On behalf of OICA members Mr. Kinsky presented the findings of industry (document GTR9-6-20). The presentation showed that the performance of the master legs cannot be generalized as assumed by BASt since another leg with the same build level shows a different performance. Mr. Kinsky concluded that industry proposes to stick to the agreements of the TEG regarding the impactor thresholds. Dr. Ries added that for the time being it seems to be more important to get impactors with a stable performance than re-discussing the thresholds that can be used with these impactors.

Mr. Zander required OICA to provide the certification reports of the legform with the different performance to allow an assessment of these data. Mr. Kinsky promised to double-check this and to come back to this (action item A-6-12).

(Note of the secretary: The requested information was provided after the meeting and has been added to the records of this meeting as document GTR9-6-28. Discussion can take place during the next meeting.)

Regarding the OICA presentation (see document GTR9-6-20), Mr. Zander stated that the presentation would be erroneous due to some wrong statements. He noted that e.g., as described in GTR9-5-20, the vehicle tests were not used for the proposal to modify the impactor thresholds. Furthermore, he stated that if using the TEG agreed methodology for determining the impactor thresholds, as suggested by GTR9-6-20, e.g. the maximum permissible tibia bending moment would be at 321 Nm.