Talk:Airbag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old talk

206.188's recent edit added "The airbag sensor is a MEMS accelerometer, which is a small integrated circuit chip with integrated micro-mechanical elements." I believe that this is true, however I also believe that airbags initially used mercury switches or something like that instead. Does anyone know what the historical technologies were? Bryan 01:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, There was some work initially in Mercury switches but they did not work very well. Before MEMS, the primary system used to deploy airbags was called a "rolamite". A rolamite is an interesting contraption that was originally developed to detect launch of inter continental ballistic missiles. This device was developed at Sandia National Laboratories. The rolamite and similar macro-mechanical devices were used in air bags until the mid-1990's. Now 100% of cars use MEMS devices. Mostly, the ADXL-50 by analog devices, but there are other MEMS manufacturers as well. Paul paul.mcwhorter@memx.com

Thanks! I'll add that to the article tonight, if nobody beats me to it. :) Bryan 16:27, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] crash speed and energy

"Roughly speaking, a 14 mi/h (23 km/h) barrier collision is equivalent to striking a parked car of similar size across the full front of each vehicle at about 28 mi/h "

Is this correct, since the kinetic energy of a car going 28 is 4 times that of one going 14 (not twice as much)? Bubba73 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Assuming equal mass cars and a fully inelastic collision, a quarter of the energy is left after the crash in motion of each car (each is now going 14 mph), and a quarter is absorbed by each car -- so the same energy is absorbed by the car as if it hit a wall at 14 mph. This can be derived from conservation of momentum + energy + an assumption of inelasticity. Evand 04:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] second edition airbags

I was just wondering if anyone knew what second edition airbags mean. I have a sticker in my window with this on it and I was wondering does this mean that my vehichal has been in an accident and the airbags have been replaced or was there some sort of a recall on the first ones that were in it or is this just a name brand.


Second generation airbags are what I assume you are referring to. Most manufacturers refined their air bag designs in the late '90s to deploy at slower speeds and/or to have a two stage function that would deploy one or two charges depending on the circcustances of the impact.

  • Yes it means your vehicle is equipped with dual stage airbags, there is a computer which can detect the height of the driver / passenger and also how far forward the seats are positioned, and only inflate the airbags a certain amount to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janipewter (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speed of airbag deployment

A few months ago, I needed to compare the speed of something to the speed of an airbag. I cited the 1/20 second (or 50 milliseconds) data in Wikipedia. Another engineer pointed out that 50 milliseconds seemed much too long for an airbag to deploy. We ran a few what if scenarios mathematically.....and 50 milliseconds seemed to be too long.

I did some more research on the Internet and found 3 other sources besides Wikipedia (1 was a U.S. Patent Application, another was a National Highway Safety Department presentation on airbags), and all 3 sources said 15 milliseconds is typical for high speed crashes and 25 milliseconds is typical for low speed crashes.

I edited the Wikipedia article today to change the 1/20 second deploy time to the 15 and 25 millisecond data referenced above. I am not an automotive airbag engineer, but when 3 other sources say it is faster than 1/20 second, or 50 milliseconds.......and basic physics also says it must be less than 50 milliseconds....I tend to believe the 15 and 25 millisecond data.

Dale Maley Dmaley@route24.net

♠ You must know the criteria for determining deployment speed to understand the difference between 1st and 2nd generation air bags. Remember the air bag and car manufacturers must follow federal regulations. The primary criteria for determining deployment speeds in 1st generation air bags was to protect an unrestrained occupant (occupant not wearing a seat belt). This required a high velocity deployment to make sure the bag was fully inflated prior to the occupant impacting the bag. Furthermore, the ability to detect the population percentile of the occupant and occupant location relative to the air bag was not developed. So next time you here about the old lady or baby being killed by an air bag, see passed the emotional static and the call to string up the 'bad people' who sell these systems. Systems are designed to pass legal requirements. Legal requirements are tempered by the existing science.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hot air

I've seen GM engineer John Hetrick cred with inventing the airbag in '52. I've also seen stats saying airbags only reduce fatalities in those wearing seatbelts by 8%. (Unfortunatetly, I can't cite sources for either...) Anybody able to confirm & include? Trekphiler 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responce time

What's the aribag average responce time? A friend of mine couldn't find this info here :( He later told me it's about 0,03-0,05s but citations here would be great.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Late but may help someone, I've worked air bag systems for helicopters, and if my recollection is correct an air bag will begin to deploy in about 5 ms. I have no reference in hand, but will add one if found. However, there is more to these times then can be explained here; do not make black and white assumptions about response, deployment or peak pressure times. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

im just studing this is coll and the airbag in a car starts to deploy at 0.015seconds, and is fully deflated by 0.120 seconds. if thats any help. just read it from my notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.159.130 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Side airbags

Side airbags have been around way before 1998, as previously stated by the article. The 1996 Mercedes E-Class, for example, had side airbags. I am therefore deleting references to the 1998 Volvo S80 since by this time, side airbags were well and truly common place. Davez621 09:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airbag Fatalities

I removed this:

"In Europe the number of people not wearing their seatbelts is very small when compared to the US, and Europeans are less likely to be obese. As a direct result of these two points, European airbags are less powerful than their American counterparts and are therefore less likely to cause loss of life than those fitted to American cars."

Give me a break. If you want to reintroduce this, please provide citations for every claim made in the paragraph. kdogg36 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've heard the exact opposite regarding airbag deployment strength, in fact--that American-market cars have less forceful airbags because the occupants are more likely not to be wearing their seat belt, whereas in Europe the airbags can deploy faster (more forcefully) because it's assume you're wearing a seatbelt. --69.242.193.68 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC) KeplerNiko

With exception to the "Europeans being less obese" bit, I'd probably agree with that first statement - sounds about right to me. TheIslander 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of Deployment

I take strong issue with the discussion of the dates of airbags first being used in vehicles, especially since it seems to me that it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It seems to me that this article is American-car biased, a country whose automobile manufacturers are most assuredly not first when I think of those who were first-adopters of new safety technology.

Particularly, the line about Chrysler making airbags "standard equipment across its entire line in 1990" makes it sound like Chrysler was the first manufacturer to standardize airbag installation. The next paragraph indicates, however, that US cars produced after 1 April 1989 must have either airbags or automatic seat belts (latter is news to me)--it seems to me that the vast majority of manufacturers opted to install airbags over seat belt systems. However, the way the article is written, it seems like Chrysler's actions were unique and, most of all, done out of its own initiative, rather than being federally mandated.

Quite simply, Chrysler was neither the only company to take this step, nor did it have a choice in the matter. I think the line implying Chrysler did something innovative should be stricken. --69.242.193.68 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC) KeplerNiko

[edit] 1970's Implication

The US experiment in the early 1970's ended pretty quickly as I recall. Does the article mean to imply that this was ongoing? PLawrence99cx 05:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maine.gov Link

Regarding link Maine.gov : How do air bags work: Link has gone bad. Found replacement link at [1] but there is little useful information there. As the link adds nothing to the article, I removed the link entirely. --TRosenbaum 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...airbags only reduce fatalities in those wearing seatbelts by 8%

Following up on an old point by Tekfiler, the government does not want you to know this number, since that would be clear indication of a colossal waste in terms of cost benefit analysis. So - the stat is never called out. The NHTSA page has some interesting data on how U.S. highway deaths have been declining at a slower rate than in other industrialised nations. If airbags were really all they are cracked up to be, seems that would not be true. 76.168.242.254 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also advised that you don't sit too close to the steering wheel because when the airbag inflates it will crush you back in your seat, stopping you from inhaling cause your crest can't go out, therefore stopping you from breathing.

8% is a huge number of saved lives. Specially if it's you. peterl (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inventor altered??

On 22:19, 7 October 2007 User:Happyyarn changed inventor:
John W. Hetrick -> Patrick W. Hetrick
Is this correct?? (the only change this user made..) Electron9 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Link

I deleted the external link that was said to show a clip of an airbag exploding. This link was spam.--Jake Da Snake 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding age

The article said children under 12 should always be in the back seat. I changed it to 13 because a 12 year old could get killed by an airbag. --Gtxm78 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Well, sometimes it's spelled "air bag" and sometimes "airbag", should this be unified? Acdx (talk | contribs) 10:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary spells it 'air bag', as does the National Safety Council, Britannica Encyclopedia, Canada Safety Council and the NHTSA. Therefore I think we can safely be assured that 'airbag' is incorrect and should be corrected. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page to correct the spelling. I believe it's a good idea to make sure Wiki does not inadvertently teach poor spelling habits. I encourage everyone to move away from one word versions, even if other people are still using it. I plan on correct the spelling everywhere except those instances where someone uses the one word version as a trade name.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article restructuring

After reviewing the article I think it needs to be completely restructured. Since more than automotive air bags are discussed, I don't think you can focus the introduction on automotive air bags. I'm going to attempt an outline to see how we can improve this article. Another option would be to move non-automotive air bag information to their own articles or inside related articles.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penny

On a Mythbusters episode (22,000 Foot Fall), Tory was taking apart an airbag when he discovered a penny inside the airbag. He mentions that its for good luck, should this be added to the article?

penny in the airbag Airbag Dime Why are there pennies in car safety airbags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub3rst4r (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air bag injuries and fatalities Section

To me the tone of this section seems to indicate an agenda-driven editor(s). Maybe a slight exaggeration, but there seems to be an attempt to really make air bags look less protective and more dangerous than they are. Statements about hot gas burns without citations, dangers to first responders just seems almost out of place as written. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to clean it up.

[edit] Spelling discussion

Apparently many think the word is spelled "airbag", this is incorrect. It is "air bag", you can check the NHTSA website, the Webster's II dictionary and Dictionary.com. Just because the title of the article is incorrect doesn't mean we should continue the error.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved this page some time ago to "Air bag", and I recommend it again.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • the Oxford English Dictionary spells it airbag. It does recogonize words with spaces (e.g. air ballon). FWIW there are 40M ghits for airbag and 12.9m ghits for air bag. I think we need additional reliable sources to make a definitive call one way or the other.--Work permit (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How did you account for trade names? I have two dictonary sources and the NHTSA who sets the standards for automotive air bags. This is what they use. BTW the Oxford English Dictionary website needs a subscription. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The ghit numbers are simly an observation. The OED does require a subscription, that doesn't make it any less authoratative a source.I'm not saying you're wrong. Just saying that we need more evidence--Work permit (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

  • A google search of the NHTSA website actually indicates that both phrases are used. A search of worldwide patent literature at WIPO shows both "airbag" and "air bag" to be used nearly equally. It is certainly the case that "airbag", right or wrong as it may have been in its inception, has become part of the vernacular. I see both usages being equivalent and neither necessarily more appropriate than the other. I believe in the case where both are equally as relevant (similar to meter vs. metre), the status quo usually remains by default. ju66l3r (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Continued discussion

  • Some additional observations. A search through Proquest returned 10744 documents found for air bag and 2314 documents found for airbag. Limiting to scholarly journals gives 166 documents found for: air bag and 66 documents found for: airbag. The google search of the NHTSA website indicates 928 uses of airbag and 1978 uses of air bag. A casual search through the New York Times indicates that they prefer the use of air bag in their edited articles. While both terms are used, it appears that air bag is the prefered one--Work permit (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, that was unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion. Come on, isn't this better than edit wars and arguing?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to agree with Elkman. The Founders Intent - I'm sorry, but you seem unable to accept any kind of criticism. Or do you not agree that there was a serious factual error in the section on side airbags too? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 19:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Naturally you agree because it supports your POV. What's not to like? And trying to accuse me of WP:<fill in blank> is nonsense, because those are guidelines and not hard pour-in-concrete rules. Volkwagen can say whatever they want, that doesn't make it so. Do you actually work in the field of occupant safety? I do. Based on what's been presented here, my earlier change was at least as correct as yours, so you changed what was already correct. Side air bags is another issue which I can address if you want, but not in this thread. I don't appreciate the other guy removing the third opinion tag either, but there seem to be a lot of people like that around here; they don't even bother to talk to anyone about what they are doing. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed the problem you are having with how the third opinion process on your talk page. I acted exactly as Third Opinion dictates. Furthermore, you need to please remain civil and keep the discussion focused to the question at hand regarding the appropriate spelling of the article title. Thanks. ju66l3r (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with previous comments on the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, being as airbags are primarilly a motor vehicle device, this academic text book Hillier (FIMI), V.A.W. (Vic) & Coombes (FIMI), Peter ((1966, 1972, 1981, 1990, 1991)), Hillier's Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology, vol. Book 1 (5th edition ed.), Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes (published 2004), ISBN 0748780823 , page numbers 13, 14, 25, 464-6, 467-8 - all specifically refer to "airbag" (one word). Volkswagen Group (the worlds 4th largest automotive manufacturer), along with Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Toyota, Porsche, Renault, etc, etc ALL refer to "airbag" as a single word. Perhaps The Founders Intent is satisfied that I am now no longer referring to a "single sorce" - or is The Founders Intent suffering with WP:OWN?? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Another reference to "airbag" Airbag at Audi.com Glossary -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 19:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page layout

A question on the layout of the article - should the "History" section be moved above the "How airbags work" section? It is a little confusing in the way the article reads at the moment - is there any guidance from the WP:MOS or similar? Rgds -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Also agree, went ahead and made the change. Virek (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)