Same here, they are called bumpers for a reason. Modern bumpers don't look like they're made to absorb impact energy at all, and when they do take a hit they need to be replaced or you'll have one ugly bumper.
Yes, my car is 10 years old now and has some scuffs on the bumpers even after repair/repainting and I'm annoyed, also bought new summer tires last year and the old had a rim protector (a protruding edge on the sidewall), with these the alloy rims had barely any scratches/damage, the new ones don't have and now after just two half-years they look like shit with deep scratches on three wheels because its much quicker the metal than the rubber when I touch a curb.
Call me crazy, I think they are an attractive and iconic look. They look so utilitarian and practical, it is like if you don't have a proud bumper; that vehicle appears to be missing something.
I actually liked them. You never know when your drunk dad was going to push your car off the driveway at 2am in the morning or just hit your car at any random time.
I am not generally a fan of rubber (or actually urethane) covered bumpers. But there are a few notable exceptions, and one of them is the 1974-1977 Corvette. Those are my favorite years of the Corvette, because of the urethane bumper covers and the flat back window. I have owned a white 1976 Corvette for almost 35 years. Most purists want the chrome bumpers, but to me, the new body colored bumper covers actually made the Corvette look like it didn't have any bumpers, and the shape of the covers was the finishing touch to the Corvettes styling. They were properly shaped, and didn't stick out like they did on most cars.
I always thought 70’s corvettes looked great, even at the time…. for some reason they didn’t get any respect at that time, not from the car magazines or the public….
Many of the rubber bumpers looked just fine and even quite modern for the time. The advantage was you could make contact all the time, Like during parking, with zero damage. Likely the first bumper that looked like part of the car was the tailcone of the Porsche 928. That was considered revolutionary for its day. The actual bumper was hidden underneath the composite bodywork.
In my opinion, seeing the 60s-70s era MG midgets, and the change in style I don't entirely dislike it. The integration is pretty good, they feel practical and add an (interesting) look the the cer, the pre facelift bumpers, however although good, feel more like a decal- not at all functional, just there for style, I would be worried to hit anything, going anything above 10mph.
I worked in a body shop back in the 1970s and yes, if you had a below 5mph collision you'd save some money but at 6mph or more it got a lot more expensive fast. Those bumper systems weren't cheap to build or repair.
@@JollyGiant19I no longer work in the trade but the standard at one point was actually "no damage" at 5 mph so those rubber bumpers had a lot behind them, typically lots of reinforcing steel, high pressure shock absorbers (that sometimes were jammed in after a collision which were dangerous if they suddenly released while you were working on them) and often the frame had to be reinforced to cope with the added forces. It takes a lot to dissipate the energy stopping a 2 ton vehicle going 5 mph with no damage at all. Everyone, especially the insurance companies, thought the "no damage" 5 mph standard would save all kinds of money, in fact for one year (and one year only) there was a significant discount on your insurance if you had the 5 mph bumpers. When the insurance companies found out what the claims were to replace those bumper systems that was the end of that. Ultimately that was what did in those bumpers, it wasn't saving anyone any money at all, in fact it cost more in the initial vehicle price and in insurance. In theory it sounded good but in practice it didn't work out so they changed the regulation to no damage at low speeds to a list of safety related items like lights, turn signals etc. rather than no damage at all. These days they are rightfully more worried about occupant survival in higher speed crashes than saving the body work at very low speed bumps. For sure modern cars will "fold up" a lot more than the cars of 50 years ago (absorbing energy as it does so) and repairs are expensive but a lot more people survive crashes today too.
@@ddavidson5 They are great for parking in public, since a lot of people did park "by ear" well into the 2000s, and rubber bumpers are great protection against others in that case.
One side effect you did not cover: in order to let the bumper (especially the shock absorber type you did not mention - see Fords and VWs) prevent major damage, manufacturers had to stiffen and reinforce the frames where they attached. In the short run this made cars MORE dangerous for occupants as only part of the car structure was addressed. In the long run manufacturers learned what performance car builders had known for some time - a stiffer structure gives a better more controlled driving experience.
That’s why I built a ladder frame of 3/8” plate in my vw. Right behind the aluminum and rubber bumper is 3/4” solid steel. It’s only a 1981 vw rabbit pickup it needs all the help. Most people didn’t know a 1960 vw beetle did better in front crash testing than a 1984 vw Gti.
They may not have been pretty but I had someone in a late model ford fusion back into my 280z and her trunk was absolutely mangled and mine didn't have a scratch. Pretty happy with the crash bumpers!
I took the bumpers off of my beloved Alfetta and weighed them. The front was 89 pounds and the resr was 94. Then, I simply cut through the rubber on the rear faces between the mounting points and peeled the rubber away from the incredibly heavy steel girders within. I was left with very light and noodly rubber shells for which I had to fabricate new mounts and lightwright stiffening skeletons. The result was a faster accelerating, better braking and much better handling Alfetta - the most fun to drive car I ever owned or drove.
@@PneumaticFrog I bought the car used, with about 25,000 miles. That was about time for the cheap head gasket and valve guides that came standard in those years to give trouble. Once that problem was corrected the car was very reliable. The driveshaft donuts were troublesome, until I found the trick of making the transaxle mounts, center shaft mount and rear engine mount rigid in order to keep the shaft straight at all times. The last 100,000 or so miles were trouble free except for resealing some clutch and brake cylinders and replacing the water pump (Oh, I replaced the clutch, too) The car was very easy to work on. SPICA fuel injection was wonderful and the already good handling could be improved by several easy and inexpensive part substitutions. I could still be driving it today if I hadn't become so enthusiastic about its performance that I turned it into a Pro Rally car
@@PneumaticFrog I assume that most of the other "rubber bumper" models of the 1970s also had steel within them. An Alfa Spider or an MGB would probably benefit even more than my car did if those bumpers were removed.
Personally, I'm completely ready for chonky bumpers to make a comeback. They're called BUMPERS, dangit, they're SUPPOSED to be good at bumping into things!
I know this is mostly talking about sports cars, but I'm surprised to see no mention of the Volvo Experimental Safety Car and it's impact on what regulators thought safety meant. the VESC is the patriarch of big rubber bumpers, and I love it for that.
You are right, the rubber baby buggy bumpers really did change the look of the automobile. It was part of an evolution the car need to into the future of design.
Cars nowadays are justing getting bigger and bigger because if you’ve got the biggest car on the road your the safest but also your the biggest danger to others… sooooo others buy your bigger car and then you don’t feel safe so you buy a BIGGER car so on and so forth. It’s very sad
The worst of these bumpers were put on MGs and Triumphs. Not only did they add weight, they also had to change the ride height and messed up their handling. On the other hand, I liked to ones on my Porsche 914. They actually were tough as hell and helped the car survive all of the parallel parking I had to do in DC back in the 80's.
I have a 1974.5 MGB roadster, the last version that had the twin SU carbs but the first version with the rubber bumper (built between September and December 1974, badged as a 1975 officially.) I was more concerned about getting the twin carbs than the bumpers, and to be honest I bought it to drive, not to impress others. I don't see the bumpers when I'm driving it! I will admit the chrome bumper looks better, but it really doesn't matter to me. It's fun to drive!
A really nice video on the subject. Especially for someone that didn't live thru it you did a good job. The only thing you could have added was the bumpers between the chrome era and the full rubber. Cars like the 74 MGB and Midget with the big square rubber pads.
I do remember back in the day that bumpers had pretty much become a decorative strip on the front of the car and one of the reasons for the bumper regulation was hoods were often were further forward than the bumper so even just a 1 or 2 mph bump folded up the hood. Bumpers also were of varying heights so when one car bumped another often the bumpers never touched, they just over rode each other and smashed up the lights or whatever they came in contact with. As I recall the big problem with the MGB was that rather than an expensive redesign to the car to meet the bumper height requirement they just jacked up the suspension to raise the bumper along with the rest of the car which totally ruined handling characteristics (which was the MGB's raison d'etre). It was like they just put longer springs and shocks in it and called it a day. Yes, the weight and a few other bits didn't help but it was the raising of the whole vehicle that really did a number on it. These days those bumper regulations have been met for the most part by moving the defined "safety equipment" covered by the regulations (i.e. hood release, lights, turn signals, etc.) out of the way. Look at a modern car you'll see the lights etc. are often high mounted and recessed away from danger in a low speed collision.
I think an important follow-up to this video should be the standardized headlight regulations. If you compare a European car to its American import version, you’ll find the headlights are always different. This is because American regulations dictated what kind of headlights you could use, leading to the poor butchering of the Citroen DS, or cases like the Volvo 242 with the oddly placed double headlights. It wasn’t until late in the 80s that manufacturers were given freedom, and it lead to a lot of oddball designs to try and work around this regulation, or no attempt at all (see the 70s Firebird).
Absolutely.... One example of... Can't be unseen, Jaguar Coupe's,, the forced Rubber bumpers are an eye sore.. Corvette C3 look at 1972 vs 73 .. Your car has always been a favorite of mine, congratulations for owning one
I reckon the black bumper MGB looks really cool and looking at it now was an excellent solution to meet the US regulations at the time. I actually prefer them to the chrome 👍
I've never heard of the midget of that era until today, and seeing both, I honestly like to rubber more, it looks like it could hit anything and be fine. But the chrome bumper, although it looks cool would probably be ruined hitting anything at 5-10 mph
As someone who lives in a city where parallel parking is often the only option for me (and I'm not particularly trusting of others parking abilities due to my own anecdotal experiences), the idea of a modern car with a rubber bumper sounds fantastic to me. It can be done well, I mean look at a series I rx7 or 80s 911. I speculate the real reason you don't see rubber bumpers any more isn't because they are unfashionable in a cosmetic sense but rather that vehicles are often built with some degree of planned obsolescence in mind. There's no mechanical (and I would say limited cosmetic) rationale behind making vehicle bumpers extremely susceptible to cosmetic damage in ultra low speed collisions (Note obviously the bumper needs to be compressible in a medium to high speed collisions for safety purposes). No one wants to drive around with a dinged/scratched up front bumper (if they can help it) and very few enjoy shelling out hundreds of dollars to get, install and paint the replacement part when it does get dinged. For many (whether conscious or not this can be the "last straw" (combined with other factors) for just upgrading to a new car. It's also important to remember large automobile manufactures have a significant portion of their revenue come from parts sales (GM's being 35%+), I'm no expert but I imagine the front and rear bumper is the most often replaced body component on most vehicles. Also call me a Consumer Reports reading Ralph Nader head but I don't really think "regulation sucks because regulation sucks" is a compelling argument. Not to say that all regulation in the history of automobiles has been perfect (or productive) but one does need to argue these kind of points with material evidence.
I don't know, there are good looking cars today that still meet safety regulations. It's laziness and no creativity. Also, I'd rather take the safety of today than the good looks of, say the 60s. Cars today are incredibly safe it's almost funny looking back at how unsafe cars were in the past.
I remember having a long discussion about how those bumpers were for saving costs in slow collisions while the many, many people arguing with me insisted it was for highway safety.
I had a copper brown '76 280Z that looked almost identical to the one in the thumbnail photo. I believe this a '75 due to the shoulder belt located on the "C" pillar. In '76 the shoulder belt was mounted on the strut tower.
As the former owner of an MGB with chrome bumpers, I actually MUCH PRFEER the look of the MGB and Midget with the black rubber bumpers. It's a personal thing. It's also the way I came to know the cars first. I'm not alone in this. Rubber bumpers didn't kill the British sportscar, it was badge engineering and being forced to use subpar electical (and so on) components, and year after year, as a result, of getting a (deserved) reputation for reliability problems. By 1980 all of this started change overnight. My 1980 TR8 was rock solid reliable. The Jaguar XJ sedan that replaced my father's 1979 Jaguar XJ12L was rock solid reliable in comparison with just that one year earlier. But by then the cars had a reputation and few people were willing to take a chance on them anymore. I knew because of the 1980 TR8 it was all resolved, but few who didn't own the cars from that year forward (until they were dropped) knew.
The part near the end about expensive low speed crashes (and medium speed) is 100% true, and causing chaos on so many levels. My dad works at a body shop, and so many cars without any frame damage are getting totalled. Cars that can be fixed just by unbolting and reattaching new parts are getting sent to auction. A low speed crash back in the day meant a new headlight, hood, grille, bumper, and maybe core support/radiator or inner fender apron being kinked if you were unlucky. Even if the car is older and you just want to throw it back together in your backyard, you can with no issue. Now though with that same crash? Maybe you smashed a $700 module under the hood or ripped some wires. The adaptive cruise control definitely didn't survive. The safety systems need to be recalibrated. The LED headlights cost $1,000 and are on backorder for months. The 22 inch wheel has a small chip taken out of it, when an old 15 inch wheel had a ton of tire sidewall to take the hit. The turbo intercooler could be banana shaped now. The front parking sensors are bad. The adaptive grille shutters that help gain .2 MPG are busted. Maybe you popped the side curtain airbags and most of the interior needs to be replaced. This means that a 4 year old car that still might have some payments left on it is totaled out because of the cost of parts, not because the car has major structural damage. One more car taken off the market. Less work to do for the body shop. Higher insurance costs. More need for rental cars if the car is stuck in the shop waiting for parts. Serious financial trouble for someone if they don't have gap insurance
The Vivian.. One piece.. A pillar to rear quarter... Also if you notice the new Range Rover, the rear is a joke.. one hit, it's all gone,, Rear hatch, short bumper and fascia, rear quarter etc.. I daily a 68 Dodge Dart my Bumpers are meant to lift the car for tire change..
You are aware that every vehicle on the road have steel bumpers bolted or welded on the chasis. You just can't see the steel reinforced bumper cause obviously the bumper cover.....every vehicle on the road today have steel reinforced bumpers that are cover by bumper covers.
Yeah, except bumpers are supposed to PROTECT THE BODYWORK. With new cars that plastic bumper cover is part of the body, so by the time the obstruction hits the welded in bumper, half the car is smashed to hell.
Its funny how you see on cargo vans pretty much NOTHING has changed outside of some very minor things. You have large bumper pads on the rear and exposed metal bumpers that are easy to replace and can take abuse. I love my old dodge trucks. Almost all of my front bumpers have damage for one reason or another but saved my core support ac rad and my fenders in all but one accident from a po. My rear bumper is insanely think i can hit it with a 5lb hammer and nothing happens but if you breathe on a new car shits fucked m8.
Dodge or Nothing!!... My daily driver 68 Dart was hit by my absolutely hammered drunk and pilled out, it totaled his new Buick.. The impact was maybe 15 or plus.. All it did was move my right side bumper in and lower... Loosened and realigned, all good.. Mopar or Nothing 🇺🇸
Bravo submitted in advance of actually watching -- which I am doing. Had a 1978 280Z for my third car. Lovely noise from rhe inline 6, solid if not sublime handling for its day, or even now, and yeah... it pulled chicks. But I hated the bumper rubber extension nonsense.
What killed British cars was lack of investment into making more modern vehicles and poor build quality due to all of the strikes and thick-headedness of management through the whole of England during the 70's.
The disadvantage of rubber bumpers are that they’ll rot faster than metal or plastic even when you keep them in a garage and limit exposure to the elements.
Honestly I would love the return of bump able bumpers. Because I've done a lot of work fixing minor scratches on modern cars. Meanwhile I've been rear-ended in my bel air and the damage didn't really effect anything. Especially compared to what happened to the other guy. All I have to do is undo a couple of bolts and job done. While he would need to disconnect his headlights fog lights and maybe some sensors remove countless clips and nuts just to get the thing off. We are getting to the point where a simple dent can total a grocery getter.
Really shows how those old american cars were built with a pissing contest mindset, most of the developement focused on changing the aesthetic design every year, supporting a bigger guzzler up front, and comfort, for cruising the strip and drag racing at stop lights, nevermind safety, efficiency. or handling.
The perfect bumber is hard to engineer; sustain zero damage at 5mph yet sacrifice itself to protect you at 50mph, pass EU pedestrian safety standards, doesn't add drag to hamper CAFE, cheap enough for the beancounters, and get a thumbs up from the styling department.
Simply put I don't buy cars that don't have metal bumpers I don't care about the safety I work in construction I can afford to make payments on the new truck for a car will I buy old ones because I don't like stuff that breaks for no reason and when I had to get a diesel pull trailers I made for damn sure to get a ranch hand for the front and back plastic is just awful I've even gone so far as replacing the plastic panels and my old car with plywood and metallic furnishings
I had a SAAB 99 and 900 turbo and a Volvo 264. All had rubber bumpers. They easily survived low speed contacts, always causing a lot more damage to chrome bumpers. Today, the plastic things are utterly useless.
Hahaha.... Agreed.. I drive old American cars, His and Her's 1968 Dodge Dart.. The Bumpers are/were also intended to be used to support the Car while changing the tire, The Jack has a plate that is formed to the lower part of the bumper, Jack style is used commonly seen on Lifted Jeep Wrangler, seen mounted on the exterior next to the shovel etc... The strength of my factory Metal Bumpers, I've been rear ended in traffic, 2022 Corolla,, Old dude hit me at my guess 20mph .. As I watched him on his phone, So you understand, my car stopped his car, only a small scrape on the Accent Bumper-ettes,, his , Grill, Fascia, hood,,
For restorers, the saggy polyurethane bumpers of the 80’s are pretty challenging. You really gotta do your homework when fixing them, using flexible fillers and paint. But ill take that over those metal and rubber monstrosities 😂
I’m curious how a modern car would integrate a physical bumper as the very front end. I know some trucks and Jeeps have real bumpers still, but what would a designer do with a sedan or crossover that isn’t unappealing?
Like would end up becoming a part of the bumper design. Find widest portion of the bumper and just replace it with a metal beam. Oversimplified of course
European models did not have the ugly, heavy bumpers. They didn’t have the US crash regulations. Like Mercedes and other imports. Cars with “Euro” bumpers were slim and attractive.
Dunno. In weird way i like looks of some of those rubber-bumper era cars. Those bumpers kind of look like some aggressive looking "tuning" addons like splitters :). Or maybe due me seeing many of them first in already oversized bumper form, like those first turbo porsches, and conditioned to "they should look like this"?
I wish I had one of these for driving in Winnipeg. I defy you to take a drive through this city and not spot multiple cars with smashed plastic moustaches.
4:50 No. it’s not “oh, Mercedes, why?” It’s WHY YOU, USA 🇺🇸 … only in the US was Mercedes forced to ruin the looks of a work of art thanks to your stupid legislation. Mercedes-Benz cars lived perfectly happy lives in Europe, thank you.
*in the USA. Most European carmakers retained the more moderately-sized bumpers for the domestic and European markets, only fitting the parkbench bumpers for the US exports the same way they did the sealed-beam headlights. Also, no mention of Saab? Who more or less single-handedly invented the rubber bumper in 1972? Beggar's belief!
Saftey standards ruined a majority of cars. 1970-1973 were the final years of cars looking good before getting the ugly treatment. Trucks were completely fine until 1995, for example the GMT400's changing from a beautiful square interior to the disgusting rounded interior. But that's just my opinion, I mean, I only like GM styling anyway.
As far as American Cars late 60s era, Lap belt standard, My Car has the Shoulder belt option, it is latched to the base plate that holds the Sun visors at the A pillar, unlatch it and clip to the Lap belt, I in no way believe it was intended to save my life at all, more to prevent me from becoming part of your busy life if you murder me in a head on crash.. Be assured ill be dead inside my 68 Dodge Dart and not flying threw my front windshield...
Some of rubber bumper or enduro bumper cars don’t look to bad. If you want to see the worse of one of these see the Countach front bumper. Apparently it the Canadian regulation one.
They will never be worth nearly as much as their chrome bumper predecessors, because they were phased in at the same time as performance was phased out. That, and they look like crap. My first car was a '76 Pontiac Sunbird, but the prior owner had already removed the rubber bumperettes (along with the catalytic converter).
We have a '76 2002 which I will be changing to the European bumpers which while still rubber clad aren't GIGANTIC aluminum troughs. "Will be changing" is none specific as I've meant to change them since we bought it in 1998. So yeah. They're uglier than the chrome bumpers but the car is still nicer looking than most even with the bigass North American crash ends.
I wish the government would just stay out of it. Bumpers existing on falcons and Chevy IIs before they were required and they'd be a selling point today if cars didn't have to be aero optimized roundel designs.
I wished that we would stop handing out drivers licenses to to anyone with a heartbeat and actually make sure that they go to a drivers school and actually learn how to drive good, and pass the drivers class with a nearly perfect score. So that way, we have less people who don't deserve to be driving, causing accidents, and maybe changing the way cars are made.
In Australia we never got the ugly rubber bumpers just had the chrome bumpers through the 1970s my 1997 Toyota Hilux has a metal front bumper bar and no rear bumper because of the aluminium tray l do have a tow bar and if any one collides with the rear of my Hilux l drive away and they are calling a tow truck l had another ute a Mazda Bravo had so many collisions in that ute to rear end collisions l was able to drive away but the two cars that collided with me were right off's and the only damage was a peice of the aluminium tray buckled and a couple of minor things it was never written off and l had five collisions in that ute
Rubber bumper is a very fond era for me. I absolutely despise modern-day bumpers and view as a whole. Cars look like plastic toys, illogical interiors, something that I would never ever put tens of thousands of money for, totally worthless and inconvenient.
Bumpers of old are so ugly to me...I know many folks love chrome, but not me...not even the lugnuts....I like paint, and polished aluminum....I had briefly imagined redesigning a 91 caprice with both Bumpers shaved off....in my opinion that car could look several times better without them, and would be nearly a full foot shorter ...obviously looks are I the eye of the beholder, but often eurospec versions looked better then American versions ...safety is great, but safe drivers is where it's at...we need to train our drivers way better, and punish much more severely the bad actors...granted we probably won't sell as many cars that way, and I suspect that's all any politician cares about
Now I know exactly why my dads Mercedes W116 have these awful bumpers. They make this car look horrible, they're so big I could sit on it and even eat dinner off of it. European version of it looked so much better in all honesty
I think that what got me the most was not so much the bumper but the raising the car. heights and another thing who in their right mind rases the already higher 4x4 no excuse for that either
I personally like the look of defined bumpers versus the bull shit we have now
Same here, they are called bumpers for a reason. Modern bumpers don't look like they're made to absorb impact energy at all, and when they do take a hit they need to be replaced or you'll have one ugly bumper.
Yes, my car is 10 years old now and has some scuffs on the bumpers even after repair/repainting and I'm annoyed, also bought new summer tires last year and the old had a rim protector (a protruding edge on the sidewall), with these the alloy rims had barely any scratches/damage, the new ones don't have and now after just two half-years they look like shit with deep scratches on three wheels because its much quicker the metal than the rubber when I touch a curb.
Call me crazy, I think they are an attractive and iconic look. They look so utilitarian and practical, it is like if you don't have a proud bumper; that vehicle appears to be missing something.
I actually liked them. You never know when your drunk dad was going to push your car off the driveway at 2am in the morning or just hit your car at any random time.
Was he also in a car when doing those things, or on foot…? :)
@@PRH123 in another car
I liked them too. I thought the original pre-1985.5 Porsche 944 bumpers looked really cool.
@@PRH123is this the part where you waste your energy on a rant about drunk driving? It falls on deaf ears lol.
@@daymoncleveland0622 no, I wasn’t planning to do that, you can feel free to do so if you like
I am not generally a fan of rubber (or actually urethane) covered bumpers. But there are a few notable exceptions, and one of them is the 1974-1977 Corvette. Those are my favorite years of the Corvette, because of the urethane bumper covers and the flat back window. I have owned a white 1976 Corvette for almost 35 years. Most purists want the chrome bumpers, but to me, the new body colored bumper covers actually made the Corvette look like it didn't have any bumpers, and the shape of the covers was the finishing touch to the Corvettes styling. They were properly shaped, and didn't stick out like they did on most cars.
I always thought 70’s corvettes looked great, even at the time…. for some reason they didn’t get any respect at that time, not from the car magazines or the public….
Many of the rubber bumpers looked just fine and even quite modern for the time. The advantage was you could make contact all the time, Like during parking, with zero damage.
Likely the first bumper that looked like part of the car was the tailcone of the Porsche 928. That was considered revolutionary for its day. The actual bumper was hidden underneath the composite bodywork.
In my opinion, seeing the 60s-70s era MG midgets, and the change in style I don't entirely dislike it. The integration is pretty good, they feel practical and add an (interesting) look the the cer, the pre facelift bumpers, however although good, feel more like a decal- not at all functional, just there for style, I would be worried to hit anything, going anything above 10mph.
One addition, it was Insurance companies that "pushed" for the 5MPH requirements.
And surely it wasn't to save themselves money on insurance claims. 😂
I would like to have rubber bumpers in my car and that other cars had them too. It would save a lot of money for everyone.
I worked in a body shop back in the 1970s and yes, if you had a below 5mph collision you'd save some money but at 6mph or more it got a lot more expensive fast. Those bumper systems weren't cheap to build or repair.
They’re great bumpers, I wish they looked nicer
@@ddavidson5Have you seen the pricing to replace 6mph collisions now?
That rubber bumper rebuild would be so much cheaper just in labor alone!
@@JollyGiant19I no longer work in the trade but the standard at one point was actually "no damage" at 5 mph so those rubber bumpers had a lot behind them, typically lots of reinforcing steel, high pressure shock absorbers (that sometimes were jammed in after a collision which were dangerous if they suddenly released while you were working on them) and often the frame had to be reinforced to cope with the added forces. It takes a lot to dissipate the energy stopping a 2 ton vehicle going 5 mph with no damage at all. Everyone, especially the insurance companies, thought the "no damage" 5 mph standard would save all kinds of money, in fact for one year (and one year only) there was a significant discount on your insurance if you had the 5 mph bumpers. When the insurance companies found out what the claims were to replace those bumper systems that was the end of that. Ultimately that was what did in those bumpers, it wasn't saving anyone any money at all, in fact it cost more in the initial vehicle price and in insurance. In theory it sounded good but in practice it didn't work out so they changed the regulation to no damage at low speeds to a list of safety related items like lights, turn signals etc. rather than no damage at all. These days they are rightfully more worried about occupant survival in higher speed crashes than saving the body work at very low speed bumps. For sure modern cars will "fold up" a lot more than the cars of 50 years ago (absorbing energy as it does so) and repairs are expensive but a lot more people survive crashes today too.
@@ddavidson5 They are great for parking in public, since a lot of people did park "by ear" well into the 2000s, and rubber bumpers are great protection against others in that case.
One side effect you did not cover: in order to let the bumper (especially the shock absorber type you did not mention - see Fords and VWs) prevent major damage, manufacturers had to stiffen and reinforce the frames where they attached. In the short run this made cars MORE dangerous for occupants as only part of the car structure was addressed. In the long run manufacturers learned what performance car builders had known for some time - a stiffer structure gives a better more controlled driving experience.
That’s why I built a ladder frame of 3/8” plate in my vw.
Right behind the aluminum and rubber bumper is 3/4” solid steel.
It’s only a 1981 vw rabbit pickup it needs all the help.
Most people didn’t know a 1960 vw beetle did better in front crash testing than a 1984 vw Gti.
I didn't know that either
They may not have been pretty but I had someone in a late model ford fusion back into my 280z and her trunk was absolutely mangled and mine didn't have a scratch. Pretty happy with the crash bumpers!
Absolutely love the crazy rubber bumpers on the TR6
Hi Bart, I'm glad you're covering so many interesting topics. My grandad always wanted one of those rubber bumper MGs back in the day.
I took the bumpers off of my beloved Alfetta and weighed them. The front was 89 pounds and the resr was 94.
Then, I simply cut through the rubber on the rear faces between the mounting points and peeled the rubber away from the incredibly heavy steel girders within. I was left with very light and noodly rubber shells for which I had to fabricate new mounts and lightwright stiffening skeletons.
The result was a faster accelerating, better braking and much better handling Alfetta - the most fun to drive car I ever owned or drove.
Jesus basically 100 lbs each thats crazy
How was the car though reliability wise?
@@PneumaticFrog I bought the car used, with about 25,000 miles. That was about time for the cheap head gasket and valve guides that came standard in those years to give trouble. Once that problem was corrected the car was very reliable. The driveshaft donuts were troublesome, until I found the trick of making the transaxle mounts, center shaft mount and rear engine mount rigid in order to keep the shaft straight at all times. The last 100,000 or so miles were trouble free except for resealing some clutch and brake cylinders and replacing the water pump (Oh, I replaced the clutch, too)
The car was very easy to work on. SPICA fuel injection was wonderful and the already good handling could be improved by several easy and inexpensive part substitutions. I could still be driving it today if I hadn't become so enthusiastic about its performance that I turned it into a Pro Rally car
@@PneumaticFrog I assume that most of the other "rubber bumper" models of the 1970s also had steel within them. An Alfa Spider or an MGB would probably benefit even more than my car did if those bumpers were removed.
Personally, I'm completely ready for chonky bumpers to make a comeback. They're called BUMPERS, dangit, they're SUPPOSED to be good at bumping into things!
Exactly…. the whole car should have a big rubber bumper going all the way around it, no more insurance claims for little scratches and dents….
@3:57 that gave me a much needed laugh as I have been home sick for 5 days now. Thank you so much for that
I know this is mostly talking about sports cars, but I'm surprised to see no mention of the Volvo Experimental Safety Car and it's impact on what regulators thought safety meant. the VESC is the patriarch of big rubber bumpers, and I love it for that.
Volvo pioneered these things. At one point, the Volvo 240 was chosen by the NHTSA to be the standard for the future of safety in the US.
Ah, I see I've found my fellow Based Volvo Enjoyers.
You are right, the rubber baby buggy bumpers really did change the look of the automobile. It was part of an evolution the car need to into the future of design.
Cars nowadays are justing getting bigger and bigger because if you’ve got the biggest car on the road your the safest but also your the biggest danger to others… sooooo others buy your bigger car and then you don’t feel safe so you buy a BIGGER car so on and so forth. It’s very sad
The worst of these bumpers were put on MGs and Triumphs. Not only did they add weight, they also had to change the ride height and messed up their handling. On the other hand, I liked to ones on my Porsche 914. They actually were tough as hell and helped the car survive all of the parallel parking I had to do in DC back in the 80's.
I have a 1974.5 MGB roadster, the last version that had the twin SU carbs but the first version with the rubber bumper (built between September and December 1974, badged as a 1975 officially.) I was more concerned about getting the twin carbs than the bumpers, and to be honest I bought it to drive, not to impress others. I don't see the bumpers when I'm driving it! I will admit the chrome bumper looks better, but it really doesn't matter to me. It's fun to drive!
Nice reference to Muscle and Chrome. I have 2 copies of that book because there was a mix up during Christmas 😂
My bumpers are also meant to support the Car while being jacked up for a tire change...
That's how strong they are...
1968 Dodge Dart
I am just glade my generation is moving away from SUV and back to sedans thank god I hate SUVs.
Are we tho?
A really nice video on the subject. Especially for someone that didn't live thru it you did a good job.
The only thing you could have added was the bumpers between the chrome era and the full rubber. Cars like the 74 MGB and Midget with the big square rubber pads.
I do remember back in the day that bumpers had pretty much become a decorative strip on the front of the car and one of the reasons for the bumper regulation was hoods were often were further forward than the bumper so even just a 1 or 2 mph bump folded up the hood. Bumpers also were of varying heights so when one car bumped another often the bumpers never touched, they just over rode each other and smashed up the lights or whatever they came in contact with.
As I recall the big problem with the MGB was that rather than an expensive redesign to the car to meet the bumper height requirement they just jacked up the suspension to raise the bumper along with the rest of the car which totally ruined handling characteristics (which was the MGB's raison d'etre). It was like they just put longer springs and shocks in it and called it a day. Yes, the weight and a few other bits didn't help but it was the raising of the whole vehicle that really did a number on it.
These days those bumper regulations have been met for the most part by moving the defined "safety equipment" covered by the regulations (i.e. hood release, lights, turn signals, etc.) out of the way. Look at a modern car you'll see the lights etc. are often high mounted and recessed away from danger in a low speed collision.
I think an important follow-up to this video should be the standardized headlight regulations. If you compare a European car to its American import version, you’ll find the headlights are always different. This is because American regulations dictated what kind of headlights you could use, leading to the poor butchering of the Citroen DS, or cases like the Volvo 242 with the oddly placed double headlights. It wasn’t until late in the 80s that manufacturers were given freedom, and it lead to a lot of oddball designs to try and work around this regulation, or no attempt at all (see the 70s Firebird).
I own a 80’ fiat 124 and removing those giant bumpers was a big step I think the car looks 1000x better now
Absolutely....
One example of...
Can't be unseen, Jaguar Coupe's,, the forced Rubber bumpers are an eye sore..
Corvette C3 look at 1972 vs 73 ..
Your car has always been a favorite of mine, congratulations for owning one
I reckon the black bumper MGB looks really cool and looking at it now was an excellent solution to meet the US regulations at the time. I actually prefer them to the chrome 👍
I've never heard of the midget of that era until today, and seeing both, I honestly like to rubber more, it looks like it could hit anything and be fine. But the chrome bumper, although it looks cool would probably be ruined hitting anything at 5-10 mph
Considering the cost to replace those vs modern bumpers, give me the rubber
As someone who lives in a city where parallel parking is often the only option for me (and I'm not particularly trusting of others parking abilities due to my own anecdotal experiences), the idea of a modern car with a rubber bumper sounds fantastic to me. It can be done well, I mean look at a series I rx7 or 80s 911.
I speculate the real reason you don't see rubber bumpers any more isn't because they are unfashionable in a cosmetic sense but rather that vehicles are often built with some degree of planned obsolescence in mind. There's no mechanical (and I would say limited cosmetic) rationale behind making vehicle bumpers extremely susceptible to cosmetic damage in ultra low speed collisions (Note obviously the bumper needs to be compressible in a medium to high speed collisions for safety purposes). No one wants to drive around with a dinged/scratched up front bumper (if they can help it) and very few enjoy shelling out hundreds of dollars to get, install and paint the replacement part when it does get dinged. For many (whether conscious or not this can be the "last straw" (combined with other factors) for just upgrading to a new car. It's also important to remember large automobile manufactures have a significant portion of their revenue come from parts sales (GM's being 35%+), I'm no expert but I imagine the front and rear bumper is the most often replaced body component on most vehicles.
Also call me a Consumer Reports reading Ralph Nader head but I don't really think "regulation sucks because regulation sucks" is a compelling argument. Not to say that all regulation in the history of automobiles has been perfect (or productive) but one does need to argue these kind of points with material evidence.
4:00 LOL that was a great little aside..
Now it's worse, safety regulations are just killing car design, all different models actually look the same specially with that SUV epidemic.
Hmm, how then can 2 meter high pickup and suv front grill slabs be explained…
I don't know, there are good looking cars today that still meet safety regulations. It's laziness and no creativity.
Also, I'd rather take the safety of today than the good looks of, say the 60s. Cars today are incredibly safe it's almost funny looking back at how unsafe cars were in the past.
@@PRH123 I think in the US, pickup trucks are commercial vehicles and are thus exempt from pedestrian safety regulations or some bullshit like that.
The 280z is an amazing car, that l28 is a classic
I want one fr
I remember having a long discussion about how those bumpers were for saving costs in slow collisions while the many, many people arguing with me insisted it was for highway safety.
I had a copper brown '76 280Z that looked almost identical to the one in the thumbnail photo.
I believe this a '75 due to the shoulder belt located on the "C" pillar. In '76 the shoulder belt was mounted on the strut tower.
"I am not in danger. I am the danger." -SUV/pickup owners
When planned expiration was illegal
nowadays our bumpers are made of crap!
As the former owner of an MGB with chrome bumpers, I actually MUCH PRFEER the look of the MGB and Midget with the black rubber bumpers. It's a personal thing. It's also the way I came to know the cars first. I'm not alone in this. Rubber bumpers didn't kill the British sportscar, it was badge engineering and being forced to use subpar electical (and so on) components, and year after year, as a result, of getting a (deserved) reputation for reliability problems. By 1980 all of this started change overnight. My 1980 TR8 was rock solid reliable. The Jaguar XJ sedan that replaced my father's 1979 Jaguar XJ12L was rock solid reliable in comparison with just that one year earlier. But by then the cars had a reputation and few people were willing to take a chance on them anymore. I knew because of the 1980 TR8 it was all resolved, but few who didn't own the cars from that year forward (until they were dropped) knew.
The part near the end about expensive low speed crashes (and medium speed) is 100% true, and causing chaos on so many levels.
My dad works at a body shop, and so many cars without any frame damage are getting totalled. Cars that can be fixed just by unbolting and reattaching new parts are getting sent to auction. A low speed crash back in the day meant a new headlight, hood, grille, bumper, and maybe core support/radiator or inner fender apron being kinked if you were unlucky. Even if the car is older and you just want to throw it back together in your backyard, you can with no issue.
Now though with that same crash? Maybe you smashed a $700 module under the hood or ripped some wires. The adaptive cruise control definitely didn't survive. The safety systems need to be recalibrated. The LED headlights cost $1,000 and are on backorder for months. The 22 inch wheel has a small chip taken out of it, when an old 15 inch wheel had a ton of tire sidewall to take the hit. The turbo intercooler could be banana shaped now. The front parking sensors are bad. The adaptive grille shutters that help gain .2 MPG are busted. Maybe you popped the side curtain airbags and most of the interior needs to be replaced.
This means that a 4 year old car that still might have some payments left on it is totaled out because of the cost of parts, not because the car has major structural damage. One more car taken off the market. Less work to do for the body shop. Higher insurance costs. More need for rental cars if the car is stuck in the shop waiting for parts. Serious financial trouble for someone if they don't have gap insurance
The Vivian..
One piece.. A pillar to rear quarter...
Also if you notice the new Range Rover, the rear is a joke.. one hit, it's all gone,, Rear hatch, short bumper and fascia, rear quarter etc..
I daily a 68 Dodge Dart my Bumpers are meant to lift the car for tire change..
You are aware that every vehicle on the road have steel bumpers bolted or welded on the chasis. You just can't see the steel reinforced bumper cause obviously the bumper cover.....every vehicle on the road today have steel reinforced bumpers that are cover by bumper covers.
Fascia,, polyurethane, Yes all car's have actual bumpers, covered by Styrofoam to get a soft bump, and not crack..
Yeah, except bumpers are supposed to PROTECT THE BODYWORK. With new cars that plastic bumper cover is part of the body, so by the time the obstruction hits the welded in bumper, half the car is smashed to hell.
Its funny how you see on cargo vans pretty much NOTHING has changed outside of some very minor things. You have large bumper pads on the rear and exposed metal bumpers that are easy to replace and can take abuse.
I love my old dodge trucks. Almost all of my front bumpers have damage for one reason or another but saved my core support ac rad and my fenders in all but one accident from a po.
My rear bumper is insanely think i can hit it with a 5lb hammer and nothing happens but if you breathe on a new car shits fucked m8.
Dodge or Nothing!!...
My daily driver 68 Dart was hit by my absolutely hammered drunk and pilled out, it totaled his new Buick..
The impact was maybe 15 or plus..
All it did was move my right side bumper in and lower...
Loosened and realigned, all good..
Mopar or Nothing
🇺🇸
Love the bumpers on my E34 BMWs, they are mounted on dampers that let the bumpers move inwards in a crash, then spring back out
I have a rubber bumper MGB. Not as pretty as the chrome bumper version but still a blast to drive and you can get them cheap
The rubber joke is underrated :D
I liked the look of my '79 Midget bumper. In fact, I preferred it over the previous design.
Bravo submitted in advance of actually watching -- which I am doing.
Had a 1978 280Z for my third car.
Lovely noise from rhe inline 6, solid if not sublime handling for its day, or even now, and yeah... it pulled chicks.
But I hated the bumper rubber extension nonsense.
What killed British cars was lack of investment into making more modern vehicles and poor build quality due to all of the strikes and thick-headedness of management through the whole of England during the 70's.
3:55 Funny pun about the Woodstock Festival, but that was the1960s and not the 1970s.
The best part was when they found they could explosively pop out after a collision!
I have a Lotus Eclat rubber bumper. I found it in my fathers garage attic.
The disadvantage of rubber bumpers are that they’ll rot faster than metal or plastic even when you keep them in a garage and limit exposure to the elements.
We didnt have them here in Europe, they just slaped them on US exports. Countach is the worst example IMO
Honestly I would love the return of bump able bumpers. Because I've done a lot of work fixing minor scratches on modern cars. Meanwhile I've been rear-ended in my bel air and the damage didn't really effect anything. Especially compared to what happened to the other guy. All I have to do is undo a couple of bolts and job done. While he would need to disconnect his headlights fog lights and maybe some sensors remove countless clips and nuts just to get the thing off. We are getting to the point where a simple dent can total a grocery getter.
Small trucks are like small houses. In high demand but low profit for the manufactures and builders .
Really shows how those old american cars were built with a pissing contest mindset, most of the developement focused on changing the aesthetic design every year, supporting a bigger guzzler up front, and comfort, for cruising the strip and drag racing at stop lights, nevermind safety, efficiency. or handling.
The perfect bumber is hard to engineer; sustain zero damage at 5mph yet sacrifice itself to protect you at 50mph, pass EU pedestrian safety standards, doesn't add drag to hamper CAFE, cheap enough for the beancounters, and get a thumbs up from the styling department.
J'aime bien et même sur certaines voitures européennes. La 504 Peugeot et 604, la Fiat X-19 ou la Spider, la BMW.
The day after i bought my rubber bumper BMW 2002 i removed them. Was literally my first mod 😂
Simply put I don't buy cars that don't have metal bumpers I don't care about the safety I work in construction I can afford to make payments on the new truck for a car will I buy old ones because I don't like stuff that breaks for no reason and when I had to get a diesel pull trailers I made for damn sure to get a ranch hand for the front and back plastic is just awful I've even gone so far as replacing the plastic panels and my old car with plywood and metallic furnishings
I think the Triumph Ppitfire should have been mentioned, it had huge rubber blocks that looked goofy as hell
I had a SAAB 99 and 900 turbo and a Volvo 264. All had rubber bumpers. They easily survived low speed contacts, always causing a lot more damage to chrome bumpers. Today, the plastic things are utterly useless.
personally, i like the rubber bumper midgets. not a fan of the rubber mgb but the midget looks nice and at least kinda matches the shape
Makes absolutely no sense, how often are you hitting things at 5 mph? Happened one time to me cause if ice and it did absolutely nothing to my car
Hahaha.... Agreed..
I drive old American cars, His and Her's 1968 Dodge Dart..
The Bumpers are/were also intended to be used to support the Car while changing the tire, The Jack has a plate that is formed to the lower part of the bumper, Jack style is used commonly seen on Lifted Jeep Wrangler, seen mounted on the exterior next to the shovel etc...
The strength of my factory Metal Bumpers, I've been rear ended in traffic, 2022 Corolla,, Old dude hit me at my guess 20mph ..
As I watched him on his phone, So you understand, my car stopped his car, only a small scrape on the Accent Bumper-ettes,, his , Grill, Fascia, hood,,
For restorers, the saggy polyurethane bumpers of the 80’s are pretty challenging. You really gotta do your homework when fixing them, using flexible fillers and paint. But ill take that over those metal and rubber monstrosities 😂
I’m curious how a modern car would integrate a physical bumper as the very front end. I know some trucks and Jeeps have real bumpers still, but what would a designer do with a sedan or crossover that isn’t unappealing?
Like would end up becoming a part of the bumper design. Find widest portion of the bumper and just replace it with a metal beam.
Oversimplified of course
European models did not have the ugly, heavy bumpers. They didn’t have the US crash regulations. Like Mercedes and other imports. Cars with “Euro” bumpers were slim and attractive.
And pretty useless in urban parking. Little to no protection.
They still added rubber though. Just not gigantic
in EU member coutries we had EEC rules (as it was known then) not as strict then but they were there
The abolition of rubber bumpers was madness.
Say rubber bumper epidemic three times fast!
0:53 i see Squidward xd
Insurance company's weren't making enough profits so they wanted new laws to change that
Dunno. In weird way i like looks of some of those rubber-bumper era cars. Those bumpers kind of look like some aggressive looking "tuning" addons like splitters :). Or maybe due me seeing many of them first in already oversized bumper form, like those first turbo porsches, and conditioned to "they should look like this"?
Seatbelts were 'required' since 1966 not becoming common.
I wish I had one of these for driving in Winnipeg. I defy you to take a drive through this city and not spot multiple cars with smashed plastic moustaches.
accidentally slide into someone at like 1 mph in my 1984 944, no damage aside from a bad shock absorber but that was already going out
My 79 Datsun 210 is now wearing skinny chrome JDM spec bumpers. Those 5 mph bumpers were terrible
4:50 No. it’s not “oh, Mercedes, why?” It’s WHY YOU, USA 🇺🇸 … only in the US was Mercedes forced to ruin the looks of a work of art thanks to your stupid legislation. Mercedes-Benz cars lived perfectly happy lives in Europe, thank you.
*in the USA.
Most European carmakers retained the more moderately-sized bumpers for the domestic and European markets, only fitting the parkbench bumpers for the US exports the same way they did the sealed-beam headlights. Also, no mention of Saab? Who more or less single-handedly invented the rubber bumper in 1972? Beggar's belief!
I've heard the acronym NHTSA pronounced as "nit-suh".
Rivian repair fees are crazy.
Saftey standards ruined a majority of cars. 1970-1973 were the final years of cars looking good before getting the ugly treatment. Trucks were completely fine until 1995, for example the GMT400's changing from a beautiful square interior to the disgusting rounded interior. But that's just my opinion, I mean, I only like GM styling anyway.
Daddy government “cares” about you 🤣🤣🤣
i personally feel safer in my family's accord than the crv.
As far as American Cars late 60s era, Lap belt standard, My Car has the Shoulder belt option, it is latched to the base plate that holds the Sun visors at the A pillar, unlatch it and clip to the Lap belt,
I in no way believe it was intended to save my life at all, more to prevent me from becoming part of your busy life if you murder me in a head on crash..
Be assured ill be dead inside my 68 Dodge Dart and not flying threw my front windshield...
Some of rubber bumper or enduro bumper cars don’t look to bad.
If you want to see the worse of one of these see the Countach front bumper. Apparently it the Canadian regulation one.
I miss Volvo and Saab, the rubber-kings. But in a smart way with integrated cells.
Mission success
Metal Bumpers except for the Pontiac GTO 68, and Trans Am.. 69
It’s not an epidemic, just American laws. The rest of the world had normal bumpers, you’re just riding the short bus……
Now it’s the opposite 😂 Euro bumpers are all uglier than US counter parts
@@AustinH7 nope…..now they’re identical.
(But useless and ugly)
They will never be worth nearly as much as their chrome bumper predecessors, because they were phased in at the same time as performance was phased out. That, and they look like crap. My first car was a '76 Pontiac Sunbird, but the prior owner had already removed the rubber bumperettes (along with the catalytic converter).
We have a '76 2002 which I will be changing to the European bumpers which while still rubber clad aren't GIGANTIC aluminum troughs. "Will be changing" is none specific as I've meant to change them since we bought it in 1998. So yeah. They're uglier than the chrome bumpers but the car is still nicer looking than most even with the bigass North American crash ends.
I wish the government would just stay out of it. Bumpers existing on falcons and Chevy IIs before they were required and they'd be a selling point today if cars didn't have to be aero optimized roundel designs.
I wished that we would stop handing out drivers licenses to to anyone with a heartbeat and actually make sure that they go to a drivers school and actually learn how to drive good, and pass the drivers class with a nearly perfect score. So that way, we have less people who don't deserve to be driving, causing accidents, and maybe changing the way cars are made.
Why the cars were ugly in the 70's, because in the rest of the world they were just fine, the us models were just adapted for you guys.....
In Australia we never got the ugly rubber bumpers just had the chrome bumpers through the 1970s my 1997 Toyota Hilux has a metal front bumper bar and no rear bumper because of the aluminium tray l do have a tow bar and if any one collides with the rear of my Hilux l drive away and they are calling a tow truck l had another ute a Mazda Bravo had so many collisions in that ute to rear end collisions l was able to drive away but the two cars that collided with me were right off's and the only damage was a peice of the aluminium tray buckled and a couple of minor things it was never written off and l had five collisions in that ute
Let me guess.. the stupid bumper thing started in California maybe?
Guess who actually writes regulations and laws.
Read "So Damn Much Money."
Ever hear of Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch?
If only they could have been colour coded to the body paint…
Rubber bumper is a very fond era for me. I absolutely despise modern-day bumpers and view as a whole. Cars look like plastic toys, illogical interiors, something that I would never ever put tens of thousands of money for, totally worthless and inconvenient.
Bumpers of old are so ugly to me...I know many folks love chrome, but not me...not even the lugnuts....I like paint, and polished aluminum....I had briefly imagined redesigning a 91 caprice with both Bumpers shaved off....in my opinion that car could look several times better without them, and would be nearly a full foot shorter ...obviously looks are I the eye of the beholder, but often eurospec versions looked better then American versions ...safety is great, but safe drivers is where it's at...we need to train our drivers way better, and punish much more severely the bad actors...granted we probably won't sell as many cars that way, and I suspect that's all any politician cares about
Now I know exactly why my dads Mercedes W116 have these awful bumpers. They make this car look horrible, they're so big I could sit on it and even eat dinner off of it. European version of it looked so much better in all honesty
Chrome bumpers survived on Trucks...
I think that what got me the most was not so much the bumper but the raising the car. heights and another thing who in their right mind rases the already higher 4x4 no excuse for that either