59 Bel Air, 2009 Malibu, 59 Mercedes W111---Throwing apples into the wall?

[Tony D]

Since the other 'debate' went away, I didn't get to mention something that was grating on me but that I couldn't confirm till just recently.

 

In September 2009 issue of Onschatbare Klassieker Magazine, there is a little blurb celebrating 50 years of the crumple zone as introduced by Mercedes Benz on the W111 Series Vehicles 11 August 1959.

 

And this goes back to the ocntention that 'crumple zones' were some 'new safety development', the W111 was around $13,500 at the time, whereas a Cadillac (62 Series was it? Esentially the same as the Bel Air) was around $5,000.

 

Mercedes made a decision after patenting the design not to enforce their patent rights, and to let others use their safety advancements freely.

 

John Coffee mentioned that Mercedes had a cost structure to support the implementation of these safety designs...but really the costs for crumple zones are not that great.

 

What it comes back down to is in 1959 there was a choice to make: Buy Mercedes (designed by engineers, marketed by engineers) or Buy American (designed by engineers, decontented by accoutnants and marketing wonks).

 

There really was no reason for a 1959 Bel Air not to have these designs incorporated, but for reasons that have become all to painfully clear these past two years, GM didn't like to jump on any bandwagons when what they sold was selling just fine.

 

But the choice was still there, you could choose what you wanted. Today you can't... Everything is held to a ridiculous (IMO) standard of 'crash safety'

 

I would really like to see the following crash from the safety people: 2009 Malibu and 59 Mercedes W111. (That one might not make such a dramatic propaganda point for them, so likely they will never do it.)

 

59 Bel Air and 59 Mercedes W111 (interesting to see 59 'krukelzones' on the Mercedes work against a contemporary vehicle...)

 

And as mentioned...to see what would have happened if the Bel Air Driver was wearing the Seat Belt provided in the vehicle...which I think kind of skewed the test.

[thrustnut]

Just watched a few videos on youtube, but they where all MBZ on MBZ from the same period, nothing newer. My Mom had a 57 200D when I first got my licence, and I seem to remember that it had low back seats...not so good for front or rear impact, and just a lap belt... it might have had the old time shoulder strap that could connect to the lap belt. In one of the videos ( a W111 on W111 front to rear end collision) both the front and rear windows blew out of the cars. I would think that it may be marginally better then the Bel Air. Let me know if you find a better video.

Edited September 28, 2009 by thrustnut
it was a 57, not a 67

[Guest Rolling Parts]

...what would have happened if the Bel Air Driver was wearing the Seat Belt provided in the vehicle...which I think kind of skewed the test.

 

Eventually enough selected crash videos will make lawmakers feel so good about "the good work" that they are doing that more crash standard legislation is inevitable. I mean, who would dare to argue against safety mandates?

 

In this one area the movie "Demolition Man" actually get's it right.

 

 

.

[johnc]

John Coffee mentioned that Mercedes had a cost structure to support the implementation of these safety designs...but really the costs for crumple zones are not that great.

 

That's true if the R&D work is done for you. Mercedes began work on crumple zones in the late 1940s with their engineer Bela Barenyi obtaining a patent for the concept in 1952. The actual first car with crumple zones was the Mercedes 180 Ponton released in 1953. In addition to weakened front frame rails, it had a crash stabilized floor assembly, collapsing steering column, and engine/driveline mounts that forced the assembly down in the even of a frontal accident.

 

Actual concept to production engineering took an 6 years of work until the complete crumple zone concept was released to the public with the 1959 model 220s. The concept is simple but the actual engineering is very difficult considering you're dealing with three separate masses and their interactions: chassis, engine/drivetrain, and the occupants. This development wasn't cheap but Mercedes did offer the basic engineering to other manufacturers for free - they stated that they would not enforce their patent rights.

Edited September 28, 2009 by johnc