Car bumpers

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

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.

A look at the test bumper in this IIHS article

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.

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.

SMS wrote in news:45ecac49$0$27187$ snipped-for-privacy@news.sonic.net:

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.

I think you mean in raising insurance rates. LOL

mike

ok, that's a valid design goal, but my point was that blended bumper design was not for passenger safety.

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.

You are free to believe whatever you choose.

mike

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.

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.

Because the design of the bumper caused it to over-ride or under-ride the beam. It's a very valid test.

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.

Clueless is the word to describe some posters.

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.

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?

If you believe that you have not compared All States rates LOL

mike

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

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" wrote in news:WvmdnfLUxc0SKHXYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@ptd.net:

"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.

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.

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.

"Bucky" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Usually between two and four hundred dollars.

Painting the skin adds $100 to $200.

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!

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:01:02 +0000 (UTC), Tegger graced this newsgroup with:

I got it! Just put a hybrid engine in a '57 Buick! ;-)

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