that not only withstood impacts, but did so without incurring significant (other than purely cosmetic) damage to the bumpers themselves as well as the rest of the car. My first Saab, a '74 99EMS, had 5 mph bumper front and 2.5 mph rear. The '82 900Turbo I had until 2 years ago had 5 mph bumpers on both ends. Both cars had been hit several times, resulting in nothing more than a shallow impression in the rubber cover or a crack in the plastic trim strip embedded in the bumper face.
Alas, even Saab succumbed to the "style" trend. My wife hit the corner of the garage one day in our '94 new-generation 900, at a couple mph. It cost $1000 to fix the car, and no damage to the house!
It really is a shame that the industry HAS the technology, but refuses to use it...
Mike Hunter - 02 Mar 2007 23:57 GMT That may be your opinion, but it is off the mark. ALL vehicles sold in the US must meet the NHTSA bumper standard. The type of bumper first used by Volvo to meet the standard was merely a stop gap measure, to bring the then available body up to standard.. Since then Volvo like every other manufacture designed more stylistic bumpers into the newer body designs. Some of the small cars of the day simply placed large rubber blocks on their existing bumpers, to meet the standard, then built them in when newer bodies were introduced. MG replaced their chrome grill and bumper with a black one piece rubber grill and bumper to do the job ;)
mike
> "Steve" <teu@qprc.inv> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It really is a shame that the industry HAS the technology, but refuses to > use it... ameijers - 03 Mar 2007 00:27 GMT > That may be your opinion, but it is off the mark. ALL vehicles sold in > the US must meet the NHTSA bumper standard. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > replaced their chrome grill and bumper with a black one piece rubber grill > and bumper to do the job ;) And Ford got rid of the panels below the bumpers and put chrome railroad ties on all the legacy platforms that remained in production. Pug-ugly! Most of them were a so-what, but it utterly ruined the visual appeal of the Pinto, which had been cute. I think AMC took a better retro-style tack, with the exposed shock absorbers, and the extended U-channel aluminum bumpers floating in space. Reminded me of the admittedly-useless VW Beetle bumpers.
aem sends...
John Weiss - 03 Mar 2007 01:48 GMT "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote...
>> Alas, even Saab succumbed to the "style" trend. My wife hit the corner >> of the garage one day in our '94 new-generation 900, at a couple mph. It >> cost $1000 to fix the car, and no damage to the house! >> >> It really is a shame that the industry HAS the technology, but refuses to >> use it...
> That may be your opinion, but it is off the mark. ALL vehicles sold in > the US must meet the NHTSA bumper standard. And exactly what IS that MINIMUM standard?!?
> The type of bumper first used by Volvo to meet the standard was merely a > stop gap measure, to bring the then available body up to standard.. Since > then Volvo like every other manufacture designed more stylistic bumpers > into the newer body designs. The bumpers on the '74 vintage Saabs exceeded the standards by quite a bit. They added self-preservation to the "protect the body" requirement, so owners wouldn't have to pay ridiculous amounts to fix bumper damage. They worked well, though they certainly don't meet today's style standards.
These days, design $$ are spent to meet minimum standards and spiffy style concepts, yet the market is so competitive on style that mfgrs are unwilling to spend the $$ to make their bumpers withstand a 5 mph bump.
The technology does exist. It has existed for over 30 years.
Tegger - 03 Mar 2007 02:23 GMT > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And exactly what IS that MINIMUM standard?!? Two-and-a-half miles per hour.
The original 1973 US standard was 5 mph. The Reagan administration (under Elizabeth Dole) lowered that to 2.5 mph around 1986.
In the video in question, the Insurance Institute (IIS) tested the bumpers at SIX mph. No country anywhere in the world has ever expected any automobile bumpers to survive a 6 mph impact, not even the US, nor the IIS in 1973, when they first lobbied for the 5mph standard.
It seems innocuous; one mph (6mph versus 5mph), but that's 20% more than the 5mph standard (and out of all the cars in question only the '81 Escort was designed to meet 5 mph), but is about 50% more impact energy, if my calculations are correct.
Did you know the US and Canada are the ONLY countries in the entire world that have bumper impact standards?
 Signature Tegger
krw - 03 Mar 2007 15:55 GMT > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It seems innocuous; one mph (6mph versus 5mph), but that's 20% more than > the 5mph standard ...and 44% more energy dissipated in the crash (5.8 times that of a 2.5MPH crash). The bumper is supposed to absorb this, even though it is not designed to?
> (and out of all the cars in question only the '81 Escort > was designed to meet 5 mph), but is about 50% more impact energy, if my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that have bumper impact standards? >  Signature Keith
Tegger - 03 Mar 2007 23:53 GMT >> > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote... >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ...and 44% more energy dissipated in the crash (5.8 times that of a > 2.5MPH crash). So my 50% was off by 6%.
> The bumper is supposed to absorb this, even though it > is not designed to? My point exactly. This IIS video is just political propaganda.
 Signature Tegger
krw - 04 Mar 2007 00:16 GMT > >> > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote... > >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > So my 50% was off by 6%. 50% was good, 480% more that it was designed for is more impressive though. ;-)
> > The bumper is supposed to absorb this, even though it > > is not designed to? > > My point exactly. This IIS video is just political propaganda. Just backing you up. ;-)
 Signature Keith
Jeff Strickland - 02 Mar 2007 23:07 GMT Bumpers are no longer doing what they did in yesteryear.
In days of old, the bumper was there to protect the body work. Today, the bumper is an intergral part of the vehicle's crumple zone. They absorb impacts so that it isn't spread into the passenger compartment. This necessarily causes the bumper to become damaged if it is used.
> Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > compared with some other models that cost more than $3,000 to repair > because their parts are more expensive than Toyota's. Mike Hunter - 03 Mar 2007 00:10 GMT Cut that out Jeff! Facts are not to be interjected into this discussion. It is about how the evil corporations are screwing the working man. ;)
mike
> Bumpers are no longer doing what they did in yesteryear. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following >> minor fender-benders can be surprisingly steep. Jeff Strickland - 03 Mar 2007 01:12 GMT Sorry. Reality gets a grip on my nads, and I have to spew my vast knowledge base.
> Cut that out Jeff! Facts are not to be interjected into this discussion. > It is about how the evil corporations are screwing the working man. ;) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following >>> minor fender-benders can be surprisingly steep. edv - 03 Mar 2007 05:53 GMT Well might as well floor it rather than step on the brakes, cost for repairs will still be equal
Jeff Strickland - 02 Mar 2007 23:09 GMT And, much of the repair dollars that are needed for bumper repairs are not for structural stuff, those dollars are for the cosmetic repairs to the bumper cover.
If this is true, then it stands to reason that the bumper has done its job, it has protected the vehicle from structural damage while sacraficing cosmetic stuff. Cosmetics that are expensive, to be sure, but cosmetic just the same.
> Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > compared with some other models that cost more than $3,000 to repair > because their parts are more expensive than Toyota's. SMS - 05 Mar 2007 04:46 GMT > Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html > > Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles > from damage in low-speed collisions, and the cost of repairs following > minor fender-benders can be surprisingly steep. It was transportation secretary Drew Lewis, under Reagan, that rolled the bumper standard back to 2.5 MPH, over the objections of everyone other than the big three automakers.
Mike Hunter - 05 Mar 2007 18:09 GMT You forget to mention the import manufacturers supported the reduction as well.
mike
>> Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271649934522912.html >> Bumpers on most midsize cars do a poor job of protecting the vehicles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bumper standard back to 2.5 MPH, over the objections of everyone other > than the big three automakers.
|
|
|