Laserfiche WebLink
Methodology: Each vehicle will make two decelera- <br />tions at specific, predetermined points on the test <br />road from 90 to 0 mph at 22 ft/sec2, with the driver <br />using a decelerometer to maintain the deceleration <br />rate. Immediately after these heat -up stops are com- <br />pleted, the vehicle will be turned around and will <br />make six measured 60 -to -0 mph impending skid <br />(threshold) stops with ABS in operation, if the vehi- <br />cle is so equipped, at specific, predetermined points. <br />Following a 4 -minute heat soak, the entire sequence <br />will be repeated. The exact initial velocity at the be- <br />ginning of each of the 60 -to -0 mph decelerations <br />and the exact distance required to make each stop <br />will be recorded by means of a Datron Non -Contact <br />Optical Sensor in conjunction with a personal com- <br />puter. The data resulting from the 12 stops will be <br />used to calculate the average deceleration rate, <br />which is the vehicle's score for this test. Exhibit 5 <br />shows the results of the braking test. <br />Ergonomics and <br />Communications <br />Objectives: To rate the vehicle's ability to provide <br />a suitable environment for patrol officers to perform <br />their job, to accommodate the required communica- <br />tions and emergency warning equipment, and to as- <br />sess the relative difficulty of installing the equipment:: <br />Methodology: A minimum of four officers indep vsM <br />dently and individually score each vehicle on corn�6 <br />fort and instrumentation. Personnel from MSP's ,,� <br />Communications Division who are responsible foram <br />new car preparation conduct the communications <br />portion of the evaluation, based on the relative diffi- <br />culty of the necessary installations. Each factor is <br />graded on a 1 -to -10 scale, with 1 representing tgtally' <br />unacceptable and 10 representing superior. Thel.scores'= <br />are averaged to minimize personal prejudice. Exhibit <br />6 shows a comparison of the exterior and interior <br />nwC. <br />Exhibit 5 Results of braking test <br />lk <br />Daimler <br />Chevrolet <br />Chevrolet Chrysler _ Ford <br />Ford <br />Ford <br />Ford <br />AM General Chevrolet <br />Tahoe <br />Tahoe Dodge Police <br />Expedition <br />Expedition <br />Explorer <br />Phase I Hummer HMCS Impala <br />(2WD) <br />(4WD) Intrepid Interceptor <br />(2WD) <br />(4WD) <br />(2WD) <br />Avg. initial - <br />59.6 69.8 r;; ' <br />60.0 <br />- X9,6 *� t 59 9;, 59.8 <br />59.8 <br />60.0 <br />59.8 <br />c..f.' <br />o-1,11,,:?",', <br />Avg, stopping <br />168.63 132.33 <br />149.65 <br />149.18 145.03 147.45 <br />145.97 <br />155.68 <br />144.28 <br />dist (ft)'=' <br />Avg. deceleration <br />22.71 .: 29.04,; `. <br />.25.83 <br />:235.67 : -. -,. ti26.57 26.07 <br />26:38 <br />24.95 <br />26.64 <br />rate (ft/sectl' :. <br />-,. -. <br />xn <br />E <br />.. _• .., �� .. , . .... <br />_ _ ., . _ .�. .... <br />. , <br />c <br />Phase II <br />Avg. initial <br />595 - 597151. <br />601. <br />yr599riga,Ms 5,199: 801 <br />'ya•*me <br />598 <br />60.2 <br />598 <br />spil(mph)* <br />e, <br />Qac. <br />Avg. stopping <br />167.14 131.23 <br />151.92 <br />155.12 144.18 149.20 <br />158.45 <br />158.67 <br />143.73 <br />dist. (ft)* <br />Avg. deceleration <br />2281. ,-1, 292,71_ <br />.25.55 <br />;.r 28,81 26.03 <br />24.34 <br />24.56 <br />2677 <br />rate (ft/sec'1' <br />�249b`; <br />Avg. Deceleration <br />22.76 29.12 <br />25.69 <br />25.31 26.69 26.05 <br />25.36 <br />24.76 <br />26.70 <br />- <br />Rate (ft/sec')" <br />Projected stopping <br />1701j,k 1330-. <br />1507 <br />1530 T3145.1 1486 <br />152.7 <br />156.4 <br />1450; <br />t <br />distance from <br />60 mph020 <br />average decell <br />ationrate (ft) <br />Note: All vehicles have antJocking braking systems <br />Figures represent the average at six measured stops. <br />Calculated from the average deceleration rate (ftse2) o112 measured stars. <br />(21) <br />