Airbags expanding

[Hot_Air]

If it wasn’t for coronavirus, 2020 was due to be the year of the airbag. Ye Olde tethered airbags are so passé, now it's electronic airbags that are on trend this season. We have In&motion airbags for RST, Held, Klim, Ixon and Furygan to expand uptake of the new tech. And the latest D-Air Smart and Tech-Air 5 vests will probably inflate the market further. Helite is hoping to puff up sales with an electronic airbag too.

Which parts of the body do you think are most important to protect with an airbag?

Not all airbags are created equal. Some protect the neck, but others avoid impeding neck movement. Many airbags protect the back. In contrast, some Dainese jackets with an integrated airbag protect the chest, clavicles and neck. Within the D-Air range alone, Dainese offers completely different protection depending on the suit or vest.





To avoid this thread descending into airbags are a waste of time vs. the best thing since sliced bread, could we assume that airbags provide a marginal gain in safety for those seeking no stone unturned? Famous last words ...

[MrLongbeard]

could we assume that airbags provide a marginal gain in safety for those seeking no stone unturned?

S'all about the science, so no, not until I see hard data, hell I'd even accept a video of crash tests where they would have a bearing on a riders safety on the road.

[Hot_Air]

Have you got access to read this publication?

Abstract
Motorcycle accidents lead to a high rate of traffic mortality and morbidity. While helmet development and mandatory wearing have reduced head injuries, little progress has been made regarding trunk protection. Wearable airbag devices represent a promising solution to prevent trunk injuries. Nevertheless, research investigations need to be performed to assess and optimise the efficiency of such devices. This work consisted in the analysis of motorcyclist trunk impact conditions involved in various crash configurations to provide critical information in order to evaluate and improve the performances of airbag devices. First, an epidemiological and an accidentological analysis of data collection related to 252 real accidents, focusing on victims admitted into the shock rooms of two French trauma centres were performed. The data obtained was combined with numerical multibody parametric investigations, allowing the reproduction of 240 accident situations. An original and representative analysis of motorcyclists’ impact conditions was provided, weighting the numerical study output data according to the real accident database. The impacted regions of the human body, the impact velocity and the accident chronology obtained in this work made it possible to define critical information for airbag efficiency assessment: the zones and levels of protection, the impacted surfaces as well as the airbag intervention time and the duration of maintained inflation of the airbag.

Also, the study found that the most vulnerable regions of the trunk are the frontal and lateral areas. While most of the electronically-triggered airbags protect the frontal area, only one of them protects the sides of the trunk too.

I wonder if this finding gives a reason why back protectors aren't associated with reduced injury: the back isn't one of the most vulnerable regions?

[Hot_Air]

S'all about the science, so no, not until I see hard data

I disagree because there is rarely a ‘killer experiment’ that provides conclusive proof. Often, there is inadequate evidence on which we need to make a judgement.

For example, a systematic review found no evidence that motorcycle training was associated with reduced accident risk. However, many of us would judge that knowing basic motorcycle handling techniques and the Highway Code could reduce the chances of crashing compared to learning to ride by making it up as you go along. The results of the systematic review merely reflect a lack of quality research into the subject.

When it comes to airbags, it will be years before we have a bunch of randomised controlled trials to review systematically. We may never get conclusive evidence about airbag protection; just we have no definitive proof about the value of motorcycle training. In both cases, we're left with making a judgement based on sparse evidence.

[MrLongbeard]

Have you got access to read this publication?

Only the abstract, which doesn't say a whole hell of a lot.

[MrLongbeard]

I disagree because there is rarely a ‘killer experiment’ that provides conclusive proof. Often, there is inadequate evidence on which we need to make a judgement.
we're left with making a judgement based on sparse evidence.

And as the manufacturers themselves can't make a demo video showing the effectiveness of the airbags during bike into side of car collisions my judgement, for the time being, is that these are some lovely magic beans.

I may even be persuaded to side with an argument that these are being offered for road use based on spectacular track performance giving road riders a false sense of security and leading to more spirited riding thus exposing themselves to greater risk.

I was looking around and came across

showed that the airbag system reduced forward momentum by 62%, which mean that head trauma fell by 83%! These airbag systems will not completely protect a rider from injury, but it can be the difference between a minor injuries and a fatal motorcycle crash.

which sounded very promising, until I searched around some more and found those results related to;


Maybe that's where the focus should be rather than wearable airbags

[Horse]

IIRC BMW RT fairings were designed to help eject the rider!

[Horse]

Scroll back and forward a few pages. TRRL ESM1 chest pad.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0UF ... m1&f=false

And

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2OF ... m1&f=false

[Hot_Air]

[airbags] are being offered for road use based on spectacular track performance giving road riders a false sense of security and leading to more spirited riding thus exposing themselves to greater risk.

While I agree, this argument holds water for most personal protective equipment. It's hard to balance PPE against risk compensation

[Horse]

[airbags] are being offered for road use based on spectacular track performance giving road riders a false sense of security and leading to more spirited riding thus exposing themselves to greater risk.

While I agree, this argument holds water for most personal protective equipment. It's hard to balance PPE against risk compensation

Perhaps not always. Anecdotally, there are times when people remove PPE (e.g. gloves) because it's easier to a job without them.

[Hot_Air]

Horse, I don't think we need to discuss how you perform your ablutions

[Horse]

Horse, I don't think we need to discuss how you perform your ablutions

If the paper does run out, I will take those decisions.

[flicker]

I bought an Ixon vest towards the end of last year, I looked at the Helite vest but discounted it based on it's use over my leathers, more likely to ride up during a slide or possibly start me tumbling.

I also looked at the Dainese and Alpinestars but with only a single use and then back to the manufacturer for repacking and repair, reports of several weeks turn around during the summer and the cost these were discounted too.

It's a fairly new technology to motorcycles so I'd expect it to change reasonably quickly over the next few years so I was happy to go with the Ixon vest for now due to it's lower initial cost but with a subscription based service, the vest fits under my existing leathers (altered to allow expansion room). When something noticeably better comes along then the cost to change will be better than the other systems.

I've yet to try them in anger but I'm happy that if the bag doesn't deploy I still have the same level of protection I had before, if it does then then depending on my landing I've got another layer of help.

Decision to buy one initially was based on track/race use, although I will use it on road too.

[Hot_Air]

I've read the Oschar Ballester et al article, and it answers many the the questions that arise about motorcycle airbags. It's frustrating that the article is hidden behind a paywall, but I hope that airbag manufacturers will read it.

However, this older publication is free to read: L. Thollon, Y. Godio, S. Bidal, C. Brunet. Evaluation of a new security system to reduce thoracic injuries in case of motorcycle accidents. Int. J. Crashworthiness, 15 (2010), pp. 191-199, doi: 10.1080/13588260903102062.

closer to a real accident situation for the two wheel motorised vehicle (impact speed ranging between 8.33 m/s and 11.11 m/s, larger impact surface on the body segments), the airbag fully plays its role: large decrease of the sternum deflection resulting in a very positive injury assessment ... It should be noted that these impact speeds are in agreement with the impact speeds estimated by Hurt.

Having read both publications, I've concluded that airbags are very promising for road accidents, and likely to be proven useful once more research has been done. However, these publications show that airbag coverage is vital. For example, the thorax, abdomen and sides of the ribs all need protection. Yet many airbags don't protect the sides of the ribs; neither In&motion's not Dainese's current airbags cover this area of the torso.

Also, the Ballester et al article shows that airbags need to inflate with 70 milliseconds of impact. This means some airbags won't be fast enough to help in a road accident.

[Horse]

There's a few things in the equestrian world which might be of interest?

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk ... b042).html

ttps://www.horseandhound.co.uk/eventing/tests- ... uch-296557

https://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/foru ... -read-this

[Horse]

the Ballester et al article shows that airbags need to inflate with 70 milliseconds of impact. This means some airbags won't be fast enough to help in a road accident.

As I may have suggested before: decide, when preparing to ride, for the type of crash you expect to have

[MrLongbeard]

Also, the Ballester et al article shows that airbags need to inflate with 70 milliseconds of impact. This means some airbags won't be fast enough to help in a road accident.

Why?
How do they qualify specifying an intervention time that needs to be less than half of that required by BS EN 1621-4 (200 ms)?

[Hot_Air]

Short answer: The Ballester group’s study is thorough. It found that a 200-millisecond time is fast enough to protect riders from impacts with the ground, but not fast enough to protect motorcyclists from hitting another vehicle. To protect riders against impacts with a car, the airbag needs to inflate within 70 milliseconds.

Long answer: Ballater et al’s analysis found that impacts against the car occurred as fast as 67 milliseconds. For areas that an airbag can protect, the lowest impact time was 74 milliseconds for the abdomen and 77 milliseconds for the thorax. Where the rider hits a car, the fastest impacts were in oblique-on-side collisions, with 50% of impacts in under 85 milliseconds. The analysis found that airbags would be valuable protection, provided they the airbag can inflate within 70 milliseconds, and it protects the abdomen and front and sides of the ribcage.

It’s clear that the CE standard for mechanical airbags is out of date, and 200 milliseconds simply isn’t good enough to protect riders from hitting a car. However, the 200-millisecond CE-standard is good enough to protect riders from hitting the ground; Ballester et al found these impacts take at least 346 milliseconds.

The work by Ballester et al used a combination of data gathered from two trauma centres and 252 injured motorcyclists, accident data, plus biomechanical investigations. They took account of lots of confounding factors. For example, they took account of the BMI of the rider and whether they were on a scooter or a sportsbike when ascertaining the frequency with which riders hit the car bonnet vs. the roof vs. the car’s B-pillar vs. the ground. The investigated the differing injury patterns that resulted in each case. Their analysis covered many different accidents: head-on, head-on crash at 150 degrees, oblique crash at 135 degrees at front wheel level, and several more crash scenarios. I can't detail everything because of copyright restrictions, but I believe the Ballester et al (2019) study has highly significant findings for airbag design.

[Horse]

As I've said. Choose your crash.

Actually, plan your crash. If you T-bone the passenger compartment of a car it's highly likely that your head will impact. No fast or slow airjacket will help much, not even aided by a packet of paracetamol.

If you aim for the front or rear crumple zones - and so the lower parts of the car - you're more likely to get airborne and landing will be the challenge.

[The Spin Doctor]

S'all about the science, so no, not until I see hard data

I disagree because there is rarely a ‘killer experiment’ that provides conclusive proof. Often, there is inadequate evidence on which we need to make a judgement.

For example, a systematic review found no evidence that motorcycle training was associated with reduced accident risk. However, many of us would judge that knowing basic motorcycle handling techniques and the Highway Code could reduce the chances of crashing compared to learning to ride by making it up as you go along. The results of the systematic review merely reflect a lack of quality research into the subject.

When it comes to airbags, it will be years before we have a bunch of randomised controlled trials to review systematically. We may never get conclusive evidence about airbag protection; just we have no definitive proof about the value of motorcycle training. In both cases, we're left with making a judgement based on sparse evidence.

Not quite right if you're thinking about the paper I'm thinking about... they found that there were no LONG TERM benefits... the benefit of the training fell off with time, and the untrained riders gained the same skills via experience.

I can vouch for the latter. I learned by crashing. Quite often in the early years.

And even incomplete science is usually better than gut-instinct.