AMG's Airbag & Integrated Seatbelt Issues - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-16-2010, 10:10 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Dropnosky,
You state "Whose to say it didn't go off early, and deflate on his side before he hit the wheel?". You also state "5-6 pages you have not clearly delivered a slam dunk case against MB for a safety violation".

Can you enlighten us on how 2-front seat occupants incurred documented "occipital scalp" (rear/top-head) injuries during a simple 1-dimensional head-on collision if the airbags timely deployed? So far you've claimed the airbags deflated before we reached the dash, and/or the rear seat passenger managed to bounce around into the back of both our heads (he has no injuries to support that theory). There's nothing 'random' about 1-dimensional physics.

In previous posts you continue to claim we were traveling at a high speed with no regards to a low-speed, high-acceleration condition. We need to achieve comprehension in order to have a worthwhile intelligible conversation.

Most people don't live thru tragic head-on collisions where more than one restraint system failed either. Most people don't lay up their own limbs for survival while sitting in the "death-seat". Of course my lap belt was still effective but are you claiming the shoulder belt and airbag do not need to function as designed? I don't think others will agree with you on this point and you certainly don't represent a jury.

This thread contains nothing I haven't already said in one of the nearly 200-documents filed. In fact it is starting to include a lot of redundant statements in our discussion. I am also experiencing similar dialog tendencies with Mercedes' attorney. Are you an attorney?

Erin Brockovich didn't experience any loss or hardship nor was there a negligent safety design in any practices that lead to Environmental cases. This is more like the Toyota gas-pedal matter, but much worse. Mercedes claims to design their vehicles for extremes yet here we have a vehicle that was not designed for the extremes caused by their own power options offered. And today those options are reaching another 50% increase to 750ftlbs of torque with the same seatback and/or airbag systems.

I have NOTHING to hide here. It is what it is. How Mercedes continues to respond and/or address this problem will be incorporated into their name and legacy for this case will be referenced by many in the future, one way or another (either for future Plaintiffs or future Defendants).

If my case was not real, why is Mercedes' attorneys withholding key photos to their own engineers (e.g. the outboard side of the passenger's seat while the engineer is commenting on the outboard side of the passenger's seat), and why hasn't my claim been dismissed as sought up to 4-times already. This is what Mercedes does to a sole survivor of their most obvious negligently designed/applied occupant restrain systems. Can you tell us your opinion would change if I was presenting timing data from the airbag module (if it didn't melt in the fire)? With a driver braced outward, on the accelerator and the vehicle downshifting again while entering the front of a limo, who's to say we didn't gain velocity during the impact? No device is capable of telling us when the moment of impact was relative to any other factors. If so, the airbag would have timely deployed. In fact, to trick an airbag module into accepting a condition where the vehicle is crumpling without triggering the airbags, the first step is to apply acceleration and lots of it. I'll skin that union one layer at a time during the coming deposition with a Mercedes rep and/or discovery discussions. Why they have let it drag out this far, ESPECIALLY if they revised their airbag module's design already, is beyond disturbing. Beyond offensive and beyond WEAK, UNETHICAL and VILE.

Last edited by virage105; 10-16-2010 at 10:17 AM.
virage105 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-18-2010, 09:07 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)
Wow. MOST of that post has NOTHING to do with actually successfully suing mercedes. I do not deny that its a shitty situation, but what you have posted is the basis of Mercedes's successful DEFENSE of THEIR product, not incriminating evidence implicating them.
You need cash, you've been screwed by former partners and friends. You now mention that you released your friends estate from blame, so the earlier argument that now you are grasping at potential sources of money actually could be used against you, and very convincingly so by a clever attorney.

You say you have 200+ pages of documentation, and I do not doubt that, but you have also said that you have basically hit the high points in this thread.

What I am seeing is a number of key facts about the accident. These key facts support a NUMBER of interpretations, not just yours. If you expect to get money out of them, which it seems increasingly clear is your primary goal here, you CAN'T have a NUMBER of plausible interpretations on the facts.

The incriminating interpretation cannot rely COMPLETELY on key observations seen only by you and supported by very little else, especially if a quick glance at the key facts shows that you lived with the safety systems, and they did not without them.
Your case then seems to be, well, yes thats true, but not true enough because I still got hurt for the following reasons. Thats a tough argument.

As another example, I could just as easily say that you and the AMG driver got into a fist fight and ended up in the other lane. That statement has just as much evidence supporting it as your statement of the automatic downshift. Not that much. Yes, my opinion would be different if you had MORE evidence supporting your statements on what happened, but apparently, you don't.

Additional evidence seems to be listing your hardships, which as I said, have NOTHING to do with actually managing to pin them down on a safety violation. Your hardships would be important in deciding the severity of punishment, but how are they evidence against MB?

Were I in the same situation, I would be spending my time concentrating on suing your brother and the Weinreb guy, but again, explain to me how making these type of accusations against MB and these guys on a forum actually help any of your cases? Do you not have a Lawyer at all for any of these cases?

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 #53 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-18-2010, 04:21 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

There's little point in attempting to achieve reason with the unreasonable. No offense, but you continue to throw your opinions at me without supporting your statements and me continuing to respond is just wasting time.
heres another point. First, let me say, im just a guy who loves his old car, thats it. I have no reason to defend MB, I don't even like the new cars. Nor am I your enemy, this makes me a neutral party when it comes to reading your thread and deciding if I agree with you, also, I am one of the most reasonable guys you could ever meet. The way you have gone about this thread is very intriguing to me, especially since its personally damaging to you to have done so in the first place court wise. I just can't figure out why you would go and create a chain of discoverable evidence like this that could only be used to help the other side.

So far in this thread, Ive mostly just been asking you questions and presenting alternate theories that may also be supported by the facts you have listed.

The above statement by you is very important. You must realize that I, or a MB defense attorney, or even the judge or anybody, NONE of us have to support our statements. The burden of proof is on YOU. As far as the court is concerned, this car accident is a done deal, you must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that there was negligence in design.
Your defense against an alternate theory cannot be to demand their proof and call them unreasonable, your have to present proof that supports YOUR theory and also dispels theirs if you want anyone to actually believe you.

Personally, the way I would defend myself from an attack like that if I were MB, would be to continually present plausible alternate scenarios that would also seem to be supported by the facts, AS WELL as discussing in great detail your finances before and after this disaster. In order to create reasonable doubt, I imagine they can paint a very believable picture elaborating a number of very plausible scenarios ALSO supported by the facts of the case.

The weaknesses for you are the He said/she said parts of your statements. YOU say there was an automatic downshift, MB says there was not. Whose right? There is no other remaining evidence.
YOU say the driver accelerated into the oncoming car, MB says he did not. Who is right here? There is no other remaining evidence.
YOU say that the air bag went off late, MB says it did not. Again, what other things can you bring forward to support that? The car is gone.
Etc, etc. Your chain of evidence is full of these kind of issues. If I were a juror and it actually got that far, it would come down to who do I like more, which of these scenarios do I find most plausible.

Personally, I do NOT find your scenario most plausible, especially with every thing else you have posted about what was going on in the car before hand etc. I am NOT saying that your statements are untrue, Im saying that I personally have a reasonable doubt, and would therefore not side with you on criminal negligence in design. Thats what I mean when I say this is a weak case. Too much depends on your word alone, and you clearly have an ax to grind here against MB, ANOTHER thing a defense attorney would not waste time in bringing up.

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; 10-18-2010 at 05:16 PM.
JBG3 is offline  
post #54 of 285 (permalink) Old 10-18-2010, 06:45 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
dropnosky,
I've built over $10M worth of projects over a decade (as an engineer for a worldwide conglomerate, a project manager for a large construction firm, and my own houses/projects) and never experienced a single claim (not even worker's comp which is expected) or lost a single dollar.

Now I'm in over 10-litigations all swirling around this event. I'm not fishing for money, I'm seeking accountability for liable parties. After 2-years of several litigations (with 2-attorneys and $40k worth of budget over 2-years) I'll soon reach a point of not being able to defend myself, and it'll all land on this event, and thus, Mercedes. If I were Mercedes, I'd prevent that from happening by ceasing to aggressively attack me, and commence damage control. But they won't and as a result, will face the full brunt of it all just as I have and continue to.

I wish there were 200-pages to this matter. I'm reaching 200-documents, across 2-federal jurisdictions, up to 6-opposing counsel and 1.25-years as a Pro-Se Plaintiff (that's 1000's of pages). All without a feasible dispute as to why 2-front occupants incurred rear/top-head injuries during a simple head-on collision. Mercedes is now for the first time claiming the rear seat passenger managed to fly over the front seats simultaneously hitting the back of both front seat occupant's heads, and then somehow against all laws of Physics, managed to shoot straight between the front seats into the windshield head first with his body lying over the center console (all from the words of their own attorney). 200lbs going in all those directions with over 17G's in the forward direction only is more of a miracle than my own ability to survive.

My airbag claim is supported by a long list of frontal bodily injuries incurred by both front seat occupants, their rear-head injuries, and a Police photograph illustrating the steering wheel pushing into the dash. Nothing in the vehicle will define the moment the bumpers met as a datum to all other retrievable data (if it wasn't melted up in the fire).
My seatback claim is supported by several Police Photographs, my undisputed injuries against the dashboard, and depositions identifying the rear seat passenger's location post-collision.
My unrestricted automatic downshift claim is the most disputable since I'd need another 2003 CL55 AMG on the same road to prove it. But what's going to be remembered here and which is most important? Plus, why would a man not file suit against his friend's estate while he's the one that needs to continue surviving this, if he was indeed at fault? You have yet to acknowledge this. The only thing the vehicle would do, is give Mercedes a reason to claim the evidence has been tampered with during the past 4-years.

There is simply no evidence supporting any other theories because each other theory would have resulted in something different. For example, if the rear-seat passenger did what Mercedes is claiming he did, he'd have injuries to places other than his skull to match the impacts to the rear of our heads. If I were just fishing for monies, why wouldn't I have filed a lawsuit a long time ago? No, I was too busy blaming myself for the failed seatback I was unaware of. You have yet to acknowledge this.

Legacy is defined by people's and company's responses to problems. And so far Mercedes' legacy has been to deny these problems, while increasing their power options to ensure occupants remain dead next time, while attempting to finish off a sole survivor. There is not a single manufacturer in the world offering power-options to their luxury sedans that now exceed 100% of their base model's version. Without even considering scaling up any safety systems. There isn't a single manufacturer in the world that doesn't design a vehicle around its 400+hp power, except Mercedes who has somehow deemed performance as something that can be optioned into any vehicle. Cadillac comes close, but something tells me their seatbelts can withstand more.

I appreciate your time and opinions. It was nice having this discussion with you. Thank you very much. The proof will be in the pudding so we'll see.

I'm pissed I dumped my '01 CLK430 for peanuts cause I couldn't look at the Mercedes' gunsite emblem anymore during this, before I threw a CL55 drive train in it. I was looking forward to that sleeper. I even miss sliding my CLK430 around at SCCA events in the rain and taking it to the local 1/4-mile track when the tires were due for a change. That's the kind of guy I am. Not this nonsense. But I won't stop, until Mercedes changes their design. That's my ultimate goal. The rest is just retrieving my life back. An expert engineer I went over with this saw that right away. But warned me about the lack of the vehicle.
Mark
virage105 is offline  
post #55 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 12:42 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Dirtyguido's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Virage,

First of all let me express my sincere condolences on the loss of your friends, as well as all the pain (both physical and mental) that this whole situation has brought upon you. Sifting through all the emotion, vitriol and disdain expressed in the thread, I'm going to try to give you my objective point of view here.

I too am an engineer, (I have a Ph.D In electrical engineering) so when I read this, and I just read the entire thread today, it brought a chill up my spine. For I could 100% relate to your situational awareness in the split seconds of the tragedy.

I was involved in collision in November of 2009, as a passenger, sitting in the front passenger seat, and I had the same exact situational awareness, albeit with much less tragic results.

We were traveling on a 4 lane 50mph divided road. My friend (a physician) was driving, and I was in the passenger seat. We had left a local mall after shopping for his wife and my girlfriend. It was raining, although not particularly hard. We were in his 2004 GMC Yukon Denali. This road has traffic lights every mile or so. We were approaching a light that was red, with a sole car sitting at the red light stopped. My friend was coasting to the light, but I don't think he had applied brakes yet. As we are approaching the light, the light turns green. My friend floors the truck which was now traveling at approximately 35 mph (after coasting). As the light turns green, I see the car in front of us' (which was at a dead stop at the light) trunk bob up and down. Immediately I realized what happened. The driver, who was driving a stick, had stalled the car while trying to pull away. As we continued to accelerate towards him, I quickly realized that the driver hadn't realized this, and for some reason the only thing that I could say to him was to repeatedly yell he stalled, he stalled... The driver looked over at me, with a sort of confused look on his face, and at that moment I realized that he didn't understand what I was trying to tell him, and by then, it was too late. We slammed into the back of a brand new honda civic, which had only been purchased two days before and still had a temporary registration in the rear window. It was driven coincidentally by an 18 year old kid, who had just gotten the car, and was still "figuring out" how to drive a stick. I'm not trying to assign blame to the kid, as it was not his fault at all, but it was just one of those things.

As we hit the car, I too put my hands up and braced myself for impact. I was belted, we both were. To make matters worse we had stopped at McDonalds and had food in the car, I distinctly remember seeing the coke come flying over us from the cupholder and into the dash, it was surreal and in slow motion, then I saw the flap on the dash open up and I realized the airbag was going to deploy. I turned my head to the side and had my arm up as I hit the bag and had burns to the side of my face and my forearm, but other than that no serious injuries. My friend who had no real clue about what was about to happen, went face first into the bag, breaking his nose, and cutting his cheek, as well as splitting his lower lip (probably by virtue of his teeth or biting into it).

Now with that being said. I think you have argued some points well, and others not so well.

Here's my take.

First your not so valid (imho) point.

Your friend had a fast car, and in that particular situation, it got away from him. Either by virtue of the torque lunge or somehow otherwise. I believe he stayed in it, and possibly floored it. I did the same thing years back in an 87 z-28 that got away from me due to power induced oversteer. I don't think it was a deliberate effort to try to transfer the force to the limo. I think he just was overcome with panic and froze, and his foot stayed glued to the floor. By your own description the torque lunge took him by surprise, and he gave you the panic stricken look. He had already lost control of the car independent of the limo.. He could have been the world's best driver, but that day, the car got the better of him. Combine that with the unsuspecting limo heading the other way, (who I'm SURE was not expecting an out of control AMG Mercedes approaching in his lane) and it led to this tragedy.

Whether it's safe (or moral) to sell such high horsepower / tq cars to civilians without requiring driver training and / or race car like safety features, it is perfectly Legal to do so, and there is NO Federal standard for increased safety features relative to power or performance potential of the car. Should the federal government restrict performance / horsepower? Or should you be allowed to sell your proposed Hyundai with rocket boosters? These are questions contradictory to the free market imho.

Do manufacturers have an increased responsibility to provide safety features above and beyond those in their conventional cars for faster cars?

I remember reading a quote from a Chrysler engineer in the 60's about the fact that there were concerns about the power being put into the muscle cars of the day, and the fact that they were dangerous in the hands of the wrong drivers. People wanted them however, and the horsepower wars went on. I believe he said "We could make and sell machine guns to kids and make money too, but should we?"

The assertion that the car downshifted in an unpredictable and unsafe manner is a point of contention. It was definitely unpredictable and unsafe in your friends hands at that particular moment... If he knew the car better, he could have either handled it better, or not given it enough throttle to initiate the event to begin with.

He bought a "supercar". Which had a LOT of power, with that type power comes quirks, and unique handling characteristics. I had cars in my youth that if you stayed in it, they would chirp the 1-2 upshift so violently that the rear end would break loose and the car would jerk sideways. With any type of moisture on the ground to compromise traction, leaving a stop at anything off idle would induce wheel spin, and the resultant lack of control. Giving it throttle before it was perfectly straight would cause it to over steer. Give that car to an unsuspecting driver, and the results may not be pretty. You yourself identified it as a possibly dangerous situation, and warned him of the potential trouble. It was a situation where he was obviously surprised by the car's actions and found himself fighting for control. Now, your resolution to this would be something along the lines of implementing a control system which would restrict torque during a downshift, and applying the power gradually. Essentially what you are advocating is that the car is too fast for the average driver, and it needs big brother (the control systems) to enable the average layman to drive it in an aggressive manner (I'm sorry but nailing it hard enough for a downshift to cause the car to lunge into the oncoming lane while downshifting because of too much torque is without a doubt aggressive). In order for this to be a valid point, you would have to demonstrate a SERIES of accidents, caused by this phenomenon, of this model car, while being operated in a reasonable and prudent manner.

There are TWO points you make that are very valid.


1) Federal safety standards and required crash tests are poor at best. They simulate very specific types of impacts, and nothing more. I DO believe there will be a dramatically different result when you crash the same car into a fixed barrier at a steady speed but a state of zero acceleration v/s a car especially one of this nature in a state of violent or rapid acceleration. Mercedes engineers are fools if they are brushing this off as impossible, or proclaiming that the results will be all but the same. I can understand the implications surrounding simulating a real-world collision and showing just how tragic they can be though. No one wants to portray their product in a bad light. Especially when their product is conforming in applicable safety standards.

Even if you look at the crash test of the CLS shown earlier in the thread, The rear did displace based on the frontal impact, which you claim to have not happened in the collision you were involved in.

This car met all federal safety standards required at the time of its production. Now, your grievance there Isn't with Mercedes per se, but with the NTSB and or Federal Government, which does not require stricter safety standards OVERALL. How fast a car is or how much power a car has THEORETICALLY has no effect on the potential collisions it will be involved in, unless there is accounting for a blatant and wilfull disregard for traffic laws inherent to owning a high performance car. (i.e. this car is faster therefore we have to make it safer because it's more likely to be involved in a violent or severe accident). These cars can be driven in a safe manner. Your friend could have easily been cruising along at a steady rpm and not had this happen. How many people would buy these cars if they were mandated to have roll cages in them and 5 point safety harnesses? People buy these cars because as you say they want to be the "big swinging dick"... Judging by your stories, the drifting, the Camaro, your angst in retrospect over why your friend needed to have this car even though he had a fast sport bike etc, it sounds like you guys all had a need for speed.

Now onto the airbag / seat issue.

From the description of the injuries of the front seat occupants, it sounds as though the airbags deployed a bit late this is interesting but not surprising given my ability to predict the bag deployment in the accident I was involved in. What you describe as several events was probably one continuous event. As your crashed into the dash, and broke your leg and arm, the bags deployed throwing you and the driver backwards violently enough to split your heads open on the roof. If the bags had deployed after the energy had been dispersed, you would have come to rest back in the seat, and THEN the bags would have deployed. It sounds as if the bags deployed when you two were almost directly on top of them. THIS may be a serious issue. The seat failure, and the failure of your seat belt to keep you in your seat is also an issue.

Your assertion is that the acceleration of the car at the moment of impact, and during the collision momentarily counteracted the measurements of the decelerometers therefore resulting in a delayed deployment of the SRS system, causing this phenomenon of you getting thrown back violently. More has to be determined here, including the exact algorithm of airbag deployment, what sensory inputs etc. IF you can make a case that an external factor, such as a vehicle accelerating within it's capabilities somehow adversely affects airbag deployment in a detrimental fashion, then you are onto something. There could be a lot of factors at play here. Sensor positioning, rate of compression of the nose (hence triggering the sensors) etc, but it's not black magic. You should be able to get those formulas and design criteria. If you need help interpreting it, let me know privately. Once again historical data of how this car and it's airbag system has performed in other collisions would be useful here.

Your second assertion is that the seat / seatbelt combination failed to keep you properly restrained. Mostly by virtue of the seat breaking during the collision. No one will ever truly know what broke the seat. Once again, IF there is a flaw in the seat it has to be demonstrated across the entire model line that uses it. The fact that the SLS got the roll bar and real seat belts is of no consequence. Maybe they wanted to make it more of a "streetable race car" Or give it that image, or one of exclusivity.

You have to get past the contention that because the car had a lot of power, it should have been safer. That's like saying my .45 should have more safeties than my .22 because shooting someone with my .45 is more likely to kill them. You have to show that there were undiscovered flaws in these designs that could present themselves in certain situations. You have to contend that the car in it's delivered form had inherent design problems, either from an altruistic sense of trying to address them and resolve them to prevent this situation from happening again, OR make the car safer overall.

George

1990 500sl - "Baby M"
Light restoration project - Summer toy - read the saga here: http://90r129.blogspot.com/
04 E500 - Daily driver - 18" AMG's.
10 c300 4matic
Dirtyguido is offline  
post #56 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 03:21 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
George,
I wish I'll have a jury of people as objective as you are.
Amazing how engineers have a matter-of-fact choice of words that aren't readily understood. "Stall" means "stopped vehicle" but "stop" means "stop".
What I'd give for timely deployed airbags on that night....
I'm for exotic power. Also for a vehicle designed around that exotic power.

Negligent design in terms of product liability is defined by a design fault that could have been easily foreseen and avoided. Given the fact that I never designed an airbag deployment system and managed to predict that the system may not function under full acceleration (a fact that saved my life, and cost the driver his life as he braced anticipating a functional airbag), it's clear the design fault was foreseeable and thus, preventable. Regardless of FMVSS and speed limits (since we weren't blazing down the road). The driver did let off after passing the witnesses and after the torque lunge. The CL55 AMG trannie breaks unmistakably when the throttle is chopped (holding the low gear for a bit). There was an engineer in AMG that foresaw this, and there was an attorney in Daimler AG that told that engineer not to worry for there is no law requiring Daimler AG to revisit their base-model's airbag and seatback systems. That doesn't mean Daimler AG gets to hide behind FMVSS either. For I'm not saying a system that wasn't required should have been there (i.e. lap belt in a center seat). I'm saying that the systems mandated to be in place didn't function, practically murdered the driver as he braced anticipating the function of those systems, and imposed additional injuries after not protecting us from critical injuries. We would have been safer if all we had were lap belts from the '60's.

What I can't believe is how I was so confused about reaching the dash so easily and couldn't understand the failed seatback until years later. That was the easy design fault that I somehow couldn't understand without a sprained shoulder. My should had a slight bruising because I was poking at it for minutes in the ICU while inspecting my bodily damage after a 30hr induced comma. Poking to feel that bruising which should have been much worse.

The automatic downshift issue is the hardest of the three design faults to demonstrate. At the end of the day it'll come down to the fact the airbags and seatback failed to operate.

With Mickey Thompson I-Comps on a '79 Z28 350/4spd/373 rear (back in '92 w/510lift cam, solid lifters, 1.6roller rockers, 10:1comp...) I used to hold the clutch down at 20mph, rev three times to initiate a race and on the third time I'd pop the clutch. That pre-spooled power always guarantied me a 1-1.5 car jump over just staying in 2nd gear and nailing it. That's the best way to describe what the CL55AMG automatic downshift does. The CL55AMG's super advanced traction control system acts as if the pair of Mickey Thompsons on the back. I say let the driver go to manual mode before being able to initiate a lunge like that. We would have been safer losing traction also as a side slide is a whole lot easier to recover from than a torque lunge.

We were never into going fast for thrills. It's a relaxation and only for choice spots. But there was no fast driving on that night. It was just freak.

Daimler AG will never give up their algorithms during discovery. I appreciate the offer though. Daimler AG has done nothing to cooperate during discovery. And they definitely stepped out of line claiming that acceleration has no affect on accelerometers' ability to deploy the airbags and a collision's pulse. This has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with an $80B/yr company operating in 200countries with 256,000 employees telling a sole survivor and Pro-Se Plaintiff to go screw himself while turning their backs to a public safety matter knowing they've reached new power levels that will not promote any chance of survival.

My latest Motion mentioned that Daimler AG either restore my life or finish their murder of two front seat occupants. So now Daimler AG is claiming I'm threatening them, seeking a Protection Order, seeking the 'striking' of my complaint (after 200+documents across 2-Fed jurisdictions, 6-opposing counsel and 4-motions seeking dismissal). Daimler AG has no desire to govern themselves. All while announcing their new "Ethics and Legal" boardmember position to "create a company culture promoting voices of whistleblowers from within and on the outside". Yeah, more like monitor any liabilities given how they have addressed my complaint.

Detectives' reports, photographs & video, AMT reports, Doctor's records and autopsy reports yet Daimler AG is insisting I haven't presented any evidence supporting my claim. Daimler AG even had a Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC employee comment on the outboard side of my seatback while their own counsel withheld a photo of the outboard side of my seatback from him (showing that it buckled at the bottom by the hinge point). It's like watching the biggest Neanderthal swing the smallest dick.

Mark
virage105 is offline  
post #57 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 04:26 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Dirtyguido's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
George,
I wish I'll have a jury of people as objective as you are.
Amazing how engineers have a matter-of-fact choice of words that aren't readily understood. "Stall" means "stopped vehicle" but "stop" means "stop".
What I'd give for timely deployed airbags on that night....
I'm for exotic power. Also for a vehicle designed around that exotic power.

Negligent design in terms of product liability is defined by a design fault that could have been easily foreseen and avoided. Given the fact that I never designed an airbag deployment system and managed to predict that the system may not function under full acceleration (a fact that saved my life, and cost the driver his life as he braced anticipating a functional airbag), it's clear the design fault was foreseeable and thus, preventable. Regardless of FMVSS and speed limits (since we weren't blazing down the road). The driver did let off after passing the witnesses and after the torque lunge. The CL55 AMG trannie breaks unmistakably when the throttle is chopped (holding the low gear for a bit). There was an engineer in AMG that foresaw this, and there was an attorney in Daimler AG that told that engineer not to worry for there is no law requiring Daimler AG to revisit their base-model's airbag and seatback systems. That doesn't mean Daimler AG gets to hide behind FMVSS either. For I'm not saying a system that wasn't required should have been there (i.e. lap belt in a center seat). I'm saying that the systems mandated to be in place didn't function, practically murdered the driver as he braced anticipating the function of those systems, and imposed additional injuries after not protecting us from critical injuries. We would have been safer if all we had were lap belts from the '60's.

What I can't believe is how I was so confused about reaching the dash so easily and couldn't understand the failed seatback until years later. That was the easy design fault that I somehow couldn't understand without a sprained shoulder. My should had a slight bruising because I was poking at it for minutes in the ICU while inspecting my bodily damage after a 30hr induced comma. Poking to feel that bruising which should have been much worse.

The automatic downshift issue is the hardest of the three design faults to demonstrate. At the end of the day it'll come down to the fact the airbags and seatback failed to operate.

With Mickey Thompson I-Comps on a '79 Z28 350/4spd/373 rear (back in '92 w/510lift cam, solid lifters, 1.6roller rockers, 10:1comp...) I used to hold the clutch down at 20mph, rev three times to initiate a race and on the third time I'd pop the clutch. That pre-spooled power always guarantied me a 1-1.5 car jump over just staying in 2nd gear and nailing it. That's the best way to describe what the CL55AMG automatic downshift does. The CL55AMG's super advanced traction control system acts as if the pair of Mickey Thompsons on the back. I say let the driver go to manual mode before being able to initiate a lunge like that. We would have been safer losing traction also as a side slide is a whole lot easier to recover from than a torque lunge.

We were never into going fast for thrills. It's a relaxation and only for choice spots. But there was no fast driving on that night. It was just freak.

Daimler AG will never give up their algorithms during discovery. I appreciate the offer though. Daimler AG has done nothing to cooperate during discovery. And they definitely stepped out of line claiming that acceleration has no affect on accelerometers' ability to deploy the airbags and a collision's pulse. This has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with an $80B/yr company operating in 200countries with 256,000 employees telling a sole survivor and Pro-Se Plaintiff to go screw himself while turning their backs to a public safety matter knowing they've reached new power levels that will not promote any chance of survival.

My latest Motion mentioned that Daimler AG either restore my life or finish their murder of two front seat occupants. So now Daimler AG is claiming I'm threatening them, seeking a Protection Order, seeking the 'striking' of my complaint (after 200+documents across 2-Fed jurisdictions, 6-opposing counsel and 4-motions seeking dismissal). Daimler AG has no desire to govern themselves. All while announcing their new "Ethics and Legal" boardmember position to "create a company culture promoting voices of whistleblowers from within and on the outside". Yeah, more like monitor any liabilities given how they have addressed my complaint.

Detectives' reports, photographs & video, AMT reports, Doctor's records and autopsy reports yet Daimler AG is insisting I haven't presented any evidence supporting my claim. Daimler AG even had a Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC employee comment on the outboard side of my seatback while their own counsel withheld a photo of the outboard side of my seatback from him (showing that it buckled at the bottom by the hinge point). It's like watching the biggest Neanderthal swing the smallest dick.

Mark
First, I have a question relative to your statement about the AMG Engineer. Was his position that the transmission fault was evident, and it was unacceptable and erratic? OR that with the power / performance levels the AMG line of cars is capable of, that safety features should be enhanced? Once again at least in my opinion, the it's faster so it NEEDS to be safer argument is a moot point. It needs to be as safe as the government dictates.

Like I said in my earlier commentary, you somehow need to prove that the airbag system did not function as intended, or that there was a foreseeable flaw i.e. the bags not deploying properly due to acceleration (which was not factored into the algorithm, something along those lines).

Could you not subpoena the airbag algorithm if you could in fact claim that it's material in proving your claims that the design of the airbag system is flawed?

As far as the seatback, are you saying it bent forward upon impact - therefore placing you closer to the airbag, and not restraining you properly therefore allowing you to so easily hit the dash. In the case of the driver, I suppose the argument could be made that he hit the bag quicker than expected because they were designed to work in parallel with the seat belt restraint, it's tensioner etc.

As for you, its possible that that right shoulder injury you sought out would in fact be avoided in this case. SINCE the seatbelt is mechanically coupled to the seat, and NOT to the B pillar etc. I think the "typical" seat belt induced shoulder injury isn't really possible in this type of seat / seatbelt combo.

Follow my logic here for a second. After looking at your pictures, I started to develop a theory of HOW the seat could bend in that manner, and allow you to so easily touch the dash.

First,

The CLS has seats that recline forward to allow entry / exit to rear seat occupants right? So that seat is hinged. The hinge relies on an inertia lock to stop it from coming forward when the vehicle is rapidly decelerating right?

WHAT IF... the pretensioner did it's job and kept you tightly in the seat. Essentially mechanically coupling you to the seat, but with this design not to the chassis (as in the case of a conventional B pillar seatbelt setup). BUT the combined weight of your upper body, as well as the seatback multiplied by the G forces your body (and the seatback) was subjected to upon impact were enough to overcome the inertia lock. In that case the seat would in fact recline forwards (without that MUCH of the force focused directly on your shoulder). So you AND the seatback may have hit the dash, and the seatback may have hyperextended in that collision, and that's how the whole mess got tweaked. I don't think that you managed to get free of the belt. I think the belt worked, but the seat failed.

As far as the litigation process, of course you will expect them to deny deny deny. Their car is perfect, and everything was / is your fault. The burden of proof is on YOU, and they fully intend to keep it that way. Luckily you are only subject to a standard of a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

As much as you can, try to control your emotions in your statements and legal documents. Citing "murder" of your friend, or your own murder in process leads nowhere good. All it will do is serve to portray you as a lunatic, disturbed, or emotionally distraught over the loss of your friend and the situation you find yourself now in and simply seeking vengance. One more thing, and this is sometimes the most challenging for us engineers. If this ever does see a jury, try to keep the technical jargon to a minimum. I learned this when teaching. What is every day common sense to us, may be completely confusing or intimidating to someone without an engineering / technical background.

You have to make 12 people off the street understand that this didn't work the way it was designed. And that they either knew about it or should have.

You know my late father said something very profound to me once.

He told me, if I ever started a company, to make sure I incorporated in Delaware. I asked him why, assuming it was for tax purposes.

He proceeded to explain that You want to be in Delaware, because due to the small population, they do not have jury trials for civil cases. Therefore If I was to ever get sued, my fate would only be in the judges hands. He then proceeded to add, "Trust me, you do NOT want your case decided by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty"...

George

1990 500sl - "Baby M"
Light restoration project - Summer toy - read the saga here: http://90r129.blogspot.com/
04 E500 - Daily driver - 18" AMG's.
10 c300 4matic
Dirtyguido is offline  
post #58 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 04:58 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
UK-C200's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2007
Vehicle: RHD C200K Sport Coupe, RHD SLK-55, LHD SLK-350
Location: London, GB & Louisiana
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Boy - what a thread! My sympathies for both you and your friends.

Don't know what to tell you other than to talk - and listen - to a good, trusted lawyer and a good, trusted crash physics / reconstruction firm. If you are serious about this claim - and I have no doubt you are - then you need assistance.

MB's SRS system is well documented, protected by patents, and easily available if you need technical details. There's also a well documented calculation used to delay the triggering of drivers vs passengers airbags based on the size differential of the bags, and the delta difference in distance between the steering wheel and the driver's chest vs the dashboard and the passengers chest.

There are two Bosch impact sensors in the engine compartment, and two more inside to cockpit to side impact detection. The same control unit that fires the seatbelt squibs also fires the airbags. There are also positional sensors in the seat itself that warns the driver if the seats are not "locked" into travel position.

The car also should have been fitted with TeleAide, which basically is a datalogger with integrated GPS and an cell phone. Obviously you'd want to make sure you have you hands on that if you can, as it records a bunch of interesting stats at millisecond accuracy.

These are all bits that I'd want to have my hands on.

I'd also like to have the front seats and floor pan, as it would be trivial for a mechanical engineer to examine them and tell you with 100% certainty if pieces sheared under load allowing the seat back to rotate forward.

I'd want to have the passenger seatbelt - as the squib will not fire if it's not fastened - if I'm reading things correctly. If it did, helps prove you were wearing it. The condition of the inertial brake mechanism would prove if it failed, and "released" you into the airbag.

I guess my point - as an engineer - is that whilst proving on paper is entertaining, have parts in your hands is hard to argue with.

I'm an EE, not a mechanical / structural engineer or a lawyer. Best of luck in finding resolution.

Last edited by UK-C200; 11-09-2010 at 05:03 PM.
UK-C200 is offline  
post #59 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 05:20 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Dirtyguido's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK-C200 View Post
Boy - what a thread! My sympathies for both you and your friends.

Don't know what to tell you other than to talk - and listen - to a good, trusted lawyer and a good, trusted crash physics / reconstruction firm. If you are serious about this claim - and I have no doubt you are - then you need assistance.

MB's SRS system is well documented, protected by patents, and easily available if you need technical details. There's also a well documented calculation used to delay the triggering of drivers vs passengers airbags based on the size differential of the bags, and the delta difference in distance between the steering wheel and the driver's chest vs the dashboard and the passengers chest.

There are two Bosch impact sensors in the engine compartment, and two more inside to cockpit to side impact detection. The same control unit that fires the seatbelt squibs also fires the airbags. There are also positional sensors in the seat itself that warns the driver if the seats are not "locked" into travel position.

The car also should have been fitted with TeleAide, which basically is a datalogger with integrated GPS and an cell phone. Obviously you'd want to make sure you have you hands on that if you can, as it records a bunch of interesting stats at millisecond accuracy.

These are all bits that I'd want to have my hands on.

I'd also like to have the front seats and floor pan, as it would be trivial for a mechanical engineer to examine them and tell you with 100% certainty if pieces sheared under load allowing the seat back to rotate forward.

I'd want to have the passenger seatbelt - as the squib will not fire if it's not fastened - if I'm reading things correctly. If it did, helps prove you were wearing it. The condition of the inertial brake mechanism would prove if it failed, and "released" you into the airbag.

I guess my point - as an engineer - is that whilst proving on paper is entertaining, have parts in your hands is hard to argue with.

I'm an EE, not a mechanical / structural engineer or a lawyer. Best of luck in finding resolution.
From my reading of the thread. Virage please feel free to correct me.

The car was salvaged by the insurance company subsequent to the accident. It's current whereabouts are unknown. Although It may be traceable via the VIN. Virage have you attempted to find the car?

There is photographic evidence earlier in the thread relative to the seat's final resting position, however there was never any sort of structural analysis or engineer review of the seat or associated mechanisms post collision.

I agree having (or being able to locate) the car would work wonders as far as providing real world evidence as to what actually happened.

I still stand by the logic of there was no way to bend the seat that way if the BELT let go releasing him. I think if anything failed, it was the entire seat (while the belt properly worked).

One quick question. The bosch impact sensors for the SRS system. What is their method of operation? Are they accelerometers, or do they rely on some sort of deformation / crush to fire off the airbags?

EDIT: According to this, there is no event data recorder technology present in an MB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder

GM and Ford Love this stuff....

George

1990 500sl - "Baby M"
Light restoration project - Summer toy - read the saga here: http://90r129.blogspot.com/
04 E500 - Daily driver - 18" AMG's.
10 c300 4matic

Last edited by Dirtyguido; 11-09-2010 at 05:26 PM.
Dirtyguido is offline  
post #60 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 06:21 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
UK-C200's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2007
Vehicle: RHD C200K Sport Coupe, RHD SLK-55, LHD SLK-350
Location: London, GB & Louisiana
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Hey George - you are technically correct, as Mercedes carefully does not classify TeleAide as an EDR. It is, however, a data logger, despite what Wikipedia says, and I believe could help in this case.

I can think of loads of ways - based on the limited information I've read and the photos I've seen in this thread - that one could argue that the seat got into that position, not the least of which was emergency services trying to make sure every one was out of the car. My real point is that having that car in hand would seem to go a really long way in supporting the case with hard, tangible evidence. As I've said many times, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, so I have no clue how helpful the car would be after all this time from a legal standpoint.



Digital Tele Aid Control Unit Tasks
• E-Call – Manual and Automatic (SRS crash signal) activation
• Roadside Assistance – Manual activation
• Information Call – Manual activation
• Stolen vehicle recovery – (manual activation/police report and customer
password needed)
• Automatic Alarm Notification (AAN) – triggered by vehicle alarm system
• Remote Door Unlock (RDU) – Manual activation
• Provisioning – Automatic or Manual
• Black Box – Record Telematic Services activations
• Prioritize Services
– Automatic Emergency Call
– Manual Emergency Call
– Vehicle recovery
– Roadside Assistance

EDITED :
Something's been bugging me since reading through this thread - work-energy problems are all about Newton's first and second laws - so if you start at 45 and accelerate into a brick wall and hit it at 60mph, how is that different from starting at 80, standing on the brakes, slowing, and still hitting the wall at 60mph? The deceleration in both examples would be identical, right? (eg the accelerometer is going to trigger at it's preset regardless, unless an impact trigger occurs first?)

The only real difference I'd think of would be triggering the seatbelt pretension - that would happen under hard braking, but obviously not under acceleration - I think I'll check that tomorrow!

Last edited by UK-C200; 11-09-2010 at 06:51 PM.
UK-C200 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