Updating NCAP: A Suppliers Perspective SAE Government/Industry Meeting May 15, 2007 William B. Hanna Director of Safety Systems Engineering 1 Agenda Restraint System Evolution NCAP Improvements –– NCAP Enhancements –– Industry Industry Collaboration Collaboration –– Adaptability/OOP Adaptability/OOP Active Active Safety Safety Technologies Technologies Suggested Approach 2 Restraint System Evolution FMVSS208 Airbag Mandate (1984) Purpose –– “… “… reduce reduce the the number number of of deaths… deaths… and and the the severity severity of of injuries…” injuries…” Automatic Occupant Protection Required –– Airbags Airbags –– Automatic Automatic Seat Seat Belts Belts Passenger Car Phase In –– 1987MY 1987MY –– 1990MY 1990MY Frontal NCAP 5 Star Rating Introduction –– 1994 1994 MY MY 3 Restraint System Evolution Initial Airbag Field Performance Special Crash Investigations – Examine safety impact of rapidly changing technology – Document crash circumstances – Identify injury mechanisms – Evaluate safety countermeasure effectiveness NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS SPECIAL CRASH INVESTIGATIONS January 2007 70 Fatally Injured By PAB (Confirmed & Unconfirmed) Children IIHS Status Report, 11/97 Adult Passengers 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1992 1993 1994 Vehicle Model Year “Airbags “Airbags have have saved saved more more than than 2,600 2,600 lives lives so so far far and and have have prevented prevented hundreds hundreds of of thousands thousands of of serious serious injuries. injuries. But 87 people have been killed by airbags in low severity crashes since 1990.” 4 1995 Restraint System Evolution Responses to Field Performance Issues Airbag De-powering (1998 M.Y.) – Sled test certification – Airbags that deploy with less force Government / Industry Collaboration – Public education – Child restraint laws – JPL Assessment Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS SPECIAL CRASH INVESTIGATIONS (January 2007) 70 Fatally Injured By PAB (Confirmed & Unconfirmed) Children Adult Passengers 60 50 40 POSITIVE RESULTS 30 20 10 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 5 1998 1999 2000 Vehicle Model Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 NCAP Improvements – Industry Collaboration Adaptability Industry Collaboration to improve field performance and make 5 Star robustness Decouple limiting test conditions OR Small, low pressure bag Forward and/or small occupants STAR Large, high pressure bag Mid - Rear and/or large occupants Situationally Tailored Airbag Restraint Provides both Conventional “compromise” depth no longer used Shallow smaller than conventional, Deep depth larger than conventional 6 Belted Mid Seated 50th %ile ATD In A 35 mph 0 Degree Sled With The Dual Depth PAB (NCAP Test) 1500 35 mph Belted 50th%ile Mid 1300 Deep Cushion w/ 20 ms Delay And 3.5 kN EA Device, No Pretensioner Seatbelt System H IC 3 6 1100 Deep Cushion w/ 5 ms Delay And 4.5 kN EA Device, No Pretensioner Seatbelt System 900 700 500 3 Star 4 Star 5 Star 2 Star 1 Star 300 30 40 50 60 Chest G's Shallow Cushion w/ 100 ms Delay And 2.8 kN EA Device, Retractor Pretensioner Seatbelt System 70 80 Deep Cushion w/ 5 ms Delay And 2.8 kN EA Device, Retractor Pretensioner Seatbelt System Deep Cushion w/ 40 mm vents, 20 ms Delay, and 3.5 kN EA Device, No Pretensioner Seatbelt System 7 NCAP Improvements – Industry Collaboration Balanced System Performance FMVSS208 100% Percent IARV (maximum value) 90% OEM Target (~80% FMVSS208) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Industry Standard Robustness Level - Balanced LRD OOP Children vs. 25 mph Unbelted Adults 3 yr old Low Level 6 yr old Low Level Adults Low Level 25mph 5 STAR NCAP 1 yr old High Level Adults High Level 25mph Occupant Type & Deployment Level 8 US NCAP High Level LRD – Industry Collaboration Potential Benefit of Deployment 160 Conventional Airbag Suppression LRD Airbag Peak Injury Value (%IARV) 140 120 Field Incidents with “pre-depowered” Conventional Airbags FMVSS208 100 Potential Injury Reduction With Deployment 80 60 OEM Target (~80% FMVSS208) Suppression implemented to address field incidents 40 es uc d o pr ith g a w irb A20Vs ent A I m D LR Low ploy De 0 (OOP) Increasing Distance from I/P 9 (Normally seated) LRD – Industry Collaboration Potential Benefit of Deployment – 6 Yr Old SUPPRESSION VS AIRBAG - 6 Year Old Chest Deflection Nij 160% HIC Chest Acceleration Suppression Injury Values 140% Above NHTSA Limit % NHTSA IARV 120% FMVSS208 100% OEM Target (~80% FMVSS208) 80% Airbag Deployment Injury Values 60% 40% 20% 0% suppress deploy NHTSA 1 suppress deploy NHTSA 2 suppress deploy FFWD, Dow n 10 suppress deploy Full Rear suppress deploy Mid, Lap Belt suppress deploy 100 mm gap LRD – Industry Collaboration Potential Benefit of Deployment – 6 Yr Old SUPPRESSION LRD AIRBAG (HIGH OUTPUT) Result - Nij Reduction from 110% to 46% IARV with Airbag deployment 11 LRD – Industry Collaboration Occupant Classification / Detection Occupant Classification –– “Minimize “Minimize the the risk risk to to infants, infants, children children and and other other occupants occupants from from injuries injuries and and deaths deaths caused caused by by air air bags” bags” Suppression Infants in RFIS 3 Yr. Old Child 6 Yr. Old Child Occupant Detection –– Increase Increase seat seat belt belt utilization utilization 12 LRD Agenda Restraint System Evolution NCAP Improvements –– NCAP Enhancements –– Industry Industry Collaboration Collaboration –– Adaptability/OOP Adaptability/OOP Active Active Safety Safety Technologies Technologies Suggested Approach 13 $230.6 Billions Society Cost Active Safety Opportunity 1,816,000 Injury Crashes 39,189 Fatal Crashes 4,304,000 Property Damage Crashes 6,159189* Reported Crashes 10.8M Vehicles Involved 8,900,000 Unreported Crashes 43,443* Fatalities: ¾ 32,763 Occupants ¾ 4,553 Motorcyclists ¾ 5,849 Non-motorists (pedestrian; pedalcyclist) * 2005 NHTSA Fact Sheet 2,989 Billion Vehicle Miles Traveled 296,410,404 resident population Represents a yearly average cost of $820 for every U.S. Resident 14 “Collision Warning / Avoidance” Opportunity: Accident Avoidance Majority of Crashes occur under Benign Roadway Conditions Frequency 69% Normal Weather 85% Traveling < 50MPH 76% Crash with Another Vehicle 68% Straight Road 51% On-Road Crash 76% Side Day-light Side Crash Sceanrio Type Majority of Crashes can be addressed by Frontal Collision Warning / Avoidance Systems Front Other/ Unk Lane 9% Depart. 15% Front 57% Rear 17% Source: Traffic Safety Facts 2005 Annual Report; NHTSA, DOT HS 810 631, Oct 2006 Rear Lane Departure Driver Errors are Primary Reason for Crashes Road Surface 8% Vehicle Defects 3% Driving Task Error 76% Driver Physiological State 14% 15 Side 2% “Collision Warning/Avoidance” is the Next Breakthrough Active Safety “Prevent the Accident in the First Place” Avoid Accidents Safety Benefits Forward/Side/Rear Alert/Avoidance Lane Departure/Lane Keeping Driver Distraction Alert Controlled Chassis (ABS; ESC) Automatic Braking and Steering Reduce Accidents Mitigate Injury Airbags Knee Bolster Human Factors Visibility (Ext Mirrors) Conspicuity (Ext Lights) “Passive Safety” benefits are incremental Passive Safety Saves Lives “Provide the Best Protection Possible” Seat Belts Crush Zones Collapsible Steering Past Future 16 Collision Warning/Avoidance Products Are Available Today Providing consumers the features they want Side Alert Rear Alert Driver Monitoring Adaptive Cruise Control Cocoon of Safety Collision Warning/Avoidance Lane Departure Auto-Parking Pre-Crash Mitigation Lane Keeping … enhancing convenience and safety 17 Agenda Restraint System Evolution NCAP Improvements –– NCAP Enhancements –– Industry Industry Collaboration Collaboration –– Adaptability/OOP Adaptability/OOP Active Active Safety Safety Technologies Technologies Suggested Approach 18 NCAP Enhancement Suggested Approach Support for 3 Crash Avoidance Technologies –– Technical Technical Working Working Group Group and and “Self “Self Certification” Certification” –– Develop Develop quantitative quantitative assessment assessment and and minimum minimum levels levels of of performance performance Recommend Separate Crash Avoidance and Crash Mitigation Ratings –– –– –– Current Current system system has has understanding understanding and and credibility credibility Technologies Technologies are are overlapping overlapping and and complementary complementary Allows Allows for for steep steep advancement advancement in in electronics electronics Support KTH criteria added to existing rating 19 NCAP Enhancement Suggested Approach Encourage direct harmony with pending FMVSS 214 Side Impact rating –– Manage Manage timing timing and and development development costs costs Support Euro style NCAP point system –– Performance Performance based based assessment assessment is is primary primary over over feature feature based based indicators indicators –– Assist Assist in in driving driving global global harmony harmony to to increase increase technology technology adoption/utilization adoption/utilization Consider “Risk of Injury” and “Frequency of Occurrence” in rating –– Enhanced Enhanced consumer consumer information information –– Allow Allow consumer consumer choice choice –– reduce reduce risk risk (mitigation) (mitigation) or or reduce reduce frequency frequency (avoidance) (avoidance) 20 Agenda Restraint System Evolution NCAP Improvements –– NCAP Enhancements –– Industry Industry Collaboration Collaboration –– Adaptability/OOP Adaptability/OOP Active Active Safety Safety Technologies Technologies Suggested Approach 21
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz