Watch the first video in the article and you may not ever consider a C until MB fixes its vulnerability in a crash. Hopefully the ML has reinforcements where the C doesn't. Other entry-level luxury models failed, too...

http://www.leftlanenews.com/iihs-new...rm-poorly.html

I checked out the discussion on the C forum and there are mostly company men backing MB's official statement.

I read this reveiw yesterday and was shocked.. I understand that the crash standards were changed but still.. I was shocked..

A clarification - this test does not reflect any change in US standards; it is a legitimate test, but is being done by the insurance industry.

Very interesting. A good reason to resort to a bull-bar to spread the impact.

This shows the different type of steel used in the body. The red is more deformable. Crash protection needs deformation, to absorb impact, not only rigidity. Unfortunately, if the impact is on the very corner of the car and not on one of the longitudinal members cradling the engine, there is little to absorb this energy except the member at the edge of the hood. Then, you are relying on the rigidity of the safety cage around the cockpit and the air bags. At least we do have knee bags now.

I guess the point I was making is most would not consider it a "standard" unless it is enforceable. Anyone can test for anything, but until it becaomes mandatory by the authority having jurisdiction, it is not a standard, but only a benchmark.

Anything you use to measure one item against another can be labeled a "standard". Hence the saying "to rise to higher standards". Legality may or may not be a factor. One thing this test does do is to help or harm a particular vehicles selling points as portrayed by the salesman. I'm sure the next rework of the C class will include some changes in this matter.

My concern is this is an overtly contrived test.

Perhaps IIHS is attempting to remain relevant now that so many cars achieve a "good" rating in their "offset" test.

Let's look at the test:
1) the barrier- should simulate another vehicle (most common accident). To a lesser extent it should simulate telephone poles or trees.
2) Angle of accident and speed- should simulate a typical collision.

Here are the "fails"
1) the barrier is contrived. No such barrier exists in the real world. Except maybe in a parking deck. It is a sharp angle object that exhibits zero deformation. It allows for zero "sliding" of the vehicle along the accident path and force vectors. As such it is designer to circumvent all of the cabin protection. The test is designed to engage the door hinges with the force vector of a giant knife. How silly.

Conclusion: The engineers over at IIHS devised a test that simulates nothing in the natural course of an accident. It appears that it was created intentionally for some purpose. If they included a deformable barrier, at the same angle, speed, etc, the test would have been valid. But, then again, all the cars would have probably passed the test.
If anything, it is an interesting academic study.
I ask, "What's next?"...maybe a roof crush down test with a giant axe with a sharpened steel point.....you, know, to simulate accidents where paul bunyon is driving the other vehicle

If you look at the CC video rated worst of those testers the driver REMAINS straight and virually un harmed so to speak and without a side curtain. Im sure it has one.
Who cares if the dooe falls off after the impact it did it job now its easy to get driver out.
Many perspectives.
probably the same logic that says drive in the middle lane(the most dangerous place)

On the news last night were two snippets of fatal crashes involving bridge pylons. As best I could tell in those 30 second grabs, they were exactly as this latest test.

Research like this has vastly improved the safety of our cars over the last 50 years. Lets not stop and rest on our laurels. Lets continue the advance.

Such an opinionated and timely first post. One might think that you are paid by MB

Would like to see the % of crashes and % of serious injuries represented by the testing.

If only 1% of crashes are like this and it accounts for 50% of serious life injuries then I would be worried but I suspect that the damage to society is significantly lower.

Very Funny! (I knew I would get called out!)

But, I have been on various boards with Oregon Greg and others here for years. I am mainly a M3/911 guy but bought a ML last week to pull my race trailer. So far at the races I have attended, I see lots of ML/GL bluetecs, so it must be a good choice! And I have been seeing 28 MPG on occasion...

But seriously, I was a research scientist for a good part of my life and we designed many complex experiments. So, More of what I provided was an analysis and less of an opinion.
It simply is a poor test. Will it improve safety? Probably, albeit marginally. But I think we are seeing something contrived here with the IIHS..... Money would be better spent elsewhere.

The reason why I posted, besides to call out the lack of scientific process, is because my father was going to buy a Merc SUV and heard they were "death-traps" having failed the newest crash test. As soon as he said that, I googled it and heard the horrors all around the net of these tests. I watched all the vids that were released and got a little laugh out of it, because it is so silly. All they have to do is put a deformable barrier instead of a knife and well........the test would have been rather boring...

If you watch the video with the red C250, about the 37 second mark, you will notice that as the vehicle begins to make impact, the Pre Safe pulls the seat belt tighter at the drivers shoulder, and also after crash, the occupant cargo area seems intact enough for the occupants to avoid major injury and escape the vehicle.
How is this a failure? If I was to go through this type of incident, I would rather be in the C Class than that Lexus IS, where the front wheel basically pinned the drivers legs.

I disagree. "Standard" per Websters:

3: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion <quite slow by today's standards>

4: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality

Having one agency run a test of their own devise does not make it a standard. Standard assumes wide or authoratative adoption.

YEAH GREG
Don't forget "Peer Review"
Let's hope manufactures use these test results for new design options. However sometimes when changes are made they wreck something else. IE:why standards are established and for a greater percentile of benefit. :-)

"I guess the point I was making is most would not consider it a "standard" unless it is enforceable. Anyone can test for anything, but until it becaomes mandatory by the authority having jurisdiction, it is not a standard, but only a benchmark.
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA"

The IIHS bills itself as "The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries and property damage — from crashes on the nation's roads." It is not regulatory, it does not pass nor enforce laws. It establishes 'standards' that can be used by the manufacturers for their safety evaluations and by the insurance industry for their safety evaluations.

"Having one agency run a test of their own devise does not make it a standard. Standard assumes wide or authoratative adoption. Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA"


Indeed one agency (the IIHS for example) can establish standards that can be adopted by manufacturers although they are not obliged to do so. As you say maybe it should be called a benchmark but as you said "Standard assumes wide or authoritative adoption." The 'standards' established by the IIHS have received wide adoption.

Many have posted that this new crash test is not fair or the incidence of which is so remote as to make it's chance of happening almost moot. Yet this lone agency, the IIHS, has decided to make this a new standard. Whether it will remain an ongoing test has yet to be determined.

I can't believe the amount of people defending Mercedes and criticizing the crash test here.

Mercedes failed the test, plain and simple. Their engineers have to go back to the drawing board, especially if this test becomes the standard.

As for the test being "contrived"... this test represents 25% of [real world crashes] edit: fatal frontal crashes. But in reality, no simulation would be a perfect representation as there are far too many variables. How often do you travel at 40mph? Even if you get a good score in this test, if the car has been traveling 5 or 10mph faster.... or the driver adjusted his/her seat 1 or 2 inches forward ... the results could be very different.

I am all for crash testing under as many different conditions as possible. As in reality, the manufacturers cannot tell the injured passengers that the failure of the safety design was because of the car not traveling at the specified speed, at the specified direction, against a specified barrier at a specified angle according to their grade A crash test.

nosnoop you are right. There are a bazillion variables that could change the outcome of the test. Merc and the others were caught flatfooted with this one. It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall of their crash design offices'.

I think you're a bit off on that one.

Me times 3 at my place
2 body men and an accident investigater and QS developer. Agree YYZ

Dirk Ockel who is in charge of Daimler accident research, answered your question in the Daimler Blog recently. He says the IIHS crash test presents 0.07% of the 35,000 real world accidents examined using USA data. And 0.01% using crash data in Germany.

http://translate.google.de/translate...ern%2F&act=url

Tell the people in this car, assuming you were still able to, that the car they just purchased passed an insurance crash test with flying colors, grade A and got all five star safety ratings. Point is that the safer the vehicle is as to build and features the better and of course it is, that is plain common sense. But when the man upstairs decides your time is up its up no matter what the tests are - simple as that:

What else do you expect Mercedes to say in their official blog?
This is typical corporate PR trying to savage whatever they can in the eye of the public.

The IIHS obviously has a totally different view:

"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?

If Mercedes believes rigid barrier as unreasonable, then why don't they test the cars at a more "real life" speed? A 40mph crash test applying to frontal crashes involving two cars means an average speed of only 20mph for each car - how often do "real life" cars travel at 20mph?

Volvo, obviously, is happy about the crash test:
http://www.volvoblog.us/2012/08/14/i...cars-are-safe/