Territory Airbag fails to deploy

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 07:28 PM

Watching the local news tonight and the owner of Territory isnt too happy.
Several weeks ago he was involved in a head on collision with a truck.
His Territory was written off.
Impact was bad enough that his seat rails were almost ripped off.
Yet his airbag didnt deploy.

After sending his car to the local Ford dealer he got a responce saying that the impact was NOT "severe" enough to deploy airbags!

Hmmmmmm

2 weeks in hospital with chest injuries.... not severe enough???

The speed wasnt mentioned but the vehicle is severly damaged enough that it cant be fixed (well yes anything can be fixed, but how much money does one wanna spend?).

Any other instances of this?

XR Martin · 25-10-2010, 07:36 PM

Seat rails ripped off....Let me guess, he was on the wrong side of 100kg.

Kryton · 25-10-2010, 07:54 PM

Dont see what the issue is really.
What Ford said is correct, there airbag wasnt needed in this instance.
The car has crumpled and absorbed the impact - which it is meant to do.
Seat rails are irrelevant, just the same as the amount of damage to the car.
If the car is written off, so be it, doesnt mean the airbag was needed though.
You might find his injuries were caused by the seat belt as well.

vztrt · 25-10-2010, 07:57 PM

So he survived a head on with a truck and he is complaining?

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 07:58 PM

No the guy wasnt fat.... which worries me if the seat rails tore.
The seat had moved forward by an inch or so and the driver side seat rail had very little metal left before it snapped completely..

Yes I agree the car crumpled as its suppoed to, but there have been accidents in which cars have less apparent damage where the airbag has deployed.

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

So he survived a head on with a truck and he is complaining?

Yes! lol..... well he is complaining about the lack of airbag deployment.
He was surprised it didnt work.
It wasnt what one would call a fatal type impact, as he didnt need to be cut out of the vehicle.

vztrt · 25-10-2010, 08:08 PM

Well I would rather walk away from an accident with no airbag deployment then dead with somewhere to rest my head.

Sometimes the sensor doesn't resister. Not the first time I've heard of this.

gthofan · 25-10-2010, 08:12 PM

Here is some good info about airbags, http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/d...0331-refb.html

In particular- "Emergency braking alone is not enough to trigger the airbags, as it generates only about one G-force. Airbags are generally triggered by forces of more than 20 Gs, or 20 times the force of gravity."

I always thought airbags should only deploy in life threatening situations, and in this case, he's alive so obviously they were not needed.

3vXT · 25-10-2010, 08:29 PM

The next time we hear from this guy it'll be a link to a story about him suing Ford. If the car was really really smashed up I'd expect the airbag to have deployed but there is no guarantee that it'll go off.

**redxm** · 25-10-2010, 08:32 PM

Ive seen a Patrol with the front wheels under the drivers seat and no airbag deployment.
Manufacturers spend zillions to get this right. The bloke is alive with a few busted ribs. Id call that a win, could have been much worse.

g220ba · 25-10-2010, 08:34 PM

I love this sort of crap, nobody has any understanding of how an airbag system works and just expects it to go off at the slightest impact.

He's alive because the car did what it's supposed to do, regardless of the seat moving or any other damage if the system detects enough force the airbag will deploy.

Bobman · 25-10-2010, 08:45 PM

If the impact missed the sensor then that could be a reason why they didn't deploy.

That said, I've seen nasty wrecks without airbag deployment and I've seen lightly damaged vehicles where the airbag did deploy.

bobthebilda · 25-10-2010, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the guy wasnt fat.... which worries me if the seat rails tore.
The seat had moved forward by an inch or so and the driver side seat rail had very little metal left before it snapped completely..
.

It would be a concern if the seat rail snapped. The lower rails were made in australia up till a few years ago, but are now imported from china. Initial imports were apparantly quite high in rejects.

Any idea how old the Territory was.

Jesmol · 25-10-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

It would be a concern if the seat rail snapped. The lower rails were made in australia up till a few years ago, but are now imported from china. Initial imports were apparantly quite high in rejects.

Any idea how old the Territory was.

Jan 2008 was the time they changed over.

geckoGT · 25-10-2010, 09:37 PM

Without knowing the speed of impact and direction of forces it is hard to say for sure but from the description of the damage I would say the airbag should have deployed. A head on crash significant enough to seriously deform frontal structures and damage seat rails should have deployed airbags. The damage to the seat rails and the injuries to the driver demonstrate that despite the crumple zones, there was still significant force applied to the occupants, a situation that airbags are fitted for. I have been to hundreds of lesser crashes (no damage to seating and no thorax injuries to the driver) that have triggered airbags in all types of vehicles.

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 84ltd

I love this sort of crap, nobody has any understanding of how an airbag system works and just expects it to go off at the slightest impact.

He's alive because the car did what it's supposed to do, regardless of the seat moving or any other damage if the system detects enough force the airbag will deploy.

No where did i say the owner (or myself) expect the airbag to deploy at the slightest impact.

I did say the Territory was written off and had significant damage.
It was a head on with a truck.

The seat rail damage is also a worry....

Joe5619 · 25-10-2010, 09:50 PM

I've never understand people.. They are here to tell us a story of getting hit by a truck, yet still find something to complain about??.. The guy just won Lotto for F sack!! Get on with life, it is too short!!

gthofan · 25-10-2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

The guy just won Lotto for F sack!!!

Like he's won the lotto, but payed out in 50's rather than 100's

However the damage to the seat rail is a real concern if ford have changed their parts supplyer.

Nikked · 25-10-2010, 10:03 PM

How does a seat rail "almost rip off" this story makes no sense.

04redxr8 · 25-10-2010, 10:07 PM

Can't understand the fuss either. Airbags are a supplemantary safety device. Meaning they are a back up safety device. The seatbelt being the primary device. Cars these days are designed to crumple around the occupants and protect them in safety cell like structures.

Makes me think that may be a bad thing if this person survived a head on with a truck and still winged.

geckoGT · 25-10-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I've never understand people.. They are here to tell us a story of getting hit by a truck, yet still find something to complain about??.. The guy just won Lotto for F sack!! Get on with life, it is too short!!

Would you not be concerned if a major safety feature of your vehicle failed? I know would want to know why and I think Ford should perhaps have a look for the reason, perhaps there is a problem and next time the occupant may not be so lucky. Instead they fill you with crap about how they all do that or it is within tolerances, without even looking. Safety devices not functioning are the things large law suits are made of.

You need to understand something here, chest injuries that require 2 weeks of hospitalisation is not insignificant (it is not just a couple of busted ribs). A bit more force and that would have been fatal, a bit less and it would have been no hospitalisation. What we don't know is what he hit his chest on. If he hit his chest on the steering wheel and the airbag did not deploy, he probably has good grounds for a law suit against Ford, that is what airbags are there for.

I also have little doubt that had the vehicle involved been a Holden Captiva, the responses here would be very different.

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

How does a seat rail "almost rip off" this story makes no sense.

The seat contains weight (the driver).
the vehicle suddenly stops because of impact....
the seat wants to travel forwards because of inertia, the bolts and seat rails are designed to stop this.

However the footage showed at least the drivers side seat rail had almost torn in half just above the attach point where the bolt is.

Watch the video footage of crash testing and you will see the seats lurch forward and the seat back usually breaking..

bobthebilda · 25-10-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

How does a seat rail "almost rip off" this story makes no sense.

Well you would think that the passenger would have been restrained by belt (pretensioner), and this would allow little movement for the seat rails to rip off.

Not sure what the drivers seat was ( 4 way or 6 way), but the 4 ways (hand rail activated) are very flimsy.

It would be unlikely that the lower part of the rails (bolted to car) would rip off, more likely to be a separation between the upper and lower rails (weakest part of track). As said before, these were initially made in OZ, but outsourced to china. Once in OZ, they are assembled by a company that almost went belly up a few years ago (cut back quite alot on the technical side). The only testing Ford does on these parts when seats are fitted in plant, are to slide seat forward and backward (by operator).

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 10:18 PM

Bob it wasnt the upper and lower seperating... the steel frame had actually torn apart

geckoGT · 25-10-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

Well you would think that the passenger would have been restrained by belt (pretensioner), and this would allow little movement for the seat rails to rip off.

.

The seat belt pretensioner would have some effect but the problem is the belt is anchored in 3 points, the floor, B pillar and seat. Any significant force must be spread across those three points, in this case the weakest of them failed which was the seat rail.

You may also find there is some give engineered into the seat rail to allow the seat belt to give and slow the occupant down. If the seat belt was absolutely rigidly mounted, it can cause significant deceleration injuries in the chest as internal organs can not withstand the forces involved. I suspect the system in high force frontal crashes is the seat rail gives way at a certain force which slows the forces, much as crumple zones do. This system is supposed to be backed up by the airbags which will further slow the occupant before any impact with internal car surfaces occurs.

bobthebilda · 25-10-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Bob it wasnt the upper and lower seperating... the steel frame had actually torn apart

That would be a very big concern. The passenger load and belt would limit the damage done. Imagine if someone was rear ended in a territory, the seat would have potential to crush rear passengers.

Jim Goose · 25-10-2010, 10:37 PM

i wonder if any of the manufacturers keep any data on crashes of current model cars?

geckoGT · 25-10-2010, 10:42 PM

Just had another thought.

In the Ford systems, do the seat belt pre tensioners trigger off the frontal crash sensor or do they have their own sensor?

The reason I bring this up is because if the frontal crash sensor was defective (as suggested by the lack of airbag deployment) and the pre tensioners trigger off that sensor in a frontal crash, then the pre tensioners would not have functioned either. That would also go some way to explaining the significant injury the occupant sustained.

bobthebilda · 25-10-2010, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Just had another thought.

In the Ford systems, do the seat belt pre tensioners trigger off the frontal crash sensor or do they have their own sensor?

The reason I bring this up is because if the frontal crash sensor was defective (as suggested by the lack of airbag deployment) and the pre tensioners trigger off that sensor in a frontal crash, then the pre tensioners would not have functioned either. That would also go some way to explaining the significant injury the occupant sustained.

Regardless, the pretensioners function is only to take off the little bit of slack that is left, when the seat belt locks. At the very least, the belt should have locked, thus severely decreasing any forward body movement of the occupant (and seat)

bobthebilda · 25-10-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The seat belt pretensioner would have some effect but the problem is the belt is anchored in 3 points, the floor, B pillar and seat. Any significant force must be spread across those three points, in this case the weakest of them failed which was the seat rail.

You may also find there is some give engineered into the seat rail to allow the seat belt to give and slow the occupant down. If the seat belt was absolutely rigidly mounted, it can cause significant deceleration injuries in the chest as internal organs can not withstand the forces involved. I suspect the system in high force frontal crashes is the seat rail gives way at a certain force which slows the forces, much as crumple zones do. This system is supposed to be backed up by the airbags which will further slow the occupant before any impact with internal car surfaces occurs.

sorry gecko, didnt see your psoting before last response. You are correct in the 3 rd point being the seat track, and as a result, I would assume there would be no tolerance for any malfunction in this anchor point. Maybe I am reading what you wrote incorrectly, but if the body mass is flung forward, then it wouldnt matter if seat (behind) was rigid. Without a correctly functioning seat belt (ie 3rd anchor on track being ok), the driver would continue flying forward, never to see the seat again.