Check of the distribution of head impacts on vehicle.

Annex 4 task force proposals.

Discussion of the two possible interpretations of the phrase “CO2 emission of vehicle H”:

Presentation on vehicle loading and inclination and impact on headlamp leveling and glare.

25. The expert from OICA presented the outcome of their survey of owners (drivers) of a specific electric vehicle model on their experiences with AVAS (GRB-64-20 and GRB-64-21). GRB welcomed the study and called for more AVAS surveys, in particular of vulnerable road users (e.g. cyclists, pedestrians, blind or people with impaired vision).

ACEA presents proposal for end of test criteria for PEV. Not only limited to WLTC city test but also to the complete WLTC test.

If the proposal will be accepted and used it should be limited to when the vehicle maximum speed is limited.

For some vehicles the WLTC city could be an alternative. The GTR should be clear when this could be the case.

For cases where there is limited acceleration and the vehicle cannot follow the speed trace the down scale method can be used when a method to determine system power is available. Until then the procedure in the current GTR should be kept.

ACEA will revise the proposal according to the discussion and Japan will consider this internally. This will be done before end of September.

ACEA presents a proposal of a text for the GTR.

Review of test results applying the Flex PLI and EEVC legs outside the regulatory bumper test area.

25. Finally, Ms Dausse confirmed that her company came to identical conclusions: Her presentation (document TF-BTA-03-08) with superimposed impactors (FlexPLI and EEVC LFI) shows that the impactors behave identical. [Note of the secretary: The document shown included videos but a version was kindly provided by Ms Dausse for publication on the Task Force’s website that only includes sketches of the respective impactor behaviour.] Rotation clearly is an issue at outside positions but she had not yet discovered at which angle it becomes a serious issue.

The chair invited the audience to discuss the issue. Discussion came up on when the rebound phase starts. Mr. Zander confirmed on request of Mr. Roth that the interval should be considered in which the FlexPLI behaves like the human or the human model respectively. Dr. Ries pointed out that then the interval proposed seems much too long since the legform is only for the first contact confirmed to be biofidelic. Also, this period may be different for tibia and knee. He and Mr. Roth wondered how BASt specified the length of their Biofidelic Assessment Interval and Mr. Zander responded that an objective method and automatic evaluation method was requested. There is no clue that the impactor biofidelity is limited to the pure contact phase with the vehicle only. The BAI can solve this issue. In addition, it covers all potential critical loadings during the test. Partly, the BAI interval is even shorter than the interval proposed by industry in document GTR9-5-30. This was demonstrated in document GTR9-6-07. The secretary reminded the attendees that some information on this had also been shown in the TF-BTA meeting held on 18 March 2013 and that the information is already available on the website. (Note of the secretary: The documents referred to were presented in the 3rd meeting of the Task Force Bumper Test Area as documents TF-BTA-3-03, TF-BTA-3-07 and TF-BTA-3-08 and are available on the respective UNECE website.)

Results and analysis of the Taber round robin testing conducted by Renault, PSA, and UTAC.

Update on Taber Abrasion Test
Mr. Dümmler clarified that the aim of the exercise was to compare the Taber vs. the Daiwa wheels.

All the wheels came from the same lots. The results were analysed by the US experts. But there is some doubt about the analysis performed, hence it was decided to re-check the evaluation. This was done by Mr. Buckel (Bayer).

Mr. Buckel presented IGPG-05-04. 1st part is status of ISO work. 2nd part of the presentation is a study on the windscreens from KRD.

During the presentation, there was a debate about the nature of the round robin performed by ISO and the relevant information it could bring:
- The nature of the wheels was not delivered by Taber and Daiwa
- The procedure was well defined, but the there was still a high dispersion in the results
- The aim of the round robin is not
  o to determine the proper haze value for R43
  o to determine whether the Taber test is appropriate, rather
- The aim is to assess the reproducibility and repeatability of the Taber test.

Conclusion: ISO has finalized a test description for glass, but test description for plastic material is ongoing at ISO.

Concerning the study of the windscreens of police vehicles provided by KRD, it was revealed that, while the mileage has an influence on the haze, some other parameters are of some influence.

The analysis of the images tend to show that the Taber test is not relevant for plastic windscreens, and the car wash test + sand drop test best approach the real world abrasion scheme.

It was mentioned that haze measurement could be a wrong measurement of the discomfort felt by the user: little pits could cause the same haze as long scratches, while the latter are less acceptable to the
normal driver than the small pits.

However, it was considered that keeping haze as the criterion would be reasonable in order to keep the discussions simple. In addition, the round robin tests performed to date showed that the haze measurement is reproducible and repeatable.

It was suggested to find a reference material, then use a correction factor. This reference material should be coated plastic material (to avoid too big correction factors) and easily available.

Abrasion wheel feasibility study report
J Mr. Hara presented the document IGPG-05-05e.

The experts were informed that, as a conclusion of this study, there is in J an attempt to reach the 2% delta haze value.

There was however some concern in increasing the particle size. If such big particle happens to remove from the wheel, there will be no abrasive material in that location at all, i.e. all the results could be altered.

Some experts found the principle of the FGMAJ approach not relevant.

A debate took place about the choice of a proper abrasion test and the reasons in favour or against changing the test. There is a need to demonstrate the abrasive process of each material (i.e. glass vs. plastics), in order to assess whether the Taber test is convenient for each. Another concern was the lack of information about the characteristics of the wheels. An advantage of the taber test is that it is a well-recognized test.

French study on Taber test:
A debate followed the presentation.
- should the conclusions be verified, then the problem of the wheels etc can be dropped, because making the influencing parameters tiny permits of course to achieve narrower deviations
- even with the best test protocol, the human factor remains a parameter
- the study does not provide any indication on whether the value of 2% is the relevant one.

The question raised as to whether not using plastic glazing since it reaches the same results as the glass on the field. The reason was that perhaps the plastic glazing can nowadays achieve the qualities of the glass, but cannot fulfil the Taber test performance requirements.

It was considered necessary to get the data from the field test in order to have an assessment of the plastic glazing behaviour in the field.

A fundamental question raised: whether the group does not miss its final target by gathering and accumulating endless data, and whether an acceptable compromise could be reached within the informal group, with unanimity, for a test method (whether Taber or another).

It was suggested to federate the forces in order to make plastic glazing win the battle of introduction in the market.

A fast tour de table revealed that at least six experts are in favour of dropping the Taber test for plastic glazing for windscreens and side windows in front of the driver’s eyes, i.e. elaborating a new test for them.

France confirmed that their study is still on-going, but did not expect any change in the conclusions.

MPA was of the opinion that the problem could be formulated as follows:
- even with improved discrepancy, the value of 2% would be too difficult to achieve
- the real question would be whether the wiper test would be relevant, in combination with sand drop and Amtec-Kistler tests.

PSA was keen that the coating itself be discussed.

Bayer was keen that the test best represents the wear that can be seen on the real field; it was pointed out that such approach would delay the introduction of plastic windscreen by at least 10-15 years.

Automotive Industry was reluctant in investing resources in a new test with no guarantee that it would be beneficial.

FGMA-J was of the opinion that 2% delta haze could be put into question again, and that new value of haze or criteria could be found.

The group proceeded with another tour de table:
The question was as follows: Are you ready to accept the wiper test (in combination with sand drop and Amtec-Kistler on three different samples), as an ALTERNATIVE to the Taber test in R43, if the group provides “sufficient evidence” that the wiper, the sand drop and Amtec-Kistler tests are together relevant for plastic windshields (glazing in front of the driver’s eyes)?
Ready: Unanimity but Vinçotte
Neutral: Vinçotte
Not ready: Nobody

Examples of definitions for “sufficient evidence”:
“sufficient evidence” means:
- 200 000 km mileage, wear in real field must be comparable to wear after performing the tests.
- Good reproducibility of the test, good correlation to reality by image analysis and perhaps other means
- Definition to be set up by the wiper TF

Another informal group to GRSG could be established to assess whether the Taber test is representative of reality.