elFH Anschlag-Erkennung | Posts 16+

ulf wrote:

...I'd rather solve the issue with an electrical modification

Then go ahead and be happy about losing the battery charge (assuming that hasn't already happened due to other tinkering).

ulf wrote:

... That's exactly what I want to eliminate before it starts manifesting in me as well . ...

Have you also had your prostate removed as a precaution before cancer develops? That's quite a common problem among men...


P.S. The Jetta has a manual transmission, and I actually almost had to convert it to an electric vehicle. However, someone else in the organization objected, citing concerns about historical accuracy...
"... So, the manual SSD was simply defined as an emergency exit."
It can be done .

But... the Jetta doesn't have an EU type approval yet, but your Polo does.


EDIT:
Okay, one more thing... ELFs (Exploding Lightbulbs) are often part of the safety system in conjunction with airbags. If an ELF is triggered, the window must open immediately. Otherwise, the overpressure from the explosion inside the vehicle could harm the occupants rather than protect them.

Bertil wrote:

Have you also had your prostate removed as a precaution before it develops into cancer? That's quite a common problem among men...

The prostate has a useful function that goes beyond mere convenience, like what elFH suggests.

Quote:

Oh, and one more thing... side airbags are often part of the safety package in conjunction with airbags. If they deploy, the window must open immediately. Otherwise, the overpressure from the explosion inside the vehicle cabin could harm the occupants rather than protect them.

On the Polo 6R and its predecessor, the 9N, the doors close with a noticeable resistance due to the ventilation system. You have to throw them shut with some force, but as soon as even one window is slightly open, the doors will slam shut into the lock. The 9N already had airbags and EU approval, but it was still possible to order it with manual window cranks.
Or did people not yet consider the issue of overpressure in airbags when granting approvals around the year 2000?

I find it unlikely that opening the window would relieve pressure buildup. While Bertil likely knows more from inside sources about automobiles, I work with computational fluid dynamics simulations on a daily basis, and therefore I would consider this approach unsuitable.
Assuming that a car might now have as many as 15 airbags, I can't imagine an acceleration scenario that would trigger the simultaneous deployment of all of them. And even if it did, those things probably wouldn't be able to prevent the death of the occupants anyway.

Furthermore, I've read in the descriptions of various manufacturers that "PreSafe" systems actually do the opposite – they attempt to close the windows, for example. If such a system is present, I would be more inclined to anticipate potential problems.

By the way, the power windows, even when deployed simultaneously with the airbag, are noticeably slower than the pressure wave.

But that's just a side note. As I mentioned, I don't understand your approach, neither this specific one nor the others. However, I can imagine that you might eventually reach a point where your Basic Income (BE) is at risk of being discontinued (assuming there are actually auditors who can track everything so precisely).

ulf wrote:

... Or had the issue of overpressure in airbags not yet been considered during the approval processes around the year 2000?

If the manufacturer didn't deem it necessary for its safety concept back then, then it simply wasn't.
The EU homologation process is only relevant to the extent that it determines whether certain mechanisms are included or excluded, and this has been the case since 1990.

Quote:

I consider it unlikely that the window would be opened to release excess pressure.

That's just the way it is.
The windows will be opened slightly. Similarly, any sunroof that may be present will also be opened.

Quote:

Furthermore, I read, at least in the descriptions from various manufacturers, that the "PreSafe" assistants actually do the opposite, namely trying to close the windows, etc. Because of this (if present), I could definitely foresee a potential problem.

Right, that's also done sometimes. However, even in this case, there remains a small gap.

Quote:

... Should there really be auditors who can capture everything in such detail? ...

I've been questioning that for a while now. Then, 50-60% of all vehicles would have to be decommissioned.

A few days ago, I was riding in a used car that had a brand new emissions sticker, but the anti-tampering devices were definitely disabled. That vehicle should never have been allowed to receive an emissions sticker.

Bertil wrote:

That's just the way it is.

Okay. The electric fire hose systems installed in my vehicles would be too slow for that. Perhaps it could still serve as a smoke extraction system...

Bertil wrote:

The EU homologation only has to do with whether such mechanisms are included or not, and that has been the case since 1990.

. . . but without an official specification that must be fulfilled?
Regarding the airbag issue, I could imagine that some kind of EU regulation might state something like: "As a result of the airbag deployment, the internal pressure of the passenger compartment may increase by a maximum of xy hPa. If this value is exceeded with all windows and ventilation closed, then emergency vents (elFH) *must* be installed that open quickly enough to maintain the limit."

Slightly off-topic: I just did the "apple test" on my 2002 Smart car and got a cleanly split apple. However, there are no automatic features; you have to hold down the window switch for the glass to go up or down smoothly.

Did the pinch protection device disappear or not apply when there was no automatic transmission? Or was it simply not required at that time?

My 2003 Suzuki Ignis only has an automatic function for lowering the window; the button needs to be pressed beyond a certain point to activate it. To raise the window, you have to hold down the button continuously, and it will go up in one motion. I skipped the "Apple test" because of the plastic wind deflectors; I didn't want to break anything.

ulf wrote:

...but without an official specification that must be fulfilled?

Why does there always have to be a requirements specification document behind everything?
If the manufacturer describes the interconnectedness of the systems in its type approval documentation (which it is obligated to do), then there is no need for a separate legal requirement.
In addition, the manufacturer strives to achieve good results in various tests (e.g., the NCAP crash test). If various systems need to work together to achieve this result, then this is also part of the approval process.
Things are not nearly as simple today as they were just a few years ago.
Kit cars have always been a profitable business. Today, in Germany, you have to find ways around the regulations to get one approved. It starts with things like the mandatory Electronic Stability Program (ESP).

Quote:

Did the pinch protection feature cease to exist or was it never included when there was no automatic transmission? Or was it simply not yet a requirement at that time?

As far as I remember, the power limitation was introduced sometime in 2005, and initially it only applied to fully automated windows.

"Thank you, Bertil. Then both are too old."

"I'm still unsure about the necessity of the window gap that Bertil mentioned. If a specific internal pressure needs to be maintained for regulatory reasons, the first question is: what is the baseline? Is it based on a person in the car whose body corresponds to the 95th percentile male? Or even four people with large luggage? Suddenly, the available volume changes significantly in relation to the actual interior space."
Gestern Abend hab ich mal etwas durch Patente geblättert, die sich mit den Auswirkungen von Airbagzündungen beschäftigen. Da wurde (fast egal ob von einem US Automobilbauer, VW oder einem Zulieferer) die Fensteröffnung als schwer umsetzbar beschrieben, da erheblich zu träge und um dies zu kompensieren, müssten (wortlaut: unwirtschaftliche und komplexe) Zusatzsysteme her. Im Prinzip gehehen die fast alle in die Richtung, die Zwangsentlüfung anzupassen, sei es über zusätzliche federbelastetet Klappen oder dergleichen. BilI don't have any real-world examples or even a drawing to illustrate it.

Ein Bekannter von mir hatte letzten Monat einen recht heftigen Unfall mit Querverkehr. Er ist praktisch ungebremst in die Seite eines querenden PKW gekracht. Nach seiner Aussage fuhr er etwa 70km/h. Das äußere Schadensbild seines 4 Wochen alten 5er BMW ist dementsprechend. Beide Frontairbags und in Folge eines anschließenden seitlichen Einschlagens in die Randbebauung auch der Seiten und Kopfairbag der Fahrerseite haben ausgelöst. Da es von dem Unfall viele Fotos (bei Ihm) gibt habe ich mal gefragt ob er erkennen könnte, das ein Fenster geöffnet war, oder gar das Panoramadach. Erinnern kann er sich nicht, auf den Fotos können aber alle Fenster als voll geschlossen erkannt werden. BMW scheint das also nicht zu machen. DeThe vehicle involved in the accident was a Mercedes ML. I'm not very familiar with this area, but it looks quite new. In this case, both side airbags and front airbags were deployed. Here, the three remaining windows can be considered closed, although one is completely broken due to the accident. So, just like with that Mercedes, it wasn't a total loss.

Now that both cars are quite large vehicles, it's obviously not possible to completely rule out the existence of something similar. It's possible that this phenomenon might occur with smaller or different types of vehicles.

Okay, here's a quick update regarding the emergency closure and reopening:

Neither of those features is installed in Ulf's Polo.
Emergency closing is only included with "Pre Crash Safety" packages.
Emergency window opening is only available for vehicles where the window obstructs access to the passenger compartment (likely limited to coupes and convertibles).