Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Simula (SMU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rainier who wrote (1165)	6/11/1998 10:10:00 AM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Respond to of 1671

HI Lisa, So, you are the lady that asked the "impertinent" question regarding the spinoff? <G> Nice to make your acquaintance. Also, apparently you were personally in attendance, and I paraphrased what I had been told about the meeting. I appreciate being corrected, because how Townsend responded is particularly relevant to the issues involved. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea who the new TRW agreements are with, as this secrecy issue is equivalent to a State secret. Though we can all speculate...it is, after all, an activity for which licensing is unnecessary...I won't actively do it. From my standpoint, it is more important that we continually add platforms by various car companies. I would like ITS to be ubiquitous, and for auto "safety" to be thought of at the same time people think of Simula. The question you raised about Mercedes is particularly important, however. It is my understanding that Mercedes was moving toward a "curtain" in order to avoid the appearance of "me, too" with the ITS, particularly since its domestic rival BMW was the first substantive user. This may (and I emphasize the word MAY) now be different, as there are new ITS's under development, with differing shapes AND with the potential to be integrated with a "curtain." The protection the curtain supplies is only marginal, as the ITS is really the relevant feature. But, if the car maker was concerned about looking "me, too", it could safely utilize one of the new ITS styles without it appearing to be that way. Just food for thought. And, I know nothing. Have a good day. And, thanks for the report from the "front."

To: Rainier who wrote (1165)	6/11/1998 10:35:00 AM
From: michael c. dodge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1671

Lisa.....I was the person questioning Mssrs. Smith and Townsend about TRW. I thought they answered as well as they could under the circumstances. Some auto mfgrs. have indicated they want a 'curtain', because they want more of the open space (where the window glass used to be) UNDER the ITS to be covered in a ROLLOVER. To keep the passenger inside the car in rollover (not side impact). Emphasis on 'rollover'. Keep the passenger inside the car structure in secondary rollover, with or without side impact.....and lasting up to 7 seconds. That is the apparently desired customer standard. SMU , as you know, and as anyone reading their patents can see, is working on both an oval-shaped ITS (to cover more window-opening area), and an ITS/curtain hybrid. Got to stay inflated at least 7 seconds, to allow the car to come to rest, and got to cover enough of the window opening to keep unbelted dummies (human and artificial) from flying out the window.