Mr. Schmitt then presented document TF-BTA-7-12. He explained that industry was requested to provide their opinion on several open issues. For the determination of the lower and upper bumper reference lines, serving as the height limits for the bumper corner determination, it was noted that those can be determined physically or using math data. On request of Mr. Broertjes as well as of Mr. Gehring he explained this in more detail. Mr. Zander was concerned that the old bumper corners may still be needed for the new procedure but Mr. Broertjes explained that clearly the old bumper corner definition will be deleted. However, he finally noted that some re-refinement of the wording may be needed to clarify the subject.

Mr. Schmitt also explained industry’s position on the decrease of the dimensions of the corner gauge. He noted that numerous examples exist where a small corner gauge leads to an over-assessing of single styling elements, such as e.g. air intakes or fog lamps, which do not necessarily influence pedestrian safety. However, Mr. Zander noted that e.g. fog lamps may create injury risks for pedestrians.

Finally, Mr. Schmitt provided some arguments against an extension of the test area to the full width of the vehicle as originally suggested by BASt. He explained that, besides the shortcomings of the impactor when testing outside the 60° bumper corners, the test area may often be at the mirrors or the tires. Mr. Zander replied that BASt had always proposed to exclude the mirrors.

Mr. Roth added that also the lower bumper reference line may not be the perfect solution: It was noted that for some vehicles some inlets and feature lines could inappropriately influence the lower bumper reference line determination. Mr. Insel added that it is important to cover the main issues by the test procedure but that it may not be possible to address each single styling feature. He therefore suggested going back to the original industry proposal using the corner gauge only in the area where a structural interaction is required in US legislation. Mr. Broertjes explained that the clear intention is to cover the whole vehicle front and that the height and width of the corner gauge may vary but in general he sees agreement in the group to use such a corner gauge over the whole vehicle front.

Mr. Gehring concluded that obviously a number of issues exist with determining the bumper test area when considering all styling elements. He therefore suggested to only consider the BASt proposal and define the bumper test area using the bumper beam width. Mr. Broertjes again pointed out that the BASt proposal of course will be considered but that the majority of the group seems to be prepared using the corner gauge. He also noted that width and height of the tool could be modified: The width of the knee of the FlexPLI is 118 mm, doubling this to also consider the testing constraints would result in a corner gauge width of 236 mm. It may not be possible then to consider the whole legform height, as suggested in between by Mr. Insel, but the surface of the corner gauge could e.g. be squared. This would result in a corner gauge tool of 236 x 236 mm. After some further discussion of this latest proposal, Mr. Kinsky pointed out that of course industry would need some time to double check the possible effects but initially this new proposal may be a good suggestion.