vtitle graphic


On this page we list the four objectives for the PedSALi project.

We also provide the evidence that they were not met.



Here are the four objectives as recorded in the PedSALi collaboration agreement between Dow Chemicals, Cheshire Innovation and the University of Manchester, March 2001.

Comments have been added.


1.    To identify possible formulations for a class of impact absorbing materials, for vehicle front ends, which can be used across a range of vehicle types and can tailor their crumple stiffness, to suit different types of impacts, including those with child and adult pedestrians of different weights and heights, cyclists, second vehicles and stationary objects.
formulations had been identified by the end of the project.
As explained in Section 3 on the “What is SALi?” page, the most important formulations were those that reduced bumper weight by employing closely packed millimeter sized larger beads, with micro-beads in the void spaces between them. Bill Courtney acquired approximately 2 m3 of the micro-beads and Dow provided 4 m3 of the larger beads for the University partner to test. But the work was never done.

2.    To characterise the impact absorbing characteristics of these formulations and compare their performance with alternative impact absorbing materials, which are also potentially useful for providing pedestrian protection, for vehicle front ends.
No valid characteristics that could be used by Dow were obtained and no comparison with alternative materials was made.
[However, the University fooled the EPSRC by pretending that the alternatives had ben investigated when they wrote in their end of project report, " .. Dow Automotive had made a review and concluded that SALi based bumpers would be too expensive, too heavy and too complex to make in comparison to foams."]
The University published conference and journal papers that gave naive observers a false impression that these characteristics had been determined. However on closer inspection, their claimed results defied the laws of physics.

3.    To design, fabricate and evaluate a demonstration, full size, pedestrian friendly, vehicle front-end, using the new materials, by 2003 to meet tough new European legislation.
This bumper should have been built and tested by Dow, based on data supplied by the University.

No full sized pedestrian friendly bumper was designed, fabricated or tested. - Because the University did not supply any valid data.
In fact the failure was far worse than this. Under protest from both Dow and Cheshire Innovation, the Universities researchers willfully used ineffective elastic packaging for their full size simulated bumper tests. This gave the EPSRC and other sponsors a false impression that the PedSALi design of car bumper was ineffective.

4.    To create design rules and processes, which will enable vehicle designers to work with the new class of materials.
No design rules or processes to assist vehicle designers were delivered.
However the University fooled the EPSRC into thinking that this objective had been met by claiming EPSRC funding for a fictional event where vehicle designers were supposedly presented with the design rules.
Evidence of this fraud is presented in Appendix Three on our PedSALi page.



In an email to Bill Courtney dated 14 August 2004, Dr Richard Bailey wrote on behalf of EPSRC,

However, in spite of a total failure to achieve any of the objectives, the University was paid in full for its work.

In his role as the lead partner, Bill Courtney sent several warnings to the EPSRC that the PedSALi project was failing.

But these warnings were withheld from the EPSRC referees who assessed the project for University payment.