MB airbag deployment - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-25-2010, 01:06 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I must say that this is the most intelligible discussion I have had yet in 4-years over my experience and I appreciate that guys.
We are on the most crucial points now. Dirk124 pointed out that even 500hp+ isn't capable of overcoming 10-30g's of deceleration. Chipdouglas40 pointed out the instant you hit something you are no longer accelerating.

Now what if a car's power is capable of crushing its front end without ever decelerating? I'm not saying we overcame 10-30g's of deceleration during the head-on with a 2003 CL55 and a limo. I'm saying that we crumpled the front end of both vehicles before enough deceleration was either sensed to trigger the dash-mounted module or wasn't sensed before losing the front bumper mounted accelerometers (still figuring out the details of the airbag system). Imagine impacting a wall head-on while braced on the gas pedal. Now imagine having at least 500hp pushing you into that wall. You may have "less" acceleration just after impact as you had before impact. But that doesn't mean you're experiencing "deceleration", let alone enough of it to trigger airbag deployment. It takes a lot of metal to slow down the pull of 500hp, let alone stop it. And no amount of money into an airbag system can apply to unlimited power options. At some point the designs have to be revisited.

That's the basis of my litigation. Cause I was a front seat passenger and didn't stand a chance without throwing my limbs at it for survival (cause before and during the impact I sensed the acceleration will be a problem for the airbags). No airbag is supposed to impose top/rear-head injuries and no company is supposed to claim that's OK, and it most likely "saved my life". Would you believe me if I told you that in order to go forward you need to put your car in reverse? That's what Mercedes is doing to me now. I never looked forward to doing something that a company will have a hard time recovering from so much. But imagine how hard of a recovery its been for me while they stomp at me for over a year now as a Pro-Se Plaintiff 140-documents deep with up to 4-opposing counsel (2 at any time). It's real ugly and the fight didn't even commence yet. 4-years after the incident no less. They are claiming the rear-seat passenger was the only force that bent my seat back forward now. When he flew so fast into the dash (albeit he did 'nick' my left shoulder/seat back), that he left his shoes in the back seat as pictured. Mercedes is also claiming their airbags worked accordingly with a steering wheel pushed into the dashboard and two front seat occupants with documented top/rear head injuries. If that's what "performing under extreme conditions" means to Mercedes, they just lost all credibility.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	09 Rear interior.jpg
Views:	414
Size:	57.7 KB
ID:	327063   Click image for larger version

Name:	09 Drivers side interior.jpg
Views:	1097
Size:	59.7 KB
ID:	327064  

Last edited by virage105; 08-25-2010 at 01:12 PM.
virage105 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-26-2010, 06:43 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post

They are claiming the rear-seat passenger was the only force that bent my seat back forward now. Mercedes is also claiming their airbags worked accordingly with a steering wheel pushed into the dashboard and two front seat occupants with documented top/rear head injuries. If that's what "performing under extreme conditions" means to Mercedes, they just lost all credibility.

Well, short comments:

1. Why shall a rear seat passenger be able to bend the seat forward?
The seatbeld, as a very rough rule of thumb, should withstand 30 g (I do not know whether this is in any law or spec, but I think it is reasonable. For aircraft, by the way, the max load is lower).
Imagine, your weight is 160 lbs. Than the integrated seatbelt-system should withstand the force equivalent to 160 lbs times 30. (which is appr. 24,000 Newtons (to use the correct unit for force).
Imagine further on, your weight is 320 lbs, than it should withstand 48,000 Newtons. And I think, there are passengers weighting 320 lbs; and an integrated seat belt system should be save for them, too.
And now, considered your weight 160 lbs and the weight of the rear seat passenger is also 160 lbs, in total this comes also to 320 lbs.
What does this mean: If the right site (where the seat belt is fixed) of the seat withstands an 320 lbs passenger, it should also withstand an 160 lbs passenger plus the load of the 160 lbs of the rear passenger.
I.e., I cannot understand while a correct right site of the seat should be bent by the impact of the rear passenger.

2. Also consider, if there is a severe impact into the driver's airbag, I also can imagine that the steering wheel ist pushed into the dashbord. The airbag is only supported by the steering column. And if there is force on the airbag, the column might also be pushed into the dashbord.

Another comment: You did say the crash did take appr. 1 sec. I Cannot believe this, I think this time is much too long.

Greetings

Dirk

Last edited by Dirk124; 08-26-2010 at 06:46 AM.
Dirk124 is offline  
post #23 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-26-2010, 01:27 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Regarding the rear seat passenger not being able to bend a front seat forward ambition - - - that's a revolutionary thought albeit not possible. Usually the rear seat unbelted passenger is wedged against the seat back and the front seat passenger is dead. I'd actually accept that (even if it meant my own death) so you're the first to hold a higher expectation/standard than me (and I'm a critical engineer who seeks perfection).

In this case the rear passenger was found lying in the middle over the dash/center counsel and only nicked my left shoulder/seatback with his right shoulder. He still flew forward fast enough to leave his shoes in the back seat as shown in the above post. But for Mercedes to claim his shoulder was the only force that bent my seat, is just outrageous now. I'm 180lbs and the rear passenger was around 210 but only a fraction of his weight impacted the seat back. If the seatbelt was directly connected, the seat back would not have been bent as far forward.

As of the airbag bending in the steering wheel, don't forget that the airbag effectively distributes the passenger's load within the airbag and into the entire wheel. Here, just the top of the wheel is bent forward into the dash as like the 'ole days. If the entire wheel/column was pushed forward evenly, I'd agree with you.

As of the approx. 1-sec "pulse" or duration of impact just ask yourself if it's possible to push a vehicle's engine beneath its shell, reach its firewall and move whats left of its front end over to the side by 8-feet in just a millisecond it takes for an airbag to deploy. Mercedes is attempting to build their defense on a concept of excessive speed (enough to 'beat the airbags'), but if that were the case the rear of the CL55 would have come around and the front end planted down. We would have also never lunged out of our lane in the first place. Remember, low velocity, high acceleration. Not high velocity (which results in short pulses). Really just sucks that I'm the guy in this position who has to raise this rather simple concern against a company that's doing everything in their power to play with me like some dead muppet. That's why I cannot wait to crash a CL500 and a CL55 frontal barrier, 30mph at full throttle now. Mercedes claims there will be no difference whatsoever. Seeing is believing.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	06-06-11 Photo 19.jpg
Views:	954
Size:	58.2 KB
ID:	327236   Click image for larger version

Name:	06-06-11 Photo 13.jpg
Views:	256
Size:	68.9 KB
ID:	327238  

Last edited by virage105; 08-26-2010 at 01:30 PM.
virage105 is offline  
post #24 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-26-2010, 01:42 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do not say a rear passenger cannot bend the front seat (and maybe beat you to death).
I say that the right pillow of the seat where the integrated seat belt is fixed, should not bend forward considerably, neither due to your own mass neither by addition of the mass of a rear passenger.l

And: Mercedes is saying the crash was faster than the time to deplay the airbags?

Dirk
Dirk124 is offline  
post #25 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-26-2010, 03:17 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Understood, but you're still more ambitious than I on that point (given an unbelted rear seat passenger landing directly against the seat back). In my case that seat back failure delayed my ability to address the airbag for 2-years since I convinced myself I inadvertently slid out of the belt while raising my left guard and then blamed myself for 'beating the airbag', cause I couldn't fathom the seat back failing without a shoulder injury until finally becoming aware of and retrieving the photographs/Case Report. Mercedes is currently attempting to twist that into "the rear seat passenger bent the left side of the seat back forward and Mark slid out of the belt while raising his left guard". I still believe the seat back either needs to be stronger or the shoulder harness connected to a pillar. But in an event where an unbelted rear passenger lands directly against a seatback (not the dashboard), whoever's sitting in front is screwed regardless of the shoulder belt (imagine a pillar mounted shoulder belt locking while the seat back is bending forward). Albeit force-sensing dynamic technologies can solve that riddle. You're certainly right that in this incident, that outboard side of my seat should not be deformed as shown. Mercedes is actually denying any deformity to "the top of the outboard side of the seat back". It's pathetically disgraceful.

Right now Mercedes is also claiming their airbags performed as they are supposed to and probably saved my life with absolutely no regards to the top/rear head injuries. While doing this they are honing in on claiming we were speeding down the wrong side of a windy 1-lane country style road. Attorneys who have no regards for reality like to layer their bullshit in stages of Plan A's and Plan B's.... Even throwing around the 0.03% alcohol level and detected trace "cannabis" levels. Painting me as an ungrateful P.O.S. That's why I have no choice but to crash two of their vehicles next while they deny me any crash test results/certifications. When I do crash their vehicles, I'll even feel sorry for Mercedes, but will have no remorse while publishing the results in a professionally compiled production. They deserve it now. Mercedes is also claiming I spoiled the material evidence (with no regards to my complaint that this is a negligent design fault), and the seatback issue is pre-empted by FMVSS 208 (covers integrated seatbelts but does not dictate seat back strength). BMW, Ford, Chevy, Volvo, Audi and Porsche will love me for what's coming next. I'm not even proud of it. I just want to move on and have my own life back. Mercedes just won't have that. Nobody will yet. Not until they are hurt just as much as I've been. It's a sickness of human nature. A "weak chicken down syndrome" (where they peck their weak to death for more food). But unlike chickens, humans convince themselves of what is not real. And just like silverback gorillas, humans love swinging their testicles around while dragging their knuckles. I'm just one person who survived. They can justify finishing me off for the sake of having to do nothing and saving a buck. Unfortunately for Mercedes, I'm not only a survivor, I'm also blessed to endure this nonsense.

Last edited by virage105; 08-26-2010 at 03:25 PM.
virage105 is offline  
post #26 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-27-2010, 04:46 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
Mercedes is currently attempting to twist that into "the rear seat passenger bent the left side of the seat back forward and Mark slid out of the belt while raising his left guard".
I must say that this argument from Mercedes also sounds reasonable.
In this case the airbag indeed saved your life.

However, if you slit out of the seat belt, why is then the outer right of the seat deformed?
I still see, that the pillar where the belt is fixed, is bent to the front.

Dirk
Dirk124 is offline  
post #27 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-27-2010, 10:35 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Mercedes argument would indeed be reasonable if there wasn't a 10-staple laceration on my occipital (rear/top) scalp, and a 10x14cm hemorrhage (bruise) on the driver's occipital scalp.

The only thing the airbag did was deploy against my face after we came to a rest, pick my mangled body up and toss it like a rag doll against the moonroof. I was attempting to pull back away from the dash when it finally deployed.

I didn't slide out of my seatbelt. The seat back just failed before imposing any injuries to my shoulder. I do recall poking at my right shoulder as if searching for a slight bruising in the ICU when a nurse came to me saying "slight bruising from the seatbelt?", "the driver also had a rear-head injury", and "I know exactly what happened to you two in that car". I just couldn't convince myself I reached the dash with a seatbelt on, then when reminded I had it on (I always do), I blamed myself for sliding out. I was too busy trying to get my twice/three times broke left femur/leg out of the burning CL55, I didn't care that my seat back was angled forward (making it even harder to get my leg out). Litigations aren't my first resort.

Please confirm my sanity here. Are airbags designed to impose rear-head injuries after an occupant's head reaches the dashboard before deployment?

Last edited by virage105; 08-27-2010 at 10:38 AM.
virage105 is offline  
post #28 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-28-2010, 02:12 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
I must say that this is the most intelligible discussion I have had yet in 4-years over my experience and I appreciate that guys.
We are on the most crucial points now. Dirk124 pointed out that even 500hp+ isn't capable of overcoming 10-30g's of deceleration. Chipdouglas40 pointed out the instant you hit something you are no longer accelerating.

Now what if a car's power is capable of crushing its front end without ever decelerating? I'm not saying we overcame 10-30g's of deceleration during the head-on with a 2003 CL55 and a limo. I'm saying that we crumpled the front end of both vehicles before enough deceleration was either sensed to trigger the dash-mounted module or wasn't sensed before losing the front bumper mounted accelerometers (still figuring out the details of the airbag system). Imagine impacting a wall head-on while braced on the gas pedal. Now imagine having at least 500hp pushing you into that wall. You may have "less" acceleration just after impact as you had before impact. But that doesn't mean you're experiencing "deceleration", let alone enough of it to trigger airbag deployment. It takes a lot of metal to slow down the pull of 500hp, let alone stop it. And no amount of money into an airbag system can apply to unlimited power options. At some point the designs have to be revisited.

That's the basis of my litigation. Cause I was a front seat passenger and didn't stand a chance without throwing my limbs at it for survival (cause before and during the impact I sensed the acceleration will be a problem for the airbags). No airbag is supposed to impose top/rear-head injuries and no company is supposed to claim that's OK, and it most likely "saved my life". Would you believe me if I told you that in order to go forward you need to put your car in reverse? That's what Mercedes is doing to me now. I never looked forward to doing something that a company will have a hard time recovering from so much. But imagine how hard of a recovery its been for me while they stomp at me for over a year now as a Pro-Se Plaintiff 140-documents deep with up to 4-opposing counsel (2 at any time). It's real ugly and the fight didn't even commence yet. 4-years after the incident no less. They are claiming the rear-seat passenger was the only force that bent my seat back forward now. When he flew so fast into the dash (albeit he did 'nick' my left shoulder/seat back), that he left his shoes in the back seat as pictured. Mercedes is also claiming their airbags worked accordingly with a steering wheel pushed into the dashboard and two front seat occupants with documented top/rear head injuries. If that's what "performing under extreme conditions" means to Mercedes, they just lost all credibility.
the only way to "crash" and not decellerate is to run through a giant knife and not kill any of the power train.

now, this part could be that the forum has a gross misunderstanding of how mb airbags work, or that there was a manufactures defect, or they are not defective to mb's standards... I have seen on a show on discovery that fords airbags deploy so fast that they deploy before broken glass can reach your face. this was captured on hd and on a high speed camera
chipdouglas40 is offline  
post #29 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-29-2010, 11:02 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
Mercedes is attempting to build their defense on a concept of excessive speed (enough to 'beat the airbags'),.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
Right now Mercedes is also claiming their airbags performed as they are supposed to and probably saved my life with absolutely no regards to the top/rear head injuries. While doing this they are honing in on claiming we were speeding .
well make sure you choose a lawyer with good common sense. the above i quoted is pretty much a moot point because we all know that mercedes are meant to run on the auto bahn. so what is exactly "excessive speed" to mb?

michael.
chipdouglas40 is offline  
post #30 of 39 (permalink) Old 09-06-2010, 04:00 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Apr 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipdouglas40 View Post
the only way to "crash" and not decellerate is to run through a giant knife and not kill any of the power train.

now, this part could be that the forum has a gross misunderstanding of how mb airbags work, or that there was a manufactures defect, or they are not defective to mb's standards... I have seen on a show on discovery that fords airbags deploy so fast that they deploy before broken glass can reach your face. this was captured on hd and on a high speed camera
I'm a lay person but in a crash involving two vehicles it surely must be possible that one does not decelerate.

- If one car was stationary, the whole front of the car, steering wheel, dashboard etc could impact the occupants without any sensor that relies solely on deceleration being triggered.

- Also if two cars are travelling perpendicular to each other, it should be possible for a heavy car that is accelerating when it hits a light car (or bicycle or trash can), to be travelling faster after impact than before impact.

Given a CL55 and a stretch of road, I could think of many things I could crash into while never slowing down although my rate of acceleration might show momentary blips.
Too2deep is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > MB Safety & Testimonials

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    inadvertent active headrest deployment katie patil MB Safety & Testimonials 4 06-13-2012 04:05 PM
    Steering Wheel with Airbag - Will Non-Airbag Type Work? soldbydon W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 11 04-25-2009 12:22 PM
    Conscientious Rejector? First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 24 01-05-2007 05:25 PM
    The Professor’s Iraq Re-Deployment Plan DP Off-Topic 84 12-05-2006 09:10 AM
    Airbag..... Darkreaper22 W163 M-Class 5 02-17-2004 03:40 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome