LOG OF MEETING

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs) – Meeting requested by the 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) to present testing done by ROHVA 

in the areas of lateral stability, vehicle handling and occupant protection performance.

DATE OF MEETING: November 10, 2011

PLACE OF MEETING: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Caroleene Paul, ESME

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: See attached attendance list

NON-COMMISSION ATTENDEES: See attached attendance list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

Representatives of the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) met with 

CPSC staff to discuss testing done by ROHVA in the areas of lateral stability, vehicle 

handling and occupant protection performance of ROVs.

CPSC staff opened the meeting by setting the following ground rules:

• ROHVA requested this meeting with CPSC staff so, although the meeting was

public, discussions were limited to ROHVA representatives and CPSC 

staff/representatives.

• The opinions or views expressed by CPSC staff were not reviewed or approved by 

the Commission and may not reflect the views of the Commission.

• The discussions during the meeting will be treated as comments to the ongoing 

rulemaking and will become part of the public record.

ROHVA representatives presented testing performed by Carr Engineering, Inc. (CEI), 

Design Research Engineering (DRE), and Applied Safety and Ergonomics, Inc. 

Presentation is attached.
MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD

ROHVA / CPSC Staff – November 10, 2011

COMMISSION ATTENDEES:

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE E-MAIL

Anthony Teems ESME 301-987-2329 ateems@cpsc.gov

Mark Kumagai ESME 301-987-2234 mkumagai@cpsc.gov

Ian Hall LSM 301-987-2323 ihall@cpsc.gov

Caroleene Paul ESME 301-987-2225 cpaul@cpsc.gov

Kevin Lee ESME 301-987-2486 klee@cpsc.gov

Tanya Topka Compliance 301-504-7594 ttopka@cpsc.gov

Steve Hanway EPHA 301-504-7256 shanway@cpsc.gov

Robert Franklin EC 301-504-7708 rfranklin@cpsc.gov

Justin Jirgl Compliance 301-504-7814 jjirgl@cpsc.gov

Barbara Little OGC 301-504-7879 blittle@cpsc.gov
NON-COMMISSION ATTENDEES:

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE E-MAIL

Paul Vitrano ROHVA 949-727-4211 pvitrano@rohva.org

Kathy Van Kleeck ROHVA 703-416-0444 kvankleeck@rohva.org

Duane Taylor ROHVA 703-416-0444 dtaylor@rohva.org

James Walker Jr. Carr Engineering 281-894-8955 jwjr@ceimail.com

Daniel Toomey Design Research Eng. 248-668-3450 toomey@dreng.com

Chris Van Ee Design Research Eng. 248-668-5533 chrisv@dreng.com

Paul Frantz Applied Safety & Ergo 734-994-9400 pfrantz@appliedsafety.com

Charles Burhans Applied Safety & Ergo 734-994-9400 cburhans@appliedsafety.com

Kathy Woods OPEI 703-549-7600 kwoods@opei.org

Cathy Downs Family of Elle Sands 703-471-7297 downs884@verison.net

Darby Hull CFA 202-387-6121 dhull@consumerfed.org

Jan Rintamaki Polaris Industries 763-847-8350 jan.rintamaki@polarisind.com

Brett Gass Polaris Industries 651-408-7247 brett.gass@polarisind.com

Jeff Eyres Polaris Industries 763-542-2309 jeff.eyres@polarisind.com

Stacy Bogart Polaris Industries 763-542-0506 stacy.bogart@polarisind.com

Aaron Deckard Polaris Industries 651-398-0508 aaron.deckard@polarisind.com

Tyler Furman Kawasaki 402-440-6597 tfurman@kn.kmmfg.com

Russel Brenan Kawasaki 949-770-0400 russel.brenan@kmc-usa.com

Douglas Wilson Kawasaki 949-770-0400 doug.wilson@kmc-usa.com

Marie-Claude Simard Bombardier (BRP) 450-332-6195 marie-claude.simard@brp.com

Brad Franklin Yamaha Motor Corp 714-761-7842 brad_franklin@yamaha-motor.com

Brian Gabel Yamaha Motor Corp 714-519-9162 brian_gabel@yamaha-motor.com

Ted Bettin Arctic Cat 218-681-9799 tbettin@arcticcatinc.com

Bob Loehr Deere & Company 920-485-5365 loehrrobertj@johndeere.com

Jamie Kovalaske Deere & Company 919-804-2103 kovalaskejamied@johndeere.com

Mike Gidding Brown & Gidding 202-237-5267 mjg@brown-gidding.com

Megan Olsen Kelley Drye 202-342-8677 molsen@kelleydrye.com

Michael Wiegard Eckert Seamans 202-659-6603 mwiegard@eckertseamans.com

David Murray Willkie Farr & Gallagher 202-303-1112 dmurray@willkie.com

Annamarie Daley Barnes & Thornburg 612-367-8749 adaley@btlaw.com

Ed Krenik Bracewell & Giuliani 202-828-5877 edward.krenik@bgllp.com

Elaine Castro SEA, Limited 800-782-6851 ecastro@sealimited.com

Douglas Morr SEA, Limited 800-782-6851 dmorr@sealimited.com
ROHVA Update:

Standards Development and Safety Programs

Presented to

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Technical Staff

November 10, 2011
2

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

• Only Growing Segment:

+15% in 2010

• Tens of Thousands of Jobs 

related to:

– Manufacturing

– Retail

– Tourism

84% of ROVs Represented by ROHVA

ROHVA Members
ROV Innovation

Recent Innovations Demonstrate Need To 

Avoid Design Restrictive Standards

Additional Entries
4

ROHVA’s Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

Announced to Chairman Tenenbaum in July 2010

Occupant Behavior

1. Required Helmet and 

Seatbelt Use 

2. Standardized Warning 

Labels 

3. E-Course Training

4. Hands-On Training 

Q1 2012

Vehicle Voluntary Standard

1. Static and Dynamic

Stability Performance Requirements

2. Occupant Retention 

Performance Requirements

3. Restraint Warning System

4. Vehicle Class Expanded to Meet 

CPSC Area of Interest 

ROHVA Delivered On Commitments To CPSC

And Is Continuing Its Work

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
5

Vehicle Standards

• ANSI / ROHVA 1-2010 issued in 03/10

– Created initial benchmark 

– Continued to work to address CPSC comments and concerns

• ANSI / ROHVA 1-2011 issued in 07/11

– First-ever dynamic stability standard for OHVs

– Occupant retention construction/performance standards

Rapid, Significant Progress On Standards
6

CPSC Comments to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011

• Support for J-turn and opinion favoring understeer on 

pavement

• SEA report on CPSC sponsored testing

– Had hoped to have opportunity to discuss methodology and 

findings directly with SEA

– Independently analyzed SEA testing

Carr Engineering, Inc. 

James E. Walker, Jr., B.S.M.E., P.E.

ROHVA Engaged Carr Engineering to 

Evaluate SEA Testing and Conclusions
CPSC/SEA Objectives

...accurate and repeatable...
• SSF/Kst and TTA are static vehicle parameters that

can be measured accurately and reliably as long as

key test variables are defined and controlled

• J-Turn SWA and Ay are dynamic test parameters that

cannot be reproduced accurately or reliably due to

uncontrollable variations in specific methodologies

• On-highway steady-state steering characterization

can be performed accurately and reliably, but can

change dramatically when evaluated off-highway

Findings Summary
• Static Evaluations

Static Stability Factor (SSF) Calculation

Tilt Table Angle (TTA) for Two-Wheel Lift

• Dynamic Evaluations

Drop-Throttle J-Turn Minimum SWA

Drop-Throttle J-Turn Minimum Ay

On-Highway Steering Characterization

Off-Highway Steering Characterization

Testing Performed
SSF
• Measurement of CG and calculation of SSF using

SAE suspension method (vs. SEA VIMF apparatus)

• Total of 44 individual configurations evaluated

Eleven machines

Four loading configurations

• Total of 27 individual configurations could be directly

compared to data generated by SEA

SSF Evaluation
Why Not Kst?

...within a value of 0.01...
SSF Results
SSF Results
SSF Results
• Maximum difference of ~5% compared to SEA data

• Average difference of ~2% compared to SEA data

• Generally consistent results independent of testing

methodology that satisfy CPSC/SEA-stated objective

of being both accurate and repeatable

• Generally relates to a machine’s crash avoidance

capacity

• Any proposed standard or metric would need to

consider test-to-test variability

SSF Results
Tilt Table
• Measurement of minimum TTA required for twowheel lift (TWL) on tilt table apparatus

• Total of 88 individual configurations evaluated

Eleven machines

Four loading configurations

Two orientations

• Total of 54 individual configurations could be directly

compared to data generated by SEA

Tilt Table Evaluation
Tilt Table Results
Tilt Table Results
Tilt Table Results

Variability In Loading
• Maximum difference of ~14% compared to SEA data

• Average difference of ~3% compared to SEA data

• Generally consistent results independent of testing

methodology that satisfy CPSC/SEA-stated objective

of being both accurate and repeatable

• Generally relates to a machine’s crash avoidance

capacity

• Any proposed standard or metric would need to

consider test-to-test variability

Tilt Table Results
Drop-Throttle J-Turn

Steering Wheel Angle
• Determination of minimum SWA required for

outrigger contact during aggressive dropped-throttle

J-Turn (500°/s @ 30mph) on concrete surface

• Total of 44 individual configurations evaluated

Eleven machines (A through K)

Two loading configurations (SEA-defined)

Two directions (left and right)

• Total of 36 individual configurations could be directly

compared to data generated by SEA

J-Turn SWA Evaluation
J-Turn SWA Results
J-Turn SWA Results
J-Turn SWA Results
• Maximum difference of ~63% compared to SEA data

• Average difference of ~14% compared to SEA data

• Inconsistent results based on specific testing

conditions and methodology that do not satisfy the

CPSC/SEA-stated objective of being both accurate

and repeatable

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

large test-to-test variability

J-Turn SWA Results
Drop-Throttle J-Turn

Ay Test Variability
OPEI Analysis of SEA Data

19% Variation in Ay
J-Turn Ay Variability / CEI Analysis

0.72
J-Turn Ay Variability / CEI Analysis

0.88

22% Variation in Ay
• OPEI calculated vehicle variation of ~19% of data

range using SEA results

• CEI measured ~22% Ay test-to-test variation

• The NHTSA does not employ any form of a J-Turn

test protocol for either consumer advisory or

regulatory purposes

• The NHTSA does not employ any form of a lateral

acceleration requirement for either consumer

advisory or regulatory purposes

J-Turn Ay Variability
• Inconsistent results based on specific testing

conditions and methodology that do not satisfy the

CPSC/SEA-stated objective of being both accurate

and repeatable

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

large test-to-test variability

J-Turn Ay Variability
Drop-Throttle J-Turn

Minimum Ay
• Determination of minimum Ay required for outrigger

contact during aggressive dropped-throttle J-Turn

(500°/s @ 30mph) on concrete surface

• Total of 44 individual configurations evaluated

Eleven machines (A through K)

Two loading configurations (SEA-defined)

Two directions (left and right)

• Total of 36 individual configurations could be directly

compared to data generated by SEA

J-Turn Ay Evaluation
SEA J-Turn Ay Results / Vehicle G

0.72 0.68

Ay Peak Filtered
• Results generated by CEI (using SEA methodology)

show a wider range of rolling motions

• Some vehicles displayed rolling motions which

prevented an accurate or reliable measurement of Ay

• Ay selected by CEI as local maximum excluding

transients generated

• Like SEA, unknown / unquantified effect of outrigger

contact during generation of local maximum

J-Turn Ay Measurement
J-Turn Ay Results / Vehicle I

0.75
J-Turn Ay Results / Vehicle J

1.03

0.81
J-Turn Ay Results / Vehicle B

1.10

Unable to Determine Ay Peak
J-Turn Ay Results
J

-Turn Ay Results

Unable to Determine Ay PeakUnable to Determine Ay PeakUnable to Determine Ay Peak
J-Turn Ay Results

Unable to Determine Ay PeakUnable to Determine Ay Peak
• Maximum difference of ~37% compared to SEA data

• Average difference of ~13% compared to SEA data

• Inconsistent results based on specific testing

conditions and methodology that do not satisfy the

CPSC/SEA-stated objective of being both accurate

and repeatable

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

large test-to-test variability

J-Turn Ay Results
On-Highway Steering

Characterization
• Measurement of SWA as a function of vehicle lateral

acceleration on concrete

• Total of 88 individual configurations evaluated

Eleven machines (A through K)

Two loading configurations (SEA-defined)

Two orientations (CW and CCW)

Two diameters (50’ radius and 100’ radius)

• Total of 36 individual configurations could be directly

compared to data generated by SEA

On-Highway Steering Results
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle C

Understeer Response
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle C

0.00 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g 0.50 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Understeer Response
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle D

Oversteer Response
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle D

0.00 g 0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Oversteer Response

N/A
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle A

Decreasing Understeer
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle A

0.00 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g 0.50 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Decreasing Understeer
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle D

Neutral Steer Response
On-Highway Steering / Vehicle D

0.00 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g 0.50 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Neutral Steer Response
• Generally consistent results independent of testing

methodology that satisfy CPSC/SEA-stated objective

of being both accurate and repeatable

• SWA adjustments are small and do not relate to a

machine’s crash avoidance capacity

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

lack of correlation to crash risk or crash involvement

On-Highway Steering Results
Off-Highway Steering

Characterization
• Measurement of SWA as a function of vehicle lateral

acceleration on dirt

• Total of 264 individual configurations evaluated

Eleven machines (A through K)

Two loading configurations (SEA-defined)

Two orientations (CW and CCW)

Two diameters (50’ radius and 100’ radius)

Three driveline modes (2WD, 4WD, 4WDL)

• SEA did not perform testing on off-highway surfaces,

so direct comparisons could not be performed

Off-Highway Steering Results
• Testing on on-highway surfaces is a specifically

warned-against behavior and is not the intended

operating environment for these machines

• Testing on off-highway surfaces more accurately

reflects the intended usage and utility of the

machines

• Testing in driveline modes with increased tractive

effort more accurately reflects the intended

functionality of the machines on these surfaces

Why Test on Dirt?
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle E

Increased Understeer
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle E

0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

0.00 g

0.00 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Understeer Response

Four-Wheel Drive on Dirt – Increased Understeer Response
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle D

Oversteer to Understeer
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle D

0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

0.00 g

0.00 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Oversteer Response

Four-Wheel Drive on Dirt – Understeer Response

N/A

N/A
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle J

Understeer to Oversteer
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle J

0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

0.10 g 0.20 g 0.30 g 0.40 g

0.00 g

0.00 g

Two-Wheel Drive on Concrete – Understeer Response

Four-Wheel Drive Locked on Dirt – Oversteer Response
Off-Highway Steering / Vehicle C

Increased Scatter
• Does not always correlate to a machine’s measured

on-highway steering characteristic

• SWA adjustments are small and do not relate to a

machine’s crash avoidance capacity

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

lack of correlation to crash risk or crash involvement

• May dictate compromises in vehicle design that can

reduce utility and/or crash avoidance capacity

Off-Highway Steering Results
Summary
• SSF/Kst and TTA are static vehicle parameters that

can be measured accurately and reliably as long as

key test variables are defined and controlled

• Generally relates to a machine’s crash avoidance

capacity

Summary – SSF and TTA

Average

Difference

Maximum

Difference

Static Stability Factor (Kst) ~2% ~5%

Tilt Table Angle ~3% ~14%
• J-Turn SWA and Ay are dynamic test parameters that

cannot be reproduced accurately or reliably due to

uncontrollable variations in specific methodologies

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

large test-to-test variability

Summary – J-Turn SWA and Ay

Average

Difference

Maximum

Difference

J-Turn Steering Wheel Angle ~14% ~63%

J-Turn Minimum Lateral Acceleration ~13% ~37%
• On-highway steady-state steering characterization

can be performed accurately and reliably, but...

The characteristic can change from understeer to

oversteer (and vice versa) when evaluated on offhighway surfaces

SWA adjustments are small and do not relate to a

machine’s controllability or crash avoidance

capacity

• Inappropriate for use as a standard or metric due to

lack of correlation to crash risk or crash involvement

Summary – Steering Characterization
CPSC Comments to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011

Question ANSI/ROHVA Occupant Retention Standards

72

ROHVA Engaged DRE to Evaluate 

Occupant Retention Standards

Chris A. Van Ee, Ph.D., P.E.

Daniel E. Toomey, M.S.E., P.E.
Introduction

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the ROV 

Occupant Retention Systems (ORS) in 

rollover accident events.

• Evaluate the current ANSI-ROHVA 

standard with respect to occupant 

protection including kinematics and 

retention in 90 degree rollover events.

DRE Task
Background

• ROV occupants are active 

riders that counter-posture 

and brace against inertial 

forces.

• Active muscle response 

combined with three point 

seat belts have been 

shown to keep occupants 

within ROVs in static 90 

degree roll evaluations.

Active Versus Passive Occupants

(Carhart and Newberry, 2010)

Carhart M, Newberry W, Biomechanical Analysis of Passive and Active Occupant Responses During 

Rhino Riding and 90-Degree Tip-Over Events, 3:09-MD-2016-JBC, MDL No. 2016, 2010)

An example of a ROV passenger 

counter-posturing in a left-hand turn
Background

Active Versus Passive Near Side Occupants

From Yamaguchi et al., 2005 (SAE Paper 2005-01-0302)

• During pre-trip vehicle dynamics near 

side surrogate occupants bend their 

necks away from the vehicle periphery 

resisting inertial head motions. 

(Yamaguchi et al., SAE Paper 2005-01-0302)

• Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) 

are passive occupants 

• Leading up to 90 degree rollover 

events ATDs are...

• reasonable estimate of near side 

occupant lateral motions

• likely overestimate head excursion.
Background

• Seat belts are the most effective injury 

mitigating safety device in rollover accidents. 

• Seat belts offer effective protection against 

ejection and injury in rollover accidents.

• Risk of ejection (NHTSA DOT HS 810 741)

• 33% for unrestrained SUV occupants

• Less than 1% (0.33%) for SUV restrained 

occupants

• 98.6% of all seat belted occupants in SUV 

rollover crashes do not receive serious or fatal 

injuries (Malliaris and Diggs, SAE Paper 1999-01-0063)

Seat Belt
Background

From Carhart and Newberry, 2010

1 2

3 4

• Seat belted ATDs 

(passive occupants) 

remain within ROVs 

during dynamic lateral 

deceleration sled tests 

inducing a 90 degree 

roll event.

Seat Belts
ANSI – ROHVA ORS Evaluation

• ROPS / Seat belt system performance evaluation 

• ROPS Geometry

• Rollover simulations

• Computer modeling of belted/zone 1 retention

• Performance based requirement evaluation

• Acceleration environment comparison

• Hand grip force evaluation 

• Zones 1, 2, and 3 barrier requirement evaluations

• Barrier geometry

• Occupant anthropometry

• Computer simulation

• Barrier strength

• Computer simulation

DRE Approach
2012 Kawasaki Teryx 

2012 Yamaha Rhino 2011 CanAm Commander 

2011 Arctic Cat Prowler 

2012 Polaris Ranger XP 

2012 Polaris Ranger RZR 

ROPS Geometry Analysis

Exemplar Scanning
ROPS Geometry Analysis

1020

Seated Height

1020 mm

95th % Seated Height

976 + 50 (helmet) = 1026 mm

ISO 3164

ISO 3411

Methodology
ROPS Geometry Analysis

Cross Section Through Seat Index Point

SIP
ROPS Geometry Analysis

Summary

ANSI-ROHVA standard specifies 

ROPS force and energy 

performance requirements. This 

has resulted in ROPS initial 

geometries well outside the 

Deflection Limiting Volume (DLV).

SIP
Quasi-Static Rollover Simulations

Setup

• Centered ATD hips and buttocks 

against seat back

• Route available seat belt and 

adjust lap belt loop with 

fingers between ATD pelvis 

and belt

• ATD hands secured to knees

• Rotate table to potential headROPS interaction angle.

• Allow seat belt retractor to 

lock via table tilt angle.

• Repeat above process three 

times
Results – Sample Inverted Position

Quasi-Static Rollover Simulations
Quasi-Static Rollover Simulations

Results – Inverted Head Position
Results – Inverted Head Positions

Quasi-Static Rollover Simulations
• MADYMO Version 7.3

• Generic vehicle model from scans

• Hybrid III Series ATDs 

• 95% Male (6’2” 223 lbs)

• 50% Male (5’9” 171 lbs)

• Sliding Friction (μ) = 0.5

• Generic belt restraint properties

• Seat has modest contour/sculpting

Modeling Setup

MADYMO
Acceleration Environment

MADYMO

Lateral Acceleration (g)

Roll Rate (deg./sec.)

1g

1g

Test 2 From Warner and Bready, SAE Paper 2011-01-1117

Gravitational and lateral accelerations 

are step inputs in MADYMO simulation

Change in body roll angle is not simulated 

in MADYMO increasing the relative lateral 

motion between the occupant and ROV 
MADYMO

Restrained 50th % Male ATD

Steady state zone 1 force is 85 N (~19 lbs.)

Hand maintained on right thigh with a steady state force of 50 N (~11 lbs.)
45 Degrees Static Evaluation

Performance Based Tilt Test

1g

0.7g

0.7g 0.7g

Static Tilt Pre – Roll Dynamics

45 degree static tilt is conservatively comparable to 0.7 g pre-roll dynamics
Tilt Test – Reasonable Grip Force

MADYMO - Restrained 50th % Male ATD

• Outboard hand connected 

to hand hold using a 

Kelvin (spring/dashpot) 

element.

• Hand hold location 

accentuates arm tensile 

loading.

• Zone 1 barrier included.
Tilt Test – Reasonable Grip Force

Steady state hand hold force 150 N (~34 lbs.) or 20% of body weight.

This is well within occupant capability and consistent with findings of

Carhart and Newberry (2010). 

Steady state zone 1 force is 100 N (~22 lbs.).

MADYMO - Restrained 50th % Male ATD
95th % Male ATD – Generic Vehicle Model

Construction Based Barriers
Zone 1 Geometry

Barrier Dimensions

4” Height

• Ankle height 

•3.9 – 4.7 in. (ISO 3411)

•2.5 – 3.7 in. (Tilley)

9” Opening

• Foot length 

•9.8 – 12.2 in. (ISO 3411)

•9.9 – 13.2 in. (Tilley)

ISO 3411. Earth-moving machinery — Physical dimensions of operators and minimum operator space envelope (5th-95th % Operators) 

Tilley AR. The Measure of Man and Woman, Henry Dryfus and Associates, New York, 1993 (1st % female to 99th % male)
Zone 2 Geometry

Barrier Dimensions

6” Perpendicular from Seat Back

• Chest Depth 

•8.3 – 11 in. (ISO 3411)

•7.5 – 12 in. (Tilley)

17” along Seat Back

•Shoulder Height 

•20.9 – 25.6 in. (ISO 3411)

•20.8 – 26.6 in. (Tilley)
Zone 3 Geometry

Barrier Dimensions

26” Along Seat Back

•Shoulder Height 

•20.9 – 25.6 in. (ISO 3411)

•20.8 – 26.6 in. (Tilley)

19.7” @ 25 deg. from Horizontal

•Upper Arm Length

•9.2– 12.3 in. (Tilley)

•Buttock to Shoulder Joint Depth

•4 – 5.3 in. (Tilley)
MADYMO - 95th % Male ATD Not Seat Belted

Barrier Force Requirements
Barrier Force Requirements

Steady State Zone 1 Contact Force 225 N (~50 lbs)

Steady State Zone 2/3 Contact Force 700 N (~157 lbs)

Barrier force requirements are sufficient to retain 95th male ATD

MADYMO - 95th % Male ATD Not Seat Belted
Zone 2 Barrier Location

MADYMO - Pressure Contour Analysis
Mandatory Standards Are Not Necessary

1. Insufficient compliance with voluntary 

standard

2. Voluntary standard does not adequately 

protect consumers from unreasonable 

risk of death and injury

100

All ROHVA members comply/will comply with 

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011

The data show that vehicles meeting 

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 do not present an 

unreasonable risk of death and injury

Analyzed Incident Data For True Causes

• Significant evolution of voluntary standards

• ROHVA has been responsive to CPSC’s areas of concern 

(dynamic stability; occupant retention)

• Chairman: CPSC has “an active partner in addressing safety concerns with” ROHVA 

members. Mandatory standards necessary if:
Relevance of Vehicle Design in Incidents

• In 1989, CPSC conducted a multi-disciplinary qualitative 

analysis of 162 fatality incidents in order to address crash 

avoidance issues for ATVs (A. Corley, Analysis of Causative Factors in All-Terrain 

Vehicle-Related Deaths – 1989 (Jan. 1991))

• Conclusion: Vehicle design (i.e stability, steering/handling) not 

the primary factor in 94% of the incidents; “overwhelming 

number” attributed to actions of the operator

• CPSC has not conducted such a multi-disciplinary qualitative 

analysis of ROV IDIs

101

ROHVA Commissioned a Similar 

Multi-disciplinary Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative Analysis of ROV IDIs

102

Carr Engineering, Inc.

J. Paul Frantz, Ph.D., C.P.S.M., CPE

Applied Safety and Ergonomics
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

DUAL INDEPENDENT ANALYSES: 

HUMAN FACTORS AND VEHICLE DYNAMICS

+ Two teams of human factors and vehicle dynamics 

experts: 

– Applied Safety and Ergonomics

– Carr Engineering

+ Hundreds of hours of analysis

+ Independent assessment followed by joint analysis

103
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATIONS

+ Analysis of 171 complete IDIs

– Examined IDIs to assess potential effects of changes in crash 

avoidance features

– Did not include duplicates or terminated incomplete IDIs

+ Range of incident dates: April 2004 to September 2010

+ Vehicle model years: 1999 to 2010

104
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

SAMPLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE LOSS OF CONTROL

+ Drivers and passengers with alcohol

+ Youngsters in groups without adults present

+ Ride areas with obstacles/extreme terrain

+ Driving on roads: collisions, impaired or without license

+ Recognition of risky behaviors or potential concerns

+ Unsupervised or unauthorized use or location of use

105
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

CRITERIA FOR CRASH AVOIDANCE CATEGORIES

+ Highly Unlikely or Unlikely Per Investigation

– The circumstances of the crash were unrelated to the crash avoidance 

capacities of the machine, the operator was intentionally engaging in risktaking behavior or stunts, or the authority or agency investigating the 

incident concluded that the operator was making unreasonable and/or 

inappropriate driving decisions.

+ Inconclusive

– It is possible, but unclear, that different design attributes could have 

mitigated the crash.

+ Insufficient Information

– Not enough is known about the crash scenario to draw a definitive 

conclusion.

106
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

EXAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLY UNLIKELY OR

UNLIKELY PER INVESTIGATION TO BE RELATED TO CRASH AVOIDANCE

LAUNCHING:

“At that time, he approached the truck stop and a 30 to 40 foot 

raised dirt embankment. The victim failed to apply the brakes 

or stop causing all four wheel to leave the ground and the 

vehicle became airborne. The victim’s vehicle impacted the 

upper rear portion of a parked tractor-trailer and fell to the 

ground.” - 091118HWE8524

STRUCK BY OTHER ON-ROAD VEHICLE:

“Utility vehicle that was struck by an oncoming truck” -

100113HCC2316

107
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

EXAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLY UNLIKELY OR

UNLIKELY PER INVESTIGATION TO BE RELATED TO CRASH AVOIDANCE

COLLISION WITH FIXED OBJECT:

“The [vehicle] approached the gate and crashed into the portion 

which was extended into the road.” - 080415HWE7319

INTENTIONAL STUNT:

“The father was attempting to spin the UTV to make donuts in 

the dirt when one of the UTV wheels caught in a rut and the 

UTV tipped over toward the passenger side.” –

091123HWE8536

108
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

EXAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLY UNLIKELY OR

UNLIKELY PER INVESTIGATION TO BE RELATED TO CRASH AVOIDANCE

LOSS OF CONTROL LEADING TO ROLLOVER IN A DITCH:

“...a one vehicle Off-Road/ATV accident on County 

Road...[redacted] was distracted by handing a can of root beer 

to [redacted] then looked back to the road and saw that they 

were going off of the road. She yelled, [redacted] to get her 

attention, but they were already off of the roadway and in the 

ditch.” - 100601HNE0366

USE ON EXTREME TERRAIN:

“At some point, the decedent attempted to climb a hill which 

was approximately 70-degrees incline. The OHV tipped 

rearward and to the right then rolled over.” - 090728HCC3816

109
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

EXAMPLES OF CRASHES CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION:

“[Driver] attempted to pass the van traveling in front of him, 

[and] the UTV which he was driving flipped.” – 

090126CCC2285

“The Witness states that the victim went to turn around and the 

vehicle overturned” – r070430HNE2274

“For unknown reasons (possibly due to the rough terrain) P1 

lost control of V1” – 081030CCC3081

110
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

EXAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE EFFECT OF

ADDITIONAL CRASH AVOIDANCE FEATURES IS INCONCLUSIVE

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION CAUSING A CRASH:

“While riding as a passenger in a [UTV], side by side ATV, a slow 

gradual turn to the left causing the vehicle to roll over on the 

passenger side.” – 080905CNE3738

“The driver and two passengers were traveling on "a slight uphill 

grade" when the driver "initiated a slight right hand turn." 

The vehicle "tipped over a quarter turn onto its driver's 

side.”” – 090508CCC1699

111
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

EXAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE EFFECT OF

ADDITIONAL CRASH AVOIDANCE FEATURES IS INCONCLUSIVE

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION CAUSING A CRASH:

...had been creeping along at about 2-5 mph when he 

overturned. He was braking at the time and believes that his 

back wheels lock (sic) up, but he does not know if his front 

wheels may have been turned to the left or right. He stated 

that as the back wheels locked up, the back end of the vehicle 

began to slide sideways and within one flow the vehicle 

overturned onto the passenger side. – 0905057CCC2610

112
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

JOINT ANALYSIS RESULTS: 

ADDITIONAL CRASH AVOIDANCE FEATURES

113

Highly Unlikely/Unlikely:

The circumstances of the crash were unrelated to the crash 

avoidance capacities of the machine, the operator was 

intentionally engaging in risk-taking behavior or stunts, or 

the authority or agency investigating the accident 

concluded that the operator was making unreasonable 

and/or inappropriate driving decisions

* 1% not applicable (2/171)

81%

Insufficient Information:

There is insufficient information known about the crash 

scenario to draw a conclusion about the effect of different 

crash avoidance attributes

Inconclusive:

It is possible, but unclear, that different design attributes could 

have mitigated the crash 8%

10%
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

90%

9%

1%

JOINT ANALYSIS RESULTS: EFFECT OF ADDITIONAL CRASH

AVOIDANCE FEATURES

114

Highly unlikely or unlikely 

per investigation

Inconclusive

* 1% not applicable

Proportionally distributed insufficient 

information IDIs
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

SUMMARY STATISTICS

115

Crash Avoidance Percent

Unlikely/Highly unlikely 90

Inconclusive 9

Not applicable 1

Proportionally distributed Insufficient Information IDIs
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

ADDITIONAL HUMAN FACTORS ANALYSIS

+ Review of over 70 factors associated with IDIs

+ Examples factors include:

– Indication of Legal Violations (Ex. Felonies and Misdemeanor 

offenses)

– Driver & Passenger Age

– Number of Passengers

– Goal of Operation

– Alcohol Use & Levels

– Location of Passengers

– Location of Use

– Accident Terrain

116
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

IDI BREAKDOWN

117

171 IDIs

Children Driving 

(<16) 

42/171

Driver Impairment

(Alcohol/Drugs)

57/171

Other

72/171

58% of all IDIs
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

WHEN CHILDREN UNDER 16 DRIVE, WHO IS IN THE

VEHICLE WHEN THEY CRASH?

118

Children 

Driving (<16) 

(42/171)

With Peers

(<18) 

60%

(25/42)

With Adult 

(18+) 

Passengers 

19%

(8/42)

Alone

21%

(9/42)
APPLIEDSAFETY

+ERGONOMICS

INCIDENTS WITH KNOWN DRIVER BLOOD ALCOHOL

CONTENT LEVEL

119

Impaired 

Driver with 

Known 

Alcohol

(27/57)

BAC over 

.17

37%

BAC .08-.17

41%

BAC 

under .08

22%
Conclusions from Qualitative Analysis of IDIs

• Portion of ROV incidents that potentially could be addressed 

by different stability & handling performance requirements is 

very small

– 90% of incidents would not have been prevented by 

different stability & handling performance requirements

– 10% of IDIs are inconclusive – It is not possible to conclude 

that different design attributes could have prevented the crash

• ROHVA’s work on rules for behavior is addressing the primary 

risks

120

Differences Between ROHVA & CPSC Approaches To 

Stability & Handling Not A Factor In At Least 90% of IDIs
Rules for Behavior

ROV Safety Rules

– Key messages to address hazard patterns

– Regularly promoted by ROHVA and others

121

“... CPSC encourages ROV 

riders & passengers to follow 

these guidelines from CPSC and 

the Recreational 

Off-highway Vehicle Association 

(ROHVA) ...”

CPSC Support of ROHVA Safety Rules Important 
Education And Training

ROV E-Course

• Over 2,800 enrolled in 2011

• Up 23% from 2010

• Supported by members

• Publicity via enthusiast, 

trade and government 

partners

122

Demand for E-Course Building and Will 

Drive Hands-On Training
Education And Training

ROV Hands-On Training

– Incorporating best practices and leveraging resources from ASI & MSF

– ROV Basic DriverCourse and Open Trail Experience Suite – launch in early 2012

– Training available to customers of non-member companies

123

Recreational and Occupational Users 

Excited About ROHVA Training
Next Steps

Continue to Promote Safe and 

Responsible Use

1. Demand building for ROV ECourse: appreciate more help 

from CPSC

2. Launch ROV Basic DriverCourse

and Open Trail Experience Suite 

in early 2012

3. Promote education and training 

with media events 

(Locations TBD)

124

Continue Dialogue with CPSC regarding

Vehicle Standards

1. Answer questions regarding ROHVA’s 

work

2. Rely on a fact based approach to safety 

correlating standards development to 

real world risk

3. Request open communication with 

CPSC regarding its positions and the 

underlying data

ROHVA Is An Active Partner on Safety