New federal regulations regarding rollovers and roof crush resistance were again delayed as officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are re-tooling the proposed standards. Consumer advocates are calling for Congressional hearings into the matter, contending that the roof performance levels under consideration are woefully inadequate to ensure the safety of vehicle occupants.

NHTSA's projected scale of protection is far too low, according to automotive consultant Stephen Forrest, a former General Motors Corp. (GM) engineer who is now a principal with Safety Analysis & Forensics Engineering (SAFE) in Goleta, Calif. The proposed standards represent only minor changes in roof design, he said, and the testing procedures themselves are fundamentally flawed.

"After 10 years of study they say we're going to go from 1.5 to 2.5 and save 44 lives," Forrest says. The strength-to-weight ratio should range from 3 to 5.

The issue is complex. The agency remains mum on most details, but Forrest said he's "been hearing rumblings" that the "5-inch stroke" standard now applied to acceptable headroom during a roof collapse will be changed to "a survival-based number" that varies by vehicle model. So a roof on a small car wouldn't have to be as strong as the roof on an Escalade.

To avoid "having the roof down around your ears" following a rollover, an appropriate design should meet a 7-or 8-inch stroke threshold, according to Ben Parr, a retired 28-year GM engineer who also worked at State Farm Insurance for 18 years and was a founder of I-CAR.

"The industry hasn't made an improvement for 35 years, Parr says."

NHTSA says it is striving to keep the motoring public safe, and the pushed-back publication date in January of 2008 rather than August of this year is necessary because "we want to get it right."

Others are not convinced.

"After more than 30 years of inaction, 70 percent of new vehicles will require no upgrade in safety to meet the standard, yet rollover crashes kill over 10,000 people each year – one-third of all occupant deaths," says Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA administrator who is president of the Public Citizen consumer advocacy group. "The proposal is so weak it is projected by NHTSA to save only 13 to 44 lives annually – fewer than one-half of 1 percent of rollover deaths."

NHTSA's rudimentary testing relies too much on the presumed benefits of Electronic Stability Controls (ESC) and does not take into account the impact of actual rollover crashes, according to Paula Lawlor, founder of the People Safe in Rollovers Foundation. The organization is seeking increased Congressional oversight and has mounted a nationwide billboard campaign to rally support.

"The 216 test is pretty much useless: Even NHTSA admits it won't have any significant change," says Forrest, estimating that it would cost a carmaker $10 per vehicle to bring a 1.5-compliant roof up to the announced 2.5 standard. The OEM price tag to reach a 4-or 5-level would be about $30.

For collision centers, "The bottom line for repairability is going to be minimal," he reports. "If I drove into a body shop with a 1.5 or a 4 there wouldn't be a noticeable difference."

However, some of the sturdier roof designs – such as the tough topside engineering found on the Volvo XC-90 – typically have high-strength steel throughout, Forrest observes.