Bumper (car)#United States

Bumpers were, at first, just rigid metal bars.{{cite web|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=iakyAQAAMAAJ&q=bumper+construction+1910&pg=RA2-PA142 |title=The 1910 Harroun Bumper |year=1909 |publisher=Cycle and Automobile Trade Journal, Volume 14 |page=142 |access-date=21 June 2016}} George Albert Lyon invented the earliest car bumper. The first bumper appeared on a vehicle in 1897, and Nesselsdorfer Wagenbau-Fabriksgesellschaft, an Austrian carmaker, installed it. The construction of these bumpers was unreliable as they featured only a cosmetic function. Early car owners had the front spring hanger bolt replaced with ones long enough to attach a metal bar. G.D. Fisher patented a bumper bracket to simplify the attachment of the accessory. The first bumper designed to absorb impacts appeared in 1901. It was made of rubber, and Frederick Simms gained a patent in 1905.{{cite book|last=Hodges |first=David |title=The Guinness Book of Car Facts and Feats |year=1994 |publisher=Guinness Publishing |location=England |isbn=0851127681|page=256}}

File:1955 Cadillac Eldorado convertible (14986660783).jpg with heavily chromed "Dagmar" or "bullet" bumper]]

Automakers added bumpers in the mid-1910s, but consisted of a strip of steel across the front and back.{{cite web |last=Davis |first=Dar |title=The evolution of bumpers |url= https://www.heraldpalladium.com/features/the-evolution-of-bumpers/article_ec0f0ff1-0da3-5799-8022-be1149728104.html |work=The Herald Palladium |date=21 November 2010 |access-date=20 July 2018}} Often treated as an optional accessory, bumpers became more and more common in the 1920s as automobile designers made them more complex and substantial. Over the next decades, chrome-plated bumpers became heavy, elaborative, and increasingly decorative until the late 1950s when U.S. automakers began establishing new bumper trends and brand-specific designs. The 1960s saw the use of lighter chrome-plated blade-like bumpers with a painted metal valance filling the space below it. Multi-piece construction became the norm as automakers incorporated grilles, lighting, and even rear exhaust into the bumpers.

On the 1968 Pontiac GTO, General Motors incorporated an "Endura" body-colored plastic front bumper designed to absorb low-speed impact without permanent deformation. It was featured in a TV advertisement with John DeLorean hitting the bumper with a sledgehammer and no damage resulted.{{cite web|last=Strohl |first=Daniel |url= http://www.hemmings.com/hmn/stories/2006/07/01/hmn_feature26.html |title=Endura Front Bumper The bounce-back bumper that freed automotive styling |publisher=Hemmings Motor News |date=July 2006 |access-date=20 July 2018}} Similar elastomeric bumpers were available on the front and rear of the 1970-71 Plymouth Barracuda.{{cite book |last=Genat |first=Robert |title=Challenger And 'Cuda: Mopar's E-Body Muscle Cars |year=2005 |publisher=MBI Publishing |isbn=9780760318645 |page=58 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=3EP6Zv4LtbcC&pg=PA58 |access-date=20 July 2018}} In 1971, Renault introduced a plastic bumper (sheet moulding compound) on the Renault 5.{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=efmiAgAAQBAJ&q=renault+5+plastic+bumper&pg=PA107 |last=Maxwell |first=James |location=Cambridge |publisher=Woodhead Publishing |title=Plastics in the Automotive Industry |date=31 March 1994 |page=107 |isbn=9781845698645 |access-date=21 June 2016}}

Current design practice is for the bumper structure on modern automobiles to consist of a plastic cover over a reinforcement bar made of steel, aluminum, fiberglass composite, or plastic.{{cite web|url= http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/bumpers/qanda |title=Bumpers |publisher=Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute |access-date=15 March 2014}} Bumpers of most modern automobiles have been made of a combination of polycarbonate (PC) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) called PC/ABS.{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}

{{multiple image

| align = center

| direction = horizontal

| image1 = Ford A AM-55-88 pic2.JPG

| width1 = 190

| caption1 = Ford Model A (1927–31) with metal bumpers

| image2 = 1953 Mercury Monterey coupe (7708029692).jpg

| width2 = 190

| caption2 = 1953 Mercury Monterey with large chromed bumper

| image3 = 1968 Pontiac GTO Hardtop (24420313564).jpg

| width3 = 214

| caption3 = 1968 Pontiac GTO with an elastomeric front bumper

}}

Bumpers offer protection to other vehicle components by dissipating the kinetic energy generated by an impact. This energy is a function of vehicle mass and velocity squared.{{cite journal |last1=Kashinath |first1=Kusekar Sambhaji |last2=Balasaheb |first2=Chunge Abhijit |title=Review of Design & Analysis of Bumper Beam In Low Speed Frontal Crashes |journal=International Journal of Industrial Electronics and Electrical Engineering |date=February 2014 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=27–34 |url= http://pep.ijieee.org.in/journal_pdf/11-62-140309037227-34.pdf |access-date=20 July 2018 |issn=2347-6982}} The kinetic energy is equal to 1/2 the product of the mass and the square of the speed. In formula form:

:$E\_\backslash text\{k\}\; =\backslash tfrac\{1\}\{2\}\; mv^2$

A bumper that protects vehicle components from damage at 5 miles per hour must be four times as tough as a bumper that protects at 2.5 miles per hour, with the collision energy dissipation concentrated at the extreme front and rear of the vehicle. Small increases in bumper protection can lead to weight gain and loss of fuel efficiency.

Until 1959, rigidity was seen as beneficial to occupant safety among automotive engineers.{{cite web|title=Physics in the Crumple Zone Demonstrate How Less Stiff Materials, Like Plastic, Can Help Prevent Injury and Save Lives |publisher=Automotive Plastics|url= https://plastics-car.com/Todays-Automobiles/Automotive-Safety/Physics-in-the-Crumple-Zone-2.html |access-date=21 June 2016}} Modern theories of vehicle crashworthiness point in the opposite direction, towards vehicles that crumple progressively.{{cite web|url= https://www.autoevolution.com/news/how-crumple-zones-work-7112.html |title=How Crumple Zones Work |first=Tudor |last=Raiciu |date=18 October 2017 |website=autoevolution.com |access-date=20 July 2018}} A completely rigid vehicle might have excellent bumper protection for vehicle components, but would offer poor occupant safety.{{cite web |last1=Evans |first1=Leonard |title=11 Occupant protection |year=2004 |url= http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch11.htm |website=scienceservingsociety.com |quote=The reduction in speed divided by the time over which it takes place defines deceleration. Injury-producing forces are proportional to the deceleration experienced by the occupant. Occupant protection aims at reducing these forces by spreading the occupant's changes in speed over longer times. The theoretical best protection would be for the occupant to slow down from the initial vehicle speed to zero speed at a constant deceleration using the entire distance between the occupant's body and the vehicle's point of impact. In the previous example of an initial speed of 50 km/h, and assuming the driver is seated 2.5 m behind the front bumper, the resulting average deceleration would be 4 G, uncomfortable but unlikely to produce even a minor injury. |access-date=20 July 2018}}

Bumpers are increasingly being designed to mitigate injury to pedestrians struck by cars, such as through the use of bumper covers made of flexible materials. Front bumpers, especially, have been lowered and made of softer materials, such as foams and crushable plastics, to reduce the severity of impact on legs.{{cite web|url= http://www.autonews.com/article/20120423/OEM03/304239967/european-safety-styled-cars-due-in-u.s |title=European safety-styled cars due in U.S |publisher=Automotive News |date=23 April 2012 |first=Christina |last=Rogers |access-date=2 July 2015}}

File:Unfall A99 Mercedes mit eingedrueckter Schnauze.JPG

For passenger cars, the height and placement of bumpers are legally specified under both U.S. and EU regulations. Bumpers do not protect against moderate-speed collisions, because during emergency braking, suspension changes the pitch of each vehicle, so bumpers can bypass each other when the vehicles collide. Preventing override and underride can be accomplished by extremely tall bumper surfaces.{{cite web |title=Bumpers on 4 of 6 midsize sedans improve; none earns good rating in low-speed tests |publisher=Insurance Institute for Highway Safety |url= http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/bumpers-on-4-of-6-midsize-sedans-improve-none-earns-good-rating-in-low-speed-tests |date=6 August 2009 |access-date=12 April 2017}} Active suspension is another solution to keeping the vehicle level.

Bumper height from the roadway surface is essential in engaging other protective systems. Airbag deployment sensors typically do not trigger until contact with an obstruction, and it is crucial that front bumpers be the first parts of a vehicle to make contact in the event of a frontal collision, to leave sufficient time to inflate the protective cushions.

Energy-absorbing crush zones are completely ineffective if they are physically bypassed; an extreme example of this occurs when the elevated platform of a tractor-trailer completely misses the front bumper of a passenger car, and the first contact is with the glass windshield of the passenger compartment.

Underride collisions, in which a smaller vehicle such as a passenger sedan slides under a larger vehicle such as a tractor-trailer often result in severe injuries or fatalities. The platform bed of a typical tractor-trailer is at the head height of seated adults in a typical passenger car and thus can cause severe head trauma in even a moderate-speed collision. Around 500 people are killed this way in the United States annually.{{cite web|title=Truck Underride Hazards |first=Byron |last=Bloch |url= http://www.autosafetyexpert.com/defect_truckunderride.php |website=autosafetyexpert.com |access-date=20 July 2018}}

Following the June 1967 death of actress Jayne Mansfield in an auto/truck accident, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommended requiring a rear underride guard, also known as a "Mansfield bar", an "ICC bar", or a "DOT (Department of Transportation) bumper".{{cite web |title=Underride Guard |work=Everything2 |url= http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1679241 |access-date=29 November 2007}}{{cite book |last=United States Congressional Committee on Commerce |title=Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |year=1997 |page=39}} These may not be more than {{convert|22|in|cm|abbr=on}} from the road. The U.S. trucking industry has been slow to upgrade this safety feature,{{cite web|title=Getting Started|url= http://www.underridenetwork.org |publisher=Underride Network |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140106100435/http://underridenetwork.org/ |archive-date=6 January 2014 |access-date=12 June 2022}} and there are no requirements to repair ICC bars damaged in service.{{cite web|url= http://www.metalconsult.com/failure-analysis-icc-underride-bar.html |title=Failure Analysis of an ICC Underride Bar - Mobile, Alabama |website=metalconsult.com}} However, in 1996 NHTSA upgraded the requirements for the rear underride prevention structure on truck trailers, and Transport Canada went further with an even more stringent requirement for energy-absorbing rear underride guards.{{cite web |last=Berg |first=Tom |title=Are Underride Guards Good Enough? |url= https://www.truckinginfo.com/151614/are-underride-guards-good-enough |website=truckinginfo.com |date=17 January 2012 |access-date=20 September 2020}} In July 2015, NHTSA issued a proposal to upgrade the U.S. performance requirements for underride guards.{{cite web |last=Cullen |first=David |title=NHTSA to Upgrade Truck Underride and Conspicuity Rules |url= https://www.truckinginfo.com/130497/nhtsa-to-upgrade-truck-underride-and-conspicuity-rules |website=truckinginfo.com |date=20 July 2015 |access-date=20 September 2020}}

Many European nations have also required side underride guards to mitigate lethal collisions where the car impacts the truck from the side. A variety of different types of side underride guards of this nature are in use in Japan, the US, and Canada.{{cite web |last=Berg |first=Tom |title=Underride guards in Japan look weaker but cover more area than here |url= https://www.truckinginfo.com/158659/underride-guards-in-japan-look-weaker-but-cover-more-area-than-here |website=truckinginfo.com |date=20 January 2012 |access-date=20 September 2020}} However, they are not required in the United States.

UN Regulation 58 sets forth requirements for rear underrun protective devices (RUPDs) and their installation, among which is that trucks and trailers of various types must have such devices with height above the ground not more than {{convert|45|cm|in|1|abbr=on}}, {{convert|50|cm|in|1|abbr=on}}, or {{convert|55|cm|in|1|abbr=on}}.{{cite web |title=AgreementConcerning the Adoption of Harmonized Technical United Nations Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations Regulations |url= https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2017/R058r3e.pdf |quote=UN Regulation No. 58: Uniform provisions concerning the approval of [1] Rear underrun protective devices (RUPDs) [II] Vehicles with regard to the installation of an RUPD of an approved type [III ]Vehicles with regard to their rear underrun protection (RUP)] |publisher=United Nations |date=30 November 2017 |access-date=20 September 2020}}

Mismatches between SUV bumper heights and passenger car side impact beams have allowed serious injuries at relatively low speeds.{{cite web|url= http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/statusreport/article/43/5/1|title=Light trucks need bumper rules too}} In the United States, NHTSA is studying how to address this issue {{asof|2014|lc=y}}.{{cite web |url= http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/bumper/index.html |title=NHTSA bumper Q&A |website=nhtsa.gov |access-date=6 January 2014 |archive-date=3 October 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111003151011/http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/bumper/index.html |url-status=dead }}

Beyond lethal interactions, repair costs of passenger car/SUV collisions can also be significant due to the height mismatch.{{cite news|agency=Associated Press |url= http://newsok.com/suv-fender-benders-can-lead-to-costly-repairs/article/feed/219283 |title=SUV fender-benders can lead to costly repairs |publisher=News OK |date=2 December 2010 |access-date=2 July 2015}} This mismatch can result in vehicles being so severely damaged that they are inoperable after low-speed collisions.{{cite web|url= http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a10353/incompatible-bumpers-raise-repair-costs/ |title=Incompatible Bumpers Raise Repair Costs |publisher=Road and Track |date=6 November 2012 |access-date=2 July 2015}}

In most jurisdictions, bumpers are legally required on all vehicles. Regulations for automobile bumpers have been implemented for two reasons – to allow the car to sustain a low-speed impact without damage to the vehicle's safety systems, and to protect pedestrians from injury. These requirements conflict: bumpers that withstand impact well and minimize repair costs tend to injure pedestrians more, while pedestrian-friendly bumpers tend to have higher repair costs.{{cite book|chapter-url= http://papers.sae.org/2004-01-1610/ |chapter=Bumper Systems Designed for Both Pedestrian Protection and FMVSS Requirements: Part Design and Testing |publisher=SAE International |date=8 March 2004 |last1=Shuler |first1=S. |last2=Mooijman |first2=F. |last3=Nanda |first3=A. |title=SAE Technical Paper Series |volume=1 |doi=10.4271/2004-01-1610 |access-date=2 July 2015}}

Although a vehicle's bumper systems are designed to absorb the energy of low-speed collisions and help protect the car's safety and other expensive nearby components, most bumpers are designed to meet only the minimum regulatory standards.{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=GZozAQAAQBAJ&q=vehicle+bumper+systems+should+be+able+to+absorb+the+energy+of+these+collisions+and+prevent+damage+of+more+expensive+components+located+nearby.+Unfortunately,+most+bumpers+are+designed+to+meet+only+the+minimum+standards&pg=PA130 |page=130 |title=Advanced composite materials for automotive applications: structural integrity and crashworthiness |first=Ahmed |last=Elmarakbi |publisher=Wiley |year=2014 |isbn=9781118535271 |access-date=15 March 2014}}

International safety regulations, devised initially as European standards under the auspices of the United Nations, have now been adopted by most countries outside North America. These specify that a car's safety systems must still function normally after a straight-on pendulum or moving-barrier impact of {{convert|4|km/h|mph|1|abbr=on}} to the front and the rear, and to the front and rear corners of {{convert|2.5|km/h|mph|1|abbr=on}} at {{convert|45.5|cm|in|0|abbr=on}} above the ground with the vehicle loaded or unloaded.{{cite web|url= http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r042e.pdf |title=United Nations ECE Regulation No. 42: Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles With Regard to Their Front and Rear Protective Devices (Bumpers, etc.) |date=1 June 1980 |access-date=6 January 2014}}

European countries have implemented regulations to address the issue of 270,000 deaths annually in worldwide pedestrian/auto accidents.

File:1978 Holden Kingswood SL Utility (HZ) (10376645315).jpg Utility with "roo bar"]]

Specialized bumpers, known as "bull bars" or "roo bars", protect vehicles in rural environments from collisions with large animals. However, studies have shown that such bars increase the threat of death and serious injury to pedestrians in urban environments,{{cite web |url= http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=10328 |title=DfT Research: A Study of Accidents Involving Bull Bar Equipped Vehicles |website=Rmd.dft.gov.uk |date=3 December 2003 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070612151909/http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=10328 |archive-date=12 June 2007 |url-status=dead |access-date=12 June 2022}} because the bull bar is rigid and transmits all force of a collision to the pedestrian, unlike a bumper, which absorbs some force and crumples.{{cite report|url= https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12758259.pdf |title=Performance of bull bars in pedestrian impact tests |first=Robert William Gerard |last=Anderson |first2=Andrew Leo |last2=van den Berg |first3=Giulio |last3=Ponte |first4=Luke Daniel |last4=Streeter |first5=Jack |last5=McLean |date=July 2006 |work=Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide |location=Australia |access-date=5 April 2024}}{{cite journal|last=Desapriya |first=Ediriweera |first2=John M. |last2=Kerr |first3=D. Sesath |last3=Hewapathirane |first4=Dinithi |last4=Peiris |first5=Bikaramjit |last5=Mann |first6=Nayomi |last6=Gomes |first7=Kavindya |last7=Peiris |first8=Giulia |last8=Scime |first9=Jennifer |last9=Jones |title=Bull bars and vulnerable road users |journal=Traffic Injury Prevention |volume=13 |issue=1 |date=2012 |pages=86-92 |url= https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389588.2011.624143 |doi=10.1080/15389588.2011.624143 |access-date=5 April 2024|url-access=subscription }} In the European Union, the sale of rigid metal bull bars that do not comply with the relevant pedestrian-protection safety standards has been banned.{{cite web |title=Directive 2005/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC |url= https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=YjTGJM2BttBVzQkNKD224r6yFmR8s9vpBGZ1yq5Dfy1QttWzQtt1!1699965814?uri=CELEX:32005L0066 |website=eur-lex.europa.eu |date=26 October 2005 |access-date=20 September 2020}}

Off-road vehicles often utilize aftermarket off-road bumpers made of heavy gauge metal to improve clearance (height above terrain), maximize departure angles, clear larger tires, and ensure additional protection. Similar or identical to bull bars, off-road bumpers feature a rigid construction and do not absorb (by plastic deformation) any energy in a collision, which is more dangerous for pedestrians than factory plastic bumpers. The legality of the aftermarket off-road bumpers varies by jurisdiction.

{{anchor|5mph}}

Bumper regulations in the United States focus on preventing low-speed accidents from impairing safe vehicle operation, limiting damage to safety-related vehicle components, and containing the costs of repair after a crash.{{cite journal|last1=Abramson |first1=Paul |last2=Stein |first2=Howard |last3=Cohen |first3=Jay |last4=Werner |first4=John |display-authors=2 |title=Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bumper Standard FMVSS 215 |journal=Transportation Research Record |volume=844 |page=12 |year=1982}}{{citation|url= http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2008/2008-03-22/pdf/g1-14212.pdf |title=Canada Gazette Part I |date=22 March 2008 |volume=142 |number=12 |page=823 |access-date=12 July 2020 |quote=The intention of the current U.S. bumper standard is to reduce damage to the bumper system and thus provide American consumers with a lower bumper damage replacement and repair cost, while also maintaining the integrity of the safety systems.}}

In 1971, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the country's first regulation applicable to passenger car bumpers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215 (FMVSS 215), "Exterior Protection," took effect on 1 September 1972—when most automakers would begin producing their model year 1973 vehicles.{{cite magazine| url= https://reason.com/1978/03/01/billion-dollar-bumpers/ |first=Jack |last=Solomon |title=Billion Dollar Bumpers |magazine=Reason |date=March 1978 |access-date=12 June 2022}} The standard prohibited functional damage to specified safety-related components such as headlamps and fuel system components when the vehicle is subjected to barrier crash tests at {{convert|5|mph|km/h|0}} for front and {{convert|2.5|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}} for rear bumper systems.{{cite web |first1=Warren G. |last1=La Heist |first2=Frank G. |last2=Ephraim |url= http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html |title=An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard - As Modified in 1982 - NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 807 072 |website=webcitation.org |access-date=6 January 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090304122233/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html |archive-date=4 March 2009}} The requirements effectively eliminated automobile bumper designs that featured integral automotive lighting components such as tail lamps.

In October 1972, the U.S. Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act (MVICS), which required NHTSA to issue a bumper standard that yields the "maximum feasible reduction of cost to the public and to the consumer".{{cite web |title=An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard-As Modified in 1982 - DOT HS 807 072 |url=https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/807072 |publisher=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |date=February 1987 |access-date=12 June 2022}} Factors considered included the costs and benefits of implementation, the standard's effect on insurance costs and legal fees, savings in consumer time and inconvenience, as well as health and safety considerations.

The 1973 model year passenger cars sold in the U.S. used a variety of designs. They ranged from non-dynamic versions with solid rubber guards, to "recoverable" designs with oil and nitrogen filled telescoping shock-absorbers.{{cite journal |last=Lamm |first=Michael |title=AMC: Hornet hatchback leads the lineup |journal=Popular Mechanics |volume=138 |issue=4 |pages=118–202 |date=October 1972 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=VNQDAAAAMBAJ&q=1973+AMC+front+bumpers&pg=PA118 |via=Google Bookes |access-date=12 June 2022}}

The standards were further tightened for the 1974 model year passenger cars, with standardized height front and rear bumpers that could take angle impacts at {{convert|5|mph|0}} with no damage to the car's lights, safety equipment, and engine. There was no provision in the law for consumers to 'opt out' of this protection.

The regulations specified bumper performance; they did not prescribe any particular bumper design. Nevertheless, many cars for the U.S. market were equipped with bulky, massive, protruding bumpers to comply with the 5-mile-per-hour bumper standard in effect from 1973 to 1982.{{cite book |first=James M. |last=Flammang |title=Cars of the Sensational '70s: A Decade of Changing Tastes and New Directions |publisher=Publications International |year=2000 |isbn=9780785329800}} This often meant additional overall vehicle length, as well as new front and rear designs to incorporate the stronger energy-absorbing bumpers, adding weight to the extremities of the vehicle.{{cite journal|last=Norbye |first=Jan P. |title=New bumpers have uniform height, take angle impacts |journal=Popular Science |pages=90–91 |date=October 1973 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=lpiMSzja6W4C&q=New+bumpers+have+uniform+Ambassador&pg=PA90 |volume=203 |issue=4 |via=Google Books |access-date=12 June 2022}} Passenger cars featured gap-concealing flexible filler panels between the bumpers and the car's bodywork causing them to have a "massive, blockish look".{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=r9j7MWLE_jMC&q=bumpers+AMC&pg=PA209 |page=209 |title=The Cars of American Motors: An Illustrated History |first=Marc |last=Cranswick |publisher=McFarland |year=2011 |isbn=9780786446728 |via=Google Books |access-date=12 June 2022}} However, other bumper designs also met the requirements. The 1973 AMC Matador coupe had free-standing bumpers with rubber gaiters alone to conceal the retractable shock absorbers. "Endura" bumpers, compliant with the regulations yet tightly integrated into the front bodywork, were used on models such as the Pontiac Grand Am starting in 1973 and the Chevrolet Monte Carlo starting in 1978, with significantly lower mass than heavy chromed-steel bumpers with separate impact energy absorbers.{{cite web |last1=Jim |first1=Koscs |title=Pontiac's Grand experiment |url= https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/pontiacs-grand-experiment/ |work=Hagerty |date=8 February 2018 |access-date=12 June 2022}}{{cite magazine |title=Inside Guide: Building that Plastic Bumper |url= http://guidelamp.net/InsideGuide.pdf |magazine=Plastics World |date=February 1979 |access-date=12 June 2022}}

The bumper regulations applied to all passenger cars, both American-made and imported. With exceptions including the Volvo 240, Porsche 911, and Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow, European and Asian automakers tended to put compliant bumpers only on cars destined for the U.S. and Canadian markets where the regulations applied. This meant their North American-spec cars tended to look different than versions of the same model sold elsewhere.

U.S. bumper-height requirements effectively made some models, such as the Citroën SM, ineligible for importation to the United States. Unlike international safety regulations, U.S. regulations were written without provision for hydropneumatic suspension.{{cite web |url= http://boitierrouge.com/2015/05/16/citroen-sm-la-chute-de-sa-majeste/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150819165439/http://boitierrouge.com/2015/05/16/citroen-sm-la-chute-de-sa-majeste/ |archive-date=19 August 2015 |title=Citroën SM: la chute de "Sa Majesté" |trans-title=Citroën SM: "Her Majesty's" fall |first=Paul |last=Clément-Collin |publisher=Boitier Rouge |date=16 May 2015 | language=fr |quote=But in 1974, everything changed: new American regulations imposed new bumpers, and made it almost impossible to market a car with variable suspension height without heavy and very expensive technical modifications. Citroën had to throw in the towel in the United States after hoping in vain for a waiver. |access-date=12 June 2022}}

The requirements promulgated under MVICS were consolidated with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 215 (FMVSS 215, "Exterior Protection of Vehicles") and promulgated in March 1976. This new bumper standard was placed in the United States Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 581, separate from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at 49CFR571. The new requirements, applicable to 1979-model year passenger cars, were called the "Phase I" standard. At the same time, a zero-damage requirement, "Phase II", was enacted for bumper systems on 1980 and newer cars. The most rigorous requirements applied to 1980 through 1982 model vehicles; {{convert|5|mph|km/h|0|adj=on}} front and rear barrier and pendulum crash tests were required, and no damage was allowed to the bumper beyond a {{convert|3/8|in|mm|0|abbr=on}} dent and {{convert|3/4|in|mm|0|abbr=on}} displacement from the bumper's original position.{{cite web|url= http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.a8131659c3c0a2381601031046108a0c/?itemID=621ad2f832daff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&viewType=standard |title=An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard - As Modified in 1982 - NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 807 072 |date=February 1987 |first1=Warren G. |last1=La Heist |first2= Frank G. |last2=Ephraim |website=nhtsa.dot.gov |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090413133818/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.a8131659c3c0a2381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&itemID=621ad2f832daff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard |archive-date=13 April 2009 |access-date=2 July 2015}}

File:1976 AMC Matador coupe cocoa fl-bu.jpg coupe]]

All-wheel-drive "cross-over" cars such as the AMC Eagle were classified as multi-purpose vehicles or trucks, and thus exempt from the passenger car bumper standards.{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=JfkVAQAAMAAJ&q=Such+bumpers+were+legal+because+the+vehicles+so+equipped+were+classified+as+trucks,+or+multi-purpose+vehicles,+exempt+from+the+passenger+car+bumper+standards |page=61 |title=Insurance Facts |publisher=Insurance Information Institute |year=1980 |access-date=6 January 2014}}

The recently elected Reagan administration had pledged to use cost–benefit analysis to reduce regulatory burdens on industry, which impacted this standard.{{cite news|last=Shabekoff |first=Philip |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/07/us/reagan-order-on-cost-benefit-analysis-stirs-economic-and-political-debate.html?pagewanted=all |title=Reagan Order on Cost-benefit Analysis Stirs Economic and Political Debate |work=The New York Times |date=7 November 1981 |access-date=21 June 2016}}

As discussed in detail under Physics, before 1959, people believed the stronger the structure, including the bumpers, the safer the car. A later analysis led to the understanding of crumple zones, rather than rigid construction that proved deadly to passengers because the force from impact went straight inside the vehicle and onto the passenger.

NHTSA amended the bumper standard in May 1982, halving the front and rear crash test speeds for 1983 and newer car bumpers from {{convert|5|mph|km/h|0}} to {{convert|2.5|mph|km/h|0}}, and the corner crash test speeds from {{convert|3|mph|km/h|0}} to {{convert|1.5|mph|km/h|0}}.{{cite web|url= http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html |title=An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard |website=nhtsa.gov}} In addition, the zero-damage Phase II requirement was rolled back to the damage allowances of Phase I. At the same time, a passenger car bumper height requirement of {{convert|16|to(-)|20|in|cm|0}} was established for passenger cars.

NHTSA evaluated the results of its change in 1987, noting it resulted in lower weight and manufacturing costs, offset by higher repair costs.{{cite web|title=An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard - As Modified in 1982 |first1=Warren G. |last1=La Heist |first2=Frank G. |last2=Ephraim |publisher=NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 807 072|url= http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html |date= February 1987 |access-date=21 June 2016}}

Despite these findings, consumer and insurance groups decried the weakened bumper standard. They argued that the 1982 standard increased overall consumer costs without any attendant benefits except for automakers.{{cite magazine |url= http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr1615.pdf |magazine=IIHS Highway Loss Reduction Status Report |title=NHTSA Offers Nine Weaker Bumper Rules |date=6 October 1981 |volume=16 |issue=15 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160303212149/http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr1615.pdf |archive-date=3 March 2016 |access-date=12 June 2022}}{{cite web|url= http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr1707.pdf |title=IIHS Highway Loss Reduction Status Report - 24 May 1982 }} {{small|(939 KB)}}{{cite news|last=Jensen |first=Cheryl |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/21/automobiles/bumpers-cave-in-to-the-bump-and-grind.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all |title=Bumpers Cave In to the Bump and Grind |newspaper=The New York Times |date=21 November 1999 |access-date=6 January 2014}} In 1986, Consumers Union petitioned NHTSA to return to the Phase II standard and disclose bumper strength information to consumers. In 1990, NHTSA rejected that petition.{{cite web |title=Consumer Bumper Quality Disclosure Bill |website=SmartMotorist.com |url= http://www.smartmotorist.com/car-accessories-fuel-and-maintenance/consumer-bumper-quality.html |access-date=6 January 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140107055716/http://www.smartmotorist.com/car-accessories-fuel-and-maintenance/consumer-bumper-quality.html |archive-date=7 January 2014 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}

In the United States, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) subjects vehicles to low-speed barrier tests ({{cvt|6|mph|km/h|disp=or}}) and publishes the results, including repair costs.{{cite web |url= http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/bumpers?classType=Midsize%20moderately%20priced%20cars |title=Bumper evaluation program |website=iihs.org |access-date=2 July 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150702204338/http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/bumpers?classType=Midsize%20moderately%20priced%20cars |archive-date=2 July 2015 |df=dmy-all }} Car makers that do well in these tests tend to publicize the results.{{cite news|url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-jul-10-hy-ouch10-story.html |title=3 of 4 Small SUVs Are Rated 'Poor' for Crash Repair |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=10 July 2010 |first=John |last=O'dell |access-date=2 July 2015}}

In 1990, the IIHS conducted four crash tests on three different-year examples of the Plymouth Horizon. The results illustrate the effect of the

changes to the U.S. bumper regulations (repair costs are quoted in 1990 United States dollars):

• 1983 Horizon with Phase-II 5-mph bumpers: $287
• 1983 Horizon with Phase-I 2.5-mph bumpers: $918
• 1990 Horizon: $1,476

Today's bumpers are designed to mitigate injuries to pedestrians and minimize weight at the ends of the vehicle, thereby increasing occupant protection from progressive crumpling in a serious accident. They are no longer made of steel and rubber, but of a plastic outer fascia over a lightweight, impact-absorbing polystyrene foam core.{{cite web|url= https://motorverso.com/bumper-repair-cost/ |title=Bumper Repair Cost – types of damage and cost estimates |date=27 May 2021 |first=Hafizh |last=Rizqi |work=Motor Verso |access-date=23 August 2021}}

Automobile bumper standards in Canada were first enacted simultaneously as those in the United States. These were closely similar to the {{convert|8|km/h|mph|0|abbr=on}} U.S. regulation, and the Canadian requirements were not lowered to {{convert|4|km/h|mph|abbr=on}} in 1982 as was done in the United States.{{cite web |publisher=Popular Mechanics |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yeMDAAAAMBAJ&q=canada+bumper+regulation+1975+automobile&pg=PA61 |title=Cars you can't buy here |date=September 1984 |page=61 |access-date= 12 April 2017 }}

Some automakers provided stronger Canadian-specification bumpers throughout the North American market, while others chose weaker bumpers in the U.S. market. This limited grey import vehicles between the U.S. and Canada.{{cite web |title=Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1038) |url= https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/acts-regulations/motor-vehicle-safety-regulations-crc-c-1038 |publisher=Transport Canada |date=6 November 2019 |access-date=20 September 2020}}

In early 2009, Canada's regulation shifted to harmonize with U.S. Federal standards and international UN Regulations.{{cite web |title=Canada to harmonize bumper standard with U.S., Europe |publisher=Autos Canada |date=2 April 2008 |url= http://www.autos.ca/general-news/canada-to-harmonize-bumper-standard-with-us-europe/ |access-date=6 January 2014}} As in the U.S., consumer protection groups opposed the change, while Canadian regulators maintained that the {{convert|4|km/h|mph|1|abbr=on}} test speed is used worldwide and is more compatible with improved pedestrian protection in vehicle-pedestrian crashes.{{cite web|url= http://canadasafetycouncil.org/safety-canada-online/article/canada-loosens-bumper-standard-align-us |title=Canada Safety Council: Canada Loosens Bumper Standard To Align With U.S. |website=Safety-council.org |access-date=6 January 2014}}

{{div col|colwidth=30em}}

• Automobile safety
• Buffer (rail transport)
• Bumper sticker
• Cost–benefit analysis
• Crashworthiness
• Government failure
• Headstock
• List of auto parts

{{div col end}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

{{commons category|Bumpers}}

• {{cite journal|url= http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3919&context=lcp |title=Regulatory Economics in the Courts: an Analysis of Judge Scalia's NHTSA Bumper Decision |first=Kip |last=Viscusi |journal=Law and Contemporary Problems |volume=50 |issue=4 |year=1988 |access-date=2 July 2015}}
• {{cite web|url= http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-BREYER/pdf/GPO-CHRG-BREYER-4-30-2-3.pdf |title=Criticism Run Amok |first=Joan |last=Claybrook Joan Claybrook's defense of her tenure at NHTSA against government failure comments by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer |access-date=7 July 2015}}

{{CarDesign nav}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bumper (Automobile)}}

Category:Vehicle safety technologies

Category:Automotive body parts

Category:English inventions