elwood

iTrader: (1)

I like the smooth look at the back of a car, and it seems possible to remove the rear bumper, do a little metal work to cover the recess and end up with a new look and less weight.

I know there are some pesky little details to work out like what to use in place of the big OEM rear bumper, but . . .

Has anybody done this? Pictures?

82transam

iTrader: (18)

Don't know if he finished this 100%, but yeah it's been done. If you can do some basic metal work it's actually not that difficult. Personally the look isn't my thing, but it's definitely not terrible looking

https://www.rx7club.com/fabrication-...ll-pan-787726/

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Just don't get hit from behind after... There's not much protection for the gas tank if the bumper's gone.

For my taste, it's way too bland from behind.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

don't do it! its ugly.

ray green

iTrader: (14)

Not a good idea for a street car, I don't think. I wonder about whether you might run into some legal issues.

The side lights and rear bumper are safety requirements for all cars on the road, as they were when these cars were manufactured in the early 1980's. I'd be interested to hear what Dave, who is a patrol officer, thinks of the idea.

Otherwise, I agree with the comments above. It's ugly and if you get rear ended kiss your *** goodbye.

Bteets9914

iTrader: (6)

I think on a daily driver it probably wouldn't be a good idea... I chose to go this route because I hated how the rear bumper looked with my widebody kit. In addition the car is not a DD and is insured as a collectable, that way if I do get tagged in the back the insurance company will need to pay for the rebuild. That being said, here are the unfinished pics...

84stock

iTrader: (5)

You really think the insurance company will buck up when they discover you "removed" a key factory installed piece of safety equipment like a bumper, good luck and no offense.

84stock

iTrader: (5)

If you're willing to this to a daily driver then you might was well go ride some roller coasters and decline to use the safety bar because it makes you look like a pansy and makes you feel too restrained.


and I am sure this guy saw this one coming and just didn't get out of the way fast enough...



Yeah, who needs a bumper to protect the gas tank any way??

Bteets9914

iTrader: (6)

When I made the changes the insurance company was more than happy to insure it with a stated value. Moved states and changed companies when I wanted to insure both rx-7's and my antique motorcycle under the same policy. New insurance company was more than happy to insure it based on the pictures for a significant chunk of change. If you are unfamiliar with this type of policy, need to send in pictures of the car from all angles.

As I said in my post I wouldn't do it to a daily driver by any means...However, your argument that the insurance company won't pay to fix the car if damaged is a load of BS, your going to tell me that all the people that put roll pans on their trucks won't be covered if they are in an accident...seriously?

82transam

iTrader: (18)

It depends on how much the adjuster wants to follow the rules. Technically the removal of safety equipment can be used to justify the denial of a claim...

Having said that, I'm not sure how much the corroded old aluminum beams our bumpers are made from would really do at this point, especially if rear ended by a truck/suv since the brunt of the impact would be above the bumper anyway...

Bteets9914

iTrader: (6)

That was one of the reasons I chose to go this route. I know the back shocks were frozen solid, the rear is going to get mauled if the person doesn't hit their brakes and even if they do more likely than not their nose would be under the factory bumper hitting the area that the bumper was intended to protect

I could see that if there was an adjuster that would ever look at the car... With the case of a collectible car you just take it to the body shop and then send the claim into the insurer. In my case the pictures clearly show what the car looks like so I am not hiding anything from them at all. I had a claim not too long ago and my car only went into the shop to have it looked over, then I sent everything into the company and received the check. You also can't tell me that all the rat rod/custom guys have their cars completely stock as far as safety equipment goes

82transam

iTrader: (18)

No arguments there that's for sure. Lots of cars running around out there that are missing this or that.

I should have clarified my last comment a bit more. If you are talking about a claim that involves property damage (property in this case being your vehicle) then yeah they will more than likely just pay to have it repaired. Especially in your case since you have an agreed upon value policy.

However, if there is a serious injury to you, the driver, or worse the passenger (who can turn around and sue you) that could have been prevented (or argued as such by a good lawyer) by that bumper being there, you could be royally screwed. Again though, really depends on the situation.

Side note that I find funny, I come on here when I'm at work (in the Auto Insurance industry lol) to get away from insurance haha, just funny that a thread like this would catch my attention.

rx78

Looks good! I like it, has an old Porsche look to me

StormBeforeDawn

It looks good with the widebody kit, but man, on the stock it just looks awful. Safety concerns aside, just make sure it's what you are actually looking for before you whip out the welder and the sheet steel.

84stock

iTrader: (5)

California bumper law
V C Section 28071 Passenger Vehicle Bumper Requirements
Passenger Vehicle Bumper Requirements

28071. Every passenger vehicle registered in this state shall be equipped with a front bumper and with a rear bumper. As used in this section, "bumper" means any device designed and intended by a manufacturer to prevent the front or rear of the body of the vehicle from coming into contact with any other motor vehicle. This section shall not apply to any passenger vehicle that is required to be equipped with an energy absorption system pursuant to either state or federal law, or to any passenger vehicle which was not equipped with a front or rear bumper, or both, at the time that it was first sold and registered under the laws of this or any other state or foreign jurisdiction.

Washington bumper law
WAC 204-10-022


(6) Bumpers: A motor vehicle must be equipped with a bumper on both the front and rear of the vehicle with the exception of motor vehicles where the original or predominant body configuration, provided by a recognized manufacturer, did not include such bumper or bumpers in the design of the vehicle. For the relevant model year, bumpers must accommodate recognized manufacturer impact absorption systems pursuant to applicable SAE Bumper Standards or equivalent standards.

Bumpers are optional equipment on vehicles defined as street rods and kit vehicles by the Washington state patrol vehicle inspectors.

I would just check with your local state laws and the law in any state in which you travel.

elwood

iTrader: (1)

Man, you are a wealth of info! Thanks -- that's exactly what I was looking for.


Regarding rear crash performance:

I did vehicle underbody development for a few years. There's no doubt that removing stuff back there will affect the crash performance . . . but probably less than you think. Bumpers are a low speed impact measure that don't provide a lot of benefit in high speed events (above 5 - 10 MPH). Their biggest contribution is generally in front offset hits, where they help transfer load to the opposite engine compartment rail. In this car, the rails are tied together very well, so that effect is minimal.

Anything I say is speculation, since I don't have access to crash simulations for this car, but I can tell you this as a little tidbit of design: The shock absorbers that cars like the FB has were designed for low speed impact so a 5MPH whack wouldn't cause any serious damage. The collapsible section will only stroke so far before it becomes a rigid member, and it will only stroke in nearly direct rear impacts (it binds on angular or offset hits). Once it becomes a rigid member, it short-circuits the crush of the rails. This is undesirable, since controlled crush of the rails (front or rear) is what absorbs energy and saves your ***. If you notice, those shock absorbers disappeared once OEMs figured out a cheaper way to achieve low speed impact and needed to perform better in high speed crash.

Now, protecting the fuel tank is another issue. You'll also notice that the fuel tank isn't between the rear suspension and the rear bumper on many newer cars. The Crown Victoria is one car that comes to mind with the fuel tank back there, and we all know the issues it had in police service. So in the FB, those shock absorbers might protect the tank (good), albeit at the expense of higher occupant Gs (bad).

mazdaverx713b

iTrader: (91)

from my point of view, its a HUGE safety concern. i would never remove the rear bumper personally. not only is it ILLEGAL to remove the rear bumper, it is unsafe. here in Ohio, its illegal to remove the rear bumper and in Michigan where yo live it is also against the law. here is your state law regarding bumpers and equipment:

257.710c Bumpers; height limitations; lift blocks; prohibited modifications; construction of section; applicability; definitions.
Sec. 710c.

(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a public highway or street of this state unless the vehicle is equipped with a bumper or other energy absorption system with an analogous function which bumper or system is securely bolted or permanently attached on both the front and rear of the vehicle. The bumper or energy absorption system shall be maintained in good operational condition, except as provided in subsection (5). Notwithstanding subsection (6), a person shall not drive a vehicle having a raised or lifted body height unless the vehicle is equipped with bumpers that comply with this subsection and subsection (2).

elwood

iTrader: (1)

It's illegal to remove the catalytic converter, too -- in every state.

Since I'm going to jail anyway . . .

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

the california law must have been written by the same people who wrote the SCCA rule book... the michigan law is much clearer. california's is just "your car should have a bumper unless it doesn't have one"

anyways, what about tucking an SA bumper? i think a small bumper would look better than no bumper...

84stock

iTrader: (5)

Funny, we are all going to jail now

mazdaverx713b

iTrader: (91)

true, but you won't always get pulled over for not having a converter. i can't remember the last time i looked under someones car for a cat, lol. i have pulled people over for not having a rear bumper. its just more a obvious violation that could get you in trouble.

82transam

iTrader: (18)

I wonder if you could take the stock bumper beam and remove the bumper shocks to tuck it closer to the body (not sure how you'd mount it, but couldn't be that hard) then cover it in sheet metal like the thread I posted. You'd still have some protection and have the look you're after.

Again, the look isn't really my thing, but it's a slightly (key word here, slightly lol) safer option than just removing it totally lol.

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Nobody ever died because of a missing cat.

All joking aside: Legality is one thing. Compromising vehicle safety in a way that risks your own life is foolish... but doing it in such a way that it risks the innocent lives of others is just downright irresponsible.

If your fuel tank ruptures in an accident, the resulting fire could kill other people in other vehicles. Immolation is a particularly horrendous way to die, too.

Bteets9914

iTrader: (6)

For those worried that removing a bumper is a safety issue, right from the agency that tests the bumpers: Bumper Questions and Answers

2) What is the purpose of bumpers?
The car bumper is designed to prevent or reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles in low-speed collisions. Automobile bumpers are not typically designed to be structural components that would significantly contribute to vehicle crashworthiness or occupant protection during front or rear collisions. It is not a safety feature intended to prevent or mitigate injury severity to occupants in the passenger cars. Bumpers are designed to protect the hood, trunk, grille, fuel, exhaust and cooling system as well as safety related equipment such as parking lights, headlamps and taillights in low speed collisions.

They then go on to state that the bumper is now only supposed to protect these components at speeds of 2 miles per hour....I walk way damned faster than that!

Insurance is something I would worry about in that I'm sure as a daily driver you might get nailed for not having a bumper if involved in a collision. Again if you have the proper insurance I wouldn't worry about that. The car of the month for September last year:

Car of the Week - September 8th, 2011 | Chubb Collector Car Insurance

States right in the description from their site "Jani’s 1932 Plymouth has everything you’d expect in a traditional rod, including no bumpers, no fenders, no hood or hood sides, suicide doors, and loud exhaust."

Think this is all the evidence I need that I'll be covered if in an accident by the same insurance company.


Now as far as highway patrol and also getting the car inspected....you are kinda on your own on that one, most states that I have looked at have it in the books that you have to have bumpers affixed to the car. Meaning you might not be able to get it inspected and you might be pulled over and ticketed for it... My car is titled/tagged as a historic and insured as a modified vehicle, same as for the rod above...I have my doubts that a patrolman is going to pull the rod over for not having a bumper and I doubt that they would know exactly how a stock first gen rx-7 should look/would hassle me too much unless I am an absolute *** to them.


82transam Pretty sure Respeed makes front solid shocks that do exactly like you are describing, not sure if he is going to make the ones in the rear or not which would then allow you to tuck the bumper in some, but still not sure how you would deal with the bumper cover...

Banzai

iTrader: (13)

Orginally, I think bumpers were intended to provide an outer layer of protection to the vehicles body pannels. A sacrifical part if you will to absorb small impacts and be easily and cost effectively replaced. As speed's have increased the've become much less effective and relegated to just above curb feelers in protection.

Back in the 1st Gen's day, they were known as 5-MPH bumpers. A government mandated thang. The 5 MPH is I think, what it approximately took to compress the shocks is all. Again, a parking lot kind of protection. Not sure what's under the skin of an FB, but SA bumpers do provide a substaintial extra layer of impact and puncture protection. Helps spread an impact out over a larger area while adding a couple layers of real steel bumper protection.

Taking them off is nothing new. In 79, a company called Xerxes Designs out of Kansas City MO. marketed front and rear fibreglass pannels to replace the bumbers with. Lighter weight and increased fuel mileage were the advertising spin. No mention of a possibile firery mass murder. They advertisied in Rotary Rocket and the Rx-7 club of america publications. I know I still have old articles showing the installed pannels but not how they actually attached. I imagine it was not all that complicated.