Presentation on Euro NCAP crash testing of very light passenger cars ( ≤ 350 kg or ≤ 550 kg).

86. The representative of Euro NCAP presented the development and outcome of their crash tests campaign with L7 category vehicles. He stated that four vehicles had been displayed on the grounds of the Palais de Nations in an exposition organized with the support of the secretariat. He presented (WP.29-170-38) the results of crash tests on eight different models of L7 category vehicles and highlighted the reasons why these vehicles received low ratings (between zero and two stars on the five-star scale). He stressed that the crash-worthiness of L7 vehicles was substandard and that more stringent regulations on the safety and the construction of these types of vehicles would be justified.

Presentation on occupant protection tests of selected L7 category vehicles (e.g., very light, limited maximum speed road vehicles that do not require a driver’s license to operate).

41. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2015 session, due the lack of time and to keep GRSP-56-22, GRSP-56-29 and GRSP-56-34 as a reference in the agenda of the next session.

35. GRSP resumed discussion on GRSP-56-22, GRSP-56-29 and GRSP-56-34. The expert from Japan informed GRSP on the legislation plan in his country allowing the introduction of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Motorcycles (GRSP-56-22). The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that her government was still developing an NPRM on Phase 1 of UN GTR No. 13 (Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles). She agreed with the expert from EC to plan future activities on Phase 2 of the UN GTR at the December 2015 session of GRSP. The expert from CI introduced the outcome of rating tests (GRSP-56-29) conducted by Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) on heavy quadri-cycles. He added that their low quality of safety performance, compared to conventional passenger cars (M1 vehicles) and their growing popularity indicated a road safety issue. However, the expert from France stated that these kind of vehicles needed driver license in his country and that their presence in the European market was still low; moreover, new requirements for such vehicles were recently adopted in the European Union. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that in her country such vehicles had also a growing popularity and tests rating were in progress. She announced sharing data at the December 2015 session of GRSP. Finally, the expert from Korea introduced the result of KoreaNCAP (GRSP-56-34) conducted in 2014.

Mr Broertjes noted that some discussion had already been covered under the previous agenda item. Regarding the vehicles geometries, he requested industry to provide some data on this. Mr Kinsky promised to bring this up with European manufacturers but he also pointed out that the design elements that are in question here are often just design elements without any influence. However, Mr Kinsky also suggested contacting the OICA secretariat to get the information above also from other regions.

Dr. Konosu pointed that he has concerns with high loads into the impactor outside the bumper corners and also with the injury levels outside today’s test zones. Do they indeed provide for the need to increase the test zones? Mr Broertjes replied that this is a valuable question and that the result of the study may also be that no changes to the test areas are needed. However, for the time being TRL will consider these questions during their work.

Mr Kinsky added again that the physical abilities of the impactors are limited. Those limitations need to be considered for the test procedure since they may limit manufacturers’ abilities to reliably design their vehicles towards changed/new requirements. This was also a reason why, in the IG GTR9-PH2 discussion, the proposal of BASt to test the whole vehicle width (just excluding the mirrors) was rejected by industry. Mr Zander replied that their proposal was just to assess the whole width but not necessarily to test the whole width.

Mr Thedinga wondered whether J-NCAP could also provide data from their testing with the FlexPLI since the J-NCAP test procedure also foresees testing outside the bumper corners.

Dr. Konosu confirmed this testing outside the bumper corners and offered on request to contact NASVAC, the organisation conducting the J-NCAP testing, whether they can provide respective data.

Mr Broertjes also wondered whether US government and manufacturers could also contribute to the discussion. Ms Versailles confirmed that NHTSA is currently conducting legform testing and promised to double-check, also with the Alliance, which contribution may be possible.

Mr Broertjes finally promised that the discussion above will be considered in the EC study.

Presentation from Mr Ellway, Euro NCAP (GTR7-06-08):

Mr Ellway presented the Euro NCAP medium-severity whiplash pulse definition, including a detailed review of the development of the current, narrow corridors. The medium-severity pulse definition started with the IIWPG definition, which had three ‘gates’ at the start, peak and end of the pulse. Euro NCAP defined a pulse to fit these requirements in terms of a mathematical expression for the rising and falling acceleration, plus a delta-v requirement. No corridor is set on the down-slope, because it was not thought necessary if the pulse meets the rise-slope and delta-v. It was noted that it took some time for all of the labs to understand how to meet the pulse specification, e.g. using a dummy on the sled for pulse tests to account for the partially coupled mass. Once each lab has adjusted the sled and can get the pulse, they do so quite consistently. It was noted that the labs found that the best way to minimise the effect of the partially coupled dummy mass was to increase sled mass to 2000 kg (from a typical mass of 1000 kg). It was also noted that all but one of the Euro NCAP labs have been able to meet the pulse specification for some time, although it is known that some OEMs have found that they cannot modify their sleds to be able to meet the pulse

Mr Frost asked what evaluation was made regarding how the tightening of the corridor affected the assessment, or whether it was simply trying to get a good compromise between tight corridor and achievability. Mr Ellway replied that it was the latter.