SBC pump confusion

[bigtwin]

This is absolutely nothing like the corrosion issue. Rusty wings don't kill.

None of these have gone to court, none will. They have been settled with a confidentiality clause in place.

 

[Alex Crow]

The Law in this country is very much on the side of money...

Absolutely, democracy means having access to the best law you can buy.
Justice, we like to think of as a right, becomes precious - a luxury that the richest and most powerful can afford far more of :neutral:

I do believe this, but I am still with Churchill on democracy, and no plans to move yet.

I think if any action were to be effective, it would have to show substantive evidence of actual loss of life or serious injury caused as a direct result of the nature of the design of the SBC system when compared to traditional servo assisted systems, rather than just the chain of events that could theoretically lead to it.
Cars by their very nature are dangerous things, and while aspects of design seek to minimise or manage risk, it would be unreasonable to expect all systems to be designed entirely without flaw, and to operate thus, indefinitely.
Indeed, succesful legal action would have to show that SBC is inherently more dangerous by design.
As far as I am aware, we have not yet amassed any such documented evidence - can anyone point me to any?

I suspect that worn wiper blades have cause more loss of life than SBC systems, by some margin.
And the weakest link in the car, the worst designed part, the most dangerous bit, has to be the driver.
Think on.

 

[bigtwin]

I think if any action were to be effective, it would have to show substantive evidence of actual loss of life or serious injury caused as a direct result of the nature of the design of the SBC system when compared to traditional servo assisted systems, rather than just the chain of events that could theoretically lead to it.

Indeed, succesful legal action would have to show that SBC is inherently more dangerous by design.

Nope - this is not the relevant test:

as described,
of satisfactory quality, and
fit for purpose.

Satisfactory quality is the key, and price/replacement, longevity and purpose are determinative factors in evaluating this.

 

[martin_sv]

As far as I am aware, we have not yet amassed any such documented evidence - can anyone point me to any?

.

Well no one is likely to be unfazed by brake failure in any vehicle but from my perspective ( and stated within merc's own technical documentation) its the miserable level of retained braking efficiency, ie deceleration of just 0.3g, that shows up the sytem in a very bad light. I believe it shows mercedes a) underestimated the chance of SBC failure without the usual pre warning dash message and B) because of this overconfidence provided such a poor level of backup braking efficiency. ie they thought it would never happen.

For a documented comparison of backup braking provision and efficiency I recently got hold of some ancient motor road tests for cars I fancied in my youth from ebay-- I'm a bit nerdy like that .
I dug out a road test from september 1971 for a BMW 3.0s. Here's what BMW managed over 40 years ago.

Quote: "Backed up twin vacuum servos and duplicated hydraulic lines to the front callipers. Thus, if one circuit fails 75% of the braking effect remains acting on all four wheels. If the other circuit fails then 60% remains on the front wheels only. There is also the mechanical handbrake which managed 0.33g from 30mph with ease"

So a similarly premium manufacturer ie Mercedes now think 0.3 g is just hunky dory for their "advanced system". We know they got it wrong because they dropped it from all vehicles later on.
I do agree with the poster who said that merc will never let a case get to court and will pay anyone off who tries. Not much good if you or others are injured though is it??

 

[paul hayward]

Well no one is likely to be unfazed by brake failure in any vehicle

i lost ALL brakes going through a red light that had "Just" gone red in a old 1954 beetle.... was interesting for certain:lol: shortly after that i sold it to a friend and told him the first job he must do is fit duel circuit brakes to it:lol:

He did that and then shortly after the resto another friend drove up the back of it when his brakes went pop:lol:

S@@@ happens at any time.... does make you think a bit but...... if its gonna happen its gonna happen........

 

[jasonyw]

I did have a word with the part manager at the local dealer in 2008 when I got my car.

He said, you should call the free phone number for rescue provided your car regularly serviced with them.

it easy to get a red dashboard to be displayed, just disconnect the secondary battery negative terminal

 

[linford]

Discriminating UK customers?

Is Mercedes-Benz discriminating UK customers?
Did I read that in the US cars with problem SBC's were recalled and fixed free of charge by Mercedes-Benz?

 

[paul hayward]

Is Mercedes-Benz discriminating UK customers?
Did I read that in the US cars with problem SBC's were recalled and fixed free of charge by Mercedes-Benz?

yep...they still do in the usa but have stopped all that in other parts of the world

 

[linford]

Arrogant Mercedes-Benz

Maybe all affected customers should club together and act against this arrogant bunch.

 

[Frontstep]

This is absolutely nothing like the corrosion issue. Rusty wings don't kill.

None of these have gone to court, none will. They have been settled with a confidentiality clause in place.

Sorry thats simply incorrect, I went to court with MB over the corrosion issue I have no confidentially clause.
What is not as widely known is that the corrosion problems affect safety critical areas such as subframes and spring perches not just bodywork.
The SBC failure issue, why would anyone accept a confidentiality clause.
Because of the amounts involved any action would be dealt with at the small claims level where cases are not reported and set no precedent.
It is of no use to MB to pay for one I can tell you I won my case but it is of little use to any one else as their circumstances are usually different.
Any higher Court is free to deviate from the lower courts decision.
MB have their standard get out clause its called "Goodwill" no one has ever reported to my knowledge being asked to sign any confidentiality clause for these payments or more likely work carried out.
I have had "Goodwill" as well.