Im gonna have to respectfully disagree. I think the fact that the JDM and other market ones dont have a "crash beam", defiantly shows its NOT needed.

Yes, overseas manufactures dont have the same safety standards that we do in the US because they dont have insurance companies lobbying for these standards so they can make/keep MORE MONEY.

As you even said, "it was developed to help keep the costs down to both the insurance companies as well as consumers". They may have said/told that safety was also a factor in requiring these, but I dont buy it. Its only effective under 5mph, so I would say it has little or nothing to do with safety.

IMHO, the only reason for its existence is because insurance companies want to keep MORE MONEY.

 

So you are saying the only reason the US have the safety standards that we do is because NHTSA wants the insurance companies to save more money by people not dying or having serious injuries? I guess the same could be said then about speed limits being imposed for the same reasons? Since I work in the field I have a completly different outlook on the subject but I do respect your opinion. There will be conspiracy theroists for everything.

 

Not at all.

Im saying for this ONE safety standard ("crash beams"), I feel it was done to keep money in the pockets of insance companies and not for necessarily for "safety".

Im not commenting on any other safety standards made by the NHTSA.

 

[quote=Boosted Tuning;9053513]Im gonna have to respectfully disagree. I think the fact that the JDM and other market ones dont have a "crash beam", defiantly shows its NOT needed.

My title JDM/USDM rear bumper simply means that the beam will fit a USDM/JDM rear bumper. I agree it's just a DOT requirement, but it is good insurance against somebody turning a minor rear end impact into a huge mess. The reason we chose to make this in carbon was to absorb much more impact energy than a steel or aluminum rear beam at about half the weight.

While I agree that it "not needed", it does attach to the primary rear load structures of the chassis and therefore acts as a ladder stiffening element. There are plenty of examples of things that are not needed for a street car, but are essential for improving the performance and safety of a race car. It will make the chassis stiffer. How much or big of a difference is yet to be seen. Does anyone know if any of the road racers stiffen the rear of the car laterally?

 

Gotcha.

 

I dont buy this either. I think if it was there to make the chassis stiffer/better, then it would be on JDM EVOs too.

JDM EVOs handle just as good or better then USDM EVOs, so I dont think the US crash beams do anything helpful in the handling/stiffness department. If anyting, its extra weight right where you dont want it, when it comes to handling.

 

It sounds like US crash beams save money during low-speed impacts; 5 mph and below. You can't tell me your life is in danger at 5 mph. Additionally, I doubt this beam does so much at speeds that ARE dangerous. Trust me. My car is salvaged. I rebuilt the rear end. I've seen what hAppens at 15 mph.
I don't see the beam saving lives.
As such, I could see the cf piece possibly acting as a decent, 5 mph "cushion" as steel.
If you aren't worried about being rear ended in a parking lot, drop the beam and its weight. If so, but don't like the oem piece, go cf IF you have the $$$

Just my $.02 I could be 100% wrong.

 

I'm not sure how much torsional stiffness the beam provides, we will do a torsional rigidity test. We do this on race cars all of the time.

 

I am sure it will work...

It would work like the OEM RS trunk bar, which is very accepted as a way to improve handling.

It would take out a bit of understeer i imagine.

But i asked about the process your using because Vacuum bagging offers only so much compression to increase fiber strength and Density. I would also use compression and vacuum, works for us when building Aircraft parts.

Could build some simple high density CF flat panels first then bond them around the foam. Would not look pretty but its going to be covered anyways right.

Our company has built landing gears for aircraft out of HD carbon fiber...Supports a 10K pound aircraft and survives hard landings. So i am sure a bumper can be built.

 

Yes I agree

 

I got tapped while sitting at a traffic light at around 5mph and glad I had my crash beam there so I probably would have needed a new bumper cover. Bumper cover hit the crash beam and pushed it down a little. The girls front license plate made two small scratches in my paint. I got under the car and bent the crash beam back up and was almost able to buff out the scratches, so overall not bad.

However, I am interested in a cf rear crash beam, as I want to get a jdm rear soon and would love to save weight and still have some type of crash beam there. Looking forward to final pics and pricing.

 

Also since you are in Wichita, Kansas. i noticed a few companies that deal in composites.


Did you ever go to the Abaris composite training in reno?

 

This happened to me aswell. I only had some paint damage. The collision was <5mph. They did hit me at an angle though. I guess their insurance would have had to cover the damages since they had it ... Though, I have a meth tank in back drivers side so I plan to keep my crash beams for now.

 

Yes, I would normally agree however our company uses a vacuum infusion process that typically provides better properties then autoclave prepreg grade. We make a lot of structural aircraft and motorsports products with this process. We make the predator B landing gear with a similar process.

 

Ah so good fiber to resin ratio since the resin is introduced during vacuum.


And yes the landing gears on the MQ-9 are very strong, you should see what we put them through.