Ever since seeing photos of rolled Explorers with those infamous Firestone tires, I've been a critic of the roof strength of SUVs and pickups. It's not just Explorers, and not just Fords; although some of the worst roof cave-ins I've seen have been Ford pickups and SUVs. So I'm very happy this rollover data may be made public, despite the best efforts of Ford Motor Company to block it.
Snippet: The documents show Volvo engineers determined that roof strength is a key factor in passenger safety in rollover accidents, while Ford has taken the opposite view in court cases...
Ford and other automakers are facing hundreds of lawsuits stemming from rollover accidents where vehicle roofs caved in. Some have resulted in large verdicts against Ford.
Snippet: "If the public was aware of the difference in positions between Ford and Volvo as it relates to safety, it would not be good PR," Tyler said. "The roof crush standard is under review and there are proponets trying to get the federal government to make it a tougher standard to keep people better protected -- and these documents could help make the case."
Ford and Volvo said the documents revealed proprietary information and their release could aid competitors.
It's ironic that data from Ford-owned Volvo could be used against the Mother Ship.
mirth says:
09:30 AM, 05/12/06
I think it's a bunch of junk whose purpose is not to improve the safety of our cars but simply to line the pockets of attorneys. Our court system is way out of control in this country. I could easily see some attorney suing a car company for not providing standard ABS or airbags in the 90's vehicles, or shoulder belts in 70's vehicles.
Frankly, if you really look at the types of cases that get brought into court, almost all of them were the driver's fault. In some cases, the driver was even drunk. But no - it's the car company's fault for not providing a safe enough vehicle. Let's face it - driving a car is not safe. Even if the car companies only made tank-like safety cars that cost $75K a piece to buy, people would still die every year driving them.
ateixeira says:
09:49 AM, 05/12/06
Trucks don't have to meet as many car safety standards, that's the real problem. This exemption was intended for work/fleet trucks, but the loophole is being abused as they're used for personal trucks as well.
The laws should be revised, all passenger vehicles (car or truck) should have to meet the same standard.
Then you can have one simple roof strength standard, and prevent all this.
kurtamaxxxguy says:
10:35 AM, 05/12/06
Yes, the problem is the current safety standards for trucks fit the earlier use of trucks; cargo haulers for work fleets and construction sites.
Now that many Trucks have become passenger cars with an open trunk, shouldn't car safety standards apply to them as well?
mirth says:
11:22 AM, 05/12/06
Yeah, standards are great until some trial lawyer comes and says that just meeting the standard is reckless endangerment. Standards are also a balancing act between safety and price - if you make the standard too high the manufacturers can't afford to build and sell the car, too low and too many people get killed or injured.
I'm not against standards, but no matter what the standard is people are going to get killed driving.
carlisimo says:
11:31 AM, 05/12/06
Standards or no standards, the more information is pubic the better.
rsholland says:
01:55 PM, 05/12/06
It doesn't really cost that much more to make strong roof pillars. Over on one of the Subaru threads not too long ago, there was a link to a web site that's targeted to emergency workers, you know those who arrive at accidents and rescue people.
Well it turns out rescue workers were having a hard time with the Jaws of Life cutting through the "B" pillar on a number of Subarus that were involved in accidents. At some point these rescue workers contacted Subaru of America to find out why their "B" pillar was so strong. They found out Subaru uses re-bar in the "B" pillar, not unlike what you might find in reinforced concrete! Needless to say they have strong roofs.
I'll see if I can find the link, and post it...
rsholland says:
02:07 PM, 05/12/06
Here's the link, but you have to subscribe to it.
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/magazine/article.jsp?id=2111
It's the December 2005 issue of Firehouse magazine. www.firehouse.com
Here's the overview of the article:
Subject: Subaru Ring-Shaped Reinforcement Frame
Topic: Design and construction of Subaru Ring-Shaped Reinforcement Frame
Objective: Develop an action plan for extrication tasks requiring removal of select model Subaru B-pillars
mirth says:
09:00 AM, 05/15/06
"It doesn't really cost that much more to make strong roof pillars."
How do you know? Besides the steel cost, you have to deal with the extra weight, which means having do add more expensive tweaks so that MPG and handling don't suffer. Everything costs.
rsholland says:
09:34 AM, 05/15/06
I can't image it adding more than $50 to the cost of each vehicle. As to extra weight? Maybe 50 pounds, max. Whatever the cost/weight penalities, it's worth it.
rsholland says:
09:36 AM, 05/15/06
Should have read: "I can't imagine..." Sorry...
ateixeira says:
12:56 PM, 05/16/06
I think the point was the Forester is very competitively priced, yet it has a heavily reinforced roof.
Jaws of life can't cut through, eh? I'll be getting another Forester when this one finally gives up on me....