On behalf of manufacturers Mr. Schmitt presented their position (document TF-BTA-5-05). He noted that several concerns exist regarding the approach of TRL, some of these concerns had already been mentioned earlier in the meeting. He concluded that, for the time being, Industry could imagine a solution either defining the bumper corners only in the height of the bumper structure or using the same approach as Euro NCAP (the wider of the two areas created by either the bumper corners or by the bumper structure defines the bumper corners). Mr. Schmitt added that, however, future requirements e.g. for small overlap crash testing should also be considered for a gtr amendment.

Discussion came up on how the small overlap testing could be considered. Mr. Buenger explained that the pedestrian’s injuries usually are caused by the bumper structure and not by the fascia styling and that therefore this is the area to be addressed. Mr. Hardy noted that the structure then needs to be carefully defined to avoid that hard parts are excluded from testing. Discussion then came up on what could be structure. For e.g. headlamps it was noted that they are not considered structural parts according to the opinion of manufacturers but Mr. Broertjes disagreed that they should be excluded from testing, as they may form dangerous structures (in themselves) and should then be tested.

Some intense discussion came up on possible pros and cons of alternative proposals provided by a number of the manufacturers. In particular, the US bumper standard was discussed as a possible option for defining the bumper corners. Finally, Mr. Broertjes concluded that the Commission sees the potential benefits of the proposal having kind of a plank or board with the dimensions of the US impactor moved in an area between which its center varies from about 16 to 20 inches in height. However, he noted also still seeing potential issues especially with the increasing concerns on upcoming requirements on small overlap testing that may lead to changes in vehicle front designs in the near future. This may require structural parts in areas that today are outside of the bumper width. Mr. Broertjes pointed out that he prefers to avoid a situation where the requirements will need to be reviewed and revised again soon and invited manufacturers to report about the effects of the small overlap requirements in the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and possible feasibility issues, if any.