Mr. Takagi then presented the position of Japan (see document TF-BTA-7-05). He noted that in principle both procedures for the determination of the bumper test area seem acceptable. However, when using the bumper beam it cannot be guaranteed reasonably that the impactor is not used outside its biomechanical limits as discussed in the work of this Task Force. Japan therefore supports the use of the procedure with the corner gauge.

Mr. Takahashi explained in addition that in such a case – using the impactor outside its biomechanical limits – technical measures would be needed to prevent the impactor from rotating (see document TF-BTA-7-06). This may facilitate the use of measures that could be injurious to the human body. However, the details as well as the effects would need further investigation that will take much more time than currently available for the work of this group.

The chair welcomed the clear statements of Japanese TF-BTA members. He wondered whether the group then could already agree to only use the corner gauge as the proposal of TF-BTA to GRSP. However, Mr. Zander stated that Germany will maintain their position to use the bumper beam width as an additional criterion. Mr. Gehring clarified that exactly the issue described in document TF-BTA-7-06 could happen within a bumper test area defined by bumper corners only because it is not the bumper cover but the stiff structure underneath mainly influencing a possible rotation of the impactor. Mr. Schmitt noted that this approach is not reasonable as it implies that that the outer surface is considered to be completely soft.

The chair then wondered whether the size of the corner gauges could be decreased: The European Commission wished to exclude possibilities to limit the bumper test area as shown at an SUV imported to Europe. The size of 610 x 114 mm still seems to allow certain styling elements to limit the bumper test area. Mr. Broertjes wondered whether a squared size of 114 x 114 mm would also serve for the determination of the bumper corners.