CRASH
Adam Steffes
> I watched "Crash Science" on TV today and saw couple of Mercedes getting
> smashed in crash test. MB's crumpled just like any other brands
> colliding concrete wall at same condition. People always says Mercedes
> are very safe as its built very sturdy car and naturally I thought it
> won't be crumpled anywhere near like other cars, but wrong!. I don't
> understand why being in Mercedes would be any safer than Cadillac
> Deville. Can someone come up with good reason?
Well, first of all, many of the Cadillac models suck compared to Toyota
Carollas and such. Second, the car deforms to absorb energy. A car could
just be built to deform and not absorb any energy in the process (or
rather, transfer it all to your body) and that would be bad. So what if
the car crunches up? What you care about is the integrity of the passenger
compartment, not the engine bay or trunk. So don't just look at how the
car is squashed after a crash test. Look at what happened to the manequins
inside.
Adam
Jonathan S. Moore
WWW1122
but will it keep you alive?
Gary Smith
People always says Mercedes
> are very safe as its built very sturdy car and naturally I thought it
> won't be crumpled anywhere near like other cars, but wrong!.
Let me tell you a little story. One day I was invited to travel about
200 miles over to Carmel, CA with my friend who drives a Jaguar. While
we were in Carmel the Jag threw a U Joint and was disabled. The Jag
dealer in that area is notorious for lengthy and expensive repairs so my
friend elected to have his Jag flat bedded back to Fresno where his
trusted mechanic would work on the car. This meant that my friend and I
had to ride for three hours with the tow truck driver . You learn a
great many things from tow truck drivers when you have to spend three
hours with them. He talked incessantly about all the bloody car crashes
he'd seen in his fifteen years as a driver. This prompted me to ask what
car in his opinion is the safest. He did not hesitate one second,
"Mercedes Benz. No comparison". He went on to explain that he's seen
head on crashes at 70 miles per hour in which the driver walked away! He
also said that all you hear about Volvo is a crock of S***. He said
Volvo's are no more protective than a Chevy in his opinion. So I went
home glad that a). I didn't own a Volvo (or a Jaguar for that matter)
b). I owned a Mercedes Benz.
End of story.
Gary Smith
1992 500SL
Eyvind Spangen
<JSM_009@um_no.com> wrote:
>I watched "Crash Science" on TV today and saw couple of Mercedes getting
>smashed in crash test. MB's crumpled just like any other brands
>colliding concrete wall at same condition. People always says Mercedes
>are very safe as its built very sturdy car and naturally I thought it
>won't be crumpled anywhere near like other cars, but wrong!. I don't
>understand why being in Mercedes would be any safer than Cadillac
>Deville. Can someone come up with good reason?
It is the crumpling zones doing their job. The car will crumple and
absorb the energy to avoid "transmitting" it to the passengers and
killing them. If the front of the car absorbs a lot of the energy, the
people inside will probably survive.
Do this test on your desk: Place your hand on the egde of a cd cover
and slam it on the desk. Repeat, but now with some cardboard instead.
The CD cover will be undamaged, but you can feel it very good. The
cardboard will be damaged, but you can't feel that much force. (I take
no responsibility for damage to your hand if you slam it too hard!
:-)) That's pretty much what the crumpling zones do. If they didn't,
you could have fitted a giant bull bar made out of 2" solid steel to
the frame of your car and be sure that you have a 100 times more safe
car. It isn't so.
--
ES
brad9876
I'm not picking on you here Adam... you have it mostly right.
> Well, first of all, many of the Cadillac models suck compared to Toyota
> Carollas and such. Second, the car deforms to absorb energy. A car could
Toyotas may do better in barrier crash tests than Cadillacs, but in a
real world car to car crash, the Cadillac wins because of its greater
weight. Even a marginal large car is better in a real world car to car
crash than a great small car.
So when people talk about how well their 2500 pound car performed in
governemnt barrier crash tests, I just laugh. It doesn't matter. The
average vehicle out there is about 3400 pounds, the odds are that's what
they'll tangle with, and that much extra weight will win every time.
> just be built to deform and not absorb any energy in the process (or
> rather, transfer it all to your body) and that would be bad. So what if
> the car crunches up? What you care about is the integrity of the passenger
> compartment, not the engine bay or trunk.
Absolutely correct. You want the ends to crush. That's what it's
about. There are US government standards for passenger compartment
deformation and maximum g forces on the passengers.... opposite goals...
upper and lower limits on overall structural strength.
> So don't just look at how the
> car is squashed after a crash test. Look at what happened to the manequins
> inside.
Actually, look at whether the passenger compartment deformed enough to
allow the real world passengers to contact it, how much space there is
between the passengers and hard structure of the car, etc.
Now that we've covered that US government standards place upper and
lower limits on the rate and amount of crush... I'll ask anyone here to
name a single passenger compartment engineering or constructional
feature exclusive to Mercedes that makes a Mercedes significantly safer
than other cars of the same weight. I don't know of one. I'm not
saying there isn't one, I'm just saying I've never observed one.
Do they have more welds per inch than other cars? Do they use high
strength steel in areas where other don't? I've not noticed anything
like this.
For now, I'll hang my hat on the weight factor... they're heavier than
other cars of apparant similar size.
If I were interested in crash safety to the exclusion of all other
factors, I'd say get a comparatively low tech 77 Lincoln Town Car... and
test that low tech crash safety technology with 5000 pounds of weight
head on against a 2500 pound Toyota or 3500 pound Mercedes.
When Mercedes... or anyone else... is able to repeal the laws of
physics...
alistair harris
itst about absorbing the energy of a crash not a big cadie bouncing off
things.
what do you think happens to all that energy of a car coming to a stop from
100mph?
it goes through you.
Jonathan S. Moore wrote in message <387D629C.ACA08E2@um_no.com>...
Paul Bryant
have your friend make a fist and hit you square in the face, OUCH!!
ok, now have your frind tape a foam cup to his/her hand. feels better
doesnt it!!
I had to do this lots o' times to find good cup, DONT USE COFFEE MUG OR
GLASS!!
feels the same if not badder! ;-)
when will people get over this -HAD A 53 BUICK THAT I DROVE THROUGH A BRICK
WALL, ONLY TOOK A HOUR TO BUFF OUT THE SCRATCHES, THATS AFTER I GOT OUT OF
INTENSIVE CARE-
the insurance companies sponsor all those crash test because you cant pay
your premiums if your DEAD!!!
Paul
"put down the phone, stay back from the car in front of you, and PUT THE
MAKE-UP AWAY!!"
brad9876
SNIP quotes
SNIP
> You learn a
> great many things from tow truck drivers when you have to spend three
> hours with them.
SNIP
I can see it now. A great new TV commercial for Mercedes.
Camera opens on crash scene.
Paramedics pulling dead occupants out of a blasted Cadillac
Camera pans to a greasy toothless tow truck driver wearing a Skoal cap
(driving, of course a Dodge Ram 3500 tow truck... gotta keep the good
guys in the Mercedes stable)
<Obligatory tobacco juice spit>
*Dis wouldn't 'a' happen'd if them folks had been drivin' a MARcedes.*
Voice over: Mercedes are preferred by professional tow truck drivers
the world over.
Great ad, don't cha think? And why was that guy saying Mercedes ought
to hire Shania Twain for their ads.... when they can have
this???????????
Bill Thomson
rightfully so)
in in the decades preceding the 1990s. In the 1980s in particular when
most of the
world's auto makers were rolling out lighter and less structurally sound
cars every year
they rolled out the E300 in 1986. I would love to see how that car
compared with other
cars of similar weight and dimensions available at the time. I suspect
the E300 would
be head and shoulders above the competition in what I feel is the most
revealing
OBJECTIVE test of crash survivability: the offset collision test. Most
auto makers
had not even heard of this test back then.
Now everything from Taurus to LEXUS are similar or heavier in weight to
the E-class
and outperform it in the offset collision tests. Check out
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/luxury/crash_lux.htm
and see for your self.
As for actual fatality data, I can't find any OBJECTIVE data showing
Mercedes cars are
safer than cars of comparable weight or category either:
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ddr/ddr_lux.htm
Again, I am talking about verifiable data. Not anecdotal evidence.
As an owner of a 1994 C280 which I purchased strictly for perceived
safety advantages
I am dismayed and when it comes time to replace this car I will shop
based on objective
facts Vs reputation. I really hope someone here can point me to some
OBJECTIVE data
showing Mercedes has a definitive safety advantage.
L8r,
Bill
fra...@my-deja.com
the driver death rates. Allow me to explain.
First lets start with the Multiple car accident. This type of accident
includes head-ons, rear-enders, pile ups and so forth. Your basic
screw up traffic all day monsters. All cars are subject to these due
to the natural risks of driving a car. And all types of cars are
subjected to just about every type of front, side, rear, right side up,
up side down impact there is.
Second are the Single car accidents. These are the solo accidents
where people hit in-animate objects like walls, or poles, or they do
things like drive off a bridge or cliff. These are many times due to
driver error.
The multiple car accident number is the best indicator of overall
safety due to uncontrolable forces. The Single car accident number is
subject to how people drive thier cars. For example nobody tries to
get a Cadilac Fleetwood sideways in the twisties, hence they show the
best numbers in this category.
More sporty vehicles such as Mercedes, BMW, Acura, etc. are very
confidence inspiring as to what they are capable of handling.
Therefore people will take a greater risk and push the car up to its
limits. Some cars like the Infiniti Q45 inspire confidence right up to
the point where it spins out of control and flips over into a ditch,
Thus yielding a higher Single car accident.
Demographics (i.e. male 18-35)also play a large part in the single car
accident numbers. If the vehicle is popular in this group, you can bet
on higher fatalities for that vehicle. Cadilacs are the safest,
because guys like me don't drive them. BMW 3 series are the most
dangerous, because we like em and crash em' by the boat load.
Hope this helps make a little more sense out of these numbers.
Kevin
"A good car is like a good dog. It will sacrefice it's life to protect
yours."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.