CEB

The C sells nearly twice as many cars as the S60 so test like this yields a huge increase in premiums on the C - even if they only bump it up by a couple of $$.

The IIHS has a huge dog in the fight - a way to explain higher premiums if someone squawks - one reason to design a test that most cars do poorly on.

"Hi Mr. K-A, we're sorry to inform you that the rates on your car just went up. Not our fault, you know, but your car did poorly on a recent crash test"

"Really? What crash test was that?"

"The IIHS developed a new test simulating aliens from the planet Hkkkkjyhyfdrsxewaw landing on top of your car, in a blizzard in Miami in July. Very few cars passed that test. That'll be another $100 a year please."

hyperion667

Hkkkkjyhyfdrsxewaw

CEB

Yep, it is either the name of an alien planet or the name of a table lamp at IKEA.

WEBSRFR

We can agree to disagree on that. I don't consider the test unrealistic given this type of accident generates so many fatalities.

In the meantime I hope no one you know gets injured in a severe crash because Mercedes decided not to inflate the side impact airbags in a massive collision like other responsible car manufacturers.

To quote you:
"just because the crash is severe, there isn't any medical reason why all of the airbags should go off."

It is astounding you see nothing wrong with not having any side protection from such a massive accident that is going to toss the driver all over the place. Especially when you see photos of the driver's head slamming onto the A pillar. You want a medical reason? How about to prevent the driver's skull from cracking open or glass from the side window embedding in your eyes should the side window crack? Is that medical reason enough?



I don't have a C class but I hope Mercedes did not commit the same design flaws when designing their other models.

CEB

Again, taking a quote out of context will lead people to jump to the wrong conclusion.

You had said "It is inexcusable to not deploy the side airbags in a massive collision"

That statement would lead someone to believe that is the impact is "massive" (whatever that means) then all airbags should go off. That statement is wrong.

Like I said earlier - the airbag controller calculations are "If I deploy, will the injury be reduced? " If yes = deploy, if no then do not deploy.

I also said that in my post that you decided to selectively quote.

During this particular instance (of this test) the airbag should have deployed - and obviously didn't. Accordingly, MB needs to determine if the failure to deploy was a fluke or if there is a problem with the controller programming.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. We are all saying the same thing - that these tests need to be investigated by the manufacturers and they need to determine how to resolve it. That is totally separate from the fact that this test may not be realistic and may be self serving for the insurance industry.

WEBSRFR

Okay so I think we are all on the same page here in that a crash of the magnitude of the IIHS test should have deployed the side airbags...

ImInPA

The E has a driver's side knee air bag. I wonder if that will help mitigate the injuries. The bottom line is that future MBs will have to pass this test. All models. Anything less will be unacceptable, This is a good advancement in safety requirements for the industry as a whole. Only good will come out of this new test.

CEB

Airbag systems used to be simple. You hit a sensor in the bumper and it deploys. Now the systm does a zillion calculations a second. Where is the torso? Head? How much does the person weigh? Given the angle of impact, where will the occupant go? What will it hit and so forth?

WEBSRFR

So the WSJ just had a video segment about this... Apparently car manufacturers are actually redesigning some of their vehicles to do better in a crash like this. I'd be curious to see how the E class handles a crash like this.

Auto Makers Rethink Car Safety

When it comes to car safety, the auto industry had thought it was ready to shift its safety efforts from crash-protection to crash-avoidance. But new crash tests show that car makers actually need to step up their game. Joe White explains on Lunch Break. Photo: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

http://live.wsj.com/video/auto-maker...D-F0C81D79EC1C

YYZ-E55

The "expert" they're interviewing doesn't even understand the test.

Contrary to his statement, the test does not simulate a headlight-to-headlight collision with an oncoming vehicle. It simulates a headlight-to-immovable sharp-edged object collision (ie: the edge of a house). The barrier does not deform or deflect the vehicle as a collision with an oncoming vehicle would.

WEBSRFR

They are using a barrier of this type because if you hit another vehicle at the same speed, you are essentially doubling the speed. When the lives of the occupants is at stake, I actually have no issue with them instituting a tougher test. If it can handle a non deforming barrier, it should be able to handle a vehicle even better. Two others cars passed the tougher test so there's no reason why Mercedes can't engineer their cars to do as well.

CEB

So we should test to an alien spaceship landing on top of cars - that should allow it to pass the rollover test.

To say that one should test to an unrealistic scenario (corner of car against corner of house) so that it can pass a realistic scenarion (corner of car against corner of car) is a bit absurd.

YYZ-E55

I'm not taking issue with the test. All I'm saying is that the "expert" you quoted clearly doesn't understand it, and I'd wager most of the public doesn't either.

We all want safer cars.

WEBSRFR

Yes if Volvo and Acura can handle the "alien spaceship" landing on the car and surviving I'd want our cars to do the same

Bottom line is the test exposed several vulnerabilities of the Mercedes safety design. In this case Mercedes had done less than other manufacturers to protect the occupants if there is an accident that only involves a small offset and this should be remedied as soon as possible. This is not some trivial test as I've mentioned before. A large number of the frontal crash fatalities are a result of this type of crash. In addition to structural defects this test exposed shortcomings in the Mercedes airbag deployment criteria as in a crash as severe as the one in this test the side airbags clearly should have deployed -- and they did not. Which caused additional injury to the driver. I would not want to be the driver whose head strikes the A pillar because the side airbag did not deploy. Do you?

I realize we are all MB enthusiasts here but sometimes the "Mercedes can do no wrong" mindset and excuses presented on behalf of MB is mind-numbing especially when our lives are at stake and scientifically conducted test results present irrefutable evidence of deficiencies. It's a car company, not a religion

ImInPA

The test is not unrealistic. It is not about the "corner of a car hitting the corner of a house" It is about the corner of a car hitting a telephone pole, or other hard staionary objects with the small overlap. It is a good test and I am pleased that future models will all be safer because of it.

YYZ-E55

Actually, if you review the ratings for the C-Class, it got good marks for head/chest/hip/thigh. If the dummy did hit the A-Pillar, I don't think we'd see a "good" result! The footwell intrusion is the big concern, the restraints getting a moderate review.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.a...0&seriesId=464

CEB

Actually, the total number of 'real' small overlap accidents (car on car ) is about 6% of all accidents and 3% of serious injuries. The car against a fixed object outside the frame rails is a single percentage point of those 6% and some of those are on the passenger side.

The majority of car against fixed object are hits between the center of the grill and the headlight assembly - so inside the frame rails as you generally look at what you want to avoid and hit that object dead on.

Again, I'm not saying that this test shouldn't be studied and changes made but to say that making a car pass this test will make it a safer car overall is incorrect.

By resolving this issue you may make the car less safe for pedestrians and guess where pedestrians get whacked the most - somewhere around the outside headlight area followed by the middle of the hood.

I'll bet that the IIHS revises this test quietly before long so that the test is more realistic. They've gotten they 15 minutes of Fame this year and few people will notice if they move the area of impact over a bit.

A quick and easy fix is to rewrite the air bag deployment program to take these sorts of incidents into consideration - remote as they may be. As it is, new MB's will have a few new airbags - one to move the driver further inboard and another to keep the passenger from bouncing off the driver in a side impact.

ttoE550

Kudos for knowing this! It's amazing how many people do not know in a skid situation to look where they WANT to go, NOT where they DON'T want to go! I got to experience this on the track many times, and the vast majority of the time you could safely control a skid just by looking where you want to go. You might be looking out the side window, but that's ok if it's where you need to be going. The racers would often joke that "looking at the guardrail is gonna cost you a lot of money."