Wrecked 2004 c240...
Its a little surprising the airbags didnt blow, but it looks like the impact missed the frame rails, so it just kinda crunched into the nice soft stuff above them.
Erik, why do assume that MB does not want to fire the airbags, did you ever think of the fact that maybe the crumple zones are more effective on a Benz instead of just firing an airbag in your face. I personally don't even want to see an airbag fly at my head again. The sometimes do more damage than they prevent. Such as for people wearing glasses, or broken wrists from clamping on the wheel before impact and then the airbags blowing your hands off. Air Bags were not designed to deploy in low speed or low damage accidents. They were trully designed to supplement the seatbelt and save your life in a higher speed collision where you are more likely to die or be severely injured.
The first airbag system blew with only one triggering device, newer systems use multiple sensors to determine when the bags whould be deployed, for instances second generation ford air bags systems use 2 sensors, one a crash sensor on the front, and another a vehicle decelleration sensors in the cabin, both sensors must be triggered for the SRS computer to send the delpoy signal.
Look at this:
This did not deploy the airbags...why not? Well why it may look bad the actualy impact was with a road barrel full of sand. So the actual impact and decelleration to the vehicle was little.
Point being, just because an accident looks bad doesnt mean the airbag should have blown. I trust the airbag computer(even more so on a benz) to determine when the bags should be delpoyed.
Erik, why do assume that MB does not want to fire the airbags, did you ever think of the fact that maybe the crumple zones are more effective on a Benz instead of just firing an airbag in your face.
Our '89 E class was involved in a head on collision with a Buick.
The Buick was totaled and the airbags went...the Benz had $5K worth of damage but the bags never opened. The owner of the Buick walked away fine...my mom has permanent neck and spine damage. Besides the bags not opening, her belt didn't 'pop'.
Basically MBs stance is in order for the bag to open the entire engine needs to be forced almost into the ****pit.
I have seen hundreds of accident pictures and most of the MBs the airbags did not go off when similar looking accidents of other makes all went off. In our case the extent of the force was equal to both cars so both or none should have gone off.
You might ask why we owned 4 MBs since the accident...well thats because I know from past experience they hold up well and my parents liked the idea of using MBs money to buy cars with...
Erik
Trending Topics
Hopefully the one in my 190E never needs to go off, since is 18 years old.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
a lil sidetrack, but isn't it after certain amount of years, the airbags need to be replaced? on my w202...in the drivers side door jamn, it says in 2009, the airbags need to be replaced. Is this on MB's dollar (ya right)? or do we have to pay for it ourselves?
As for the bags being old technology in 89, that might be true, but her accident wasn't until 93 and the case ended in 98 when bags weren't as new. The data we collected for the case was from the years before 89 until almost 98. After the settlement my parents bought their new Benz at the same time I bought my SLK.
I am not scared or anything...in my mind if the bag opens on a Benz that means the accident is enough to kill you...the cars are strong and I feel secure because of that...it's not like a toyota that will just crumble.
Erik
......It was not even federally mandated til either 89 or 90 that airbags be in a car..........
Supplementle restraint system(SRS) have been require since 1993 for the drivers side, and 1994 for passenger. This is not nessesarily airbag, passive seatbelts qualify too, you know. Those annoying ones that zip back in forth when you turn the key on? Or just passive seatbelts that do not require you to unbuckle and buckle them everytime you get in the car.
...in my mind if the bag opens on a Benz that means the accident is enough to kill you...the cars are strong and I feel secure because of that...it's not like a toyota that will just crumble.
Which would you rather have:
A car which remains completly rigid during an accident, meaning all the transfer of inertia happen to the occupants of the vehicle which are getting thrown around inside, heads being smashed into windshields, doors etc.
Or a car which fold up like an accordian in the front and rear crumple zones, so that the brute force of the inertial change is transferred to the car, not the occupants.
the cars are strong and I feel secure because of that...it's not like a toyota that will just crumble.
MMMMM 350z.....
dont do this:
http://klode.com/Kws/AimsWebApps/Uni...StockID=624679
The idea that a strong frame will protect you in an accident is a myth. As has been said, it is much better for the car to absorb the energy of a crash than the driver.







