Table
of performance test results
for wearable-type child seats
| The overall evaluation was based on measurements of the shock absorbed by the head and neck of the dummy and the degree of head excursion during the collision, as well as on the results of high-speed video photographs of the test, which were used to evaluate whether the harness was exerting strong pressure on weak areas of the body at the time of collision. In the case of wearable-type child seats, however, the characteristics of restraint and movement during the test proved to be complex, and although the harness was in contact with the abdomen, etc. of the dummy, it was not possible to use the high-speed photographic record of the test to judge the degree of pressure thus exerted. It was impossible, therefore, to arrive at an appropriate evaluation of this type of child seat based on the rating method desided prior to performance of the testing. It was thus decided that an overall evaluation of performance in the frontal collision test would not be provided, and there is therefore no rating column in the chart for this product type. For reference purposes, we present the results of the frontal collision test, broken down by survey area. We intend to further study appropriate testing and evalution methed, that we might arrive at a means of undertaking a suitable evaluation of this product type in future. |
Designation
(approval) no. |
Model name |
Manufacturer |
Regulatory
compliance |
Frontal collision test |
Usability test |
| Damages of such as fixtures |
Forward head excursion |
Force exerted on the head |
Force exerted on the chest |
Other effects of the collision |
Instruction manual |
Product markings |
Structural design |
Ease of installation |
Ease of securing the child in the seat |
| (mm) |
Acceleration
(G) |
Acceleration
(G) |
| C-28 |
CARLIFEJACKET-KIDS |
BAN |
1998 |
 |
|
 |
|
*1 |
3.0 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
1.3 |
| |
597 |
62.20 |
39.34 |
| C-59 |
CARLIFEJACKET-KIDS II |
BAN |
1998 |
|
|
|
|
*2 |
2.8 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
1.8 |
| |
620 |
60.00 |
37.70 |
| C-66 |
POWER VEST |
ZENBOUSAI |
1998 |
|
|
|
|
*3 |
2.3 |
2.7 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
1.3 |
| |
635 |
62.02 |
44.44 |
| C-70 |
BODY-CATCHER |
K-BRAINS |
1998 |
|
|
|
|
*4 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
| |
623 |
71.15 |
45.39 |
| C-126 |
POWER VEST |
ZENBOUSAI |
1998 |
|
|
|
|
*3 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
1.3 |
| |
619 |
62.07 |
42.34 |
| C-130 |
FUJISEIKI SEAT VEST |
FUJISEIKI |
1998 |
|
|
|
|
*4 |
2.5 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
1.0 |
| |
629 |
73.14 |
44.53 |
| C-133 |
BODY-CATCHER |
K-BRAINS |
1998 |
|
|
|
|
*5 |
3.0 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
1.3 |
| |
589 |
72.86 |
59.06 |
| NOTE: |
1. |
Pelvic restraint was weak, with the result that the lap / crotch harness exerted pressure on the abdomen and crotch. However, it was impossible to judge the degree of force exerted. |
| 2. |
Pelvic restraint was weak, with the result that the lap / crotch harness exerted pressure on the abdomen and crotch. However, it was impossible to judge the degree of force exerted. It is possible that the shock was weakened by the hughes belt. |
| 3. |
Although the pelvis was restrained, the lap harness came into contact with the abdomen. However, it was impossible to judge the degree of force exerted. It has also been pointed out that by the test methed, the lap harness was positioned higher than recommended in the product's instruction manual. |
| 4. |
Although the pelvis was restrained, the lap harness came into contact with the abdomen. However, it was impossible to judge the degree of force exerted. |
| 5. |
The shoulder harness came into contact with the dummy's neck, exerting pressure on the neck area. |
|
Japanease