"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:JYidnT1B84vlXAfbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>> Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:hZomi.4158$225.3840@trndny03...
>>>
>>>> I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting
>>>> with
>>>> the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I
>>>> thought
>>>> it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.
>>>>
>>>> "Nice Car"
>>>>
>>>> "Honda lied"
>>>>
>>>> "How so?"
>>>>
>>>> The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway
>>>> speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.
>>>>
>>>> 75/2.76=27.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that
>>>> isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!
>>>>
>>>> I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he
>>>> barely
>>>> gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with
>>>> the
>>>> car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm
>>>> and
>>>> he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.
>>>>
>>>> Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at 75
>>>> MPH
>>>> with the AC on full blast, back in the day!
>>>>
>>>> He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so
>>> far I have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit
>>> Sport 5 speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving for
>>> economy, and I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and
>>> practical. I am more than satisfield with my mileage, but it would be
>>> less if I drove with a heavy foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH
>>> overall with their 5 speed.
>>>
>>> Robert A. Cunningham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX
>> *automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5
>> speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault.
>> Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at
>> least it gets great mileage...
>
> you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what
> rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?

Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70
MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on
L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70
MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps.

Robert A. Cunningham

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
>>>>stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement
>>>>over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!)
>>
>>
>>
>> Where are you?
>>
>>
>
> Upstate NY. Here's the as:
>
> http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html


WHOA! Very Nice!

If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested!
Right now I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.

I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!

And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
>>>>stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement
>>>>over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!)
>>
>>
>>
>> Where are you?
>>
>>
>
> Upstate NY. Here's the as:
>
> http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html


WHOA! Very Nice!

If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested!
Right now I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.

I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!

And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
>>>>stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement
>>>>over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!)
>>
>>
>>
>> Where are you?
>>
>>
>
> Upstate NY. Here's the as:
>
> http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html


WHOA! Very Nice!

If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested!
Right now I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.

I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!

And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
>>>> weight up than safety.
>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".
>>
>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.
>
>it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
>crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.

I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements.

Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that
would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more
engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement.

Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in
the way, I just don't know what might be in place right now that's
relevant.

J.

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
>>>> weight up than safety.
>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".
>>
>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.
>
>it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
>crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.

I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements.

Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that
would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more
engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement.

Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in
the way, I just don't know what might be in place right now that's
relevant.

J.

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
>>>> weight up than safety.
>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".
>>
>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.
>
>it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
>crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.

I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements.

Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that
would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more
engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement.

Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in
the way, I just don't know what might be in place right now that's
relevant.

J.

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
>>>>> weight up than safety.
>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".
>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.
>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.
>
> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements.
>
> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that
> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more
> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement.
>
> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in
> the way

damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda
does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas
mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal
more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design
and safety i'll wager.

>, I just don't know what might be in place right now that's
> relevant.
>
> J.
>

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
>>>>> weight up than safety.
>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".
>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.
>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.
>
> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements.
>
> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that
> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more
> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement.
>
> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in
> the way

damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda
does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas
mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal
more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design
and safety i'll wager.

>, I just don't know what might be in place right now that's
> relevant.
>
> J.
>

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
>>>>> weight up than safety.
>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".
>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.
>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.
>
> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements.
>
> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that
> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more
> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement.
>
> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in
> the way

damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda
does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas
mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal
more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design
and safety i'll wager.

>, I just don't know what might be in place right now that's
> relevant.
>
> J.
>

 

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:JYidnT1B84vlXAfbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>>>news:hZomi.4158$225.3840@trndny03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting
>>>>>with
>>>>>the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I
>>>>>thought
>>>>>it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nice Car"
>>>>>
>>>>>"Honda lied"
>>>>>
>>>>>"How so?"
>>>>>
>>>>>The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway
>>>>>speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>75/2.76=27.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that
>>>>>isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!
>>>>>
>>>>>I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he
>>>>>barely
>>>>>gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with
>>>>>the
>>>>>car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm
>>>>>and
>>>>>he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at 75
>>>>>MPH
>>>>>with the AC on full blast, back in the day!
>>>>>
>>>>>He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so
>>>>far I have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit
>>>>Sport 5 speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving for
>>>>economy, and I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and
>>>>practical. I am more than satisfield with my mileage, but it would be
>>>>less if I drove with a heavy foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH
>>>>overall with their 5 speed.
>>>>
>>>>Robert A. Cunningham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX
>>>*automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5
>>>speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault.
>>>Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at
>>>least it gets great mileage...
>>
>>you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what
>>rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?
>
>
> Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70
> MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on
> L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70
> MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps.
>
> Robert A. Cunningham
>
>

I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the
one who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM
at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the
140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for
the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it
would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to
be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.

 

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:JYidnT1B84vlXAfbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>>>news:hZomi.4158$225.3840@trndny03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting
>>>>>with
>>>>>the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I
>>>>>thought
>>>>>it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nice Car"
>>>>>
>>>>>"Honda lied"
>>>>>
>>>>>"How so?"
>>>>>
>>>>>The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway
>>>>>speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>75/2.76=27.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that
>>>>>isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!
>>>>>
>>>>>I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he
>>>>>barely
>>>>>gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with
>>>>>the
>>>>>car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm
>>>>>and
>>>>>he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at 75
>>>>>MPH
>>>>>with the AC on full blast, back in the day!
>>>>>
>>>>>He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so
>>>>far I have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit
>>>>Sport 5 speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving for
>>>>economy, and I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and
>>>>practical. I am more than satisfield with my mileage, but it would be
>>>>less if I drove with a heavy foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH
>>>>overall with their 5 speed.
>>>>
>>>>Robert A. Cunningham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX
>>>*automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5
>>>speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault.
>>>Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at
>>>least it gets great mileage...
>>
>>you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what
>>rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?
>
>
> Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70
> MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on
> L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70
> MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps.
>
> Robert A. Cunningham
>
>

I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the
one who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM
at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the
140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for
the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it
would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to
be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.

 

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:JYidnT1B84vlXAfbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>>>news:hZomi.4158$225.3840@trndny03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting
>>>>>with
>>>>>the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I
>>>>>thought
>>>>>it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nice Car"
>>>>>
>>>>>"Honda lied"
>>>>>
>>>>>"How so?"
>>>>>
>>>>>The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway
>>>>>speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>75/2.76=27.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that
>>>>>isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!
>>>>>
>>>>>I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he
>>>>>barely
>>>>>gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with
>>>>>the
>>>>>car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm
>>>>>and
>>>>>he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at 75
>>>>>MPH
>>>>>with the AC on full blast, back in the day!
>>>>>
>>>>>He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so
>>>>far I have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit
>>>>Sport 5 speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving for
>>>>economy, and I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and
>>>>practical. I am more than satisfield with my mileage, but it would be
>>>>less if I drove with a heavy foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH
>>>>overall with their 5 speed.
>>>>
>>>>Robert A. Cunningham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX
>>>*automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5
>>>speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault.
>>>Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at
>>>least it gets great mileage...
>>
>>you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what
>>rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?
>
>
> Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70
> MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on
> L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70
> MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps.
>
> Robert A. Cunningham
>
>

I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the
one who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM
at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the
140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for
the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it
would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to
be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.

 

Tegger wrote:
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
> news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net:
>
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto
>>>>> industry killed those asap because the fender bender repair
>>>>> business suddenly disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs
>>>>> for minor damage is "good for america"!
>>>>>
>>>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the
>>>> mean cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that
>>>> the bumpers were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole
>>>> lot of collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers
>>>> became another fragile, expensive piece to repair.
>>> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair
>>> in a 10mph collision?
>>>
>> Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones
>> I saw had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic
>> mounts of today's bumpers.
>
>
>
> Canada is the only country in the world that has 5mph bumpers (and one
> of only TWO countries in the world with any sort of bumper standards at
> all).
>
> There are no hydraulic rams anymore, just styrofoam atop a rigidly-
> mounted steel beam. The rams were too heavy and were a casualty of CAFE-
> derived weight-saving measures.
>
>
>> The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
>> stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement
>> over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.
>>
>
>
> The whole point of the energy absorbing bumpers was to protect the car's
> "safety systems" from damage in a collision at that speed. "Safety
> systems" primarily means the headlights.
>
> The automakers were able to have the US standard reduced in the mid-'80s
> because they were able to show that there wasn't much practical
> difference in damage between 2.5mph and 5mph bumpers.
>
> 2.5mph bumpers were supposed to be able to be less costly to produce and
> carry less of a weight penalty.

which is a crock.

>
> Also, rigid bumpers tend to carry more of the stress of the collision to
> the body shell, meaning damage is more likely to go deeper than just the
> cosmetic.

also a crock. whatever the propaganda that was used to rationalize this
downgrade, it came down to one simple thing. corporate welfare.

5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was
reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.

and "deeper" damage, is by design, not accident. the initial yield
point of a crumple zone is easily designed, as is the point at which it
occurs. frod are ruthless exploiters of this. where's the first point
to buckle behind the bumper at 5mph on frontal impact? the bit /behind/
the radiator perhaps? no. the bit in front of the engine perhaps? no.
the bit behind the engine and suspension, where repair becomes
uneconomic? youbetcha. a necessity of design? no way. profitable?
amazingly so.

> The old non-impact bumpers tended to keep the damage out at
> the cosmetic sheet metal.

indeed. and they reduced write-offs substantially too. not as
profitable to detroit repair as it is to sell a new car.

 

Tegger wrote:
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
> news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net:
>
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto
>>>>> industry killed those asap because the fender bender repair
>>>>> business suddenly disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs
>>>>> for minor damage is "good for america"!
>>>>>
>>>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the
>>>> mean cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that
>>>> the bumpers were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole
>>>> lot of collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers
>>>> became another fragile, expensive piece to repair.
>>> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair
>>> in a 10mph collision?
>>>
>> Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones
>> I saw had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic
>> mounts of today's bumpers.
>
>
>
> Canada is the only country in the world that has 5mph bumpers (and one
> of only TWO countries in the world with any sort of bumper standards at
> all).
>
> There are no hydraulic rams anymore, just styrofoam atop a rigidly-
> mounted steel beam. The rams were too heavy and were a casualty of CAFE-
> derived weight-saving measures.
>
>
>> The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
>> stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement
>> over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.
>>
>
>
> The whole point of the energy absorbing bumpers was to protect the car's
> "safety systems" from damage in a collision at that speed. "Safety
> systems" primarily means the headlights.
>
> The automakers were able to have the US standard reduced in the mid-'80s
> because they were able to show that there wasn't much practical
> difference in damage between 2.5mph and 5mph bumpers.
>
> 2.5mph bumpers were supposed to be able to be less costly to produce and
> carry less of a weight penalty.

which is a crock.

>
> Also, rigid bumpers tend to carry more of the stress of the collision to
> the body shell, meaning damage is more likely to go deeper than just the
> cosmetic.

also a crock. whatever the propaganda that was used to rationalize this
downgrade, it came down to one simple thing. corporate welfare.

5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was
reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.

and "deeper" damage, is by design, not accident. the initial yield
point of a crumple zone is easily designed, as is the point at which it
occurs. frod are ruthless exploiters of this. where's the first point
to buckle behind the bumper at 5mph on frontal impact? the bit /behind/
the radiator perhaps? no. the bit in front of the engine perhaps? no.
the bit behind the engine and suspension, where repair becomes
uneconomic? youbetcha. a necessity of design? no way. profitable?
amazingly so.

> The old non-impact bumpers tended to keep the damage out at
> the cosmetic sheet metal.

indeed. and they reduced write-offs substantially too. not as
profitable to detroit repair as it is to sell a new car.