John Shiels

Monday, May 4, 2009
NHTSA roof-strength rules raise car costs up to $1.4B annually
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
The long-awaited federal upgrade of the 35-year-old regulation governing vehicle roof strength will save 135 lives, prevent more than 1,000 injuries and add up to $1.4 billion annually to the cost of new cars, the Transportation Department said.

Under pressure from Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration boosted new roof-strength requirements when it finalized last week its long-awaited upgrade of roof-strength requirements -- but it issued lower requirements for the heaviest vehicles and added a phase-in period.

The final regulation boosts the requirement to three times the weight for vehicles up to 6,000 pounds. Vehicles 6,000-10,000 pounds must meet a 1.5 times standard. NHTSA says 135 lives will be saved and 1,065 injuries -- up from 44 over the previously proposed upgrade.

Advertisement

The new regulation will add $54 per vehicle in design costs and another $15 to $62 in added fuel costs, NHTSA said.

Automakers said the new standard will require engineering and design challenges.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the group representing Detroit's Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Co., Daimler AG and six other automakers, said they "support NHTSA's goal of enhancing rollover safety through a comprehensive plan aimed at eliminating rollover injuries and fatalities, and enhanced roof strength is only one part of that plan."

Members of Congress from both parties said the prior proposed upgrade didn't save enough lives.

"These new standards go a long way toward reducing deaths, but safety belts are the first, most important step everyone should take to protecting themselves and their families," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said.

The phase-in schedule, which begins in September 2012, will be completed for all affected vehicles by the 2017 model year. NHTSA has been grappling with updating the current regulation for more than a decade.

Beginning in the 2013 model year, manufacturers must have 25 percent of their vehicles over 6,000 pounds meet the 1.5 times standard -- a requirement that jumps to 50 percent in the 2014 model year.

NHTSA said its new rule will cost $875 million to $1.4 billion and add weight to vehicles, slightly increasing fuel use.

In January 2008, it stiffened its August 2005 proposal to require a two-sided roof-strength test, which would have the effect of requiring tougher roofs.

Automakers oppose the double-sided test, saying it is unnecessary. They have also sought more time to comply, noting the expense of redesigning vehicles.

Toughening vehicle roofs is aimed at helping people survive rollover crashes, which account for more than 10,000 deaths annually, according to federal reports. Rollovers represent 3 percent of crashes, but account for one-third of all vehicle deaths.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. essentially wrote the regulation that's been in effect since 1973 after their fleets failed NHTSA's first proposed standard in 1971.

TLGunman

When I was working with Mosler, getting the MT900 NHTSA certified, I saw some other cars after the roof crush test at the testing lab we used. Scary stuff. fyi, the MT900 passed the test, and then just for grins they cranked up the machine to its max, to see if it could take it...it did, and without measurement tools, you couldn't tell the roof deflected

cebars

If they make the A pillars any larger than they now are in many cars, maybe they should do away with the windshield and have us drive the car with a LCD monitor.

Instructors at one Corvette driving school said that the thick A pillar on the C5 and C6 was a big negative when looking for the next corner.

Jason

$1.4Billion for 135 lives. I bet there is a cheaper way to save 135 lives out there somewhere.

$10.3million/per life. Somebody check my math. Hard to count that many zeros.

froggy47

Try seeing cones on autox course with these monster a pillars. I know more than a couple of drivers that stick their heads pretty far out the windows.

OCCOMSRAZOR

$10,000,000 per person is another foolish example of government gone stupid.

0Randy@DRM

Like I have said before, "when is safety going to cause danger". The Corvette could be updated with a steel A pillar at the cost of weight, but retain some of the same profile. Somebody said something about LCDs, they should work out a plan to stop putting damn TV's in cars. One more thing for the driver to be farting around with as they are going down the road. Passenger side TV's bad idea all together. Cell phones are pretty bad too.

Randy

OCCOMSRAZOR

I've got a better idea...

Let's weaken the roofs so that the dumbass people who roll them while driving recklessly or drunk will have their genes removed from the pool.

We have made life so safe that too many people, who would have been removed through the natural selection process, keep surviving and reproducing, and voting.

Solofast

Maybe we could havd NHTSA come up with a standard for a foam rubber windshield. You won't be able to see anything, but when you hit something (which won't take long) then at least you won't get hurt...

parkerracing

I wonder what GM and Chrysler are thinking about all the re-engineering that has to be done? Couldn't the dumbasses in DC wait to see if there will be a domestic auto industry and save 250,000 jobs first and 135 lives later?

0Robert@SPEEDSOUTH

Good one!

AU N EGL

+2

Scooter70

Welcome to my world. I design and engineer body structure parts for Ford. I've been dealing with the increasing roof-crush and side impact regulations for a few years now. People love to complain that vehicles are too heavy (I think that's the #1 complaint against the new Camaro and Challenger) and get horrible gas mileage but then the government goes and increases our roof crush requirements. At the same time, they increase CAFE so they are hitting us twice. You can't increase material and mfg costs, increase weight, and then expect to get get better mileage all while keeping vehicle costs down. Of course we can use exotic materials to build low weight vehicles... but the customers won't want to pay for it. Titanium and carbon fiber are great. Unfortunately for them, steel is relatively cheap.

BrianCunningham

So does this mean the high strength roofs will be cut out and replaced with a cage the same way they cut the B-pillar out now days?

heavychevy

I was going to say this as well. To keep adding weight with more crash standard crap and then increase CAFE fuel restrictions is backwards.

But hey, maybe eventually all cars will evolve into race cars with integrated roll cages (and 4 cylinder turbo diesels with paddle shift gearboxes).

Just looking forward to the 4000lb Corvette with 280 hp turbo diesel.

cebars

Anybody know how many of the deaths in the roll-overs was the result of the persons who died not using seat belts.

rustyguns

froggy47

There ya go.

C5 Frank

Sooooo.... Does this mean no more convertibles? I mean there is no way a drop top can support that kind of weight.

SIK02SS

sweet, more weight car manufacturers have to add and then try to meet CAFE standards with. i wonder if they factored in the cost to add weight to the car compared to what now needs to be done to make sure they pass CAFE standards