NHTSA had conducted tests with two of the master legforms and the legform purchased by the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) against three vehicles. The results were presented by Mr. Suntay (document GTR9-6-14). Mr. Suntay explained that the test results indicate good repeatability and good reproducibility. However, some other issues were noted such as the problem to meet the certification corridor for one channel with one of the legs, slight mass differences which were in the tolerances but that required adaptations of the firing conditions etc.

On request of Mr. Zander Mr. Suntay explained that tests on the vehicles were conducted at centerline. Mr. Knotz inquired what the build level of the VRTC legform was. Mr. Burleigh promised to double-check this and to report at the next meeting. Mr. Stammen added that VRTC plans to conduct inverse certification tests later this year in their lab which will allow the assessment of whether VRTC leg meets the new corridors of the inverse certification tests.

Ms. Chaka presented the test results of the Ford lab with the same two master legforms (document GTR9-6-18). She also reported that issues were seen similar to those at VRTC. Also, Ms. Chaka noted that specifically large SUV’s and pick-up trucks will have difficulties from an engineering standpoint to be designed according to the FlexPLI requirements.

Mr. Corwin presented the test results achieved by Shape (document GTR9-6-19). He noted that the assessment of test results at Shape has not yet been finalized but that the final results will be shared in the 7th meeting. Also, he mentioned that, following the discussion above and the unclear build level of the VRTC leg, his presentation will need to be updated. (Note of the secretary: A modified version was later provided during the meeting as document GTR9-6-19r1). However, Mr. Corwin explained that the main idea was to compare two different bumper systems at two cars which each are offered in North America and Europe and comply with the regulations in those countries/reigions. Messrs. Schmitt, Bilkhu, Zander and Suntay provided some comments on additional information that could be (or should be respectively) added such as comparisons of time histories, velocity data, more information on the differences of the bumper systems etc. Mr. Corwin promised to consider this in the revised version.

On behalf of Mr. Kolb (Bertrandt), who unfortunately could not be present, Mr. Roth presented document GTR9-6-24. He concluded that the test results lead to some question marks since the behavior of the legform especially in the inverse tests shows some clear trends to get worse. However, Bertrandt did not have a chance to double-check what the root cause for the steadily decreasing test results in the inverse tests was. Mr. Zander wondered whether the time history curves could be provided that may allow better assessment. Mr. Roth will bring this back to Mr. Kolb. Mr. Knotz asked to also add more information about other conditions such as velocities etc. Mr. Stammen and Mr. Zander added that it would also be useful to know more about the tests that had been conducted in between. Mr. Martin wondered whether information is available on the time periods – were tests conducted with longer time gaps in between or just at some consecutive days. Also, he wondered how long it takes to conduct two consecutive tests. Mr. Knotz and Dr. Konosu explained how labs usually conduct the tests. Finally it was concluded that Mr. Roth will try to clarify all these details with Mr. Kolb and come back to this.

Also, some discussion came up on the certification tests. Mr. Zander pointed out that this again proves that the inverse tests better detects issues with the legform. Dr. Konosu replied that, however, the test can also not deliver more detailed information on the reasons. After some further discussion Mr. Zander agreed to check whether any subsequent inverse certification test was performed afterwards at BASt. Also, the logbook information will be made available to complete the picture on this.

Mr. Martin asked whether the detailed data for the tests (the ones discussed last but also for all other tests with the master legs) could be made available. This was confirmed by all involved parties. BASt volunteered to collect these data. It was agreed that the following information should be shared:

- legform serial number;
- production date (if not available: delivery date to costumer – before or after design freeze in late March/early April 2012?); (Note of the chair/secretary: Mr. Burleigh kindly confirmed the correct date after the meeting: All legforms supplied after 12 June 2012 meet the master leg specifications.)
- peak values of certification tests (inverse as well as pendulum) and time history curves, if possible;
- date (and, if possible, also the time of the day) of certification tests and the lab that conducted the certification;
- any special observations that may have been made;
- amount and type of tests conducted in between.

It was agreed that all labs involved in the master leg testing will deliver this information to BASt.

Preferably, other labs should also provide this information of their legforms. The information should be provided during the first week of April 2013 the latest (action item A-6-06). BASt will analyze the information and prepare a summary document on this by the first week of June 2013 the latest (action item A-6-07). Finally, BASt will also check the information provided with the logbooks and provide combined information on this by the first week of May 2013 (action item A-6-08). These action items replace action item A-5-03.