32 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 www.collisionpublishing.

com
B
ackground
Te Bosch Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Tool
was rst oered for sale, commercially, in 2000
largely as a function of a relationship between
General Motors and, at the time, a scan tool compa-
ny Vetronix. In the ensuing years, Ford (in 2003) then
Chrysler (in 2008) and nally Toyota (in 2011) reached
agreements to allow access to crash data from modules
in their vehicles to be part of the CDR Tool functional-
ity.
In 2012, the provisions of Title 49 of (US) Code of
Federal Regulations, part 563 (49CFR563 or what has
become known as the rule or part 563) took eect.
Te rule species that for ...vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2012, if they are equipped with
a ... device or function in a vehicle that records the ve-
hicle's dynamic time-series data during the time period
just prior to a crash event ... intended for retrieval af-
ter the crash event... (the) manufacturer ... shall ensure
by licensing agreement or other means that a tool(s) is
commercially available that is capable of accessing and
retrieving the data stored in the EDR...
1
In the run-up to September 2012, the (US) National
Highway Trac Safety Administration (NHTSA) had
published the provisions of the rule in the Federal
Register and had responded to several petitions for re-
consideration as well as comments published pursuant
to notices of proposed rule making (NPRM). During
Hyundai and Kia Crash Data
By: Rusty Haight, Shawn Gyorke, and Sean Haight
www.collisionpublishing.com Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 33
Editors note:
While the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval Tool remains the
primary commercially available system used by collision
reconstructionists to access and retrieve crash data stored
in passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs, other options
have emerged which allow access to crash data recorded in
modules in those few vehicles not currently covered by the
Bosch CDR Tool. Tis rst-of-its-kind review is a brief
comparison of what those other systems oer - and dont
oer - compared to that aorded by the Bosch CDR Tool.
In addition to this article, some limited information about
these systems has already been incorporated into the Col-
lision Safety Institutes CDR Data Analyst course curric-
ulum including a comparison of the data which may be
retrieved by way of the other options to data from instru-
mented crash tests. However, since that course is designed
to train and support users of the Bosch CDR Tool, not
these other tools, the information there is, of course, rela-
tively limited.
For a detailed and comprehensive look at data from tools
such as those oered for non-Bosch CDR Tool supported
vehicles - including comparisons to a wider range of fully
instrumented crash tests - those interested in these systems
should consider attending the CDR Users Summit in
Houston, TX in January, 2014 where the use of these tools
and detailed reliability comparisons from crash tests such
as those mentioned herein as well as other related issues
will be more fully presented.
that process, some modications and clarications were
ultimately made to provisions of the rule; however, one
area in particular that was never really thoroughly ad-
dressed was the passage found in 563.12 specifying that
manufacturers: ... of a motor vehicle equipped with an
EDR shall ensure by licensing agreement or other means
that a tool(s) is commercially available that is capable of
accessing and retrieving the data stored in the EDR that
are required by this part. Te tool(s) shall be commercially
available not later than 90 days after the rst sale of the
motor vehicle ...
When the Final Rule was published, the only commer-
cially available tool designed to access recorded crash data
was the Bosch CDR Tool. On the one hand, many antici-
pated then that, given the limited market for this type of
tool/system and experience (which included at least one
other potential tool supplier expressing interest in devel-
oping an alternative tool and then deciding against it as a
function of the product development cost versus the mar-
ket potential), the Bosch CDR Tool would become the
tool widely adopted by other OEs who would be looking
to be 563" complaint. On the other hand, the rule was
written specically to leave it to the OEs to nd a way to
be compliant inasmuch as NHTSA, a government agen-
cy, couldnt specify a particular vendor/supplier for the tool
which would enable OE compliance.
At one point prior to the implementation of the nal
rule, Toyota had announced publicly (and even went so
far as to post to their web site) that they were develop-
ing a tool for access to data recorded in their vehicles. In
fact, Toyota was using what became known as their Read
Out Tool (ROT) for some time. Ultimately, they worked
with Bosch to include Toyota line vehicle access as part of
the Bosch CDR Tool functionality. Similarly, other OEs
who, at one time or another and in one way or another,
expressed objection to the rule or suggested the probabil-
ity that they would develop separate or parallel tools have
ended up working to make it such that data from their
vehicles has become accessible using the Bosch CDR Tool.
Notable exceptions; however, have emerged.
As of this writing, Land Rover and Jaguar (which were
purchased from Ford by Tata Motors around the time of
the 2009 auto industry troubles) have a process in place
which requires someone looking to get data from their
relevant system(s) to arrange the retrieval with them (the
OE). In a rather unique interpretation of the rule, Rover
and Jag then required that the retrieved data be sent to
(at last report) the UK for translation to what one might
hope to anticipate is a compliant report form/format. In
563, we nd a passage (at 563.12) specifying that manu-
facturers: ... of a motor vehicle equipped with an EDR
shall ensure by licensing agreement or other means that a
tool(s) is commercially available that is capable of accessing
and retrieving the data stored in the EDR that are required
by this part...(emphasis, authors). Notably, in the strictest
reading of this part of 563, the commercial availability of
access to a tool that accesses and retrieves data but does
not generate a report would satisfy this requirement. By
extension, or perhaps in application, one might point to
the remainder of the rule which addresses (for example,
at 563.8(a) Table III) that the ... data elements ... must be
reported in accordance with the range, accuracy and reso-
lution specied in Table III ... (emphasis, authors). While
there is, admittedly, still no requirement in the rule spe-
cically calling for the retrieval tool to generate a report, or
when a report might be generated relative to the access
and retrieval, clearly that was anticipated by NHTSA as
the rule was drafted although it wasnt actually laid out
in the rules nal format.
34 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 www.collisionpublishing.com
Another exception, and the larger focus of this narrative,
is the emergence of a tool - or tools depending on ones
perspective - capable of allowing access to and data retriev-
al from Hyundai and Kia vehicles. Announced about the
time the rule took eect, these OEs have opted to use a
tool(s) made by Global Information Technology (GIT)
to be 563 compliant.
Since 2001, GIT has been the OE supplier for diag-
nostic tools for both Hyundai and Kia. Editorially, one
might recall that the origin of what is now the Bosch CDR
Tool was based on collaboration between then Vetronix
and General Motors where Vetronix was the supplier of
the Tech I and Tech II scan tools as used by GM dealer-
ships. When the GIT-based EDR application(s) for
Hyundai and Kia were announced, the Hyundai kit be-
came available through GIT Americas Aftermarket Sup-
port division and the Kia-specic system from Snap-On
Business Solutions.
Te primary dierence between the two tools is really a re-
sult of the nature by which the distribution takes place. Te
tools are composed generally as one nds the Bosch CDR
Tool meaning there is software, and hardware including
what, in the Bosch tool would be known as the interface
module or what is called, by GIT, the Vehicle Commu-
nication Interface (VCI). Unlike the Bosch CDR Tool
interface module, which has been designed specically
for the CDR tool application, the VCI is a near-universal
component for GIT scan tool or diagnostics connectivity
associated with Hyundai and Kia vehicles going back to,
at least 2010.
Apart from that, the only remaining dierence between
the VCI sold for Hyundai applications and that sold for
Kia applications is the color of the VCI enclosure. Te
blue enclosure VCI is sold for Hyundai applications and
the red enclosure is sold for Kia applications (interest-
ingly enough, Snap-On tools typically have red enclosures,
a theme comparable to the use of Bosch green).
In testing conducted to date, the authors have used both
enclosures interchangeably accessing and retrieving data
from Kia and Hyundai vehicles. For example, Hyundai
data access and retrieval has been completed using the
Hyundai version of the EDR (system) software and the
Kia-designated VCI, and vice versa. Te basic system ca-
bles (i.e.: for DLC access) are also interchangeable. Tese
systems are not; however, sold together or currently sold
such that a piecemeal assembly of a single tool capable
of working with both systems is possible. It should not;
however, come as a surprise that these systems are really
so similar. Prior to GIT becoming the ocial OE suppli-
er for diagnostic tools to Hyundai and Kia, the Hyundai
Motor Company purchased more than 50% of what was
then South Koreas second-largest auto manufacturer: Kia
Motors. Over time; however, that relationship changed -
at least outwardly - such that, by 2012, Hyundai retained
only slightly more than 30% of Kia ownership. Nonethe-
less, as a function of other agreements, Hyundai remains
the default representative of the two otherwise seemingly
separate entities.
T
he Hyundai Tool
Te Hyundai-specic tool is available from GIT
Americas Aftermarket Support division located in
Tustin, CA. Trough March 2013, the tool was
oered at what was apparently an introductory price of
about $2850 (including shipping). In April, 2013, that
price increased to $4000 including shipping and one more
direct-to-module cable than was included in the earlier ver-
sion/release of the system. Te tool is sold to allow retrieval
from model year 2013 Hyundai vehicles which would pro-
vide for Hyundai compliance with the rule. Tere is a
software subscription required which, in March 2013, was
$195 (per year) for each system (Hyundai and Kia).
T
he Kia Tool
Te Kia-specic version of the tool is available
from Snap-on Business Solutions. Snap-on is based
in Richeld, Ohio. Trough March, 2013, the Kia
version of the tool was available for $3767 plus shipping.
In April 2013, the price of the tool increased to $4300
and 2 additional direct-to-module cables were added to the
www.collisionpublishing.com Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 35
list of components one receives with the tool. Te tool is
sold to allow retrieval from model year 2013 Kia vehicles
which, similarly, would provide Kia compliance with the
rule.
O
ther Commonalities
Both tools are sold as an EDR rather than a
crash or event data retrieval tool. Te name of
the device, for example, sold for Kias, is simply
EDR (Event Data Recorder) and indicated in the users
manual. Troughout the users manual there are references
to the tool where it is referred to simply as the EDR. For
example, in the Introduction of the users manual for the
Kia version of the system, it reads: Tank you for pur-
chasing the EDR (Event Data Recorder). Read the instruc-
tions thoroughly for proper operation of your EDR (Event
Data Recorder) then later in the manual it describes the
purpose of EDR (Event Data Recorder).
Stated there, the purpose of (the) EDR is ...to conrm
and analyze to collect the data when colliding with a ve-
hicle. (sic) Te manual goes on to say that the Aim of
EDR is below. 1. A detailed investigation of collision status
2. An accurate analysis of safety device performance (sic)
followed by a reference to the rule.
As previously noted, the GIT-built components of the sys-
tem allow - unocially - for some level of interchangeabil-
ity and there is nothing on either tools VCI which would
suggest that component is specied for one OE or the other
(apart, perhaps, from the color of the enclosure). Tere are
dierences noted between the direct-to-module cables pro-
vided with the two systems. Both systems are designed to
connect direct-to-module with an airbag control module
as the source of recorded data but the outward appearance
of these direct-to-module cables is dierent, at least at the
ACM connector end. Te supplier(s) of those modules are
those who also supply ACMs to other OEs (for example
Continental and Delphi). Te current direct-to-module
cables, do not appear to be generally interchangeable.
T
he Software
Te underlying software used with the EDR
(whether for the Hyundai or Kia vehicles) is de-
monstrably the same. Te apparent dierence is
what module(s) within that software are enabled as it is
shipped with which tool version. After installation of the
software, two shortcut icons (one for Hyundai and one for
Kia) appear on the end users desktop. In the users manu-
al, where that document discusses default (tool) behavior
and vehicle selection, one can see (in the manuals graphic)
options for both Hyundai Motor Company - US and
Kia Motor Company - US whereas that is not the case in
the end user version.
36 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 www.collisionpublishing.com
Another part of the user manual, for example, has been
clearly simply copied from the users manual for the GIT
diagnostic tool user manual which incorporates the VCI
(module) and could therefore be used for either Hyundai
or Kia vehicles. More telling is, perhaps, where in one
section, it reads ... Te VCI module is designed for seam-
less operation that will not disturb normal vehicle opera-
tion. (It) can put anywhere in the passenger compartment
where will not disturb normal driving. When using the
VCI module while driving, keep the VCI module as far
away from clutch, brake or acceleration pedals as possible.
(sic) Clearly, this part of the tool is not crash data retriev-
al-specic in its underlying design.
In order to open the EDR software, the end-user must
have the VCI powered up and connected to the laptop or
desktop on which the software has been installed. Once
the software starts and the landing screen is loaded, the
only real outward dierence between that seen for a Hyun-
dai and that observed for a Kia is the color of the VCI en-
closure (red or blue) in the on-screen graphic. On a related
positive note, the software function is fairly elementary
and largely icon driven with few choices. Icons for vehicle
search, screen navigation, opening a stored PDF, saving a
test and updating the software are all easy to locate on-
screen and relatively self-explanatory.
Keeping in mind that the tool is specically designed to
enable Hyundai and Kia compliance with the rule, end
users involved in litigation should be forewarned that there
is no requirement for selecting a vehicle by VIN, entering
a VIN as part of a normal data retrieval routine, and that,
in the nal output report, no VIN is found which would
directly associate that data with a specic vehicle. As such,
we believe that the translation process is free of restrictions
which might otherwise be associated with a VIN for a spe-
cic vehicle and, by extension, the calibration of a specic
module. As noted later, this assumption was addressed in
testing.
As we review the rule, we are reminded that there is no
provision found in that text requiring a VIN or that the
data retrieved is associated with a specied vehicle (by VIN
or otherwise). Simply put, given that the vehicles VIN is
not found in the rules required data elements. As such,
Hyundai and Kia do not fall short of any provision of the
rule by omitting a VIN from either the software access
steps or the end report generated by the software from
their EDR (tool).
In litigation; however, especially in light of decisions in-
cluding Oklahoma v. Ingram
2
and LaBorde v. Shelter In-
surance
3
the courts have taken a rather dim view of a print-
out report alone: the only output option possible with the
Hyundai and Kia systems. For example, in LaBorde, the
plaintis expert gave evidence that ... the printout is su-
cient and accurate ... while the defendants expert testied
that ... the printout is not enough ... In that case, and
later on appeal, the court recognized the data from event
data recorders is not new or novel but noted (1) the airbag
control module (in that case) was no longer available (it
had been lost), (2) ... the ocer who removed the event
data recorder from the vehicle had no training on how to
properly remove the recorder... and (3) for a variety of
reasons, the recorder (presumably here, the court meant
the airbag control module) was not treated as evidence and
a proper chain of custody not maintained.
Te LaBorde appellate court held that ... As to the print-
out itself, I nd that it raises questions of reliability. Te
vehicle identication number on the printout was entered
manually by the operator of the software program during
the download process because the recorder itself does not
contain the VIN number of the vehicle into which it is
placed. ... In addition, I nd that the printout cannot be
veried since location of the event data recorder contain-
ing the original data is not known and the computer re-
cords that would show that the data was properly down-
loaded, interpreted and generated are no longer available
... In conclusion, I nd that the acquisition and handling
of the event data recorder evidence in this case necessarily
renders the printout at issue unreliable and inadmissible
at trial.
As it relates now to the Hyundai and Kia tool(s) and the
potential application in litigation, the connection between
the data, airbag control module (event data recorder)
and end report is even less solid than that found in the

... end users involved

in litigation should
be forewarned
that there is no
requirement for
selecting a
vehicle by VIN.
www.collisionpublishing.com Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 37
LaBorde case (as it would be oered up against this de-
cision). In LaBorde, the Bosch CDR Tool report in-
cluded the VIN entered by the operator and the report
was generated as a function of a translation of a secure le
(the .CDRx le). While there are undeniably other func-
tional/factual issues in that case which might have been
more thoroughly (and correctly) addressed by the involved
expert(s), a theme which could not be addressed any dif-
ferently had this been a set of data retrieved from a Kia or
Hyundai vehicle using one of these systems, is that the Kia
or Hyundai end report is demonstrably even less secure
and, in the context of the appellate courts decision here,
arguably less reliable than that found in the LaBorde
case.
Where the GIT system (whether for Kia or Hyundai) ac-
cesses data in an airbag control module, the end-user can
print the output in a report format which essentially fol-
lows the format of Tables I and II as found in the rule.
In the simplest of applications and interpretations then,
the Kia or Hyundai report format is relatively straightfor-
ward as it may display data called out in Tables I and II of
the rule. Detail and clarity such as may be found in the
Data Limitations section of a Bosch CDR Tool gener-
ated report are missing in that found for a Hyundai or
a Kia although there is a section of a Kia or Hyundai re-
port labeled EDR Data Limitations which is obviously
loosely patterned after the basics of that seen in a Bosch
CDR Tool generated report. Going back to case law such
as Ingram, the lack of a secure raw data le (a .CDRx
le) raises issues of subsequent translation (re-translation),
in particular where that may relate to reliability or accuracy
of earlier translations.
Such as the crux of the Ingram case and an area, as it
relates to litigation, not addressed or least not apparently
contemplated as it relates to Kia and Hyundai reports.
Te Kia and Hyundai software generate, after download, a
printed report from a portable document le (PDF). Tat
PDF could be opened again a later time and that same
report could be reprinted. To be clear, that process does
not address (1) later re-translation by subsequent versions
of the software whether Kia or Hyundai or (2) the fact
that the PDF document is not a secure document and can
be edited. Particularly in light of the observation that (1)
no VIN is required to initiate data retrieval (2), no VIN
is required to translate retrieved data, and there is (3) no
VIN stored or at least recovered using the Hyundai are
Kia tool(s) its obvious that a number of legal issues may
be raised (in the context of LaBorde and other similar
cases).
One may suggest that photographing, videotaping, writ-
ing a VIN number on an airbag control module, or even
preserving an airbag control module (assuming it is and
not subsequently lost as in LaBorde) may be sucient
to address these issues (and those other related issues raised
in the LaBorde case); however, one only need think back
across recent history to see how photos, video and even the
presence of the bloody glove itself and live testimony as-
sociated with its retrieval from a crime scene in trial failed
to otherwise impress a jury. In short then, it should be
clear that while the Kia and Hyundai EDR tool, at least
on its face, appears to meet requirements of the rule, its
successful application and use in criminal or civil litigation
remains far from certain.
Where it appears that both the retrieval and translation
process are free of restrictions which might otherwise be
associated with a specic VIN for a specic vehicle and,
by extension, the calibration of a specic module, that also
suggests that the equivalent of VIN spoong is a viable
possibility. While history has demonstrated there are those
who would suggest VIN spoong a reasonable research
tool (suggested by some with a wink and a nod know-
ing the propensity for its application in litigation overtly
or otherwise), the authors have explored this possibility
as a function of several successful data retrieval eorts in-
cluding data from nearly a half-dozen instrumented crash
tests associated with Hyundai and Kia vehicles. As might
be anticipated with the system that does not require a VIN
specic to a vehicle to function properly, retrieval of data
from vehicles other than those specically supported by
this tool (i.e.: those in model year 2013) has been suc-
cessful. Tat success is, at this writing, limited to the
notion that data has been retrieved not that it has been
successfully translated accurately.
While data has been successfully retrieved from 2011 and
2012 Hyundai and Kia vehicles at the time this document
was prepared, for some of those vehicles where the data is a
product of an instrumented crash test, as well as where the
data was retrieved from a vehicle not involved in a crash
test but rather an real world crash, it is clear that at least
some of the crash pulse data, for example, is either (1) be-
ing translated incorrectly or (2) not supported in the for-
mat anticipated by the Hyundai are Kia software for model
year 2013 and, therefore, the output is of questionable ac-
curacy and/or reliability. In that regard, it will be useful
later to identify characteristics of VIN spoong (or its
equivalent as its related to Hyundai and Kia vehicles) as
a function of either testing the reliability of the systems
or in an eort to identify where an individual may have
used spoong to access data not intended for retrieval
of translation by the Hyundai Kia tools. Lacking a clear
38 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 1 www.collisionpublishing.com
VIN-to-module-to-data/report association, this may be
an important attribute or benet of such ongoing research
by the authors not to mention its potential application in
litigation.
D
ata Reliability
Keeping in mind that this narrative is a prelimi-
nary review of the data retrieval process and data
recovered from Hyundai and Kia vehicles and that
a more detailed analysis will be included in a later issue
of Collision magazine and at the CDR Users Summit in
January 2014 after more testing, a rst blush review of
data recovered from Hyundai and Kia vehicles compared
to that obtained in instrumented crash tests suggests that
the crash pulse delta-V and, perhaps, the maximum delta-
V reported by the EDR software may be as much as 20%
higher than that found in control instrumentation used in
the crash tests. Te reader is reminded that in the rule, at
Table III, an accuracy of plus or minus 10% is required
for 563 compliance at 563.8(a) Table III.
Other arguably unsettling (preliminary) observations in
Hyundai and Kia vehicle data sets have been made includ-
ing signicant dierences between the maximum delta-V
as reported by the Hyundai and Kia software versus what
is observed by way of the instrumentation in crash tests
beyond that which would normally be interpreted as the
complete crash pulse and for the period designed to meet,
for example, maximum values found in 563.8(a) Table III.
While the authors would hope that skilled and competent
users of recorded crash data would, by now, display bet-
ter judgment than to use or be proponents of blatantly
spoofed data (particularly in litigation), in these early
stages of independent evaluation of these tool(s), the pro-
pensity to want to rush to publication without a thor-
ough examination of the output side of the system(s) is
historically unwise and exposes a lack of full comprehen-
sion of the eect of that action in favor of trying to be
simply rst on the block with information, no matter
how incomplete or inept. For that reason, this preliminary
review unashamedly omits detail of the analysis of data
which has only been publically accessible for the last few
months but which, as noted, includes at least a preliminary
evaluation of several instrumented crash tests against the
GIT tool retrieved data. As previously indicated, a full
evaluation and detailed analysis will be presented later and
at the CDR Users Summit in January 2014.
Tus far, pre-crash data appears to be reasonably accurate
compared to observations of pre-crash parameters such
as speed, vehicle indicated. Where Table III calls for
accuracy of speed, vehicle indicated to be within 1km/h
out to 200km/h, it would appear that more moderate crash
test speeds, that requirement is being met. However, where
precrash data may have to be compared to delta-V data
in the analysis of a crash, there may be a disconnect given
some of the trends thus far observed as it relates to the level
of (in)accuracy found in the crash pulse data reported by
the Hyundai and Kia software.
C
onclusions
It would be easy to say that the Hyundai and Kia
systems are generally sucient to meet the require-
ments of the rule and that thats good enough.
As noted, the preliminary review of retrieved data versus
control instrumentation from crash tests (particularly as
relates to delta-V) suggests GIT for Hyundai and Kia may
need to take a second, longer look at data translation and/
or the data being recorded or reported as it relates to ac-
curacy. Tis, of course, again raises the issue of the output
reports admissibility where there may later be a revision
of data translation which would require another retrieval
eort with that later software version, among other related
concerns.
Te security and traceability of retrieved data, report/le
security (or lack thereof ) is very likely to be an issue as it
relates to admissibility for the majority of end-users of the
system(s). A lack of the secure le which can be reevaluated
without the need for a subsequent retrieval of data from a
module is likely to become an issue in litigation given rul-
ings in previous cases (i.e.: Ingram and LaBorde).
Is not the authors intention to simply condemn the
Hyundai or Kia tool(s) altogether rather, at this point,
highlight - if only generally - some of the observations
made regarding accuracy and potential issues at trial as
well as some of the relative shortcomings of the GIT tool
compared to the longer standing Bosch CDR Tool in that
regard. In short, reinventing the wheel will clearly not
be without a few bumps in the road, some of which are
already visible.
As previously noted, this is an on-going eort and addi-
tional detailed analysis of retrieved data from Hyundai and
Kia vehicles compared to crash test data will be made at
the CDR Users Summit in January 2014 available after a
more complete analysis.
1
Compiled from a contextual reading of 49CFR563 from,
largely, 563.3, 563.5(b), and 563.12
2
Oklahoma v. Ingram, (2009) Cherokee County District
Court, CF-2006-403
3
LaBorde, et al, v. Shelter Mutual Insurance, et al, (2011)
Tird Circuit Court of Appeal, CW11-00956