I think the issue is that cars already almost all look the same. If you force them to be in an even tighter design box all you'll have to distinguish them is the logo on the hood. That might be ok in some sort of Orwellian (or anti-Orwellian if you're a fan) future where we all are exactly equal, but I'm not for it.
Great to hear you care more about car aesthetics than about saving lives and money. I respectfully disagree. I prefer to stay unhurt and paying lower car insurance premiums.
This seems like a difficult problem. Those who drive non-SUVs want cars that aren't super high off the ground, both for ease of getting in and out and better gas mileage. Those who drive SUVs because they go camping or whatever want ground clearance for dirt roads, and so need higher bumpers. I don't know how to resolve the difference.
I guess it would have to do with convincing urban warriors who want SUVs for the sense of invulnerability that they don't actually want SUVs?
I understand your point. To my non-engineer mind, it seems that all that would be needed would be an extension that projects upward from the lower car's bumper by about a foot. That wouldn't interfere with the driver's vision. Or conversely one that projects downward from the higher vehicle by a foot. I don't think the former would interfere with the sedan driver's vision or the latter with the SUV's ground clearance.
This is in fact why 18-wheelers have "Mansfield bars" extending down from their bumpers so no more celebrities get decapitated.
It's easier in my mind to imagine continuing a bumper up on a low car, but I imagine that the gas mileage folks would find that it reduced mileage significantly. And adding a lower part to a higher vehicle would, I think, interfere with clearance. Even six inches either way would impact either visibility, gas mileage, or clearance of one or the other sort of vehicle.
I wonder how low the "Mansfield bars" are required to be? or how high off the ground?
I remember driving my 1984 VW Rabbit. The front and back bumpers were supported by two vertical springs - it didn't look great but when I got rear-ended on the highway at 60 km/hr, the heavy duty bumper springs did what they were supposed to and other than knocking some rust off the bumper, the car body was untouched. Nowadays, the cost would be astronomical and the whole bumper would have to be replaced. I get that there are more, and better, safety features nowadays but we've sacrificed a lot for good looks and car repair profits - and not necessarily in that order.
I think the issue is that cars already almost all look the same. If you force them to be in an even tighter design box all you'll have to distinguish them is the logo on the hood. That might be ok in some sort of Orwellian (or anti-Orwellian if you're a fan) future where we all are exactly equal, but I'm not for it.
ReplyDeletebut I'm not for it
DeleteGreat to hear you care more about car aesthetics than about saving lives and money. I respectfully disagree. I prefer to stay unhurt and paying lower car insurance premiums.
they've done nothing because official replacement parts are sold through certified repair dealerships. bumpers are plastic now and "easily" replaced.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a difficult problem. Those who drive non-SUVs want cars that aren't super high off the ground, both for ease of getting in and out and better gas mileage. Those who drive SUVs because they go camping or whatever want ground clearance for dirt roads, and so need higher bumpers.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to resolve the difference.
I guess it would have to do with convincing urban warriors who want SUVs for the sense of invulnerability that they don't actually want SUVs?
I understand your point. To my non-engineer mind, it seems that all that would be needed would be an extension that projects upward from the lower car's bumper by about a foot. That wouldn't interfere with the driver's vision. Or conversely one that projects downward from the higher vehicle by a foot. I don't think the former would interfere with the sedan driver's vision or the latter with the SUV's ground clearance.
DeleteThis is in fact why 18-wheelers have "Mansfield bars" extending down from their bumpers so no more celebrities get decapitated.
It's easier in my mind to imagine continuing a bumper up on a low car, but I imagine that the gas mileage folks would find that it reduced mileage significantly. And adding a lower part to a higher vehicle would, I think, interfere with clearance. Even six inches either way would impact either visibility, gas mileage, or clearance of one or the other sort of vehicle.
DeleteI wonder how low the "Mansfield bars" are required to be? or how high off the ground?
I remember driving my 1984 VW Rabbit. The front and back bumpers were supported by two vertical springs - it didn't look great but when I got rear-ended on the highway at 60 km/hr, the heavy duty bumper springs did what they were supposed to and other than knocking some rust off the bumper, the car body was untouched. Nowadays, the cost would be astronomical and the whole bumper would have to be replaced. I get that there are more, and better, safety features nowadays but we've sacrificed a lot for good looks and car repair profits - and not necessarily in that order.
ReplyDelete