Car bumpers

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

"John Weiss" wrote >> In the real world cars a developed to absurd the forces of the collision,

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

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...

And exactly what IS that MINIMUM standard?!?

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.

"John Weiss" wrote in news:Ofedndcv0dh4SXXYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

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?

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!

Well might as well floor it rather than step on the brakes, cost for repairs will still be equal

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

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...

...and 44% more energy dissipated in the crash (5.8 times that of a

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

So my 50% was off by 6%.

My point exactly. This IIS video is just political propaganda.

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

Just backing you up. ;-)

"Ray O" wrote in news:f3362$45e865b9$44a4a10d$ snipped-for-privacy@msgid.meganewsservers.com:

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'.

My sentiments exactly!

Hmmm, tempting!!

And this differs from your being concerned only with protecting your own money at the expense of anyone else's how, exactly?

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.

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.

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.