AMG's Airbag & Integrated Seatbelt Issues - Page 20 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #191 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-30-2013, 07:56 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
have you considered that you may have suffered a brain injury in this accident?

NASP Communique - Traumatic Brain Injury and Personality Change

quotes from the article-

Quote:
Personality Change

The consequences of TBI are often devastating to the individual and his or her loved ones. Changes in cognitive, behavioral, and emotional functioning are widespread. Studies examining these changes have been consistent in their findings. In a 30–year follow–up study of patients who experienced a TBI, prevalence rates of Axis I and Axis II psychopathology were high (Koponen et al., 2002). The most common diagnoses at follow–up were major depression, alcohol abuse or dependence, panic disorder, specific phobia, and psychotic disorders. Many patients also had at least one PD, with avoidant, paranoid, and schizoid being the most prevalent. A distinct, disinhibited organic personality syndrome was also identified in these patients, which was specifically associated with frontal lesions (Koponen et al., 2002).
Quote:
Prominent behavioral characteristics in TBI patients have included altered emotion (including restricted emotions with occasional inappropriate or uncontrolled emotional outbursts); impaired judgment and decision–making (including difficulty arriving at decisions as well as poor decisions); impaired initiation, planning, and organization of behavior; and defective social comportment (including egocentricity and impaired empathy). These impairments tend to be accompanied by a marked lack of insight. The abnormalities often are not evident in interviews or over brief time frames, but rather become apparent when the patient’s behavior is considered over a period of months or even years (Barrash, Tranel, & Anderson, 2000).
these issues are consistent with your inability to consider the importance of the seatbelt in the outcome of this accident. The issue of the seatbelt seems irrelevant to you, and its very illogical given your expertise and repeated reference to basic physics. Its almost as if you cannot see, or cannot let yourself see the most logical conclusion which is also supported by tests, including your own. Its not rational

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van

Last edited by JBG3; 10-30-2013 at 07:59 AM.
JBG3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #192 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-30-2013, 12:53 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Simon E - FMVSS 208: Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 3-19-97): For the unbelted dummy test condition, manufacturers have the option to certify vehicles using the sled test specified in the standard versus the 48 km/h (30 mph) vehicle-into-barrier crash test.

Your reference shows a photo of a crash test after the driver dummy came thru a timely deployed airbag and contacted the windshield. In my test the driver dummy did not come thru a timely deployed airbag, rather over a partially delayed inflated airbag and directly into the windshield (at just 36mph v. your 40mph test reference). BIG DIFFERENCE between airbag integrity & timely deployment. So please do not judge me v. "German testers" since you are basing your judgment on an apples to oranges comparison.

I did not opine over MB's claim that the airbag deployment sequence takes just "a few ms". Mathematics tells me that 32ms is a magnitude greater than "a few ms".

Soon I too will release the still shots from my test. And soon, my words will not matter since actions speak a lot louder than my observations or "opinions".

JB - Many attorneys have acknowledged the validity of my claim. However most attorneys do not touch product liability cases without the original product. Progressive salvaged the vehicle over 1.5-years before I obtained the case report and became aware of my seatbelt issue (photos of a failed seat-back w/integrated seatbelt). So please less false-judgment and more objective thought.

I do not comprehend your claim about the court claiming anything. That's not even their position. MB claimed a human mind could not interpret my series of bone breaks in just a 'few ms' because the airbag deployment sequence takes just 'a few ms'. My affidavit was not my testimony as you claim. Two separate documents. My affidavit was a very brief summary of Newton's 2nd Law of Motion with an attached reference to support my reply that MB cannot physically deny force resulting from acceleration. Disqualified and dismissed as a result.

It's difficult to take your apology sincerely while you are simultaneously continuing to subjectively judge everything. You have yet to acknowledge that I was belted on June 11, 2006. You have yet to acknowledge that I'm not fighting for nor representing the driver (or anybody else). I don't understand why beyond you are clearly seeing what you wish to see to support your judgments against me. Most likely because as you already stated, you don't like me. Alert - this isn't just about me and what you 'feel' about me does not affect the case photographs showing my failed seat back, medical records showing my top/rear head laceration, and crash test showing a belted passenger dummy slumped over as far as an unbelted driver dummy, and an obviously significant impact of the driver dummy's head DIRECTLY into the windshield with paint markings that show how the back of his red-head was smeared into the roof backwards.

I'll move on when a solution is applied because the fact is I don't have any regrets or concerns left over those that died on June 11, 2006. I'm alive, they are not. What I do have is future deaths on my back because of this experience. And you can talk and hate all you want on me personally, opinions and false judgments no longer affect me. At least realize you have yet to answer if you believe MB is correct in claiming "any competent engineer would not associate acceleration with the pulse of a collision or the airbags ability to timely deploy". I even offered to sit inside a constant velocity test if MB sits inside a max-acceleration test (belted or unbelted). Which test would you personally wish to sit in? You are correct that there is a MAJOR scam by one party involved here. It's either the party that acknowledges Sir Isaac Newton, or the one that disregards him. Sorry but your head-injury claims/references are laughable but I do appreciate some humor. A study should be done on a mind that had to face a major corporation denying the no. 1 law of physics both their existences are based on .

I owe everyone an apology cause this is a lot more difficult with my restraint on not releasing anymore details yet speaking to you with just the shared result showing. Even though the shared result can be read clearly, people who want to see what their pre-judgments direct them to, will not see the results clearly. And maybe that's my fault but will change soon. There is a process to everything that goes beyond my personal desire or opinion. Those judging me have to stop and just answer the bottom line if they believe MB is correct in denying accelerations' affect on a frontal impact. It doesn't take an engineer to opine on that. Just answer, which vehicle would you rather sit inside during a crash test? And why?

Simon - thank you so much for you video reference. I'll be sure to show it alongside my video so people can understand the difference between flying thru a timely deployed airbag at 40mph v. flying over a partially deployed airbag at just 36mph. The worst part about being a sole survivor is that no matter how accurate my memory is, it'll always be judged as an opinion v. a real account of real events. Any man that'll base a crash test on make-believe opinions is just nuts. I'm far from that. I'm determined for an acknowledgment and for a solution to prevent future deaths. I didn't ask for that knowledge or this experience from either the driver nor Mercedes Benz. But I'm not accepting MB's utter denial of acceleration's affect upon a collision. That's nuts.

Last edited by virage105; 10-30-2013 at 01:28 PM.
virage105 is offline  
post #193 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-30-2013, 01:46 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
And regarding the claim I alienating family & business partners. It is my fault I chose not to acknowledge the existence of a former brother that embezzled my insured personal injury funds, tried to shift the tax liability back to me & called me a 'murderer'. It is my fault I chose to not do business with a misrepresented & disbarred attorney (Michael Weinreb who once falsified auto-accident injuries) who lead the borrowing of $8M using my name on projects I founded & the bank that let him (oh, former bank - Wachovia). It is my fault for no longer communicating with a Father that joked about June 11, 2006 & made sure a psychologist performed a mental evaluation on me before anybody greeted me in the ICU. It is my fault for no longer knowing a former sister that adamantly claimed me and the driver incurred our rear-head injuries while coming to a rest against the headrest (even more laughable than my former brother's claim the rear seat passenger did a 'Superman' w/both arms out on his flight to the dashboard down the middle). A former sister that continues to call the driver 'a murderer' to this day and demanded I 'go kill myself'. It is my fault for letting go of my loved one or anyone else I may consider to have a family of my own. I just don't believe a man should subject a woman to his battles especially with an 800lb gorilla clinging to his back swinging away and beating his chest (MB in this case). Shame on me. Oh, can't forget about the Coptic Orthodox priest who asked me if I met the Devil thru my death against the dashboard. The driver's wife who used me as a scapegoat and would gather friends to mock my name while I was deciding to relinquish the estate of liability. And the droves of other hyenas that came out of the wood-works for a bite of a sole-survivor. Post-traumatic stress or Post-survival deplorable human nature syndrome.....let's not forget how dare I take issue against the horse who denied physics to me. Yeah, I'm doing this all because of some elaborate made-up scheme.....glad you see past that one.

Can anyone answer if they would rather be inside a vehicle at 40mph hitting the impact barrier at constant velocity or w/516ftlbs of torque applied. And why? Can anyone answer how they believe both me and the driver incurred our rear/top head injuries during a head-on collision. Did the rear seat passenger bend the outboard side of my seat, or did I bend it while wearing my integrated seatbelt (pictured at www.realcompany.org)? Am I alive because I fought for it, or because MB's airbag and seatbelt performed perfectly? If the latter, then where do you believe my limbs broke? Why is a slice of my left nostril missing? Please park your hate against me, and focus on physics and MB's claims.

Last edited by virage105; 10-30-2013 at 01:56 PM.
virage105 is offline  
post #194 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-30-2013, 09:48 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2011
Vehicle: 1999 E320 Sedan
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Virage--I asked you whether you can produce "IIHS and NHTSA standards which stipulate that an SRS airbag alone should prevent drivers who willfully do not use the corresponding seat belts from hitting the windshield with their heads if they experience a 36mph frontal crash." In response, you provide a reference to procedures for a particular crash test scenario with unbelted passengers at a speed of 48km/h. I take it, then, that the standards about which I asked you, and which you claimed to know, do not exist.

If you say that your video leads you to believe that the airbag did not inflate in time, then one would obviously have to watch and evaluate this. Ideally in the company of a real--not an armchair--crash test expert. Yet as long as you keep bringing up these 32ms, I am not convinced at all, for this looks like a completely normal deployment time. At a speed of 36mph, an object (here: a passenger's head) travels about 50cm within 32 ms. But in fact it would move a far lesser distance (30cm? 20cm?) towards the dash, because the crumple zone would be in the process of deformation, and the more rigid passenger cell, including the dash, would also still be traveling forward at a considerable speed. If the airbag inflates at this moment, it should be fully inflated by the time when the head of the passenger would dive into it.

Besides, it doesn't take much to understand that expecting that it would take the airbag "a few milliseconds" to deploy is unreasonable under any circumstances, regardless of who said this and when. In a few, say: 4ms, a car traveling at 36mph travels the impressive distance of 6cm. 4ms (or 6cm) into a crash, the entire car would still be traveling at full speed--except for the bumper, which has flexed and perhaps begun to crack. More milliseconds will pass until the impact reaches the frame of the car and begins to decelerate/deform it. If the obstacle deforms at the same rate, all these numbers double. At some point, the crash sensors would register significant deformation and/or deceleration and the computer would trigger deployment. Again, 32ms sounds like a reasonable estimate for the duration of this process; "a few ms"--if this is taken to mean "2-4ms"--absolutely not.

PS. It's only now that I have taken a look at a few of the earlier posts of this thread. Now I understand better that it's not really clear if this thread is ever going anywhere for anyone (and I probably better keep silent about how sound I find this "acceleration theory" of yours).

I do feel sorry, however, for the driver of the limousine who died in this crash only because of somebody else's reckless driving. I realize that you have suffered badly in this crash, which was not really your fault either, and perhaps the psychological toll has been even higher. But now you are still doing well enough to spend tens of thousands of cash on crashing a perfectly fine car. I wonder if this deceased driver had any family, and how they have coped.
Simon_E is offline  
post #195 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-31-2013, 12:17 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Simon - I'm getting an answer on the existence of an NHTSA unbelted standard and if it corresponds to the FMVSS208 unbelted standard. IIHS is a belted test that does not include a passenger.

Fortunately, I don't need to believe in anything after having spent 2-years in fed court pro-se against MB. I just need to hold my video against an MB-engineer's affidavit and MB's series of outrageously false legal statements. Again, the airbag in my test was not fully deployed when the driver dummy flew over it directly into that windshield. However it was fully deployed when the back of the driver dummy's head was pressed against the windshield/visor (shown by red paint). All I know is the fact 32ms is a magnitude greater than MB's claimed "few ms" and that an airbag is not supposed to push a belted or unbelted occupant against the ceiling.

If you are correct and 'a few ms' is unreasonable, then MB makes knowingly fraudulent statements in federal courts. That's a shame. Based on what you said, do you believe acceleration would add to that flex and that more flex will delay only further? You touched upon something very important here cause the June 11, 2006 collapsible barrier involved the entire front nose of a stretch limousine. So do you believe that also delays further?

One place this matter is going is published in its entirety on a bigger format than this forum. Maybe even with some quotes from this forum. You already touched upon the acceleration theory when discussing crumple zones and deformation. Unless you too (like MB) does not believe acceleration has any affect on crumpling during a head-on collision. Physics tells me acceleration results in an additional force that can only increase deformation during a head-on collision.

Even though the limo driver may have ran a stop sign, I also feel sorry for him and family. "Reckless driving" is a more appropriate description if drag racing, drifting, joy-riding and ongoing intentional driving chaos was involved. This was one freak torque lunge that lead into another freak torque lunge. My test is just a measure of my mental well-being, not my financial well-being. It's been a devastating non-stop 7-years of survival mode covering physical, personal, business and legal plunder that requires a book series to get into the real experience of it. I gave myself one year after impacting that dashboard. I'm 6-years beyond my expectation so I suppose that calls for me to be thankful. The driver has a wife and child. Part of her coping involved using me as a scapegoat and badgering my name (a book by itself as to why). It did take years for her to acknowledge her husbands' rear-head injury (based on my experience and documented rear head injury I told her if she pulls his autopsy report she will see it, and she then saw it clearly).

Does anybody agree with MB that acceleration has no affect on a frontal impact?
virage105 is offline  
post #196 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-31-2013, 08:46 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post

JB - Many attorneys have acknowledged the validity of my claim. However most attorneys do not touch product liability cases without the original product. Progressive salvaged the vehicle over 1.5-years before I obtained the case report and became aware of my seatbelt issue (photos of a failed seat-back w/integrated seatbelt). So please less false-judgment and more objective thought.
Correct, so as you yourself state in the above paragraph, there is no case. You have no evidence, you have an opined unlikely series of events, and a crash test that supports all other crash tests. No Lawyer is going touch something this pointless.

Because they were polite to you and have "acknowledged the validity of my claim" means nothing. They were merely polite sounds like. Lawyers are busy people, no sense in arguing with someone who is committed to a single possibility and cannot see any others.

Quote:
I do not comprehend your claim about the court claiming anything. That's not even their position. MB claimed a human mind could not interpret my series of bone breaks in just a 'few ms' because the airbag deployment sequence takes just 'a few ms'. My affidavit was not my testimony as you claim. Two separate documents. My affidavit was a very brief summary of Newton's 2nd Law of Motion with an attached reference to support my reply that MB cannot physically deny force resulting from acceleration. Disqualified and dismissed as a result.
The court pointed out that you opined everything in dismissal of your case. Did they or did they not do this? Since when does a certainly patronizing document authored by you summarizing newtons 2nd law of motion relevant to the court?

They need FACT and EVIDENCE. Your opinion of what happened, and your desire to have that opinion believed does not equal FACT and EVIDENCE. Sorry, reality is a real kicker when you deal with a court that isn't impressed by summaries of newtons law.

Quote:
It's difficult to take your apology sincerely while you are simultaneously continuing to subjectively judge everything. You have yet to acknowledge that I was belted on June 11, 2006. You have yet to acknowledge that I'm not fighting for nor representing the driver (or anybody else). I don't understand why beyond you are clearly seeing what you wish to see to support your judgments against me. Most likely because as you already stated, you don't like me. Alert - this isn't just about me and what you 'feel' about me does not affect the case photographs showing my failed seat back, medical records showing my top/rear head laceration,.
uhh, the fact that you were belted in and survived is the core point of my comments compared to the deaths of the two unbelted people in the AMG. I have yet to acknowledge? Ive said that maybe 80 times at this point. The fact that you can actually write that indicates just how irrational and illogical you are about this accident.
You have convinced yourself so fully of only one result, that had the AMG exploded at the starting line, you'd be telling us how slow the airbag was to deploy. Fact is irrelevant to the results you want to see.

The one thing you have reinforced, is the importance of a seatbelt, and further reinforced how important full utilization of the ENTIRE restraint system is to accident survival with nearly everything you have written, yet are blind to this fact. Im more and more convinced you suffered a brain injury.

You are not operating on a logical basis, everything you present supports MB in their statements, and the wisdom of belting in. Nothing supports your claims. I don't have to like or dislike you to see what is obvious.

Quote:
and crash test showing a belted passenger dummy slumped over as far as an unbelted driver dummy, and an obviously significant impact of the driver dummy's head DIRECTLY into the windshield with paint markings that show how the back of his red-head was smeared into the roof backwards.
Once again, did the passenger dummy hit the windshield? No. Did the passenger dummy survive the accident? yes. The driver dummy hit the windshield, the driver dummy probably died against the steering wheel. The driver dummy should have been belted in. These are the facts of your test.

A rational individual sees them clearly. You are not capable of seeing that apparently.

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van

Last edited by JBG3; 10-31-2013 at 08:53 AM. Reason: spelling
JBG3 is offline  
post #197 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-31-2013, 08:51 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post

Even though the limo driver may have ran a stop sign, I also feel sorry for him and family. "Reckless driving" is a more appropriate description if drag racing, drifting, joy-riding and ongoing intentional driving chaos was involved. This was one freak torque lunge that lead into another freak torque lunge.
The driver of the AMG was obviously speeding. You yourself have pointed this out. He crossed the double yellow line right before this collision to pass another car. He was upset. All statements by you. The speeding and crossing the yellow line supported by other witnesses.

He lost control, end of story. Reckless driving and speeding is exactly what was going on behind the wheel of that AMG.

The limo ran a stop sign? this is totally unsupported, yet again, another "fact" made up by you to deflect blame from where blame is obviously deserved. The driver of the AMG killed everyone through reckless and dangerous operation of his car, in addition to ignoring his seatbelt, subsequently dying in the process.

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van
JBG3 is offline  
post #198 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-31-2013, 09:31 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
I'm going to resist from replying to JB's series of subjective judgments & conclusions. Unless you can provide us your qualifications to make such mental-health conclusions, crash-result conclusions and crash-site observations, it's not a respectful use of all our time. Simon & Scudetto's language is more objective, well stated and just plain 'ole decent enough to result in a comprehensive dialogue.

Focusing on fact-based materials this is MB's position:
1. August 20, 2010, John P. Hannigan (JH-2247), Bleakley Platt & Schmidt LLP
a. “Vehicle torque or horsepower will not interfere whatsoever with a vehicle’s crash sensor’s ability to detect levels of deceleration associated with front crash events.”
b. “(#24, Fleming Decl. ¶ 11.) The motive power of a vehicle (e.g., its ability to accelerate, its available horsepower, or its torque) does not affect the ability of crash sensors to sense deceleration in enough time to deploy the front airbags.”
c. “Any competent engineer knows it is absurd to equate accelerations caused by the vehicle engines with the crash pulses in head-on collisions.”
d. “Indeed, there is no evidence that the subject vehicle’s air bag did anything other than properly deploy.”
e. “(#27, 29 Fleming Decl. ¶ 13.) As an initial matter, an air bag deployment sequence occurs entirely within a few milliseconds and is beyond the power of direct human perception. An air bag deploys faster than the blink of an eye. (#20 Fleming Decl. ¶ 9.) Thus, the frame-by-frame replay of the accident sequence offered by plaintiff in his complaint may at best be considered a lay opinion based on his interpretation of post-accident observations of his injuries and the physical evidence.”
f. “From the photos and the videotape of the interior of the car, it is apparent that the inboard (left) upper corner of the front passenger seatback has been deformed in a forward direction and not the outboard (right) upper corner, where the shoulder portion of the three-point belt is anchored. (Id.; see also Hannigan Decl., Ex. K, photograph of Subject Vehicle interior.) Thus, if plaintiff’s contention that the integrated belt deformed his seat were correct, there would be deformation on the outboard shoulder, not the inboard. (Id.) Therefore, there is no merit to plaintiff’s claim that the shoulder belt anchor resulted in any seat deformation.”

2. August 28, 2009, Joshua A. Machlus (FL Bar No. 0770221) and Michael D. Begey (0120928), Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell
a. “….because it makes no sense to ask a jury to determine whether there should be a link between an air bag sensing system and a car’s available horsepower. (See Doc. No. 6, ¶ 20.) This would be like asking a jury to determine whether a truck scale should sense whether the truck is carrying a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. It makes no sense to put the question to the jury, because common sense tells us that such a scale measures only the weight of the truck, regardless of its contents. Likewise, common sense tells us that a vehicle’s crash sensing system measures only the severity of the crash, not the horsepower of the engine, and that the same crash severity will be sensed whether the vehicle enters the collision from its own motive power, has rolled down a hill, or has been flung from a catapult.”


3. August 20, 2010, Lawrence Fleming, Product Analysis Engineer with Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Engineering Department in Vehicle Compliance and Analysis
a. “There is no evidence that the subject vehicle was “uncontrollable” or that the events leading to the accident, or the force of the collision, would have been any different if the driver was operating a base model CL500.”
b. “The elapsed time from sensing a level of deceleration sufficient for airbag deployment, through full deployment of the airbag, is faster than the blink of an eye.”
c. “The fact that plaintiff was the sole survivor of this collision is a strong indicator that the air bag system worked as designed, and there is certainly no evidence that the system failed in any way.”
d. “The motive power of the vehicle (e.g., its ability to accelerate, its available horsepower, or its torque) does not affect the ability of the crash sensors to sense deceleration in enough time to deploy the front airbags. Vehicle torque or horsepower will not interfere whatsoever with the crash sensor’s ability to detect levels of deceleration associated with front crash events.”
e. “From the photos and the video, it is apparent that the inboard (left) upper corner of the front passenger seatback has been deformed in a forward direction and not the outboard (right) upper right corner, where the shoulder portion of the three-point belt is anchored. Thus, if plaintiff’s contention that the integrated belt deformed his seat were correct, there would be deformation on the outboard shoulder, not the inboard. Therefore, there is no merit to plaintiff’s claim that the shoulder belt anchor resulted in any seat deformation.”
f. “Overall, it is my opinion that the safety systems in the subject vehicle operated properly and helped save plaintiff’s life in an otherwise unsurvivable collision.”

Does anybody believe in every statement MB-makes? Because this is one side of the story. My witness account of the June 11, 2006 crash alongside the Case Report w/photos and medical records is another side (summarized at www.realcompany.org). And the Sept. 20, 2013 historically first privately funded CL55amg crash test at max motive power is going to be held against both sides of the story. No man's subjective judgment of events leading to the June 11, 2006 crash takes precedent over the core of this matter involving occupant restraint systems that impose additional harm to front seat occupants when those occupants are most depending on them.

Last edited by virage105; 10-31-2013 at 09:35 AM.
virage105 is offline  
post #199 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-31-2013, 09:44 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
f. “From the photos and the videotape of the interior of the car, it is apparent that the inboard (left) upper corner of the front passenger seatback has been deformed in a forward direction and not the outboard (right) upper corner, where the shoulder portion of the three-point belt is anchored. (Id.; see also Hannigan Decl., Ex. K, photograph of Subject Vehicle interior.) Thus, if plaintiff’s contention that the integrated belt deformed his seat were correct, there would be deformation on the outboard shoulder, not the inboard. (Id.) Therefore, there is no merit to plaintiff’s claim that the shoulder belt anchor resulted in any seat deformation.”
how do you argue with this point?

they make a very good point, in fact ALL their points are both logical, and supported by what facts actually exist.

Quote:
No man's subjective judgment of events leading to the June 11, 2006 crash takes precedent over the core of this matter involving occupant restraint systems that impose additional harm to front seat occupants when those occupants are most depending on them.
They certainly do impose additional harm if you ignore them. You have proven this well for MB with you unbelted driver dummy.

Knee Injuries to the passenger dummy? so what? it lived the accident. You have mentioned them several times, and have yet to show us any pics of the passenger dummy knee damage.

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van
JBG3 is offline  
post #200 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-31-2013, 09:48 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Let's start with MB's engineer's statements since they are straight from the horse's mouth:

1. If a CL500 has approx. 300ftlbs of torque and a CL55amg has 516ftlbs of torque how does the 216ftlbs of torque difference not affect the force of the collision when both are applied? Newton's 2nd Law of Motion defines Force = Mass x Acceleration, was published in 1687 and is an accepted & practiced law of physics. Simon acknowledged the fact that crumpling of the vehicle's front end or the crush device it's impacting can affect airbag deployment times. So if acceleration does produce an additional force which crumples the vehicle more, then can we conclude that will also affect airbag deployment times? If we can understand and agree upon those physics then is it appropriate for Mercedes-Benz to deny those physics and not design their seatbelt coil and airbag system to accommodate such physics?
virage105 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

  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
    Bluetooth & Integrated Phone Plug ProvingGrounds W140 S-Class 8 11-17-2013 10:21 AM
    COMMAND COMMUNICATION ISSUES & GATEWAY 500 WARRANTY ISSUES POURCTYSBKON Audio & Telematics Forum 2 12-26-2008 03:40 AM
    Great Deals on 209 AMG'S & 216'S CaliforniaMBGuy C209/A209 CLK-Class 2 09-06-2007 06:05 PM
    Integrated phone issues - seen this before? mkhoo W211 E-Class 1 12-11-2006 05:11 PM
    19" AMG's..anyone else have issues?? DKM C215 CL-Class 2 01-22-2003 12:08 AM

    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