Filed under: Car Buying, Government/Legal, Safety
Feds to release new roof-strength regs in July
While rollover resistance is improving, current vehicle roof strength regulations date back nearly 35 years. With that in mind, Congress will be taking a careful look at federal regulators as they work on upgrading the standards early next month before they unveil a final regulation at the end of July. Current standards require a vehicle under 6,000 pounds to withstand a force of 1.5 times the vehicle weight without crushing and striking the head of a belted average-size adult male. In August 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed toughening that standard to 2.5 times the vehicle weight (and adding it should cover all vehicles under 10,000 pounds). Safety advocates, however, have argued that the standard should be 3 to 3.5 times the vehicle weight.
According to the NHTSA, increasing the crush resistance to 3 times the vehicle weight would cost automakers at least $1.1 billion more that it would to meet the 2.5 standard. Automakers have shown resistance to the proposals too. They have asked for more time to comply with the toughened rules, and that some vehicles (such as the Jeep Wrangler) be exempt. They have also pointed out that increased roof strength means added weight -- counterproductive in their continued efforts to meet stringent fuel economy standards.
[Source: The Detroit News, Photo from Volvo]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jason 1:35PM (5/27/2008)
Great. Just what we need; fatter, chunkier, even-more-vision-impairing-than-they-are-now pillars on cars and SUVs!
Reply
SPG 1:51PM (5/27/2008)
At least gas is more expensive now to go along with heavier cars, trucks, SUV's, and vans.
However I'd rather pay a few more dollars in gas then have my noggin caved in.
Dan 2:04PM (5/27/2008)
It's not just a matter of spending a couple bucks more on gas and being as good as new. CAFE standards say make up for it somewhere else, either in weight or aerodynamics.
So spending that weight budget on nerf the world items like ginormous roof pillars that 99.9% of buyers will never get any benefit whatsoever out of means cutting corners in other places.
For example, making the body work out of onion skin sheet metal that dents when you look at it, shrinking side mirrors, removing sound deadening, deleting full sized spare tires, raising deck lids until you can barely see behind you, etc.
And those sacrifices are things I would actually use.
Vintage 2:46PM (5/27/2008)
It's worth pointing out the current testing methods, since hte author of this article left it out. Currently, they test the roof crush strength as follows: they apply a plate over the roof, and slowly apply the weight evenly over the entire roof. They do not apply it on one corner more than the others, nor do they apply it 'all at once'.
This is part of the problem.
John 1:40PM (5/27/2008)
Great...so more weight, more blind spots and a higher center of gravity....instead of weight reduction, lower center of gravity (to prevent roll overs to begin with, just incase you wondered), and better fuel mileage. Thank you "the world should be wrapped in hypoalergenic pillows with bright orange choking hazard tags for the choking hazard tags" for making the world a "Safer" place....because the damned cars will be so "safe" that a Honda Fit will weigh as much as a 2008 suburban and unable to move, thus being the safest vehicle ever.
Reply
John 1:42PM (5/27/2008)
Can you tell I'm not a big fan of this "the world should be federally mandated into being safe for everyone" thing?
Reply
Ken Stamper 1:44PM (5/27/2008)
This would really wreak havoc on a vehicle's driving dynamics- more weight above the center of the car's gravity, ironically leading to more rollovers, and as an added bonus, more accidents caused by the vision problems of thicker pillars! I hate the emphasis on passive safety over active safety.
Reply
Ken Stamper 1:44PM (5/27/2008)
This could really wreak havoc on a vehicle's driving dynamics- more weight above the center of the car's gravity, ironically leading to more rollovers, and as an added bonus, more accidents caused by the vision problems of thicker pillars! I hate the emphasis on passive safety over active safety.
Reply
ASEVENCFOUR 1:47PM (5/27/2008)
You would all change your tune if you we're in a lightweight Chinese car, I mean damn that's the only thing that matters to you all, it has to be light! So when they start making the A-D pillars out of bamboo sticks and you're crushed in a parking lot by a Tahoe you'll wish you had an overweight ass Volvo XC90 to protect you.
Reply
MD Drew 1:53PM (5/27/2008)
Actually, there is a bike maunfacturer making bamboo bikes with stability similar to carbon fiber. In the mid-term, that may not be a bad thing to have...
but even in a current Chevy Malibu, if you get landed on by a Tahoe, you're dead. Remember, the roof is designed for 1.5 times the vehicles weight, with the goal being to protect you from yourself (i.e. a roll-over).
MD Drew 1:49PM (5/27/2008)
why make the Wrangler exempt? I imagine it probably could support easily twice it's weight (having seen a lot of fellow Jeep's inverted in a 4- G negative, and just rolling them back over to continue down the trail...)
I agree with other posts, though, that 3-5 times is excessive. Maybe 2, or 2.5 would be reasonable, with a target date of 2020, so that cars can be re-engineered in the long term.
Reply
montoym 6:04PM (5/27/2008)
I'm guessing it's due to the Wrangler having a built-in rollbar which no other SUV currently made has. At least none that I can think of from major automakers.
Vik 1:52PM (5/27/2008)
John- are you also again st side impact door beams? How about safety cages? Those safety features have added a lot of weight to vehicles over the years. Why is it you are opposed to this one and not the others? If you are opposed to the others, as well, good luck in an accident!
I think most of the naysayers fail to realize that it is not absolute weight, but a percentage of the vehicle weight and overall vehicle dynamics that contribute to rollovers. To assume that automakers won't be able to compensate for added top-weight is ignorant.
Reply
Dan 1:54PM (5/27/2008)
The way you compensate for top weight.. is you add even more weight down low to balance it out.
And we wonder why family sedans are closing on two tons now.
John 2:32PM (5/27/2008)
actually no, I'm not. What I'm saying, is that they should be focusing on PREVENTING the accident instead of making sure you're safe beyond reason when you roll your top heavy, poor handling, and grossly obese SUV. I love a lot of the "safety cage" items. They tend to lead to an overal more rigid and better handling vehicle without adding huge amounts of weight. Heck have you looked at the roof structure of an Impreza? Built in cage basically. Really though, 1.5-2.5 times (without any penetration into the cabin by the way) the vehicles weight is plenty. Anything past that and you're trying to make it safe to roll a vehicle at obscene speeds.
If we focused on safer driving, few distractions and using some common sense, most things would simply be an emergency back up and not a "necessity".
Dan 1:53PM (5/27/2008)
"increasing the crush resistance to 3 times the vehicle weight would cost automakers at least $1.1 billion more"
No, it wouldn't cost automakers anything. It would cost new car buyers $1.1 billion.
Reply
ASEVENCFOUR 1:55PM (5/27/2008)
The roof in the XC90(and all other new Volvo's), and Xtera(?) can handle much more weight than 1.5x, that's just the minimum, there a lot of SUV's and cars that can handle more than 1.5x of their weight on the roof.
Mal Fuller 2:02PM (5/27/2008)
"They have also pointed out that increased roof strength means added weight -- counterproductive in their continued efforts to meet stringent fuel economy standards."
Sigh! Whatever will happen to all the lightweight, fuel efficient vehicles on today's market?
Reply
gino 2:03PM (5/27/2008)
Since I plan on buying no additional new vehicles, Im not concerned about the nanny-state of affairs in the car industry.
Good luck.
Reply
tankd0g 2:09PM (5/27/2008)
How many times vehicle weight will convertibles have to withstand?
Reply