Safety of the 911 when implementing a diet of F/G and deletion

[pbs911]

The 200 lbs diet thread is going OT so I thought I'd start another thread re the safety of F/G bumpers and the deletion of OEM components in the sake of losing weight.

Given the 911's lower stance, and the percentage of vehicles that are most likely to be involved in an accident (SUVs), isn't it unlikely that a 911 bumper will provide protection to the car or passanger?

There is not doubt that the car is more suseptible to damage with the F/G bumpers in the event of an accident. But does it compromise the safety of the passangers? It seems that the majority of cars on the road are just too high to ensure bumper to bumper impact in a colision with a 911. I think that saying the bumper will provide protection is wagering you will be hit by a car that has the same bumper height.

Does the space-saver spare really contribute to passanger safety? Is seems to me there is plenty of metal between the front of the car and the passanger in the event of a front impact. As for the rear, the entire drive train is positioned behind the driver. A serious impact, well, will be a serious impact regardless.

The value of the car is not protected with OEM bumpers:
My SC was rear ended a couple months ago (car with same bumper height) and the other guys insurance company estimated the damage at slightly over $3k. With F/G bumpers it would have been much, much more, maybe a total. I wrote BA and asked him about diminuation in value of the vehicle because of the accident. He responded 15-20%. This is regardless of whether the car had F/G or OEM bumpers and is repaired as good as possible. So OEM bumpers will not protect the 911 from a 15-20 diminution in value.

But even with the F/G bumpers, the insurance company is obligated to pay for damage regardless of the extent of damage. Does anyone know of a defensne available to an insurance company that allows it to deny coverage on the basis the car has F/G bumpers?

[island911]

I would look for the word "modified" in the policy text.

[Bobboloo]

A cars ability to absorb impact and not transfer it into the cabin is what keeps the occupants safe. That being said, if the front of the car accordians in an impact it will help save your life. The cabin is another story. This you want rigid. Thats why roll cages are a good idea aside from the benefit of chassis rigidity to the suspension.

So I guess you have to strike a compromise in the design of a car as to the amount of crumpling that occurs. To much as well as to little is not good.

Just guessing but I would think you would fair better in a frontal impact rather than a rear in an earlier 911 (65'-89'). Taking into consideration the way the frame I-beams are above the axles in the rear. The motor and tranny won't help unless they can drop down and not transfer energy into the cabin.

Bobby

[thabaer]

Potential for damage obviously varies with speed, but you improve the odds of escaping damage by keeping the OEM bumpers. As a recipient of a Mazda B2000 truck impact into the rear of my lowered euro, I'm pretty sure I would have added sheet metal repair to what was otherwise minor bending of my homemade US plate adapter.

I'm also damn lucky she was in a nosedive or instead of two 5" wide dimples in her bumper, she would have had the only carrera-tailed hood in the country.

[island911]

"the safety of F/G bumpers and the deletion of OEM components"
The OEM bumpers are reported to save the sheetmetal and return in a <5mph hit. Beyond that I can say the dampers they are mounted to are not just springs. . .the amount of enregy they absorb will go up with the speed of impact. Then, if pushed further, the front bumper appear to be designed to engage the tires (read: even more energy absorption)

"Does the space-saver spare really contribute to passenger safety? It helps to protect the fuel tank from splitting open.

Aside: I'll never forget a drivers ed. film, where they made comments about front mounted tanks and collisions. Then proceeded to show a bug rear-ending an AMC, with the bug quickly engulfed in a huge fire ball. . . .Followed up by showing a charred smashed bug . . . .with the tank intact, still full of gas!
Which begs the question; do you need your spare when drive amongst American cars?

[cegerer]

The so-called safety bumpers mandated by the U.S. Government in 1974 were required to withstand only 5 MPH impacts! They were legislated into law by the insurance lobby to reduce damage in slow 'shopping center' type fender benders. They are not designed nor intended to withstand much beyond a 5 MPH tap. (Note: In 1982, the requirement was changed to 2.5 MPH, and that remains the standard.) Beyond 5 MPH, the bumper is just along for the ride ..... -- Curt

[island911]

Right, Curt. No improvements were made to the 911 after 1973;
except those to appease the bureaucrats, and people with poor taste in styling.
Right'o -- we got it; and I'm a bit suspcious that there is more than one WDP going on here.

"shopping center' type damage" . . .Yeah, those 911's just had a cute little rubber strip on their dainty bumpers.

[Eric Coffey]

The only things I can think of in favor of the stock bumpers (on `74+ cars) is that they are solid chunks of aluminum that will spread any impact force (more) evenly across the impact shocks than any FG bumper ever could. Plus you've got those huge "bumperettes" in the rear. So at any given speed, in a rear-end collision, I would rather be in the 911 with the stock bumpers. In a fairly low speed impact you might get lucky and only need to replace the shocks and a bumperette or two. I would think the same collision with a FG bumper would certainly lead to more body damage/buckling. Also, if most FG bumpers mount directly to the fenders, they take away the "free-floating" aspect of the bumper by eliminating the fender extension bellows. Just my $.005

[cegerer]

"Right, Curt. No improvements were made to the 911 after 1973; ..."

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments, but you don't really believe that Porsche voluntarily installed safety bumpers in 74???? I agree, the impact bumpers were an improvement,in that, sub-5MPH impact damage was eliminated.

..."except those to appease the bureaucrats,"

I never said that. My contention has always been that the "improvements" after 1973 were done to appease the doctors, dentists, and attorneys who made up their customer base .... -- Curt

[pbs911]

I would look for the word "modified" in the policy text.

Well "modfied" is a little vague and ambiguous.

Moreover, if the other guy/gal is at fault their insurance pays. It is irrelevant whether thei policy specifically exclused any damages due to F/G bumpers being installed in place of the OEM bumpers because a thirdd party is not bound by the terms of the policy. You could have the frigin Hope diampond tied to the back of your bumper and it someone rear ends you and destroys it, their insuarance is required to pay up to the policy limits.

[ChrisBennet]

My bodyman told me a couple of years ago that the rear bumper didn't really reduce damage. I mistakenly thought he said both bumpers. When I was asking him to do a Ruf style F/G nose he said he wouldn't remove the front bumper without a cage. He's repaired a lot of Porsches and Club Racer's cars so I trust his judgement.
-Chris