APPLICATION OF STAR RATINGSEUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

Version 1.5

Euro NCAP © October 2017
EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

Copyright © October 2017 Euro NCAP - This work is the intellectual property of Euro NCAP. Permission is granted forthis material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on
the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of Euro NCAP. To disseminate
otherwise or to republish requires written permission from Euro NCAP.

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction……………………………………

1

2.

Validity of Star Rating……………………………………

1

3.

Annual and Facelift Reviews……………………………………

1

4.

Termination of Star Rating……………………………………

3

5.

Variants and Partner Models……………………………………

3

6.

Corporate Twins……………………………………

5

European New Car Assessment Programme

APPLICATION OF STAR RATINGS PROTOCOL
1.

Introduction
Euro NCAP has in the past published a result for a vehicle with little or no follow-up
regarding the continued validity of the star rating. The rating has been a ‘snapshot’of the safety of a vehicle at a point in time and any changes that occur thereafter,
either to the vehicle’s design or to the equipment fitted to it, have not beensystematically tracked.
With growing recognition and use of the star rating by national authorities,
insurance companies and the general public, it is appropriate that Euro NCAP
should provide information on the continued validity of the star rating that was
originally issued to a vehicle.
This protocol defines the technical aspects concerning the continued validity of thestar rating. Manufacturers should also be careful to observe the requirements ofEuro NCAP’s “Guidelines for Use of the Star Rating”.

2.

Validity of Star Rating
Once Euro NCAP has published the base star rating and related information on its
website, the vehicle has obtained a valid rating.
By default, the base rating (and optional rating if applicable) remains valid for a
maximum period of 6 years following the release of the result. The rating scheme isexpected to change so significantly during this period that referring to an older result
would mislead consumers.
If during this period the specification of the rated vehicle or safety pack alters, forinstance because standard equipment is deleted or made optional, the rating may
become invalid earlier. To monitor changes to rated vehicles, Euro NCAP will apply
Annual and Facelift Reviews (see 3).
In some circumstances, the star rating may be carried over from the original test
model to a facelifted model, another model variant or twin model. Specificconditions apply as laid out in sections 5 and 6 respectively.

3.

Annual and Facelift Reviews

3.1.

Vehicles whose results are published on or after 1st January 2013 will be subject toan annual review of their ratings.

3.1.1.

A vehicle’s base rating will be subject to an annual review every 12 months from thetime the original rating was released until maximum 6 years thereafter, to establish
whether or not the original rating remains valid. The annual review will comprise (forall variants and/or corporate twins covered by the rating):
1

October 2017 All rights reserved

European New Car Assessment Programme

A check that the base safety equipment is unchanged and will continue sofor a further 12 months.

A check that the fitment of safety equipment met original requirements andis expected to continue to do so for a further 12 months. This check will
require information on total sales across the model range and evidence ofthe number of vehicles to which the safety equipment was fitted as standard
equipment.

Note: Information from a third party should be provided to corroborate the sales
figures (e.g. for an AEB system, information might be provided by the supplier of theradar or camera system used in that application).
3.1.2.

Approximately nine months from the publication of the original rating, or of theprevious annual review or of a facelift review, Euro NCAP will contact the
manufacturer with a standard form for completion. The completed form will be
reviewed by the Secretariat and the manufacturer will be contacted if further
information is required.

3.1.3.

Not returned or not completed forms may lead to discontinuation of the star rating.

3.2.

Where a vehicle with a valid overall star rating receives a facelift and the
manufacturer wishes to carry over the rating from the original test, the following
rules apply:

3.2.1.

The vehicle manufacturer should contact Euro NCAP approximately four months
before the release of the facelifted vehicle.

3.2.2.

A ‘facelift review’ will be conducted by Euro NCAP to establish whether or not theoriginal star rating can be transferred. This will comprise, in addition to those items
examined in an annual review (see above):

A review of the changes that have been made to the vehicle.



A review of in-house test data, where appropriate.

3.2.3.

Application should be made even for ‘facelifts’ which have no influence, or a very
minor influence, on the safety rating but where the appearance of the car has beenaltered or where the car is to be marketed as ‘new’. It is Euro NCAP’s intention tokeep consumers informed of the applicability of the rating and any changes which
distinguish the updated vehicle from the original should be reported.

3.2.4.

It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to approach Euro NCAP withinformation concerning facelift changes. If no information is received from the
manufacturer, Euro NCAP may assume that the facelifted vehicle does not meet therequirements of the original star rating. The original star rating may no longer bevalid and the facelifted vehicle may be eligible for assessment.

3.3.

The continued validity of an optional rating based on a safety pack will be checkedaccording to VSSTR protocol v7.0 or later.

3.4.

The outcome of annual reviews and facelift reviews will be published on the web
page of the vehicle in a simple tabulated format, indicating the date and nature of2

October 2017 All rights reserved

European New Car Assessment Programme

the review and whether or not the original rating remains valid. Annual reviews will
be published approximately every 12 months from the date of the original rating.

4.

Termination of Star Rating

4.1.

The base rating (and optional rating if applicable) expires after 6 years or when theoriginal rating is not considered valid for the vehicle on sale at an Annual Review(e.g. original fitment rates not met in practice) or a Facelift Review.

4.2.

In all cases where the rating has been terminated, the website will list the VIN up towhich the rating is valid. Vehicles after this VIN will not be covered by the rating
and the manufacturer’s advertising should make no further reference to the rating.
The ratings and related information will remain on the website for reference (usedcar market).

4.2.1.

Vehicles produced after this VIN are eligible for testing against the latest EuroNCAP protocols. The manufacturer will first be offered the opportunity to sponsor
the upgrade of the rating, after which a Euro NCAP member may consider
sponsorship.

5.

Variants and Partner Models
From 2017, Euro NCAP will provide clearer information to consumers about thevariants to which a model’s rating applies. It is intended to provide, on the website
and in the datasheet, a list of all variants in the model range and to indicate whether
or not the published rating can be considered to apply to that variant. To this end,
the equipment matrix sent to vehicle manufacturers before tests begin now contains
a section where all variants, including partner models, must be defined.

5.1.

Main Assessment

5.1.1.

Euro NCAP will test a single variant, as identified using the Vehicle Specification,
Selection, Testing and Retesting (VSSTR) protocol. As part of its assessment of thevehicle, Euro NCAP will ask the manufacturer for data showing the equivalentsafety performance of the opposite hand of drive to the one tested (e.g. RHD if LHD
tested).

5.2.

Application of Star Rating to Other Variants

5.2.1.

Variants will be considered to share the rating of the tested vehicle if the
manufacturer can provide data/information to demonstrate to the satisfaction of thelead inspector that all of the requirements set out in Appendix 1 are met

5.2.2.

In-house data is acceptable to demonstrate compliance with the requirements ofAppendix 1, except where official tests are explicitly demanded in that Appendix.

5.2.3.

Euro NCAP reserves the right to request additional information to the above.

5.3.

Variants not covered by the Rating

3
October 2017 All rights reserved

European New Car Assessment Programme

5.4.

Any variants which do not meet the requirements of 5.2 will be considered not to becovered by the star rating and will be marked as such in the website table.

5.5.

Partner Models

5.5.1.

Certain variants may be marketed under a different model name to the originallytested vehicle. Manufacturers may apply for the star rating to be applied to such‘partner models’ following the procedures set out in 5.2.1 to 5.2.3.

5.5.2.

The Manufacturer must inform Euro NCAP of its intention to apply for a ‘partner’
rating at the time of application for assessment of the tested model.

5.6.

Timing5.6.1.

Variants

5.6.1.1. Manufacturers may apply for the star rating to be applied to other variants in years
later than the one in which the rating was originally published. In such cases, noconsideration will be given to the requirements in place at the time of the new
application, only those which applied at the time of the original rating.
Manufacturers should provide data in support of any application as described in
5.2.1.
5.6.2.

Partner Models

5.6.2.1. A partner model may not share the original rating if it is released in a calendar year
more than 2 years later than the date stamp of the original assessment.
5.6.2.2. Presentation of the results on Euro NCAP’s website will depend on the relative
timing of the launch of the partner variants.


If the partner model is marketed in Europe in the same calendar year as theoriginal assessment (and therefore eligible for the same date stamp on therating), the Manufacturer may choose whether the partner is listed on EuroNCAP’s website as a separate model (Model A and Model B appear
separately in the list of tested cars) or shares a combined rating with thetested model (presented as Model A/Model in the list). In either case, thecomments will make clear that the rating is based on the results of the tested
model.



If the partner model is marketed in a year subsequent to the original model(and is therefore not eligible for the same date stamp on the rating), theassessment on Euro NCAP’s website will be renamed “Model A/Model B”,
where “Model A” is the marketing name of the variant originally tested and“Model B” is the name of the ‘partner’. The comments will make clear that the
rating is based on Model A but that sufficient similarities exist, and sufficient
data has been provided, for Euro NCAP to apply the rating to Model B.

5.7.

Comparison of Data

5.7.1.

The Manufacturer must explain any differences in test results that do not comply
with the requirements for audit testing set out in section 4.2.7 of the Vehicle
Specification, Selection, Testing and Retesting (VSSTR) protocol 7.1.

4
October 2017 All rights reserved

European New Car Assessment Programme

6.

Corporate Twins‘Corporate Twins’ are models which are identical to each other in all ways except
for brand and model name i.e. they are examples of pure ‘badge-engineering’.
Visually, they are virtually identical and it is clear to consumers that they are, in
effect, the same vehicle.

6.1.

A vehicle’s star rating can be applied to twins if:Euro NCAP is satisfied that the twin is, apart from name and branding,identical to the vehicle tested in all ways related to safety.



The twin has the same base safety specification as the vehicle tested, or
better.



The best-selling variant of the twin has the same body style and powertrain.

6.2.

An equipment matrix should be completed for all brand models to which the rating
will be applied.

6.2.1.

The matrix should be signed by a representative of that brand.

6.2.2.

The base safety specification and best-selling variant should be identified for eachbrand.

6.2.3.

The manufacturer agrees to notify Euro NCAP of any changes to standard/optional
fitment of safety equipment.

6.3.

Documentation should be submitted to Euro NCAP which highlights differences, ifany, in

Manufacturing plants.

Suppliers of safety equipment.

Powertrain options.

6.4.

Where very minor differences exist, the twin with the lowest base safety
specification or the poorer performance will be assessed.

6.5.

All twins should be made available, on request, for strip-down/parts check at time ofinspection or before.

6.6.

Manufacturers must ask for other brand models to be considered as corporate twinsat the time the original assessment is to be done. Retrospective application for
twins to ‘share’ the original rating will not be considered.

6.7.

Data for publication on the corporate twin will be taken from the original model
tested. Euro NCAP will make no distinction between the models

6.8.

Twins must have the same date stamp on the rating.

5
October 2017 All rights reserved

European New Car Assessment Programme

APPENDIX 1
Requirements for transfer of rating to variants other than the one tested
Note: Additional evidence is required for model variants failing to meet the criteria set out in the tables below. Additional evidence is test
data produced in accordance with Euro NCAP/ANCAP protocols. In-house data is acceptable, except where official tests are explicitly
demanded.
Table 1. ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION
Factora) Body style(same number of side
entry doors)

Criterion
For assessment, a transverse vertical plane is defined that is 500mm rearward of the upper seat belt anchorage
point for the driver seat. Forward of this plane variants must be identical in design and structure forcrashworthiness purposes. Drawings showing overlay of structures should be provided. This includes the front
seat belt anchorages but not rear seat belt anchorages.

a) Body style(different number of side
entry doors)

Where a variant differs from the tested vehicle in the number of side entry doors (e.g. a 3 door where a 5 door wastested, or vice versa), and its front-end structure is identical for crashworthiness purposes, additional evidence
must be provided (side pole and side AE-MDB). For variants (same brand, same model name) in-house data may
be provided. For partner models (same brand, different model names), official Euro NCAP tests must be done.
The same rating can be used for the variant or partner in question if the results of the test are comparable, foradult and child dummies, with those of the originally-tested vehicle.
If the shape or H point of the rear seats is different from the tested variant, additional evidence may be requested
to demonstrate equivalent performance for the full-width test.

b) Kerb mass

Variation up to ±10% of the mass of the ODB test vehicle is allowed, provided the car does not receive a modifier
for bodyshell instability. Further evidence may be required in cases where the modifier has not been applied but
the stability is considered marginal. For variants where the maximum kerb mass (i.e. including all options, safetyrelated or otherwise) is between 10 and 20 percent more or less than the mass of the ODB test vehicle, in-house
data for the frontal ODB, side AE-MDB and side pole tests should be provided. Where the maximum kerb mass isEuropean New Car Assessment Programme

beyond 20 percent more or less than the mass of the ODB test vehicle, the manufacturer must perform additional
official frontal ODB, side AE-MDB and side pole tests at a Euro NCAP laboratory.
c) Engine (displacement,
cylinder configuration,
aspiration, block size,
type of fuel)For internal combustion (IC) engines, the same block size & configuration is allowed, irrespective of displacement,
aspiration and fuel. Extra components within the engine bay such as LPG convertors and turbo-chargers are
acceptable provided that footwell and pedal intrusion are well controlled in the tested vehicle (i.e. 4 points scoredfor driver's feet and there is no footwell rupture).
Note that a 4-cylinder result cannot be used for a V6 result and a V6 result cannot be used for a V8, and viceversa, without additional evidence (in-house or official Euro NCAP frontal ODB test).
For electric and hybrid vehicles (where a IC variant was originally tested), additional official Euro NCAP tests areneeded for frontal ODB and side pole tests. Additional factors are checked during tests of electric vehicles, suchas battery integrity, so results of IC variants cannot be transferred.

d) Transmission (manualor auto, number of gears)

Any transmission is acceptable.

e) Driven wheels (4x4, 4x2, Two-wheel drive results (either front or rear) are not interchangeable with an all-wheel-drive variant without
front-wheel drive, rearadditional evidence (frontal ODB test) due to the effect of the rear driveline. Similarly, front-wheel drive results arewheel drive)
not interchangeable with rear-wheel-drive results, without additional evidence.
Driven wheel differences are acceptable for the side impact and pole tests.
f) Ride height (e.g. heightof top of wheel arch) andtyre diameter

In general, a difference of +/-50mm from the tested variant is acceptable for both the frontal ODB test and the side
AE-MDB test. However, manufacturers should submit data illustrating where critical structures are positioned
relative to the deformable elements in these tests. The lead inspector may require additional evidence. In any
case, additional evidence for the AE-MDB test is required where the ride height is more than 50mm lower than thetested variant.

g) Wheelbase

Wheelbase variation up to ±10% is acceptable. Additional evidence (frontal ODB test) is required for larger
variations.

European New Car Assessment Programmeh) Driver location (lefthand-drive, right-handdrive)

Manufacturers will be asked, as part of the routine assessment of the vehicle, to provide evidence to demonstrateequivalence in results between the hand of drive tested and the opposite hand of drive.

i) Occupant restraint
systems

Seat design must have similar restraint-related features, such as anti-submarining pans. Upholstery andadjustment features may vary. Where restraint systems differ, additional evidence is required (additional evidence
required may vary depending on the extent of differences).

j) Whiplash

Cosmetic changes such as upholstery materials are acceptable. Where a different seat structure or mounting isused or the seat geometry is changed (other than due to easily compressible materials) additional evidence isrequired (static and dynamic whiplash tests). Control changes (electric/memory vs. manual) are acceptable.
Additional evidence is required for variants which have structures rearward of the driver seat, to demonstrate thatmechanisms designed to control whiplash injuries have sufficient space to operate. For example, a dual cab
whiplash rating cannot be applied to a single cab variant without additional evidence (dynamic whiplash tests).

k) Third row seats

Official Euro NCAP tests are needed for the following: rear whiplash assessment; CRS installation; SBR.
If points are lost relative to the tested variant in any of these assessments, the score of the poorer performing
variant will be used for

Variants (as they share the assessment on the website)
Partners which share a common assessment on the website.

For partner models which have separate assessments on the website, the appropriate results will be separately
shown.
Where the H point of seats in the second row are different from those of the tested variant, the OEM must supply
additional data demonstrating equivalent performance in the frontal ODB test and the side AE-MDB.

European New Car Assessment Programmel) AEB City

Where a grid was submitted for the original rating (i.e. 2018 ratings) onwards, the OEM may submit a revised griddemonstrating equivalent performance for the new variant or partner model. Euro NCAP may ask for additional
tests to verify the revised grid.
Where no grid was submitted, other variants must use the same components, human-machine-interface andsoftware as the system tested. To transfer the rating from the tested variant:i.

the system must have the same functional components (e.g. LIDAR, radar transmitter & receiver, andmono or stereo cameras), of the same brand, model and series as tested by Euro NCAPii.

AEB software must be the same as that tested by Euro NCAP.

iii.

all transmitter, receiver and camera locations must be the same as those tested by Euro NCAP.

Where these conditions are not met additional evidence (AEB) is required demonstrating that the system has thesame or better performance than the system tested by Euro NCAP/ANCAP.

European New Car Assessment Programme

Table 2. CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION
Factora) Shape of rear bench

Criterion
Where the rear seats differ from those in the tested variant, in shape, style or H-point, the OEM must provide dataon these differences and additional evidence may be requested to demonstrate equivalent performance for childdynamic tests and CRS installation.

b) Pretensioners and loadlimiters

Where the rear restraints differ from those in the tested variant, additional evidence should be submitted todemonstrate equivalent performance for child dynamic tests and CRS installation.

c) Third row seats

Official Euro NCAP CRS installation check needed. Results presented as explained in Adult Occupant Protection,item k.

European New Car Assessment Programme

Table 3. PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION
FactorCriteriona) Head impact
zones

Where a grid was submitted for headform testing of the original assessment, a modified grid should be submitted for variants
and partner models. Euro NCAP may require additional testing to verify some grid locations.
Where a grid was not originally submitted:
Where under-bonnet clearances are less than the tested variant and are within 50mm of the bonnet exterior outer surface
additional evidence is required (pedestrian headform impact tests). Similarly, additional evidence is required where thestiffness of components within the prescribed adult and child head impact zones (and to a depth of 50mm below the exterior
outer surface) is likely to be greater than the tested variant.
If the original assessment had active pedestrian protection (a deployable bonnet, for example) official Euro NCAP tests will beneeded for any variants that do not have such equipment.

b) Upper leg
impact zones

Where the leading edge of the bonnet is changed in geometry or the stiffness of components within the prescribed zone islikely to be greater than the tested variant then additional evidence (upper legform tests) is required.

c) Lower leg
impact zones

Where the front bumper bar is changed in geometry or the stiffness of components within the prescribed zone is likely to begreater than the tested variant then additional evidence (legform tests) is requiredd) AEB VRU

Where a AEB VRU system was awarded points, other variants must use the same components, human-machine-interface andsoftware as the system tested:
To transfer the rating from the tested variant:i.

the system must have the same functional components (e.g. LIDAR, radar transmitter & receiver, and mono or stereo
cameras), of the same brand, model and series as tested by Euro NCAPii.

AEB software must be the same as that tested by Euro NCAP.

iii.

all transmitter, receiver and camera locations must be the same as those tested by Euro NCAP.

European New Car Assessment Programme

Where these conditions are not met additional evidence (AEB VRU) is required demonstrating that the system has the sameor better performance than the system tested by Euro NCAP/ANCAP.

e) Ride height

The impact points for pedestrian protection tests depend on the ride height of the vehicle. Where the ride height varies fromthe tested variant by more than +/-50mm additional evidence is required (all pedestrian tests).

European New Car Assessment Programme

Table 4. SAFETY ASSIST

FactorCriteriona) Speed

Where any of the following functions were awarded points, other variants must use the same components, humanmachine-interface and software as the system tested by Euro NCAP:a) Camera-based speed limit information function (SLIF)b) Digital map-based speed limit information function (SLIF)c) Combined camera and digital map systemsd) Manual speed assistance (MSA) speed warning function- e.g. audible alarme) Manual speed assistance (MSA) speed limitation functionf) Intelligent speed assistance (ISA)

Assistance
Systems

Where these conditions are not met additional evidence (speed assist) is required.
b) AEB Inter-

Urban

Where a AEB system was awarded points, other variants must use the same components, human-machineinterface and software as the system tested by Euro NCAP:

To transfer the rating from the tested variant:i.

functional components (e.g. LIDAR, radar transmitter & receiver, and mono or stereo cameras)must be the same brand, model and series as tested by Euro NCAPii.

AEB software must be the same or a later version than that tested by Euro NCAP.

iii.

all transmitter, receiver and camera locations must be the same as those tested by Euro NCAP.

Where these conditions are not met additional evidence (AEB Inter-Urban) is required demonstrating thatthe system has the same or better performance than the system tested by Euro NCAP/ANCAP.

European New Car Assessment Programmec) LaneSupport
Systems

Where a LSS system was awarded points, other variants must be equipped with a system of the same
type (LDW/LKA) that uses the same components, human-machine-interface and software as the systemawarded points by Euro NCAP.
Where these conditions are not met additional evidence (LSS) is required.