Mr Carroll presented the proposed EC study: The objective is to investigate whether the definition of the bumper corners, currently using 60° planes, can be redefined to put the corners closer to the side of the vehicle. He pointed out that the item had already been discussed in the past and that Euro NCAP has already found a new solution for this, using the underlying structure as additional criterion.

Mr Carroll requested all attendees to provide information that could be helpful:

• - From earlier discussion, especially the rational of using the 60° planes;
• - From vehicle geometries, assessing where the bumper corners of the vehicles are.

The project foresees to also test vehicles preferably with both, the EEVC LFI and the FlexPLI. The test results will allow an evaluation of existing vehicles and an assessment of a future change to the procedure. Finally, TRL proposes to assess the benefit of the changes with respect to accident data.

Mr Zander commented that the presentation is focused on the re-definition of the bumper corners but that it may be possible to use a different approach. Mr Broertjes replied that the procedure used in Euro NCAP seems to be a bit subjective and that this therefore might not work in the type-approval process since it may allow interpretations. The Commission is in favour of a clearer procedure that the bumper corner may provide best but of course other suggestions are welcome and will be assessed carefully.

Mr Kinsky commented that both impactors have limited abilities regarding the possible bending since they are more two-dimensionally designed. So, it needs to be assessed whether a modified bumper corner can be assessed with the impactor. However, it may also be an opportunity to modify the test procedure at all. Mr Carroll commented that this is a valuable comment and that TRL will consider this in their work. Dr. Ries added that especially for an oblique impact this needs to be considered. Are test results in such cases indeed assessing pedestrian friendliness?

Mr Broertjes wondered how Euro NCAP did solve this issue. Mr Elway explained that Euro NCAP was concerned with vehicles using design elements to limit the test area. He showed some examples underlining this. For some vehicles even compliance with legislation may be questionable. Mr Roth added here that not all vehicles tested at Euro NCAP may need to already comply with EU legislation on pedestrian protection due to the definition of the scope and the resulting transitional provisions and introduction dates. Mr Elway went on explaining that the Euro NCAP pedestrian working group finally concluded with the approach to also assess the underlying structure: Finally, whatever represents the wider area, the bumper corners defined via the 60° planes or the underlying structure, usually covered by the bumper fascia, is used for testing.

On request Mr Elway confirmed that he can provide the information discussed in the Euro NCAP pedestrian working group as well as test results that may be helpful for the study of TRL. Attendees who wish to get further data may feel free to contact Mr Elway directly.

Mr Broertjes explained that also the European Commission is concerned with the decrease of bumper test areas.

Dr. Konosu wondered whether the changes discussed here are for the phase 2 of gtr No 9 or whether it may also affect phase 1. Mr Broertjes replied that it is his understanding that changes may also affect vehicles designed to comply with phase 1 (and therefore tested with the EEVC LFI), as this was agreed by the informal working group on phase 2 (FlexPLI) of pedestrian safety, notably by OICA as confirmed by the chairman of the informal group. However, manufacturers simply using the current legal provisions in order to comply with the legislation should not be blamed or penalized and this will be considered in the discussion.