Car Bumpers

[Red Arrow]

In keeping with the effort to stay on topic, I started this thread on bumpers to move it from the fuel mileage thread. (34 MPG... Ford....)

I found a 1987 report at NHSTA claiming that the reduction to the 2-1/2 mph bumper was essentially a no cost item to the consumer.  I found another spot at NHSTA claiming the cost of the 1980 5 mph bumper was slightly higher than the unregulated 1972 and earlier bumpers.  I haven't found anything yet on insurance rates of the 70s, higher or lower, related to the bumper standards.  This would be comparing the no regulation bumpers to the 1970s 2-1/2 and 5 mph bumpers.

I found a few articles claiming the insurance companies want no damage bumpers at higher mph in order to justify denying whiplash claims.  I didn't look into their credibility but found the concept to be plausible.


http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html

An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard – As Modified in 1982


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/Problems/studies/Bumper/Index.html

7) Has NHTSA conducted evaluations of the bumper standard? If so, what were the results?
Yes. NHTSA conducted an evaluation of the bumper standard in 1981. The evaluation determined the net benefits (the change in costs) to the consumer attributable to each successive standard (applicable through MY 1980) in relation to unregulated bumper systems in MY 1972 and prior years. The evaluation findings were that bumper systems complying with the standard requirements for model years 1979 and 1980 (most, if not all, bumpers were built to the 1980 "no damage" standard in 1979) tended to show net consumer losses - based on a 10-year car life - when compared to unregulated bumper systems. The costs of the 1979/1980 systems were between $150 and $200 higher than the unregulated bumpers (1972 and earlier model years).
In 1987, the agency conducted another evaluation of the bumper standard. The evaluation concluded that: (1) the costs to consumers did not change as a result of the modification of the bumper standard from 5 to 2.5 mph; (2) the net effect, over a car's 10 year life, is a small increase in repair costs, which is offset by a reduction in the cost of the bumpers; and (3) the change in the bumper standard did not compromise the protection of safety-related parts.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I replied in the other thread to this - before I saw this.

As additional comment;  look at who did that report.  1987.  Reagan.  Ring a bell??  This is the same administration who brought you the "Cure" for inflation.  They are the ones who performed the miracle of reducing 15%+ inflation to about 6% in just over a week.  The week before inauguration, inflation was 15% due to Jimmy Carter (supposedly) and the week after inauguration, the rate was 6%.  Gee, whiz, Batman, how could they do that miracle?  Easy.  They changed the way inflation was calculated.

NHTSA also references the IIHS testing done for many years - not just one show piece test.  And the people who ARE the insurance companies explicitly TELL you that rates go/went up when the bumpers became more expensive to repair.  (The Saturn report referenced in the other thread.)

[Red Arrow]

Here is just a quick statement from IIHS.  The people who actually RAISE your insurance bills....
Check out the News Releases from Aug 27, 1997 and May 8, 1997.  This has been common knowledge and REPORTED in the REAL news (NOT anything with Murdoch in it) for 20 years or more. 

So, we moved from a 5mph bumper standard with no damage, to allowing car makers to do whatever they want in the name of "deregulation" ala Reagan.  Now there is some kind of progress.   Saturn was the best in 1997 at $655 damage, while the Hyundai was over $3000. 

And the luxury guys?  Well, hold onto your panties...a walking speed impact - 5 mph - on a Lexus caused $6190 in damage.

http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/bumpers.html

How is THAT hopey/changey thing working out for ya'??



I replied in the other thread to this - before I saw this.

As additional comment;  look at who did that report.  1987.  Reagan.  Ring a bell??  This is the same administration who brought you the "Cure" for inflation.  They are the ones who performed the miracle of reducing 15%+ inflation to about 6% in just over a week.  The week before inauguration, inflation was 15% due to Jimmy Carter (supposedly) and the week after inauguration, the rate was 6%.  Gee, whiz, Batman, how could they do that miracle?  Easy.  They changed the way inflation was calculated.

NHTSA also references the IIHS testing done for many years - not just one show piece test.  And the people who ARE the insurance companies explicitly TELL you that rates go/went up when the bumpers became more expensive to repair.  (The Saturn report referenced in the other thread.)

A lot can happen between 1987 and 1997.  Five years of Bill Clinton ring a bell?  (I can play that game too.)  I don't accept any relevance to the topic at hand by your rant on Reagan.  Are you related to Ruff?

The authors of that 1987 report are listed as Warren G. La Heist and Frank G. Ephraim.  I don't see President Ronald Reagan listed in the authors column

Where does the NHTSA say the manufacturers could do whatever they wanted to do?  The regulations were relaxed, not obliterated.  In 1982, the line was changed on front bumpers from 5 to 2-1/2 mph.   SUVs and trucks are excluded due to potential operational requirements for those vehicles.


So how fast do you want to be able to be hit with no damage?  5?  6?  7-3/4?  How much damage will you allow at say, 1 mph over the allowable impact speed?  Someone has to draw the line somewhere. 


FWIW, 5 mph is a fairly brisk walk, a 12 minute mile.  I walk most days at lunch for about 2 miles.  4 mph is a piece of cake. 5 mph is a bit tough.  (Walking, not jogging.) Walk blindfolded into a brick wall and see what happens to your face.  I must agree that $6200 is a bit much.  Which model Lexus?

And the people who ARE the insurance companies explicitly TELL you that rates go/went up when the bumpers became more expensive to repair.   

This is pretty much what I claimed between pre 1972 no regulation bumpers and post 1972 regulated bumpers.  There were additional crumply things added (Mercedes brags about it.) that made it more expensive to fix cars but reduced injury rates about that same timeframe.

"I remember reading that the 5 mph bumper made premiums go up.  It turned out that the structure to prevent damage at 5 mph was a lot more expensive to replace or fix than the older stuff and enough "accidents" were over 5 mph that the average repair costs increased.  That's been a while, probably when there were still actually bumpers."

I am not fond of the design of many present cars where half the back end of the car is "bumper".   It is another unintended result of regulations that get too specific and let manufacturers meet the letter of the regulation rather than the original (usually good) intentions. 


hopey/changey

[heironymouspasparagus]

There is no real regulation any more.  Read the reference about the Lexus model (you asked for the reference.  I found it and gave it to you.  Want me to read it to you, too?  That's entitlement talk, if you ask me.)

8 years of Bill Clinton.  4 years of smaller deficits followed by 4 years of actual surplus.  Ring a bell??

I thought you lived through that era?  If you are younger than that, or even if not, go look at the underside of a bumper from that era.  Pick any 1980 +/- 5 years GM, Ford, or Chrysler to check out.  They had brilliant designs that not only were very cost effective - cheap!  But were extremely effective.  They were much more effective than anything built today and much more robust, simpler, and cheaper.  Golden age of bumpers.  There was a cross bracket that supported two tubes filled with a spring mechanism where the bumper was mounted.  You could think of it as a "floating" bumper.  Never got one completely apart, but there may have been a damper in there, too (shock absorber).  It was very much like the floor at the Cain's in overall concept, only horizontal.

If you were around at that time, then you didn't actually hear that the bumpers made insurance go up.  What you heard was the ranting and raving about how government regulation of any sort is bad.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ruff?  Don't know a Ruff.

Two can play that game...??  Well, sadly it isn't a game.  It is very serious stuff.  It is the same mental attitude that led to us not adopting seat belts in cars as mandatory until the late 1960's.  It is the same mental attitude that fought ANY kind of pollution control on engines.  It took decades before there was even something as simple as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation).  Or electronic ignition (remember when tune up intervals were 10,000 miles.  And spark plugs HAD to be replaced then?  No 100,000 mile tune ups back in the good old days).  Or CAFE standards.  (Kind of related to where this all started back at the mileage truck.)  Or air bags.  Or child seats. Or crumple zones. Or ABS brakes??

Little side note;  seat belts were invented in the mid 1930's but it took over 30 years before they were required to be present in US cars.  Not required to be used - just present in the car.

Maybe if we had kept the CAFE plan in place, everyone could enjoy 30 mpg now.  There is NO excuse not to.  Oops, sorry.... legitimate excuse.

How fast do you want to hit something without damage?  How about just leaving it like it was and not regressing?  There have also been words put out by the same IIHS guys talking about the number of 5mph bumper thumps versus more serious damage causing accidents.  It is a huge percentage.  So, if damage is eliminated by just that one thing, that we HAD and gave away... then that is kind of a no brainer.  Except for those with no brain.


 

[Red Arrow]

There is no real regulation any more.  Read the reference about the Lexus model (you asked for the reference.  I found it and gave it to you.  Want me to read it to you, too?  That's entitlement talk, if you ask me.)

You gave me a 3 page list of articles, some with good titles, some not. None highlighting a $6200 Lexus loss.  You could have highlighted the one you were referring to.  Now that I am home and not on the company's time I could spend the time looking.

8 years of Bill Clinton.  4 years of smaller deficits followed by 4 years of actual surplus.  Ring a bell??

Jimmy Carter could have ridden that era to similar results.  Why didn't Bill get some (more?) of Ronnie's horrible deeds undone?

I thought you lived through that era?  If you are younger than that, or even if not, go look at the underside of a bumper from that era.  Pick any 1980 +/- 5 years GM, Ford, or Chrysler to check out.  They had brilliant designs that not only were very cost effective - cheap!  But were extremely effective.  They were much more effective than anything built today and much more robust, simpler, and cheaper.  Golden age of bumpers.  There was a cross bracket that supported two tubes filled with a spring mechanism where the bumper was mounted.  You could think of it as a "floating" bumper.  Never got one completely apart, but there may have been a damper in there, too (shock absorber).  It was very much like the floor at the Cain's in overall concept, only horizontal.

I lived through the transition to unleaded gas.  I lived through the transition to 5 and 2-1/2 mph bumpers.  I bought a brand new 1981 Buick Skylark that I retired a few years ago (and still have) with 278,000 miles. (I was trying for 300,000 mi.) I have been fortunate enough to have not tested a bumper any more than a tap at a stop light, a small dent in a 66 Buick Skylark rear bumper that I saw no necessity to fix. I also had a 69 Skylark that I bought (used) with a small dent in the rear quarter panel under the bumper that I never got fixed. 

From the 1981 Buick Skylark Service Manual  Section 2B, Bumpers

"BUMPER ENERGY ABSORBING UNITS
   The absorbing capability for both front and rear bumper systems on the X Series is achieved through two energy absorbing devices in each bumper.  These units convert the energy of an impact into heat and restoration. (See figure 2B6 and 2B7).
    The Energy Absorbing Device consists of two main subassemblies; the piston tube assembly and the cylinder tube assembly.  The piston tube assembly is filled with an inert gas under pressure and consists of a bumper bracket, piston tube, orifice, piston seal, piston, and stop ring. The cylinder tube assembly is filled with a hydraulic fluid and consists of a frame bracket, cylinder tube, mounting stud, and metering pin."

The manual then describes the operation during an impact.  Almost half of the page is in bold print with cautions on the dangers of servicing these units. Copyright issues prevent me from scanning a few pages from the book.

I am not contesting the fact that the early 80's bumpers were good, only that over the fleet of vehicles that they were less expensive.  If you had a series of 5 mph or less collisions, you were a winner.  If you got hit above 5 mph to maybe 10, your (insurance co's) losses were greater than before.  The reason I can't cite a reference for my figures is because I remember it (as a surprise) rather than as a history research project.  I didn't see any thing very old (1970s or older) in the link you posted. The 81 GM cars also had plastic body pieces in the deflection area of the bumper that rotted away after many years.  OK if you trade cars frequently.  One of the reasons my 81 is parked is because I can't get those parts.  I could spend $1000 to fix what's wrong mechanically and still have a junky looking car. Right now it hides the trash cans in the driveway. 

If you were around at that time, then you didn't actually hear that the bumpers made insurance go up.  What you heard was the ranting and raving about how government regulation of any sort is bad.

I was there, as an adult. You and I have different memories.

[Red Arrow]

I thought it would get this picture too.

Edit: Forgot to add, that black trim strip cost about $60 a few months after the car was new. Someone tagged it in the parking lot.  List price of the car was a bit under $10,000. I got it for a bit less than $9000.

[Red Arrow]

Ruff?  Don't know a Ruff.

Too bad, I think you would like him.

Two can play that game...??  Well, sadly it isn't a game.

Blaming everything on Reagan is the game I'm referring to.  (Nothing left for Bush?)

It is very serious stuff.  It is the same mental attitude that led to us not adopting seat belts in cars as mandatory until the late 1960's.  It is the same mental attitude that fought ANY kind of pollution control on engines.  It took decades before there was even something as simple as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation).  Or electronic ignition (remember when tune up intervals were 10,000 miles.  And spark plugs HAD to be replaced then?  No 100,000 mile tune ups back in the good old days).  Or CAFE standards.  (Kind of related to where this all started back at the mileage truck.)  Or air bags.  Or child seats. Or crumple zones. Or ABS brakes??

Little side note;  seat belts were invented in the mid 1930's but it took over 30 years before they were required to be present in US cars.  Not required to be used - just present in the car.

You can quit the lecture mode.

Seat belts were available in the early 60s.  62 Chevy Bel Air, 63 Buick LeSabre, 65 Buick LeSabre 400, 66 Buick Skylark, 69 Buick Skylark (with clumsy shoulder belt too).  People didn't want to wear them.  Remember ignition interlocks?  Couldn't start the car unless you were seated with your seat belt on.  People didn't like that either. The refusal of people to wear active restraints (seat belts) led to passive (airbag) restraints that cost more.  I happen to believe in seat belts so you won't get an argument from me there.

The manufacturers were actually working on pollution controls in the 60s. Our 63 LeSabre had a PCV valve instead of a road draft tube like the 63 Falcon my sister put up with for a few years.  Mandatory pollution controls and schedules led to poor drivability and reduced gas mileage in the early 70s.  The thermodynamics of the gasoline engine dictate that (up to a point, I think about 15:1 for spark ignition without direct fuel injection) higher compression ratios are more efficient.  We couldn't make high octane gas economically without tetraethyl lead at the time so compression ratios were reduced from about 10 to 8.5 to match the available fuel supply. (I think Amoco had a high octane, no lead gas but it was relatively expensive.)   Eventually the engineering caught up but we had to put up with junk for a few years to meet physics by legislation.  I remember 10,000 mile tune ups.  I put on an add on electronic module that worked with the the existing distributor and got 15,000 mi from a set of plugs. My dad remembered driving from Phila, PA to Key West, FL in the 40s. He and his friend (later my uncle) had to stop every few hundred miles to file the points in the Model A.  My dad's 1940 Olds needed a ring job at well less than 100,000 miles.  Even by the 50s you could go that far without an engine overhaul.  Our family had a 54 Buick Special that went to about 120,000 miles without major engine work.  Automatic transmissions were another deal.  1940s and early 50s Buick brakes sucked. Without government regulation, they took on the task of making them better and by the late 50s had a good brake system (on the upper series cars), almost as good as the disk brake system they were forced to put on by public demand in the late 60s.  People resisted crumple zones because they cost more to fix.  I remember the arguments well. Piece of junk car crumples and costs a bunch to fix even in a minor accident.  I didn't care for Ralph Nader or his methods but he did cause many safety improvements.  Collapsable steering columns and split circuit brake cylinders about 1967 come to mind.  Some European cars may have already had them. I'm thinking Saab and Volvo and possibly Mercedes.  The point is that the car manufacturers were capable of improvements that consumers demanded without government mandates.  Some came faster by government mandate in spite of consumer demand.  I think EGR was done for NOx.  It contributed to poor drivability in its early days.  I think you can thank the space race for many of the improvements in cars the last 20 or so years. The technology trickled down (Reagan reference) from really expensive rockets to automobiles and a gazillion other things.

Maybe if we had kept the CAFE plan in place, everyone could enjoy 30 mpg now.  There is NO excuse not to.  Oops, sorry.... legitimate excuse.

We're getting there in spite of CAFE.  Consumers are demanding it.  Manufacturers are providing better mileage WITH good drivability and performance that we Americans demand.  The price of gas/diesel might be a driving factor.

How fast do you want to hit something without damage?  How about just leaving it like it was and not regressing?  There have also been words put out by the same IIHS guys talking about the number of 5mph bumper thumps versus more serious damage causing accidents.  It is a huge percentage.  So, if damage is eliminated by just that one thing, that we HAD and gave away... then that is kind of a no brainer.  Except for those with no brain.

Someone had to pick a number (or numbers 5 front, 2-1/2 rear initially).  That number was re-evaluated in 1982.  I have no reason to disbelieve the results of that study fleet wide.  Remember I said I've had nothing more than a bumper tap.  I don't drive professionally but have put a few miles on cars since the 60s.  How much did it cost me to have you get no damage for your 4.99 mph hit?  How much did it cost the person that got hit at 7 mph and had to do the pre 1972 fix PLUS the more expensive bumper.  Maybe people are driving even more stupidly now that they know they can't get hurt (airbags, don't need to wear no stinkin' seat belts), their cars will stop on a dime on any slick surface (ABS) and their cars won't get damaged.  It may be time to re-evaluate bumper speeds and drivers.

Edit: corrected I to It in last sentence.
Edit 2: Added 65 LeSabre to the seat belts list of cars we had.  Kept my dad's face out of the windshield when hit head on at about 20 mph on a snowy road in 67.  Dad had the lap belt on and only got two bruised elbows.  The car was totaled.

[JeffM]

Too bad, I think you would like him.

Probably.  
But we're two completely different people with very different views on life; who just happened to agree on several aspects of political history.... gee, from now on, I suppose I'll have to search for "Ruf" or "Ruff" every time I login.  

Blaming everything on Reagan is the game I'm referring to.  (Nothing left for Bush?)

I don't blame everything on Reagan.

I voted for him over Fritz-n-tits for '84 in large part as a reaction to the howling liberal crazies who kept telling us that re-electing Reagan was going to lead to a nuclear holocaust, the wholesale dismantling of social security, welfare, women's rights, labor unions, etc, etc....

I believe this economic crisis is very similar to what I remember and experienced as a high school/college student in the early 80s.  I remember wearing a 3-piece suit to a job interview for Arby's-- on a 100-degree Oklahoma summer day.... I was that desperate.

And yes, Reagan raised my taxes.
And he got away with it, in ways that George H. W. Bush or any other politician couldn't....

These days, I enjoy blaming the political and mythological deification of Ronald Reagan.  And I especially blame it's corresponding political template (used by both Republicans and Dems) for much of our current problems.  
Heck, Chicago's Mayor Daley used it for years; and even Blago used it.

When I moved to Chicago back in the day, I asked a dem political volunteer what made Bill Clinton so special...... he said, "Bill Clinton will be the best Republican president we've ever had."

Alright.
Back to car bumpers....

[nathanm]

These days, I enjoy blaming the political and mythological deification of Ronald Reagan.

You too, eh?

Reagan (and Bush the Elder) had a big thing going for them that Clinton never needed to use and Bush the Younger apparently lacked: The ability to do something necessary, but unpopular. They both raised taxes at great political cost to themselves.

I say that only to point out that even Reagan wasn't all bad. He did some good at the same time he was doing all his damage.

[Red Arrow]

I'm usually one of the ones to get side tracked but I'll try to pull this back on topic..

I went to the car show this evening and paid special attention to bumpers.  I stand by my remarks regarding cars from the 60s through the early and maybe late 90s.  The new cars are, however, putting their best face and teeth forward in a fist fight regarding bumpers.

The styling is probably more attractive than a 5 mph bumper hanging out but I sure wouldn't want to have to fix one with a collision at any speed. About the only car there with anything resembling a bumper was the Mustang.  I suspect that is because it draws its styling cues from the early Mustangs. New Lincolns like the MKZ lead with the grill and headlights. A couple of Jeeps sort of had a bumperish protrusion.  A couple of trucks had bumperish items and they aren't required to have them.

Whew!

Edit:  The newest car I own is a 1998 Buick Regal GS.

[nathanm]

A couple of trucks had bumperish items and they aren't required to have them.

Remember when trucks used to come without bumpers?

Other issues with bumper standards in the US have to do with the differing height of car and truck bumpers and that we call things like SUVs "trucks" because they're built on a truck frame, even when they are by no means meant for use as a work truck.

[Red Arrow]

Remember when trucks used to come without bumpers?

Other issues with bumper standards in the US have to do with the differing height of car and truck bumpers and that we call things like SUVs "trucks" because they're built on a truck frame, even when they are by no means meant for use as a work truck.

I wasn't born in OK so I am not a truck freak.  I don't remember trucks without front bumpers but won't deny they were delivered that way.  I certainly remember trucks without rear bumpers. There were a bunch of aftermarket rear bumpers that usually got added.  By the time they got on the road, I wouldn't want to hit the rear of any of those trucks with the front of my car.

I think early SUVs were built on truck frames to avoid automobile levels of pollution controls, and probably bumper regulations. Most SUVs have become more car-like over the years to appeal to people from states other than Oklahoma and Texas.

[sauerkraut]

The 5-MPH Bumpers worked good if they got hit, but what was a problem is that in crashes objects offten slid over the bumpers and hit the grill unless the vehicle had bumper guards that reached up high. Also, in chain reaction crashes when a string of cars slam on their brakes the front end of the cars dip down as the rear end raises up, so the diped down front bumper of one car slams into the raised rear end of the car ahead of it and the force slams the back end of the car into the front grill as it over-rides the bumper. If two of those 5-mph bumpers hit square on with no dipping they can withstand a 10 mph crash, or each bumper can take a 5-mph crash into a wall. I understand they changed the bumper requirements to 2.5 MPH to save weight & money.

[sauerkraut]

Red Arrow brings up a good point about engines lasting longer today, but there is reason for that from what I have been told, todays engines can be machined better with smoother surfaces and better valve seats- But more important is that todays oils are so much better than the oils of long ago. A 1954 Buick's engine  had to run using oil that did not fight sludge and protect the parts like the oils of today- after some miles the sludge and grit started to attack engine parts resulting in overhauls and valve jobs under 100,000 miles, plus the cars ran with lower thermostats and oil filters were not as good. I heard that if you  take a brand new 1954 engine and run it with todays oils it will also run over 100,000 miles easy. As for the bumpers todays cars are all about the same, the bumpers really offer no protection at all, Neal Bortz mentioned on his radio show that he would never buy another BMW, he said he hit a aluminum gate post at 3 mph and the gate was slightly damaged BUT, his BMW required $13,000 in repairs.