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