Critics question Exponent's laminated glass tests

Exponent is known to be aggressive in aiding its clients — that is, after all, what such outside expert and research firms are paid to do.

EXPONENT'S RECORD:

 

An example he cites is its test comparing laminated and tempered glass in auto side windows.

Laminated glass (two sheets of glass with a layer of plastic between) has long been required in windshields because the plastic layer acts as a safety net to keep heads inside in a crash.

Some automakers have opposed moves to require the costlier ($25 a window) glass on side windows. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not mandated it, though it estimates 6,200 people die and 23,000 are injured annually by ejection from side windows.

It says it expects, however, automakers will use laminated glass along with improved side-curtain air bags to meet an ejection-prevention rule it proposed in December.

Exponent, in a 2007 report conducted with a Ford engineer and funding, tested laminated glass in side windows and said its results showed the glass is not better than traditional tempered glass. Exponent did rollover tests of a Ford Expedition and Volvo XC90, both of which had laminated glass, and reported that most of the crash dummies went through the glass.

That's the result some automakers were looking for. The report, published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, has been used by automakers in dozens of lawsuits. It also was submitted by Ford to NHTSA in 2007 when the agency was considering rules to reduce ejections from vehicles.

But Batzer, whose analysis of the Exponent tests was written with five other safety engineers and published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, claims Exponent "rigged" the test by leaving the closed Volvo parked in the Arizona sun. That heated the laminated glass to 150 degrees, and heat weakens the safety properties of the plastic in preventing ejection.

Batzer says the test conditions were not representative of how cars are actually driven and that national and international protocols recommend testing safety glass at temperatures less than 80 degrees.

Batzer also faults Exponent for conducting the tests at 43 mph on a soft dirt surface, conditions he says made the crash four times as severe as a standard rollover test.

"It is really an outrageous, deceptive demonstration," Batzer says. "If you want a test to go your way, you just have to fudge the conditions."

In a written response to questions from USA TODAY, Exponent noted that "vehicles are subjected to a wide range of environmental conditions" on the road. It said its report on laminated glass "simply helped NHTSA evaluate alternatives. Our independent work product stands on its own merit."

Robert Lange, Exponent's vehicle engineering group vice president, who was working for GM at the time and not involved with the test, acknowledges the test conditions were "atypical" of most rollovers, but also notes they are a type some Exponent consultants have found in liability cases.

Even in the industry, there is disagreement on the safety benefit of laminated glass.

Audi and Volvo said in 2000 press releases that laminated side-window glass in their vehicles improved safety, including for ejection. Jaguar said in marketing materials in 2006, when it was owned by Ford, that laminated glass improved "occupant safety."

Ford, however, opposed laminated glass in comments on NHTSA's proposed rule.

Lange says GM didn't have laminated glass that could help prevent ejections until it developed "Enhanced Technology Glass," which it installed in its 2008 full-size vans. The vans still are the only GM vehicles with the new glass.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety trade group says its roof-strength testing of the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, 2010 Buick LaCrosse, 2010 Ford Taurus and 2010 Lincoln MKS, all equipped with regular laminated-glass side windows, found they remained intact after roof deformation, suggesting they'd help protect against ejection.