France recalled that some experts agreed to correct some ambiguities in Annex 21.

Annex 14: Dr Dümmler challenged the size of 150 mm as limit for a small pane not to be tested with the headform because it is impossible to hit such a small piece from 3 m, the test cannot be carried out. In Annex 18 the informal group decided to change the small pane definition to 500 mm. It was proposed to keep the 150 mm definition of the small windows, but to carry out the test on samples bigger than the window. There is a difference between extruded vs. injection moulded parts because flat standard test pieces of 1170 mm x 570 mm can easily be cut from extruded plates while in case on injection moulding such a large and expensive tool is usually not available. Therefore, up to now alternatively original injection moulded parts are tested instead of those standard test pieces, but this is not practicable in case of smaller parts which are larger than the 150 mm limit. The injection parts should be at a certain minimum size in order to make the headform test feasible.

Annex 21: paragraph 3.3.: the concern of motor homes was raised. The experts convened on the need to find a proper wording.

Paragraph 4.2.2.2.: a class M should only be possible if there is no need to look through the window.

Paragraph 4.3.1.: the delegate from France pointed out that in buses in France there is almost no interior partition glass that are not of toughened glass, because of costs and weakness of laminated glass. There is a problem for making the provision respected, or to change it to make it fit to the reality. This applies also to the front windows of caravans.

France presented the work produced in the margins of the meeting. There was a debate about the necessity to take into account the places where occupants could be seated, and partitions having declared seats behind them. There was another debate about the glazing and windows necessary for driving and manoeuvring the vehicle, for the exemptions from the abrasion provisions. A further concern was raised about the interpretation of “forward facing”, as it can be understood as partitioning for plastic glazing and not for toughened glass. It was proposed to have this debate at GRSG level. In GTR6 a definition of “forward facing” does exist, but is missing from R43. It was suggested to add a new paragraph 2.14. “forward facing glazing other than windscreen”. The experts were urged to provide Mr. Pichon with proposals for definitions. Some discussions took place about the definition of the A-pillar. However the group agreed that the current definitions are sufficient (UN R125 – direct field of vision and UN R127 – Pedestrian Protection).

Concerning the size of the headform for the exemption in annex 14, the concern was about the way to test real parts between 150 mm and about 400 mm. Some special requirements should be added for these injection moulded parts, as flat standard test pieces of 1170 mm x 570 mm cannot be economically produced by injection moulding while the headform test is not feasible with real parts smaller than 400 mm. The table below was an attempt to clarify the problem and its possible solutions.

The part manufacturers pointed out that the shapes of the pieces become increasingly complex, e.g. integration of lighting devices or aerodynamic appendices. It was suggested to take the “transparent” portion of the piece as key parameter.

There was a debate as to whether the material or the part is tested. Correct wording would have to be put into paragraph 4.2. of Annex 18, and also of Annexes 14 and 16. The Chair volunteered to introduce the wording into the draft proposal for amendments to UN R43.

France raised the question of a new Annex, for laminated plastic windscreens, as this possibility is currently not foreseen in the regulation. The Chair recalled that the first priority of the informal group is the introduction of monolithic windscreens. The group agreed to consider the proposal and to request GRSG guidance about it.