Presentation by Tanaka-san (FI-21-05).

NL (Hans Ammerlaan) notices that the Japanese proposal is focusing on secondary structure, on a certain force and on a certain height, using absolute values, whereas the German proposal considers the whole vehicle.

Pierre Castaing comments that the German proposal does not test SEAS (too far away: due to its shape, the pendulum would hit the crossbeam before the SEAS). It does not give criteria for secondary systems, also able to provide a good interaction in compatibility cases.

Pierre Castaing also wonders whether the use of a “pendulum for SEAS” with a different shape in the German proposal could be added.

One possibility of combining the two tests could be:
German proposal. If you pass, ok (PEAS in right area, with good energy absorption).
If you fail: Japanese proposal. If you pass, ok. (SEAS interacts in the right area and absorbs part of the energy).

The German proposal could exclude multi load path solutions. Germany (R.Damm) explains that the goal is not to promote one load path when proposing to have the protecting zone in one area. The German proposal is not prohibiting a second load path. Every car would have to fulfil the common interaction zone in the German proposal, while the Japanese proposal would only check the lower structure of the SEAS: only a minority of cars would be tested.

=> OICA is asked by the Chairman to bring data for the next meeting: given a level of energy to be absorbed (German proposal), what would be the effects on vehicles?