Scraped Rear Bumper

It doesn't help that manufacturers have gotten away from using
chromed
*remember the old days of 5mph metal
> bumpers? *that got squashed p.d.q. - body shops and manufacturers
> squealed blue murder over their sudden drop in income.

Is that an assumption? Any chance you have a link that supports your
position?
I thought the 5mph bumpers went away because they were so bloody
heavy.
Thanks in advance,
Ben

On 11/30/2011 01:01 PM, ben91932 wrote:
> It doesn't help that manufacturers have gotten away from using
> chromed
> �remember the old days of 5mph metal
>> bumpers? �that got squashed p.d.q. - body shops and manufacturers
>> squealed blue murder over their sudden drop in income.
>
> Is that an assumption? Any chance you have a link that supports your
> position?
> I thought the 5mph bumpers went away because they were so bloody
> heavy.
> Thanks in advance,
> Ben

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_%28automobile%29

the weakened standards were used as an excuse to weaken crumple zones
too. and not in "repairable" locations either, but in "this fame is not
repairable so you have to buy a new car" locations. fwd frods have the
front crumple zone /behind/ the engine for example, not in front of it
where repair is more viable.

and lobbying is to /increase/ vehicle weights, not decrease them. it
increases fuel consumption. that's why modern engines with variable
valve timing, direct injection and fly by wire management are still
giving inferior fuel economy figures to late 80's/early 90's vehicles
whose management systems, while competent for their time, were nowhere
/near/ as efficient as todays.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 11/30/2011 06:05 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 01:01 PM, ben91932 wrote:
>> It doesn't help that manufacturers have gotten away from using
>> chromed
>> �remember the old days of 5mph metal
>>> bumpers? �that got squashed p.d.q. - body shops and manufacturers
>>> squealed blue murder over their sudden drop in income.
>>
>> Is that an assumption? Any chance you have a link that supports your
>> position?
>> I thought the 5mph bumpers went away because they were so bloody
>> heavy.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ben
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_%28automobile%29
>
> the weakened standards were used as an excuse to weaken crumple zones
> too. and not in "repairable" locations either, but in "this fame

spelling - "fRame"

> is not
> repairable so you have to buy a new car" locations. fwd frods have the
> front crumple zone /behind/ the engine for example, not in front of it
> where repair is more viable.
>
> and lobbying is to /increase/ vehicle weights, not decrease them. it
> increases fuel consumption. that's why modern engines with variable
> valve timing, direct injection and fly by wire management are still
> giving inferior fuel economy figures to late 80's/early 90's vehicles
> whose management systems, while competent for their time, were nowhere
> /near/ as efficient as todays.
>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2011-12-01, jim beam > wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 01:01 PM, ben91932 wrote:
>> It doesn't help that manufacturers have gotten away from using
>> chromed
>> ?remember the old days of 5mph metal
>>> bumpers? ?that got squashed p.d.q. - body shops and manufacturers
>>> squealed blue murder over their sudden drop in income.
>>
>> Is that an assumption? Any chance you have a link that supports your
>> position?
>> I thought the 5mph bumpers went away because they were so bloody
>> heavy.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ben
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_%28automobile%29
>
> the weakened standards were used as an excuse to weaken crumple zones
> too. and not in "repairable" locations either, but in "this fame is not
> repairable so you have to buy a new car" locations. fwd frods have the
> front crumple zone /behind/ the engine for example, not in front of it
> where repair is more viable.

And your background regarding the location of crumple zones is exactly
what?

Crumple zones behind the engine (if located there) are not there to sell
more cars. Crumple zones are designed to guide big heavy components such
that intrusion into the passenger compartment does not occur.

Here's a video from Volvo discussing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS_Gk7vjmOg

> and lobbying is to /increase/ vehicle weights, not decrease them. it
> increases fuel consumption. that's why modern engines with variable
> valve timing, direct injection and fly by wire management are still
> giving inferior fuel economy figures to late 80's/early 90's vehicles
> whose management systems, while competent for their time, were nowhere
> /near/ as efficient as todays.

You neglect CAFE legislation.

On 11/30/2011 09:34 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2011-12-01, jim > wrote:
>> On 11/30/2011 01:01 PM, ben91932 wrote:
>>> It doesn't help that manufacturers have gotten away from using
>>> chromed
>>> ?remember the old days of 5mph metal
>>>> bumpers? ?that got squashed p.d.q. - body shops and manufacturers
>>>> squealed blue murder over their sudden drop in income.
>>>
>>> Is that an assumption? Any chance you have a link that supports your
>>> position?
>>> I thought the 5mph bumpers went away because they were so bloody
>>> heavy.
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Ben
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_%28automobile%29
>>
>> the weakened standards were used as an excuse to weaken crumple zones
>> too. and not in "repairable" locations either, but in "this fame is not
>> repairable so you have to buy a new car" locations. fwd frods have the
>> front crumple zone /behind/ the engine for example, not in front of it
>> where repair is more viable.
>
> And your background regarding the location of crumple zones is exactly
> what?

i'm a materials guy. that includes sheet metal and its deformation - a
topic that is deceptively complex. i've worked with the people that
design them.


>
> Crumple zones behind the engine (if located there)

there's no "if". "if" you knew enough about what you were looking at,
you'd see this for yourself at any junkyard.


> are not there to sell
> more cars.

they most specifically are. i've worked with the teams that have done
the economics on this policy.


> Crumple zones are designed to guide big heavy components such
> that intrusion into the passenger compartment does not occur.

then deformation zones would be in front of the engine. but they're
not. see above. [they don't intrude for other reasons, not because of
frame deformation at 2.6mph.]


>
> Here's a video from Volvo discussing this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS_Gk7vjmOg

volvo sales schtick is volvo sales schtick. they /know/ that almost
/all/ the people in the world that could authoritatively contest their
marketing claims are employed by the industry, have signed
non-disclosure agreements, and they're not going to say anything. see
above.


>
>> and lobbying is to /increase/ vehicle weights, not decrease them. it
>> increases fuel consumption. that's why modern engines with variable
>> valve timing, direct injection and fly by wire management are still
>> giving inferior fuel economy figures to late 80's/early 90's vehicles
>> whose management systems, while competent for their time, were nowhere
>> /near/ as efficient as todays.
>
> You neglect CAFE legislation.

apparently your knowledge of cafe is as good as your knowledge of
structural deformation.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum