CURRENT FRONT STIFFNESS OF EUROPEAN VEHICLES WITH REGARD TO COMPATIBILITY

Jos Huibers
Eric de Beer
TNO Automotive Crash Safety Centre
The Netherlands
Paper No. ID#239

This trend in stiffer vehicle fronts might result in

ABSTRACT future modifications of the European side impact
barrier, which is currently based on average vehicle
EuroNCAP tests are carried out since 1997. The test fronts of old vehicles. This item is only mentioned
procedure in general is comparible to the EC and will not be further discussed.
Directive 96/79 with a test speed of 64 km/h. This
increased test speed implies a higher frontal stiffness
INTRODUCTION
for new vehicle designs in order to achieve a high
ranking. This frontal stiffness is one of the major
Compatibility is an important subject in road traffic
factors for compatibility in car to car collisions.
safety research, because in a large part of the
To support the European 4th framework accidents more than one road user is involved. In that
compatibility research activity, load cell barriers are case the passive safety of the different road users is
used in ENCAP tests carried out at the TNO Crash often not very well balanced. This leads to an
Safety Centre and TRL. incompatible situation in which one of the parties
suffers from the aggressiveness of the other. During
In this paper global force displacement characteristics
the last two decades, extensive research was done on
of a number of different vehicle classes are compared
the statistics of car-to-car crashes giving a/o.
and analysed. It will be made clear that small
interesting rates of aggressiveness, [1,2,3,4,].
vehicles in the past known not to be strong can
Examples of incompatible situations are: a collision
produce comparable force levels as large cars. For
of a small and a large car, a collision between a truck
compatibility this means that in small car against
and a car or the collision of a car with a pedestrian or
large car collisions the small car’s passenger
cyclist. Nowadays, car-to-car compatibility is an
compartment can stay stable and can offer better
important safety issue for the car industry [5,9] and
protection to the occupants, since from accident
governmental bodies [2,4,6]. During the last two
analyses it is known that serious injury often is
decades the occupant safety in single car crashes has
caused by high intrusion into the passenger
improved considerably. However, car-to-car crashes
compartment.
still form an increasingly important class of accidents
For frontal impacts this means that ENCAP tests that are examined, [1].
have driven small cars to increased compatibility for
7KH PDVV UDWLR EHWZHHQ FROOLGLQJYHKLFOHV 9¶VIRU
one aspect of compatibility (cabin integrety) at higher
each car involved) is a well known important factor
speed.
for compatibility, but cannot be influenced. Of course
MPV’s with high masses and little crushable space 9 SOD\¶V an important role in the average
show more aggressive force displacement GHFHOHUDWLRQ EXW QRW RQO\ 9 :KHQ LJQRULQJ WKH

characteristics. This car category is expected to mass ratio, incompatible crash behaviour further
behave less compatible hitting small cars or medium depends on the two other major factors for
size passenger cars. A longer crushable space for this compatibility, global stiffness (deceleration) and
category is desired, which is in conflict with the geometrical effects (interaction) [7 ]. The global
special look for these vehicles. stiffness is partly indirect dependent on how the

Huibers 1
energy absorbing structure interacts. Good interaction This paper deals with current global vehicle front end
is essential to effectively use the build in global stiffnesses like in Figure 1 derived from EuroNcap
stiffness in order to absorb the impact energy in an tests on different car classes.
early stage of the collision and to avoid intrusion into
the passenger cell.
LOADCELL DATA INFORMATION.
Geometrical incompatibility is strongly related to
intrusions of structural car parts into the passenger In order to obtain this global stiffness’, load cell
cabin, which should be avoided as much as possible, barriers have been used behind the deformable barrier
since accident investigations have learned that most in the EuroNCAP tests carried out at the TNO Crash
of serious and fatal injuries are intrusion related. In [8 Safety Centre and TRL. The objective was to get
] it is shown that it is very difficult to tackle the information about the load distribution and the global
question whether or not cars are compatible with stiffnesses (force deflection characteristics) of the
respect to these geometrical effects. vehicle fronts. As there is no clear information
available about the barrier intrusion in time, we have
An important measure to avoid intrusions is the
to limit ourselves to force displacement
characteristics for the vehicle.
Force
The loadcell pattern as used at TRL is displayed in
Figure 2.The loadcell pattern and positioning as used
at the TNO Crash laboratory is displayed in Figure 3.
The measured signals are filtered with CFC60
according to SAEJ211.

Ud,1 Ud,2
Ce ll 1,1 C ell 1 ,2
deflection car 1 deflection car 2 Ce ll 2,1 C ell 2 ,2
Ce ll 3,1 C ell 3 ,2
Figure 1 Force balance for small (car1) and Ce ll 4,1 C ell 4 ,2
large car (car2). Gray area:absorbed energy
2 50 mm fro m g ro un d
design of a frontal crush zone that dissipates as much Figure 2 Loadcell arrangement TRL.
deformation energy as possible in the case of an
accident before the passenger compartment is
damaged, e.g. [9]. A way to achieve this is shown in
1000
Figure 1. The force deflection curves for the two
vehicles allow sufficient energy absorption in both
vehicles and increase at certain deformations LCA1 LCA2 LCB1 LCB2

designed for these particular vehicles in order to be FI96861P FI96848P FI97180P FI96849P

able to take an overload force to avoid intrusion. The

structures of both vehicles have to provide good LCA3
A LCA4 LCB3
B LCB4

interaction in order to let the forces build up in the FI96187P FI95588P FI97168P FI97181P
1000

designated manner. This means that it should be

avoided, for example, that the longitudinals of two LCC1 LCC2 LCD1 LCD2

colliding cars penetrate each other without FI97197P FI96834P FI96865P FI97183P

deformation of the whole front (the fork-effect) and

that the front part of vehicles coincide, which LCC3
C LCC4 LCD3
D LCD4
ODB
level

obviously is not the case with cars running into FI97162P FI96838P FI97192P FI97196P

(under) trucks and with collisions between cars and

25

Floor
SUV’s.
Figure 3 Loadcell arrangement TNO.

Huibers 2
The number of cells and pattern differs between the this category because of the size. The cars, which
two laboratories. However in the evaluation of the have been analysed, are summarised in Table 1.
data there is no difference any more, since the level
Data was analysed of phases 3, the medium size
of detail of the TNO data is restricted to left and right
family cars, phase 4 the large saloon/executive cars,
half of the load cells (A,C/B,D). Furthermore, most
phase 6 MPV’s and phase 7a/7b small family cars.
of the TRL tests were carried out with RHD vehicles
whereas TNO tests were carried out with LHD cars. Table 1
For clarification Aup in the figures coincides with
Sample of the analysed cars.
Cell 1,1 for TRL loadcell pattern etc.
KERB TEST
SPEED
CAR CATEGORY MASS MASS
M/S
DATA ANALYSIS KG KG
Phase 3 medium size
family cars
Method
Volkswagen Golf 1140 1336 17.8
Citroen Xsara 1080 1100 17.8
Loadcell data was not collected in the first series of
Mitsubishi Lancer 1244 1257 17.8
ENCAP tests. For the tests with missing loadcell
data, the global force displacement characteristics Renault Megane 1060 1296 17.8

were obtained by multiplying the measured Suzuki Baleno 960 1170 17.8

acceleration with the test mass of the vehicle (m*a). Toyota Corolla 1060 1275 17.8
For the acceleration the B pillar base signal of the VW Beatle 1228 1518 17.8
impacted side was used filtered with CFC15 (cut off Ford Focus 1080 1383 17.9
frequency 25kHz according to SAEJ211. The Opel Astra 1100 1325 17.8
displacement was obtained by double integration of Ford Escort 1080 1363 17.9
that signal (for all used displacements in this paper). Mercedes A 1070 1267 17.8
Force displacement (FD) characteristics obtained in Phase 4 large saloon
this way are an approximation because during the cars
crash the active mass reduces. This reduction is partly BMW 520I 1485 1682 17.9
compensated by the mass of the occupants, coming Saab 95 1485 1713 17.7
into effect later in the crash. To get an impression of Toyota Camry 1385 1604 17.8
this approximation FD curves obtained from the Mercedes E200 1440 1650 17.8
loadcell data were compared with FD curves from the
Opel Omega 1455 1666 17.8
m*a approximation. This is done for each car
Audi A6 1400 1663 17.8
analysed. When looking to the majority of
Volvo S70 1430 1597 17.8
approximations it could be concluded that the m*a
Phase 6 MPV’s
curves correlated well with the loadcell curves, with
Renault Espace 1520 1713 17.9
some exceptions.
Chrysler Voyager 1800 2040 17.8
In some occasions like the Audi A6, it was likely that Mitsubishi. Space Wagon 1570 1768 17.9
the differences were caused by the engine contact VW Sharan 1690 1906 18.0
with the barrier, like sliding off the edge of the
Peugeot 806 1550 1748 17.8
barrier later in the crash event.
Vauxhall Sintra 1650 1933 17.8
Phase 7 small family
Car Categories cars
Lancia Ypsilon 7a 895 1136 17.8
The cars, which were analysed, were put as much as Renault Clio xxx 1150 17.8
possible in the same categories as used in the ENCAP VW Polo xxx 1174 17.8
phases. Some cars of category phase 3 were tested
Seat Ibiza xxx 1227 17.9
later as the official phase 3 release but were put in
Peugeot 206 xxx 1193 17.8
Citroen Saxo xxx 1051 17.8

Huibers 3
 Ford Focus
100 TOTAL
For all the cars the following output was generated. 0 m*a

• Force time history for load cell data. In case of -100 0 0.5 1 1.5

force [kN]
TNO data the level of detail was reduced to two -200
columns horizontally and 4 rows vertically, -300
which is similar to the TRL data. Each upper and -400
lower segment part were added up to get the total
-500
for the segment and all segments were added up
-600
to get the total barrier force. B pill displ. [m]

• Force displacement/m*a for the total barrier Figure 4 Force Displacement curev Ford Focus
force.
Figure 6 shows the force displacement characteristic.
• Force displacement summary of each category + Again a good correlation between loadcell data and
average force displacement of each category m*a (CFC15). Interesting is the steep load increase
where this average was obtained by averaging after 0.4 m displacement even much higher then the
both displacements and forces for the same data Ford Focus , which has a higher mass Table 1. This
points. car is an example of a short crushable space, but able
Not all the analysed data will be discussed and to withstand high loads.
presented here for each car. However the summary
figures of the force displacement data for all the cars Mercedes A
will be discussed.
100

0
Phase 3 medium size family car analysis. -100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
TOTA
Force [kN]

-200 TOTB
Figure 4 shows the force displacement curve for the TOTC
Ford Focus as an example car of this phase. The -300 TOTD
TOTAL
figure shows both the curves obtained from the -400

loadcell data and from the multiplication of mass -500

times acceleration. The correlation between loadcell -600
data and m*a (CFC15) looks excellent for this car. time[s]

The general observation is that for the first 0.4 m the Figure 5 Barrier segment loads Mercedes A
load keeps about constant over 100 kN. This appears
to be the barrier characteristic. After this 0.4 m the
force is increasing along an almost linear slope.
Mercedes A
Figure 7 shows the force time history of the Ford 100 TOTAL
Focus. The load distribution shows a dominant 0 m*a
influence of the engine contact area with the barrier
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
(segment Dup). The position of the side member
force [kN]

-200
could not be identified by means of the load
distribution. This means that the barrier is a too -300

strong filter for this data. This means also that a more -400
detailed pattern for the load cells does not give more -500
information when using this barrier. -600
B pill displ. [m]
The next car discussed is the Mercedes A class.
Figure 6 Force Displacement curve Mercedes A
Figure 5 Shows the barrier segment loads of the
Merceds A. The engine influence is clear (segment
Tot D).

Huibers 4
 0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 Ford Focus -100
-150 -150
Aup Bup
-200 -200

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
Alw Blw
-200 -200

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50
-100 -100

-150 -150
Cup Dup
-200 -200

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-50 -50

-100 -100
time [s] time [s]
-150 -150
Clw Dlw
-200 -200

Figure 7 Barrier force pattern [kN] in time Ford Focus

Figure 8 shows the summary and average curve for

this phase. Lots of those curves are obtained by
means of m*a, as no loadcell data was yet available
Phase 4 large saloon car analysis
at this phase. For obtaining this average the Mercedes
A class, Ford Escort and VW Beetle were excluded, Again loadcell barriers were used for only a few cars.
because of the extreme different behaviour. The The first car to be discussed is the Mercedes E 200.
Mercedes because of the nature of the concept (short Figure 9 shows the sum of the barrier segment forces
crushable space for this category). The Beetle and the total in time. The segment D is the segment
behaves different to the VW Golf, although based on where the engine hits and is clearly the dominant
the same body concept, possibly because of different segment, like in phase 3. Figure 10 shows the force
packaging. The Ford Escort is based on an older displacement curve. A good correlation between
concept and shows passenger cell collapse. The Ford loadcell data and m*a (CFC15) can be observed.
focus appeared to be a good representative of the
average.

Huibers 5
 Phase 3 Suzuki Bal
100
Toyota Cor

0 Renault Meg
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 VW Golf
-100
Citroen Xsar
force [kN]

-200 Mitsubishi Lanc

VW Beetle
-300
Opel Astra

-400 Ford Escort

Ford Focus
-500
Mercedes A

-600 Average excl Esc,

displ [m] MBA,Beetle

Figure 8 Average force displacments phase 3.

Mercedes E200 The next car to be discussed for this phase is the Audi
100
A6.
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Figure 11 Shows the barrier segment forces for this
-100
TOTA
car. The shape of the segment-D loads is quite
Force [kN]

-200 TOTB different from the Mercedes E200. The peak is much
-300
TOTC earlier. This could be caused by early contact of rigid
TOTD
TOTAL
parts of the engine with the rigid barrier.
-400

-500
Figure 12 Shows the force displacement curve. For
this car the correlation between loadcell data and m*a
-600
time[s] (CFC15) is not good. The m*a shows a much more
logic shape than the loadcell. The early peak is also
Figure 9 Barrier segment forces Mercedes E
visible here. Because of the drop in load before
200. maximum displacement, it looks like the car structure
collapses. This could not be concluded from the
Mercedes E200 visual inspection of the car. A possible explanation
100 TOTAL
could be that the engine slides off the rigid barrier
0 m*a
edge. Like for phase 3, the area, which is covered by
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
the engine, shows the major contribution to the
force [kN]

-200 forces. This is true for all the analysed cars (not
-300 shown in this paper).
-400 Figure 13 shows the overview of the force
-500 displacement curves for this phase. Most of the
-600
B pill displ. [m]
curves are obtained by m*a because of the lack of
loadcell data.
Figure 10 Force displacement curve Mercedes
E 200

Huibers 6
 Audi A6 Phase 6 MPV analysis
100

0 The first car to be discussed is the Renault Espace.

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100
Figure 14 shows the barrier segment loads.
Force [kN]

-200 TOTA
TOTB
-300 TOTC Renault Espace
100
TOTD
-400
TOTAL
0
-500 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100
-600 TOTA

Force [kN]
time[s] -200 TOTB
TOTC
Figure 11 Barrier load cell segments forces Audi -300 TOTD
A6. TOTAL
-400

-500

-600
Audi A6 time[s]
100 TOTAL
0 m*a Figure 14 Barrier load cell segments Renault
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5 Espace.
force [kN]

-200
-300 Figure 15 shows the force displacements. A good
-400 correlation between loadcell data and calculated m*a
-500
(CFC15) curves could be observed. The car shows a
good stable behavior.
-600
B pill displ. [m]

Figure 12 Force diplacement Audi A 6.

phase 4 Toyota Camr

100
Opel Om
0
Saab 95
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-100 BMW 520i

Audi A6
barr. force [kN]

-200
MercedesE200
(LoacCell)
Volvo S70(Loadcell)
-300
Average
-400
obtained by m*a
unless otherwise
-500 specified

-600
displ [m]

Figure 13 Overview averages phase 4 large saloon cars

Huibers 7
 Renault Espace
100 Vauxhall Sintra RHD
100
0
0
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
force [kN]

force [kN]
-200 TOTAL
-200 TOTAL
-300 m*a
-300 m*a
-400
-400
-500
-500
-600
B pill displ. [m] -600
B pill displ. [m]

Figure 15 Force displacement Renault Espace.

Figure 18 Force displacement Vauxhall Sintra.

The next car shown here is the Vauxhall Sintra.

Figure 16 shows the barrier segment loads for the
Vauxhall Sintra RHD
Vauxhall Sintra. The total load is much lower then
100 the load for the Renault.
0
Figure 18 shows the force displacement for this car.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100 Looking to the shape it seems that a cabin collapse
TOTA
Force [kN]

-200 TOTB
occurs. Visual inspection of the photographs of the
TOTC post test confirms this [10]. The correlation between
-300
TOTD loadcell data and m*a ( CFC15) is not good in this
-400 TOTAL
case.
-500
Figure 17 shows the overall overview for phase 6
-600 with the average. The average looks a little too low,
time[s]
which is caused by the relative weak Sintra and the
Figure 16 Barrier segment loads Vauxhall Chrysler Voyager, which also shows a cabin collapse
Sintra later in the crash.

phase 6 Chrysler Voy

100
Mitsub SpaWa

0 VW Sharan
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
MPV
-100
Renault Esp
barr. force [kN]

-200 Peugeot 806

Vauxhall Sint-201
-300
Average

-400

-500

-600
displ [m]

Figure 17 Overview average force diplacements phase 6 MPV’s.

Huibers 8
Phase 7 small family cars analysis. Comparison all categories.

Almost all good performers with respect to structural Figure 22 shows the average curves for the force
behavior in this phase showed about the same force displacements for all available phases as discussed
displacement curves. Only one (good) example will here.
be discussed in detail here, the Renault Clio.
Up to 600 mm displacement all the curves look
Figure 19 gives the barrier segment loads for the similar ap[art from the MPV’s, which show higher
Renault Clio. Good correlation between loadcell data forces. At this displacement the MPV's start to
and m*a could be observed. progressively increase the loadlevels. For the small
family car this rapid increase starts at 800 mm
Renault Clio displacement and for the executive cars at about 1150
100
mm. Up to 1150 mm the curves for the executive and
0 family car coincide very well. The displacement of
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100 most of the family cars comes to an end at 1200 mm
TOTA without a clear increase of the loadlevel. Looking
Force [kN]

-200 TOTB
TOTC
closer to the details of phase 3 results, this increase
-300 however was visible for the VW Golf, Renault
TOTD
-400 TOTAL Megane and Citroen Xsara, but was filtered out by
-500
drawing the average curve. This filtering also might
be misleading for determining the peak loads.
-600
time[s] However only m*a data was available for these cars
so a good comparison could not be made for these
Figure 19 Barrier segment loads Renault Clio. cars compared to cars where loadcell data was
available. Some cars (Ford Escort, Ford Focus) show
Renault Clio slight higher peak loads.
100
The masses of the large executive cars don't differ
0
much from the masses of the MPV's, but the general
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5
trend is that the displacements of the executive cars
force [kN]

-200 TOTAL
are bigger then those of the MPV's. This less
m*a
-300 available crushable space often results in higher
-400 loadlevels for the MPV's at lower deformation. Only
-500 two out of 7 phase 4 cars reach 500kN were five of 7
-600
MPV’s reach this value .
B pill displ. [m]

Figure 20 Force displacement Renault Clio

Figure 20 shows the force displacement with

excellent correlation between loadcell data and m*a
(CFC15).
Figure 21 shows the overview and average of phase 7
cars. Please notice that not all phase 7 cars are
represented in this sample. In defining the average
the Citroen Saxo was ignored since according to the
mass of the vehicle (not considerable different from
other cars of this phase) the area under the curve
seems to be too small compared with most of the
other curves.

Huibers 9
 phase 7
100
VWPolo
0 SeatIbiza
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-100 LanciaYps
barr. force [kN]

RenClio
-200
CitrSaxo
-300
Peug206 m*a

-400 Average excl Saxo

-500

-600
displ [m]

Figure 21 Overview phase 7 small family cars.

comparison all phases

100
Average Phase 3
0
Average Phase 4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-100 Average Phase6
barr. force [kN]

-200 Average phase 7

-300

-400

-500

-600
displ [m]

Figure 22 Comparison averages all car categories.

Huibers 10
CONCLUSIONS car-car crash. For side impact this is not
beneficial.
4. Looking to the global stiffnesses only, phase 3,4
General
and 7 look quite “compatible”. Each type of car
1. The load distribution shows a dominant is able to deform any other type of car. Even the
influence of the engine contact. small family car can deform the large executive
car. This does not mean that for each collision
2. Trends for force displacements derived from speed this compatibility statement is true. For a
acceleration times mass are basically the same as collision of a small car against a heavy vehicle,
those derived from loadcell data with some the vehicles are compatible to a speed where the
exceptions. maximum energy is absorbed for the lighter
3. The barrier seems to give an average resistance vehicle. Above that speed the small vehicle
of about 100 kN until bottoming out at about 400 might collapse or might take more energy. A test
mm. with a higher speed (overload test) would be
necessary to give that answer.
4. Phase 3 (medium size family cars) and 4 (large
executive cars) show about the same force 5. Phase 6 vehicles, because of their higher mass
displacement curves up to 1200 mm where phase and stiffness can be considered as more
3 cars stop and phase 4 cars build up a higher aggressive to the others and will overload the
load to account for the extra energy absorption other cars at a lower collision speed. This
because of the higher masses. negative trend can only be changed by increase
of the crushable space of the MPV's.
5. Phase 7 (small family cars) show the same force
displacement curves as 3+4 up to 800 mm. After 6. The trend of increased vehicle front stiffness
that a progressive increase can be observed up to should be reflected in the barrier characteristic
the maximum displacement of 1100 mm. for the European side impact regulation, since
the current characteristic is based on the average
6. Phase 6 (MPV’s) show the same characteristic up of old cars.
to 600 mm after which a rapid increase of the
load can be observed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

With regard to Compatibility The authors gratefully acknowledge the EuroNcap

Programme Partnership who made the data used in
1. ENCAP loadcell data cannot be used to assess this paper available. Readers are encouraged to visit
the homogeneity of a vehicle front. The engine the EuroNcap web-site www.euroncap.com.
area shows an overwhelming influence on the
total load distribution pattern. The structural The authors thank TRL and TNO in their cooperation
influence cannot be distinguished. The barrier in the data processing, needed to carry out this
face filters out this influence. Other test methods analyses, which hopefully leads to a better
have to be developed for this assessment. understanding in what directions future vehicle
designs have to go for improved compatibility and
2. ENCAP loadcell data gives a good impression improved overall passive safety.
on the global stiffness of the current vehicle
types. It is recommended to use loadcell barriers
for each ENCAP test to monitor the global
stiffnesses of cars.
3. Because of the large contribution of the engine
area to the total load, this area gives a high
potential to provide a good interaction between
cars, as long as these area’s overlap in a frontal

Huibers 11
REFERENCES

1 Richter, B., e.a., Entwicklung von PKW im Hinblick

auf einen volkswirtschaftlich optimalen
Insassenschutz, ROSI-Rapport (in German),
Germany, 1984.
2 Hollowell, W.T., and Gabler, H.C., ‘NHTSA’s
Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility Research
program’, 15th Int. Technical Conf. on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia, May 13-17,
1996.
3 Evans, L., and Frick, M.C., ‘Driver fatality risk in
two-car crashes -- dependence on masses of driven
and striking cars’, in Proc. of the 13th ESV Conf.,
paper no. 91-S1-O-10, Paris, France, 1991.
4 Hollowell, W.T., and Gabler, H.C., ‘NHTSA’s
Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility Research
program’, 15th Int. Technical Conf. on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia, May 13-17,
1996.
5 Zeidler, F., Knöchelmann, F., ‘The influence of
Frontal Crash Test Speeds on the compatibility of
Passenger Cars in Real World Accidents', in: VDI
Tagungsbericht 1354, Innovativer Insassenschutz im
PKW, pp. 37-52, Düsseldorf, Germany, 1997.
6 Faerber, E., 'Improvement of crash compatibility
between cars', (project summary), Conference on
road infrastructure and safety research in Europe,
Risc ’97, Brussels, 1997.
7 Hobbs, C.A., Williams, D.A., and Coleman, D.J.,
‘Compatibility of cars in frontal and side impact’,
15th Int. Techn. Conf. on Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles (paper no. 96 S4 O 05), Melbourne,
Australia, 1996.
8 Shearlaw, A., and Thomas, P., ‘ Vehicle to vehicle
compatibility in real world accidents’, Proc. of the
15th ESV conference, paper no. 96-S4-O-04, 1996.
9 Zobel, R., 1997, 'Barrier impact tests and demands
for compatibility of passenger vehicles', in: VDI
Tagungsbericht 1354, Innovativer Insassenschutz im
PKW, pp. 209-225, Düsseldorf, Germany, 1997.
10 MPV Crash Test Results EuroNcap June 1999

Huibers 12