RE: Merc safety technology fails
Monday 21st November 2005
Mercedes S Class - expensiveMercedes is not alone in trumpeting the importance of its safety technology as fitted to the latest S-Class but does make the most noise about it -- and it has made the biggest public blunder.
Merc safety technology fails
Brake radar fails to prevent televised crash
Mercedes S Class - expensive
A German TV channel, Stern TV, got itself a scoop recently when Mercedes brought three of its range-topping cars for a demonstration of its safety radar, which is designed to ensure that, when the car in front brakes hard, so does yours. You won't rear-end anyone, is the claim.
Sadly, that's exactly what happened. The £50,000+ cars crashed into each other when Mercedes put the three cars in line astern and got the first to brake heavily. The two behind didn't stop, with obvious results.
One German news site said that Mercedes security engineers rooted out the problem quickly: the test was conducted in a hall constructed of steel which confused the radar. The system didn't work as it should have done -- and as a result, over £150,000-worth of shiny new luxo-barge looks a bit textured.
Mercedes said that the system "works perfectly in all other circumstances" but, if you ever drive one under cover -- the Channel Tunnel shuttle comes to mind -- you'd best keep that left foot hovering over the brake pedal.
Discussion
A techno gizmo too far IMHO. No way would I trust electronics to decide when & how hard to brake over my own decision. Cars are getting to Nanny in doing every thing for you. The worst devise ever invented was automatic windscreen wipers, they don't work. Automatic head lights are also cr@p, as they come on every time you go under a bridge. Had both these devices on my Clio 172. Couldn't wait to get rid of it, just for those reasons.
video is online (in german) at www.stern.de/tv/sterntv/549835.html?nv=cp_L2_
wab172uk, while I tihnk you're correct, we live in an age when a driver can successfully sue a car company because their car crashed when they fell asleep at the wheel (Ford, last week, $34m payout!). Then there's the famous case of the Winnebago driver who crashed because he went into the back of the vehicle after setting the cruise control. He didn't realise that the car wouldn't steer itself. He also won his lawsuit.
Car manufacturers have to throw as much technology as possible at today's cars becuase money grabbing idiots are allowed to drive. It's a sad sad state of affairs. DSC, ABS and Airbags should be all we need.
Car manufacturers have to throw as much technology as possible at today's cars becuase money grabbing idiots are allowed to drive. It's a sad sad state of affairs. DSC, ABS and Airbags should be all we need.
The article said:
the Channel Tunnel shuttle comes to mind
I'll have to bear that in mind next time i'm driving through the carriages at 50mph. It probably won't even stop you before hitting the garage door if you swing onto your five metre drive at 40mph!
I think the idea is that it would function as a backup to the drivers control of the vehicle. No doubt when ABS was unveiled people knocked that for working intermittently, but I'm sure you'll agree it's increased road safety.
Still, I can't believe they didn't do 10 test runs through the hall, if you're undertaking a grand PR exercise like that, you'd better get it right. How amateurish!
Andrew D said:
the Channel Tunnel shuttle comes to mind
I'll have to bear that in mind next time i'm driving through the carriages at 50mph. It probably won't even stop you before hitting the garage door if you swing onto your five metre drive at 40mph!
I think the idea is that it would function as a backup to the drivers control of the vehicle. No doubt when ABS was unveiled people knocked that for working intermittently, but I'm sure you'll agree it's increased road safety.
Still, I can't believe they didn't do 10 test runs through the hall, if you're undertaking a grand PR exercise like that, you'd better get it right. How amateurish!
Absolutely! Invite the mdeia before doing a full dry run? Ridiculous - someones job will be vacant. Surely they would have had the full specifications of the radar unit, and the manufacturer would have informed them of areas where the device wouldn't function? Who designs these systems, Chimpanzees??
Thats put me off buying a Merc for good. Anyone succesfully tested a Mercedes airbag yet?
Reminds me of the launch of the BMW 8 series in South Africa. Being a big problem there, they ran a huge billboard campaign advertising it as the car that could not be stolen. Unfortunately, the day before the only 850i in South Africa at the time could appear at the motorshow for the launch... it was stolen 
ultimasimon said:
Thats put me off buying a Merc for good. Anyone succesfully tested a Mercedes airbag yet?
That's ridiculous. Do you know who first fitted airbags to production cars? Who invented ESP? Who first fitted side impact protection beams? Who first developed the safety cell? Who invented self-tensioning seatbelts? Rain-sensing wipers?
steve-p said:
That's ridiculous.
You know, there are some sequences of words that, whilst not worshipping anything to do with Mercedes in general or SLK55's in particular, aren't automatically nonesense and worthy of scorn.
ultimasimon said:
Thats put me off buying a Merc for good.
I had my Smart back at the dealer last week, and if the service I experienced is typical, you've made the correct decision. It was woeful. In fact, much of the work I had done was revisiting things that they had previously tried to remedy.
And before any remarks that Smart and Merc are different, the technical staff (mechanics) work on both marques and it was the quality of the workmanship that was at fault. My father has experienced the same with his ML.
DavidCane said:
wab172uk, while I tihnk you're correct, we live in an age when a driver can successfully sue a car company because their car crashed when they fell asleep at the wheel (Ford, last week, $34m payout!). Then there's the famous case of the Winnebago driver who crashed because he went into the back of the vehicle after setting the cruise control. He didn't realise that the car wouldn't steer itself. He also won his lawsuit.
We also live in an age where you shouldn't believe everyting you read on the internet:
www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
what a lyers the are?! on the video they say a warning sound would go of, but it did not! not a single time, but they react after they drove acros a metal or woden strip they planed on the drive way! and then after that they brake hard! but the first atempt from that autoweek? driver it went wrong because there was no warning buzzer! and the next atempts eighter, but then they brake hard after they drove over that strip!! so no warning buzzer to warn you but a strip they planned on that try strip...you could see them telling lies 
René
I hope you GB people can understand a bit German because its all in German, but the film material tells it all
www.stern.de/tv/sterntv/549835.html?nv=cp_L2_
>> Edited by GTRene on Monday 21st November 14:28
René
I hope you GB people can understand a bit German because its all in German, but the film material tells it all
www.stern.de/tv/sterntv/549835.html?nv=cp_L2_
>> Edited by GTRene on Monday 21st November 14:28
wab172uk said:
A techno gizmo too far IMHO. No way would I trust electronics to decide when & how hard to brake over my own decision. Cars are getting to Nanny in doing every thing for you. The worst devise ever invented was automatic windscreen wipers, they don't work. Automatic head lights are also cr@p, as they come on every time you go under a bridge. Had both these devices on my Clio 172. Couldn't wait to get rid of it, just for those reasons.
It used to be that Mercedes would invent something and implement it beautifully, then someone like Renault would decide it was a good idea and also implement it, but for about 10p, it would be rubbish and only look good on the features sheet of the company car list. However it appears Mercedes can't be bothered to do stuff properly either now!
Russsell
Mercedes have not fitted the SBC braking system to this generations S Class. My mate's SL has this and it didn't stop in time to prevent a frontal inpact on a pillar at 6mph. Basically the computer system failed and the Hydraulic system required much more pressure to stop the car. Result? £7000 of damage to a 3 months old SL.
SBC is a solution to a problem you didn't know you had. It dries the brakes as you drive in wet weather. It holds the car on the brakes at junctions without using the brake pedal, until you accelerate away. It auto brakes for you in a queue of traffic when you lift off the accelerator. Apparently the E Class taxi's in germany have had lots of failures of this system due to the amount of braking they do in their jobs. I like technology but it's got to be reliable, usefull and proven before I could trust it to replace my own brain power.
SBC is a solution to a problem you didn't know you had. It dries the brakes as you drive in wet weather. It holds the car on the brakes at junctions without using the brake pedal, until you accelerate away. It auto brakes for you in a queue of traffic when you lift off the accelerator. Apparently the E Class taxi's in germany have had lots of failures of this system due to the amount of braking they do in their jobs. I like technology but it's got to be reliable, usefull and proven before I could trust it to replace my own brain power.
Absolutely Amazing!!!
Just like Rene said the article is actually about, what I can only see to be a "Smoke and Mirrors" act by Mercedes Benz and the journalist from Auto Bild (driver of the car), that went terribly wrong. And more importantly wrong infront of the journos from Stern TV who had everyone rigged up with microphones throughout.
The radar system on the MB was supposed to warn of obstacles and emit a 3 tone warning buzzer. On the 2nd buzz the driver is supposed to apply the brakes. No matter how much pressure is applied to the brake pedal the car works out the required stopping distance to the obstacle and aids the driver in bringing the car to a halt in time.
The driver rather than using the radar system was in fact using (what the spokesperson from MB called "a secondary safety device" a board placed at the correct braking point on the floor. Using the microphone on the driver it was possible to determine that there was in fact no warning tone from the radar (this was later explained to be due to it ot working correctly in this particular hall, etc. etc.) but when the driver came out of the car after the crash he stated that the radar did warn him but he was willing to take full responsibility for not reacting to it in time, hence causing the car to crash. He was lying about hearing the tone, but what is also interesting is that he said (to the MB mechanics) he did brake on the board which meant it was strange that the car would not stop in time as this had been practiced before the journos from Stern TV arrived. He mentioned that the car did not brake as strongly as he would have expected which hints at a potential brake failure of some sort.
Further, when asked by the Stern TV journo if it would be possible to sit in the back when the next test was performed with the silver car, he was initial told yes. Again the driver speaks to the MB mechs and says clearly: "If he sits in with me, he will realise there is no beep and I am braking as I hit the board!" 10 mins later the Stern TV journo is told it is too dangerous to sit in.
Now why the Auto Bild journo and MB were not smart enough to realise that everything they said, even amongst themselves, was being recorded, since they were all mic'd up, is beyond me, but I wonder if that "secondary safety device" will become a standard fitment or optional extra on the S-Klasse???
Just like Rene said the article is actually about, what I can only see to be a "Smoke and Mirrors" act by Mercedes Benz and the journalist from Auto Bild (driver of the car), that went terribly wrong. And more importantly wrong infront of the journos from Stern TV who had everyone rigged up with microphones throughout.
The radar system on the MB was supposed to warn of obstacles and emit a 3 tone warning buzzer. On the 2nd buzz the driver is supposed to apply the brakes. No matter how much pressure is applied to the brake pedal the car works out the required stopping distance to the obstacle and aids the driver in bringing the car to a halt in time.
The driver rather than using the radar system was in fact using (what the spokesperson from MB called "a secondary safety device"
a board placed at the correct braking point on the floor. Using the microphone on the driver it was possible to determine that there was in fact no warning tone from the radar (this was later explained to be due to it ot working correctly in this particular hall, etc. etc.) but when the driver came out of the car after the crash he stated that the radar did warn him but he was willing to take full responsibility for not reacting to it in time, hence causing the car to crash. He was lying about hearing the tone, but what is also interesting is that he said (to the MB mechanics) he did brake on the board which meant it was strange that the car would not stop in time as this had been practiced before the journos from Stern TV arrived. He mentioned that the car did not brake as strongly as he would have expected which hints at a potential brake failure of some sort. Further, when asked by the Stern TV journo if it would be possible to sit in the back when the next test was performed with the silver car, he was initial told yes. Again the driver speaks to the MB mechs and says clearly: "If he sits in with me, he will realise there is no beep and I am braking as I hit the board!" 10 mins later the Stern TV journo is told it is too dangerous to sit in.
Now why the Auto Bild journo and MB were not smart enough to realise that everything they said, even amongst themselves, was being recorded, since they were all mic'd up, is beyond me, but I wonder if that "secondary safety device" will become a standard fitment or optional extra on the S-Klasse???
In the Porsche Cup in Australia the regulations for next year are being changed to eliminate ABS breaking systems. They have had too many prangs, as the things won't stop. It gets even worse when they race the same cars in the Nations Cup, which has a host of other cars, as the other cars don't have to have ABS, & stop much better. After 30 years of marriage the last thing I require is a bloody car telling me what to do, or how to do it.
Err..
A-class tipping over, Quality problems with E-class including ripped engine blocks and failing command systems, extremely bad reviews for the Chrysler products, Smart drivers starting action groups against DC, one of the lowest places on the JD power survey, M classes that scare customers away, now this... anybody else see a pattern here?
Meanwhile Lexus is actually making cars that look good, VW is making an S-class lookalike with 4wd, Audi is making cars that at are better finished -or at least look it, Porsche is planning a saloon, and even the Italians are edging closer into premium territory.
Nice going, give us another Vanio why don't you.
Ah well, at least they *almost* won in F1. Maybe if could make up and change the rules along the way like in DTM they wouldn't have been second to Renault.
Talk about a downfall..
A-class tipping over, Quality problems with E-class including ripped engine blocks and failing command systems, extremely bad reviews for the Chrysler products, Smart drivers starting action groups against DC, one of the lowest places on the JD power survey, M classes that scare customers away, now this... anybody else see a pattern here?
Meanwhile Lexus is actually making cars that look good, VW is making an S-class lookalike with 4wd, Audi is making cars that at are better finished -or at least look it, Porsche is planning a saloon, and even the Italians are edging closer into premium territory.
Nice going, give us another Vanio why don't you.
Ah well, at least they *almost* won in F1. Maybe if could make up and change the rules along the way like in DTM they wouldn't have been second to Renault.
Talk about a downfall..
So the building is to blame is it... given that the building is the MB safety centre you'd think they might have used it to test an MB safety system. I think the problem is unfortunate and the sort of thng that happens to all of us when we demonstrate something - it is called sods Law. after all nobody actually rolled an A-class avoiding a real Elk only the journos managed it. the question is why the bloody media advisors peddle such an obvious pack of erm... spin rather then putting their hands up and saying oh bollox it's not working right.
I am sure the car is fine, but the moustachioed chaps in 3 piece suits are nuts...
I am sure the car is fine, but the moustachioed chaps in 3 piece suits are nuts...
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff