IIRC, it was due to rollover safety and ejection concerns.Originally Posted by mmc45414
IIRC, it was due to rollover safety and ejection concerns.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
If I'm reading this right, and if this is the rule eventually adopted, the requirements are indeed about keeping the occupants inside the vehicle (and maybe foreign objects like tree limbs out???), but manufacturers can meet these requirements with laminated glass or side curtain airbags or whatever. I know the owner's manual for our Subaru, which has tempered glass side windows, shows really big side airbags that cover the whole window opening.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.go...FR_Jan2011.pdf
That one says 2011. Current law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.226
Doesn't mandate a specific type of glass but does have minimum puncture resistance requirements, so airbags wouldn't help with that test.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Thanks for finding that! Way outta my lane, but I'm reading it differently???
The impactor (S7.1) is a head shaped thing weighing 18kg and approx 7x9 inches, which doesn't sound very puncturish. I didn't find a puncture requirement.
There are a bunch of requirements about 'ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in a rollover', which sounds kinda airbaggish to me. One of them (S5.5b) even says "For a vehicle with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in a rollover, remove or fully retract any movable glazing from the side daylight opening. Using the ejection propulsion mechanism, propel the ejection impactor such that it first strikes the countermeasure, ..." which sounds like they are not depending on the glass at all for some airbags. Which kinda makes sense because "S5.4.1.2 Breakage method" sounds like you work over the window with a center punch first, and my amateur guess is there wouldn't be much tempered glass remaining after that procedure.
Like I said, outta my lane.
The side windows in our 2024 Subaru, which I hope would meet current regs, are labeled 'A2 Tempalex'. All the sources I found but one say that the A2 means tempered glass, but OTOH the one that was different was an NHSTA page that said A2 could be laminated or tempered. If a replacement wasn't $350 I'd conduct an experiment in the name of science :-).
S5.4.1.2 Breakage method.
(a) Start with the inside surface of the window and forward-most, lowest mark made as specified in S5.4.1.1 of this standard. Use a center punch in this procedure. The punch tip has a 5 ±2 mm diameter prior to coming to a point. The spring is adjusted to require 150 ±25 N of force to activate the punch. Only once at each mark location, apply pressure to activate the spring in the center punch in a direction which is perpendicular to the tangent of the window surface at the point of contact, within ±10 degrees. Apply the pressure only once at each mark location, even if the glazing does not break or no hole results.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Isn't that part of S5.4, which says that prior to impact testing with the pseudo-head you have to either remove the glass, or go through the specified break-the-window procedure?
As in, you can work over the laminated glass with the center punch and then see if the plastic laminate still stops the pseudo head on it's own, or if you are going to use tempered glass you can just go ahead and remove the glass before launching the head, or work it over with the centerpunch, which will result in removing it anyway. Then you launch the head into the 'Ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys', if any. So if you use laminated glass, it might be enough on it's own, but you can use tempered glass as long as the 'Ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys' stops the head on its own.
I will say right up front, I see a lot of pages that say 'post 2017 side glass must be laminated'. But if so, Ford and Subaru seem to be in violation.
On our 2018 Ford, the front side windows are explicitly labeled 'Laminated', while the rear sides are explicitly labeled 'Tempered', and the difference is also visible - looking at the edge you can see the lamination layers. You don't see those layers in the rear sides. And our 2024 Forester windows labeled 'Tempalex' don't show the triple layered construction either, while the sunroof is labeled 'Lamisomething' (too lazy to walk down and look again).
Any fire dept types want to chime in on this?
(BTW, I'm not just trying to be an internet pedant ... I'm pretty interested in knowing how to get out of our cars if we have to, and that's why I did the deep dive a few weeks ago when we got the new Subi. If I'm wrong about what glass is in our cars, I want to know. But right now my lyin' eyes :-) are telling me the Subi side windows and rear truck windows are tempered)
No intention of making light of a tragedy, but anytime I hear of a car sinking the final line in this clip pops into my head.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
From the Wilderness Medical Society, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...06032241227460 (Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Prevention of Drowning: 2024 Update)
This is part of https://wms.org/WMS/WMS/Research/WEM...7-1d56ba012828 (Wilderness Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines)
They do their homework, do their research, and provide recommendations accordingly.
The excerpt is long so I've posted the recommendation first.
Recommendation. We recommend escaping from a submerging vehicle immediately after it enters the water, during the initial floating phase. If the vehicle remains floating, we recommend people climb out and remain on top of the vehicle. If it is sinking, they should move away from the vehicle and toward safety after exiting. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence.
Patients in Submerged Vehicles
Death from entrapment and drowning in submerged vehicles is often not classified as a drowning death, confounding attempts to accurately track the epidemiology of this type of drowning.27 Studies suggest that 10% of drowning deaths may be due to entrapment in submerged vehicles, especially during disasters, and that in the case of inland flooding, as many as 10% of motor vehicle crashes result in a drowning death.28–31 There is a small body of medical and rescue literature on the topic of vehicle submersions.29,32–37
A formal review of educational and public service information identified “three probable significant contributors to [the] high fatality rate [of drowning in submerged vehicles]: 1) ‘authorities’ provide an inadequate description of vehicle sinking characteristics; 2) contradictory and inadequate advice is often provided; and 3) a poor public perception of how to escape.”32
Several sources recommend questionable escape practices without supporting evidence. These practices include allowing the passenger compartment to fill with water so that it will be easier to open doors, waiting until the vehicle sinks to the bottom of a body of water to maintain orientation, relying on kicking out the windshield or opening doors after the vehicle has fully sunk, and relying on breathing trapped air in the passenger compartment.
In a formal survey, more than half of the general public identified an option that involves staying in a vehicle while it sinks to the bottom as being the safest option when trapped in a submerging vehicle; this advice often appears in the popular media.36 Research data derived from 35 vehicle submersions conducted in diverse locations and seasons suggest this advice is erroneous. The best time to escape from a submerging vehicle is immediately during the initial floating phase, ideally during the initial 30 s to 2 min after water entry when most vehicles remain partially above the surface.36
An algorithm, using the acronym SWOC, has been developed to advise those entrapped in water how to sequence escape actions. The SWOC algorithm recommends the following sequencing of actions before mobile phone use: Seatbelts off, Window open (upstream window), Out immediately, Children first.37 The available research points out that electric windows should work if engaged quickly; if necessary, windows should be broken before water rises high enough to push against them; children should be helped from the oldest to youngest and before adults.38,39 The rationale for evacuating from oldest to youngest is that older children are more likely to be able to follow instructions to exit the vehicle and hold on or quickly be helped out of the vehicle, allowing the adult to focus on the other children. If starting with the youngest first, it is likely that the adult would not be able to help the other children if they had to assist other children while holding an infant.
If the vehicle is in moving water, recommendations are to open the upstream window for egress, which will only be possible if the water level is below the level of the window. The rationale behind this is that if one attempts to exit through the downstream window, it increases the likelihood of being swept away by a strong current. Therefore, exiting via the upstream window would increase the chance that the victim could climb on top of the roof to await rescue.
In 2008, Priority Dispatch, a US-based proprietary out-of-hospital emergency medical dispatcher system added an addendum to its standardized protocols that instructed emergency medical dispatchers not to persist in getting a location for a caller in a submerging vehicle. Instead, it recommends that a caller exit the vehicle immediately if it is submerging—before using precious time to determine location—and using the SWOC protocol.38,40
In 2010, the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) began work on revising their sinking vehicle protocol; in 2013, they approved a new protocol shifting dispatcher priorities from establishing location to first instructing victims on how to self-rescue and escape the vehicle before it sinks.38,39 An additional protocol was developed in 2013 to address the subset of patients drowning in floodwaters. Differences here include the survival benefit in floodwaters to a vehicle not floating (vs survival benefit to vehicles floating in deeper water), the possibility of using a door, and specific recommendations to get on the roof after exiting rather than into the water.38,39
I don't know all the tech details of that Tesla but I think most was a software problem. I imagine a very rich, completely non-car, non-technical, non-mechanical person, w/ a bit of a buzz going, who has absolutely no idea what to do. She probably likes the Tesla because she just plugs it in at home and never needs to deal w/ a gas station again. Because of this she simply freaks out and does nothing except make a phone call. I have a 19 Stingray. The door is opened w/ an electrical push button. The park brake is an electrical push or pull switch on the console. They do this just because it is a somewhat expensive car and they imagine people expect that crap even in a sports car. The stupid part is they have a lever on the floor between seat and door that operates a cable door opener. So, to give people an effing button, they have to make two completely separate systems. The park brake is similar in that all the usual cables are there running to a big a$$ actuator in the wheel well right behind the driver's seat. So 12 inches more cable could run to a lever on the console. Not a double system but I am sure that actuator weighs a lot more than 12" cable and a lever.
Reply With Quote