And, that weight is high up in the vehicle making it slightly more top heavy.

↓↑report

Vehicles dont have to become heavier to become safer and stronger. BMW is really up to something with their carbon fiber roofs for a couple of their M cars (the M3 and M6).

Not only is it much stronger than a comparable steel roof, its also much lighter which helps lower the car's center of gravity making it less prone to roll over.

In fact, CA Automotive makes aftermarket carbon fiber roofs:

http://www.ca-automotive.co.uk/products-Y2FyX21ha2U9Ym13JmNhcl90eXBlPWU5MCZjYXRfaWQ9NDI=.html

↓↑report

Carbon Fiber is far too expensive for non-premium cars.

↓↑report

True, but its a start. In one BMW brochure I read they say that if they could completely replace steel with carbon fiber the overall weight of the entire car would be reduced by 50%! And im sure they will as carbon fiber further falls in cost as will other manufacturers.

I'm certain that an 1800 pound BMW would have no trouble meeting even California fuel efficiency standards and it would be the funnest thing this side of an F1 car.

And it would also be pretty safe, anyone see that Top Gear episode where the Stig crashes a Koenigsegg CCX and the car is virtually unhurt thanks to its carbon fiber fender?

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

↓↑report

That Koenigsegg appeared pretty badly damaged after only running into a stack of tires. Hardly a demonstration of the durability of carpet fiber for body work.

↓↑report

BMW isn't a great example of auto manufacturers really pushing forward on light weight. The six series is 4000 pounds. Shaving a hundred or so pounds off that still leaves you with a car that's a few hundred pounds heavier than it ought to be. Also, have you sat in one? The A-pillars on a 6 series are so huge you could lose a motorcycle behind them. I usually prefer cars where I don't have blind spots in front of me.

↓↑report

At John:

I agree, the six series in general are pigs compared to the 3 series. In my humble opinion, I would say the best model BMW makes is the E90 335i sedan.

And many of you will say, "Hey, the E92 335i Coupe is way better". Well, I say that real men drive sedans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj89BKGuvQY&feature=related

At Brian:

I reviewed the damage again, it scuffed the paint and caused some stress fractures. I would say it did quite well considering the magnitude of the impact. If I had crashed my 3 series in a wall of tires at that speed I would probably have to replace more than just one body panel.

↓↑report

Boxer, there was article in here yesterday that said almost 40K Americans die on the road each year. What if with this law we will save 2K..................is that alone not a justification?

↓↑report

Sea Urchin,
If those people are dying as a result of buying unsafe cars that roll over so easily, then I'm sorry to say I don't feel too bad. Making them heavier makes them that much worse for the environment, and that much more unsafe for the rest of us.

It's impossible to defend over-regulation with arguments about how it's going to help _x_ number of people, because you cannot value certain people over others with laws. There's always a downside and the victims will just be somehow demographically different.

That said, I do support safety standards (not regulations) to make cars less likely to roll over. I'll bet you could start seeing some sort of likelihood measure for rollovers showing up on window stickers and companies that make cars that are safe will certainly advertise it, making the rest of the companies look that much worse. It can be a voluntary, not regulation-based, effort.
-N

↓↑report

Let the car manufacturers devise ways to make cars as safe as possible.

I am not convinced that millions of dollars of regulatory red tape saves lives. Wild percentage estimations with no real data doesn't constitute proof.

And you will NEVER reduce road deaths to zero.

I don't mean to be at all callous, but People Die. No one gets out of this life alive. When is "best efforts" enough?

IIHS and NHTSA are NEVER going to say "enough." It isn't in their self interest to justify their budgets. They try to get and spend MORE money on smaller and smaller impact (no pun intended) details.

What is next? spending money on trying to figure out how to make safer windsheild wipers? Glass that doesn't shatter?

Pursuing safety is fine. If they want to make suggestions to the auto industry, FINE. If Car companies build the technology in in a sound way, and market

But some of these groups actually can affect the force of law and regulation, and force car companies to spend thousands of dollars, and compromise their designs. Why is the average family car over 3500lbs, yet people complain about fuel efficiency...

Safety is all fine and good, but it has diminishing returns at a certain point, and bureaucracy and inefficiency is killing the auto industry as it is.

↓↑report

SeaUrchin: "Boxer, there was article in here yesterday that said almost 40K Americans die on the road each year. What if with this law we will save 2K..................is that alone not a justification?"

If we just passed a law that said nobody could drive at all, we will save all 40K..................Is that alone not a justification?

↓↑report

And by the way, can you do all that by tomorrow? Thanks!

↓↑report

100% agree that it is to benefit insurance companies. How come old cars aren`t sent to the crusher immediately because they`re obviously "unsafe" according to the IIS and the NHTSA. If I want to drive a no star safety vehicle, one should be available.

↓↑report

Car insurance is a competative industry therefore prices would adjust down if costs go down. What they want to do is bring the cost of repairs down and the risk of serious injury or death down so they can reduce their risk. Overall profits would be about the same but the volitility would go down. The following numbers are made up but are for illustrative purposes:

Out of the 10% of drivers who have claims in a given year, the worst 1% of claims makes up 25% of overall paid claims. This would be due to: expensive vehicles being totaled, serious injury needing imediate life saving operations, and long term disability due to accidents. If these claims can be curtailed the predicability of claims would improve and reserves would be better estimable. etc etc.

Back to reality:

The truth is if people really wanted to have more affordable car insurance they would petition their states to enforce compulsory car insurance. Some cities car insurance is double what it would otherwise be if all drivers were insured.

↓↑report

Amen. Freeze auto safety standards for ten years, and spend a decade focusing on improving the drivers. See what happens.

↓↑report