# Every Test Has a Story
## How Tragedy, Data, and Engineering Created Modern Crash Testing
### DTS Internal Presentation - Ben (Application Engineer)
### Duration: 45 minutes

---

# CENTRAL THESIS

> **"Every crash test exists because people were dying in a specific way - and we didn't know why until we created a test to find out."**

This presentation walks through each major crash test mode - not as a technical specification, but as a story. Each test represents:
1. **A problem** - People dying in a way we didn't understand
2. **A discovery** - Data that revealed what was happening
3. **A solution** - A test that drove engineering change
4. **A result** - Lives saved

**The pattern repeats:** Tragedy → Data → Test → Engineering → Lives Saved

**DTS's role:** We capture the data at the heart of every test.

---

# PRESENTATION STRUCTURE

| Chapter | Time | Topic | Key Story |
|---------|------|-------|-----------|
| Opening | 3 min | The Pattern | Every test has an origin |
| **Chapter 1** | 10 min | Frontal Impact | From no restraints to the small overlap shock |
| **Chapter 2** | 7 min | Side Impact | The neglected crash mode |
| **Chapter 3** | 5 min | Rollover & Roof | When SUVs flipped the script |
| **Chapter 4** | 4 min | Fire & Whiplash | The hidden killers |
| **Chapter 5** | 5 min | Active Safety | From surviving crashes to preventing them |
| **Chapter 6** | 5 min | Pedestrian Protection | When the car hits you |
| **Chapter 7** | 5 min | Beyond Automotive | Helmets, sports, same physics |
| Closing | 3 min | The Pattern Continues | What's next |
| Q&A | 5+ min | Discussion | |

**Total: ~50 minutes** (adjust by trimming detail in any chapter)

---

# OPENING: THE PATTERN

---

## SLIDE 1: Title Slide

**Title:** "Every Test Has a Story"
**Subtitle:** How Tragedy, Data, and Engineering Created Modern Crash Testing
**Presenter:** Ben, Application Engineer
**Company:** Diversified Technical Systems

---

## SLIDE 2: The Pattern

### Content:

**Every crash test exists because people were dying.**

The pattern is always the same:

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                         │
│   TRAGEDY                                               │
│   People die in a specific way                          │
│              ↓                                          │
│   INVESTIGATION                                         │
│   Researchers ask "why?"                                │
│              ↓                                          │
│   DATA                                                  │
│   Testing reveals the mechanism                         │
│              ↓                                          │
│   STANDARD                                              │
│   A test is created to measure it                       │
│              ↓                                          │
│   ENGINEERING                                           │
│   Manufacturers design to pass                          │
│              ↓                                          │
│   LIVES SAVED                                           │
│   The specific death mode decreases                     │
│              ↓                                          │
│   NEW TRAGEDY EMERGES                                   │
│   The cycle repeats...                                  │
│                                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

**We're going to walk through each test mode and tell its story.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Every crash test you've ever heard of exists for a reason. Not because engineers thought it would be interesting - but because people were dying in a specific way, and nobody understood why. The pattern is always the same: tragedy, investigation, data, a test standard, engineering response, lives saved. Then a new tragedy emerges that the existing tests don't catch - and the cycle repeats. Today I'm going to walk you through each major test mode and tell you its story. This isn't just technical specs - it's how we learned to save lives."

---

## SLIDE 3: The Tests We'll Cover

### Content:

| Chapter | Tests | The Story |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| **Frontal Impact** | FMVSS 208, NCAP, IIHS Moderate & Small Overlap | From no restraints to the small overlap shock |
| **Side Impact** | FMVSS 214, Pole Test, IIHS Side | The neglected crash mode |
| **Rollover & Roof** | FMVSS 216, IIHS Roof | When SUVs flipped the script |
| **Fire & Whiplash** | FMVSS 301, IIHS Head Restraint | The hidden killers |
| **Active Safety** | AEB, Pedestrian AEB, Headlights | From surviving crashes to preventing them |
| **Pedestrian Protection** | Euro NCAP Pedestrian, Headform/Legform | When the car hits you |
| **Beyond Automotive** | NOCSAE, Drop Tower, Linear Impactor | Same physics, different arena |

**Each test = a chapter in the story of "we didn't know this was killing people until we looked."**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Here's our roadmap. We'll cover frontal impact - the grandfather of all crash tests - including the dramatic small overlap story from 2012. Then side impact, which was ignored for decades. Rollover and roof strength, which became urgent when SUVs took over. The hidden killers - fire and whiplash - that don't get headlines but still hurt people. And finally, active safety - the revolution from 'protect people in crashes' to 'prevent the crash entirely.' Each test is a chapter. Each chapter has a story. Let's begin."

---

# CHAPTER 1: FRONTAL IMPACT
## "The Crash Everyone Thinks About"

---

## SLIDE 4: Frontal Impact - The Starting Point

### Content:

**Why frontal crashes get all the attention:**
- Most common crash configuration
- Highest energy (combined closing speeds)
- First crash mode studied systematically
- Where seatbelts and airbags matter most

**The tests we'll cover:**
| Test | Introduced | Speed | What It Changed |
|------|------------|-------|-----------------|
| FMVSS 208 | 1968 | 30 mph | Seatbelts, then airbags |
| NHTSA NCAP | 1979 | 35 mph | Consumer ratings |
| IIHS Moderate Overlap | 1995 | 40 mph | Structural integrity |
| IIHS Small Overlap | 2012 | 40 mph | Everything |

### Speaker Notes:
> "Frontal crashes are where crash testing began, and they're still the foundation. When two vehicles collide head-on, the energies combine. A 40 mph crash into a stationary barrier is equivalent to two 40 mph cars hitting each other. This is where seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones do their work. We'll cover four frontal tests, each building on the last - from the first federal requirements in 1968 to the small overlap shock of 2012."

---

## SLIDE 5: FMVSS 208 - Where It All Began (1968)

### Visual:
![[assets/1957_buick_dashboard.jpg|350]]
*Before FMVSS 208: Solid steel dashboard, no restraints, no protection*

### Content:

**The Problem (Pre-1968):**
- No federal safety requirements at all
- Seatbelts optional (and rarely installed)
- Dashboards were solid steel and chrome
- Steering columns were rigid spears
- **Over 1 million people killed by steering columns alone**

**The Solution:**
- 1966: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
- 1968: FMVSS 208 takes effect
- Required seatbelt anchorages in all new cars
- Later: 30 mph frontal barrier test added

**What FMVSS 208 Drove:**
```
1968: Seatbelts required
         ↓
1984: "Automatic restraint" required (airbag OR auto-belt)
         ↓
1998: Frontal airbags mandatory
         ↓
2000: Advanced airbags (size-sensing, depowered)
```

### Speaker Notes:
> "Before 1968, there were no federal safety requirements. None. Seatbelts were optional accessories. Dashboards were solid steel. The steering column was a rigid metal shaft pointed directly at the driver's chest. Over a million people were impaled by steering columns before anyone made them collapsible. FMVSS 208 changed that. It started with seatbelt requirements and evolved to require airbags. But the road to airbags was not smooth - it took 30 years of fighting."

---

## SLIDE 6: The Airbag Wars (1970-1998)

### Content:

**The 30-Year Fight:**

| Year | Event |
|------|-------|
| 1970 | NHTSA proposes airbag requirement |
| 1972 | GM offers airbags as option - few buyers |
| 1976 | Industry lobbies, requirement delayed |
| 1977 | Joan Claybrook (NHTSA) pushes mandate |
| 1981 | Reagan administration **rescinds** mandate |
| 1983 | Supreme Court rules rescission was arbitrary |
| 1984 | Compromise: "automatic restraint" required |
| 1990s | Automatic seatbelts prove unpopular; airbags win |
| 1998 | **Finally:** Frontal airbags mandatory |

**Why Industry Fought:**
- Cost concerns ($300-500 per vehicle)
- Liability fears
- "Consumers don't want them"
- Technical concerns about reliability

**What Actually Happened:**
Costs dropped. Technology improved. Airbags now save ~2,800 lives/year.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The airbag story shows how long it takes to implement even obvious safety improvements. NHTSA proposed airbags in 1970. They weren't mandatory until 1998 - 28 years later. The industry fought every step. Costs too high. Technology not ready. Consumers don't want them. Every argument you hear today about new safety tech was made about airbags. And every argument was eventually proven wrong. Airbags now save nearly 3,000 lives per year in the US alone."

---

## SLIDE 7: The Depowering Crisis (1990s)

### Content:

**The Unintended Consequence:**

Early airbags were designed for the worst case: **unbelted adult male**.
- Maximum inflation force
- Deploy fully in all crashes
- Assumed occupant was far from airbag

**The Problem:**
| Year | Airbag Deaths | Victims |
|------|---------------|---------|
| 1990 | 1 | First recorded death (child) |
| 1996 | 26 | Mostly children, small women |
| 1997 | 53 | **Peak deaths from airbags** |

**What Went Wrong:**
- Children in front seats (close to airbag)
- Small women sitting close to steering wheel
- Unbelted occupants sliding forward pre-crash
- Airbag deployed with lethal force before occupant was in position

**The Fix (1998-2000):**
- "Depowered" airbags - reduced inflation force
- Weight sensors to detect occupant size
- Suppression systems for small occupants
- Passenger airbag cut-off switches
- Aggressive "kids in back" campaigns

**Today:** Airbag deaths under 10/year. Airbag saves ~2,800/year. Net positive.

### Speaker Notes:
> "But airbags had a dark chapter. Early bags were designed to protect an unbelted adult male - so they deployed with maximum force. For children and small adults sitting close to the airbag, this force was sometimes fatal. In 1997, 53 people were killed by the airbag itself. The fix was 'depowered' airbags with lower inflation force, plus sensors to detect occupant size and suppress deployment when a child is present. Today, airbag deaths are under 10 per year while saves are nearly 3,000. The data told us something was wrong. Better data gave us the fix."

---

## SLIDE 8: NHTSA NCAP - Consumer Power (1979)

### Content:

**The Innovation:**
FMVSS 208 was pass/fail at 30 mph.
What if we tested at 35 mph and **published the results**?

**Joan Claybrook's Idea:**
- Test vehicles ABOVE the minimum standard
- Create comparative ratings (like Consumer Reports)
- Let consumers make informed choices
- Create market pressure beyond regulation

**Industry Reaction:**
- "Unfair to compare different classes"
- "Star ratings are misleading"
- "It will confuse consumers"
- Lobbied to kill the program

**What Actually Happened:**
- NCAP launched 1979, still running today
- "5-star safety rating" became marketing gold
- Manufacturers compete for top ratings
- Model for Euro NCAP, IIHS, and programs worldwide

**The Data Impact:**
Public data created accountability. Manufacturers couldn't hide behind minimum compliance.

### Speaker Notes:
> "FMVSS 208 set the floor - the minimum standard. But Joan Claybrook wanted to show consumers which vehicles exceeded the minimum. She created NCAP - test at 35 mph instead of 30, and publish star ratings. Industry fought it viciously. Said it was unfair, misleading, confusing. But NCAP survived and thrived. Today, a 5-star safety rating is marketing gold. Manufacturers compete for top ratings. Public data created accountability. This model spread worldwide - Euro NCAP, IIHS, and others all followed."

---

## SLIDE 9: IIHS Moderate Overlap (1995)

### Visual:
![[assets/iihs_frontal_crash_test.jpg|400]]
*IIHS moderate overlap: 40% of vehicle into deformable barrier*

### Content:

**The Problem with Full Frontal:**
- NHTSA test: 100% of vehicle hits barrier
- Forces distributed across entire front structure
- But real crashes are rarely "full frontal"
- **Only 25% of real frontal crashes involve full overlap**

**The European Research:**
1980s-90s studies showed:
- Offset crashes more common
- Offset crashes more deadly (forces concentrated)
- Full frontal test didn't predict offset performance

**The IIHS Innovation (1995):**
- 40% of vehicle width strikes barrier
- Barrier is deformable (mimics another car's front)
- Tests structural engagement on ONE side
- Measures survival space, not just dummy numbers

**The Shockers:**
Some vehicles that earned 5 stars in NHTSA NCAP performed poorly:
- Structures collapsed asymmetrically
- A-pillars folded into occupant space
- Footwell intrusion trapped legs

**The Result:**
Manufacturers redesigned front structures. Longer crumple zones. Asymmetric load paths. Intrusion-resistant footwells.

### Speaker Notes:
> "By 1995, vehicles were doing well in NHTSA's full frontal test. But IIHS asked a question: how often do real crashes involve perfect full frontal overlap? The answer: only 25% of the time. Most crashes are offset - you hit another car at an angle, or strike a tree with one side. European research showed offset crashes were more deadly because forces concentrated on one side. So IIHS created the moderate overlap test - 40% of the vehicle hits a deformable barrier. Some vehicles that earned 5 stars in NHTSA's test performed poorly. The test exposed a gap. Manufacturers redesigned."

---

## SLIDE 10: IIHS Small Overlap - The Game Changer (2012)

### Visual:
![[assets/small_overlap_test.jpg|400]]
*Small overlap: Only 25% of vehicle strikes rigid barrier*

### Content:

**The Gap:**
By 2012, vehicles performed well in:
- NHTSA NCAP (100% overlap)
- IIHS Moderate Overlap (40% overlap)

But IIHS crash data showed:
- Fatal frontal crashes still occurring
- Many involved narrow overlap: trees, poles, corners of other vehicles
- Forces were bypassing the main structural rails

**The Physics:**
At 25% overlap:
- Main frame rails NOT engaged
- Forces go through wheel and suspension
- Wheel can be pushed into footwell
- Completely different load path than 40% or 100%

**The 2012 Shock:**

IIHS tested 11 midsize luxury vehicles:

| Rating | Vehicles |
|--------|----------|
| Good | Acura TL, Volvo S60 |
| Acceptable | Infiniti G |
| Marginal | **Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C-Class**, Lexus IS, Lexus ES |
| Poor | **Lincoln MKZ, Buick Regal, Volkswagen CC** |

**BMW, Mercedes, Audi - all Marginal or Poor.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "2012 was a watershed moment. IIHS introduced the small overlap test - only 25% of the vehicle hits a rigid barrier. The results shocked everyone. These were luxury vehicles - BMW, Mercedes, Audi - that earned top marks in every other test. And they were Marginal or Poor in small overlap. The structures had been designed for 40% and 100% overlap. At 25%, the forces bypassed the frame rails entirely. The wheel got pushed into the footwell. A-pillars rotated in unexpected ways. These 'safe' cars had a critical blind spot."

---

## SLIDE 11: The Small Overlap Response

### Content:

**Industry Reaction:**
- Initial denial ("test isn't realistic")
- Then rapid engineering response
- Complete structural redesigns

**What Had to Change:**
| Component | Change |
|-----------|--------|
| Wheel well | Structural members added outboard of rails |
| A-pillar | Reinforced connection to hinge pillar |
| Firewall | "Blocking" structures to redirect forces |
| Door hinges | Strengthened to prevent door opening |
| Footwell | Additional intrusion resistance |

**The Timeline:**
| Year | Small Overlap Performance |
|------|---------------------------|
| 2012 | Most vehicles Poor or Marginal |
| 2014 | Mixed results - some improve |
| 2016 | Most new designs earn Good |
| 2017 | IIHS adds passenger-side test (prevent asymmetric design) |
| 2020 | Small overlap "Good" is baseline expectation |

**Five years.** From widespread failure to widespread success.

**The Data Lesson:**
Consumer testing can drive faster change than regulation. Public embarrassment is a powerful motivator.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The response was swift. Within five years, most vehicles earned 'Good' ratings. Manufacturers added structural members outboard of the frame rails, reinforced A-pillars, created blocking structures. In 2017, IIHS added the passenger-side test because some manufacturers had 'gamed' the test by only reinforcing the driver's side. The small overlap test is the clearest example of consumer testing driving rapid engineering change. Public embarrassment works. When BMW and Mercedes are rated 'Marginal' on the evening news, they fix it fast."

---

## SLIDE 12: Chapter 1 Summary - Frontal Impact

### Content:

**The Evolution:**
| Test | Year | Problem It Solved |
|------|------|-------------------|
| FMVSS 208 | 1968 | No restraints at all |
| NHTSA NCAP | 1979 | No way to compare vehicles |
| IIHS Moderate | 1995 | Offset crashes missed by full frontal |
| IIHS Small | 2012 | Narrow impacts missed by 40% test |

**Lives Saved:**
- Seatbelts: ~15,000/year
- Airbags: ~2,800/year
- Structural improvements: Thousands more

**The Pattern:**
Each test exposed a gap the previous test missed. Each gap was filled by engineering. The cycle continues.

**What's Next?**
- Oblique impacts (angled crashes)
- Compatibility (protecting smaller vehicles)
- Rear seat occupants (historically neglected)

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let's recap frontal impact. We went from no requirements to seatbelts to airbags to structural designs that can handle any overlap angle. Each test exposed a gap. Each gap got filled. Seatbelts save 15,000 lives a year. Airbags another 2,800. Structural improvements save thousands more. What's next? Oblique impacts, vehicle compatibility, rear seat protection. The cycle continues."

---

# CHAPTER 2: SIDE IMPACT
## "The Door That Wasn't a Barrier"

---

## SLIDE 13: Side Impact - The Neglected Crash

### Content:

**The Statistics:**
- Side impacts: ~25% of all crashes
- Side impact fatalities: ~30% of all crash deaths
- **More deadly per crash than frontal**

**Why Side Crashes Are Deadlier:**
- Minimal crush space (door → occupant is inches)
- No crumple zone to absorb energy
- Direct loading to torso and head
- Pre-2000: basically nothing between you and the other car

**The History of Neglect:**
| Era | Frontal Protection | Side Protection |
|-----|-------------------|-----------------|
| 1968 | FMVSS 208 (seatbelts) | Nothing |
| 1979 | NCAP ratings | Nothing |
| 1990 | Airbags spreading | **First dynamic test** |
| 1995 | IIHS moderate overlap | Nothing new |
| 2003 | - | **IIHS side test** |

Side impact got serious attention 25 years after frontal.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Side impacts are only a quarter of all crashes - but they're 30% of fatalities. Why? In a frontal crash, you have the entire front of the car to absorb energy. In a side crash, there's just a door. Inches between you and the other vehicle. For decades, side protection was an afterthought. Frontal got seatbelts in '68, airbags by the '90s. Side didn't get a serious dynamic test until 1990 - and even then, it was minimal. IIHS didn't add a side test until 2003. Twenty-five years behind frontal."

---

## SLIDE 14: FMVSS 214 - Finally, a Side Test (1990)

### Content:

**The Original Test:**
- Moving deformable barrier (MDB) strikes stationary vehicle at 90°
- Test speed: 33.5 mph
- SID (Side Impact Dummy) measures rib deflection, pelvis loads

**What It Required:**
- Door intrusion limits
- Rib deflection limits
- Pelvis force limits

**What It Drove:**
- Side door beams (steel reinforcement in door)
- Improved door structure
- Better door latches (stay closed in crash)

**What It Didn't Address:**
- Head protection (no requirement)
- Narrow object impacts (poles, trees)
- The rise of SUVs/trucks (taller fronts)

**The Pole Test Addition (2007):**
Recognizing that many side crashes involve narrow objects:
- 254mm (10") diameter pole
- 20 mph impact
- Specifically targets **head protection**
- Drove adoption of side curtain airbags

### Speaker Notes:
> "FMVSS 214 finally brought dynamic side testing in 1990. A barrier strikes the side at 33.5 mph. This drove adoption of side door beams - steel reinforcement in the door. But the original test had gaps. No head protection requirement. No narrow object test. And the barrier simulated an average car - not the SUVs and trucks that were taking over the roads. The pole test was added in 2007: a narrow pole hits the door at 20 mph. This specifically targets head protection and drove adoption of side curtain airbags."

---

## SLIDE 15: The Side Airbag Revolution

### Content:

**Before Side Airbags:**
Your protection in a side crash was:
- The door (thin, minimal structure)
- Your own body
- That's it

**The Evolution:**
| Year | Innovation |
|------|------------|
| 1995 | Volvo introduces first side torso airbag |
| 1998 | First side curtain airbags (head protection) |
| 2003 | IIHS side test launched - accelerates adoption |
| 2007 | FMVSS 214 pole test requires head protection |
| 2010 | Side curtain standard on most new vehicles |

**What Side Airbags Do:**
| Type | Protection |
|------|------------|
| Torso (seat-mounted) | Ribs, pelvis, spine |
| Curtain (roof-mounted) | Head, prevents ejection |
| Combo | Both in one system |

**The Data:**
- Side airbags reduce driver death risk by 37% (IIHS)
- Head-protecting airbags reduce death risk by 52%
- Now standard equipment - but wasn't until tests demanded it

### Speaker Notes:
> "Before side airbags, there was nothing between your ribs and the door. Volvo pioneered the first side torso airbag in 1995. Curtain airbags - the ones that drop from the roof - came in 1998. But adoption was slow until IIHS added side testing in 2003 and FMVSS 214 added the pole test in 2007. Now side curtain airbags are standard on virtually every new vehicle. IIHS data shows they reduce death risk by over 50% when they protect the head. Tests drove adoption."

---

## SLIDE 16: IIHS Side Test - Raising the Bar (2003 & 2021)

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

### Content:

**The 2003 Test:**
- Moving barrier at 31 mph
- SID-IIs dummy: **5th percentile female** (not male!)
- Why female? Smaller occupants have less cushioning from structure
- Barrier simulated a car/small SUV

**The Choice to Use a Small Female Dummy:**
IIHS deliberately chose to protect vulnerable occupants, not "average" males.

**The 2021 Update:**
The vehicle fleet changed. SUVs and trucks are now the majority.
- Barrier weight increased: 4,200 lbs (was 3,300 lbs)
- Barrier height increased: Taller profile
- Speed increased: 37 mph (was 31 mph)

**The 2021 Results:**
Many vehicles that earned "Good" under old test dropped to lower ratings:
- Side structures designed for old barrier
- New, bigger barrier exposed gaps
- Manufacturers redesigning again

**The Lesson:**
Tests must evolve as the vehicle fleet changes.

### Speaker Notes:
> "IIHS introduced their side test in 2003 with a deliberate choice: use a small female dummy, not a male. Why? Smaller occupants have less space between them and the door. They're more vulnerable in side crashes. In 2021, IIHS updated the test because the vehicle fleet changed. SUVs and trucks are now the majority of vehicles sold. The old barrier simulated an average car. The new barrier is heavier, taller, faster - simulating a modern SUV. Many vehicles that earned 'Good' before dropped to lower ratings. The test had to evolve with the fleet."

---

## SLIDE 17: Chapter 2 Summary - Side Impact

### Content:

**The Evolution:**
| Test | Year | What It Changed |
|------|------|-----------------|
| FMVSS 214 | 1990 | Door beams, basic structure |
| FMVSS 214 Pole | 2007 | Side curtain airbags |
| IIHS Side | 2003 | Small female protection |
| IIHS Side Update | 2021 | Redesign for SUV/truck threat |

**Key Insight:**
Side protection lagged frontal by 25 years. The door that separated you from death was basically just sheet metal until the 1990s.

**Lives Saved:**
Side airbags: ~500-700 lives/year (and growing as fleet turnover continues)

**What's Next:**
- Far-side impacts (crashes on opposite side)
- Better protection for rear-seat side occupants

### Speaker Notes:
> "Side impact protection lagged frontal by a quarter century. The door was basically sheet metal until we started requiring door beams, then side airbags, then curtain airbags. Each test pushed the bar higher. And when the vehicle fleet changed - more SUVs and trucks - the test had to change too. The pattern continues: next frontiers are far-side impacts and rear-seat side protection."

---

# CHAPTER 3: ROLLOVER & ROOF
## "When the Sky Falls"

---

## SLIDE 18: Rollover - The Disproportionate Killer

### Content:

**The Statistics:**
- Rollovers: Only 3% of crashes
- Rollover fatalities: **30% of crash deaths**

**Why Rollovers Kill:**
- Multiple impacts as vehicle tumbles
- Occupants not restrained against a surface (can move around cabin)
- Ejection: **77% fatal** (vs. ~1% if kept inside)
- Roof intrusion crushes survival space

**What Makes Vehicles Roll:**
- High center of gravity
- Narrow track width
- Tire failure (Firestone/Explorer scandal)
- Loss of control at speed
- "Tripping" on curbs, soft shoulders

**The SUV Problem (1990s-2000s):**
SUVs had inherently higher rollover risk:
- Built on truck frames (high floor)
- Designed for off-road (high ground clearance)
- Narrow relative to height
- Often overloaded

### Speaker Notes:
> "Rollovers are only 3% of crashes but cause 30% of fatalities. The physics are brutal. The vehicle tumbles, occupants get thrown around inside or ejected entirely. Ejection is 77% fatal. And when the roof crushes, it destroys survival space. SUVs made this worse - they have high centers of gravity and narrow track widths. The Ford Explorer/Firestone scandal in 2000 killed over 200 people when tire tread separation caused rollovers."

---

## SLIDE 19: FMVSS 216 - Roof Strength (1973 → 2009)

### Visual:
![[assets/roof_strength_test.jpg|350]]
*Roof crush test: Plate pressed against roof rail*

### Content:

**The Original Test (1973):**
- Static test: Metal plate pressed onto roof
- Required: Roof withstands **1.5× vehicle weight**
- Applied at windshield/roof junction
- **Only one side tested**

**The Advocacy Battle:**
Consumer groups argued for decades:
- 1.5× is far too weak
- Real rollovers involve multiple impacts
- Roofs were collapsing in survivable crashes
- Should be 4× or higher

**The 2009 Upgrade:**
After years of lobbying and litigation:
- Standard doubled to **3× vehicle weight**
- **Both sides** of roof tested
- Phase-in period for compliance

**What Changed in Vehicles:**
- Stronger B-pillars
- Reinforced roof rails
- Boron steel and ultra-high-strength steel
- Roof now integral to structural safety cell

### Speaker Notes:
> "The roof strength standard was set in 1973 at 1.5 times vehicle weight - and didn't change for 36 years. Advocacy groups pushed for higher standards, showing real-world rollovers where roofs collapsed into survival space. In 2009, the standard finally doubled to 3 times vehicle weight, and both sides must now be tested. This drove use of ultra-high-strength steel and completely changed how roofs are engineered. But IIHS pushed further."

---

## SLIDE 20: IIHS Roof Ratings - Pushing Beyond

### Content:

**The IIHS Approach:**
FMVSS 216 requires 3×. IIHS rewards exceeding that.

| Rating | Strength-to-Weight |
|--------|-------------------|
| Good | ≥ 4.0 |
| Acceptable | 3.25 - 3.99 |
| Marginal | 2.5 - 3.24 |
| Poor | < 2.5 |

**The Market Effect:**
To earn "Top Safety Pick," vehicles need "Good" roof rating - 4×, not 3×.

**The Result:**
Many vehicles now achieve 5× or 6× strength-to-weight ratios.
Market pressure exceeded regulatory requirements.

**The Other Solution: Electronic Stability Control (ESC)**
While roof strength protects IN rollovers, ESC **prevents** rollovers:
- Detects loss of control
- Applies individual brakes to correct
- Reduces fatal rollovers by **75%**
- Required by FMVSS 126 (2012)

**The Combination:**
ESC prevents rollovers. Strong roofs protect if they happen. Both required.

### Speaker Notes:
> "IIHS set their 'Good' rating at 4 times vehicle weight - higher than the federal 3× requirement. To get Top Safety Pick, you need that Good rating. So manufacturers build to 4× or higher. Some vehicles now achieve 5 or 6 times their own weight. But the bigger story is Electronic Stability Control. ESC detects when you're about to lose control and applies individual brakes to keep you on the road. It reduces fatal rollovers by 75%. Now required on all new vehicles. You prevent the rollover with ESC. If one happens anyway, the strong roof protects you."

---

## SLIDE 21: Chapter 3 Summary - Rollover & Roof

### Content:

**The Two-Pronged Solution:**

| Strategy | Test/Standard | Effect |
|----------|---------------|--------|
| **Prevent** rollovers | FMVSS 126 (ESC) | 75% reduction in fatal rollovers |
| **Protect** in rollovers | FMVSS 216, IIHS Roof | Strong survival space |
| **Prevent** ejection | Side curtain airbags | Keep occupants inside |

**The Timeline:**
| Year | Development |
|------|-------------|
| 1973 | FMVSS 216 (weak 1.5× standard) |
| 2000 | Firestone/Explorer scandal |
| 2007 | ESC mandated |
| 2009 | FMVSS 216 upgraded to 3× |
| 2009 | IIHS roof ratings (4× for "Good") |
| 2012 | ESC required on all vehicles |

**The Data Impact:**
Rollover fatalities have declined significantly - but rollovers are still disproportionately fatal.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Rollover protection is a two-part story. First, prevent the rollover - that's ESC. Reduces fatal rollovers by 75%. Second, if a rollover happens, protect the occupants - that's roof strength and side curtain airbags to prevent ejection. It took decades to get both parts in place. The Firestone/Explorer scandal in 2000 accelerated attention. Now we have ESC on all vehicles and much stronger roofs. But rollovers are still disproportionately fatal - there's more work to do."

---

# CHAPTER 4: THE HIDDEN KILLERS
## "Fire and Whiplash"

---

## SLIDE 22: FMVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity

### Content:

**The Problem Nobody Discussed:**
Post-crash fires were a major cause of death in survivable crashes.
- Fuel tanks placed wherever convenient
- Minimal protection from impact
- Fuel lines that ruptured easily

**The Ford Pinto Scandal (1971-1978):**

The Pinto's rear-mounted fuel tank could rupture in rear impacts:
- Tank only 6 inches from rear bumper
- Differential bolts could puncture tank
- Filler neck could separate

**The Infamous Memo (1973):**
Ford engineers calculated:
- Fix cost: $11/car × 12.5 million cars = $137 million
- "Acceptable" deaths: 180 deaths × $200,000 = $36 million

**Ford chose not to fix the design.**

**The Reckoning:**
- 1977: Mother Jones exposé
- 1978: NHTSA recall of 1.5 million Pintos
- 1978: Indiana criminal prosecution of Ford (first ever against automaker)
- Estimated 27-180 deaths from the defect

**The Standard Tightens:**
FMVSS 301 was strengthened in direct response. Fuel tank placement and protection is now a critical design parameter.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Not all killers are obvious. Post-crash fires were killing people in survivable crashes because fuel tanks were placed wherever convenient with minimal protection. The Ford Pinto made this infamous. Ford engineers knew the design was dangerous. They calculated it would cost $11 per car to fix - about $137 million total. They estimated 180 deaths would occur, costing $36 million in lawsuits. They chose not to fix it. When this memo became public, Ford was criminally prosecuted - the first time ever for a defective design. FMVSS 301 was strengthened. Now fuel system integrity is a critical safety parameter."

---

## SLIDE 23: IIHS Head Restraints - The Whiplash Epidemic

### Content:

**The Statistics:**
- Over 1 million whiplash injuries/year in US
- Most occur in low-speed rear impacts
- Chronic pain can persist for years
- Massive economic cost (medical + lost work)

**The Problem with Early Head Restraints:**
When first required, head restraints were often:
- Set too low (didn't support the head)
- Too far back from head (head snapped back before contact)
- Adjustable but set incorrectly
- Sometimes removed by owners

**The Physics:**
In a rear impact, the seat pushes the torso forward, but the head lags behind.
The neck bends backward (hyperextension) → whiplash.

**The Swedish Innovation:**
Volvo and Saab developed "active" head restraints:
- Move up and forward during crash
- Engage the head earlier
- Reduce relative motion between head and torso

**The IIHS Dynamic Test (2004):**
- BioRID II dummy (highly articulated spine)
- Simulates rear impact on sled
- Measures actual neck forces and motion
- Rewards active head restraints

### Speaker Notes:
> "Whiplash doesn't kill you - but it can ruin your life. Over a million whiplash injuries happen every year. The irony is that we required head restraints for decades, but many were useless - too low, too far back, or adjusted wrong. The Swedes developed active head restraints that move into position during a crash. IIHS created a dynamic sled test with a special dummy - BioRID - that can measure whiplash. This test rewards active head restraints and proper seat design. Whiplash isn't glamorous, but reducing it matters."

---

# CHAPTER 5: ACTIVE SAFETY
## "From Surviving Crashes to Preventing Them"

---

## SLIDE 24: The Philosophy Shift

### Content:

**The Old Model (Passive Safety):**
```
CRASH HAPPENS → Protect occupant
                 Seatbelt
                 Airbag
                 Structure
```

**The New Model (Active Safety):**
```
PRE-CRASH → PREVENT crash
            Warn driver
            Brake automatically
            Steer to avoid
                    ↓
            If crash unavoidable
                    ↓
            PASSIVE SAFETY kicks in
```

**Why This Matters:**
- 94% of crashes involve human error
- If you can prevent the crash, no one gets hurt
- Technology can react faster than humans
- But passive safety remains the backup

**The Technologies:**
| System | Function |
|--------|----------|
| ESC | Prevents loss of control |
| AEB | Automatic emergency braking |
| FCW | Forward collision warning |
| LDW/LKA | Lane departure/keeping |
| BSM | Blind spot monitoring |

### Speaker Notes:
> "There's a fundamental shift happening in safety. For decades, we assumed crashes would happen and focused on protecting people when they did. That's passive safety - seatbelts, airbags, structure. But 94% of crashes involve human error. What if you could prevent the crash entirely? That's active safety. ESC keeps you from losing control. AEB brakes for you when you don't react in time. Lane keeping steers you back into your lane. The crash that doesn't happen is the safest one of all. But passive safety remains the backup - because nothing is perfect."

---

## SLIDE 25: IIHS Front Crash Prevention (2013)

### Content:

**The Test:**
- Vehicle approaches stationary target at 12 mph and 25 mph
- Does the system warn the driver?
- Does it brake automatically?
- How much does it reduce impact speed?

**The Ratings:**
| Rating | Requirements |
|--------|--------------|
| Superior | Avoid collision or major speed reduction at both speeds |
| Advanced | FCW + limited AEB performance |
| Basic | FCW available |

**The Industry Agreement (2016):**
20 automakers voluntarily committed to make AEB standard by September 2022.
- No government mandate
- Driven by IIHS ratings and consumer pressure
- **Fastest safety adoption in history**

**The Data Case:**
- AEB reduces rear-end crashes by 50%+
- Even basic FCW reduces crashes by 27%
- Economic savings exceed system cost

### Speaker Notes:
> "IIHS started testing AEB in 2013. They approach a target at 12 and 25 mph and measure whether the system warns, brakes, and how much speed it reduces. The ratings created market pressure. Then in 2016, something remarkable happened: 20 automakers voluntarily agreed to make AEB standard by 2022. No law required it. Consumer pressure and IIHS ratings drove the fastest safety adoption in history. AEB cuts rear-end crashes by more than half."

---

## SLIDE 26: Pedestrian AEB - The Growing Crisis

### Content:

**The Troubling Trend:**
Occupant deaths have declined. Pedestrian deaths have INCREASED.

| Year | Pedestrian Deaths |
|------|-------------------|
| 2009 | 4,109 |
| 2015 | 5,494 |
| 2019 | 6,205 |
| 2021 | 7,388 |

**Why Pedestrian Deaths Are Rising:**
- Larger vehicles (SUVs, trucks) more deadly to pedestrians
- Higher front ends hit pedestrian at torso/head, not legs
- Distracted driving (phones)
- Distracted walking (phones)
- More urban walking/cycling

**The Technology Solution:**
Pedestrian AEB systems can detect people:
- Camera identifies human shapes
- Radar tracks movement
- Calculate collision course
- Warn driver and/or brake automatically
- Some work at night (IR cameras)

**The IIHS Test (2019):**
- Adult pedestrian target crossing road
- Child pedestrian target
- Day and night scenarios
- Parallel walking scenarios

### Speaker Notes:
> "Here's a troubling trend: occupant deaths are falling, but pedestrian deaths are rising. In 2009, about 4,100 pedestrians died. In 2021, over 7,300. Why? Vehicles are bigger - SUVs and trucks hit pedestrians higher, at the torso and head instead of the legs. More distraction - both drivers and pedestrians on phones. More walking and cycling in cities. Pedestrian AEB can help. IIHS started testing it in 2019 - adult targets, child targets, day and night. This is an active area of development."

---

## SLIDE 27: Headlights - The Hidden Variable

### Content:

**The Problem:**
- Nearly half of traffic deaths occur in the dark
- Yet headlights received almost no regulatory attention
- FMVSS 108 sets minimums, not performance standards
- Huge variation between vehicles - even new ones

**The IIHS Discovery:**
When IIHS started testing headlights:
- Best headlights: 500+ feet illumination
- Worst headlights: Under 200 feet
- Some "premium" vehicles had terrible headlights
- Curve illumination often poor

**The Test:**
- Illumination distance on straightaways
- Coverage on curves (left and right)
- Glare to oncoming drivers
- Low beam and high beam

**The Rating Impact:**
- "Good" headlights now required for Top Safety Pick
- Manufacturers redesigned headlight systems
- Rapid adoption of LED and adaptive headlights

**The Lesson:**
IIHS identified a safety factor that regulation had ignored. Consumer testing filled the gap.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Nearly half of traffic deaths happen in the dark. But headlights got almost no regulatory attention. When IIHS started testing headlights in 2016, they found huge variation - some new cars had worse headlights than models from years ago. Best headlights illuminated over 500 feet. Worst under 200. You need Good headlights for Top Safety Pick now. This shows IIHS's value in identifying neglected safety factors. It's not a crash test - but it addresses real danger."

---

## SLIDE 28: Chapter 5 Summary - Active Safety

### Content:

**The Tests:**
| Test | Year | What It Changed |
|------|------|-----------------|
| Front Crash Prevention | 2013 | AEB adoption accelerated |
| Pedestrian AEB | 2019 | Protection for vulnerable road users |
| Headlights | 2016 | Illumination quality addressed |

**The Paradigm Shift:**
From "protect in crash" to "prevent crash"

**The Data Need:**
Active safety testing requires different data:
- Vehicle dynamics (speed, acceleration, position)
- System response timing
- Target detection accuracy
- Distance and closing speed

**The Opportunity for DTS:**
Active safety is expanding the testing market - new test types, new data needs, new customers.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Active safety represents a paradigm shift. Instead of assuming crashes happen and protecting people, we're trying to prevent crashes entirely. This creates new testing needs - vehicle dynamics, system timing, target detection. DTS has opportunity here. The market isn't shrinking; it's expanding into new test types. Every AEB system needs validation. Every update needs retesting. The data needs are growing."

---

# CHAPTER 6: PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION
## "When the Car Hits You, Not the Other Way Around"

---

## SLIDE 29: The Pedestrian Crisis

### Content:

**The Troubling Trend:**
While occupant deaths have declined, pedestrian deaths are **rising**.

| Year | Pedestrian Deaths | % of All Traffic Deaths |
|------|-------------------|------------------------|
| 2009 | 4,109 | 12% |
| 2015 | 5,494 | 15% |
| 2019 | 6,205 | 17% |
| 2021 | 7,388 | 17% |
| 2022 | 7,500+ | 18% |

**Why Pedestrians Are Dying More:**
- Larger vehicles (SUVs, trucks dominate sales)
- Higher front ends → impacts hit torso/head, not legs
- Heavier vehicles → more energy transfer
- Distracted driving (phones)
- Distracted walking (phones)
- More urban walking and cycling

**The Physics Problem:**
- Old sedan: Low hood, hits pedestrian at knee/thigh level → rolls onto hood
- Modern SUV/truck: High front end, hits at hip/torso → no rollover, direct impact

### Speaker Notes:
> "Here's a troubling trend that doesn't get enough attention. Occupant deaths are falling - our crash tests are working. But pedestrian deaths are rising. In 2009, about 4,100 pedestrians died. By 2022, over 7,500. Why? Our vehicles are getting bigger. SUVs and trucks now dominate sales. When a sedan hits a pedestrian, the low hood tends to knock them onto the hood - bad, but survivable. When an SUV or truck hits a pedestrian, the high front end strikes at hip or chest level - direct impact, much more deadly. We've optimized for occupant protection while making vehicles more dangerous to everyone outside them."

---

## SLIDE 30: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing

### Content:

**Europe Led the Way:**
Euro NCAP has tested pedestrian protection since 1997.

**The Test Methods:**
| Test | What It Simulates |
|------|-------------------|
| **Headform to hood** | Child or adult head hitting hood surface |
| **Headform to windshield** | Adult head hitting windshield base |
| **Upper legform to bumper** | Adult thigh/pelvis hitting bumper |
| **Lower legform to bumper** | Adult knee/tibia hitting bumper |

**How It Works:**
- Projectile impactors (not full pedestrian dummies)
- Fired at vehicle front end at specific angles/speeds
- Instrumented to measure acceleration, force, bending
- Hood, bumper, windshield base all tested

**What It Drove:**
| Design Change | Purpose |
|---------------|---------|
| Active hood hinges | Hood pops up in pedestrian impact, creating crush space |
| Hood standoff | Space between hood and hard engine components |
| Energy-absorbing bumpers | Deformable structures at bumper level |
| Windshield airbags | External airbag covers windshield base (Volvo, others) |
| Soft bumper faces | Pedestrian-friendly materials |

### Speaker Notes:
> "Europe has been testing pedestrian protection for over 25 years. They use headform and legform impactors - projectiles fired at the vehicle front end to simulate a pedestrian impact. The tests measure what happens when a head hits the hood, when a thigh hits the bumper, when a knee hits the lower bumper. This drove real design changes: active hoods that pop up to create crush space, energy-absorbing bumper structures, even external airbags on some Volvos that cover the windshield base. US testing has been slower to adopt pedestrian requirements."

---

## SLIDE 31: US Pedestrian Testing - Playing Catch-Up

### Content:

**US Status:**
- No federal pedestrian protection standard (FMVSS)
- IIHS pedestrian AEB testing (2019) - but that's crash AVOIDANCE
- NHTSA researching pedestrian crashworthiness requirements
- US lags Europe by 20+ years on this issue

**IIHS Pedestrian AEB Test (2019):**
| Scenario | Description |
|----------|-------------|
| Perpendicular adult | Adult crosses path at 5 mph |
| Perpendicular child | Child crosses path (shorter target) |
| Parallel adult | Adult walking along road edge |

Tests at multiple vehicle speeds (12-37 mph), day and night.

**What IIHS Tests:**
- Does system detect pedestrian?
- Does it warn driver?
- Does it brake automatically?
- How much speed is reduced?

**What IIHS Doesn't Test (Yet):**
- What happens when vehicle DOES hit pedestrian
- Hood design, bumper design
- Pedestrian injury outcomes

**The Gap:**
We test whether vehicles avoid hitting pedestrians (AEB).
We don't test whether vehicles protect pedestrians when hit (crashworthiness).

### Speaker Notes:
> "The US is behind on pedestrian protection. We have no federal standard for pedestrian crashworthiness - what happens to a pedestrian when a car hits them. IIHS tests pedestrian AEB - whether the car can avoid hitting a pedestrian - but not what happens if it fails. Europe tests both. They require hoods that are 'soft' enough to reduce head injury. They require bumpers that don't destroy knees. We test avoidance but not protection. That gap will likely close, but it hasn't yet."

---

## SLIDE 32: The Future of Pedestrian Protection

### Content:

**Technologies in Development/Deployment:**
| Technology | Status | Function |
|------------|--------|----------|
| Pedestrian AEB | Widespread | Avoid collision entirely |
| Active hood | Common in Europe | Pop-up hood creates crush space |
| External airbags | Limited (Volvo) | Cushion windshield base |
| Soft bumper faces | Increasing | Energy absorption |
| Lower hood lines | Design trend | Better geometry for pedestrian kinematics |
| Hood standoff | Design standard | Space above engine for deformation |

**The Regulatory Future:**
- NHTSA considering pedestrian requirements
- Global Technical Regulation (GTR 9) provides framework
- US adoption likely within next 5-10 years

**The Design Tension:**
- Pedestrian protection favors LOW, SOFT front ends
- SUV/truck popularity drives HIGH, BLUNT front ends
- Conflicting market and safety pressures

**The Data Need:**
Pedestrian testing requires specialized impactors, headforms, legforms - and precise measurement of acceleration, force, and bending. DTS instrumentation is used in these tests.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The future is a mix of avoidance and protection. Pedestrian AEB is spreading fast - most new vehicles have it. Active hoods are common in Europe, less so here. External airbags exist but are limited. The design tension is real: pedestrian safety wants low, soft front ends. But consumers want big SUVs and trucks with high, imposing front ends. Those are conflicting demands. NHTSA will likely adopt pedestrian crashworthiness requirements eventually - the global regulations exist, it's a matter of when. And when they do, testing will require specialized impactors and instrumentation."

---

# CHAPTER 7: BEYOND AUTOMOTIVE
## "Helmets, Sports, and the Same Physics"

---

## SLIDE 33: The Concussion Crisis

### Content:

**The NFL Wake-Up Call:**
- 2005: Dr. Bennet Omalu publishes first CTE case in NFL player
- 2009: NFL finally acknowledges concussion problem
- 2011: $765 million settlement with former players
- 2016: "Concussion" movie brings issue to public

**The Science:**
| Term | Meaning |
|------|---------|
| Concussion | Mild traumatic brain injury from impact |
| CTE | Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy - degenerative brain disease from repeated impacts |
| Subconcussive | Impacts below concussion threshold - but cumulative damage |

**The Problem:**
- Football: 6-10 significant head impacts per game (linemen)
- Hockey: High-speed collisions, fighting
- Soccer: Heading the ball - cumulative effect
- Cycling: Ground impacts at speed

**The Question:**
Can better helmets reduce brain injury?
The same question crash testing answers for occupants - can we protect the head?

### Speaker Notes:
> "The same physics that applies in car crashes applies in sports. When your head decelerates rapidly, your brain moves inside your skull. Too much, too fast, and you have a concussion - or worse. The NFL's concussion crisis brought this into public view. CTE - the degenerative brain disease found in football players - showed that even subconcussive impacts accumulate over time. The question became: can better helmets help? That's a question data can answer. And it's the same question we answer in automotive: how do we protect the head from impact?"

---

## SLIDE 34: NOCSAE - The Sports Helmet Standard

### Content:

**NOCSAE: National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment**
- Founded: 1969 (after 36 football fatalities in 1968)
- Role: Sets performance standards for sports helmets
- Scope: Football, baseball/softball, lacrosse, polo, hockey, skiing

**The Origin Story:**
- 1968: 36 direct fatalities in football (peak year)
- Parents, coaches, schools demanded action
- NCAA and sporting goods industry founded NOCSAE
- First football helmet standard: 1973

**The Impact:**
| Decade | Football Direct Fatalities (Avg/Year) |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
| 1960s | 26 |
| 1970s | 15 (NOCSAE standards adopted) |
| 1980s | 9 |
| 1990s | 5 |
| 2000s | 4 |
| 2010s | 3 |

**From 26/year to 3/year** - testing and standards work.

### Speaker Notes:
> "NOCSAE was founded in 1969 after 36 football players died from head injuries in a single year - 1968. That was the worst year on record. Parents and schools demanded action. The NCAA and sporting goods manufacturers created NOCSAE to develop helmet standards. The first standard came out in 1973. And it worked. Fatalities dropped from 26 per year in the 1960s to 3 per year in the 2010s. Testing and standards save lives - whether it's cars or helmets, the pattern is the same."

---

## SLIDE 35: Drop Tower Testing

### Visual:
*[Diagram of drop tower test apparatus]*

### Content:

**The Classic Helmet Test:**
Drop a helmeted headform onto an anvil, measure deceleration.

**How It Works:**
1. Rigid headform (represents skull)
2. Helmet fitted to headform
3. Drop from specified height (represents impact velocity)
4. Land on anvil (flat, hemispherical, or edge)
5. Accelerometer inside headform measures deceleration
6. Calculate Severity Index (SI) from acceleration-time curve

**NOCSAE Football Helmet Test:**
| Parameter | Specification |
|-----------|---------------|
| Drop height | 60" (1.52m) onto flat anvil |
| Impact velocity | ~5.5 m/s (12.3 mph) |
| Pass threshold | SI < 1200 |
| Locations tested | Front, side, rear, top, facemask |
| Conditioning | Hot, cold, wet |

**The Severity Index:**
$$SI = \int a^{2.5} dt$$
Integrates acceleration over time, weighted to penalize high peaks.

**DTS Role:**
High-g accelerometers must survive repeated impacts and measure accurately up to 300-400g. Data acquisition must capture the entire pulse at high sample rate.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The drop tower test is elegant in its simplicity. Put a helmet on a headform, drop it onto an anvil, measure how much the head decelerates. Lower deceleration means better protection. NOCSAE drops from 60 inches - about 12 mph impact velocity. They test multiple locations - front, side, rear, top - and in hot, cold, and wet conditions. The accelerometer inside measures the pulse, and we calculate a Severity Index. DTS accelerometers are designed for this - they survive repeated high-g impacts and capture the entire pulse accurately."

---

## SLIDE 36: Linear Impactor Testing

### Content:

**The Limitation of Drop Tests:**
Drop tests are vertical impacts at moderate speed. But real head injuries often involve:
- Higher speeds
- Angled impacts
- Rotational motion

**The Linear Impactor:**
Instead of dropping the helmet, FIRE a projectile at it.

**How It Works:**
1. Helmet mounted on instrumented headform (free to move)
2. Pneumatic ram fires impactor at helmet
3. Higher speeds achievable (up to 30+ mph)
4. Measure: head acceleration, rotation, displacement
5. Test at various angles

**NOCSAE Linear Impactor Test (Newer):**
| Parameter | Specification |
|-----------|---------------|
| Impactor mass | 14.2 kg (31.3 lbs) |
| Impact speed | 5.5-9.3 m/s (12-21 mph) |
| Locations | Multiple facemask, shell locations |
| Measures | Peak acceleration, SI, rotation |

**Why Both Tests?**
- Drop tower: Repeatable, historical baseline, simple
- Linear impactor: Better simulates game-like impacts, measures rotation

**The Rotation Issue:**
Concussions may be caused more by ROTATIONAL acceleration than linear.
Newer protocols measure angular velocity, angular acceleration.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Drop tests have a limitation: real impacts aren't always straight down. Linear impactor tests fire a projectile at the helmet at higher speeds and various angles. This better simulates game conditions - a linebacker hitting at 20 mph from the side. The linear impactor can also measure rotation, which may be more important for brain injury than linear acceleration. Modern testing often uses both: drop tower for baseline certification, linear impactor for more game-realistic evaluation. We're instrumenting for both linear and rotational measurements now."

---

## SLIDE 37: NFL/NFLPA Helmet Testing Program

### Content:

**The League's Response:**
Since 2011, NFL and NFLPA jointly test helmets and publish rankings.

**The Testing Protocol:**
| Test Type | Configuration |
|-----------|---------------|
| Drop tests | Multiple locations, anvil types |
| Linear impactor | Game-like impact angles/speeds |
| Rotational | Measuring angular acceleration |

**The Ranking System:**
Helmets rated by how much they reduce concussion risk:
- Top performers: Significantly reduce risk
- Not recommended: Fail to provide adequate protection
- **Players banned from wearing lowest-performing helmets**

**The Market Effect:**
| Change | Result |
|--------|--------|
| Public rankings | Manufacturers compete on safety |
| Position-specific designs | Linemen vs. skill positions have different impacts |
| Annual updates | New designs tested each year |
| Player choice | Stars influence teammates to adopt safer helmets |

**The Data:**
NFL tracks every helmet impact using sensors (accelerometers in helmets during games).
Combined with video, medical data - largest head impact database in sports.

### Speaker Notes:
> "The NFL and players' union now jointly test helmets and publish rankings. Helmets that don't meet standards are banned - players can't wear them. This created competitive pressure. Manufacturers had to improve. And they have - the best helmets today significantly outperform what was available 10 years ago. The NFL also instruments helmets with accelerometers during games, tracking every impact. They've built the largest head impact database in sports. That data drives design improvements. Same pattern as automotive: testing, data, engineering, protection."

---

## SLIDE 38: Other Sports Applications

### Content:

**Hockey (HECC/NOCSAE):**
- Puck impacts, board collisions, falls
- Drop tests + puck impact tests
- Face cage/visor integration

**Cycling (CPSC, ASTM, Snell):**
- Ground impacts after falls
- Drop test onto flat, curbstone anvils
- Single-impact design (unlike football multi-impact)
- MIPS and other rotation-reduction technologies

**Motorcycle (DOT FMVSS 218, ECE, Snell):**
- Highest speed impacts
- Drop test + penetration resistance
- Chin bar protection
- Multiple certification standards globally

**Equestrian (ASTM F1163):**
- Fall from height + potential hoof strike
- Low-profile design requirements
- Retention system critical

**Skiing/Snowboarding (ASTM F2040, CE EN1077):**
- High-speed impacts with obstacles
- Edge impacts (rocks, trees)
- Combined certification for resort/backcountry

**The Common Thread:**
All helmet testing measures the same thing: **Can we reduce the acceleration experienced by the brain during impact?**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Football isn't the only sport with helmet standards. Hockey tests for puck impacts and board collisions. Cycling helmets are designed for single-impact ground strikes. Motorcycle helmets face the highest speeds. Equestrian helmets must consider falls from height. Skiing helmets need to handle trees and rocks. The testing varies, but the physics is the same: can we reduce the acceleration experienced by the brain? That's what we measure with instrumented headforms. DTS accelerometers and data acquisition are used across all these applications."

---

## SLIDE 39: The Automotive-Sports Connection

### Content:

**Same Physics, Same Instrumentation:**

| Parameter | Automotive | Sports |
|-----------|------------|--------|
| What we're protecting | Head, brain | Head, brain |
| Mechanism | Deceleration, rotation | Deceleration, rotation |
| Metric | HIC (Head Injury Criterion) | SI (Severity Index), similar |
| Instrument | Accelerometer | Accelerometer |
| Data need | Time-history pulse | Time-history pulse |

**DTS Products Used:**
| Application | Products |
|-------------|----------|
| Automotive ATD | SLICE series, accelerometers |
| Helmet testing | Same accelerometers, same DAQ |
| Research | Same sensors, different mounts |

**The Knowledge Transfer:**
- Injury criteria developed from automotive research apply to sports
- Wayne State Tolerance Curve (automotive) informs helmet standards
- Cadaver/volunteer data (automotive history) validates helmet thresholds

**The Business:**
Helmet testing is a smaller market than automotive - but it's growing, high-margin, and DTS equipment is ideal for it.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Here's why this matters to DTS: the physics is identical. In a car crash, we're measuring head acceleration to predict injury. In helmet testing, same thing. The Head Injury Criterion from automotive and the Severity Index from sports are mathematically similar. The accelerometers we use in crash test dummies are the same accelerometers used in helmet testing headforms. The knowledge transfers too - injury thresholds developed from automotive cadaver research inform helmet certification standards. It's the same science, same instrumentation, different application."

---

## SLIDE 40: Chapter 6 & 7 Summary

### Content:

**Pedestrian Protection:**
| Status | Issue |
|--------|-------|
| Rising deaths | 7,500+ pedestrians killed in 2022 |
| US testing gap | No FMVSS for pedestrian crashworthiness |
| Europe leads | 25+ years of pedestrian testing |
| Future | US adoption likely within 5-10 years |

**Sports/Helmet Testing:**
| Fact | Significance |
|------|--------------|
| NOCSAE founded 1969 | After 36 football deaths in 1968 |
| Football deaths down 90% | From 26/year to 3/year |
| NFL helmet rankings | Market pressure drives improvement |
| Same physics as automotive | Accelerometers, time-history data, injury criteria |

**The DTS Opportunity:**
Both pedestrian protection and helmet testing are growing markets that use the same instrumentation as automotive crash testing. The physics is universal.

### Speaker Notes:
> "Two takeaways. First, pedestrian protection is a gap that will close - deaths are rising, the public is noticing, regulations will follow. DTS instrumentation is used in pedestrian impactor testing. Second, sports helmet testing is the same physics as automotive head injury assessment. Our accelerometers, our data acquisition, our expertise - they translate directly. NOCSAE testing has cut football deaths by 90%. That's the power of testing and data. Same story, different arena."

---

# CLOSING: THE PATTERN CONTINUES

---

## SLIDE 29: The Unending Cycle

### Content:

**The Pattern We've Seen:**
```
1968: FMVSS 208 (frontal) → gaps remain
         ↓
1990: FMVSS 214 (side) → gaps remain
         ↓
1995: IIHS Moderate Overlap → gaps remain
         ↓
2012: IIHS Small Overlap → gaps remain
         ↓
2021: IIHS Updated Side → gaps remain
         ↓
????: Next test...
```

**Every test exposes what the previous tests missed.**

**What's Coming:**
| Gap | Potential Test |
|-----|----------------|
| Rear seat occupants | IIHS rear seat evaluation (in development) |
| Far-side impacts | Crashes on opposite side of vehicle |
| Compatibility | Protecting small cars from large trucks |
| Oblique frontal | Angled impacts (NHTSA proposed) |
| EV-specific | Battery safety, unique mass distribution |

**The Pattern Will Continue.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let me show you the pattern. FMVSS 208 addressed frontal - but side was neglected for decades. FMVSS 214 addressed side - but offset crashes were missed. IIHS moderate overlap addressed offset - but small overlap was missed. Every test exposes what the previous tests missed. What's next? Rear seat occupants - turns out they're now at higher risk in some crashes than front seat. Far-side impacts - when you're on the opposite side from the crash. Vehicle compatibility - how do we protect small cars from giant trucks? The pattern will continue. New gaps will be found. New tests will be created."

---

## SLIDE 30: The Data Thread

### Content:

**Every Test Requires Data.**

| Test Type | Data Captured | DTS Role |
|-----------|---------------|----------|
| Frontal crash | Head, chest, femur loads; structure intrusion | ATD instrumentation |
| Side crash | Pelvis, thorax, head loads; door intrusion | ATD instrumentation |
| Roof crush | Force vs. displacement | Load measurement |
| Sled tests | Dummy kinematics, restraint loads | Full test systems |
| AEB tests | Vehicle dynamics, timing, position | Expanding market |
| Pedestrian impactors | Headform/legform acceleration, force | Impactor instrumentation |
| Helmet testing | Head acceleration, severity index | High-g accelerometers |

**The Constant:**
- Test methods evolve
- Pass/fail thresholds change
- Vehicle designs change
- **Data requirements remain**

**DTS provides the data that makes every test meaningful.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Here's the thread that connects everything. Every test requires data. Frontal crashes need head, chest, and femur measurements from dummies. Side crashes need pelvis and thorax data. Roof tests need force measurement. AEB tests need vehicle dynamics. The tests change - but the need for accurate, reliable data never does. That's where DTS fits. We provide the data that makes every test meaningful. Without accurate data, a crash test is just expensive car destruction."

---

## SLIDE 31: Why This Matters to Us

### Content:

**The Story We Just Told:**

| Problem | Test Created | Engineering Response | Lives Saved |
|---------|--------------|---------------------|-------------|
| Unrestrained occupants | FMVSS 208 | Seatbelts, airbags | ~18,000/year |
| Offset crashes | IIHS Moderate Overlap | Structural redesign | Thousands |
| Narrow impacts | IIHS Small Overlap | Frame rail redesign | Thousands |
| Side crashes | FMVSS 214, IIHS Side | Side airbags | ~500-700/year |
| Rollovers | FMVSS 216, ESC | Strong roofs, stability control | Thousands |
| Rear-end crashes | IIHS AEB | Automatic braking | Growing |
| Pedestrian strikes | Euro NCAP Pedestrian | Active hoods, soft bumpers | Growing |
| Football head injuries | NOCSAE standards | Better helmets | 90% reduction in fatalities |

**Each test exists because people were dying.**

**Each test required data to develop, validate, and enforce.**

**DTS captures that data.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Let's bring it home. Each test we discussed exists because people were dying in a specific way. Each test required data to develop the standard, validate designs, and enforce compliance. Seatbelts and airbags save about 18,000 lives a year. Structural improvements from overlap testing save thousands more. Side airbags, roof strength, ESC - all driven by tests, all requiring data. DTS captures that data. We're part of the chain from 'people are dying' to 'people are surviving.'"

---

## SLIDE 32: The Bottom Line

### Content:

> **"Every test has a story. Every story started with tragedy. Every tragedy ended when we got the data to understand it."**

**77% reduction in fatality rate since 1970.**
**~117,000 lives saved per year compared to 1970 rates.**

Each of those lives was saved by:
1. A tragedy that revealed a problem
2. Research that generated data
3. A test that measured the problem
4. Engineering that solved it
5. Data that validated the solution

**DTS is in the chain at steps 2, 3, and 5.**

**The data saves lives.**

### Speaker Notes:
> "Every test has a story. Every story started with tragedy - people dying in ways we didn't understand. Every tragedy ended when we got the data to understand it. That's the pattern. Tragedy, data, test, engineering, lives saved. We're in that chain. When researchers study injury biomechanics - we provide instrumentation. When NHTSA or IIHS runs a test - we capture the data. When manufacturers validate designs - we're in their labs. 77% reduction in fatality rate. 117,000 lives saved per year. That's what data does. That's why we're here."

---

## SLIDE 33: Q&A

### Content:
# Questions?

**Key Takeaways:**
1. Every test exists because people were dying a specific way
2. Each test exposed gaps the previous tests missed
3. Consumer testing (IIHS) often exceeds regulatory requirements
4. The pattern will continue - new gaps, new tests
5. Data is the constant thread through every test

> **"The test that doesn't exist yet will save lives we can't imagine losing."**

---

# APPENDIX

---

## Quick Reference: All Tests by Year

| Year | Test | Organization | Key Change |
|------|------|--------------|------------|
| 1968 | FMVSS 208 (Frontal) | NHTSA | First occupant protection standard |
| 1968 | FMVSS 301 (Fuel) | NHTSA | Fuel system integrity |
| 1973 | FMVSS 216 (Roof) | NHTSA | Roof crush resistance |
| 1979 | NCAP Frontal | NHTSA | Consumer ratings |
| 1990 | FMVSS 214 (Side) | NHTSA | First dynamic side test |
| 1995 | Moderate Overlap | IIHS | Offset frontal testing |
| 1995 | Head Restraint (static) | IIHS | Whiplash geometry |
| 1997 | NCAP Side | NHTSA | Consumer side ratings |
| 2003 | Side Impact | IIHS | Small female dummy |
| 2004 | Head Restraint (dynamic) | IIHS | Whiplash performance |
| 2007 | FMVSS 214 Pole | NHTSA | Narrow object head protection |
| 2009 | FMVSS 216 Update | NHTSA | Doubled roof strength |
| 2009 | Roof Ratings | IIHS | 4× for "Good" |
| 2012 | Small Overlap (driver) | IIHS | 25% narrow overlap |
| 2012 | FMVSS 126 (ESC) | NHTSA | Stability control required |
| 2013 | Front Crash Prevention | IIHS | AEB testing |
| 2016 | Headlights | IIHS | Nighttime visibility |
| 2017 | Small Overlap (passenger) | IIHS | Symmetric protection |
| 2019 | Pedestrian AEB | IIHS | Vulnerable road users |
| 2021 | Side Impact Update | IIHS | Heavier, taller barrier |

### Pedestrian & Sports Tests
| Year | Test | Organization | Key Change |
|------|------|--------------|------------|
| 1973 | Football helmet standard | NOCSAE | First athletic helmet certification |
| 1997 | Pedestrian protection | Euro NCAP | Headform/legform impactors |
| 2011 | NFL Helmet ratings | NFL/NFLPA | Public helmet rankings |
| 2019 | Pedestrian AEB | IIHS | Pedestrian detection/avoidance |

---

## Test Configurations Quick Reference

### Frontal Tests
| Test | Overlap | Speed | Barrier | Dummy |
|------|---------|-------|---------|-------|
| FMVSS 208 | 100% | 30 mph | Rigid | Hybrid III 50M |
| NCAP Frontal | 100% | 35 mph | Rigid | Hybrid III 50M + 5F |
| IIHS Moderate | 40% | 40 mph | Deformable | Hybrid III 50M |
| IIHS Small | 25% | 40 mph | Rigid | Hybrid III 50M |

### Side Tests
| Test | Configuration | Speed | Dummy |
|------|---------------|-------|-------|
| FMVSS 214 MDB | 90° barrier | 33.5 mph | ES-2re |
| FMVSS 214 Pole | 75° pole | 20 mph | ES-2re or SID-IIs |
| NCAP Side | 90° barrier | 38.5 mph | ES-2re |
| IIHS Side (2021) | 90° barrier | 37 mph | SID-IIs |

### Other Tests
| Test | Configuration | Measure |
|------|---------------|---------|
| FMVSS 216 | Static plate load | Force to 127mm crush |
| FMVSS 301 | Rear/frontal/side + rollover | Fuel leakage |
| IIHS Head Restraint | Rear sled test | Neck loads (BioRID II) |
| IIHS AEB | 12/25 mph approach | Speed reduction |

### Pedestrian Protection Tests (Euro NCAP)
| Test | Configuration | Measure |
|------|---------------|---------|
| Adult headform to hood | 35 km/h, 65° angle | HIC |
| Child headform to hood | 35 km/h, 50° angle | HIC |
| Upper legform to bumper | 40 km/h | Bending moment, force |
| Lower legform to bumper | 40 km/h | Knee bending, shear, acceleration |
| Headform to windshield | 35 km/h | HIC |

### Helmet/Sports Tests
| Test | Configuration | Measure |
|------|---------------|---------|
| NOCSAE Drop Tower | 60" drop, multiple anvils | Severity Index (SI < 1200) |
| NOCSAE Linear Impactor | 5.5-9.3 m/s impact | SI, peak acceleration, rotation |
| CPSC Bicycle Helmet | Drop test, flat + curbstone | Peak acceleration (< 300g) |
| Snell Motorcycle | Drop test + penetration | Peak acceleration |
| NFL/NFLPA Protocol | Drop + linear impactor + rotation | Composite score |

---

## Video Resources

### For This Presentation:

**IIHS 1959 vs 2009 Crash Test**
- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
- Best demonstration of 50 years of frontal progress
- Use in Chapter 1

**IIHS Small Overlap Test Failures**
- Various on IIHS YouTube channel
- Shows dramatic structural failures
- Use in Slide 10-11

**IIHS Side Impact (Updated 2021)**
- IIHS YouTube channel
- Shows new heavier barrier
- Use in Chapter 2

**ESC Demonstration**
- Various available
- Shows vehicle avoiding rollover
- Use in Chapter 3

---

## Anticipated Q&A

**Q: "Why doesn't NHTSA just adopt the IIHS tests?"**
A: Different roles. NHTSA sets minimum standards for ALL vehicles (legal floor). IIHS provides consumer information (market pressure). Both are needed - regulation sets the floor, consumer testing raises the ceiling.

**Q: "What test will come next?"**
A: Likely candidates: rear seat occupant protection, far-side impacts, compatibility testing, EV-specific tests, oblique frontal impacts. IIHS and NHTSA are both researching these.

**Q: "Do other countries use the same tests?"**
A: Similar but not identical. Euro NCAP uses different barriers, speeds, and injury criteria in some cases. Japan, Australia, China have their own programs. There's ongoing harmonization work.

**Q: "How does DTS fit into active safety testing?"**
A: Growing area. AEB testing requires vehicle dynamics measurement, timing data, position tracking. As active safety expands, data needs expand.

**Q: "Are crash tests still relevant with autonomous vehicles?"**
A: Absolutely. Even perfect autonomy can't prevent all crashes (other vehicles, edge cases, system failures). Crashworthiness remains essential as the backup when prevention fails.

---

## Presentation Tips for Ben

### The Core Message:
Every test is a chapter in a story. Tell the story, not just the specs.

### Emotional Anchors:
- Ford Pinto memo (calculating lives vs. dollars)
- Small overlap luxury car failures (BMW, Mercedes failing)
- The airbag wars (30 years of fighting)
- 117,000 lives saved per year

### The DTS Connection:
"We capture the data at step 2 (research), step 3 (testing), and step 5 (validation). Every test in this presentation depends on accurate data. That's what we provide."

### Audience Engagement:
- "Anyone want to guess how long it took to mandate airbags?" (28 years)
- "What percentage of crashes involve full frontal overlap?" (Only 25%)
- "How many pedestrian deaths last year?" (Over 7,000 - rising)

### Timing Flexibility:
- If running short: Condense Chapters 4 (Fire/Whiplash) 
- If running long: Skip some historical detail, focus on pattern
- Always include small overlap story - it's the most dramatic

---

*Document prepared for DTS internal presentation*
*Theme: "Every Test Has a Story"*
*Chapters: Frontal, Side, Rollover, Fire/Whiplash, Active Safety, Pedestrian, Sports/Helmets*
*Last updated: February 13, 2026*
