DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Friday, July 11, 2008 Part II Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program; Notice VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40016 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATES: These changes to the New Car I. Introduction Assessment Program are effective for the The National Highway Traffic Safety National Highway Traffic Safety 2010 model year. Administration (NHTSA) is responsible Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For for reducing deaths, injuries, and [Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555] technical issues concerning the economic losses resulting from motor enhancements to NCAP, contact Mr. vehicle crashes. One way in which Consumer Information; New Car Nathaniel Beuse or Mr. John Hinch. NHTSA accomplishes this mission is by Assessment Program Telephone: (202) 366–9700. Facsimile: providing consumer information to the public. NHTSA established the New Car AGENCY: National Highway Traffic (202) 493–2739. For legal issues, contact Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dorothy Nakama, NHTSA Office of Assessment Program (NCAP) in 1978 in Department of Transportation (DOT). Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366– response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of ACTION: Final decision notice. 2992. Facsimile: (202) 366–3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The 1972. Through NCAP, NHTSA currently SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety conducts tests and provides frontal and published a notice announcing a public Administration, Attention: NVS–010, side crash, and rollover ratings and hearing and requesting comments on an 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., communicates the results using a five- agency report titled, ‘‘The New Car Washington, DC 20590. star rating system. With this Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested information, consumers can make SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Approaches for Future Program better-informed decisions about their Enhancements.’’ This notice I. Introduction purchases. In turn, manufacturers summarizes the comments received and II. Summary of Request for Comments respond to the ratings by voluntarily provides the agency’s decision on how A. Frontal NCAP improving the safety of their vehicles it will improve the NCAP ratings B. Side NCAP beyond the minimum Federal safety program. C. Rollover NCAP standards. D. Rear Impact For MY 1979, when the agency began For model year (MY) 2010, the agency E. Crash Avoidance Technologies will make changes to its existing front rating vehicles for frontal impact safety, F. Presentation and Dissemination of fewer than 30 percent of vehicles tested and side crash rating programs. For the NCAP information frontal crash test program, NHTSA will would have received the top ratings of G. Manufacturer Self-Certification 4 or 5 stars for the driver seating maintain the 35 mph (56 kmph) full III. Summary of Comments 1 frontal barrier test protocol but will A. Frontal NCAP position. By comparison, for MY 2007, update the test dummies and associated 1. Impact Protocol 98 percent of vehicles received 4 and 5 injury criteria used to assess and assign 2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating stars in the frontal NCAP rating for that a vehicle’s frontal impact star rating. For Position) same seating position. Equally impressive is that while it took almost side impact, NHTSA will maintain the 3. Injury Criteria 4. Test Speed 30 years to reach this level for frontal current moving deformable barrier test B. Side NCAP NCAP performance, the more recent at 38.5 mph (63 kmph) but will update 1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and NCAP programs, like side and rollover that test to include new side impact test Implementation Time) NCAP, have started reaching this level dummies and new injury criteria that 2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, of safety performance at a pace that can are used to assign a vehicle’s side Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria) be measured in years rather than impact star rating. Additionally, C. Rollover NCAP decades. The agency believes that vehicles will also be assessed using a 1. Rollover Risk Model consumers continue to consider safety new pole test and a small female crash 2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test D. Rear Impact in their purchasing decisions and are test dummy. demanding ever-increasing levels of For rollover, the agency will continue 1. Basic Information 2. Links to the IIHS safety. to rate vehicles for rollover propensity, 3. Dynamic Test Similarly, recent advances in crash but will wait to update its rollover risk E. Crash Avoidance Technologies avoidance technology offer a new model to allow for more real-world 1. Program Implementation opportunity for NCAP to further crash data of vehicles equipped with 2. Selected Technologies enhance its ability to inform consumers electronic stability control. 3. Rating System about new systems and encourage them Also for MY 2010, the agency will F. Presentation of NCAP Information Combined Crashworthiness Rating to purchase systems that NHTSA has implement a new ratings program that found to be effective in improving will rate vehicles on the presence of G. Manufacturer Self-Certification (of NCAP Results) safety. select advanced technologies and On January 25, 2007 NHTSA establish a new overall Vehicle Safety H. Other Suggestions IV. Discussion and Agency Decision published a notice outlining proposed Score that will combine the star ratings A. Frontal NCAP enhancements to the NCAP activities. In from the front, side, and rollover B. Side NCAP this notice, we requested comments on programs. C. Rollover NCAP any additional actions that the agency Finally, for the agency’s vehicle D. Rear Impact could undertake so that the program labeling program, we are announcing E. Crash Avoidance Technologies could continue to provide consumers that the side score, rather than being F. Presentation and Dissemination of with relevant safety information.2 These based only on the moving deformable Safety Information G. Manufacturer Self-Certification enhancements included new test barrier test, will be based on the dummies and injury criteria for frontal combination of the moving deformable H. Other Recommendations I. Monroney Label NCAP, the addition of a new side pole barrier test and the pole test. V. Conclusion test, new test dummies, and new injury Additionally, the agency will initiate Appendix A rulemaking to include the new overall Appendix B 1 NHTSA began using stars in model year 1994. crashworthiness rating on the Monroney Appendix C See 69 FR 61072, Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18765. label. Appendix D 2 72 FR 3473, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40017 criteria for side NCAP, an overall protocol but would also encourage sponsored field operational tests.5 summary rating, and a new program to manufacturers to provide better head Research by the agency and others has promote advanced crash avoidance and pelvis protection by including the shown that consumers are generally technologies. Additionally, the notice side impact pole test and the new test unaware of these technologies or their announced a March 7, 2007 public dummies recently finalized in Federal potential safety benefits. As a result, the hearing to allow interested parties the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) agency believed that NCAP should be opportunity to address the suggested No. 214 ‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ prior used to better highlight those beneficial approaches for enhancing the program. to the performance requirements being technologies to consumers and sought to Seventy-six (76) individual comments fully phased-in.4 Furthermore, the establish a new ratings program that were received in response to the notice agency proposed research that would evaluated vehicles on the presence of and the public hearing.3 Commenters focus on the assessment of the injury proven crash avoidance technologies. offered mixed responses to the various mechanisms in a fully equipped side Based on technical maturity, fleet proposals for enhancing NCAP; impact air bag fleet. The purpose of the availability, and available effectiveness however, most commenters commended research would be to evaluate how data, NHTSA identified three the agency’s initiative to reexamine the serious injuries occur in the new fleet technologies that fit these criteria. These program and supported the proposed and to develop test procedures to reflect technologies are ESC, LDW, and FCW. approaches. This notice summarizes these impact conditions. The outcome NHTSA proposed two possible comments to the January 2007 notice, of this research could lead to a new approaches and illustrated a possible the March 2007 public hearing, and barrier test protocol (which could implementation of the program with an provides the agency’s decision on how include increased test speed and A, B, C letter grade system. First, the it will proceed with changes to NCAP. different barrier characteristics). agency proposed that each of the technologies would have equal weight. I. Summary of Request for Comments C. Rollover NCAP For example, if a vehicle had only one In its notice, the agency presented To enhance its rollover program, the technology, it would receive a C; proposals to improve not only the agency indicated that it would continue whereas, another vehicle that had all program’s current front, side and tracking the rollover rate and the single three technologies would receive an A. rollover activities, but also approaches vehicle crash rate of vehicles equipped Approach two would attempt to to improve its information with regards with ESC to create a new rollover risk quantify a technology’s real-world to rear impact, and certain crash model.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vehicle Selection, Specification, Testing and Retesting
    VEHICLE SELECTION, SPECIFICATION, TESTING AND RETESTING Version 1.0 November 2019 Preface Where text is contained within square brackets this denotes that the procedure being discussed is currently being trialled in ASEAN NCAP. Its incorporation in the Test Protocol will be reviewed at a later date. During the test preparation, vehicle manufacturers are encouraged to liaise with the laboratory and to check that they are satisfied with the way cars are set up for testing. Where a manufacturer feels that a particular item should be altered, they should ask the laboratory staff to make any necessary changes. Manufacturers are forbidden from making changes to any parameter that will influence the test, such as dummy positioning, vehicle setting, laboratory environment etc. It is the responsibility of the test laboratory to ensure that any requested changes satisfy the requirements of ASEAN NCAP. Where a disagreement exists between the laboratory and manufacturer, the ASEAN NCAP secretariat should be informed immediately to pass final judgement. Where the laboratory staff suspect that a manufacturer has interfered with any of the setup, the manufacturer's representatives should be warned that they are not allowed to do so themselves. They should also be informed that if another incident occurs, they will be asked to leave the test site. Where there is a recurrence of the problem, the manufacturer’s representatives will be told to leave the test site and the Secretariat should be immediately informed. Any such incident may be reported by the Secretariat to the manufacturer and the persons concerned may not be allowed to attend further ASEAN NCAP tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Ratings 2018 Safety Ratings
    s Safety Ratings 2018 Safety Ratings CONTENTS 1 Overview _________________________________________________________________ 3 2 What are safety ratings? _____________________________________________________ 4 3 Who are they for? __________________________________________________________ 5 4 Why use safety ratings? _____________________________________________________ 5 4.1 Ratings as interventions ________________________________________________________ 6 4.2 Ratings as monitoring tools ______________________________________________________ 6 4.3 Ratings as intermediate outcome targets ___________________________________________ 7 5 Safety ratings in use ________________________________________________________ 8 5.1 Vehicle safety ratings __________________________________________________________ 8 5.1.1 Predictive vehicle safety ratings ___________________________________________________________ 8 5.1.2 Retrospective vehicle safety ratings ______________________________________________________ 16 5.2 Road network safety ratings ____________________________________________________ 19 5.2.1 Predictive safety rating protocols – Road Protection Scores __________________________________ 20 5.2.2 Retrospective safety rating protocols – Risk Mapping ________________________________________ 21 5.2.3 International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) __________________________________________ 21 5.2.4 European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) _________________________________________ 24 5.2.5 Examples of other national road assessment programmes
    [Show full text]
  • Asean NCAP's Success and Challenges in Promoting Safer
    Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific No. 89, 2019 ASEAN NCAP’S SUCCESS AND CHALLENGES IN PROMOTING SAFER VEHICLES IN THE ESCAP REGION Khairil Anwar Abu Kassim, Ahmad, Jawi and Ishak Abstract Starting from 2011, ASEAN NCAP has been mandated to carry out crash tests on new cars in the ESCAP region, particularly Southeast Asia. With a total population of over 630 million, the 10 countries comprising ASEAN have seen passenger vehicle sales reach over three million units. To date, 90 percent of the vehicles sold in ASEAN market have been tested by ASEAN NCAP. Their safety aspects have been greatly improved over time. But aside from the safety of car occupants, ASEAN NCAP is also concerned with the safety of vulnerable road users. In November 2018, ASEAN NCAP announced its latest road map which focuses on the safety of motorcyclists in the region. ASEAN NCAP’s efforts have also been recognized by the Malaysian government, as of next year, all car dealers are to showcase the star rating issued by ASEAN NCAP on the car’s front windshield and side mirror in all showroom and sales centres in Malaysia. This is to educate buyers to choose the models that give priority to the best rating. The current paper shall provide an overview of the results produced by ASEAN NCAP, including its success and challenges to elevate the safety standards of passenger vehicles in the Southeast Asian market. In addition, the last section will describe ASEAN NCAP road map which guides its journey toward achieving SDG targets 3.6 and 11.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Crash Test Report
    Offset crash test at 64km/hr Crash Tests New Car Safety Fiat 500 07/2007 on 01/0001 - Frontal+Side+Head Overall Evaluation Injury Measurements Refer to the information sheet Offset Crash Test at 64km/h Side Impact 'How the tests are done' (v4.1) Crash Test aa 50km/h (v4.1) Overall Score 34.91 out of 37 Driver Passn Driver Variant: Pop 3 dr hatch with ESC Engine: 1.2 litre Head Category: Light Car - HIC 563 357 64 - Acceleration (g for 3ms) 58.7 44.6 40.7 Neck Left Hand Drive - Shear (kN) 0.67 0.28 Important note: The left-hand-drive European model was tested by Euro NCAP. - Tension (kN) 1.72 0.67 Australasian specifications may vary and therefore models sold in Australasia might - Extension (Nm) 18.9 18.4 provide different levels of protection to those described on this page. Chest - Acceleration (g for 3ms) Model History and Safety Features - Compression (mm) 23.27 22.43 19.97 - Viscous Criterion (m/s) 0.08 0.1 0.12 The tested model of Fiat 500 was introduced in Australia during 2008. It is due in New Abdomen Zealand later in 2008. - Force (kN) 0.75 Dual front airbags, side airbags and head-protecting side curtains are standard Pelvis equipment. Antilock brakes (ABS) with electronic brake distribution (EBD) are also - Force (kN) 2.31 standard. Electronic stability control (ESC) is not available on the 1.2 Pop but is Upper Legs Force (kN) standard for other variants. Intelligent seat belt reminders are fitted to both front seats.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of In-Depth Data in Comparing Euroncap and Real-World Crash Results
    Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars Based on Real-World Crashes Use of In-Depth Data in Comparing EuroNCAP and Real-World Crash Results Report of Sub-Task 2.3 CEA/EC SARAC II QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSME OF CARS BASED ON REAL-WORLD CRASHES Funded by the European Commission, Directorate General TREN SARAC II Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars based on Real-World Crashes Project Number: SUB/B27020B-E3-S07.17321-2002 Report of Sub-Task 2.3 Use of In-Depth Data in Comparing EuroNCAP and Real-World Crash Results Stuart Newstead, Amanda Delaney and Max Cameron Monash University Accident Research Centre March 2006 CEA/EC SARAC II QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSME OF CARS BASED ON REAL-WORLD CRASHES Funded by the European Commission, Directorate General TREN International Project Management Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) Prof. Dr. Klaus Langwieder SARAC Members European Commission (EC) Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) DG TREN 26 Boulevard Haussmann 28 Rue Demot FR-75009 Paris B-1040 Brussels Monash University Helsinki University of Technology Accident Research Centre (MUARC) Laboratory of Transportation Engineering Building 70, P.O. Box 2100 Clayton, 3800 Victoria, Australia FIN-02015 HUT, Finland BMW Group Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen Centro Zaragoza Vehicle Safety (BASt) Instituto de Investigación Sobre D-80788 München Brüderstraße 53 Reparación de Vehiculos, S.A. D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach Carretera Nacional 232, km 273 E-50690 Pedrola (Zaragoza) DaimlerChrysler AG Department for Transport FIA Foundation for the Automobile Zone 1/29a Great Minister House and Society D-71059 Sindelfingen 76 Marsham Street 8 Place de la Concorde London, SW1P 4DR United Kingdom Paris 75008 France Ministry of Transport and Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre FOLKSAM Insurance Group Communications of Finland (VALT) Research/Traffic Safety P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 in Review and FIRST LOOK 2019 WHO WE ARE
    2018 in review AND FIRST LOOK 2019 WHO WE ARE MISSION CONTENTS The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing WHO WE ARE the losses — deaths, injuries and property damage — from motor vehicle crashes. 42 Mission 43 Member companies The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) shares and supports this mission 44 President’s message through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and 46 Partnerships economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make OUR RESEARCH and model. & ANALYSIS Our research seeks to identify effective countermeasures against crashes 47 Crashworthiness and the problems they cause. We recognize crash prevention will only go 48 Ratings timeline so far, so we also look for ways to mitigate crash consequences, as well 410 Crash avoidance & automation as the best ways to recover from them. Our inquiry examines ways to 412 Distracted driving modify human behavior and implement safer vehicle and road designs. 413 Enforcement 414 Impaired driving 416 Insurance loss trends 418 Pedestrians, bicyclists & motorcycles OUR COMMUNICATIONS & EDUCATION PROGRAMS 420 Webinars 422 IIHS in the classroom website 423 VRC visitors/groups hosted 424 Advertising & earned media 425 Video news releases 425 Publications & presentations 426 Social media 427 Website BIBLIOGRAPHY & REPORTS 428 IIHS research papers 430 HLDI reports 2 | 2018 in review MEMBER COMPANIES Our member companies share our vision of saving lives and reducing inju- WE WELCOMED 6 NEW ries through scientific research that compels manufacturers, policymakers MEMBER COMPANIES IN 2018: and insurers to act to improve all aspects of motor vehicle transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Outlook of Euro Ncap
    THE CHANGING OUTLOOK OF EURO NCAP M.R. VAN RATINGEN, SECRETARY GENERAL, EURO NCAP INTRODUCTION ESTABLISHED IN 1997, THE EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME provides consumers with a safety performance assessment for the majority of the most popular cars in Europe. Thanks to its rigorous crash tests, Euro NCAP has rapidly become the driver of major safety improvements to new cars. After ten years of rating vehicles, Euro NCAP felt a change was necessary to stay in tune with rapid automotive safety developments and to respond to shifting priorities from a consumer and societal point of view. The challenge was to develop a new scheme for rating car overall safety that is plausible, reliable and would be widely accepted by consumers and industry. A NEW RATING CONCEPT THE EURO NCAP RATINGS FOR ADULT PROTECTION, CHILD PROTECTION 1 AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION have been in common use since 1997 and have become internationally recognised as a reliable indicator of independent consumer information about car safety. Clearly the Euro NCAP ratings have been seen to improve over time, in particular for Adult Protection, as shown in Figure 1. While this reflects industry's efforts to deliver increasingly safer cars, it also means that the discriminating factor in the rating has been reducing. At the same time, the success in Adult Protection is hiding the less favourable progress in the other areas, for instance Pedestrian Protection, from view of the consumer. Driver assist systems are currently not rated at all, while these systems play an increasingly important role in accident avoidance and injury mitigation for the new generation of vehicles on the market.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Ncap: Promoting New Advancements in Safety
    BEYOND NCAP: PROMOTING NEW ADVANCEMENTS IN SAFETY Michiel van Ratingen Aled Williams Euro NCAP Belgium Pierre Castaing UTAC France Anders Lie Swedish Transport Administration Sweden Bernie Frost Department for Transport United Kingdom Volker Sandner ADAC Germany Raimondo Sferco Ford Motor Company Germany Erwin Segers Honda Motor Europe Belgium Christoph Weimer Hyundai Motor Europe Germany On behalf of the Euro NCAP Beyond NCAP Group Paper Number 11-0075 ABSTRACT safety benefits of any new safety function to be determined. This process is based entirely on the Over the last decade Euro NCAP has become assessment of scientific evidence presented in a recognised as a reliable indicator of independent dossier by the car manufacturer. An independent consumer information with an acknowledged positive panel of experts reviews the extent of a safety issue effect on car safety. Most car manufacturers see the which a new safety system aims to address. positive advantages of ensuring their vehicles achieve Through a logical and rigorous analysis of the way the highest possible result in this consumer test in which the technology has been developed, tested program. For Euro NCAP to keep its relevance it is and validated, and from any real-world experience important that the program reflects the improvements that may exist, the system’s performance and its made in car safety over time. expected effectiveness can be estimated and eventually rewarded. Many of today’s technological advancements are in active safety, driver assistance or in the combination of In particular, any submission needs to provide primary secondary and tertiary safety. Many of these reliable evidence of the tests conducted and any safety functions are so new that no clear-cut procedures assumptions made in assigning possible benefits for exist to test and rate them.
    [Show full text]
  • Crashworthiness Evaluation Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version IV)
    Crashworthiness Evaluation Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version IV) December 2004 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version IV) Document Revision History Version IV of the protocol differs from Version III in the following ways: The reference list reflects recent updates to the Guidelines for Using the UMTRI ATD Positioning Procedure for ATD and Seat Positioning (Version V); Precrash and postcrash vehicle crush profiles measured at the window sill and rocker panel and the door vertical profiles measured at the driver and rear passenger H-point locations have been eliminated; and Precrash and postcrash crush profile measures of the moving deformable barrier (MDB) deformable element have been eliminated. Version III of the protocol differed from Version II in the following ways: The MDB vertical center of gravity was updated to reflect official measurements taken at an inertial measurement facility; and Roll, pitch, and yaw moments of inertia also were added to the MDB specifications. Version II of the protocol differed from Version I in the following ways: In addition to postcrash photographs of the vehicle taken with the struck-side doors on, photos are taken with the door skins removed, then again with the doors removed; Additional structural measures are recorded on the struck and non-struck-side B-pillar interior. In addition, the postcrash coordinate system is now reestablished using reference points that are recorded precrash; and The pubic force load measurement was eliminated. Test Conditions Impact Configuration Side impact crash tests consist of a stationary test vehicle struck on the driver’s side by a crash cart fitted with an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) deformable barrier element (version 4).
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Emergency Braking Based on C-NCAP (2018)
    sensors Article Development of Test Equipment for Pedestrian- Automatic Emergency Braking Based on C-NCAP (2018) Zhiqiang Song 1,2, Libo Cao 1,* and Clifford C. Chou 3 1 State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China; [email protected] 2 College of Agricultural Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China 3 Biomechanics Research Centre, Wayne State University, 818 W. Hancock, Detroit, MI 48201, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 7 August 2020; Accepted: 23 September 2020; Published: 30 October 2020 Abstract: In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a pedestrian-automatic emergency braking (PAEB) system on pedestrian protection, a set of PAEB test equipment was developed according to the test requirement of China-New Car Assessment Program (C-NCAP) (2018) in this study. In the aspect of system control strategy, global positioning system (GPS) differential positioning was used to achieve the required measurement and positioning accuracy, the collaborative control between the PAEB test equipment and automated driving robot (ADR) was achieved by wireless communication, and the motion state of the dummy target in the PAEB system was controlled by using the S-shaped-curve velocity control method. Part of the simulations and field tests were conducted according to the scenario requirements specified in C-NCAP (2018). The experimental and simulated results showed that the test equipment demonstrated high accuracy and precision in the process of testing, the dummy target movement was smooth and stable, complying with the requirements of PAEB tests set forth in C-NCAP (2018), and yielding satisfactory results as designed.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION of ASEAN NCAP What Is NCAP?
    Safer Cars for ASEAN Region INTRODUCTION OF ASEAN NCAP What is NCAP? Safer Cars for ASEAN Region • NCAP stands for “New Car Assessment Programme” • NCAP’s role is to provide consumer a realistic and independent assessment on the safety performance of vehicles recently launched in the markets. • NCAP Family • IIHS • 5-Star Safety Ratings (NHTSA) • JNCAP • ANCAP • Euro NCAP • KNCAP • CNCAP • Latin NCAP • ASEAN NCAP [email protected] 2 General inquiries: General Difference between NCAP and Regulation Safer Cars for ASEAN Region Regulation NCAP • Mandatory requirement • Consumer information • Minimum safety level for all vehicles • Not all the models and versions sold in on the road the market are assessed • Always need to distinguish vehicles one from another in terms of safety performances, mainly on 2 aspects: crashworthiness and active safety Crashworthiness = how well the car protects its occupant in a crash Active safety = how the car avoids/mitigates the crash from occurring [email protected] • Requirement higher than regulation, for example: frontal impact test speed 56 km/h vs. 64 km/h 3 General inquiries: General Background of ASEAN NCAP: 2007 Safer Cars for ASEAN Region • Inception of Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS) through the Road Safety Plan 2006–2010 • The idea to have an automobile safety rating with interim name Malaysian NCAP or MyNCAP. • Inception of a unit dedicated to realize MyNCAP: Crash Safety Engineering Unit (CRASE). [email protected] 4 General inquiries: General Background of ASEAN NCAP: 2009 Safer Cars for ASEAN Region • Formation of soft landing program – Malaysian Vehicle Assessment Programme (MyVAP). • Non-destructive assessment of vehicle—use of secondary data from the OEMs to assess the safety level of vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • FIMCAR V: Off-Set Test Procedure: Review and Metric Development
    Ignacio Lazaro, Nicolas Vie, Robert Thomson, Holger Schwedhelm FIMCAR V – Off-set Test Procedure: Review and Metric Development frontal impact and compatibility assessment research The FIMCAR project was co-funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement no. 234216). The content of the publication reflects only the view of the authors and may not be considered as the opinion of the European Commission nor the individual partner organisations. This article is published at the digital repository of Technische Universität Berlin: URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:83-opus4-40841 [http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:83-opus4-40841] It is part of FIMCAR – Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research / Editor: Heiko Johannsen, Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Land- und Seeverkehr. – Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2013 ISBN 978-3-7983-2614-9 (composite publication) V Off-set Test Procedures: Review and Metric Development frontal impact and compatibility assessment research CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 FIMCAR Project ................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Objective of this Deliverable ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]