Is the public as safe as they think they are?
On your way out of the house this morning, did you think twice about
how safe the car was that you may have gotten into? Many people think that
newer vehicles will be completely safe in the event of an accident.
Unfortunately, due to recent scrutiny, major car manufactures like Chevrolet,
Honda, and Chrysler have made large recalls due to significant safety design defects.
As with any new product there are bound to be overlooked details. A reputable company
will develop a complete fix for the issue and not a band aid to the problem. After
all, the solution to the problem has a direct impact on the integrity of the
engineers who designed the product in the first place.Without this integrity, the future consumer would be skeptical of every new product.
Are some recall improvements enough?
One automotive recall in particular has been called into question this
past month for what some consider a band aid fix. Over a year ago, Chrysler realized
an issue in rear-end crashes of their Jeep models. The models affected are 1993-2004
Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2002-2007 Liberties. In their particular designs, the
gas tank hangs far below the bottom of the vehicle. In the event of a rear-end
collision, most often the gas tank ruptures and causes an explosion like the one in Figure 1. This is due to
the impact force and failure for proper protection around the gas tank.
Figure 1 The Result of a
Rear-End Impact
(Source: http://blog.caranddriver.com/chrysler-goes-to-trial-over-fiery-jeep-crash-defends-fuel-tanks/)
Chrysler’s solution for the nearly 1.5 million vehicles is to install a
simple tow hitch on the rear of the vehicle. As seen in Figure 2, the addition of this tow hitch
provides little protection to the actual gas tank itself. According to CBS news,
during testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) it
was concluded the fix only provided “incremental safety benefits in low to
moderate speed crashes”. Prior to this, Chrysler also refused to admit that there was an issue
until the NHTSA asked them to take action.
Figure 2 Chrysler’s Tow
Hitch that is Meant to Protect the Gas Tank
The results of this testing propose two questions. Why did it take 22
years for Chrysler to admit the problem? How do they get away with a band aid
solution? According to CBS news, there are more than 50 deaths contributed to
this fire issue, These unnecessary deaths put strain on the integrity of the engineers who
put time into the design of this vehicle. The consequences of the design flaw
put the driver of the vehicle and the general public at a very high risk. One
would have to wonder if it is the engineers at Chrysler who opposed the safety
recall or is it actually the corporate businessmen. With engineers abiding by a
code of ethics it is most likely the latter.
What is there to do?
As much as engineers want to design the most technologically
advanced products, a majority of the engineers that are found in industry are guided by
corporate decisions directly correlated to money. Sometimes, like in the case
of Chrysler’s safety recall, the issue of money causes engineering innovations
to fall short. This is either due to the cost of research and design or
implementation. Non-the-less, they both have the same shortcomings for the consumer
and general public. These shortcomings pose a problem when it comes to abiding by the
engineering code of designing a safe product. One area of engineering where economics is not an issue is
when working for the government. This is why government organizations like the
NHTSA perform intense testing and set regulations for corporate companies.
Unfortunately, sometimes these policies also come up short. If corporate
business boxing matches continue to happen, it may start affecting the integrity
of engineers as we know them. Engineering issues like these recalls, and shortcomings of future innovations, have a
direct impact on every person who is on the road. No matter what the economic cost, each engineer has to take a
stand to make the world a safer place.
(CBS News Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chrysler-jeep-recall-gas-tank-explosions-still-raising-safety-concerns/)
Justin, great article on automotive recalls.
ReplyDeleteRecently I wrote a blog entry myself on the Takata airbag recalls due to faulty inflator propellants. In this exercise I learned many of the same lessons you spoke on in this article. One of the main ones you touched on was the engineering decisions made on economic benefits whether for better or worse. All too often we hear news stories on a tragic incident that occurred because of a cheap engineering solution to save money. In the case with Takata it was due to the use of a cheaper alternative propellant type. In your article the example you used was on the Chrysler-Jeep gas tank issue. In this case the initial design was flawed, but the recall solution was also botched. This type of incident really makes you think twice about the way we handle product testing and safety. I realize it is easy for me and other consumers to demand change, but it is probably not that simple. With the growing complexity of engineering designs it becomes harder and harder for the everyday consumer to evaluate the function and safety of the product they are going to purchase. As you mentioned there needs to be better communication in the production chain between engineers and consumers. I hope these engineering disasters can steer us into a future of increased safety standards, and higher performance to benefit everyone.
Justin, great article on automotive recalls.
ReplyDeleteRecently I wrote a blog entry myself on the Takata airbag recalls due to faulty inflator propellants. In this exercise I learned many of the same lessons you spoke on in this article. One of the main ones you touched on was the engineering decisions made on economic benefits whether for better or worse. All too often we hear news stories on a tragic incident that occurred because of a cheap engineering solution to save money. In the case with Takata it was due to the use of a cheaper alternative propellant type. In your article the example you used was on the Chrysler-Jeep gas tank issue. In this case the initial design was flawed, but the recall solution was also botched. This type of incident really makes you think twice about the way we handle product testing and safety. I realize it is easy for me and other consumers to demand change, but it is probably not that simple. With the growing complexity of engineering designs it becomes harder and harder for the everyday consumer to evaluate the function and safety of the product they are going to purchase. As you mentioned there needs to be better communication in the production chain between engineers and consumers. I hope these engineering disasters can steer us into a future of increased safety standards, and higher performance to benefit everyone.
I agree that important safety issues such as these need to be addressed and fixed in order to make their product safe. Cars that have a risk of blowing up are not only a danger to the driver, but also to the ones that may find themselves rear ending the vehicle. It’s obvious that Chrysler made a major error in producing these lines of cars, but how did these cars pass testing and make to market? From 1993 to 2007 there had to have been numerous chances to redesign the gas tank or at least good idea of the problem. This is an extreme disappointment in not only the company, but also those in charge of designing. Someone should have spoken up and brought the issue to light long before the vehicle was out of production. I can see how difficult it would be to correct such a mistake and still make a profit. The fix would cost an enormous sum and even though a hitch isn’t an adequate fix, it has to be better than nothing. It is extremely important for the engineers to design a safe vehicle before it comes available to the public. I personally feel that a major defect like this should have been detected back in 1994 at the latest. If the design would have been right in the first place, Chrysler would have probably saved in the long run, which stresses again the importance of testing and taking all situations into account.
ReplyDeleteThis is great insight and thank you for the replies. Talon, I am not sure how this design flaw ever passed testing. My guess is that the testing techniques were not stringent enough or did not evaluate this portion of the vehicle in a real world scenario. Never-the-less, the issue should have been fixed years before it was.
DeleteGreat article on an issue that we see becoming more and more common. It seems like its always on the news that theres always being a car being recalled because of mistakes made in the design. Its pretty sad that most of these recalls are the result of carelessness. Some people are so fixated on making money that they let the quality and safety of a vehicle suffer. As for the Jeep recall and Talon's comment where he said that someone should have said something.... theres always the scenario where someone couldve said something but were too far down on the totem pole if you will to make a difference. They couldve went to their supervisor with the issue but that could be all the farther it gets and the issue would have never made it to management. If this scenario was the case then I believe someone should have done some whistleblowing, which is going outside the chain of command, before production was to begin. Unfortunately, as with anything, no design will be 100% perfect. Every car is going to have their issues, but engineers need to try as hard as they can to effectively and safely minimize these issues.
ReplyDelete