AMG's Airbag & Integrated Seatbelt Issues - Page 24 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #231 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-12-2013, 09:58 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
To make something very clear for all: Mercedes-Benz is the only car company that standardized the conversion of base-model sedans into exotic powered conversions with no regards to upgrading their occupant restraint systems. Mercedes-Benz is also the only car company that uses an integrated seatbelt in a vehicle with over 500ftlbs of torque. If you have no problem with that then don't let me stop you from buying an AMG.

Again, the rear seat passenger's right shoulder nicked my inboard seatback (bent at the top) before/while my weight was tugging on the outboard side (bent at the bottom). What I'd give for my right shoulder to have broken in a rigid-mounted shoulder belt before my head hit that dashboard. Your persistence over this detail is only exhibiting your dismissal of all other safety-parameters involved here. And shows no regards to the need for a timely deployed airbag under acceleration. In my crash test video I can actually see the passenger belt uncoiling itself during the collision pulse, compare that to the lack of force sensed (since the vehicle was still accelerating) and then finally lock when that force curve shoots up nearly vertical. There are plenty of sensors available to integrate the seatbelt system to. At that point then we can observe the deflection of a seatback being used as a cantilever structure with an integrated seatbelt. Your one point sure doesn't dismiss anything else.
virage105 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #232 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-12-2013, 10:29 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 1995 C180
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, your failure to accept the reality of this is beyond reasonable.

I wasnt there and cant comment on your version of events, but the images im seeing portray a different story.

Fact here is you woke up and in the blink of an eye it was all over. Im struggling to see how you took so much in, let alone retained it all.

The safety features are fine, they saved your life, you should be happy with that.
95redC180 is offline  
post #233 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-12-2013, 10:34 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
If anybody who's capable of selfless objective technical thought wishes to discuss physics I'd be happy to communicate. I can no longer reply to random unreasonable opinions. Who woke up?!! Retaining the last moments of your life and reacting accordingly is called 'survival'. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a difference. If it helps you sleep at night justifying your words playing keyboard cowboy believing I slept thru it all, knock yourself out and believe what you wish. One thing this experience has taught is the extent a human mind will go to voice opinions, false unsupportable claims, and just nonsense with no regards or concerns for reality. Really sucks I just don't have that gene built into me to act so privileged. Rest assured, Mercedes sure does.

Found another crash test video of an early 2000's CL but it appears >40mph impact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=V3jxqsFYRsE

Last edited by virage105; 11-12-2013 at 10:43 PM.
virage105 is offline  
post #234 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-12-2013, 11:10 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 1995 C180
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I cant understand why you even expect the things you do, they are unreasonable. It doesnt seem to just be my take on it either, it seems to me to be common conception.

And to add to that, i wasnt going to bother, but i will, your claim about Mercedes Benz being the only company to take a base model car and do what they do is total garbage.

Holden do it and have done for many years. Ford do it and have done for many years. Audi does too. Lancia did it with the Delta HF Intergrale Evolution. The 90-95 Corvette ZR1 was identical in safety features with far more power and the same brakes... Then there was the Callaways of the day... Same deal again...
95redC180 is offline  
post #235 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-12-2013, 11:28 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 1995 C180
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And im not saying here you slept through anything, but i sure am saying you dont even remember removing your seatbelt, yet you know everything else in detail. How so?

Youre stuck on this thing about intergrated seatbelts, you claim it resulted in the bent seat back. Horsesh**. Its obvious it was bent from the left of the seat, not the belt side of the seat. The unbelted passenger bent that seat. There is no other explaination for it. If you bent it via the seatbelt, it would be bent the other way.

As a result of the bent seat and the irresponsible passenger behind you, coupled with the neglegence of the vehicle's driver who is responsible for ensuring all his passengers are safetly restrained in the vehicle prior to driving, you sustained a number of injuries that you probably would not have had in the event that the driver and rear seat passenger had worn their seat belts. No excuse for not putting it on.

And keyboard cowboy? Get real buddy, thats a real joke
95redC180 is offline  
post #236 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 07:43 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
95red - I appreciate your last 2-dialogues as they were free of the 'mob-mentality' showing in your previous posts. I expect the things I do since not only have I experienced the result of non-performance orientated occupant restraint systems, I also experienced the automotive industry leader claim acceleration has no affect 'whatsoever' on a frontal collision. That's abnormal and MANY competent individuals as well has the field of physics agrees.

Glad you mentioned the practice of performance tweaks in other vehicles. To prove your claim that what I said about Mercedes-Benz being the only company to standardize the conversion of base-model sedans to exotic powered AMG counterparts with no regards to occupant restraint systems, please show us one other company that takes a 300ftlb sedan and stuffs 738ftlbs into it. I'm aware of other companies offering 50% gains in power, but not aware of 150% gains in power with the same exact occupant restraint systems. So you're ok if Yugo decided to stuff a Corvette engine in it for say the Yugo AMB Model? Do you agree with Mercedes-Benz that acceleration will have no affect on a frontal collision? Have you ever heard of the NHRA and how they regulate occupant restraint systems based on acceleration performance (since 1940's or 50's).

I DO recall removing my seatbelt with a first responder. It took a while because I could not understand how I reached my dashboard with so little resistance with a seatbelt on. Took 2-years, really 7-years to fully understand the seatbelt aspect. During the collision I can tell you that my mind blossomed to a rate of perception and thought only another survivor who saw it coming and took evasive actions to live would understand. All I can tell you is that imagine your life-span being 2-seconds. So 1-second is 50% of your life and 0.5sec is 25% of your remaining life. So you mind adjusts to that accordingly for the sake of your survival.

On the integrated seatbelt I find it amazing how anyone can disregard my upper body weight/force on the shoulder belt. 6697Nm@103.1ms on the shoulder harness during my crash test to be exact. In physics it is not normal to deny forces altogether. The photos show the difference between an acute impact and a chronic force/load. You speak as if the rear seat passenger died against my seat back when he didn't even break a bone other than his skull against the dashboard. Truth is he was responsible enough to literally dive down the center as if clearing his weight from me and the driver (I sensed his movement just before impact as he was already in the center but still positioning himself for his imminent death).

So not only are you claiming that the rear seat passenger imposed all my injuries because he was unbelted, but you are now telling us my injuries also came because the driver was unbelted too. WOW, I just cannot reply to that.

Keyboard cowboy - indeed. Get real. I wouldn't call your dead friend 'irresponsible' for not wearing a seatbelt in the back seat! Read your own opinions guy, then imagine being in my shoes reading such words. My definition of a 'keyboard cowboy' is a man typing things he'd never say to another man's face without the fear of being slapped for such ridiculousness. Clearly, I'm replying to your reasonable points. Just have the respect and self-decency to explain your opinions that are physical impossibilities (ie. driver injuring me because he was unbelted). Oh, and your seat bending claim! How does my weight flying forward with a shoulder belt connected to the top of my seat result in your claim that my seatback should have bent backwards?!! If you step off of a ladder do you fall upward or down? If you step on that same ladder does it compress downward or float upward? I know your toilet water may swirl in the opposite direction down under but that doesn't mean all of physics are reversed
virage105 is offline  
post #237 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 08:47 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
To make something very clear for all: Mercedes-Benz is the only car company that standardized the conversion of base-model sedans into exotic ,powered conversions with no regards to upgrading their occupant restraint systems. Mercedes-Benz is also the only car company that uses an integrated seatbelt in a vehicle with over 500ftlbs of torque. If you have no problem with that then don't let me stop you from buying an AMG.
Show us a single car company that tells you that you will live through an accident without buckling in your seatbelt. You haven't yet, and you never will, because weirdly, there aren't any car companies that make that statement.
Show us the vehicle safety test on airbags without a seatbelt that tells us drivers will live. You say you are waiting for this, and you assume it exists. Another piece of info you never produced, surprise surprise.

You are whining endlessly about the integrated seatbelt and the failures of design you say it has, and yet you are blind to the fact that the two negligent people in the driver seat and in the back IGNORED the seatbelt in the first place.

Result-
When the driver lost control driving recklessly, he died and killed two other people as well. You lucked out despite the unbelted rear passenger making the chances of your survival minimal. You barely survived, and now your mind appears to be unhinged by this event given your blindness to this reality. Its incredibly sad, and how you have destroyed your life dedicated to this nonsense is sadder.
The facts of the accident support no other conclusion than speeding, no seatbelts, driver error. Your accident REINFORCES this conclusion, as does the factory crash test.

Quote:
...... Your persistence over this detail is only exhibiting your dismissal of all other safety-parameters involved here. And shows no regards to the need for a timely deployed airbag under acceleration. .....
You say this, and I can't think of a better description of your own behavior on this issue. You dismiss the seatbelt, you consider it irrelevant. You assume an airbag should save you without the seatbelt. You are incapable of understanding how completely illogical this viewpoint is. Every fact and collected piece of data supports the same conclusion below-

Wear you seatbelt.

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 #238 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 10:35 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
JBg3 - Please stop with your endless harassing make-believe comments. You're right about me not producing a single car company unbelted claim. I only produced the NHTSA's unbelted standard upon Simon E's request that applies to ALL car companies. 'Surprise, surprise'....REALLY?!! Grow-up.

Just to understand your logic.....if a majority of occupants are unbelted that makes it ok for one belted occupant to experience design issues? Physics by democracy I suppose? Truth is if that rear seat passenger was belted behind me I'd be dead considering just how much uncoiling a seatbelt harness does during a collision while the vehicle is under 516ftlbs of torque. That rear seat passenger gave me a chance at survival. If he broke his shoulder against my seatback and not his skull against the dashboard I may agree with you. Unfortunately you have no regards for physics and facts.

I have this vision of you in a cheerleader's outfit with a big Mercedes-Benz symbol waving pom-poms while singing how saintly MB is. I didn't destroy my life. I survived my life against all odds. Spent 7-years facing one round of personal, business, legal and financial attacks after another all to be crowned by Mercedes-Benz complete denial of the acceleration-force upon a frontal collision, denial of the fact my seat back bent at the bottom outboard side (they actually claimed my weight should have bent it at the top outboard side which is also abnormal), and claim of credit for my life. You have yet to answer how both front seat occupants incurred rear/top head injuries on June 11, 2006. I'd love to hear your theory on that one. It's pretty simple now, if Mercedes is correct than their 40mph IIHS partial frontal impact test's data will have higher forces with the same force-slopes and slightly longer pulse than my 36mph IIHS partial frontal impact test's data. That comparison will be made and no other points can supersede real lab-tests. But if you wish to wave your pom-poms it's a free world. Just do it under your own thread already. You're contaminating my thread with nonsense in your effort to make fact-finding nearly impossible. Or better yet, just go buy an AMG and move on! I'm not stopping from that and I sure don't care about purchases people make in full awareness. Knock yourself out. Are you even considering purchasing an AMG? Do you currently own one? If not, why are you here? Like wasting our time? Keyboard warrior during retirement? You do realize you're telling me to 'wear your seatbelt' and acting as if I did not wear it? What is that? Got comprehension? You can waive your MB-pom-poms chanting that claim all you wish on your own thread. It doesn't even apply to me. WAKE UP & GO LIVE.

Last edited by virage105; 11-13-2013 at 10:40 AM.
virage105 is offline  
post #239 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 12:29 PM
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
JBg3 - Please stop with your endless harassing make-believe comments. You're right about me not producing a single car company unbelted claim. I only produced the NHTSA's unbelted standard upon Simon E's request that applies to ALL car companies. 'Surprise, surprise'....REALLY?!! Grow-up.
Your contention is that passengers will live without seatbelts based on the airbag alone. I said show us a single claim or standard that backs that up. "that will live" part of my comment you conveniently evaded. So far, you have not demonstrated a single standard that shows passengers will or should live without a seatbelt, or requires airbags to save lives WITHOUT the primary restraint system.

This is old news, but you still haven't picked up on this.


Quote:
Just to understand your logic.....if a majority of occupants are unbelted that makes it ok for one belted occupant to experience design issues? Physics by democracy I suppose?
I think if ive said anything a dozen times, its that the rear passenger destroyed your seat on the way forward. The fact that you can post the above shows just how disinterested you are in actual discussion, and how interested you are in ONLY telling people what you think happened without fact or logic. This is a public discussion board. As long as you persist in posting unsupported theories, ill be interested in pointing out just how unsupported they are.

Quote:
Truth is if that rear seat passenger was belted behind me I'd be dead considering just how much uncoiling a seatbelt harness does during a collision while the vehicle is under 516ftlbs of torque. That rear seat passenger gave me a chance at survival. If he broke his shoulder against my seatback and not his skull against the dashboard I may agree with you. Unfortunately you have no regards for physics and facts.
Wow.

if anyone is ignoring physics or facts to place their brand of history on what actually happened, its you.
your argument is that since the shoulder wasn't broken on the dead rear seat passenger, that 30 other unbelievable and preposterous claims by you are somehow correct. Thats up there with some of the most ridiculous claims ive ever heard.

If the rear seat passenger had been belted in, he would not have CLEARLY (as in shown in the photographs you have provided) hit the back of your seat and thrown you forward as well. The fact that his shoulder wasn't broken means he didn't break his shoulder. But then again we don't really know if he hit with his shoulder first, do we?

Fact is if he had shown the basic safety wisdom of belting in, the both of you would probably be alive now, with minimal injuries.

Quote:
I have this vision of you in a cheerleader's outfit with a big Mercedes-Benz symbol waving pom-poms while singing how saintly MB is.
funny, but as ive said 10 times, the car corporation in question here is irrelevant. I could care less about MB. I own an ancient MB, which has about as much to do with amg, as your grip on reality has to do with basic physics.
Ive said before, I believe there is a definite case against Lincoln based on extending and increasing the mass of a vehicle without increasing the crash survivability. You don't want to discuss it though, apart from deciding how fast the guy was going and what he was doing minutes before the collision.

Quote:
I didn't destroy my life. I survived my life against all odds. Spent 7-years facing one round of personal, business, legal and financial attacks after another all to be crowned by Mercedes-Benz complete denial of the acceleration-force upon a frontal collision, denial of the fact my seat back bent at the bottom outboard side (they actually claimed my weight should have bent it at the top outboard side which is also abnormal) and claim of credit for my life.
You have spent nearly a decade and untold amounts of money trying to convince people that something self evident did not in fact happen in the self evident way shown by photos and accident report. Id call that a waste of time, but then again, I haven't made this a piece of my personality in the way you have.

Concerning MB, actually their comments make perfect sense, and relate to the documents and evidence of the crash, while none of your theories have the same virtues.
MB doesn't have to defend itself though, the facts are self evident to anyone who looks at them. As this thread demonstrates, you have zero supporters of your theories.

Quote:
You have yet to answer how both front seat occupants incurred rear/top head injuries on June 11, 2006. I'd love to hear your theory on that one.
Ive actually addressed that particular matter 30 different times. Ill put down your inability to read what ive written as related to your mental illness over this issue.
You have yet to answer or explain how it is you believe an unbelted driver and a belted passenger are subjected to the same physical forces in a crash environment, which is your contention in linking both parties. Someone with a basic grasp of reality can see that these two injuries are in fact, not linked. As an engineer you claim to be, the obvious dissimilarity should be blatant to you.


Quote:
It's pretty simple now, if Mercedes is correct than their 40mph IIHS partial frontal impact test's data will have higher forces with the same force-slopes and slightly longer pulse than my 36mph IIHS partial frontal impact test's data. That comparison will be made and no other points can supersede real lab-tests. But if you wish to wave your pom-poms it's a free world. Just do it under your own thread already. You're contaminating my thread with nonsense in your effort to make fact-finding nearly impossible. Or better yet, just go buy an AMG and move on! I'm not stopping from that and I sure don't care about purchases people make in full awareness. Knock yourself out. Are you even considering purchasing an AMG? Do you currently own one? If not, why are you here? Like wasting our time? Keyboard warrior during retirement? You do realize you're telling me to 'wear your seatbelt' and acting as if I did not wear it? What is that? Got comprehension? You can waive your MB-pom-poms chanting that claim all you wish on your own thread. It doesn't even apply to me. WAKE UP & GO LIVE.
you are getting emotional and upset again, could be another factor of your mental state.
You are clearly unaware of what other people are actually saying, and are completely incapable of discussing this in a rational fashion. Your theory is amazingly weak, no one believes you, and no one really cares. These are all hard pills to swallow. For 8 years you've driven the only people who can possibly care about you (family) away in your quest to blame this disaster on anyone but the people who are at fault.

Yes, ive said many times, this accident and the results of it are because two grown men failed for reasons of their own to take the BASIC safety precaution of buckling into a seatbelt.

One of those grown men also completely failed to competently drive his vehicle, combining a recklessness at the wheel with the appalling stupidity of not buckling his seatbelt, and resulting in the deaths of 3 people. Thats the truth. Because you are blind to it does not make it any less apparent or true.

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; 11-13-2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason: spelling
JBG3 is offline  
post #240 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 01:53 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
One point I'd like to correct myself on is that the [unbelted] driver came over a fully deployed airbag (138G@96ms upon windshield impact)
See, this is an absolutely crucial, although unsurprising, piece of information. It underscores that the issue of seat belt use is far from irrelevant, but absolutely critical. It vindicates the points made earlier by others and myself, and puts to rest your hypotheses that (1) acceleration at the moment of impact would delay airbag deployment in any significant way and (2) the car can be faulted for your driver dummy's head crashing into the windshield.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
Quote from Mercedes Benz: "As an initial matter, an air bag deployment sequence occurs entirely within a few milliseconds and is beyond the power of direct human perception." Sounds like A-thru-D since their claim is that I could not perceive any event or injuries before the airbag met me.
Well, to me this rather sounds as if they were referring to BC, or, possibly, BD. But never mind: as noted above, it can easily be shown that IF you interpret "a few MS" as "2-4" and IF you interpret the statement as referring to AD, then it would be blatantly wrong REGARDLESS of the car in question. But this is all utterly inconsequential now, because the actual question is whether or not the airbag deployed timely to offer optimum protection to a belted passenger (MB would certainly always claim that it does).

Thus the remaining question concerns the passenger, or you and your injuries. I, too, would be inclined to attribute them to the unbelted rear passenger's pushing with considerable force against your seat and bending its frame (leaving aside the--admittedly important--question of the speed at your actual crash, which is unknown but may have been quite high). You, however, have been speculating that other factors were responsible. To prove them, i.e. your "acceleration hypothesis," you conducted your private crash test, right?

So let's see, then: how did the belted passenger dummy do in your test? Did he suffer the same injuries that you suffered in a situation WITHOUT an unbelted passenger from the rear deforming his seat?

You sent me the link to two of your test videos, saying that you made them publicly available. I saw that one can actually find them using search terms on youtube, so I take it that you don't mind if I link another, third video which you have posted there, and which I found to offer the best picture:

Not being an expert, I see in it an airbag which deploys timely and fully, and a passenger who plunges into it with his head and who subsequently does NOT hit the windshield, roof, or any other structure as he bounces back. I take it, then, you have not been able to reproduce the particular injuries that you suffered in a crash where NO unrestrained rear passenger was catapulted to the front. Now this should settle your only remaining question, shouldn't it?

Last edited by Simon_E; 11-13-2013 at 01:59 PM.
Simon_E 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