Results from the IIHS’ latest small SUV roof crush test are making the rounds of the autoblogosphere, and as usual the spoonfed information is being dutifully regurgitated in the name of consumer safety. What goes largely unreported is the fact that the IIHS is gleefully moving the roof crush goalposts, a unilateral decision with little benefit to consumers and a host of unanticipated consequences. Current roof crush standards mandate that vehicle roofs must support 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle, and have been in effect since 1973. The IIHS has been campaigning for years to increase government roof strength standards, and an uprated standard of 2.5 strength-to-weight ratio is currently being considered by the NHTSA. So where does the 2.5 standard rate with the IIHS? “Marginal” is the score that the IIHS gives to vehicles meeting this not-yet approved standard. Huh?
Only four of the 12 small utes tested scored a “good” on the IIHS scale: Subaru’s Forester, VW’s Tiguan, Honda’s Element and Jeep’s Patriot. And what did they have to do to climb that mountain? Support four times the vehicle’s weight while buckling less than 5 inches. That’s two and two-thirds times tougher than the current federal minimum and just under twice as tough as the proposed federal minimum.
So why the roof-crush zeal from the IIHS? More than 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers, say the insurance industry-funded boffins. And, “our research shows that a strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollover crashes compared with the current federal standard of 1.5.” Yes, in a rollover crash. Therein lies the rub.
Improved roof crush standards improve the chances of surviving a rollover, but as our Bob Elton pointed out way back when, forcing up roof crush standards actually increases the likelihood of rollovers occuring in the first place. More roof reinforcement raises a vehicle’s center of gravity, making it far more likely to roll. And what’s the point of making vehicles safer in the case of a rollover if they become more likely to roll in the process? Preventative medicine (stability control, driver training) and smarter rollover safety equipment (curtain airbags) are the answer, not the IIHS’s blind adherence to roof crush standards.
And the consequences of the IIHS’s roof strength fixation are not limited to the increased chances of rollovers. By more than doubling federal standards in its testing, the IIHS is pushing OEMs into a corner where safety and efficiency begin to trade off. As automakers scramble to meet uprated (and far more nationally significant) CAFE standards, the IIHS’s desire to see more roof and pillar steel stand in their way.
And despite these major tradeoffs to the IIHS’s agenda, the Institutes’ own research shows that roof strength is improving anyway. “Manufacturers have made structural improvements to earn better front and side ratings,” says the IIHS report. And though they admit that these overall safety improvements have improved roof crush performance, the IIHS’ insistence on the 4 times vehicle weight standard means only four vehicles receive a “good” rating. Not “outstanding” for having performed at over two times the federal standard, just “good.”
More roof reinforcement raises a vehicle’s center of gravity, making it far more likely to roll.
—————————————————-
I doubt it. I mean, adding a 20 lb structure to a 4000 lb SUV is virtually nothing. It may increase the chance of rollover by 0.01%. But if that structure does lower the chance of a roof cave in by 20%, then the purpose is served.
WSN:
Where are you getting the 20lb figure from? A sunroof can easily add more than twice that number to the vehicle’s curb weight.
I think the IIHS knows what it is doing; the IIHS (the lobby for the private vehicle insurance industry) simply wants to outlaw large, tall SUVs, or make them very expensive.
Large, tall SUVs are not a very good underwriting risk.
If the IIHS admitted to that it might not be good for the lobbying effort, since the NHTSA isn’t supposed to make regulations that kill existing vehicle types.
But in the end, the IIHS secretly agrees with TTAC that it is cost prohibitive to make large, tall SUVs that both resist rollover and have strong roof strength when they do rollover. That is the point.
Seems like when I read about rollover deaths, it is because the driver or passenger(s) are ejected. Usually they are not wearing seatbelts.
Are the 10,000 people killed as noted in the article, killed by the roof crushing? Or are they all of the deaths in rollovers? Also, is that 10,000 in the US or world wide?
Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels!
According to the Institute’s studies of real-world rollover crashes vs. measured roof strength, “a strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollover crashes compared with the current federal standard of 1.5.”
Prior to the these studies, the Institute was not a vehement proponent of NHTSA’s proposed increase in roof strength to 2.5 but did agree it was better than the current standard of 1.5.
Among the 12 vehicles tested so far, there is NO correlation between curb weight and roof strength. In fact the lightest vehicle tested, the Jeep Patriot, has one of the four “Good” rated roofs. More to the point there is NO evidence, Bob Elton’s article notwithstanding, that stronger roofs result in increased likelihood of rollover. If anything, the available crash data points in the opposite direction.
Also, ALL of the Institute’s ratings use the identical scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. This has been true since 1995 when the first frontal offset crash test ratings were released.
Regarding ejection, yes wearing a seat belt greatly reduces the possibility, but belted people CAN still be thrown out of a car if the roll is severe enough: “When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk that people will be injured by contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent occupants, especially those who aren’t using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof has deformed. Roofs that don’t collapse help keep people inside vehicles as they roll.”
Last, the Institute is NOT a lobbying organization. Occasionally, its officers are ASKED to testify before Congress or state legislatures, but it is prohibited from active lobbying, as in wandering the halls of Congress bending politicians’ ears.
@ 1981.911.SC
The 10,000 annual deaths are in the US only and include all deaths due to rollovers.
That’s it, TTAC, you lost a reader. Unsubscribing from the RSS feed now.
that will show you, ttac.
the Institute is NOT a lobbying organization. Occasionally, its officers are ASKED to testify before Congress or state legislatures, but it is prohibited from active lobbying, as in wandering the halls of Congress bending politicians’ ears.
No they just pick up the phone or have their lobbyists on K street do it for them.
“That’s it, TTAC, you lost a reader. Unsubscribing from the RSS feed now.”
ICE BURN
But anyway as far as I can calculate, a 4000lb truck with a roof that needs to support 10,000lbs makes no sense to me. When a rollover occurs, does the vehicle really fly up to twice its height?
edit: I see what was quoted has been deleted, so perhaps I shouldn’t comment! [on that]
The roof is a very small percentage of the vehicles over all weight and lends itself very well for the use of lightweight materials. The story that increased roof strength will result in worse fuel economy and top heavy SUVs is pure 100% industry lobby propaganda. There are many ways that manufacturers can prevent a vehicle from overturning and blaming a reinforced roof for their inadequate designs is typical of the domestic industry. Yes it may add extra cost but so has every safety feature ever invented.
qfrog :
March 24th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Where are you getting the 20lb figure from? A sunroof can easily add more than twice that number to the vehicle’s curb weight.
1) The 20-lb figure is a wild ass guess from me. I did pretty well in my Engineering classes during my undergraduate years. A 20lb reinforcement (assuming aluminum alloy added to the pillars) will give you a massive amount of support.
2) A sunroof is not a reinforcement. It actually hurts structural integrity. If people are willing to accept that much extra weight for a nice to have feature, why not have a life-saving feature?
stereonz: we’ll miss your commitment to vigorous debate. Meanwhile..
Does the IIHS have an “agenda”?
“Stronger roofs also can prevent occupants, especially those who aren’t using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof has deformed.” (from the report)
Sorry, but this has “agenda” written all over it. Justifying more than doubling roof crush standards because its safer for people who don’t use the most basic safety device out there? I call bullshit.
Do roof crush standards trade off with CAFE?
Upgrading to the 2.5x standard (still nearly half of what it takes to score a “good” from IIHS) would hurt large pickup and SUV efficiency by about ten percent, says the AAM. Car-based cute-utes probably don’t suffer quite the same penalty, but again, consider that the IIHS is asking for the 4x standard to score a “good.”
The upshot is that the industry is under the regulatory gun on CAFE (and more) while suffering some of the worst sales in memory. Compared to the myriad other challenges facing the industry, the roof crush agenda just doesn’t rate from a consumer, government or industry perspective. Even if they adopt the 2.5x standard, the IIHS would be better off pushing for ESP and airbags than holding up the 4x standard as the measure of “good” safety.
Interesting: the newer Honda CR-V doesn’t do as well as the older Element with a huge hole in its side. The suicide door’s hidden B-pillar must be one strong structural element.
Also, ESC is already standard on every single vehicle tested. In a couple of years, ESC and side airbags will be standard on every new car and light truck sold in the U.S.
Subaru, whose Forester was the runner up to the Tiguan in this roof crush test, has being reinforcing roofs since at least the last generation of vehicles. Here’s an article from 2006 from an EMS perspective describing its impressive B-pillar reinforcement, but also makes it near-impossible to cut to extricate crash victims. The A-pillar wasn’t as strong and ended up being the point of entry for a Forester involved in a 75mph side impact.
Scary pictures of upside down pickup trucks aside, whether or not increased roof crush strength turns out to reduce death and injury in the US remains to be seen, and will take at least a couple of years of data. Also, this roof crush test may not reflect what type of injuries occur in real-world accidents. As an example, a study a couple years back showed that there was no correlation between light truck fatalities/injuries and IIHS/NHTSA crash ratings.
I’m going to guess that once collected, increased roof crush ratings will result in a small but statistically significant improvement. But, we’ll see – good data will destroy a great theory as well as a SWAG.
I, for one, am not a fan of mandated safety, but most people are, so a quantitative test to rank vehicles according to their ability to protect passengers is probably a good thing. The only thing I see “wrong” here is that some blogosphere favorites didn’t make the top rating…
The IIHS’ top safety pick requirements have forced the NHTSA to update its own safety tests! It already forced many automakers to add ESC standard before the govt will in 2012.
If the Subaru Forester can get the top score at $20K then all the others should too at $24K+ right? Subaru kind of proves that what the IIHS is asking isn’t outrageous, isn’t too expensive etc etc.
You don’t think a Consumer will look at an Escape and Forester side by side and say “well that ones safer” and buy the Subaru? Right. It’s all just BS.
In addition to Richard’s point about emergency extraction, I would also mention that massively uprating roof crush standards could affect outward vision in new cars. CR mentions this in their write-up on the topic, concluding that the Forester’s success shows that this isn’t necessarily the case.
Also mentioned in CR’s analysis is the fact that the causes of fatalities in rollover crashes aren’t well understood. So the IIHS can neither prove nor disprove the actual benefits of improved roof crush standards.
“Some critics argue that only a dynamic rollover test would be relevant. Such a test, however, could hardly be repeatable given that rollovers are violent and unpredictable events. It would also require developing a new generation of crash dummies since current ones have been designed for measuring frontal and side forces and not those associated with rollovers.”
Bob Elton pointed out way back when, forcing up roof crush standards actually increases the likelihood of rollovers occuring in the first place.
This claim is demonstrably false. The Jeep Patriot, which had one of the strongest roofs at 4x vehicle weight, nevertheless has a lower risk of rollover than a Kia Sportage, one of the weakest roofs. This is according to the NHTSA, which uses a driving test, not a roof strength test. Let’s review:
Jeep Patriot = strong roof, low rollover risk
Kia Sportage = weak roof, higher rollover risk
The evidence just don’t back up Bob Elton’s theory.
@ Edward Niedermeyer :
Does the IIHS have an “agenda”?
“Stronger roofs also can prevent occupants, especially those who aren’t using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof has deformed.” (from the report)
Sorry, but this has “agenda” written all over it. Justifying more than doubling roof crush standards because its safer for people who don’t use the most basic safety device out there? I call bullshit.
Did you ever consider that a belted occupant can benefit by not having the roof crush in on them or bend away from them so their head is exposed to whatever lies outside the vehicle? Belted occupants DO die in rollovers too.
I’m not diminishing the importance of seat belts. They are the single most important safety feature in any car. But seat belts alone aren’t enough to get the job done in some cases — hence airbags, structural strength, crumple zones, etc.
One more thing — we all agree that preventing intrusion into the occupant compartment is vital in frontal, side, or rear crashes. It defies logic that intrusion from the roof doesn’t matter.
Does the Institute have an agenda? Of course it does: it’s “dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and property damage — from crashes on the nation’s highways.”
So why not ban convertibles?
Red Barchetta anyone?
(well, actually the forthcoming link is to the short story “A Nice Morning Drive” that was the inspiration to the RUSH song, but anywho, I digress…)
http://www.fiatbarchetta.com/links/nice.html
@ Edward Niedermeyer :
Also mentioned in CR’s analysis is the fact that the causes of fatalities in rollover crashes aren’t well understood. So the IIHS can neither prove nor disprove the actual benefits of improved roof crush standards.
This the first statement is true as far as it goes, BUT the Institute’s study of real-world rollovers vs. roof crush data on older midsize SUVs and small cars showed a VERY CLEAR relationship between roof strength and the chance of a fatality.
Visibility and emergency extraction are red herrings. You don’t need thick pillars to provide good strength, as the Subaru Forester shows. And if the vehicle holds up structurally, you don’t need to cut through the roof pillars in most cases. One or more doors will likely be openable.
Ah convertibles. Well, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that NHTSA couldn’t ban an entire class of vehicles. The vehicle in question was the old VW bus, where you were part of the crumple zone.
Convertibles actually have a pretty benign crash record. This is because as a class, they are often purchased as 2nd or 3rd cars, by older, well-off people, and used for pleasure driving in nice weather, not for daily commuting.
I Do No Need to Post this as the TTAC Best and Brightest have already hit the high notes:
1. The few pounds added to a roof (actually it’s the “A” and “B” pillars) to strengthen the roof add nothing to real-world rollover tendencies. Attempting to fly or sliding sideways into a curb at high speed is the usual cause. CoG isn’t a problem in these rollovers.
2. All front, rear, and side serious and fatal injury rates have been falling nicely. The rollover numbers, have been, ahem, going through the roof (30% of deaths). Rollover deaths are very much now on radar and something is gonna happen.
3. The current static 1.5X the vehicle weight as the standard is and always has been a joke. No rational engineer would sign off on that safety flim-flam. Auto manufacturer’s paid their lobbyists well to get that number and that test procedure enacted.
4. Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/rollover/crashwrth_/index.cfm) has a bunch of information on the topic. Poke around the several links and you’ll get an eyeful. They repeatedly rolled a Volvo XC-90 and it didn’t crush.
5. Public Citizen is pushing what they call the JRS dynamic test. It’s supposedly part of the voluntary FMVSS 208 Regulation. I’d like to see a second test added with a 45mph forward component to it before I’m Ok with this testing method.
@Robert Farago:
Because reduced rollover safety is the obvious side-effect of convertible ownership, just like higher injury/death risk is for motorcycles.
People worried about rollover safety don’t consider convertibles anyway, because it is an obivous disadvantage of the concept.
SUVs however don’t suggest by their very appearance that they ususally have appaling rollover protection. They are marketed as safe family haulers, so they should offer the same level of passenger protection cars do.
The IIHS does point out that the best way to reduce rollovers is to have electronic stability control, side curtain airbags, and seat belt usage.
How many of those 10,000 deaths per year are attributed to rollovers that occurred in vehicles without stability control or side curtain airbags. Perhaps as older vehicles without these safety features are removed from the roadways in the coming years these numbers will go down. It makes more sense to invest in features like stability control and side curtain airbags instead of higher roof standards, because those features protect you in more than just a rollover accident.
In mechanical engineering we have whats called a “factor of safety”. Basically its amount of force a structure is designed to endure vs the amount of force a structure is expected (or calculated) to endure during its use.
If the FS is 1.0 that means the thing is designed to endure only as much stress as its expected to endure and will (typically) fail as soon as it is used.
Things like elevators, scaffolding, cranes, etc. that could cause loss of life usually have FS of 4 or more.
So really a FS of 1.5 is pretty terrible, and a FS of 4 is pretty standard for a structure designed to keep the weight of a vehicle off its occupants during a roll over.
Since it appears that there will be additional structure added would it be possible to add some sort of drink holder so my Scotch will not spill in a roll over event?
You know, some sort of clip or holder with a pivot I suppose….
@ MikeInCanada: I think an option of a gimballed cup holder would be awesome. Maybe include a gyroscope in the base to help steady it… If Maybach made an off-road vehicle, they would definitely include it.
210DelRay, CarPerson: I’m afraid I still don’t understand how a 2.5x standard is “marginal.” I mean, at what point do we stop saying the more roof crush resistance the better? The tradeoffs I was pointing to in the post exist on the margins, to be sure, but they do accumulate. Meanwhile regulators can only squeeze so much out of the automakers, especially given the late unpleasantness. If you want to pile it up on the industry, force them to sell cars with 4x roofs, 35 mpg average and ramped-up emissions standards, you have to wonder what that will do to pricing, consumer choice, etc.
I’m all for shaming the OEMs (and informing consumers) by trying to measure rollover risk as the NHTSA does. Designing vehicles to have a low rollover risk seems involve less compromise than beefing up crush strength (especially past the 2.5x standard). Plus the fact that 95 percent of rollovers are “tripped” (by hitting a curb, ditch, etc) means that static stability (CoG) is especially important (per NHTSA FAQ).
Hey, the IIHS is a market-driven, non-governmental organization composed of for-profit companies, so this should be a good thing!
All you free-marketers should be championing this. It’s derived from real, to-the-minute market information, and the IIHS wouldn’t be sniffing down this route if they weren’t paying out claims for rollover injuries. It’s capitalism in action, baby!
Ok, I’ll stop now.
It’s their rating system—not the NHTSA—and it’s not at all mandatory for automakers to support it. Like the existing offset, side, supplementary restraint and dynamics testing they do, it’s just another data point.
They’re not going to stop you from buying a Miata. They’ll just make you pay more for it when your insurance bill comes due.
210delray:
Among the 12 vehicles tested so far, there is NO correlation between curb weight and roof strength. In fact the lightest vehicle tested, the Jeep Patriot, has one of the four “Good” rated roofs. More to the point there is NO evidence, Bob Elton’s article notwithstanding, that stronger roofs result in increased likelihood of rollover.
How they compare against one another regarding roof strength isn’t going to be relevant without taking into account the vehicle’s other dynamics, especially center of gravity. A true comparison would be to market Jeep Patriots with both strong roofs and weak roofs. Then compare the rollover tendencies. IIHS should suggest that before pimping more cost, worse mileage, and crappier visibility.
Also, given the tendency of rollover deaths to be single occupant vehicles, the IIHS should address the benefit on the overall populations’ level of driver skill. Unfortunately, I don’t think IIHS types consider such intriguing questions.
@Robert Farago: Yes yes ban convertibles today!By
the time I’m too old to drive, my Firebird will be worth more than my pension.
psarhjinian :
All you free-marketers should be championing this. It’s derived from real, to-the-minute market information, and the IIHS wouldn’t be sniffing down this route if they weren’t paying out claims for rollover injuries. It’s capitalism in action, baby!
Ok, I’ll stop now.
Calling the car insurance market ‘free’ is a stretch. Government intervention can be quite fierce, depending on the state.
Many states mandate that very marginal people (like multiple DUI types) be sold insurance at ridiculously low rates. That the IIHS has evolved a similar culture of personal responsibility avoidance is not surprising.
mikey:
Yes yes ban convertibles today!By
the time I’m too old to drive, my Firebird will be worth more than my pension.
If The Controllers come up with a “convertible safety tax/fee”, no one may want them.
@ihatetrees……”convertible safety tax/fee”?
Darn that never occured to me….I guess it would make a good planter.
I witnessed a Chevy Tahoe, ’06 or 07 model, do a pretty impressive cartwheel, tumbling two or three times. The East German judge gave it a 10! When the SUV landed –finally– on its tires, the roof looked really good for something involved in a big crash and the guy who drove it like he stole it –he did– walked away. No need to change something that isn’t broken.
The IIHS should spend its time persecuting drivers of red sports cars.
@Edward Niedermeyer :
March 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sorry, but this has “agenda” written all over it. Justifying more than doubling roof crush standards because its safer for people who don’t use the most basic safety device out there? I call bullshit.
Why? Because the TTAC darling didn’t get the top honors?
Kidding aside, I do agree that if you are not wearing safety belts the extra strength is void. But, the majority of people who look at a vehicle’s saftey rating as a purchase factor are probably wearing saftey belts don’t you think?
The IIHS does point out that the best way to reduce rollovers is to have electronic stability control, side curtain airbags, and seat belt usage.
Air bags don’t reduce rollovers. I believe you mean reducing rollover deaths and serious injuries.
If the preponderance of rollovers was “accident avoidance” (swerving and it went over), electronic stability control would in itself slash the numbers.
Unfortunately, the preponderance of crashes are leaving the roadway, either rolling off an embankment, retaining wall, or other slope of some kind, or sliding sideways into some kind of low barrier, typically a curb.
A large sub-group is the rollover is a secondary occurrence after a primary crash, after which the vehicle is just a case study in inertia.
The current state in which any kind of “roof event” results in substantial intrusion doesn’t cut it. For what we are paying, I want more each new model year than just another way to bend and paint tin.
I’m sorry IIHS defenders, but giving credence to an organization who’s funding is dependent on businesses with known economic interests in the subject matter is a recipe for disaster. Anyone remember the smoking/cancer studies? Anyone?
As someone alluded to above, there are serious issues that go along with making vehicles more expensive to design and build. The IIHS simply does not give a rat’s ass about the consumer implications, automaker profitability or any type of consequence that does not correlate with additional insurance company cost. If they lost track of these priorities they would lose their funding, no question about it.
If the automakers were smart they would agree to never reference IIHS standards in marketing materials. This isn’t an independant tester (consumer report style) who’s standards aim to mirror those of the car buying public, they are testers whose investors have an interest in increasing consumer cost. That distinction is crucial.
For what it’s worth I do agree that the weight isn’t going to cause cars to start flipping over, although the statistics for that are not shown in the comments above, despite the claim. The issue is really driver visibility.
This isn’t an independant tester (consumer report style) who’s standards aim to mirror those of the car buying public, they are testers whose investors have an interest in increasing consumer cost.
No. They have an interest in getting claims costs down. That’s all. From their perspective, claims and risk is all that matter.
If you’re talking about bumper-bash standards, I agree with you. Roof-crush claims are always personal-injury. Yes, it’s not an intention correlation with the consumer’s best interest, but it’s a correlation just the same: the IIHS wants strong roofs so that they don’t have to pay out more money; the public wants them so that they don’t get hurt.
The IIHS’ membership most certainly is not stupid. If roof crush was going to cause more or more expensive claims because vehicles would flip and/or drivers couldn’t see, they wouldn’t support it.
As a side note, roof pillars are thick because they look good to designers and mesh well with the tall belt-lines that are also popular. If you look at cars where styling takes a back-seat to function (the Yaris, Fit and Versa as well as most minivans) you’ll see traditionally excellent sightlines and nice, thin pillars.
Spot-welding, an easier, cheaper process used by all auto manufacturers, leaves plenty of places for roof metal to buckle and fold.
Much added strength can be had by laser welding unibody seams, as VW does in many of their cars, and Subaru does in their car B-pillars.
VW Tiguan and Subaru Forester benefited from this in the roof rollover tests.
Meanwhile, relying on a 1973 standard, given the increase in vehicle weights and overall driving speeds since then, is absurd. Waiting for the ultimate dynamic testing’s no better. The fact is that some car companies, including the enthusiast-loved VW, meet the standard now.
psarhjinian :
March 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Hey, the IIHS is a market-driven, non-governmental organization composed of for-profit companies, so this should be a good thing!
All you free-marketers should be championing this. It’s derived from real, to-the-minute market information, and the IIHS wouldn’t be sniffing down this route if they weren’t paying out claims for rollover injuries. It’s capitalism in action, baby!
Hopefully that wasn’t serious. Free market capitalism would not support the mandatory enforcement of any safety standards. If you want a safe car, you pay for it. You are not forced to pay for it by the NHTSA or anybody else.
I fully believe the IIHS is completely corruptable. They’ve even turned their nose up at regulated bumper heights. Bumpers don’t have to even meet in a collision. Simply brilliant.
But, would you buy a small car with a bigass bumper hanging off the ends? Probably not.
I kind of like the idea that people silly enough to equate SUV with “safe” are getting the raw end of the deal. It seems like some sort of righteous darwinian validation or something.
I also occasionaly ride a motorcycle. And I certainly wouldn’t want the goverment banning them due to their obvious safety issues.
Maybe we should just ban the IIHS and let nature take its course?
I don’t see an issue here, I really don’t. If you want a stronger roof you have any number of options to make it happen. Yes, adding more material is one of those options, but I really think any decent engineer could do better than that. You could use a different, stronger alloy of steel, change the heat treatment of the steel, or even use the same alloy with a smaller grain size. And that’s just on the materials side, which would add very little, if anything, to the weight. Someone mentioned laser welding above, which would also help. You could theoretically achieve similar results by using a roll welder on the frame. The point is, it encourages a safer vehicle without really giving up too much. It is not a trick from the insurance bogeyman to increase your rates, or an impossible challenge for the designers and engineers of the automobile.
Count me as a skeptic, again.
I do not believe that the numbers of fatality/rollover. I call Bull Shit on that.
In 2006, the Insurance industry is reporting 43,000 vehicle fatalties nation wide. You can look it up.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2007/07/31/82161.htm
The feds show a higher number, but not by much:
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5307.htm
If the Insurance Lobbyists numbers are correct, 23% of the vehicle fatalities in the USA are caused by rollovers. I do not believe that. Their numbers must have come from the same consultants who contract with MADD.
Last time I checked in my southern state with its share of SUV’s, mountains, transplants seemingly not aware of slippery asphalt, foreign born who drive on worn out used tires with treads regrooved with a hot ice pick (I kid you not) and rain, rollover deaths were just slightly ahead of deaths in SAABs and Land Rovers. That might be a slight exaggeration, but less of one than their numbers by far.
psarhjinian
“No. They have an interest in getting claims costs down. That’s all. From their perspective, claims and risk is all that matter”
The Insurance comapnies have a direct interest in increasing consumer cost when their revenue stream is dependent upon the rates they charge customers. Those rates, and more importantly, the various adjustments that can be made to them, are often subject to regulation. That combination ensures that the insurance industry has an overwhelming incentive to influence public opinion, and ultimately legislative options. I’m saying that any research conducted on their dollar, especially with conclusions that are aired out so publicly, should be considered suspect, and certainly shouldn’t have the influence to dictate car design (on pain of bad publicity).
Besides, I even said the IIHS dosen’t care about anything, “that does not correlate with additional insurance company cost.” (reducing claim cost) and I agree that this is frequently in line with consumer interests. I also don’t think, like some others on the thread, that this is going to kill people with rollovers or anything, the IIHS guys are not evil (or stupid). Bringing cost pressure to bear on the car industry at this time however, reveals a single minded focus that neglects to take into account the bigger picutre.
I’d be happy to be proved wrong on the sightline fears, but I still think it likely that previously unbroken panes of glass could become overpillared, and compromise driver visibility. This would obviously be more pronounced on heavier vehicles.
I don’t get all this IIHS bashing. Look, 4 of the 12 vehicles rated a “Good,” and 5 more were “Acceptable.” Pretty damn good for the first time such vehicles were rated.
The losers:
Escape (Marginal): long in the tooth, basically the same vehicle since 2001.
Sportage (Poor): also relatively old.
CR-V (Marginal): Honda must have dropped the ball on this one.
As for the claim that 10,000 deaths (out of about 40,000 annually in the US) isn’t believable, check any source and you’ll get the same numbers. Rollovers are rare as a percentage of police-reported crashes (about 3%), but they are deadly.
The IIHS doesn’t support matching bumper heights? Someone’s smoking something. Check this out: http://www.iihs.org/news/2004/iihs_news_091304.pdf
Edward, why are you so hung up on the term “marginal?” A 2.5 strength-to-weight ratio isn’t enough — it’s going to be the new government floor value, after decades of a pitifully weak 1.5 standard. Manufacturers don’t have to go higher if they don’t want to; maybe many will settle for an “Acceptable” IIHS rating.
And I am fed up with people invoking Darwin as a necessity in getting rid of supposedly incompetent drivers. Far too many die needlessly on our roads today, and some callously attribute it to Darwinian selection. Nice view of humanity!
grifonik:
I kind of like the idea that people silly enough to equate SUV with “safe” are getting the raw end of the deal. It seems like some sort of righteous darwinian validation or something.
I also occasionaly ride a motorcycle. And I certainly wouldn’t want the goverment banning them due to their obvious safety issues.
Hmmmm. Putting on my IIHS certified foil hat, I see a solution: Mandatory helmets for SUV drivers and passengers.
Yes, adding weight to the roof structure will increase it’s potential for tipping over.
10,000 deaths attributed to rollover is ridiculous. I don’t believe that number to begin with, and even more importantly, how many deaths are due to a CRUSHED roof. I’d bet RF’s pension very few. I’ve investigated accidents in lawsuits, and one, had 5 deaths, one survivor. 4 of the 5 were ejected, one slammed into the A-Pillar. The ejections happened before the roll over. The roof was crushed a couple of inches, but the report likely attributed all 5 deaths to the roll over.
Unintended consequences, something our govt is really good at ignoring. Anybody ever consider how much the larger the A/B Pillars will become to support the extra strength requirements? The steel being used today is already expensive high strength steel. Can’t use stronger steel, because you can’t form it. solution is going to be bigger, heavier, and something this site loves to trash, lower fuel economy.
In all this talk of rollovers and SUVs, it is easy to lose sight of some facts:
Over half of auto fatalities are not wearing a seat belt – contrasted to the population as a whole belting over 80% of the time. That’s Darwinian.
Three quarters of traffic deaths are NOT from rollovers.
Larger vehicles win when they collide with smaller ones. When a SUV and a car collide, 3.5 times more car occupants die. You don’t want to know the stats of what happens when a SUV hits a car in the side (24 times more likely to die if you’re in the car). Have fun in your Fit.
MikeInCanada :
Since it appears that there will be additional structure added would it be possible to add some sort of drink holder so my Scotch will not spill in a roll over event?
You know, some sort of clip or holder with a pivot I suppose….
If they ever do make such a clip or holder, you will most certainly not want to be having your scotch in a highball glass in the car, what with the potential for flying glass and all, but also especially if you take yours “on the rocks.”
I suggest something with a lid; maybe a “sippy cup.”(*)
..
..
..
(*) Right here is where I would put a link to a great ebay posting for a rather dapper Sponge Bob or masculine Bob the Builder sippy cup, however; the URL is far too lengthy and I’m not clever enough to figure out how to make that “href” link thingie work without proper training first. So now instead of laughing at my attempt at humor, you can laugh at my lack of ability!
Will this apply to the Pick-Ups? I don’t have the specific numbers, but i have the feeling that Pick ups tend to have more cave ins in rollover crashes than any other, especially that the seat belt mount is on the B pillar (single row) that usually deforms and nullifies the safety input the seat belt might do in such a scenario.
will these standards be required for cars as well? what if a heavier, strengthened SUV that is more prone to rollover does so in a crash scenario that involves it rolling on a smaller car, wouldn’t it seriously increase the already existing threat of vehicle crash compatibility?
If any Government “cares” about it’s uninformed citizens’ lives, why is motor racing still legal? Can I just pay some money in the form of a racing licence to get big brother off my back?
And as others mentioned, there are still legal convertibles and bikes, oh, not forgetting stunt performers.
This lobbying is just getting ridiculous.
Give me useful data and let me the consumer make my own choice. This car has the minimum safety but I am allowed to buy it. Let people make their own choices and if safety is important to the consumer then those unsafe vehicles will not make a profit.
FWIW I have several several unsafe vehicles – rear engine VWs (including van), convertible, motorcycle, and an old CR-V which would likely fail the current tests. Big deal.
In every case I drive with my eyes open, distractions at a minimum, and I’m always aware of the dangers my vehicles pose to me. The VW Westfalia is getting some upgrades so it will pass the “moose test”. Swaybars and 15″ tires are a start. Same for the Beetle.
I think if we make people too confident in their vehicles then they begin to pay attention to the act of driving less. They get sloppy. Not saying we need to put people in 1949 Chevy pickup trucks with the laundry list of dangers those offered but when I had mine I was keenly aware of the peril the truck posed in a crash.
And I sold it too.
If there are 10k rollover deaths, there are probably many times that number of injuries, including head and spinal. It is always important to remember that head injuries can destroy or reduce a person’s ability to earn a living, can interfere with their social life, etc. Miserable.