Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2025

Structural Design and Manufacturing of a Cruiser Class Solar Vehicle
Published on: January 30, 2019
Rear passenger restraint in frontal NCAP tests compared to the right-front passenger
1ProBiomechanics LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Objective:
This study compared kinematic and biomechanic responses of the 5th female Hybrid III in the right-rear and right-front passenger seats in frontal NCAP tests with 2015-16 MY vehicles. It focused on the lap-shoulder belt restraint of the rear passenger.
Methods:
Eleven frontal NCAP tests were conducted by NHTSA at 56 km/h with a lap-shoulder belted 5th Hybrid III dummy in the right-rear and right-front seats. The right-front passenger had pretensioning and load limiting belts and advanced airbags with inflatable knee bolster. The rear passenger had seatbelts without pretensioning or load limiting. The kinematic and biomechanical responses of the 5th Hybrid III dummy in the rear and front were analyzed. The tests included onboard video cameras covering the rear and front passenger. Lap and shoulder belt loads were measured. The responses were compared for the two seating positions and restraint systems.
Results:
Only one of 11 vehicles had favorable restraint of the right-rear passenger. All vehicles passed criteria for the right-front passenger. The right-rear passenger HIC15 was 888 ± 314 (779 IARV) significantly higher than 242 ± 72 in the right-front passenger (t = 6.36, p < 0.001). The right rear Nij was 1.16 ± 0.19 (1.00 IARV) significantly higher than 0.46 ± 0.11 in the right-front (t = 9.18, p < 0.001) and the rear chest deflection was 46.1 ± 9.8 mm (42 mm IARV) significantly higher than 20.8 ± 5.6 mm in the right-front (t = 7.12, p < 0.001). The shoulder belt load was 8,771 ± 2,088 N on the right-rear passenger significantly higher than 3,564 ± 911 N on the right-front (t = 7.28, p < 0.001). Three of the 11 crash tests involved submarining by the right-rear passenger at 76.0 ± 7.2 ms. Two tests with submarining involved the seatbelt buckle lifting by shoulder belt load pulling the lap belt onto the abdomen. One test involved compressing the front of the seat cushion with the H-point dropping, the pelvis rotating rearward and the lap belt sliding onto the abdomen.
Conclusions:
Restraining loads on the rear passenger were significantly higher than on the right-front passenger in 2015-16 MY vehicle NCAP tests. The HIC15 was 3.7-times higher in the rear passenger than the front. The Nij was 2.5-times higher and chest deflection was 2.2-times higher. The dummy responses were significantly higher in the rear seat compared to the front seat because of greater restraining loads, submarining and a hardware failure in NCAP tests. The lack of pretensioning, load limiting and airbags involved higher injury risks in the rear passenger compared to the right-front passenger.
More Related Videos
07:30A Test Bed to Examine Helmet Fit and Retention and Biomechanical Measures of Head and Neck Injury in Simulated Impact
Published on: September 21, 2017
09:34Implementation of Portable Emissions Measurement Systems PEMS for the Real-driving Emissions RDE Regulation in Europe
Published on: December 4, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Normal and Tangetial Components: Problem Solving
Rolling Resistance
For instance, imagine a hard cylinder rolling on a comparatively soft surface. The cylinder's weight compresses the surface beneath it. As the cylinder moves, the material in front of it slows down...
Rigid Body Equilibrium Problems - II
Consider two children sitting on a seesaw, which has negligible mass. The first child has a mass (m1) of 26 kg and sits at point A, which is 1.6 meters (r1) from the pivot point B; the second child has a mass (m2) of 32 kg and sits at point C. How far from the pivot point B should the second child sit (r2) to balance the seesaw?