4 ms·

Ah, nice! I definitely didn't catch that on my read through. Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of

by taeric 4y ago

Ah, nice! I definitely didn't catch that on my read through. Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? Cards on the table, I see no reason not to explore this; such that if my post feels like I'm arguing against it, that is a mistake in tone. I do question if it was truly never explored in the past, or if there are previous results that just show diminished returns on extra variety? I'll note that nobody is calling for better racial makeup on the evaluation tool. I would expect that there are height/weight differences spread across groups other than just the sexes. I'm also inclined to believe that we are far more alike than you would expect when it comes to how we are in a crash.

flaviut 4y ago
> Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? It does though! It talks about how women are shorter & lighter (which the scaled model addresses) as well as how their muscles and general body shape are different from men: > Females are shorter and lighter than males, on average, and they have different muscle strengths > "We have differences in the shape of the torso and the centre of gravity and the outline of our hips and pelvis," she explained. Anyway, I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff. I imagine that extra testing is super expensive, especially if each test ends up destroying a car. I think it'd be great to have more tests for different groups. But starting to test for 50% of the human population is a massive low-hanging fruit here.
- taeric 4y ago
  Apologies, I think they established that there is a need to do a test on this. What I question, is that the 5% was such a specific choice for the existing tools, that I feel that it needs to also be established that that "chesterton's fence" wasn't picked by its own research. That make sense?
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    > That make sense? Not OP, but I think you’ve done a pretty good job laying out your nuanced question / request for additional information. I have the same question, but didn’t feel motivated enough to craft a comment myself, so I’m here validating yours. Cheers
  - flaviut 4y ago
    That does make sense, I don't think I understood what you were getting at before! Again, I'm not an expert here. But my first guess is that the most boring explanation applies: someone wanted to make a female dummy. women are lighter then men right? so let's use our existing design but make it smaller. And at that point, we might as well make it the smallest reasonable thing, so that we get as much range as possible to interpolate & extrapolate with. No idea if I'm right or on the right track, but I can easily see this conversation happening.

by taeric 4y ago

flaviut 4y ago

> Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? It does though! It talks about how women are shorter & lighter (which the scaled model addresses) as well as how their muscles and general body shape are different from men: > Females are shorter and lighter than males, on average, and they have different muscle strengths > "We have differences in the shape of the torso and the centre of gravity and the outline of our hips and pelvis," she explained. Anyway, I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff. I imagine that extra testing is super expensive, especially if each test ends up destroying a car. I think it'd be great to have more tests for different groups. But starting to test for 50% of the human population is a massive low-hanging fruit here.

taeric 4y ago
Apologies, I think they established that there is a need to do a test on this. What I question, is that the 5% was such a specific choice for the existing tools, that I feel that it needs to also be established that that "chesterton's fence" wasn't picked by its own research. That make sense?
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  > That make sense? Not OP, but I think you’ve done a pretty good job laying out your nuanced question / request for additional information. I have the same question, but didn’t feel motivated enough to craft a comment myself, so I’m here validating yours. Cheers
- flaviut 4y ago
  That does make sense, I don't think I understood what you were getting at before! Again, I'm not an expert here. But my first guess is that the most boring explanation applies: someone wanted to make a female dummy. women are lighter then men right? so let's use our existing design but make it smaller. And at that point, we might as well make it the smallest reasonable thing, so that we get as much range as possible to interpolate & extrapolate with. No idea if I'm right or on the right track, but I can easily see this conversation happening.