Vs M5 (F10) vs. the Competition

[Giannis]

Roof strenth is important because there is always the possibility, humor aside, for the car to turn upside down after a crash. It has to be able to withstand it's own weight and any other additional forces, possilby generated from the impact.

 

[K-A]

Crash tests and real life crashes, actually, are all about energy absorbtion. The chassis has to absorbe the crash energy, in order to protect the driver and passengers. The energy that is absorbed by the marerial is a function of it's strength, it's deformation and the structure's stiffness. You need all those in order to be able to make a conclusion on absorbed energy. See it like a triangle, as UCG used it before. Just the fact the the E's B pillar had a smaller deformation than the 5er's, is, again, only telling half the truth.

Agreed, and I understand.

However, my initial point here isn't exactly "safety", it's innovative (which to me would mean, stronger, lighter) materials in the safety cage.

Yes, I do have some photos and random facts/stats, but what else is there? I see those as an almost absolute way to judge who has a stronger safety cage (again, forget "safer", I'm talking about "stronger"). If I see the E looks much better after a test to its side structure, and visual AND printed stats about its roof load capacity, not to mention, experts awarding it "Best Bodyshell" over a BMW 5 Series GT, and then someone tells me "but.. but.. you are an idiot for citing all those facts, and the F10 has a stronger structure.. because.. it's.. a.. BMW D), then I will write it off.

I understand that that isn't the whole story, and who knows, maybe the F10 in some mysterious way still has a stronger structure. However, those facts are all that I have at hand, and they are enough to validate my assumption (pictures, numbers, awards, etc. should be more than enough, and not "small beans").

The way I see it, is with the information available to the public, one would have to have a strong bias to not recognize that it's the F10 who needs to prove that it indeed has a superior structure to the W212. I also would need more than some random torsional rigidity figures from a Member here, to let it put aside all the hard data that I do have at hand (as limited or absolute as it may be).

As far as safety goes, I do put faith into test results, but I usually go further than that, personally. I firstly judge a brands reputations (Mercedes: Check), make sure the scores are good enough (check), but then scan the pictures, and the individual areas/stats available. I'll tell you one thing, body shell strength via pics and stats from a high reputation company is usually enough for me. When I look for a second, more appliance-like car, I wouldn't take one with "only" 14,000 lbs of roof withstanding force, it just shows careless and corner cutting engineering in todays age. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But this puts into perspective why I have more than enough reason to feel the W212's body is stronger, and more advanced the F10's. I need more than excuses and insults (not directed to you, Giannis) (i.e, hard PROOF) that the F10 has a superior frame.

 

[K-A]

Why is the strength of the roof even important. What can possibly happen? Like Giannis said, it's only the sky that can fall on our heads....and I don't think even Obama's Caddy would be safe then, LOL



It's BS, because you clearly didn't read Sunny's reply on it. It won something meaningless, because both the Jag XJ and Audi R8 were in that test too, and they both have a more advanced alu space frame body compared to the W212.

Klier, adults are talking now.

So, experts conclude that the W212 has a superior frame to the R8 and Jag, and because YOU think it doesn't, it's BS?

Fact is, the W212 HAS a superior body to them, and the 5 GT, as it was Awarded. Learn to take things less personally and cry away that it's "meaningless" because BMW doesn't win.

And of course roof strength isn't important to you, but next gen, when the F10 has high roof strength, it will, I'm sure. Of course roof is important.... It's the ROOF! What, now B-Pillars strength aren't important? How about a floor board? Not important? The roof is one of the most important aspects of a cars frame.

 

[klier]

Klier, adults are talking now.

Funny. You cry in every post that people insult you, yet when the opportunity arrives, you do it yourself.

And of course roof strength isn't important to you, but next gen, when the F10 has high roof strength, it will, I'm sure.

Firstly, even if the F10 had a roof that could carry the world I couldn't care less. It's so low on my priorities list I haven't even thought if it. I just assume a car is safe. All European cars are highly safe, I never think of safety.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with fanboyism. LOL.

Of course roof is important.... It's the ROOF! What, now B-Pillars strength aren't important? How about a floor board? Not important? The roof is one of the most important aspects of a cars frame.

As far as I know the roof isn't even a part of the frame....unlike the B-pillars:

 

[Giannis]

Why is strenght so important? If I am not mistaken, the E Class uses steel of higher ultimate tensile strenght than the 5er. But don't forget that force equals stress times area, so just the ultimate strenght (stress) of a certain steel is not enough to calculate the strenght (as in force).

Safety, strenght, etc are just some random generalizations that are not the whole truth. If you want a measure of how good a chassis is, there you have it. Torsional rigidity.

Other than that, I am afraid I don't have any more arguments to add to this discussion!

 

[K-A]

Funny. You cry in every post that people insult you, yet when the opportunity arrives, you do it yourself.

I could start on all the levels you're wrong, but I know others will do that for me You're going to be quoted K-A, beware!
And yeah, the R8 has a superior frame to the W212. No rocket science there buddy

Do you have anything of value to add here, or just fanboy raves and rants?

Care to dispel any of the facts I've posted bout the W212 having a stronger cage than an F10? Or do you want to pretend that just because your precious BMW doesn't beat an M-B in the worlds most highly acclaimed test of "Best Body Structure", with hundreds of experts from all over the world judging, that it's "BS"?

The W212 was/is the most advanced and modern body when M-B released it in 2009, do you really think that M-B's best body in their history cannot "beat" a Jaguar or Audi? M-B themselves stated that they used methods and materials on the W212 that weren't even available just a couple of years before it.

Please, if you have something intelligent to add to my questions, then do so, but otherwise, I already know: "BMW IS THE BEST EVER, ANYTHING ELSE IS STUPID POO POO!".

 

[K-A]

Why is strenght so important? If I am not mistaken, the E Class uses steel of higher ultimate tensile strenght than the 5er. But don't forget that force equals stress times area, so just the ultimate strenght (stress) of a certain steel is not enough to calculate the strenght (as in force).

Safety, strenght, etc are just some random generalizations that are not the whole truth. If you want a measure of how good a chassis is, there you have it. Torsional rigidity.

Other than that, I am afraid I don't have any more arguments to add to this discussion!

Ah, well, the first question, one can ask "why is performance so important", or "why are looks so important", etc.

The strength and build of a car to me is the ultimate in how I judge the car. For example, an engine is so important to many, but a car is only worth what it is made of (just like a human is worth what they eat, how they treat themselves, etc.). I find it a big aspect when a cars build is of utmost strength and quality of assembly, again, more-so than engine, suspension, etc. That's just me.

I do understand that ultra stiff strength can work against a car however. I have been a big critic of the W212's "balance". I feel the chassis (at least with the Sport suspension) is under-engineered for the super stiff frame. When you drive the Sport model, the suspension is sort of confused as to whether it should be a luxury car or sports car when you go over harsh roads. Sometimes, the suspension doesn't do a good job of filtering out the harshness, and it makes its way to the cabin, where you now feel the super stiff frame absorbing the impact from the road, and I'll tell you something, the stiff frame isn't a good shock absorber. If the car had a "softer" frame, it would probably flex more, and absorb the harshness. However, I still wouldn't give back the stiff frame at all.

 

[klier]

Holy crap, is this guy for real?!?!?!

This is not about me finding BMW better, this is about you. You have found your holy grail in your beloved E-class and you make up facts about things you don't know a crap about.
I don't know anything about it either, but I'm not claiming anything, and I sure as hell am not throwing in all these baseless numbers about something only real engineers can comment on.

Your "let's point fingers at that mad fanboy Klier" doesn't work here, sorry. Nobody will join in.

I'm out of this thread. K-A needs some sleep, and this is getting out of control.
I do hope Sunny or UCG chime in to correct some of the statements being made here, as they're both engineers.

 

[K-A]

BTW, now it's almost time for me to embark on my bi-weekly journey across one of the U.S's most popular cross-state Highways, full of Big-Rigs, etc., at late hours of the night, in my trusty W212. I guess if something unfortunate were to arise, and the car didn't protect as intended, you guys here would have a great deal of levity.

 

[K-A]

Holy crap, is this guy for real?!?!?!

This is not about me finding BMW better, this is about you. You have found your holy grail in your beloved E-class and you make up facts about things you don't know a crap about.
I don't know anything about it either, but I'm not claiming anything, and I sure as hell am not throwing in all these baseless numbers about something only real engineers can comment on.

Your "let's point fingers at that mad fanboy Klier" doesn't work here, sorry. Nobody will join in.

Again, I HAVE POSTED PROOF OF MY CLAIMS!!!!

You dispel some serious awards because you "can't believe it"? And you think that you provide any insight or knowledge into this conversation.

All the facts I've posted are true. If they're hard for you to swallow, then that's your problem. Again, where is your contribution here, other than posting nonsense?

 

[Giannis]

At this point, I'd like to ask you guys to try and keep the level of quality of the discussion at an acceptable level, and avoid hitting rock bottom. Many posts in this thread are beyond acceptable!

Thanks.

 

[K-A]

To backtrack this to what started this "direction" in the first place. Does anyone have any torsional rigidity figures on the Panamera? I expect that it would be remarkable rigid.

 

[LaArtist]

I think now is the appropriate time for me to step-in to this thread and try and sort out the misunderstanding.

Firstly, the car's bodyshell is by far the most important element in a car's engineering and construction. For a car to have a strong safety structure and to provide the basis for good handling, the car needs to have a stiff bodshell - and the stiffer the better.

It is also in engineering terms, one of the most challenging.

Engineers have to work in what they call the "Engineering Triangle". In bodyshell engineering terms, this triangle's 3 sides which are labelled "Cost", "Strength" and "Weight". In the practical application of this principle, engineers can only ever satisfy 2 sides of this triangle. For example:

1. If they want a bodyshell that satisfies the "Strength" and "Weight" then they have to compromise on "Cost". This would involve the use carbon fibre.
2. If they want a bosysheet that satifies the "Strenght" and "Cost" then they have to compromise on "Weight". This would involve the use of steel.
3. If they want a bodyshell that satisfies the "Weight" and "Cost" then they have to compromise on "Strength". This would involve the us of fibre glass.

If i look at the latest E-Klasse and 5er, both car's have adopted the "Strenght" and "Cost" option so thus have comparatively speaking compromised on "Weight". If one of them adopted an aluminium solution (which is being seriously considered for the next generation 5er) then this would be a completely different argument altogether.

Now lets get to the facts and try and avoid K-A's BS, which lets face it, he's being doing for the past few posts now.

The E-Klasse as a fact has a torsional rigidity of 28,000nm per degree (an impressive figure). This figure was revealed in the 2009 Car Body Awards in which the F10 5er was NOT a participant. So K-A, stop talking out of your arse with your claims that the E-Klasse beat the 5er in an award.

The 5er as a fact has a torsional rigidity of approximately 35,500 per degree (an even more impressive figure). This body is so strong that for the M5, they were able to bolt the suspension directly onto the car without the use of bushings.

As for which car has the best body? There's no definitive answere because both car's sit a different points in the engineering triangle. The 5er may be quantitatively stiffer but it has compromised the "Weight" side in the process.

The most important thing is that both car's have scored well in the crash tests and have both got solid handling.

PS. K-A, you are a fool! You're not even an engineer, you don't even work in the industry and you're making claims just by studying photographs. You don't even know what you're talking about. If the engineers from both BMW and Daimler were to read your posts, they'd be so insulted.

I don't care if the moderators ban me or give me an infringement but what K-A's saying is just wrong.

Stellar post!!!
But may i ask you to explain one thing to us who do not understand.
Torsional Rigidity .. The 5er has 35,500nm/deg more than many supercars, but at the same time cars like the RR Phanthom has even more..or the VW phateon.
What does the TG do for a car in terms of performance?
To me it seems that the larger the car,and the fatter the structure, the more TG you get.

 

[deity]

To me, the A6, E, and the 5 are all very safe. In a real-life crash, it will be the little things BEYOND our control that determines if we survive (or the extent of our injury). Speed, the mass of the other car, angles, all make a difference. So to say that Merc's are safer is just an assumption- I could say that they experience higher survival ratios because their drivers are older and generally safer, but that's just my guess.

These crash tests are the closest a consumer will ever come to having a general idea of how the car will perform in the event of an accident. It goes through extensive mediums, and there's actually quite a bit of science and research that has gone to it. If the 5 and the A6 score better than the E, chances are they're actually safer. But keep in mind all these tests are quite... controlled. What happens in real-life may be slightly or even completely different, but this is all we have, and the science says the 5 and the A6 are better.

 

[Merc1]

OMG....what is the point of all this????? I haven't so many pointless posts in a thread here in years. Can we please drop this bullshit???


M

 

[Zafiro]

M5 doesn't have a competition. It's in its own league thats why we discuss bodyshell stiffness instead

 

[Sunny]

Talking about looking at random pictures and playing scientist and concluding which car has stronger body, well here are two very telling ones.





These are from the NCAP pole test, it is obvious how much more depressed the E class body is compared to F10 and the comments reflect that too

For E class -

In the more severe side pole test, protection offered for the chest was rated as marginal.

And for F10 -

In the more severe side pole impact, the head and pelvis were well protected, the chest and abdomen adequately so.

I guess somehow these won't be valid either.

BTW, my contention is not and was never that F10 has a stronger body, it is that we in public just don't have the information to say defnitley which one does. The strength of the body is not something simple that can be expressed by one number or captured by one pic. The body/chassis is a complicated mechanical object with many different parts/area all of which will have it's own mechanical properties and strengths which again will vary with what direction or nature of the force or stress that is applied. It would take a zillion measurements to express it all. Roof strength is just one of them so is torsional rigidity. To draw conclusion on which one has more advanced or stronger body based on just one number or image would be utmost idiotic.

 

[bum-man]

I don't know the F10 looks much worse here. Just because the metal sprung back out doesn't mean it did not protrude as far.

 

[Zafiro]

I dunno the F10 looks much worse here. Just because the metal sprung back out doesn't mean it did not protrude as far.

View attachment 9320

None of them looks very good. Do we really care? Its not like any of those two cars are any death traps.

 

[Sunny]

I don't know the F10 looks much worse here. Just because the metal sprung back out doesn't mean it did not protrude as far.

View attachment 9320

W212 looks much worse to me, but more importantly also to the people who did the test and were there when the test was done.