emilner

I think it is a very important test. How often do cars crash head on at speed? The risk of an offset crash like that is fairly large. We all drive on roads doing 40-50mph with cars on the other side separated by just a double yellow line. I have passed quite a number of such crashes over the years mainly on 25a in Nassau county. They are not pretty. The Volvo is actually designed to lose its wheel in that scenario. As you can see from the Lexus and MB, the tire causes quite a bit of cabin damage. By taking energy dispersion from the military Volvo designed the tire to release or get pushed under the car. In the latest military vehicles they design them to redirect the blast away from the cabin. Let's face it,under a severe crash there is really no need for the tire anyway, it's not like you could control the vehicle at that point.

These various types of crashes are the reasons my family spends most of its time in an ESV...

WEBSRFR

+1. In a crash like this the vehicle is pretty much totaled. The only purpose of the car should be to do everything it can to protect the occupants.

This is why I'm so disappointing that Mercedes did not program the side airbags to deploy to help protect the driver in an offset crash like this. It's almost unbelievable they did not do that. I wonder if this is something they can issue a "recall" or "service bulletin" for and change the software that governs the air bag system so it will deploy in a severe crash like this.

Also hope future Mercedes models will be designed so that the front wheel would not intrude into the passenger compartment.

K-A

Reposting this quote of mine from the other thread (relevant to the discussion):

To M-B's defense, they have decades of real world crash data that signifies that they know safety better than most. Since the IIHS started gauging fatality rates, M-B's have proven to be the most life saving in real world collisions. When it comes to crash testing, as we see with the "Moderate Overlap" VS "Small Overlap" testing, a couple inches to the right or left can significantly determine how differently exact same cars will perform, in terms of where the impact is.

The good thing is the IIHS forces automakers to pretty much cover all their bases in terms of having to perform right in safety, which benefits us all. What I'd like to know is what M-B says about why the Side Airbags didn't deploy. Is it by design, or was is a fluke? If it's by design, then it's idiotic because unless they have a case that more airbags deploying when not vitally necessary can do more harm than good, then we can use all the protection that we can get, case in point: This test. If it's a fluke, then hopefully they'll retest a bunch of cars and see if it's a reoccurring problem, and if so, issue a recall. If it's by design, then it would be nice if they did recall all cars to re-engineer the trigger points of the side airbags, but that's highly doubtful.

One thing that struck me as incredibly odd is the Audi A4's test data. The C has faults in that the wheel intrudes into the cabin and the side airbags didn't deploy, but the structure of the upper cage held up seemingly the best of the group (and the interior didn't fall apart/split in half like the 3-Series'). I always thought Audi built some of the strongest body shells and safest cars, and again, I wouldn't write them off due to one out of a thousand types of crashes.... but the A4's cage collapses completely, I never expected that from Audi.

emilner

Wow, the driver in that Audi is seriously beaten up.

One thing I will say is they should be testing against a vehicle moving in an opposite direction. How many times do you just happen to crash into the corner of a rock wall (even a building would give way). Anything crashing against an immovable object (like a WWII concrete bunker) will show ultimate destruction. But when it can deflect some energy into the other object rotationaly then the crash is diminished.

This is one reason I laugh at all of such tests. They always test against a vehicle of equal weight and CG or against an immovable object (something that virtually does not exist in the real world). If you compare a full size suv (like my escalade) vs another escalade then yes, it will be a damn violent crash. But the likely hood of that happenning is slim. Chances are it will be against a Camry, or Liberty or worse for the other guy Civic. What they should test against is a representation of the current US fleet in weight and CG. This way that if you went up against a vehicle you know you have a 50/50 shot you can rely on the rating. But if you drive a 5 star crash rated Mini you should know that if you hit anything other than a midget on the road your rating is worth the paper it is written on.

CEB

I'm glad to see that some aren't buying into the media circus. While the crash testing is horrible, we need to put this into context. Frontal accidents completely outside of the frame rails are extremely rare. Remember that this test did not replicate two cars "clipping" each other - rather, it was a car hitting a fixed object with a sharply defined edge. This is more akin to whacking the corner of a commercial building.

Think of where the frame rails are and then figure out where you'd have to hit that fixed object in order be outside the rails. The wheels have to be pointed straight forward and you'd have to hit the obstacle squarely.

MB is right that this is not a real world test and I suspect that the IIHS will revise the test before long. They've gone on record saying that it'll take 5 to 10 years before cars can pass this test. They also said that they won't give "good" scores to cars if they don't pass. Accordingly, the majority of cars will fail for the next two model years unless they redesign the test to be more realistic.

Having airbags go off when not needed increases the likelihood of injury from the airbag itself. This has nothing to do with the cost of replacing the airbag.

All that said, even unrealistic tests further automotive safety so we can hope that this test will lead manufacturers to refine airbag deployment calculations. If nothing else, it keeps them on their toes and hopefully gets consumers to be more aware of safety.

telemakhos

From what I read long ago, it is the same thing. Crashing into an immovable object is the same has crashing into an identical car in the identical position travelling at the same speed.

WEBSRFR

I agree that the Mercedes did better than the Audi but really you are comparing against the other two worst performers of this test... I don't buy the Mercedes corporate BS about how they know what is best for you all the time, as they have been wrong in the past. It's this kind of arrogant attitude that in 1997 brought us the E class that was a disaster in a frontal crash... At least then they had the decency to admit the faults of their design and fix things. That's what they should do now without pretending like nothing is wrong or coming up with insulting excuses.


It's our lives that are at stake with the way Mercedes designed the car and then they made it worse by deciding not to deploy the air bags in a crash like this. I'd rather focus on how Mercedes failed based on how well the Volvo and the Acura performed not how Mercedes did marginally better than the other two worst performing cars. The Volvo's driver compartment is almost untouched after such a massive impact.

And for the love of god, Mercedes should deploy the side airbags in a crash like this. No amount of corporate BS can account for the decision not to deploy the side airbags.

WEBSRFR

Re-posting my comments from a previous thread to address your concern about crashing into a solid vs. deformable barrier as what I wrote is relevant to the comment you made...

The fact of the matter is yes, if it was a deformable barrier, then the impact would be less...

-- BUT --

Is that really the yardstick we should use? Is this test so hard that Mercedes needs to count on a soft target for their design to perform well when Acura and Volvo performed much better with a harder target?

You don't decide what you will hit in an accident. It can be a soft car, or it can be a concrete pylon on a bridge. If the life of your family is at stake, would you rather have the vehicle built to handle crashing into a a little egg-basket of a car or a block of concrete?

It is a Mercedes we are talking about and the safety of the occupants for crying out loud. Build the damn thing to handle the block of concrete and it will nicely handle any soft targets for free. What about this is so hard for Mercedes to understand?

I don't want to my car designed to handle a crash with an egg basket on wheels. Raise the bar so it can handle a severe impact with something more solid, as Volvo and Acura has done.

IMHO Mercedes' statement after the crash test is akin to telling us:

"Well we know what is best for you so we designed the car to handle a crash with a small car that can deform in a crash. If you have an accident, please don't hit anything harder than a small car. At Mercedes we feel you should not crash into anything more solid than a smaller car"

"Oh and also our engineers have decided in a severe offset crash like this we should save the side airbags so that the people in the junk yard can make some money selling the airbag. Therefore we decided to not deploy it in a severe offset frontal crash. So if you are involved in a severe offset frontal crash, in addition to not hitting anything too hard, please do your best to keep your head straight so as to not hit the side components or the A pillar of your car. Oh and also close your eyes before the crash so that if the side window should shatter, the glass will not embed in your eyes."

It's hard for me to buy the argument that not deploying the side airbag was part of any sound logical reasoning to protect the driver. I'm pretty sure that slamming your head onto the A pillar and/or having glass embedded in your eyes from the side window breaking and showering your face with glass is likely going to be a lot worse than any side effects of the side airbags deploying.

BenzV12

https://mbworld.org/forums/w212-amg/...cky-alive.html


That link above is a good testimonial of real life crash . MB are too performing crash tests in their labs

CEB

taking a quote out of context will often result in jumping to the wrong conclusion. I never said that the side airbag should not have gone off, I was merely responding to the popular misconceptions that an airbag should always go off, that there is something wrong with the car if it doesn't and that the manufacturer is somehow saving money.

The fact is that people are injured by an explosive device going on near their head and the only important calculation the airbag controller makes is "will the injury be less severe if I deploy?"

Clearly, the airbag would have reduced injury in this test and should have deployed -but - can a manufacturer be expected to test for every eventuality? Can a car be designed to account for all scenarios equally well?

Regardless of what the IiHS implies, small overlap crashes are rare and crashes against a fixed immovable sharply defined object are obviously even rarer.

As far as impact severely, it is obvious that many of you have seen the mythbusters episode on if hitting a car is like hitting a fixed object but that was a full frontal crash and not a test like this.

I'm sure that all manufacturers will be addressing this test so in the meantime, ask yourself this question " would you rather be in a car that has an outstanding safety record in real world tests but does poorly on a test for a very rare type of accident or one that does well in this type of test but you can't see out the back window on a daily basis (the Volvo)?"

Let me try to put this into a non-automotive context.

When HIV was first publicized in the US in the 80's, the media hype made people think that if they would come down with the disease if they just thought that they knew someone in the affected demographic.

It is a devastating disease but the fact remains that it never medically touched the lives of the majority of the US population.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't test for it or find a cure, it just means that it doesn't affect the entire population medically.

Just as with test, we should find the causes of the injuries and find a solution but the sky is not falling.

K-A

Good point about the wheel being straight. Who would ever drive straight into a wall without turning the wheel? Perhaps if the wheel was turned, it wouldn't have crumbled into the lower cabin, and perhaps M-B only did this test "realistically" with the wheel turned, therefore never saw the problem.

I guess we'll never truly know who knows better, "IIHS or Mercedes", however at least the IIHS are a 3rd party with no dog in the race, so we can trust them. Mercedes has also earned our trust by their historic safety data and innovations, etc.

IF and IF Mercedes really has the "safety potion" down pat better than all others, and the reason that this test went so wrong is because it doesn't give a realistic scenario, I'd hate to see M-B dumb down "their way" of engineering safety simply because they can't afford the bad press of having one of their cars slip by one of these tests.

ImInPA

That Volvo passed this new test is all that really needs to be said. MB has some work to do. I still believe that in the real world, my E is a very safe and substantial car. I hope Volvo will use this new information to aid its survival. The Swedes really know safety and Volvo knows it better than any one else. Go Volvo. Are you reading this MB?

CEB

IIHS has a very big dog in the fight. They are funded by insurance companies whose goal it is to keep their costs down. More importantly, IIHS wants to be seen as the big dog on campus and they'll do most anything for publicity even if it involves an unrealistic crash test.

MB has a history of "knowing what is best for the consumer." For years they refused to install tilting steering wheels becausethe angle at which they installed it was "right." They have kept their goofball cruise control stalks and have essentially forced the consumer to change their ways. There are plenty of other examples as well.

That Volvo passed this particular test is interesting. On the Euro NCAP tests, the Volvo was faulted for poor performance in the frontal crash against a pole and with poor pedestrian safety results. The C series did much better in the "car against pole" test and marginally better in the pedestrian safety test.

The Volvo was criticised for having a too rigid front corner structure for pedestrian safety - the same design that probably helped it in the IIHS test.

Today's ADAC headline is about the IIHS test and draws the same conclusion as most here - the manufacturers need to do better but this isn't the end of the world.

WEBSRFR

Volvo is already going to town with it They had a full page advertisement on the New York Times titled "This is bound to have a huge impact on Mercedes, BMW and Audi."

With all the financial problems Volvo is having it is nice to see they did not build the S60 to pass the test but went further to comprehensively protect the occupant in a small overlap test. Side airbags inflating and even the front wheel flying off was actually a part of the Volvo design and they all helped tremendously to keep the driver safe.

Hopefully Mercedes will step down from their high horse, study what Volvo has done and make future Mercedes designs safer.

In the meantime I hope Mercedes issues a recall to reprogram the side airbags to inflate in a severe frontal collision.

You can see the advertisement here:
http://www.sandiegovolvo.com/public/...top-rating.pdf

Excerpt:


No two drivers, or accidents for that matter, are the
same. That’s why every year the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) specifies a battery of crash tests,
from many different angles, to help consumers make the
right choices when it comes to automobile safety.

But tests, much like accidents, can sometimes come out
of nowhere. Case in point - the new Small Overlap Frontal
Crash Test prescribed by the IIHS. A crash test where 25%
of a car’s front end on the driver’s side strikes a 5-foot-high
barrier at 40 miles per hour. A test that has never been
conducted before in the U.S. or Europe.

The result? Predictable, to say the least. Only one
European luxury sedan earned a “good” rating from the
IIHS—the 2012 Volvo S60. Now let’s put that in perspective.
In the very same test, both the Mercedes-
Benz C-Class and the Audi A4 earned a
“poor” rating, while the BMW 3-Series
earned a “marginal” rating. In addition,
the Volvo S60 also scored the highest
in Structural Integrity among all cars tested. That’s crucial
because in certain crashes, a robust structure along with a
strong safety cage work in tandem to absorb much of the
impact thereby helping protect the occupants.

While we’re flattered to receive such high praise
from the IIHS, we can’t say we’re terribly surprised. We’ve
been performing hundreds of similar Small Overlap Tests
(thousands if you take into account the other crash tests
we’ve conducted) since the 1980s. We’ve also been
diligently taking down notes and keeping the results in mind
when designing newer models like the 2012 S60. So while
most automotive manufacturers are content to design their
cars to excel in existing tests, we are continually looking for
new opportunities to improve on passenger safety. Because
at Volvo, we don’t build cars to merely pass crash tests; we
build them for the people who will eventually drive them.
And that evidently is making a big impact.

CEB

I guess they didn't advertise the fact that they do worse in the "pole vs vehicle" test than does MB - a much more common accident than the small overlap.

Yes, MB should do better but this isn't the disaster that the press makes it out to be.

K-A

Interesting and good points, CEB.

For the record, the C is safer in a side impact (body structure looks a bit better than the S60), and it has a stronger roof. Not to mention, it does better in the NCAP pole test.

Also, from the most recent IIHS fatality data on hand, the ML had half as many deaths as the Volvo XC90, so maybe M-B does know a bit about what they're talking about.

Safety is good for us all, so by all means let's get M-B to get even more serious about safety, but this is indeed starting to look like a witch hunt. I'd like to see more Volvo's (other than the XC90 on file) fatality and injury rates before I'd pass them off as safety-superior to M-B. As of right now, aside from one Small Overlap test, M-B's still hold the safety supremacy in terms of overall crash performance and real world statistics.

CEB

I think that everyone is on the same page here:

MB (and all the other manufacturers) need to do better
The public needs to get serious about safety
Volvo bested many cars in this particular test. How will they do a few years down the road once the Chinese beancounters have fully taken over? Will it then rival the Brilliance?
All the top safety picks remain extremely safe cars - however - my advice is to avoid any accident
The TL aced the test because the beak scared the obstacle and caused it to shrink away from the car.

BenzV12

:r olf:



Well, my point is may be being an afficinado to the MB, W126 in other words lack of many airbags should be safer than any other asian products
Airbags can save lives but sheet metal body structure counts more and God Forbid in case of accident what's point of having millions of airbags if your frame is bent and creased as paper

K-A

Something else to provide some perspective (and let W212 drivers sleep better at night ) that I wrote in the other thread.

Also, remember that the S60 is a 2011 debut while the W204 is a 2008 debut. The W212 would be a better comparison to see how M-B were engineering their cars closer to the launch date of the S60. As an example, the W212 had more advanced steels used throughout the structure that M-B engineers claimed weren't available during the time of the W204's development while as well using more High Strength/Ultra High Strength/Mega High Strength steels throughout the structure in it than they did in the W204 (I think both set a record in the car industry during their respective launch years, I know the E did).




Compared to the steel in a BMW GT and an excerpt on the W212 industry leadership in this field:

220S

I personally wouldn't lump Acura into a generalized pot of "any other Asian products." Acura has been recognized by the safety industry for their Advanced Compatibility Engineering body structure (ACE.)

Press comments: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/01/a...-nhtsa-and-ii/

Honda's corporate site: http://corporate.honda.com/safety/

Anyway, this is all about a non-regulatory agency using publicity to get consumers concerned and knowledgeable about safety and to keep the fire burning under the manufacturers' butts. In a global corporate world where profitability is paramount, this is just one way for consumers to exercise a voice in how they want auto manufacturers building products in respect to safety. They can make their own purchasing choices. And if Mercedes does re-design in order to meet this test, than that will explain how Daimler AG really feels about it all. After all, these ratings (whether right or wrong) are major selling points that all manufacturers (and not just Volvo) absolutely take advantage of when marketing their products.

Irregardless of the argument of the validity of this specific test and the minutia of variables, it still serves an overall purpose one way or another. It certainly got people here thinking.

K-A

M-B's gonna have to fix it. They can't expect people to know the complexities of crash testing, or have faith in them due to their history, since most people don't even remember or fully know their safety history. People look at crash test scores, have no idea what or where it means, but if it says "Good", or "5-Stars" they feel safe in it.

People have to realize that Mercedes has ALWAYS underperformed on standardized tests, and they ALWAYS say that it's no sweat off of their backs because they know safety better than anyone, and they also pretty much always prove it in the real world.

Of course, that still doesn't change the issue, which is that people are more privy to data nowadays, and in automakers quests to get you to buy their cars at all costs, if their car gets a "Good" rating even though the entire safety cage was crumbled in (happens a lot on the IIHS side impacts, i.e manufacturers design them to pass those tests but clearly anything more extensive and the safety cage isn't capable to protect for that), then they will publicize it as if it's the safest car on the market.

CEB made some good points about the IIHS indeed having a dog in this race, maybe an agenda, etc. Sometimes they don't publish the after-crash pictures of some cars, which insinuates that those manufacturers for some reason asked them not to.... and they for some reason oblige. However, the IIHS is responsible for how quickly advanced and paramount safety has become, so I for one am very thankful that they are around and keep pushing these manufacturers to pass these tests. NHTSA crash tests were/are jokes in comparison.

M-B used to advance safety on their own, with no one watching them, proving that safety was without question their choice of focus. Nowadays, they still do, but with the IIHS publicly watching, everyone has made the effort to join in, if even simply to pass the tests for sales reasons.

WEBSRFR

Scientific crash tests are what keeps the car manufacturers honest at the end of the day. I bet Mercedes would have continued to sell that '97 E class design for years touting legendary Mercedes commitment to safety if they didn't get caught with their pants down when the crash test results for that car came out. It's a car manufacturer, not god. They don't know everything and they make their own decisions -- some turn out to be good, some turn out to be bad.

I 'd never trust any car manufacturer absolutely as if they were god. I obviously have preferences as I like Mercedes products in general. That said, I'd NEVER buy a Mercedes product that scored a "marginal" on a major crash test. Right now if I had to buy my daughter a car and it was between the S60 and the C class, it will definitely be the S60. I'd refuse to buy a car that allows the front wheel to enter the driver's compartment, compromise the safety-cage, and not inflate the side airbags in a massive frontal offset crash. Especially when safer alternatives are out there.

As 220S once said, people read these results and they ultimately decide with their wallets. Contrary to the arrogant statements made by Mercedes when this test came out, I believe it exposed major deficiencies in the Mercedes design, structural integrity, and airbag deployment and I am sure at the end of the day Mercedes will address all these issues -- All thanks to the IIHS test.

The one thing I'd want them to do in the meantime is to issue a recall to fix the side airbags. It is inexcusable to not deploy the side airbags in a massive collision.

CEB

Too bad you fell for the hype. Based on the results of one slightly unrealistic test (at least for real world crashes) you would trade a reliable car that does well in real world crash tests (the C) for one that is virtually undrivable on a daily basis since you can't see out the back window, is less reliable and scores lower on real world crash tests - including the fairly common single car crash of car vs pole.

In addition, just because the crash is severe, there isn't any medical reason why all of the airbags should go off. In this case, the side airbag would have lessened the severity of the injury but clearly MB needs to study the results to determine if it was a fluke or if the deployment calculations need to be tweaked.

The IIHS thanks you for buying into this test hook, line and sinker. You'll now gladly pay more insurance premiums for your C class while all three S60 owners in the US pay lower rates.

K-A

I actually noticed an S60 on the road today, was the first time I either saw one or noticed it.

I totally forgot about the INSURANCE aspect. Now all us M-B drivers might have to pay premiums? I guess just W204 drivers. I remember my 2010 W212 had CHEAPER insurance than my 2011 because of some weird non sequitur that changed with I believe the NHTSA way of ratings, considering both cars are the exact same. in fact, the 2011 should have had cheaper insurance if anything, because the IIHS stated that changed made to late model 2010+ builds "door trims" got it a perfect score.

hyperion667

I have NEVER played the insurance game.....
have always had just liability on my cars......that includes both of my current MB's......
never had an accident, never caused an accident......drive pretty damn defensivly too........of course you never know what bonehead MOMO is waiting around the next corner, but it beats the hell out of the fookin' insurance companies!