Ford's inflatable seat belts headed to Explorer in 2010, other whips in due time (video)
By Darren Murph 
posted Nov 7th 2009 6:33AM
posted Nov 7th 2009 6:33AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Whips?
Yes, as in:
Put it down hard for my dogs that's locked in the bang
When you hit the bricks, new WHIPS, money ain't a thang,
You kids these days with your Kanye West and your "I'mma let you finish" memes. Sheesh.
I don't get it either. Even after the explanation. I'm officially old.
Through deductive reasoning and other means of cleverness, I've boiled that down to:
whips = cars
I'm going to boil it down further
Rap = stupid.
rapc?
Even rappers don't say whips anymore.
Rap is the only word in the dictionary with a silent 'c'.
Many words are spelled with a silent c following s: for example abscess, descend (with descent); omniscient; words ending in -esce, -escent, or -escence, such as acquiesce, effervescent, convalescent. A silent c may also occur before k or q: examples include acknowledge; acquainted; acquire.
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/classicerrors/spellingtips/silentletters
Joke
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mjay's head.
yup, there's that word again. whenever one of these ubernerds uses "whips" instead of just "car" it makes me do a captain picard facepalm. it's as cringe-worthy as josh topolsky recording video of himself on his droidnerd phone, using the words "jiggy", "bling" or "zizzle".
You can't have pie without cool Hwip.
@Matt
I know the joke was over Mjay's head, but I laughed at least three times as hard at his response than I did at the joke to begin with. It was really pretty classic.
That is cool.
Not only cool but basically it prevents the body from having being restrained from a thin piece of material going from 60to 0 in a few meters.. ouch!
At least the pressure will be dispered over your body that localized inone small strap...
Then again you could allways use racing harnesses...
Than again in a 60 to 0 accident having a seat belt welt on your chest is the least of your worries...
Then again driving in a Ford SUV is asking for random rollovers...
Then again Ford actually made $$$ so props to them.
Definitely! Cool idea. At first I thought they were inflated at all times but an airbag seatbelt thing to disperse pressure is a very nice idea.
Volvo's idea that never happend.
Actually Ford owns Volvo now. So it did happen. :)
No, I know it Ford owns Volvo.. but PROBABLY a Ford Executive heard a Volvo executive "INFLATABLE SEATBELTS SUCK" then that Ford executive gave that idea to the Ford CEO and then.. BOOM! Money.
It's so simple I can't believe anyone has ever thought about it before.
Huh the comment above just pumelled mine into the depths of ignorance.
I am waiting for the Demolition Man movie car. That car would shoot shock absorbing foam throughout the entire interior of the car.
that's what I was thinking.
Now they just have to get past the suffocating-in-a-3-foot-thick-foam-cocoon-until-rescue-arrives problem
I don't get it, it blows up the seatbelt, but why? You already have a seatbelt, what is it protecting really? Something you have on your lap? A tuba? The neck argument seems silly, they could just as easily say 'it forces your head sideways ensuring injuries and whiplash of types that were not available before'
And talking of holdings things, what if you have something in your hands and don't sit like a testdummy, like kids often will, will it be worse? I think there's a real risk it will make things worse in real life scenarios.
Do you really need someone to explain how this would help?
The purpose is to help cushion the impact of the seat belt on your chest. Also to spread out the force across your body helping reduce the chance of a major or even fatal injury.
No the 'baloon' is on the front of the actual belt, the belt still has the same action on the body, the only suggested effect is to reduce your head slamming forwards against your body.
So yes I do need a credible reason for this.
Although I do admit the belt gets a little wider, which isn't necessarily good under all circumstance either of course, but in most cases it should help a little.
Here's something to think about, with each deployment, regatdless if it helps, ford makes a lot of money since you need a replacement belt and inflator, how convenient in a time when carcompanies need cash.
IF you are in a 60 to 0 crash, I don't think you'll be worried about the cost of a seatbelt, let alone likely even driving that vehicle again. If you don't believe it, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vbNbxD6bw
If only for entertainment purposes :)
It helps because it helps sell cars, and increase maintenance. So lets say an airbag costs $1500 to replace. If a car has 2 airbags that is an instant $3000 added to the repair bill in even low impact collisions. I am sure seatbelt airbags will have to be cheaper to replace, so lets say $500. Now lets say the car has 2 front airbags, 2 headrest airbags for the rear passengers, 4 side curtain airbags, and 5 seatbelt airbags. A small low damage collision could potentially cost $12,500 in airbag replacement fees alone. So if your car is worth less than $15,000 A fender bender could in all likelihood total it. It is like cash for clunkers all over again, only instead of tax dollars scrapping and replacing decent cars, we have our insurance premiums replacing perfectly decent cars. It is a total win for the car company. They sell more cars because they are viewed as safer, and they sell more cars because they are being totalled.
I just wonder when it will get to a point that insurance premiums will actually go up based on the number of airbags in your car.
But then again I am totally cynical about car companies interests when it comes to safety equipment. If anybody remembers the fiasco of door mounted seatbelts in the 80s that is what really killed it for me. Airbags were new and legislation was introduced that was going to require them in all cars. The lobbyists got to it, and got it changed to "passive restraint systems" in other words something that didn't require user intervention to engage like a seatbelt. So that intentionally created a loophole that made mounting seatbelts on the door a legal work-around to installing airbags. If you read the manuals on cars with these, they instructed you to leave the belt fastened at all times and to slide in underneath them when you opened the door. It was lame and nobody used them that way, and the car companies knew they wouldn't. The kicker was that it made the cars actually much less safe. I personally know a man who's wife was thrown from a car and died even while wearing a seatbelt.because the door opened during the accident. He won a hefty 7 figures in the lawsuit against GM and car companies have now realized airbags are cheaper than lawsuits, but they still aren't introducing this stuff because they care about safety. It is all about selling cars.
@potterist
Actually you probably wouldn't be worried about anything at all since most high speed head on collisions are fatal. Seriously if a car has veered off course and is about to collide head on it's actually better to crash your car into almost anything else, drive it off road at high speed, or swerving right in front of another vehicle (suppose if it's an 18-wheeler you might be screwed either way) but almost all options are better than a head on collision at speed.
@ RandomGuy
When will it go up based on the number of airbags in your car? It won't and I will tell you why. The price of an airbag or a seat belt is negligible compared to the price of a hospital stay and taking out your spleen, or having a pin put in, or wiring your jaw shut. Safety features will always decrease your insurance because of this and because of the insane rates charged by the medical industry.
I approve!
Awesome. So now when you get into a fender-bender you not only have to order a new set of $1500 airbags from Ford, you have to buy $900 seat belts as well.
If the back seat is empty and the seats aren't buckled, it costs you nothing. If the back seat happens to have your beautiful children under the age of ten they may be substantially less injured in the event of a major collision. I may be a cheap-assed bastard, but some things are worth $3300.
Life saved > Any amount of money
Blessed are the naive and easy to influence - Alan R. Mulally
Amazing. Now we need safety devices to protect us from safety devices.
Bingo.
F150 Pickups will have belts that turn into inflatable sex sheep!
Great something else on the Ford ExploDer is going to exlode.
Reportedly, the Lexus LFA isn't going to start being made until late 2010 and delivered to customers in 2011, so I think the Ford will reach the market with this "first."
I don't know. Airbags are nice. Front airbags. Side airbags. Backseat front airbags... But seat belt airbags? In a world where airbags go off far to often (and sometimes cause far more damage then if they had not gone off) this seems like a expense where I would much rather take the bruising.
I mean seat belts that are worn correctly work. This just seems to have far to much potential for going off when it doesn't need to, causing bruises, and never getting replaced for the next accident where it could be useful.
Of course if I had kids, and could have them only in the backseat I might reconsider.
"In a world where airbags go off far to often" [citation needed]
This would probably be a factor if I were in the market for an SUV, and had small kiddos in the backseat. This is a good move by Ford. Surprised that Volvo didn't beat them to the market with this technology. Volvo (IMO) has had safety at the forefront of their products above others.
This seams like a pretty dumb idea to me. Rather than waste all that money on inflatable seatbelts that are often not worn at all, why not just install airbags behing the drivers and passenger front seats that would deploy even if the rear seat occupants didn't have their belts on. The tech is already developed and it wouldn't rely on the use of seatbelts so much. BTW, rear seat passengers are already 3 times safer in back than in front and regular seatbelts work very well back there.
Think about this, if it's such a great idea, why don't they put them on the front seat belts?
Because airbags, even low-speed airbags, kill children, which is why you have to be a certain height or weight to sit in the front seat. Additionally, since the car makers can't reasonably calculate the distance between the rear of the front passenger/front driver seat and the person in the back due to factors such as the size, age and weight of the child and the position of the seat chosen by the user, it'd be extremely difficult to design a bag that was safe for all children of all sizes who are placed in the back seat. The reason why they don't install seat belt airbags in the front seat is because there are already airbags in the dashboard and the steering column, making the seat-belt airbags superfluous.
How about they invent something that punches the occupants in the face until they put their seatbelts on. I don't understand how people still refuse to wear them. Also, airbags are worse if people aren't wearing the seatbelt, they're designed to work together.
I cant believe it , US car makers are on the edge of extintion,and continue to make gadgets
instead of fine cars, check the number of fatal accidents in europe and USA on a per capita
basis.
Youll see that fine cars reduce accidents
That's funny, considering Ford posted a billion dollar profit in Q3 this year. Don't let logic get in the way of your blind prejudice, though.
Ford has come a LONG way in quality and desirability in its cars and trucks. Haters gon' hate, though, I guess.
Are you really that dumb? If you're going to make statements along those lines how about you read a little first. Like the other poster said, Ford posted a 1 BILLION dollar profit, and that's without ever taking any bailout money from the government. They've done this by building terrific cars with innovative technologies like this and SYNC.
I do not see its additional benefit at work. The 3 point seatbelt I can understand, but this one I can not. The video in my view demonstrates no clear point at which this belt could be more beneficial compared the standard belt. Only a spoken word is mentioned with no statistical proof.
Seat belt will be somewhat uncomfortable. In my opinion that's a sign it should work. Making it more comfortable seems to me that you are toying with safety. Even the safety measures in roller coaster rides aren't always comfortable.
The additional benefit is clear, in that the force of the impact is spread over a wide area of the rib cage/chest. If you need an example have a woman in sneakers step on your foot, then have the same woman in high-heels step on the foot with the heel. It's all about force/square-area, so increase the square area for an identical force and you'll have less chance of injury.
As someone who walked away from a serious accident due to seatbelts and front/side/curtain airbags, I can tell you there was a nice welt from the seatbelt despite all the other devices. That being said, crushed car and not crushed me, made me a huge fan.
As for Paul's comment of "Rather than waste all that money on inflatable seatbelts that are often not worn at all, why not just install airbags behing the drivers and passenger front seats that would deploy even if the rear seat occupants didn't have their belts on", is that airbags primarily reduce your impact force into a stationary object, while seatbelts hold you from becoming a missile. Airbags only work if you are there in front of them. Ejection is a common form of injury even for back seat (and the back seat passenger missile often injures the front seat passengers). Come on down to our emergency room, we'll be glad to let you see the difference.
@henry: I feel you are missing my point. 1) For the same dollars, you can put an airbag behind the front seats or in the seatbelt. Why would putting it in the seatbelt (which may not be worn) result in fewer injuries or deaths than behind the front seat. 2) How would adding an airbag to a seatbelt have any effect on rear passengers becoming missles? 3) If this is such a great idea, why don't they add them to the front seats?
always wondered why seat belts are made of the same material in all cars. why not pad them with some soft material???
Lexus is going to use them? So that means Ford doesnt exclusively hold the rights to this technology? Thats certainly good news.
I understand the argument of spreading the load over a larger surface area. This reduces the impact on the nek, thorax and abdomen. However looking at the video I do not see any improvement of the restraint of the back seat driver. The body still seems to be "moved around" like a shaking a baby. I do not think an airbag at the rear of the drivers seat would improve the safety of a back seat driver if he/she doesn't wear a seat belt. In a direct frontside impact the back seat driver will be moved forward. In this case you have to consider the biomechanics of the body. I think what will happen is that the head will hit the back side of the drivers seat first. A head will hit the deployes airbag which cause the head to move back. Meanwhile the thorax will still move forward. This results in a hyperdorsalflexion of the neck which could cause serious nek injury.
What I would suggest is a technique demonstrated in Demolition Man with Silvester Stallone. During the crash the whole car is injected with sollidifying foal, which immediately restrains the movement of anyone sitting in the car and cushioning the crash. If such a technology was invented we could perhaps slowly think about the need for a seat belt.
Adding to Paul's argument. If indeed the new rear seatbelt is not warn consequently is could pose a danger. Imagine a crash, and not wearing the seat belt in the rear. The belt will go off, thus perhaps propelling you forward due to the explosing or even causing a back injury due to the explosive force on the back!
If this belt were implemented it would have to effectively be installed for a frontside crash, as this is the most effective direction in which it works. We still do not know what the effect is on a diagonal or side impact to the seatbelt wearer. The biomechanics are perhaps different and pose a danger.
In the video, they comment that the belt is activated by the buckle, so if it is not worn, then there is no deployment.
Except in really small cars, rear passengers to not generally hit the back of the front seats. The front seat needs airbags to prevent you crashing into the dashboard/wheel.
Of course that foam doesn't exist, so uh...
What's ultra-luxurious about the LFA? Yes, for a car of its class it could be less comfortable... the Gumpert Apollo comes to mind, where you can't adjust the position of the seat, either you fit, or you don't. Or the Ariel Atoms, Caterhams and Radicals, which lack seat padding and sound deafening. But ultra-luxurious? I'd call a Maybach ultra-luxurious. A Rolls. But a LFA?
Point taken.
Small cars are ever increasing, certainly in europe.
Well, as long we're on the subject this point popped into my mind. It can not hurt to think out of the box.
I think she needs more toolbars in her browser
This could be a good idea, if the seatbelts are always worn correctly. But, I remember that when I was a kid I didn't always wear the seatbelt the way it should have been worn. I remember sometimes putting the seatbelt behind me so all I had was a lapbelt, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who ever did this.
If they wanted to increase safety a nice 5 point harness would be more effective. This seems more about preventing cracked ribs or welts, then actually providing more restraint in a collision. Airbags save lives because they keep your noggin from hitting solid objects at high speeds. I have never met someone who died or was permenantly injured from a welt or cracked rib. Yes it hurts, and yes it sucks, but these things have trade-offs.
1) Seatbelts are not fixed in place like front airbags. These things are pulled out and retracted all the time and by kids no less. These things are going to far more prone to failure and replacement than a regular airbag.
2) They will be bulkier than a regular seatbelt, which will lead to less usage
3) Infant car seats will still often use these seatbelts, so there will undoubtedly need to be a way to disable them to accomodate that.
4) Kids carry stuff on their laps, like silly little happy meal toys and Nintendo DSi's, you think it is deadly to have some little gizmo come flying forward at 50 MPH in a collision due to inertia, what happens when this thing propels it to 250 MPH
5) more cost to repair the car in an accident
6) an explosive device within a few inches of the passenger (airbags use explosions to inflate, not pressurized gas canisters)
7) Hearing damage, everyone feels the pressure when someone closes the door on a car, what about when 10 airbags go off at the same time? Do crash dummies have simulated ear drums?
That seems like a lot of trade offs to prevent a bruise, welt or cracked rib.
More shit to make our cars heavier. Instead of creating more and more technology, how about teaching people how to drive better BEFORE giving them a license?
Yo dawg. I hear you like safety so I put airbags in your seatbelts so you can something something
i want foam in the doors hans devices and custom fit seats in my car then we are talking about true safety
For those who don't understand why this is agood thing, I'll give a little anecdote for you. I was behind a guy driving a sports car (viper) who went from 45 to 0 running into the back of a semi because he wasn't paying attention. I got out to help. The only person in the car was the driver, and the seatbelt basically sliced his body in half at the waist and cross chest (not really, but he was gushing out blood from there and it crushed his body). The seating area was clear enough after the crash for him to have survived if only the seatbelt didn't kill him.
Increasing the surface area the seatbelt applies to the passenger greatly reduces the strain on the person. Double the area = half the force per square inch, and so on. It is a very good idea and reduces deaths in high-speed accidents.
why dont we just wear airbag vests that inflate when we get in a crash?
....as long as it doesnt pop my head off
These have been in planes for years now. The newer Cessnas have them.
Fellow kids, did you know that we are growing and developing, and the world around us is changing?! I know now because I have watched that video. I am scared now.
...
Mom, Dad, pleeease let's buy a next generation ford explorer right now, so we can be a happy family, pleease!
Why don't we make the belts a little wider and add a little padding to it?