Sentences with phrase «chest deceleration»

In the frontal offset test, readings of neck tension in the 10 year dummy, and of chest deceleration in the 6 year dummy indicated a marginal level of protection.

Protection of the 6 year dummy, sat in a high - back booster, was rated as good and adequate for the head and neck respectively but dummy readings of chest deceleration indicated marginal chest protection.

Dummy readings of chest deceleration indicated marginal protection of the 6 year old's chest, with good protection of the head and neck.

Forward movement of the head of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward - facing restraint, was not excessive but dummy readings indicated high values of neck tension and marginally high readings for chest deceleration.

In the side barrier test, protection of the chest of the 10 year dummy was poor, based on dummy readings of chest deceleration.

Protection of the 1 1/2 year dummy, sat in a rearward - facing restraint, was good apart from marginally elevated chest decelerations.

In the frontal offset test, protection of both the both dummies was good or adequate except for the chest of the 6 year dummy which was rated as marginal based on chest decelerations.

In the dynamic impact tests, the L200 provided good protection to the child dummies in all areas except the chest, with both dummies showing marginally elevated chest decelerations.

In the frontal offset test, chest decelerations of the 6 year dummy's chest showed poor protection, exceeding recommended safe limits.

In the frontal offset test, protection of the chest of the 6 year dummy was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of chest decelerations.

Chest decelerations in the 6 year dummy indicated marginal performance but protection was otherwise good or adequate.

Not exact matches

In the frontal offset test, protection of the 6 and 10 year dummies was good or adequate with the exception of the chest of the 6 year dummy, for which readings of decelerations indicated marginal protection.

In the side barrier test, decelerations in the chest indicated poor protection of the 10 year dummy.

In the full - width rigid barrier test, readings of chest compression in the rear passenger dummy indicated poor protection for this part of the body and protection of the head was rated as marginal, based on measured decelerations.

In the full - width rigid barrier test, high decelerations indicated weak protection of the rear passenger's head and marginal protection of the chest.

In the frontal test, protection was good or adequate except for the chest of the 6 year dummy, for which dummy measurements of deceleration indicated marginal protection.

For the 6 year dummy, protection of the chest and neck was weak, based on decelerations and tensile forces.

In the frontal offset test, protection of the chest and neck of the 10 year dummy was rated as marginal, the chest on the basis of rib decelerations and the neck on the basis of tensile forces.

Protection of the 1 1/2 year dummy was good except for the chest, which experienced marginally elevated decelerations.

In the side barrier test, high decelerations in the chest of the 10 year dummy, on the struck side, demonstrated poor protection but other body regions, and the whole of the 6 year dummy, were well protected.

Strict limits are placed on the decelerations of the chest and on the degree of chest deflection and this, in turn, encourages manufacturers to fit more sophisticated restraints.

These decelerations can lead to severe injuries, especially to the chest of the more vulnerable, smaller or elderly occupants.

Protection of the chest of the 6 year dummy was weak, based on decelerations measured by the dummy.

Similarly, decelerations in the chest of the 6 year dummy indicated poor protection of this body region.

In the frontal offset test, forward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward - facing restraint, was not excessive, although chest and neck decelerations were marginally elevated.