Forensic Engineering Analysis of Motorcycle Impacts Using Rotational Mechanics and

Fork/Vehicle Deformation
By Jerry S. Ogden, PE (NAFE 561F)1 and Katrina M. Kloberdanz, PE (NAFE Correspondent 430C)2

Abstract
Methods of reconstructing motorcycle collisions have traditionally been limited to speed
from skid marks, speeds from scrapes or gouges, speed from rider ejection, speed from linear
momentum, or sometimes speed from witness observations. Oftentimes, the data necessary for
analysis is either misunderstood or misinterpreted. This paper tests the applicability of using
rotational mechanics and specific models for motorcycle front fork deformation and vehicle
deformation when determining motorcycle impact velocity. Additionally, the results of these
methods are statistically tested for significance and reliability against independent motorcycle
impact test data.
Key Words
Forensic Engineering, Fork Deformation, Motorcycle Impact, Rotation, Yaw Moment of Inertia.

Rotational Mechanics
According to the principles of rigid body mechanics, when a collision force is applied to
a vehicle or object such that the resultant force does not pass through the center of mass of one or
both of the colliding objects, a moment is applied that tends to produce rotation to one or both of
the colliding objects. The force applied (F) offset to the center of mass of the object by some
distance (d), will produce a moment (Fd) about the center of mass of the object. This moment, in
turn, will produce both translational (linear) and rotational motion of the object.
For the purposes of rigid body collision analysis, rotational motion involves a property
called mass moment of inertia (I). The mass moment of inertia of a rigid body is a measure of the
resistance that a body has to angular acceleration, and is a function of the shape and mass of the
rigid body. The vast majority of motor vehicle collisions, to include motorcycle/vehicle impacts,
can be analyzed in two-dimensions, and therefore, the yaw moment of inertia describes the
resistance of a vehicle to rotate in yaw (clockwise or counterclockwise about the vertical axis
through the vehicle center of mass).
The determination of mass moment of inertia for a homogeneous geometrically shaped
object is quite straight forward. However, because of the complicated shape and mass
distribution of motor vehicles, the yaw moment of inertia is best determined from experimental
data, rather than by assuming a motor vehicle is a completely homogenous parallelepiped object.

1
2

Jerry S. Ogden, PE (NAFE 561F), PO Box 621519, Littleton, CO 80162-1519

Katrina M. Kloberdanz, PE (NAFE Correspondent 430C), PO Box 621519, Littleton, CO 80162-1519

Daily, et al. (2006) refers to the Garrott regression equations to approximate a vehicles mass
moment of inertia, which is also the method used to report moments of inertia in vehicle
specification resources such as Expert Autostats:
Equation 1: Yaw Moment of Inertia (Garrott)
1.03
1.03
where

I=
w=

1206 ; cars
1343 ; light trucks

yaw moment of inertia (

vehicle weight (lb)

Neptune (1996) developed a methodology for determining yaw moment of inertia regression
equations that also accounts for additional load within a vehicle beyond its curb weight as
follows:
Equation 2: Yaw Moment of Inertia (Neptune 1996)

where

I=
mcurb =
mloaded =
L=
b=
KG =
KM =

yaw moment of inertia (

)
curb mass of vehicle (curb weight(lb)/g)
loaded mass of vehicle (loaded weight(lb)/g)
total length of vehicle (ft)
maximum width of vehicle (ft)
empirical geometric constant (see table 1)
empirical mass constant (see table 1)

KM
Vehicle Type
KG
13.1
0.696
All
13.8
0.769
Car
13.4
0.750
Pickup
12.2
0.656
Utility
12.3
0.642
Van
Table 1: Empirical Constant Chart

R2
0.85
0.86
0.92
0.76
0.90

The utility of the Neptune yaw moment of inertia equation has both a theoretical and empirical
basis, and also accounts for vehicle load beyond the curb weight. The empirical constants are
separated by vehicle class, and reported with their correlation coefficients indicating the linear fit
of the formula when matched with the experimental data from which they were formulated. The
ability to add occupant and cargo load variations to a vehicle lends greater utility to the Neptune
method over methods that rely upon vehicle curb weights alone. For the purposes of this paper,
only the Neptune method for determining yaw moment of inertia will be used.
2

The derivations of the rotational energy/work equations for motorcycle impacts are quite
lengthy and outside the scope of this paper. However, several resources show these derivations
for those interested (Keifer, et al. 2007, Daily, et al. 2006). The following equations determine
the impact speed of a motorcycle, as well as the velocity change of a motorcycle and the struck
vehicle resulting from an offset collision that produces rotation of the impacted vehicle, Figure 1:
y
di
Fimpact

Fimpact

di Fimpact
Figure 1: Moment Diagram
Equation 3: Motorcycle Impact Velocity

Equation 4: Motorcycle Velocity Change

Equation 5: Target Vehicle Velocity Change:

Where,

VMC =
VMC =
Vcar =
Icar =
Wcar =
WMC =
di =
=
n =
WBcar =

impact velocity of motorcycle (ft/sec)

velocity change of motorcycle (ft/sec)
velocity change of car (ft/sec)
yaw moment of inertia of struck vehicle (
)
weight of struck vehicle (lb)
weight of motorcycle (lb)
distance from impact to center of mass on vehicle (ft), see Figure 2
angular rotation of vehicle (radians), see Figure 2
rotational friction coefficient
wheelbase of car (ft)

If the motorcycle riders body collides with the side of the target vehicle, then the full weight of
the rider is considered with the motorcycle weight at impact. If there is evidence of handle bar or
tank deformation due to motorcycle rider contact and no contact with the vehicle, then adding
1/3 to 2/3 of the riders weight to the weight of the motorcycle at impact is appropriate,
otherwise, the weight of the rider is omitted if the rider is ejected without contacting the vehicle
or the engaging with components of the motorcycle during ejection. Figure 2 demonstrates the
measurement of the distance di (perpendicular lever arm) and the vehicle rotation angle ().

Figure 2: Rotational Diagram

Rotational friction takes into account the weight distribution of the vehicle as well as
whether the wheels are locked or free-rolling as the vehicle rotates due to the impact force.
Keifer, et al. (2007) established a curve for determining the normalization factor for increasing
amounts of rotational displacement () for vehicles that do not have the brakes applied at impact.
This normalization factor is then multiplied by the full roadway friction to determine the
rotational friction value (n).

Figure 3: Relative Rotational Friction Normalization Factor Curve (Keifer, et al. 2007).
4

Application to Independent Test Data

Adamson, et al. (2002) conducted seventeen motorcycle crash tests into vehicles and
barriers at speeds ranging from 10 to 49 mph. For the motorcycle into vehicle impact tests, they
used nineteen early 1989 to 1993 Kawasaki 1000 police motorcycles and two 1989 Ford
Thunderbirds. Tests 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 from the study produced rotational data that
can be analyzed to test the validity of the rotational mechanics analysis methods discussed in this
paper. Additionally, Craig (2009) reported the results of 7 high speed motorcycle crash tests into
vehicles at speeds ranging from 44 to 67.5 mph. Only tests 1, 3, 5 and 6 contained impact data
that documented rotation of the target vehicle due to the impact by the motorcycle. These tests
used various 1980s Honda and Yamaha cruiser-type motorcycles colliding with 1991 Mercury
Sable station wagons, 1989 Ford Taurus sedans and a 1979 Dodge B100 full sized van.
For each of these tests, the relevant rotational analysis parameters were determined from
scaled diagrams of the impact tests, and the impact velocity of the motorcycle was calculated
using Equation 3. Table 2 provides a summary of the overall results when applying the rotational
mechanics analysis to the test data. The results were analyzed using the -squared test of fit
(=0.99) and the paired t-test (=0.01), both to a 99% confidence interval. The calculated impact
velocity for the motorcycle was determined to have no statistically significant difference between
the measured impact velocities and the calculated impact velocities of the tests by the chi
squared test of fit (2= 0.903, 2critical= 3.053, for = 11), and with the same results for the
paired t-test (t= -0.714, t-critical= 3.106, for = 11). The analysis of this test data indicates that
determining the impact velocity of a motorcycle for impacts producing measurable rotation to
the target vehicle should provide statistically reliable analysis results. The error rate using
Equation 3 ranged between +6.31% to -9.90%. The chart that plots Calculated versus Expected
analysis values for Equation 3 indicates the data has an excellent correlation of R2= 0.9925. The
dashed lines on this chart represent a 10% variance, demonstrating that all data points would fit
within that spread or less.

Test Number

Calculated Impact
Velocity
43.7 mph
38.6 mph
32.4 mph
22.5 mph
27.7 mph
44.6 mph
46.9 mph
48.5 mph
46.2 mph
45.4 mph
45.5 mph
68.2 mph

Adamson #8
Adamson #9
Adamson #10
Adamson #11
Adamson #12
Adamson #13
Adamson #18
Adamson #19
Craig #1
Craig #3
Craig #5
Craig #6
Means

Reported Impact
Velocity
46.0 mph
39.0 mph
34.0 mph
25.0 mph
30.0 mph
42.0 mph
45.0 mph
49.0 mph
45.5 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
67.5 mph

Absolute
Difference
-2.3 mph (-4.93%)
-0.4 mph (-1.02%)
-1.6 mph (-4.70%)
-2.5 mph (-9.90%)
-2.3 mph (-7.57%)
+2.6 mph (+6.31%)
+1.9 mph (+4.17%)
-0.5 mph (-0.95%)
+0.7 mph (+1.54%)
-0.6 mph (-1.30%)
-0.5 mph (-1.09%)
+0.7 mph (+1.78)

42.57 mph
42.92 mph
-0.35 mph (-0.81%)
Table 2: Overall Results for Rotational Mechanics Analysis

Calculated versus Expected (Equation 3)

80.0

70.0
2

R = 0.9925
60.0

Test Speed (mph)

+10%
50.0

40.0

-10%
30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Calculated Speed (mph)

60.0

70.0

80.0

The following two examples demonstrate the application and analysis results for a
representative test from the Adamson, et al. (2002) and Craig (2009) test data.
Adamson, et al. (2002), Test #9
Adamson, et al. (2002) Test # 9 is a typical example of the application of rotational
mechanics for determining the impact speed of a motorcycle. Figure 4 is actually from the
resource, but the measurement of angular change for the vehicle and the perpendicular lever arm,
di, for the motorcycle were measured by this author from the scale diagram. This impact
involved a Kawasaki 1000 police model motorcycle colliding with the drivers side rear of a
1989 Ford Thunderbird. The Australasian & South Pacific Association of Collision Investigators
(ASPACI) provided the following photographs of this collision and shows the setup and
aftermath of the test.

Vehicle specifications taken from Expert Auto Stats, version 5.0.4, indicate the 1989 Ford
Thunderbird has the following dimensional properties:
Overall Length (L) = 16.58 feet
Loaded Mass (mloaded) = (3590 pounds)/g
KG = 13.8

Overall Width (b) = 6.08 feet

Curb Mass (mcurb) = (3559 pounds)/g
KM = 0.769

From this data, and while using Table 1 values for a car, the yaw moment of inertia was
determined for the Ford using the Neptune methodology of Equation 2.

= 2510.2 ft*lbs*sec2 yaw moment of inertia

Figure 4: Test #9 from Adamson, et al (2002)

(Red lines and text represent variables di = 7.05 feet and = 54.6o, measured by author)

Adamson, et al. (2002) reported that the friction of the test surface was measured by the
Texas Transportation Institute at =0.72. From analysis of Figure 4, as well as determining the
normalized rotational friction factor using Figure 3, the impact speed of the Kawasaki
motorcycle was determined using rotational mechanics through the application of Equation 3 as
follows:

Where,

Wmc=
Wcar=
Icar =
=
di =
WBcar =
=
n=

= 56.6 fps = 38.6 mph

620 pounds, weight of test Kawasaki 1000

3590 pounds, weight of test Ford Thunderbird
2510.2 ft*lbs*sec2, yaw moment of inertia of Ford Thunderbird
54.6o = 0.953 radians, rotation angle of Ford Thunderbird
7.05 feet, perpendicular moment arm
9.42 feet, wheelbase of Ford Thunderbird
0.72, reported test surface friction
0.42, normalized rotational factor from Figure 3
8

The actual impact velocity of the Kawasaki motorcycle reported for this test was 39 mph. When
considering a 10% range about the answer, the model predicts the impact speed of the
Kawasaki to be 38.6 mph 3.86 mph.
Craig (2009) Test #6
Test 6 of this collection represents the highest velocity impact test into a target vehicle.
The analysis results for this test were also typical of the other tests within the Craig (2009) study.
Figure 5 is the plot of the data from the study, from which the analysis was completed. The study
reports the weight of the 1979 Dodge B100 van at 3630 pounds, and the 1981 Yamaha Virago
motorcycle at 510 pounds. The following photographs show the impact test setup and results as
obtained from the cited resource.

Vehicle specifications taken from Expert Auto Stats, version 5.0.4, indicate the 1979 Dodge
B100, long wheelbase passenger van has the following dimensional properties:
Overall Length (L) = 16.42 feet
Loaded Mass (mloaded) = (3630 pounds)/g
KG = 12.3

Overall Width (b) = 6.58 feet

Curb Mass (mcurb) = (3630 pounds)/g
KM = 0.642

From this data, and while using Table 1 values for a van, the yaw moment of inertia was
determined for the Dodge using the Neptune methodology of Equation 2.

= 2869.6 ft*lbs*sec2 yaw moment of inertia

Craig (2009) reported that the friction of the test surface was measured by the test team
to be a value of =0.84. From analysis of Figure 5, as well as determining the normalized
rotational friction factor using Figure 3, the impact speed of the Yamaha motorcycle was
determined using rotational mechanics through the application of Equation 3 as follows:

Figure 5: Test #6 from Craig (2009)

(Red lines and text represent variables di = 2.20 feet and = 18.4o, measured by author)

Where,

Wmc=
Wcar=
Icar =
=
di =
WBcar =
=
n=

510 pounds, weight of test Yamaha Virago

3630 pounds, weight of test Dodge B100 Van
2869.6 ft*lbs*sec2, yaw moment of inertia of Ford Thunderbird
18.4o = 0.321 radians, rotation angle of Ford Thunderbird
2.20 feet, perpendicular moment arm
9.42 feet, wheelbase of Ford Thunderbird
0.84, reported test surface friction
0.30, normalized rotational factor from Figure 3

10

= 100.0 fps = 68.7 mph

The actual impact velocity of the Yamaha motorcycle reported for this test was 67.5 mph.
Again, when considering a 10% range about the answer, the model predicts the impact speed of
the Yamaha to be 68.7 mph 6.87 mph.
Motorcycle Front Fork and Maximum Vehicle Deformation Analysis
Over the decades, researchers have attempted to correlate the impact speed of a
motorcycle with the amount of wheelbase reduction produced upon the motorcycle due to
rearward bending of the front forks from an impact. The first such study was conducted by
Severy, et al. (1970) when they attempted to correlate the damage to Honda CB350 motorcycles
with spoked wheels for impacts into rigid barriers and 1960s vintage automobiles. This resulted
in a fairly simplistic linear regression between limited data points for correlating wheelbase
reduction of the motorcycle with impact speed. Whereas this study may still have applicability to
barrier-type collision events, the Severy, et al. (1970) study, however, did not account for
damage to the struck vehicle. Adamson, et al. (2002) attempted to correlate wheelbase reduction
with impact speed using a linear regression analysis as well, and compared their results to those
of Severy, et al. (1970). Adamson, et al. (2002) also did not use vehicle damage as a factor in
their regression model, but also attempted to correlate the fork deformation of their tests with
motorcycle impact velocity. Bartlett, et al. (2009) reported results of testing conducted during the
2004 CAARS conference and the 2008 ARC-CSI conference, as well as utilizing the data from
Adamson, et al. (2002) and Severy, et al. (1970) in presenting models that uniquely accounted
for not only wheelbase reduction of the motorcycle, but also maximum intrusion into the target
vehicle based upon whether the impact was into a hard zone (i.e., wheel or structural member),
or a soft zone (i.e., door panel, fender or quarter panel). Bartlett, et al. (2009) found no
correlation between the composition of the motorcycles front wheel and fork/vehicle
deformation relationships, in that the consideration of both wheelbase reduction and vehicle
damage applies to both spoke wheels and cast wheels on a motorcycle. It is these latter two
analysis methods that appear to have the greatest utility and will be the scope of investigation for
this presentation.
The following formula was developed from testing completed during the ARC-CSI 2008
Conference, which accounts for wheelbase reduction of the motorcycle, maximum damage depth
on the struck vehicle and whether the impact was into a hard zone (axle/pillar) or a soft zone
(door panel, fender or quarter panel):
Equation 6: ARC-CSI Fork/Vehicle Deformation Analysis
,

Where,

A=
B=

1.4534 mph/in, for soft zone

1.5875 mph/in, for hard zone
10.124 mph, for soft zone
14.720 mph, for hard zone
11

WB=
Cmax=

Change in motorcycle wheelbase, inches

Maximum penetration into vehicle, inches

The following formula was developed from testing completed during the CAARS 2004
Conference, which accounts for wheelbase reduction of the motorcycle, maximum damage depth
on the struck vehicle and whether the impact was into a hard zone (axle/pillar) or a soft zone
(door panel, fender or quarter panel):
Equation 7: CAARS Fork/Vehicle Deformation Analysis

Where,

A=
B=
D=
WB=
Cmax=

2.0 mph/in, for soft zone

2.5 mph/in, for hard zone
1.8 mph/in, for soft zone
1.9 mph/in, for hard zone
2.0 mph, for soft zone
4.5 mph, for hard zone
Change in motorcycle wheelbase, inches
Maximum penetration into vehicle, inches

The following formula was reported by Severy and was developed from motorcycle
impact tests into a fixed barrier and 1960s vintage automobile, and attempts to correlate
motorcycle wheelbase reduction only with motorcycle impact speed:
Equation 8: Severy Fork-Only Deformation Analysis

Where,

A=
B=
WB=

2.18 mph/in, for all conditions

10.3 mph, for all conditions
Change in motorcycle wheelbase, inches

Application to Independent Test Data

The application of the three fork deformation based models discussed will be applied to
the impact tests reported by both Adamson, et al. (2002) and Craig (2009). Additional tests are
available regarding the application of these models. From the Adamson, et al. (2002) study, tests
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are motorcycle-to-vehicle tests that report both wheelbase
reduction and maximum extent of damage on the struck vehicle. From the Craig (2009) study,
tests 3, 4, 5 and 6 contained motorcycle wheelbase reduction and maximum vehicle damage data.
Table 3 reports the results from application of the ARC-CSI equation, Equation 6.
The results for Equation 6 were analyzed using the -squared test of fit (=0.99) and the
paired t-test (=0.01), both to a 99% confidence interval. The calculated impact velocity for the
12

motorcycle was determined to have no statistically significant difference between the measured
impact velocities and the calculated impact velocities by the chi squared test of fit (2= 3.81,
2critical= 4.11, for = 13), and with the same results for the paired t-test (t= 0.18, t-critical=
3.01, for = 13). The analysis of this data using Equation 6 indicates that determining the impact
velocity of a motorcycle for impacts producing both measurable wheelbase reduction to the
motorcycle and maximum deformation to the target vehicle should provide statistically reliable
analysis results. The error rate ranged between +16.86% to -15.21%, however, the vast majority
of the data remained within a 10% range. The chart that plots Calculated versus Expected
analysis values for Equation 6 also indicates the data has a reasonable correlation at R2= 0.9593.
The dashed lines on this chart represent a 10% variance, demonstrating that most data points
would fit within that spread.
Test Number
Adamson #8
Adamson #9
Adamson #10
Adamson #11
Adamson #12
Adamson #13
Adamson #14
Adamson #16
Adamson #18
Adamson #19
Craig #3
Craig #4
Craig #5
Craig #6
Means

Calculated Impact
Velocity
45.4 mph
36.5 mph
32.3 mph
29.2 mph
25.4 mph
44.6 mph
29.8 mph
36.2 mph
52.5 mph
47.7 mph
46.5 mph
45.7 mph
47.6 mph
69.5 mph

Reported Impact
Velocity
46.0 mph
39.0 mph
34.0 mph
25.0 mph
30.0 mph
42.0 mph
30.0 mph
41.0 mph
45.0 mph
49.0 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
67.5 mph

Absolute
Difference
-0.6 mph (-1.37 %)
-2.53 mph (-6.48 %)
-1.71 mph (-5.03 %)
4.21 mph (16.86 %)
-4.56 mph (-15.21 %)
2.58 mph (6.14 %)
-0.20 mph (-0.66 %)
-4.85 mph (-11.83 %)
7.52 mph (16.71 %)
-1.34 mph (-2.73 %)
0.45 mph (0.98 %)
-0.28 mph (-0.60 %)
1.55 mph (3.37 %)
2.00 mph (2.95 %)

42.05 mph
41.89 mph
0.16 mph (0.38 %)
Table 3: Overall Results for Fork/Vehicle Deformation using ARC-CSI, Equation 6

To date, there is no public domain data regarding impact tests of motorcycles designed
with aluminum frames, or equipped with stiffer upside down forks found on many modern
sport motorcycles. Additionally, there is an absence of public domain testing of motor scooters
or other motorcycle surrogate vehicles. However, just as with the difference between a cast
wheel and a spoke wheel for a motorcycle is unlikely to have an effect on speed analysis using
this motorcycle fork/vehicle deformation model, this model is expected to account for the
difference in frame design and motorcycle components that stiffen the motorcycle during
dynamic loading in the same manner; i.e., the stiffer the motorcycle becomes, the greater the
maximum penetration into the struck vehicle will become, thus balancing the energy dissipation
distribution of the impact.

13

Calculated versus Expected (Equation 6)

80
70
2

R = 0.9593

60
Test Speed (mph)

+10%
50
40

-10%

30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30
40
50
Calculated Speed (mph)

60

70

80

Table 4 reports the results from application of the CAARS equation, Equation 7. The
results for Equation 7 were also analyzed using the -squared test of fit and the paired t-test. Due
to the wider variance of data when using Equation 7, the results for the -squared test of fit did
not meet the demands of a 99% confidence interval, but were within a 65% confidence interval
(=0.65,2= 10.28, 2critical= 10.53 , for = 13), much too low for statistical significance.
Since the variations of data did not affect the overall mean comparisons, the t-test was still
satisfied at the 99% confidence interval (=0.01, t= 0.30, t-critical= 3.01, for = 13). The
analysis of this data using Equation 7 indicates that determining the impact velocity of a
motorcycle for impacts producing both measurable wheelbase reduction to the motorcycle and
maximum deformation to the target vehicle is not as reliable as when using Equations 3 and 6.
The error rate for Equation 7 was much more significant than the other two models considered,
and ranged between +22.28% to -35.75%, however, the vast majority of the data remained within
a 15% range. The chart that plots Calculated versus Expected analysis values for Equation 7
also demonstrates a wide spread in the analysis results, however, it still has a reasonable
correlation coefficient of R2= 0.9603. The dashed lines on this chart represent a 10% variance,
demonstrating that many of the data points would fall outside this spread. It is the opinion of
these authors that the variance while using Equation 7 alone would be far outside a reliable
range, but if used in conjunction with Equations 3 and 6, and other analysis methods, may still
provide some utility.

14

Test Number

Calculated Impact
Velocity
47.8 mph
36.2 mph
31.1 mph
25.2 mph
19.3 mph
44.3 mph
26.0 mph
34.7 mph
55.0 mph
48.3 mph
49.3 mph
48.9 mph
50.1 mph
76.7 mph

Adamson #8
Adamson #9
Adamson #10
Adamson #11
Adamson #12
Adamson #13
Adamson #14
Adamson #16
Adamson #18
Adamson #19
Craig #3
Craig #4
Craig #5
Craig #6
Means

Reported Impact
Velocity
46.0 mph
39.0 mph
34.0 mph
25.0 mph
30.0 mph
42.0 mph
30.0 mph
41.0 mph
45.0 mph
49.0 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
67.5 mph

Absolute
Difference
1.80 mph (3.91 %)
-2.84 mph (-7.28 %)
-2.90 mph (-8.53 %)
0.20 mph (0.90 %)
-10.73 mph (-35.75 %)
2.32 mph (5.54 %)
-4.00 mph (-13.33 %)
-6.35 mph (-15.49 %)
10.02 mph (22.28 %)
-0.72 mph (-1.48 %)
3.30 mph (7.17 %)
2.90 mph (13.04 %)
4.10 mph (6.30 %)
9.2 mph (13.56 %)

42.34 mph
41.89 mph
0.45 mph (1.07 %)
Table 4: Overall Results for Fork/Vehicle Deformation using CAARS, Equation 7

Calculated versus Expected (Equation 7)

80
70
2

R = 0.9603

60
Test speed (mph)

+10%
50
40

-10%
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Calculated Speed (mph)

15

60

70

80

90

Table 5 reports the results from application of the Severy equation, Equation 8. The
results for Equation 8 were also analyzed using the -squared test of fit and the paired t-test.
Equation 8 produced the least linear and the least representative data for motorcycle-to-vehicle
impacts of any of the models presented. The results for the -squared test of fit did not meet the
demands of any statistical confidence interval (=0.99,2= 4.11, 2critical= 68.43 , for = 13),
showing no statistically significant relationship between the test data the analysis results using
Equation 8 for motorcycle-to-vehicle impacts. The variations of data were random enough to
affect the overall mean comparisons, such that the t-test was not satisfied at the 99% confidence
interval (=0.01, t= 6.36, t-critical= 3.01, for = 13). The analysis of this data using Equation 8
indicates that determining the impact velocity of a motorcycle for impacts producing both
measurable wheelbase reduction to the motorcycle and maximum deformation to the target
vehicle is not reliable when using Equation 8. The error rate for Equation 8 was significantly
greater than all other models considered, demonstrating a trend to under-predict the impact speed
of a motorcycle by as much as nearly 50% (-49.21%, Craig test 6), and an average error rate of
-32%. The chart that plots Calculated versus Expected analysis values for Equation 8 also
demonstrates a random and wide under-prediction spread in the analysis results, resulting in a
correlation coefficient of only R2= 0.6638. The dashed lines on this chart represent a 10%
variance, demonstrating that nearly every data point produced while using Equation 8 for a
motorcycle-to-vehicle impact fell below the -10% error spread boundary. It is the opinion of
these authors that the variance while using Equation 8 is so significant as to render this analysis
method unreliable for motorcycle-to-vehicle impact events. However, the model does tend to
provide reasonable results for motorcycle impacts into fixed, immovable and/or massive objects.
Test Number
Adamson #8
Adamson #9
Adamson #10
Adamson #11
Adamson #12
Adamson #13
Adamson #14
Adamson #16
Adamson #18
Adamson #19
Craig #3
Craig #4
Craig #5
Craig #6
Means

Calculated Impact
Velocity
33.7 mph
26.9 mph
28.3 mph
22.6 mph
17.4 mph
25.2 mph
22.8 mph
26.7 mph
29.5 mph
26.1 mph
35.4 mph
40.8 mph
29.4 mph
34.3 mph

Reported Impact
Velocity
46.0 mph
39.0 mph
34.0 mph
25.0 mph
30.0 mph
42.0 mph
30.0 mph
41.0 mph
45.0 mph
49.0 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
46.0 mph
67.5 mph

28.50 mph
41.89 mph
-13.39 mph (-32.0 %)
Table 5: Overall Results for Fork-Only Deformation using Severy, Equation 8

16

Absolute
Difference
-12.3 mph (-26.7 %)
-12.0 mph (-30.9 %)
-5.7 mph (-16.8 %)
-2.4 mph (-9.7 %)
-12.6 mph (-42.0 %)
-16.8 mph (-40.1 %)
-7.2 mph (-23.9 %)
-14.3 mph (-35.0 %)
-15.5 mph (-34.4 %)
-22.9 mph (-46.7 %)
-10.6 mph (-23.1 %)
-5.2 mph (-11.3 %)
-16.6 mph (-36.1 %)
-33.2 mph (-49.2 %)

Calculated versus Expected (Equation 8)

45
2

40

R = 0.6638

35

Test Speed (mph)

30

+10%

25
20
15

-10%

10
5
0
0

10

20

30
40
50
Calculated Speed (mph)

60

70

80

In order to demonstrate the convergence between rotational (Equation 3) and fork/vehicle

deformation analysis results (Equation 6), Test #9 from the Adamson, et al. (2002) and Test #6
from Craig (2009) will again be used as application examples. Since Equation 6 shows the best
relationship and statistically significant results between the data and the analysis results, only
Equation 6 will be used for the fork/vehicle deformation analysis of these examples.
Adamson, et al. (2002), Test #9
Adamson, et al. (2002) Test # 9 involved a Kawasaki 1000 motorcycle colliding into the
left rear quarter panel of a 1989 Ford Thunderbird within the area between the left rear wheel
and the rear bumper. This area constitutes a soft zone impact location. The following results
were obtained when analyzing this impact test with Equation 6.

Where,

A=
B=
WB=
Cmax=

= 53.5 fps = 36.5 mph

1.4534 mph/in, for soft zone
10.124 mph, for soft zone
7.63 inches, measured change in motorcycle wheelbase
10.5 inches, measured maximum penetration into vehicle

The motorcycle velocity reported for this test was 39 mph. While using the 10% application to
this data, Equation 6 produces a motorcycle impact speed range of 32.9 mph to 40.2 mph,
between which the actual test speed of 39 mph fits between.

17

Craig (2009) Test #6

Test 6 of this collection represents the highest velocity impact test into a target vehicle.
The study consisted of a 1981 Yamaha Virago motorcycle traveling at 67.5 mph when colliding
into the B-pillar on the right side of a 1979 Dodge B100 van. This impact represents a hard
zone impact location. The following results were obtained when analyzing this impact test with
Equation 6.

Where,

A=
B=
WB=
Cmax=

= 101.9 fps = 69.5 mph

1.5875 mph/in, for hard zone
14.720 mph, for hard zone
11.0 inches, measured change in motorcycle wheelbase
23.5 inches, measured maximum penetration, vehicle centerline

The motorcycle velocity reported for this test was 67.5 mph. While using the 5% application
to this data, Equation 6 produces a motorcycle impact speed range of 66.0 mph to 73.0 mph,
between which the actual test speed of 67.5 mph fits between.
Conclusions
Three separate analysis models were presented. The first model relied upon rigid body
mechanics and rotational kinetics in order to determine the impact speed of a motorcycle with a
motor vehicle when rotation of the target vehicle is produced. The second and third models were
based upon linear regression (best fit lines) analysis of impact data for motorcycles striking
motor vehicles and producing measurable motorcycle fork deformation and maximum vehicle
inward deformation. These models were tested against independently reported test data, so that
the accuracy and applicability of the models cold be evaluated.
The results of this study indicate that analyzing motorcycle-to-vehicle impacts using
rotational mechanics when the necessary data is available, provides the most accurate and
reliable impact speed determination for motorcycles colliding offset from the center-of-mass of a
target vehicle such that rotation to the target vehicle is produced. The data analyzed was not just
limited to side impacts of motorcycles into a target vehicle, but also contained a motorcycle
striking head-on (Adamson #18), as well as into the rear of a stationary vehicle (Adamson #10),
both of which showed good correlation between the test impact speed and the calculated impact
speed using Equation 3. One observation from the data was for angles of rotation below 3
degrees, the analysis became very sensitive to the accuracy of the measurement of the
perpendicular moment arm. While precision and accuracy was achieved when analyzing rotation
below 3 degrees for this data set, it should also be recognized that the data available from these
studies was sufficiently documented as to allow for an accurate determination of the rotation of
the target vehicle and the perpendicular moment arm to within two significant digits, which may
not always be obtainable for rear-world collisions. Caution should be exercised when analyzing
18

real-world collisions where rotation of the target vehicle is less than 3 degrees, and it is
recommended that such an analysis be accompanied in conjunction with other speed
determinations, such as using linear momentum, fork/vehicle deformation or some other
applicable methodology. The results of this study indicate that with the consideration of the
proper data, a motorcycle-to-vehicle impact that conforms to the conditions of Equation 3 is
expected to result in motorcycle impact speed determinations that are statistically significant to
within a 99% confidence interval.
The results of this study determine that the analysis of motorcycle impact speed while
using Equation 6, where both motorcycle fork and maximum vehicle deformation are considered,
produces accurate, reliable and statistically significant results to within a 99% confidence
interval. When the fork/vehicle deformation model of Equations 7 is considered alone, it is not
reliable enough for an accurate determination of motorcycle impact speed by itself, but should be
used in conjunction with other more reliable methods. Equation 8 tends to significantly, as well
as randomly, under-predict motorcycle impact speed. This is likely due to the fact that it does not
consider the energy losses due to vehicle deformation, which become more significant as the
front forks of a motorcycle are compressed further rearward and into the engine block and/or
frame, changing the relative stiffness of the motorcycle and thus producing greater deformation
into the vehicle.
When rotational analysis of Equation 3, and fork/vehicle deformation analysis using
Equation 6 and 7 are completed concurrently, the forensic engineer is assured of not only
accuracy, but has a means by which cross-check of the results of a forensic motorcycle impact
speed analysis is accomplished. The authors have utilized these techniques in actual forensic
cases that were subject to cross-examination. The ability to demonstrate the correlation between
the test data and the models, along with the crosscheck that is provided by using two or more of
the presented methods is a critical part in justifying the applicability, reliability, and accuracy of
these analysis techniques when applied to real-world motorcycle collisions.
To date, there is no public domain data regarding impact tests of motorcycles designed
with aluminum frames, or equipped with stiffer upside down forks found on many modern
sport motorcycles. Additionally, there is an absence of public domain testing of motor scooters
or other motorcycle surrogates into other motor vehicles. Impacts with motorcycles so equipped
would have no influence upon the rotational analysis method presented. However, analysis of
motorcycle impact speed while using Equations 6 and 7, where both motorcycle fork and vehicle
deformation are considered together, should account for the effects of a stiffer motorcycle
structure by increasing the maximum penetration into the struck vehicle, thus balancing the
energy dissipation distribution of the impact.
Future work should investigate the appropriate parameters for uniform projectile motion
and/or other approaches for considering the flight of ejected motorcycle riders and passengers
that commonly result from motorcycle impact events. Considerations for determining the
19

appropriate ejection angles, fall heights and ejection distance for use when compared to impact
testing should be undertaken. Since it has been observed by these authors that many analysts
attempt to apply empirical pedestrian vault equations to motorcycle collision events, it should
also be investigated to determine if a relationship between pedestrian projection and cycle rider
ejection actually does exist, and if not, why they differ. Additionally, the relationships between
vehicle force-deflection and energy dissipation properties (often referred to as A and B
stiffness values), along with the work-energy principles of bending the front forks of a
motorcycle should also be investigated to determine if correlation with motorcycle impact test
data exists. It is anticipated that the results of these additional investigations will provide not
only a more accurate determination of motorcycle impact speeds resulting from real-world
collisions, but also provide greater understanding of motorcycle and other two-wheeled cycle
collision events.
References
Adamson, Kelley, et al. Seventeen Motorcycle Crash Tests into Vehicles and a Barrier. SAE Technical
Paper Series, no. 2002-01-0551, 2002.
ARC-CSI 2008 Crash Conference proceedings, Collision Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 2, Fall 2008 and
data DVD, www.crashconference.com/arccsi/2008conference.html.
Australasian & South Pacific Association of Collision Investigators (ASPACI), World Reconstruction
Exposition (WREX 2000), College Station, Texas, September 2000.
California Association of Accident Reconstruction Specialists (CAARS), Conference on Motorcycle
Crash Investigation and Reconstruction, Santa Rosa, California, 2004.
Bartlett, Wade. Motorcycle Crush Analysis. Accident Reconstruction Journal Volume 19, Number 2,
March/April 2009, 2009 Accident Reconstruction Journal.
Craig, Victor. Motorcycle High-Speed Crash Tests. Accident Reconstruction Journal Volume 20, Number
1, January/February 2010, 2009.
Daily, John, Nathan Shigemura and Jeremy Daily. Fundamentals of Traffic Crash Reconstruction, Vol. 2.
Institute of Police Technology and Management, 2006.
Expert Autostats, version 5.0.4, 2010.
Keifer, Orion, Richard Conte, and Bradley Reckamp. Linear and Rotational Motion Analysis in Traffic
Crash Reconstruction. Institute of Police Technology and Management, 2007.
Neptune, James. Overview of an HVE Vehicle Database. SAE Technical Paper Series, no. 960896,
1996.
Obenski, Kenneth, and Paul F. Hill, Motorcycle Accident Reconstruction and Litigation. 2nd ed. Lawyers
& Judges Publishing Company, Inc, 1997.

20

Ogden, Jerry. Forensic Engineering Principles of Motorcycle Accident Analysis and Motorcycle Impact
Speed Analysis Mathematics Appendix and Applied Problems. National Academy of Forensic Engineers
Education Committee Special Seminar, July 2010.
Severy, Brink, Blaisdell. Motorcycle Collision Experiments. Society of Automotive Engineers 700897,
1970 SAE International.

21