Tehachapi News

All > Columns > Overall Picture
Bill Mead, Tehachapi News Columnist
Topics:
Posted by editor Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:59:35 PDT
Viewed 358 times
0 responses 0 comments It's a good thing I'm too old to look for work. That's because I no longer understand much of the reasoning that seems to pass for wisdom in the business world these days.

I don't like generalities either so let me get to the point. I read that luxury cars cost a fortune to fix after even low-speed thumps. We're talking about the powder puff fender benders that occur in parking lots where speeds are between 3 and 6 miles an hour. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested 11 luxury 2007 models and came up with some pretty hair-raising results. Like, they found that taking the kinks out of an Infiniti G35 caused by a 6 mph tap are likely to cost over five thousand bucks. That was after a nose-to-nose hit. The repair price drops to only a little more than a thousand smackeroos if your Infiniti takes a love pat on the rear corner.

If that seems like a bargain you've overlooked some automotive history. For comparison purposes the study tossed in an ugly old 1981 Ford Escort and bunged it up the same way. This produced a repair cost of $86 to make the Escort look as bad as new after a full frontal collision at a crawl speed of 6 MPH. A rear corner hit on the old Escort didn't cost a nickel because it didn't do any damage.
How come the el cheapo Ford came out so well when it cost so much to fix the expensive Infiniti? The researchers said the Escort had bumpers made before bumper standards were relaxed 25 years ago. The article didn't explain why the government relaxed the standards but the IIHI test results strongly suggest they shouldn't have done that. We now have scientific evidence that light bumpers lead to heavy costs at the body shop.  

Commenting on these tests, spokespersons for luxury car manufacturers offered some baffling responses as to why their cars are so much more fragile than a lowly 26-year-old Escort. The Mercedes-Benz guy laid it right on the line when he said the low speed crash test results did not reflect his company's “holistic approach to occupant safety. This philosophy influences vehicle design and development even down to the front bumper.” Say what?

Other factory reps complained that the tests did not assess vehicle safety and looked only at repair costs. They went on to charge that it was hard for the tests to replicate the low-speed crashes that typically occur on the road. I don't get that. I would think a bang is a bang is a bang whether accidental or on purpose. See why nobody would hire me?

On the chance I might run out of retirement funds and really need employment, I'm trying to improve my attitude and stop assuming that if something sounds crazy it probably is. Logic doesn't seem to have much place at the top levels of government or industry these days so I have to go with this flow before I send out my job resumes. For example, my old brain just won't wrap itself around the idea that a flimsier bumper makes a safer car.

Perhaps if I understood the meaning of current buzzwords like “holistic” I might yet learn to ignore common sense. Can you help me on this? I don't believe the Mercedes guy will return my calls.

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation