Talk:Airbag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives of previous discussion[edit]

Archive 1

World view discussion[edit]

Whoever posted this flag needs to provide the examples which adversely affect the accuracy of world view. Are we arguing about who invented air bags or the developers of air bags or what? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question. I can address it partially: there are substantial differences in how airbags are regulated, engineered, and calibrated in America vs. the rest of the world. Under international ECE Regulations adhered to by most of the industrialised world outside North America, as well as Australia's regulations (ADR), airbags are engineered, calibrated, and tested around the assumption of vehicle occupants' use of seat belts, to serve as truly supplemental restraints. Compared to American ones, ECE and ADR airbags are relatively small, their deployment force is relatively low, and the vehicle speed threshold above which they will deploy is relatively high. The American airbag regulations (FMVSS 208, CMVSS 208) require that airbags be engineered, calibrated, and tested so as to prevent fatal injury to an unbelted test dummy of 50th-percentile-male height and weight — even the "second generation" (or "depowered") airbags of the late 1990s and the "smart" bags of today must meet this requirement. In order to do so, the American bags must be larger, much more forceful, and must deploy at lower vehicle speeds. This, in turn, causes American bags to be potentially injurious or fatal to belted vehicle occupants. The difference in philosophy and priority is significant, as is the fact that airbags are mandatory only under American regulations; they are widespread elsewhere in the world, but not by dint of legal requirement. There are other technical, philosophical, regulatory, and developmental differences between the American approach to airbags and those in the rest of the world; this what I've described is not exhaustive. So, the template is most appropriate and should stay for now, but it clearly applies to the whole article, not just the history section. I've moved it to the top of the article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this: you say that US-American airbag's being designed to protect passengers who don't use their seat belts causes them "to be potentially injurious or fatal to belted vehicle occupants." -- How so? If such airbags are more or less safe for passengers who are not buckled up, then logic would imply that they would do even less damage to passengers with their seat belts on.
The above assumes that protective measures stack neatly to add protection. In fact, airbags are designed around certain 'occupancy zones.' A seatbelted driver will have their spine against the seat rest, while an unrestrained driver may be in a larger zone. The possibility of leaning forward alone requires much faster deployment of the airbag. This faster deployment imparts more force to a seatbelted driver than is necessary, providing one means of injury. The shape of US airbags is also different than optimal for seatbelted driver. These two things indicate (But do not prove) that US airbag design is not optimal for seatbelted drivers, and therefore leads to more injuries and fatalities than airbags built for seatbelted drivers.

"Costs" section[edit]

While there are likely many regions where the statement in the article "If they [air bags] are deployed or stolen the registered vehicle owner is required to replace them" is true, I don't believe the generalization is universal. In the US, I know of owners who continue to drive their cars after the airbags were stolen, without any mention by law enforcement. Unless the missing component risks the safety of others, most US states don't address the subject. The few states and territories in the US that have vehicle safety inspections may flag a missing airbag as a fault and require its replacement, but that amounts to fewer than a dozen States in the Union.

The US often has different laws than the rest of the world. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that laws associated with driving and operating a vehicle are made by each of the 50 states and sundry territories, not by the federal government. Federal law comes into play only because of interstate commerce associated with the sale of vehicles. This allows the federal government to mandate standards concerning a vehicle's safety equipment. Once a vehicle is sold, the federal government no longer has jurisdiction, unless the vehicle is driven onto federal property (military base, national park, federal territory that is not a state, etc.)

As an example of this, the notorious federal 55 MPH speed limit of the 1970's and 1980's had no federal enforcement power against motorists. Enforcement took place with Congress stating they would withhold funding for state projects if the states did not put the proper speed limit legislation in place. For several years the state of Montana went without this funding and without a 55 MPH speed limit.

Walt (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on all counts. I took a look at the section you were looking at...egads, what a mess of OR and POV, guesses, opinions, redundancy, numbers pulled out of thin air and stated without even the weakest of support, and regurgitated simplistic "Harry and Harriet Homeowner" type of advice that looked like it could've come right out of Reader's Digest or perhaps off a 17-second segment on Action McNews at Nine.
I've made a first effort at cleanup. Renamed the section heading to reflect its content, recast the assertions that could be made encyclopædic and removed those that couldn't, and made some other adjustments. Obviously, the article needs a great deal more work. The issue of injuries airbags cause or aggravate vs. those they prevent needs much more detailed coverage, for example, and we ought to have more treatment of U.S. vs. rest-of-world airbag technical standards. There's a great deal of WP:RS-compliant material out there on the subject, so now what's needed is interest, effort, and time to apply it! —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably inappropriate to make this comment on wikipedia, much less 12 years later, but that's really neat and made me look into the history of speed limit regulations, thanks2601:401:180:E1E0:351E:1170:490B:CEE9 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image of child on driver's lap[edit]

I think such an image would be appropriate for this section in the article since airbag deaths often occur due to drivers/passengers not obeying safety laws or following common sense. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a related study on child fatalities. The study addresses unrestrained children in the front passenger seat. The image featured shows the child on the driver's lap, but it's a similar, though likely worse, problem. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an early CDC article. It's incumbent upon the driver's to ensure children's safety rather than endanger it. The image provided shows a driver endangering a child by not obeying the law or common sense. The installation of an airbag only worsens the outcome of this type of mistake. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're correct about unrestrained children, children in drivers' laps, etc. But the image you selected is of extremely poor quality, and really doesn't illustrate anything at all. The faces are crudely pixellated, and we really can't tell if the kid's in the driver's lap or is actually in the passenger seat, and just leaning leftward to tune the radio or something. Also, coverage of these issues fits within the scope of a Wikipedia article, but only if we're careful not to stray into "do's-and-don'ts" territory. It would be appropriate to state (with citations) how many deaths and how many of what kinds of particular injuries are caused by these driver errors, but it would not be appropriate to prescribe remedies or child placement within a vehicle, for Wikipedia is not a manual or guidebook. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the image, I think it's clear that it's a young child facing right - so it's not possible for the child to be leaning over from the passenger's seat. The editors at Commons prefer personally identifiable images pixellated when the image could cause the subject some embarrassment. In this case, the driver is likely breaking several laws. I could crop the original and enlarge it to just show the driver's compartment. This would make the safety issue more clear. I agree regarding the how-to, guidebook, not a manual concerns. A caption reading "Airbags increase death/injury risks when passengers are not properly restrained". This would be in line with the research. Rklawton (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did click on the image, and viewed it at full size. It is not at all clear or unambiguous; I fear your sense of its clarity is distorted by your having taken the image and therefore seen the unpixellated view. I am not at all sure the Commons preference for distortion applies in such a case as this; legally it is well established that there is no expectation of privacy while operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. If you wish to err on the timid side, try less obtrusive black bars over the vehicle occupants' eyes instead (one bar per occupant) and let's see if that makes the image usably clear while still masking their identities. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct with regards to privacy rights. However, I've had prior experience with Commons and their timidity, and I've implemented their preferred approach. Have you viewed version #3 which is enlarged and cropped? Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no good. Cropping is not the (main) problem, pixellisation is. If you are afraid of the wrath of marauding Commons editors, and would rather quote what you think they'll say rather than allowing them the chance to recognise that sometimes pixellisation spoils the image, then upload an image just to the English Wikipedia project rather than to Commons. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your only objection? Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the image itself, but I do think it irrelevant, surely people know what a child in someone's lap looks like? SimonTrew (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection is the poor quality of the image, though Like SimonTrew, I question the relevance of an image such as this. I'm not set against it, but neither do I think even a high-quality version would add greatly to the article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the photo's display of extreme stupidity would help illustrate how it is that airbags manage to kill people. There is (or was) a lot of hype about the "dangers" of airbags - but I think the real danger comes not from the engineers or the manufactured product but from users who exercise gross negligence and then file law suits when someone gets hurt. Of course, that's just my POV. You know where the image is if you'd like to use it. Rklawton (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passive vs Active[edit]

We've had this discussion, however unlike the auto industry, Army aviation uses these terms differently. I'd like to find a way to incorporate the difference in the article focusing it toward aviation without affecting it's use in automotive circles. We view a passive device from the perspective of passive control. That is, it is typically mechanical, and limited in its ability to adjust to variations in input parameters or external conditions. Active devices on the other hand are viewed from the perspective of active control, where the technology incorporates sensing and decision making ability (i.e., electronics) to actively adjust the performance based on changing input parameters. Whether or not the occupant activates the device does not necessarily affect either passive or active; however in some cases either method will exclude the occupant for the sake of speed during a crash event. Anyone have a suggestion about how to include this in the article, preferably in the Terminology section? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the original text led me move to the discussion part. Active and Passive Safety is clearly defined. This is what I thought, before I found the description in the main part. Simply said, Active Safety is every kind of technology which is actively involved while the vehicle is in "normal" usage and no crash is happening to provide safety. Everything what helps to avoid or mitigate a crash event. This is for example the case for brakes and steering. Advanced features to be mentioned are the AEBS or LDWS (Automatic Emergency Braking System or Lane Departure Warning System). Passive Safety measures are air bags, seat belts or any other kind of energy absorbing mechanisms, like energy absorbing steering columns or knee bolsters. These devices are passive while normale driving. They become active in the case of a crash by actuation or even only by their principle nature and help to reduce the risk of being severely or even fataly injured. Only one piece of technology is combining both philosophies. This is the seat belt in its ability to stabilize the occupant while driving (Active Safety) and its potential to reduce injuries in the case of a crash (Passive Safety). Unfortunately the Active Safety side of the Safety Belt is not very well recognized in the US, as the locking mechanism is not defined in the same way as for example in Europe. --AlterUigo (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment, but I more or less realize these definitions. The question was, how can automotive and aerospace perspectives on these definitions be both accomodated without confusion? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This issue can often arise across industries. As a result, people must be aware of the difference when discussing or referencing these terms and accommodate the audience and situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.189 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any automakers make cars with off switches for passenger airbags for safety?[edit]

Obviously, airbags are dangerous to children in the passenger seat of vehicles thus equipped. Also obviously, the parent of a child sitting in the back seat of a vehicle incurs risk when they have to turn their head to check on what their child is doing, or hand them food/toys/etc. Are there any automakers which have made cars with airbags for political correctness but factory-installed passenger airbag off switches for safety? Nevard (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auto makers are interested in only one thing: Profit - i.e. cost per unit sold. To maximise sales they need to achieve consumer and government safety targets with the minumum unit cost. Hence, airbags are installed to produce the highest safety ratings a manufacturer can get for their money. Passenger bags have a disable option because they would have a high chance of killing very young children in the front seat; where they should NEVER be. If they deployed (professional advice, children should be in child seats anchored in the middle of the rear seat, if central anchorage is not an option, chose the passenger side). Yes airbags dramatically increase your survival chances if you are positioned and restrained as the manufacturer expects (read, wear a seatbelt). There is no politcal correctness, there are only numbers from a crash test. I work in the industry, designing cars for North America, Europe and the Far East, simple advice: Wear a seatbelt, demand a passenger airbag, child central or passenger side, rear seat. Child seats rear facing as long as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.229.42 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

almost all car models come to market with a off switch for passenger airbag. But reason is to prevent opening of airbag in case when child in child seat is placed on a passenger place. It should not be used to trick system in order to allow children to seat on passenger seat. StDeepBlue (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is NOT a forum. Talk pages are for article improvement, not for discussing politics. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflator chemical for Airbags[edit]

Some sources say that airbags use a mixture of potassium nitrate, sodium azide, and silicon dioxide. The sodium azide decomposes, yielding nitrogen gas and sodium metal. The sodium metal reacts with the potassium nitrate to form potassium oxide and sodium oxide, along with additional nitrogen gas. They are reacted with silicon dioxide to form glass. Some say they used to use sodium azide and potassium nitrate, but now they use ammonium nitrate or some other nonmetal oxidizer and a nitrogen-rich fuel other than azides. Another source says that most airbags contain sodium azide. Yet another source says that they only contain sodium azide. ????? --98.221.179.18 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Check the date of sources. A source saying that sodium azide is exclusively used could be correct in 1994. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that any one source can definitively address the Inflator Chemical topic. Many of the the compositions of different the propellants are intellectual property of the manufacturing companies.

Perhaps with the onset of the Takata recall, this section could be broken down into the history and development of the chemicals. Thus providing better understanding of what chemicals maybe present in a specific inflator based on manufacturing date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.189 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airbag designed by Walter Linderer in 1951 ![edit]

Walter Linderer has 1951 designet the Airbag, not John W. Hetrick in 1952 !

Walter Linderer Deutsche Patentamt: Patent Nr. 896312 DE 

"Einrichtung zum Schutze von in Fahrzeugen befindlichen Personen gegen Verletzungen bei Zusammenstößen"

He has an international patent for airbag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.20.53 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airbag effectiveness[edit]

It appears we have substantial input on how airbag can hurt people, but little to nothing regarding lives saved or general effectiveness. Here is one document describing NHTSA's report to Congress in 1996. Why don't we retitled the entire section as Airbag effectiveness with pro and con type of subsections? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC) You need to update the estimated number of lives saved by frontal Airbags. NHTSA just published figures showing 32,544 lives saved through 2010. See Report DOT HS 811619. NCSA Traffic Safety Fact Sheet 2010 “Occupant Protection” (DOT-HS-811-619) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis V. Lombardo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well 

Emaka morah (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it *really* work?[edit]

I've just taken a couple of Recaro seats out of my old car to make seats for my study. Naturally I wanted to disarm the airbags, but after several hours Googling, I still don't actually know how the airbags work. There are 3 wires to the seat. One is obviously earth. The other two give a resistance which the control system appears to use as a check on whether the airbag is viable or not. I presume they are also used to fire the airbag? While I'm not looking to wikipedia to become a car repair manual, it might be useful if somebody could write a few sentences explaining what's going on - I don't want a wiring diagram or wire colour codes, just to understand better how it works...

UnNovel (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Talk pages are not designed for this type of discussion, but only to discuss development of the associated article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Types of curtain airbags[edit]

First of all, there is no difference between rear and front inflatable curtains because the protection of both rear and front occupants is "made" with only one curtain(and one inflator and so on) Second, the only different types of curtains are door-mounted ones and "normal" ones (A-C pillar or A-B). Third point; maybe add some prccision about the difference in EU/U.S ( rollover protection or first impact protection, due to the impossibility of a law forcing people to use their seatbelts in the USA) . 09:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.129.54 (talk)

You might want to sign you posts, so that we know whom we are speaking with. Your comments are unclear regarding the law. What law are you talking about? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear, for english is not my first language. There are two types of curtain airbags that are common: In countries where wearing the seatbelt is necessary in order not to get fines (that's partly why I talked about laws) the curtain airbags have to protect the occupant during the first second of a crash (to avoid damage to the head if you hit the window). However, in some countries (mostly USA) the law (i'm not sure about the term, please understand: the rules that apply to airbags to be homologated) states that curtain airbags must ensure the occupant stays in the car in case of a roll-over. While it looks futile, it actually changes a lot of things.Someone who cannot sign 195.33.129.54 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what you mean by the 1 second timing, because 1 second is a lifetime in a crash. Please cite the applicable laws you are talking about. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to regulation FMVSS 226 (NHTSA, american regulation), a curtain airbag must be able to prevent ejection during 6 seconds. You can find the regulation here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Ejection_mitigation_FR_Jan2011.pdf . Meanwhile, there is no roll-over protection mandatory in EU. Hence my "1 second", wich are here just to highlight the difference. 195.33.129.54 (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014[edit]

I'd like to add the reference:

"Technical performance and validation requirements for the inflator assembly used in airbag modules are specified in SAE USCAR 24-2."

with a reference to http://standards.sae.org/uscar24-2/.

Position of the text: At the end of the sector:

Regulatory specifications United States

behind the last sentence

"...size and weight "male" crash test dummy."

Samulat (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could anybody tell me why my request is not beeing treated...? Samulat (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Editor making the request has since made the edit to the page themselves. Arjayay (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the issue here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|answered= And done. Thanks!Samulat (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2014[edit]

Bigboytoy112 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ar bags are the reason for swarcliff smiles[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor of Airbag, Peter Florjančič?[edit]

I came across with that guy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Florjan%C4%8Di%C4%8D who allegedly invented the airbag. Should his name be removed from that article or claim or should his name be added to this site ("Airbag") also?

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015[edit]

"There are ongoing efforts to find alternative compounds that can be used in airbags which have less toxic byproducts – but still they have." That sentence doesn't finish, which suggests there is information accidentally excluded from the page. 180.181.224.72 (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed the latter part of that sentence... I found the edit at fault and figured there's no way a whole sentence was ever there to begin with. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple activation?[edit]

As far as I know, the vast majority of current airbags are designed for a single activation, and cannot reactivate during rollover accidents and multi-vehicle collisions. With the use of compressed-gas activated airbags (rather than one-shot explosives), there is the possibility of an airbag that could reactivate if needed in a following impact situation. Are there any systems with this capability, that can be documented with references to a WP:RS? Reify-tech (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, and highly unlikely to be developed in the future if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.187 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use with seatbelts[edit]

While it seems to be "common wisdom" that use of seatbelts in combination with airbags greatly increases the airbag's effectiveness, the article makes no mention of this. Can WP:RS be found to support this assertion? Reify-tech (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Airbag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airbag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Airbag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Airbag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airbag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Airbag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First car with an airbag[edit]

What was the first car with an airbag? The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is an airbag ? And it's advantages[edit]

Airbag is an safety 106.51.27.61 (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Ziccardi airbag[edit]

I think this patent is worth mentioning https://patents.google.com/patent/US2850291A It opperates using an explosive initiator. Mirad1000 (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that it talks about a liquid CO gas that is apparently ignited and released to the air bag too. Mirad1000 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image misidentification[edit]

The "File:Ford Mondeon curtain airbag deployed.jpg" file is actually taken from a Opel Vectra instead, and I even requested a page move of the Commons page. I think that the user which said this is a Ford Mondeo made a mistake. OOOO fanboy (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization of sodium azide airbag propellant[edit]

The primary purpose of the efforts to show that sodium azide was a risky propellant was that the technology was controlled by a select few aerospace contractors. This did not sit well with pacific rim OEMs or Europeans OEMs. They diversified the technologies in the face of knowledge of deficiencies in those technologies. Sodium azide had gone through a rigorous examination of over 15 potential airbag inflation technologies in the late 1970s after the weaknesses in the GM system had been demonstrated. Sodium Azide and a correctly designed inflator and module design was superior to other stored gas, heated stored gas or organic propellants. It was based on this study that Ford decided to participate in demonstration programs of new designs with the new inflator technology. First in a group of 50 cars built for the Dearborn Police Department in 1979 or 1980 and then approximately 3000 Tempo/Topaz cars with driver only air bags for the USA GSA, in 1983. All systems met field expectations. All had sodium azide inflators. Ford was the first supplier of high volume passenger airbag systems in 1989 Continentals that had provisions for attenuation of deployment loads on the out of position small occupants (children). This was a first. It was a high mounted (in the instrument panel) airbag module that aspirated compartment air to fill the air bag. If something was obstructing the deployment, like a child standing, unrestrained, in front of it, the bag aspiration would stall, and the forces would we dramatically reduced to a survivable level. This was new to the industry and the regulators would not address this issue for several years. Through industry associations the standards became common place. Sodium azide could be shaped to provide what is called a neutral to slightly progressive burn rare through geometric configurations much easier that stored gas or organic.

During the on going development of systems at TRW a group of engineers teamed up with engineers at TRW Space Park to address the issue of long term aging of the propellant. The Space Park engineers had developed a laboratory method for solid propellant ICBM rocket booster propellants. In tests run on production sodium azide propellant it was projected that when sealed in the moisture proof canister in the production inflator the life was extrapolated well past 20 years with no signs of out gassing (degradation). Organic propellants have not demonstrated this capability. Stored gas can actually leak through the interstitial lattice of the pressure vessel with time. This is how sodium azide got the early selection as a superior technology.

TRW was forced into alternate technologies to be price competitive. For those of us that worked for years to design as near as possible to a flawless system it’s was a humbling and a rude awakening. Then came Takata. 96.46.15.183 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? Is there some concrete action that you want us to take? Do you have reliable sources for the above?  Stepho  talk  10:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbag&oldid=1216895071"