The NC 3.75 was an interim solution, as the NC MX5 faced losing its type approval status. Only NCs sold in Europe and Japan received this device. The change in regulation was well sign posted to all manfacturers, so one wonders how Mazda was caught out to make what was probably an expensive change to a model that was on the point of being dropped (the numbers of cars with this fitted is probably very low; went on sale in Q3 2012, 10-15,000 sold in Europe over a 2 year period). The conclusion would be that the ND was behind schedule. The regulation was absolute; it wasnât a case of redesigning a bonnet to reduce liabiliry, but to meet a standard.
That explains a lot - thanks Saz.
Iâve just found a couple of videos on You Tube about this âActive Bonnetâ system, as fitted to other cars.
On the Buick and Mercedes-Benz videos I found, when the system deploys, it doesnât seem to do any damage to the bonnet at all - the system simply lifts the rear of the bonnet a few inches, to effect the protection for the pedestrian. The video then shows the driver simply pushing down on the rear of the bonnet, to reclose it.
This does appear to be a better thought out system than employed on the MX-5, where permanent damage is done to the bonnet when the system is activated.
Well, Iâm not sure which Buick sold in Europe has the active bonnet.
W212 and W222 Mercs with the resettable bonnets seem to be plagued with errant warning lights and owners reporting that they canât reset it. Earlier models used pyrotechnics, that required dealer replacement.
Iâm going to guess that when Mercedes designed their system for German cabbies, weight saving wasnât high on the list.
The inherent problem with this sort of system is the speed at which it has to react.
Destructive explosives are perhaps the only solution as with airbag systems?
The key to this is designing an explosive based system that does not wipe out all components or a replacement for explosives that would have a similarly fast and effective reaction time. Â
Maybe this is going off at a bit of at tangent, but: I was surprised that mK3.75s supplied to the USA didnât have the active bonnet feature. Then I thought about it a bit and came to the conclusion that the cost of meeting claims from unhappy owners whose bonnets had activated may have had something to do with it.
My main thought on this though is - if we in the UK leave the EU, what happens to all the regulations like this ? Do we just make our own, or do we continue with the EU ones ?
I suspect the latter - so whatâs all this fuss about on the telly every night ?
Just thinking out loud - Colin
No, its because in US Law, pedestrians are often blamed for being injured by cars (Jay Walking Laws). Manufacturers have a larger role in lobbying. Introducing laws aimed at protecting pedestrians leads to two solutions; restyling cars to have a much higher bonnet line or fitting complex active bonnet systems. The manufacturers donât want to do that, because they are afraid the styling changes will hurt sales.
Mazda doesnât fit pedestrian protection systems for the same reasons as it doesnât underseal cars; because (in the US) it doesnât have to. If it does something it doesnât have to that hurts the margins.
Australia and Japan also use active bonnets.
For many years, cars sold in the US were required to have a steering wheel airbag fitted, but not in the ROW, because they werenât required to.The MX5 in the US from the get go had an airbag fitted. But an airbag in Japan wasnât even an option until 1991, and in Europe, 1994ish? Japan and Europe instead got, literally, a steering wheel from. c.1965, because it looked good (Momo, Nardi).
From 1994, US cars were also required to have a passenger air bag. LHD MX5s in other markets got the same modified dash, with the airbag cover, but no airbag. Mazda saved money by leaving the compartment empty.
In retrospect, it can be seen that for many years, US legislators lead on car standards, mandating changes that the ROW now takes for granted. Not now
The US governmentâs reasoning for rolling back safety and emissions standards is that it will save lives, because these additional features were cranking up the price of cars, keeping people in older cars for longer. As for the UKâs future type approval standards; it has already said it will retain current standards in existing law. That might be at odds with the US Department of Commerce which is gathering submissions from US industry reps about what they want to see in any US-UK agreement. In every single case I have read, the demands are that the UK must accept US standards as equivalent, and remove the Safety-First principle.
The President has already weaponized safety standards in trade talks. At a rally to supporters, he complained that Japan was blocking US cars from entering the Japanese market, because they were failing a bowling ball test (where a bowling ball is dropped on the bonnet of a car, and if a dent is left, it fails). He made up the test, but it is thought he was referring to Japanese pedestrian impact testing.
Interestingly, pedestrian deaths are spiking; the rise has been caused by cell phones, claims the government, rather than perhaps the increased popularity of SUVs might have a role.
Iâll leave it to others to determine if shareholder power trumps pedestrian safety.
As for accidental deployments of these active hoods; obviously we have a few reports of this happening with the ND. But I cannot recall a single reported example with the NC3. Maybe thatâs because so few of these cars were sold.
Â
[/quote]
Â
No, its because in US Law, pedestrians are often blamed for being injured by cars (Jay Walking Laws).Â
[/quote]
 Â
Â
Now thereâs a thought !
I paused on the M42 Hopwood Park Services this lunch time for caffeine and pannini and saw a sad sight in the car park; a grey ND (17 reg) with the back of the bonnet lifted, no apparent damage to the front.Â
Car looked immaculate otherwise.Â
SWMBO was in a hurry to get going again so no picture taken.
Â
This is really putting me off getting a later car. I live in the Cotswolds where rabbits and pheasants etc are common place and i donât want a large bill or insurance claim evertime one decides lifes not worth living. Even hit two deer in my works vehicle in the past.Â
Unfortunately I had a bump today in my 6 week old ND. I was at a tricky junction waiting to turn left into fast moving traffic. I made an error of judgement, expecting the car in front of me to move when it didnât. I reckon the impact speed was less than 5 mph, causing quite a bit of nearside frontal damage to my car, but little damage to the car in front. The active bonnet did not deploy, but the bonnet did suffer some minor dents and creasing. Draw from this what you will; but it would appear to me that the system has performed correctly by not deploying. Not a great day, but the car can be repaired and no one was hurt.Â
1 Like
As other models have not got this and I understand that technology moves on and it is there to prevent further or major injury to joe Bloggs⌠how ever you can always turn it OFF why should you preempt some silly bugger walking out in front of you and then you bear all the cost of getting it fixed personally I could do with out it as all the previous car have not got it and its not law to have it fitted then stop moaning about it your going to have to fix the bonnet inane case if you mow some one downâŚif its a child then what are they doing playing in the streets did No one teach them the Green Cross Code âŚ
Didnât know it could be turned off, i know Mx5âs track/race cars can disable it but thought for road use as a safety feature it was obligatory.
It canât be turned off. The car needs to be modified to disable it.
Ask your insurance company if they will cover claims against you, with a disabled active bonnet, as you are modifying the car. I dare say Mazda might also invalidate your warranty.
1 Like
On my way to Tescoâs yesterday morning in my 30AE when a hen pheasant hit the front of the car low down on the bumper. 
Cue visions of deploying active bonnet 
âŚnothing! 
Bird obviously very dead (RIP), many feathers in Zunsport half grille but nothing else, thank goodness! 
Another point to make is that if I hadnât got the Zunsport fitted it is likely that the bird would have gone through the slots in the OE grille and literally hit the fan! 
A good investment for safety as well as good looking! 
1 Like
It would have a job âliterallyâ hitting the fan, it is on the other side of the radiator!!! but I know what you mean.
2 Likes