Subaru super-strong b-pillars vs...

Just happened upon this today. Having been around the Subie forums for a while I was aware of the supposed strength of the WRX (and other subie) b-pillars, but it's pretty amazing to actually see the structure. I once cut a roof off an old civic with a sawzall and it was more like 2 layers of mild steel and cut away with little effort...

Wonder why more car manufacturers don't use this kind of ultra-strong structural support - both for the safety aspect and from a structural rigidity standpoint...

Keerful. I suggested such a thing a while back on this forum and got whacked over the head several times. Of course, I was suggesting enclosing a roll cage inside the body's structure rather than putting airbags everywhere... somehow that seems to be Not A Good Idea.

In reply to Jensenman:

The win, win alternative is to incorporate both concepts, but it costs more and cars weigh more. And, bean counters go with the cheapest and most marketable alternative.

^^ I don't know about that. After all, you can get a base Impreza for around $20k that has that structure + 6 or 8 airbags + AWD and still weights under 3200lbs......If Subaru can do it profitably, you would think other companies can.

Side note: Apparently the pre-2008 Impreza/WRX used 10% high-tensile steel, while the 2008+ ones used high-tensile. Chassis stiffness FTW!

I've also read that Volvo is now using a similar structure, BTW....apparently Subaru and Volvo far exceed the rollover standards that are supposed to take effect in 2014 or something like that.....

Subaru put an article on their integrated rolllover protection in their owner's magazine Drive a couple of years ago. I've used the article when teaching extrication to other firefighters.

I am a fan - the Volvo has something similar I think, as irish noted. Sounds just like a custom fit rollbar uprights built it - can't be a bad thing unless you add structure to it, and now find it redundant. Witness the Black Metal Volvo in Lemons flipping during the last race. The roof didn't even tough to rollbar. Amazing stuff.

Jensenman, sorry I wasn't there - I've always wondered about that.

Surely this is what we expect from out car makers, for once they are doing the right thing instead of the cheap thing.

Kudos Subaru, I will be looking at one carefully for my next family car

I'm fairly certain that came about because they had been using frameless door windows.

A few weeks ago I had a total loss on a WRX (04?) that had left the road at over 100 mph and impacted a tree pretty much front center. There were two occupants. The passenger, who wore his belt, survived with very little damage. The driver, who did not, was ejected and has gone to a place where there are no trees to hit. I can't post the photos I took, and you wouldn't like seeing them anyway, but let me tell you that this was one of the most horrific wrecked cars I've ever seen. That anyone survived it from within the car is remarkable, and pleases me greatly since my wife drives a Forester. For a "tinny" Asian car they are impressively safe. Yes, they turn to scrap pretty quickly, but it's because they are engineered to absorb crash energy before it reaches the cabin.

The whole idea of 'crumple zones' makes great sense. It makes even more sense when coupled with a structurally solid passenger compartment. But no, we get balloons everywhere. Conventional A and B pillar designs are merely two, sometimes three pieces of stamped steel spot welded together and are not anywhere near as strong as true tubing.

I'm glad Subaru has chosen to strengthen their car bodies this way. How much cost and weight does it really add? Couldn't be a heckuva lot; face facts, Subaru is a niche player in the automotive marketplace, nowhere near as big as, say, Mazda, yet they were able to accomplish this.

2008 vehicle manufacturer sales rankings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry

Fuji (Subaru) sold 640,000 vehicles. A mere drop in the bucket.

aussiesmg wrote: Surely this is what we expect from out car makers, for once they are doing the right thing instead of the cheap thing.

Define right thing?

Many people used to say that going away from a body on frame vehicle was cheapening out. I don't really hear those people anymore....

The right thing is to build a car that is safer than the minimum mandated standard, instead of building them down to the required minimum.

aussiesmg wrote: The right thing is to build a car that is safer than the minimum mandated standard, instead of building them down to the required minimum.

Back in the day I was working for a BMW dealer and one of our customers got tailended in his two-week-old '73 (yes!) 2002. The rear bumper ended up under the rear glass, which IIRC didn't break. The car was essentially perfect from the rear axle forward. The car DIDN'T catch fire, even tho' the gas tank was right there and wound up under the car. The dealer bought the car from the insurance co and we used it for show purposes, usually only having to invite the prospective customer to sit in the car and open and close both doors...

I think while under the roof of GM... subaru's engineers learned well from Saab's.

the hardest time I ever had cutting a car apart.. was a fiat x1/9. That car, as rotted as it was.. would not go quietly into the night.

I used to mock Volvos for their safety ads, but now, as a career firefighter, I'm no longer surprised when I approach one that has been completely wrapped around a pole and find that all the doors still open easily.

Volvo drivers sure do seem to hit a lot of poles, though.

I can tell you that Mazda uses high-strength steel in the Miata's windshield frame. It's tough stuff. They will sometimes fold in a rollover, but that's because there's no other support.

We run a salvage operation at Flyin' Miata, and I love going through the cars to see how they deformed in a crash. This little guy was my favorite. Shortened by a couple of feet, both doors still opened easily and the passenger's compartment was not affected - although the steering wheel had broken off the hub, as designed. There was no sign that the occupants had been damaged.

mad_machine wrote: I think while under the roof of GM... subaru's engineers learned well from Saab's.

or perhaps it's the other way around....the "Saabaru" after all was a Subaru design essentially, not a Saab design AFAIK...GM hasn't exactly been a safety trail-blazer in recent decades.

I would bet that subaru structural soundness has as much to do with its rally heritage as with street safety...

mad_machine wrote: I think while under the roof of GM... subaru's engineers learned well from Saab's. the hardest time I ever had cutting a car apart.. was a fiat x1/9. That car, as rotted as it was.. would not go quietly into the night.

You needed the grassroots rescue saw. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxkyBpFKNDU 14" HF chop saw, taken off the base.

irish44j wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I think while under the roof of GM... subaru's engineers learned well from Saab's.

or perhaps it's the other way around....the "Saabaru" after all was a Subaru design essentially, not a Saab design AFAIK...GM hasn't exactly been a safety trail-blazer in recent decades. I would bet that subaru structural soundness has as much to do with its rally heritage as with street safety...

The Saabaru was built in Japan on the same line as other Imprezas. Most Subaru only meets if you show up in a 9-2X no body bats an eye.

As for safety design I wouldn't be surprised if it went both ways. Swedish motor vehicle crash safety standards have been way ahead of the rest of the world since the '70's and Subaru's rallying.

griffin729 wrote:

irish44j wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I think while under the roof of GM... subaru's engineers learned well from Saab's.

or perhaps it's the other way around....the "Saabaru" after all was a Subaru design essentially, not a Saab design AFAIK...GM hasn't exactly been a safety trail-blazer in recent decades. I would bet that subaru structural soundness has as much to do with its rally heritage as with street safety...

The Saabaru was built in Japan on the same line as other Imprezas. Most Subaru only meets if you show up in a 9-2X no body bats an eye.

yeah, that's what I was saying. I'm a NASIOC regular (have a WRX). I didn't know if mad_machine knew something that I didn't about Saab having some input in the safety/chassis....

That seams why that rolled forester i should have gotten was still in as good of shape.

I don't know if this is still up, it is blocked at work, but I think this is what mad_machine was refering to: http://www.lifesupport.com/saab/

Those are supposed to be pictures of a head on crash of a 99 9-3 and a Prelude, the police said the impact speed was 125 +.

mad_machine wrote: I think while under the roof of GM... subaru's engineers learned well from Saab's. the hardest time I ever had cutting a car apart.. was a fiat x1/9. That car, as rotted as it was.. would not go quietly into the night.

Yeah, they were designed for roll over standards that were proposed for convertibles in 75. Apparently the Big Three had their lobbyists get rid of that, but Fiat had already started down the path. The results were a small convertible roadster that weighed upwards of 2000lbs, but was incredibly strong.