INF GR / CRS-51-11e
Minutes meeting for 51th meeting of the Informal Group on
Child Restraint System
Date:
Start
End
May 6th
May 6th
9:30
5:00 PM
Place:
OICA Office
4 RUE DE BERRI
75008 PARIS
Tel. : +33 (0)1 43 59 00 13
1. Welcome and Roll call (CRS-51-10e)
2. Adoption of the agenda (CRS-51-01e)
3. Validation of the minutes of the last meeting (CRS-50-20e) with some modifications (CRS-50-20e
Rev2) on philosophy of phase III (paragraph 6.1) with addition of comments from Dinos VISVIKIS
(CYBEX) about the non-integral child restraint systems that are not covered by phase II (≤ 100 cm).
4. Rebound head excursion (CRS-51-04e) from CYBEX on behalf of CLEPA. The current UN R129
specifies a rebound excursion plane (DE) for forward facing ECRS. This requirement was not part
of UN R44. The change was proposed by the expert from Netherlands (CRS-12-03e). Phase II raises
vertical head excursion for Q10 (DA plane) to 840 mm in line with R44 but DE plane remains.
CLEPA proposed to limit all head excursion requirements to the forward motion of the dummy :

DE plane removed (identical to R44)

Vertical head excursion applied only in loading phase only Proposal covers all dummier
in forward facing CRS
The principle to study DE line removal was accepted. The chairman understands the request from
CLEPA induced by Q dummy and new bench definition.
He has some concerns with the
assessment limited to the maximum head displacement. Possible dummy ejection could not be
monitored in this case. A maximum time limiting the analysis is preferable for him.
The group reviewed presentation CRS-49-06e but l timing for maximum forward head excursion is
INF GR / CRS-51-11e
not defined. CYBEX reminds that this time limit can differ sled to sled. The Chairman ask CLEPA
to analyze the different tests realized with Q10 on R129 bench to define the time when the head
cross the DA line.
Discussion will take place on this subject between Jan GRUTTER and Hans AMMERLAAN.
Timing information will help to take a decision.
For the Chairman, it’s not so clear if CLEPA request applies only for Q10 dummy or all Q-dummies.
The proposal must be reworked to avoid confusion.
5. Q dummies issues Leader TRL (Jolyon CARROL) - Experimental testing for EC child safety
project TRL (CRS-51-05e). Jolyon CARROL reminds to the group Q dummy behaviour concerns
(submarining ability, diagonal belt slippage over the chest and chest deflection measurement, …).
A test matrix is presented to study abdomen loading and submarining. The general kinematics of the
dummy will be investigated. TRL would like to test a seat where submarining is a realistic
expectation.
A second test matrix (test planned in June & August) is shown based on Chest behaviour &
deflection. With a 3 point belt, the diagonal belt has a tendency to move upward towards the neck
with Q dummies. The group on chest and abdomen protection led by Heiko Johannsen proposed to
implement an additional displacement sensor in the upper chest of the Q6 to catch the chest
deflexion in the upper area. TRL would like to investigate pragmatic solutions to monitor chest
deflexion avoiding neck loading by the belt.
TRL ask stakeholders to supply data on testing experience with Q3, Q6 & Q10 for:

Non-integral restraint

Test without CRS

Poorly performing CRS

In R129 & body shell / vehicle test environment

Belt interaction solutions

Chest and Abdomen loading measurements
6. CRS simple seatbelt draft presentation from Philippe LESIRE - LAB (CRS-51-06e) with data
provided by BRSI (Belgium Road Safety Institute).
CRS installation misuse is an important issue, which must be covered by Phase III. Without new
inputs, the situation of CRS attachment with seatbelt will not be improved. End-users ease of use
and misuse reductions are part of initial philosophy of R129, awareness of parents. Many
installation information are available (user manual, user instructions, color codes) some information
are not controlled (demonstrations on YouTube, discussions & advices on forum). The BRSI data
collection performed on approximatively 2000 children and was collected in September 2014.
INF GR / CRS-51-11e
Philippe LESIRE extracted from the study only integral Group 1 CRS and split them into 4
categories corresponding to 4 seatbelt route representative of the majority of products in the market.
Installation misuse was documented by type of belt routing.
The selected sample includes 365 cases with an average misuse rate of 27%.
With a specific belt routing, less misuse were observed. On the other hand, belt routing proposed
with gr123 in group 1 mode led to much more misuses.
Group 123 with different belt routing in non-integral and integral modes described by the same color
codes induce confusion leading to unsafe situation.
The study must be finalized implementing misuse severity rate in the different seatbelt attachment
categories. When updated, a document will be circulated. Publication will include ISOFIX systems,
shield & booster systems. CLEPA collaboration is demanded to translate results into technical
requirements and to make proposals to GRSP informal group.
Discussion after the presentation
Chairman: It is difficult to see what the influences each particular misuse is. In accident we have a
lot of problem due to misuse, it’s a general issue. If the CRS is well installed in the car & child is
well installed in the CRS, the safety is nearly covered. There is a lack of education of misuse for
parents.
François RENAUDIN (DOREL): It is important to know which misuse will be harmful for the child,
some misuse have not really an influence on safety issue.
Ansgar POTT (HYUNDAI): It is the opportunity to ask governments and consumer associations to
add a section for the better educations of parents to the work of the Informal Group. The informal
group spent a lot of time to avoid misuse. We have to recognize that there is a limit. At a certain
point parents must be informed about risks if they are misusing their seat.
7. Work on phase II
7.1. Feedback from the leaders of each item to be reviewed for phase II
7.1.1.
Comparison of regulation text about the “ISOFIX position” from Marianne HYND
(Newel Rubber Maid) CRS-51-07e. There are four definitions given in ECE R14, R16,
R44 & R129. According to the Chairman, the definition of the “ISOFIX Position” from
the ECE R14 is the good one.
INF GR / CRS-51-11e
7.2. Amendment of formal document CRS-51-02e (GRSP-56-09e rev3) & CRS-51-03e
(ECE-TRANS-WP.29-GRSP-2015-09e-Rev1)
Review of the proposed amendments with some modifications (in paragraphs 3.2.2; 6.1.2.3;
6.6.4.1.2; 6.6.4.1.2.1; 6.7.2.7 & 7.2.6). Latest version is available under CRS-51-08e
(GRSP-56-09e rev4) & CRS-51-09e (ECE-TRANS-WP.29-GRSP-2015-09e-Rev1)
Question for the Chairman: Will it be possible to propose products both integral & non integral?
The Chairman is not in favor of this option. Governments’ representative will have to decide.
8. Work on phase III
8.1. Scope of phase III
Questions raised in 50th meeting CRS-50-18e for phase III were recalled:

Non integral shield ECRS for small children?
o
Chairman: We have to be sure that we have the good requirement for this
product. Until now we considered that the shield product is not an integral
system. It was not considered in the beginning of the ISIZE regulation work.
There is a lot of requirement for the harnessed products and few for shield
products in the text today.

Double system of fixation for the same product?
o
Chairman: if we accept to have double fixation on the same product we make
the system really complex for the user. A

Definition of the concept “shield”

Anti-rotation devices for phase III products
o
Chairman: this is also link with the second question.

Mass limit

Size limit

Buckle access

What should be removed from ECE R44?

Simplify installation of belt attachment? (Belt routing?)

Disabled person?
INF GR / CRS-51-11e
8.2. Report to GRSP and amendment to the mandate of the group
The chairman will report to GRSP that during our 50th meeting we decided to change our
orientation. With the inputs from Germany and from the European Commission, we agreed some
principles but they need to be validated. After validation from GRSP, booster cushion will be
removed from the draft and included with limitation in R44. Feedback from the industry is needed to
check feasibility of reducing booster envelope. If feasibility is assessed, the booster envelope width
will be reduced in R16. For phase 3 and potentially phase 4 an updated term of reference could be
needed to precise the work of the informal group.
The formal amendment proposed in September should include simplified phase 2 and
modifications of phase 1.
9. Joie product.
The Chairman mentions remaining trouble with a JOIE product sold all over Europe with dual
marking R44 & R129 (recently in Denmark). A first letter was sent by the French administration to
Jim HAND (UK government) 18th of July 2014. After a discussion between Jim HAND and VCA,
the issue was confirmed in September 2014. JOIE was invited during the 44th meeting (23rd April
2014 at OICA Paris) to discuss this issue. According to Oliver MECKY (JOIE) the dual marking
was an initial mistake which should be corrected soon. According to the Chairman, this product
does not follow the rules. There are contradiction & confusion for parents in the label for the limit of
the rearward facing & forward facing use (mass & size limit).
10. Next meetings
10.1. 52th meeting will be held in June, the 18 at CLEPA Brussels and start at 9.30.
10.2. 53th meeting will be held in September, the 2 at LONDON (SMMT) and start at 9.30 GMT
11. A.O.B.
PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE before end of 16th of June
To Yoann.brunetiere@dorel.eu