我发现你这个人挺无聊的

拿307 撞骐达的个例做 例子 没完没了

不如你出钱 出车 我开骐达撞你307屁股看看？ 傻子都知道车头最硬的道理

是不是我拿个泥头车把所有的私家车都撞烂了 以后所有的私家车都是偷工减料的 都不要上路了？ 你说那个案例 本身就是你们那个307车主是条疯狗 开车乱撞  只能怪那个骐达车主倒霉了 还能怎样   哪天你遇到个泥头车碾你 你一样是一堆肉泥 还关什么安全系统屁事啊

中国人总是没完没了地说这个车安全那个车不安全 有几个系安全带了？

还有 统计表明 中国出事最多的就是德国车 怎么你就不敢搭话了？ 日系车的总量可不低哦 你别拿比例说事哦

还有 什么碰撞标准 欧美日中全部做过 人家就是合格 怎么着？

就你在这里没完没了地胡扯

不认为钢梁对保护人身安全有多大作用，高速碰撞反而会带来更大伤害，原因可以查阅关于物体碰撞中能量传递和吸收。以及碰撞过程持续的时间长短和过载值的关系。

转个爱卡上的：

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

资料来源，WIKI百科，百度知道就别出来丢人现眼了……



An automobile's bumper the front-most or rear-most part, ostensibly desned to allow the car to sustain an impact without damage to the vehicle's safety systems. They are not capable of reducing injury to vehicle occupants in hh speed impa, but are increasiny being desned to to struck by cars.

简略意译如下

汽车防撞梁位于汽车前方和后方的大部分区域，表面上被设计于避免车辆外部损坏对车辆安全系统造成的影响，他们不具有在高速撞击时减少驾乘人员伤害的能力，现在越来越多的被设计用于行人保护。

In most jurdictions, bumpers are legally required on all vehicles. The heht and placent of bumpers may be legally specified as well, to ensure that when vehicles of different hehts are in an accident, the smaller vehicle will not ide under the larger vehicle.
在大多数地区，所有车辆都被法律要求安装保险杠，保险杠的高度和位置是被法律所规定好的，以确保在不同高度的车辆发生事故的，较小的车辆不会滑动到更大的车辆下。

下面是北美地区关于保险杠的法规，和***无关


USA
[] First standardsIn 1971, the U.S. (NHTSA) sued the country's first regulation applicable to passenger car bumpers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215 (FMVSS 215), "Exter Protection," took effect on 1 Seember 1972 — when most automakers would begin producing their 1973 vehicles. The standard prohibited functional damage to specified safety-related components such as and fuel system components when the vehicle subjected to barrier crash tests at 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) for front and 2.5 miles per hour (4 km/h) for rear bumper systems. In October 1972, the enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act (MVICS), which required NHTSA to sue a bumper standard that yields the "imum feasible reduction of cost to the public and to the consur". Factors considered included the costs and benes of implentation, the standard's effect on insurance costs and legal fees, savin in consur ti and inconvenience, and health and safety considerations.
[] Strenhening standardsThe requirents promulgated under MVICS were consolidated with the requirents of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 215 (FMVSS 215, "Exter Protection of Vehicles") and promulgated in 1976. Th new bumper standard was placed in the at 49CFR581, separate from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at 49CFR571. The new requirents, applicable to 1979-model passenger cars, were called the Phase I standard. At the sa ti, a zero-damage requirent, Phase II, was enacted for bumper systems on 1980 and newer cars. The most rorous requirents applied to 1980 through 1982 model vehicles; 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) front and rear barrier and pendulum crash tests were required, and no damage was allowed to the bumper beyond a 3⁄8 in (10 mm) dent and 3⁄4 in (19 mm) dplacent from the bumper's orinal position.
[] Weakening standardsFacing pressure from automakers, and operating under the pl to reduce regulatory burdens on industry, NHTSA most receny anded the bumper standard in May 1982, halving the front and rear crash test speeds for 1983 and newer car bumpers from 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) to 2.5 miles per hour (4 km/h), and the corner crash test speeds from 3 miles per hour (5 km/h) to 1.5 miles per hour (2 km/h). In addition, the zero-damage Phase II requirent was rolled back to the damage allowances of Phase I. At the sa ti, a passenger car bumper heht requirents of 16 to 20 inches (41�1 cm) was establhed for passenger cars. At that ti, NHTSA promed to conduct research and testing to provide consurs with accurate information on the quality of new car bumpers, but no such information has been provided.
Consur and insurance groups have decried the weakened bumper standard, saying it has increased consur costs without any aendant benes exce to automakers.
In 1986, petitioned NHTSA to return to the Phase II standard and dclose bumper strenh information to consurs. In 1990, NHTSA rejected that petition.
The weakened regulations permied automakers to desn bumpers with emphas on ** and low cost; protection dropped substantially and repair costs rose. In 1990, IIHS conducted four crash tests on three different-year examples of the . The results illustrated the effect of the changes to the U.S. bumper regulations (repair costs quoted in 1990 dollars):

• 1983 Horizon with Phase-II 5-mph bumpers: $287
• 1983 Horizon with Phase-I 2.5-mph bumpers: $918
• 1990 Horizon: $1,476

[] CanadaCanada's bumper standard, first enacted at the sa ti as that of the United States, was generally similar to the U.S. regulation. However, the Canadian standard was not weakened from 8 km/h (5 mph) to 4 km/h (2.5 mph) in with the weakened U.S. standard of 1983. So automakers chose to provide stronger Canadian-specification bumpers throughout the North Arican market, while others chose to provide weaker bumpers in the U.S. market, which hampered of vehicles from the U.S. to Canada.
In eay 2009, Canada's regulation shifted to harmonize with U.S. Federal standards and international . Consur groups are upset with the change, but Canadian regulators assert that the 4 km/h (2.5 mph) test speed used wodwide and more compatible with improved in vehicle-pedestrian .

设计上的效果

Effect on design

Cars were equipped with bulky, massive, heavy, protruding bumpers to comply with the bumper standards of the 1970s and early 1980s.[10] By the late 1980s most bumpers were concealed by a painted thermoplastic fascia.



70年代至80年代，保险杠的大、厚重、突出于车体是保险杠的标准，80年代末，保险杠才隐藏于车头塑料后。


下面是转载
另外大多数不一定把握真理，正如保险杠的作用一样，国人认为是一个保护驾驶员的东西，但是事实并非如此，主要用于保护行人或者减小低速碰撞时维修费用的（后者保险公司最看重）。IIHS在测试中也是如此强调的！

加拿大
加拿大的保险杠标准，首先在制定作为美国的同时，普遍类似美国的规管。然而，加拿大标准不削弱从8公里每小时（5英里）至4公里/小时的削弱美国1983年的标准协议（2.5英里）。一些汽车制造商选择提供整个北美市场上的加拿大规格保险杠，而其他选择提供在美国市场，阻碍从美国进口到加拿大的私人车辆保险杠较弱。

在2009年初，加拿大的监管转向以配合美国联邦标准和国际欧洲经济委员会法规。[8]消费群体的转变，打乱了，[9]，但加拿大的监管断言四公里每小时（2.5英里）的测试速度是使用遍布全球，是更完善的行人车辆，行人碰撞保护兼容。

说的没错，许多人就是拿无知出来炫耀。还说我怎么不说f1，擦，f1前后防撞钢梁都没有的，人家就是靠车身安全设计，区域解体来分散冲击力保护驾驶员。还有给大家看这个文章应该会明白一些。

一、后部碰撞最应该防范什么？或后部碰撞通常会造成怎样的伤害？

答：追尾发生时必然后车速度大于前车速度，碰撞时前车获得瞬间加速度，这个加速度通常会造成人的二号颈椎神经受损，该处神经组织异常丰富且易受损伤，损伤程度15％以上即可造成瘫痪、死亡。电影里经常看到偷袭者从目标者后方将其抱住，抓住其下颚，迅速扭动，目标者立即瘫痪，理论上目标者至少已经成植物人了。

二、后部碰撞试验的主要判定是什么？

答：假人的身体、颈部、头部分别内置传感器，可以分别记录后部碰撞过程中各部位所产生的最大加速度G值。颈部传感器记录值与头顶部传感器记录值的差值越大，说明颈椎受损就越严重。

三、汽车设计方案中如何确保“差值”低下？

答：1.配备主动安全头枕，但通常情况下碰撞发生时，乘员坐姿很难标准化。（额外增加的OPT配置）；2.汽车后部结构体变形吸能。

四、为什么有的车有防撞梁有的没有？

答：按照最新安全理念设计的车，通常自重较大的车会加装防撞梁，自重较小的车不会加装防撞梁。自重大的车加装防撞梁并不是人们惯性思维所想的那样，靠钢梁来形成防护墙硬抵御冲击。自重大必然静止惯性就大，反之则相反。
同等冲击下假设条件：A B C D 四车车身完全一样，但整车重量有较大差距，即
A车――自重大，无后防撞梁。
B车――自重小，有后防撞梁
C车――自重大，有后防撞梁
D车――自重小，无后防撞梁
以同等强度能量撞击以上4车，呈现结果及分析：   
A车――由于自重大，静止惯性大，车辆向前撞出距离较短，车体损毁较严重。
B车――由于自重小，静止惯性小，装有防撞梁致使防撞梁本身和车体变形吸收能量很少，撞击动能由防撞梁直接传递到更加坚固的车底板纵梁，车辆向前撞出速度、距离非常大，因为动能基本上都被转化成了车辆向前的动能，假人头部、颈部的加速度“差值”非常大，很不幸。
C车――由于自重大，可以令防撞梁在撞击中发生变形从而缓冲。但必须在吸能和被撞出距离上作出均衡，所以最佳方案是设计具有一定吸能作用的后防撞梁。再辅以适当的缓冲装置，常见的作法就是在防撞梁外面加装一块泡沫。结果是C车的后部损毁和假人头部、颈部的加速度“差值”比较适中且均衡，人OK,车的损失也不大。
D车――由于自重小，无法令到防撞梁在撞击中发生较大变形，反而动能作用在了后防撞梁与底板纵梁构成的刚性组合，造成车辆很大的加速度，人的颈椎无法承受。故此D车后部不安装刚性防撞梁，全部做缓冲设计处理，最大限度减少撞击后的加速度和车体损毁。通过试验可以达到最佳平衡点。

结论： 各种车辆达成碰撞试验成绩合格的设计方案不同，以“后防撞梁”来区分设计年份较新近的车辆且碰撞成绩较好的车型，大体可看出重量大的车与重量轻的车是不同的设计方案。

不太明白什么叫破坏了原车设计，如果原车设计没有防撞梁的话那两个秃秃的底座是干什么的呢？这个是什么设计理念谁给解释一下？

兄弟啊，你也别太上火了。。。。。。。这个骐达车主是我在论坛上见过最能无理狡辩的人，最搞笑的就是说：“骐达有防撞梁，只不过是泡沫的而已”  哈哈，笑死我了，人才啊。。。。。。

我307一堆缺点，我们从来不掩饰，有缺点说明是厂家的问题，产品还不够好，跟我有个P关系哦，我才不为了厂家说好话，多批评才能让厂家提高产品质量。。。。。。