To expand a bit, Option 1 presents such load measures as axial force, shear and bending about all three axes (X, Y & Z) for every product tested at both Wayne State and Delphi. That's the "choke a horse" part. This is very straight forward data but may leave drivers asking what it all means, only because there is so much of it.

Option 2 utilizes "principle stress analysis" which was discovered by a German structural engineer named Otto Mohr in 1882. It is a proven mechanism for taking all the load data and resolving it to a single number. This is exactly the type of thing people are looking for (a single measure), but unless you are familiar with the technique it will sound like mumbo jumbo. Worse, from a business standpoint, the uninitiated may think we are making this stuff up just to make our product look good--and we do look good--when in fact it is a classic analysis tool.

Another option is to express the summary loads as percentage head load reduction. That still has problems, but at least it is less intimidating.

[/b]
I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that you will include an unrestrained load measurement as well. It seems to me that if I know how much of a reduction is made by device "A" in axis X,Y, or Z and then compare that to the corresponding data of device "B" I could then start to evaluate the effectiveness of the particular device. In other words, device "A" might reduce 2 of the three loads substantially but the third could be off the charts.

Summary loads appeals to me for a quick look, but the real meat of the issue is in the data and the comparisons across the options. The hard part will be making the data representation simple enough for a casual user, not the SAE engineering types.

Just another $.02 worth form someone else who is waiting to make a purchase. I really do appreciate your being up front about the issue and opening yourself up to criticism. Thanks.

Paul