Proposal to improve the reproducibility of the luggage impact test described in annex 9 of UN Regulation No. 17.

Proposal to define the moment of intertia in the luggage-impact test as “0.3 ± 0.05 kgm² (around all 3 principal axis of inertia of the luggage blocks)”. UN R17 presently lacks such a definition, resulting in variations in trajectory and behavior of the luggage cubes before and after impact.

Proposal to define the moment of intertia in the luggage-impact test as “0.3 ± 0.05 kgm2 (around all 3 principal axis of inertia of the luggage blocks)”. UN R17 presently lacks such a definition, resulting in variations in trajectory and behavior of the luggage cubes before and after impact.

Request for clarification concerning head restraint testing configurations.

Proposal to clarify the testing of seats with and without head restraints. This proposal would allow alternatives at the request of the manufacturer by clarifying that under testing of a bench seat with three seating positions and two head restraints, a moment of 3 × 373Nm shall be applied to the back of seats and of 2 × 373Nm to the head restraints:
(a) If the manufacturer wants to comply with the test requirements of paragraph 6.2. (strength of the seat-back), by the test of head restraint performance of paragraph 6.4., they choose to apply 53 daNm to each seat back without head restraint and 89 daN to each head restraint. In this case only one test shall be performed.
(b) If the manufacturer chooses not to apply 53 daNm, during the test of paragraph 6.4., the seat back strength test of paragraph 6.2. has to be performed in addition to the test of paragraph 6.4.

Proposal to eliminate divergent interpretations of paragraph 6.4. with regard to the testing for head restraint performance of a bench seat with three seating positions and two head restraints. Under this condition, the proposal would require application of a moment of 3 × 373 Nm to the back of the seats and of 2 × 373 Nm to the head restraints. The manufacturer may request to apply 53 daNm to each seat back without head restraint and 89 daNm to each head restraint in order to comply with the requirements of paragraph 6.2. on the strength of the seat back during this test. If the manufacturer does not opt to apply these forces, then the test procedure specified in paragraph 6.2. must be carried out in addition to the head restraint testing under paragraph 6.4.

Proposal to clarify the application of GTR 7 Phase 2 static alternative provisions and to modify the allowed range of tolerances under the backset retention and energy dissipations test.

Proposal to amend the dynamic option of the draft 10 series of amendments (document GRSP/2018/34). CLEPA proposes that injury risk limits should be based not only on the injury risk curves, but also on technical feasibility given the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the BioRID II test tool. This proposal also corrects the definition of T(end) which is different from T-HRC.

Proposal to clarify the application of GTR 7 Phase 2 static alternative provisions and to modify the allowed range of tolerances under the backset retention and energy dissipations test. The proposal would re-introduce certain paragraphs in the 09 series of amendments removed by the draft 10 series (GRSP/2018/34). In addition, the proposals adds the area where the gap measurement procedure by the sphere is appropriate per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 202a (i.e. only gaps in the area over 540 mm).

The proposal is to amend the ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/27 and updates ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/9.

Proposal to improve the whiplash behaviour of occupants of smaller stature and in particular of female drivers.

Proposal to improve whiplash protection for occupants of smaller stature and, in particular, for female drivers.

Proposal to improve the whiplash protection of occupants of smaller stature and, in particular, of female drivers.

Proposal to clarify the text for consistency, including replacement of the wording “torso line” by “median longitudinal plane of the seat” and to align the text with GTR 7 concerning the determination of whether a seat includes a head restraint that must comply with the requirements of this regulation.

Proposal aims to correct and clarify the text of the regulation, and to modify the current wording which creates misunderstandings and a non-harmonized application of the regulation by technical services. proposal for supplement 1 to the 10 series of amendments, supplement 2 to the 11 series of amendments and supplement 1 to the 12 series of amendments