WEBSRFR

Thought you might be interested in keeping an eye for these results if they ever come out for the E class. This is a new test they are doing where only a quarter of the driver's side is hit severely. It is apparently a likely scenario when you are trying to avoid an accident and don't quite clear what you are trying to avoid hitting.

They don't have the results out for the E class but you can see what they have online:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=15

Unfortunately the Mercedes C class performance in this test was dismal.

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

The other poor performers apparently came out with statements (based on the NBC clip below) to say that they will improve their vehicle designs to perform better in similar situations. In fact they pledged to do whatever it takes to handle these crashes better. What really disturbs me is that Mercedes came out with some BS statement about how they don't "agree" with the test. There's nothing to agree or disagree with the test as far as I'm concerned... It is a controlled scientific test and the car should perform well in a similar crash... (after all Volvo designed their car to handle this much better...).

I hope Mercedes gets their head out of their *** and address the safety vulnerabilities exposed in this test, as other manufacturers who failed this test have pledged to do.

You can see the NBC news report below. Let's hope if/when the E class is tested it holds up better than the C class.

:::: New crash test recreates real-world accidents

The insurance industry’s newest crash test examines what happens during ‘overlap’ crashes, where the car isn’t hit head on. More than 20 percent of frontal crash fatalities are the result of an overlap crash. NBC’s Tom Costello reports.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/48667462

----

Disclaimer: I know some here are very passionate about the brand (so am I!) and I hope this thread does not degenerate into "Mercedes is the safest car ever made in the universe and I don't trust any test that shows otherwise" situation. From what I have seen/read the new E class is built very well and likely one of the safest vehicles you can be in.

But this minor overlap situation is interesting in that it can "bypass" a lot of the crumple zones and safety features if the car is not designed to absorb the impact well. It is a special case. My only interest here is to make everyone aware of this new test so you can keep an eye out for it when the results come out for the E class. Hopefully you agree that it is better to be knowledgeable than not... And hopefully you agree that if you are unfortunate enough to be in a crash like this, you and your family deserve to have the best protection possible.

Watch the video above. What happens to cars that can't handle an impact like this is horrific. We are talking about disintegration of the front door and safety cage. They actually interview a lady who was in a similar crash.

K-A

That's a really heavy crash test and thanks to the IIHS once again, the future of automobiles will be incredibly safer and even more dialed-in and manufacturers strive to pass this test with flying colors as well.

Ironically enough, the C's safety cage and overall frame hold up better than any of the other cars tested it seems, which makes sense as M-B's body-material are second-to-none in strength. However, it seems the footwell area of the C (which we can't see from after-crash pictures so much but are signified by the IIHS' statements) is what brings its score down, as it seemed to collapse too much and harm the drivers feet/legs.

hyperion667

https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...rash-test.html

newyorktoLA

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
In the C class, the side window curtain airbags DID NOT DEPLOY?
What the heck Mercedes...
wwoooowoowowowowowowo

steph280

Once all the mfgs scramble to redesign for better test result in this test, IIHS will probably come up with some other stupid new tests again, and the whole cycle would repeat.

newyorktoLA

Very true; I think it's good that IIHS is going to keep pushing auto manufacturers to keep building safer cars. How did the manufacturers not catch this issue the first time around?

ImInPA

I think this is a good test. It illustrates what is wrong with "engineering to a test". It doesn't produce the best results for cars. It doesn't help our kids when they are being educated simply to pass standardized tests. It is just the world we live in. I do not think anyone needs to panic about their vehicles being unsafe. I know that this new test will up the ante for consumer safety, and, that is always a good thing.

WEBSRFR

...and that is a good thing Remember how bad the front crash tests and the side crash tests used to be before the IIHS tests? These tests and subsequent redesigns have saved lives.

WEBSRFR

Very good point... It's the foot well intrusion that would have caused severe leg injuries... Just look at what has happened to the area where your feet wold be:



And notice how well the safety cage is intact in the Volvo and the foot-well area is virtually uncompromised. Volvo's safety performance is really impressive especially given all the financial problems they are having. Good to see their priorities are still in the right place.



No matter how bad the C class did, just be glad you were not in a bad accident in the Lexus E350. I doubt you'd walk away given the extensive damage inside the cabin. The driver's compartment is pretty much demolished!

telemakhos

This is not what it is designed for. The side curtain will deploy in a side impact or possibly a rollover.

telemakhos

That's really sad to hear. I remember them having exactly the opposite reaction many years ago when a consumer organization crashed tested one of their cars and the drivers door open if I recall correctly. MB responded that they would like to get all the crash data available to analyze it and make improvements if necessary.

WEBSRFR

Actually the side airbags along with the torso airbags are useful in such a massive collision. It is an all hands on deck situation. After a crash like this, the car is essentially totaled and what's the point in "saving" the side airbag? When a massive crash like this happens from an offset angle, you can get pushed to one side or the other violently and can make contact with the A pillar or the glass window and you are much better off having your chest/torso protected from the side.

In fact looking at the test results, the top performing cars (Acura and Volvo) did program their side airbags and even torso air bags to deploy in a severe crash like this and it helped the dummy avoid injury.

It seems with the non deployment of the side airbag Mercedes dropped the ball again to keep the driver as safe as possible in this situation. Whether they "agree" with the test or not I hope Mercedes study what happened and compare the outcome of the cars that did and did not deploy the side airbags because all scientific data points to the side airbags actually helping.

I hope the E class is wired differently to deploy the side airbags in a crash this severe. Just to show how useful the side airbags are in a situation like this, here are some excerpts from the crash test results:

About how the Acura side airbags worked to help reduce injury:

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s movement was well controlled. The dummy’s head loaded the frontal airbag, which stayed in front of the dummy until rebound. In both tests, the side curtain airbag deployed and had sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed in both tests, protecting the chest from potential contact with side structure.

About how the Volvo side airbags worked but could have been better designed to reduce injury:

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but slid left into a gap in coverage between the frontal and side curtain airbags, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure and outside objects, despite good stability of the steering column. This gap is mainly due to a combination of the narrow, asymmetric frontal airbag and a curtain airbag that doesn't extend sufficiently forward. The side torso airbag also deployed, but too late during the crash to protect the chest from potential contact with side structure.

It is a fact that side airbags help in a situation like this. If you need more proof, look at the contact areas of the side-air bag during the crash. I think most people would much rather be cushioned by an air bag in this situation rather than make contact with the side structure including the B pillar or the window glass. You don't even need to make contact with the side structure as your eyes can be severely injured by glass fragments from the side window absent any protection from the deployment of the side airbag.

Look how well the driver's head is protected in the Acura:


Unfortunately in the Mercedes, the driver's head makes contact with the deformed A pillar and side structure absent any side protection:

Excerpt from the Mercedes crash test: Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head remained in contact with the frontal airbag, but its head still moved toward the intruding A-pillar because the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy's head and torso. Neither the side curtain nor the side torso airbags deployed, leaving the dummy's head and chest vulnerable to contact with side structure and outside objects.

telemakhos

Yes, I completely agree with what you are saying. I just meant that if you asked MB the answer you would most likely get is that this kind of impact is not what the side curtain airbag was designed for. But I hope I'm wrong and MB will set the side airbag to deploy in these situations!

ghstudio

I guess if you are driving a MB and you see a frontal crash coming, aim for the other car, don't try to avoid the crash. You'll have a better chance of survival.

K-A

I will say that out of all those cars, in a real world accident, which can come at any of the billions of angles available, I'd choose to be in the C-Class without a doubt. Still the safest overall car of the group, based on majority of data and M-B's safety engineering knowledge/proof, in my opinion.

MBNUT1

I was thinking the same thing. I can hear your passenger scream, "Distribute the load! Distribute the load!"

K-A

Something of note that I posted in the other Thread: If you really watch the video's, you'll see the cars all hit at different points, making it hard to say which one is even safer in this exact crash. For example, the TL fares so well because it DOESN'T contact head on into the safety cage. The car pretty much does a major sideswipe. Therefore, no direct head on into the A-Pillar, like on the other cars.

Also, the Volvo's wheel indeed does fly off, which is probably a huge reason as to why it scored so well, considering wheel intrusion is what hurt the C-Classes floorpan so badly.

It's no coincidence that the 3 and C track very straightly and solidly into the barrier, which in a test where it's a non-movable barrier, it works against them. However, in real life, against another moving car, it wouldn't be far fetched to assume that the C Class standing its ground so well might be a benefit instead of the Lincoln or Acura, who pretty much flail to the side right away, not to mention the Volvo's suspension unable to even keep the wheel on the car (by design to protect from a crash like this, or weakly mounted suspension, that's the question?).

WEBSRFR

I see what you are saying but in any accident, standing your ground ONLY helps if you have a huge advantage in mass. i.e. a hummer can afford to stand its ground if hit by a Civic. On the other hand a Civic would be destroyed if it stands its ground against a hummer. The Civic would do much better off if it bounces off or slides off of the Hummer.

Given the relatively small size of the C class, it is really not a large vehicle to be standing its ground. In fact you actually loose. When you are faced with a massive collision, anything -- absolutely anything that can be done to avoid as much of the shock and impact as possible is a good thing. This includes wheels flying off, engine dropping to the ground, whatever it takes to divert the crash energy anywhere but into the cabin.

When faced with a massive crash like this, at some point, it is better for the car to stop absorbing all that energy and transferring it to the safety cage, as doing that is what caused the C class to perform so poorly.

Both the Volvo and the Acura did the right thing. They both fought the barrier and their designs sent the crash energy away from the safety cage.

What really bothers me is how Mercedes did not design the side air bags to deploy. The side airbags are just sitting there doing absolutely nothing and you can clearly see the driver's head hitting the A pillar due to lack of side airbag deployment. As another posted pointed out, that's extremely disappointing. Both Volvo and Acura made the right call in deploying the side airbags in an offset frontal crash like this to prevent harm to the driver.

WEBSRFR

I agree. I guess something for us to remember if possible but accidents have a way of happening when you least expect them.

This test is not some trivial abstract test though. It duplicates a real world scenario that is apparently responsible for about a quarter of fatalities according to IIHS...

Starting in 2014 IIHS will not declare a car a top safety pick unless it passes this test. Good for us all as this will get car manufacturers to think even more about safety and handling a tougher crash situation with better results for the occupants.

WEBSRFR

Mercedes should add this to the driving manual and place a sticker with this information next to the airbag warning sticker

K-A

What really truly worries me personally at this moment is that when I see the inside footage of the dummy, I see just how much humans will get pushed, shoved, and jump around in a crash. Being that I recently started a thread about how even the E-Class lacks proper headroom for my long torso, I was in my car today trying to gauge how close my head would get to hard points in the case where an accident even makes me jump up an QUARTER of an inch toward the roof. Frankly, the steel ring around the moonroof, and the sun-visor area at the top of the windshield are dangerously close to my head and a strong jolt can really threaten that I'd hit one or more of those at a high velocity. It's got me spooked enough to want to swap my car for anything with at least 2-3 inches of free air over my head (if that's even possible).

CEB

These tests need to be taken in context.

The top score by the Institute is good.

The likelihood of such a crash must also be taken into consideration - especially for average non drug or alcohol impaired driver - crossing the centerline and hitting a tree right in front of the driver. These types of accidents routinely happen with a driver under the influence or driving much too fast for conditions.

Wanna bet that we could devise that every car could fail? Tree trunk through windshield spearing dummy would be such a test.
While the goal of increasing safety (or in this case reducing insurance payouts) is an admirable goal, in this case it seems that it was released merely to publicize the IIHS by failing to clearly state that this is a new test that hasn't been tested to and that the likelihood of this type of crash is very small.

Two "Top IIHS Safety Picks" got poor ratings in this test. This is similar to the German Automobile Club's (ADAC) "Elk test" that several good selling cars failed, including the MB A series - that it nearly killed.

That is not to say that these new tests aren't helpful as they ultimately do result in safer cars but they often kill the sales of good cars. The "Elk test" brought electronic stability control to most cars, but although the test has been redesigned by ADAC because it was unrealistic, the damage to the A series’ reputation was already done.

Take these new tests with a grain of salt. Driving today continues to be much safer than it was in the past but there is no question that it could be safer yet if people took their hands and eyes off of distractions.

Equally, about a third of vehicle fatalities involved unbelted occupants. If everyone used the proper restraints then we could reduce fatalities by another 10-15%.

In 2010, Kia Hyundai sponsored a study about small overlap crashes.

"The objective of this study was to examine and rank the Small Overlap Frontal Crash as one of the eight-group taxonomy proposed by Ford. The Ford taxonomy classifies real-world frontal-impact crashes based on the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). Frontally-impacted vehicles were identified for 1985 – 2008 model year passenger vehicles with Collision Deformation Classification (CDC) data from the 1995 – 2008 years of NASS. Small overlap frontal cases were identified where there was no engagement of the vehicle frame rails, and the direct damage was located entirely outside of the vehicle frame rails. The results are that full engagement and offset (offset category means the direct damage overlaps the vehicle frame rail, with the center of direct damage between the frame rails) were the most frequent crashes contributing 35% each. The frequency of the small overlap frontal was 6%. The risks of injury (AIS ≥ 2) for the full engagement, offset, and small overlap were 8%, 6%, and 3% respectively. For this study, the number of small overlap vehicles was 1,118 and the number of injured nearside occupants was 100. This study—following the Ford approach and reasonably identifying the location of the longitudinal rails based on CDC—suggests that the small overlap is at worst a moderately dangerous crash in the overall scheme of frontal crashes. The implications of this study are that the safety community should reexamine the significance of the small overlap frontal crash against an overall taxonomy of crashes."

Nobody argues that increased safety is a bad thing and that any testing that highlights a vulnerability is a good thing but one needs to examine the motivations and look at the results in context.

6% of crashes are of the small frontal offset. In 35% of fatal crashes, the occupant was unbelted. I'd rank educational efforts at increasing seat belt use, especially amongst Hispanic and Asian drivers, as bringing more immediate bang for the buck.

During the last storms, a couple of people were killed when trees crushed their cars as they were driving along. The IIHS could design a test for that as well.

While I don't want to minimize the need for making cars as safe as possible, we also don't want to go on witch hunts. Remember that a news article nearly killed Audi in the US with reports of unintended acceleration that turned out to be driver error and Toyota took a huge hit a few years ago with the same unintended acceleration issues that also turned out to be driver error as well.

Mass hysteria over tests like these masks the underlying fact that if you're in a crash, you have a 97% chance of not being badly injured in small overlap frontal crash.
There is always a downside and the manufacturers and consumers need to walk a fine line. Often, the downsides are weight and size with a corresponding decrease in MPG.

Unfortunately, safety doesn't really sell unless you can point to a recent catastrophic event.

In the mid 60's, new testing and laws brought us seatbelts and sidemarker lights (the same "ugly" orange markers so many posters want to delete.) The early 70's brought us 5mph bumpers that initially consisted of big hunks of rubber hanging on the front and rear of cars until the manufacturers incorporated them into the design by increasing the size and weight of the cars.

Because safety doesn't sell, 1974 brought us the seatbelt starter interlock and later years brought us the automatic eyeglass remover AKA automatic seatbelts and it goes on and on with each new safety item adding to the size and weight.

As consumers we complain about "soft" windshield glass and the cost of repairs as many things under hood break so easily. Those are features brought to us based on pedestrian safety laws.

Manufacturers haven't been building their cars to the small offset frontal impact because they weighed the cost/benefit and the fact that consumers don't care.

We could build an extremely safe car. It would be huge, have dismal gas mileage, slow and very expensive. Few would buy it and those who did, would complain about the driving dynamics - there would be no "fun factor."

Keep it in perspective. The fact is that the C series and the A4 are both extremely safe cars.

Let's not blow this test out of proportion. The sky is not falling.

WEBSRFR

What exasperated the situation in the Mercedes was the side impact airbag not deploying. Notice the driver's head did not move up as much but it instead move forward and towards the side. If the side airbag deployed, the driver's head would not have made contact with the A pillar.

If you look at the foot-well area of the Mercedes, it is scary when you realize what has happened to the foot peddles. Notice the one that is mangled and jotting towards the driver. If the drivers foot was on it, it would have caused serious injury.

Have you tried moving your seat lower? I don't remember reading any roof impact issues but then again I don't think the dummy they use is super tall. If you are still really concerned, for your headroom situation, may I recommend...



You get PLENTY of head room AND it is a Mercedes You can sit up there and ask your wife to drive...

WEBSRFR

@CEB -- Thank you for your thoughtful and well researched post! Just a few points:

Though the NUMBER of small overlap crashes is relatively law, severe injuries and fatalities that result from those crashes are very high. In fact according to the IIHS over 10,000 people die each year because of it. That's a pretty large number and not an aberration like a tree trunk coming through the windshield and harming the driver. This is why this is going to become a standard test moving forward.

What upset me when I read this is report is Mercedes' attitude. They failed this test. They should admit it and address the deficiencies in their design. Audi and Lexus put out statements saying they are going to study the test and fix their designs to do better. Mercedes just pulled some BS out of their *** saying everything is fine when they failed on multiple levels: The safety cage design did not hold up, The A pillar collapsed, the design of the air bag system is flawed as the side air bad did not deploy, the driver's head hit the A pillar because the side airbag did not protect the drivers head, and the foot pedals intruded into the driver's compartment.

It is a fact that if you hit an obstacle with a small overlap in a C class at speed, you are going to be very seriously injured. I hope the vulnerabilities exposed in the C class design are also not present in the E class.

I disagree about safety not selling. Not to say performance, comfort, or luxury are not important to me but safety is the #1 feature I look for in a car. I think the car buying culture is changing and people are paying more attention to safety. This is a good thing for all of us.

I still believe Mercedes makes some of the safest cars on the road. However they have on occasion designed some very unsafe cars. I'm sure you remember how dismally the W210 E class from 1997 performed.

It is thanks to an IIHS safety test that the vulnerabilities of that previous generation E class was revealed. However to Mercedes' credit, they immediately went back to the drawing board and fixed it. That's what they need to do now rather than issue childish statements about how they "disagree" with the test.

They also need to program those side airbags to inflate during a severe crash. You paid for them and they are there to be used. What are they saving those side air bags for in a collision that is going to total your car anyway? Inflate those m***** f******!

CEB

Regardless of what the manufacturers say, they will start looking at the integrity of the passenger compartment based on this test.

If you think these crash results are bad, look at the below videos - one of a fairly recent Chinese car - the Brilliance.

http://youtu.be/Mbe5ILICT4M

http://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U