| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | BioRID IIg response to varying comfort-feature stiffness and varying seatback rotational stiffness | ||||||||
| Reference Number | GTR7-06-07 | ||||||||
| Date |
14 Mar 2011
|
||||||||
| Source(s) | Lear | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 7 Head Restraints | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| GTR7 | Session 6 | 28 Feb-1 Mar 2011 |
Presentation from Lear Corporation (GTR7-06-07): All tests to the IIWPG test protocol using the BioRID IIg. A study was undertaken to identify the influence of seat comfort features on the IIWPG rating, whether the BioRID is repeatable enough to distinguish between different seat features, and provide comment on the criteria and thresholds proposed by Japan. The same seat cushion and adjuster assembly was used for all tests, with a different seat back for all tests. The same seat frame, foam, trim and head restraint were used in all tests. A spring-damper recliner system was used to give 7, 10 and 15 degree recline angles in the tests. It was reported that acceleration values were very repeatable (CV<5%); NIC repeatable (CV<10%); but neck loads were marginal (although it was noted that CVs were calculated from two tests, and with very small values for some of the parameters, which exaggerates the CV). It was also reported that the BioRID IIg was able to distinguish between the various stiffness’s of comfort features used in the tests, and was able to identify mechanical failures in the seat back features. The BioRID response generally increased with an increase in seatback rotation (reduced frame stiffness). |
||||||||