Dear American FG members, help me find and purchase a rwd, V8 powered exotic!

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,729
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I can understand why the front bumper could be perceived (incorrectly) as a problem, but is it really necessary to remove the rear one as well? The stock rear one doesn't look much different from the Ranchhand rear bumper.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I can understand why the front bumper could be perceived (incorrectly) as a problem, but is it really necessary to remove the rear one as well? The stock rear one doesn't look much different from the Ranchhand rear bumper.
The reason behind the ban is pedestrians, as far as I know it does not affect the rear bumper.
 

JipJopJones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,479
Location
North Shore
Car(s)
1979 Cressida Wagon, 1981 Corolla Hardtop
If a pedestrian gets hit with an F350, I think the bumper is giong to make little difference. :lol:
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,729
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Exactly. You're getting hit by a truck that weighs 6000lbs and is travelling at 35+ mph, what does it matter that it's got a brush guard on it? Stupid like most of the Euro pedestrian-safety regs.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
:yawn: most collisions car vs pedestrian happen at less than 35+mph. If you hit him at a speed at which the pedestrian just gets away without serious injury, adding a rigid metal structure to the front will make sure he gets that serious injury.
Might as well say airbags are useless because you die anyway when you crash into a tree at 200mph.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,729
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
You mean like the rigid metal of the leading edge of an F-truck's hood? Or the radiator cross supports? Or even the stock metal bumper, which is made out of .5cm stamped steel?

Even at impacts below 15mph, you'll get hurt just as badly by an F-truck that doesn't have a brush guard as by one with. The heavy duty pickup trucks don't have a front crumple zone.

Edit: Also, what you and those laws are really saying is "European pedestrians are too stupid to avoid getting hit by cars, so we must make it safer for them to be hit by cars."

We don't have that problem, not even in New York City, which is more crowded than most (if not all, but I can't claim that since I haven't been to all of them) major Euro cities.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
If that really was the case then they would need a serious redesign. Not only for pedestrians, front crumple zones are important for the occupants as well.


Seriously though, the point of such a bar is to add rigidity in case of deer impact or whatever. If the front itself was exactly as rigid without the bar, why add the bar? Penis extension?
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,729
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
It's to keep the deer out of the headlights, grille and radiator. That part isn't as rigid as the rest of the structure. These are bracketed by the very very stiff stock bumper and the stiff leading edge of the hood.

Also, if everything else has crumple zones, you don't need them. :D Plus the only things that an F-truck could possibly use crumple zones against are much larger, such as tractor-trailers, in which case a crumple zone would be completely pointless.

It should also be mentioned that a grille guard, by increasing the area of impact, diffuses the kinetic energy transferred throughout the body instead of concentrating it in a relatively narrow zone. It's why a lot of our riot control vehicles now mount grille guards - if you hit someone with the stock bumper, you shatter a leg or pelvis, sometimes beyond surgical repair. If you hit them with the grille guard, you break more bones, but they are broken far less severely, at least at these 'low speed' impacts you propose and that riot control vehicles do encounter. Simple physics of kinetic energy transfer.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
It's to keep the deer out of the grille and radiator. That part isn't as rigid as the rest of the structure.
As a pedestrian, there you have your gain then. With the bar you get a more rigid structure than without, hence more risk of injury.

Also, if everything else has crumple zones, you don't need them.
Trees. Bridges. Houses.

"European pedestrians are too stupid to avoid getting hit by cars, so we must make it safer for them to be hit by cars."
Really? Really?

Ever seen a car stray off the road onto a sidewalk full of pedestrians? Blame the pedestrians, they are stupid Europeans, they should have taken a car to get to the shops 300m away.

It should also be mentioned that a grille guard, by increasing the area of impact, diffuses the kinetic energy transferred throughout the body instead of concentrating it in a relatively narrow zone.


Slightly exaggerating here, but the two vertical structures left and right of the numberplate look almost like a knife edge to me. Physics tells me getting hit by that is not nice. Similar story with the horizontal bars, the grille/hoodlights have a lot more surface area than that bar.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,729
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
No, I haven't, because such an event is exceedingly rare in the US. Despite our "inferior" drivers, a car running off the road onto a sidewalk laden with pedestrians is so rare that it will often get on the national news when it happens. Even in New York City, that only ever happens maybe once every decade or so.

So, are you telling me that Europeans are such terrible drivers that they regularly veer off the road and plow down pedestrians left and right?

As for trees, an F350 will mow most of those down and keep going. Same for houses. Bridges can be a problem, but if you hit a bridge, you're doing something wrong.

The headlights and grille might give way, but then you have the rigid structures they're surrounded by - which means that parts of your body will stop but the part in the middle will keep moving - hey, look, more injuries!

Suggest you look at how 1000J of energy differs in effect depending on how diffused the force is.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
So, are you telling me that Europeans are such terrible drivers that they regularly veer off the road and plow down pedestrians left and right?
Regularly? No. However, shit happens. Everywhere. Take this as an example, http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/SUV-hits-pedestrians-in-Oswego/NbBXOazBGEKehvgqJ5sn1g.cspx - was this national news? Happened in the US... apparently nobody is to blame really, yet pedestrians got hit. Would it be worth investing a bit of thought into reducing their chance of getting hurt? Oh yes.
Apparently American pedestrians are as stupid as European pedestrians, this guy got hit when crossing the street. He should check for cars next time. http://www.wmtw.com/r/25767671/detail.html
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,729
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
So, you think that trucks should have pedestrian guards on their sides? Because that New York crash had the truck sliding broadside on into the pedestrians, not head on. Fail for your cause (I just happened to hear about that because a friend of mine works in the area - and being in the Oswego area, was about the only interesting thing other than the elections that had happened in months.)

Any pedestrian that steps out into traffic without looking should be injured or killed to reduce the percentage of stupid people in the population. Sidewalks are a valid point, but again, it's very rare for someone to get mowed down by a car traveling on the sidewalk. It's just a non-issue here.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
My biggest problem with putting so much focus on pedestrian safety is that it won't accomplish much, not until they take the legislation to it's logical conclusion... banning cars entirely.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
As for trees, an F350 will mow most of those down and keep going. Same for houses. Bridges can be a problem, but if you hit a bridge, you're doing something wrong.
Trees come in lots of sizes.
Apparently you have no well-built houses over there then :lol: a while back a 12ton truck hit a house a few blocks from here, only the outer wall was damaged a bit. For illustration, this is how truck vs house should look like:

If you're doing stuff wrong when hitting bridges, aren't you already doing stuff wrong with the tree or the house?

The headlights and grille might give way, but then you have the rigid structures they're surrounded by - which means that parts of your body will stop but the part in the middle will keep moving - hey, look, more injuries!
Not necessarily more/worse injuries. If you hit something that gives way you get rid of some of the impact, physically speaking you need to be accelerated to the car's speed. After making the grille and lights give way you already gain some speed, making the impact with the rigid structures behind the grille less severe.

So, you think that trucks should have pedestrian guards on their sides? Because that New York crash had the truck sliding broadside on into the pedestrians, not head on. Fail for your cause (I just happened to hear about that because a friend of mine works in the area.)
Even if that specific case was in fact a car going sideways, the principle remains the same. Car hits pedestrians without the pedestrian being at fault.
On the pedestrian guards, our real trucks now have rails or whatever on the side to avoid pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists sliding underneath and getting run over. Those are a good thing.

Sidewalks are a valid point, but again, it's very rare for someone to get mowed down by a car traveling on the sidewalk. It's just a non-issue here.
I've seen it happen 3m in front of me, far away from the road, with a taxi doing the hitting. Turns out afterwards his car was to blame.
Stuff like that also happens across the pond.
http://gothamist.com/2010/10/28/two_elderly_drivers_send_four_peopl.php old person drives into restaurant
http://www.kxlh.com/news/pedestrian-hit-killed-in-late-night-missoula-crash/ pedestrian on sidewalk gets hit

My biggest problem with putting so much focus on pedestrian safety is that it won't accomplish much, not until they take the legislation to it's logical conclusion... banning cars entirely.
"Not much" is better than nothing, or even worse, fitting girders to the front of your car. Just because there may be more effective ways to accomplish some goal doesn't mean less effective ways are pointless, they're a step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
"Not much" is better than nothing, or even worse, fitting girders to the front of your car. Just because there may be more effective ways to accomplish some goal doesn't mean less effective ways are pointless, they're a step in the right direction.
Right, but as with most of these regulations, they won't be satisfied with it. Soon they'll decide to make them even more stringent. In the pursuit of public safety, as noble as that is, I think it's ultimately futile. Even if you strapped a couple old mattresses to your front end, people will still get badly hurt if you crash into them. Maybe they should lower speed limits to around 12mph? Just in case...
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
:yawn: the current regulations inconvenience nobody significantly, but can reduce some injuries. Lose nothing, gain a lot in some cases.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
:yawn: the current regulations inconvenience nobody significantly, but can reduce some injuries. Lose nothing, gain a lot in some cases.
I'm not arguing that. I think cars are better than ever. The only thing I don't like about the latest regs is how much uglier cars are starting to look.

I'm just predicting that the same thing will occur with pedestrian safety measures as did passenger safety measures and fuel economy/emission standards. Every few years they'll put through newer, stricter regulations that force car manufactures to scramble in order to meet them and stay in business. But I don't see how much safer they can get cars for pedestrians, besides reducing speeds or just banning cars from certain high populated areas.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I like my pedestrian-safety-induced bonnet shape.

That's an important area of making cars safer, many deaths in car vs pedestrian accidents come from heads hitting engine blocks because the bonnet was fairly low, directly over the engine, in an attempt to look aerodynamic. The newer, higher bonnets give the head more of a crumple zone. Obviously it's no fluffy pillow, but a lot better than going straight onto the engine block.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Right... they're ugly and bulbous. But that's my only problem with them. Form follows function and all that, I'm fine with it.
 
Top