FWRB:
driver 50th 42mm => agreed (no opposition in the group). Mid position as indicated by the manufacturer.
No chest acceleration => agreed in the group

Neck tension, neck shear, FCC, time dependancy: no need for it (based on only one cadaver test + not used in the US). Has to be kept in the ODB because of harmonization (no harmonization issue for the FWRB).

FWRB, fuel leakage:
The worst case regarding occupant protection and the worst case regarding fuel leakage might be different. The purpose of the FWRB test is to assess the restraint system, whereas the ODB test is better for structure assessment, and hence for fuel leakage. In order to avoid multiplying tests for other reasons than the restraint system in FWRB test, fuel leakage will be checked on the vehicle tested, but the purpose clearly stated that the worst case vehicle is to be chosen for restraint system, and that no additional FWRB tests have to be done for fuel leakage variants.
The same statement is made for door locking check and electrical vehicles check.

FWRB, chest deflection for the 5th passenger:
Can we accept a compromise at 42mm?
H.Ammerlaan informs that Euro NCAP will go for values between 18 and 41mm.
France can accept 42mm as a reasonable limit.
NL does not have a clear view so far.
P.Castaing: we have not enough data so far. Different vehicles should be tested, in R&R as well.
Seat adjustment: forward middle (according to current definition of 1.4.3.11.1. in Annex 3). “as decided by the manufacturer” is not enough according to P. Castaing.
Ansgar: we have it for REG21, see Annex 8 §1.2.1.
M.Delin: reminds that it was shown some meetings ago that the adjustment forward or not did not have so much influence.
=> as declared by the car manufacturer provided that it is in the most forward third of the full range?
=> OICA to write a proposal

Compatibility issue:

• today, we have no document on this geometric assessment. No agreement on how to deal with that. PC cannot wait to send a document to GRSP. What are the views?
• OICA proposal: would not be based on R42 but on the US commitment. After the discussions with Germany planned for next week, if needed, OICA can work out a proposal for this geometric assessment.
• PC: the main draft R94 amendment document for GRSP will be without geometric alignment. If there is a proposal of geometric compatibility, it will be another informal document prepared by OICA and Germany. That will lead to 2 independent decisions in GRSP.