Side Impact and Ease of Use Comparison between ISOFIX and LATCH. CLEPA Presentation to GRSP, Informal Document GRSP Geneva, May 2004

Similar documents
TRL s Child Seat Rating, (TCSR) Front Impact Testing Specification

ECE Regulation N th session of GRSP December 2013

Research on Chest Injury Criteria

54 rd Meeting Informal Group on Child Restraint Systems Booster Seat Width Development. 27 th October2015

Australian Pole Side Impact Research 2010

ECE Regulation N th session of GRSP December Informal document GRSP (54 th GRSP, December 2013, agenda item 19)

Side impact protection in non-integral CRS First feedback on 440 mm. 52 nd Meeting of the UN Informal Group on Child Restraint Systems

E/ECE/324/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.2/Amend.2 E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.2/Amend.2

Transport Canada. Child Occupant Protection Research. Considerations for Future Regulations. Suzanne Tylko Chief of Crashworthiness Research

Proposal for the 02 series of amendments to Phase 2 of Regulation No. 129 (Enhanced Child Restraint Systems)

SPCT Method. The SPCT Method - Testing of Dog Crates. Utskrivet dokument är ostyrt, dvs inte säkert gällande.

Proposal for the 02 series of amendments to Phase 2 of Regulation No. 129 (Enhanced Child Restraint Systems)

Research TEST Result. Japanese Proposal

Introduction of Booster Cushions in R129

ECE Regulation N th session of GRSP May Informal document GRSP Rev.1 (55 th GRSP, May 2013, agenda item 18)

Proposal. Submitted. agenda item 17) supersedes made 2017/04/19) Insert new. of the. The minimum size area." Insert new. inform the.

Full Width Test ECE-R 94 Evaluation of test data Proposal for injury criteria Way forward

WorldSID 50 th Update

E/ECE/324/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.1/Amend.2 E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.1/Amend.2

Economic and Social Council

Economic and Social Council

Potential Use of Crash Test Data for Crashworthiness Research

FIMCAR Accident Analysis Report to GRSP frontal impact IWG Summary of findings

Service Bulletin A

STUDY ON CAR-TO-CAR FRONTAL OFFSET IMPACT WITH VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY

(Revision 2, including the amendments which entered into force on 16 October 1995) 01 series of amendments Date of entry into force: 9 February 2017

Audi TT SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Year Of Publication Driver Passenger Rear FRONTAL CRASH PROTECTION

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (single), Passenger (single)

Technical Note on the EuroSID-2 with Rib Extensions (ES-2re)

White Paper. Compartmentalization and the Motorcoach

Analysis of a Frontal Impact of a Formula SAE Vehicle David Rising Jason Kane Nick Vernon Joseph Adkins Dr. Craig Hoff Dr. Janet Brelin-Fornari

ASEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (ASEAN NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL AND BIOMECHANICAL LIMITS

CLIENT PROJECT REPORT

VW Passat VW Passat 2.0 TDI 'Comfortline', LHD

FIAT % 66% 53% 27% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.43/Rev.3/Amend.7 E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.43/Rev.3/Amend.7

Informal document No. GRSP (45th GRSP, May 2009 agenda item 4(b))

Economic and Social Council

Rear Impact Dummies. Z. Jerry Wang, PhD, Chief Engineer Eric Jacuzzi, Project Engineer

THOR Specification and Certification Version 1.0 November 2018 TB 026

Lower tether anchorages

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. Wheelchair seating Part 4: Seating systems for use in motor vehicles

Hyundai i20 73% 85% 79% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Vehicle LATCH Hardware Evaluation Protocol (Version I) June 2015

Tel. :

Kia Soul EV 84% 82% 59% 56% DETAILS OF TESTED CAR. Soul EV 81.4kW EV 'SX', LHD SPECIFICATIONS SAFETY EQUIPMENT

Lateral Protection Device

Audi TT 68% 81% 64% 82% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Pedestrian.

This document is a preview generated by EVS

Humanetics is now shipping all ATDs for use in the U.S. NCAP at SBL-A and also offers upgrade kits for previously delivered dummies.

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Vehicle LATCH Hardware Evaluation Protocol (Version II) November 2015

Proposal for a new Regulation on Child Restraints Systems Phase 2

This paper details the development of the latest potential updates to the FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly 4 including the assembly s geometry,

MG3 69% 71% 59% 38% DETAILS OF TESTED CAR. MG3 1.5VTi-TECH 3Form Sport, RHD SPECIFICATIONS SAFETY EQUIPMENT

Frontalaufprall im Verbraucherschutz Frontal Impact In Consumer Test Programms

Study concerning the loads over driver's chests in car crashes with cars of the same or different generation

Digges 1 INJURIES TO RESTRAINED OCCUPANTS IN FAR-SIDE CRASHES. Kennerly Digges The Automotive Safety Research Institute Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Side Pole Impact Accidents and Vehicle Testing

TEST METHOD Booster Seats. May 2012R January 1, Revised: Issued: (Ce document est aussi disponible en français)

Child Safety ! WARNING: GENERAL SAFETY INFORMATION

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (single), Passenger (single)

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP)

REGULATION No. 94 (Frontal collision) Proposal for draft amendments. Proposal submitted by France

Children in Forward-Facing Car Seats

Draft new Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of enhanced Child Restraint Systems used onboard of motor vehicles

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (dual), Passenger (dual)

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (single), Passenger (single)

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian. Toyota Hilux Double-Cab, 2.4 diesel 4x4, mid grade, LHD. Belt pretensioner. Side head airbag.

VOLVO XC40 APRIL ONWARDS ALL-WHEEL-DRIVE (AWD) VARIANTS

THOR Mod Kit Update May Human Injury and Applied Biomechanics Research Divisions

Presentation of the draft Global Technical Regulation on Safety Belts

Lancia Ypsilon 79% 44% 64% 38% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

An innovative child safety seat designed for children with special health needs. Listening to therapists working with families

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP)

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/10

AMENDMENT NO December 2015 AIS-072

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION

LAND ROVER DISCOVERY. ANCAP Safety Rating. ancap.com.au. Test Results Summary. This ANCAP safety rating applies to: Adult Occupant Protection.

E/ECE/324/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.1 E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.2/Add.128/Rev.1

Mazda 2 78% 86% 84% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

MERCEDES-BENZ X-CLASS APRIL ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

Pre impact Braking Influence on the Standard Seat belted and Motorized Seat belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions based on Anthropometric Test Dummy

6/12/ SESPTC. Passenger Restraints Proper Use of Car Seats. Occupant Protection Systems

ADVANCED RESTRAINT SY S STEM (ARS) Y Stephen Summers St NHTSA Ve NHTSA V hi hhicle S Saf t e y t R Resear R h c 1

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF AUTOMOTIVE CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS IN MASS TRANSIT BUSES. A Thesis by. Nishant Kuber Balwan

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Honda HR-V 79% 86% 72% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISO SIDE IMPACT TEST PROCEDURE FOR CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

Nissan NP300 Navara 78% 79% 78% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Pick-up. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

ANCAP Test Protocol. Child Occupant Protection v7.2a

Methodologies and Examples for Efficient Short and Long Duration Integrated Occupant-Vehicle Crash Simulation

Child safety CHILD SEATS. General safety information

Page 2. The go-kart always had the same mass and used the same motor.

ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION. Version 1.4 February 2018

LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Latin NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION

POLICY POSITION ON THE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION REGULATION

ANCAP Assessment Protocol. Child Occupant Protection v7.2a

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (single), Passenger (single)

Transcription:

Side Impact and Ease of Use Comparison between ISOFIX and LATCH CLEPA Presentation to GRSP, Informal Document GRSP- 35-1 9 Geneva, May 2004 1

Objective of test programme To objectively assess the comparison between ISOFIX and LATCH in both side impact performance and consumer ease of use. 2

Contents ISOFIX Background Accidentology of children (University of Hannover & GDV Studies) Test Method & Reason for choosing it Definition of child restraint systems tested ISOFIX seats, Off the shelves Latch seats Test Results & Videos Conclusions for sled tests Ease of use Isofix, GDV investigations in Europe, 2003 Latch, Feedback from NHTSA meeting in USA (July 2003) 3

ISOFIX Background ISO 13216-1 ISOFIX originally developed to cover rigid attachments LATCH was introduced as short term technical spec covered in an annex to part 1 Flexible attachment 4

Accidentology 5

Side Impact - Injury Risk Per Body Region Langwieder, 1996 30 AIS 1 AIS 2 AIS 3 AIS 4 AIS 5 Frequency [%] 25 20 15 10 5 0 Head Neck Thorax Arm Abdomen Pelvis Leg 6

Comparison Frontal / Lateral Impacts Injuries MAIS 2-4 Frontal Collisions Lateral Collisions Frequency % 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Head Neck Thorax Arm Abdomen Pelvis Leg Higher exposure in in side side impact for for thorax, abdomen and and pelvis Lesser exposure in in side side impact for for the the head, but but very very often severity is is higher (( Otte, Protection of of Children in in Cars, Cologne July July 03 03 ). ). 7

Side Impact Comparison ISO DIS 14646 (moving panel method) is as yet unconfirmed Consumer tests in Europe use a number of similar but different methods Sled based test method used is based on an approximation of Consumer tests 8

Test Method R44 bench rotated 80 degrees. To get lateral as well as forward motion of the dummy ( situation more critical than with 90 pure lateral set up ) Rigid fixed door panel height 500 mm above CR and 300 mm from centreline of ISOFIX anchorage bars No padding on the door 9

10

Test Method Sled velocity 25 kph, peak deceleration 15.25 g +/-.25 g According to ISO draft ISOFIX installed as R44-03 annex 21 para 1.3 (new). 25 mm spacer Harness set up force 250 N LATCH tension 50N Top Tether anchorage:- R44-03 Point G2 offset to worst case position (intrusion side to minimise the top tether effect. 11

Test Configurations and Recorded Parameters Tests conducted both with and without Top Tether strap Seats A, B, C and E off shelf FMVSS 213 LATCH products (2 off each) Seats D ECE 44 Specific Vehicle approved Rigid ISOFIX (2 off) D1 & D2 seats as D above but LATCH equipped 12

Pre_test Photographs of Latch seats tested A, Latch, w. TT B, Latch, w. TT A, Latch, w/o TT B, Latch, w/o TT C, Latch, w. TT C, Latch, w/o TT 13

Pre_test Photographs of Latch seats, cont. D1, Latch, w. TT D2, Latch, w/o TT E, Latch, w. TT E, Latch, w/o TT 14

Pre_test Photographs of Isofix seat D D, Isofix, w. TT D, Isofix, w.o TT Seat D is an Isofix child restraint, specific approved according to ECE44 15

Test Configurations and Recorded Injury Criteria ATD used TNO P3 (accepted for relative comparison, as not biofidelic in side impact) Head containment (EuroNCAP Protocol) HIC Limit 1000 Head A resultant Limit 80g Chest A resultant Max Chest A resultant 55g & 3 ms Exceedence 16

Test Results 17

Test Results* CRS Sample Seat ATD TT Head contained HIC Head res Chest resultant Time Res>55 ms* A P3 LATCH Yes No 178 55.81 95.46 8.29 A P3 LATCH No No 244 66.35 104.79 6.83 B P3 LATCH Yes No 500 383.71 89.08 6.38 B P3 LATCH No No 1361 390.00 119.00 6.53 C P3 LATCH Yes No 441 318.08 95.67 5.92 C P3 LATCH No No 642 316.94 101.34 6.40 D P3 Rigid Yes Yes 114 33.98 26.43 0.00 D P3 Rigid No Yes 172 46.64 30.67 0.00 D1 P3 LATCH Yes No 236 65.86 59.29 3.34 D2 P3 LATCH No Yes 350 76.91 84.15 6.87 E P3 LATCH Yes Yes 163 59.08 97.09 5.29 E P3 LATCH No Yes 142 57.09 91.55 6.88 * Should be considered as relative numbers and not absolute numbers 18

HIC H I C 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 D D E E A A B B C C D1 D2 19

Head Resultant Acceleration (G) Head res 450,00 400,00 350,00 300,00 250,00 200,00 150,00 100,00 50,00 0,00 D D E E A A B B C C D1 D2 20

3ms Chest Resultant Acceleration (G) 3ms Chest resultant 140,00 120,00 100,00 80,00 60,00 40,00 20,00 0,00 D D E E A A B B C C D1 D2 21

Exceedence of Chest 3ms Acceleration (ms) Res > 55 in ms 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 D D E E A A B B C C D1 D2 22

AVI test 1642 Rigid ISOFIX Test Video AVI test 1651 LATCH 23

24

Major Difference Between Rigid & Latch Attachment Transverse and rotational movement of entire seat assembly (note the base) towards the impacted side with Latch Head containment reduced (same basic product) with Latch by increased side movement and rotation about vertical axis 25

Conclusions For all measured criteria Rigid ISOFIX results are superior to LATCH Only Rigid ISOFIX met all three criteria limits. The Rigid ISOFIX product performance deteriorated when installed by the LATCH device that showed best LATCH performance Request to Regulation Authority To introduce Isofix as the standard for child seat attachment, since it gives lower injury numbers in side impact. 26

Ease of Use Rigid ISOFIX was just introduced in R44 as a Universal system, in-depth analysis of ease of use is however available ( GDV, 2003 ) LATCH experience in the USA covers wide use Feedback from NHTSA meeting Docket No NHTSA 2003 15998-1 27

Field Experience with Rigid ISOFIX GDV 2003 Survey 1/ Installation of Group 1 ISOFIX Seat 2/ Installation of Group O+ ISOFIX (Frame and baby seat) 3/ Comparison of installation ISOFIX / Conventional Seat 28

GDV ISOFIX Ease of Use Study Group 1 ISOFIX 100 persons Correct installation 97, 3 incorrect ( 1 case unable to lock, 2 cases one side locked ) Group 0+ 20 persons, seat correctly installed 15 OK and 5 non OK ISOFIX / Conventional 120 persons : On ISOFIX 84% Isofix easier 81 % greater stability 82 % better protection feeling 75% found additional mass acceptable 29

NHTSA LATCH consumer feedback - Summary LATCH straps routed through the wrong belt path opening LATCH interference during seat belt installation The lower anchor strap adjuster hitting perpendicular to belt path so that the belt will not stay tight It is difficult to loosen LATCH straps once they are tightened 30

Thank You 31