Sayyaaf
Autotechnik Ace
- Messages
- 5,246
- Name
- Mohamed
The stiffer the body, the more precise the steering and sharper handling, that's were usually good auto companies start.
Vs M5 (F10) vs. the Competition
- Thread starter GTA45E
- Start date
Vehicle comparisons, matchups, debates, performance battles, and head-to-head discussions.
The stiffer the body, the more precise the steering and sharper handling, that's were usually good auto companies start.
- Messages
- 7,139
I don't see why you keep focusing on safety scores (whiplash, g's, etc.). I'm simply talking about advanced and stronger body shell, which the E "wins" over the F10. Simple as that, and the facts and statistics on that are right there for you. The best ways to usually find this is by analyzing safety data, but you have to focus on the right areas. The fact that the E beat BMW and everyone else in 2009 for "Best Bodyshell" further proves that point. I don't get why it's so hard to understand (I'm assuming the issue is simply BMW fans can't give it up to a Merc maybe?
).
- Messages
- 7,139
Firstly, this discussion was firstly started about "advanced materials" used and body strength. Then, when you realized that the Merc had your precious BMW beat, you resorted to standardized safety stats.
As far as safety stats go, M-B's have ALWAYS scored lower than others, and always saved the most lives. I'll take the reputation and the E's stronger and more advanced body shell and be on my way, thanks.
Ultimate Car Guy
Porsche Perfektionist
- Messages
- 765
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.
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.
- Messages
- 7,139
Lol, well, I provide pictures, and statistics to back up my "claims".
Do you have published statistics of the E's torsional rigidity figures?
And if the 5's safety cage is so strong, then why did the roof cave after a measly 14,000 lbs of force, while the E withstood 21,000 lbs? And why does the E look like it wasn't touched in side crash footage, while the 5 has noticeable cave?
And finally, are you saying that the F10 is much superior to the body shell of the 5 GT? Because the E's body shell handily got Awarded the "best bodyshell" against the 5 GT, and the F10 only took 3rd place in the next year.
Again, I'm using visual (side crash pictures), statistics (roof load, W212's more extensive use of HSS at a record 78% at its launch) for my "outcome". You're expecting me to believe you based on a torsional rigidity figure (which may very well be true), which has a lot to do with chassis strength, correct?
Do you have published statistics of the E's torsional rigidity figures?
And if the 5's safety cage is so strong, then why did the roof cave after a measly 14,000 lbs of force, while the E withstood 21,000 lbs? And why does the E look like it wasn't touched in side crash footage, while the 5 has noticeable cave?
And finally, are you saying that the F10 is much superior to the body shell of the 5 GT? Because the E's body shell handily got Awarded the "best bodyshell" against the 5 GT, and the F10 only took 3rd place in the next year.
Again, I'm using visual (side crash pictures), statistics (roof load, W212's more extensive use of HSS at a record 78% at its launch) for my "outcome". You're expecting me to believe you based on a torsional rigidity figure (which may very well be true), which has a lot to do with chassis strength, correct?
south
Vorsprung Visionary
- Messages
- 2,755
Why would we do that?
You probably just the made the best post of the month, and I'd like to thank you for that. Best regards,
south
- Messages
- 13,235
Ah, nice excuse. But you are again factually and demonstrably wrong.
Here is 2002 E class Mercedes Benz E Class | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
It scored better than E60 5er - BMW 5 Series | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating.
Here is 98 E class - Mercedes Benz E Class | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
Again it scored better than the E34 5er - BMW 5 Series | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
Here is 2002 C class - Mercedes Benz C Class | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
vs E46 3 - BMW 3 Series | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
Again the C scored higher.
So much for the fallacy that Mercedes somehow scores lower in the tests. That is just a bull shit excuse to cover up the present E class doing worse than the present competition. Fact is the tables have turned with the present generation and BMW made some huge improvements on the safety front and is now safer than E. Period.
- Messages
- 13,235
LOL at this whole bodyshell thingy
This thread is amazing. And I have a hard time following what exactly is being said. Everybody seems to talk of something else
This is a decent bodyshell:
100,000,000 years old! Very rigid
lol, but has it won an award? I bet not. F***k the fact that survived all these years, who cares about that!
- Messages
- 7,139
I love how the guy comes in with no hard data or statistics, except for here-say and insults, and gets "Post of the Month".
Again, I'm not making this stuff up, and just because I'm not an engineer doesn't disallow me the ability to analyze the data that is *at my service*.
FACT: The E shows a stronger body shell than the F10 in side crash footage (the most telling and important form of judging body strength, forget all else really.
FACT: The E withstands MUCH more pressure to the roof than the F10.
FACT: The E was awarded Best Body against the 5 GT (which I assume is not far off from the F10.
HOW is that BS, and how is lambasting me for digesting and analyzing, and preaching these *FACTS* in any way a good argument.
Ultimate Car Guy, I don't know what you do, and I don't care. I also don't care if Engineers find it "insulting" that I try and take whatever information that is available of their work, and draw conclusions from it. Tell them that I'm the customer and it's my hard earned $$$$ that funds what they do.
Now, can you rationally explain the *FACTS* that I posted, and why they have no relevance as to why the E having a stiffer structure than the F10? I'm all ears and willing to learn. However spewing insults and rigidity figures that are your words only (I have no way of knowing if it's true, and I don't even doubt it), and not taking into account that I said CHASSIS rigidity is an aside, then I'll just chalk it up to a BMW fan who doesn't like hearing bad things about their favorite brand.
Again, I'm not making this stuff up, and just because I'm not an engineer doesn't disallow me the ability to analyze the data that is *at my service*.
FACT: The E shows a stronger body shell than the F10 in side crash footage (the most telling and important form of judging body strength, forget all else really.
FACT: The E withstands MUCH more pressure to the roof than the F10.
FACT: The E was awarded Best Body against the 5 GT (which I assume is not far off from the F10.
HOW is that BS, and how is lambasting me for digesting and analyzing, and preaching these *FACTS* in any way a good argument.
Ultimate Car Guy, I don't know what you do, and I don't care. I also don't care if Engineers find it "insulting" that I try and take whatever information that is available of their work, and draw conclusions from it. Tell them that I'm the customer and it's my hard earned $$$$ that funds what they do.
Now, can you rationally explain the *FACTS* that I posted, and why they have no relevance as to why the E having a stiffer structure than the F10? I'm all ears and willing to learn. However spewing insults and rigidity figures that are your words only (I have no way of knowing if it's true, and I don't even doubt it), and not taking into account that I said CHASSIS rigidity is an aside, then I'll just chalk it up to a BMW fan who doesn't like hearing bad things about their favorite brand.
- Messages
- 7,139
Lol, comparing the W210 to the E34 to spin your way I see now?
You're right on the NCAP data, however, again, the W212 shows remarkably stronger body shell characteristics, how come this is so hard for you guys to conclude?
Me, personally, I trust M-B's way of engineering safety, and I have proof that the E has a stronger safety cage, especially in the roof area. This enough for me to feel safer in the E, and we won't know "who's safer" until some actual real life crash data comes out. However, my argument here isn't who scores better in safety tests, it is who has a stronger safety cage/body, and there's proof all around that it's the E's. The only arguments I get back are insults and avoiding my factual points I've put out.... with.... more insults.
- Messages
- 38,110
About time
I believe I read BMW will be using an alu solution for the next gen 7er, which again will be the base for the 5er. Hope that's true. It will be the best of all three worlds, strength, cost and weight...the perfect 'triangle'!
- Messages
- 7,139
You really think a substantial enough number like that is simply due to A-Pillar angle? How about the 5's roof folding at the middle-top (around the moonroof area)?
I'm sure that is a playing factor, but I wouldn't think it's the whole reason. For example, the E Coupe (who's A-Pillar I think slants even more than the F10's) still withstands over 20,000 lbs of force, not to mention, several cars tested with very swept A-Pillars who have much higher load-withstanding roofs (i.e, stronger roofs).
Maybe Ultimate Car Guy can explain? Or am I an idiot for reciting statistical data at my fingertips, and using them to rationalize the E having a stronger safety cage (I mean, the entire roof is a pretty big part of that!).
I'm sure that is a playing factor, but I wouldn't think it's the whole reason. For example, the E Coupe (who's A-Pillar I think slants even more than the F10's) still withstands over 20,000 lbs of force, not to mention, several cars tested with very swept A-Pillars who have much higher load-withstanding roofs (i.e, stronger roofs).
Maybe Ultimate Car Guy can explain? Or am I an idiot for reciting statistical data at my fingertips, and using them to rationalize the E having a stronger safety cage (I mean, the entire roof is a pretty big part of that!).
- Messages
- 18,058
- Name
- Giannis
You really think a substantial enough number like that is simply due to A-Pillar angle? How about the 5's roof folding at the middle-top (around the moonroof area)?
I'm sure that is a playing factor, but I wouldn't think it's the whole reason. For example, the E Coupe (who's A-Pillar I think slants even more than the F10's) still withstands over 20,000 lbs of force, not to mention, several cars tested with very swept A-Pillars who have much higher load-withstanding roofs (i.e, stronger roofs).
Maybe Ultimate Car Guy can explain? Or am I an idiot for reciting statistical data at my fingertips, and using them to rationalize the E having a stronger safety cage (I mean, the roof is a pretty bit part of that!).
The problem, K-A, is that all you have is some random numbers and a couple of photos. These only tell half the truth. You can't compare those numbers and form a valid argument, because you have to see the hole picture.
As far as the roof loading is concerned. You provide us numbers that show how much force, perpendicular to the roof's surface, the roof can withstand. Yes, this is interesting, but not very important. To an engineer, it's just another meaningless number. Yet, what is interesting is the structural rigidity to the loading that's most important to a car. Flex. And that's not something that is easily measurable in crash-tests, yet is highly imporant.
I am very sure that when it comes to flex, the 5er's roof is doing a far better job, which results in the astonishing 35.500Nm/deg.
If, on the other hand, flex was not important, but the sky falling on our heads had a bigger possibility, then yes, the numbers of the roof loading would be much more important.
Now, about the roof folding around the moonroof area. The angle of the A pillars is very important. That's something that can easily be seen. Also important is the beam that connects the two B pillars. Thickness, cross-section design, etc. There are many factors that have to do with the roof strenght and deformation in that perticular type of loading, as used by the NHTSA, but as I told you, this is not very important...
- Messages
- 18,058
- Name
- Giannis
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.
- Messages
- 38,110
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.
So when we sink to the bottom of the ocean we will not implode?
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.
So when we sink to the bottom of the ocean we will not implode?
