Mercedes vs. Physics: The Ultimate Showdown

Hi.

I've been wondering for a long time what Mercedes was thinking when they "invented" the A- and B-class cross-member suspension.

A Ph.D. student in mechanical engineering once mentioned that this bend in the control arm represents a significant weak point.

And is that stuff only for the exhaust pipe?

dieselmartin wrote:

And the quark is only for the exhaust pipe???

... which, in turn, is also feeling down ...

dieselmartin wrote:

And the catalytic converter only for the exhaust pipe???

No, also active pedestrian protection: If a fellow citizen, in the free expression of their personality, steps in front of the bicycle, it folds away - and the person doesn't break their foot .

If it's even *THE* control arm.

The part ends in a rotating element that could steer the rear wheels in a mirror-symmetric fashion. So, if one wheel steers to the right (due to external forces), the other would steer to the left.

It's quite strange that...

Well, then the response was:

...parabolic axle with a selective damping system...

We can see what's behind that term in the photo, and it would certainly be interesting to see how it works technically. The fact is, this thing drives really well...

Okay.

I'm just a drone (hey? I can't, I'm just one of them), and I'm looking under the skirts of every A- and B-class student.

m;

The parts are not the control arms.

Those are indeed tie rods, as the B-Class has a multi-link rear axle.

I just took some pictures.

Roger wrote:

dieselmartin wrote: And the quark is only for the exhaust pipe??? ... which, in turn, is also disappointed ...

.
Crushed tailpipe: Rear impact! Engine protection?

teileklaus wrote:

Roger wrote: dieselmartin wrote: And the quark is only for the exhaust pipe??? ... which, in turn, is also disappointed ... . Crushed tailpipe: Rear impact! Engine protection?

Or something like that .
I just wanted to say that the probability of the bend having little to do with the end of the pipe, because it could have been bent in a different location.

I believe the steering system offers the possibility that the rear wheel on the outside of the turn contributes more to the lateral force by being steered inwards from the outside (where the higher force is acting).
- Now comes the exciting part.
The effectiveness of the design increases as the load at the rear becomes greater.
and oversteer is reduced by "steering" the rear wheels as well.
As far as my technical understanding of the matter goes .

The A-Class has the same construction (just more nicely disguised ).

I understood it like this: Is the B-Class a high-priced version of the A-Class? Then it's clear that they are related under the sheet metal!

This construction is strange, and it looks quite cheap . I'd rather have an old, robust W123 .

I'd like to contribute something briefly as well...

Whether it's a weak point or not, the parts are recalculated using FEM (Finite Element Method) in Catia or elsewhere during the design process, and designed to withstand the usual operating loads; at least, theoretically.

Nowadays, cars are only designed on computers, and we can only hope that any problems will be detected beforehand... otherwise, we'll be the ones who look foolish.
After the debacle with the first A-Class, Mercedes certainly had some serious discussions about it... although the rust problem seems to still not be completely resolved within the company.

It's unusual, but I don't find that part to be concerning.