re: tail lamp bulbs question (long)

[TJCallahan@xxxxxxx]

Gary,

The lamp test that they were likely referring to is checking the filament
inside the bulb. When the filament is hot (i.e. the lamp is "on"), it is much
more fragile than when cold and will break easier. If the filament in an
otherwise undamaged bulb is broken, the lamp was likely "on" at the moment of
impact. So, looking at a few filaments from different conditions (hot impacts,
cold impacts, no impacts, etc.) gives one some education and training on how
the beast works and can provide clues as to what the lights were doing at the
moment of impact.

This is a fairly simple test that has been shown to be cheap, reliable, and
effective (it determined who was telling the truth about running lights in the
night-time boating collision that killed my step-mom a few years ago). Most
investigators (police, insurance, manufacturers, etc.) use it reliably, along
with other data they collect about a collision, to make an educated guess at
reconstructing the moments and movements just before impact.

As far as the concern over "sudden unexpected acceleration" goes, I have no
knowledge of the particulars for M-B, but it brings up the ghost of the
similar Audi "problem" from a decade ago. That model, over time, was shown to
be (related) defect free. It still almost killed Audi, however, because of the
bad press.

I'm an investigative engineer by training, work for an aerospace firm, fly
small planes and drive my cars fast (sometimes on the track, too). I have
personal experience with the phenomenon of the mind thinking the body did one
thing while the body actually does another. In flight training we were pounded
with example after example of pilots who survived a crash and swore they
stepped on one rudder pedal when an examination of the wreckage clearly showed
the other pedal had been pushed. I've done it myself (in less extreme
situations and with less extreme results - touch wood!). The training in this
is to alert the pilot to the potential of it happening and to teach them to
look for clues of the airplane's performance from several sources. If those
sources don't all jive, you have trouble. Confusion can be fatal.

It could be that the drivers thought they stepped on the brake when they
actually did something else. It happens, but you can't convince them of their
actions.

All of this is not to say that M-B could have over-looked something, but it
seems unlikely. No offense to anyone, but the training and education given to
the designers/engineers and the amount of testing and regulation required of
the manufacturers is pretty impressive when you consider how much training the
typical USA driver gets before being given a driver's license. My money is on
the professional designers.

I'm not fanatically anti-consumer or anti-government or even fanatically pro-
business, but I've had the better part of two decades experience in dealing
with broken manufactured assemblies and feel reasonably assured that MOST
times a "defect" can be traced back to operator error. But, even here, I have
seen many instances where the "operator error" was simply using the item in a
(reasonable) way unintended by the designer. Who's at fault here? Was the item
designed improperly for the application or was the item abused by the
operator? A tough call, usually.

You noted that related models seem to have a pattern. This could be true, but
the pattern may not be the car(s). [BTW, my university degree is a BS in
mathematics with an emphasis on analysis and statistics.] Certain
(generalized) types of people buy these models cars and they have similar
taste, financial, comfort, and other attributes. Marketing types will tell you
that's why THAT model car was designed and built in the first place - to
service THAT segment of the market. Often times the market segment will have
other, less desirable, attributes, too. In some it's the intellect level, in
others it may be something different. GM marketed the Camaro in recent years
by noting the cup holder held a 32oz Slurpee - if that isn't targetting your
market, I don't know what is! (Take THAT you cup holder fiends!) The pattern
here could be people who step on the wrong pedal, or people who don't pay
attention to their driving (ever see a cell phone in use by a driver?), not
necessarily the car itself.

Another thing to consider is how many cars have been sold and how many
instances of similar "faults" being reported. Is the number statistically
significant? If MB builds several hundred thousand copies of a certain model
and 60 have similar "faults", is that significant? Probably not in a
statistical sense (although the company may choose to correct the "faults" as
if they were). It could be explained by any one of several reasons. Bad
design, bad manufacture (rumors of "Monday" and "Friday" cars, for instance),
bad operators, almost anything.

The reasonable course of action is to examine all the facts prior to reaching
a conclusion. Lots of people want to find the cause immediately and then
collect facts to support their belief. It doesn't work well that way, we end
up with too many litigants (here's a subject I might be fairly accused of
being fanatically "anti" on :-).

You mentioned there were no injuries in this incident, which's good. Give the
investigators time to work. Yes, the manufacturers might have reason to spin
the facts their direction, but so do the "protesters". The truth is out there
... somewhere. :-) And the taillights can tell tales!

My $.02 and sorry about the lack of Alfa content.

Tom
'63 Spider
Seattle (Hi Fred!)

------------------------------

End of alfa-digest V7 #133
**************************