 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / April 2008Bring back real old fashioned bumpers?
I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the first cars years ago. The bumpers now are just ornamental and the slightest tap causes monetary damage. Didn't the old fashioned bumpers on the first cars, have a real bumper sticking out on springs, with rubber on the outside of it, or something like that? http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2264444660084644220wOTBbF At least I'm envisioning a plate bumper on heavy springs, with maybe a 1" thick rubber pad on the outside? Front and back? Something that could actually keep one car from hitting another and causing significant damage? I accidentally rolled forward a little, behind another car yesterday, and heard this little tapping sound. It was just enough to alert the other driver that I had tapped her car too. She got out, I said; oops, sorry, waved at her. She looked at her car which was ok, said ok, and drove off. Then last night, my passenger side low beam didn't work. I figured it might just be a bulb, hadn't replaced one in years, so I bought a pair at Checker last night. Then I looked at it today and the passenger side headlight is pushed in about half an inch on the driver ( inside ) end. ( my 93 Corolla DX ) I popped the hood just now and tried pushing it back out from inside, but couldnt. Jeez, is this gonna cost me hundreds now to get it fixed, or can I do it myself maybe? Bring back real bumpers Toyota! Just think, we all might get lower insurance rates too, if a tiny tap didn't cause hundreds in damage because of these nice looking, but non- functional bumpers. >I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring > back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > didn't cause hundreds in damage because of these nice looking, but non- > functional bumpers. The problem with spring-mounted metal bumpers is that they are pretty heavy, which has a negative effect on fuel economy, and the style may not quite fit in with modern vehicles. Unfortunately, even a heavy duty bumper would not help if the vehicle you hit has a higher bumper that contacts your car above the bumper.  SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring >> back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Unfortunately, even a heavy duty bumper would not help if the vehicle you > hit has a higher bumper that contacts your car above the bumper. I'd sacrifice FIVE mpg for strong, sprung steel bumpers with rubber impact points..like I had in my 1974 Dodge Challenger. > >I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring > > back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Ray O > (correct punctuation to reply) Rays right. I was rear ended by a big truck recently and it nearly took the roof of the car off. The car had an impact bumber that didn't help at all. My '94 4runner has chrome bumpers all around. Compared to a recently made SUV, it looks better, but I doubt if it is any safer because of the heavy bumpers. However, combined with the rather heavy tailgate and higher suspension, it will resist the kind of accident I had better than the station wagon had. Nevertheless, if you are interested in safety, keep your speed below the speed limit, let all the hard-ons out there pass you, and don't follow anyone closely. > Nevertheless, if > you are interested in safety, keep your speed below the speed limit, > let all the hard-ons out there pass you, and don't follow anyone > closely. Good advice, Brucie. Keep it around 25-30 mph on 495 north. Here's a question, Ace: If you had been traveling above the speed limit that early morning, would that pickup truck have pushed in the tailgate of your POS Buick Century wagon? Probably not. So going slow sure helped you, didn't it? On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:29:38 -0700, oneup.again wrote: >> Nevertheless, if >> you are interested in safety, keep your speed below the speed limit, let >> all the hard-ons out there pass you, and don't follow anyone closely. > > Good advice, Brucie. Keep it around 25-30 mph on 495 north. No, that's 128 495 North is full bore! As fast as traffic allows!!! Rt 2 West is even better...65 MPH all the way, even through Erving... > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:29:38 -0700, oneup.again wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rt 2 West is even better...65 MPH all the way, even through Erving... Rt 2 between Fitchburg & N. Adams in a 5 Speed Celica GTS :-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:29:38 -0700, oneup.again wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rt 2 between Fitchburg & N. Adams in a 5 Speed Celica GTS :-) I used to do Andover to Greenfield in a 1980 Corolla SR-5 (which I just found out is a Trueno, the same as my 'hachiroku') http://www.supratech.org/members/jamesr/graphics/corolla-sr5.jpg >>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:29:38 -0700, oneup.again wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://www.supratech.org/members/jamesr/graphics/corolla-sr5.jpg Those were fun cars, especially on Crow Canyon Rd near the SF Region office! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >> I used to do Andover to Greenfield in a 1980 Corolla SR-5 (which I just >> found out is a Trueno, the same as my 'hachiroku') [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those were fun cars, especially on Crow Canyon Rd near the SF Region > office! That was the first Toy I got over 200K, and still kept running. I wanted the Twin Cam so traded it; I saw the car about 3 years later, but the rust was taking it's toll. > No, that's 128 > > 495 North is full bore! As fast as traffic allows!!! > > Rt 2 West is even better...65 MPH all the way, even through Erving... Yes, thanks, I know. I was being facetious to the clueless one. On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:08:50 -0700, oneup.again wrote: >> No, that's 128 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, thanks, I know. I was being facetious to the clueless one. OK, I have to ask...why do you pick on him? > Rays right. I was rear ended by a big truck recently and it nearly > took the roof of the car off. The car had an impact bumber that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > let all the hard-ons out there pass you, and don't follow anyone > closely. The 4Runner has a frame for the bumper to attach to. A strong steel bumper on a modern unibody vehicle will be of very limited value, and will simply transfer more of the impact to the body, causing even more damage. "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote : >>I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would >>bring [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > heavy, which has a negative effect on fuel economy, and the style may > not quite fit in with modern vehicles. Titanium? :) > Unfortunately, even a heavy duty bumper would not help if the vehicle > you hit has a higher bumper that contacts your car above the bumper. Have it stick out a foot. Do people want functionality, or style that wastes their money? > "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Have it stick out a foot. Do people want functionality, or style that > wastes their money? Unfortunately, many people prefer style over function. The other trick to designing a bumper, as Hachiroku mentioned, is that the bumper is an integral part of the vehicle's crumple zone. Old fashioned bumper guards - upright mini-bumpers installed on the main bumper helped reduce bumper override. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Have it stick out a foot. Do people want functionality, or style that > wastes their money? They already did that back in the late 70's/early 80's. Take a look at a Delorean, or even an 80 Corolla SR5... > I accidentally rolled forward a little, behind another car yesterday, > and heard this little tapping sound. It was just enough to alert the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Jeez, is this gonna cost me hundreds now to get it fixed, or can I do it > myself maybe? Time for YouTube body repair videos? Some of them show where to push, where any hidden snaps or releases are located, etc. You may have to remove the whole bumper, which can actually be pretty simple. "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote : >> I accidentally rolled forward a little, behind another car >> yesterday, and heard this little tapping sound. It was just enough [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > push, where any hidden snaps or releases are located, etc. You may > have to remove the whole bumper, which can actually be pretty simple. I took it over to a good bodyshop nearby on Tuesday, which I'd used for fixing my tailgate recently and they fixed it for 1/2 hour of time, $22. I consider myself lucky. The guy said he managed to push it back out, that a mounting tab was cracked and that he used some adhesive to repair it. He had dirt on his back, like he'd been crawling under the car. > I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring > back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > didn't cause hundreds in damage because of these nice looking, but non- > functional bumpers. Hmmm....everyone here is missing the point. The point of a bumper isn't to present a rigid impact point and "save" the car, at least not any longer. Bumpers are used now to make sure all vehicles on the road meet at the same height. Well, that's the theory, but trucks are exempt, and SUVs are trucks and don't have bumper height requirements. Studies over the years found that having a rigid point caused more injury and deaths. Ever wonder why an Indycar crumples on impact? The whole car, except for the cockpit is dispersing energy. Race car engineers found that rather than make the car rigid, making it 'crushable' saved the drivers. This was handed off to the auto industry and adopted by carmakers. Prior to this, occupants of the car would be tossed around more, and more stress put on the seatbelt to hold the person to the seat put more strain on the person, also causing injury. And there really is a hefty piece of steel behind that plastic. I don't know if they're still mounted with 'shock absorbers', but the point is to save the occupants at the cost of the sheet metal. Some years ago, I seem to recall a bumper filled with water, with plugs along the top which popped when the bumper struck something hard. As I remember, they were made for passenger cars (or taxicabs perhaps). Anyone remember these and what ever happened to them? > Some years ago, I seem to recall a bumper filled with water, with plugs > along the top which popped when the bumper struck something hard. As I > remember, they were made for passenger cars (or taxicabs perhaps). Anyone > remember these and what ever happened to them? I still see them on buses. I saw one go one time, and there's a video on the web somewhere. It's NEAT! They put the plugs on the top of the bumper, and when the bus (or taxi) hits something the plugs fly out and water shoots up in the air. The one I saw blew the water well over the top of the bus, probably 20 feet or so. Wonder why they didn't put the plugs on the bottom... > Wonder why they didn't put the plugs on the bottom... Should be obvious... >> Wonder why they didn't put the plugs on the bottom... > > Should be obvious... I don't think there was enough pressure to flip a bus... >Wonder why they didn't put the plugs on the bottom... A bus doing a back flip!! Now that I'd like to see! >>Wonder why they didn't put the plugs on the bottom... >> > A bus doing a back flip!! Now that I'd like to see! I don't think there was enough pressure to flip a bus... > Some years ago, I seem to recall a bumper filled with water, with plugs > along the top which popped when the bumper struck something hard. As I > remember, they were made for passenger cars (or taxicabs perhaps). > Anyone remember these and what ever happened to them? A good idea in theory, plain water would freeze, and adding antifreeze adds more toxic stuff to have to deal with., water is heavy at 8 pounds per gallon, and the style of those bumpers were even uglier than a steel bar. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >> Some years ago, I seem to recall a bumper filled with water, with plugs >> along the top which popped when the bumper struck something hard. As I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > per gallon, and the style of those bumpers were even uglier than a steel > bar. Yeah, they were ugly, Ray, but no worse than the vehicles (taxicabs as I recall) that they were attached to. One of the worst things about these lousy newer bumpers is that not only do they collapse when struck, but anything behind them that they're supposed to protect is destroyed as well. Anybody see the 5 mph collisions where the vehicle backs into a steel stanchion, and when the bumper doesn't do its job, the stanchion makes a nice crease in the spare tire cover, sometimes pushes in the trunk, and breaks the back window (on a RAV 4 or similar Honda.) Enough to turn your stomach! > One of the worst things about these lousy newer bumpers is that not only > do they collapse when struck, but anything behind them that they're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tire cover, sometimes pushes in the trunk, and breaks the back window (on > a RAV 4 or similar Honda.) Enough to turn your stomach! That's because the bumpers were probably designed to the new 2-1/2 MPH standard. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >> I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would >> bring back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > isn't to present a rigid impact point and "save" the car, at least > not any longer. That's the problem. > Bumpers are used now to make sure all vehicles on the > road meet at the same height. Well, that's the theory, but trucks are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Studies over the years found that having a rigid point caused more > injury and deaths. I'm not suggesting that though. I'm suggesting a spring loaded bumper, made of something sturdy, not necessarily even steel, but with a thick rubbber outer cover. Think of bumper cars. And if you just tapped someone, the heavy springs would move in, the rubber would prevent scratching, and no damage would be done. It would stick out maybe a foot in front and back, and offer REAL protection for the car, for low speed dings, and be ugly as hell, but would actually be functional and SAVE money, and the insurance companies might even give discounts for choosing them as an option or adding them. > hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > would actually be functional and SAVE money, and the insurance companies > might even give discounts for choosing them as an option or adding them. I mentioned this in another post in this thread. They did that in the late 70's and early 80's. Talk about UGLY!! But you make a point. Do you go for looks, or some semblance of safety? My 88 Supra has bumpers on it. I don't think they look bad. My Scion has no visible bumpber in the front, it's under the front facia. It sort of has a rear bumper... Take a look at the bumpers on this: http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/6/web/2634000-2634999/watermark_2634 154_1.jpg http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2880/2811070722vs9.jpg here's a big bumper you can't see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/87-89_Nissan_300ZX.jpg >> hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >>>> I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would >>>> bring back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> would actually be functional and SAVE money, and the insurance companies >> might even give discounts for choosing them as an option or adding them. Ahh, but they DO - that's the whole rationale behind the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and a few other lesser known labs - they figure out how resistant a car is to accident damage and/or how expensive to fix, and they rate the cars on a sliding scale. The insurance companies use those ratings to set the rates. Buy a car that is ultra expensive to repair, like Corvette, Lamborghini or Maserati, and the rates reflect it. This is why many parents do not get their kids on the family policy, they are on their own separate (but associated) policy and are restricted to driving the Celica. They are specifically excluded from driving their parents' Mercedes and Escalade. Just having the teenager on the policy doubled the rates, but if they are allowed to drive the brand new luxury car the rates would quadruple, or worse. >I mentioned this in another post in this thread. They did that in the late >70's and early 80's. Talk about UGLY!! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >no visible bumpber in the front, it's under the front facia. It sort of >has a rear bumper... They can design a decent 5 MPH bumper that also looks good. But they won't install them if the buyers will not pay a bit extra for them, not until the Feds mandate them so all automakers have to install them and all raise their prices accordingly. If one maker puts in better bumpers and the others don't, their cars might cost less to insure and be safer to drive - but they can't sell that to the average Joe and Jane in the showrooms - the bottom line reigns. Their cars will cost more than the competition's that don't have these safety features, and they lose market share. Simple business economics. Has been proven out over the years many times with (among other things) safety glass, padded dashboards, padded steering wheels, front and side impact airbags, seat belts, head rests, child seat anchorages, dual/split braking systems, etc. It is a great idea, but until they are all forced to install them they wont. --<< Bruce >>-- Bruce L. Bergman <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote : > They can design a decent 5 MPH bumper that also looks good. But > they won't install them if the buyers will not pay a bit extra for > them, not until the Feds mandate them so all automakers have to > install them and all raise their prices accordingly. Screw the feds. Appeal to self interest. Here's bumper A that looks nice but costs $500 in damage if someone rolls back into you at a light. Here's bumper B that looks butt a.s ugly. It sticks out 18" from the car in front and back, with visible springs on it, and it farts if someone rolls back into you, but it's also coated with rubber and there would be NO damage in the same circumstances. A set of bumper B can be added-on to your car for $1000 but your insurance company will give you a $500 a year discount for bumper B. Which do you pick? > If one maker puts in better bumpers and the others don't, their > cars > might cost less to insure and be safer to drive - but they can't sell > that to the average Joe and Jane in the showrooms - the bottom line > reigns. Let the bottom line be self interest, not government dictatorship. Your choice, nice looking or safer and a big discount on your insurance? > Their cars will cost more than the competition's that don't > have these safety features, and they lose market share. Simple > business economics. Yep, but if people can save on insurance, and maybe not get whiplash ( just farty noises, that way they'll be fun too! Farrrrttt! - hahahah! you just saved another $500! ) from a 5 MPH hit, that's a selling point. > Has been proven out over the years many times with (among other > things) safety glass, padded dashboards, padded steering wheels, > front and side impact airbags, seat belts, head rests, child seat > anchorages, dual/split braking systems, etc. It is a great idea, > but until they are all forced to install them they wont. I'd never advocate force like that, it's unAmerican. Self interest. Free choices. >Bruce L. Bergman <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Which do you pick? Well, that's a conundrum - You and I would pick Bumper B, and I might pay to give it a quick coat of body-color paint so it doesn't look that bad. But you and I are in the minority - most of the brain-dead Sheeple out there buy on looks only. Our housekeeper just bought a RAV-4 without telling anyone what she was thinking about - Never even noticed or thought about the spare tire on the back door. The tire that hangs out 6" past the totally worthless beauty-cover bumper, and the entire rear door, rear sill, door frame, both fenders and possibly the roof panel are all toast if she ever gets hit in the rear. The RAV-4 is deliberately designed to crumple like a cheap suit in a wreck. And on cars where a simple accident can total it (repair costs exceed residual value) the insurance rates are much higher. >> Has been proven out over the years many times with (among other >> things) safety glass, padded dashboards, padded steering wheels, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Free choices. They have tried that - they had airbags out for 3 or 4 years in the 1970's - but they were a ~$3,000 option when that was a big chunk of change, and nobody who was shopping for a car on price bought them. The few that got out there were on in-stock cars ordered by the dealer as "Fully Loaded" and bought by people who just walked into the dealership, picked a car on the lot that matched their handbag, and signed whatever papers they were handed. Dealers love "barefoot pilgrims" who pay whatever they ask. The early big airbag saves were a total surprise to the drivers of the cars - most didn't know they had airbags in the car, let alone what they did. The Cops were just as shocked - they would roll up on a "Sure K-Injury Accident" (Dead) with a car straight into bridge abutment at high speed, call for the Coroner, and then see the driver get out and walk away from the wreck... --<< Bruce >>-- > Ahh, but they DO - that's the whole rationale behind the Insurance > Institute for Highway Safety and a few other lesser known labs - they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Buy a car that is ultra expensive to repair, like Corvette, > Lamborghini or Maserati, and the rates reflect it. Or a '94 Chrysler LHS? hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : > I mentioned this in another post in this thread. They did that in the > late 70's and early 80's. Talk about UGLY!! > > But you make a point. Do you go for looks, or some semblance of > safety? I'm pro-choice. If someone wants bumpers that look like trim but get $500 worth of damage if someone rolls back into them at a light and taps them, fine with me, it's their insurance bill. Personally, I want them butt ugly, sticking out a foot with springs and rubber on them, so if someone rolls back like that, nothing happens and we drive away. Oh, and if they make loud farting sounds when bumped like that, we can all have a laugh. If they're still making loud farting sounds when we jump out and see that there's no damage, that's a plus. :) > My 88 Supra has bumpers on it. I don't think they look bad. My Scion > has no visible bumpber in the front, it's under the front facia. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/6/web/2634000-2634999/wate > rmark_2634154_1.jpg Yeah ok, but I'm taking about something that sticks out at least a foot, so it's like an actual shield, with big assed springs to totally absorb low speed hits. > http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2880/2811070722vs9.jpg Better I guess... > here's a big bumper you can't see: > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/87-89_Nissan_300ZX. > jpg Ahh, what fun is that? :) On Apr 19, 7:19 pm, Sarah Houston <SHo...@pndfnospam.com> pondered: > I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring > back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sticking out on springs, with rubber on the outside of it, or something > like that? The first cars hardly had bumpers at all. Then they started using bumpers that looked like a highway guard rail, usually with 2 slats.. But the *REAL®" bumpers came about in the glorious 50's. Back when men were men, sheep were scared, and Elvis and Pat Boone ruled the airwaves. :/ In the 50's you had manly bumpers that would probably outweigh the average toyota engine block these days. For a few examples... A 59 Cad.. Pretty stout, but not sure if it's the best. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/CADILL59.JPG This Buick had some pretty hefty protrusions.. Ouch.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/b.JPG One of my fav's.. The 57 Chevy, with it's Madonna look rubber breast implants... :) http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/CHEV57.JPG But this one may be the epitome of 50's heavy metal. They don't make cars anymore like this Old's.. BTW, if I remember right, Hank Williams Jr. owned this car at one time.. But sold it.. These pix are from an auction.. A streamlined, but still manly front bumper. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/1old3.jpg No picnic table? No Problemo! We'll have a picnic on the built on back patio/bumper. Note the rocket exhaust flows through the bumpers.. A 50's masterpiece if I ever did see one. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/1old7.jpg Next week we will discover the lost art of hood ornaments. When I was a fresh sprout, my dad drove one of these.. 1954 Pontiac Catalina Star Chief. Last year for the straight 8... http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/54PONT.JPG I still remember riding in it. The best part was the lit yellow indian hood ornament. It also had a fairly manly set of bumpers on that car, but more of the freight train "push bar" type of scheme. The lit up indian was the real attraction though.. For the biker in the family... Combo bumper/hood ornament. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/image002.jpg But I think my favorite hood ornament is this one.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/realcar.jpg n...@wt.net wrote: > In the 50's you had manly bumpers that would probably outweigh > the average toyota engine block these days. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rubber breast implants... :) > http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/CHEV57.JPG What car is Madonna driving in this early video of hers? I don't mean the car boat. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EX2I0PtZMl4 On Apr 25, 3:29 pm, do_not_spam...@my-deja.com wrote: > What car is Madonna driving in this early video of hers? I don't mean > the car boat. > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=EX2I0PtZMl4 You talking about the blue car at the beginning? 57 chevy.. But it looks like a model to me.. I don't think it's a real car. The rear side panel trim is missing too.. > I wish one of the car manufacturers,( preferably Toyota? ), would bring > back good old fashioned bumpers, like I heard they used to have on the > first cars years ago. > > The bumpers now are just ornamental and the slightest tap causes > monetary damage. In the 1970s, some GM cars had heavy steel bumpers attached to the chassis through a pair of wide, curved leaf springs that allowed them to better able to withstanding oblique hits than the more common shock- absorber-mounted bumpers could. But I believe the same could now be achieved with a semi-rigid plastic bumper. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.