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: Richard Silvers who wrote (1244)	7/30/1998 3:22:00 PM
From: Ariella	Respond to of 1671

SMU is mentioned on the AOL Bloomberg version: U.S. to Allow Inflatable Side Head Protection in Vehicles Washington, July 30 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. highway safety regulators are changing crash test standards to allow automakers to use inflatable side restraint devices to protect car occupants' heads in side impact crashes. While the new test standards will not require automakers to use the more sophisticated devices, U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said it will ''enable car manufacturers to bring life-saving technology to motorists quickly.'' European automakers Volvo, BMW and Daimler-Benz are already using the more sophisticated head protection devices in some of their cars. Regulators last modified vehicle occupant head protection standards in August 1995, with a requirement that additional protection for occupants' heads be built into the side rails and roofs of passenger cars and trucks. The previous standard applied only to the vehicle interior in front of the front seat occupants. The 1995 rule requires compliance beginning on Sept. 1, 1998. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration officials said many automakers, at least initially, will meet the 1995 standard by installing additional padding in the side rails, pillars and roof components of automobiles. Under the new test standard released today, autos that have the inflatable side protection devices will not be required to have as much padding in the side and roof components. National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Ricardo Martinez said padding is incompatible with the new devices, since in would slow their deployment. Cars with the inflatable devices will be required to provide a higher degree of protection than padding in higher-speed, or about 18 mile-per-hour, crash tests. The head protection standard is expected to save as many as 1,200 lives a year, prevent as many as 975 head injuries and yield $900 million in savings for auto and health insurers. Martinez said preliminary roll-over tests show that the inflatable devices have the additional advantage of preventing the vehicle occupant from ejection in some crashes. A beneficiary of the new test standard is Phoenix, Arizona- based Simula, Inc., which manufactures inflatable tubular restraint systems. Mercedes-Benz said its 1999 E-Class sedans, which go on sale next month, will be the first vehicles on the market with ''curtain-like'' devices that will deploy to cover the entire side of the passenger compartment in the event of a side-impact crash. Big Three NHTSA officials said Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Corp. don't have models this year with the new inflatable side restraints, though U.S. manufacturers have signaled they are looking at the more sophisticated restraints for future model years. There has been some concern that air bags, the devices that protect drivers and front-seat passengers in a head-on and rear collisions, aren't safe for everyone. Last November, the DOT issued a rule that would give car owners the option of having switches installed to turn off air bags, after a number of children and small-statured adults died in low-speed accidents when the devices deployed. NHTSA Chief Counsel Phil Recht said that the ''less aggressive'' side-protection devices do not pose a similar risk, since they deploy at far lower speeds than air bags, some of which burst from dashboards and steering wheels at speeds of up to 200 miles per hour. And air bags, Martinez and Recht repeated today, provide a significant safety benefit, as long as drivers and front seat passengers are properly wearing their seat belts. The DOT has been saying for some time that children under the age of 12 belong in the back seat. Last month, NHTSA regulators issued proposed standards for a crash test dummy the size of an average six-year-old child to be used when determining whether new automobiles meet federal crashworthiness standards. Regulators hope the new dummy will give them a fuller picture of the risks that air bags pose to unbelted or child passengers. The dummy will have a ''highly instrumented neck'' that more accurately recreates the movement of a human child's neck and head in the event of a crash. Martinez said today that regulators will soon release design standards for several new members of the crash test dummy ''family,'' including a small-statured adult female and a 10- month-old child. 13:03:35 07/30/1998

To: Richard Silvers who wrote (1244)	7/30/1998 11:58:00 PM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1671

To the "thread," I may be traveling, but that doesn't mean I am not watching. First of all, the new Standard 201 regs were totally expected by the market. There is no surprise, that is why the stock didn't react very strongly early in the day. As the day went on, it was learned that Randall Taylor (of Simula) had been interviewed by all of the major networks and some print media. After Martinez gave Simula credit for the technology, the news organizations took notice. It is almost certain that the visibility will be rising later in the week. BTW, though many traders have apparently missed the reality of it, the reason that Simula took so long to sign agreements with Delphi and TRW (and Breed, too, though for some reason that hasn't yet been publicly announced, though most traders close to the company are aware of it), is that in all three cases, the ITS is the primary sales effort of the ventures. In other words, when side impact head protection is requested by an auto company, these firms have a contractual obligation to show them ITS first. The only way they will sell "curtains" (or some other technology not known at this time) is if the auto company specifically requests that solution. I consider this extremely important, and believe that it may be discussed on the conference call next week. Lastly, though there is a relatively low street consensus forecast for the second quarter, my own guess is that the company may be reporting a better than expected result. The key to a management improving its company's stock evaluation is to underpromise and overdeliver. That is precisely opposite of what Simula did in 1997, but I think that the turn has arrived. Have a good day, everyone. I will be back at my desk on Monday, following a final 1000+ miles with my youngest son...as we complete our trek to the west via Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, and the Grand Canyon. We are already over half way home. Adios.