haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (10/23/84)
I am curious about the U.S. auto manufacturer's designs for the head
restraints, which were made compulsory in 1968. In general, a U.S.
head restraint looks like this:
-----------
|___________| <- restraint
--------------------
|
| seat
Where the restraint is attached to the seat by a single, flat metal
post, about 5cm (2" for you Imperialists) wide. The restraint has
usually two positions, down, and up.
Most European and japanese cars have a restraint shaped like this:
----------
| |
| | <- restraint
----------
|| ||
----------------
| |
| seat |
The restraint is attached by two circular posts, each maybe 1cm
(7/16") thick. The heasrest is adjustable, usually to 6-10 different
heights.
Now, for optimum whiplash protection, the top of the headrest should
be at eye level, or slightly higher. When the U.S. style headrest is
at the lower position, unless you are a pygmy, it will give you zero
protection. If you glance inside the average American car, you will
see that the headrest is in the down position (many people think it
looks silly in the up position). Therefore, they are getting no
protection from the head restraint. This will not normally happen in
a European-designed car (note: covers Rabbits/Golfs too, so no flames
for this!), as even at the lowest position there is considerable
protection from whiplash.
My question is: Why did GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC design their headrests
this way? Did they save costs? Did they want to preserve the
aesthetic lines (!) of the bench seat? Were they in a rush and didn't
want to worry oo much about it? Gives you something to think about,
doesn't it (especially about the domestic automakers' concern for
safety...)?
Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468
allegra \
clyde \ \
decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen
ihnp4 / /
linus / The opinions herein are not those of my employers,
of the University of Waterloo, and probably not of
anybody else either.hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/25/84)
I think the head restraints (rests for short) were designed in us cars to be as cheap and inconspicuous as possible. It should also be noted that they are required for passenger cars only. The Chrysler minivans are not considered passenger cars, and therefore headrests are an extra cost option! Be forewarned if you order one of these.
an@hou2h.UUCP (A. Nguyen) (10/25/84)
> Why did GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC design their headrests [so low] ?
Because it looks *PRETTY*, and damn it you can't have no silly head
rest messing up Auntie Mimi's hairdo can you ?!!
Au
PS. Or get in the way of Billy Bob's cowboy hat!cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (10/26/84)
>My question is: Why did GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC design their headrests >this way? Did they save costs? Did they want to preserve the >aesthetic lines (!) of the bench seat? Were they in a rush and didn't >want to worry too much about it? Gives you something to think about, >doesn't it (especially about the domestic automakers' concern for >safety...)? As someone who was spared a serious whiplash injury two years ago by one of those well-designed foreign headrests, I use my headrest as religiously as my seatbelt. What concerns me about the domestic design is when the friction-held center post is going to start slipping. I need to put the headrest UP everytime I drive my Chevy; my wife needs to put it DOWN; and my three-year-old son loves to push it up and down for kicks! One of these days, whatever holds that headrest in position is going to stop gripping! My Japanese car's headrest is held by locking notches, not friction. I wish the domestic car headrests worked the same way! Carl Blesch
bill@crystal.UUCP (11/01/84)
> I am curious about the U.S. auto manufacturer's designs for the head > restraints, which were made compulsory in 1968. > ... > My question is: Why did GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC design their headrests > this way? Did they save costs? Did they want to preserve the > aesthetic lines (!) of the bench seat? Were they in a rush and didn't > want to worry oo much about it? Gives you something to think about, > doesn't it (especially about the domestic automakers' concern for > safety...)? Their attitude seems to be "well, if you make us do it, we'll screw it up". I agree completely with the headrest/headrestraint comments in the referenced article. My feeling (from years of dealing with that sort of stuff -- in a previous life I was a new car dealership sales/general manager) is that they just didn't care, and did it the cheapest way. The manufacturers were sure their customers didn't REALLY want something sticking up from the seatback -- after all, it was a bit ugly, and could snag hair, etc... Recall that the same intelligent group were also sure their customers didn't REALLY want (1) small cars (in the early 70s, with oil crises, etc, you could get all the huge cars you wanted [speaking as a dealer]. Dodge Dart 4door sedans, the most demanded model, were handed out one to three a month, if you took the pigs. Sure, it was possibly illegal tie-in sales, but if you wanted ANYTHING to sell... ) (2) decent quality control ( any american car owner knows about this one ) (3) usable seat belts (My 73 Dodge Dart has almost unusable seat belts; before inertial reels, the belt locks when you stop pulling it out. It has a 3-point anchoring system, but the shoulder belt has to be clipped to the tip half of the lap belt -- a clumsy arrangement at best. At the time, Chrysler was (along with the other manufacturers) trying to convince the American public that they didn't want these silly shoulder belts, and made them as difficult as possible to use. ) It must be pretty obvious that it would take an awful lot to get me to buy another American car. My next car will probably be a Saab, Peugot, or Volvo... William Cox Computer Sciences Department University of Wisconsin, Madison WI bill@uwisc ...{ihnp4,seismo,allegra}!uwvax!bill -- William Cox Computer Sciences Department University of Wisconsin, Madison WI bill@uwisc ...{ihnp4,seismo,allegra}!uwvax!bill