The chair invited the audience to discuss the issue. Discussion came up on when the rebound phase starts. Mr. Zander confirmed on request of Mr. Roth that the interval should be considered in which the FlexPLI behaves like the human or the human model respectively. Dr. Ries pointed out that then the interval proposed seems much too long since the legform is only for the first contact confirmed to be biofidelic. Also, this period may be different for tibia and knee. He and Mr. Roth wondered how BASt specified the length of their Biofidelic Assessment Interval and Mr. Zander responded that an objective method and automatic evaluation method was requested. There is no clue that the impactor biofidelity is limited to the pure contact phase with the vehicle only. The BAI can solve this issue. In addition, it covers all potential critical loadings during the test. Partly, the BAI interval is even shorter than the interval proposed by industry in document GTR9-5-30. This was demonstrated in document GTR9-6-07. The secretary reminded the attendees that some information on this had also been shown in the TF-BTA meeting held on 18 March 2013 and that the information is already available on the website. (Note of the secretary: The documents referred to were presented in the 3rd meeting of the Task Force Bumper Test Area as documents TF-BTA-3-03, TF-BTA-3-07 and TF-BTA-3-08 and are available on the respective UNECE website.)

24. Mr Schmitt pointed out that his company had the same experiences (see document TF-BTA-03-07). [Note of the secretary: The document shown included videos but a version was kindly provided by Mr Schmitt for publication on the Task Force’s website that only includes sketches of the respective impactor behaviour.] He explained that the non-biofidelic behavior is similar for the FlexPLI as well as for the EEVC LFI – bith impactor clearly rotate and slide along the bumper surface. Mr Schmitt wondered how this could be considered in the test procedure. Mr Edwards suggested testing in a normal angle to the bumper but Mr Gehring explained that, from a test labs point of view, it is difficult to define the normal angle since different surfaces at the bumper fascia have different normal angles at the same y-position of a vehicle.