3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.