AMG's Airbag & Integrated Seatbelt Issues - Page 7 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-09-2010, 06:42 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
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
I agree having the car would be priceless, but I don't know how much of a viable possibility that is at this point. I wonder what the "Black box" records in a collision in an 03'.

As of 2012 NTHSA rule 546 standardizes and mandates "Black Box" Style crash data reporting.

Some more info:

Mechanical Forensics: Event Data Recorders & the CDRTool

EDIT: From reading the teleaide pdf, I don't know if teleaide's black box records vehicle dynamics at the time (and before) of a collision, or simply records activations of the system. That's what GM does, basically keeps a rolling 5 seconds of Vehicle dynamics Including:

Seatbelt Buckle status
Vehicle Speed
Airbag Status and deployment
Throttle Position
Brake Pedal Position
Steering angle sensor etc.

It saves the last 5 seconds in the event of an airbag deployment.

http://www.mercedestechstore.com/pdf...2007-23-04.pdf
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 06:52 PM.
Dirtyguido is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-10-2010, 10:16 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
WHAT A GREAT DISCUSSION
George,
AMG Engineer's haven't made any statements yet (to clarify). And Daimler AG will most like do all they can to prevent them from ever getting involved.

We either misunderstand each others and/or disagree on "it's faster so it needs to be safer" and "it needs to be as safe as the government dictates". I'm saying the occupant restraint systems didn't perform as intended and the automatic downshift feature made the vehicle uncontrollable while exiting a curve. I don't care what caused these systems to not perform but of course we all know it comes down to the single common denominator of acceleration. The government's guidelines are just that and do not need to dictate an airbag should deploy before an occupant reaches the dashboard, and the seatback should prevent an occupant from reaching the dashboard.

Yes, my seatback bent forward during the impact leaving me against the dashboard with so little restraint, I was confused for 2-years as to how that happened if I was belted. A notable shoulder injury before breaking numerous bones against the dashboard would be acceptable and should not be the difference between a B-pillar mounted shoulder harness and integrated seatbelt. As of the driver, if Daimler AG wishes to claim he "broke thru the airbag" as a follow-up to their claim the rear seat passenger imposed the rear-head injuries to both front seat occupants, then the rear seat passenger's autopsy report would need to support that with matching injuries which just don't exist. Plus the rear seat passenger was removed from over the center console with his skull fractured against the windshield so there was no "bouncing around", only "spearing forward" for him.

YOUR SEATBACK THEORY IS 99% RIGHT ON. I cannot tell if you believe the hinge-point failed or the seatback failed. To clarify we were in a CL (not CLS although you described a CL anyway), and the hinge point was never "loose". I believe the seatback is the only structure that failed based on the photos although the hinge "area" could have incurred some bending/damage. Just not a clean breaking at any given point. No emergency personnel removed anybody from the vehicle (we were all already out by others). And nobody bent my seatback forward for any other reason (we already deposed the detectives, PO's and witnesses who were there). In fact one detective who photographed the rear seat indicated he may have hinged forward my seat for that one photograph. Thus, the seatback is the key problem. In the '90's Daimler AG used Magnesium and other exotics before sticking with steal in the 2000's for these seatbacks.

UK and Guido,
Good stuff. Yes, Progressive salvaged the CL55 long before I ever retained the Case Report and without notifying me. I have yet to try to track any parts down through the salvage yard that received it in Dec. 2006 but don't feel confident to do so.

I too believe the seatbelt worked and the seatback failed (key argument as Daimler AG attempts to hide behind FMVSS 208 relative to the seatbelt). From your posts, how in the world can the seat belt function (i.e. tension up tight enough for me to bend the seatback forward), while the airbags didn't deploy if both systems use the same SRS system? Are they based on different algorithms? I'm trying to retain this information but so far Daimler AG is doing everything they can to not cooperate with comparisons to "computer source codes" and "valuable trade secrets" "not relative to this matter".

GM and Ford would sure love the results of taking an AMG into a frontal barrier at 30mph at maximum acceleration. GM's exec. dir. of safety doesn't believe in utilizing integrated seatbelts in sedans (he acknowledges they offer no safety advantages).

I've also had reputable product liability attorneys claim I have a case, and reputable reconstruction engineers claim this will lead to a design change, yet without the vehicle, they didn't wish to get involved. The attorney wouldn't even do so if I performed a crash test of a CL55 at 30mph at max accel. to demonstrate my experience.

UK,
Speaking of acceleration, there is a difference between accelerating into a collision, entering a collision at constant velocity, and entering a collision under heavy breaking. Acceleration results in a vector that translates to a force separate from that of velocity (from Tipler Physics). Unfortunately the additional force on paper is a fraction of that from velocity but that doesn't justify neglecting it. Furthermore, the dynamics of acceleration (affects on crash sensors, 2nd collisions, seatbacks, etc) is not to be ignored either. Otherwise NHRA would not care to increase safety requirements with high accelerating drag cars and all drag strip crashes would be caused by velocity, not acceleration (which is just not true).

Picture yourself as the piece of metal under the front bumper that houses the two front accelerometers. If you hit a wall at 30mph at max acceleration you may crumple while the metal behind you is still gaining velocity. I believe those two front accelerometers were sheared off before the SRS algorithm registered enough decceleration differences to trigger airbag deployment. And by the time the interior decelerometers registered enough deceleration, all that was crumpled, already crumpled (verification of how substantial accelerations' affect on a crash pulse/damage really is). As a passenger I know my flight was progressive. The rear passenger was passing me when I started to move with crumpling well under way. Under brakes or even constant velocity I don't believe that would be possible. On this note, the vehicles front ends didn't plant as their rears swung around (like jambing on the brakes with a trailer hitched on - trailer goes side to side looking to transmit brake energies). Which would have happened at higher velocity. Acceleration caused the rears of both vehicles to plant themselves as the front ends raised and displaced sideways by up to 8' only pivoting on the rear axles. For Daimler AG to claim that acceleration has no affect 'whatsoever' on accelerometers' ability to sense deceleration and a crash pulse is just an exercise of a neanderthal swinging their PP. Acceleration extends crash pulses by magnitudes of time and works as a force opposite to the very systems meant to protect passengers (deccelerometers timely deploying airbags).

I hope I survive this. Attorneys would rather see this problem grow for lucrative class actions before solving it now. Daimler AG is ran by attorneys, not engineers and that is a toxic recipe for intentionally knowingly negligent design-by-law, not-by-logic practices. Daimler AG isn't all about "German Engineering" anymore, this is "Legal Engineering" now.

If Daimler AG allows this matter to go before a jury, I believe a jury will be sick of large corporate wolves' nonsense, and I'd be sick enough to make every effort to publish Daimler AG's unethical technical and legal culture. For Daimler AG will appeal and appeal and appeal whatever a jury awards.

Daimler AG's reaction will become the primary story. For my experience is as simple as it gets (rear head injuries imposed by airbags to BOTH front seat occupants after they BOTH incurred critical frontal bodily injuries during a simple 2-car head-on collision). Nobody will care about the automatic downshift that caused the entire scene when dealing with Daimler AG trying to claim they saved my life against all logic. And if I could predict their airbags wouldn't deploy within 2-seconds of considering how airbag systems function (I'm the only occupant with broken limbs), at least one of Daimler AG's 256,000 employees should have.
Mark

Last edited by virage105; 11-10-2010 at 10:38 AM.
virage105 is offline  
post #63 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-10-2010, 11:28 AM
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)
As I said, I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I'll take your word for the effect of vectored forces on impact. I would look at the orders of magnitude that the vectored force can apply vs the absolute impact force. What's the max the car can accelerate? .8g? Max braking maybe a bit more?

If you are trying to prove the seat failed, that seems pretty trivial, as it would require a seat, a fixed steel plate and a few load sensors. Apply force to seat back, see where it fails?

On the SRS issues - I'd do a bit more research, but it does not appear to me that the front sensors are that close to the front of the car, and it also appears that the internal sensors are only used to trigger the side airbags. In any event, it's probably a moot point since the front airbags did deploy, which means that the battery and control unit were intact when they deployed.

Are integrated seat / seatbelts as safe as a traditional separate systems? I personally am with you and think the answer is no. Do they meet US safety regs? I'd also say yes, simply because MB is using them..

In any event - best of luck with your journey.
UK-C200 is offline  
post #64 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-10-2010, 01:30 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
WHAT A GREAT DISCUSSION
George,
AMG Engineer's haven't made any statements yet (to clarify). And Daimler AG will most like do all they can to prevent them from ever getting involved.

We either misunderstand each others and/or disagree on "it's faster so it needs to be safer" and "it needs to be as safe as the government dictates". I'm saying the occupant restraint systems didn't perform as intended and the automatic downshift feature made the vehicle uncontrollable while exiting a curve. I don't care what caused these systems to not perform but of course we all know it comes down to the single common denominator of acceleration. The government's guidelines are just that and do not need to dictate an airbag should deploy before an occupant reaches the dashboard, and the seatback should prevent an occupant from reaching the dashboard.
I was just reffering to your repeated statements expressing frustration with the fact that in your eyes MB was negiligent or irresponsible for retaining the standard CL's safety / restraint systems, while doubling the power. It seemed to me as if you were trying to somehow infer that since they doubled the power, they were under some sort of obligation (or should be) to make the car safer than a conventional non AMG CL.
Unfortunately, federal law dictates that cars have to meet one fixed set of saftey criteria regardless of the level of power or potential performance they have. I agree that there is still a full obligation to ensure that the included systems function properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
Yes, my seatback bent forward during the impact leaving me against the dashboard with so little restraint, I was confused for 2-years as to how that happened if I was belted. A notable shoulder injury before breaking numerous bones against the dashboard would be acceptable and should not be the difference between a B-pillar mounted shoulder harness and integrated seatbelt. As of the driver, if Daimler AG wishes to claim he "broke thru the airbag" as a follow-up to their claim the rear seat passenger imposed the rear-head injuries to both front seat occupants, then the rear seat passenger's autopsy report would need to support that with matching injuries which just don't exist. Plus the rear seat passenger was removed from over the center console with his skull fractured against the windshield so there was no "bouncing around", only "spearing forward" for him.

YOUR SEATBACK THEORY IS 99% RIGHT ON. I cannot tell if you believe the hinge-point failed or the seatback failed. To clarify we were in a CL (not CLS although you described a CL anyway), and the hinge point was never "loose". I believe the seatback is the only structure that failed based on the photos although the hinge "area" could have incurred some bending/damage. Just not a clean breaking at any given point. No emergency personnel removed anybody from the vehicle (we were all already out by others). And nobody bent my seatback forward for any other reason (we already deposed the detectives, PO's and witnesses who were there). In fact one detective who photographed the rear seat indicated he may have hinged forward my seat for that one photograph. Thus, the seatback is the key problem. In the '90's Daimler AG used Magnesium and other exotics before sticking with steal in the 2000's for these seatbacks.
I believe it was a combination of BOTH actually. I think the G forces of the impact may have been enough to overcome the inertia lock on the hinge, thus allowng the front seat to fold forwards, and the G forces you placed upon it bent / distorted it. Notice it's bent in an angle which almost almost exactly matches the direction of travel at impact of the vehicle? (This is of course assuming that NO rear displacement actually took place, which I think may have at SOME point, once you found something solid enough in the limo).
The big difference in having the seat belt mounted to the B pillar and not the seat is the fact that all the forces placed upon the belt are transfered through the seat, and not to the B Pillar. The B pillar is strong enough to keep you in place, and will break your shoulder etc. No questions / doubts about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post

I too believe the seatbelt worked and the seatback failed (key argument as Daimler AG attempts to hide behind FMVSS 208 relative to the seatbelt). From your posts, how in the world can the seat belt function (i.e. tension up tight enough for me to bend the seatback forward), while the airbags didn't deploy if both systems use the same SRS system? Are they based on different algorithms? I'm trying to retain this information but so far Daimler AG is doing everything they can to not cooperate with comparisons to "computer source codes" and "valuable trade secrets" "not relative to this matter".

GM and Ford would sure love the results of taking an AMG into a frontal barrier at 30mph at maximum acceleration. GM's exec. dir. of safety doesn't believe in utilizing integrated seatbelts in sedans (he acknowledges they offer no safety advantages).
See I don't think the airbag fired LATE.
I think you got to the dash EARLY Or at all because the seat failed. You should have NEVER come that close to the dash, or been directly on top of the bag.
You didn't fare much better than your friend as far as hitting the dash despite the fact that you were unbelted...
I too don't believe that integrated belt systems are as safe as B pillar mounted ones. But the whole point in the CL/SL is the fact that they dont HAVE a B pillar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
I've also had reputable product liability attorneys claim I have a case, and reputable reconstruction engineers claim this will lead to a design change, yet without the vehicle, they didn't wish to get involved. The attorney wouldn't even do so if I performed a crash test of a CL55 at 30mph at max accel. to demonstrate my experience.

UK,
Speaking of acceleration, there is a difference between accelerating into a collision, entering a collision at constant velocity, and entering a collision under heavy breaking. Acceleration results in a vector that translates to a force separate from that of velocity (from Tipler Physics). Unfortunately the additional force on paper is a fraction of that from velocity but that doesn't justify neglecting it. Furthermore, the dynamics of acceleration (affects on crash sensors, 2nd collisions, seatbacks, etc) is not to be ignored either. Otherwise NHRA would not care to increase safety requirements with high accelerating drag cars and all drag strip crashes would be caused by velocity, not acceleration (which is just not true).

Picture yourself as the piece of metal under the front bumper that houses the two front accelerometers. If you hit a wall at 30mph at max acceleration you may crumple while the metal behind you is still gaining velocity. I believe those two front accelerometers were sheared off before the SRS algorithm registered enough decceleration differences to trigger airbag deployment. And by the time the interior decelerometers registered enough deceleration, all that was crumpled, already crumpled (verification of how substantial accelerations' affect on a crash pulse/damage really is). As a passenger I know my flight was progressive. The rear passenger was passing me when I started to move with crumpling well under way. Under brakes or even constant velocity I don't believe that would be possible. On this note, the vehicles front ends didn't plant as their rears swung around (like jambing on the brakes with a trailer hitched on - trailer goes side to side looking to transmit brake energies). Which would have happened at higher velocity. Acceleration caused the rears of both vehicles to plant themselves as the front ends raised and displaced sideways by up to 8' only pivoting on the rear axles. For Daimler AG to claim that acceleration has no affect 'whatsoever' on accelerometers' ability to sense deceleration and a crash pulse is just an exercise of a neanderthal swinging their PP. Acceleration extends crash pulses by magnitudes of time and works as a force opposite to the very systems meant to protect passengers (deccelerometers timely deploying airbags).

I hope I survive this. Attorneys would rather see this problem grow for lucrative class actions before solving it now. Daimler AG is ran by attorneys, not engineers and that is a toxic recipe for intentionally knowingly negligent design-by-law, not-by-logic practices. Daimler AG isn't all about "German Engineering" anymore, this is "Legal Engineering" now.

If Daimler AG allows this matter to go before a jury, I believe a jury will be sick of large corporate wolves' nonsense, and I'd be sick enough to make every effort to publish Daimler AG's unethical technical and legal culture. For Daimler AG will appeal and appeal and appeal whatever a jury awards.

Daimler AG's reaction will become the primary story. For my experience is as simple as it gets (rear head injuries imposed by airbags to BOTH front seat occupants after they BOTH incurred critical frontal bodily injuries during a simple 2-car head-on collision). Nobody will care about the automatic downshift that caused the entire scene when dealing with Daimler AG trying to claim they saved my life against all logic. And if I could predict their airbags wouldn't deploy within 2-seconds of considering how airbag systems function (I'm the only occupant with broken limbs), at least one of Daimler AG's 256,000 employees should have.
Mark

One more thing here.... First, the decelerometers DID fire. the internal ones are separate. They are for the SIDE airbags. I.E. if the car get T-Boned.

You didn't tear the front crash sensors off, and then get lucky later with a set of backup ones. You just weren't restrained in your seat (either was your friend) and got really friendly with the airbag.

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 #65 of 285 (permalink) Old 11-10-2010, 01:45 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
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!
Let's give this a try from one EE to another..

There are a few differences. First, probably the position of the nose. Nose dives during braking, angles up during acceleration. I don't know is this has a demonstrable effect on the operation of the airbags. As far as the actual math first you'd have to counter the effects of a car accelerating against the wall / vs a car slowing down while striking the wall.

Remember, horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you.

In the case of an accelating car, the car does not only have it's kinetic energy (due to traveling at say 60mph), BUT it also has the ACTUAL energy it's applying while contacting the wall.
In the case of a full on brake panic stop that failed to avoid a colision, during the impact the car is still shedding energy through the braking system, in addtion to shedding energy via compressing and or damaging the wall. Assuming the wall was able to provide the same amount of resistance in either case, the accelerating car would decelerate slower, while pushing the wall further.

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 #66 of 285 (permalink) Old 02-16-2011, 07:36 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)
so whats going on with the tests? did they happen?

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 #67 of 285 (permalink) Old 02-16-2011, 07:58 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Mick D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2011
Vehicle: Trek 520
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 3,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I can imagine how much that hurt, the femur is the hardest bone in the body to break. I couldn't read the thread as after a year my body and all of it's smashed bones and ripped muscles still hut. I was pedestrian hit by a car then left for dead on the road as the driver sped off. I wish you the best-
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	V2T2170 copy.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	87.0 KB
ID:	357487  
Mick D is offline  
post #68 of 285 (permalink) Old 02-16-2011, 08:51 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
It's been a while.
1st: No crash test yet. Still building the $50k it'll cost me to perform. I've been ORDERED to give Daimler a 2-week notice (as if their $80B/yr revenue wouldn't justify them performing this test). I'm praying an angel step up and fund the test so Daimler isn't made aware of it and it can be published without my control.

2nd: Just had a Fed Judge scold me for not suing the driver's wife. She wasn't even aware that he died let alone that we both incurred occipital scalp injuries. Then ask "where's the wife in this?". That's one dark hour.

Dirtyguido,
Negligent product liability reaches beyond FMVSS 208 (Fed standards). If it can be readily predicted and easily solved, it's negligent. I was able to predict it w/i a moment and Daimler has 256,000 employees.

My passenger seat bent on a twist because the rear seat passenger nicked the top inboard side on the way to the dashboard (bent at top whereas the outboard side bent at bottom). Take a straw and push on its top slowly. Then flick it at the top.

Detectives deposed that there was absolutely NO GOUGING of the roadway beneath the front end of the vehicles (or anywhere). One detective also stated how uncommon this was. It's a clear indicator that the front ends never nosed down. There was NO rear-end deflection. Maybe the entire vehicle "bouncing" straight backwards giving them the separation they have.

I appreciate your comment about the airbag firing late or early cause this is why I blamed myself for the first 2-years following 2006. Since I couldn't fathom the seat back failing I convinced myself I inadvertently slid out of the shoulder harness while raising my left limbs. "Beating the airbags" is a myth albeit I believe 170-200mph may do it (which didn't apply here). Furthermore, the acceleration vector is a fraction of that imposed by the velocity vector. Yet its acceleration that affects the dynamics of the deccelerometer moreso than velocity. It was definitely a combination of both.

I'm not sure where your got your information from about the side airbag modules being the only "inside sensors". Daimler's engineer claims otherwise albeit he also claimed acceleration would not have any affect on the decceleration based airbag system (Chemical Engineering background too). If you were right than picture the front modules being torn off before being able to send a signal (vision the power of acceleration exceeding the resistance of crumpling metal and its very possible). Depending on normally open or closed circuitry, either a complete disconnect or ground short would be needed to send that signal in that case. Which takes time.

What I'd give for a broken shoulder over my body/head meeting that dash and my friend dying against the steering wheel before we were blown backwards.

We were in the torque band at impact (peak of it). Not going fast enough for HP to take over. Instead of pushing the wall vision crumpling the vehicle while still accelerating or at least maintaining speed. There's not a chance in hell a decceleration-based airbag deployment module would trigger in this event. Sad part is the 2003 CL55 has two radar systems in its front bumper for cruize control and parking assist, yet no integration to cut throttle upon imminent impact.

Appreciate your time, attention and comments. Very indebt and getting down to the nuts and bolts of this design problem. It's a shame that Daimler refuses to have this conversation with me. Which is why the crash test results will be published as well as their defenses for all to see the truth.

Even worse is that 5-years later, I'm still being forced to talk about this to a legal system that appears to have gone complete rogue. I expected better from Daimler but now I see Germans did not maintain ownership of Daimler following WWII.
virage105 is offline  
post #69 of 285 (permalink) Old 02-16-2011, 11:11 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Dec 2009
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So who wants to bet that he is told by many different people that this is a frivolous lawsuit and that when finally shut down by even the most liberal of bleeding heart judges he quitely fades away?
markbsae is offline  
post #70 of 285 (permalink) Old 02-16-2011, 11:22 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
If this lawsuit was dismissed tomorrow, that wouldn't stop me from performing the crash test and publishing the results. If the crash test didn't re-demonstrate my experience, I would announce that I'm "shit-out-of-luck" since a perceived design problem was really a malfunction I can no longer prove without the evidence and shift my focus to lobbying for sole-survivor protection so nobody ever walks in my shoes again.

I pray that someday you are in my shoes remembering Mark Soliman's efforts to prevent that day. I highly doubt you will be for someone who runs their mouth so foolishly as you just did, usually has no access to anything of any value.

Either that, or you're an attorney who like all others would never dare address a 1%'er until the problem kills enough people to justify an equitable class action. I've spoke with many real attorneys about this who believed in the simple issue presented, just couldn't act without the vehicle.

How dare you claim I'm ever "quitely fading away" or associated this matter with "the most liberal of bleeding heart judges". Hopefully your head is strong enough to be able to remember this when you're lying in the hospital wishing you didn't wish me to ever go away.

So enlighten us Mark at bsae: How do you think two front seat occupants incurred occipital scalp injuries and one passenger seat back failed in this tragedy? Please humor us...
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