19. Dr. Konosu came back to the presentation given during the last meeting on J-NCAP testing with the FlexPLI outside the bumper test area (document TF-BTA-02-04). He explained that some questions were brought up on this that are now clarified in a revised version TF-BTA-02-04/Rev.1. Specifically, information has been added to explain the asymmetry of the test results at the front end of the car shown and to explain the relationship between the timing of the ligament elongation and the yaw angle. It was noted that the test results show that the yaw angle increases significantly when testing outside the currently agreed bumper corners.

20. Mr Takagi presented document TF-BTA-03-05. He explained that indeed the test results change when the impact angle is changed and NTSEL feels that this needs to be considered. Mr Knotz wondered whether there are vehicle data underlying to this since of course vehicle design measures may have a significant influence. He recommended using standard rigs for the testing that are available. Mr Bilkhu added that also to his experiences at least for the EEVC LFI the stiffness of the structure tested has a significant influence on the reliability of the test results and decreases with increasing stiffness.

21. Mr Roth presented document TF-BTA-03-03 comparing some simulations done with the FlexPLI and the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS). [Note of the secretary: The document shown was supplemented by some videos. Mr Roth kindly provided an extended version of his presentation afterwards for publication on the Task Force’s website that adds some sketches of the respective impactor behaviour. This document is available as TF-BTA-03-03/Rev.1.] He explained that the FlexPLI, compared to the THUMS, well reflects the behaviour in two dimensional testing but that clearly deviates from the THUMS when hitting curved shapes. He concluded that the impactor behaves not biofidelic in those areas.

22. Mr Broertjes thanked Mr Roth for the work. He was wondering whether it would possible to e.g. replace one THUMS leg by the FlexPLI – so to say using the FlexPLI as prosthesis for the THUMS. This may provide more complex information on the biofidelity of the FlexPLI at more outside positions. It was noted that, however, there may be different codings used for the two simulation models that could prevent this to be done. Also, it is most likely a huge amount of work since the proper functioning of this new model would need to be validated. Mr Knotz confirmed this assessment from his experiences with the simulation models.

23. Mr Stammen asked what the behavior is at the vehicle centreline and it was confirmed that the 2D testing does not seem to be an issue. Mr Hardy wondered whether the effects would be the same at the other car side: the standing position of the leg of the THUMS may influence the test result. Mr Roth answered that this was not considered in this part of their company internal study but that the differences between FlexPLI and THUMS will remain. Mr Gehring added that the behavior may vary at different positions and that according to his opinion clearly the mass of the upper body is missing which may change things.

24. Mr Schmitt pointed out that his company had the same experiences (see document TF-BTA-03-07). [Note of the secretary: The document shown included videos but a version was kindly provided by Mr Schmitt for publication on the Task Force’s website that only includes sketches of the respective impactor behaviour.] He explained that the non-biofidelic behavior is similar for the FlexPLI as well as for the EEVC LFI – bith impactor clearly rotate and slide along the bumper surface. Mr Schmitt wondered how this could be considered in the test procedure. Mr Edwards suggested testing in a normal angle to the bumper but Mr Gehring explained that, from a test labs point of view, it is difficult to define the normal angle since different surfaces at the bumper fascia have different normal angles at the same y-position of a vehicle.

25. Finally, Ms Dausse confirmed that her company came to identical conclusions: Her presentation (document TF-BTA-03-08) with superimposed impactors (FlexPLI and EEVC LFI) shows that the impactors behave identical. [Note of the secretary: The document shown included videos but a version was kindly provided by Ms Dausse for publication on the Task Force’s website that only includes sketches of the respective impactor behaviour.] Rotation clearly is an issue at outside positions but she had not yet discovered at which angle it becomes a serious issue.

26. Finally, Mr Roth presented vehicle data (see document TF-BTA-03-10) in addition to the one example he had shown during the last meeting (document TF-BTA-02-05). He explained that also at these vehicles the area that provides protection to the lower leg is much larger than the area that is tested for legislation. Mr Gehring wondered what the basis for the protection zone is and Mr. Roth confirmed that this is the test area of Euro NCAP.