Search Results

Many vehicles allow consumers to adapt the vehicle environment to their families’ needs by folding or removing one or more rear row seats. It is currently unclear how different seat configurations affect child restraint systems (CRS) installed in adjacent seats. The objective is to quantify CRS performance in far-side impacts when the seating position adjacent to the CRS is in its normal upright position, folded in half, or removed. Twelve tests were conducted. Second row seats from a recent model year minivan were obtained, including full size captain’s chairs from the outboard positions and narrow seats from the center position. Rear-facing (RF) and forward-facing (FF) CRS were installed one at a time in either the outboard or center position. The seating position adjacent to the CRS was set in either the standard upright position, folded in half, or removed. Far-side impacts were conducted at 10° anterior of pure lateral at 24.8 ± 0.2 g. The Q3s ATD was used for all tests.

The objective is to determine whether responses and injury risks for pediatric occupants in child restraint systems (CRS) are affected by vehicle seat cushion stiffness and fore/aft cushion length. Eighteen sled tests were conducted using the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 frontal pulse (48 km/h). Seats from a recent model year vehicle were customized by the manufacturer with three different levels of cushion stiffness: compliant, mid-range, and stiff. Each stiffness level was quantified using ASTM D 3574-08 and all were within the realistic range of modern production seats. The usable length of each seat cushion was manipulated using foam spacers provided by the manufacturer. Two different seat lengths were examined: short (34.0 cm) and long (43.5 cm).