OT: Mercedes C-Class fails new crash test
08-28-2012, 02:35 PM
#26
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Northern California
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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; 08-28-2012 at 02:52 PM.
08-28-2012, 04:20 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
15 Posts
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.
08-28-2012, 07:10 PM
#28
Then you should dig up some stats that would quickly erode your 25% figure down to a decimal point in terms of total accidents.
09-11-2012, 11:23 AM
#30
Senior Member
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.
09-11-2012, 04:25 PM
#31
Super Member
Thread Starter
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.
09-11-2012, 04:34 PM
#33
Super Member
Thread Starter
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; 09-11-2012 at 04:38 PM.
09-11-2012, 07:53 PM
#34
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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?
