Roof strength regs delayed again
Do a search for "roof regulations" on Autoblog and the No. 1 result will be a post written back on August 19, 2005. That's how long it's been since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed the latest increase to the 35-year-old federal requirements that govern the strength of a vehicle's roof. The proposal was to increase the current standard of a roof being able to hold 1.5 times the vehicle's weight to 2.5 times.
Despite this being a very time sensitive issue, the proposal has been delayed yet again. The Detroit News reports the NHTSA says it will not be able to rule on the new standards by the prior set date of August 31st, but will instead write up a "revised preliminary proposal" by the end of September and finalize it by July of 2008.
[Source: The Detroit News]
There are a lot of pieces in play here that affect what the new proposed standards will be and when they'll be put into law by Congress. For one, making roofs stronger adds cost and weight to a vehicle, both of which the automakers are opposed to. While adding between $17 and $88 to the price of a vehicle to save some lives is diffficult to argue against, adding additional weight to the top of a vehicle inceases its center of gravity and could make some significantly less stable. In many cases, sophisticated electronic stability control systems currently on the market can prevent many rollovers from happening in the first place. On the other hand, safety advocates argue that the 35-year-old standard and inadequate testing methods of the NHTSA are the real danger. Either way, both sides will have another year to argue over who is right.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alpha 4:10PM (5/30/2007)
You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief from ford. JK
Reply
Igor Holas 4:16PM (5/30/2007)
Ford has no weaker roofs than others - they simply get the heat because of the instability and structural weakness of the FIRST Explorer - we are at Gen 4 Explorer now ...
Igor
Igor Holas 4:13PM (5/30/2007)
I think the arguments by the Automakers make more sense than those by NHSTA in this case: Most rollover accidents kill people by the sheer fact of rollover - not roof crush - and adding the strength to the roof will add weight to the top of the car making rollover accidents more likely - in turn leading to more deaths. Standard ESP and better car constructions are going long way to reducing the chance of a rollover - this will radically move us back.
I think this is a political topic that is being dragged out despite evidence against it ...
Igor
Reply
Alpha 4:20PM (5/30/2007)
I was kidding... Anyways I agree with Igor somewhat but also you forget the fact that unlike 35yrs ago we have things like high tensile steel and carbon fiber to make the roofs from. So I doubt making them stronger would make it heavier?
motorman 4:27PM (5/30/2007)
i have been driving since i was 16 years old and now i am 73 and i have never had a car on its roof and i have done some pretty fast driving. there is no reason to saddle every car owner with the extra cost just because of drunks and people who should not have a drivers licence
Reply
dan 4:32PM (5/30/2007)
Visibility in modern cars is bad enough, the last thing they need is thicker window pillars to make them safer for idiot drunks to roll.
Another 50lbs of steel in every car on the road is no good for fuel consumption either.
Reply
Alpha 5:01PM (5/30/2007)
@motorman: Same thing was said about airbags in the 80's Chrysler tried to introduce them but couldn't make a good case for them. Accidents happen and so does progress.
Reply
F451 5:40PM (5/30/2007)
How'd AutoBlog get a picture of my ex-wife demonstrating her driving ability?!
Reply
Tool 6:59PM (5/30/2007)
Bob Lutz said it would cost an additional $5,000 per vehicle to make the roofs stronger (joke) plus an additional $5,000 per vehicle to make them more fuel efficient and emit less GHG (not a joke).
Seriously, I doubt anything will happen since Detroit has fought every safety, emissions and fuel efficiency regulation since the late 1960's.
Reply
AMcA 7:49PM (5/30/2007)
C'mon, guys: get with the spirit of NHTSA!
Nothing can be the fault of the driver! We must all be protected from what the stupidest among us might do, indeed, will be encouraged to do!
Hence our over-powered airbags that kill smaller persons - we do 'em that way so as to protect the 95 percentile males who are too stupid to wear their seatbelts.
Remember: nothing is ever anyone's fault (GM and Ford excepted).
Reply
Gotta love the media!! 8:28PM (5/30/2007)
So GM and Ford are at fault for continuously meeting the Government's standards (and I believe in some cases exceeded them) when it came to roof strength? I laugh whenever someone shows me a picture of an F-250 that flipped three times and the roof is crushed. What do people expect to happen? To land on it's wheels and keep on driving? Has anyone ever looked at a picture of an import after rolling? It's the same amount of damage. This goes to show how much the media blows EVERYTHING out of proportion. Has it ever hit people that because it seems like there are more crushed roofs on Explorer or F-series trucks because there are more out there than Seqouias or whatever? Or that the media blows everything out of proportion? I have seen some pretty messed up imports at local junkyards. Plus, there is only so much reinforcing a company can do (that isnt too expensive and so on) to a vehicle before the blind spots get too intrusive. I am amazed at how many modern cars have horrible blind spots. The A-pillars on some vehicles are ridiculous.
AMcA...I hope you are being sarcastic...
As for the Chrysler airbags...my friend's brother's 88 Plymouth Gran Fury (same as the Diplomat) has a driver's side airbag (I believe they were introduce some two to three years before any other Chrysler product got them).
Reply
Bryan 8:47PM (5/30/2007)
Gotta love the media..funny story..actually, good ending story..my grandmother is a retired police officer. I will never forget the day she came home and told me about the accident that happened with a new 97 F150. She said somehow it had rolled over 3 times and landed back on its tires. The owner drove it home...crazy as it might sound, and rare as it may be..it happened!
Reply
mike7 5:18PM (5/31/2007)
First of all, YOU may not be the CAUSE of your SUV rolling over, some drunk may attempt to pass you and "Tag" one of your corners, putting you sideways, guess what, when that happens you ROLL. If you're in a VOLVO you LIVE to tell the tale, otherwise, your next trip is in a Hearst.
Secondly, I don't know about you, but around here on I95 people routinely do 80mph. Yet, cars are just passing crash tests at 35 and 40mph. So, we are already outside the safety design limits of the vehicle by 100%. Over Time, you would expect someone in business to IMPROVE their PRODUCT, especially if they want your repeat business.
Yet, the auto industry seems only concerned with building Bigger, Faster Engines, with no other parameter improvements. No other industry fights product improvement like the U.S. Auto Industry. Why is that?
Reply
T 9:53PM (5/30/2007)
"So, we are already outside the safety design limits of the vehicle by 100%. Over Time, you would expect someone in business to IMPROVE their PRODUCT, especially if they want your repeat business."
Absolutely correct. The safety margin should be 100% so no one would ever be injured in a crash, just like with boats, planes, busses, trains, motorcycle, scooters, skateboards, and sneakers. Stupid Automakers.
Reply
JW 11:11PM (5/30/2007)
mike7 . . . You're right.
In fact, I'm surprized to learn that all Toyotas already meet 2.5 times the weight of the vehicle. Oh wait, they don't? But it's possible isn't it? Why aren't they "IMPROVING their PRODUCT"?
Well, I was surprized to see that every Toyota gets 75mpg. I knew the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Sierra Club said it could be done for low cost. Oh wait, Toyota doesn't get 75 mpg on every car they make? But it's possible isn't it? Why aren't they "IMPROVING their PRODUCT"?
Why don't you hear about the non-US Automotive companies fighting regulations? Ahhhh, because the Big 3 have more to lose if these regulations go into effect. They are in more dire straights financially and can ill-afford to throw thousands of extra dollars into a vehicle's cost. So, Toyota doesn't say much, and instead of making $25 Billion next year, it makes $10 Billion, while GM and Ford lose $10 Billion instead of breaking even. Once GM and Ford are out of business, Toyota can put whatever price they want on their cars and there will be less competition for Fuel economy leadership, styling, handling, etc.
Plus Toyota is part of organizations that fight these regulations, and they are currently fighting the proposed CAFE rules being discussed in Congress. But, Toyota doesn't have to speak loudly. They know GM and Ford will take the heat. And when people hear, "North American Automakers are fighting proposed new CAFE standards" people assume it is just GM, Ford and Chrysler. When people hear, "Automakers in the US are fighting higher roof standards" people assume it is just GM, Ford and Chrysler. Companies like BMW don't even try to meet CAFE standards. They just pay the fines, so why would they fight them?
It's not, but people like you probably aren't up on the facts. By the way, how many lives will be saved each year if the standard goes from 1.5 to 2.5? Any idea? How much safer are you at 80 mph with a 2.5 roof versus a 1.5 roof, or will you die in either scenario? Any idea? How much will it actually cost to meet those standards? Any idea? How much will the price of an average car go up with the added safety factor? Any idea? Didn't think so. Careful what you wish for, you might just get the 2.5 roof and wonder why your car handles worse and costs more. Of course, then you'll blame the automakers (well, not Volvo or Toyota).
Reply
mike7 5:25PM (5/31/2007)
T, you should check your facts first, those products meet safety standards, especially airplanes. They do it by very high standards of reliability. But, they fight their regulations as well. Until there's a crash, then everyone wants to know how to PREVENT the next one.
The auto industry? Die.
Here's the thing about a STANDARD. Everyone has to meet it. That means EVERYONE has to buy high strength steel and install it into the A and B and or C pillars of their SUV's. No one gets off, no one should have a cost advantage. Are you imagining that Toyota gets a price cut for high strength steel and Ford doesn't?
Benoit Cerrina 12:09PM (5/31/2007)
I just hope if this come to pass it will apply only to SUVs, trucks and vans and not to cars. America has a problem with rollover because Americans tend to drive vehicle with a center of gravity which is too high for its own good.
Reply
drolds1 2:15AM (5/31/2007)
"Same thing was said about airbags in the 80's Chrysler tried to introduce them but couldn't make a good case for them. Accidents happen and so does progress."
Actually, GM first offered dual airbags as an option in 1973 for 1974 Buicks and Oldsmobiles. A passenger airbag was optional on the 1973 Toronado. There weren't many takers. They sold about 12,000 airbag-equipped cars between 73 & 75 before dropping the option.
Reply