>>you'd think at least we could be comparable to the VW Beetle (average damage: $52, less than a parking ticket, to the MINI's eight bills).>>>>


Well there has to be SOME reason why someone would want a Beetle! THat's ok, I don't want to have ANY similarities with the Beetle thank you very much!
:smile:

 

Why are people soooo worried about how much it'll cost to fix the car after an accident? Why not find out the cars rating for how well it protects the occupants. Isn't one's health more important than sheetmetal?

 

>>Why are people soooo worried about how much it'll cost to fix the car after an accident? Why not find out the cars rating for how well it protects the occupants. Isn't one's health more important than sheetmetal?

Good question.....

 

>>Why are people soooo worried about how much it'll cost to fix the car after an accident? Why not find out the cars rating for how well it protects the occupants. ops:

 

I wonder if this guy would have damaged a Mini....
bumpin at 2.5 mph....

 

The most I ever pay is my $100 deductable, I don't know about you folks!

Anybody know a car that costs less than $100 to replace a bumper let me know!

When I was rear ended in my old escort the other guys Insurance company wrote me a check for $400 dollars and covered a hire car while it was being done. Hope he had a low deductable.

 

>>"It's attracting a lot of attention for distinctive styling," Lund said, "but the bumpers aren't praiseworthy."

What does this have to do with the tests that they were doing? This statement makes me very suspicious of the results of these tests; obviously this was not an unbiased study, but one in which they were interested in shoveling some trouble in the way of a car that they resent for its popularity.

That said, I think that the whole trend of bumpers morphing from chrome to that black plastic stuff and now to flimsy, body-color-painted crap plastic is insulting and stupid. I would prefer an actual bumper (you know, one that absorbs some shock without damage) over this stuff any day.

 

I think the Lund comment is simply a way of reminding people that cosmetic appearance isn't related to safey, and perhaps that we should think of good design in terms of aesthetics and safety (Volvos are some damn fine cars, both from a cosmetic and safety standpoint).

The bumper rating tests generally grind the ax of 'you spent $30K, $40K, $XXK on this thing and you can't even back into a pole a slow speeds.' That is the language of limited liability, but then again, why shouldn't you be able to hit something at 5mph? A pole is kind of ludicrous, but flat surface collisions aren't that rare.

If there were any ethics in the insurance industry, their point would be: 'Well, we are here for when you total your car. Your rates would be lower if people didn't call in every minor problem and ruin our actuarial tables, and if car manufacturers made more durable products, then people wouldn't have reason to call in every minor problem, and rates would go down.' Now, in practice, rates would stay where they are, and the insurance companies would make a killing, go back to the cycle of de-mutualization we saw and the tail end of the stock bubble, and the consumer would lose as usual, but in principle, their argument is a valid one.

The 2.5mph rating is brought to you by the same Michigan representatives and industry lobbyists that claim raising CAFE standards by a point will cause the end of civilzation as we know it.

 

If one more person at my office comes up to me asking if I saw on the news that the Mini bummper is a piece of sh%*, then I am going to walk out to their car and kick the crap out of their cars bummper and see how much it is to fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:evil: :evil: :evil:

 

Sorry this is so long, but hopefully it'll clear some things up.

OK. One more time, I think some people are missing the point.

The IIHS is an independent group that tests cars. They are not a government agency, and they are funded by a group insurance companies.

It works like this: The government crash test ratings are SAFETY ratings. They are testing cars to ensure that the occupants will survive a crash without major injuries. (Interesting to note: The government doesn't buy the cars it tests. Each auto manufacturer donates a vehicle if they want the government to test them. This is why many very expensive/low production cars have no ratings)

Now the IIHS uses it's money from insurance companies, and goes out and buys whatever cars it wants. Then it performs its own crash tests. The goal of IIHS tests is safety, but their ratings also consider the cost to repair. If you test two cars, and they both save the occupants, but one of them costs a great deal more to fix, that car gets a lower rating.

To illustrate, look at small SUVs. The Subaru Forester gets a much higher rating than the Honda CRV in rear end crashes. Why? The CRV has its spare tire mounted to the back gate. As a result, when someone hits it from behind, not only do you end up replacing the bumper (as you'd expect), but frequently, the tire is pushed into the gate, and it ends up bent, breaks the rear window, etc... The Forester doesn't have this problem, so it gets a better rating.

So, regarding the MINI test: The MINI is in a tough spot. The car is low to the ground, and the bumper has reflectors and fog lights, so it costs more to replace. That's not a bad thing for the car's safety, but it does mean that when someone hits you, it's going to cost money to fix.

Don't ignore the IIHS tests. They are valid. Just try to understand where they're coming from. I have my BRG MCS on order and this test isn't going to make me change my mind. At best, what we can hope for it that BMW/MINI will see the tests and improve the design so that an incident as common as a fender bender doesn't put us in the poor house.

 

>>From the Institute's Website
>>
>>BUMPER EVALUATIONS
>>DAMAGE REPAIR COSTS IN FOUR
>>LOW-SPEED CRASH TESTS AT 5 MPH
>>
>>Bumpers should protect car bodies from damage in low-speed collisions, the kind that frequently occur in congested urban traffic. But many don't. The Institute conducts four 5 mph crash tests to assess bumper performance: front-into-flat-barrier, rear-into-flat-barrier, front-into-angle-barrier, and rear-into-pole.
>>
>>Quick Time film of typical test
>>
>>This is relevant for us city dwellers who have watched people parallel park in excess of 5mph. 10mph even.
>>

OK--OK Iwatched the demo

Now going forward may be a different story

 

FYI:

http://www.iihs.org/about.htm

 

>>If one more person at my office comes up to me asking if I saw on the news that the Mini bummper is a piece of sh%*, then I am going to walk out to their car and kick the crap out of their cars bummper and see how much it is to fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> :evil: :evil: :evil: