INTRODUCTION

With the constantly increasing need for mobility, particularly in urban

areas, various problems arise including the urban space and energy
consumption. In addition, exhaust and noise emissions have to be
mentioned. In order to be able to satisfy the mobility needs in the future,
new solutions are required. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new
concepts for individual urban transport to close the gap between
conventional individual transport and public transport. Due to the
increasing readiness of customers to buy a second or third vehicle, there
will be a market for new, innovative vehicles for urban transport.
The project aims at improving urban transport, whilst minimizing of
negative environmental impacts caused by increased mobility. Within
the CLEVER project, various requirements are recognized (e.g.
customer
requirements,
environmental
requirements,
safety
requirements etc.).
Different European companies and research institutes (e.g. BMW,
TAKATA-PETRI, Technical University Berlin) are working together to
meet the requirements.
Goal of the CLEVER project is to identify general conditions for new
mobility concepts, and to realize vehicle with the following
characteristics:
Three-wheel vehicle
with
minimal requirements on urban
space (for2 occupants)
Environmental friendly, optimized for urban transport
Length=3.0 m, width=1.0 m
Natural gas engine
Tilting mechanism
Aluminum Frame
CO2emissions approx.5060kg/min. the European car driving
High level on passive safety comparable to small and micro-cars.
(Checked by a rating- test).

Figure 1 - The CLEVER vehicle.

Pictures 2 model of the CLEVER vehicle.

To meet the defined goals for the safety, the vehicle structure and the
restraint system have to be designed and optimised in a special way.
TAKATA, as the project partner responsible for the restraint system, will
use optimized state-of-the-art components, as well as specially designed
components concerning to the occupant body regions, which have a
higher injury risk. These body regions were figured out by the accident
analyses.

CLEVER ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

The following accident analysis is based on data from the German
Federal Accident Statistics (GFAS), the German In-Depth Accident
Study (GIDAS) and the National Accident Sampling System (NASS).
Statistic analysis in general

In general, the reporting period was from July 1999 to April 2004 for
GIDAS and GFAS. The NASS data analysis describes the statistic
period from1996 to 2002. Additionally, for the period of time between
1985 and 1995, data of 1029 motorcycle accidents and89 scooter
accidents are available.
Because of the special design, the same accident situation as for scooters
and motorcycles can be assumed for CLEVER. The driving performance
and the application areas, which are mostly cities, is mostly similar with
scooters and motorcycles. Because of the fact that for CLEVER a
restraint system will be used, which is comparable with state-of-the-art
restraint systems for cars, the occupant kinematics during accidents
and the injured body regions could be more similar to car accidents than
to scooter or motorcycle accidents. That iswhy, different accident data
(for cars, motorcyclesandscooters)wereanalysed.

Fig 3 Collision opponents for motorcycles and scooters.[1]

Figureshowsthecollisionopponentsof
motorThemainopponentsare passengercars,followedby
wheelerswithobjects,mostlytheroadsurface.

cyclesandscooters.
thecollisionsoftwo

Themain
impactdirectionsformotorcyclesand
scootersarethefrontal
directions(figure4), followed by side impact and overturn. Similar

impactdirectionscanbe
becauseofsimilarvehiclewidth.
Accident analysisforthedriver

assumed

The
followingfigure
shows
the
body
whichareaffectedinaccidentswitha twowheel vehicle.

Figure 5. Affected bodyregions

wheelvehicle accidents.[1]

of

persons

forCLEVER

regions,

involvedintwo-

Asresult,thebody regions (mostinjured)arearms andlegs.Themost

fatalorsevereinjuries result from headinjuries,followedbythoraxinjuries.It
hastobestatedthatin95%ofallcases,helmets wereused.
Thesedataonlyshow thefiguresforriders,dueto the fact that the figures
for passengers are extremelylow.
Theclosing speedinaccidentsisfarlowerfor
scootersthanformotorcycles.Morethan95 %of allregisteredaccidentsare
coveredwithaclosing speedof50 kph(figure6).Inaddition,theclosing
speedof accidentswiththeSmart(builtby DaimlerChryslerfor the
Europeanmarket)was figured outand evaluated. These dataare also
available in the GIDAS database. This closing speed is nearly similar to
the closing speed of
scooters.Thelow numberof28reportedaccidents with aninvolved Smart
is not very representative.Butitgivesanideaabout the tendencyforsmall
andmicrocaraccidents.

TheconceptoftheBMW
C1,atwo-wheelvehicle
equippedwithseatbelts,load
limiterand
energy
absorbing
elements,ispartly
similartotheCEVER
concept.In
severalEUmemberstates,itisallowed todrive theC1 withoutwearing
ahelmet.
ThemainresultsofaccidentanalysisbyBMW
are
illustratedwithtwo
examples,whichdescribethe realworldaccidentperformanceoftheC1.

{Fig 7; TheBMW C1.}

Infrontalcollisionwithavelocityofabout50 kph of
the
C1,
andapproximately
20 kph
of
the collisionopponent (car),
thebelteddriver(without helmetprotection)had aAIS 1injury-severity.
Furthermore,afewinjurieslikecutsandcontusions
attheupperandlowerextremitieswerereported.
InasidecollisionbetweenaC1andamiddleclasscar, thebeltedC1driverhad
lacerationsand
contusions
ofhisleftlegandabrasionsathisleft
forearmandhand.
These
resultsshouldbetypicalfortheC1
accident
situationtakingaccounttothelow numberof reported accidents.[2]
Itseemsthatthemostendangeredbody partsofthe
C1 driveraretheextremities.
Passengerstatisticanalysis
In orderto determine the most
affected body regionsof
passengers,astatisticanalysisof
the
accidentswithcaroccupantsin
thesecondorthird
rowwillbeused.
Thedatabasefor
thisanalysis
includestrafficfatalities,sampledby GIDAS and NASS.
TheGIDASdatabasegivestheinformationthatfor
anumberof347trafficfatalities,195 ofthe occupantswerecarpassengers.
Outof
these195
passengers,22didnotusethefirstrow
and12of
themwereseatedinthesecondrowduringafrontal crash.

These
figuresshowthat
the
most
affected
body
regionswithAIS3+injuriesarethehead
andthorax
ofpassengers.
ThisappliestoEuropeaswellasto theUS.
Otherresultsoftheinvestigationforpassengersare
that
theoccupantpositionis
quiteregular.The
closing
speedfortheseaccidentsisbetween20kph and 60 kph.
Thereasonsfortheaccidents
weremostlyDWI
(drivingwhileintoxicated)andspeed.About50%
ofthe accidentsoccur withoutinvolvingother road users.
Resultoftheaccident investigation
As result of
this accident
investigation,
thefollowing
scenariosmustbeinthecentreoffrontal restraintsystemdevelopment.
Maincollisionopponents
willbeconventionalcars.
Themain
impacttypewill befrontal impact. Anotherimportantaccidenttypeis
singlecollision byhittinganobject.
Astotheinjuriesregardingbody regions,the frequencyofhead,thoraxand
pelvisinjuriescanbe reduced significantly by use of conventional
restraint systems.
Theopen passengercompartmentoftheBMW C1 does
notgiveenoughprotectionfortheupperand lowerextremitiesof

theoccupants.Theabsolute numbercouldbereduced,comparedto the injury

figures forthe upper and lower extremities for ridersoftwo-wheelers.

CLEVERSAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The mainsafety requirements for the CLEVER vehiclearelistedbelow:

Meetingall legal requirements
Noobligationtowearahelmet(similarto theBMWC1)
Highlevelofpassivesafety comparableto thelevelofconventional
cars
LegalRequirements
For
athree-wheel
vehiclelikeCLEVER,
no
legal
requirementsexistconcerningpassivesafetyforthe
approval
ofmotorcycles.Toattainanoperating
license,theEuropeanregulation97/24/EGhasto
bemet.
Thisregulationspecifiesconstructive
characteristics
of
vehicleparts,windshieldsand
the
seatbeltswiththeirconnectionsto
thevehicle,if included.
Theobligationto
usecrashhelmetsis
compulsory
(inEuropean
countries)forridersand passengersof motorcycles withouta full-lining.
However, differentexemptionsexistinEUmemberstates.
For Germany, exemptions are defined by the
vehicletypeapprovalorbylegislation,liketheC1.
Forexample,theGermanlaw allowsfortwo-wheel
vehiclestoberiddenwithoutwearingahelmet,if
thefollowingrequirementsarefulfilled:
Thebeltsystemmustbestateoftheart
andcomplywithDirective97/24/EC.
Alightsignalforaclearwarning,ifthe
riderisnotwearing
abelt,is
required,as perDirective78/316/EEC.
The requirementsfor windows must be fulfilled, amongst others
the
minimum
radii
have
tobecompliedwithEuropean
UnionDirective97/24/EC.
Crashtestsagainstamotorcarhavetobe performed (according
to
ISO 13232, which definesrelevant impact scenarios for twowheelers)

the
values
for
the
HPCcriterionhavetobelowerthan1000
Lateralfalltestswithoutheadcontactto
the
roadsurfaceandroof
indentationtests (FMVSS216)havetobefulfilled.
On
thebasis
ofthis directive, the exemption to wearahelmet
appliestootherEuropeancountries. [2]

AdditionalsafetyrequirementsforCLEVER
However, tomeet therequirementsforaccepting CLEVERfortheACEA
CO2-Agreement[5],the vehicleshould demonstratepassiveand active
safety appropriatedtoitsintenttouse. Tobeable toassess these
requirements,theCLEVER
consortiumdefinedatestprocedure
called
CLEVER-CAP.Thisprocedureshould
allow
comparing
thepassivesafety
levelofCLEVERto
conventionalcars.
Therefore,itisreasonabletouse similarornearly similartestproceduresasin
consumerratingprogrammes.
ThemostimportantconsumertestforEuropeisthe EuroNCAP,
whiletheUS-NCAP is thestate-of- theartconsumertestfortheUnitedStates. CLEVER is mainly
designed to cope with
Europeanrequirements.Therefore,theEuroNCAP
testprocedureshouldbefavoured.
However, duespecial design properties of CLEVER,itdoesnotseem
toberealistictofollow thetestprocedurecompletely.
FrontalImpact
EuroNCAPdefineda40%-offsetcrash
configurationagainstadeformablebarrierfor
the
frontal
impacttest.Becauseoftheshapeand
widthofthe
CLEVERvehicle,anoffsetcrashseemsnottobe
a
suitabletestto
simulatereal-worldaccidents.Data analysis revealedthat frontal impacts
were
the maintypeofimpactsformotorcycles.Inaddition, it isnearly
impossible to conduct a 40%-offset crash with CLEVER, because 40%
of
thefront
structurewidthisabout100
mmandthevehicle
widthisincreasingfrom
fronttorear.Vehicle
motionsfollowingacrashwouldnot takeplacein a reproduciblemanner.
Asaresultof
theseconditions,
acrashtestconfigurationwithimpactingarigidwallwithoutan offset barrierisusableand should
givea realisticoutput concerningtotheanticipatedaccidentsituation.
Forfrontalimpact,the testconfigurationoftheUSNCAPisuseful.Thismeansafrontalimpactwith
56
kphagainsttherigidwall.Forcomparingthe
CLEVERsafety
levelwiththesafetylevelof
European
conventionalcars,
theEuroNCAPStar- ratingisused.
Inaddition,chestacceleration willbemeasured. This allowsaverificationof
thetestresults according to the US-NCAP rating. It seems possible
tomeetUS-NCAPratingwithoutmajor problems.

Thispaperfocusesmainly onthefrontalimpact, because thisconfiguration

was the most challengingone.
SideImpact
For
lateralimpact
testing,
mostsuitabletestprocedure.
procedureisselectedforCLEVER.

the

EuroNCAP

is
the
Therefore,this

Roll-over
ForCLEVER,theimpactafteranoverturnis likely themostrealisticscenario
fortheroll-overimpact.
Thesafetycellwillbetestedbyastaticstructure
testprocedure.
Thesafetycellshould resistastatic forceimpactofabout22,2kN.
PedestrianSafety
Thepedestrian safetylevelof theCLEVERvehicle willbecheckedby
numericalsimulation. Frontal impacttopedestrianswithavelocityof40
kphwill
besimulated.
Theassessmentofcriteriawill
comprise
themechanicalloadstohead,neck,and legs.

CLEVER VEHICLESTRUCTURE AND CRASH

PULSE

Thelevelofpassivesafetydependsondifferent parameters. One important

parameter is the
characteristicofthecrashpulse,mainlyinfluenced
bythecrashvelocity
andthevehiclesstructure.
Inconventionalcars,thecrashstructureinfluencing
theaccidentperformanceiscomposed ofabumper, crash boxes and long
members. Due to the CLEVER designwithonewheelinthefront,this
conventionalwayofenergy absorptionisnot possible.Therefore, anew
approachwasnecessary. Specialeffortwasneededtoavoidanyintrusioninto
thecabin, as the drivers feet are located
directly behindthefrontwheel.
The crash structure of the CLEVER
vehicle consistsofthe
frontwheel,the swing arms (front wheelsuspension)andspecialdesigned
crash elements.Whileconventional carwheelsarestiff, motorcycle
wheelsnormally
brake
in
accidents.
TheCLEVERfrontwheelisdesignedto
deform
undercrashloads.Thisisimportanttouse
asmuch
aspossibledeformationlengthwithoutinjuring
the
legsofthedriveron
theonehandandfor compatibilityreasonsin a sideimpact,when CLEVER
hitsa conventional car, on the other hand.
The
stiffnessof
theswing
arms
isquitehigh,
resultinginsmalldeformationsofthis
part.
However,theswing
armsaredesignedtoroutethe
crashforces
tothecrash
elements,whichconnects theswing armswiththestiff frame.These
deformableelementsallow
thefrontwheelto
move
backwardstogetherwiththesuspension, which absorbs energy.Thecabin
frameitselfoffers
appropriatedstiffness
toavoiddangerousintrusions
infrontalimpacts.Thebody panelsaremadeof laminatedsyntheticmaterials.
Theinfluence ofthe body panelstothecrash behaviourshouldbe
negligiblesmall.

Fig 12:CLEVERfrontframestructure.
Basedonfiniteelementsimulationsthe above describedmeasureslead to
thepulseshowninthe followingfigure

The
orderof
magnitude
of
these
agreeswiththedocumentedtestresultsof micro- cars.
A pictureoftheexpecteddeformationisshownin figure14.

Fig 14; CLEVERdeformationcharacteristic.

Concerning thelateralimpact,theintroducedcross
beamsleadtoappropriatedcabin stiffness.The
expectedintrusionandintrusionvelocity willnot
exceed130mmor7,8m/s,respectivelyfigure15.

Thedeformationofthestructureisshown in the figurebelow.

accelerations

Fig 16; Maximum

deformation

inEuroNCAPlateralimpact.

Thespecialdesigned rearseatwill introduce additional lateral stiffness,

which will result in lowerintrusionandintrusionvelocity.
Theknowledgeaboutthestructuralbehaviourof
design of the restraint system.

the

vehicleallows

the

CLEVER FRONTALRESTRAINT SYSTEM

CLEVERs
frontal
restraint
system
will
be specially
designed.Thepackageconditionsarenot similartoconventionalcars.
To reduce theengineering and productioncosts for CLEVER,standard
componentsforthe restraint system
wereusedwhereverpossible.However,due
tothechallengingrestraintrequirementscaused by the smallvehicle and the
high pulse, it was necessary toadoptandmodify existingcomponents and
design specialcomponentsforCLEVER.
MADYMO-SimulationoftheCLEVERVehicle
The performance
of therestraint system was checked by using
numericalsimulationtools. Furthermore, thecomponents for
the
restraint
systemwerealsoadjustedbynumericalsimulation too.
Thecomputer
programme
MADYMO
waschosen
for
the
simulation.With thissolver,itispossibleto combinethecapabilitiesofmultibody andfinite elementtechniques.
Ina
firststep,avery
simplesimulationmodelwas
builtup,
whichpresentedtheknownvehicle
characteristicatthe
beginning
oftheproject.Itwas used for preliminary investigations. With this
model, itwaspossibletoseethatthe requirements couldbemet.
When theprojectprogressed,more detailed characteristics forthe vehicle
were
defined. A bettersimulationmodel wasbuilt. Consequently,
moreexactlyinvestigationscouldbecarriedout. The effectof different
components like pretensionerorloadlimiters,separate orin combination
with other components,
were analysed.Inaddition,thesafety

levelfordifferent occupants(5%-HIII, 50%-HIII, 95%-HIII)was checked.

As
mainoutputofthisdevelopmentstep,the
necessity
ofacombinationofdriver
airbag,
pretensionerandloadlimiterforreachingathree
starrankingwiththe50%HIIIwasshown.Forthe
5%-HIIIandthe95%-HIII,
thesameconfiguration
oftherestraintsystemwilllead tobestresults.
Theseinvestigations startedbyusingasynthetic
generatedcrash-pulse.Within
theongoing
development,amorerealisticcrashpulse(figure
13)generatedby thestructuralsimulationwasused and,consequently,more
realisticresultscouldbe generated.

Fig 17 ;Moredetailedsimulationmodel.
In
thenextdevelopmentstep,a
final
modelwas
built.
Thismodelincludedalldefinedgeometries,
shapes,
materialcharacteristicsandwellknown, validatedcomponents.
This final simulationmodelwasconsequentlybuilt withmulti-body
parts(dummy,steeringwheel)and finiteelementparts(seat,airbag,andbelt).
The completeresults for the driver and passenger willbeshownbelow.
Becauseoftheimprecisionof
thesimulationmodel,itis
nearlyimpossible(atthe
moment)togeneraterealisticresultsfor the lower extremities.For example,
thedesign of theknee contactareaofthedashboard and the footrest(with
themountedpedals)isnotyetfinished. Itshould be keptin mind that
thiscould
influencetheoverall
performance
ratingcompared
withthecurrently existingresultsbasedonnumericalsimulations.

Fig 18. FinalCLEVER numericalsimulation model.

DriverRestraintSystem
ThecurrentCLEVERresultsfor thedriverandthe passengerare showninthe
followingtable.The limitsarecomparabletotheCLEVER-CAP limits.
Forthedriver,the difference betweenarestraint system
withdeformablesteering columnandwith stiffsteering column
isadditionally shown.

Thelimits,definedby
theCLEVER-CAPforthe
frontalimpact,werepartiallybelow target.In comparison tothe US-NCAP,
a three-starrating couldbepossible.
These
resultscomefromacomparisonofdifferent
components
for
thedriverrestraintsystem by numerical simulation. The mosteffective
system
consistsofadeformablesteering column,adriver
airbagwithtwochambers,apretensioner,anda dual
stageloadlimiter.Thesystem isshowninthe figure19.

Fig 19 :driverrestraint system.

The steeringcolumn
isanexistingone,
used
in conventional
carsoutoftheseriesproduction.
The differencebetween restraintsystems with a deformableand nondeformablesteering
column
is
significant.Thatiswhy
thedecisionwasmade,to includeadeformablesteering column.
Inthefollowing figure,thedifference of the energy
applicationoftheairbagfromarestraintsystem with deformable and nondeformable steering columnisshown.Inarestraintsystem without
deformablesteeringcolumn, thekineticenergyof
theheadandpartlyofthethoraxwillbeabsorbed by theairbag,and
thedeformationof thesteering wheel.Ifadeformablesteering
columnisused,the airbag hastoabsorbabout1/3lessenergy.This1/3 will be
absorbed by the deformable steering column.Sothediameterof
theairbagventscanbe increased.That iswhythe airbag will be much softer.
Thiswillresultinlowervaluesofthe assessmentcriteria.

Thesteeringwheelisamodifiedsteering wheel fromserial production.

Some stylingand design modificationswillbenecessary.The deformation
characteristicsarewellknown.

Fig 21 :Possible modifications of a series steeringwheel forCLEVER.

Theairbagsystemisconsisting
of
a
dual-stage
inflatorincombinationwitha60l two-chamber airbag.Therearetwoventing
holeswithadiameter ofabout 30mm each. Thisprovidesexcellent
performance forhead protection in combination withlowerimpactforceto
thesternum. The positioningof theairbagwillbebetter than witha
conventional onechamberairbag.
In thecase of a restraint system without driver
airbag,thehead
ofthedriverwould
touchthe
steeringwheel.Highvaluesforhead
acceleration
andtheHIC
wouldfollow.Toavoid
theseeffects,
thedecisiontouseadriverairbagwastaken.
Thebeltsystem
isfittedwitharetractormounted
pretensioner.Adualstageloadlimiterwill beused. Theloadlimiterwillswitchafteradefinedtime
fromstage1tostage2.Theshoulderbeltforcewill
notexceedamaximumforceofabout4,5kNfor stage1and2,5kNforstage2.

Fig 23 :Driver seatbeltsystem.

Furthermore,
optimalconnectionpointsof
theseat
beltsystemwiththevehicleframewerefoundby
thesimulation.
Thevalueofchestdeflectionis influenced by the seat belt geometry.
This
geometryisdeterminedby
theconnectionpointsof
thed-ring
withthevehicleframeandtheseatbelt guidingontheseatrest.
Theretractorhas tobeconnectedwiththevehicle framebecauseof thehigh
levelofthereacting forces.

For
checkingthe
seatcharacteristicfor
the
casethat
the
seatbeltsystemismountedon
the
seat,a
static
forceloadofabout2kNwasdirected onthe connectionpointsattheseatrest.
The resultsof the numerical simulationshowed
that the
seat
collapsedand,in
result,theprotectionof
the
occupantscouldnotbeguaranteed.
Thecalculation
wasmadetwice,atfirstwithasteelseat witha thicknessof5mm,secondby
asteelseatwitha thicknessofabout10mm.
Pleaseremind,therealvalueofthebeltforcesat
theshoulderarefrom2,5kNupto5kN.

PassengerRestraintSystem
Forthepassengerside,therequirementscouldnot be metfor a system with
stiff seat rest. The decisionwastodesignadeformableseat rest. The
thicknessand
thematerialcharacteristicswere
definedbasedon
validationtests.

Thepassengerrestraintsystembasicallyconsistsof
aseatbeltsystem.In
addition,aheadprotection bolsterisintegrated.Thefrontseatisdesignedwith
adeformableheadrest.After thepassengershead hitsthehead restofthe
frontseat,energywill be absorbed by thedeformationof thebolsterandby
thedeformationoftheheadrest,too.

Fig 26 :Positionofcontactbetweenpassenger head andseatrest.

Thevalidationof
theheadtoseatcontactwill
be
madeby
headimpactortests.Therefore, ahead impactorwithamassofabout4,8kg
will beshot withadefinedvelocityof5,3m/son theheadrest, similarto
theheadimpactingvelocityof
the
CLEVERpassenger.The
accelerationswillbe
measuredanddifferentbolsterthicknesseshaveto
bechecked.
Theexpectedbolsterthickness bythecalculated headimpacting velocity
isofabout20to50mm,
dependingonthedeformationcharacteristicsand
thestiffnessoftheseatrest.

Thebest
performance-lowesthead
impactor
accelerationby
acceptabledeformationoftheback restandarealisablethicknessof thebolster
will
foundwiththedescribedtestprocedureandbeused
fortheCLEVERvehicle.
The seatbelt system is similar to the seat belt systemfor the driver.
Thetime,whentheload limiterswitchesfrom level1 tolevel2, isdifferent.

CONCLUSIONS
CLEVERisanalternativevehicleconcept,which
ischaracterisedby
innovativesolutionssuch
asits
fuelconcept,thepropulsion
system,orthesafety concept.
Thesafety conceptisspeciallydesignedforreal worldaccidentscenarios.
Theadvantagesand disadvantagesofconventionalprotection systems for
twowheeledand three-wheeledvehiclescould beidentified.
Withthesupportofnumericalsimulation,theentire
restraintsystemcouldbeoptimised.The
exact
application
ofdifferentcomponentswasdone.
Theperformancehastobeverified by real crash tests.
To improvethe safety level of two-wheel and three-wheel vehicles,
occupants
should be preventedfromejectionduringanaccident.This
willberealisedbyusingaseat belt system.
Itispossibletodevelopasmall
three-wheelvehicle
withanoccupantsafetylevelcomparable with conventional cars. The

calculatedvalues for the assessmentcriteriaareequalorbelow thedefined

limitsof theCLEVER-CAP,whichwasdeveloped specificallyforCLEVER.
Furthermore, itispossibleto adaptconventionally used restraintsystem
componentstoalternative vehicles.A fewchangeshavetobemade,e.g.belt
loadlimits,orthetimetofire.

REFERENCES
[1]H.Johannsen,L. Lasek,S. Sohr,P. Krams:
"SafetyConceptforNarrowTrackUrban Vehicles;"; InnovativerKfzInsassen-und Partnerschutz-Fahrzeugsicherheit2010,VDIKonferenzBerlin,20./21.11.2003
[2]Osendorfer,H;Rauscher,S.:Thedevelopment ofanewclassof twowheelervehicles; 17thInt. ESV-conferenceAmsterdam,June4-7,2001;
Proceedings
[3]InternalInvestigationofTAKATA-PETRIby
usingtheactualDatabaseoftheGIDASGerman In DepthAccidentStudy
[4]InternalInvestigationofTAKATA-PETRIby
usingtheactualDatabaseoftheNASSNational
AutomotiveSamplingSystemlookat: http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd30/ncsa/NASS.html
[5]MonitoringofACEAsCommitmentonCO2
EmissionReductionfromPassengerCars;Final
Report,CommissionoftheEuropean Communities,2002