Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbanator Ideally, Toyota should pick the bill to see what went wrong. It should not be hard for them to do some non-destructive checks but knowing how they operate, it will be too much. Seeing some of the other pictures like of Kizashi, I don't know what sort of standards these manufacturers have. |
There is a small flaw in the logic that the OEM has to pick up the bill.
This is how a modern OEM (BMW, Daimler, Porsche, VW, Audi etc..) operate. They dont develop anything inside a car. They merely give their requirements to the supplier. The supplier develops it for the OEM.
- Seats come from seat supplier. And there are separate suppliers for front row seats, second row seats and third row seats.
- Dashboard come from dashboard supplier. And depending on the model and version, there could be multiple suppliers.
- Cables come from cable supplier.
- Airbags come from airbag supplier. Front airbags from a supplier, curtain airbags from another supplier.
- Seat belts come from seat belt supplier.
- Carpets come from carpets supplier.
and so on..
And this doesnt count the suppliers that supply to these suppliers.
And all the OEM does is, integrates them in their car.
If I am am OEM, I contact the suppliers and tell them my requirements. If I want seats, I tell the supplier how I want my seats and what features it must have. The seat supplier works in tandem with my design department and develops a seat that fits the specification that I lay down. The same for airbags. I tell the supplier what I want out of the airbag. The supplier develops the airbag and gives me a component that fits my specification. He will coordinate with my design department. But he is going to be doing what I say, what I want and how I want. This is how it is for every subsystem.
I will test the car for every subsystem there is in the car. Right from the body to the smallest nut and bolt to ensure that they meet my specification. Engine, suspension, bumper fixation clips, light switches, indicator switches, accelerator pedal. Every physical part of the car. If you can physically see something in a car, it will be tested to its absolute limit. But if anything goes wrong, I wont take up the responsibility as its not my development. I will pass it on to the supplier and say "Hey man. Your subsystem failed my tests. Rectify it and give it back." The onus is then on the supplier to rectify.
There are internal tests, assessment tests and regulatory tests of varying demands and requirements. And a serial design car has to pass every hurdle thats thrown in its path. If anything goes wrong, the OEMs don't rectify it themselves. Because its not their development. They merely pass it to the supplier for them to rectify. And if everything is alright, they stick a couple of badges around the car. And sell them as their own.
Against this backdrop, If I drive a car, and during an accident, the airbags dont deploy when they should probably have. Who would be blamed? The OEM, the airbag supplier, sensor supplier, cable supplier or the programming guys?
- The OEM is merely integrating the airbags and have released the car in the market after the serial design of the car passes the internal tests, assessment tests and regulatory tests. He will raise his hands up and say "Our cars have been road worthy. If it still fails, maybe the regulation isnt strong enough." This shifts the blame on the government.
- The Airbag supplier and sensor supplier are merely acting on the OEMs demands. He will raise his hand and say, "our airbags and sensors have passed the stringent tests."
- Same for cable supplier and programming guys. They merely act on what the OEM say. But the OEM releases the car only after it passes all tests - internal, assessment and regulatory.
On whom would the actual blame be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbanator Will like to hear from experts on how this collision triggered Airbags and what were the risks to the occupants |
In tests and simulation, the driver dummy is seated with its arm on the 10-2 position on the steering wheel. All other dummies are seated with their arms on the thighs. And all dummies are belted. And we simulate about 51 different loadcases where we test and simulate front crash, side crash, roll over crash, luggage retention, strength of seats and seat belts, airbag deployment and other accident scenarios amongst the big group. And in all the scenarios, the dummy positions are predefined, as mentioned in the starting of the paragraph.
The airbag and/or seatbelts have a set of predefined algorithm that have been coded based on the requirements of the OEM. For example, the front airbags will not be triggered in relative speeds less than 18 kmph. The seat belts and/or bumpers are sufficient for this. But if the relative speed of the cars are more than 18 kmph, then the sensoric data analyses the algorithm and decides when its most opportune to be deployed. And it analyses a lot of factors than just relative speed. The sensors behind the front bumpers analyse the force of intrusion, the displacement of the bumpers during a crash and only after they cross a predefined threshold, they trigger the sensors that inflate the airbag at more than 320 kph.
What happens when the occupant gets hit on their face with a woven nylon fabric at 320 kph?
During a crash (of upto 64 kph), all components in a car are tested. Airbags included. The regulation mandates 64 kph. Those are the rules. If you are injured by your airbag travelling at 120 kph, you cant blame anyone because thats almost twice the tested speed. Sounds dumb. But you cant design a car thats safe at all speeds. The best thing we can do, is drive defensive and safe and do our bit. And hope that the fellow road user has a brain that sees things the same way.