New roof-crush standards reported to cost automakers $1.4 billion annually
It's been almost 35 years since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) enacted its roof strength standards, but come late 2012 the new requirements will be in affect and in addition to saving around 135 lives each year and preventing over 1,000 injuries, it's going to cost automakers around $1.4 billion annually.
The new standards up the current crush force from 1.5-times the vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0-times, along with maintaining sufficient head-room for an average-sized adult male held in place by a seat-belt. The same standard will eventually extend to vehicles up to 10,000 pounds – from the current 6,000-pound requirement – and eventually, the regulation will mandate that vehicles weighing 6,000 pounds and under should withstand three-times their unloaded weight.
Naturally, the additional strengthening is going to add weight, thus increasing fuel use – another hurdle automaker will have to overcome when striving to achieve new CAFE standards. The phase-in will begin in September 2012, with total compliance required for all new vehicles in 2017.
[Source: Detroit News]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jake 6:41PM (5/04/2009)
Could they make tolerate a little hail without getting all dimpled too?
Reply
Kitko 6:44PM (5/04/2009)
Somebody, please, tell the NHTSA that each additional pound increases fuel consumption and kinetic energy of a moving car, thus increasing energy created at the impact. That, in the process, makes accident more dangerous.
Reply
Jake B 7:00PM (5/04/2009)
You need to read into conservation of energy buddy.
Energy isn't created during a car crash, the kinetic energy from a moving vehicle must be transferred to another mass if it is to stop, otherwise it will just keep on movin'
Kitko 7:38PM (5/04/2009)
Jake B, slow down. Using word "create" is legitimate in the context of energy "created" at the collision of two objects. I could have used words such as release, transform etc.
Object in motion "has" its kinetic energy that's proportionate to speed and the vehicle's mass. A 1500 kg vehicle travelling at 100 km/h will have higher kinetic energy than a a 1300 kg vehicle travelling at 100 km/h. Consequently, impact will be heavier.
Energy created at the impact will be the sum of energies of colliding objects - even if one object is stionary, it still has energy. Kinetic energy of the moving object will be transformed into, for example, thermal energy, etc... My point was that the heavier vehicles create higher kinetic energy at a given speed by the virtue of their mass.
PJ 7:47PM (5/04/2009)
I wouldn't worry, Kitko--this seems like an awfully reactionary bit of reporting. The best-performing SUVs in last month's IIHS roof testing were also some of the lightest SUVs in the class (Jeep Patriot, Subaru Forester, Honda Element). The heaviest ones actually performed worse, with the exception of the VW Tiguan.
Which makes sense--heavier carcasses require stronger roofs to support 3x their weight. This news could just as easily be interpreted as pressure for automakers to lower curb weights rather than doom and gloom.
and while people are inevitably going to read "roof strengthening" and visualize 500lb pig-iron girders in their A-pillars, the reality is that engineers are simply going to be more careful about structural dynamics. In the IIHS tests, Honda's Element rated "Good" while the CR-V rated "Marginal." Same platforms, same curb weight, same MPG, different shape/structure to the roof.
bakka 10:04AM (5/05/2009)
Agree with ya PJ.
This could also force companies to build lighter, smaller SUV's.
tekd 2:18PM (5/05/2009)
The lighter the rest of the car is the easier it is for the roof to support 3x the weight, so it actually penalizes manufacturers for making overly heavy cars.
shadysi 6:44PM (5/04/2009)
How often to cars roll over? It is really enough to warrant such an increase? Seems a bit superfluous. Why not force people to drive in a big metal box which can withstand 100mph crashes?
Reply
Dustin 6:53PM (5/04/2009)
Apparently cars roll over exactly 135 times a year, killing the driver each time.
shadysi 2:47AM (5/05/2009)
I did think it over. Thats the funny part. Assuming the people who were unfortunate enough roll over had actually purchased a new car which adhered to the standards in 2012, then it would prevent 135 deaths. But that is assuming too much. In 2012 what percentage of people will buy new cars? What percentage of people will roll over? Do those two percentages intersect? Probably not.
Basically, they are forcing a new standard which will most likely hurt handling and gas mileage while saving a few lives from a roll over. I'm not trying to be cold hearted, but 1.4 billion is a bit much for possibly saving a few lives in the next few years and wasting resources at the same time which could be put to better use than allowing someone to to a barrel roll in their car an not die.
But I guess if they weren't enforcing new standards there wouldn't be much of a use for a NHTSA huh? Guess people still gotta work.
Dan 3:01AM (5/05/2009)
"But I guess if they weren't enforcing new standards there wouldn't be much of a use for a NHTSA huh? Guess people still gotta work."
You nailed it, shadysi.
Their product is regulation. If they aren't making up new regulations, they may as well close up shop. Whether last year's regulations worked in the real world is immaterial - this isn't about the real world, it's about justifying their continued funding.
If the price of that is 1.4 billion dollars of other people's money, so be it.
9600baud 9:23AM (5/05/2009)
How about spending that money on driving schools so you dont roll your frigging car over in the first place? I mean seriously, how the hell does that really happen? Other than the self-propelling Ford Exploders and Firestone tires.
fanbrain 12:44PM (5/05/2009)
Rollovers are extremely common out here in the West. Long boring roads, sleepy drivers... Fall asleep then over correct when they wake up and realize they're about to experience a scary physics lesson first-hand.
Steven 6:46PM (5/04/2009)
Anyone know how rollover tests apply to hardtop/softtop convertibles?
Reply
paul34 11:41PM (5/04/2009)
Not sure what test they use, but I do know most convertibles have the rollover bars right behind the headrests.
Some of the German convertibles have hidden bars that pop up with an explosive charge when a rollover is detected.
They are generally lower than your head height normally; but given the fact that your head will be to the "side" (relative to the seat), plus the fact that the centripetal force from the tumbling will keep you in your seat, you should be ok. Hopefully. Maybe.
ASEVENSEE4 6:46PM (5/04/2009)
The Tiguan isn't even the heaviest in that test and it performed the best. They're all just whining. Sure it's not cheap, but the body structure is XC90 safe. That's enough for me to consider it.
Reply
Max 6:48PM (5/04/2009)
Its amazing the gov't is still allowing us to drive convertibles.
Reply
ronEbear 6:51PM (5/04/2009)
And motorcycles!
TomdeTomTom 6:49PM (5/04/2009)
NHTSA: How can we ensure every automaker goes bankrupt and people use bikes and public transportation?
One guy: I know a way....
Reply
Chet 2:15AM (5/05/2009)
Amen. This couldn't be more ill-timed.