Just received this photo from a friend. Apparently the rear bumper of the S70 isn't reinforced with a bar to withstand collision?

I see. The Ford Focus mk3 which I sold recently got knocked 2 times, and in both instances the other 2 vehicles showed serious damage at the front of the vehicle while the Focus barely showed a scratch. Apparently I still have the photos showing the 2nd accident.

I see. I presume most C and D-segment vehicles will come with the rear anti collision bar.

Just a quick check on Ultra Racing website and noticed that they offer rear anti collision bar for Toyota Vios and Nissan Almera. I presume these vehicles don't come with the rear anti collision car since the option is offered for these vehicles.

You got a point there. However, if given a choice, it's better for a vehicle to come with an anti collision bar than none. Apart from safety aspects, repairs done by workshop appointed by insurance companies can be shoddy. I know because I once got access to the photos of the repair carried out to my Ford Focus claimed through insurance. Outside may look nice but below hidden by the car body, those broken or bent parts they won't replace new and will just patch up and make good. In my case it's just minor damage. Imagine if it's major damage with more broken or damaged parts. In most cases I believe they will salvage whatever that can be used and only replace parts which are completely broken.

This post has been edited by SportyHandling: Feb 8 2024, 10:49 AM

Nice story. In 2 separate incidents where my Ford Focus got banged from behind, those vehicles require a tow truck to tow them to the workshop as they can't be driven anymore. The 1st incident involved a Proton Wira where the front upper bonnet was bent and there was smoke coming out from the engine compartment. In the second incident, the photos are as above and one of the tyres was out of alignment due to the impact of collision so it could not be driven anymore.

As for my car, nothing was damaged except some minor dent to the bumper. The boot can still be opened and closed as usual.

This post has been edited by SportyHandling: Feb 8 2024, 10:58 AM

Well, I consider the rear reinforment bar as a safety equipment for selected vehicles such as MPV or hatchback. For a rear collision which involves say Perodua Alza if there are occupants sitting in the 3rd row, the risk of fatal injury is extremely high in the event of such collisions.



In the event of an accident major or minor, damage is already a certain case. It is better to have a damage to the chassis than a fatal injury to occupants where lives cannot be replaced. Chassis or whatever parts damaged can be replaced or scrap.

We don't have information on how strong is the structural frame of the car, or beams as you have put it so could you clarify how do you know the beams of a vehicle are not strong enough to support the additional rear anti collision beam?

If you don't have information on the strength of the main chassis or frame of the car, then it is incorrect for you to state that the frame is insufficient or not strong enough to support the additional anti-collision bar.

I'm not sure about automotive design but there will be parameters in the design which not only take into consideration the strength and weight of the materials involved but collision force which will vary with different impact scenarios. It's just a matter of having varied protection levels from low to high. Having a certain level of protection is surely better than none at all. Of course one can desire to have the maximum level of protection but the designer will need to take into account the overall cost of the vehicle as it needs to be economical to run (light) but at the same time a decent level of safety. A safe vehicle will usually be heavier due to thicker steel frame sections or some other reinforcement.

Since I'm typing on my handphone I try not to write too much. In my view, I reiterate for select vehicles such as MPVs which do not have any rear collision bars, it is surely much safer to have the bar installed than having none at all if there are occupants sitting in the 3rd row. It's a choice that a person makes, whether a human life is more important or your argument that the bar won't help since the frame of the car is not strong enough. The bar will surely help to a certain extent depending on the severity of the collision. Without the bar the impact of collision will be direct to the occupants sitting in the 3rd row, and if it's a strong impact things will just get worse. With the anti collision bar, the forces will be transmitted to the bar and to the main frame of the vehicle.

As for proper design and structural calculation, even though there are numbers, it won't be too useful as it will depend on the severity of impact as mentioned earlier, which is the force of the collision. To design to the worst case max scenario everything will need to be strengthened or beefed up which will add to the cost. The point that I'm trying to convey is very simple. It is better to have a bar take the direct force of impact rather than none. The question of whether the bar will be successful in operation, that is unknown since the force of collision is unknown but it will surely be safer with one than none.

Still don't agree??

This post has been edited by SportyHandling: Feb 9 2024, 07:11 PM

I believe we are going in circles. You argue to have a proper one, which by your definition a collapsible design and an incollapsible design is not proper. I don't know about Ultra Racings design but have mentioned that even an incollapsible design is better than none.

Anti collision bar or strengthening bar sounds fine to me as it's still a bar. You can refer it as bumper as you wish. It's a trivial matter.

That's a useful analysis but how does that have an advantage over an incollapsible design in collisions of varying speeds in real life situations?