Crash Test: Mercedes EQA vs. Mercedes EQS

With the world’s first public crash test involving two fully electric vehicles, Mercedes is going above and beyond not only the legal requirements but also those of the ratings industry. Euro NCAP stipulates a frontal impact test using a 1,400 kg trolley with an aluminium honeycomb barrier replicating the front of another vehicle. In accordance with the specifications, the test vehicle and the trolley collide with an overlap and at a speed of 50 km/h. Mercedes-Benz, however, used two real vehicles, an EQA and an EQS SUV, which are significantly heavier at around 2.2 and three tonnes respectively. In addition, both models were faster, each going 56 km/h, which meant that the overall crash energy was considerably higher than required by law. The vehicles’ extensive deformation following the collision may seem alarming to the non-expert. For the Mercedes-Benz engineers, however, it shows that the vehicles were able to effectively absorb the energy of the collision by deforming. As a result, the passenger safety cell of both electric models remained intact and the doors could still be opened. In an emergency, this would make it possible for occupants to exit the vehicle on their own or for first responders and rescue personnel to reach them. The high-voltage system in the EQA and the EQS SUV switched off automatically during the collision.
The crash test at the Group’s Technology Centre for Vehicle Safety in Sindelfingen demonstrates Mercedes‑Benz’s real-life safety philosophy: To make cars that hold up not only in defined crash test scenarios, but also in real-life accidents. The test scenario involving a speed of 56 km/h and 50 percent frontal overlap corresponds to a type of accident common on rural roads, for example during a failed overtaking manoeuvre. The speed selected for the test takes into account that, in a real-life accident, the drivers would still try to brake before the worst case of a collision.
Do you like it?
Comment, like, dislike, share!
-
Follow us: / @youcartv
Join us to enjoy exclusive benefits: / @youcartv
✅ Source: Mercedes-Benz

[@thejecs8]

Current crashes should be done at 90km/h with a 40% overlap, to ensure the worst case scenario (frontal crash test in a national road)

[@A1C6]

I agree with the speed, but not the overlap. The smaller overlap is actually more challenging for the car

[@ruijiadong5665]

I used to think the same, but at one point I realised that the goal of crash test is not to test against worst case scenario (which is realistically impossible within reasonable cost), but to provide valuable insight in the most common types of crash, the type of crash that results in the most fatalities. Worst case crashes have a higher chance of being fatal, but happen much less frequently

[@barsaf9989]

They should do a eqs and an a normal A class. To get the massive weight difference. The eqs weights more than a full size pickup truck.

[@dearbulls]

OMG, the EQS turned more angle than EQA?? This is against physics. How could it be?

[@quelandil5738]

Dont they turn pretty much the same and then the eqa rolls back with a broken wheel and therefore changing its position?

[@dearbulls]

@@quelandil5738 even similar turn is a big engineer improvement over the past. Check some older test of C class against S class

[@ceeeeee]

Electric vehicles are so heavy so this should have been electric VS normal one as others also say

[@JagoTFC]

Just reduce size, height and weight. Cars are not the only thing on the road. Otherwise you can completely remove the steering wheel.

[@jaisabai4155]

"Vehilce" 🙄 Attention to details guys.

[@TheCrankshaftRotator]

The german english 😂

[@emersonsilvadeoliveira4342]

😓

[@ianclaudio777]

What a sin

[@francoisdediesbach3936]

According to physics, two objects with opposite directions add their speeds. So, in this case 56 +56 = 112 kmh

[@Carthage57]

A crash at a static object at 56 and a collission with two cars at 56 is the same it doesn't double the speed, this can be easily seen in simulator or in real case

[@user-op7vy5ny4r]

seriously? go learn physics again. Crashing to the wall at 56 equals to two same cars colliding at 56 each.

[@kode1996]

The test speed was way to slow!

[@quelandil5738]

1. It is a statistically regular crash, so it makes sense to test that. (Out of on town e.g. while overtaking, taking into account that u almost never crashing without braking, hence the 56kph) 2. Certification if NCAP, requires 50kph, already overachieving that

[@m80116]

This kind of tests are RIDICULOUS. The most dangerous part of these vehicles are the UNSTOPPABLE self-igniting batteries that they use. A specific assessment test must be created for this kind of dangerous vehicles which should be restricted to low speed zones only. A single car involved in a multi-car pile crash, for example in the motorway, can lead to fatal consequences for the whole pile creating an UNSTOPPABLE blaze that is far less likely to begin with regular petrol and Diesel cars and can be put out with water or fire extinguishers. It's about time we call this kind of vehicles for what they are: LIABILITY, beyond having a production impact on the environment worse than regular internal combustion engine vehicles.

[@quelandil5738]

Sooo basically you see a pretty common crash and no sign of any fire, smoke or ignition and you still complain? Read through the regulations required for HV-components and all tests required for getting a certification. Even real life data shows that ice cars are way more likely to start burning. Modern ev cars are at least as safe as ice cars. Seems like all the anti-ev stories gave you a warped perception...

[@tmdwn9101]

​@@quelandil5738전기차는 화재시 불을 끌수없다는 것이 중요하다

[@user-op7vy5ny4r]

​@quelandil5738 death rate once the car ignites is much higher on ev. Similarly, small cars have a lower accident rate than larger suvs, but they have much higher fatality rate. It is not about catching fire or not, but is the matter of if the fire can be stopped and the person inside can be safe.

[@quelandil5738]

@@user-op7vy5ny4r The cases where a vehicle actually catches on fire are an issue. Earlier vehicles surely have a higher risk and it is quite difficult stop the fire. Therefore lots of regulations have been introduced. Mandatory safety tests for certifications. So new cares are way safer now. Do you have any statistic to show a higher mortality rate? I would imagine insurance companies should have some.

[@quelandil5738]

@@user-op7vy5ny4r didnt answer to the comment about weight difference. Nevermind the safety measures, if your opponent is too heavy you have a problem! Eqa and eqs were similar enough. But you dont want to mess with an eqs if you drive a fiat 500