Bumpers on midsize cars are ineffective

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401839/

wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401839/
>

"Serious injuries are uncommon in low-speed crashes, and the institute’s
bumper tests did not assess passenger safety."

the tests were done at 6mph. How can you be injured at 6mph, other than
spilling your coffee? (that's 8.8 feet per second. You probably land
harder if you miss a step on the stairs.)

That said, $1400+ to fix a 6 mph accident is pretty insane.

"ray" > wrote in message
news:e5MFh.1184056$1T2.172645@pd7urf2no...
> wrote:
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401839/
> >
>
> "Serious injuries are uncommon in low-speed crashes, and the institute’s
> bumper tests did not assess passenger safety."
>
> the tests were done at 6mph. How can you be injured at 6mph, other than
> spilling your coffee? (that's 8.8 feet per second. You probably land
> harder if you miss a step on the stairs.)
>
> That said, $1400+ to fix a 6 mph accident is pretty insane.

They showed and old Escort going through the same type of test and the
damage
was $86.

Wonder what that means?

> wrote in
:

>
> "ray" > wrote in message
> news:e5MFh.1184056$1T2.172645@pd7urf2no...
>> wrote:
>> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401839/
>> >
>>
>> "Serious injuries are uncommon in low-speed crashes, and the
>> institute’s bumper tests did not assess passenger safety."
>>
>> the tests were done at 6mph. How can you be injured at 6mph, other
>> than spilling your coffee? (that's 8.8 feet per second. You
>> probably land harder if you miss a step on the stairs.)
>>
>> That said, $1400+ to fix a 6 mph accident is pretty insane.
>
> They showed and old Escort going through the same type of test and the
> damage
> was $86.
>
> Wonder what that means?
>
>
>



This video is stupid and misleading.

The current US impact standard calls for bumpers to be tested at
TWO-AND-A-HALF miles per hour, not SIX. Why would these crooks test
bumpers at a speed they were never meant to absorb?

Even the original 1973 standard (lobbied for by the same insurance
institute that's complaining now) never went above FIVE mph.

Notice they never said what "standard" the bumpers were made to? They
simply quote the automakers defensively saying that their bumpers "meet
the standard" without saying what the "standard" was.

The Escort in question had plain-steel 5mph bumpers. $86? I wonder about
that. Did they source the hydraulic cylinders from a wreckers and not
count labor costs? Did they just live with a bent bumper bar? They don't
say. In any modern bumper, most of the repair cost for the actual bumper
would have been in replacing and painting the bumper skin covering the
rebar.

And did you notice the Escort didn't submarine under the impact bar?
Most all the others did. Most of the expensive damage wasn't from the
bumper repair, but from damage to the hood, cooling system, rad support,
fenders and lighting. All resulting from underriding the beam. There are
bumper-height standards the automakers have to meet. I'd like to know
why the underriding.

Did you know the United States and Canada are the only countries in the
world with bumper impact standards?

A final, hilarious irony: The video starts with an ad for the Honda
CR-V, which, since it's a light truck, DOES NOT HAVE TO MEET ANY BUMPER
STANDARDS AT ALL! What a joke. F-U, MSNBC.


--
Tegger

In article >, wrote:
>
> "ray" > wrote in message
> news:e5MFh.1184056$1T2.172645@pd7urf2no...
>> wrote:
>> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401839/
>> >
>>
>> "Serious injuries are uncommon in low-speed crashes, and the institute?s
>> bumper tests did not assess passenger safety."
>>
>> the tests were done at 6mph. How can you be injured at 6mph, other than
>> spilling your coffee? (that's 8.8 feet per second. You probably land
>> harder if you miss a step on the stairs.)
>>
>> That said, $1400+ to fix a 6 mph accident is pretty insane.
>
> They showed and old Escort going through the same type of test and the
> damage
> was $86.
>
> Wonder what that means?

Inflation.

Anyway, the difference is that instead of chrome plating the bumpers and
and hanging them so they stick out inches from the body work, the bumpers
are painted steel and live behind a decorative painted flexible cover
that is styled into the body work of the car. Also instead of cheap
sealed beams the headlamps are molded and styled into the bodywork.

In article >, Tegger wrote:

> The Escort in question had plain-steel 5mph bumpers. $86? I wonder about
> that. Did they source the hydraulic cylinders from a wreckers and not
> count labor costs? Did they just live with a bent bumper bar? They don't
> say. In any modern bumper, most of the repair cost for the actual bumper
> would have been in replacing and painting the bumper skin covering the
> rebar.

On cars of that vintage there are hydraulic cylinders that are supposed
to be replaced with every bump but generally are servicable as is if the
bumper is hit square. They hit the bumper square which is, now that I
look at the video the biggest part of how the the insurance institute for
higher surcharges has once again skewed a test for much more dramatic
results and has to do with your question below.

> And did you notice the Escort didn't submarine under the impact bar?
> Most all the others did. Most of the expensive damage wasn't from the
> bumper repair, but from damage to the hood, cooling system, rad support,
> fenders and lighting. All resulting from underriding the beam. There are
> bumper-height standards the automakers have to meet. I'd like to know
> why the underriding.

The underriding is clearly due to the location the bar being crashed into
relative to modern car bumpers. The bar appears to be set at the height
of the top of large 74-80something bumpers. The bar is also rather narrow
in width from top to bottom. It actually looks a bit smaller than the '81
escort's. There is another thing, lots of space under the test bar, where
on anything but a truck, this wouldn't be.

Trouble is, todays cars don't have squared off bumpers, so what happens
is that the bumper hits the bar but because of the shape of the bar and
the bumper, the bar runs along the surface of the bumper cover and
smashes into the head lamps as there is space under the test bar for the
bumper of the car to go.

All the cars would have done significantly better if they were bumped
into each other instead of a test bar with geometery that favored the
older style bumpers. There would not have been any under-riding.

The test if anything, shows the difference when rear ending a box truck
or similar large vehicle with an overhanging fixed heavy steel bumper at
the high end of passenger car bumper height.

The test was IMO designed to get the results it did. Having an '81 escort
on hand to compare pretty much seals that.

Tegger > wrote:
>
>The current US impact standard calls for bumpers to be tested at
>TWO-AND-A-HALF miles per hour, not SIX. Why would these crooks test
>bumpers at a speed they were never meant to absorb?

Because people do actually have accidents at higher speeds. Therefore,
having bumpers tested at higher speeds, and probably designed to deal
with higher speeds, is a good idea.

>The Escort in question had plain-steel 5mph bumpers. $86? I wonder about
>that. Did they source the hydraulic cylinders from a wreckers and not
>count labor costs? Did they just live with a bent bumper bar? They don't
>say. In any modern bumper, most of the repair cost for the actual bumper
>would have been in replacing and painting the bumper skin covering the
>rebar.

I agree, $86 seems a little bit low. But maybe they declared the Escort
totalled and $86 was considered the value of the vehicle.

>And did you notice the Escort didn't submarine under the impact bar?
>Most all the others did. Most of the expensive damage wasn't from the
>bumper repair, but from damage to the hood, cooling system, rad support,
>fenders and lighting. All resulting from underriding the beam. There are
>bumper-height standards the automakers have to meet. I'd like to know
>why the underriding.

Actually, there are no longer bumper-height standards, as of a year or two
ago, I believe. I think that is shameful. Welcome to the SUV Revolution.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Brent P > wrote:
>
>The test was IMO designed to get the results it did. Having an '81 escort
>on hand to compare pretty much seals that.

Yes, but do you have a good cylinder head on it? Everybody has an '81
Escort... hardly anybody has one that actually runs...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Tegger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in

> And did you notice the Escort didn't submarine under the impact bar?
> Most all the others did.

That was exactly my take on it too, Tegger. The submarining brought the
impact bar up into expensive country on the newer cars.

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

> Tegger > wrote:
>>
>>The current US impact standard calls for bumpers to be tested at
>>TWO-AND-A-HALF miles per hour, not SIX. Why would these crooks test
>>bumpers at a speed they were never meant to absorb?
>
> Because people do actually have accidents at higher speeds.
> Therefore, having bumpers tested at higher speeds, and probably
> designed to deal with higher speeds, is a good idea.



Yes, but for the Insurance Institute to lobby the government to have a 5mph
standard imposed, then test them at 1mph higher than that, that's
disingenuous to say the least.




> Actually, there are no longer bumper-height standards, as of a year or
> two ago, I believe. I think that is shameful. Welcome to the SUV
> Revolution. --scott


Surely the automakers didn't suddenly rush to the drawing board and drop
their bumpers immediately, did they? Don't you think the structures were
left over from when the standard was in force?


--
Tegger