It’s sort of amazing to realize just how often I’ve been banging on this drum. I first wrote about this problem way back in 2012, then again in 2018, and, thanks to my hard-earned efforts and the vast respect that the automotive and insurance industries have for me, precisely absolutely nothing, give or take one fuck-all, has been done to change the situation. The truth is just the same as it was back over 12 years ago, which is that modern car bumpers are absolutely useless. They’re incapable of doing the job that they need to do, because they, effectively, do not actually exist.
I’m still bothered by this. It bothers me because I vehemently believe one of the best qualities a machine can have is forgiveness. Small errors made by the person operating the machine should be able to be absorbed with as little damage as possible, that’s what I mean by forgiving. And the current state of modern bumpers is decidedly unforgiving.
Car body repair costs are more punishing than ever, and something as simple as backing into a low wall or bollard or underground parking deck support column or anything like that can result in absurd amounts of damage, needlessly.
Just to give this a bit of focus, let’s pay special attention to rear bumpers, because they tend to be where the most common sort of low-speed impacts occur, precisely the sorts of things that bumpers once steadfastly defended. In the present day, though, for far too many cars, rear bumpers are effectively AWOL, and expensive body parts like entire tailgates are left to be the first point of impact in even a small impact.
My co-founder David Tracy has been noticing this too, and made this very helpful video showing some of the worst offenders of this let’s-sacrifice-the-tailgate-for-no-good-reason way of thinking:
View this post on Instagram
Look at that! This is absolutely absurd. Let’s just look closer at some of the examples David pointed out, starting with the Ford Mach-E:
The liftgate or hatch or tailgate or whatever you want to call it, is the first thing that will be contacted if you’re hit from the rear or back into something that’s a certain height. It’s also the largest single body panel on the rear of the car, and is expensive to fix and replace. It’s made of metal, not plastic that can deform at least a little bit, like the bumper cover hiding behind it.
It makes no sense. It’s like, if you’re male, protecting yourself from a fall by pushing your balls out in front of you so they take the initial impact. Nobody would do that. And yet Land Rover does this:
On both of these models, Land Rover Discovery and Range Rover Sport, the tailgate extends rearward further than any sort of bumper, which barely exists, anyway. So, in an impact, it’s the tailgate that gets the whack. I included the service costs for the tailgate here, over two grand, but even that is just a tiny part of what an actual repair would cost, even if they just repaired instead of replacing the tailgate. A small dent could easily run into big bucks to repair.
Here’s a very common example, one that’s actually been noted to be a problem before, the Tesla Model Y hatch:
None of these are okay, and we should stop thinking of this as okay, because it’s very much not. If you back into something in a Model Y, your tailgate is is likely what gets hit. And it is not cheap to fix or replace. The punishment does not fit the crime, and it’s all just from bad design.
This is garbage, absolute garbage. I know all of these cars are safer than old cars when it comes to rear-end collisions, and under all that painted metal and plastic are special impact bars and crumple zones that absorb energy, but those only matter in catastrophic conditions. For day-to-day driving life, these are essentially unprotected rear ends.
It wasn’t always like this, of course.
Cars used to have substantial and very forgiving bumper protection, front and rear, and while there were plenty of people who don’t like the look of the battering ram/diving board/whatever bumpers, these things worked. The 5 mph bumper standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 215 (later 581) demanded that a car could be driven into a flat wall at 5 mph and suffer no damage to critical systems like lights or fuel fillers or even the horn. Some cosmetic damage was acceptable, but no significant body damage was permitted, hence big, rugged bumpers that extended far from the vulnerable body panels and supplementary thick, beefy bumper guards like these:
Sure, laugh at all that black rubber if you like, but you could whack into a dumpster at a good clip and suffer nothing beyond a little jolt that reminds you to pay attention, dummy. That is what I mean by forgiving.
And if you don’t like the look of those, remember, this could be done in an elegant way with body-integrated bumpers, and I know because carmakers did just that. Look at these two rear bumper solutions:
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, companies as different as Porsche and GM both found ways to meet the strict 5 mph bumper standards and still have body-colored, fully integrated bumper solutions that actually worked. So I don’t want to hear any OEMs pissing and moaning about how modern designs aren’t compatible with strong bumpers, because they absolutely could be.
These 5 mph bumper standards came about from pressures from insurance companies who were sick of having such huge payouts for relatively minor wrecks; when Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, he indulged his love of de-regulation by reducing the bumper standards to 2 mph in 1982 and making the damage restrictions more lenient, as well as opening up possibilities for even more lenient standards in the future.
Also, SUVs and trucks always had lower standards, and maybe that was okay when those types of vehicles were uncommon, but almost everything is an SUV or truck now.
Now we’re in the future, and it sucks.
Insurance companies seem to have just decided, screw it, we’ll just charge more for premiums and everyone will just pay more for repairs than ever before, and if they don’t like it, tough.
We shouldn’t have to accept this. The lack of basic, simple protection from small-scale impacts on modern cars isn’t just absurd, it’s stupid. Sensors and cameras are integrated into bumpers, sacrificed at the smallest meeting of machines, taillights and headlamps are at vehicle corners, vulnerable and nauseatingly expensive to replace, everything requires painting, and the whole thing has become this insipid mess where a minor rear end thump can end up costing forty grand.
Why do we accept this?
Besides, I think SUV design could easily make some big, old-school bumpers work, design-wise! I don’t think any car makers will take this path willingly, but perhaps the car-buying public will finally get sick of having to total a car because someone didn’t see a bench or tree stump until it was too late.
I can dream, at least.
Its getting worse. The side of Rivian truck is one piece of aluminum from the rear bumper to the front. And being aluminum, repair shops aren’t allowed to pull dents. So after a very minor hit in the back, they have to replace the entire side of the vehicle for north of $80,000. This happened to Rich Rebuilds on his R1T.
This should not be allowed. Or at least there should be some limit where if the damage for a minor tap exceeds a certain threshold, then the manufacturer has to cover the difference for their foolish design. Functional bumpers would return in short order.
It’s not quite as big as you say. The Autopian even did a piece on it: https://www.theautopian.com/heres-why-that-rivian-r1t-repair-cost-42000-after-just-a-minor-fender-bender/
Secondly, the process has been improving as time has been going on, but yeah, still a shit-show for replacement compared to traditional vehicle repairs.
Finally, the updated R1T is supposed to address several issues like this.
“Insurance companies seem to have just decided, screw it, we’ll just charge more for premiums and everyone will just pay more for repairs than ever before, and if they don’t like it, tough.”
I mean, yeah, insurance companies don’t set regulations. Are you suggesting you want insurance companies to be able to dictate car design? Really, is that the utopia you want to live in? Cars designs dictated by the insurance industry.
That’s a rhetorical question. That answer is NO. So, they have no choice but to take what it is and price their product accordingly.
They kind of are through the IIHS and that’s where the idea for impact bumpers originally came from (I’m not 100% sure if that was insurance industry lobbying or The Man in the guise of the NHTSA on their own trying to reduce costs for the taxpayer, but that sounds more like lobby effort than The Man’s own initiative especially where rates were going way up at the time). Instead of resilient and cheap now, we get fragile, expensive safety theater that enables bad driving and then they complain they have to raise rates to cover the cost of repairs.
The IIHS is a private company that has no rule setting power whatsoever. It only influences consumer buying habits and has no direct authority over anything. So, no, even the IIHS isn’t setting regulations.
I never wrote or implied the IIHS has authority and they don’t need it. OEMs build their cars to excel in IIHS’s scoring system with its ever-stricter testing and standards than the NHTSA’s as they can publicize the safety ratings and use them to potentially stand out against their otherwise very similar competitors, as it’s a major-to-top selling point to the majority of buyers. Things like garbage active “safety” systems, expensive headlights that many people now find to be too blinding, and structures that are far less repairable are things the IIHS has pushed/pushes as part of their scoring (they’ve recently made headlights part of the scoring and penalize for lower end trims sold with less effective—read: cheaper to replace and probably still decent—headlights). The NHTSA is rarely in the forefront of pushing anything and has infamously held back advancements in things like lighting standards. Though the NHTSA been following along with the IIHS a lot closer than historically, they aren’t the driver. So, no, the OEMs aren’t being told they need to do these things by The Man, but the IIHS is driving the marketplace to demand meeting increasingly stricter safety and “safety” through their rating system and I’d argue they’re more effective than the NHTSA could be were they the driver, as the IIHS’s fast moving safety goal posts push the OEMs far more than NHTSA could when working against automotive manufacturer lobby money.
As Cerberus has said, insurance companies already have and definitely can influence car design, and they continue to do so.
Car design being dictated by the insurance industry would most likely result in safe, durable and repairable vehicles, why do you pretend like that’s a bad thing? It would almost certainly be better than the current reality of the EPA dictating car design.
What’s wrong with cars being clean and efficient too?
If Insurance companies dictated car designs then exciting cars that do exciting things would not exist. Fast and powerful cars are inherently more expensive to insure, so we could all be driving whatever the equivalent of Yugo is with no other choice.
I’m fine with “influencing” car design. But not dictating regulations like some people seem to be ok with.
Also, I’m much more accepting of EPA dictating car design as that is a benefit we all enjoy.
This phrase can be applied to an awful lot of things.
jUsT ThRoW aNotHEr SenSoR aT It! /s
Another reason why car insurance shouldn’t be mandatory, and really any insurance for that matter. When it’s legally mandated you buy X good or service the providers of X good or service can charge whatever they want because the government will shove it’s boot so far up your bum you’ll taste the rubber and leather if you don’t pay.
And for some people in some areas they’re being denied car insurance outright (we saw this happen with a lot of Hyundai owners), which effectively makes it illegal for them to drive.
Also it goes without saying that insurance by its nature is designed to take more money in than it pays out, and there has been many a time where insurance companies that couldn’t squirm their way out of paying for stuff have gone under without paying out.
I hate insurance with a passion, I prefer “ensurance” as in doing your best to ensure that shit doesn’t go wrong, and that if it goes wrong you’ll be okay. In this case that’s cars that can handle a 5 MPH crash into the front and or rear bumpers.
What the hell is this nonsense? So, somebody runs into me, leaves the scene and what? I pay out of pocket?
Even if they stay on scene, what if they don’t want to pay? Small claims court every time? That would just be insurance the long way around and with a good chance that they don’t have enough money to pay you anyway.
Insurance has it’s problems, but the alternative is a libertarian hellscape (wet dream?) of lawsuits and roadside brawls.
Not just brawls, but shootings in the US. It’s a rage-inducing event as it is, but at least insurance is there to mitigate such things.
Put a lien on all their shit. Tada. Also as stated above there’s nothing stopping you from having insurance, which would be cheaper if not mandatory.
Can you put a lein on crushing debt and a rented garage full of useless garbage?
You can one on everything they own if need be.
What if they don’t own shit?
Have fun with your new collection of empty whiskey bottles, soiled underwear and cigarette butts.
That works so well when the at fault driver is an illegal alien, w/a fake drivers license and a mandatory insurance card leading to a policy that was cancelled the day after the registration for the car was issued. (Ask me how I know).
And how would mandatory insurance help you in the situation you described?
Aaannndd… it didn’t. Pointing out that mandatory insurance isn’t the panacea that some think it is. The only defense is to carry full coverage on anything you can’t comfortably walk away from.
My bad. I thought there was something I was missing. Sorry that happened to you man.
Also happened to my daughter, parked overnight, in her driveway. Illegal alien ran away after the crash.
Double oof
Something something non aggression principle. Something something gold fringes.
There’s nothing stopping you from having insurance without the Government mandating it.
Fleeing the scene of an accident is still illegal. Does it happen? Sure.
If they’re driving without insurance it’s still your insurance that pays out.
Most people I know have never been in any accident with another automobile.
What if somebody accidentally crashes into me with their riding lawnmower and doesn’t have lawnmower insurance?
If we didn’t have car insurance, we’d treat civil liability in car crashes……… Exactly how we already treat all other civil liabilities. Not really complicated.
I can see an argument for no comprehensive insurance, if you really want to roll the dice and risk your own vehicle, but as somebody who’s been hit by an uninsured motorist, I fully agree with the notion that if you don’t have liability coverage, you shouldn’t be on the road. Period. I’d argue it’s as dangerous to others as drunk driving, substituting financial danger for the physical danger you’re imposing on others.
I’ve heard nasty tales (not sure if they’re true) of cases where certain religious sects got out of the liability coverage requirements due to their “religious convictions” and have gone on to cause accidents that left the innocent party with huge medical bills and/or life long medical expenses (paralysis, quadriplegia, etc…). “God’s will”, they say, leaving the victims financially ruined for life.
Driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege, and if you can’t afford to play, stay off the field.
And as for the Hyundai/Kia coverage, that’s a due diligence issue on the part of the buyer. It’s not the insurance companies’ fault you picked a faulty vehicle. I once owned a Kia, but I never will again.
I’ve always like the idea of bundling basic liability insurance into the gas tax. This is directionally correct on many levels….Heavier vehicle, more gas, more insurance…Drive fast, more gas, more insurance….Drive a lot, more gas, more insurance…you get the idea. EV’s throw a wrench into it, but I’m sure we could figure it out.
With BEVs you could apply it to public chargers and registration fees. However, the current plan to increase EV adoption is to subsidize it so it’s more affordable.
Once BEV adoption is no longer an issue the rates will get jacked up to make up for the difference. Public charging fees, registration fees, etc.
Considering how long it takes to get treatment with the VA and the quality of treatment vets get from the VA, it doesn’t give me hope for any sort of government provided insurance.
Yet people run bald summer tires in the snow and face no legal trouble. I’m a big proponent of ‘if you can’t afford good tires you can’t afford to own a car’. I’ve heard and witnessed plenty of nasty deals with insurance refusing to pay out leaving the victim either bankrupt or in a protracted lawsuit with their own insurance company, or totaling a car after minor damage (including on this site via Torch).
With Hyundai/Kia coverage a ton of owners who owned models and or sub variants of models not affected by the theft issue (manual transmission ones) they still were often outright refused to be insured or had their premiums jacked up to an unaffordable level.
If you can’t afford to play, stay off the field.
But that doesn’t mean you have to have insurance. That just means you have to be able to afford to pay.
True enough, if we want to dabble in the edge cases. Liquidity and ego issues aside (“I’m rich enough to self insure” when in fact you’re not), the answer here is to basically become your own insurance company. If that’s what you want to do, go for it.
It would probably be less trouble to pay an existing insurer though.
Every state I’ve been in regulates the amount of profit an insurance company can make. They are required to pay out a certain percentage of their revenue in claims, or lower their premiums. This is why during 2020 when people weren’t driving, many insurance companies sent policy holders “bonus” checks. They would fallen afoul of regulations if they kept the money.
On the flip side, see the GR Corolla bumper – is there a middle ground somewhere? I’d certainly take an extra 3-4″ of hatchback cargo space…
Trailer hitch?
This! Drives me bonkers when I see people driving around with the hitch on when it is so easy to remove and such a minor action could lead to so much less damage in a collision!
It’s so annoying. I literally only have mine on when I’m actively towing something and it takes me a whole 10 minutes only because I have to fish the wires back up behind the bumper cover and secure them with Velcro using the tow hook hole and in my case, the hitch is so low that most vehicles would miss it (might take out their oil pans, which would serve them right for rear-ending me, but I still don’t want to be that guy).
Since its the other guy’s problem it’s up to them to be careful!
(Or something like that.)
Well maybe I WANT you to have extra damage as punishment for running into me!!!!
/jk
When I was younger, I bashed my knee into one in a dark parking lot. 30 years later, my knee still bugs me sometimes and I wish my younger self would have known enough to track down the driver and file a claim with their insurance company. Remove your D*MN drawbar. If you are EVER injured by a drawbar, file a claim.
as a corollary to that many cars are being now produced with the turn signals styled below the “bumper”. In big city rush hour where you are literally bumper to bumper they are often invisible. They are crucial and belong at the same height of the other rear lights.
Plus, that’s just not where I expect to see turn signals. Back in olden times, when they were low (like a ’82 Malibu wagon) it was obvious what they were because they were the only lights on the back. Now you’ve got some cars that have brake lights up high and the turn signals are a bit hidden down low. WHY!?
Oh boy, another screw-up we can thank Reagan for. What a terrible course he set us on.
Why are all the air traffic controllers retiring at once?
Oh, right.
I think a very important part of growing up is hating Reagan. Doesn’t matter where on the political spectrum you are, he screwed you at least in one major way.
*Unless you were rich during his reign or got rich from being allowed to take advantage of the working class
Yes, there is an entire segment of the population that still worships at the altar of Ronzo. And not just the ones enriched by the Reagan administration’s cronyism — no plenty of them got screwed over by the polices, and yet come back with a “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
I generally avoid the politics, but the Reagan administration’s economic policies are at the roots of so much of today’s ongoing economic ills. It’s not that I’m being anti-capitalist, even. It’s just been bad even for capitalism itself. The wealthiest corporations (which continue to get larger and wealthier through never-ending mergers and acquisitions) have managed to hijack the capitalist system so that there’s no longer any risk for them. They will collect as much profit as they want, one way or another. The only ones at risk are the smaller companies that don’t have the financial resources to stave off the onslaught of the mega-corps seeking to put them out of business. Meanwhile, consumers lose out on choice, workers face stagnant wages, and even white-collar workers and executives at lesser companies face job insecurity. There’s absolutely nothing to admire about what the Reagan administration did to the economy.
Also getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine gave rise to the insidious rage-o-tainment news we have now.
My college degree is in broadcast communications. I graduated in 1989. Don’t get me started on that, or I’ll start ranting like Adrian… “Paint-drinking thundercocks!”
I’d actually want to read that, but I know when it’s better that I’m not encouraged for certain things, so I’ll give the same courtesy and juse offer sympathy.
Plus, creating or at least training and funding the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, backing the narco-cartels in South America all in the name of fighting communism.
And yet, compared to the current crop of Republicans, the shit Reagan did was relatively mild compared to the Crooked Trump years as well as what is likely in the plans if Crooked Trump gets back into office.
And I have to wonder… how many of the people who say they hate Reagan continue to vote Republican?
The taillights/headlights at the corners might be the even bigger issue than damaging the hatch. Modern LED light assemblies cost thousands, and it’s only getting worse. How much do you think it is to replace the motorized light show that are the headlights on the EX90? *shudder*
Parts for newer cars are insanely expensive. I drive a 2023 Hyundai Santa Cruz Night Edition. Sticker was just a tick north of $38k. I paid a little under that.
I recently went to the dealer to get a paint stick to touch up a few rock chips on my hood. It was $40. I commented to the parts clerk at the dealership that if I had to assemble the car from parts, I’m driving a $275,000 vehicle.
He replied with zero irony in his voice, “That sounds about right.”
Order them online. You can get more for less. I got a whole kit—primer-base-clear including small brushes for about 1/2-3/4 of that and likely more volume of each.
Rebuilding a car from the parts department has always been many multiples of the sticker price. The dollar in recent has gone crazy in the last few years, but I’m uncertain as to the percentages involved.
From the NHTSA to a Senator asking about bumper and lamps:
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Dear Senator Feingold:
Thank you for your October 7, 2004, letter on behalf of your constituent regarding bumper and lighting regulations. Specifically, your constituent is concerned about vehicle compatibility and the height of bumpers and lamps on certain vehicles. I appreciate the opportunity to address your constituents concerns.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues standards and regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA regulates bumpers on passenger cars (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 581), but not on multipurpose passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles), because such regulation could significantly reduce their utility. For vehicles subject to our bumper standards, the bumper must be located at the height of not more than 20 inches above ground.
We note that the agency is very concerned with vehicle compatibility in multi-vehicle crashes. Bumper height is one of the factors affecting vehicle compatibility. In June of 2003, NHTSA published a report describing the scope of the safety problem represented by vehicle incompatibility and outlined strategies the agency plans to pursue in improving vehicle compatibility. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/IPTVehicleCompatibilityReport/. We have enclosed a copy of the report for your information. Currently, NHTSA and its global partners are conducting research to determine the best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility. NHTSA is also working with vehicle manufacturers to minimize the effects of vehicle incompatibility and to develop consumer information related to this issue.
With respect to headlamp location, the Federal lighting standard (49 CFR 571.108) requires that the headlamps for all new vehicles be located between 22 inches and 54 inches above the road surface. Subsequent reinstallation of headlamps at a different height by a dealer or a repair business is also prohibited.
We note that the bumper and headlamp height issues raised by your constituent may not be the product of improper installation of those items, but instead may stem from raising or otherwise altering the vehicle suspension system. While this agency does not regulate suspension alterations, some states may do so. Accordingly, we suggest that your constituent contact the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of General Counsel at (608) 266-8810 or ogc.exec@dot.state.wi.us to ascertain Wisconsin regulations pertaining to vehicles suspension systems, bumper height, and lighting.
If you or your constituent have any further questions regarding this issue, you may contact Scott Brenner, Associate Administrator for External Affairs, at (202) 366-2566.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:581#108
d.11/19/04
See, AI is making us more productive.
20 years ago, yeesh
Also, good on Mr. Feingold for what seems to be actually following through on a constituent’s concern?
Get the Bishop to add bumpers to modern SUVs as a design exercise.
Seconded.
Similar issue for headlight and taillights, even relatively entry level vehicles have exorbitantly priced lens assemblies these days. Take a Nissan Versa, when a friend bumped into a dumpster this spring, the entire taillight assembly online was $45, if it were a current generation, its a two-part assembly where each half is at least $65, so $130 if you break both parts. The same goes for every other vehicle, 2022 Accord headlight? Try $400+. 2003 Accord? $75. While purchase prices for vehicles are roughly on par (may slightly ahead) of their inflation-adjusted forebears, the replacement part costs will never be. It’s the unfortunate price you pay for modern power, efficiency, technology, and safety.
NGL $400 seems cheap for a new headlight. I would assume most are $1k plus.
My wife tapped a Model Y at maybe 5km/h this weekend and yeah, big dent on the tailgate. Her forester is fine. Can’t even tell if the mark on her car is fresh or if it is from being 12 years old and various marks left by others (or our kids running into it with bikes etc).
Side note, the other lady didn’t have valid insurance so seems like it’ll be a big her problem pretty soon.
True story: I hit a building with my ’71 Challenger and it suffered no damage at all.
I had sold a VW Squareback to buy the Dodge, which had roughly four acres of hood, and when I zipped into a parking space I quickly ran out of room – THUD.
One embarrassing reversal and inspection of the car and the building revealed no damage to the Mopar and only a black mark on the [concrete block] building to show where the bumper overrider made contact.
This reminded me of my first car, a 1978 Chevy Caprice Estate Wagon. I was backing out of my narrow parking space and turned the wheels a little too early. the bumper clipped the brick building I was parked next to and loosened one of the bricks.
No damage to the car. And I shoved the brick back where it went. It was an old building and it’s possible the brock was pretty loose. Either way, it was Chevy bumper vs building and Chevy bumper won.
Yeah, but the Chevy Caprice Wagon was a literal tank, if I remember properly. At least that’s what the long 75 on the roof said…
Red Fang taught me that a ’79 Impala wagon will drive through all kinds of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQPfQvLIseA
That was true all the way into the ’90s. I put my first car (a hand-me-down ’91 Pontiac Sunbird) into…more than one thing at low speeds and it was entirely unscathed throughout. Until it threw a rod in traffic and that’s all she wrote.
I recently talked to an owner of a body shop chain in the LA area; he first mentioned how difficult sourcing parts was during COVID and how that has mostly been resolved. The second thing he mentioned was how individual parts are insanely expensive now. LED headlight assemblies can cost thousands. It makes me wonder what the automotive landscape would look like if cheaper parts and repairability were prioritized over unique styling. Surely, if there was an industry-wide shift, auto insurance rates would fall, as would purchase price, and maintenance costs. Sadly, this desire does not align with insurers and auto-makers desire to make more money. Bring back the 5 mph bumper and the sealed beam headlight!
I don’t want the sealed beam that we had, though. I’m sure they could come up with something that worked better that could be cheap and standardized (and being glass, was far more resilient to road rash, if not larger stones, and didn’t yellow) or even just simpler aero units with replaceable standard bulbs like they used to have. They could be halogen, LED, whatever, but they should be hanging from hooks at almost any auto parts place for under $20. Lights have gotten too bright now, anyway (though poor optics and aiming don’t help).
YMMV but the auto-aiming headlights on my Golf are fuckin’ *great* on a dark country road. Sure, they’ll stop working if a spider builds a nest in the tiny hole that drains condensation, costing you thousands, but that doesn’t mean they’re not a great piece of technology!
I’m of 2 minds about the ridiculous prices of lighting assemblies. I hate halogen lamps & bulbs. Weak, yellowish beam that barely shines past the lens with a poor pattern to make up for it. I love the bright, white light w/ sharp cutoff of LED or high intensity discharge headlights. I feel I can see much farther down the road w/o blinding oncoming drivers (except at the top of a hill). OTOH, the poverty spec halogens may be $100 to replace the assembly and $30 to replace the burned out lamp (plus dealer installation charge because the front end has to be disassembled to install the damn things. Self adjusting LEDs or worse, lasers, may be up to $2000 to replace the assembly (and you can’t replace the lighting element).
j
Hey, Jason, stop looking at my car’s ass!!
Where is the aftermarket for bumpers? Hell, where is the dealer market for bumpers? I mean, sure the car reaches some MPG requirement, but what if I’m willing to sacrifice a few MPG for a lower second term of this equation?
P(accident) * (cost to repair said accident)
yeah, but there are ways to have an actual bumper and get good mpg/ aerodynamics. my first gen insight does it, great aero and actual bumpers (that I have accidentally used on occasion) they aren’t as good as the bumpers on my 2nd Gen Explorer, but they still can shrug off low speed bumps
*&%$#@!
Ex bumper prototyper !
Q*Bert, is that you?
I too have been complaining about these for years. It’s all in the name of aerodynamics, and I get that, but yeah with all these stupid “safety” features, cars are insanely expensive to repair and it doesn’t need to be the case! Sure, I get trying to prevent crashes and get good fuel economy, but just once, can we get a car that’s designed to not be totaled in the crash?! Please? I had an old accord for a few years, and somehow got rear ended 4 times in it. You know how much damage it did? None. Not a bit. I am sure there were new scratches from each, but nothing that mattered or that needed to be fixed. These days that would be 4 new cars.
And yeah when the fancy LED headlights on the newer Accords would be the first thing to make contact, that’s a problem.
Aerodynamics can be improved with properly designed bumpers, as Jason’s examples illustrate. Weight of EPP bumper core of meaningful dimensions would be approximately one pound, and could restore the 5mph impact without damage. The cost to a manufacturer of mass production is under five bucks per vehicle. It is insane, that we insurance customers, are allowing this madness to continue!
By the time manufacturers started rolling out new models designed from the start with 5mph bumpers instead of retrofitting them to older designs, they had become pretty well integrated. When the standard was loosened, some cars just had weaker bumper assemblies substituted with no visual change to the appearance
My ’90 Legacy wagon got rear-ended by a fish face Chrysler Concorde corner-to-corner without even a scuff. Chrysler likely needed a new headlight unit and bumper cover. The Legacy’s bumpers weren’t technically impact units, but even the covers were durable AF—thick material and seemingly designed with strength in mind (or just a good byproduct of the design). I also used to ram large snowman-belly-sized snow balls that rolled off the sides of plows on the highway to see them explode and it took years of that for it to even affect the panel gaps. Some wuss car today would probably throw up a Christmas tree of lights for the stupid “safety” crap that would get damaged and cost a few grand to repair on the first hit. I’ll take resilient and cheap over expensive, annoying, dubious “safety” features.
Haha yeah I used my Accord to put shopping carts away, or maybe I just rammed into them. Never an issue from it
A few times people blocked my early ’80s Subarus in and I’d just push them until I had the room to get out. Never left a mark, though I don’t know about their parking pawls.
Remember when jeeps came with just 2 metal hoops called bumperettes and they were even an option.
Lets not act for a second like the auto manufactures aren’t in on this.
Yeah why make something repairable when they can just sell a new car every time someone backs up too far when parking
This has long been my suspicion with Tesla. It seems their cars are designed to be totaled a lot quicker then others. And in most cases if a Tesla is totaled, the owner will buy another Tesla, because there aren’t enough immediately available similar quality products to replace with. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this be about 3-5% or total tesla sales.
It wouldn’t surprise me, but I don’t know how much control they actually have. It’s the insurance companies who have decided that everything is totaled lately. But that does come down to the lack of parts availability and yeah the difficulty in doing repairs. EVs especially with the overstated fire risk, many body shops won’t touch them even for simple repairs.
They found another cash cow, and they’re gonna use it until the government says they can’t.
There’s a reason tailgates are expensive and rear bumpers are non-existent…
You mean crash cow?
COTD
Bumper level rear indicators. Because good job, SUVs, trucks, and anything with a long hood idling behind you can’t see whatever you are signaling.
Especially with Cadillac SUV’s with hoods that are literally as tall (if not taller) than a 2020(ish) Honda Accord.
You have many logical and sensible ideas and requests. I love them, but those responsible for the insanity hate us.