The B-Pillar Problem

The motivation came from a variety of sources. For years, consumer advocacy groups complained NHTSA regulations weren't strict enough and pointed to the number of serious injuries and deaths caused by rollovers. Injured motorists successfully filed several high-profile lawsuits against manufacturers for failing to protect them during rollovers. In 2000, a media frenzy followed revelations that Firestone tires fitted to Ford Explorers were disintegrating from tread separation, sending the SUVs out of control and often into rollovers. The rise in ownership of SUVs, which are at greater risk for rollover, called even more attention to the problem.

Finally, there are the damning NHTSA statistics on rollovers. NHTSA numbers record an average of 273,000 rollovers. That's just for non-convertible, light vehicles. Those rollovers account for just 3 percent of the nation's vehicle crashes, yet are responsible for roughly 33 percent of all vehicle fatalities. In 2005, rollover deaths increased 2.8 percent to 10,816. Rollovers also account for 24,000 serious injuries annually.

Failure to wear a seatbelt plays into these numbers. Of the 10,000 people killed annually in rollovers, nearly 60 percent are unbelted. NHTSA numbers don't distinguish fatalities caused by roof collapse or other events during a rollover that also prove fatal, such as the ejection of an occupant from a vehicle. Still, the agency estimates that of belted drivers in rollovers, 807 per year are seriously injured and 596 die from roof collapse.

The proposed rule is aimed at reducing those numbers. The new rule would require vehicle makers to install roofs that support 2.5 times the weight of the vehicle while maintaining sufficient headroom for an adult male. The proposed rule also would affect more vehicles since it applies to vehicles weighing up to 10,000 lbs.

Advocacy groups like Washington D.C.-based Public Citizen like the proposal even less. They say the rule doesn't go far enough to protect motorists. One of their main concerns is with the test the proposal mandates manufacturers use to determine roof strength. That test utilizes a static measure in which weight is pressed on one side of a vehicle. Advocates say the test fails to comply with an August 2005 congressional mandate for safety upgrades to both the driver and passenger sides. That, they say, would require testing both sides of the roof.

Even then, advocates say a better test choice, one that better reflects the actual realities of a rollover, is a dynamic dolly roll test — one in which vehicles are rolled off a fast-moving dolly to simulate how actual injuries are incurred. Advocates note that this test accounts for all rollover effects exhibited throughout the vehicle, including the effects on the roof, windows, seat belts, airbags and occupants.

Finally, advocates point to NHTSA's own estimates on the impact of the current proposal. NHTSA believes the new roof crush standard annually will prevent 500 to 800 injuries and 13 to 44 deaths, small numbers in light of the 10,000 rollover deaths each year.

NHTSA sees the proposal as one part of a larger effort to reduce rollover deaths and injuries. They plan to press forward with the proposal. In May, that plan suffered a setback as NHTSA announced it was delaying action because it needed additional time to conduct more research so it could construct a more "workable" regulation. NHTSA planned to issue a final rule by Aug. 31, but now says it will issue a preliminary proposal by late September and then finalize the rule by July 2008 (a Congressional requirement).

Active safety and stability control systems have shown great promise, but manufacturers still note they're not a cure-all. Certain accident scenarios along with aggressive and unsafe motorists still can overcome them and put their vehicles in a situation where a rollover is inevitable. This is where, advocates believe, better roof support could make a serious impact.

Repairers respond

In the midst of all this uncertainty, repairers find themselves where they so often do when manufacturers or regulators dwell over changes — smack in the middle of things. Even with the final form of the roof crash standard still in question, some industry members have ideas that center on the B-pillar.

"This is actually part of a trend for automakers," says Steve Marks, industry support manager for I-CAR. "You're going to see changes aimed at both rollovers and side impacts." That ultimately means strengthening the B-pillars, roof rails and rocker panels.

Marks notes that the B-pillar and other parts will be strengthened in two ways: either with heavier materials (layered or heavier-gauge steel) or stronger, lighter materials like high-strength, extra high-strength or ultra high-strength steel.

The latter option is in many ways a more obvious choice due to the weight savings and the fact that manufacturers already are incorporating high-strength steel in their B-pillars. High-strength steels will provide shops with challenges.

The first chore a repairer faces in handling high-strength steel is identifying it. Changes in manufacturer designs make identification in some cases more difficult.

Lee Gamboa, general manager of Gamboa Body and Frame in Sacramen-to, Calif., points to tailor-welded blanks — single parts that can be composed of three different types of steel.

Regardless of their form, high-strength steel pieces usually must be repaired in one of two ways, replacement or sectioning, with sectioning being the more viable option since it's often the cheaper of the two. Sec-tioning provides its own challenges since high-strength steel pieces should only be sectioned in specific areas set by the manufacturers.

Gamboa and Marks agree that repairers need to spend time locating this information and employing it. "Experience can work against technicians sometimes," says Marks. "With sectioning, sometimes you can have a tech not following recommendations because he thinks, 'I've been sectioning for years. I know what I'm doing.'"

"The information is out there," says Gamboa. Whether or not shops choose to use this material is another matter.

Diagnosis dilemmas and solutions

Dealing with a damaged B-pillar made of high-strength steel is just one aspect of a repair. Marks notes that chassis pieces perform one of two functions in a collision — one transfers energy; the other absorbs it. Many vehicle designs transfer energy throughout a vehicle, far from the impact area. This means shops and adjusters must take extra time to examine a collision and look throughout a vehicle to spot damage.

"Shops are going to need to spend more time pulling apart pieces to get a look at them," says Marks. Shops also will need to change where they anchor vehicles to view the extra damage.

These factors already are giving some shops fits. "We're having to ask adjusters to make several trips back to file adjustments," says Dalton Sachs, owner of Northeastern Auto Coach in Hudson, N.Y. As manufacturers choose to protect occupants by sacrificing the vehicle they are making vehicles more difficult to repair. "We're seeing more and more totals from what used to be fairly minor collisions," he says. "Surely manufacturers can come up with a better way to protect people and keep the vehicle repairable."

Marks says repairers should "not panic." The salvage issue hangs heavy over the industry as shops witness more and more vehicles being totaled out by repairers as repair costs on newer vehicles rise. Marks said the approach shops must take in repairing parts with high-strength steel may offer cost savings. "For example, you will be spending less time straightening damaged parts and replacing them instead," he says. Repairers have overcome a number of similar challenges over the years.

There are some steps shops can take to address rollover accidents. For one, they can stress the importance of wearing seatbelts. Nearly 60 percent of the people killed in rollovers aren't buckled up. On the repair side, shops can keep training and staying aware. Precaution, prevention and preparation are the operative words.