America Needs Car Bumpers That Work!

[Mojobubba]

In the early 80's I owned a 1980 Fiat Spyder with shocks in the bumpers. I rearended a friend at a stop sign (unintentionally) going at least 5+ mph. Not only was there no damage on my car, there was none on his either. We were able to "reload" my shocks by the two of us pulling on the bumper. These shocks appear to be disposable. Is that because they are able to withstand a higher impact speed?

[Mojobubba]

Also owned a 1987 Pontiac Fiero GT that in many ways was a piece of crap, but it's platic body panels/bumpers were virtually indestructible. That car lived through 4 accidents with me, none of which required body panel replacement. It was left with almost no trunk space from the last rear-end crash, but still looked great from the outside.

[q1966]

my old 81 mustang had shock like things hidden behind its front bumper (behind its plastic front grill/bumper cover)

[SEMShocks]

You're right early 80's cars had better bumpers. This was due to a 1980 bumper law that required no damage in 5 mph collisions. In 1983 the impact speed was lowered to 2.5 mph. It's ridiculous that auto companies don't make better bumpers, since the high insurance costs could instead be used to buy gas. Some insurance savings would be like improving the fuel economy by 25% to 50%! So why do auto manufactures ignore their vehicles crash performance? Better bumpers could improve their business!

[spokybob]

Remember the big cars of the late 70's? They had shock absorbing bumpers. Yes, I think repair bills were still high. Were injuries much less?

[SEMShocks]

You're right the late 70's early 80's car models did quite well in the low speed collisions. A 03/01/07 IIHS report ran 4 crash tests on an 81 Ford Escort. It had only $469 in damages but the lowest cost new car got $4,277. Injuries were probably higher with old cars since the airbags have really helped. As to higher speeds, over 35 mph, cars bodies start running out of metal to bend. Whereas SEM shocks can be can be scaled up to do this job, unlike conventional buckling structures.

[Karadjas]

hmm

These would have to be mounted solidly right? As in on the chassis. That's not good. In a collission 1mph faster than what the shocks can take, it will be transferred to the car's crumple zone. Neither fun nor cheap.

[SEMShocks]

True, but if you overload any crash safety system you're going to incur higher costs. Current vehicles incur $1,000 to $5,000 for a 6 mph collision; ours cost less than $100. Also, SEM shocks can be part of the vehicle frame. There's a report that using buckling to do this (Improved Vehicle Crashworthiness Design by Control of the Energy Absorption for Different Collision Situations) but SEM shock will do better job. This does show some people are thinking about those high speed collisions.

[TurboMaria]

PONTIAC MONTANA RULES

[landstrasse36]

Don't most European cars already have slip-tubes and shock absorbers (i.e. smart fortwo, Audi A8, Saab 9-3)?

[SEMShocks]

Thanks for your question. From the data I've found most of the world's cars are lacking devises for low speed collisions, including European cars. If you check out a 08/04/07 report from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, you'll be able to see they crash tested 5 European car models. The Saab 9-3 did the best but it still had $5,243 for the 4 low speed collisions. The Mercedes C Class did the worst for the European cars with $11,054 in total damages.

[landstrasse36]

But, the IIHS hit the cars above the bumpers; if you watch the video they posted, the bumper doesn't make contact. It was a poorly conducted test. I understand they we trying to simulate an SUV, but maybe we should make SUV bumpers lower. It sure would be ugly to have one giant bumper covering the front of a Benz. Also, if people didn't drive like morons, we wouldn't need bumpers (LOL). Nice video though. =)

[SEMShocks]

I agree the IIHS should also run tests where the bumpers match but the repair costs still might be high. The real world crash of our Chevy test truck, involved a Dodge PU with a much higher rear bumper. So our bumpers didn't match. Our Chevy got over $5,000 in damages but the Chevy PU that was pushed into mine, still had over $3,000 in damages and his bumpers matched with both trucks. But, you got to admit that headlights that cost $1,046 (Lexus ES) don't help on the damage performance.

[SEMShocks]

As to bumper match up, some auto manufactures are designing SUV bumpers with some lower extensions. Such SEM extensions could address smaller cars under-riding SUVs. But there's a bigger safety problem for vehicles under-riding semitrailers. A website called the Underride Network discusses cars going under semitrailers and the coordinator of the site was good enough to run some SEM shock info. Perhaps someday your next vehicle will have SEM shocks. Again appreciate your input and thoughts.

[Q53bus]

we need a whole car that works

[SEMShocks]

That's true but I'll bet the cost for doing body repairs is right up near the top of the list, for high cost vehicle repairs (e.g. engine, transmission, etc.).

[Nicodemus1971]

What actually is the product? Is it the shock absorber? If so this has been done before namely in the 1970s when 5mph bumpers were the rage.

[SEMShocks]

Thanks for your question. You're absolutely right, SEM shocks are just shock isolators but they have advantages over past technologies. SEM shocks can deliver high loads with small parts; they're low costs (few low tolerance parts); high reliability (few parts) and they are shock isolators not springs. Remember the 1970's specs were for 5 mph crashes not 7.5 mph! A 7.5 mph crash has 2.25 times the Kinetic Energy of a 5 mph crash! So SEM shocks can do a better job than those old bumper shocks.

[SEMShocks]

As proof, we tested a 1985 a VW Sirocco bumper shock. This shock was a pneumatic/hydraulic bumper shock so they were quite expensive (over $150 each). Such shocks wouldn't work if there was any leakage; plus they acted like springs instead of shock isolators, so a car could be thrown back into oncoming traffic. Lastly these pneumatic shocks are dangerous if there's a vehicle fire because such shocks can explode.

[joker19583]

what happens if the crash is not straight-on?

[SEMShocks]

The SEM shocks used in the Chevy test could take a pretty good offset load (just guessing about 15%) but we didn't have any pivot joints on the bumper, which could kick up those loads. Plus we have some designs where we used a displaceable shock housing as the mobile structure and these designs can take very large offset loads.

[200103511]

I remember reading that report. Poor results were achieved by those cars. My dad drives a 2001 Toyota Camery GX V6. He had an accident on the high way where he was stopped in traffic and a car hit the car behind him pushing it into him and him into the car in front of him. Our car came out with only damaged bumpers where the other cars including the ones in front of us, came out with smashed up hoods and trunks. More cars need bumpers like that.

[200103511]

Sorry, that should be "highway" not "high way"

[SEMShocks]

Thank you for your input. You're right, just like the bumper performance that your Father's Camry had, the Camry in that IIHS test performed better than most of 17 car models tested. In fact, the Camry actually came in 2nd for the lowest total crash damages. But it still cost about $5,000 for those 4 collisions!

With SEM shocks the cost for each collision might be more like $100 - $150 per crash. And that would cover the parts & labor; plus, the repairs could easily be completed in a day.

[SEMShocks]

Also, this could save everyone a great deal of money.

Consumers - Lower insurance premiums and shorter repair times.

Insurance Co. -- Pass savings to customers while still improving their bottom line. Stop arguing a vehicle's worth... "Here's $200 for the repairs and another $200 for the inconvenience."

Auto Co. -- Discuss the amount of gas they can buy with the month insurance savings. Those monthly insurance savings might be a better than the doubling the vehicle's fuel economy.

[bluemanfromspace]

thats only 7 to 10 mph that so sucks!!

[SEMShocks]

Maybe... but those 6 to 10 mph crashes still cost $3,000 to $5,000! I'd rather keep that pocket change. By the way we can design higher impact speed systems. One of our barrier design took a 62 mph impact... not bad.