When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I didn't get any pics but we worked a wreck today involving a '99 Dodge Ram 3500 and a 2001 Escort. Totaled the Escort and the Ram had about $500 damage.....head-on collision and the Ram had a Ranch Hand on the front. We've worked other wrecks involving trucks with Ranch Hands and they've held up comparable to the one today. Sturdy for sure.
I know the bumpers themselves are stout. What I want to see though is an actual offset test to see the forces exerted on the occupants when the Ranch Hand prevents the crumple zones to effectively work, and because of the great rigidity of the bumper, how much frame damage is done. If this test was performed and the truck received less damage with less occupant injury, then it would prove that "collapsing" vehicle design is stupid and pointless.
Just to give you an idea, I hit a car that pulled out in front of me with my plow at about 35 mph. There was about $1000 worth of frame damage to my truck but no body damage. Had the plow not been on the truck, I'm betting I would have been replacing the bumper, core support, fender, headlight, a/c condenser, radiator, perhaps more. I was sliding (icy roads) before I hit her, so I was somewhat able to anticipate the hit, and was not injured at all. The Jetta I hit was a total loss, and despite the frame damage I was able to continue plowing. I imagine a ranch hand style bumper would have the same effect transferring the forces right to the frame versus crumpling up the front of the truck. A 40mph offset into a fixed barrier would be more severe than my example, and I'm sure there'd be some body damage as well as the ranch hand got shoved rearward.
I've heard that the ranch hand and similar style bumper's almost acts as a cheater bar that twists your frame. While a bent frame doesn't always mean totaled it seems like insurance companies would rather total the vehicle than go through the trouble of fixing it sometimes...
All depends on the severity of the crash. In a more severe wreck I'm sure it could and would transfer the force to the frame. But what about less severe? Hitting a deer or even a cow - stock you could do quite a bit of front end damage depending how it hit and speed - bumper, grille, lights, core support, fender(s), easily a $3-4,000 repair bill - w/ a ranchand you might scuff the paint and likely no frame damage at all. Occupant most likely safe either way, only difference is repair bill.
I'd hate to guess how much that cat's insurance company had to eat........$100-grand maybe? More even?
Well, an insurance policy has a maximum payout for property damage and personal injury. Watch what you select when you shop for a policy. Lower maximums result in lower premiums, but once you hit that maximum, the insurance company is done and any remaining amount needed for damages or injuries would be on the driver of the vehicle, which could be taken to court for collection.
Imagine if one hit a Bugatti Veyron ($1.3 million car). Who carries multi-million dollar insurance?
Well, an insurance policy has a maximum payout for property damage and personal injury. Watch what you select when you shop for a policy. Lower maximums result in lower premiums, but once you hit that maximum, the insurance company is done and any remaining amount needed for damages or injuries would be on the driver of the vehicle, which could be taken to court for collection.
Imagine if one hit a Bugatti Veyron ($1.3 million car). Who carries multi-million dollar insurance?
Guess I've never seen a Bugatti on the road, saw a Ferrari for the first time in a long time the other day... Anyway, you do have a good point. There's a lot of other things out there one could hit that would cost more to fix than most are insured for.
Maybe not so much a collision with an animal, but if one would slow down, and be more cautious on the roads that have a large number of animal crossings, I think that would cut down a lot of animal collisions.
If you live where I do EVERY road is an animal crossing road. There is very little you can do to avoid them besides walk. It's almost inevitable that at some point in your driving lifetime you will hit one or one will hit you no matter how cautious you are.
Maybe not so much a collision with an animal, but if one would slow down, and be more cautious on the roads that have a large number of animal crossings, I think that would cut down a lot of animal collisions.
I'm giving you a hard time...that's all............'animal' collisions fall under the 'act of God' thingee.......(no, it's not actually on the report....but that's kinda sorta what it is.......nature outside of the driver's control.....)....
I'd say you're 99% correct (and I'm sure you were speaking of car versus car collisions.....).....and some police departments (and our highway patrol) DO presume someone is always at fault. By policy, one of the drivers (sometimes both) are GOING TO GET a citation for the collision....
Not about a RH bumper, but I saw an accident the other day, early 2000s mitsibishi galant rearended a SD that was stopped cause the person in front of them was turning. The car hit the back bumper of the truck at about 30 mph, it totalled the car (the battery from the car was on the ground in front of the truck ) the truck merely had a bent rear bumper.
Nobody was hurt, and when the car hit, the SD left the ground about 6 inches in the rear, and then came right back down on the car.
I am a believer in the Ranchhand full replacement, I hit a deer at 70 mph and came through without a scratch, and slid through a light on an icy street in South Dakota and totaled the car that I hit while only doing about $1000.00 damage to my truck. The damage was not enough to prevent me driving it all the way home to south Texas.