A few months ago we published a news that seemed quite scandalous (link here). In this previous post we talked in general, this time I am going to clarify a very important topic and also with totally current studies (for those who say they want more news still - April 2016)
We are going to specify one of the main problems that these types of chairs present, abdominal pressure that exerts the shield on the baby. Not at all, a 75% for serious injury odds is the level of risk that we parents of a winning chair of the annual test who publishes the RACE.
What happens to abdominal pressure in these retention systems?
In 2015 the RACE disclosed this information. If you enter the document, on page 10, you can find a box where explain the SRI (retention systems) who suffer a decrease in the rating as a result of the readings recorded by the dummies regarding the «Protection against frontal impact»:
You will see that in the boxes of the Cybex Pallas M / Casualplay Multiprotector Fix II / Cybex Pallas M-Fix the reason for the decrease is that abdominal pressure exceeds 1.5 bar. Due to this, they lower the average or a qualification level, that is, they take away half or a point.
In 2016 they released the same type of information again, adding some new model, as is the case of the Joie Trascend. If you enter this year's document you will see that they also decrease between half a point and one point because it causes pressures> 1.5 bar (higher)
But, what does it mean higher than 1.5 bars? Is it 1.6? 2? 5?
We are going to get out of doubts finding, curiously the answer itself, in the documents of the ADAC and the RACE They have been telling us for a long time! (Irony ON mode)
- In 2012 Philippe Beillas developed an investigation on abdominal pressure in child dummies (CASPER, P. Beillas' 'Child Advanced Safety Project for European Roads' in 2012) .
To these dummies he added an abdominal sensor to measure what pressures they were experiencing during the simulation of an accident. If you go to page 14 of the document you will see a graph indicating that the abdominal pressure suffered by the dummy in the photo (with a chair with a shield) is greater than 2 bars. Beillas in this document is already starting to recommend that abdominal pressure should not exceed 1.2 bar. Here the suspicion begins. But since some people are still determined that these studies are old, because they are from 2012, I will tell you more.
- In April 2016, a few months ago a project was presented (Recommendations for setting dummy injury thresholds for regulation 129 Phase 2 regarding chest & abdomen loading) at that a series of recommendations were requested in order to approve the new regulation of homologation R 129 (known as the new I-SIZE regulation). On page 4 you can already clearly see what the requests were: Validate the proposed injury criteria below 1.2 bars.
So that you understand a little how this graph works and you can make a good analysis, I am going to give you some guidelines:
- The continuous center line is the pressure that occurs in the dummy at the time of the accident. It is the one we should look at.
- The side linesdiscontinuous are a confidence threshold of the result.
- The orange square is the one that belongs to 1 bar pressure (which is the most recommended)
- The little red square Belongs to 1.2-1.3 bar (the risk level starts to rise)
- Scores reflected on the left side they respond to the anatomical coding system created by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine to classify and define severity of injury (AIS) (AIS definition here) It is one of the most common anatomical scales for traumatic injuries. They help to represent the level of risk of injury in terms of severity.
- Reflected scores at the base of the graph is the pressure that the dummy would experience at the moment of impact.
You will be able to verify, once these points are understood, that they mark the box (orange) drawing a line that goes from the value 1 bar at the base to the central continuous line. If once we have that value we draw a straight line to the left (AIS) we can check that they admit a risk of injury from a 20%.
But then, thanks to this graph, we can discover the level of risk posed by> 1.5 bars Let's go there! If you look carefully at the graph attached to this photo you will see that we have done our homework (you can also do it in your homes by printing the document)
We seek between the values of the base of the graph 1.5 bars Y draw a straight line upwards until it coincides with the continuous line which defines the pressure the dummy experiences. Once that point is achieved, we draw another straight line that goes to the left (AIS). As you will see, the result is above 0.7, which is equivalent to 75%.
That is to say, they are telling us that If your child's pressure is 1.5 bar or higher, WE HAVE THE 75% LIKELY TO HAVE THIS SMALL SERIOUS DAMAGE.
- In the project 'ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURES OF
FORWARD FACING CRS WITH INTEGRAL RESTRAINT SYSTEM 'by Heiko Johannsen, Philippe Beillas and Philippe Lesire We find these two tables where we can also check as one of the requests (Table 1. on page 4) is that limit pressure to 1.13 bars.
Later in this same study we can see the table 4 (page 9) where show us the summary of a series of tests with 5 results (frontal impact, dummy q3 equipped with sensors) In this table we can see that the pressure results in the chairs with front shield range from 2.7, 2.1 and 1.8 bar. Figures, which as they say in the ADAC and RACE documents, are exceeding those <1.5 bars
In this document they affirm, emphatically, that:
(…) The pressures were greater than 1.8 bar (…) Caution must be taken, since the load surfaces are different between the shield and the strap and (…) investigate this problem further, but it seems safe to indicate that reflects a higher level of abdominal loading. This level seems to be associated with a higher risk in the accident according to the data.
- PUBLICATION OF THE NEW REGULATION 129, known as the new 'I-SIZE' approval (May 2016) - link here
In case you have any doubt about the pressure limitations in this document, definitive of the new homologation 129, we can find that YES The limitation is approved at 1, 2 bars for Q1.5 dummies and 1 bar for Q3 dummies.
What does the ADAC / RACE say about all this?
ADAC only says that if it exceeds this minimum limit, it lowers the rating by ½ and 1 point, instead of directly eliminating or suspending this model. (as they do with much more contentious arguments in other cases). They lower the note and continue 'gaining rankings'
They do not tell us what value they have, they only guarantee that they are at least 1.5 bar. ALL car seats with cushion / shield have done so since the new sensor was implemented in 2015 and still win the test of their respective analysis group.
LThe front shield chairs that won the RACE 2015 and 2016 would not pass the famous “I-size” approval in its second phase, because they exceed 1 bar of abdominal pressure in the dummies of children of 1.5 years and 3 years.. This shield system does not meet the minimum premises necessary to sell itself or as a cheap or minimally basic supermarket or toy chair.
For those who still have doubts and want to attack the studies presented in this post, I want to clarify that ADAC and RACE itself relies on these same documents to do their 'studies', 'rankings', 'comparisons'. That is, these documents are the same source from which they drink. To prove it, here you have the evidence:
If we go to your documents 2015 (page 29) Y 2016 (page 31) you will see that there are some sections towards the end where they tell us about the criteria on which they have based their analysis or comparative. They themselves say, here, that their criteria They are described in CASPER, EEVC, CREST, Euro NCAP and the new R 129 approval regulations..
To perform a dynamic evaluation, the readings of the dummies are evaluated according to certain biomechanical criteria, which are based on both the ECE standard and the results of European research projects (eg CASPER, EEVC, CREST or Euro NCAP).
Thus if you follow this recommendation you know, just like us right now, that the chairs they call 'winning' have a 75% chance of causing serious injury to babies. Isn't that enough for you to give us a real explanation of what all this means?
I suppose that they must trust that nobody consults them and that what we do directly is go to the final result of the 'ranking'
As you can see it is not something that I say, they themselves accept that the result greater than 1 bar is harmful. So, gentlemen of the RACE (ADAC), Do you consider it acceptable that chairs with more than 75% chances of suffering serious injuries, according to their own measurements and dynamic test evaluation criteria (R129, CASPER ...), could be winners of their test? Do you think this is acceptable for parents and professionals who decide based on their ranking?
Here we continue to wait for a clear answer, with studies, in the same way that we have done so far.
While, in this team, we can continue to affirm that the chairs in the opposite direction of the march, for the moment, are the only ones that are showing that they meet the expectations of safety that we parents have.. The rest is only evidence of an interest-based scandal that I do not know, but that is clearly not those of the safety of our children.