turning japanese

The TSX doesn't do well ("marginal.") The TL is rated "good." This new test is expected to reduce the ratings of many cars that are currently consider 'top safety picks.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ew-crash-test/

Here it is direct from the IIHS website: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr081412.html

Domm

It seems like the german car makers don't believe the story of "the tree/pole came out of no where" or maybe it's the 2 missing cylinders in the c-class and 3 series. Whatever the case, glad to see safety standards are becoming more strict.

09TSXer

I know this is done for improving safety in our cars, but it never ceases to amaze me they take perfectly new cars and destroy them.

mrstak

iTrader: (1)

yea just read it on cnn

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/auto...html?hpt=hp_t2

sigh...at least we're not the worst? i don't know...

ceb

These tests need to be taken in context.

The top score by the Institute is good.

The likelyhood of such a crash must also be taken into consideration - especially for average non drug or alcohol impaired driver - crossing the centerline and hitting a tree right in front of the driver. These types of accidents routinely happen with a driver under the influence or driving much too fast for conditions.

The Institute is the only one conducting these tests. Wanna bet that we could devise that every car could fail? Tree trunk through windshield spearing dummy would be such a test.

The upside is that the TSX scored better than the comparably sized German competitors and the TL did extremely well.

mrstak

iTrader: (1)

haha yep i'm happy we did better than the german cars...and i'm tempted to send it to my friend who owns an IS...

PyroDave

honestly, i didn't even bother reading the article. i've been in 2 fairly high impact incidents, and there are enough crash stories on here to make me feel safe driving the TSX. for one, there is a poster in this very thread who totalled his car in brooklyn and walked away! the TSX was demolished, but it did its job, it protected this retard from brooklyn =)

thunderbt3

Of course bunch of cars didn't do so great, the engineers didn't know what to design/test for. The design of the current gen TL and TSX probably started around 2005. The media hypes it all up since all these high end cars are all of a sudden getting crappy ratings in just this test. All I read from this is "hey, we have a new test so we can give engineers feedback to design safer cars", not "oh no, the world is ending since luxury cars aren't doing well in this NEW test". This will be interesting since most car manufacturers are evolving to smaller and lighter vehicle designs to meet the future CAFE standards for fuel economy. Smaller and lighter doesn't always mean safer.

mrstak

iTrader: (1)

you son of a bitch. hahah yea i don't feel less unsafe after the article but it's more like bragging rights for me.

and damn it dave...i'm not a retard

KrylonBlue

Exactly as you said. Even at the end of the video they said safer means heavier, less fuel efficient cars. We now have the new fuel efficiency standards going into effect within so many years and now the safety standards are changing.

turning japanese

The end result of testing (whether it's IIHS, Euro NCAP, or NHTSA) is not about whether these tests are inaccurate in the real world or whether or not a friend survived a severe crash in a lower rated car, etc..

It's about forcing auto manufacturers to take car safety seriously. Manufacturers know that poor publicity will cut into their profit margin. And they take these ratings very seriously because they know consumers read them. The IIHS released this current press release to all the media, NYT, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.. In the internet age, these press releases then go viral. Car safety has dramatically improved over the years thanks to institutions like the IIHS.

The IIHS is non-profit but funded by the insurance industry whose financial interests are in keeping injury claims down. So there's a profit incentive for insurance companies, too.

You can bet that cars that do badly in this test will be addressed one way or another. Toyota already said, we have to do better with the Lexus.)

And that's the benefit for us.

Maesm81

Read this article this morning too. Interesting, I think it is a good thing to keep auto manufacturers on their toes about these sort of things. Im sure this test opened up auto manufacturers eyes about the safety of its customers in these types of crashes. Im sure some changes will be made to accomodate this type of crash test. In the next few years, vehicles will do better in this particular test. Good scores in these types of test sell vehicles, these results will not be ignored.

cudfoo

It’s all part of the natural evolution of car safety standards I guess. There was a time not that long ago that there were no airbags in cars. Before that seat belts did not exist or were not worn. The thing I find a little weird is that it took till now to do a test like this. Anyone have a link to the TSX Wagon crash ratings?

turning japanese

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=741

ceb

Let me reiterate. Anyone can design a specific test that many cars will fail. One must design tests to conform to common conditions.

While the goal of increasing safety (or in this case reducing insurance payouts) is an admirable goal, in this case it seems that it was released merely to publicize the IIHS by failing to clearly state that this is a new test that hasn't been tested to.

Two "Top IIHS Safety Picks" got poor ratings in this test. This is similar to the German Automobile Club's (ADAC) "Elk test" that several good selling cars, including the MB A series - that it nearly killed.

That is not to say that these new tests aren't helpful as they ultimately do result in safer cars but they often kill the sales of good cars. The "Elk test" brought electronic stability control to most cars, but has been redesigned by ADAC because it was unrealistic.

Take these new tests with a grain of salt.

turning japanese

There have been studies on small offsets for many years now (and with varying results.) One fairly current study (2010) argues that offsets (damage occurring outside the longitudinal frame rails) account for a smaller percentage (6%) of frontal accidents overall. In 2004 another study had claimed 48% of frontal fatalities were from small offsets. In 2008 there was a study that concluded that safety measures in cars were designed for wider offsets and did not take small offsets into consideration. There was more damage in small offsets but the study didn't deal with the total number of frontal offsets overall.

The gist of the 2010 study it is that the community should re-examine the significance of the severity of offset frontal accidents. But one big caveat: the 2010 study was funded by an auto manufacturer, Hyundai-Kia. Nonetheless, it is informative for both sides of the fence. Here it is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3242554/

And for sure, no one will argue that a test can be designed to make a car fail. But small offset study is not something new. Do you truly believe that this is what the IIHS is doing with this test? Making a car fail for the sake of publicity? Their published study, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Paper No. 09-0423, is very detailed.

Volvo has been performing these exact tests themselves in their own crash testing facilities. "Volvo has performed similar small overlap tests as part of its vehicle safety development process since the late 1980s, taking the results into account when designing new models."

And so the IIHS is now doing this test too, because they feel it is more of a common condition then was previously realized. "Nearly every new car performs well in other frontal crash tests conducted by the Institute and the federal government, but we still see more than 10,000 deaths in frontal crashes each year. Small overlap crashes are a major source of these fatalities. This new test program is based on years of analyzing real-world frontal crashes and then replicating them in our crash test facility to determine how people are being seriously injured and how cars can be designed to protect them better. We think this is the next step in improving frontal crash protection."

Volvo used to bring in the cars that were in actual real world accidents in Europe and analyze them in their crash labs in Belgium and Sweden. (The IIHS has inspectors review the data from cars that have been in real world accidents. They also compile data from the manufacturer's rep who inspect cars in the field, and from insurance agents who also inspect cars in the field.)

Volvo has recognized this small overlap scenario for over 20 years. And now the IIHS has decided to include it as part of their testing. Top picks will still receive top rating but with this additional test result noted. They do the same with seats and headrest design and rear end collisions. If the car fares badly, it can still get a top rating but with a note about the rear end collision test results.

Hopefully no one here ever experiences a crash of any kind in respect to injuries. But I will argue that it's important that the IIHS and others are doing this. The consumer always makes the choice in the end, and can decide if it matters or not. But to argue that this particular test is irrelevant is clearly open to debate.

Rocket_man

Must have been the beak!

But seriously, who can argue that the effect of constantly pushing these standards has not had a positive effect on car safety. I can remember riding in cars with NO seatbelts and a dash pretty much made from steel. I feel much safer in modern cars. But I'm also fearful that younger drivers who have always known 'safe' cars may be more inclined to drive stupidly because they think they are in a car that will save them. But I'm happy to know that the next car I buy will likely protect me better than the last car I bought and that trend has been continuing since the 70's.

kball

I'd add that i feel much safer in todays cars, but also think the chance of accidents has increased greatly from 20 years ago with all the distractions a driver has now (texting, phone calls etc).

Back in the day a driver only briefly took his eyes off the road for the radio and to maybe discipline a kid in the back seat.

So im glad manufacturers keep being pushed to improve no matter who does the pushing.

musty hustla

so much for the accord, tl, rl,and tsx sharing the same frame. all have different scores. looks like the box on top makes a big difference.

ceb

Driving today continues to be much safer than it was in the past but there is no question that it could be safer yet if people took their hands and eyes off of distractions.

Equally, about a third of vehicle fatalities involved unbelted occupants. If everyone used the proper restraints then we could reduce fatalaties by another 10-15%

ceb

It would only be accurate to quote the summary of the study you referenced rather than to just highlight the sentence that recommends more study.

"The objective of this study was to examine and rank the Small Overlap Frontal Crash as one of the eight-group taxonomy proposed by Ford. The Ford taxonomy classifies real-world frontal-impact crashes based on the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). Frontally-impacted vehicles were identified for 1985 – 2008 model year passenger vehicles with Collision Deformation Classification (CDC) data from the 1995 – 2008 years of NASS. Small overlap frontal cases were identified where there was no engagement of the vehicle frame rails, and the direct damage was located entirely outside of the vehicle frame rails. The results are that full engagement and offset (offset category means the direct damage overlaps the vehicle frame rail, with the center of direct damage between the frame rails) were the most frequent crashes contributing 35% each. The frequency of the small overlap frontal was 6%. The risks of injury (AIS ≥ 2) for the full engagement, offset, and small overlap were 8%, 6%, and 3% respectively. For this study, the number of small overlap vehicles was 1,118 and the number of injured nearside occupants was 100. This study—following the Ford approach and reasonably identifying the location of the longitudinal rails based on CDC—suggests that the small overlap is at worst a moderately dangerous crash in the overall scheme of frontal crashes. The implications of this study are that the safety community should reexamine the significance of the small overlap frontal crash against an overall taxonomy of crashes."

Nobody argues that increased safety is a bad thing and that any testing that highlights a vulnerability is a good thing but one needs to examine the motivations and look at the results in context.

3% of crashes are of the small frontal offset. In 35% of fatal crashes, the occupant was unbelted. I'd rank educational efforts at increasing seat belt use, especially amongst Hispanic and Asian drivers, as bringing more immediate bang for the buck.

During the last storms, a couple of people were killed when trees crushed their cars as they were driving along. The IIHS could design a test for that as well.

While I don't want to minimize the need for making cars as safe as possible, we also don't want to go on witch hunts. Remember that a news article nearly kiled Audi in the US with reports of unintended acceleration that turned out to be driver error and Toyota took a huge hit a few years ago with the same unintended acceleration issues that also turned out to be driver error as well.

Mass hysteria over tests like these mask the underlying fact that if you're in a crash, you have a 97% chance of not being involved in small offset frontal crash.

Keep it in perspective.

cudfoo

Anyone know if this new test will have any impact on insurance rates for the TSX (Wagon)?

turning japanese

Ceb, that's why I gave the link to the study. That particular study says 6% overall (and 3% injury.) And I said that in my first sentence. It also contradicts other studies. Despite chronology, different studies often can contradict each other. And that's why studies continue, whether it's car accidents or food products, etc..

And the point is that offset accident studies is nothing new. This is not a "witch hunt" but simply a look at offset frontal testing in respect to being part of the whole package of car testing (just like what's being done with the rear collision testing and seat design; it's a separate test.)

The point is to assess cabin intrusion in all sorts of scenarios. And building stronger cabins (as Volvo chooses to do) is an important part of car safety.

"During the last storms, a couple of people were killed when trees crushed their cars as they were driving along. The IIHS could design a test for that as well."

That's absurd to use as an excuse not to test offset crashes. I think you know better than that. And nonetheless, the IIHS has started to do roof strength testing beginning in 2010 (and so does Euro NCAP.) But in essence to say that it's okay to drink a lot of soft drinks because other things are equally not healthy is a deflection tactic and doesn't address the issue that's being discussed.

Offset accident studies have been an integral part of car safety concerns for decades. Whether one study says it's 3% injury or lower or higher, doesn't mean that it's not worth testing further. If you or a family member ever became that 3% then it would certainly matter.

"Mass hysteria over tests like these mask the underlying fact that if you're in a crash, you have a 97% chance of not being involved in small offset frontal crash."

I don't see any of this as "mass hysteria." That's a common knee-jerk reaction. And by citing ONE study alone (funded by a car company) as proof that all other studies are baseless, is up to the individual. But the point is that this is something manufacturers can address. Lexus accepted the test and said they want to do better. Mercedes has said (today) that it will also address this in the W205 model and in the meantime change the deployment logistics of the side airbags on the 2013 W204. This isn't a "witch hunt" unless one simply wants to read it that way.

ceb

The point that we are both making is that the "top safety picks" continue to be extremely safe carsregardless of the ratings of this new test.

Is it mass hysteria? Perhaps not, but the media is using this as a media circus - I heard on the radio this morning that "only two cars in this class had good safety ratings and specifically called out the C series and the A4 as "failing" the "frontal impact test."

The fact is that the C series and the A4 are both extremely safe cars.

Let's not blow this test out of proportion. The sky is not falling.

PyroDave

volvo is definitely one of the safest, apparents the doors are so thick, they are actually pretty bullet proof lmfao. the sales rep told me to slam the door on the S60 so i could actually feel and hear how heavy and secure it was

i knew the moment Turning Jap and Ceb disagreed, this would be a fun debate to watch =D

turning japanese

The IIHS recently hired an agency to send out its press releases. This is probably why it has this attention from the press. And it's not because the press is actually interested in the information, but simply because this is how the press operates these days. With reduced staff, a lot of articles are "infomercial" type articles in the media today. e.g., the sugar industry will send out a 'news article' from their agency to all the media. It could be an article that claims a newly developed sugar is good for teeth enamel, but it's written like an actual news article. The media is flooded with this kind of 'news' and readers have to be cautious about reading things these days.

So yeah, I agree that a release by the IIHS can be seen as being part of the "media circus" but that's more the fault of the state of affairs of today's for-profit media industry. They are the ones who turn it into "mass hysteria" because they know it gets attention, attracts readers/listeners/viewers and draws advertising. Nobody wants to read commonplace non-sensational news anymore. The media turns it into a "sky is falling" type of event. I'd personally much rather read a real reporter's version of the IIHS press release with alternative opinions based on other studies, etc.. But that's not how the media industry operates these days. And nobody wants to read all the 'fine print' that comes with any story. It's all about being sensationalized.

But outside of this 'media circus' is an actual event. And that is the IIHS has decided to test for small offset after years of discussion from various sources and years of studies about this type of accident. And there's nothing wrong with that. Many wiser people will understand that these cars are very safe (and way more than just a decade or so ago, thanks to the IIHS and EuroNCAP.) But they also see the advantage of pushing the automakers even farther to design even stronger cages (which Volvo had chosen to do years ago.) And that's a good thing.

Reactions might have been different if just one car had failed the test (and the TSX, C Class, A4, 3-series, had been rated 'good.') Then it would have been about how great Acura/Honda is at building safe cars and not about any irrelevancy of the testing. Because we personally own and drive the TSX (or maybe a C Class or A4, etc.), it would have 'felt good' knowing the car we have is rated 'good' in all the tests, old and new. This is only human nature. If a study claims your favorite food is unhealthy, the first reaction is denial and that the study is flawed or even unnecessary. One wants to protect what they like and what is part of their choice in life, and what gives them pleasure. It's all very understandable.

fwiw, I've owned a couple of Volvo's in the past and they are built pretty well. The S60 is a nice car but suffers from some issues like their old inline 5 cylinder which sounds and feels like a John Deere tractor (although they do offer their inline 6 in the S60 as an option.) Volvo and Mercedes have always been safety conscious, although Volvo does spend more of its budget (% wise) in safety testing. But being owned by a Chinese parent company now, we'll have to see if it remains an autonomous company.

Saab also tested their cars for the small offset frontal accident and had been doing so for decades.

If Volvo and Saab can build stronger cabins like they do (or 'did' in Saab's case), so can other manufacturers. It'll just take a bit of prodding via testing and publicity. I see it all as good. And if there are less insurance claims than that can mean less premium costs for us, along even better overall safety.

btw, somebody on a Mercedes forum said: The TL looked better after the crash test.

09TSXer

am I the only one that actually likes the 2012 TLs? (well, besides the TL forums obviously)

KrylonBlue

I like the 2012 TL but I don't think it's better than the previous generation.

ceb

There is always a downside and the manufacturers and consumers need to walk a fine line. Often, the downsides are weight and size with a corresponding decrease in MPG.

Unfortunately, safety doesn't really sell unless you can point to a recent catastrophic event.

In the mid 60's, new testing and laws brought us seatbelts and sidemarker lights (the same "ugly" orange markers so many posters want to delete.) The early 70's brought us 5mph bumpers that initially consisted of big hunks of rubber hanging on the front and rear of cars until the manufacturers incorporated them into the design by increasing the size and weight of the cars.

Because safety doesn't sell, 1974 brought us the seatbelt started interlock and later years brought us the automatic eyeglass remover AKA automatic seatbelts and it goes on and on with each new safety item adding to the size and weight.

As consumers we complain about "soft" windshield glass and the cost of repairs as many things under hood break so easily. Those are features brought to us based on pedestrian safety laws.

Manufacturers haven't been building their cars to the small offset frontal impact because they weighed the cost/benefit and the fact that consumers don't care.

We could build an extremely safe car. It would be huge, have dismal gas mileage, slow and very expensive. Nobody would buy it and those who did, would complain about the driving dynamics - there would be no "fun factor."

turning japanese

All those things you mention are DOT regulations that have nothing to do with the IIHS. The IIHS is not a regulatory agency. They only rate cars under their own testing and rating system. It has nothing to do with what the feds decide. And the feds have never forced mfgs to do anything based on IIHS tests. The IIHS tests are publicity based only and mfgs respond (or not) to that publicity. Granted, the feds could use data from those tests as part of their decision making, but they normally only do that from NHTSA testing. IIHS and NHTSA testing parameters are very different. (The NHTSA hasn't even tested the current TSX except in roadside rollover tests.)

And consumers "don't care" about the small offset issue only because they don't know about it. Once they do, they likely will care (or maybe not care, it's entirely up to the individual.) And that's the IIHS's agenda: educate the public so that as consumers, the buyer will put pressure on the mfg to do better via their wallet. IIHS doesn't tell the mfgs or the feds what to do (and they don't have that kind of power.)

btw, I had a Volvo S60R which was fun. Safe cars and fun cars do not have to be separate. Ironically, the Mercedes C Class doesn't get great mpg (and weighs a lot) but it failed dismally in keeping the cage intact when forces were applied outside the frame. Volvo builds a steel member that's attached to the frame and firewall to circumvent the cage from being crushed. The current S60 T6 (IL6 and AWD) gets slightly better mpg than the C350 (V6 and RWD.) Both are equally "fun" to drive.

Of course, safety features do add weight. And mfgs are using lighter (yet strong) materials (aluminum.) They also need better mpg due to CAFE rules. So they aren't going the direction of the car you describe (big, heavy and slow) at all. And they know that performance matters (the horsepower war has clearly not ended.) So they keep working on safer, faster, cars with better mpg. They aren't going backwards; they're building safer cars that get better mpg and more performance.

But if somebody wants pure tactile quality in a car and nothing else, they can easily buy something like a used British Leyland Triumph Spitfire (an extremely fun and very light car; we used to call it a 'coffin on wheels.')

ceb

Nawww, we're on the same page. Each of us just has a slightly different perspective.

When I spoke about safe cars I was not referring to the current models as they all have significant downsides.

When ADAC tested the S60, it scored very badly on visibility and failed the "affordability" testing - it was too expensive to buy and too expensive to maintain.

The S60 also only scored marginally higher than the TSX on safety, getting the equivalent of an A- when the TSX got a B+ - the difference quite possibly being the knee airbags on the Volvo.

Federal Highway's Intelligent Transportation Systems is working with industry on developing safer cars. They will be more expensive and will be lacking the fun factor - but they'll be safer.

There is also that fine line between occupant safety and pedestrian safety - a standard that is tested to in Europe but not here in the US. By protecting the passenger cage, you may seriously affect pedestrian safety, where small overlap crashes are far more common. The majority of pedestrian crashes are headlight, hood, front fender - just like small overlap frontal crashes.

Again, we shouldn't stop looking for safer cars - we just need to look at the big picture. The C series and A4 are both safe cars - at least in 97% of the crashes they are involved in.

turning japanese

I was surprised when I bought the TSX wagon that it didn't have knee airbags. Most cars in this segment have them.

Mercedes made a statement that said they disagree with the test primarily because the IIHS used a stationary barrier. Mercedes claims that when two cars collide at a small offset, there will be absorption of energy by both cars. They also said that in their real world data collection, that hitting a stationary object at a small offset is very rare.

This all makes sense. But on the other hand, Volvo tests their small offset using two cars in their state-of-the art facility that has two tunnels. They apparently concluded that from the results of their own small offset testing (using two cars) that it was worthwhile to reinforce the cage by adding a steel support going from the frame to the bulkhead.

Visibility out the rear with the new S60 sucks. It's why they have a button to drop the rear headrests (like their previous S60, although it had excellent rear visibility.) Mfgs seem to be relying on rear view cameras (like in the Prius which is impossible to see out the rear), which I think is a bad trend since it means looking down at a display instead of looking up into the rearview mirror and turning your head. With rear view cameras, blind spot assist, and various radar systems I think the modern driver is unlearning an important part of safe driving: physically turning the head and looking over the shoulder. I think radar devices are good, but the driver can get lazy.

My 2009 W211 E63 Mercedes was rated only 'acceptable' on t-bone side impacts. But that didn't make me feel less safe. Overall, the car was a tank. And I have no qualms about owning/driving the C Class or the A4. Or obviously, the TSX wagon. But I do appreciate these tests (whether or not they are imperfect in the real world) because a strong(er) cage really matters to me.

As far as pedestrians are concerned, the main issue is a design that softens the blow with absorbing bumpers and pop-up hoods, etc.. In Europe (esp the UK) where they have to meet the EU directive, they've even been designing new FPS devices that are like rubber push bars (roo bars/bull bars.)

The downside of course, is the funky looking flat noses of new car designs. No more classy 1964 Ferrari Lusso Pininfarina designs....

(btw, I had Parktronic on the E63 and it helped a lot in the city esp when you're trying to make a right on a red and pedestrians are darting out trying to cross the street.)

ceb

Oddly enough, I just received the latest Car & Driver in the mail yesterday. It had an article entitled "Taking the Hit: How Pedestrian-Protection Regs Make Cars Fatter"

Ken1997TL

I'd like to see crash tests that involve lifted trucks (complete with dangling metallic scrotums) crashing into the rear or side of your average sedan.

Those stupid things should be prevented from being on public roads.

ceb

I'm sure the IIHS could arrange that. That'll give insurance companies yet another reason to raise rates on all cars that do poorly on that test.

"Hi Mr. Ken1997TL, we're sorry to inform you that the rates on your car just went up. Not our fault, you know, but your car did poorly on a recent crash test"

"Really? What crash test was that?"

"The IIHS developed a new test simulating aliens from the planet Hkkkkjyhyfdrsxewaw landing on top of your car, in a blizzard in Miami in July. Very few cars passed that test. That'll be another $100 a year please."

The IIHS has a huge dog in this fight. You guys just aren't seeing it.

The insurance companies can maintain the rates of the S60 and TL (that each sell about 20k cars a year) and raise the rates for every other car on the road because it did poorly on this crash test.

ceb

The new S40/V40 in Europe will have a pedestrian airbag - a "U" shaped contraption with the uprights covering the "A" pillars and the lower part covering the wipers.

turning japanese

I agree, it's unfathomable that they can get away with raised heights with bumpers that don't even pass normal DOT regulations. How can it be legal? Even commercial tractor trailer trucks are required to have a rear under-ride bar (22" from the ground.)

From a Euro study (in conjunction with Paris wanting to ban SUVs within city limits):

In 2004, the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released figures showing that drivers of SUVs were 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars. These figures may be confounded by variables other than the vehicles' inherent safety, for example the documented tendency for SUVs to be driven more recklessly most sensationally perhaps, the 1996 finding that SUV drivers are more likely to drive drunk [3] (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV/)). SUV drivers are also statistically less likely to wear their seatbelts. [4] (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ cars/problems/studies/LTV/)

ceb

The small offset crash test is born:
Hold my beer and watch this. Lemme see if I can squeeze down this alley between these two big old buildings.

Whoopsie, looks like i might just clip one with my headlight. Damn that windshield is hard. Gimme my beer so I can get rid of my headache. It missed the frame so it'll buff right out.

KillerG

ceb... are you drunk

ceb

Uhh, nope. I had a glass of seltzer water a few minutes ago though.