| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Task Force-Bumper Test Area: EC Study Update | ||||||||
| Reference Number | TF-BTA-02-03 | ||||||||
| Date |
6 Feb 2013
|
||||||||
| Source(s) | TRL | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 9 Pedestrian Safety (GTR) | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| TF-BTA | Session 2 | 5 Dec 2012 |
Mr Carroll presented the work done by TRL so far (see document TF-BTA-2-03): The subject of the study on behalf of the European Commission will be to investigate whether the 60 degree plane definition could be adjusted in a sensible and cost-effective way to define the corners of the bumper as being close to the side of the vehicle. Mr Carroll pointed out that this is not the first time the 60° bumper corner definition is discussed. The definition is used in recent legislation, EEVC agreed this item a long time ago after discussing it, UNECE R42 as well as FMVSS/CMVSS 581 are using it, Euro NCAP was (and still is) using it, other legislation may also have it. However, TRL was not able to discover the original source of the 60°. Mr Carroll mentioned that it therefore may have wider implications if the definition is to be changed. Mr Carroll mentioned that TRL first would like to compare some vehicle geometries and then intends to conduct some tests on typical car front ends to compare what is typical for the existing fleet. For this, he requested all attendees to possibly offer cars that could be tested. Mr Carroll pointed out that with the data above accident statistics could be reviewed on what the benefit will be for real life. He finalized his presentation welcoming all attendees to provide further data that support the activities. The chair thanked Mr Carroll and kindly invited all attendees again to support TRL’s activities with providing data and further information. |
||||||||