FIRST BAST PRESENTATION (FI-21-02): Seating positions of the H-III 5% dummy – Test series with the Reference Vehicle

OICA comments that the wording used in the presentation seems to mean that the airbag is aggressive. Consequently, OICA suggests to update this wording so that a reader does not think that having an airbag is worse.

- Discussion on the goal of regulation:
Pierre Castaing confirms that the goal of type approval and regulation is to address the majority of the accidentology and cover the majority of cases (barrier, dummies, speed). When type approving, the technical service has to choose in the range of cars the worst case for a test.

- Discussion on chest acceleration:
BAST (T.Adolph) suggests to add a chest acceleration criteria in addition to the chest deflection, in order to give an idea about the kinematics of the dummy during crash.
Japan (Tanaka San) adds that chest acceleration is not related to the injuries, but with dummy behavior and it might show side effects.

=>Japan will bring some data for the next IG meeting.

PDB (N.Praxl) explains that chest acceleration is not a good predictor as the serious injuries are coming from deformation and not from acceleration. Chest acceleration is not linked with the injuries (for instance, sports cars may induce very high chest acceleration on the driver without any injury). Need some facts to understand why the presentation concludes that thorax acceleration is an interesting criteria. The fact that the values on chest acceleration are high does not mean that this has an influence.
OICA (BMW, Wolfgang Ogorek Broll) recalls that Canada has removed this criteria completely in the last amendment of CMVSS 208.
Also US NCAP deleted this criteria.

=> OICA will come up with a presentation on this topic for the next IG meeting.

- Discussion seat adjustment:
BAST (T.Adolph) showed results where one test per seating position was performed. The proposal is to install a 5th passenger at 25% forward of the seat adjustment range, as it seems a more realistic and good average between mid position and full frontal.
OICA notices that the seating position does not have a major influence on the results shown. In other regulations, the seat adjustment is according to the manufacturer’s indication. Maybe we should use the same approach. If not, there might be a position where you cannot install a 5th (due to a combination of adjustment in X and height, as well as steering wheel adjustment).
NL (H.Ammerlaan) and Germany (R.Damm) recommend to check more vehicles before making a decision.

=> OICA will come back at the next IG meeting with more details.

SECOND BAST PRESENTATION (FI-21-03): Repeatability of the Deformable Element – Test series with the Reference Vehicle

BAST (T.Adolph) introduces the presentation by stating that the intention is not to promote the deformable barrier in this phase.

Discussion between OICA and BAST on the variability of the PDB barrier, of the cars and the limit of 40ms for examinating maximum forces. Sweden would like to see more industry tests.

THIRD BAST PRESENTATION (FI-21-04): Proposal for Changes to the ECE-R 94 to address acceleration induced injuries – Dummy position – Seat position – Injury risk values

CLEPA (C.Sunnevang, Autoliv) comments that the wording used in the presentation could be clarified: acceleration induced means the pulse (acceleration of the car), and not any acceleration on the dummy.

- Discussion on the dummy age and dummy size:

Pierre Castaing recalls that if only the elderly age for the whole scenario is chosen, then car manufacturers would be pushed towards a softer restraint system. The situation of a 35yo male at higher speed (more energy) should also be taken into account. Regulation 94 aims at covering the whole population. As an example in helmets regulation, the compromise chosen for a low pulse (low acceleration) is not necessarily optimized for a higher acceleration.

Regarding the legs of the 5th dummy, OICA (A.Pott) underlines that there is no calibration procedure because they are not used in the US FMVSS 208. If the proposal is to have a 5th in the intrusion test (ODB), the group has to keep in mind that there might be some question marks with the calibration, and repeatability of this leg.
Furthermore, the dummies placements were deeply discussed one year ago. The group had in mind to cover most of our customers. Therefore it was decided not to change the intrusion test (ODB) and therefore to keep both driver and passenger 50th dummies. OICA strongly proposes again not to change the dummies in the ODB test.
OICA (I.Dausse) adds that any change in the ODB protocol would go against harmonization (China, Brazil…).

Pierre Castaing states that going to an extremely low chest deflection with HIII rodpot would go to the limit of confidence of measurement of the rodpot system, and could lead to less coverage of the real world. He recalls that the group already decided to keep the chest deflection criteria for 5th HIII dummy at 45yo:
chest deflexion: 34mm corresponding to 50% risk, 5th, 65
chest deflexion: 45mm corresponding to 50% risk, 5th, 45
An alternative could be to keep the 45mm for the 5th dummy, and stating that it is for 65yo with higher than 50% risk.