Mr. Schmitt presented document TF-BTA-7-03 on behalf of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association ACEA. He admitted that a decrease of the bumper test area can be seen in average but noted that this does not necessarily mean also a decrease in the protection level. Also, decreases may be caused by other influences. Finally, Mr. Schmitt summarized some arguments shared in the TF-BTA discussion and suggested to start with the wording as presented in document TF-BTA-7-04 as basis for the future amendments to legislation. This proposal uses the corner gauge for the determination of the bumper corners as discussed during the last meeting.

Mr. Gehring noted that the TRL report already mentions that design changes might be expected in a way that a similar discussion could come up again in some years. Mr. Schmitt responded that, from a manufacturer’s view, the proposed wording addresses the main topics as discussed in this Task Force and that the proposal provides OEM’s as well as Type-Approval authorities worldwide with the possibility to fulfil a clear legislative language without causing functional issues.

Mr. Gehring was nevertheless again worrying about effects on vehicle design. Mr. Roth pointed out that for compliance with different bumper standards interaction with structural parts is needed. Therefore, the bumper corners always must be in front of the longitudinal beam for functional reasons. Mr. Schmitt added that he would expect consumer organization like Euro NCAP to prevent industry from doing “fancy things”. Mr. Zander wondered why, in this case, the bumper area could not be just defined up to the ends of the longitudinal beams as bumper test area.

Mr. Roth wondered whether BASt and BGS Böhme & Gehring were having a view focused too much on the situation in Europe. He explained that clear legislative language is necessary especially for countries with self certification. A test procedure that allows checking the outer contour of a vehicle provides for such certification environments. However, after some further discussion Mr. Zander disagreed that the corner gauge provides a practical solution because it does not address the issue and pointed out that BASt therefore insists on the consideration of the bumper beam for the determination of the test area.

Mr. Broertjes outlined that two options exist: Prepare one document that contains the corner gauge proposal and, within square brackets, also the proposal to consider the bumper beam. Alternatively, two different documents could be prepared with the same content as mentioned above, which may make it easier for GRSP to come to a conclusion.

It was finally agreed that different documents should be prepared, one for the corner gauge only and a second one for the corner gauge PLUS the bumper beam.