Ratings for restraints,
dummy kinematics, and injury measures for the head and neck, chest, pelvis, and legs and feet are all good.
Major structural intrusion meant that key components of the restraints and
dummy kinematics performance could not be assessed.
As a result, ratings for restraints and
dummy kinematics and dummy injuries are based only on the second test.
The restraints and
dummy kinematics rating is based on the second test.
As a result, the restraints and
dummy kinematics rating is based primarily on the second test although camera views from outside the car suggest that there were very similar results in the first test.
Therefore, the restraints /
dummy kinematics rating improves to MARGINAL for the later models.
Because the dummy's head barely interacted with the frontal airbag in the test of the 2014 model, it is unlikely that any changes in
dummy kinematics would be expected in 2016 and later models.)
Not exact matches
Another restraint and
kinematics issue Institute engineers flagged was excessive forward movement of the driver
dummy caused by too much shoulder belt webbing spooling out of the retractor.
Vehicle test performance varied widely in the three rating categories: structure, restraints and
kinematics, and
dummy injury measures.
Checking
kinematics of the
dummy and the potential for injuries.
In contrast, the Forester earned good ratings for structure, restraints and
kinematics, plus all four injury measures on the
dummy.
In contrast, the Forester had good ratings for structure, restraints and
kinematics, and all four injury measures on the
dummy.
The purpose of this study was to compare injury responses and
kinematics for these two
dummies in side impact crash tests.
Two - thirds of the vehicles had poor ratings for structure, and about half of them were poor or marginal for restraints and
kinematics, meaning the
dummy's movements weren't well - controlled to prevent contact with hard surfaces.