Search Results

Define recommendations for color coding of child restraint labels, specifically focused on the information contained therein and whether it provides information for installation in a forward facing, rear facing, or booster mode.

1. SCOPE These guidelines should be considered: When implementing the LATCH system in vehicle seating positions that will be designated by the vehicle owner’s manual and in the information included in the owners manual. When implementing the LATCH system in child restraint designs that include the LATCH system and in the information included in the instruction manual

This document describes the assessment methods and physical requirements associated with the manual handling of carts and dollies, specific to material handling systems. All possible designs and applications could not be anticipated in creating these guidelines. Where there are questions of adherence to this document, such as use of an “off-the shelf” design, always consult the responsible Ergonomics Department. Force guidelines were primarily developed referencing the push/pull psychophysical Snook data contained in A Guide to Manual Materials Handling (second edition) by Mital, Nicholson and Ayoub (NY: Taylor & Francis, 1997). The force guidelines accommodate 75% of female capabilities and 99% of male capabilities. Factors that were included in the established guideline include: push / pull distances, vertical hand height, horizontal hand height, frequency and wheel / castor alignment and load rating. These factors were used to develop a conservative force guideline.

SAE J1698-1A creates an appendix to SAE J1698-1. The appendix contains EDR Record parameters and definitions related to light duty passenger vehicle pedestrian protection systems.

SAE J1698-1A creates an appendix to SAE J1698-1. The appendix contains EDR Record parameters and definitions related to light duty passenger vehicle pedestrian protection systems.

Since little data exists to provide appropriate values for control parameters that would be appropriate for mature drivers, the following recommendations are of a general nature. However, they are based upon the current understanding of the aging processes that characterize mature drivers. Notwithstanding the lack of an extensive amount of data in this field, the dissemination of this SAE Information Report is considered to be appropriate and timely in light of the large increase in the number of mature drivers on the public roads, and because of the need to at least initiate efforts toward developing an information report covering this issue. It is realized that there may be cases where specific recommendations may conflict with vehicle packaging and/or operational requirements. Deviation from the recommendations may be necessary and permissible to achieve the best overall system performance.

This SAE Recommended Practice provides a systematic method for the identification of End Mills. It is intended to assist in the cataloging and supplying of these tools. NOTE 1— Caution must be taken when assigning codes for designation to prevent specifying cutting tools that cannot be physically or economically manufactured. NOTE 2— In particular without limitation, SAE disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of information contained within this report if the standards of this report are retrieved, combined, or used in connection with any software.

This SAE Recommended Practice provides a systematic method for the identification of End Mills. It is intended to assist in the cataloging and supplying of these tools. NOTE 1— Caution must be taken when assigning codes for designation to prevent specifying cutting tools that cannot be physically or economically manufactured. NOTE 2— In particular without limitation, SAE disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of information contained within this report if the standards of this report are retrieved, combined, or used in connection with any software.

This SAE Standard describes the interface between an on-vehicle Mayday detection, reporting system and the off-vehicle response center that will manage the response to the vehicle's call for assistance. The automatic detection and reporting by either the intelligent vehicle itself or by the intelligent roadway of a vehicle that is disabled or involved in an accident, [referred to as Automatic Mayday], is one of the key services identified by the ITS America program plan road map. This effort has been identified, as STD SAE J2313 in recent DOT-FHWA efforts to advance needed National standards. This document primarily addresses the responsibilities of a vehicle in detecting and reporting such an event. Equipment suites on each vehicle will vary widely, as will the communications channel employed to report the incident.

This SAE Information Report documents the problems with the 2002 regulated version of the spine box and defines a recommended solution to resolve the problem.

The objective of this document is to enhance the test procedure that is used for ejection mitigation testing per the NHTSA guidelines as mentioned in the FMVSS226 Final Rule document (NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004). The countermeasure for occupant ejection testing is to be tested with an 18kg mass on a guided linear impactor using the featureless headform specifically designed for ejection mitigation testing. SAE does not endorse any particular countermeasure for ejection mitigation testing. However, the document reflects guidelines that should be followed to maintain consistency in the test results. Examples of currently used countermeasures include the Inflatable Curtain airbags and Laminated Glass.

The objective of this document is to enhance the test procedure that is used for ejection mitigation testing per the NHTSA guidelines as mentioned in the FMVSS226 Final Rule document (NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004). The countermeasure for occupant ejection testing is to be tested with an 18kg mass on a guided linear impactor using the featureless headform specifically designed for ejection mitigation testing. SAE does not endorse any particular countermeasure for ejection mitigation testing. However, the document reflects guidelines that should be followed to maintain consistency in the test results. Examples of currently used countermeasures include the Inflatable Curtain airbags and Laminated Glass.

This Information Report contains a definition of road vehicle hands-free operation. This definition applies to driver inputs to a wireless communications device used for person-to-person wireless communications while driving. This report applies to both original equipment manufacturers’ and aftermarket devices. The definition does not apply to outputs, e.g., visual or haptic feedback, from a communication system or device, regardless of the modality of human-machine interface. It also does not apply to parallel or redundant manual control operating modes.

This Information Report contains a definition of road vehicle hands-free operation. This definition applies to driver inputs to a wireless communications device used for person-to-person wireless communications while driving. This report applies to both original equipment manufacturers’ and aftermarket devices. The definition does not apply to outputs, e.g., visual or haptic feedback, from a communication system or device, regardless of the modality of human-machine interface. It also does not apply to parallel or redundant manual control operating modes.

This procedure provides a method of determining a benchmark SgRP position for adjustable Driver’s seats in Class A vehicles where the design intent information is not available. Class A vehicles include passenger cars, multipurpose passengervehicles, and vans with Seat Heights (H30) greater than 127 mm and less than 405 mm for the purposes of this document. Once the Driver’s Seat Benchmark SgRP is determined other seating positions can be readily benchmarked based on the standard procedures. This document references installation procedures using the SAE J826 H-point Machine. If desired the document can be adapted to use the HPM-II by substituting the appropriate SAE J4002 instatllation procedures. In that case, the use of the HPM-II should be clearly documented. Since the SgRP is the basis for many interior benchmark dimensions this information can be used to assess or compare vehicle interiors in a standard repeatable way based on the packaging limitations of the property.

This procedure provides a method of determining a benchmark SgRP position for adjustable Driver’s seats in Class A vehicles where the design intent information is not available. Class A vehicles include passenger cars, multipurpose passengervehicles, and vans with Seat Heights (H30) greater than 127 mm and less than 405 mm for the purposes of this document. Once the Driver’s Seat Benchmark SgRP is determined other seating positions can be readily benchmarked based on the standard procedures. This document references installation procedures using the SAE J826 H-point Machine. If desired the document can be adapted to use the HPM-II by substituting the appropriate SAE J4002 instatllation procedures. In that case, the use of the HPM-II should be clearly documented. Since the SgRP is the basis for many interior benchmark dimensions this information can be used to assess or compare vehicle interiors in a standard repeatable way based on the packaging limitations of the property.

The cautionary statements presented in this SAE Information Report are to be included in all current and future SAE standards involving service practices (J2211) and service equipment (J2210) for HFC-134a refrigerant.

This SAE Recommended Practice defines procedures intended to be used to validate that relevant EDR output records conform within specified limits to measured sensor input to the device.