Does this "damage" sound reasonable?

Yesterday, a BMW minivan stopped short in front of my Chevy here in Red
Sox Nation and due to some snow/ice on the road I slid a little and
couldn't quite stop in time so my car tapped the BMW's rear bumper,
leaving a very slight mark which looks like it could just be buffed out.

I exchanged data with the other driver and when we were ready to depart
his BMW wouldn't start. He had it towed to the dealer he purchased it from.

Later in the day the other fellow called me and said that my car hitting
the BMW's bumper damaged some electronic system and that the repairs
would require installing a new electronic module (costing about $900)
plus labor for a total cost of about $1,900.00.

The owner didn't know the specific name of what component had been
damaged and I told him to try and get me more data. He offered the
suggestion that perhaps I'd want to consider paying him directly to
avoid injuring my record with my insurer and asked how much I'd be
willing to pay.

I've reported the incident to my auto insurer, but I'm suspicious about
whether or not such a slight tap to the BMW's rear bumper could cause
that much damage to some electronic system in the car. Does it sound
plausible and reasonable to folks on this newsgroup?

Thanks guys,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

"jeff_wisnia" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yesterday, a BMW minivan stopped short in front of my Chevy here in Red
> Sox Nation and due to some snow/ice on the road I slid a little and
> couldn't quite stop in time so my car tapped the BMW's rear bumper,
> leaving a very slight mark which looks like it could just be buffed out.
>
> I exchanged data with the other driver and when we were ready to depart
> his BMW wouldn't start. He had it towed to the dealer he purchased it
> from.
>
> Later in the day the other fellow called me and said that my car hitting
> the BMW's bumper damaged some electronic system and that the repairs would
> require installing a new electronic module (costing about $900) plus labor
> for a total cost of about $1,900.00.
>
> The owner didn't know the specific name of what component had been damaged
> and I told him to try and get me more data. He offered the suggestion that
> perhaps I'd want to consider paying him directly to avoid injuring my
> record with my insurer and asked how much I'd be willing to pay.
>
> I've reported the incident to my auto insurer, but I'm suspicious about
> whether or not such a slight tap to the BMW's rear bumper could cause that
> much damage to some electronic system in the car. Does it sound plausible
> and reasonable to folks on this newsgroup?
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> Jeff
>


Let YOUR insurance company handle this. You hit somebody, you are at fault.
File the claim and let your insurance carrier carry the ball from here.

If the BMW has Back-up Sensors, then you could easily have done $1900 in
damage. I'm not sure this would cause the BMW to fail to start though...

jeff_wisnia > wrote:
>I've reported the incident to my auto insurer, but I'm suspicious about
>whether or not such a slight tap to the BMW's rear bumper could cause
>that much damage to some electronic system in the car. Does it sound
>plausible and reasonable to folks on this newsgroup?

Cars these days are filled with millions of electronic modules which are
critical to their normal functioning. These modules are interconnected
with many, many cables and connectors and what is inside them is not
documented.

This means that the most minor of electronics failures can result in a
vast bill, owing to the difficulty of diagnosing problems (made worse by
mechanics randomly swapping parts in hopes of finding the bad one), and
the lack of component-level repair meaning a cold solder joint results in
replacing a $900 module.

Whatever failed in the guy's car... it could have been ready to fail and
would have failed even if you hadn't hit his bumper. On the other hand,
maybe it DID fail with only a slight shock. On the gripping hand, maybe
it had been intermittent for months and the guy finds this a convenient
way to get someone else to pay for a known problem.

So, let your insurance company deal with it. It's their job.
--scott

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

Around four years ago a learner on a moped ran into the back of my
[stationary] 735i whilst he was watching a distant fire engine, probably
only about 20mph at the moment of impact and both he and his bike were quite
light..

Fortunately he was unhurt, although his bike looked a write off.

Damage on mine appeared trivial until it was in for some other work about
three weeks later and the mechanic pointed out that the bumper had been
pushed well in and the ends were sticking into the wheel arches.

Replacing the trashed absorbent bumper mountings cost ~£600 ($1,000), about
two thirds labour.

The bumper was undamaged.

The main electronics in the bumper is the park distance control (also
undamaged in my case, but very vulnerable in an impact), but replacing this
could easily double the cost above.

So IME the cost sounds reasonable.

I let my insurers sort it out, but using the legal fees bit to claim off the
rider rather than a formal claim.


"jeff_wisnia" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yesterday, a BMW minivan stopped short in front of my Chevy here in Red
> Sox Nation and due to some snow/ice on the road I slid a little and
> couldn't quite stop in time so my car tapped the BMW's rear bumper,
> leaving a very slight mark which looks like it could just be buffed out.
>
> I exchanged data with the other driver and when we were ready to depart
> his BMW wouldn't start. He had it towed to the dealer he purchased it
> from.
>
> Later in the day the other fellow called me and said that my car hitting
> the BMW's bumper damaged some electronic system and that the repairs would
> require installing a new electronic module (costing about $900) plus labor
> for a total cost of about $1,900.00.
>
> The owner didn't know the specific name of what component had been damaged
> and I told him to try and get me more data. He offered the suggestion that
> perhaps I'd want to consider paying him directly to avoid injuring my
> record with my insurer and asked how much I'd be willing to pay.
>
> I've reported the incident to my auto insurer, but I'm suspicious about
> whether or not such a slight tap to the BMW's rear bumper could cause that
> much damage to some electronic system in the car. Does it sound plausible
> and reasonable to folks on this newsgroup?
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Jeffry Wisnia
> (W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
> The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

"R. Mark Clayton" > wrote:

>The main electronics in the bumper is the park distance control (also
>undamaged in my case, but very vulnerable in an impact), but replacing this
>could easily double the cost above.
>
>So IME the cost sounds reasonable.

Am I the only person thinking that's a stupid design, to make the
bumper so fragile and expensive to repair?

"Park distance control". Who needs it?

dizzy > wrote:
>
>Am I the only person thinking that's a stupid design, to make the
>bumper so fragile and expensive to repair?

In the old days, bumpers worked because they were heavy and solid. Today
bumpers work because they are fragile and crushable.

BUT... fragile should not mean expensive to repair. And it's not just BMW
either: replacing the crushable bumpers on a late-model Nissan will put you
back more than a thousand. That seems ludicrous to me.

>"Park distance control". Who needs it?

People who drive cars with poor visibility. Remember Lincolns with curb
feelers?
--scott

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

On 2013-12-22 22:39:47 +0100, dizzy said:

> "R. Mark Clayton" > wrote:
>
>> The main electronics in the bumper is the park distance control (also
>> undamaged in my case, but very vulnerable in an impact), but replacing this
>> could easily double the cost above.
>>
>> So IME the cost sounds reasonable.
>
> Am I the only person thinking that's a stupid design, to make the
> bumper so fragile and expensive to repair?
>
> "Park distance control". Who needs it?

saved the back of my car twice, and may be also the legs of the person who
came quick on a supermarket parking with his full caddy
I did not see the person, but I heard the bips...
does not need often, but when you really need it they are here.

--

Jean-Yves.

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> "R. Mark Clayton" > wrote:
>
>>The main electronics in the bumper is the park distance control (also
>>undamaged in my case, but very vulnerable in an impact), but replacing
>>this
>>could easily double the cost above.
>>
>>So IME the cost sounds reasonable.
>
> Am I the only person thinking that's a stupid design, to make the
> bumper so fragile and expensive to repair?

The bumpers aren't fragile - the mountings are designed to deform and absorb
the energy of an impact.

It is a lot cheaper to replace the bumper mounting than to beat out a bent
boot etc.

>
> "Park distance control". Who needs it?
>

It is a useful, but not essential feature. It is not a feature I would buy
a car for. OTOH ABS was the primary reason I bought my first BMW in 1985
(IIRC only 7 series and Ford Granadas had it as standard and it was not even
an option on most cars).

R. Mark Clayton > wrote:
>
>The bumpers aren't fragile - the mountings are designed to deform and absorb
>the energy of an impact.

This is true.

>It is a lot cheaper to replace the bumper mounting than to beat out a bent
>boot etc.

But the sad part is that this isn't true. I know it's supposed to be
true, but when you actually have to do it you find out that it isn't.
--scott

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

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> R. Mark Clayton > wrote:
>>
>>The bumpers aren't fragile - the mountings are designed to deform and
>>absorb
>>the energy of an impact.
>
> This is true.
>
>>It is a lot cheaper to replace the bumper mounting than to beat out a bent
>>boot etc.
>
> But the sad part is that this isn't true. I know it's supposed to be
> true, but when you actually have to do it you find out that it isn't.

This may depend on how many panels you bend, replacing light clusters etc.
etc.

In the case I cited the moped had a smashed fairing, twisted forks, and bent
frame plus probably the front wheel was buckled as well. Even though it was
fairly new, my reckoning was that it was a write off for more than the
eventual cost of the damage to my car.

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