NHTSA increases roof rigidity requirements
Vehicle roof crush standards have not been significantly revised since 1971. The current requirements say one side of a vehicle's roof must support at least 1.5 times the total vehicle weight. However, the strength requirements reach a maximum at 5,000 lbs, whether or not the calculated standard is greater. The regulations also do not apply to convertibles or vehicles weighing more than 6,000 lbs. In 2005, a proposal was created to revise the requirement to 2.5 times the total vehicle weight on one side of the vehicle. Now that proposal has been altered, since NHTSA says it is feasible to distribute the test to press on both sides of a vehicle's roof. It has also been proposed to increase the standards to cover vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. An active rollover test is ruled out though, due to repeatability issues and lack of variable control. To appease Congress, NHTSA must put a revised standard in place by April 2009.
While updating safety standards is always a good thing, the issued statements relating to the proposal leave some questions. It is not stated whether the testing weight cap of 5,000 lbs will be increased along with the maximum tested vehicle weight. These days, many automobiles weigh in at upwards of 4,000 lbs. 2.5 times a 4,000-lb vehicle falls well above the 5,000-pound limit. There is also still no mention of convertible safety. Hopefully the full proposal is more detailed than the points touched upon in this piece.
[Source: Auto News, Sub. Req'd]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Gardiner Westbound 6:41PM (1/26/2008)
1970s and '80s pre-Ford Volvo advertising, which were often studied in business schools, provided outlandish demonstrations of Volvo strength. One showed an elephant standing on a Volvo. Another showed Volvos stacked on top of one another. I believe there were 10 or 12. Another showed a tractor-trailer planted on a Volvo. I doubt the new roof strength test will meet this standard.
Reply
Jimbo 6:43PM (1/26/2008)
Nothing against increased safety and all, but could an increase in the standard lead to a second death for convertibles like in the 70's? Back then, convertibles disappeared because they couldn't meet the roof safety standards.
Reply
Derek 8:52PM (1/26/2008)
Reread the article, it specifically says that convertibles were not included in the first standard, and no word if they will be covered even now.
Convertibles died in the late 70's because management decided so. They claimed that consumers did not want them anymore (wtf?) because interstate travel was increasing and people wanted to listen to their stereo more as FM radio, 8-tracks and cassettes were becoming more common in cars.
tankd0g 12:03AM (1/27/2008)
Honestly I don't understand how convertibles without pop-up bars can be on sale today.
Derek 9:23AM (1/27/2008)
tankd0g - it's a free country. I'm in favor of no requirements, just mandatory testing with the results posted clearly on the window sticker. Let the buying public decide how much safety they are comfortable with and willing to pay for. Far more effective than an act of congress that is probably pushed by the insurance lobby.
caddy dave 11:04AM (1/27/2008)
Derek, convertible sales plunged in the early seventies because of a couple of factors. Air conditioning becoming cheaper and availiable on more and more cars, (the real air conditioners, r12) and a gas crunch. Gas prices soared to .60 and even the unthinkable price of .80 cents a gallon. Then add in the fact that we were heading into one of the worse recessions since the great depression. Market share of ragtops were no longer profitable to the makers and the only choices left were european roadsters.
The end of convertibles to me was like loosing a favorite pet. At the time, my new bride and I had a 70 challenger conv. and though we needed an infusion of cash, we decided to keep it and we still have it. Different wife, but same car.
NT 6:46PM (1/26/2008)
And the weight of cars keeps rising, and the MPG keeps falling and the consumers are forced to keep paying more and more money.
Reply
zamafir 7:04PM (1/26/2008)
So true, it's totally inconceivable that an intelligent, profitable automaker might reduce the weight of their vehciles while improving roof strenght through a variety of attentive engineering rethinks. The end is near.
Dan 7:42PM (1/26/2008)
Right, automotive engineers have spent the entire history of the car until now ignoring structural technology, but now that the government has passed a law they'll attentively rethink a way to make a roof three to four times stronger and lighter at no cost!
Anything is possible.. when you don't know what you're talking about.
zamafir 8:10PM (1/26/2008)
lol. Right, and every time a new car comes out with a chassis that's xx times stronger then before, I'm sure none of that strength translates to anything above the wheel well.
R Wiggler 12:15PM (1/27/2008)
The governent needs to get their act together with these safety regulations. Not all cars flip over easily. These regulations should only be in place for cars with high centers of gravity (the ones most likely to flip over). This would have the result of increasing safety where it is most needed, increasing the costs of SUVs, and allowing the manufacturers to build and sell light weight efficient automobiles. These blanket safety regulations are bull.
mike 7:08PM (1/26/2008)
All I can say is if I could afford a Volvo I'd buy one, with the smallest engine they offer.
My friend owes his live to the rollover strength built into the car. Did he buy a second after it saved his live? No, the Volvo was leased, he lost money, couldn't afford a second lease.
Reply
AMcA 7:10PM (1/26/2008)
Geez, windshield pillars have gotten big enough already. Most of them nowadays are big enough that you can lose an entire pedestrian behind one. And that's a hazard, particularly for me, an urban pedestrian.
I think we ought to take a holiday from adding weight adding requirements and let the automakers concentrate on reducing weight to meet CAFE requirements.
Reply
Bill 7:32PM (1/26/2008)
Too bad the NHTSA allows vehicles to have all plastic bumpers like the Jeep Grand Cherokee's front bumper where the only metal is the license plate bracket.
Reply
Dan 7:38PM (1/26/2008)
The NHTSA is exactly why we don't have real bumpers.
A solid steel extension of the frame that protects the vehicle from damage will also do a great deal of damage to pedestrians and other cars struck anywhere except a similar bumper.
A modern bumper is not intended to protect your car from damage, but to serve as a crumple zone to prevent your car from damaging other things.
Derek 8:56PM (1/26/2008)
the crumple zone also protects you. By increasing the time of the impact, you experience lower deceleration, less impact force, and fewer injuries.
Dan 7:35PM (1/26/2008)
Great. Even bigger blindspots and more weight up high - the very cause of the rollovers these roof standards are written for.
Engineering for reasonable safety is one thing. But the idea that every single car must have every conceivable safety feature is coming at the expense of cars well suited as, well, cars.
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 7:36PM (1/26/2008)
"I want a car that gets 200mpg has 2.5 times roof rigitity, 22 airbags, power everything, abs, seats 10, and I want it to move at a speed we Americans are used to, a 0-60 of no more than 7 seconds and a top speed of at least 140. And I don't want it to cost me any more than a Honda Accord." Dream on.
Increasing roof strength for the most part is a ridiculous proposal because you will die from the G-Forces of that sudden stop, or hitting the roof, etc. It does more harm to the car consumer and industry than good.
Reply
Henry 8:31PM (1/26/2008)
If you are a $90,000 buyer, would you be saying "Can I get $8000 off if I buy this Mercedes with the less rigid roof?"
If you are a $20,000 buyer, would you want to be stuck with a car that is the modern day Ford Pinto?
These standards keep U.S. consumers from being cheated, and for the businesses it is tough for them to lose the economic car market. Let them worry about making quality cars and cutting the price while not exploiting others. While raw material price is likely to go up, the efficnecy of manufacturing will only increase with technology improvements.
HotRodzNKustoms, What g force? the only way you will get into that situation is if your car was dropped from the sky, upside down. No g force to the occupants if the car is rolled over, and no g force if a heavy object fall on the rool. Safety cage must be maintained. Think of it as street lights fall onto your car. If the roof crumbles on you, no amount of side or head airbag can save you.
jgp 8:57PM (1/26/2008)
Henry,
Many people pay a _premium_ for a less-rigid roof. They're called convertibles.
Funny you mention Mercedes, where the pillarless CLK has a huge premium over the C-Class.