mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Rubber Bumper Crash Test

To: Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Rubber Bumper Crash Test
From: Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:37:12 -0500
Bob Howard wrote:
> 
>   One could argue that the raised height of the rubber bumper provides
> some protection that the chrome bumper would not.
>   Twice my '75 MGB was rear-ended, once hard enough to slam my head hard
> against the headrest.

  I've been amazed a few times at how very violent-feeling
colissions can leave no marks.

  I was rear ended once in my Celica, hard enough to send my
tapes flying around inside the car, not a scratch. 

  I beleive the goal of the rubber bumpers was to satisfy
insurance companies, not safety. The goal was to survive
a low speed collision (parking lot basically) with a minimum
dollar value of damage.

  I guess the insurance companies were tired of paying out
$2000-3000 to fix cars after a parking lot bump that wouldn't
knock over a bicycle.

  So, the fact that the rubber bumpers are so close to the
fenders and crumple the fenders eventually isn't really the
issue, the issue is that, for low speed shunts, the car doesn't
need paint work or new lenses on any lights.

-- 
Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
Invalid expression. Perhaps you are using = instead of EQ to compare values.

///
///  mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>