I Section3 Resultsof ESV/RSVDevelopment

Dr.R. Rhoads stephenson, conlerencs Technlcal chairman, united states MinicarsRSV

The MlnicarsResearch SafetY Vehicle

. D.FRIEDMAN INTRODUCTION Minicars.Inc. Inc. of Goleta,California UnitedStates In 1974Minicars, concluctedan analyticaleffort to prcdict anclto in : quantify the societalcosts of the automobile ry ABSTRACT 1985(Refcrence l 1.The costsincluderl occupant ri and pedestriancasualties, property dantage, ..I The ResearchSafety Vehicle RSV) is a light- rnaintcnarrceand repairability,enrissirtns. fuel weight safety car capableof protectingits front ec()nomy,etc. Systernswere cttnceivedto deal seatoccupants in crashesup to 80 km/h(-50 tnph). with andto reducethe costs, and were tltetlselves It was designedand developed(up to prototype quantifiedlbr eventualconsurner price. Combi- vehiclestage) by Minicars,Inc. ol'Coleta,Cal- nationsof thesesystems were assessecl for overall ifornia,Thc RSV gainsits crashwortltinessfiom payotf.Then a combination,which in essence a monocoque$tructure and advanced air cushion maximizedthe benefitsat the least crlnsunter restraints. The car has no fratne, but is con- cost, was sclccted.That combinationwas the structcd entirely ftorn thin gauge sheet metal beginningof the designof the ResearchSaf'ety contpafimentswhich are fbam-lilled tor energy 'l'he Vehicle(RSV). absorption. computer-aideddesign of the The following effort (PhaseIl of the RSV Pro- structureprecisely located the contpartmentsfor gram) developedthe structureancl restrairrt sys- maximumrigidity (with minimum weight)under temsof the vehicleand establishcdthe conlpat- nonnaluse, and for energyabsorbing crushability ibility of thesc systemsfor inte'gratiottinto a duringcrashes. Soft plastic exterior fascias afford prototypevehicle (Reference2). A numberof significantprotection to pedestriansand reduce "high importantconsiderations were part of this design damagein low spcedaccidcnts. A techr effort, including; nology" versionol' the car has a manualtrans- mission which is shifted by contputer,a radar- . Omnidirectional high-speed impact energy based cruise control (lbr safe lollowing dis- absorption and occupant protcction in real tances),anti-skid brakes and a collisionrnitiga- world collisions tion systemwhich appliesthc brakesautomati- . Compatibility(a structurewhich not only pro- cally when a collision is inevitable.There are tectsits own occupants,but also tninimizes plans(if capitalcan be raised)to manufacturea the consequencesof a crashtbr the occupants productionengineered car by 1985' of the other car) EXPEBIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

. "no- Damageabilitywith 16 km/h (10 mph) ancerlf othersystems which holcl promise tirr the darnage" front and rear bumpers and soft future. fenders The vehicleeffort producedprototypes (Figure . Repairabilitywith a replaceablenose section l), built from the ground up, which werc de- which absorbsall damagein fiontal irlpacts signedto maximizesafety, yet to maintainrel- up to 32 krn/h (20 nrph) ativelyhigh tuel econonry,low emissions,public . Pedestrianimpact protection(reducing the appealAncl reasonablc cost. But this is not a pnr- levelsof injury and the numbersof fatalities ductioncar. The ob.jectiveof the prograrnwas by contouring the front end and making its to demonstratethe t'easibilityancl practicality of surfhceappropriately compliant) the subsystents,so that they could be inlcgrated . Collision avoidancedriver aids (developed by the industryinto vehiclesthe public coulcl buy through the use of radar and microcomputer (Figure2). It was understoodthat to masspro- electronics). ducethe vehicle in quantitiesof hundredso1'thou_ sandsof unitsper year would require a procluction engineeringef'fort and a largecapital investment. The PhaseIII effort of the RSV Programhad The researcheftirrt produced two adclitional (Ref'erence two parts 3). The first was the de- vehicle prototypcs.The High TechnokrgyRe- velopmentof the integratedResearch Saf'ety Ve- searchSaf'ety Vchicle (Figure3) incorporatesa hicle to the prototypestage (incorporating all of varietyol elecrtronicsystems, including radar tar- the currently practicaland cost efTectivesubsys- get detection,anti-skicl hraking. autornatically tems).The secondwAs a researchactivity to dem- shiftedS-speed manual transmission, and com- onstratethe applicabilityof somesubsystems to puter controlledcollision mitigation(Ret'erence productioncars and to demonstratethe Derlorm- 4). The Large ResearchSaf'ety Vehicle (Frgure

ri' Figure3. High technology Figure1. Research researchsafety safetyvehicle. vehicle.

Figure2. Gullwing doors. Figure4. Largeresearch safety vehicle.

56 SECTION3: F|ESULTSQF ESV/RSVDEVELOFMENT

4) incorporatesthe structure/restraintconcept in tween the RSV's norninal 80 km/h (50 mph) a productioncar; this vehicle has greaterimpact injury rneasuresand the NHTSA injury criteria. energy absorptionand protectsits occupantsup Car-to-Car Frontal to 64 km/h (40 mph), but still has lessweight and betterfuel economythan the baseproduction Tahle 3 surlrlarizesthe significantcar-to-car car. frontal and tiontal offset tests,Tahle 4 showsthe resultsof a PhaseIV evaluationtest at Dynamic Scienceinvolving a head-onimpact with a Dodge RESULTSOBTAINED_VEH ICLE Challengerat 80 mph. This testis representative EFFOFIT of the RSV car-to-carfrontal irnpactstrnd again OccupantProtection Crash Tests showssubstantial inlury rneasurcurargins. The fourth developmentalcrash te$t with the Chev- Frontal Barrier rolet Impala(outlined in Table5) usedthe sarne Table I summarizesthe frontal barrier tests underplrweredinllators that the Japanese test used whichhave been conducted on theRSV. The test (as will be discussedlater) and allowed us to conditionsand injury measuresfor eachtest are recalland replace the remaining dcfective inflator correspondinglylabeled in thetables ol'Appendix units.The developmenttests showed that it was A. With theexception of theJapanese ban'ier test possible,at leastagainst lrame structurcdvehi- (discussedlater), the resultsof Table 2 are rep- cles (suchas the Irnpala),to adjustRSV frontal resentativeof the llnal configuration.These re- structuralstiffness to underride,override or re- sults show that there is a substantialmarein be- mainaligned. The finalconfiguration will neither

Table 1. RSV frontal barrierimpact summary.

Pedorming Speed Drlver Passenger Date agency (km/h) (mph) Hrc ChestGs Htc ChestGs Femarks

5t12176 Minicars 81.8 50.8 753 50 722 46

7Ents Minicars 78.9 49.0 474 55 189 30 Hightoffset

10ftt78 Minicars w.77 50.17 375 52 497 87 Stifffront structure

a14ng Mlnlcars 76.6 47.6 304 45 554 48

6/10/80 JARI 79.7 49.5 494 51 994 rt6 Inflatordefect

Table2. Frontalbarrier impact (phase lll). Dale: 2l14l7g RSV Speed: 76.6 km/h (47.6mph)

Rightfront Driver passenger

Htc 304 554 Ch6stGs (3 msec) 45 48 Left femur,kg (lbs) 568(1250) 318(700) Hightfemur, kg (lbs) 716(1575) 405 (890)

57 EXPEFIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Table3. FISVvehicle{o-vehicle frontal impact summary.

Performing Closingspeed RSV Othercar Date agency Testmode (km/h) (mph) injurylevels injurylevels Remarks

12nn6 Minicars Left offset 131.8 81.8 Acceptable RSV front into Volvo

8nn9 Minicars RSV-lmpala 117.6 73.0 Acceptable Acceptable offset frontal impact

fin4ng Minicars RSV-Impala 101.2 62.8 Unacceptable RSV aligned underride

12!19n9 Minicars HSV-Impala 115.6 71.8 UnacceptableUnacceptable RSV aligned override

8/18/80 Minicars RSV-lmpala 126.4 78.5 UnacceptableUnacceptableInflator aligned defect

9/10/80 Dynamic R$V-Dodge 139.4 86.5 Acceptable Unacceptable Science Challenger aligned

Table4. RSV-DodgeChallenger frontal impact (Phase tV quicktook resutts). Date: 9/10/80 Location:Dynamic Science, Phoenix, Arizona RSVspeed: 69.7 km/h (a3.26 mph) DodgeChallenger speed: 69.7 km/h (43.26 mph)

RSVleft HSVright Dodgeleft Dodgeright front front front front

Htc 690 690 1690 3630 ChestGs (3 msec) 41 42 92 77 Leftfemur, kg (lbs) 665 (1462) 483(1062) 446(982) 363(796) Hightfemur, kg (lbs) 666 (1465) 434 (e55) 417(914 652(1434)

underride nor override the lrnpala. The results tecting the near side fiont seat occupant. Al- of thc individualvehicle-to-vehicle frontal tests though the Part 572 dummy was used, we are are outlinedin AppendixB, convincedthat, with paddingdensity modifica- tions, any dummy can be protectedin equal weightcar-to-car impacts at closingvelocities to Car-to-Car Side 64 km/h (40 mph). Fortunately,there are not Table6 sumrnarizesthe car-to-carside impact many rearsear occupants, bccause the crashdy- crash tests. In all of thesetests the RSV side namicsrnaxirnize intrusion in that arca.ancl tlre structureand paddingdid an efl'ectivejob of pro- velocityol durlrny interiorimpact Iimits rear seat SECTION3: RE$ULT$OF ESV/FSVDEVELOPMENT

Table5. Fourth RSV-lmpalafrontal impact. Date: 8/18/80 RSVspeed: 63.21 km/h (39.26 mph) lmpalaspeed: 63.21 km/h (39.26 mph)

RSV lmpala FSV lmpala rlghtfront rightfront driver passenger driver passenger

Hrc 807 1259 391 763 GhestGs (3 meec) 45 4g M 77 Left femur,kg (lbs) 4s5 (1000) 343 (75s) 851 (1873) 646 (1422) Rightfemur, kg (lbs) 500(11m) 4s7 (1006) 1148(2526) 919 (2022)

Table6. RSVside lmpactsummary.

Targetcar injury Performing Speed Bulletcar levels* Date agency Test mode (km/h) (mph) injurylevels Front Flear

1111'9n6 Minicars Volvointo 63.1/63.139.2139.2Acceptable 66/40/35 RSVat 270'

6tw79 Minicars lmpalainto 56.4/56.435.0/35.0 ffit3?/32 z4/.t65t50 RSVat 90"

5/28/80 Renault RenaultInto 50/0 31/0 46tffit42 42t47t40 RSVat 270"

6t17tW Renault Renaultinto 67.50 40.8/0 fi2t50n0 RSVat 90'

6t17tffi JARI HSVinto 56.4/56.4 35/35 Acceptable 56/31/76127t45t72 Datsun510 at 270"

6t24t80 JARI Datsun510 56.5/55.8 35t3/..7Acceptable88/55/107117/80/102 into Datsun 510at 270"

7t4tffi JARI Datsun510 56.4/56.4 35/35 Acceptable 23t28t27 70/61/93 into R$Vat 270"

7t10tffi JARI Datsun510 u.1t6/,4 39.8/40 Aeceptable 30/56/38 87/84/69 into RSVat sloo

*Nearsideoccupants only; HIC/Chest Gs/Pelvic Gs.

59 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES survivaltosomewhatlowervelocities,Appendix Datsun510; in both teststhe targetand bullet C presentsmore detailsof the sideirlpact tests. carswere traveling at 56.4km/h (3-5mph). Tahle 9 conrparesthe injury measuresreceivccl in these Car-to-Car Compatibility impacts by the Datsun front and rear ncar side 'fablesTandSwererunforcom- Thetestsof dummy occupants.Clearly, thc forgivingfront patibilitypuryoses and involvedside impacts on enddesign of theRSV hasa substantialfhvorable a Datsun 510 target car by both an RSV and a ef'fbcton the observedinjury measures.

Table7. RSV into Datsun510 left side at 90' (aggressivitytest - PhaselV quick look results). Date: 6/17180 ocation: JARI,Tsukuba, Japan RSV speed: 56.4 km/h (35 mph) Datsun510 speed: 56.4km/h (35 mph)

RSV Datsun Datsun RSV right front left front left rear driver passenger passenger passenger

Hrc 83 83 56 127 ChestGs (3 msec) 28 27 31 45 PelvicGs (3 msec) 24 21 76 72

Table8. Datsun510 into Datsun510 right side at g0' (PhaselV quicklook results). Date: 6/24180 Location:JARI, Tsukuba, Japan Bulletvehicle speed: 56.5 kmlh (35 mph) Targetvehicle speed: 55.8 km/h (34.7 mph)

Targetvehicle Bulletvehicle

Lett front Left rear Left front Rightfront

Htc 88 117 98 40 ChestGs (3 msec) 55 80 23 15 PelvicGs (3 msec) 107 102 26 19

Table9. Compatibility(aggressivity) tests. Rear Impact Location:JARI, Tsukuba, Japan The only rearimpact conducted in the program RSVand Datsun510 bullet speed: 56.4 km/h thus far was in PhaselI, as shuwnin Table 10. (35mph) The injury measureswere acceptablein the 40 Datsun510 target speed: 56.4 km/h (35 mph) mph Volvo impact. Datsunpassenger

Left front Left rear Rollover The only rollover was Bulletvehicle RSV DatsunRSV Datsun tcst also conduc:tedin Htc 56 88 127 117 Phasctl; this test clearly demunstratedthe ca- ChestGs 31 55 45 80 pability of the structureand padclingto protect PelvicGs 76 107 72 102 both fiont and rear seat occupantswithout seat belts.as shownin Table ll.

60 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

FuelEconomy and Emissions and that achievedwith the fasciamoved 5 inches forwardof the bumper.Clearly, the kneeimpacr Table 12 shows the resulrsof the RSV fuel accelerationsand other injury measuresare sig- economyand ernissions tcsting at WestentWash- nificantly reduced.Our conclusionis that pro- ington University.These tests turnecl our quite viding about3 inchesof (low fbrce)ilefirrmation well, even thoughnot conductedstrictly in ac- spaccbetween the fascia and the humper will cordancewith EPA procedures(which would be reduce the already favorable pedestrianimpact at 4,000 and 50.000 nriles). CollisionAvoidance Capabilities Table 10. Volvointo stationaryRSV rear (phase Although the frrcusof the RSV programwas Il). on crashworthiness,the collisionavoidance ca- Date: TIZQITB pabilitiesof the vehicle wer€ not ignored. Table Volvo speed: 63.9 km/h (S9.2mph) l3 summarizesthe testsconducted at JARI in Japilnand at Dairnler-Benzin West Germany. BSVpassenger In bothsets of teststhe RSV nretthe IESV goals, exceptfbr lateraldeviation on irregularpavement Rightfront Rightrear and hill holdingwith the parking brake.Only at Htc \ JARI did the stoppingdistance (with front brake 185 104 ChestGs (3 msec) 50 40 systemtailure) and the returnability(at 40 krn/h PelvicGs (3 msec) 50 75 in a clockwisedirection) exceed the specifica- tions.There is somequestion about the adequacy of Minicars' fiont end set-upprocedures, since bothcars cxhibited fiee play in thesteering mcch- Table11. Rollovertest (Fhase ll). anism.Unfortunately, there was insufficient time Date: 12t1TtT6 prirlr to the conferenceto investisateand retest Dolly:Inclined per FMVSS 208 the car. Dollyspeed: 49.6 km/h (30.8 mph) (-Ihree completerolls) Pedestrianlmpact Mitigation Leftrear Pedestrianimpact testswere conductedat the Driver passenger Battcllelnstitute, Columbus, Ohio. Table l4 shows the difference in performanceachieved Hrc 100 100 with the front lasciapositioned directly on the ChestGs (3 msec) 7 6 foam bumper,as in the nominal configuration, PelvicGs (3 msec) 10 I

Table12. Fueleconomy and emissions tests.

Testswere performed by Western Washington University using EPA dynamometer test procedures on a lowmileage RSV with a 1980,1.b liter Honda engine and Michelin tires: Testweight 1307kg (2875tbs) Roadload 11.1bhp Urbanfuel economy 12.3km/t (28.0rnpgl Highwayfuel economy 17.5km/t (41.2mpg) Combinedfuel economy 14.pkmil (33.4mpg)

Emissionsassuming that the$elow mileageemissions are representativeof 50,000mile per. formance: Hydrocarbons 0.40g/mi Carbonmonoxlde 2.53g/mi Nitrousoxide 0.71glmi

61 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEH ICLES injury measures,without significantly affecting Accommodations any other performanceaspect of the vehicle. Figure 5 showsthe front seataccommoda- DamageabilityTests tionsof the RSV.The interiorvolume (calcu- Low-speed damageability tests were con- lated by EPA criteria)is equivalentto that of ducted at f)ynamic Sciencein August. As indi- a compactcar, andthe easeof entryand exit, catedin Table 15, the testsconlirmed the design seatingcomfort and driver instrumentation intentionto rninimize impact damagein circum- are rated "good" in subjectivejudgments. stancesin which a crtnventionalcar (such as the Obviously, each car manufacturer judges Citation) would incur substantialcosts of repair. interior accommodationsby his own criteria, The author has personallytaken a baseballbat so it is only our intentionto illustratethat the to the RSV's soft fenderswithout damage-al- saf'etyteatures incorporated in the car need though, unfortunately, no comparabledemon- not interferewith or precludean acceptable strationwas madewith the Citation. interiorconfiguration. Note, in particular,the

'13. Table Collisionavoidance tests (Phase tV quicktook results).

The followingtests were performedby JARI in Japanduring April and May,1980, and by Daimler'Benzin WestGermany during June and July, 1gB0:

r Steadystate yaw response r Controlat breakaway r Overturningimmunity r Transientyaw response r Crosswindsensitivity . Brakeeffectiveness r Returnability r Steeringcontrol sensitivity r Stoppingdistance r Lateralacceleration r Pavementirregularity r parkingbrake

In bothsets of test$the FISVmet the IESVgoals, except:

. Pavementirregularity lateral deviation r Stoppingdistance front system failure mode* Reason-free play in the steering Reason--improperbleeding

r Hill holding-parkingbrake r Returnabilityat 40 km/h(25 mph) ctockwise Reason-added weight direction* Reason-freeplay in the steeringsystem

-JARIonly.

Table14. Pedestrianimpact tests* (Phaselll).

Velocity Peakresultant acceleration at timeafter impact Fascia Head impact position Head Chest Pelvis Knee Foot severity (mph) (Gs)(msec)(Gs)(msec)(Gs)(msec)(ss)(msec)(Gs)(msec index

20.1 Normal 94 138 25 126 29 16 80 10 200 62 661

25.0 Normal 133 116 34 129 ,18 24 112 I 330 52 1307

20.0 5t fOrutrard 63 159 29 160 33 69 42 31 3g 89 258

25.0 5" forward 75 130 22 78 58 46 50 24 260 56 . 838

*Performedby the BattelleInstitute.

62 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Tabte15. Low-speeddamageabillty tests (Phase lfl). Date:August 1980 Performedby: DynamicScience Vehicles:RSV and Chevrolet Citation

lmpactspeed Testmode (km/h) (mph) Bulletvehiele damage Targetvehicle damage

RSVfront into RSVrear ?0.77 (12.e) No visibledamage Cosmeticdamage

RSVfront into RSVrear 24.96 (15.5) No visibledamage 10cm crackin taillight fiberglasspanel

RSVfront IntoCitation 24.96 (15.5) No visibledamage significantpressure rear bucklesfonruard of and aboveeach wheel opening($SSg)

RSVfront into Citation 8.37 (5.2) No visibledamage Maximumdoor skin left side depression($351)

FlsVfront Into R$Vside 8,21 (5.1) No visibledamage Two small impresslons wereleft on the outer skinof thedoor

RSVfront into barrier 13.36 (8.3) No visibledamage None

RSVfront into barrier 28.18 (17.5) Noticeablepermanent None deformationacross entirebumper face and acrossbolt-on structuralsection

high mountedinstrumentation, the transpar- km/h (15 to 40 mph). This braking is triggered ent headrest,the lack of fiont seatbelts and by a computer which processesthe radar the rearseat leg room. systemsignal. Thecomputer/radar combina- tion virtually precludeshighway falsealarms. works sub- NED- RESEARCH The car-following cruisc control RESU LTS OBTAI tltan a human driver in EFFORT stantially better controlling enginc power to maintain steady HighTechnology RSV following distances. The anti-skid braking system works well on a variety of skid- The High Technology RSV incorporates producing surfaces. The automated elec- the electroniccontrol featureslisted in Table tronically controlled 5-speed matrual trans- 16. Sinceit is a researchvehicle (involving mission proviclesexcellent I'uel economy with first and secondgeneration dcveloptnent elec- the smoothnessof a good manual shift driver. tronics). no extensiveevaluation tests were The electronic display shown in Figure 6 is conducted.The developmenttesting did indi- Iikely to be the forerunner of more produc- cate that collision mitigation braking can tion-oriented displays of a comparable level reclucethe velocityof the vehicleby 25 to 65 of sophistication.

63 EXPEFIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Table16. Electroniccontrol features of the hightechnology RSV.

Collisionmitigation braking Reducesimpact speed 15 to 40 mph Car-followingcruise control Maintainsdistance without hunting Anti-skidbraking Holdslane on wet,gravel, ice, irregular road; operates on 4-wheeldifferences Automatedmanual transmission Electronicshifting utilizes 5-speed manual selection for fueleconomy ElectronicdlsplaY 32-characteroperating analog, digital status, diag' nosticmessage modes

Figure5. Frontseat accommodations. Figure6. ElectronicdisPlaY.

LargeResearch Safety Vehicle time to achieve much improved fuel economy and reducedemissirlns.

Crashworthiness PROGRAMCONCLUSIONS The Large ResearchSaf'ety Vehicle has now the insightof the managementof the completeda numberof crashworthinesstests, as Through NationalHighway'l'raffic Safety Adrninistration, shownin Table 17. We havedemottstrated low the abledircction of theirCttntract Technical injury measures(relative to the NHTSA injury and Manager,Mr. JeromeKossar, there are many criteria) for all three front seat passengerposi- thecar that are.iust right. There have tions and in both fiontal and angledbarrier tests thingsabout some disappointments,and to 65 krn/h (40 mph). Although not at the satne heen, of course, while work well in speed,a marked improvetnentin side impact someconcepts which, they protectioncompared to the originalImpala pad- tests,need real world evaluation. has been the weight growth ding wasohserved when RSV type paddingwas A major problern (Table l9). We had hopedthat, in the added.(The last two testslisted in'Iable l7 com- of the car frotn Phase pare the results,)Sumrnaries of the individual one iterationof the design tlte II testsare presentedin Appendix D. subsystemefforts to the PhaseIII integratedcar, we could maintainthe weight budgetswithout Fuel Economy and Bmissiuns a completeredesign. lt turnedout that. in order The fuel economyand emissionsperformance to accommodateall of the requirementstor all testsconductcd by D&M Engineeringare out- of the subsystemssimultaneously, the wc'ight had lined in Tahle 18. ]'he resultsindicate that a l'ull to increaseabout l5 percentmore than expectccl. sizecar can be designed(through weight reduc- Investigationhas convincedus that the weight tion and availabletechnology) to exhibit signif- growth can be removedwith iteration.Never- icantlvhisher crashworthiness.and at the sarne theless,the car a$tested (at 2578pounds) is ap-

64 SECTION3: BESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table17. LRSVimpact tests.

Occupantinjury measures Middle Right front Date Mode Driver pa$$enger passenger Speed Chest Pelvic Chest Chest Pelvic (l(m/h) (mph) Hrc Gs Gs Htc Gs Hrc Gs Gs

5E/79 Frontalbarrier 62.8 37 174 37 r69 30 178 30

7r20t79 30" barrier 54.4 40- 248 32 74 25 130 30

10t4t7g 90' side bogey 48.3 30 827' 150' 105- 182 90 100' lmpalapadding

a7tffi ?70' side bogey 41.2 25.6 132 55 55 RSV type padding

-Blght r6sr passengor,

Table18. LRSVfuel economyand emissions Impala (Table 20), and still protect their occu- tests. pantsto 65 km/h (a0 mph). At its cunent weight, 80 krr/h (50 mph), occupantprotection is pos- Tests by D&M Engineeringusing EPA sible.Later in this Conference,Volkswagen will dynamometertest procedureson a low conduct a 55 to 65 knt/h (35 to 40 mph) crash mileageLRSV.with a 1978,1.9 modified test of a Minicars preparedfront seatairbag Ci- 819Volvo engine. tation.This vehicleweighs 180 kg (400pounds) lessthan the LRSV, In severalprevious conl'er- Testweight 1477kg (3250lbs) encesthe opinion has been expressedthat im- Roadload 10.8hp weight Urbanfuel proved sat'etyinvolves substantial and economy 9.75km/l (22.9mpg) cost penalties,Yet we haveproven that perfbrm- Highwayfuel ancecan be increa.sedwhile weight is being sig- economy 15.4km/l (36.2mpg) nificantly reduced. Combinedfuel Another disappointmentwas that the injury economy 11.7km/l (27.5mpg) measuresin the first PhaseIV evaluationtcsts (conductedin Japan)were substantiallyhigher Emissions assuming that these low than those that had been ohtainedduring devel- mileageemissions are representativeof opmenta yearearlier, A PhaseIII two-carhead- 50,000mile performance: on tiontal developmenttest with full instrumen- tation was conductedsoon thereafter,with sim- Hydrocarbons g/mi 0.19 ilarly disappointingresults, Carbon The instrumentatlon led us to suspect, in monoxide 2.38g/mi "def'ects" Nitrousoxide 0.57g/mi our first investigation, that the passengerrestraint was not performing cor- rectly. We then conducted some component testsand found (asshown in Figure7) that the proximately 272 poundsover our targetweiEiht. inflators usedin the two tests(and installedin This weightgrowth is not overlysurprising-nor all vehicles for Phase IV evaluation) were is thereany reasonto douht the ability to elinr- significantly different from the earlier devel- inateit in productiorr. opment test units. The most recentlydelivered Minicarshas been able to showwith theLRSV inflators filled the bags significantly slower thatthe nextgeneration ol full sizesix-passenger than did the earlier development units cars can weigh 20 percentless than the 1977 (perhapsbecause Thiokol had useda different

65 EXPEFIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Table19. RSVweight by system.

Final Phasell Phaselll e$timated prototype weight weight Difference System (lbs) (tbs) (lbs) Fleasonsfor major differences

Body-in-white(including foam) s79 632 +53 Bolt-onnose, side sill$,rear structure,etc., redesignedfor increasedstiffness; thicker gauge mild steelparts substituted for HSLA steel oarts. Powertrain/rearsuspension 609 53? -77 Poor init;alestimate, englne cradle (includingengine cradle & redesigned. acce$sories) Wheels & tires 166 194 +28 Soecified heavierrun-f lat wheels and tires. Fenders,fascias, hood sur- 56 135 +79 Poorinitial e$timate, in-house round, rear air scoops & body fabricationtechniques resulted ln panel & attaching hardware unnece$sarilythick FRPparts, wheel housesadded. Two doors (includingglazing) 142 250 + 108 Latchingand lockingmechanisms movedfrom body-in.whiteto doors, added structureto increase strengthand stiff ness. Front suspension& steering 10? 10? 0 Steeringwheel & column,driver 43 44 +1 ACHS Electrical$ystem (including 43 43 0 battery) Brake system (includesassem- 23 41 +18 Vacuumboost system added. bly & brake lines;does not includedisks, calipers or pads) Coolingsystem 23 39 +16 Aluminumtubing substituted for plastictubing. Rearhatch (including glazing) 25 34 +9 Hood 11 32 +21 Redesignedfor increasedrlgldlty and pedestrianprotection. Fuelcell, filler & emissions 27 31 +4 Bumpers(excluding fascias) 1B 30 +12 Rubricsadded. Driverseat 29 28 +l Passengerseat 29 28 -'l Rear seat 12 21 +9 PassengerACRS 25 21 -4 Heater,def roster & ventllatlon 20 18 -2 Floorcovering 12 18 +6 Interiorpaddlng and trim 25 15 -10 (excludingdoors & dash) Dash I 12 +4 Weather seallng 6 11 +5 Lighting 11 11 0 Rear passengerrestraints 16 10 -6 Gearshift 3 10 +7 Windshieldwiper & washer I 10 +2 Instrumentpanel 4 I +4 Parkingbrake 6 7 +1 Frontbulkhead 5 7 +2 SECTIoN3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table19. (Continued)

Final Phase ll Phaselll estimated prototype weight weight Difference System (tb$) (lbs) (tb$) Reasonsfor majordifferences

Enginecover 4 6 +2 Accessories I 5 -3 centerspine cover 10 4 -6 Indirectvision 1 3 +2 Doorlatche$, locks & controls 6 $ee Doors. Paint,body putty, deadeners 74 50 -24 Initialestimate also Included allowancesfor miscellaneous items. Fluids 87 87 0 Curbweight 2306 2578 + 272 May not BUmexactly due to rounding

Table20. LRSVweight reduction. Basesedan curb weight* 3869pounds LHSVcurb weight 2960pounds l-otalweight difference 909pounds

Weightchange Welghtsavings by systemsand components (pounds)

Enginetransmission, differential & accessories - 290 Body-in-white,$tructure, door & glass - 157 Steeringfront suspension and brakes - 109 Rearsuspension and brakes _79 Frontfenders and rear deck -55 Frontand rearbumpers -54 Hood -51 Othersystems and components - 114 - 909

*Basesedan weight taken from MVMA Specification*

lot of productiongrain). This ledto a revision wing doors of the show car havebeen effec- of our inflator specifications-and to our tively sealedand counterbalancedthrough first, but completely successful,"recall" mostof the rangeof motion.Further, it isn't campaign" clearthat a gull-wingdoor of this configura- There are also a variety of other problems tion is appropriateto a productionvehicle. whichwere not consideredimportant enough Similarly,the A-postswere not designedto to be completelyresolved for prototype use, incorporatea recessfor the glasswindshield (as suchas adequately counterbalancing and seal- is foundin stampedproduction posts), so there ing the door. For performancetests these is someocclusion of visionin the l'rontalarea. factorsare not important, althoughthe gull- Thereis no doubtthe chansecan be made.but

67 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEFIICLES

(J (/)(i)1n E 3 o E = o Lowerllmit v) E5 E

40 Tlme(msec)

Figure7. Inflatorcharacteri$tic$. it presentlyseems inappropriate to investthe nec- began to look into the feasibility of producing essary funds in dies to proclucethe right and marketing the RSV. Until that time, we configuration. viewed the projectas a researchand development When the car grew in weight, changesshould effort adaptableto production. In Phasell the havebeen made to thesuspension, steering, brak- Budd Companyhad prepared a producibledesign ing, engine and transmissionsystems. To ade- in sufficient detail to estimate the investment quatelyoptimize the results, these changes would costs at severalhundred nrillion dollars and the have added another 50 to 100 pounds-since consumerprice at about$7000 (1980 dollars) per thosesystems were designedfor a target weight vehicle.So we knew the car could be made(in vehicleof about2200 pounds.On the otherhand, hundredsof thousandsper year) to sell at a rea- when the car was testedat 2578 pounds,only a sonableprenrium in price and with an investment f'ew iternsrequired adjustment and modification. comparableto that of a conventionalcar. But In most ca$esa modificationwas sufficientto then there was the question of whether people make the vehicle pertorm as close to the program would buy in that quantity. goalsas possiblewithout the iterationof design Numerousstudies conducted by government, necessaryto reducethe weight of thenon-running industry and public interest groups document gear. In only a few tests,such as pavementir- strong positive consumer statementson auto- regularityand hill holding, did the vehiclenot motive saf'ety.A Harris poll, a Peter Hart Re- achievethe perfbrmancegoals we had hopedfbr. searchAssociates survey and various studiesby We believe that, with an additionaldesign iter- General Motor$ (GM) verify the demand fbr ation and a productionengineering effort, a com- safety,One 1979GM study showedthat 70 per- mercialversion will weigh2200 pounds, and will cent of those surveyed preferred airbags over achievethese goals. autornaticbelts, even at a substantialprice in- Lastly, about eighteen months ago Minicars crease.The NHTSA commissionedthree sepa-

68 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

rate studiesto assessmarket reaction to the RSV. ment consulting firnr, to interview auto dealers All were extremely favorablc. andsee what theythought. Their conclusionwas "Why The inevitablequestion, then, is doesn't that eachdealer could sell ten carsper monthin one of the auto manufacturersplan to produce a reasonablysized temitory and thata buildupto this vehicle?" Obviously,the RSV conceptin- 250 dealersacross the countrywas aboutright. volves more manufacturing, nrarketing and Ii- The projectwas then completelybounded-ex- nancialrisk thana conventionalcar. The indus- cept to flnd the players. try'$ presentevolutionary irnprovement approach We were fortunateto find in RegieNationale keepsperceived quality and value high, gradually desUsines Renault, the Renault Morors Division, educatesthe consumer and doesn't obsolete plant an excellentsupplier of runninggear and engine and equipmenttoo fast; so where is the payoff components,and in Societeanonyme des Usines for a manufacturerto changeto an RSV concept? Chausson(30 percent owned by Renault),a com- If an auto manufacturerwon't invest the nec- pleteauto design, development arrd rnanufactur- essary hundredsof millions of dollars, who ing companywhich could do the productionen- would'lOne possibilityis to manufacturethe car gineering, design of tools, jigs and fixtures, in specialtycar quantities.With 20 miltion dol- selectionof equiprnentand plant layout. Because lars in private equity capital, federal loan guar- of Renault'sassociation with AmericanMotors. anteesof 40 to 60 million dollars are available it was originally thoughtthat the vehiclecould underthe right circumstance$. be soldby thecombined dealer organization, But Pretty clearly, these linancial considerations the problemsof combiningthe two dealernet- setthe bounds fbr a newventure. Careful analysis works precludedobtaining a markctingconrrnit- has suggestedthat, in rentedfacilitics in an area mentfor anotheryear or two. On thc otherhand, of substantialunemployment and low costlabor, Rolls Royce Motors Internationalhad just ac- with a minimum of pressedparts, and with en- quired the marketingrights to Lorus. This led gines and running gear which are alreadyin pro- naturallyto the next step:an adjustmentof the duction, 2,000 peoplecould produce20,000 to plan to includetwo versionsof the car-a vcry 30,000cars per year (prinrarilywith flat pattern lirnited hand-cratiedluxury version first, fol- fabricationtools and equiprnent,and hand-op- lowed in a coupleof yearsby a largerquantity, eratedassembly jigs and fixtures). more reasonablypriced vchicle. financedas arr Fortuitously, the body structurehas already extensionof the first. Our investmentbanking consultants, A. David been designedfor pressbrake fabrication.But Silverand Cornpany in New York, likcd theidea, how much would the car cost to make if fabri- since,wherr the detailswele workedout. it be- cated in these quantities'lThis was roughly es- cameclear that only about$10 rnillionin equity timated three difl'erentways. Fir$t, we commls- and$30 million in loanswere required t-or Phase sionedRath & Strong, who has computerized I-which would be profitableeven if the project compositecomponents price and weightlists. as did not proceedinto PhaseIl. A PrivatePlace- well as adjustmentalgorithms lbr quantity,nra- ment Mcrnorandawas then preparedand re- terials,labor cost, etc. Second,we visited,dis- leasecl.Table 2l summarizesthe use of invest- cussedand estimated the cost in conjunctionwith mentcapital showing about $4t) rlillion in Phase two specialtycar rlanutacturerswho actually I and $4-5million in PhaseIL make25,(X)0 peryear. And, third, "Response to 30,000cars A conrpany,callerl Motors," has we madeour own fiom careful anal- estimates a been formed to produceand marketcommercial ysis manufacturing procedure, Our of thedetailed versionsof the car (Reftrcnce-5). The Luxury earlyestimate, being more specific, was $10,000 versionis shown in Figure8. lt would be elon- (1980 per unit. dollars) gatedsome l0 inchesand conligured with a flat- "Would The next questionwas, anybodypay ter roof and a l.unke slidingdour system,but it $10,000fbr a car like this?" As a researcher,I would still incorporatethe RSV fbani-lilledsheet havemy own opinionabout the validity ol'con- metal structure,dual-chambered airbags and sumersurveys dealing with unavailablcproducts, someof the specialresearch electronics I'eatures $o we commissionedA.l'. Kcanrery,a manage- describcdabove.

69 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEH ICLES

Table21. Projecteduse of funds-investmentcosts.

PhaseI Phasell 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total

Plant& equipment: Plantremodeling $ $ 1,200 $ $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 7,200 Machinery& equiPment 1,000 2,300 3,700 4,500 5,641 17,141 Tools& fixtures 300 1,100 1,200 1,552 4,752 Specialtooling 3,ooo 3,200 3,700 7,000 10,020 28,020 TransportationequiPment 500 630 461 1,591 Productiondesign & engineering 3,000 2,000 1,000 8,000 Contingency(5%) 460 1,352 710 1,020 1,040 4,582 Totalplant & equipment 7,460 11,452 12,310 18,350 21,714 71,286

Preoperating expenses: lnvestmentstudies 710 500 1,210 Pre-production expenses 1,500 1,500 4,214 3,000 10,214 Totalpreoperating expenses 2,210 1,500 4,714 3,000 11,424

Totaluse of investment funds $9,671 $12,952 $17,024 $21,350 $21,714 $82,711 I | | I Approximately$+0 million Approximately $45million

FigureB. The luxury RSV. FigureL Featuresof the luxury RSV.

The luggagecapacity of the luxury vehicleis includingunderride, override, offset and head- almostdoubled by raisingthe hourland making on crash rttrlcles. 'l'his the centerlloor of'the luggagecomparttttettt sub- analysisindicatecl that, whcn itnpacting stantitrllythinner (and lower) than the fbanr-fillecl both liamc and integratedstructurc vehicles, im- sectionemployed in the existing configuration pactenergy is prinrarilyabsorbcd in the RSV by (Figure9). Reducingthis sectionis thelcsult of the foarn-filleclwheel well panel.the thick outer the analvsisof a varietvul fiontal ilnt)acttests, peripheryof the luggagecompartmcnt. and the

70 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT sheerstrength of the luggagecompartment floor formed partswill savemany millions of invest- and the upper f'enclerhoxc's. The analysisalso mcnt dr:rllarsfor pressesand dies and is idealfor leadsus to helievethat, by sacrificingcompati- limitedproduction runs by serni-skilledworkers. bility, a liont engitteconfiguration is perfcctly Thc exterior of both vehicles(which makes possible,with little degradationol occupantpro- linle or no strucrturalcontribution) is a polyure- tectionancl pcdestrian irnpact capahility. thaneplastic which has a relativelyhigh flcx- The standardvcrsion. which would be pro- modulusto rcduceminor dirtnagcr and to stylethe duced(starting in 198-5)in quantitiesof up to energyabsorbing structure (Figure Il). 30.0(X)per year. is shownin Figurc10. It would Tabte22, a summaryol the pertinentfinancial haveconvcntional opening doors and a Renault information.indicates that, in reasonablequan- 1.6 literengine with a -5-speednranual trirnsnris- titiesand at sellableprices, the cotnpanycan be sion. and it would be expcctedto weighabout expo*ctedto makea substantialreturn l()r investors. 2200pounds. At this point, I have no way of knowing Both thr- luxury and the standardcars would whethcrwe will be successtulin raisingthe nec- use the RSV prototypestructural concept with essarye'fquity capital , ttr of quaranteeingthat con- little change(and worrld have 60 percentparts surnerdemand fbr a vehicleproviding a substan- cornmonalityhetween them). The use of brake tially higherlevel of sal'etywill be ashigh flswas

Figure10. The standardRSV, Figure11. Drmensionsof the standardRSV.

Table22. Manufacturingplan.

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Numberof carsproduced: LuxuryFl$V 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 StandardRSV 8,000 16,000 24,000 Totalproduction 1,000 2,000 10,000 18,000 26,000

Factorysales price per cal: LuxuryRSV $20,500 $20,500 $ 20,500 $ 20,500 $ 20,500 StandardFISV 10,250 10,250 10,250

Sales(in thousands) $20,500 $41,000 $123,000 $205,000 $287,000

Pre-taxprofit (loss) (2,75s) 1,831 15,754 37,789 63,356 Incometax 500 1,700 2,851 Netincome (loss) $ 2,759) $ 1,831 $ 15,250 $ 36,089 $ 60,505

71 EXPEBIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES expected.I believe those answersare important economicmarketplace reaction before RSV-type to the future planning of governmentand indus- safetywill be implementedby the manufacturers. try, and I solicityour supportto assessthe level of consumerdemand fbr high performanceauto REFERENCES "Research safetyin the real world. l. Minicars, Inc., Safety Vehicle, With a few exceptions,Minicars is reasonably Final Report," ContractDOT-HS-4-00844, satisfiedwith our efTortsand the results obtained. April 1975;and D.E. Struble,R. Petersen, "Societal Our impressionis that the Congressand the pub- B. Wilcox, D. Friedman, Costs. lic of the United Statesare interestedand im- and Their Reductionby Saf'etySystems." pressedwith theprograrn's results, but somewhat Fourth InternationalConsress on Automotive disappointedwith the rate and timing of the in- Sal-ety,July 1975. "Research dustry's incorporationof the technology.Through 2. Minicars, lnc., Safety Vehicle, the project,the NHTSA foresawin 1975Amer- Phasell FinalReport," ContractDOT-HS-S- ica's needfor lightweight, safe, fuel economical 0l2I-5.November 1977. "The vehicles,but wasunable to convincethe inclustry 3. ResearchSafety Vehicle: Present Status to producesuch carg. The huge investmentsnow and Future Prospects," SAE No. 780603, "Status being committedto retool autorrrotiveproduction June l97tl; and Reportof Minicars' do include slightly improvedoccupant protec- ResearchSafety Vehicle;" Proceedings7th tion, damageabilityand repairability,etc., but InternationalTechnical Conference on ESVs. fbcus prirnarily on fuel economy. I would hope Paris,June 5-8, 1979,pp 63-75. "The that public information derived from programs 4. Near-Term Prospect for Automotive like this would increaseconsumer dcmtrnd-rrnd Electronics:Minicars' ResearchSafety Ve- thereby create a sizeablemarket fbr high level hicle," SAE No. 780858,September 1978. "The safetyperformance. Otherwise, the highway car- 5.D. Friedman, ProductionFeasibility of nagewill have to get bad enough(or someother the RSV," SAE PassengerCar Meeting, factor significantenough) to reflect itself in an I)earbom,Michigan, June 1980.

AppendixA

RSVBarrier Tests

TableA-1. Frontalbarrier impact (Fhasell). TableA-2. Right offset frontalbarrier impact (Phasell). Dale: 5112176 Date: 7/9/76 RSV speed: 81.79km/h (50.8mph) RSVspeed: 78.9 km/h (49.0 mph) Hightfront Rightfront Driver passenger Driver passenger

Hrc 753 7?2 Hrc 474 189 ChestGs ChestGs (3 msec) 50 46 (3 msec) 55 30 Leftfemur, Leftfemur, ks (lbs) 668(1470) 1456(3200) ks (lbs) 5e1(1300) 44s (980) Rightfemur, Rightfemur, kg (lbs) 5e1(1300) 818(1800) kg (lbs) 545(1200) 314(690)

72 $ECTION3; RESULTSOF ESV/RSV DEVELOPMENT

TableA-3. Frontalbarrier impact (Phaselll). TableA'4. Frontal barrier impact (PhaseIV quicklook results). Date: 10fl/78 Date: 6/10/80 RSV speed: 80.77km/h (50.17mph) RSVspeed: 79.7 km/h (49.5 mph) Rightfront Right front Driver passenger Driver passenger

Hrc 375 497 Htc 494 gg4 ChestGs ChestGs (3 msec) 52 87 (3 msec) 51 ,f6 Leftfemur, Left femur, kg (lbs) N/A 523(1150) kg (lbs) 4e7(108s) s81 (1278) Rightfemur, Rightfemur, ks (lbs) 545(1200) 886(1950) ks (lbs) 607 (1335) 52s (1155)

AppendixB RSVVehicle-to-Vehicle Frontal Tests* : TableB-1. Left offset Fl$V-Volvofrontal impact (Phase ll). Date: 1217176 RSVspeed: 65.9km/h (40.9mph) Volvospeed: 65.9 km/h (40.9 mph)

l:,{

HSVRight ir RSVDriver front passenger

Htc 230 215 ChestGs (3 msec) 42 59 Leftfemur, kg (lbs) 1364(3000) 545(1200) Flightfemur, kg (lbs) 636(1300) 818(1800)

TableB-2. First FlSV-lmpala frontal impact. Dalei Snng RSVspeed: 58.8 km/h (36.5 mph) lmpalaspeed: 58.8 km/h (36.5 mph)

RSV right RSVdriver front passenger lmoaladriver

Htc 183 261 963 ChestGs (3 msec) 36 29 40 Left femur,kg (lbs) 5e1(1300) 364(800) 136(300) Flightfemur, kg (lbs) 727(1600) 273(600) 500(1 100)

*Research Sa{etyV6hicl6 phase lll r6$ults,unle$s otherwise noted. EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

TableB-3. SecondRSV-lmpala frontal impact (RSV underride)' Date:11/14/76 RSVspeed: 57.2 km/h (35.5 mph) lmpalaspeed: 44.0 km/h (27.3 mPh)

RSVdriver lmpaladriver

Hlc 514 342 ChestGs (3 msec) 55 70 Left femur,kg (lbs) 519(1300) 45s (10m) Flightfemur, kg (lbs) 727(1600) 409 (s00)

Table84. ThirdHsV-lmpala frontal lmpact (RSV override)' Date:1?19/79 RSVspeed: 57.8 km/h (35.9 mPh) lmpalaspeed: 57.8 km/h (35.9 mPh)

RSV lmpala lmpala RSV right front right front driver passenger driver passenger

Hrc 813 2243 4U 390 ChestGs (3 msec) 74 70 21 30 Left femur,kg (lbs) 4os (900) 273(600) 136(300) 227(500) Rightfemur, kg (lbs) 40s(s00) 364 (800) s1 (200) 182(400)

AppendixG

RSVSide lmpact Tests

TabteC.1. Volvo into RSV left side at 90" TableC-2. lmpala into RSVright side at 90' (Phasell). (Phaselll). Date:11/19f/6 Date: 6/8/79 RSVspeed: 63"1 km/h (39.2 mPh) RSVspeed: 56"4 km/h (35.0 mPh) Volvospeed: 63.1 km/h (39.2 mPh) lmpalaspeed: 56.4 km/h (35.0 mph) RSV RSV RSV RSV right front right front rightrear driver passenger passenger passenger

Hrc 66 39 Hrc 540 244 QhestGs (3 msec) 40 40 ChestGs(3msec) 32 65 PelvicGs (3 msec) 35 26 PelvicGs (3 msec) 32 50

74 SEcTloN3: RESULTSoF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

TableC-3. Renault 20 into RSVleft side at g0' (PhaselV quicklook results). Date: 5/28/80 Location:Lardy, France RSVspeed: 0 Renault20 speed:50 km/h(31 mph) RSV RSV right front RSVleft rear driver passenger passenger

Hlc 46 57 42 ChestGs (3 msec) 50 43 47 PelvicGs (3 msec) 4? 15 40

TableC-4. Renault 20 into RSVright side at 90" (PhaselV quicklook results). Date:6/17180 : Location:LardY, France Renaurtro rl-t-:,-H-i;,1,n (40.8 mph) HSV RSV right fronl RSVleft rear driver passenger passenger

Htc 175 172 310 ChestGs (3 msec) 80 50 80 PelvicGs (3 msec) 20 70 80

TableC-5. Datsun510 into FSV left sicleat 90" (PhaselV quick look results). Date: 7/4/80 Location:Tsukuba, Japan RSVspeed: 56.4 km/h (35 mph) Datsun510 speed: 56.4 km/h (35 mph) HSVleft H$V left Datsunleft Datsunright front rear front front

Hrc 23 70 92 89 ChestGs (3 msec) 28 61 19 16 PelvicGs (3 msec) 27 93 47 24

TableC-6. Datsun510 into RSV right side at 90' (PhaselV quick look results). Date: 7/10/80 Location:Tsukuba, Japan RSVspeed: 64.4 km/h (40 mph) Datsun510 speed: 64.'l km/h (39.8 mph) RSVright RSVright Datsunleft Datsunright front rear front front

Htc 30 87 187 191 ChestGs (3 msec) 56 84 24 23 PelvicGs (3 msec) 38 69 29 27

75 EXPEFIM ENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

AppendixD LargeRSV lmpact Tests*

TableD-1. LRSV frontal barrier impact. Date: 519179 LR$Vspeed: 62.8 km/h (39.0 mPh)

Middlefront Rightfront Driver passenger pa$senger Hrc 174 169 178 ChestGs (3 msec) 37 30 30 Leftfemur, kg (lbs) 523(1150) 364 (800) 364 (800) Rightfemur, kg (lbs) 500(1 100) 500(1100) 45s(1000)

TableD-2. LRSV 30' obliquebarrier impact. Darei Vl20l79 LFISVspeed: 54.4 km/h (40 mPh)

Middlefronl Rightfront Driver passenger passenger Htc 248 74 130 ChestGs (3 msec) 32 25 35 Left femur,kg (lbs) 591(1300) 273(600) 568(1250) Rightfemur, kg (lbs) 4S5(1000) 545(1200) 273(600)

TableD-3. SAE 1818kg (4000lb) Bogeyinto LRSVright side at 90". TableD4. SAE 1818kg (4000lb) Bogeyinto LRSVleft sideat 90". Date: 10/4/79 Bogeyspeed: 48.3 km/h (30 mph) Date: Z7l80 Bogeyspeed: 41.2 km/h (25.6 mPh) Rightfront Rightrear pa$senger pa$$enger Driver

Hrc 182 627 Hrc 132 ChestGs (3 msec) 90 150 ChestGs (3 msec) 55 PelvicGs (3 msec) 100 105 PelvicGs (3 msec) 55

-Conductedunder phase lll ol the FlesearchSatety Vehicle program. SECTION3: RESULT$OF ESV/F|SVDEVELOPMENT

Resultsof Handling,Stability, and Braking Tests of the Minicars RSV

Dr.A. ZOMOTOR . crosswindsensitivity Daimler-BenzAG . steeringcontrol sensitivity r pavementinegularity sensitivity J. NITZ . slalomcourse VolkswagenwerkAG . passingtime (acceleration) G. HUF In order to make a generalassessment of the PorscheAG handling characteristics,the tbllowing vehicle parameterswere also determined: INTRODUCTION . turning circle diameter For her shareof the worldwidetestine of the a maxlmumspeeo Minicars RSV, the FederalRepublic of G*ermany a drag coefficient agreedto test its handling and braking characr I kinematicchanges in toe-inand camber teristics-as was done a year ago with the Cal- I suspensionrate spanRSV. The task issuedto the GerrnanGov- ernment was delcgatedby the BAST (Fcderal Figure3 lists the parametersto be measured Highway ResearchInstitute) as cuordinatorof andthe transducers used. the automobilemanulacturers representcd in the VDA (Automobile Industry Association). Due to the outstandingcooperation of all par- ticipants,despite the sometimespoor weather conditions,it waspossible to completethe rnan- oeuvresrequired by the RSV specificationson time,as well asto carryout otheradditional tests. TESTCONDITIONS The test car used was the Minicars RSV M 5-10 (figure l). GeneralData for the test car are shownin the tablein figure2. Test equipmentwas installedin the car by Figure1. MinicarsRSV. Daimler-Benz.Manoeuvres requiring larger sur- face areaswere carried out on the VW proving groundsin Ehra-Lessien,as was done with the CalspanRSV, while the other testswere per- Curbweight 2579lbs formed at Daimler-Benz in Stuttgart. The te$t Weight(loaded to 60% capacity) 2986lbs conditionscomplied with theRSV specifications. Axleload distribution were Thc following criteria tested; (vehicleloaded to 60%eapaclty) 46154o/o . braking in a straightline Trackfront 62in . braking in a turn . brakepcdal force as a functionofdeceleration rear 62in . effectivenessof the parking brake Wheelba$e 104in . steady-stateyaw response . transientyaw response Tires 200/65hr 370Dunlop de Novo2 . steeringreturnability run-flat . maximum lateral acceleration . control at breakawav Figure2. MinicarsRSV general data.

77 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

The electronic test equipment arrangementis distancesfor both load conditions and all three shown in figure 4. lt consistsof dataacquisition brake systemoperating conditions were not ex- and dataprocessing. The dataacquisition equip- ceeded.However, the stoppingdistance for the ment was installed in a specialte$t rack in the 100o/oload condition was only 6.8% below the rear of the passengercompartment (ligure 5). requirement.The specifiedlane width (3.7 m) This consistedbasically of an HP 2100 process was maintainedwith only slight steeringwheel computer for digitizing and editing, and a Co- - corrections(< I0"). lumbia cassetteunit for data storage.The data processingequipment was carried in a separate vehicle acting as a mobile computercentre (fig- Measurlngparamet€r$ Trangducet ure 6), equippedwith a secondcassette unit, an Yaw angle Directionalgyro HP 9845 B desk computer and an HP 9872 A Yaw velocity Directionalgyro Lateralacceleration Stable platform plotter for the computationand plotting of the Forwardvelocity Optical sensor diagrams required by the RSV specifications. wheel angle Induct.displacement This enabledrapid evaluation and checking of transcl. Strain gauge bridge recordeddata immediately after eachtest run. Stseringwheel torque the Steeringwheelangle Potentiometer It was the first time that data processingwith a Steeringwheel velocity Rate sensor computerin the vehicle and at the test site had Stopping distance Optical $ensor been used for testsof this kind. Course deviation Measuringtape Brake pedal force Mech. Pneumatlc TESTRESULTS pressuretransducer Meetingthe RSVSPecifications I Figure3. Measuringparameters and trans' In the manoeuvre braking in a straight line ducers. (figure 7), the maximum permissible stopping

MEASURING +,+ M6 PAHAMEIEHS

TRANSDUCER

AMPLIFIER

FILTER

MOBJLECOIVPUTER CENTER

CARTRIOGE CARTRIDGt TAPEUNIT ]APEUNIT

Figure4. Minicars RSV measuringarrangement.

78 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Figure6. Test equiPment the mobile corn' puter center.

Stoppingdistance Loading lnitial o capacity speeo Bequired ueasureo I

60 160.4feet 60 mph s190 feet 100 176.7t€et

Figure7. MinicarsRSV braking in a straight Figure5. Test equipmentin the test car. line.

for braking in a turn (figure $topping distance The requirements Loading lnitial m width were also ntet. al- o/o 8) in a lane of 3.7 capacity conditions Requirednaeasureo thoughthe tneasuredstopping distances of 83.0 I 87.6 lt were only slightly lessthan the ft anrl Radius 60 83.0feet allowedmaximum of 90 ft. The main reasttnlbr 357feet this was the prematureloc-king tendency of the wheelson the insideof the turn, which meant Speed 90 feet 40 mph that greaterdecelerations could not be achieved the limits specifiedfor lane width and (Lat. within 100 87.6fe6t steeringwheel correcllon ({ 180')' Acc..3G) The brake pedal torce lbr various, qrrasi- steady-statedecelerations is shown in figure9' Figure8. MinicarsRSV braking in a turn. With the hrakesystem in fully operationalcon- dition, the pedal fiorcesare to sollleextent less sufficienthraking thanthe tninitlutl valuesspecitied, i.e., up to brakelever was reachedbetore 0.4 g deceleratittnlirr l00o/rloatlirtg and up ttl ellectexisted. yaw I'espollse 0.6 g for (r0tZ,loading. Rl-sults uttder the othcr Figurel0 showsthe steady-state 0.4 g. C)verthc entire conditions(taih,rre of brake boostcror of front for a lateralaccelerirtion of valueslie within the brakecircuit) were within the perrnissihle linrits. speedrange, the tneasured is the largedillercnce Theeffbctiveness ol' thc hand-operated parking given limits. Noticeablc (ccw)and a rightturn (r.rw)' brake was not sufficientto holclthe vehiclcon hetweena left tuln understcady-state con- thc -10(/cgrade. Witlr the lrtakesadiurtcd as they whichmacle itsclf evident and under were, the rnecharricalstop detenttirr the hand- clitionsby ditl'erentstecring angles

79 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

transient conditions by different steering

- 1o0o/olLOAolNG characteristics. -r 60 TqlcAPAC|TY The transientyaw responseas a resultrtf a step input to the steeringwheel (ligures I I and 12) UPPER LIMIT exhibits characteristicstypical of oversteer.The speciliedlimits were not exceeded.The differ- o A BooSTEF FAILURE encebetween right and left turn can be seenes- Etr ___-UPPEHLIMIT = peciallywell at a speedof 70 mph. I 160 Figuresl3 to l5 showthe returnabilityof the I I steering at speedsof 25 to 50 mph when the eq) steeringwheel is releasedin a steady-stateturn € at 0.4 g. The yaw velocityexcursions are greater (6 for lefl turn than fbr right turn. This could be E g- 80 causedby a greateraligning torque f'or leti turn o -v and asymmetricsteering damping. The charac- (E teristicof the courseangle (figure l3) showsthat ID thereis a .slightlyincreasing tendency at 25 mph for lefl turn and a slightly decreasingtendency for right turn, Thus in both casesthe vehicle Deceleration- G's turnedslightly to the left whenthe steeringwheel was released.The RSV specificationswere met FigureL MinicarsRSV brake pedal force ver- in almostall instances;only at 25 mph and for susvehicle deceleration. lefl turn (ligure 14) did the remainingyaw ve-

(J lrl U) 100 F (J .4G LAT.ACC. lr TU (5 o oIJJ 80 I I OVERSTEER IIJ UNDERSTEER o

20 30 40 50 TANGENTIALVE LOCITY-MPH

Figure10. MinicarsRSV steady-state yaw response.

80 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELoPMENT

180

il (5 z *' 1 120 SE 6H -t rEI / -, l-' t-t -rl I-t E= ]t {> LlJ F I I I F- (/)E * 25 MPHLO\ry R BOUNDABY { I f;E 60 / 9= cw ;i{ A ccw TT I / I I 0 o.s 1.O 1.5 2.O TIME-SECONDS

Figure11. Minicar$HSV transient yaw respon$e at 25 mph.

locity lie somewhat above the maximum per- Figure l8 showsthe steeringcorrtrol sensitivity missiblelimit. at variousdriving speeds.Although the testval- Figure l6 showsthe maximum lateralaccel- ues are considerablygreater than the required erationachievable with differenttyre pressures. minimum value, the steeringwas not judged to The requirernentswere l'ulfilled in all cases.For be heavy. a short period of time it was possibleto achieve Testing directional stahitity after a defined about l07o highervalues, but handlingthen was pavementinegularity resulted in the permissible no longerstablc. deviation frr)m courseafter 2 seccudsnot being The test conditionsspecified for measuring exceededat 30 and 50 rnph. At 70 rnph, the control at breakawayare so diflicult t() comply deviationof 1.6-5fi wasgreater than the perrnis- with that the test resultswere hardly reproduci- sible valueof I ft. ble. Consequentlya graphof testresults cannot Ihe required minimum speedof 50 mph for be providedhere. the slalomcourse (ligure l9) wasexceeried, with However, the test can be describedas com- an attaincdspeed of 51,I mph. pletedon the basisof the sulriectiveasseisrnents The accelerationability of thevehicle was just of severalskilled driversand observers. suflicientto acceleratethe vehiclefrom 30 to 65 The crosswindsensitivity of the vehicle is mph in a maximum of 24 secorrdswith gear 'fhe shown in figure 17. deviationfrom course changeas required.The averagetime was 23.8 is plottedagainst the distancecovered 2 seconds secrlnds.The measuredacceleration time f'rom after onsetof the crosswind.The testvalues lie 50-70 mph of 19.2seconds was well below the below the maximumpenriissible [mit. permissiblevalue of 22 seconds.

81 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

180 EXTENDEDENVELOP

\ H UPPERBOUNDARY

fi \ rzo \ $ I \ ul{ J- rbr ,-t E Fd t-t E/ t-- \-r-/ 6H I ET {> ulF tll ./)E 60 '.ll Acw frH A ccw H= FE I o o.5 1.O 1.5 2.o TIME-SECONDS

Figure12. MinicarsRSV transient yaw responseat 70 mph.

AdditionalMeasurements The kinematic change in toe-in of the front axle (10'/10 mm veftical wheel displacement) get picture of the vehicle, To a well-rounded was very large comparedto modem production dynamic testswere carried a few other relevant vehicles.Roll rnodeparticularly results in a se- to the RSV specificatiohs.The out in addition vere wor$eningof the straight-aheadcharacter- were as follows: results istics on an undulatingsurfhce. turning circle diameterof 4l .1 ft for right The On the other hand, only minimal changesin 42.7 ft for left lock is a bit too largc lock and toe-in occur on the rear axle. The camberangle vehicleof this size.On right lock, the wheel for a changesare normal. insideof the turn rubbedagainst the body; on the The suspensionrates measured for the front of the steeringlimit stop gave even adjustment and rear axles point to indicate a very stiffly improvement. no sprung vehicle. As no roll stabilizersare fitted, The maximum speedof 84.5 mph is very low there is no difference betweenjounce and re- Europeanconditions, and even in countries for bound mode and roll mode. which impose speedlimits for all types of roads just would prob_ablybe acceptable. SUMMARY The drag coefficient determined for the vehi- cle's frontal areaof 23.6 ft' (2.19 m2) was c* Accordingto the resultsof the testscarried out : 0.414. ln modernterms this valueis relatively as prescribed by the RSV specifications,the high, especiallywith regard to minimizing fuel Minicars RSV can be said to have met the re* consurnption.There are some standtrrdproduc- quirementsin general.In threecases some of the tion cars which have much better valr.res. limit values were not tlet, and the vehiclejust SECTION3: RESULTSoF ESV/R$VDEVELOPMENT

16 q - IIJ UPPERLlMlr 25MPH LIJ Y//////t2 cr - -Y/T////T :-n / EXTENDEDENVELOPE {J lE l! o A 25 [tPH cW I / A 25 MPHCcW IJJ t 50 MPHCW / o 50 MPHCCW E8q \fEt ,d' (J r-l z l-1 rEl \-l \h/ \-. e4 I L, !r--, *50 uJ UPPE LrMIT MPH ,E- {, th( t rrtrr ,ts l,rJ -d yfir E-o f \, rH tE- LIJ .E LOWERLIMIT-25MPH,50 MPH 'oot I o.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 TIME-SECONDS

Figure13, MinicarsRSV Steering returnability free control heading.

barely met the requiredpcrformance in some of ticeable,however, is thegreat difference between the tests. right and lefl turn. For examplein the braking with quasi-steady- This varying responseis also evidentin the statedecelerations test the pedalforce is too low steeringreturnability test. Here the tinrehistory in the low and mediurndeceleration ranges with of the relativc courseangle for the lefi turn is the brakc systemin fully operationalcondition, distinctly greaterthan that for the right turn. The Only at higherdecelerations do the pedalforces final yaw velocity lies outsideof the permitted lie within the permissiblelimits. tolerances. The effectivenessol the parking brakeon the 307ograde was insufficientand thus is a second CONCLUSIONS unfulfilled requirernent. Directionalstability with pavenrentirregularity Test Criteria negotiirtedat 70 mph wasalso beluw the required During the testsit becarneclear that someof standard. the manoeuvresrequired by the RSV specifica- The requirementsfor both brakingmanoeuvres tions are barely reproducibleand thereforedif- are only just ruct. For brakingin a straightline ficult to evaluate.lt is recornmendedthat such as well as fbr braking in a turn, the stopping criteria should be alteredor orlitted tiorn tuturc distancereserves arc minimal. The saf'etymargin tests. for the turn ntanoeuvrein fully kladedcondition For exarnple,the tolerancerange fbr the steer- is very small, at lessthan 3%. ing returnabilitytest at 25 mph (figure 14) is .In the steady-stateyaw responsetest, the val- smallerthan the scatterof thetest values and thus ues achievedare within the statedlimits. No- is not well chosen.

83 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLFS

ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE o lr,I U, (5 ut o 10 I

F o o J lrJ F { -10

--20

-30 o.4 1.2 2.O TIME- SECONDS

Figure14. MinicarsRSV returnability performance yaw ratesat 25 mpn.

The requiredlateral acceleration values for the The drastic steerand brake manoeuvrefor test- steady-statecircular turn are biasedin favour of ing overtumingimmunity is not reproducibleand understeeringvehicles. Demands made fur non- has no bearing on reality. For this reasonthis specificationtyre pressuresshould not be greater criteria was not tested, and it is recommended than those made for design values. that it be omitted from the specifications. The test conditionsfor the control at breaka- way test to comply with are so difficult that the TestVehicle test results are hardly reproducible.The speci- ficationshould be modified. Although researchsafety vehicle should rep- For the test pavementirregularity sensitivity resentthe latest advancesin active and passive the permitted deviation from the courseatler 2 safety, both of the vehicles tested so far from secondsat various speedsis a maximum of I ft. Calspanand Minicars haveexhibited serious de- Courseangle errors of just a few minuteswhen fects in basicdesign which would not allow safe starting off, or road and wind influencescreate operationin traffic. Accordingly, it seemsas if test value scatterwhich is greater than the re- thesevehicles were designedprimarily to meet quired maximum deviation. The test is therefore certain specifications,which they do to a very not practical and should be changed. great extent. This again is proof of the fact that

84 SEOTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVOEVELQPMENT

ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE (J UJ n (J lrJ .o I

F o o aEl LlJ

= { -10

-30 o.4 TIME- SECONDS

Figure15. MinicarsRSV returnability performance yaw ratesat 50 mph'

LATERALACCELERATIONS (G) FIXEDCONTROL REOUIRED

DRY CONCRETE OR 120 % FRONI' ASPHALT 80% REAH 80% FRONT 12O"A REAR

ar(wET)=iSKID NUMBFR(WET SKIDNUMBER(DRY

Figure161 Minicars RSV lateral accelerations'

85 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

E4 lr- ""ffi I e3 4 ozIU UJ n cl: ol

50 100 150 DISTANCETRAVELED IN TWO SECONDS- FEET

Figure17. MinicarsRSV crosswind sensitivity allowable course deviation by crosswind.

STEERINGWHEET TOFQUE SPEEO MPH BEourREo I roensuneo

30 t6. I

50 = 5 IN.POUND 20.4

to 2s.o

Figure18. MinicarsRSV steering controlsensi- tivity.

compliancewith the specifiedtest criteria is by no meansa guarantee,that thc vehiclewill be Figure19. Minicars RSV ovedurning immu- adaptableto thedernands of realtraffic situations. nity-slalom course. TheMinicars RSV tcsted, although complying with thc specifications,showed such weaknesses train. This had a strongadverse effect on steering in its handling characteristicsthat operationof precisionand straight-ahead stability. When driv- the vehiclewas consideredunsafe. ing in a straightline with the steeringwheel held Despitefrequent adjustments, there was ex- Iirmly, even slight irregularitiesin the road sur- tensiveplay in the very angularsteering column face caused noticeahle steering of the front

t10 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/BSVDEVELOPMENT wheelswhich resultedin correspondingchanges The insufficient pedal f'orce makes steady in direction. brakingdifficult, In etrtergencystops the pedal The handling characteristicson a test track was pushedto the floor, althoughno lhclingoc- with alternatingleft and right undulatingsurfaces curred. Readjustmentof the linkage elirninated is unacceptable.Even at moderatespeeds, the this tault but at the same time resulted in an steeringcomections necessary are tio great that ergonomicallypoor pedalposition. the avcragedriver is overtaxed,and even skilled For reasonsof installationspace alone, the drivershave difficulty in keepingthe vehicleon overallconception does not allow thesedetails, the track. The kinematic oversteeringellect which are importantfor active sal'ety,to be har- causesa strongand difficult-to-controlpushing monizedsatisfactorily. effectwhen turning into a bend,and the steering Both vehiclesbuilt by Calspanand Minicars lock appliedhas to be reducedin orderto stabilize show clearly that a usef'ulcompromise betwecn the vehicle.In the boundaryspeed range during active and passivesaf'ety. as well as between a steady-statecircular turn, there is asytrtrletry usability and cost, could not be successfully bctweenleft and right. found.

Reporton MinicarsRSV Tests

KENICHIGOTO The foregoing three types of testswill be dis- JapanAutomobile Research Institute, lnc. cussedin this report.

ABSTRACT COLLISIONTESTS

JapanAutomobile ResearchInstitute, Inc. 1. Outlineof CollisionTests (JARI) carried out three types of test$on the Collision testswere carriedout aimed at the Minicars RSV's (hereafterref'erred to as M- collectionof variousdata for the evaluationsof RSV's)fiom April 1980to July l9tt0,according occupantprotection perlortrtance, compatibility to the "Memoranduntof AgreementsCttncernittg and aggressivityof the M-RSV's. TestPrograrn for ResearchSaf'ety Vehicles" that had bcenconcluded between thcr l)cpartment of Collision Modes Transportation(DOT) of the US govelnmentand 'l'rade the Ministry ol lnternational and lndustry Collision modes and impact velocitiesof the (Ml'l'l) of thc Japanesegovernrnent. five testswsrc as follows (ref'erto Figure l.l ).

Collision Trrsrs-The tests includeda frontal Test No. I-M-RSV (M5-9) fiontal impact collisiontest of a M-RSV againsta fixed flat into fixedflat barrier at 79.6km/ barrier,three side collision tests hetween each h (49'5 ntPh). M-RSV and J-Car while both vehicleswere TestNo. 2-Side collisionof M*RSV (M5-8) runningand a baselineside collision test be- fiont into J-Car driver's side of tweenJapanese passenger cars while bothve- 90', both at 5(i km/h 13-5mph). hiclcswere running. Test No, 4-Side collisionol'J-Car front ittttr Huntlling, Stahilinund BrukingPuformance M-RSV (M5-8) driver'sside of Tests-Tests were carried out on nine items 90o;both at 56 knr/h (35 mph). for the handlingand stability, and on three TestNo. S-Side collisionof C-Carfront into items f'or the hraking perlbrrnanceof thc M- J-Car driver's side of 90": both RSV's. at -56knVh (35 mph) VisihiLinlests-The fieldof directview tests, Test No. G-Side collisionof .l-Cartitlnt into the field ot'view testsand lightingequiptttent M-RSV (M5-8) passenger'sside testswere carriedout fbr the M-RSV's. of 90";bothat 64 knr/h(40 mph).

E7 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Test no. 1 Testno.2 Testno.4 Frontal- fixedflat 56 km/h(35 mph) 56 km[(3s mph) Barrierimpact RSV J-Car / ./.1,/ ,/,/,/r -11 (N-3) M5€ (M-1) -0E

RSV JGar Hf ,r.u*.n^ HSV 56 km/h M$elt ! lfll t+s.smpnl M5A (N4) l* *'^ (35 mph) tss'prrl '"" (M-1) [flJJ' I

Testno.5 TestNo.6 56 km/h (35 mph) - UJ J-Car r*rn l"--'l'ffiB (N-5) rTrloo(+omon) J J{ar 56 km/h ill (N-2) (35mph) RSV Mffi -{ -$E (M-1) + 64 km/h (40 mph)

Flgure1.1. Collision modes between M-RSV's and J-Cars.

Test Vehicles Test Equipment, Measunementsand Datn Processing J-Carswere selectedunder conditions that they were equivalentto M-RSV's in termsof the curb The M-RSV collision tests were carried out weight given in the initial program and number at the same crash test tacility of JARI used fbr of seatsand doors, having the samevehicle type the Calspan/ChryslerRSV test. Electronic,op- andspecifications with thoseexported to the USA tical, vchicle body measurementsand their data (however, the M-RSV's curb weight increased processingwere almost sameas Calspan/Chrys- during developing,bccoming heavier than J-Cars ler tests. by 170kg or so). Five J-Cars were used in the tests, and they Results "N-1" 2. Test were temporarily named as through LN 6" respectively.For convenienceof prep- Frontal-Fixed Flat Barrier Impact Test aration, the M5-8 and the M5-9 were also re- The M-2 was used as the test vehicle, and a "M-1" "M-2" named temporarily as and re- frontal-fixed flat barrier impact test was camied spectively(refer to Figure l.l). out at the nominalimpact velocityof 79.(rknV Table l.l showsthe major specificationsand h, which resultedin the actualimpact velocity occupantrestraint systems of the vehicles. of 79.7 km/h. Two dummies were mountedon the left frontal seat and the right front seatof the Dummies vehicle. Four AM 5O percentile Hybrid-Il dummies Table 2.1 shows the outline of the measured approvedby the Part-572were usedin the tests. test results. Figure 2.1 shows the vehicle borJy

88 SECTION3: RESULTSoF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table1.1. Major specificatlons of M-RSVand J.CAR. fl

M.RSV J.CAR ,i. ,.j Overalllength(mm) 4500 4305 ' Overallheight(mm) 1400 1390 ',lj Overallwidth (mm) 1800 1600 '! Curbweight (kg) 1166 994

Flestraintsystems ':r=i L.F. St'g wheel air bag 3Pseatbeft tE.L.R.l R.F. Air bag 3Pseatbelt [E.L.R.] L.H. , R.R. 3P. seat belt with 2Pseatbelt [E.L.R.] ,'' ' forcqlimiter [E.L.H.l ::i r1ti .lr t{ il deformation-tirne,as analyzedfrom high speed bag at the sametime with the completionof the films. Figure 2.2 showsthe vehicleconditions air bag inflation of 53 ms or so. As the air bag at thetime of the maxirnumdisplacement. Figure completedits inflationprior to the initiationof 2.3 showsthe compartrnentdimensirtns rlf the the durnrny'sviolent rlotions, the operationof M-2 betoreand aftercollision. the air bag was satislactory. l) Left Front Durnmt"s ?'estRri.sa/t.r. The lefl Consequently,the HIC andthe chest SI of the front dummy's restraintsystem of the M-2 was dummy's head were 994 and -542respectively, a steeringair bag. As seenin the high speed both meeting the FMVSS-208 injury criteria. lilms, the air bag startedits inflationat l9ms or The axialloads on thedummy's f'enrurs protected so after irnpact,and the dumrny'schest and the by knee pads also satisliedthe injury criteria. chin contactedthe air bag at about 29nrs and 37msrespectively. The air bagcompleted its in- Side Collision Tests flation at 55ms or so, and the dummy's entire The test conditionsof four side collision tests face contactedthe air bag at 60ms or so. The werea$ follows: the bulletvehicle centerline was dummy suddenlystarted rotating anticlockwise collidedagainst the vertical line going through at 78msor so, and becauseof this phenonrenon the hip point of the dumrny seatedat the target the dummy's hcad angular accelerationvalue vehiclefront seatas the targetcollision position. aroundthe Z axis increasedto 5319 rad/s:.The The nominalimpact velocity in the testsNo. inflation of the air bag completedbefore the for- 2, 4 and 5 was set as 56 km/h, and thc bullet ward travel of the dummy. Hence the operation vehicle was collided againstthe target vehicle of the air bag was satisfactory. driver's seatside, In the test No. 6, the target The HIC and the SI of the dummy were 494 impactvelocity was set as 64 krrVh.and the bullet and 444 respectively,both rleeting the injury vehicle was collided againstthe target vehicle criteria set fbrth by FMVSS 208. Thc kradson passenger'sseat side. the durnrny'sfemurs protected by kneepads also Tables2.2-2.5 indicatethe outlines of results satisfiedthe said injury criteria. in eachtest. Figures 2.+2.19 showrelative dis- 2) Right Front Dummy's Test Re,rrlrs. The placernentsas analyzed from the high speed M-2 right fiont dummy's restraintsystem was films. the conditionsof vehiclesupon maximum an air baginstalled at theglovc box unit. Judging displacernents,vehicle body dirrrensionsand ve- by the high speed films, the air bag startedto hicleinterior dimcnsions . Figure 2.20 shows con- inflate at l9ms or so after inrpact, and the tinuousphotographs of vehiclebehaviors at in- dummy's chestcontacted the air bag at 29msor tervalsof 50ms as takenout from the high speed so. Approximatelyat 33msafter impact,the air films. Table 2.6 showsrotational angles of the bagand the dummy'schin contactedeach other, vehiclesat intervalsof 50ms, assurningthat the then the dummy's entire face contactedthe air anglewas zero upon collision. $ t

t! 8g .ir EXPEBIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLE$

Table2.1. Outline of frontal-fixedflat barrlerimpact test results(Iest no.1).

Car no. M-2 Testweight (kg) 1375 lmpactangle (deg) 91'50' lmpact position(mm) 95 left lmpactvelocity (km/h) 79.7 Max.crush (mm) 815 Max.intrusion (mm) 220 Restraint L.F.--airbag H.F.--airbag Observations(car no. --- M-2) Glazing Frontwindshield cracked entirely and right door glasscracked. Doors Upperpart of the right door was deformedslightly, right and left door hinges were deformed,unable to open both doors after crash, rear hatch lid fullyopen upon collision. Beslraints Both air bags operatedproperty. Fuel systems No leakages Car No. M-2 Dummyposition L.F. R.F. Vehiclemax. acc. (G) H 37 (NearC.G of X -37 vehicle) _13 ,z -13 Occupantinjury HIC 494 994 criteria HSI 655 1136 csl 444 542 Dummyhead max. acc. (G) R 57 80 X -51 *75 -18 *20 ,z 20 23 Dummyhead max. X 2619 - 1405 angular acc. (rad/s2) - 2340 - 3280 -z 5319 2321 Dummy chest max. acc. (G) R 50 45 X *41 _45 -25 -7 "z _10 -10 Dummypelvis max. acc. (G) R 43 ?q X -42 -34 -7 7 *z _10 -12

Dummyfemur max. load (kg) R. - 607 - 525 L. - 493 - 581 Seat belt max. load (kg) S T -The maximumvalues of accelerationo{ the dummiesand vehiclebodies represent the valueswhere the holding time in the spike exceeded3 ms. ** Each dummy head angularacceleration values calculated by nlne accelerometersmethod.

90 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

620 Max:1229 Time:96 o E tr.= 40d E10 .9 o- 200 .! o0 100 Time-ms

Figure2.1. Vehicle body deformation(M-2). Figure2.2. Upon maximum displacement.

Pre-test Post-test (mm) (mm) L.S. R.S. L.$. R.S. A 1765 1750 1240 1060 B 1965 1965 1965 1955 c 475 485 225 330 D 320 320 310 315 E 1975 1975 1975 1950 F 2€5 2425 2400 2370 G 735 730 735 730 H 1390 1385 1385 1385 I 780 780 645 560 J 1390 1385 1370 1360 K gg5 gg0 s70 940

Figure2.3. Compartment dimensions before and after collision (M-2).

l) Comparisonsof Dummy TestRe.rrrlts. The rear dummy of the target vehicles (N-3, M-l Ieft front dummy and the right front durnmyof and N-l) and the comparisonof the M-l durn- the M-l had a steeringair bag and an air bag mies with diff'erentiurpact velocities. installedat the glove box respectively,Both air . Comparisonof the left front dummies (Side bagswere suchthat they startedto inflatewhen collisionswith impactvelocity ol'56 km/h), the vehicleacceleration reached the set acceler- ation lcvel lbr each air bag upon collision (the Dummy head(HIC): Sincethe air bagof M-l level settingwas unknown to JARI). Restraint did not inflate, the dummy was placed under systenrslfrr the left rcar dummy and the right unrcstrainedconditions upon collision. High reardurnrly were threc-pointseat belts, each of speedlilms indicatethat the door side padding which had a force limiter inscrtedbetween the started to intrude into the cornpartrnentirnrne- seatbelt anchorand E.L.R. diately afler collision, and contacteclthe shoul- 'l'he restraintsystems tbr the N-3 and N-l left ders,hips, etc. ol'the dumrnyrnoving toward the front dumrnieswere three-pointseat belts with struckside with posturcsnearly the sarrre to those E.L.R., andthose for thelcti reardurnrnies wcrc at the initial stage.Afierwarrl. thc dummy trav- two-pointseat belts with E.L.R. eledto thc right fbrwarddirection while keeping Figure 2,21 shows curnparisonsof HIC's, the contactwith the paddingand, on the other SI's, etc. of the left fiont durnmy and the left hand,56 and 88 respectively.

91 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEH ICLES

620 Max:747Time:75 O t9 |.60c I E10 A loo.9. o" l'20o .9 *l o0 +0 200

Figure2.4. Relative displacement between N-3 andM-1. Figure2.5. Upon maximum displacement.

Pretest Posftest (mm) (mm) A 660 675 A1 665 525 B 660 685 B1 665 460 c 695 700 c1 1 695 675 F 1300 1290 G 2590 2600

Figure2.6. Compartment dimensions before and after collision tN - 31.

Pretest Posttesl (mm) (mm) L.S. R.S. L.S. R.S. A 1765 1765 1740 1710 B 1975 1960 1970 1955 c 475 480 315 345 D 310 315 310 315 E 2015 2000 2015 2000 F 2445 2420 2440 2440 G 630 635 630 635 H 1390 1380 1385 1375 I 780 800 780 790 J 1370 1375 1370 1375 '1010 K 1010 10?5 1030

Figure2.7. Compartment dimensions before and aftercollision IM - 11.

92 -

SECTION3; RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

+20 Max:675Time:80 o r 5 6oc =10 .2. 40 d. .q 200 .u) o0

Figure2.8. Relative displacement between M-1 and N-4. Figure2.9. Upon maximum displacement.

Pre-test Post{est (mm) (mm)

A 630 630 A1 640 53s B 670 670 B1 670 580 c 250 250 C1 230 245 D 760 755 D1 740 755 F 1120 11'10 G 3225 3205

Figure2.10. Compartment dimensions before and after collision tM - 1l

Pre-test Post-test (mm) (mm) L.S. R.S. L.S. R.S. A 2015 2015 1635 1925 B 1940 1940 1940 1945 c 170 175 75 110 D 175 175 175 175 E 2245 2250 2245 2250 F 2680 2685 Itrtv 26Bs G 575 575 575 575 H 1100 1110 1110 1110 I 1090 1050 1065 1045 J 1320 1325 1325 1290 K 960 965 960 925

Figure2.11. Compartment dimertsions before and after cotlision IN - 41.

93 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

620 Max:747 Time:77 P X m.i =10 4oa .9. o- 20o .6 o0 0

Figure2.12. Relative displacement between N-1and N-2. Figure2.13, Upon maximum displacement.

Pretest Posftest (mm) (mm) A 660 670 A1 660 530 B 660 660 B1 665 435 c 700 695 c1 695 675 F 1300 1230 G 2590 2625

Figure2..14. Compartment dimensions before and after collision tN - 11.

Pretest Posttest (mm) (mm) L.S. R"S. L.S. R.S. A 20'15 2015 1650 1820 B 1940 1940 1940 1940 c 170 170 150 45 D 180 175 175 175 E 2245 2245 2240 2245 F 2680 2685 2675 2685 G 575 585 575 580 H 1105 1105 1105 1100 I 1090 1055 1070 1045 J 1315 1310 1315 1280 K 960 965 960 930

Figure2.15. Compartment dimensions before and after collision IN - 21. SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

+20 Max:754 Time:77 o X r60 o- =10 |.ooo o- lzoo .9. o0 Jo 200

Figure2.17. Upon maximum displacement. Figure2.16. Relative displacement between M-1and N-5.

Pretest Post-test (mm) (mm) A 630 555 A1 500 595 B 670 560 B1 580 605 c 250 270 c1 245 220 D 755 790 D1 755 730 F 1110 1090 G 3205 3235

Figure2.18. Gompartment dimensions before and after collisionIM - 11.

Pre-test Posttesl (mm) I (mm) L.S. R.S. L.S, R.S. A 2015 2015 1790 1575 B 1940 1940 1940 1940 c 170 170 35 175 D 180 175 175 175 E 22& 2245 2245 22ffi F 2685 2685 2685 2675 G 575 575 575 575 H 1105 1105 1110 1110 I 1080 1050 1070 1045 J 1310 1315 1240 1305 K 960 965 865 950

Figure2.19. Compartment dimensions before and aftercollision tN 51. EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Table2.2. Outllne of sidecollision test resultsfiest no.2)'

Carno. M -'l N-3 Test weight (kg) 1381 | tzzs tmpact angte(deg) 88. 30' lmpact position(mm) 0 (Thebullet car hit the mark) lmpactvelocity (km/h) 56.1 ; s6.a Max.crush (mm) 185 | 3oo Max. intrusion(mm) 01260 Restraint L.F.-Air bag L.F.-3P.Seatbelt (ELH) R.F.-Air bag L.F,-ZP.Seatbelt (ELR) Observations(Car no. - M 1) Glazing No abnormalities, uoors No abnormalities. Hestrarnts Both air baos operatedproperly Fuel systems No leakages- Observations(Car no. - N-3) Glazinq Left door glass was damaged,front windshleldcrtqlqq-fl]gnlry:- Doors @, unableto open or close left door afler collision. Restraints Both seat belts operatedproperly. Fuelsystems No leakaoes.

M-1 N-3 -Du-nrmyCar no. position L,F. H,F. L.F. L,H, Vehiclemax. acc. (G) H 13 22 - (NearC.G, of X * 1'l 11 -16 vehicle -7 -z -2 18

Occupantinjury HIC 82 83 56 127 criteria HSI 186 119 67 194 csl 46 70 68 129 'J5 Dummyhead max. acc. (G) H JJ tu 4J X -32 -19 17 -19 Y -14 -13 13 27 ,z 11 14 15 36 Dummvheao max. - 30u/ 3433 1942 - J4rJb - angularacc. lrad / sfl -3749 - 2963 1179 2482 -z - 1465 - 1906 * 1144 -2229 Dummychest max. acc.(u) F{ Zb 21 27 39 X *26 -21 -9 12 -6 -15 26 39 .z -7 4 *3 I D-ummypelvis max' acc. (G) Ft 2t 20 bU J4 X -16 -13 -10 {E Y -16 -19 58 29 _q ,z - tL -7 -5 _ Dummyfemur max. loao H. * 113 54 ta 1?6 (ko) L. - 385 - 109 63 - 367 Seatbelt max. load b 153 (ks) T

'The maximumvalues of accelerationof the dummiesand vehiclebodies represent the valueswhere the holdingtime in the spikeexceeded 3 ms. **Eachdummy head angular acceleration values calculated by nlneaccelerometers method. SECTION3; RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table2.3. Outtine of sidecoilision test resuttsOest no. 4). Carno Mr1 | t't*+ Test weight (kg) 1357 | E?B lmpactangle (deg) 89. 40' lmpactposition (mm) 100Forward from Driver'sH.p. lmpactvelocity (km/h) 56.7 Max. (mm) 56.3 crush 205 470 Max.intrusion (mm| 110 25 Restraint L.F.-Air bag L.F.-3P Seatbett (ELR) -3P.Seat L.Fl bett(ELR) R.F.-3P.Seatbett (ELR) Observalions(Car no. - M-1) Glazing Lefl doorglasr ancllett rea Doors Lettdoor was mediumdamag hatchliri full openeduoon coilision Hestraints vrEsr il rg d( vqg utu uperdrerL.H. rnree.point seat belt properly. operated - Fuelsystems tJUIlel no77ltr nl tilal 'svEp. Observations(Car no. N-4) 9lazing rontwtnctshi€ ffi uoors Lendoor was stightdamage. Ho closed - aftercollision. Flestraints Bolh qeat hFlr Fuelsystems No leakages

Car no M-1 N*4 ri ry pustUon L.F. L.R, L.F. B.F. .i: Vehiclemax. acc. (G) R. 25 (Near 24 C.G,ot X -7 -18 .j vehicle -19 '7 25 -10 1g Occupantinjury Htc 23 70 92 89 erileria HSI 4? 108 115 108 csr 63 141 59 Dummyhead max.EE]Gi 'I 48 H b 31 1I 21 -7 ..; X _17 :;j I -20 ,:: 'zY 16 n -7 -7 10 27 15 Dummyhead max. 11 ,\ 2056 -5249 Eb,1 angularacc. (rad/sl 1517 Y 965 - 1377 -1145 131S ,*z -1105 2532 1124 Dummy 791 chestmax. acc.(G; FI 26 1B .1 15 X -14 -17 -15 ,zY 26 42 -5 *10 -7 - 11 -9 -10 uummypelvis max. (G) acc. H 25 6't 27 -6 X -12 _23 15 'zY 24 54 *22 -17 -7 -B -tc -1n Dummyfemur max.ldEE F( -t '172 99 _tQ I ?? -93 - Iks) L. - 642 - 425 137 Seatbelt max toacl (ks) b 28 3/1 10 T t3t 256 .The maximumvalues of accelBrationof the dummiesand vehiclebodres represent the values wherethe holdingtime in "Each thespike exceeded 3 ms. dummyhead angular acceleration values calculated by nineaccelerometers method.

g7 ,Fiiiz-m;

1soForward rrJi, iliuur.*x.p. Max.*ffflJfl:ililjnn,intrusio i't^.1

A'F'i.F'Si3l- gtass;;m@

ffi

,x,-J:8ili";".*,- 1J -9 23 Occup6pffi ?0 -11 -14 - 4r) 1B

uurnntyheadEF dngUldr acc.traOlsl

ypervisE}]f,Eil

my.rem-ffiH

VaIUes

98 --- SECTION3: BESULTSOF ESV/HSVDEVELOPMENT

Table2.5. Outline of sidecollision test resultsFest no.6).

Car no. M-1 I N-5 Test weight (kg) 1351 | ftZS lmpact angle (deg) 88'10' lmpactposition (mm) 120Foruard from Passenger'sH.P. lmpactvelocity (km/h) 64.4 | 64.1 Max.crush (mm) 160 435 Max.intrusion (mm) 140 10 Restraint R.F.-Air bag L.F.-3P.Seatbelt {ELF) R R.-3P.Seatbelt (ELFI) H.F.-3P Seatbelt (ELR) Observations(Car no. - M-1) Glazlng Frontwindshield cracked slightly, right door glass and rightrear wind- shieldcracked. Doors Rightdoor was slightdamage, opened upon collision and ableto open but unableto closefor riohtdoor. Hestraints Passengerarr Dag dad not operate,R.R, three-point seat beltoperated prooeflv. Fuersystems Fuellrller prpe and boclynear by tuel ttllercap weredetormed but no leakaoes. Observations(Car no. - N 5) Glazin0 Front winclshieldcracked sliqhtly. uoors No abnormalities. He$trarnts tsothseat beltsooerated orooerlv. uel systems No leakages.

Car no M-1 N-5 Dummyposition R.F R.R L.F RF Vehiclemax. acc. (G) R 26 26 (NearC.G, of X -9 -22 vehicle Y -23 20 'z 26 Occupantinjury Hrc 30 87 187 191 criteria HSI 81 139 2?1 230 csl 84 451 88 91 Dummyhead max. acc. (G) FI tu JJ tti zt X -7 -8 -23 -25 Y 19 -24 -17 4 'z 't9 I 30 22 Dummyhead max. X z56l 4372 Jb/v 10ti5 angularacc. (rad/sf Y 1261 - 1087 1552 1450 trz - 2654 1140 2292 1807 Dummychest max. acc. (G) R t4 73 22 22 X 7 -10 18 -22 Y 123 -71 1g 5 'z -7 -14 12 - 11 Uummypelvis max. acc. (G) H 31 61 ZE '25 X -6 -6 17 -20 Y -31 -58 17 18 ,z -5 -13 _10 -17 uummyremur max. toad H. sti - 141 E4 (ka) L. - 187 rto 139 90 Seat Dett max. toad s 119 300 502 (ks) T 255 508 'The maximumvalues of accelerationof the dummiesand vehlclebodies represent the values wherethe holctrngtime in the spikeexceeded 3 ms. '*Each dummyhead angular acceleratlon values calculated by nlneacc€l€rometers method.

99 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

0ms

50ms

100ms

150ms

200ms

"? -lN-4 - l*N' Testno.2 zll.sl Testno.4 El Testno.5 zl Figure2.20 Vehicle motion afterside collision.

Dummy Chest (SI): For the M-l and N-l Table 2.6. Rotation of target and bullet of contactsbetween the shoul- vehicleafter sidecollision. dumrnies.traces dersand inside units of doorswere obset'ved, and Car no. N-3 M-1 M-1 N-4 N-l N"2 eachSl was 63 and 29tl respectivcly.Thus the Rotation Botation Rotation eff'ectof the paddingtor shoulderprotection was Time (ms) (degrees) (degrees) {deorees) demonstratedfor eacho1' thcnt. No cleartraces U U.U U,U 0.0 0.0 U.U U.U 50 2.0 2.1 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.5 of contactsbetweett the N-3 clutnury'sshoulders 100 12.9 13.3 7.5 8,3 10.5 8.9 and vehiclc interiorswere evident, and the SI 150 25.3 25.4 17.1 21.3 22.2219 was68. 200 36.936.8 26.8 32.9 33.7 32.9 Durnmy Pelvis:The tttaxitrtumvalues of the + : anticlockwise pelvisresultant acceleration of the N-3, M- I and

100 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

I-t w7'771 Frontdummy ot struckside 56km/h 64kmrh Reardummy of struckside

Head q!e!! Pelvis Head I Chest I I

^60 g Fr cr I .9 rrcl 117 It 141J 6 [l,rl ) { E40 F,4u2e)l 0 F,"'l [87| {o [88Jnrcl [H"h. .q0J 20 rl ['

Target N-3 M-1 N-l M-l N 3 N/.1N-1 M-1N-3 M-1 N-1 M-l N-3 M-l N-l M-l N_3M-1 N-1 N4-1N-3 M-] N_l M_1 vehicle +,1',1+ BulletN4-rN-4 N-2 N-5 vehicle

Figure2.21. Comparison of dummy'sresults of targetvehicles.

N*l dummieswere 58,25 and 80G respectively. . Comparisonsof resultsof M-l dummiesbe- The low valueof the M-l dummy wasprobably tween56 krrVhand 64 km/h impactvelocities. due to the effect of the padding frrr pelvis pro- tectioninstalled at the door inside.as well as to The HIC, SI andthe maximumvalue ol pelvis the fact that the intrusion into the compailment resultantacceleration were nearly thc same for was smallerthan other vehicles. the left front durnmy and the right front dummy. . Comparisonsof left rear dummies(Side col- Ihe HIC and the maximumvalue of pelvis re- (he lision with impactvelocity 56 km/h). sultantacceleration werc nearly samefrrr the left reardummy and the right rear dummy, but Dummies(HIC): No evidenttraces of contacts the SI of the right rear dumrny was nearlythc betweenthe dummy's headand the vehiclein- threetbldof left reardummy's SI. terior structureswere observedfor the N-3. M-l The comparisonof test resultsof the front and N-I. The HIC of eachdummy was 127,70 dummiesand rear dummies shows that the pelvis and I l7 respectively, resultantaccelerations and SI's of the former Dummy Chest(SI): As for the M-l and N-l were lower hy 50olr,or so of the latter. This is dummies,traces of contactshetween the shoul- possiblyattributed in pafi to the fact that the ders and vehicle interior structureswere ob- centerof collisionol' the bulle:tvehicle against served.The SI of eachwas l4l and413 respec- the targetvehicle shifled fiorn the front seatside tively, demonstratingthe effect of the padding to the rear seatsicle as tirle passedby aftercol- installedin the M*l vehiclecompartment. lision.It is alsopossiblc, however, that the pad- For the N-3 dummy, no evidenttraces of the dingsfor the fiont seatdulnmies had better char- contactbetween the shouldersand vehicleinte- acteristicsthan the paddingslirr the rear seat rior structureswere found. and the SI was 129. dummiesin terrls of uccupantprotection effects. Dummy Pelvis: The maximum resultantac- 2) Comparisonsof'AcceIeration WaveformsoJ' celerationof eachdummy's pelvi.swas 32G for M-l andN-1. In the sidecollision tests with the the N-3 dummy which was the lowest of the normal impact velocity of -56km/h, thc M-l and threedummies, followed by 6l and 60G of the N-l were usedas targetvehicles collided by J- M-l and N-l dumrnies. Cars. Figurcs 2.22-2.28 show comparisonsof'

101 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

o I d o {

Time- ms

Figure2.22.ComparisonofTunne|Resu|tantAcce|erationofM-1andN-1.

(J I ()ti 4

Time- ms

head acceleration' Figure2,23. Comparisonof M-1 and N-1 left front dummy's resultant

102

I SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

o

d o {

,{ :, * Time ms .t.:

Figure2.24. Gomparison of M-1 and N-1 leftfront dummy's resultant chest acceleration.

o I d o {

Time- ms

Figure2.25. Comparison of M-1 and N-1 leftfront dummy's resultant pelvis acceleration.

103 EXFEHIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Time- ms

Figure2.26, Comparison of M-1 and N-1 left reardummy's resultant head acceleration-

Time- ms

Figure2.27. Comparison of M*1 and N-1 left reardummy's resultant chest acceleration.

104 SECTION3: RESULT$OF ESV/HSVDEVELQPMENT

o

(J;50

Time- ms

Figure2.28. Comparison of M-1 and N-1 left reardummy's resultant pelvis acceleration. tunnelresultant accelerations of theM-l andN-l 3) Vehic'leBody Defrtrmations. Figure 2.29 collided by equivalentJ-Cars and resultantac- showsthe maximum detbrmations and maxirnurl celerationsof lefi liont and left reardummies. intrusionsof all vehiclesused in theside collision The tunnelresultant accelerations indicate that tests.The figure indicatesno significantintru- waveforrns,durations, etc. wel'esinrilar though sionsinto compartmentsof bullet vehicles. peakacceleration values at the inititalstage were The M-l showedthe smallestvalues of all in different. terms of bullet vehicle maximurl deformation, It is well-known fact that F-S curve, which and targetvehicle's maximurl delorrnationand representsa buffering material with the highest intrusion.The maximumdeformations and max- energyabsorption characteristics with the limited imurrr intrusionsobserved at the left and right thickness,is rectangular.The observationsof the sidesof the M-1, which was usedas the target M-l left liont dunrrny'schest and pelvis resultant vehicle in 56 km/h and 64 km/h side impacts, accclerationsfrom this point rlf view (Figures were nearlythe same. 2.24 and 2.?5) show satisfactoryresults since Figures2.30-2.37 are Moire photographsof they are of proper forms without spikescaused the N-3, M-l (left sideand right side)and N-l by the bottomingof the pacldings. used as the target vehicles, before and after Conrparedwith the above results,the left rear collision. dummy'schest and pelvis resultant acceleration$ (Figures2.27 and 2.28)show significant spikes SUMMARY causedby the bottomingof the padclingsand impactsagainst rigid objects,which are similar Frontal-FixedFlat Barrier lmpact to theresults ol'the N-l durnnrie.swithout special The testwas carried out at the impactvelocity paddings. of 79.7 km/h. The conditionsof inflationof two From the foregoing rcsults, it is judged that air bagsinstalled at the front seatsol' M-2 was the paddingsfor the liont dummiesof the M-l satisfactory.Consequently, the lefl fnrnt dummy's weremore desirable than those of rearclurnrnies, HIC was 494. the chestSI was 444. anclfermur in termsof thickness.etc, loads were 607 and a93 kg. The right front

105 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Test no. 2 Test no.4 Test no. 5 Test no. 6 (56km/) (56km/h) (56km/h) (64km/h)

- rMax.intrusion E E 400 E .9 z. (s E v7 b 200 :f F oo z

z. N-3 M-1 M-1 N-4 N-1 N-2 M-1 N-5 Target bullet target bullet target bullet target bullet vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle

Figure2.29. Deformation of testvehicles used in sidecollision.

compartmentim- dummy's HIC was 994, the chest SI was 542 dummy slid out from'the before the vehicle stop (about l '9 and femur loadswere 525 and 581 kg. All the mediately 'fhe along the door' ctrest peak G's were also below 60G' All the sec. after the collision) hy three- results by both dummies, therefore, satisfied rear dummies, however, restrained experiencethe re.iec- FMVSS-208 injurY criteria' point seatbelts did not tion out of the compartment'Stlme tneasurcs, SideCollisions therefore,will be requiredto preventthe oc- be Right angle side collisions were canied out at cuffence of sect)ndaryinjuries that may out of the nominal impact veltlcity of 56 krn/h tor three causedby the rejcction of occupants times and at the nominal impact velocity of 64 vehicle compartment. km/h once, while both targetand bullet vehicles were running. HANDLING.STABILITY AND The HIC's, chest peak G's and femur loads BRAKINGPERFORMANCE of four dummiesof the targetvehicle M-l at having curh weight impact velocities of 56 km/h and 64 km/h The M-RSV was a vehicle m (104 satisfietlFMVSS-208 injury criteria, except 1I66 kg (2571lb) andwheeltrase2.642 vehicle were flat chest peak G of the right rear dummy in Test in). The tires mounted on the HR 370 (Dunlop De- No. 6. proof tires ol'size 200/6-5 The vehicle deformationat the struck side of novo 2). on the te$tcourses the M-l (target vehicle) having reinforced All the testswere carried out asphalt paved vehicle structureswas signilicantly smaller of JARI (cement concrete and between70 and 80 than those of the N-3 and N-1. roads having skid numbers by skilled test The pelvis accelerationof the M-l tiont dum- stipulated by ASTM standard) fbr the handling mies were markedly reduced owing to the driver. The loading condition 60 percentof the effect of paddingsinstalled inside the doors and stability tests wa$ set to The load- and the suppressionof intrusions. load correspondingto four passengers. performancetcsts The right door of the target vehicle M-l (at ing condition for the braking gross weight equivalent the impact velocityof 64 km/h) startedto open was set to the vehicle of four passengersand about 1.2 sec. after the collision due to the (GVW) in which weights impact of the right fiont dummy, and the trunk were included. SECTI0N3: RESULTSOF ESV/BSVDEVEL0PMENT

Figure2.30. Moire'photograph before collision IN-3] - Testno. 2.

Figure2.31. Moire'photograph after collision [N-3] - Testno. 2.

Figure2.32. Moire'photograph after collision[M-1-2] - Test no. 4.

Figure2.33. Moire'photograph after collision [M-1-2] - Testno. 4. EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Figure2.34. Moire'photograph before collision [N-1] - Testno. 5.

Figure2.35. Moire'photograph after collision [N-1] - Testno. 5.

Figure2.36. Moire'photograph before collision [M-1-3] - Testno' 6'

Figure2.37. Moire'photograph after collision [M-1-3] * Testno. 6. SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSV DEVELOPMENT

To verify the steadystate steeringcharacter- vehiclevelocities of 40 km/h and I l0 krn/hwith istics, the test vehicle was subjectedto steady steeringwheel angular velocity 500 deg/s or statecircular turns according to the speciliedve- higher, so that final steadystate latcral acceler- hicle velocitiesand lateral accelerations.The ation became0,4g. The test rcsultsare shown "tinre value obtainedby dividing the steeringwheel in Figure 1.2. Sincethe zcro" in the Fig- angle by the steeringoverall gear ratio (19.3) ure was when one half of the total steerinput wasused as the front wheel angle. The testresults amplitude was reached,riome values were ob- are shown in Figure L l, which met the range servedprior to the time zero. Exceptfbr the start- of the RSV Specilication. ing point, all other results met the RSV Specilication. Transient Yaw Response To verify the transientsteer characteristics, a Returnability ramp-stepwisesteering input was applied to the To confirmthe behavioursof thevehicle when vehiclewhile it was being driven straightat the thedriver's hands were released fiom thesteering

gl @l #l -l Elo Elo tslqt lO ' qrlo gllo 8l (Clockwise)

100 30 ,lL I v ol ol LateralAcceleration #l Bo 0.3G -6 iil l0) '++++' r lg, 0.4G 3lE a-*+-a 0.5G ,|il xla 20 a -+ lF, o - --G FIP eo =-F:= : E.E a EI: d slE |4+ " q)lttIL =l 40 (EI til >l 10

/,//// / ,ln 20 t) #,7-77? ,/ ,/,/ 7

20 40 60 80 100 Velocity (km/h)

0 10 n 30 40 50 60 70 Velocity (mile/h)

Figure1.1. Steady state yaw re$ponse.

109 / f"/, u-Y*E- '/:/'/,pto/ sr ---,Xiftfffr* .hr -' oorJu\ b3 /,r*1=* \-

rq%r","> "'rwtsE E

nd,4s %d\ 6u"/ 'n "r";,, SECTION3: FESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

2. Handling exceededthe RSV Specificationfor less than vehiclevelocity of 80 km/h at both conditions. Lateral Acceleration Steering Control Sensitivity This test was to seewhether or not lateralac- The vehiclewas operated steadily on a circular celerationof the vehiclecould clear the specified pathwith yaw angularvelocity of 2 deg/sec,Fig- valueswhile the vehiclekeeps steady-state cir- ure 2.5 representsthe testresults, showing some Figure 'Ihe cular motion. The results are shown in scattereddata. testresult$ satislicd the RSV peakin 2.1. The valuesindicate those at the each Specification,The test vehicle had a manual test sub-item, and do not necessarilyrepresent steeringsystem (no power assist), themaximum attainable on thevchicle, This RSV met the Specificationthroughout all test sub- 3. Overturninglmmunity items. Althoughtwo testitems, i,e., the drasticsteer Control at Breakaway andbrake maneuver test which is thecombination The vehicle should return to an original cir- of steeringand braking, and the slalontcourse cular pathwithin 4 scc,when the throttleis shut testwith pylonswere required by the RSV Spec- at the position of 3 m deviation outward fiorn ification.our test was lirnitedto the slalorntest that original circle aller a gradualacceleration to due to testschedule lirnitations. that The original steady-state cause deviation. Slalom circular motions are with maximum lateral ac- The test was carried r:ut by operatingthe test celerationunder fixed control. The radii of 30 m vehicle at a velocity of 80 km/h on a slalom and 70 m in combinationwith two directionsof coursewith I I pylonsspaced at 30 m intervals. CW and CCW are specified. The results are In thistest, the vehicle velocities were so adiusted shownin Figure2.2, in which percentsof suc- thatthe vehiclevelocity upon entering the course cesse$to total test times were added.ln caseof and the averagevehicle velocity while running tests on 30 m radius, the percentsof successes on thepylon course clid not go belowthe specified concerningboth testsof CW and CCW indicated velocity.The testvehicle did notoverlum in each more than 60dlo.On the contrary,in caseof tests of the threetests. on 70 m radius,the percentsof successeswere very few (CWl4d/o,CCWIS%). The contentsof unsuccessfultests were almostspin-out. 4. BrakingPerformance Crosswind Sensitivity Braking Effectiveness relationshipbetween the The testvehicle was run in front of a crosswind To demonstratethe the brakepedal force of the test generator,with the steeringwheel fixed, towards decelerationand vehicle. wascarried out lttr threeditfbrent the straightfoward direction. The vehiclerunning thetest i.e., in caseol'normal system operation, locus in 2 secondsafter the receiptof crosswind cases; (booster)failure and partialsystem failure was measuredby a coursedeviation measuring servo (fiont failurc and rear systemfailure). equipment.The test resultsare shown in Figure system resultsare shownin Figures4.1, 4.?, 2.3. Althoughthe resultsover the vehic-leveloc- The test 4.3 anil4.4. all the testresults satisfied ity of 100 km/h to the lefl crosswindslightly Although the RSV Specilication,the decelerationwhich exceedcdthe RSV Specilication,the testresults of wheelscould not be gained. at the otherconditions satislied the Specification. causedlockups Especially,the maxitnumdeccleration in caseof Pavement lrregularity Sensitivity front systemfailure was about0.2g. The pedal The test vehicle was ()peratedin a forward forceagainst the decelerationof 0.69 undernor- direction with the steering wheel fixed on the mal conditionswas 14 kg, and the ratio (servo course which pavementhad a fixed ridge, The nrultiplying factor) of the pedttl force between lateral deviation fiom the coursewas measured thenormal condition and where the booster tailed 2 secondsafter ridge contact.As shownin Figure at the decelerationof 0.4g was approximately 2.4, thetest results had tendencies which slightly 7.t. EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES rr @ @ t54 E TE (%) 0.4 0.6 lnflation Lateralacceleration (G) pressure Figure2.1. Lateralacceleration.

Counterclockwise

@

Counterclockwise @

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Percentof Success Time (sec) (%) Figure2.2. Controlat breakaway. SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/HSVDEVELOPMENT

6

1.5 (l) o E E+ E (s .9 .$ c) d 1.0 EA E (l'\t q) g. ut f = oo o 2 O 0.5

2030fi50 Distancetraveled in 2 seconds(m)

50 100 150 200 Distancetraveled in 2 seconds(feet)

Figure2.3. Crosswind Sensitivity.

Stopplng lllstance subiectedto braking while operatingin a circular path of radius lOtl.ll m (3-57ft) at a velocityof To check the distancenecessary to bring the 'l'he 64 kmih. Figure 4.6 showsthe results. test vehicle to a stop frrtm a predeterminedvehicle vehicle stoppedwith very shorterdistance than velocity, straightline braking testswere carried the RSV Specificationin the both casesof CW out threetimes for eachcondition of normal sys- and CCW. ln thesecases, the stoppingattitude tem operation,servo (booster) failure and partial was alsogood, and vehicledirl not go out of the failure. The initial vehicle velocity was set as 96 lane3.7 rl in width. km/h. and the width of the lane was as 3.7 m. in Figure4.5, thetest results show that As shown Parking Brake the vehiclestopped at shofterdistances than those in the RSV Specificationexcept in caseof front The parking brake test was conductedusing systenrfailurc. The stoppingattitude was also an inclinedroad of 30 percentgrade. In this test, good. The vehicle did not deviatefrom the lane a service brake was employed to stop the test 3.7 m in width, and stoppedwithout causing vehicle.An operationalfbrce was applied in steps lockupsof wheelsas mentionedin the sectionof to the parking brake lever to releasethe service brake efl'ectiveness. brakein sucha mannerthat the vehiclecould be Tests for braking in a turn under normal con- maintainedunder stationary conditions fbr larger dition were also carried out. The vehicle was than 5 minutes.But, the M-RSV could not be

113 EXPERIMENTAL$AFETY VEHICLES

1.0

0_5 /,/// //// /,/,/ / / /,/,/,/ /,/,/,/ O{ f /6,/,/ r/ r/,/ dJl E = o E .q .q (s o '50 0.0 c) E E o) o {t g f d -1 o ,,/,/ / /,/ /,/ O O ,/ ,/,/ ,/ ,/ / ,/,/ - 0.5 -2

-3 - 1.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distancetraveled in 2 seconds(m)

50 100 150 200 Distancetraveled in 2 seconds(feet)

Figure2.4. Pavementirregularity sensitivity. stoppedby parking brakeon the inclinedroad of 30 percentgrade. E2or E olo tt> F | .-t+ 5. SomeConsiderations sF''ul[* The summary of test results of the M-RSV .se I Eb concerninghandling, stability and brakingper- 3g'ol3H E: IF= formancewas indicatedin Table L Secondly,a 5l sr Pt.= comparisonof performancecharacteristics was Elf RSV andJapanese cars having E madebetween the EO' the same vehicle weight and number of seats, Velocity(km/h) which was one of researchobiectives. 01020304050607080 The charactcristicsof kinetic pcrformanceare Velocity(mile/h) affecteclnot only by the vehicleweight but also by the dimensionsreprescnted by wheelbase,as Figure2.5. Steeringcontrol sensitivity. well as by drive mechanismsuch as FF (Front Engine, Front Drive) or FR (Front Engine, Rear Drive). and the kinetic characteristicsof other the numberof seatsare identical,due to the dif- vehicle components.Theref'ore, a direct com- f'erencein the wheelbaseand the drive mecha- parisonis not possiblebetween the RSV andJap- nism. Especially,the rear drive rnechttnismby anesecars even though the vehicle weight and the transversenrid-enginc, which was adopted

114 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

'*[ t*[ i6rrlerfiiiar----l lqle_s_s_gle__s_Yit_cl.i (a I t^ I E tot = 2001i1 g*fs "l rlo eo lH glEot9 lts olI H IE l)t(! s " € lE E'*[ol Failure fi '*f 'Ll cl I oI I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10 Deceleration(G) ot :l 3 Deceleration(G) Figure4.3. Brakeeffectiveness for rearsystem failure. Figure4.1. Brakeeffectiveness for normalSYS- tem operation. '*f s:[*E te E ts g lE tq0e.'iEli e l8 u-l^ E rm[' g r Operation ol Ezmf rLl F t8 xloIL I oL €t00flF E Figure4.4. Brake effectiveness for f ront I systemfailure. oL 0.4 0.6 0.8 istics,while the brakingperformance wari com- Deceleration(G) paredin tennsof brakeeff'ectiveness. Figure5,I is the comparisonof thetest results Figure4.2. Brake effectivenessfor boosrer failure. of the M-RSV andlinear analysis lbr steadystate yaw rcsponseagainst a latcral accelerationof 0.4g. l{ere the constantK representswhat is "stability called factor," thatrnay be delined by the M-RSV, did not correspondto a Japanese by the following equation. car in the rnarket. Then, a cornparisonwas mainly rnadehere (Yaw angularvelocity) x (wheelbase) betweenthe results of theM-RSV andthe kinetic (front wheelangle) pertbrmance characteristicsof Japanesecars that V were obtainedfiorn the availableperformance data. The hancllingand stabilitycharacteristics I+KV2 were comparcdin termsof undcrsteercharacter- vehiclevelocity) EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Normal$ystem operation

Partial brakes system failure failure Front brakes failure

100 200 300 400 Stopping distance (f eet)

Figure4.5. Stoppingdistance for straightline braking.

Stoppingdistance

20 40 60 80 100 Stopplngdistance (feet)

Figure4.6. Stoppingdistance for brakingin a turn.

The degreeofundersteer can be obtainedfrom shows a comparisonof steercharacteristics be- the valueof stabilityfactor K. In Figure5.1, it tween the M-RSV and 76 models of Japanese is found by comparisonof the testresults and the passengercars. From this Figure, it is found that calculatedvalues obrained by linear analysisthat the degree of understeerof the M-RSV are con- the understeeris K:0.0005*0.0010 s2/m2for siderablysmaller than the averagecharacteristics the both turnings (CW and CCW). Figure 5.2 of Japanesecars.

116 SECTION3: RE$ULTSOF ESV/FSVDEVELOPMENT

Table1. Summaryof handling,stability and braking performance test resultsof M-RSV. t Fequirement Flequiremenl Testprocedure Criteria met

1.Steady state yaw Steadyiurn, CW A CCW Envelope Yes response (v - 20- 120km/h) Trend Notclear

Tran$ientyaw RamFstep steer, Envelope Yes , Left & right iV = 40, 110km/h)

Returnability Steadyturn, CW & CCW Yaw velocity Yes (V = 40, E0 kmlh) at 2.0sec. (ExceptCW of V = 40km/h) Yaw envelope Yes (ExceptCW of V = 40 km/h)

4. Lateralacceleration Fixed control, CW & CCW 100%F&R(Design Yes valueof tire pressure) j 120g,oF&F Yes I 80%F&R YeS t 120%F,80%R Yes t 80%F, 120"/oR Yes (wet) i 100%F&R YeS I Control at breakaway Fixedradius, CW & CCW Pathconvergence Yes(30 m) (30m&T0mradius) in 4 sec. No (70m)

Crosswindsensitivity 22 m/scrosswind Coursedevialion Ye$ gust,Left & right al 2.0sec. (Le$sthan (V= 20- 120km/h) 100km/h)

7. Steeringcontrol Fixedyaw rateturn, Torque exceedence Yes sensitivity Left& right (V= 20- 120km/h)

Favementirregularity 2.5cm ridge, i Coursedeviaiion Yes Left & right d (Morethan (V= 20- 120km/h) 80 km/h, Data:scatterecl)

.' Overturningimmunity Slalom(30 m spacing) No rollovBr Yes

10. Brakeeffectiveness NormalSySlem Envelope Yes operalton Partialfailure (1), (2) Envelope Yes Boosterfailure Envelope Yes

11. Stoppingdistance Normalsystem ; operauon Straight-line Less than 57.9m Yes curve,CW & CCW Lessthan 27.4m Yes Partialfailure

a (1) Rearfailure Lessthan 121.9m YeS (2) Frontfailure Lessthan 121.9m No Boosterfailure Lessthan 106.7m Yes

12. Parkingbrake 30% grade .. Actuationeffort Uphill Less than 40 kg No Downhill Lessthan 40 kg No

117 EXPEHIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

ol

(l)tu,ol sl *1q) 'lE El- . IO) qrl sr lE ol ol EI EI

,*[

- Testresults (0.4G) K 0.0001$2/m2 Bol-I -otHI I I K = 0.0005s2/m2 .clo)sl-e |t BIE I x lo 601- glEt alF-f K = 0.001s21m2 Fl*f I ,l ,m 60 Velocity(km/h)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1o Veloclty(mile/h)

Figure5.1. Comparison of test resultsand linearanalysis for steadystate yaw response.

Figure5'3 is a comparisonof brakepedal force lighting devices.Since the designartitude of the againsta deceleration0.69 betweenthe M-RSV body and the location of R-point were not indi- and 73 trtodelsof Japanesecars. It is found that cated on the tested vehicle, a SAE 3DM was the test results agreefairly well with the mean placedin the vehicle accorclingto SAE J 826b, valuesof Japanesecars. and the H-point was obtainedto make it as the tef'erencepoint' vrsrBrlrry TESTS . Concerningthe visibility performanceof the 1' Field Of DireCt View TestS M-RSV, te$tswere carried out tbr the field of Testsfor the field of directview werccarried directview, the field of indirectview and the out to deterrninethe extentsin meetinsthe re-

118 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

MinicarsRSV

(J ^20 tr (l) f q ; o F15 (l)- (l) g 0) (t o ;10 E s 0 o 05101520253035 cEc Pedalforce at 0.6G deceleration(kg)

Figure5.3. Histogramof pedalforce at 0.69de- celerationof Japanesepassenger x 10-3 cars. Stabilityfactor K (sz/mz;

Figure5.2. Histogram of stabilityfactor at 0.49 lateralacceleration of Japanesecars.

Table 1. Fieldof directview.

Requirements Te$t results Compliance

1) Monocularobr ilructrOnanole eIC. , Total Total Total Total obstruction long. obstruction longitudinal angle width width (from V,) (from V,) Zone | (LF) < 11 Zone I 15.8" | 14.0' --;;-NGI Zone ll (HF) <11 Zone ll 9.1 9.3" Zone lV (LR) <24 ZonelV 20.3" | 17.7' OK Zonelll (LR) < 105% of that Zone lll 95.8%V1 OK in Zone lV 96 8%V:

2) BinocularobE ructionangle$. Numberof Total rur*n", of Trot"r obslrucl ions obstruction obstruction$ lobstruction angle lanole lzonet I sr |

3) Unobstructedforward lield of direct view Unobstructedwithin viewing area A viewedtrom Vl and from V2,etc. No obstruction, OK

4) Luminoustransmittance of windshield: 70o/o 67.4% NG

119 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

"FMVSS quirementsset forth in hoposed New quirementsfor the field of indirect view set for.th "Rear Standard,Field of Direct View (Docket No. in View Miruor Systems,FMVSS I ll- 70-7; Notice 5)." ProposedAmendnrent [Docket No. 70-3a; No- The implementedtest items and the outlines tice 41. The inrplementedtest items and the out- of the test results were as indicated in the fbl- lines of the test resultswere as indicatedin the lowing (ref'erto Table I for the details). following (refer to Table 2 for rhe derails). Monocular Ohstruction Angles.The obstruc- Field of View Without TestOccupanfs. While tion angle in the Zone I (A pillar at the driver's the inside rear view mirror met the requirement, side)did not meet the requirentent.The obstruc- the driver's side outside rear view nrirror (left tion anglesin the Zones II, III and IV met the door mirror) and passenger'sside outside rear requirementrespectively. view mirror (right dorlr mirror) did not meet the Binoc:ularObstructirtn Angles . The obstruction requirement. angle in the Zone I and the Zone II did not meet Field r{ View With Test Occupanfs,The re- the requirement. quirement was met for the Target Q, but the Presentor Absenceof ObstructionsinViewing requirementfor the TargetsSL and SR was not "A". Area Obstructionsdid not exist in the met. Viewing Area A, hencethe requirementwas met. Luminous Transmittance of Windshield. The 3. LightingDevices Tests luminous transmittancewas under 70dlo,hence Dual beam rectangularheadlamps sold on the the requirementwas not met. US market (made by Guide, Type 28 were equipped 2. Fieldof IndirectView Tests on the M-RSV. ln the tests,luminous intensitydistributions of headlampswere meas- Testsfor the field of indirectview werecarried ured, and iso-luminousintensity diagramswere out to determinethe extentin meetincthe re- prepared.

Table 2. Field of indirect view (rearuiewmirror systems).

Flequirements Testresults Compliance

1)Field of viewwithout test occupants. a) Mirrorsystem: gSVoot TargetQ. Floom mirror: 100% of Target Q. OK Single plane mirror: 75o/oot Targetq. OK b) Singleplane mirror: 75Vool TargetSL. Left door miror: 42.7r/o-of TargetSL, NG c) Non-convexmirror. (73.60/o..of Target$L). or convexmirror, with R = 40 - 60 in.: 75o/oof TargetSR Right door mirror'.4.7o1o' of TargetSR. NG (31.3%" of TargetSFt).

2) Fieldof viewwith test occupants. Mirrorsystem: 65% of TargetQ, a) 99.2% of Target Q, OK 65% ot TargetSL, b) 43.0%-of TargetSL, NG 65% of TargetSR. c) 4.7ok-ol TargetSR. NG

- with req.of Ss.5.3/FMVSS111-PA [Dkt 71-3a;Not .41 - - without req.of S5.5.3-.due--.

120 V-

SECTION3: RE$ULTSOF ESV/FSVDEVELOPMENT

Resultsof simulatedcar-to-Pedestrian collisions wlth the MinicarsResearch Safety Vehicle

KLAUS.PETEHGLAESER DummyInstrumentation FederalHighway Research lnstitute Two dit'terentpedestrian dummies were used Cologne for thetests: ABSTRACT . 50 percentmale dummy,Type Humanoid The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdmin- -572-50p istration (NHTSA) ancl the EuropeanExperi- . 50 percentchild dummy, 6 yearsold, Type mentalVeh icles Committee (EEVC) collaborated Sierra492-106. in carryingout l2 vehicle-pedestriancollisions by means of an experimentalsafety vehicle The durnmieswere equipped with triaxialac- (RSV) developedby Minicarson the crashtest celerometersin the head,chest, and pelvis. In facilityot'the Federal Highway Research Institute addition the legs of the adult dummy were (BASr). equippedwith accelerometersbuilt into the knees Seventests were carried out with a 50 percent and feetin lateraldirection. The accclerometerrs male dummy and five testswith a 50 percent6 rangewas 2-50g. The measuringdata were re- year old child dummy varying the contactareas corded, via pulse code modulation(PCM), on or locationof impacton the hood and collisiorr magnetictape, inputted in a large-scalecomputer speedsbetween l5 and 25 rnph. by meansof a processcomputer and processed The loads on the pedestriandummies were fbr evaluation. measuredby meansof the accelerationsin the variousparts of the body. The testswere filmed TestVehicle using severalhigh speedcameras. x An explosionsketch of the Minicars is :l RSV .,1 INTRODUCTION found on Figure?, The vehir:le is characteriz-edby a long hood The aim of the investigationand thetests them, and a V-shapedfront-end design. The front face, were with selves largely identical those con- the fenders,and the trunk hood-the car has a ductedwith a CalspanRSV at Volkswagenin rear engine----consistof flexibleplastic. Behind l97tt. A report on thesetests was given at the the sofi face there is an integratedfoam bumper 7th ESV Conf'erencer. systemwhich is not damageclin crashesup to l0 mph. The bumperis easyto replace.Headlamps TESTCONFIGURATION and windshieldwipers are concealcd.

The test configurationis shown on Figure L The car was acceleratedon the appnlachlane, to the impact speedand disconnectedfiom the endlesscrrble 2 m beforethe collision.The car passeda laserlight banierto checkthe speed and hit the lllly exposedpedestrian, who had been releasedfiom a gallow. Thecar's braking system was autornaticallyactivated in the moment of impact, The primary irnpactof car and pedestrianwas filmed from above and from the side and the secondaryimpact betweenpedestrian and street was filnred fiom the side. The camerawas op- Figure1. Test configuration for car-to- eratedat a rate of -500frames per second. pedestrianaccidents. -\T

EXPEHIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Figure2. Explosionsketch of the MinicarsRSV.

Table1. Fieldof directview.

lmpact speed Hood impact Test (mPh) area nr. 15 20 25 hard soft

Min1 X X

Min2 X X Min3 X X

Min4 X X Figure3. Minicarsbuck. Min5 X X

Min6 X X

Minicars provided the BASt with a rollahle Min 7 X X buck for carrying out the car-to-pedestrianac- cidentsimulations (Figure 3). Diving of a real car while braking was simu- causethe automaticbraking system was activated lated hy a coffespondingfixation of the wheel not belbrethe collision,it was possible,to keep suspensionon the body of the car. The vehicle the specifiedtest spccd within an averagetolcr- -r impactedthe pedestrianin pitchedposition. Be- ance of I percent. SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

TESTINGPROGRAM TEST FIESULTS

On Table I the tests, including the various Table 3 shows the test results for the adult- parametersfor collisionswith adult-dummiesare dummy in tabularfirrnr; Table 4 showsthe results listed.The ones applying to collisionswith chilcl- for the child-dummy. dummiesare listed on Table 2. The curves in Figures5-8 are an illustration Graphical representationsof the various con- of the test data, in which thosedata of interest tact areasor locationsof impact on the hood are to humansurvival, i.e. HIC, resultingchest ac- found on Fieure4. celeration,SI, and resultingpelvis acceleration

Table2. Field of indirectview (rearuiewmirror systems).

lmpact speed Hoodimpact Test (mph) area nr. 15 20 25 hard soft

MinI X

MinI X X

Min 10 X X

Min11 X X Figure4. Hard and soft area$of impacton the hood. Min12 X

Table3. Resuttsfrom the S0 percent male.dummy tests.

d o e O g o c .(6 .6 o 6 J- JE G o 6 G s oo 0= o d 0)0 !)= (J a oo --a od OF .:c fi E U(d !.i r 6 U6 .Yd ='E .=: .Y: aP = od o E .a 6 G =E 6 sE sF oE aFQO .o .o ,a E I E - HC ;L EE 6F iii > ;tr gs 6 6'- @6 rc EI ?E a- @6 Hd d; c 9- 0c b oF OE Q> Ozi c Ec ; Ec m! 9F 9F ;g E ,6 s s s c 6E ."c ,vtr ,vC d- XF xR xF "P o ,q o (JH E o iR ;R xF XR iR i9 F c ; -- -Y -o dx F E"E =6 Io_ Er 26 (/J fL J'; au) ;E Ed Er' E6 Ed z6 E(I E(; id Eu5 Kftee - lataral - Fo.rl -- lateral- Head Chest Pelvts refr I righl left I right

23.3 4.40 22 18 4l 33 f] 22 ?0 34 40 57 83 r46 17 196 54

2 32.0 s.50 88 434 256 21 39 14t 85 38 56 150 189 274 110 100 166

3 8.60 g9 rB 146 r6 td 68 22 34 35 B4 170 r20 130 r48

32.1 c.40 52 234 t0 40 143 91 34 58 63 67 t14 rr5 287 ?27 224 247

5 1r0 84 140 4t5 ?39 44 2A 188 38 82 140 52 60 116 2t0 340 r48

6 40.3 r2,45 t34 130 J593 256 40 130 673 531 48 96 ll 36 140 74 273 88 253 23

387 I 3.30 168 362 1771 167 7 44 r26 671 d45 64 7n It0 96 274 200 253

123 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

2000

tr I 1600 qr o o 1?00 E b= 12oo c -= o E aoo R qnn q: U) I 6 E +oo

Figure5. HICvs, imPact sPeed' Figure7. Sl vs.imPact speed.

200 E 200 ^; ED; E reo impact E ruo o Primary E o 6 H tzo I Child- dummY tzo Child- dummY ti I .q A Male* dummY (so - z 50% A 50Male% dummy 0 6 ?80 0 eB0 OJ

6 0 H+o ;40 E G E 0

pelvis vs' Figure6. Max. res. chest acceleration vs. FigureI. Max. res. acceleration impact speed. imPactspeed.

child's head, are plotted in relation to the speedof impact. The planationis that the impactarea of a area, is always testswere focusedprimarily on the relationship independentfrom the contact front lacing. betweenthe design of the front end of the car found on the hard flangeof the car's values' and its stiffnessancl the load on the dummy, the resultingin very high head acceleration data mentionedabove are plotted only with re- The area of irnpact of the head of an adult- spectto the primary impact betweenpedestrian- dummy is generallyfound within the softerupper dummy and car. part of the car's hood. The windshieldor its In general,the data for the secondaryimpact frame are generally not impacted, as is shown betweenpedestrian-dummy ancl road are of about in Figure9. peaks the same magnitude as t'or the primary impact For this rea$on,only low acceleration in the case of the adult-durnmy.In the caseof arereached in the primary impact betweenadult- the child-clummy the data from the secondary dummy and car, Figure 10. impact are clearly lower than those from the pri- The points of head impact on the car were mary impact. independentof the impact speed.The upperpart It can be seenthat a child reachesthe critical of the adult-dummy'sbody did not crashthrough HIC limit of 1000at an impact speedof 20 mph, the lid of the trunk, which is built in a sandwich an adult reachesthis limit at 25 mph. The ex- construction. SECTIQN3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table4. Resultsfrom the 50 percent6 yearsold childdummytests.

o g g O gE (J gE (,) E Or tr ,$ (\l .$ G (E (l)(J o" o- ;i o- E9 (.) O(J E+ oo ;i- E O$ (u C)(E (JF fit (J(d o .9. (Jo_ 3.E E .E qa U.E E tu5 (oE (DE tD5 OF fi! tr h $>^ b *= o) tJt'- (,)(E E (')(s E ($ (,)$ f 'E5 ots OE E oF b a oF OE fiE b tr Lc LC :E $ o $ Xl- *R () (J XF (J xtr o o- (!.= o.E (E.= iR E *8 q) E E0) -86 -o F E Ed Ed6 =f TA Ed z.a (o(L aa =d ;8

Head Chest Pelvis

I 24,1 5,70 87 201 26 24 96 29 28 26

g 32,0 6,70 240 1076 44 117 60 34

10 32,3 10,60 232 122 821 296 32 24 153 67 22 48

11 40,4 14,40 188 136 1121 293 65 66 387 120 64 28

12 39,8 16,35 256 956 40 110 515 314 36 34

200 400 800 e00 1000 1?00

Figure10. Resultinghead acceleration for the adult-dummyand the child'dummy. Figure9. Pointsof impacton the MinicarsRSV for the child-dummyand the adult. dummy.

In the caseof a car-pedestrianimpact, the car's turnedover and in a dangeroussecondary impact front impactsthe area of anadult-durlrly's knees betweenhead and road surface(Figure l0). or a child-durlrly's hips.This resultsin different The resultingmaximum chest acceleration and kinematics.The child-dummybends arouncl the the SI value at 25 mph have beenfbund to be car'sfront andis thrownofT in a positionparallel lower than the biomechanicaltolerance values, to theroad, The adult-dummy,upon impact, gets widely acceptedup to now (Figures6 and 7). a high rotationaround its centerof gravity. ln The resultingmaxinrum pelvis acceleration reaches the caseof higherspeeds, it can resultin being for both dummy-typesthc 60 g-levelat 25 ruph.

125 EXPEFIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Interestingis the kinematicof a pedestrianhit . The child-dummy reachesthe critical HIC by the curvature of the Minicar's front to the limit of 1000 at an impact speedof 20 mph car's side. He tums away and falls besidethe because of the hard primary impact of the car. Thereforethe risk of severeinjuries is low. child's head. The probability, to he hit hy the right or left . The high rotation of the adult-dummy at frontside in the area of the f'ender,amounts to higher impact speedscan favour a dangerous 14.8 percenta.Therefore it can be saicl,that in secondaryimpact. l5 percentof the pedestrianaccidents the injuries . There is no impact on hard partsof the wind- are lower by meansof the curvaturedMinicar's shield or its frame becauseof the long front- front than by meansof the rectangularfront-end end. designof commoncars. . There is no plastic deformation of any part The throwing distancesof the dummiesare in of the front end. aboutthe samerange as found in other simulated . Becauseof the curvature of the front face to car-pedestrianimpacts-l. Plastic deformations of the side of the car, the probability of severe the car-structureto absorb energy did not take injuries for a pedestrianin an accident is place.The lid of the trunk and the foam-bumper reduced. remainedin fully elasticcondition. fhe foam- bumpcr system showed a tendencyto break at REFERENCES high forces. l.Luccini, E.; WeiBner,R.: ExperimentalSim- The contact areaof the car is not important fbr ulationsOf Car-To-PedestrianCollisions With the loads of the child-dummy concerninghead The CalspanRSV, 7th ESV Conference,June impact, but the valuesfbr the resultingchest and 1979.Paris. France. pelvis accelerationare a little bit higher for the 2. Journal Of Traffic Medicine, Vol. 7, No 3, hard impact areathan frrr the soft. 1979. Thereis no influenceof the contact-or impact 3. Kiihnel,A.; Rau,H.: Analyseand Rekonstruk- areato the measuringdata fbr the adult-dummy. tion von Verkehrsunfiillen,Teil 3, Seminar- reihe der TgchnischenAkademie Wuppertal, 1979. 4.Stiirz,G.; Suren,E.G.; Gotzen, CONCLUSION L.; Richter, K.: Analyse von Bewegungsablauf,Verlet- The aim of this project was to examine the zungsursache,Verletzungsschwere, Verlet- behaviourof the Minicars RSV in car-to-pedes- zungsfolgenbei FulSgiingerunfiillenmit Kin- trian collisionsunder special test conditions. dern durch Unfallfbrschungam Unfallort, Der It is possibleto get the followingconclusions: Verkehrsunfall,Heft 2,29, 1915.

SideGolllslon on RSVMinicars

D. CRITION,G. STCHERBATCHEFF, The same type of te$ts have been conducted J. PROVENSAL in l9tt0, with the target vchicle being this time Researchand Development Department the MINICARS'-designedRSV. RenaultState-owned Works The results, analysesand conclusionsof this programme are stated later and are compared Two side-collisionsbetween a Renault20 and with thoseobtained in identicalcollisions with the vehicle rnadeby CALSPAN were conducted a productionvehicle, the Renault30, which is in FRANCE in 1979within the frarneworkof the similar in size and massto both the above-men- RSV prograrnnre. tionedRSV vehicles. The resultswere communicated at the lastESV The test programmedrawn up in accordance Conf'erencein PARIS (ref. l). with the NationalHighway Traffic Sat-etyAdmin-

126 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/HSVDEVELOPMENT

istration(NHTSA) providcclfor two collisions PREPARATIONAND DESCRIPTION at differentspeeds. Both thcsetests were con- OF THETWO TESTS ductedby RENAULI'at its LARDY technical centre. The preparationand test conditionswere the The main points of the programme were as santefirr cachcollision: only the impactvelocity firllows: and. of course,the impirctedside ol' the RSV were diff'erent. . Target vehicle: RSV (ResearchSafety Vehi- In both cases(cf. photo l) the RSV MINI- cle) developedby MINICARS hy contract CARS was positionedirbove a wide. glass-cov- with NHTSA; . eredpit pcrnrittingthe structuralhehaviorrr to be . Strikingvehicle: RENAULT 20, modell9tt0; filmed front undcrneath. . Pointof impuct;point R of fiont scatpro.iectcd It waspositioned in sucha way thatthe centre- onto outerpanel of targetvehicle; linesof boththe vehiclesformed an angleo1'75", . Speed: the RSV was stationary.the RE- andthe centreline of the R.20 passedthrough the NAULT 20 wasat 50 km/h lbr thelirst impact projectionof front point R on thc R.S.V. cloor on leti-handside of RSV. and anotherR.20 panel. at 65 km/h for the secondtest on the rirrht- Only the R.S.V, hatchbackwas removedto hirndside of the sarncRSV; facilitatethe fitting of a camerainboard. As the . Trajectory:the R.20 trajectoryfbrmed an an- side windows and the windscrcenure glued to gle of 75" with thecentreline of thc RSV body the structure,the other viewsof the dunrrnybe- (tableI ); haviourwcre takenthrough the windows.' . Occupants:3 dummiesfitted with instruments With the in-board equiprlent and the three in theR.s.v. MINICARS-two in thefhrnt, durnrnies,for eachtest the R.S.V. MINICIARS oneat the backon the impactl:dside, and two weighed14l5 kg. The R.20 with two durnrnies ballastdurnrnies in the Renault?0. weighed1405 kg. [n table2, the brcukdownis

Table1. Vehicleorientation for Renault-20TS into RSV,75" left side impact test.

RSVanOR 20 oositionedin the im- pacrconfiguration.

Projected H-point

Photo2. Passengers RSVside

1?7 EXPERIM EFITAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Table 2. Table of weight and attitude.

Front Rear Total

Weight(kg) 619 796 1415

RSV h rightside 720 730

Test h leftside 730 728 50km/h Weight(kg) 825 580 1405

R20 h right side 650 555

h left side 640 545

Weight 619 796 1415

RSV h rightside 720 715

Test h leftside 720 720 65 km/h Weight 800 606 1406

R20 h rightside 655 555

h left side 645 550

shown of the massesas well as the vehicle atti- in the head, thorax and pelvis, and a load sensor tude heightsnreasured on centrelineof fiont and in each fernur, In order to prevent any failures, rear wheels. two transversalaccelerometers were litted in the The two dummiesin the Renault20 were Hy- thorax and pelvis. brid II's, not litted with instruments,acting as Furthermore.several electrical switches were ballast. They were restrainedby standardreel fitted to the shouldersand pelvis of the dummies belts. in order to accuratelydetermine the moment of Three dummies fitted with instruments were impact. positionedin the R.S.V. They were previously Many accelerometers(table 3) werepositioned calibratedand verified in accordancewith PART in differentpoints of the R.S.V. and Renault20 572.They werefitted with triaxial accelerometers structures,namely in the door on the impactside

1?8 SECTION3; RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table3. Tableof sensorposition for the struckvehicle.

No. Descriptionof location X Y z I LeftA pillar 2 LeftB pillar 3 LeftC pillar 4 Rearcross member 5 HightA pillar 6 RightB pillar 7 RightC pillar I Nextto air bagsensor I Nextto rearmostcrash sensor 10 Left front doorthorax level (2) 11 Leftfront door pelvis level (2) 12 Left reardoor thorax level (2) 13 Leftrear door pelvis level (2) at pelvis and thorax levelsof the dummies(table All theseunits usethe sametechnique of hollow 4). By doubleintcgrution, it is possiblefor the mernbersfilled with fbam. differentphases of crushingin to be appreciated. The doors are connectedto the structurewith This point is interesting,for in this vehicrle, threelocks positioned on the frontpillar, rhe door side protectionis providedto a greatextent by sill and the rear pillar. the resistanceto penetrationafforded by a large For occupantsafety, thick padding should be door comprisingrnetal compartmcnts lilled with providedat thoraxand pelvis level on the rern- fban. This door is supportedby the rearpillar, forced body side and door structure.It should the door sill and the fionr pillar. The door sills consistof plastic-coveredfbarn strengthened with are solidly reinfbrccclwith largecross mernhers glassfibres. which are locatedunder the liont and rearseats. Although they are of lessimportance in this

129 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Table4. Positionof the door accelerometer(RSV).

Verticalaxe of H-point

=l --ff;l --t EI El _itol

170mm

LeftB-oillar accelerometer

type of sidc collision,the othcr systemsof pro- ding, instrurnentpanel, etc. This methodenables tection irre: the dummy impact points to be accuratelylocated. 'l'he samepowder applied to the beltsenahles collisionto be knttwn. . for the driver: an inflatable,two-chamber bag belt rnovementduring the a ftrarn-filledknee in the steeringwheel, and (table bar; Resultsof the Testat 50 KM/H 5) . for the passenger:an inflatablebag also with The actualimpact speedof the RENAULT 20 two chambers.and a fbarn-filledknee bar; was 50.4 krn/h. Trajectoryprecision was excel- . for the rearpassengers: three-point reel helts lent as testifiedhy the marks on the ground and locatedon the parcel shelf. examiningthe film. The two vehiclescame to rest locked together The inflatahlebag trigger syitem is checked at 4.5 m from the point of impact(photo 3). At prior to cachtest, and the igrritionis switchedon the end of the crushingphase (83 ttts)both ve- for the time the shot lasts. hicles had a common velocity of 7 m/s; the Just helore the collision, white powder is changein transversalvelocity of the R.S.V. was sprinkledon thedifferent parts of the vehiclethat identicalto the changein longitudinalvelocity the dummiesare liable to contact,such as pad- of the Renault20.

130 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table5. Summaryof two collisiontest.

R 20 againstR,S.V. R 20 againstR 30 Velocity50.4 km/h

Crash Crash R 20-R.S.V. R 20-R 30 t,' Parameter J'*',it.'t.''.t'.r .f R 20 R.S.V. Ft20 R30

Testweight (kg) 1405 1415 1495 1570

lmpactvelocity (km/h) 50.4 0 50.7 0 JZ, Photo3. Post test RSVand R 20 vehicle. t; (m/s) 14 0 14.08 0

Finalvelocity (m/s) 6 B 5.5 6.5

Velocity i, change (m/s) I I 8.58 6.5 :a ;l Initialkinetic energy (kJ) 137.7 0 148.2 0 ii Energy il dis$ipated (kJ) 69.1 75.9

Max.compart- ment acceler- ation (S) 15 15 13 14

Max.comparl. Photo4. Testat 50.4km/h - lateralview of menl intrusion RSVminicars. (mm) 300 240 315 440

Examinationof the Renault20 The door sill tendedto pivot inwards.A slight bendwas forrned at the iunctionbetween the rear No impactof the occupantsof the R,20 with seatcross-member and the door sill. the internalor externalparts of the vehiclewas observed. Maxirnum deformationof the R.20 on the Protectionof RSVOccupants (Tables structurewas 300 mm; furthennore,the bonnet F_7\ wasunlocked, the windscreen stayed in position The air bagswere not used in this collision. and the lour doors could be openedafier the (Photos collision. 5-6) The driver, seated on the impact side, re- Examinationof the RSVMinicars' mainedstill up to the momentthe door padding Structure hit hisarm at thoraxlevel and the pelvis (26 nrs). Althoughthe headdid startmoving towardsthe The aspectof the vehicle was gCneral'lysat- door, thercwas no impact. isfactory.Maximum intrusionrecorded after the Pelvisacceleration over 3 ms was 28 g with collision was 240 rnrn and 200 rnrn at point R a nraximumof 42 g (55 ms). (photo4). I'helcli-hanrl door suffered most f rom Thuracicacceleration uver 3 rnswas 37 g with thecollision, but thc locking points withstood the a maximumof 5l g probablydue to the stitfness collisionperfectly. The sidewindow was split. of the libre-glasspadding skin prior to breaking.

131 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Table6. R 30 and RSV impactedside deformation. v - 50.4km/h

/---\-Itrr t

"H" + R 30TS Point "H" + RSV Point 30 TS "--'RSV - "1*-**- -+ PointR 30 TS "'-- * PointR.S.V.

- Photo5. Test at 50,4 km/h - passengersin Photo6. Test at 50.4km/h compartmentin- RSV. trusionin RSV'

Another peak of 31.5 g with an opposite sign The front passengerstruck the driver mainly was the impact betweenpassengers in the front on the shoulderwith a maximumof 44 g. Pelvis seats(70 ms). contactwas light with maximumacceleration of SECTION3: FESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

Table7. Dummyresponses in two collisiontests.

R20against F30 R20against R.S.V. Velocity50.4 km/h Pelvis Thorax Head "ymaX DummyRe$ponses ylTlSX 73ms AV "y3ms AV TmaX res. res. SI trans. res. res. SI lrans. res. SI Hrc

7.23 8.12 R.S.V. 42 28 78 51 37 146 24 62 46 m/s lmpacted m/s ! side i g4 ll (driver) H30 129 96 1089 76 471 190 879 440 1l

9.84 6.87 R.S.V. 15 15 39 M 41 78 n 71 57 Opposlte m/s m/s side (front 't82 R30 a 32 80 51 43 72 436 334 passenger) :I '!,q 8,88 9.45 R.S.V. 41 38 120 48 46 127 25 54 42 lmpacted m/s m/s side (rearleft R30 55 53 236 50 47 139 173 116 passenger) 55

15g. Impactingthe driverdeflected the passenger Examinationof the Renault20 trajectoryupwards; passenger head contact with No impact of occupantsin the R.20 was re- the roof did not however exceed29 g. corded.(Photo ti) Rearpassenger thorax and headremained mo- Maximum vehicle deformationwas 390 mm. tionlessup to time the left arrncarne into contact As in the previoustest, the windscreenstayed in with the padding (32 ms). Thorax acceleration positionand the four doorscould be openednor- was 46 g over 3 ms; pelvis accelerationwas 38 mally after the collision. g. No head impact was recorded. Examinationof the RSVMinicars Test ResultsAt 65 KM/H(Table 8) Structure Impact speedof the RENAULT 20 was 6-5.3 Vehicle aspectwas satisfactory.Maximum in- km/h. Test conditionswere the samea$ those for trusion was 350 mm at projection of point R. the previouscrash. (Photo 9) The two vehiclescame to rest at a distanceof The right-hand door sustainedthe whole 8.5 m from the point of impact. At the end of collision. the crushingphase (82 ms), both vehicleshad a It madethe rear pillar pivot inwards(240 mm common velocity of 9 m/s. (Photo 7) of crushingat rear point R) as well as the door

133 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES

Table8. Summaryof two collisiontest.

R 20 againstR.S.V. R 20 againstR 30 Velocity65.3 km/h

Crash Crash R 20.R.S.V. B 20-H 30 Parameter R20 R.S.V. R20 R30

Test weight (kg) 1405 1415 1405 1510

lmpactvelocity (km/h) 65.3 0 64.4 0 Photo7, Posttest at 65.3km/h - HSVand R 20 (m/s) 18.13 0 17.54 0 vehicle.

Finalvelocity (m/s) 10.33 15 7.5 I

Velocity change (m/s) 7.8 9.5 10.44 I

lnitialkinetic energy 1xJ) 231 n 226 0

Energy dissipated 1xJ) 124.6 125.4

Max.compart- ment acceler- ation (S) 22 28 25 31 :i:r*--il

Max. compart- ment intrusion Photo8. Posttest view- frontpassengers in (mm) 3S0 350 480 240 R 20.

sill (210 mm of crushingmaximum). The front pillar was hardly touched(30 mm of deforma- tion) hecauseof the lock beingpulled out of the door (Photo I0). The sidewindow was broken. The windscreenremained intact. The leti-hand wheel had its fixing studspulled out due to its sliclingsideways. The under-seatcross-rncmbers were crushcdlocally at their junction with the drxrrsill. Protectionof RSVOccupants (Tables e-10) Photo9. Test at 65.3 km/h - lateral view of RSVminicars. As with the previous collision, the air bags werenot used. The kinematicsof the passengerwere further The front passengerseated on the impact side affected by impacting the driver (61 ms), thus remainedstill up to the time thedoor padding hit leading to another peak of 60 g on the thorax the pelvis (70 g maximum at I I ms) and the arm decelerationcurve, 70 g on the pelviscurve, and (44 g maximum at 16 ms). Due to inertia,the a head-windowimpact (36 g rnaximumat 79 head startedrotating towards the door. ms).

134 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/FSVDEVELOPMENT

TableL FI30 and FISVimpacted side deformation. v = 65.3km/h. rrl lB pillar lof R 30 --) -\- -_-1.---- //-- ....

"H" + R 30TS Point + RSV"H" point *R3OTS ---,-R$V * PointR 30TS * PointR.S.V.

The rear dummy restrainedby a 3-pointbelt was impactedon the arm by thc padding(83 g maxirnurnat 33 ms), and on the pelvis (85 g maximurnat 4l ms). Impacting the arm causedthe head to rotate and strikc the uprightof the rearbow. DISCUSSION Thc above-statedresults can be comparedwith thoseobtained with a productionvehicle tested 'fhis in the samecollision conditions. wasa Re- \r- nault30 struckon the sideby a Renault20 at 50 and (r.5krl/h. Test at 65.3 km/h - front lock of HSV. The valuesrec:orded in thetables show that the deforrlationsof the side structureswcrc lower by ahout l3{) nrm in the caseof the RSV (col- As far as the driver is concerned,contact with lisionat 50 knvh). thepassenger caused a maximutndeceleration of There was also a difl'erenceof 100 mm in the 42 g on the pclvis, 84 g on thc thorax.and rn- 65 km/h collision.Fufthemlrrc, the shapeol the directlv -52e on the headwhen it struckthe ruxrf. deformationwas considerablvdifferent.

135 EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

Table10. Dummyresponses in two collisiontests. R20against R30 R20against R.S.V. Velocity65.3 km/h

Pelvis Thorax Head DummyResponses ymax y3ms AV 7rTlflX 73ms AV ?max res. res. SI trans, res. res. SI trans. res. SI Hrc

11.42 11.47 F.$V.(front 70 65 47E 44 42 432 45 222 172 passenge0 m/s m/s lmpacted side 14.5 12 R30 246 150 3102 75 64 588 76 dze 338 (driver) m/s m/s

10.04 L84 R.S.V. 42 38 185 84 68 325 52 282 175 (driver) m/s m/s Opposite side 10 10 R30(front 137 120 1088 63 51 239 87 332 231 passenger) m/s m/s

11.52 10.24 R.S.V.(rear 85 72 538 83 76 418 57 388 310 passenger) m/s m/s lmpacted side 19 I R30(rear 233 220 4266 65 60 232 222 51233508 passenger) m/s m/s

These differences in behaviour were due g/3 ms, SI : 3102)firr theR.30, comparedwith mainlyto: 70 g (65 g/3 ms, SI : 479) for the RSV. The experimentalvehicle and the production . no similarity betweenthe vehicle structures vehiclehowever difl'er nruch less tiom eachother (2 doorsfbr the RSV-4 for the R.30); when it is a questionof values recordedon the . the difference in height of the rigid units of thorax (centreof fiequent seriousinjury in real the target vehicle's side with relation to the 'Ihis sidecollisions). body areais not locatedin front end of the striking vehicle. 's line with the stiff parts of the striking vehicle However the main point in the comparisonare front end, andit is probablethat the deformability the valuesmeasured on the dummiespositioned of the upper part of the productionvehicle door on collision side. The uncertaintraiectories ttf behaves.in this case.in a similar mannerto the the occupantsprtsitioned on the oppositeside do paddingused in the RSV. not allow valid conclusionsto be drtrwn. Furthermore,the bad representativenessof the As far as the front occupantsare concerned, arm-shoulder-thoraxassembly in the HYJJRID the largestsaving was obtainedon the pelvis. At Il dummy considerablylimits thebenefit of tneas- 65 km/h 246 g were recordedat this point (150 uring at this level.

136 SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

However, the positive tacet of the padding aboutin this type of impactby the RSV MINI- ,".1 'i thicknesscan be seenin the caseof the RSV CARS. Moreover.they confinl the conclusions .,| whichtends to minimizeand even annul the head previouslyobtained in tests conductedin the irnpacton the side sectionsof the roof. sameconditions on the CALSPAN-madeRSV. In this catieonce again, the lack of realismin The strengtheningof the body side and, to sidewaystilting of dummy hcad-thoraxdid not someextent, the changein heightof thesestrong enablethe above-mentionedpotential advantage units,together with the fittingol-padding of suit- to be totally appreciated. able stiffnessenable the valuesrecorded on the The resultsobtained for the rear passengerdo occupants'pelvis on the collisionside to be no- not highlight any irnportantdifferences in the first tably reduced, collisionat 50 km/h. The valuesrecorded at 65 The improvementsare lessperceptible for the knr/hr should be comparedin order to see the thorax. but as the HYBRID II dummy is not improvementsafforded by the RSV design.In representative,no valid conclusioncan he made this caseonce again, there is a considerableim- in this case. provementfor the pelvis, no or a f'ewdifl'erences Finally, it is clearthat the strengthof the pad- for the thorax, and less risk of head irnpact. ding units to be provided in the vehicle can be efTectivelydetermined only when the difficulty CONCLUSIONS relating to the dummy has been rernoved. The resultsof the experimentalcollisions an- alysedabove highlight the irlprovernentbrought

The High TechnologyResearch Safety Vehicle

' ,rl :i! JEHOMEM. KOSSAR analoguesystem which, in additionto normalcar NHTSATechnical Manager for Minicars statusinfonnation, will provideernergency mes- RSV sagesshould a hazardbe detectedby any of the sensorswith which the RSV is equipped.All of ABSTRACT thesefeatures are the result ofcurrent technology applications.The systemsemployed require fur- This effbrt hasprovided a five speedautomatic ther development,then miniaturizationand pro- transmissionwhich eliminateslluid coupling duction engineering,but their functionalfeasi- lossesof conventionalautomatics and oft'ersthe bility has now beenderrronstrated. fuel economy benefits of a manual five speed transmission.lt incorporatesa cruise control INTRODUCTION which offers conventionalset speedcontrol, but additionallypnrvides a button which will auto- This etfort employs the RSV to demonstrate maticallyaccelerate the car through its gearshifts the feasibility of advancedstate-of-the-art elec- to 55 mph and then maintainthat speed.Further, provide tronicsto additionalutility, convenience, i under cruisecontrol it will automaticallyreduce safety and fuel economy. The basic RSV, of throttle on the RSV in atternptto maintaina safe itself, has been demonstratedto provide excep- headwayclearance should the traveling lane be- tional crash protection to its four occupantsin come hlockedby a slowermoving vehicle.The the various modesof crashcommon to real life sameradar sy$tem that detects vehicles ahead to accidents.fhis crashprotection has been accorll- slow the RSV will also apply severebraking to plishedin the basicRSV weighing2560 pounds reducecrash speed should an accidentno longer (l l6l kg) andproviding an urban mileage of 28.9 be avoidable.The vehiclealso provides adaptive mpg ( 12.3km/L), andhighway mileage of 41.2 braking to the four wheel disk hrakesto avoid mpg (17,5 km/L) when testedusing EPA dyna- loss of control fiom wheel lockup. A top of the mometertest procedules on a low nrileageRSV dashmounted driver infi.rrrnation display replaces employinga 1980 1.5 liter Hondaengine and conventionaldials and meterswith a dieital and Michelintires. The combinedcity/highway rnile-

't37 EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLES age is, therefore,33.4 rnpg (14.2 km/L). The cylinders, to automateshifting into the five for- emissionsmeasured in this low milctrgevehicle ward gears, neutral and reverse.Dubner Com- satistyU.S. statutoryrequirements of 1981, if puter Systems,Inc., has developedthe trticro- the assumptionis made that they are represent- computer system and software which directs ativeof 50.000mile nerfbrnrance. autorlaticgear shifts and providesa cruisecon- The High TechnologyRSV, as seenin Figure trol logic anclfunctittn. lt alsoutilizes range in- l, incorporatesexperimental systetns developed formation fionr the on-bttard radar to provide undercontract with the NationalHighway Traffic automaticthrottlc cut back, slowingthe RSV to SafetyAdministration ol- the U.S. Departnrent provide saf'ecletrrance when lbllowing another 'I'ransportation. of These systeills include an vehicle travelingat a speedhelow that set hy the RCA developedon-board radar system, seen in RSV driver on the autttmaticcruise control . ln Figure2, with associatedtnicroprocessors to pro- Figure4 thc cruisecontrol stalk is seenancl fiigurc vide interprctationand cotlmand to other sys- 5 showsthe automatictransmission drive selec- 'l'he tems, and a high mounteddigital and analogue tor. Bendix Automotive Control Systems 'I'o driver infirrmationdisplay, seen in Figure3. Group has adapted an experimental anti-skid provide an automatictranstnission, Minicars, brakesystem to tunction with thc four wheeldisk Inc., hasmodified the shiftingrnechanisms of a Honda manual five speedtransmission, elimi- nating the ibot pedal for clutch operation, and Figure3. Thedriver information display providing solenoidvalue operationtll' pneumatic

Digitalintormation display

Figure1. The high technologyRSV

Analogueinformation disPlaY

Typicalemergency message on Intormation Figure2. Theradome for on-boardradar disPlaY

138 SECTION3: BESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT

of systemssuch as theseto enhancethe perform- anceof future cars. The following sections will provide further descriptionof the High TechnologyRSV ad- vancedsystems.

AutomaticallyShifted Five Speed Transmission

Conventionalautomatic transmissionshave provided drivers with a reliable convenience commonlyavailable as a new car {)ptionat tirne ofpurchase.Their popularityhas been universal, Figure4. Controlstalk for cruisecontrol. havingbeen provided in tl9 percentof 1979U.S. car models.There are, however,some inherent power transfer inefficienciesin common auto- matic transmissions.Sources for these ineffi- ciencies are torque convefler viscous fiiction losses,hydraulic pumping lossesand tland and sealfriction losses.Transmission speed ratio is an importantvariable in vehiclefuel economy, Ideallygear ratios should be selectedto optirlize engine etficiency as a function of load and car speed,The lower numberof gearratios pnrvided in olderautomatic designs, therefbre, further re- strictedachievement of fuel econonly.Recent technicaladvances in automatictransmissions have reducedsorne of the above inefliciencies and the adventof infinitcly variabletransrlis- Figure5. Automatictransmission reverse, neu- sions, with further development,portends sig- tral and driveselection buttons. nificantf\el economyimprovement. The purpose of this autornatictransmission brakesof the RSV. Minicars. Inc.. then intro- effort is to providethe driver with the conven- ducedan additionalhigh pressurebrake fluid ac- ience of an auturlatic and the fuel economy cumulatorand associtrtcdsolenoid valves to au- achievablefrom a five-speedmanual. We dern- tornatically activate the brakes upon command onstratethe t'easibilityof utilizingavailable elec- from the RCA crash mitigation system (CMS) tronic technology to gain improvementin fuel microprocessor.The CMS microprocessoruti- economywithout denyingthe driver's tie€dom lizes range and range rate informationtrom the to obtainthe varyingengine power outputs dic- radar in its decisionto commandautomatic se- tated by driving situations.In this systernthe vere brake application, driver perceivedpower requirementis provided The rnarriageof theseexperimental systems by the degreeto which the acceleratorpedal is into the RSV hasdernonstrated the feasibiliryof depressed.The automationutilizes a micro com- current electronictechnology to provide signifi- puterand closedloop servosystems with pneu- cant advancesin car safety,utility. convenience matic actuators. andfuel econorny. Each of thesystems employed A five-speedtransmission with conventional is experimentaland requiresadditional dcvcl- clutchhas been modified to operateautornatic' 'ly opment before miniaturization and production under computercontrol, The computeris pro- designcan be accomplished.It is hopedthat the grammedto identify gear shift points prov'iding succes$of this feasibilitydemonstration program best fuel economyconsistent with the live dis- will encourageindustry to continuedevelopment crete forward speed transmission sear ratios EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES available, the car speed and the driver's power through clutch pressuremodulation during level demand.The transmissionis designedto engagelnent. be operatedlike an automatic,there is no clutch Two subroutinesare presentin the computer pedalor manualshift lever. To startthe car mov- softwareto override norrnal shift routine under ing, the driver depressesthe acceleratorto the specialconditions. When the computerattempts degree cofilmensuratewith the accelerationde- to match engine speedto ground speedduring sired. The computerselects first gear;the clutch a shift sequence,the throttle openingpercentage releasepneumatic actuator is energizedby a so- is not permittedto exceedthe acceleratorpedal lenoid value therebydisengaging the clutch; the depressionpercentage. This rule prevents the gear selectrlrpneumatic cylinders are activated engine rym algorithm from powering the car engaginglirst gear; the clutch engagementcom- when the clriver's foot is off the acceleratoras mences.Clutch engagementpressure is regulated might occur when the car is being intentionally by engine speedand acceleratorpedal position, deceleratedhy motor drag. In order to avoid en- At small acceleratordepressions the computer gine lugging during hrake application another regulatesengine speed to a low value by throttle computerroutine will disengagethe clutchwhen control and by clutch engagementloading. At thc engine speedslows to less than 1200 rpnr. Iargeraccelerator depressions reg- the computer The automatictransmission computer also pro- speedis higher.lfthe actualengine ulatedengine vides an effectivecruise control. The cruisecon- speedbecomes less than the computerdemand trol can be activatedby huttonson the end of the the clutch engagement, clutch is al- during the directional signal stalk after car speedexceeds lowed more slip by increasingthe clutch release "SET five mph (8 kn/hr), The CRUISE" button pressure. Conversely, if the engine actuator will maintaincar speedexisting when this button great clutch engagementis in- -'SET speedis too the is pressed.The 55" buttonwill accelerate creasedby faster venting the clutch release of the car and produceautomatic shifting to attain actuator.To prevent stalls and excessiveclutch a 55 mph (88.5 knthr) road speedand will then platewear, the computer andcontrols determines maintainthat maximum U.S. legal car speed. accelerationduring engine clutch engagement. The "RESUME" button will return the car to High engineacceleration, when enginerpm even cruise control at the last speedentered by the will cause an in- "SET "SET is below computer demand, CRUISE," buttoneven if the -55" in clutch engagement high engine crease load. A button had beenemployed since having entered decelerationwill cause releaseto prevent "SET clutch a speedon the CRUISE." The cruiseset stall. Once clutch lockup is sensed,the clutch speedmay be exceededby the driver at any time releaseactuator is fully vented. by depressionof the acceleratorpedal. Driver The lirst gear algorithm, therefore, attempts brakeapplication will imrnediatelyreturn the car to keep the engine speedconstant, at the value speedto acceleratorpedal control. selectedfrom acceleratorpedal depression,by Whenthe vehicleis in the cruisecontrol mode controllingthe clutch. Third, fourth andfifth gear the transmissioncomputcr receives the rangeout- engagementis controlledby a secondalgorithm put information from the on-boardradar which in the computer sollware. The high gear algo- is aimed along the lane of traffic directly ahead. rithm uses the computer to control the throttle When the vehicleis in a cruisecontrol modeand plate to attemptto match enginerpm to ground either overtakesa car in its traveling lane, or a speedwhile the clutch is engagedby the com- car aheadcuts into the traveling lane, the com- puter at a rate determined by the error between puter will automaticallyreduce the throttleand rmp's and ground speed-the larger the error, will therebyattempt to maintaina saf'elirlkrwing the slower the rate of clutch engagement.The distance.The RSV will then automaticallyfur- algorithm for the secondgear shift is a hybrid ther adjustthrottle openingshould the car ahead of the first gear and high gear algorithms. The speedup or slow down. Shouldthrottle adjust- high gearthrottle algorithm is employedto match ment be insufficientto deceleratethe RSV ade- engine speedto ground speedand the first gear quatclyfor maintainingthe calculatedsaf'e clear- algorithrnattempts to keepengine speed constant ance,as might be thecase fbllou'ing down a hill,

140 SECTION3: RE$ULTSOF ESViFSVDEVELOPMENT the driver must apply the brakes, Although a eration of the increasedhazard of being struck brakeclosed loop servosystem could be added in the rear by a lbllowing car in the event of to the headwaycontrol function in the future,it unwarrantedextreme braking causedby a false hasnot beenimplemented in thisprograrn. When alarm from the radar. The beanrpattern of the the RSV travellane is clearedhy lanechange of radar is taperedand, therefore, is nanower at eitherthe RSV or the car ahead,or by speedup closerrange, thereby reducing the possibilityof of the leadcar to velocityhigher than the cruise the radarreturn being from obiectsnot actually control set speed,the RSV will automatically in the RSV travelpath. againattain and marntainits set speed. The aspectof avoidingautomatic brake appli- Thc hcadway clearancealgorithn calculates cation causedhy radar false alarmswas given safeclearance to be ?.2 f'eetper mile per hour much attentionduring systemdevelopment. An (0,42 m/knr/hr) traveling speedand the RSV effective techniquefor developingalgorithrns throttle closedown ()ccurswhen the rangeof the eliminatingradar false alartns was developed. A ciu aheadis l.l timesthe calculated saf'e distance. video cameraand recorderwas employedin the radarvehicle which recordedactual roadway sit- On-BoardRadar System uationswhile sirnultaneousrecordings were made The radar installed in the High Technology ofthe beatfrequency return fiom the radaralong useof RSV wasdesigned at theMicrowave Tecltnology with speedand steeringinibrmation. By Center of RCA Laboratories.Princeton, New this recordingsystem a tapeof a varietyof traffic Jersey.The radaris a frequencymodulated con- situationswas acquired.Playback of the record- tinuouswave systern(FM/CW) employingsep- ing systemthrough the microprocessorwould arateflat, printedcircuit, phased array, antennas thus give perfectrepetiti()n of events.Hardware to transmitand receive.The carriertiequency is andsofiware changes coLrld be madein thesignal + processorand rnicroprocessorand the effect of ',irl 17.5 GH, with a deviationfirequency of -50 .r! MH", andpower output is lOmW.'Ihetwo radar thesechanges could reproduciblybe observed ],I when the tapeswere playedback. The useof this i.j antennasare mounted side by sidein oneassem- ri bly locatedbehind the attachmentplane of the recordingsystem greatly helped in thesystematic RSV front fascia,The dimensionsof this bistatic evaluationand optirnizationof the radarsystern, ,i;i antennaassembly are 30.3 in. x 8.0 in. x 1,0 Changesin thecrash nritigation sofiware to elirl- in, ('7'7cm x 20.5 cm x 2.-5cm), Horizontal inate a radar false alarm resultingfrom any par- antennabeam width is 3oand vertical beam wiclth ticular sourcewuuld then be tried on rerunsof is 5oas defined by the 3-dbpoints of the antenna all the tapesto ensurethat the correctiondid not gain pattern. destroythe sensitivityof the system, The radar servestwo functions in the RSV, In view of growingconcerns with nonionizing It providesrange infbrmation to theDubner Com- radiationeffects, the microwavepower radiated putcr Systemsdeveloped rnicro-computer con- from the radarwas investigatedtheoretically, as "smart" trolling the automatictransmission and well as by nreasurernent.This Ku-banclradar cruise control which provides automaticsafe emitsa power of l0 rnW. In the lar lield of the headwaycontrol for the RSV. In this function antenna,the power densitydecreases inversely the radarrangcis 2-1fi. to 164ft. (7 m to -50m). with the squareof the distancefiom the antenna. 'Ihe radar also feeds rangeand rangerate infor- Near field, or thc Fresnelregion of the antenna nrationto the RCA microprocessorcontrolling is a moreconrplex region where the tield pattern activationof thcL-rash Mitigation Svsterl (CIMS) undergoesvarious sputial maxima and minima which autonraticallyapplics thc RSV brakesto due to interfercncein the nearfield. The maxt- reduceimpact speed in the eventof an unavoid- mum powerdensity has been calculated to be 20 able frontal c:ollision,In the CMS lunction the micro Watts per squarecentimefer occurring at radarrange is 23 ft. to 98 ft, (7 rn to 30 nr). The a distanceof 23,6 inches(0.6 rn) tiom the an- shofierradar range employetl lbr the crashruit- tenna. Actual measurementshave indicateda igationbrake l'unction was selcctedon the basis nraximurl power densityof l5 rnicroWatts per of assuredelirnination ol'lalse alarms in cronsid- souarecentirneter which occursat 39.4 inches EXPERIMENTALSAFETY VEHICLES

"anti "brake (l m) from the antenna.The measurementsare system out," skid out," fluid "oil "water not consideredvery accuratesince the presence low," pressurelow," temperature "hazard" of the measuringwave guide antennaused dis- high," and if radar indicatesdanger- "radar torts the existing field pattern,however, a good ous headway clearance, warn-$low orderof magnitudeis provided. down," At present,the U.S. rnicrowaveradiation limit is lOmW/cm', which is basedon the onsetof AdaptiveBraking And Crash Mitigation thermal effects in the human body. The Soviet System Union, on the other extreme,maintains a limit The High Technokrgy RSV employs the 4- for continuousexposure as low as l0 uWcmt to wheeldisk brake system of theFiat X-l/9 vehicle avoid possibleneurological and physiological with an adaptivebrake systemdesigned by the effects.Srrbstantial controversy exists as to where Bendix AutomotiveControl SystemsGroup. The a realistic safe limit should be drawn. ln any adaptive brake system prevents wheel lockup case, radiation fiom this radar is very low and during severebraking and thereby increasesdi- for distancesabove a f'ew meters is even below rectional control of the vehicle and on slippery Russia'svery stringentstandards. Although not road surfacesreduces required stopping distance. presentlyimplemented, a simple solid state This brakesystem has been adapted by Minicars switc-hcould be introducedtrl prohibitradar func- to be automaticallyactivated by signal from the tion below a set k)w speedwhich would further RCA radar systemwhen collisionis no longer reducethe radiationexposure of humansin actual avoidable.The braking will notprevent traffic situations. collision, but will reduce the impact speedand, thereby, DriverInformation Display the collisionseverity.

The High TechnologyRSV providesthe driver Adaptive with a high mountedcomputer contnrlled display Braking of car operatingconditions and infirrrnationconr The adaptivebraking systememploys four re- cerning nralfunctionsor sal'etyhazards. Its lo- luctor wheel speedsensors, each independently cationabove the dashboard requires only min- picking signalsfrom teethcut on the outsidedi- imal diversion of the driver's eyes fiom the ameterof the brake rotor on each wheel. Each roadway aheadfor observationand its viewing wheelspeed sensor is wired to the electroniccon- angle may be driver adjustedto accommodate trol unit which convefts the alternatingvoltage seatingheight. from the sensorsto individual wheel speeds. By switch selection,the driver of the RSV has When the hrakes are heavily applied the elec- a choice of two nornral modes of information tronic control unit determinesthe rate at which display with respectto the performanceof the each wheel is decelerating.lf the rate of decel- car. [n one mode, fuel level and speedare shown eration of either front wheel is great enoughto by analoguebars whose lengths are proportioned produce excessive wheel slippage or wheel to magnitudeof actual value read on an illumi- lockup, the electronic control unit sendscom- natedscale below. In that samemode, engine mandsto the pressuremodulator controlling that rpm is digitally displayedin multiplesof 100. wheel's brake caliper prcssure.The pressure The secondmode which the driver may selectby modulatorcloses the fluid path from the master switch presentsdigitally displayedtime, trip cylinder by energizingan isolationvalve and mileage,coolant temperature, oil pressure,pres- opensa pressuredecay valve. As the caliperpres- ent fuel economyand statusof batterycharging. suredecreases the wheel speedstops decreasing If oneof the sensorsdctects a malfunction,the and startsto increaseback toward vehiclespeed, normaldisplay mode is interruptedby an emer- The electroniccontrol unit thende-energizes the gency message.The messageinterrupts the nor- decayvalve and the still energizedisolation valve mal displayevery 30 secondsuntil the malfunc- then providesthe caliperwith pressurizedfluid tion is corrected.Emergency messages may be from a pressurizedaccumulator through a regu- "service "door "restraint brake on," open," lator at mastercylinder pressure. This cycle of SECTION3: RESULTSOF ESV/RSVDEVELOPMENT brake caliper pressurewill repeatuntil lockup is The third condition requiresthat the driver is no longer threatenedor the car speedis reduced not already applying brakes and that the fiont below 5 mph (lt km/hr), where wheel speedres- wheclsare turned no rnorethan I 14degrees. This olution is no longer possible.Since both rear preventsthe severeautomatic braking tiom in- wheel brakesare controlled thru a singlepressure terferingwith a crashavoidance strategy already modulatorimminent lockup of either rear wheel implernentedby thedriver. The l'4 degreewheel will causebrake pressure modulatir)n to occur on limitation servesalso as a radar false alarm pre- bothrear wheels simultancously. A pump which vention,since at wheelangles greater than this, is part of the adaptivebrake systemreplenishes in turns, targetswhich are not on the path to be the front brakeancl rcar brakeaccumulators when traveledby the RSV could appearto he so be- their pressuresdrop below l-500psi pressure. causeof the orientationof the RSV axisrelative to its travel path. The fburth condition requiresthat the target CrashMitigation System l rangebe lessthan 82 f'eet(2-5 nr), sinceat these lower distancesdriver evasion of crash is The crashmitigation system employs the radar imprubable. and CrashMitigation System(CMS) micropro- Final testsof the crashrnitigation syslc-m in cessorunits developed by RCA to signalrelcase the High TechnokrgyRSV were conductedon of pressurizedhydraulic brake fluid frttm an ac- September26, 1980,by RCA and Minicarson cumulator,added by Minicars, to the vehicle an airportnrnway at Princeton,New Jersey.The front and rearbrake lines. Accumulatorbackflow RSV was driven at scveralspeeds towards a to the mastercylinder is preventedby solenoid string suspendedcorner reflector target. Spced ri operatedcheck valves. Programming of the RCA traps measuredcar velocity prior to autornatic systemprevents this automaticbraking from oc- CMS operationand at thetarget reflector, Results s curring until crashavoidance is no longerpos- ..rr'i.: are presentedbelow: sible or if the driver is taking evasiveaction, When the brakesare automaticallyapplied, the 1 crash will normally not be avoided, but its se- Reductionof t verity will be reduced.This logic provides as- SpeedAt Crash -ll surancethat automaticbraking will not intert'ere Test Speed Iarget Energy with the guidanceof the most potcnt micropro- cessoraboard the vehicle,the driver's brain. It 38.9mph 0 l00a/r, also reducesprobability of false alarmsfrom the (62.2 kmlhr) radar, thereby reducing possibility of neeclless 46.I mph 3l ,0 mph 54.\Vo severebraking, which in itself, may sub.jectthe (74.2 km/hr) (49.9 km/hr) vehicle to the hazard of being struck from the -50,5mph 3.5.9mph 49.570 rear by a following vehiclc. (81.3kn/hr) (57.ttknr/hr) The programmingof the CrashMitigation Sys- tem microprocessoris such that automatichrak- ing will occuronly whenfirur conditions are each Two higher speedtests were also attempted satisfied. The first condition requires that the but thc brakingresults were substantially in[erior RSV speedbe greaterthan 22.4 mph (10 tn/sec) to those above. Reduceclbattery power tiom andthe secondcondition requires that the closing heavyprior drainswas a possiblecausc of slower speedbetween the RSV andradar detectcd threat- solenoidvalve functionin thcsctests. Also sus- ening targetbe greaterthan 35 mph (16 m/sec). pect are the large wind bkrwn motions of the Thesetwo conditionsprevent automatic braking targetreflector during thesetests. Such reflector unlessa crashof signilicantseverity, threatening motionsmay delay CMS activationdue to the vehicle occupants,will otherwiseoccur. l'he CMS microprocessorscreening subroutines which threatof rearimpact by a following car, cclmmon areemployed to eliminatefalse alarms. Analysis at low speedsin an urbanenvironment, is there- of datafrorn theseand earlicrtests indicate that fore reduced, improvementsin brake plumbing and radar in-