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: Noblesse Oblige who wrote (1197)	6/24/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: wally	Respond to of 1671

HI N.O. : Those numbers didn't include ITTR. They didn't talk about revenues for ITTR. They do feel they could get more on the ITS then 200-240 in 2005. At this point all I care about is delivering numbers this year. Delivering earnings is a hard thing for Don. As we all know. Don has time (a contract) I don't! Have a good night!!

To: Noblesse Oblige who wrote (1197)	7/7/1998 1:57:00 AM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1671

To the "thread," The following is quoted verbatim from a Press Release issued by Advocates for Highway Safety: Petitioner believes that recent actions by the agency in recognition of the advent of new, dynamic technology for protecting passenger vehicle occupants from the head trauma resulting from side impacts with upper interior vehicle features, provide an important opportunity for substantial gains in side impact safety for the kinds of lateral collisions governed by Standard No. 214. The potential for applying an innovative approach to improving Standard No. 214 has also been strengthened by the dramatic results of recent tests conducted by the IIHS of the Inflatable Tubular System (ITS) which was implemented and marketed by BMW, a vehicle manufacturer. These tests followed the NPRM recently issued by NHTSA on August 26, 1997, which proposed the amendment of FMVSS No. 201 to permit, but not require, the introduction of dynamic head protection systems that provide increased upper vehicle interior lateral crash protection. 62 FR 45202 et seq. In exchange for a limited exemption from the current 15 mph test compliance level specified in No. 201 for interior impacts using a Free Motion Headform (FMH), NHTSA would permit manufacturers who want to use dynamic rather than static countermeasures for mitigating head injury in upper interior side impacts to meet three alternative compliance requirements.(28) The third permitted option for the use of dynamic systems for complying with No. 201 involves the lateral impact of passenger vehicles with a 10 inch diameter rigid pole, resulting in considerable intrusion and vehicle deformation. 62 FR 45203 passim. This proposed regulatory option was recently tested by the IIHS with compelling results. IIHS used a 1997 BMW 528i equipped with a Standard No. 214-complying thorax air bag in a series of three lateral impacts into a rigid pole. The first two tests used, respectively, the BioSID and SID dummies (the latter fitted with a Hybrid III head), and did not involve the deployment of the BMW proprietary ITS (or Head Protection System (HPS)). At 17.4 mph, the first test (BioSID) resulted in a second peak calculation of TTI(d) of 90g and a pelvis acceleration of -55g. The second test (SID/HIII) resulted in TTI(d) of 71 and a pelvis score of -63g. In the second test, however, the thorax bag could not prevent head contact with the intruding pole, unlike the first test, and, as a result, calculated HIC was 4,720 -- a lethal blow.(29) In the third test, the BMW was fitted with an ITS. Lateral impact with a rigid pole, again using the SID/HIII combination dummy, occurred at 20 mph. With both thorax and ITS bags inflating within milliseconds of each other, resulting scores were again impressive for both TTI(d) (71g) and pelvis acceleration (-57g) and, because of the use of ITS, for calculated HIC. Given the extreme severity of the test due to the high impact speed and the tremendous concentration of crash forces with consequent deep intrusion produced by the use of a rigid, narrow cross-section vertical fixed object, inferred protection for an occupant from both severe thorax and head injuries would be outstanding. __________________________________________________________________ The entire quotation can be summarized in its last word. The entire industry is moving in our direction, and the net result will be significant market share gains. I remain of the view that this is only the beginning, and though we suffered a setback last year (from 16G and government products "accidents"), the real value of Simula will be in the Auto Products Division. Eventually, interior head protection will be ubiquitous. All we have to do is get our fair share. Have a good evening.