# The Data That Saves Lives
## How Crash Testing Went from Guesswork to Science
### DTS Internal Presentation - Ben (Application Engineer)
### Duration: 45 minutes

---

# CENTRAL THESIS

> **"A crashed car is gone forever. The data is what remains."**

Every safety innovation in automotive history - from seatbelts to airbags to autonomous braking - exists because someone captured the right data at the right moment. Before data, we had opinions. After data, we had proof. And proof saves lives.

**This presentation follows the story of data:**
1. **HISTORY** - The desperate quest for data when we had none
2. **INFLUENCES** - Who uses data today and how it shapes the industry
3. **TEST METHODS** - How we capture the data that saves lives

**The throughline:** DTS is part of an unbroken chain from John Stapp's rocket sled to tomorrow's autonomous vehicles. We are the keepers of the data.

---

# PRESENTATION STRUCTURE

| Section | Time | Slides | Theme |
|---------|------|--------|-------|
| Opening | 3 min | 1-2 | The power of data |
| **SECTION 1: HISTORY** | 15 min | 3-10 | The quest for data |
| **SECTION 2: INFLUENCES** | 12 min | 11-16 | Who uses data today |
| **SECTION 3: TEST METHODS** | 12 min | 17-22 | How we capture data |
| Closing | 3 min | 23-24 | Our role in the chain |
| Q&A | 5+ min | 25 | Discussion |

---

# OPENING

---

## SLIDE 1: Title Slide

**Title:** "The Data That Saves Lives"
**Subtitle:** The Story of Crash Testing - From Guesswork to Science
**Presenter:** Ben, Application Engineer
**Company:** Diversified Technical Systems

**Visual:** Split image - vintage crash test (black & white) vs. modern instrumented test

---

## SLIDE 2: The Power of One Number

### Content:
**The number that changed everything:**

# 77%

**That's the reduction in traffic fatality rate since 1970.**

- 1970: 4.74 deaths per 100 million miles
- Today: 1.10 deaths per 100 million miles
- We drive 3x more miles, yet the death RATE dropped 77%

**If we still had 1970 fatality rates today:**
→ 153,000 deaths per year instead of 36,000
→ **117,000 lives saved annually**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let me start with a single number: 77%. That's how much safer driving has become since 1970. Back then, for every 100 million miles driven, nearly 5 people died. Today, it's just over 1. And we drive three times as many miles now. If we still had 1970 fatality rates with today's driving, we'd lose 153,000 people every year - instead of 36,000. That's 117,000 lives saved annually. This didn't happen by accident. It happened because of data. And that's what this presentation is about."

---

# SECTION 1: HISTORY
## "The Quest for Data"
### When we had opinions instead of proof

---

## SLIDE 3: The Dark Age - Before Data

### Visual:
![[assets/1957_buick_dashboard.jpg|400]]
*1957 Buick dashboard - chrome, steel, and zero data on what it did to humans*

### Content:
**Before 1950, we knew almost nothing about crashes.**

What we "knew" (wrongly):
- "Humans can't survive more than 18g" ❌
- "Crashes are unsurvivable - why bother designing for them?" ❌
- "The problem is bad drivers, not bad cars" ❌
- "Seatbelts might trap you in a burning car" ❌

**Why we were wrong:**
→ We had no data.
→ We had opinions, assumptions, and fear.

**The result:** 
- Rigid steering columns that impaled drivers
- Solid steel dashboards that crushed skulls
- No restraints to keep occupants in place
- **1+ million steering column deaths alone**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Before the 1950s, crash safety was based on assumptions, not evidence. The prevailing belief was that crashes were simply unsurvivable - so why engineer for them? The focus was entirely on preventing crashes through better roads, better training, better enforcement. But once a crash happened? You were on your own. And the data we did have was terrifying - over a million people were killed by steering columns alone before anyone thought to make them collapsible. We didn't know what we didn't know. And without data, we couldn't learn."

---

## SLIDE 4: The First Data Pioneer - Hugh DeHaven

### Content:
**Hugh DeHaven (1895-1980)**
*"The Father of Crashworthiness"*

**The Origin Story:**
- 1917: Mid-air collision during WWI pilot training
- Aircraft fell 500 feet
- Other pilot and his observer: killed
- DeHaven: walked away with minor injuries

**The Question That Changed Everything:**
> "Why did I survive?"

**What He Did:**
- Spent decades studying survivable crashes
- Analyzed people who fell from buildings and survived
- Founded Cornell Crash Injury Research Project (1942)
- Discovered the "second collision" - you hit the car interior AFTER the car stops

**The Data Insight:**
DeHaven measured survivors. He quantified forces. He proved that crash survival wasn't luck - it was physics. And physics could be engineered.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The data revolution started with one man asking one question. Hugh DeHaven survived a crash that killed everyone else. Instead of thanking God and moving on, he spent the rest of his life asking 'Why?' He studied falls, crashes, any situation where humans experienced extreme forces. And he discovered something crucial: it's not the crash that kills you - it's hitting the inside of your own car afterward. He called it the 'second collision.' This was data. This was measurable. And if it was measurable, it could be designed for."

---

## SLIDE 5: The Human Guinea Pig - John Stapp

### Visual:
![[assets/john_stapp_rocket_sled.jpg|450]]
*Col. John Stapp on the Sonic Wind rocket sled, moments before 46.2g*

![[assets/john_stapp_portrait.jpg|250]]
*Stapp in uniform - the man who proved humans could survive*

### Content:
**Col. John Paul Stapp (1910-1999)**
*"The Fastest Man on Earth"*

**The Data Problem:**
- Military needed to know: Can pilots survive ejection?
- Existing belief: Humans die above 18g
- No one had ever measured it properly

**Stapp's Solution: Become the Data**
- Rode rocket sleds **29 times**
- December 10, 1954: The big one
  - Accelerated to 632 mph (faster than a bullet)
  - Stopped in 1.4 seconds
  - Peak deceleration: **46.2g**
  - Duration: ~1 second

**His Injuries:**
- Broken ribs, broken wrists
- Burst blood vessels in eyes (temporary blindness)
- Lost dental fillings
- **Full recovery within weeks**

**The Data Revolution:**
Stapp didn't just survive - he was instrumented. He captured the data that proved the 18g limit was wrong.

### Speaker Notes:
> "John Stapp took data collection to its logical extreme - he became the test subject. The military needed to know if pilots could survive high-speed ejection, and the textbooks said 18g was fatal. Stapp didn't believe it. So he strapped himself to a rocket sled and found out. On his final ride, he hit 46.2g - more than double what was 'supposed' to kill him. He broke bones, temporarily lost his vision, and proved that with proper restraint, humans could survive forces nobody imagined. But here's the key: he was instrumented. He captured the data. Opinion said 18g was the limit. Data said otherwise. Data won."

---

## SLIDE 6: What Stapp's Data Proved

### Content:
**Before Stapp (Opinion):**
| Belief | Source |
|--------|--------|
| 18g is fatal | "Common knowledge" |
| Ejection seats can't work | Engineering assumption |
| Restraints don't matter | Untested |

**After Stapp (Data):**
| Finding | Evidence |
|---------|----------|
| 46.2g is survivable | Measured, documented, reproduced |
| Restraint design is critical | Stapp's harness innovations |
| Force distribution matters | Instrumented measurements |
| Duration affects survivability | Time-history data |

**The Ripple Effects:**
- Fighter pilot ejection seats became viable
- Seatbelt advocacy had scientific backing
- "Crashworthiness" became an engineering discipline
- **Data replaced opinion as the basis for design**

**Fun Fact:** Murphy's Law originated on Stapp's project. An engineer named Murphy wired sensors backward, leading Stapp to quip about what can go wrong, will go wrong.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Stapp's data didn't just prove one thing - it changed the entire framework. Before: opinion. After: evidence. His work made ejection seats possible, gave seatbelt advocates scientific ammunition, and established crashworthiness as a real engineering discipline. Oh, and Murphy's Law? That came from Stapp's project too. An engineer wired the sensors backward, and Stapp told the press about it. But the bigger point is this: Stapp was instrumented. He captured time-history data on the forces his body experienced. That data - not just his survival - is what changed everything."

---

## SLIDE 7: The Cadaver Data

### Visual:
![[assets/cadaver_crash_test.jpg|400]]
*Early crash test using human cadaver - the data that built injury thresholds*

### Content:
**The Uncomfortable Truth:**
The dead taught us how to save the living.

**Wayne State University (1930s-1960s):**
- Dropped steel balls on skulls to measure fracture threshold
- Sent bodies down elevator shafts
- Crashed instrumented cadavers into barriers
- Professor Lawrence Patrick tested impacts on himself 400+ times

**What This Data Gave Us:**
| Body Part | Injury Threshold | Source |
|-----------|------------------|--------|
| Skull fracture | ~75g (contact) | Ball drop tests |
| Chest compression | 63mm max | Cadaver impacts |
| Femur fracture | 10 kN | Sled tests |
| Neck tension | 3.3 kN | Controlled loading |

**Albert King's Calculation (1995):**
For every cadaver used in crash research:
- 61 people survive annually (seatbelt improvements)
- 147 people survive annually (airbag design)
- 68 people survive annually (windshield impacts)

**Total: ~8,500 lives saved per year from cadaver-derived data**

### Speaker Notes:
> "This slide is uncomfortable, but it's essential. Before we had crash test dummies, researchers used human cadavers - and sometimes their own bodies. Wayne State University dropped ball bearings on skulls, sent bodies down elevator shafts, and measured what it took to break human bones. Professor Lawrence Patrick subjected himself to impacts 400+ times. This data gave us the injury thresholds that every crash test dummy is calibrated against. Albert King calculated that cadaver research saves about 8,500 lives per year. For every single cadaver used, 276 people survive annually. The dead taught us how to save the living. We owe them accuracy in how we use that data."

---

## SLIDE 8: The Regulatory Data Revolution

### Visual:
![[assets/unsafe_at_any_speed_cover.jpg|250]]
*The book that forced the industry to face the data*

![[assets/ralph_nader_1975.jpg|300]]
*Ralph Nader - turned data into political power*

### Content:
**1965: Ralph Nader publishes "Unsafe at Any Speed"**

**Nader's Data-Driven Argument:**
- Exposed Corvair's dangerous handling characteristics
- Documented industry's refusal to adopt known safety features
- Calculated: $700/car on annual styling changes vs. $0.23 on safety

**GM's Response:**
- Hired investigators to dig up dirt on Nader
- Surveillance, harassment, attempted entrapment
- **Got caught** → Congressional hearings → GM apologizes publicly

**The Legislative Result:**
| Year | Action | Data Requirement |
|------|--------|------------------|
| 1966 | National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act | Manufacturers must report defects |
| 1966 | DOT created | Centralized data collection |
| 1970 | NHTSA established | Federal crash testing begins |
| 1979 | NCAP program | Public crash test ratings |

**The Shift:**
Before: Industry self-regulated with minimal data
After: Government demanded data, made it public, let consumers decide

### Speaker Notes:
> "Ralph Nader understood that data is power. His book 'Unsafe at Any Speed' didn't just make accusations - it documented them. He showed that manufacturers spent $700 per car on annual styling changes but only 23 cents on safety. GM tried to destroy him personally, got caught, and ended up apologizing before Congress. The result was the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the creation of DOT, and eventually NHTSA. For the first time, the government would collect crash data, conduct tests, and publish results. Data went from proprietary to public. That changed everything."

---

## SLIDE 9: The Data Surrogate - Birth of the Crash Test Dummy

### Visual:
![[assets/sierra_sam.jpg|250]]
*Sierra Sam (1949) - the first crash test dummy*

![[assets/hybrid_iii_family.jpg|400]]
*The Hybrid III family - standardized data collection*

### Content:
**The Problem with Cadavers:**
- Ethical concerns
- No two bodies are identical (no reproducibility)
- Can't repeat tests
- Limited supply

**The Solution: Mechanical Surrogates**

| Year | Dummy | Data Advance |
|------|-------|--------------|
| 1949 | Sierra Sam | First repeatable surrogate (ejection seats) |
| 1971 | Hybrid I | First automotive-specific dummy |
| 1972 | Hybrid II | First FMVSS-compliant dummy |
| 1976 | Hybrid III | **Gold standard** - still used today |
| 2023 | THOR-5F | First true female dummy |

**What Made Hybrid III Revolutionary:**
- Biofidelic response (mimics human tissue behavior)
- Standardized construction (every lab uses identical dummies)
- **Instrumentation capacity** - designed to hold sensors
- Reproducible results - test the same dummy 50+ times

**The Key Insight:**
A dummy without instrumentation is just an expensive mannequin. The dummy is the BODY. The instrumentation is the NERVOUS SYSTEM. **DTS provides the nervous system.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Cadavers gave us the injury thresholds, but we couldn't keep using them for every test. We needed a surrogate that could be crashed repeatedly, produce consistent results, and capture data. That's the crash test dummy. Sierra Sam was first in 1949, but the real breakthrough was Hybrid III in 1976. It's still the global standard today - nearly 50 years later. But here's what matters for us: a dummy without sensors is just a mannequin. The dummy provides the mechanical response. The instrumentation captures the data. DTS provides that instrumentation - we are literally the nervous system of the crash test dummy."

---

## SLIDE 10: Section 1 Summary - The History of Data

### Content:
**The Data Journey:**

| Era | Data Source | Limitation | Lives Saved |
|-----|-------------|------------|-------------|
| Pre-1940s | Opinions, assumptions | No scientific basis | Unknown |
| 1940s-50s | Human volunteers (Stapp) | Not scalable | Foundation laid |
| 1940s-60s | Cadaver research | Ethical, reproducibility | 8,500/year |
| 1970s+ | ATDs (dummies) | Standardized, repeatable | Millions |

**The Throughline:**
1. **Opinions** → led to million+ deaths
2. **Human experiments** → proved survival was possible
3. **Cadaver data** → established injury thresholds
4. **Dummy testing** → made safety engineering scalable

**Key Quote:**
> "Before data, we had opinions. After data, we had proof. And proof saves lives."

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let's recap the history. We went from opinions - which killed millions - through human experimentation, cadaver research, and finally to standardized dummy testing. Each step gave us better data. Better data gave us better designs. Better designs saved more lives. The pioneers gathered data through sacrifice - their own bodies, the bodies of the dead. Our job today is to honor that legacy by capturing data with precision and reliability. That's the foundation for everything in sections 2 and 3."

---

# SECTION 2: CURRENT INFLUENCES
## "Who Uses the Data"
### The ecosystem that turns data into saved lives

---

## SLIDE 11: The Modern Data Ecosystem

### Content:
**Data flows through a system. Everyone in the system uses DTS equipment.**

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      DATA ECOSYSTEM                         │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                             │
│   RESEARCH            REGULATION           CONSUMER        │
│   (Universities)  →   (NHTSA/FMVSS)   →   (IIHS/NCAP)     │
│        ↓                   ↓                   ↓           │
│   Injury thresholds   Minimum standards   Market pressure  │
│        ↓                   ↓                   ↓           │
│   ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────    │
│                           ↓                                │
│                    MANUFACTURERS                           │
│              (OEMs + Tier 1 Suppliers)                     │
│                           ↓                                │
│                    SAFER VEHICLES                          │
│                           ↓                                │
│                    LIVES SAVED                             │
│                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

**Every node in this system needs data.**
**DTS equipment captures that data.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "This is the ecosystem our customers operate in. Research universities establish injury thresholds and biomechanics. Regulators like NHTSA set minimum standards based on that research. Consumer testing organizations like IIHS create market pressure by publishing ratings. Manufacturers respond by designing safer vehicles. The result: lives saved. Data flows through every connection in this system. Every node needs accurate, reliable data capture. That's what we provide."

---

## SLIDE 12: The Regulators - Setting the Floor

### Content:
**NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)**

**What They Do:**
- Set Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
- Test vehicles for compliance
- Investigate defects
- Publish 5-star safety ratings (NCAP)

**Key FMVSS Standards:**
| Standard | Requirement | Data Captured |
|----------|-------------|---------------|
| FMVSS 208 | Occupant crash protection | Head, chest, femur loads |
| FMVSS 214 | Side impact protection | Pelvis, thorax, head |
| FMVSS 216 | Roof crush resistance | Force vs. displacement |
| FMVSS 301 | Fuel system integrity | Leakage measurement |

**The Data Requirement:**
NHTSA doesn't just want pass/fail. They want:
- Time-history data (what happened when)
- Peak values with timing
- Injury criteria calculations (HIC, Nij, etc.)
- Full documentation for every test

**DTS Connection:**
NHTSA's Vehicle Research & Test Center (East Liberty, OH) uses DTS equipment to generate the data that becomes regulation.

### Speaker Notes:
> "NHTSA sets the floor - the minimum safety level every vehicle must meet. Their Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards cover everything from seatbelt anchorages to fuel tank integrity. But here's what's important: compliance isn't just pass/fail. NHTSA requires detailed data - time histories, peak values, calculated injury metrics. This data must be precise, documented, and defensible. The Vehicle Research and Test Center, where NHTSA develops and validates standards, uses DTS equipment. Our data literally becomes regulation."

---

## SLIDE 13: The Influencers - Raising the Bar

### Visual:
![[assets/iihs_crash_hall.jpg|400]]
*IIHS crash test facility - where ratings drive the market*

![[assets/iihs_frontal_crash_test.jpg|400]]
*IIHS moderate overlap frontal test*

### Content:
**IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)**

**What Makes IIHS Different:**
- Funded by insurance companies (they pay crash claims)
- NOT government - purely consumer information
- Tests often MORE demanding than FMVSS
- Ratings directly affect buying decisions

**The Data Power Play:**
| Year | IIHS Test Introduction | Industry Response |
|------|------------------------|-------------------|
| 1995 | Moderate overlap frontal | Redesigned structures |
| 2003 | Side impact | Added side airbags |
| 2012 | Small overlap frontal | **Massive failures** → rapid fixes |
| 2021 | Updated side impact | Heavier, faster barrier |

**The Small Overlap Story (2012):**
- First tests: Luxury cars failed miserably
- BMW, Mercedes, Audi: "Poor" or "Marginal"
- Public embarrassment → immediate engineering response
- By 2017: Most vehicles earned "Good"

**The Data Demand:**
IIHS publishes detailed results, force plots, video. Manufacturers need matching data to diagnose problems and verify fixes.

### Speaker Notes:
> "If NHTSA sets the floor, IIHS raises the bar. They're funded by insurance companies who pay out when people get hurt - so they're highly motivated to reduce injuries. Their tests are often tougher than federal requirements. And their ratings affect sales. When IIHS introduced the small overlap test in 2012, most vehicles failed - including luxury brands. The public embarrassment drove immediate engineering responses. Within five years, most vehicles earned 'Good' ratings. This is data creating market pressure. IIHS publishes detailed force plots and video. Manufacturers need equally detailed data to diagnose problems. That's where we come in."

---

## SLIDE 14: The Researchers - Expanding Knowledge

### Content:
**University Research Centers**

| Institution | Focus | Data Need |
|-------------|-------|-----------|
| Wayne State University | Biomechanics, injury thresholds | Cadaver instrumentation |
| Ohio State University | Injury Biomechanics Research Center | ATD validation |
| University of Virginia | Center for Applied Biomechanics | Human body modeling |
| Wake Forest University | Injury prevention | Pediatric biomechanics |

**What Researchers Do:**
- Establish new injury criteria
- Validate and improve ATD designs
- Develop computational human models
- Study populations not well-represented (elderly, children, females)

**The Female Dummy Problem:**
- Most testing uses 50th percentile male (5'9", 175 lbs)
- Women are 17% more likely to die in equivalent crashes
- Researchers identified the gap
- THOR-5F (2023) - first true female dummy - emerged from this research

**The Data Chain:**
Research data → ATD design → Test standards → Safer vehicles

**DTS Connection:**
Research requires the highest precision. Novel instrumentation. Unusual test setups. We support the cutting edge.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Universities are where new knowledge is created. Wayne State pioneered cadaver research. Ohio State validates crash test dummies. UVA builds computational human models. These researchers establish injury criteria that eventually become test standards. They also identify gaps - like the female dummy problem. Women are 17% more likely to die in equivalent crashes, partly because testing optimized for male anatomy. Research identified this. Now we have THOR-5F, the first true female dummy. Research data becomes ATD design becomes test standards becomes safer vehicles. We support researchers at the cutting edge."

---

## SLIDE 15: The Manufacturers - Applying Data

### Content:
**OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers)**

**Every Major Automaker Has:**
- Dedicated crash test facilities
- Full-vehicle test capability
- Sled testing for component development
- Pre-production validation programs

**The Development Data Loop:**

```
Design concept → Simulation (CAE) → Sled test → Full vehicle test
      ↑                                              ↓
      ←──────────────── Iterate until pass ←────────┘
```

**What Manufacturers Need from Data:**
1. **Speed**: Results fast enough to meet program timing
2. **Accuracy**: Must correlate to real-world outcomes
3. **Detail**: Time histories, not just peak values
4. **Reproducibility**: Run same test twice, get same data

**Tier 1 Suppliers:**
- Autoliv, ZF, Joyson (restraint systems)
- Need component-level data
- Sled testing, out-of-position testing
- Supply data to OEM customers as validation

**DTS Connection:**
We're in virtually every major OEM and Tier 1 crash lab worldwide. Our equipment captures the data that validates designs before production.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Manufacturers are where data becomes product. Every major automaker has crash test facilities. They run simulations, sled tests, and full vehicle tests throughout development. The data loop is: design, simulate, test, iterate until it passes. What they need from data acquisition is speed, accuracy, detail, and reproducibility. One bad data point can mean a $100,000+ retest. Tier 1 suppliers like Autoliv and ZF also need component-level data - they supply airbags and seatbelts and must prove their products work. DTS equipment is in virtually every major crash lab. Our data validates designs before they reach production."

---

## SLIDE 16: Section 2 Summary - The Data Users

### Content:
**Everyone Needs Data. We Provide It.**

| User | Purpose | Data Requirement | DTS Role |
|------|---------|------------------|----------|
| **NHTSA** | Set minimum standards | Compliance documentation | Certification testing |
| **IIHS/NCAP** | Consumer ratings | Detailed comparative data | Rating tests |
| **Universities** | Create new knowledge | Novel instrumentation | Research support |
| **OEMs** | Design safe vehicles | Development data loops | Lab instrumentation |
| **Tier 1** | Component validation | Sub-system testing | Sled test systems |

**The Common Thread:**
Every organization in the safety ecosystem:
1. Runs crash tests
2. Needs precise data capture
3. Can't afford bad data
4. Uses DTS equipment

**Key Quote:**
> "The data that flows through this ecosystem eventually becomes the car you drive home tonight."

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let's summarize section 2. Regulators, consumer testers, researchers, OEMs, suppliers - they all need data. They all need it fast, accurate, detailed, and reproducible. They all use DTS equipment. The data that flows through this ecosystem eventually becomes the vehicles we all drive. When someone survives a crash because the airbag deployed correctly, because the seatbelt pretensioned at the right moment, because the structure absorbed energy as designed - that's data turned into engineering turned into saved lives."

---

# SECTION 3: CURRENT TEST METHODS
## "How We Capture Data"
### The tests that generate the data that saves lives

---

## SLIDE 17: The Test Hierarchy

### Content:
**From Component to Complete Vehicle**

| Level | Test Type | Purpose | Data Complexity |
|-------|-----------|---------|-----------------|
| 1 | Material testing | Properties of steel, plastic, foam | Low - force/displacement |
| 2 | Component testing | Individual part behavior | Medium - multiple channels |
| 3 | Subsystem testing | Integrated assemblies (seat, restraint) | Medium-High |
| 4 | Sled testing | Occupant response without vehicle | High - full ATD |
| 5 | Full vehicle crash | Complete system validation | **Very High** - vehicle + ATD |

**Why This Matters:**
- Full vehicle tests cost $50K-$500K+ each
- Can't afford to fail at full vehicle stage
- Lower-level testing validates components first
- Data from each level feeds the next

**The Economic Reality:**
| Component | Approximate Cost |
|-----------|------------------|
| Full vehicle test | $50,000 - $500,000+ |
| Test vehicle (destroyed) | $30,000 - $80,000 |
| Hybrid III 50th male ATD | $200,000 - $400,000 |
| THOR-50M | $500,000 - $800,000 |
| DTS data acquisition | [Small fraction] |

**The Insight:**
A crashed car is gone forever. The data is what justifies the cost. Bad data = wasted test = repeat expense.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let's talk about how tests are structured. You don't start with a full vehicle crash - that's too expensive to get wrong. You start with material testing, then components, then subsystems, then sled tests, then finally full vehicle. Data from each level validates the next. A full vehicle test can cost half a million dollars. The vehicle is destroyed. The dummy costs $200,000 to $800,000. If the data is bad, you've wasted everything. The data acquisition system is a tiny fraction of the total cost - but it captures ALL the value."

---

## SLIDE 18: Full Vehicle Crash Tests

### Visual:
![[assets/small_overlap_test.jpg|400]]
*IIHS small overlap test - 25% of vehicle width at 40 mph*

![[assets/roof_strength_test.jpg|350]]
*Roof strength test - critical for rollover protection*

### Content:
**Frontal Impact Tests:**
| Test | Configuration | Speed | What It Measures |
|------|---------------|-------|------------------|
| NHTSA Full Frontal | 100% overlap, rigid barrier | 35 mph | Full structure + restraints |
| IIHS Moderate Overlap | 40% offset, deformable barrier | 40 mph | Structure + occupant compartment |
| IIHS Small Overlap | 25% offset, rigid barrier | 40 mph | Structural engagement |
| Oblique | Angled impact | Varies | Real-world crash modes |

**Side Impact Tests:**
| Test | Configuration | What It Measures |
|------|---------------|------------------|
| NHTSA Side | Moving deformable barrier, 90° | Side structure + curtain airbags |
| IIHS Side | Heavier/faster barrier (2021+) | Updated injury criteria |
| Pole | Sliding into narrow object | Head protection, door intrusion |

**Other Tests:**
- Roof crush (rollover protection)
- Rear impact (head restraint, whiplash)
- Pedestrian protection
- Fuel system integrity

**Data Captured Per Test:**
A typical full vehicle test captures 50-100+ channels of data:
- Head, chest, pelvis acceleration (ATD)
- Neck, femur, tibia loads (ATD)
- Chest deflection (ATD)
- Vehicle acceleration
- Barrier loads
- High-speed video (multiple angles)

### Speaker Notes:
> "Full vehicle tests are the ultimate validation. Frontal tests range from full overlap into rigid barriers to small overlap - just 25% of the width. Side tests simulate T-bone crashes and pole impacts. Roof crush tests rollover protection. Each test captures 50 to 100+ channels of data. The ATD alone might have 30-40 sensors measuring head acceleration, neck loads, chest compression, pelvis acceleration, femur loads. We capture all of it, time-synchronized, at sample rates up to 10,000 or even 100,000 samples per second. The data tells the story of what happened in that fraction of a second."

---

## SLIDE 19: Sled Testing - The Workhorse

### Content:
**What Is Sled Testing?**
- Simulates crash pulse without destroying a vehicle
- Occupant compartment (buck) mounted on acceleration sled
- Sled accelerates/decelerates to match target crash pulse
- **Repeatable, controllable, economical**

**Advantages Over Full Vehicle:**
| Factor | Full Vehicle | Sled Test |
|--------|--------------|-----------|
| Cost per test | $50K-500K | $5K-50K |
| Vehicle consumed | Yes | No |
| Repeatability | Moderate | High |
| Parameter control | Limited | Excellent |
| Setup time | Days | Hours |

**What Sled Tests Are Used For:**
1. Restraint system development (airbags, belts)
2. Seat design validation
3. Out-of-position (OoP) testing
4. Child restraint testing
5. ATD development and validation

**The Data Demands:**
Sled tests often require MORE precision than full vehicle:
- Exact crash pulse reproduction
- Sub-millisecond timing
- Correlation to full vehicle results

**DTS Role:**
Sled testing is where products are developed. The data must be precise enough to diagnose problems and verify fixes.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Sled testing is the workhorse of crash safety development. Instead of destroying a car, you mount a test buck - a section of the occupant compartment - on a sled and reproduce the crash pulse. It's cheaper, faster, and more repeatable. This is where restraint systems are developed. Where out-of-position scenarios are tested. Where child seats are validated. The data demands are actually higher than full vehicle tests because you need precision to diagnose subtle problems. If the airbag is deploying 5 milliseconds late, you need data that can show that."

---

## SLIDE 20: The ATD - Capturing Human Response

### Visual:
![[assets/hybrid_iii_family.jpg|350]]
*Hybrid III family - 95th male to child sizes*

![[assets/thor_dummy.jpg|350]]
*THOR-50M - the next generation*

### Content:
**The Hybrid III (1976 - Still Standard)**
| Measurement Location | Sensor Type | What It Tells Us |
|---------------------|-------------|------------------|
| Head | Triaxial accelerometer | Head Injury Criterion (HIC) |
| Neck | 6-axis load cell | Neck tension, compression, bending |
| Chest | Accelerometer + potentiometer | Chest acceleration, deflection |
| Lumbar | 6-axis load cell | Spinal loading |
| Pelvis | Triaxial accelerometer | Pelvis acceleration |
| Femur | Load cells | Femur compression force |

**The THOR-50M (Next Generation)**
- 150+ data channels (vs. ~40 for Hybrid III)
- Multi-point chest deflection
- Abdomen instrumentation
- More biofidelic response
- Required for some Euro NCAP tests

**DTS Instrumentation:**
- Accelerometers
- Load cells (force measurement)
- Potentiometers (displacement)
- Angular rate sensors
- On-board data acquisition (survives the crash)

**The Key Insight:**
The dummy provides the mechanical response. The instrumentation captures the data. Without instrumentation, a crash test is just an expensive car destruction.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The crash test dummy is a sophisticated mechanical surrogate, but it can't tell us anything without instrumentation. A Hybrid III has about 40 sensors measuring head acceleration, neck loads, chest compression, pelvis movement, femur loads. THOR has over 150 channels. These sensors must survive the crash - which can exceed 40g - and continue recording. They must be accurate to calculate injury criteria. DTS provides this instrumentation. We put the nervous system into the dummy. Without us, you just have an expensive mannequin being destroyed."

---

## SLIDE 21: Active Safety Testing - The New Frontier

### Content:
**The Shift from Passive to Active:**

| Passive Safety | Active Safety |
|----------------|---------------|
| Protects DURING crash | Prevents crash entirely |
| Seatbelts, airbags, structure | AEB, ESC, LDW |
| Testing: crash dummies | Testing: track, targets, scenarios |

**AEB Testing (Autonomous Emergency Braking):**
- Vehicle approaches pedestrian/vehicle targets at set speeds
- System must detect and brake automatically
- Data captured: vehicle dynamics, system response time, stopping distance

**IIHS AEB Ratings:**
| Speed | Requirement |
|-------|-------------|
| 12 mph | Avoid collision OR reduce impact speed |
| 25 mph | Reduce impact speed |

**Euro NCAP Requirements:**
- AEB for vehicles
- AEB for pedestrians
- AEB for cyclists
- Lane support systems

**The Data Challenge:**
Active safety testing needs different data:
- Vehicle position and velocity
- Target detection timing
- System activation point
- Braking force application

**DTS Opportunity:**
As active safety grows, data needs expand. New sensor types, new test protocols, new customers.

### Speaker Notes:
> "There's a revolution happening in safety testing. Passive safety - seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones - protects you during a crash. Active safety - AEB, ESC, lane keeping - tries to prevent the crash entirely. Testing active safety is different. Instead of crashing into barriers, you're testing whether the car stops before hitting a target. IIHS now requires AEB for top safety ratings. Euro NCAP tests pedestrian and cyclist detection. This creates new data needs: vehicle dynamics, system response timing, target detection. The market for data acquisition is expanding, not shrinking."

---

## SLIDE 22: Section 3 Summary - The Data We Capture

### Content:
**Test Methods Create Data. Data Creates Safety.**

| Test Type | Data Volume | Precision Required | DTS Role |
|-----------|-------------|-------------------|----------|
| Full vehicle crash | 50-100+ channels | Very high | All ATD, vehicle sensors |
| Sled testing | 30-50 channels | Extremely high | ATD + buck instrumentation |
| Component testing | 5-20 channels | High | Targeted measurement |
| Active safety | Various | High | Expanding market |

**What Makes Data Valuable:**
1. **Accuracy** - Must represent reality
2. **Precision** - Must be repeatable
3. **Completeness** - Can't have gaps or dropouts
4. **Timing** - Sub-millisecond synchronization
5. **Survivability** - Equipment must survive the crash

**The DTS Value Proposition:**
We don't make cars safer directly. We capture the data that lets engineers make cars safer. One bad data point can invalidate a $500,000 test.

**Key Quote:**
> "Trust in data is everything. When lives depend on the analysis, the data must be unquestionable."

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let's summarize section 3. From full vehicle crashes to sled tests to component testing, every test generates data. That data must be accurate, precise, complete, properly timed, and the equipment must survive crash conditions. DTS provides that capability. We don't make vehicles safer directly - we capture the data that enables engineers to make them safer. When a test costs $500,000 and the data fails, you've wasted half a million dollars. When the data is good, you've created knowledge that protects people. Trust in data is everything."

---

# CLOSING

---

## SLIDE 23: The Chain We're Part Of

### Content:
**The Unbroken Chain from Stapp to Tomorrow:**

```
1954: Stapp's rocket sled data proves survival is possible
              ↓
1960s: Cadaver research establishes injury thresholds
              ↓
1970s: Hybrid III enables standardized testing
              ↓
1980s-90s: NHTSA/IIHS create market pressure with data
              ↓
2000s-10s: Airbags, ESC, AEB become standard
              ↓
2020s: Active safety, female dummies, EV testing
              ↓
Future: Autonomous vehicles, new injury criteria
              ↓
         EVERY STEP REQUIRES DATA
              ↓
         DTS CAPTURES THAT DATA
```

**Our Place:**
We didn't invent the seatbelt. We didn't design the airbag. We didn't create the crash test dummy. But NONE of those innovations would exist without the data that proved they work. DTS is part of the chain. We capture the data that saves lives.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let me show you where we fit. Stapp's rocket sled proved humans could survive. Cadaver research gave us injury thresholds. The Hybrid III made standardized testing possible. NHTSA and IIHS created market pressure with public data. Airbags, ESC, AEB became standard because data proved they worked. Every step in this chain required data. We capture that data. We didn't invent the seatbelt or design the airbag - but without accurate data, none of those innovations could have been validated. DTS is part of an unbroken chain from Stapp to whatever comes next. We're the keepers of the data that saves lives."

---

## SLIDE 24: The Bottom Line

### Content:
**Remember This:**

| Then | Now | Data Made the Difference |
|------|-----|-------------------------|
| 1970: 4.74 deaths/100M VMT | 2019: 1.10 deaths/100M VMT | **77% reduction** |
| Opinion: "18g is fatal" | Data: Stapp survived 46.2g | Changed engineering limits |
| Belief: "Crashes are unsurvivable" | Reality: Crashworthiness works | Millions of lives saved |

**117,000 people are alive this year who would have died under 1970 conditions.**

Every one of them was saved by a chain of decisions:
- Research that established injury thresholds
- Regulations that required minimum standards
- Testing that validated designs before production
- Data that made it all possible

**We don't make cars safer directly.**
**We capture the data that lets engineers make cars safer.**
**The data saves lives.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Here's the bottom line. 117,000 people will survive this year who would have died under 1970 conditions. Every one of them was saved by a chain of decisions rooted in data. Research established injury thresholds. Regulations required minimum standards. Testing validated designs before production. Data made it all possible. We don't make cars safer directly. We capture the data that lets engineers make cars safer. That data saves lives. Every sensor, every channel, every data point we capture is part of that chain. That's why we're here. That's why this work matters."

---

## SLIDE 25: Q&A

### Content:
# Questions?

**Contact:**
Ben, Application Engineer
[Email/Phone]

**Key Takeaways:**
1. Data replaced opinion as the basis for safety engineering
2. Every organization in the safety ecosystem needs precise data
3. DTS captures the data that flows through the entire system
4. That data saves approximately 117,000 lives per year

> **"A crashed car is gone forever. The data is what remains."**

---

# APPENDIX

---

## Quick Reference: Key Statistics

| Metric | Value | Source |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Fatality rate reduction since 1970 | 77% | NHTSA FARS |
| Lives saved annually (vs. 1970 rates) | ~117,000 | Calculated |
| Seatbelt lives saved/year | ~15,000 | NHTSA |
| Airbag lives saved/year | ~2,790 | NHTSA |
| ESC lives saved/year | ~2,200 | NHTSA |
| Hybrid III cost | $200-400K | Industry estimate |
| THOR cost | $500-800K | Industry estimate |
| Full vehicle test cost | $50-500K | Industry estimate |
| Stapp's peak deceleration | 46.2g | Historical record |
| Lives saved per cadaver (annual) | 276 | Albert King, 1995 |

---

## Quick Reference: Key People

| Pioneer | Contribution | Data Innovation |
|---------|--------------|-----------------|
| Hugh DeHaven | Crashworthiness concept | Quantified survival forces |
| John Stapp | Human tolerance limits | Instrumented self-experimentation |
| Lawrence Patrick | Injury thresholds | Cadaver + self-testing |
| Nils Bohlin | 3-point seatbelt | Volvo shared data freely |
| Ralph Nader | Regulatory pressure | Made industry data public |
| William Haddon | NHTSA, IIHS | Systematized data collection |
| Samuel Alderson | Crash test dummy | Created repeatable surrogate |

---

## Quick Reference: Key Organizations

| Organization | Role | Data Function |
|--------------|------|---------------|
| NHTSA | US regulator | Sets standards, tests compliance |
| IIHS | Consumer testing | Publishes ratings, drives market |
| Euro NCAP | European ratings | Harmonized global standards |
| Universities | Research | Creates new knowledge |
| OEMs | Manufacturers | Applies data to design |
| Tier 1 Suppliers | Components | Validates subsystems |
| **DTS** | **Instrumentation** | **Captures the data** |

---

## Video Resources

### Recommended for This Presentation:

**1. IIHS 1959 vs 2009 Crash Test (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)**
- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
- Duration: 1:43
- **Best visual demonstration of 50 years of progress**
- Use after Section 1 (History)

**2. John Stapp Rocket Sled Footage**
- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4D4rJIYyss
- Duration: ~4 min (excerpt 1-2 min)
- Use during Slide 5 (Stapp)

**3. Modern IIHS Crash Test Compilation**
- Various on IIHS YouTube channel
- Shows sophistication of modern testing

---

## Presentation Tips for Ben

### Timing Guide:
| Section | Target Time | Key Points |
|---------|-------------|------------|
| Opening | 3 min | Hook with 77%, establish thesis |
| History | 15 min | Stories of pioneers - emotional connection |
| Influences | 12 min | Ecosystem overview - where we fit |
| Test Methods | 12 min | Technical but accessible |
| Closing | 3 min | Return to thesis, emotional close |
| Q&A | 5+ min | Prepared answers below |

### Anticipated Questions:

**Q: "What specific DTS products do customers use?"**
A: SLICE series (NANO, MICRO, SLICE6) for on-board data acquisition. Designed to survive crash conditions and capture high-sample-rate data from all ATD sensors.

**Q: "How is testing changing with EVs?"**
A: New considerations - battery safety, heavier vehicles (battery weight), different mass distribution. But same fundamental data needs. New opportunities for instrumentation.

**Q: "What about autonomous vehicles?"**
A: Even with perfect autonomy, crashes will occur (other vehicles, edge cases). Crashworthiness still matters. Plus, AV development needs extensive testing data. Market is expanding, not contracting.

**Q: "Is this a growing market?"**
A: Yes. More test types, more global markets (China, India), more active safety testing. ADAS/AV alone has created massive new testing needs.

### Engagement Techniques:

**Opening hook:** "77% - that's how much safer driving is today than in 1970. Anyone want to guess how many lives that saves per year?" [Wait for guesses] "117,000."

**Story moments:** Stapp and DeHaven are compelling stories. Don't rush them. Let the audience feel the human element.

**The bridge:** When transitioning to DTS's role, use: "Every piece of data that flows through this system eventually becomes the car you drive home tonight. We capture that data."

**Closing:** Return to the 117,000 number. "117,000 people. Every one of them saved by a chain of decisions rooted in data. We're part of that chain."

---

*Document prepared for DTS internal presentation*
*Theme: "The Data That Saves Lives"*
*Last updated: February 12, 2026*
