5.b. Proposal from Japan
Dr. Koshiro Ono gave two presentations (WCWID-2-02, WCWID-2-03) explaining the background research and the justification for the limits proposed by Japan.

Injury Criteria		WAD2+
		82.9% value
		(IV-NIC=1.1)
NIC Max		23
Upper Neck	FX (backward)	640
	MY (Flx/Ext)	34
Lower Neck	FX (backward)	640
	MY (Flx/Ext)	34
Units: Force (N); Moment (Nm).

IV-NIC=1.1 is correlated with AIS1+=50% and WAD2+=82.9%. This is how the proposed limits for NIC, upper and lower neck forces and moments were derived.

BL raised a concern with regard to the 82.9% risk of WAD2+ neck injuries. If the group shall bring the proposal to GRSP, one of the contracting parties may ask why we accept a risk of approx 83% for an injury. For someone who is not familiar with the group’s discussion this risk might sound very high. This could lead to the question how the proposed criteria would correlate with a 50% WAD2+ risk or even lower. He said that the group needs to be prepared for such type of discussion within GRSP or even WP.29.

It might be better to relate the proposed limits for the criteria to something where the risk “sounds” lower (e.g. PMI or something else). This could avoid discussion.

However, Japan showed data (from Anders Kulgren) which showed that there is a reduction of claims about 63% for “Whiplash Seats” (mainly Volvo WHIPS). He also showed that from JNCAP data that there is no good correlation between backset and score (rating). This is not surprising as this is highly depending on seat design. However, it might be of importance for discussions about having a dynamic test as an option if the geometric requirements are passed (as it is in the current GTR).

It was also shown that HIII is not an acceptable tool for whiplash testing (e.g. inverse flexion).

KO was also presenting JNCAP data from the 17.6 kph and 20 kph pulse. The results have improved over time even when the seats are exposed to higher energy. This is also an experience from Euro NCAP.