DRAFT MEETING MINUTES October 11, 2006

 

 

 

Committee Name: ­Occupant Ejection Protection Committee                    

 

Chair Name:             Douglas Stein                                                             

 

Members Present:

Peter Dishart

Mark Gold

Mike Scavnicky

Chuck Butler

Robert Vandal

John Musiol

Thomas Fornari

Mike Khouti

Ayad Nayef

Doug Stein

                                               

1)    Welcome and Introductions: Round table introductions were made by each member in attendance. A membership roster was circulated to obtain updated contact information.

2)    Committee Mission: The Mission Statement included in the draft Technical Committee Profile was discussed. It currently is stated as: “The Committee will provide technical and regulatory support in the area of occupant protection from ejection in rollover accidents”. Several members expressed concern that the word “support” is rather open-ended and that we should consider a more definitive description. The chair will draft a new Statement for review at our next meeting based on this discussion.

3)    Status of NHTSA procedure and testing: The NHTSA is preparing a description of the test procedure that will be used for upcoming tests. This will be distributed to members once released from NHTSA management review. No commitment has been made on timing for this document, but we expect that it may be distributed this month. NHTSA is currently considering 2 linear impact test conditions:

• 18 kg mass impacting the curtain at a speed of 24 kph (400 J) 1.5 second after initiation.
• 18 kg mass impacting the curtain at a speed of 16 kph (178 J) 6 seconds after initiation

At this time we have some indication (but no confirmation) of several important elements of this test:

• Are windows open or closed for the tests – or both? This issue is a topic of discussion within NHTSA. Field data indicates that a vast majority of occupants drive with their windows closed, but the possibility exists that windows can be open. Based on testing performed to date, and on conversations with NHTSA, there are 3 probable scenarios NHTSA is considering. 1) windows open with inflatable device deployed, 2) windows closed with inflatable device deployed, and 3) windows closed with no inflatable device. Options “2” and “3” would only be considered where laminated glass is present, as there is an assumption made in all tests that the glass will be broken during a rollover.
• Any tests with the (laminated) windows closed will be conducted with the windows pre-broken. The method for pre-breaking is not finalized, but NHTSA is currently applying a standard automatic center punch to each side of the glass at the center of each impact location. The amount of pre-breakage does not seem to affect the results very much. NHTSA has not indicated a position on whether the regulation will allow laminated glass windows to be closed during a certification test. If this is not allowed, the inflatable device (or other technology) would need to retain the impacting mass on its own.
• What rows need to be tested – all rows or just the first row? Currently NHTSA is evaluating multiple rows (where applicable). NHTSA has not indicated a position on how many rows will be evaluated for certification.
• What vehicles will be affected by the new regulation? NHTSA has not indicated an official position on this, but their current approach is to evaluate all light passenger vehicles (including light trucks and SUV’s).

4)    Review of Previous Laminated Glass Studies by NHTSA and Industry: Peter Dishart gave an informative presentation to the committee. Some of the information provided is summarized below:

·      The laminated glass suppliers belong to the EPGAA (Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Association).

·      Laminated glass is currently being used in over 60 production vehicles globally for characteristics such as; exterior noise reduction, weight reduction, theft protection, UV reduction, aesthetics (color added), and safety.

·      The laminate used has a greater affect on the retention characteristics than the method of pre-breakage, and can be tailored to specific engineering needs.

·      Results from testing of current production vehicles indicate a benefit when using the laminated glass and inflatable devices as a combined system, over either technology on its own.

5)    New Business:

·      The Chair was asked to contact the AAM to request a summary of their expectations of this committee. In addition, the Chair will request information from the Alliance that describes their current recommendations for the occupant containment test, and any supporting rationale they are able to provide. This information will be used to help understand our role in the joint working group with the Alliance, and to ensure our member companies understand the level of commitment that is being requested.

·      As a follow up to the EPGAA presentation, it was requested that a presentation be made to inform the committee of the progress being made by the air bag suppliers in the area of occupant retention performance. Committee members were asked to submit their contribution to this presentation to the Chair.

·      The Chair was asked if there was an existing confidentiality agreement in effect that protected information released to this committee. The Chair will research this issue and provide a response to the committee before the next meeting.

6)    Next Meeting: The committee would like to hold a meeting in the next 3 to 5 weeks, to review NHTSA test methods and current testing results. It was suggested that the meeting be held near, or at the VRTC if an on-site demonstration and discussion of testing can be arranged. The Chair will contact VRTC to see if this can be accommodated. The meeting date will be set pending arrangements at VRTC.