Bumper bashing
08-16-2004, 11:29 PM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumper bashing
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048863851
Aug.16, 2004. 06:56AM
Bumper bashing
An infuriating feature of new cars is the fragility of their extremities Not so long ago, bumpers were for bumping
DAVID BRUSER
BUSINESS REPORTER
The clunky steel bumper on Pierre Fleury's 1979 Chevrolet Malibu measured up just fine against his fence post.
"I hammered it," said Fleury, a Canadian Tire mechanic in Kingston. "My whole bumper is a shock system that's bolted to the frame. It pushed in four inches. You take a good size mallet and push it back out. Not a mark on the steel. Not a replacement of a part."
Though his Malibu might not look as slick as his later-model Honda Accord, Fleury, 32, knows which he'd rather have in a fender-bender.
"If it would have been my Honda, I would have been talking about replacing the bumper."
The problem, Fleury and others believe, is that bumpers aren't good for bumping anymore.
Often made of plastic, with foam padding and then a thin metal bar underneath, today's bumpers are supposed to absorb low-speed impact and protect headlights, taillights, exhaust and cooling systems and other essential equipment.
Defenders of the modern bumper, including some auto manufacturers, agree today's bumpers wither in the parking lot but praise their performance in high speed-collisions. They say that while it may be expensive to repair, a bumper's first aim is to protect people, not their pocketbook.
"What do you want to have — a car that hits the wall and no damage but you take all the impact, or something that crumples and you go home to your family?" said Helmer Gonzales, owner of Fix Auto collision centre on Queen St. E. "Something's gotta give. There's nothing you can do about it."
But compared to the steel and aluminium bumpers of the late 1970s and early 1980s, modern bumpers are more easily damaged in low-speed collisions, consumer advocates and others say. They point to the few halcyon years when laws in the United States forced car companies to build more robust bumpers, and insist that low- and high-speed collision absorption capabilities aren't mutually exclusive.
Misjudging a two-point turn in the supermarket parking lot or "kissing" another car's bumper while parallel parking can lead to nicks, chips, dents totalling hundreds of dollars or much more in repairs — damage some say vintage bumpers would have deflected without much cost. Believing drivers are being unnecessarily saddled with high repair costs and insurance premiums after these common low-speed collisions, they seek tougher bumper standards.
Those same concerns revved up the bumper debate in the early 1970s, when the U.S. government investigated the high cost of auto repairs and decided to upgrade what one auto industry watcher dubbed the "decorative, chrome trim pieces" at cars' extremities.
"There was a realization that it was increasing the cost of ownership and increasing the cost of insurance," said George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association. "They did not have any energy absorption capability whatsoever. The public ended up paying the bill later when, in very foreseeable and minor impacts, you had significant damage."
In 1973, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implemented the first bumper standard, which required all cars to withstand a 5 m.p.h. frontal crash and 2.5 m.p.h. rear crash without damage to essential equipment.
By 1979, the law had stiffened, calling for no damage after 5 m.p.h. crashes at the front and back and no damage to other exterior surfaces, and in 1980 the law added a provision that the bumper itself could only sustain minimal damage.
The new law worked so well that Consumer Reports in the United States reported its bumper tests had become "redundant."
Many cars — pick-up trucks were exempt — featured a metal bumper with shock absorbers or some device to absorb impact. Some models featured aluminium bumpers covered with plastic or rubber skin. Chevrolet's 1980 Malibu added a rubber strip to the perimeter of the steel bumper, protecting even the tough chrome from minor scratches and scuffs.
In 1979, Canada followed the U.S. lead with a similar law requiring that front and rear bumpers undergo an 8 km/h (5 m.p.h.) crash test. The law only asked that a bumper protect essential "safety" equipment, not itself or other exterior surfaces. The law still stands.
"Our em.p.h.asis has always been on safety," said Ian Noy, director of Standards, Research and Development at Transport Canada. "We want to make sure that safety equipment works. Many people do not repair vehicles after minor damage and it's important in those cases that their lights and their hood retention mechanisms, everything, continues to function properly after a relatively minor collision."
Although Canada's standard differed, it was easier for most automakers to build bumpers fit for roads in both countries — a practice that continued as the U.S. regulation changed.
In 1983, the Reagan administration's em.p.h.asis on deregulation met the approval of carmakers. The U.S. law was scaled back so that bumpers only needed to withstand a 2.5 m.p.h. crash at both ends. Under the new law, bumpers could suffer unlimited damage.
The rationale was lighter bumpers meant lower fuel costs for consumers.
In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that bumpers made under the stricter law hurt consumers, who were paying $150-200 (U.S.) more for the new bumpers compared to those made before 1973.
Yet advocates for consumers were furious. Consumer Reports bemoaned "the return of the paper bumper."
"As part of the Reagan Administration's deregulation frenzy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tore a huge hole in this automotive safety net," Consumer Reports wrote in 1986. "The results were predictable. Vehicles that previously would have gone undamaged in low-speed collisions are now suffering as much as $800 or more in damage, turning minor accidents into serious financial problems."
Though the laws in both countries remained distinct, Iny and others feel carmakers found ways to make bumpers that satisfied both regulations yet at the same time reflected more style than substance.
"We got flimsier bumpers immediately," Iny said. "On new vehicles, they designed them with a lighter, less substantial structure in the front. Somebody figured out in reading the regulation that the bumper didn't have to protect itself at all, just the vehicle, and we once again got fashion involved where it would appear the public thinks a bumper shouldn't look like a bumper."
The outermost layer of many contemporary bumpers is a painted, plastic cover.
"It is the cover to hide what may or may not be a functioning bumper beneath it," said Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in Virginia. "Designers or stylists don't like traditional bumpers where they sit out in front of the car. That produces a look that designers call overhang."
Underneath the cover is shock-absorbing polypropylene foam or plastic honeycomb, known as "egg crate." Beneath this shock-absorbing cushion is a bar, typically made of steel, aluminium, fibreglass or plastic. Some manufacturers build lights, parking sensors and other devices right into or near the bumper, which ups the cost of repairs, said Russ Rader of the IIHS.
"When you have bumpers that can't withstand a minor hit in a parking lot, those kind of things are vulnerable," Rader said.
"Not only do you have the replacement costs for the bumper components, which can be expensive, but you also have damage to the sheet metal, headlight systems, trunk lids."
Trying to debunk the claim that modern bumpers protect equipment such as headlights or the grille, the IIHS has identified several components found on some 2004 model vehicles that sit in a vulnerable position near or flush with the bumper.
If a 2004 BMW 5 series got into a fender-bender, at risk is an adaptive cruise sensor located just below the grille, which, says the IIHS, would cost $2,262 to replace, and parking sensors that cost $360 to replace, according to the IIHS. If rear-ended, the ultrasonic rear parking assist on a 2004 Cadillac Escalade might need replacing at a cost of $934.
The IIHS and Consumer Reports conduct their own 5 m.p.h. bumper crash tests that they say is an accurate reflection of the common "fender-bender," or low-speed crash frequent on congested roads and in crowded parking lots.
The IIHS crashes the front into a flat and angled barrier and the rear into a flat barrier and pole. The average damage per test was $952 for the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu and $989 for the 2004 Acura TSX, earning both a "poor" ranking from the Institute, which criticized the TSX's bumpers for sitting nearly flush against the body of the car.
"That design may please the styling department, but it's terrible for consumers because it puts expensive sheet metal and safety components such as the headlamps closer to the point of impact in a routine fender-bender," the report said.
A 1981 Ford Escort suffered $0 in damages to the bumper or vehicle in a similar test conducted by the IIHS.
"You can see the difference 20 years makes," Rader said.
After a similar four-part test, a 1983 Plymouth Horizon equipped with 5 m.p.h., no-damage bumpers suffered a total of $287 in damage. Another Horizon issued later in the year after the U.S. bumper standard was weakened suffered $918 in damage. A 1990 model needed $1,476 in repairs. All prices were adjusted for 1990 labour rates and parts prices.
Gonzales, who said he worked in the auto paint business before specializing in collisions, speculated that the average fender-bender in Ontario costs $1,200 (Canadian) to fix.
"Say you got a minute scratch, that costs $350, $400 average, you're wondering why. You got to spend time to remove the front bumper (to do a thorough paint job)," he said. "Things are expensive. That's just the way things are. Materials are very expensive. Good technicians, they got to be paid for good work. Paint materials keep going up every year 5-7 per cent."
But Jim Miller, Canadian spokesperson for Acura, wants to make clear that the IIHS tests measure cost of repair, not the protection the bumper provides.
"Yes, it may me be more expensive, but it's also a vehicle that's got a 5-star safety rating," he said of the TSX. "The whole vehicle is designed to act as a cushion to protect the consumer."
Yet, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says em.p.h.atically that a bumper is "not a safety feature intended to prevent or mitigate injury severity to occupants in the passenger cars."
Stew Low of General Motors Canada said the bumper does have a role in protecting the driver, passengers and pedestrians as well as the car's "safety" systems.
"They're far more sophisticated than they appear just by looking at them," he said.
Consumer Reports, the Yonkers, N.Y.-based consumer watchdog publication, has been conducting its own "bumper basher" test since the early 1970s, and points to the Chevrolet Corvette bumper as an example of having it both ways.
"The Corvette has fairly large bulbous bumpers and they have plenty of space to be able to absorb an impact and they show virtually no damage," said David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports. "Some of the European cars tend to be the worst. They have relatively short overhangs at the front, so there's not the amount of space that you would like to see to absorb the impact."
Though the IIHS does not keep statistics indicating whether the modern bumper is contributing to higher insurance premiums, in 2002 the institute studied vehicles brought to five insurance claims centres in a major metropolitan area and found about 14 per cent of the auto damage claims involved parking lot collisions.
But Iny expects drivers will eat the cost instead of risking a rise in their premiums.
"You can't claim it on insurance. In Ontario, you're going to be a pariah, even if it's not your fault, even if the car wasn't being driven and it happened. You can't make these $1,500 and $2,000 clams in Ontario. It makes you uninsurable."
Auto makers in both Canada and the United States are not required by federal law to tell consumers how well their bumpers perform in crash tests. And the regulations do not apply to SUVs, pick-ups or minivans because policymakers did not foresee their popularity more than 25 years ago. A task force of auto engineers is pushing automakers to address the issue by 2008, calling for the redesign of SUVs and pick-ups so they inflict less damage on cars.
In the meantime, Iny hopes Canadian lawmakers will consider adding a component to the current law so that bumpers themselves can withstand a 4 km/h hit without any damage.
But, he says, "I don't think there is any will to do it. Canada has very little leadership on vehicle construction standards. We need a wake-up call."
Roger Thomas, manager of the automotive regulatory activities group for GM Canada, also wants a change in the law. But he wants the crash test speed reduced from 8 km/h to the equivalent of the 2.5 m.p.h. standard in the U.S., or 4 km/h, because it would cost less to design a bumper suitable for roads in both countries.
"We have been having that discussion with Transport Canada for 10 years now," he said. "(It would) give up virtually nothing of the safety of the vehicle. It would make the design a whole lot simpler."
A dismayed Iny doubts such a reduction would help consumers.
"(Bumpers) can't even handle a scratch anymore. Nobody imagined we'd be making bumpers out of paint and plastic. It's absurd," he said. "It's not what we wanted. We wanted something that could handle the standard parking lot."
Aug.16, 2004. 06:56AM
Bumper bashing
An infuriating feature of new cars is the fragility of their extremities Not so long ago, bumpers were for bumping
DAVID BRUSER
BUSINESS REPORTER
The clunky steel bumper on Pierre Fleury's 1979 Chevrolet Malibu measured up just fine against his fence post.
"I hammered it," said Fleury, a Canadian Tire mechanic in Kingston. "My whole bumper is a shock system that's bolted to the frame. It pushed in four inches. You take a good size mallet and push it back out. Not a mark on the steel. Not a replacement of a part."
Though his Malibu might not look as slick as his later-model Honda Accord, Fleury, 32, knows which he'd rather have in a fender-bender.
"If it would have been my Honda, I would have been talking about replacing the bumper."
The problem, Fleury and others believe, is that bumpers aren't good for bumping anymore.
Often made of plastic, with foam padding and then a thin metal bar underneath, today's bumpers are supposed to absorb low-speed impact and protect headlights, taillights, exhaust and cooling systems and other essential equipment.
Defenders of the modern bumper, including some auto manufacturers, agree today's bumpers wither in the parking lot but praise their performance in high speed-collisions. They say that while it may be expensive to repair, a bumper's first aim is to protect people, not their pocketbook.
"What do you want to have — a car that hits the wall and no damage but you take all the impact, or something that crumples and you go home to your family?" said Helmer Gonzales, owner of Fix Auto collision centre on Queen St. E. "Something's gotta give. There's nothing you can do about it."
But compared to the steel and aluminium bumpers of the late 1970s and early 1980s, modern bumpers are more easily damaged in low-speed collisions, consumer advocates and others say. They point to the few halcyon years when laws in the United States forced car companies to build more robust bumpers, and insist that low- and high-speed collision absorption capabilities aren't mutually exclusive.
Misjudging a two-point turn in the supermarket parking lot or "kissing" another car's bumper while parallel parking can lead to nicks, chips, dents totalling hundreds of dollars or much more in repairs — damage some say vintage bumpers would have deflected without much cost. Believing drivers are being unnecessarily saddled with high repair costs and insurance premiums after these common low-speed collisions, they seek tougher bumper standards.
Those same concerns revved up the bumper debate in the early 1970s, when the U.S. government investigated the high cost of auto repairs and decided to upgrade what one auto industry watcher dubbed the "decorative, chrome trim pieces" at cars' extremities.
"There was a realization that it was increasing the cost of ownership and increasing the cost of insurance," said George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association. "They did not have any energy absorption capability whatsoever. The public ended up paying the bill later when, in very foreseeable and minor impacts, you had significant damage."
In 1973, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implemented the first bumper standard, which required all cars to withstand a 5 m.p.h. frontal crash and 2.5 m.p.h. rear crash without damage to essential equipment.
By 1979, the law had stiffened, calling for no damage after 5 m.p.h. crashes at the front and back and no damage to other exterior surfaces, and in 1980 the law added a provision that the bumper itself could only sustain minimal damage.
The new law worked so well that Consumer Reports in the United States reported its bumper tests had become "redundant."
Many cars — pick-up trucks were exempt — featured a metal bumper with shock absorbers or some device to absorb impact. Some models featured aluminium bumpers covered with plastic or rubber skin. Chevrolet's 1980 Malibu added a rubber strip to the perimeter of the steel bumper, protecting even the tough chrome from minor scratches and scuffs.
In 1979, Canada followed the U.S. lead with a similar law requiring that front and rear bumpers undergo an 8 km/h (5 m.p.h.) crash test. The law only asked that a bumper protect essential "safety" equipment, not itself or other exterior surfaces. The law still stands.
"Our em.p.h.asis has always been on safety," said Ian Noy, director of Standards, Research and Development at Transport Canada. "We want to make sure that safety equipment works. Many people do not repair vehicles after minor damage and it's important in those cases that their lights and their hood retention mechanisms, everything, continues to function properly after a relatively minor collision."
Although Canada's standard differed, it was easier for most automakers to build bumpers fit for roads in both countries — a practice that continued as the U.S. regulation changed.
In 1983, the Reagan administration's em.p.h.asis on deregulation met the approval of carmakers. The U.S. law was scaled back so that bumpers only needed to withstand a 2.5 m.p.h. crash at both ends. Under the new law, bumpers could suffer unlimited damage.
The rationale was lighter bumpers meant lower fuel costs for consumers.
In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that bumpers made under the stricter law hurt consumers, who were paying $150-200 (U.S.) more for the new bumpers compared to those made before 1973.
Yet advocates for consumers were furious. Consumer Reports bemoaned "the return of the paper bumper."
"As part of the Reagan Administration's deregulation frenzy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tore a huge hole in this automotive safety net," Consumer Reports wrote in 1986. "The results were predictable. Vehicles that previously would have gone undamaged in low-speed collisions are now suffering as much as $800 or more in damage, turning minor accidents into serious financial problems."
Though the laws in both countries remained distinct, Iny and others feel carmakers found ways to make bumpers that satisfied both regulations yet at the same time reflected more style than substance.
"We got flimsier bumpers immediately," Iny said. "On new vehicles, they designed them with a lighter, less substantial structure in the front. Somebody figured out in reading the regulation that the bumper didn't have to protect itself at all, just the vehicle, and we once again got fashion involved where it would appear the public thinks a bumper shouldn't look like a bumper."
The outermost layer of many contemporary bumpers is a painted, plastic cover.
"It is the cover to hide what may or may not be a functioning bumper beneath it," said Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in Virginia. "Designers or stylists don't like traditional bumpers where they sit out in front of the car. That produces a look that designers call overhang."
Underneath the cover is shock-absorbing polypropylene foam or plastic honeycomb, known as "egg crate." Beneath this shock-absorbing cushion is a bar, typically made of steel, aluminium, fibreglass or plastic. Some manufacturers build lights, parking sensors and other devices right into or near the bumper, which ups the cost of repairs, said Russ Rader of the IIHS.
"When you have bumpers that can't withstand a minor hit in a parking lot, those kind of things are vulnerable," Rader said.
"Not only do you have the replacement costs for the bumper components, which can be expensive, but you also have damage to the sheet metal, headlight systems, trunk lids."
Trying to debunk the claim that modern bumpers protect equipment such as headlights or the grille, the IIHS has identified several components found on some 2004 model vehicles that sit in a vulnerable position near or flush with the bumper.
If a 2004 BMW 5 series got into a fender-bender, at risk is an adaptive cruise sensor located just below the grille, which, says the IIHS, would cost $2,262 to replace, and parking sensors that cost $360 to replace, according to the IIHS. If rear-ended, the ultrasonic rear parking assist on a 2004 Cadillac Escalade might need replacing at a cost of $934.
The IIHS and Consumer Reports conduct their own 5 m.p.h. bumper crash tests that they say is an accurate reflection of the common "fender-bender," or low-speed crash frequent on congested roads and in crowded parking lots.
The IIHS crashes the front into a flat and angled barrier and the rear into a flat barrier and pole. The average damage per test was $952 for the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu and $989 for the 2004 Acura TSX, earning both a "poor" ranking from the Institute, which criticized the TSX's bumpers for sitting nearly flush against the body of the car.
"That design may please the styling department, but it's terrible for consumers because it puts expensive sheet metal and safety components such as the headlamps closer to the point of impact in a routine fender-bender," the report said.
A 1981 Ford Escort suffered $0 in damages to the bumper or vehicle in a similar test conducted by the IIHS.
"You can see the difference 20 years makes," Rader said.
After a similar four-part test, a 1983 Plymouth Horizon equipped with 5 m.p.h., no-damage bumpers suffered a total of $287 in damage. Another Horizon issued later in the year after the U.S. bumper standard was weakened suffered $918 in damage. A 1990 model needed $1,476 in repairs. All prices were adjusted for 1990 labour rates and parts prices.
Gonzales, who said he worked in the auto paint business before specializing in collisions, speculated that the average fender-bender in Ontario costs $1,200 (Canadian) to fix.
"Say you got a minute scratch, that costs $350, $400 average, you're wondering why. You got to spend time to remove the front bumper (to do a thorough paint job)," he said. "Things are expensive. That's just the way things are. Materials are very expensive. Good technicians, they got to be paid for good work. Paint materials keep going up every year 5-7 per cent."
But Jim Miller, Canadian spokesperson for Acura, wants to make clear that the IIHS tests measure cost of repair, not the protection the bumper provides.
"Yes, it may me be more expensive, but it's also a vehicle that's got a 5-star safety rating," he said of the TSX. "The whole vehicle is designed to act as a cushion to protect the consumer."
Yet, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says em.p.h.atically that a bumper is "not a safety feature intended to prevent or mitigate injury severity to occupants in the passenger cars."
Stew Low of General Motors Canada said the bumper does have a role in protecting the driver, passengers and pedestrians as well as the car's "safety" systems.
"They're far more sophisticated than they appear just by looking at them," he said.
Consumer Reports, the Yonkers, N.Y.-based consumer watchdog publication, has been conducting its own "bumper basher" test since the early 1970s, and points to the Chevrolet Corvette bumper as an example of having it both ways.
"The Corvette has fairly large bulbous bumpers and they have plenty of space to be able to absorb an impact and they show virtually no damage," said David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports. "Some of the European cars tend to be the worst. They have relatively short overhangs at the front, so there's not the amount of space that you would like to see to absorb the impact."
Though the IIHS does not keep statistics indicating whether the modern bumper is contributing to higher insurance premiums, in 2002 the institute studied vehicles brought to five insurance claims centres in a major metropolitan area and found about 14 per cent of the auto damage claims involved parking lot collisions.
But Iny expects drivers will eat the cost instead of risking a rise in their premiums.
"You can't claim it on insurance. In Ontario, you're going to be a pariah, even if it's not your fault, even if the car wasn't being driven and it happened. You can't make these $1,500 and $2,000 clams in Ontario. It makes you uninsurable."
Auto makers in both Canada and the United States are not required by federal law to tell consumers how well their bumpers perform in crash tests. And the regulations do not apply to SUVs, pick-ups or minivans because policymakers did not foresee their popularity more than 25 years ago. A task force of auto engineers is pushing automakers to address the issue by 2008, calling for the redesign of SUVs and pick-ups so they inflict less damage on cars.
In the meantime, Iny hopes Canadian lawmakers will consider adding a component to the current law so that bumpers themselves can withstand a 4 km/h hit without any damage.
But, he says, "I don't think there is any will to do it. Canada has very little leadership on vehicle construction standards. We need a wake-up call."
Roger Thomas, manager of the automotive regulatory activities group for GM Canada, also wants a change in the law. But he wants the crash test speed reduced from 8 km/h to the equivalent of the 2.5 m.p.h. standard in the U.S., or 4 km/h, because it would cost less to design a bumper suitable for roads in both countries.
"We have been having that discussion with Transport Canada for 10 years now," he said. "(It would) give up virtually nothing of the safety of the vehicle. It would make the design a whole lot simpler."
A dismayed Iny doubts such a reduction would help consumers.
"(Bumpers) can't even handle a scratch anymore. Nobody imagined we'd be making bumpers out of paint and plastic. It's absurd," he said. "It's not what we wanted. We wanted something that could handle the standard parking lot."
I'm not going to read all THAT! 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
quanaman
4G TL (2009-2014)
7
01-09-2023 07:33 PM
08_UA7_Gr33k
Member Cars for Sale
13
02-11-2016 02:17 PM
