The rear seat passenger did not add anything to my injuries. My left femur took it's first break against the center console at about the same time the rear seat passenger was contacted the dashboard. I know this because my left elbow landed into his side stopping my rotation before I thrust forward against the dash. It's physically impossible to fathom his 'nick' thrusting me into the dash if I was still able to rotate into him before hitting the dash. Max Vehicle CG Acceleration Resultant was 52.3Gemail@example.com and max passenger shoulder belt force was 6697Newtons@103.1ms. Without an addition 2500lbs of limo weight difference. It's not realistic to neglect those forces acting upon my body while claiming the rear seat passenger caused my injuries. If he was found behind my seat, I'd agree with you. But he was found against the dashboard's center laying straight over the center console. BIG DIFFERENCE so please move on from such a limited scapegoat point of view.
Mercedes has been the only one to opine that acceleration has absolutely no affect 'whatsoever' on a frontal collision. NHSTA & IIHS do not dictate constant velocity or acceleration upon impact (they accept constant velocity). I am not aware of the acceptable crash test results yet. It hasn't been determined yet if a CL55amg meets crash test standards when maximum acceleration is applied. Don't understand what your conclusion is based on.
How is 36-40mph beyond 'road rules'? That's within the limits of the law on most roads I know of and crash test standards are not based on 'road rules'. How a vehicle ends up in a collision does not have anything to do with its crash-worthiness so I'm not following your point here.
Acceleration rates are exponentially higher at lower speeds. You're speaking as if my crash and test were performed at some outrageous speeds. Not the case.
This is a matter of understanding the affect acceleration has on the dissipation of the velocity-force. Step one is acknowledging acceleration produces its own force-vector independent of velocity. Mercedes-Benz is denying that which is abnormal for any auto-manufacturer, let alone one producing exotic-powered vehicles. Is it appropriate to hold-harmless an auto-manufacturer producing vehicles that give the driver the chance to make occupant restraint systems impose additional injuries at relatively low speeds simply by bracing on the accelerator? I don't believe it is. But if it is then any driver of an AMG vehicle is 100% responsible for ensuring the performance of Mercedes-Benz' occupant restraint systems. Show me an exotic-powered vehicle by a manufacturer that doesn't push the envelope of performance and safety standards beyond basic mass-produced guidelines. Show me an exotic-powered (say >500ftlbs of torque) vehicle manufacturer that standardized base-model (300ftlbs of torque) occupant restraint systems in their vehicles. Mercedes-Benz' integrated seatbelt seats are used across all SL & CL's since 2000. AMG even acknowledged the necessity to make an upgrade between their 2009 & 2010 SL Black series models by removing those seats and adding an integrated roll-cage with a direct seatbelt connection. Why do you think they did that if the vehicle was already meeting basic guidelines? All Mercedes-Benz has to do is produce 40mph IIHS partial frontal offset crash test results with forces approximately 7% greater than my test (due to the additional 4mph or 11% over my 36mph test minus acceleration-force of 3.2%) and force curves that match my test. That will support if Mercedes-Benz' claim acceleration has no affect on a frontal collision. Or identify Mercedes-Benz as a company that submits knowingly false statements against a sole survivor of their design issue in a federal courthouse. Then a conversation can be had as to how to solve this issue and if a new test is required to regulate exotic-powered vehicle manufacturers. If you wish to spend $140,000 on a vehicle with 738ftlbs of torque from a manufacturer denying acceleration-force and shelf-shopping basic components into such a vehicle, there's nothing stopping you from supporting that practice. However, your passengers should be aware to look your way v. their way if any occupant restraint systems fail.
On a side personal note I'd love to see any crash test at 40mph or below produce a force of 138.5G's (belted, unbelted, however...). I'm sure acceleration had nothing to do with it as Mercedes-Benz claims. That's just a shame, a real low grade of company character that I will never support again. Don't let that stop you from supporting it. I personally found it hard to blame a driver for the lack of a timely airbag deployment even though he instantaneously braced...on his accelerator......because he looked like he was braced depending on a timely airbag deployment to help save his life and died with that expectation after that airbag slammed the back of his head into the ceiling too (as documented in his autopsy report - see www.realcompany.org
). If my test demonstrates an undeniable collision pulse extension and condensing of the velocity-force dissipation towards the tail end of that pulse, then it becomes clear the parameters that will only add to this issue is the additional crumple zone of another vehicle, its additional mass if any, and its acceleration too. It is negligent of an exotic-powered auto-manufacturer to utterly deny the affect acceleration has on a frontal collision while giving no regards to accelerations affect on occupant restraint systems.