Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2011, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:15:41 -0800
Reply-To:     Oxroad <oxroad@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Oxroad <oxroad@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bumpers
In-Reply-To:  <AANLkTi=gaKoXtXKbJ+vHgjBpk_Vb2TtLrDcxPQ=yrz3Z@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

FWIW I just did some calculations using the "shipping weight" of a chrome front bumper including the the end caps and rubber impact strips and that comes out to 40 pounds total. That's assuming the chrome bumper itself may is 35 pounds. My guess is the the chrome bumper may weigh a little less, but I dunno.

If all my calculations are correct the difference between the stock chrome front bumper and the GoWesty is 20 pounds--Gowesty being the heavier. A 20 pound increase on the front and rear of a Westfalia in the scheme of things seems fairly minor to me. Heck one bicycle on either end would add more. But I'm open to differing opinions. Mostly I'm shooting from the hip.

Best, Jeff 83.5 Westy LA,CA

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Oxroad <oxroad@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just got word from GoWesty that the set of their Steel Plate Bumpers > WITHOUT the trailer hitch weight 120 pounds. > > So roughly 60 pounds on the front and 60 on the rear. Someone with more > interaction with these bumpers may have > a bead on a different weight breakdown. My guess is the rear might be a > little heavier than the front(?) > > This as compared to the fiberglass front that weighs about 15 pounds plus > any mounting hardware, brackets and such. > > Best, > Jeff > 83.5 Westy > LA, CA > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Oxroad <oxroad@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just weighed the stock front fiberglass genuine VW bumper. I weighed it >> with no brackets on it and no license plate. It weighs somewhere about 14 or >> 15 pounds, >> for what that's worth. I was surprised it weighed so little. >> >> I have to say even though we know how useless the fiberglass bumpers are, >> I was reminded when I picked the one I have up how flimsy and >> light it is. In my opinion it is nothing more than trim. >> >> At least the stock chrome bumpers have a nice "absorbant" rubber strip to >> deal with poor parker's bumps. That fiberglass bumpers offer ??? >> >> Jeff >> 83.5 Westy >> LA,CA >> >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Oxroad <oxroad@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> How much do these GoWesty bumpers weigh? I get that pound for pound >>> adding weight in a certain area obviously effects handling. >>> The number of passengers, gear, and so on effect handling stopping >>> distance. And the Westfalia is already loaded >>> pretty good with the kitchen and drinking water and such. >>> >>> But I'd like to figure out the weight of the Go Westy bumpers and then >>> percentage wise what that adds to each end of the vehicle. >>> Seemingly the fiberglass would be the lightest. In fact I have one I'll >>> weigh before the day is out to compare. >>> >>> I didn't find a weight for the GoWesty bumpers on their site. >>> >>> And while I thought about the liability I dunno how it effects things. I >>> see a lot of SUVs in the wrecking yard with aftermarket and heavy brush >>> guards. >>> I can't speak with ANY authority but on the front impacts I've seen on >>> SUVs in the wrecking yard it would APPEAR the brush guard offered >>> more protection--some protection over nothing in that area. And then, >>> once the brush guard gave way the vehicles crumple zones crumple. >>> >>> OK, how about this; Say my bus with stock fiberglass bumpers is hit by a >>> bus with GoWesty bumpers; does that change the way MY crumple zones work? >>> See what I'm getting at? If the GoWEsty bumper in on the other vehicle >>> and hits me there seems little difference than if it was on my vehicle of >>> the other >>> as far as MY crumple zones. >>> >>> And I'm just putting out questions here. I don't have answers. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>> 83.5 Westy >>> LA,CA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Scott Daniel - Turbovans < >>> scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote: >>> >>>> re >>>> >>>> "And the rear bumper mounts are not that strong. The bolts do shear and >>>> those >>>> brackets do not put up that much of a fight." >>>> >>>> I'm thinking that the engineers attempted to come up with the best blend >>>> of >>>> severe impact energy absorption ...a legal requirement >>>> .............reasonable cost, and keeping weight and mass reasonable. >>>> >>>> granted...the bumpers might only provide very light impact protection . >>>> I'd >>>> say once things get beyond a minor say 5 to 10 mph impact...the bumpers >>>> are >>>> not even supposed to help very much, once impact gets medium severe and >>>> above. >>>> >>>> I also noticed that in the front ..there is quite some good impact >>>> protection and energy absorption build in. >>>> That bumper like piece behind the front chrome bumper....that's the >>>> 'real' >>>> bumper in any real crash. >>>> And then there is that almost massive beam built into the front too. >>>> >>>> in the rear ....since they are engineering for crushability in a severe >>>> impact... >>>> and since there's no beam or anything across the back .....the engine >>>> and >>>> trans are what help with distributing forces in a non-server way there. >>>> >>>> it just depends on what you want to protect. >>>> Sure a battering ram will protect the body nicely .. >>>> but might not be the best thing in a server where-lives-are-at stake >>>> crash. >>>> >>>> I'd say it could even be a liability issue .........people who are not >>>> automotive engineers offering equipment that modifies the original >>>> crashworthiness . Let's say once the first 15 years go by .. >>>> the legal crushability requirements of the design no longer matter. >>>> lol. >>>> >>>> and I'll say it again ..adding significant weight to the ends of any >>>> vehicle >>>> negatively affects the handling. >>>> Now if someone would engineer a good looking, aerodynamic carbon >>>> fiber/Kevlar bumper system . >>>> that 'did it all'...improved aerodynamics, protected the vehicle in >>>> small >>>> impacts and a large ones, and looked good .....yeah maybe that would be >>>> nice. Expensive though. >>>> But don't want to ruin anyone's fun ....so buy those big things and >>>> hang >>>> 'em on there ! >>>> >>>> lol >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Dennis Haynes" <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM> >>>> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:18 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Bumpers >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course not having the folding trim piece fold up even during low >>>>> speed >>>>> impacts the body may be protected with those resulting forces >>>>> transferring >>>>> to your seat. So the van may be protected but you may have the >>>>> whiplash. >>>>> Actually this point is crap and a trailer hitch can have the same >>>>> results. >>>>> >>>>> Strong bumpers, bull bars etc all look good and offer some protection >>>>> but >>>>> once an impact occurs beyond their limits, they will often do more >>>>> damage >>>>> than the original impact. >>>>> >>>>> And the rear bumper mounts are not that strong. The bolts do shear and >>>>> those >>>>> brackets do not put up that much of a fight. >>>>> >>>>> Dennis >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On >>>>> Behalf Of >>>>> Don Hundt >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:22 PM >>>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM >>>>> Subject: Re: Bumpers >>>>> >>>>> Scott, >>>>> I think the main reason some folks want bigger bumpers is that they >>>>> look >>>>> better than a flimsy bumper that bends in a stiff breeze. I fail to see >>>>> how >>>>> a larger bumper would make one less safe in the type of crash where a >>>>> bumper >>>>> would be involved. I'm not an automotive engineer, but I would suspect >>>>> that >>>>> VW didn't spec those bumpers as part of the crumple zone, but rather as >>>>> a >>>>> cost-saving measure. If the bumper mounts to the same point as stock, >>>>> it >>>>> seems to me the same energy would be transferred to the body of the van >>>>> as >>>>> with stock bumpers. They are both mounted solidly to the "frame" of the >>>>> van, >>>>> with no energy absorption between components. The only issue I can see >>>>> is >>>>> in >>>>> the event of a glancing blow, where the stock bumpers would fold up, >>>>> the >>>>> larger bumper would hold, possibly transferring damage upstream to the >>>>> mounting point. Either way, though, you will end up with body damage. >>>>> Don >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM> >>>>> Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:48 pm >>>>> Subject: Re: Bumpers >>>>> >>>>> what I question is why anyone would want bigger bumpers . >>>>>> >>>>>> if it's safety, making the van into a battery ram won't help at >>>>>> all in a >>>>>> rollover, or side impact crash. >>>>>> >>>>>> adding weigh to the ends of vehicle is a disadvantage dynamically .. >>>>>> 'polar moment of inertia' ..means a thing heavy at the ends >>>>>> doesn't like to >>>>>> change directions as easily. >>>>>> >>>>>> so nimbleness of handling will diminish some. >>>>>> >>>>>> and I wonder about the built-in crushability that's engineered, very >>>>>> intentionally , into the vehicle.. >>>>>> it might actually not be as safe with bigger heavier bumpers on >>>>>> it, in terms >>>>>> if impacts from the ends and nice controlled crushability there. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure people realize the idea of crumble zones is to spread the >>>>>> forcesout over those first milliseconds of hitting something >>>>>> ..controlleddeformation for occupant protection. >>>>>> Make it into a battering ram ..and you loose that, I'd think. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> www.turbovans.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Troy" <colorworks@GCI.NET> >>>>>> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:25 PM >>>>>> Subject: Bumpers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Was just looking at the new "big bumpers" from Van Cafe' and then >>>>>> > comparing them to Go Westy's bumpers. There's a several hundred >>>>>> dollar> price difference. Does anyone care to comment on the >>>>>> relative advantages >>>>>> > of one over the other? Considering my location, the Van Cafe' >>>>>> bumpers,> despite there higher price, may actually work out >>>>>> cheaper because of >>>>>> > shipping. Any disadvantages to the Go Westy bumpers? Sounds like >>>>>> some> minor cutting of the van is required. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Troy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.