Ever since the IIHS started doing crash tests, some vehicle makers have been cheating. What I mean by this is they do things to make the vehicle perform well on the test, but not necessarily to do much better, or in some cases to perform worse, in more diverse real world accidents.
Here is a picture of what they did on the 2019 Nissan Altima. Since the late 1990s most cars have had short width bumpers or collision strips as they are often called in the parts list. They say it is to save weight, but I suspect allowing the corner with the headlight unprotected and easily damaged makes a lot of money in the spare parts market. I believe having the bumper chopped off with no structure behind it doesn’t help with the newer small overlap crash tests. Some 1997 to 2012 vehicles may actually do worse in small overlap crashes than older models.
In this case they extended the sub frame, or engine cradle, out to the sides. This would help the IIHS small overlap test, and it would help if hitting a light pole. But the top of this thing is only 11.5" above the ground, too low to contact the bumper on another car. In a real world crash with another vehicle it doesn’t help. On the 92-96 Camry there is a narrow bumper, but it has a structure kind of like this at the edges of the bumper to widen it. The Volvo 850 and 2001+ V70 platform make the unibody frame wide at the ends. Two examples of this being done correctly.
The bumper bar is very light weight, the short width is part of the collision design. A full width bar might result in a harsher impact, cause the vehicle to rotate and roll-over. There is also consideration for pedestrian impact protection.
It is normal part of design process to go through a hazard and risk assessment that lists every conceivable hazard for the product and calculates a risk factor based on severity and probability of occurrence. Then what mitigations are developed to lower the risk factor. There are always trade-offs. Risk of human injury always trump material considerations, of course.
But the thread was started with the implication that products may be designed to pass the test. That is certainly true. And a solid barrier 5 feet tall does not act the same as impacting another car. But they have to meet the test criteria and one might argue they should not second guess the motivation behind the engineered test. That could lead to dangerous assumptions.
Many years ago, I worked on a project with an optical window and what the regulatory bodies define as a “high voltage” inside the enclosure. Optical windows are often fragile and break easily upon impact. Much engineering can go into hardening these optical “glass” windows, similar to what you find in corning glass products like a coffee pot that can withstand extreme thermal swings as well as impact resistance.
But the safety test is very specific- a sphere of a given weight and dimension is swung from pivot point at a specific angle and length into the window.- It is almost impossible to pass this test with optical windows like borosilicate or fused silica substrates. So what do you do? You design an aperture slightly smaller in size and recessed enough that the sphere can never reach the window. Now it passes the test. Does it protect against all hazards in the field? Probably not. But then again, I am not positive what went into the thinking on the test design either…
Then the upper management decides to overrule all of this for “cost saving” or some such excuse!
Yes the ball test is a good example of designing for a test. When the IIHS moderate overlap test first came out, the cars at the time that did well had good overall safety, since they were not yet tweaked to do well on this specific test. Note that good = will cost insurance less money, and poor = will cost insurance the most money.
Some cars manufactured during the last 15 years have a “catch” bracket bolted to the outside of the front frame rails. The purpose for the bracket appears to be to slow the collision of two vehicles involved in an offset head on collision. It is not to save weight or cut manufacturing costs.
There must be a conspiracy in there somewhere to keep you busy for a while.
How far out does it come? A bottom view would be nice. It might be there to catch the barrier in the small overlap test and push the vehicle slightly farther to the side. I don’t think it would catch anything significant on another vehicle.
There seems to be quite a few of these type of doodads bolted onto chassis structure now. Crash brackets, tire deflectors, bumper compatibility brackets…they are voluntary measures vehicle manufacturers add to enhance performance in certain crash scenarios.
This one pictured above may alter the standard deflection in an offset crash. It is robustly connected and has bend features that give it significant strength against deforming under force.
The entire premise of the question, that manufacturers would “game” the IIHS ratings to save costs is a fallacy because manufacturers don’t pay individual’s insurance costs, based on IIHS ratings, but they do pay big bucks for “negligent” design.
The Corvair settlement cost GM $340,000 in 1967 dollars, not including the lost design and production costs of a failed model, the Pinto settlement cost Ford $128 million again not including failed model costs,
The 2019 Jeep/Chrysler Eco Diesel settlement cost over $790 million and the VW diesel emissions settlement cost $14.7 BILLION in the US alone.
My point is that thank to those Government Regulations and Personal Liability attorneys there’s little or no financial incentive for manufacturers to “Game” or “Cut Corners” on testing.
OTOH, picturing you in climbing the Rockies, trout fishing in the West, or driving to your ski resort in your “Family Truckster” are still fine,
Having been involved in product design and manufacturing for my entire career, I can say that almost without exception, those kind of issues start at much lower levels and are often hidden. They happen because of pressure to meet goals, objectives and timelines and fear based management. It doesn’t float up to the upper levels of management until after the damage is done. It’s a culture thing and self preservation for people that fear losing their jobs over a missed launch, a cost target, a failed test. I have worked at places that reward speaking up and those where there is fear instilled in people that do.
Once the issue comes to light, then there is discussion on damage control. Sometimes, it is far less expensive to accept the litigation risk and keep going compared to alternatives…lots of industry examples of this happening.
I agree, any project inevitably involves many lower level “quick fixes” but the premise that a major manufacturer would “Cheat”, deliberately break the rules to achieve a minor objective, is overstating the case.
While it would have been nice if Nissan had chosen the optimal “Volvo” solution but an Altima isn’t a Volvo and isn’t sold at Volvo prices. It’s a price sensitive Econobox, which I’m sure included many other “cost saving” decisions but you get what you pay for.
