OT: Mercedes C-Class fails new crash test
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
MBs
MB has been using more than 25 crash configurations for vehicle development. The small offset test between two vehicles is performed at 50 to 110 km/h, as listed near the bottom in this table:
For example the 1989 SL (R129) was tested in 1989, with 25% overlap:
http://www.fuenfkommasechs.de/images...erlap_R129.jpg
For example the 1989 SL (R129) was tested in 1989, with 25% overlap:
http://www.fuenfkommasechs.de/images...erlap_R129.jpg
Last edited by Wolfgang; Aug 28, 2012 at 02:52 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 20
From: Toronto
MY17 E43 Matte Selenite/Macchiato Beige, MY16 GLE350d Tenorite/Crystal Grey, MY17 B250
"The IIHS developed this test after studying late-model cars that scored well in its tests but still suffered fatal accidents. Cars are safer than they’ve ever been, yet about 10,000 fatalities a year involve frontal crashes, according to the IIHS, and about a quarter of those crashes fall in the category of small offset collisions with either other cars or objects such as trees and poles. "These are severe crashes, and our new test reflects that," noted IIHS president Adrian Lund."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...t-car-11980742
25% of fatal frontal crashes according to IIHS;
Or 0.07% of all accidents according to a company who just failed the crash test?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...t-car-11980742
25% of fatal frontal crashes according to IIHS;
Or 0.07% of all accidents according to a company who just failed the crash test?
It's not 25% of accidents as you originally indicated. Its 25% of fatal front accidents.
A subset of a subset of a subset of a subset.
Total accidents -> Total fatal accidents -> Total fatal front accidents -> Total fatal front offset accidents
You should update your very erroneous previous post. Then you should dig up some stats that would quickly erode your 25% figure down to a decimal point in terms of total accidents.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 411
Likes: 103
535
Then you should dig up some stats that would quickly erode your 25% figure down to a decimal point in terms of total accidents.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 541
Likes: 231
2021 GLS580 | 2011 ML350 BlueTec | 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP
Done.
Of course, you can water down the statistics by including all minor accidents. But I think just looking at fatal frontal collisions stats is valid. Now that manufacturers are getting good at getting high scores in the traditional crash tests, and fatalities are down, we should look at other ways to reduce the fatalities even more. So analyzing current fatal crashes and trying to identify a subgroup where fatalities can be further reduced by implementing new safety features would be a good start - and that's what IIHS is trying to do.
Of course, you can water down the statistics by including all minor accidents. But I think just looking at fatal frontal collisions stats is valid. Now that manufacturers are getting good at getting high scores in the traditional crash tests, and fatalities are down, we should look at other ways to reduce the fatalities even more. So analyzing current fatal crashes and trying to identify a subgroup where fatalities can be further reduced by implementing new safety features would be a good start - and that's what IIHS is trying to do.
The engineering problem with this test is that it skips past nearly all structural points until it comes to the driver's door. You can't dissipate kinetic energy without touching something. If the first thing you touch is the passenger compartment, it's going to have to absorb or redirect the energy. The R&D to do that will not be cheap and it will be passed on to the consumers for a situation that is a fraction of a percent of all accidents.
The way I see it, if you're going to hit something, make sure you're going to hit it head on.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 513
Likes: 5
From: SoCal
13ML BT
So let's back up.
It's not 25% of accidents as you originally indicated. Its 25% of fatal front accidents.
A subset of a subset of a subset of a subset.
Total accidents -> Total fatal accidents -> Total fatal front accidents -> Total fatal front offset accidents
You should update your very erroneous previous post. Then you should dig up some stats that would quickly erode your 25% figure down to a decimal point in terms of total accidents.
It's not 25% of accidents as you originally indicated. Its 25% of fatal front accidents.
A subset of a subset of a subset of a subset.
Total accidents -> Total fatal accidents -> Total fatal front accidents -> Total fatal front offset accidents
You should update your very erroneous previous post. Then you should dig up some stats that would quickly erode your 25% figure down to a decimal point in terms of total accidents.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 513
Likes: 5
From: SoCal
13ML BT
Diminishing returns. How much do you as a consumer what to pay to prevent a very small percentage of injuries? Additionally, without knowing the other 75% of fatal accident causes, how can you say that this one is most important?
The engineering problem with this test is that it skips past nearly all structural points until it comes to the driver's door. You can't dissipate kinetic energy without touching something. If the first thing you touch is the passenger compartment, it's going to have to absorb or redirect the energy. The R&D to do that will not be cheap and it will be passed on to the consumers for a situation that is a fraction of a percent of all accidents.
The way I see it, if you're going to hit something, make sure you're going to hit it head on.
The engineering problem with this test is that it skips past nearly all structural points until it comes to the driver's door. You can't dissipate kinetic energy without touching something. If the first thing you touch is the passenger compartment, it's going to have to absorb or redirect the energy. The R&D to do that will not be cheap and it will be passed on to the consumers for a situation that is a fraction of a percent of all accidents.
The way I see it, if you're going to hit something, make sure you're going to hit it head on.
I don't think the other 75% is less important but the 25% is statistically very important. And it is relatively cheap to guard against with better engineering. Many people buy Mercedes because of safety. MB failed here and they need to improve.
It will cost money and it will be passed on just like it has always been. I don't see the problem when MB buyers will gladly pay for it which is evidenced by their healthy sales numbers.
Your last sentence is ignorant.
Last edited by 27T; Sep 11, 2012 at 04:38 PM.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 625
Likes: 4
From: Australia
X350d GLE500e 2017, ML350 BlueTec 2012(sold), A200 2013, ML350CDI 2009(sold), Aston Martin DB7 2003
In milliseconds, you do not have much choice. If I did have the choice, I would rewind and avoid the scene entirely.
I bought a Mercedes partly due to their reputation to a: avoid a collision and b: survive a collision. I accept they do it very well. But why not better?
