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 li st

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

ha ndling 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 refl ect 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.

Presenta tion 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.govNON

- 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 e castro@sealimited.com Doug las 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, 20112 

# 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 N eed T o Avoid Design Restrictive S tandards Additional Entries4 

## 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 Standards6 

## 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/K st 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 K st 

## ?



# ...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 two

wheel 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 @ 30 mph) 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 @ 30 mph) 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 Peak Unable to Determine Ay Peak Unable to Determine Ay Peak

## J

- Turn Ay Results Unable to Determine Ay Peak Unable 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

0.20 g 0.50 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.00 g Two

- Wheel Drive on Concrete

– Understeer Response

## On

- Highway Steering / Vehicle D

Oversteer Response

## On

- Highway Steering / Vehicle D

0.10 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 g 0.00 g Two

- Wheel Drive on Concrete

– Oversteer Response

N/A

## On

- Highway Steering / Vehicle A

Decreasing Understeer

## On

- Highway Steering / Vehicle A

0.20 g 0.50 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.00 g Two

- Wheel Drive on Concrete

– Decreasing Understeer

## On

- Highway Steering / Vehicle D

Neutral Steer Response

## On

- Highway Steering / Vehicle D

0.20 g 0.50 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.00 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 ( 2 WD, 4 WD, 4 WDL)

• 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 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 g

0.10 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 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 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 g

0.10 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 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 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 g

0.10 g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 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/K st 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 (K st ) ~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 off

highway 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 Approach2012 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 95 th % 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 head

ROPS 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 50 th 

## % 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

Pre

– Roll Dynamics Static Tilt

45 degree static tilt is conservatively comparable to 0.7 g pre

- roll dynamics

## Tilt Test

– Reasonable Grip Force

MADYMO

- Restrained 50 th 

## % 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 50 th 

## % Male ATD

## 95 th 

## % 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 (5 th

- 95 th % Operators) Tilley AR. The Measure of Man and Woman , Henry Dryfus and Associates, New York, 1993 (1 st % female to 99 th % 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

- 95 th 

## % 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 95 th male ATD 

## MADYMO

- 95 th 

## % 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 Q ualitative Analysis

## Qualitative Analysis of ROV IDIs

102



# Carr Engineering, Inc.

J. Paul Frantz, Ph.D., C.P.S.M., CPE Applied Safety and Ergonomics

## D UAL INDEPENDENT ANALYSES 

## :

H UMAN 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

# I N



# - D EPTH 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

# S AMPLE 

# C IRCUMSTANCES 

# B EFORE 

# L OSS OF 

# C ONTROL

+ 

### 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

# C RITERIA 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 risk

taking 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

### E XAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLY UNLIKELY OR

UNLIKELY PER INVESTIGATION TO BE RELATED TO CRASH AVOIDANCE



### L AUNCHING 

### :
“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



### S TRUCK BY OTHER ON



### - ROAD VEHICLE 

### :
“Utility vehicle that was struck by an oncoming truck”

- 100113HCC2316

107

### E XAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLY UNLIKELY OR

UNLIKELY PER INVESTIGATION TO BE RELATED TO CRASH AVOIDANCE



### C OLLISION WITH FIXED OBJECT 

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

which was extended into the road.”

- 080415HWE7319



### I NTENTIONAL 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

### E XAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES HIGHLY UNLIKELY OR

UNLIKELY PER INVESTIGATION TO BE RELATED TO CRASH AVOIDANCE



### L OSS 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



### U SE 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

## E XAMPLES OF CRASHES CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS



### INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION



### I NSUFFICIENT 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

### E XAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE EFFECT OF

ADDITIONAL CRASH AVOIDANCE FEATURES IS INCONCLUSIVE



### D ESCRIPTION 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

### E XAMPLES OF CRASH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE EFFECT OF

ADDITIONAL CRASH AVOIDANCE FEATURES IS INCONCLUSIVE



### D ESCRIPTION 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

### J OINT ANALYSIS RESULTS 

### :

A DDITIONAL 

### C RASH 

### A

VOIDANCE 

### F EATURES

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 %

### 90% 9% 

## 1% J OINT ANALYSIS RESULTS 

### : E FFECT OF ADDITIONAL CRASH

AVOIDANCE FEATURES

114 Highly unlikely or unlikely
per investigation Inconclusive

* 1% not applicable Proportionally distributed insufficient

information IDIs

# S UMMARY STATISTICS

115

Crash Avoidance Percent

Unlikely/Highly unlikely 

## 90

Inconclusive 

## 9

Not applicable 

## 1

Proportionally distributed Insufficient Information IDIs

# A DDITIONAL 

# H UMAN 

# F ACTORS 

# A NALYSIS

+ 

### 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

# IDI B REAKDOWN

117 171 IDIs

Children Driving (<16)

42/171 Driver Impairment

(Alcohol/Drugs)

57/171 Other

72/171



### 58% of all IDIs

## W HEN 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)

## I NCIDENTS WITH 

## K NOWN 

## D RIVER 

## B LOOD 

## A LCOHOL



# C ONTENT 

# L EVEL

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

• S upported 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 E

Course: appreciate more help

from CPSC

2. Launch ROV Basic DriverCourse and Open T rail E xperience S uite 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