 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / December 2005Another sign they don't make em like they used to?
I was watching The Apprentice last night and they are down to the last two contestants. So, they get to ride around in Maybachs. Well the guy gets in and the chaueffer closes the rear door. I was shocked as it sounded like cheap tin! I replayed it a few times on Tivo and you could actually see the side of the door bounce around when it slammed shut. All I could think of was how this compared to the vault door like closure sound on my 1980 300SD. I know which car in which I would prefer to be in a crash (not the 1980 300SD...). DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >I was watching The Apprentice last night and they are down to the last > two contestants. So, they get to ride around in Maybachs. Well the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shut. All I could think of was how this compared to the vault door > like closure sound on my 1980 300SD. "I know which car in which I would prefer to be in a crash (not the 1980 300SD...). " It's not clear to me that inovations like air bags make a car safer than having it built solid using heavy metal. A few years ago I was in a crash in a 1980 300SD. The modern Cheverolet was totalled while I sustained no injuries and the 300SD was still drivable. It deed need a new front fender though! I agree. My dad was driving his 1977 Dodge extended van and got hit by a brand new at the time 1994 Ford F 150. The front end of the ford was totalled and all the dodge needed was a new rear quarter panel and some paint. They sure don't make cars like they used too, thats why I can't wait to get my 1977 Mercedes 200D road worthy again. > "I know which car in which I would prefer to be in a crash (not the > 1980 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sustained no injuries and the 300SD was still drivable. It deed need a > new front fender though! > I agree. My dad was driving his 1977 Dodge extended van and got hit > by a brand new at the time 1994 Ford F 150. The front end of the ford > was totalled and all the dodge needed was a new rear quarter panel > and some paint. They sure don't make cars like they used too, thats > why I can't wait to get my 1977 Mercedes 200D road worthy again. There is a need for safer cars. The softer the safer unless it's 'too' soft. I quess no one of you would kile to be run over by 1977 Dodge Extender ;-) Reg: Harri > I agree. My dad was driving his 1977 Dodge extended van and got hit by a > brand new at the time 1994 Ford F 150. The front end of the ford was > totalled and all the dodge needed was a new rear quarter panel and some > paint. They sure don't make cars like they used too, thats why I can't wait > to get my 1977 Mercedes 200D road worthy again. I've noticed that it's usually the car that's doing the rear ending that gets damaged more. I've always thought that while braking the car's nose dives so that the other car's bumper hits it in the the softer area above. My gf once rear ended some Japanese car in my Volvo 240. I was disappointed to see that the Volvo took most of the damage :( Ximinez  SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html >> I agree. My dad was driving his 1977 Dodge extended van and got hit by >> a brand new at the time 1994 Ford F 150. The front end of the ford was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ximinez The main goal of safety engineering is the protection of the driver and passengers in a crash. To this effect, the car companies design adequate crumbling zones that will absorb most of the kinetic energy generated in a crash thereby minimizing the risk of serious injury to the occupants. > The main goal of safety engineering is the protection of the driver and > passengers in a crash. To this effect, the car companies design > adequate crumbling zones that will absorb most of the kinetic energy > generated in a crash thereby minimizing the risk of serious injury to > the occupants. Absolutely, but in small crashes I suspect most of us are concerned with limiting the monetary damage ;) Thankfully I've never experienced anything but samll crashes. Ximinez SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html > The main goal of safety engineering is the protection of the driver and passengers in a crash. To this effect, the car companies > design adequate crumbling zones that will absorb most of the kinetic energy generated in a crash thereby minimizing the risk of > serious injury to the occupants. Yes, that's why I decided against getting a Ponton, no crumple zone, though the Heckflosse has it. cp Fortunately, for your dad, he wasn't hit in the front. Those big dodge (and Chevy at that time) vans killed more drivers and passengers in them than a Ford Festiva or a Yugo. A car that crumples will be safer than the steel brick. Nothing worse than slowing down from 50 to zero instantly campared to a crumpling car who slows you down before stopping. > I agree. My dad was driving his 1977 Dodge extended van and got hit by a > brand new at the time 1994 Ford F 150. The front end of the ford was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > sustained no injuries and the 300SD was still drivable. It deed need a > > new front fender though! It's clear to most people and is, above all, confirmed by accident statistics. Don't tell me you don't wear a seat belt because otherwise you won't be thrown clear... Old-fashioned heavy metal (and non-collapsible steering columns, another item changed by 'safety innovation') meant spikes, swords and javelins in the chest, head and all over. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] ]> It's not clear to me that inovations like air bags make a car safer > than having it built solid using heavy metal [...] "It's clear to most people and is, above all, confirmed by accident statistics. " You mean statistics like this from NHTSA: "Air bags reduce the overall fatality risk of car drivers by a statistically significant 11 percent (confidence bounds: 7 to 15 percent). In other words, a fleet of cars equipped with air bags will have 11 percent fewer driver fatalities, total, than the same cars would have had if they did not have air bags" That figure is from the NHTSA, which has an obvious vested interest, since they mandated the air bags. But, let's assume the figure is correct. Take a good look at what it says: "11 percent fewer driver fatalities, total, than the same cars would have had if they did not have air bags" It doesn't compare a current light weight tin can to an 25 year old car that weighs 50% more and surrounds the occupants with more steel. In most collisions, I would much prefer to be in a solid 1980 300SD with my seat belt on, than in a light weight tin can new car with air bags. And I would submit that being in a more substantial car could easily neutralize or outweigh the 11% effect of the air bags. They also state: "The agency's Special Crash Investigation teams, as of July 1996, have identified 22 fatalities of child passengers in low-severity frontal crashes of vehicles equipped with dual air bags (14 before the end of 1995 and 8 during January-July 1996). " So, in the process of saving people, clearly the NHTSA admits that air bags have actually killed people who otherwise would have survived. > "It's clear to most people and is, above all, confirmed by accident > statistics. " [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > So, in the process of saving people, clearly the NHTSA admits that air > bags have actually killed people who otherwise would have survived. I guess that some self proclaimed experts manipulate statistics like politicians interpret poll results to their advantage. hmmm. I'll bet that most of those child deaths (if not all) could've been prevented by proper child seat placement and usage. > hmmm. I'll bet that most of those child deaths (if not all) could've > been prevented by proper child seat placement and usage. Right on the mark, Thom! > hmmm. I'll bet that most of those child deaths (if not all) could've > been prevented by proper child seat placement and usage. Sure. But with airbags and tinted windows, the new form of child-death-by-vehicle is forgetting that one has strapped the childseat in the back and leaving the child shut in all day in a hot car to roast. V. -- Veronique Chez Sheep Yes, some people may be killed by air bags, but OVERALL the death rate drops: "From 1986 through April 2001, fewer than 7,000 lives had been saved by air bags. An estimated 246 people (including 61 unconfirmed air bag-related fatalities), mostly drivers and children, had been killed by air bags during the same period." In my view children's fatality and injury rate would be reduced if parents ensured they are properly seated and strapped in, and baby cots not incorrectly positioned on the front seat without the air bag first being deactivated. Is this your source of NHTSA info: (one version: http://www.aultman.com/hgcontent.asp?chunkiid=14125)? There an NHTSA manager is quoted "They only protect adults in a frontal crash and they don't protect you in side- or rear-impact crashes." This is no longer true as cars have bags at the side and in all kinds of places. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/6/556 The serious-injury risk drops, too: http://www.monash.edu.au/cmo/roadsafety/abstracts_and_papers/039/Barnes_Jo_39.pdf http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/esri/vsrc/publications/Abstracts%202000+.htm For some reason I found it very difficult to find non-US info. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > "It's clear to most people and is, above all, confirmed by accident > statistics. " [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > So, in the process of saving people, clearly the NHTSA admits that air > bags have actually killed people who otherwise would have survived. An air bag is not like diving onto Grandma's feather bed . . . more like doing a bellyflop off the high diving board. It is hard to stop a body from 70 mph instantly without some "bruising." The purpose of the air bag is to evenly spread the deceleration force over the entire upper body contacting the airbag. They are rough canvas like and will cause severe abrasions. Actually, no, airbags are not "rough canvas". They are made of a woven nylon in most cases. If they were canvas, they would be too weak, too heavy, to stiff, and not compactable enough. The force varies with the size and location of the bag. I used to engineer safety restraints for cars and trucks. Davehd > An air bag is not like diving onto Grandma's feather bed . . . more like > doing a bellyflop off the high diving board. It is hard to stop a body [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over the entire upper body contacting the airbag. They are rough canvas > like and will cause severe abrasions. > Actually, no, airbags are not "rough canvas". They are made of a woven > nylon in most cases. If they were canvas, they would be too weak, too [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>over the entire upper body contacting the airbag. They are rough canvas >>like and will cause severe abrasions. You stated: "I used to engineer safety restraints for cars and trucks." Interesting. I worked for one of the Big 3 car companies for several years TESTING safety restraints in simulated crashes and reenactments of real world accidents. I'm sure that your engineering and my testing contributed to the manufacture of safer vehicles. i want a new SMART CAR that mercedes sells 62 mph |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.