Assessing the Effects of Limiting on - IRCOBI · 1.5 mph). S g. 3). With the forward Fig. 2. pact...

Abstract Load limiting restraint devices used in conjunction with frontal airbags have been shown to provide

a means to reduce belt induced occupant loads and the risk of belt induced injury. These load limiting devices have become increasingly common since the mid to late 90’s and are currently commonplace in contemporary production vehicles. These devices are intended to feed out additional belt webbing during the collision when the belt loads exceed a predetermined threshold. Load limiters have been shown to reduce chest injury measures, both deflections and accelerations, in full frontal barrier impacts. During the full frontal barrier tests, however, the occupant benefits not only from the seatbelt (typically including a pretensioner), but also from full engagement of the frontal airbag. As the belt spools out webbing, it also allows additional occupant excursion. The challenge of balancing the dangers associated with this additional excursion against the potential for belt induced injury reduction has long been recognized. Unlike the full frontal test environment, real world crashes often direct the occupant off of 12 o’clock, result in additional structural intrusion, and produce longer duration crash pulses and/or include multiple impacts. This study reviews a series of selected cases in which occupant forward excursion allowed by a force limiting seatbelt resulted in injurious contact with vehicle interior structures. Often other contributing factors were involved (e.g., airbag or seatbelt malfunction, oblique collision, offset collision) that caused differences compared to what would typically be observed in the United States’ New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) barrier tests. Force limiter spoolout observed in each reviewed case is compared and contrasted to that observed in frontal NCAP tests for equivalent vehicles. Keywords Torsion Bar, Load Limiting, Belt Spoolout, Belt Payout, Offset Frontal Impact

I. INTRODUCTION

Seatbelts are often referred to as the most important and valuable safety device ever developed in the field

of automotive safety. The United States National Highway Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA)

consistently attributes the seatbelt to saving more lives than any other single crash protection device [1]. The

seatbelt also, however, has long been acknowledged as a device against which the occupant is loaded and

which has the potential itself to cause injury. Seatbelt load limiting devices have been recognized as a means to

reduce and/or control the loading between the occupant and the belt itself. Common early designs included

looped sections of seatbelt webbing that had been stitched together in such a way that the stitches would tear

at a given load resulting in additional webbing being imparted while the seatbelt load was being “limited”. The

additional webbing was also seen to result in additional occupant excursion which, in some cases, was found to

result in ineffective occupant restraint. As such, these devices were not widely used prior to the development

and incorporation of the supplemental airbag restraint.

The first NCAP was created in 1979 by NHTSA in order “to improve occupant safety by developing and

implementing meaningful and timely comparative safety information that encourages manufacturers to

voluntarily improve the safety of their vehicles” [2]. Since that time, NHTSA has added a star rating system to

the NCAP program to provide vehicle performance data to consumers in a more user‐friendly format. By

placing a simple star rating system on the vehicle’s window sales sticker, the consumer is provided a simple

comparative shopping tool. The star ratings for the NCAP’s 56 kph (35 mph) frontal impact evaluate injury

assessment of the anthropometric test devices (ATDs) in standardized crash testing (full frontal barrier at 56 kph

(35 mph)). Head injury criterion (HIC), neck injury criterion (Nij), femur loads, and chest injury criteria are all

S. Meyer is a Professional Engineer and Principal of the automotive engineering firms of Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering (SAFE) and SAFE Laboratories, L.L.C, in Goleta, CA, USA (805‐964‐0676, [email protected]). A. Nelson and D. Hock are Senior Engineers at SAFE, L.L.C. J. McMillin is a Mathematician and Accident Reconstructionist at SAFE, L.L.C.. B. Herbst is a Professional Engineer and Principal of the automotive engineering firm SAFE Laboratories, L.L.C.

Assessing the Effects of Load Limiting Retractors on Occupant Motion

Steven E. Meyer, Arin Oliver Nelson, Davis A. Hock, Jeremy T. McMillin, Brian R. Herbst

IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015

- 114 -

considered in determining a frontal safety rating from one to five stars [3].

Load limiting seatbelts when used together with frontal airbags and pretensioners, have been shown to

reduce chest injury criteria measured by the ATDs in these full frontal barrier impacts [4]. A contemporary load

limiting device now typically incorporates a “torsion bar” within the retractor mechanism as compared to the

earlier “rip‐stitch” type stitched belt loops seen previously. The result is similar in that the torsion bar design

limits the belt load by allowing webbing to spool off the retractor when the belt load reaches a predesigned

threshold. Although this belt spoolout limits chest loading, it still correspondingly results in increased occupant

excursions. In the full frontal test mode this additional excursion is managed by the frontal airbag.

In 2007, however, Brumbelow et al. [5] reported that in evaluating the 123 passenger car frontal offset tests that had been conducted by IIHS as of June 2006, “evidence from test film and dummy instrumentation plots suggests that driver dummy head impacts into the airbag resulted in steering wheel contact in 52% of vehicles with load limiters and in 20% of vehicles without”. It was also noted that although many of these head contacts would be unlikely to cause serious injury, the contacts in about two‐thirds (2/3) of the cases produced the maximum resultant head accelerations recorded during the tests. In other words, the load limiters were allowing sufficient forward excursion that the dummies’ heads were seen to bottom out the airbag and impact the steering wheel such that the steering wheel impact itself caused the highest head accelerations recorded during the test.

Brumbelow et al. further utilized data from the 1996 through 2003 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and examined the effects of load limiters on driver fatality risk in real world crashes. They noted that because these devices were usually integrated into vehicle designs at the same time as other crashworthiness changes, it was difficult to isolate the effects of their performance, but also noted that there was “unlikely a better opportunity [i.e., in 2007] to conduct such an evaluation.” Their analysis concluded that, “Changes in driver fatality rates associated with the installation of load limiting belts in passenger cars suggests this restraint technology has not reduced and may have increased the risk of driver fatality in some crashes.” [5]

More recently, in 2013, Kahane [6] published a report, “Effectiveness of Pretensioners and Load Limiters for Enhancing Fatality Reduction by Seat Belts”, wherein he reported an estimate 12.8% lower fatality risk in passenger cars, CUVs and minivans for belted drivers or right front passengers where the belt was equipped with a pretensioner and a load limiter than if not equipped with either. Kahane’s analysis looked at FARS data for 1986 to 2011 and considered the efficacy of load limiters and pretensioners, but also noted that the published effectiveness may have, “to some extent reflected the affects of other belt or belt‐related improvements introduced in some makes and models at or about the same time as pretensioners and load limiters, such as adjustable anchors; integrated belt systems; or tuning the airbag, vehicle structure, or seats especially to improve protection for a belted occupant.”

II. METHODS

This study focuses on real world crashes involving belted front outboard occupants in various crash modes. The study presents and describes a cases series wherein forward excursion allowed by seatbelt force limiters was, for various reasons, seen to allow sufficient forward excursion to result in injurious occupant contacts with various interior surfaces. Force limiter seatbelt spoolout recorded in frontal NCAP barrier tests for each corresponding case series vehicle is reported and compared/contrasted to that observed in the individual case study. In many of the cases reviewed contributing factors included circumstances such as airbag or seatbelt malfunctions, oblique collisions or offset collisions that caused differences compared to crash circumstances and kinematics typically observed in NCAP barrier tests. NCAP Tests: Load Limiter Belt Spoolout

A review of various NHTSA NCAP tests reveals the amount of webbing added to the restraint system via deployment of the load limiter in this 56 kph (35 mph) full frontal impact into a rigid barrier. Many of these publically available tests record belt extension data along with belt force data for the driver and right front passenger ATDs. Photographic analysis of the test films and approximation of the webbing spoolout is also possible if restraint data is not recorded/reported.

A summary of various NCAP test data, including measured or photogrammetrically determined belt spoolout relative to the field cases presented below is summarized in Appendix A. In some cases, a review of head acceleration data indicates, consistent with Brumbelow, et al.’s 2007 analysis of IIHS tests [5], that load limiting equipped seatbelts may allow sufficient forward excursion of the ATD such that the head can bottom out the


- 115 -

aiacBrinreai

Fi

wthfo75spin(2Fito

Im

offrthsycr

man

foThCaad

irbag and stcceleration drumbelow’s njurious leveecorded ATDirbag penetr

ig. 1. NHTSA Additionall

was disabled”he airbag. Torward as th5 millisecondpeed of apprndicating the21.5 mph). Sg. 3). With o the forward

Fig. 2.

mpact OrientA study of

f force (PDOontal collisiohat a significystems (seatrash tests wiOffset and

may result in nd associate The signifi

or Highway She 40% overar Assessmedded a “sma

rike the hubdata shows findings, thels. Fig. 1 deD Driver’s Heation.

A #5677 2007

ly, a review ”, demonstraThis tests shoe vehicle deds into the croximately 4e dummy’s hSimilarly, thethe load limd movement

50th PercenStee

tation frontal crash

OF) is not froons are offsecant percenttbelt and froth a 12 o’clo/or angled impartial or nd forward exicance of offSafety (IIHS) rlap orientatent Program ll overlap” (2

b and/or insa spike in e complete spicts this cirad Peak G’s

7 Toyota Yar

of NHTSA Nates the effecows that, decelerates uncollision (See43 kph (27 mead impactee belted 5th iting seatbet of the ATDs

ntile Male ATering Wheel

h statistics bom straight et as opposetage of “froontal airbag)ock PDOF. mpacts will non‐engagemxcursion. fset impacts in the mid 1tion is also u(JNCAP), Au25% overlap

strument panthe head asystem in thcumstance icorresponds

is NCAP, Hea

CAP Test #6ctive occupaspite being bntil the ATD’se Fig. 2). A mph) while thed the steeripercentile felt systems ans (Note: neit

TD Contactin

y Sullivan [8ahead (12 od to occurrinntal” accide are typicall

direct vehiclment with th

is reflected i1990s of a 40used by Euroustralian New) offset front

nel. Consistcceleration is test circumin the 2007 Ts to video an

ad Peak G’s C

6946 [7] wheant excursionbelted, the 5s face impacvideo analyhe vehicle hng wheel huemale passend without ther ATDs we

ng Fig. 3

8] shows thato’clock) but ng across thnts are in faly optimized

le occupantshe frontal ai

in the test co0% overlap 6opean New w Car Assesstal test to its

tent with thwhen such mstance doeToyota Yarisnalysis of the

Correspond t

erein “the ven allowed by 50th percenticts the vehicysis indicatesas deceleratub with a relanger ATD wthe benefit oere instrume

3. 5th Percen

t for 35% of rather at ane full width act offset and to yield fav

s inboard or rbag and inc

onfiguration64 kph (40 mCar Assessmsment Progrs test matrix.

at reported contact occes prevent suNHTSA NCA

e driver’s forw

to Noted Ma

ehicle’s suppthe load limile male drivle’s steerings the head isted to approative speed as also noteof frontal airnted in this t

ntile Female A

frontal collisn angle. Simof the vehiclnd/or angledvorable injur

outboard ofcreased seat

established mph) frontal ment Programam (ANCAP).

by Brumbecurs. Also couch contact AP Test #567ward most m

aximum Forw

plemental remiter withoutver ATD contg wheel hub s still movingoximately 9 kof approximed to impact rbags, there test).

ATD Contact

sions the primilarly, morele. Such numd while the ry measures

f the airbag tbelt load lim

by the Insuinto a deform (EuroNCA). More rec

elow, the heonsistent wifrom reachi77 wherein tmovement a

ward Excursio

estraint systet the benefit tinues to moapproximateg forward atkph (5.5 mph

mately 34.5 kthe dash (Swas little lim

ting Dash

mary directioe than 50% mbers indicavehicle safe

s in full front

centerline amiter spoolo

rance Institurmable barrieP), Japan Neently, IIHS h

ad ith ng he nd

on

em of

ove ely t a h), ph ee mit

on of ate ety tal

nd out

ute er. ew has


- 116 -

cowrefreflimatsideth

Ca

seinlimPoofalloob

quwexinInva

auocspcoocwthchcotofritswcoFi

A review oollisions endwere found toeported thatontal impactffective occumiting featurt the time ognificant froepriving the he load limite

ase Series ReThe autho

equence, ananvestigationsmiter alloweotential contffset impact ong with thoad limiter spbserved in NThe includ

uantifiable awebbing loadxcursion suffncluded case nclusion of tarious height

A review outhors, incluccupant datpecific casesontact and Accupant did

wherein the ahe second imhosen to illuontributing rorsion bar spictional contself and eva

wherein quanorrespondingield Case 1 (2

Fig. 4. O

of accident ure more tho be associatt approximatt occurs initiupant restrare in the firstof secondaryontal impactoccupant ofer equipped

eview rs routinely alysis of the s this study ed forward etributing facorientation e general crpoolout is doNCAP tests ofded case seramount of marks and/ficient to resseries vehicthe case serts and weigh

of specific reauding accidea including s in which foAIS 3+ injurnot fully en

airbag deploympact, and/oustrate whenreal world cpoolout can otact (polymealuation of tntified load lg vehicle. 2007 Toyota

Offset Frontal

and injury dhan one collted with occtely half of tially or subseint can be ht impact cany, or subsequ can put anf the supplemseatbelt.

investigate restraint syshas specificaexcursions thctors are alsand/or multrash circumsocumented af the correspries was choload limiter/or inspectiosult in injuriocles were equies was nothts. The case

al world collent vehicle iphysical attrorward excury. The indngage the aiyed during ar cases whern force limitecrash characoften be evider D‐ring tratorsion bar imiter spool

a Yaris, Drive

l Impact

data by Diggision during upants in vehe multiple equent to othindered. A leave an ocuent, collisio occupant omental restra

real world stem and theally intendedhat have resuso presentedtiple impact stance and rand reportedonding caseosen based ur spoolout (on of the loaous occupanuipped with limited by

e series was

ision cases (nspections, ributes and rsion alloweividual caserbag, cases n initial imparein intrusioner allowed fteristics dissdenced by trnsferring to twist/metal out exceede

er Load Limit

Fig. 5. Drive

Durin

ges [9] indicthe crash s

ehicles that ecollision vehther impactsA collision wcupant withons. Similarout of positiaint relied u

crashes incle resulting od to identifyulted in undd and may incollisions. Tresulting kined and compa series vehicupon the au(based uponad limiters tont contact wboth pretenoccupant anlimited to inj

III. RESULTS

(case series rreview of aresulting injed by the shes selected iwherein theact and was n compromisforward excusimilar to Nransfer of mbelt webbinstriations [

ed that reco

ter spooled o

er’s Door Op

ng Collision

cates that 2equence. Cencounteredhicles suffere, the timing hich deploysout a fully inly, non‐deplon and precpon by, and

uding conduoccupant kiny and presenesirable occnclude airbaThe effected ematics and ared/contrascle. uthors’ field n observableorsion bar it

with interior vsioners as wnthropometrjury levels ab

S

review) persand/or perfojuries, is prehoulder belt included offe airbag did subsequentsed the occuursion can bCAP barrier aterial or abng under loa10,11]. Therded or obse

out ~12” wit

ened Fig

4% of vehiconsequentlya multiple ced a frontal and/or abilits an airbag flated airbagoyment leveclude deployintended to

ucting reconematics and nt individual upant kinemag or seatbeoccupant’s aoccupant inted with sea

investigatioe forensics tself [10]) whvehicle strucwell as load liry and as subove AIS 3.

onally investormance of esented withload limiter

fset and angnot deploy,ly then not fupant compae problemattests. As s

brasion to loaad) or via dise selected cerved in the

th Intrusion)

. 6. 304 mm

Belt

cles involvedy, 42% of MAcollision crasimpact first.ty of the airas well as ag and with a el impacts leyment of a o work in con

nstructions o injuries. Frcases that i

matics and reelt malfunctianthropomenjuries. Resatbelt load lim

ns which deincluding trhich allowedctures or commiters and fuch includes

tigated and reconstructh the intentr contributegled impacts, cases of mfully inflatedartment. Thetic and, thershown belowad bearing ssassembly ofcase series ie NCAP barri

m (12”) of Loa

t Spoolout

d in tow awAIS 3+ injurish. Digges al Whether tbag to provia seatbelt loloose seatbeeading up tofrontal airbanjunction wit

of the collisiom these fieillustrate foresulting injuon, oblique try is reportulting seatbemiter spoolo

emonstratedraditional bed for occupamponents. Afrontal airbags occupants

studied by tion, review tion to includ to occupas wherein t

multiple impa at the timeese cases werefore, incluw, load limiturfaces durif the retractncluded caser test for t

ad Limiter

way ies lso he de ad elt o a ag, th,

on eld rce ry. or ed elt out

d a elt ant All gs. of

he of de ant he act of ere de ter ng tor ses he


- 117 -

vewcosith

(Sfrwreasw

ofye(SATtocilim

teVwwst

pereincom

In Field Caehicle of stuwith a PDOF ollision, the de door struhe driver’s sidInspection

See Fig. 6). ontal impact

with his headegion of his ssociated witweighed appr

Similar occffset frontal ear) at approSee Fig. 8 & FTD was seeno his left (Srcumstance miter allowe

Fig. 7. IIH

Fig. 9. D

IIHS had al

est resulted ideo analysis

which allowedwith the doorteering wheeA review o

ercentile ATecorded drivn the field compartmentmeasures wer

se 1, oncomdy (See Fig. of approximdriver’s dooucture. Addide A‐pillar inof the driveThis belt spot, caused the. The driverhead with th the contaroximately 77cupant kinemtest of a 20

oximately 65Fig. 10), simin to move forSee Fig. 9). the occupan

ed forward ex

HS 50% Offse

Driver Does N

lso conductein a more frs of the loadd the head tr structure stel contact waof 2007 ToyTDs in a 12 er load limitase, howevet allowed forre below IAR

ing traffic cr4). The colmately 10‐1or unlatched itionally, thentruded into er’s belt systoolout, the e driver to mr sustained aassociated sact between 7‐82 kg (170matics were 009 Toyota 5 kph (40 mplar intrusionrward and gl Both the nt did not rexcursion.

t 65 kph (40

Not Fully Eng

ed a 40% Ovontal PDOF limiter seatto bottom otill in place, tas not aboveyota Yaris NCo’clock PDOter spoolout er, the 12 or full engageRV values (Se

rossed the rollision recon5 degrees tsuch that th

e benefit of tthe occupantem revealedleft directedmove to the ln open, depsoft tissue ahis head and‐180 lbs). observed inCamry into ph) (See Fig. was observlance off thetest and theceive the fu

mph) Fronta

gage Airbag

erlap frontathan the fiebelt spoolouut the airbathe driver ATe injury assesCAP test (NHOF and approf approxim

o’clock PDOFement of theee Appendix A

oadway centstruction indto the left, he driver wathe load trannt compartmd approximad PDOF, and left of the aipressed, comand permand the left A‐

n an IIHS cara 2009 Toyo7) [12]. Theed, the PDOe left side of he field studull benefit o

al Fig.

F

l barrier testld case or IIut showed apg and impacTD was seenssment referHTSA #5677roximately 6mately 330 mF and the lae driver ATDA).

terline resultdicated a deor counter‐as allowed tnsfer througment (See Figately 304 mmthe structurbag and agg

mminuted skuent brain inpillar. The m

r‐to‐car crashota Yaris (eqe driver’s doF was again the frontal ady demonstrf the fronta

. 8. Blue Yar

Fig. 10. Blue

t on a 2007 HS car‐to‐capproximatelyct the steerin to more furence values 7) shows driv64 kph (40 mm (13 in), sack of any sD with the fr

ting in an offeltaV approxclockwise. o travel to th the side do5). m (12 in) of ral damage gressively imull fracture tnjuries. Themale driver w

h test. The quivalent plaor in the Yarforward andairbag and imrate that inl airbag whil

is Driver’s Do

Yaris’s Door

Toyota Yarisr test and thy 406 mm (~ng wheel (Selly engage th(IARV). ver and righmph) deltaVimilar to theignificant introntal airbag

fset frontal cimately 67 kDuring this the left unimoor structur

load limiterassociated w

mpact the A‐pto the left teese head injwas 178 cm

car‐to‐car teatform to thris was againd to the left, mpact the ven such a cale also expe

oor Opens d

r Opens duri

s at 65 kph (he door rem~16 in) of seaee Appendixhe airbag an

ht front seatV impact. Te 304 mm (1trusion intog. All record

collision to tkph (~42 mpoffset front

mpeded by te was lost a

r belt spoolowith the offspillar structumporoparieturies were (70 in) tall a

est was a 50he 2007 modn seen to opand the drivhicle structur‐to‐car offsrienced a lo

uring Impact

ng Impact

40 mph). Thmained latcheatbelt spoolox B). Althoud the head‐t

ted male 50The test vid2 in) observthe occupa

ded ATD inju

he ph) tal he nd

out set ure tal all nd

0% del en ver ure set ad

t

his ed. out gh to‐

0th eo ed ant ury


- 118 -

Fi

*S

FiwoctethleFi

rerem

apexfieen

Fi

ield Case 2

Available W

Fig. 11.

Showing RF Pas

Field Case

g. 11). The was very firmccupant wasests demonsthat in the aneft, she moveg. 12 & Fig. 1Inspection

emaining avaestraint systemade during l

Fig. 1

A review

pproximatelyxceeding theeld case stungage the fro

ield Case 3 (2

(2010 Kia F

Webbing)

Offset Front

ssenger allowed

2 experiencpolice report

mly lodged bs a female, atrating frontgled frontal ed between 13). of the righ

ailable webbem anchor, oload limiter s

14. RF Load L

Webbi

of the NCAy 241 mm (9e potentiomdy. The 50tontal airbags

2005 Toyota

Fig. 16

Forte, Right

tal Impact

d to travel towa

ed an offsett narrative detween the pproximatelytal airbag dewith the PDthe two fron

ht front seabing, or appror D‐ring, arspoolout (Se

Limiter Spoo

ing, ~280 mm

AP frontal b9.5 in) of driveter’s capabth percentiles such that n

a Corolla, Dri

6. Offset Fro

t Front Load

Fig(Depic

ards Driver’s Sid

t frontal collidescribes thasteering why 150‐152 cmployment reOF and vehicntal airbags m

atbelt demoroximately 2e consistente Fig. 15).

led Out All A

m (~11 in)

arrier test fver load limitbility, as come male ATDsno ATD IARVs

iver Load Lim

ontal Impact

F

d Limiter sp

g. 12. Airbagcting Gap Betwe

de of Vehicle

ision when oat post‐accidheel of the vm (59‐60”) taeveals a gap cle rotation making fatal

nstrated loa280 mm (~11t with the tra

Available

for a 2010 ter spoolout mpared to ths in the 12 s were excee

miter spoole

t

FRONT PASSMOVEME

ooled out ~

g Deploymeneen Deployed F

opposing traent the fatalvehicle and all and approbetween thetaking the rihead contac

ad limiter d1 in) (See Figansfers note

Fig. 15.

model Kia and 240 mm

he approximo’clock PDOeded (See Ap

d out ~12”)

F

SENGER ENT

~11”, Full Sp

nt in NCAP Frontal Airbags)

ffic crossed lly injured rigthe driver’s oximately 11e driver’s andght front occct with the fr

eployment g. 14). Abraed on the we

D‐ring Abra

Spoo

Forte (NHTSm (9.4 in) on ately 280 m

OF NCAP testppendix A).

Fig. 17. 300 m

Limiter

poolout of A

) Fig. 13

Defor

into its laneght front pasright leg. T

14 kg (251#).d passenger’cupant forwront vehicle

to the full asions notedebbing and a

ded during W

olout

TSA Test #67the passeng

mm (11 in) obt were again

mm (~12”) o

Belt Spoolou

All Remainin

. Vehicle

rmation*

e of travel (Sssenger’s heThe right fro. NCAP barri’s airbags su

ward and to tstructure (S

extent of td on the uppas having be

Webbing

766) recordger side befobserved in tn seen to fu

of Load

ut

ng

ee ad ont ier ch he ee

he per en

ed ore he ully


- 119 -

ulwdeupge

wsuap

lopeth

Fi

Field Case ltimately tra

was approximemonstratedp and cut byeometry cha

Once the b

with the centustaining trapproximately

Review of oad limiter percentile frohe occupant

ield Case 4

Deploymen

3 involves aveling into omately 35 md evidence oy the latch plnges associa

belt had beeer console, umatic and y 75‐82 kg (1

the NCAP fopayout was ont seated ATcompartmen

(2010 Toy

t)

a 2005 Toyoon‐coming trmph with aof approximaate (See Fig.ated with the

Fig. 18. D

n cut, the drdash and rigpermanent 165‐180 lbs).

Fig. 19. D

or the 2003 194 mm (7.TDs moved fnt and recor

yota Prius,

Fig. 2

ota Corolla wraffic and exa PDOF forwately 300 mm. 17 & 18). Te PDOF and t

river’s Belt C

river was theght front doobrain injurie

Deformed Int

Toyota Coro.6 in) while forward squaded non‐inju

Driver Load

20. Multiple

which lost coxperiencing award and sm (~12”) of The tearing tthe significan

Cut via Ropin

en free to traor before ultes (See Fig. 1

terior and Ri

olla (NHTSA the passengarely into thurious IARVs

d Limiter sp

Angled Fron

ontrol in a dan offset froignificantly webbing spothe belt was nt belt spool

ng in the Latc

avel across ttimately bein19). The driv

ght Front Do

Test #4266)ger side washe frontal air(See Appen

pooled out

ntal Impacts

dangerous sental collisionto the righoolout befordetermined out.

ch Plate

the occupantng ejected over was 175‐

oor Structure

reveals thas 278 mm (rbags with ndix A).

~23”, Mult

ection of cun (See Fig. 16ht. The drire the belt b to be assoc

t compartmeout the right‐178 cm (69‐

e

at the driver 10.9 in). Ago significant

tiple Impact

rved roadwa6). The deltiver’s seatbebecame bouiated with be

ent interacti front windo‐70 in) tall a

side recordgain, the 50t intrusion in

t/Prior Airba

ay, aV elt nd elt

ng ow nd

ed 0th nto

ag


- 120 -

tuthinremseapimlimabsucoexch

F

limsefr

Fi

hydeth(m

Field Case urned left in he subject venvolved multevealed loadmodule data, everal inchespproximatelympact such tmiter would ble to spoolouch, the drivolumn was fxcursion. Thhest and abd

Fig. 21. 590 m

A review o

miter spooloeatbelt failedontal airbag

ield Case 5 (2

Field Case

ydroplaned, eploy and thhe A‐pillar (Smid 30’s mph

4 experiencefront of theehicle acrostiple frontal limiter spooresulted in s of load limy 48 kph (30that at the talso have spout further, ver was allowfound strokehe male drivdominal trau

mm (~23”) o

of the NCAP out for the d after 44 ms and record

2010 Mini Co

Fig. 24. O

5 experienlost control,he driver’s siSee Fig. 24 &h).

ed an intersee subject vehs the interseimpacts. Tholout of appa deltaV of iter spoolou0 mph). The time of the pooled out dhowever, a

wed to moveed and the ver was repoma.

of Load Limite

data for thedriver ATD’sm (1.7 in) ofded no injury

ooper Clubm

Offset Front

nced an offs, and crossedide door unl

& Fig. 25). Th

ection collisihicle. This reection and ihe frontal airoximately 5approximatet. The seconairbag contsecond impduring the int this point e aggressiveloccupant suorted as bein

er Belt Spoo

e 2005 Toyots seatbelt af spoolout. y measures a

man, Driver L

al Impact

set frontal cd into its lanatched, resuhe PDOF was

ion when anesulted in annto a concrrbag deploy590 mm (23 ely 51 kph (3nd frontal imrol module iact the airbnitial impact the airbag wly forward inustained fatng 183 cm (

lout Fig

D

ta Prius (NHnd that the Both 50th peabove IARVs.

Load Limiter

collision whne of travel. ulting in the s to the left o

other vehicln initial vehicete barrier (ed and physin) (See Fig. 32 mph), sufmpact was esindicated thaag would hasuch that atwould have nto the steeal traumatic72 in), 109

g. 22. Abrade

river’s D‐ring

TSA Test #55data chann

ercentile ma

spooled out

Fig. 25. D

en a vehicleDuring the closs of suppof forward a

e, that had fcle‐to‐vehicle(See Fig. 20)sical evidenc21). The inifficient to destimated to hat the airbagave been pat the time ofbeen less thring wheel (c injuries asskg (240 lbs)

ed

g

Fi

587) reportsnel for the rle ATDs wer

t ~17”, No Ai

river’s Airba

Failed to Re

e traveling collision, theporting side and the delta

failed to yiele impact wh). This collice on the dritial impact, eploy the airhave producg had deployartially deflatf the secondhan optimall(See Fig. 23)sociated witand sustain

ig. 23. Strok

Colum

s 325 mm (1right front pre seen to fu

irbag & Intru

ag Did Not De

emain Closed

in the oppoe vehicle’s aistructure anaV was in the

d right of wahich redirectsion therefoiver’s webbiper the airbrbag as well ced a deltaV yed at the firted. The lod impact it wy inflated. . The steerith his forwaned fatal hea

ed Steering

mn

12.8 in) of lopassenger ATully engage t

usion)

eploy, Door

d

osite directiorbags failed nd intrusion e mid 50’s k

ay, ed ore ng bag as of rst ad

was As ng ard ad,

ad TD he

on to of ph


- 121 -

bemap

ofre

Fi

Fi

it defraibeinmfrcm

Evidence foelt to be sp

multiple skullpproximately

A review of load limiterecorded.

ield Case 6

Deploymen

g. 27. Multi

Field Case ultimately ieployed durontal embanirbags as theelted front snto the occupmm (22 in) suactures resum (69‐70 in)

F

ound on theooled out o fractures asy 183 cm (72

of the NCAP fr payout for

(2008 Kia S

t)

ple Frontal I

6 experienceimpacted aning a curb imnkment collisey had deploseat occupanpant compauch that his ulting in permtall and weig

Fig. 30. 560 m

e seatbelt weof the retracs a result of2 in) and 111

Fig. 26.

for the 2008the driver 5

Spectra, Rig

mpacts

ed a loss of cn embankmempact as thesion, the occoyed previounts as well artment was head was abmanent quadghed approx

mm (~22”) o

ebbing indicactor (See Figf contact wit1 kg (244 lbs)

432 mm (~1

8 Mini Coope0th percentil

ght Front Lo

Fig. 28

Com

control withent (See Fig.e vehicle exitcupants did usly at the cus an unbelteobserved. Tble to make driplegia (Seeximately 75‐7

of Load Limite

ates the loadg. 26). The th the A‐pill).

17”) of Load

er (NHTSA Tee male ATD.

oad Limiter s

8. Occupant

mpartment

the car exit 27). The vted the roadnot have theurb. At the ed occupantThe right froforcible cone Fig. 28, 30 77 kg (165‐17

er Belt Spoo

d limiter allodriver movear and was

Limiter Belt S

est #6291) re The airbag

spooled out

F

ing the roadvehicle’s frondway such the benefit of time of the t in the rear nt occupantntact with th& 31). The m70 lbs).

lout

owed approxed forward killed. The

Spoolout

evealed apprdeployed an

t ~22”, Mult

Fig. 29. Occu

way into thental airbags hat at the timinteracting wcollision theseating area’s belt spoole front headmale right fro

Fig

ximately 432and to the male driver

roximately 3nd no injurio

ltiple Impact

upant Compa

e adjacent shwere determme of the mwith a fully ie vehicle waa. No signifled out apprder structureont occupan

g. 31. Abrad

mm (17 in) left sustainir’s stature w

330 mm (13 ous IARVs we

t Prior Airba

artment

houlder whemined to ha

more significanflated fronts carrying twicant intrusioroximately 5e causing nent was 175‐1

ded D‐ring

of ng

was

in) ere

ag

ere ve ant tal wo on 60 eck 78


- 122 -

todeocw

29fu

Fi

a evspm

pelimfr

re

th

pr

al

pr

ty

sp

The disasseo 60 degreeeformation (ccupant, 3 ½

webbing. A review o

92 mm (11.5ully engage t

ield Case 7 (2

In Field Caslarge tree (vidence of lpoolout of grmultiple facia

Fig

A review o

ercentile ATmiter spooloontal airbag

Retractor b

elative to fro

hese systems

rovided the

so producin

rovide an op

ypically desig

poolout. In c

embled retraes of twist (See Fig. 29)½ rotations i

of the NCAP 5 in) of load he frontal ai

2005 Mazda

Fig. 32. N

se 7, the vehSee Fig. 32)oad limiter reater than 5l fractures. T

g. 34. ≥ 560

of 2004 MaTDs, 12 o’cloout was apprs deployed a

based seatb

ontal impact

s’ ability to p

full benefit

ng fairly sho

ptimum envi

gned with co

contrast, a r

actor revealindicating it). Given theis consistent

for a 2007 limiter spoorbag and the

a 3, Driver Lo

Narrow Obje

hicle exited t. The vehicspoolout (S560 mm (22 The male dri

mm (~22”) o

azda 3 NCAPock PDOF anroximately 4and recorded

elt load limi

protection [

produce non

of timely de

ort duration

ironment for

onstant dep

eview of fiel

ed the torsiot allowed the amount oft with the ap

model year lout for the e injury meas

oad Limiter s

ect Frontal Im

the roadway le’s frontal aSee Fig. 33).in) (See Fig.iver was 185

of Load Limit

P test (NHTSnd deltaV of428 mm (16.9d ATD injury

IV

ters used in

6]. A review

n‐injurious in

eployed fron

crash pulse

r the seatbe

loyment thr

d accident d

on bar comphe webbingf webbing thpproximately

Kia Spectra right front 5sures record

spooled out ≥

mpact

after swervairbags faile. D‐ring loa. 34). In this5 cm (73 in) t

ter Belt Spoo

SA #4864) sf approximat9 in) and 56measures w

V. DISCUSSIO

conjunction

w of the case

njury measur

ntal airbags

es, no vehicl

elt/airbag sys

resholds and

data indicate

ponent of thg spool to rhat would bey 560 mm (2

(NHTSA Tes50th percentilded by the AT

≥ 22”, No Air

ing to avoid ed to deploy ad marks ons case, the dall and weig

olout

shows a drivtely 64 kph 8 mm (22.4

were below IA

ON

n with fronta

e series vehic

res. The occ

and 12 o’clo

le rotation,

stem to wor

d without pr

es that 24% o

e load limiterotate 3 ½ e present on22 in) of tra

t# 5906) demle male ATD.TD are below

rbag Deploy

Fig. 33

an animal anand the sea

n the webbiriver’s injuriehed 82 kg (1

Fig

ver and righ(40 mph). in) for the rARV values (S

al airbags ha

cle NCAP tes

cupants in th

ock PDOFs.

no notable

k together.

ractical limita

of vehicle inv

er to have etimes durinn the spool wansfer marks

monstrates . The ATD isw IARVs.

yment)

3. Driver’s A

Not Deplo

nd ultimatelatbelt demoing indicate es were fata180 lbs).

g. 35. Abrad

ht front seaThe reporte

right front pSee Appendi

ave become

sts supports

hese tests ar

These barrie

intrusion, a

Seatbelt loa

ations as to

volved tow a

xperienced ng torsion bwith this sizs noted on t

approximates again seen

Airbag did

oy

y collided wionstrated cleshoulder be

al and includ

ed D‐ring

ated male 50ed driver loassenger. Tx A).

commonpla

the efficacy

re consistent

er impacts a

and effective

ad limiters a

the extent

away collisio

up bar ed he

ely to

ith ear elt ed

0th ad he

ace

of

tly

are

ely

are

of

ons


- 123 -

and 42% of resulting MAIS 3+ injuries were attributable to occupants involved in multiple impact collisions [9].

Moreover, 35% of the most common frontal crash mode involve angular frontal impacts with PDOFs different

than the 12 o’clock PDOF seen in the full barrier crash tests [8]. Additionally, more than 50% of frontal collisions

are described at offset as opposed to full width [8]. These real world type crashes will include not only multiple

type impacts, but longer duration crash pulses, vehicle rotations, and impact force directions that will move the

occupant away from the centerline of the airbag. These real world crashes will also often result in varying

degrees of intrusion, all of which greatly enhance the risk of excursion related injuries that may, or may not be,

alleviated by the frontal airbag.

The case series reviewed included cases that were selected targeting these specific types of kinematic

phenomenon that differentiate these real world collisions from the NCAP tests in terms of both collision

characteristics as well as occupant size versus NCAP employed ATDs. While the NCAP events are full frontal

with 50th percentile ATDs, limited to no intrusion and well performing airbags with predictable occupant

kinematics, the included case series specifically targeted inclusion of case studies wherein various sized

occupants were seen to experience significant forward excursion, while spooling out load limiter provided

shoulder belt webbing, such that injurious contact with vehicle interior structures was allowed.

In Field Cases 1 & 2, the load limiter spoolout observed was similar to that observed in the NCAP test,

however, vehicle intrusion and/or oblique angles of impact force contributed to injurious vehicle interior

contacts. In Field Cases 4, 5 & 6, field load limiter spoolout was observed to be significantly more, in Cases 4 &

6 nearly twice, than that observed in the NCAP test environment. In Field Case 4, this was likely due to multiple

impact circumstance providing two load limiter deploying events in addition to a second event having occurred

with a previously deployed airbag. This case also included a 183 cm (72 in), 109 kg (240 lb) occupant as

compared to the 175 cm (69 in), 78 kg (172 lbs) HIII ATD used in the NCAP tests. The larger occupant will of

course provide a greater force demand on the load limiter.

Field Case 6, although having a similar sized occupant to the HIII ATD, nearly twice the amount of load limiter

spoolout was observed than that reported in the NCAP test. This case again, however, involves a previously

deployed airbag that would have been less than optimally inflated at the time of the load limiter deploying

impact. Field Case 5 & 7 again highlight the importance of occupant‐to‐airbag interaction such that in these

studies the airbag did not deploy at all and the load limiter spoolout was again seen to be significantly greater

than that observed in the NCAP test. This is true with both the larger occupant in Field Case 5 (111 kg/244 lbs)

as well as in the closer to the 50th percentile occupant in Field Case 7 (82 kg/180 lbs).

This case series review suggests that although current airbag/load limiter tuning may be effective in

reducing injury measures in the NCAP test environment, the extent of belt spoolout allowed when other

contributing factors described above are present may result in injurious occupant excursions and contacts. In

these cases, the occupant was rarely seen to move forward into the center of a timely deployed frontal airbag

and illustrate specific circumstances in which occupant forward excursion with load limited restraints allowing

injurious contact with vehicle interior structures. These cases demonstrated characteristics that are not

typically observed in full frontal tests such as those of NCAP. Any reduction in chest injury measures provided

by the load limiter must be balanced against risk of excursion related injuries. In the case series, these injuries

are significantly affected by the occupants’ interaction with the airbag. Non‐injurious load limiter spoolout in an

NCAP environment is seen in the case series to become injurious with intrusion and/or oblique or angled

kinematics. The case series also suggests that forward kinematics, typically seen to be non‐injurious in the

NCAP environment, can result in significantly increased load limiter spoolout in multiple impact circumstances

or failure to deploy circumstances.

Limitations of Analysis

This study specifically intended to seek out and present cases that illustrate when forward excursion allowed by load limiters can be problematic. As such, the results are not intended to suggest that any additional forward excursion allowed by the inclusion of a load limiter in a particular broadly described crash mode (e.g. frontal impacts) would be undesirable, but rather highlights and describes kinematics that may be observed in specific circumstances.


- 124 -

V. REFERENCES

[1] NHTSA, “Lives Saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other vehicle Safety Technologies,

1960‐2002”, DOT HS 809 833, October 2004.

[2] NHTSA, “The New Car Assessment Program Suggested Approaches for Future Program Enhancements”, DOT

HS 810 698, January 2007.

[3] Sohr, S, Heym, A. “Benefit of Adaptive Occupant Restraint Systems with Focus on the New US‐NCAP Rating

Requirements,” 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper

Number 09‐0322, June 15‐18, 2009.

[4] NHTSA, “The NCAP Test Improvements with Pretensioners and Load Limiters,” Evaluations Note, DOT HS 809

563, March 2003.

[5] Brumbelow, M, Baker, B, Nolan, J. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). “Effects of Seat Belt Load

Limiters on Driver Fatalities in Frontal Crashes of Passenger Cars,” 20th International Technical Conference

on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper Number 07‐0067, June 18‐21, 2007.

[4] NHTSA, “The NCAP Test Improvements with Pretensioners and Load Limiters,” Evaluations Note, DOT HS 809

563, March 2003.

[6] Kahane, C. “Effectiveness of Pretensioners and Load Limiters for Enhancing Fatality Reduction by Seat Belts,”

NHTSA, DOT HS 811 835, November 2013.

[7] NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). “2005 Honda Odyssey into a High Resolution Load Cell

Barrier,” NHTSA Test #6946, Test Date: May 13, 2010.

[8] Sullivan, K, Henry, S, and Laituri, T. "A Frontal Impact Taxonomy for USA Field Data," Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) World Congress, Paper SAE 2008‐01‐0526, 2008.

[9] Digges, K, Bahouth, G. “Frequency of Injuries in Multiple Impact Crashes,” 47th Annual Proceedings

Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), September 22‐24, 2003. [10] Meyer, S, Hock, D, Oliver, A, Herbst, B. “Forensic Analysis of Belt Use Evidence in Rollover Crashes: A

Methodology,” Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Paper IMECE2010‐37925, November 12‐18, 2010.

[11] Jenkins, J, Steffens, C, Turvill, W. “Forensic Analysis of Seat Belt Retractor Torsion Bars,” SAE World Congress, Paper SAE 2009‐01‐1242, 2009.

[12] Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crashworthiness Evaluation. “Crash Test Report 2009 Toyota Yaris,”

Test CF09001B, Test Date: February 10, 2009.


- 125 -

VI. APPEN

DIX A

TABLE

1

NCAP & Field Case Data

Field

Case

/ Test #

NCAP Vehicle

(Equivalent

Model Years),

Field Veh

icle

ATD

Size &

Max Belt Load

s (Shoulder / Lap)

Injury M

easurements

NCAP Belt Spoolout

Field Case

Spool

out

Occupan

t Location/

Gender/

Stature

Injury

Accident

Data

Field

Case #1

/

NHTSA

#5677

2007 Toyota

Yaris,

(2006‐2009),

2007 Toyota

Yaris

LF, 50th M

ATD

: 3743 N / 6935 N

RF, 50th M

ATD

: 4125 N / 9815 N

LFRF

HIC

427

485

Chest

Accel

45 g

48 g

Chest

Defl

22

mm

25

mm

Not Reported

Video

Analysis indicates:

LF: ~13” (~330 m

m) spoolout

12”

(304 m

m)

LF,

M,

5’10”,

170‐180#

Skull

fractures &

permanen

t brain

injuries

Left Offset,

~‐10 to ‐15⁰

PDOF,

~42 m

ph ΔV

Field

Case #2

/

NHTSA

#6766

2010 Kia Forte

4‐dr,

(2009‐2012),

2010 Kia Forte

2‐dr

LF, 50th M

ATD

: 7298 N / 8686 N

RF, 50th M

ATD

: 6819 N / 9397 N

LFRF

HIC

332.8

461.9

Chest

Accel

43.7 g

38.3 g

Chest

Defl

27.6

mm

30.9

mm

LF

RF

Pretens

1.3”

(34 m

m)

1.1”

(29 m

m)

Spool

out

9.5”

(34 + 207

mm)

9.4+”

(29 + 211 m

m

before

exceed

ing

Potentiometer)

All

available

web

bing:

~11”

(~280

mm)

RF,

F,

4’11”‐5’,

251#

Fatal head

injuries

Left Offset

Field

Case #3

/

NHTSA

#4266

2003 Toyota

Corolla 4‐dr,

(2003‐2006),

2005 Toyota

Corolla 4‐dr

LF, 50th M

ATD

: 4887 N / 7610 N

RF, 50th M

ATD

: 4886 N / 8263 N

LFRF

HIC

435.5

391.9

Chest

Accel

42.4 g

41.4 g

Chest

Defl

28.7

mm

22.1

mm

LF

RF

Pretens

1.9”

(48 m

m)

2.2”

(55 m

m)

Spool

out

7.6”

(48 + 146.3

mm)

10.9”

(55 + 222.5 m

m)

~12”

(300 m

m)

LF,

M,

5’9‐10”,

165‐180#

Traumatic

and

permanen

t brain

injuries

Right

Offset,

Forw

ard &

significantly

to Right

PDOF,

~35 m

ph ΔV

Field

Case #4

/

NHTSA

#5587

2005 Toyota

Prius,

(Gen 2: ’03‐09)

(Gen 3: ’10‐15),

2010 Toyota

Prius

LF, 50th M

ATD

: 6500 N / 9311 N

RF, 50th M

ATD

: 5749 N / 9175 N

LFRF

HIC

511.2

430.9

Chest

Accel

45.8 g

45.7 g

Chest

Defl

24.7

mm

24.7

mm

LF

RF

Pretens

1.9”

(47 m

m)

1.7”

(44 m

m)

Spool

out

12.8”

(47 + 278

mm)

Channel failed

after ~1.7” (44

mm) of spoolout

~23”

(590 m

m)

LF,

M,

6’,

252#

Fatal head,

chest &

abdominal

trauma

Multiple

frontal

impacts,

both

~30mph ΔV,

Prior Airbag

Dep

loym

ent

Field

Case #5

/

NHTSA

#6291

2008 M

ini

Cooper 2‐dr,

(2007‐2010),

2010 M

ini

Cooper

Clubman

LF, 50th M

ATD

: 4935 N / 8868 N

RF, 50th M

ATD

: 4555 N / 8908 N

LFRF

HIC

379.4

622.2

Chest

Accel

47.7 g

45.9 g

Chest

Defl

27.1

mm

31.8

mm

Not Reported

Video

Analysis indicates:

LF: ~2” (~51 m

m) pretens &

~13” (~330 m

m) spoolout

~17”

(432 m

m)

LF,

M,

6’,

244#

Fatal,

Multiple

skull

fractures

Left Offset,

Left PDOF,

Mid 30’s

mph ΔV,

No Airbag

Dep

loym

ent


- 126 -

/ C C

Vi d

Field

Case

/ Test #

NCAP Ve

(Equiva

Model Ye

Field Ve

Field

ase #6

/

NHTSA

#5906

2007 K

Spectra 4

(2004‐20

2008 K

Spectra

Field

ase #7

/

NHTSA

#4864

2004 M

a4‐dr

(2003‐20

2005 M

a4‐dr

deo

Analysis

Field Case # 1 ~e

hicle

lent

ears),

hicle

ATD

Siz

Max Belt

(Shoulder

Kia

4‐dr,

008),

Kia

4‐dr

LF, 50th M

5088 N / 7

RF, 50th M

2531 N / 6

zda 3

, 008),

zda 3

r

LF, 50th M

3587 N / 8

RF, 50th M

3779 N / 9

1 / NHTSA #5677 2

~ 330 m

m (~13”) Bze

&

Load

s r / Lap)

Injury M

M ATD

: 7144 N

M ATD

: 6172 N

HIC

Chest

Accel

Chest

Defl

M ATD

: 8580 N

M ATD

: 9396 N

HIC

Chest

Accel

Chest

Defl

2007 Toyota Yaris

Belt Spoolout

Measurements

LFRF

500.5

344.2

43.3 g

38.6 g

25.7

mm

25.4

mm

LFRF

498.7

296.3

45.1 g

48.3 g

21.2

mm

24.4

mm

s NCAP,

NCAP Be

Not R

Video

Analy

RF: ~2.5” (~64

~11.5” (~292

LF

Pretens

0.0”

(0 m

m)

Spool

out

16.9”

(428 m

mlt Spoolout

eported

ysis indicates:

4 m

m) pretens &

2 m

m) spoolout RF

) 0.0”

(0 m

m)

m)

22.4”

(568 m

m)

Field Case #5

/~ 3

Field Case

Spool

out

~22”

(560 m

m)

≥ 22”

(~560

mm)

/ NHTSA #6291 20

330 m

m (~13”) Be

Occupan

t Location/

Gender/

Stature

In

RF,

M,

5’ 9

‐10”,

165‐170#

Nfra

quad

LF,

M,

6’1”,

180#

Finj

Inc

mf

fra

008 M

ini Cooper

elt Spoolout

njury

Acciden

Data

Neck

ctures,

driplegia

Multiple

frontal

impacts

Prior Airb

Dep

loym

e

Fatal

juries,

cluding

ultiple

facial

actures

Narrow

object

frontal

impact,

No Airba

Dep

loym

e

NCAP,

t e s,

bag

ent

w , ag

ent


- 127 -

Field Case #6

/

~ NHTSA #5906 20

64 m

m (~2.5”) Be007 Kia Spectra 4‐

elt Pretension

dr Sedan,

Field Case #6

/ N

~ 2N

HTSA #5906 200

292 m

m (~11.5”) B07 Kia Spectra 4‐d

Belt Spoolout

r Sedan,


- 128 -

IIHS 2007 Toyota Yaris

V

s Moderate O

VII. APPENDIX

Overlap Fron

X B

ntal, ~ 406 mm (~16”) Bellt Spoolout


- 129 -

Assessing the Effects of Limiting on - IRCOBI · 1.5 mph). S g. 3). With the forward Fig. 2. pact...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing the Effects of Limiting on - IRCOBI · 1.5 mph). S g. 3). With the forward Fig. 2. pact...