roll cage in a car - why not?

[vandal]

So is having an exposed roll cage in a car really all that bad? They've proven to be life savers in race cars, so why not use them in regular passenger cars? My first guess would be, they're just too damn ugly. But, are they really?

I think they look alright, and I wouldn't mind purchasing a car that had one. Okay, maybe they'd look a little weird in sedans, but in sports cars, they'd definitely have a place. So, why not? Is there a functional reason why car manufacturers don't include them?

We've all seen the videos of race cars slamming into walls at 150MPH, then flipping over about 10 times, and after all that, the driver is able to walk away from it. Can't that be attributed to the fact that the roll bars were there?

Now, granted, there are other safety measures in place, like a helmet, and not to mention seat belts that hold practically every part of the body down, but I'm willing to say that the main reason is because of the roll cage.

So, why not apply the same safety practices that NASCAR, the NHRA, the NIRA, etc. use, with regard to the roll cage, in street cars?

[Chas.E]

Some sports cars have shipped with roll bars. IIRC, Most Shelby Mustang models shipped with roll bars. Jeeps and some current convertibles have roll bars. But the roll bars take a lot of space and intrude into the passenger compartment. It makes it uncomfortable for the passengers.

[cornflakes]

Originally posted by vandal
Is there a functional reason why car manufacturers don't include them?To some extent, they do include them. Modern unbody cars have a reinforced cage around the passenger compartment, with crumple zones front and rear to absorb impact. I have heard of a few examples of cars that were totalled in accidents where the front and/or rear ends were crushed, yet the doors still opened normally. The passenger area was still intact.

A full-sized, traditional roll bar might be a problem without helmets and five-point harnesses, as people would hit their heads in minor accidents or during rough driving. Even in race cars, they recommend several inches of space between the harnessed driver and any part of the roll cage (IIRC, the spine can extend three to five inches during an impact.)

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by vandal
So, why not apply the same safety practices that NASCAR, the NHRA, the NIRA, etc. use, with regard to the roll cage, in street cars?

cornflakes has it right. As to why not include additional stiffening or an extra bit of roll cage, well, the real driver is cost. Plain and simple.

[handy]

You can have a roll cage added to your car if you want. Just find someone in the phone book who does that sort of work. I think they weigh a bit too much & thus are not practical.

[lucwarm]

I agree with the person who said that cars already have roll cages of sorts.

I believe that you can buy racing type roll cages that will fit into a "stock" car. One problem is that a good cage will intrude into the rear seating area, possibly making it uncomfortable, or even unusable.

Possibly, a cage would also make it harder to get in and out of the car, since there may be a metal bar you'll have to step over.

I think that part of what's at work here is consumer preference. People are unwilling to pay a little more for a car that is safer and less convenient to use. In fact, in the United States, I believe that many safety features in cars are installed as a result of government mandates as opposed to consumer demand.

[DougC]

- - - The problem with the factory including an actual "roll bar" as standard equipment is that idiot drivers can then sue if they roll and get hurt at all, because the roll bar didn't give "sufficient protection". This is why factory pickup trucks have "light bars" instead of actual roll bars. The cost of the roll bar itself is a consideration after the fact; from a litigation standpoint, it's safer for the manufacturer not to claim any safety benefits at all. - MC

[Johnny L.A.]

Inconvenience for the user, possible injuries by people not wearing helmets, and post-crash lititgation have been covered. But how often really do cars roll over? Sometimes. Sometimes they go over an embankment, too. But the majority of crashes aren't roll-overs. I think their utility is outweighed by their monetary and non-monetary costs.

[cornflakes]

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
...But the majority of crashes aren't roll-overs....

Well, thanks for the invitation to fly off on a tangent. :rolleyes: I've wondered about this for a while (and should have spent more time condensing this. Sorry.)

Passenger cars use different safety equipment, in part, because most people would hate wearing a helmet, fire suit and 5-point harness. Perhaps another reason the equipment is different is because the accidents are different.

Street cars are t-boned, run head-on into each other and fly off the road. Usually, the front corners, rear or sides are hit and the way that they are hit can be predicted and modeled. On the track, everyone at least starts out going in the same direction, and if there's an accident, everyone is ready. Once the cars do hit each other, they tend to be spinning, and there's no way to predict which side will be hit. Furthermore, the rules at local tracks generally allow for some variation in design (and of course, racers never bend the rules to their advantage.) In any case, T-bones are rare, and head-ons are nearly nonexistent (and yes, the concrete walls are hard, but are rarely run into head-on.)

Now, this is just a WAG, but I think that I'd rather have a lap and shoulder belt hold me not-too-tightly (relatively) in an anti-submarine design seat while I run into an airbag than be held tightly in a hard aluminum seat as my helmeted head hyperextends my neck, BUT I would rather be strapped in tightly if I had no idea which side of my spinning car was going to hit the wall or a car I was just racing.

Anyone care to comment? Did anyone read this?

[Drahcir]

The earlier, unsafe cars with no safety items, like in the 50s, could tumble down a hill and arrive at the bottom, battered but with the roof intact. It was not the same for the passengers, who either got tossed out of the windows or turned into very 'soft' people when most of their bones broke while being tumbled around the inside.

Newer cars, mainly 'economy' ones do not have strong roofs. Car builders figure that unless you are willing to buy the top of the line, you can make due with 'crush zones' that might distort the frame enough to keep the roof from turning you into hamburger. It would not be too hard for them to stiffen the roof supports, but even though they make major profits each year, they keep cutting corners and crying poor mouth.

I figure that 'crush zones' are the new way for saying 'we took out the reinforcements to save money and to guarantee if you wreck you will do the maximum amount of damage possible at the least possible speed so you will have to get a whole new car or tremendously expensive repairs with our 'genuine' parts which are no different from the 'cheap' parts but we made a deal with insurance companies to say they were.' (Whew!)

If you happen to get injured or dead in the wreck, well, they're sorry but blame the high union wages and expensive safety standards and pollution requirements for us economizing.

They won't mention that they are unwilling to drop the yearly profit picture one thin dime to save more lives.

[racinchikki]

cornflakes -- nothing to add. Total agreement. (One small extra point, slight hijack -- professionals, at least, now use a strap or other device to hold the helmet in place to avoid hyperextension of the neck; the main problem now is that the head doesn't move, but the brain DOES, causing parts to come unsnapped -- believed to be the cause of death for two NASCAR drivers this season. End of hijack.)

[cornflakes]

Just stumbled across this:

Crumple zones in action. (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2398/Neon/neon.html)

FWIW, here's (http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/pdpr/images/minicage.jpg) an example of a racing roll cage (I know that most don't need an example, but just in case...)

[waterj2]

Drahcir, if car companies didn't profit from making cars, why would they actually do it? How high do you think their profits are anyways? Looking at Yahoo's financial profiles, it says that DialmerChrysler has a profit margin of 3%, Ford is up there at 3.6%, while GM splits the difference at 3.2%.

So, yeah, cars could be made a little safer if the car companies didn't bother to make money off of the deal. But I doubt it really do all that much. Especially if they are as dependant on using inferior parts as you claim.

[Pigs in Space]

Originally posted by Drahcir
I figure that 'crush zones' are the new way for saying 'we took out the reinforcements to save money and to guarantee if you wreck you will do the maximum amount of damage possible at the least possible speed so you will have to get a whole new car or tremendously expensive repairs with our 'genuine' parts which are no different from the 'cheap' parts but we made a deal with insurance companies to say they were.' (Whew!)


Think of crumple zones like this: there's a lot of energy that needs to be absorbed in a crash. That energy can be absorbed by a crumple zone, or by your body. Your choice.

[neuroman]

Originally posted by waterj2
Drahcir, if car companies didn't profit from making cars, why would they actually do it? How high do you think their profits are anyways? Looking at Yahoo's financial profiles, it says that DialmerChrysler has a profit margin of 3%, Ford is up there at 3.6%, while GM splits the difference at 3.2%.

So, yeah, cars could be made a little safer if the car companies didn't bother to make money off of the deal. But I doubt it really do all that much. Especially if they are as dependant on using inferior parts as you claim.
Well, when Daimler Chrysler is earning $151 billion, a 3% margin turns a cool $4.5 billion in profit. I'm not exactly worried about them going out of business. (Click here (http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/investor/reports/annual99/download/kenn_e.pdf) to see DC's 1999 annual report in pdf format.)

Drahcir is right, the car companies are willing cut all sorts of corners. When you are moving many millions of cars a year, shaving a nickel here and there in parts really adds up. I think our cars are pretty safe however, so I don't have any major gripes.

[waterj2]

I was certainly not trying to imply that the car companies are on the verge of going broke or anything, just that they're not marketing vastly substandard cars in order to make out like bandits. I don't think 3-4% is an unreasonable percentage. Especially when you consider that years with a net loss are not unheard of.

[Feynn]

Many cars have been designed around a roll cage with Saabs and Saturns coming to mind. My Four-runner had an external roll cage behind the back seats and my Land Cruiser had an external cage as well. This was due to the fact that both could be made into convertibles and because they could and were used in an off road capacity where a rollover was more likely. In most cases an external roll cage would be more of a hazard to passengers than of benefit.

Cars of today are safer than ever, just because they are designed to absorb impact energies doesn't mean that they are poorly constructed. Our 91 Dodge Spirit was hit by a 3/4 ton truck doing 50 mph in an intersection. The front end of the car was mush but the passenger compartment containing my then pregnant wife was completely intact. She broke her ankle on the brake pedal. The car did what it was supposed to do. I can always buy another car... Lola and my daughter are irreplaceable.

[Opengrave]

A lot about modern cars being safe is true. I flipped a Cadallac El Dorado end-over-end, twice, and came to rest upside down on the roof, the roof supported the entire weight of the car and I was able to crawl out through the drivers window. I went from 100+ mph to 0 in about 100yds and walked away with only minor scratches from broken glass. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, and structural reinforcement all helped save my life. I won't even go into the GOD factor because believe me, if you had seen the accident site and the car, there's no way I should be here right now.

[Drahcir]

The top of the line cars are safer than the less expensive ones. The metal in most cars is thinner than ever before, the chassis is gone, strong bumpers are a thing of the past, passenger car side door reinforcements are gone, and many exterior body parts are fiberglass or plastic.

All designed to trim weight for better gas mileage, I know, but I've never seen cars crumple up as badly as those do within the past twenty years than the ones we have now. Yes, I know people survive more, but we have airbags, padded dashes, collapsible steering columns, better seat belts, crash glass, and the cars themselves are lighter.

I've watched the crash tests on economy to medium priced cars and noticed that the economy car 'crush zone' extends far into the drivers compartment and almost as much on the medium one. Roofs crush flat in roll overs far too often for my taste. On the road I've seen small fender benders at 5 mph rip up the front end of cars as if dynamight went off under the hood!

The car I owned in the early 70s hit the back of a truck doing 5 mph and only dented the front chrome bumper a bit, and did no damage at all to the truck. I owned a 1978 Impala and when it was parked, a driver careened off of the highway at 30 mph, hit the thing in the rear left corner, pushed it through a phone booth and over a curb. The rear end was lifted high from the impact and the corner was crumpled, but the thing was drivable! No damage to the passenger compartment, a dent on the front from mowing down the booth, and the car started right up.

The other car, a current one for the year, was almost totaled. The Impala had a heavy chassis and heavy bumpers mounted to it. Most cars do not have a chassis anymore. I was hit in a small car, in 1990, and I don't recall the type, but it was a 1989 compact. Even though I steered out of the way of the approaching car and was still moving when he rammed me at 90 degrees in the front, the impact rendered my car unusable. The right front was hit and flattened, the wheel there exploded, the passenger door buckled, the front brakes went out but the rear one's held, and the engine compartment distorted.

He was doing about 10 mph as he pulled out of a side road. I was doing about 45, but braked and moved off at a 45 degree angle to keep from T-boning him. None of us were hurt, but my engine failed and would not restart and the damage was around $4,000. Had he hit me in the side, the car would have buckled. His car, a current medium sized Ford, had the front end smashed into the engine, the hood sprung, and was undrivable. In my opinion, the amount of damage received by both cars was far too much for the type of impact.

I'm inclined to think that crush zones are an expensive alternative to other forms of safety. There used to be shock absorbing bumpers which did the same but they stopped making them. With crush zones, the repair industry is having a booming business.

I was rammed by an illegal passer when I owned a 1964 Ford Falcon (no jokes please) and all it did was dent the fender and bend the bumper. I hammered the bumper out and slapped on Bondo and my father took the bumper off and hammered it back into shape with a sledge hammer.

Same impact today in a similar sized car would require a couple of thousand in repairs.

[dead0man]

Why do you(drahcir) hate modern cars so much? Becuase you dont have to adjust the points on them every 6 months? Becuase they get more than 12 mpg? Becuase they have cd players FM radio and cold A/C? Comfortable seats and batteries that last 6 years? Not to mention tires that are 10 times better than they were just 20 years ago. Or all the "little" conviences the modern car has. Power mirrors, windows, locks, BRAKES and STEERING. Remote keyless entry and accurate gauges are pretty nice too. All this and better for the enviroment too. And yet we still have people who miss there dads '56 Pontiac with the cool dashboard you could put magnets on. Or your head. And couldnt stop or turn all that well. Aaaahhh, but that car could go through grade school. Sure I like to see the old cars on the road and they made some really nice cars back in the day. For the time. By todays standards they suck. If you want a huge unsafe vehicle, buy an SUV.

[DougC]

- - - dead0man, I'd bet you're a teenager, aren't you?
- *Some* people want an old car because it reminds them of their youths. A teenager would not understand this.
- *Some* people want an old car because environmental concerns are quite distant in their minds, and really, should be -no matter what Al Gore said when he was on MTV. A teenager would not understand this.
- *Some* people want an old car because it's safer in a crash, and they have become aware of their own mortality. A (typical) teenager would not understand this.
- *Some* people want older cars because they are often less expensive to keep running than newer cars no longer covered by factory warranties. Most teenagers would not understand this.
- And finally, *some* people want to be able to spend their money as they please, with minimal government interference. It's called "freedom of choice", and you don't get it everywhere you go. Most teenagers would not understand this either. - MC

[dead0man]

Wow, I am neither offended nor a teenager. But nice try. I am "young" I guess (27) but I do love a lot of old cars. There probably not the old cars your thinking of but I do like old cars none the less. With few exceptions they are all European though. A '49 Mercury is cool and some pre-war American car companies had some nice looking cars. I would not want to drive one on a daily basis. Cars that remind of my youth are some of my favorite cars. '79 to '85 Mazda RX-7s are on my top ten list. My environment statement was an afterthought and more of a bonus in the new car/old car debate. I believe the "I'm safer in an old car because its bigger" is usually BS. Yes, when you hit me in my '00 VW Golf 1.8T with your '79 LeSabre going 55 mph, I will die and you will live. Is that safe? If I hit you doing the same speed. I die and you live. So we should all drive big old cars? Nope. Freedom of choice. I chose to put my life in your hands every time I fall behind the wheel. I will give you the cheaper to repair thing. Unless its not a Camaro, Mustang or most other American cars between '49 to present. I'd be willing to be it can be a challenge to get a fender for say a '62 fiat. And I am all for freedom of choice. You should be able to drive whatever the hell you want to. As long as it can stop.

[Drahcir]

All designed to trim weight for better gas mileage, I know, but I've never seen cars crumple up as badly as those do within the past twenty years than the ones we have now. Yes, I know people survive more, but we have airbags, padded dashes, collapsible steering columns, better seat belts, crash glass, and the cars themselves are lighter.

Did that not explain that I am aware and accepting of all of the modern luxuries? Modern, ear shattering stereo with radical tone speakers and a stereo AM/FM/Tape player/CD entertainment set in the dash that lights up like an aircraft control panel does one little good when it is imbedded in your rib cage because the car maker 'economized' a touch.

Well, I suppose you could listen to it after a wreck, while waiting for the rescue squad to lift the flattened roof off of your crushed body.

I love Toyo Tires. They have never worn out on me, but have, after many years, actually rotted on the car. The rubber pulled away from the belting, creating interesting bumps. They lasted twice as long as previous tires, so I could not complain.

I enjoy the more environmentally friendly engines, but the government had to step in and give the car makers an ultimatum about using the technology they already had to make them better.

I would think that if you make a product of mass transportation, you know that you are holding the very lives of the buyers in your hands, so you would produce the safest design possible. Car makers do not. They cite cost, expenses and on and on and then turn out vehicles designed to be family cars that turn into crumpled tinfoil upon impact.

The technology of the race car is proof that cars can be made safer. Those designers want their drivers to survive. The body comes apart when it hits a wall at about 150 mph, but the driver walks away. Putting something similar into a car is, expensive, will alter the design, will increase the weight, and people will not buy it, so says the automobile makers. The latter part is their main concern, but if all dealers add crash cages, then the public will have no choice.

Did anyone ask us if we wanted the vent window removed? If we wanted those running lights that go on when you start the engine? Those new, spooky 'joined' headlights, or the removal of heavy, sturdy bumpers? No, they just went and did it. I've seen car designs that never made it to the road and were much better, in my opinion, than the current, basic design of the cars out in the last 10 years. No one asked our opinion of the design changes, they just put them out there.

Just try to buy a new Corvette that is not almost entirely plastic in the body. For years, you could not even buy a car that was not front wheel drive. You had little, if any, choice.

I like the new luxuries, better tires, safer interiors, wider range of colors and mpg as well as lower emissions. I just don't like the fragility of the new cars on the road. A car is in traffic in all forms of weather. A 4 mph collision by a kid on a bike should not do $500 worth of damage to a fender!

[Homer]

Originally posted by MC
Lots of biased, ignorant shit

Yeah, thanks. I, for one, am 19, and not a God damned generalization you made is true. Try putting any other social group name other than teenagers in there, and see how offended people get. And don't say "Well, I said MOST!", because offering exemptions does not intelligent make.

Oh, and hi, Drahmark.

--A retarded, ignorant teenager

[DougC]

- - - deadOman, lemme try it again:
- You're saying that larger vehicles pose disproportionate hazards to small vehicles. Okay. There's two solutions to the problem, but one small detail you seem to ignore is that once upon a time a "Midsize" car weight 5000 lbs+, and it wasn't because the boys in detroit left a load of bricks in the trunk. Get it straight: bigger vehicles = better crash protection, smaller vehicles = less. If you want to zip around in a car that's smaller and flimsier than most, hey, feel free, but don't get annoyed when everybody else doesn't feel the same way.
- And as far as SUV's being "less safe" (presumably to other vehicles), all you can do is choose protect yourself, or not. Since you cannot choose what type of vehicle anybody else drives, it's not your fault if they get killed driving a pipsqueak of a car when the other guy in a monster Medicaid sled walks away.
~
Homer: Hey, look! MTV Realworld Beach Rapper Party is on!

[vandal]

Cornflakes' link to a picture of a rollcage is what I had in mind. I know these are sold as aftermarket products that you can have installed. Though, I'm not sure how sturdy they'd be in a real crash. Don't they have to be mounted to the chassis directly to equally absorb the impact?

Would mounting it (er, welding I should say) to the chassis be possible with all the carpeting, seats, dash, etc., in place? I bring this up because in those crash test videos of front impact hits, it shows the cabin intact, but the front comes in so far, that it crushes the driver's legs, and usually as a result, breaks them.

This is a bit unsettling for me. There's all these safety features in place to stop the cabin from crumbling should a front end hit occur, or the car flips. But, at the cost of not being able to walk? So, as I was thinking about this, the notion of adding a rollcage came to mind. Anyway, I thank you all for all the replies.

[Chronos]

Drahcir, you've very thoroughly presented your case that modern crashes are more expensive. What you haven't backed up is your claim that they are therefore less safe. In fact, it can be argued that the higher repair costs are one of the tradeoffs made in exchange for safety.
MC, you say that larger cars are safer in a crash. That depends on the sort of crash, however: If you crash into a stationary and essentially immovable object like a wall or a telephone pole, then large cars are substantially less safe. It's only in collisions with ligher and movable objects that they're more safe, and that's more than made up for by the decreased safety of the folks in the other car.

Meanwhile, the whole tone here is getting a bit argumentative. Would it be better for me to move it over to GD?

[Homer]

Chronos, am I wrong in thinking that MC's inflammatory generalizations would not be tolerated if it were, say, blacks or catholics or vegetarians being targeted instead of teenagers?

--Tim

[DougC]

MC, you say that larger cars are safer in a crash. That depends on the sort of crash, however: If you crash into a stationary and essentially immovable object like a wall or a telephone pole, then large cars are substantially less safe...... - Chronos
- - - No, it does not depend on the crash: by your reasoning here, the lighter and flimsier a vehicle is, the safer it is to be inside when it collides with stationary objects. If this was true, hitting a wall at 30 MPH while riding a bicycle should be more safer than doing the same riding inside a car, but it ain't. More metal = more protection, assuming the passenger compartment isn't the weakest portion of the heavier vehicle (which in some older cars it may be), but newer cars are structurally weaker all the way from one end to the other. And even in those cases, you're dealing with the difference of strength of an old car's passenger compartment being mashed against a new car's "crumple zones". Every summer weekend, dozens of demolition derbies across the US tell the truth. - MC