EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME(Euro NCAP)EURO NCAP ADVANCEDASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

Version 2.0
September 2012

Version 2.0
September 2012

CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 12CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 13PROCESS OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 24PHASE I: INITIAL SUBMISSION .................................................................... 45PHASE II: DETAILED TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................... 6

Version 2.0
September 2012

1INTRODUCTION
The ‘Euro NCAP Advanced’ approach seeks to improve the responsiveness ofEuro NCAP to emerging technologies. Manufacturers are invited to present
their innovations for assessment allowing Euro NCAP to offer an appropriate
reward, and guide consumers towards safer cars, from an early stage. An
independent organisation such as Euro NCAP must have a rigorous process toassess the innovations brought to it by the car manufacturers in order to ensurethat it is offering meaningful, useful and unbiased information to consumers.
The assessment process was established by the ‘Beyond NCAP’ subgroup, andis updated after a couple of years of experience. This protocol defines thedossier that should be delivered to establish the reward, if any, that is
appropriate to the innovation presented by a manufacturer.
It is the intention of Euro NCAP that, in the mid to long term, assessments of
new technologies be incorporated into its overall rating scheme. Therefore,
where several similar technologies have been considered through the ‘Euro
NCAP Advanced’ process, Euro NCAP may consolidate the test methods
demonstrated in those assessments into a single protocol. Future vehicles canthen be assessed and scored against that test protocol.

2CONDITIONS

2.1

Euro NCAP will consider only innovations which are commercially available
as optional or standard on a Euro NCAP tested vehicle model. To qualify, theminimum overall star rating for the vehicle (or vehicles) is 4 stars.

2.2

Euro NCAP will only entertain applications submitted by vehicle
manufacturers. The system is not open to submissions from third parties, aftermarket systems, prototype inventions etc. forwarded without consent of thevehicle manufacturer.

Version 2.0
September 2012

3PROCESS OVERVIEW

3.1

To establish whether or not an innovation should be rewarded, Euro NCAP
requires a comprehensive dossier describing the safety issue being addressed,
technical details about the way in which the innovation works and details ofthe tests done to establish its effectiveness.

Review by Euro NCAP

Telephonemeeting with
Manufacturer

Submission of
Phase II dossier

Review byAssessment Group

Final meetingwithManufacturer

NCAP

CONCLUSION

Phase I

Submission of
Phase I dossier

Phase II

A two phased approach is used to assess the submission of the technologies.

In Phase I, the manufacturer must make an initial submission giving technicaldetails of the innovation and the safety issue it is intended to address. This
information is reviewed by the Euro NCAP Secretariat. The secretariat will
make a decision whether or not the innovation is suitable for the Euro NCAP
Advanced reward. If so, the manufacturer is requested to provide the Phase IIdossier. The Secretariat may ask the manufacturer for additional informationor for clarification of certain points before agreeing to proceed to Phase II.
At the end of first phase, the manufacturer may also decide to withdraw thesubmission, regardless of the outcome of the decisions of the Euro NCAP
Secretariat.
3.2

In Phase II, the manufacturer must provide details of the ways in which thepotential effectiveness of the system has been evaluated: the targets set for thesystem, the tests which have been performed to assess performance and thenumber of casualties the system could be expected to prevent. The full dossier,will be reviewed by an assessment group that is formed by Euro NCAP.

3.3

Details of the information required in each phase are given in this protocol,
and in a excel template, which is available separately. Manufacturers mustmake use of the template when preparing their submissions to Euro NCAP.
The templates are provided by the Euro NCAP Secretariat at the request of thevehicle manufacturer.

3.4

It is anticipated that an assessment may take around three months to complete.
Therefore, if a Reward is sought for an innovation on a car to be assessed in
the overall rating programme, manufacturers should ensure that submissions
are made sufficiently early for the assessments to be completed at the sametime.

3.5

When awarded with the Euro NCAP Advanced reward, it will be published on
the website next to the applicable vehicle models. The publication andVersion 2.0
September 2012

publication date will be agreed with the manufacturer to ensure that technicaldetails are correct. From the date of publication on the web page (and notbefore), the manufacturer may reference Euro NCAP’s successful evaluationof the Innovation in advertising or other promotional material. Euro NCAP
will make available to the manufacturer any appropriate logos/visual identities
for use in promotional material. The use of the logo will be subject to EuroNCAP’s publication guidelines.
If the innovation cannot be properly assessed, or if it is judged not to havebeen satisfactorily tested or evaluated, Euro NCAP will not publish any
reference to the innovation on its website.
3.6

If a submission is successful and is rewarded, Euro NCAP will work with themanufacturer to prepare a ‘desensitised’ version of the submission dossier i.e.
one which contains no confidential information. The Chapters Safety Issue andExpected Benefit (except sales numbers) will not be desensitised.
There will be no copyright or any other restriction on the desensitised dossier.
Euro NCAP reserves the right to publicly refer to data from the desensitised
dossier in order to demonstrate and promote the safety technology.

3.7

Where a manufacturer wants to extend the Euro NCAP Advanced Reward toanother vehicle model or models, a separate dossier needs to be submitted toEuro NCAP. Parts of the original dossier may be reused, however all sectionsof the dossier which are model specific, including the expected fitment rateand test results will need to apply to the vehicle(s) to which the reward would
be transferred.

Version 2.0
September 2012

4PHASE I: INITIAL SUBMISSIONThe aim of this phase is to establish an understanding of the Innovation and its
potential for recognition by Euro NCAP on the basis of a sub-set of the totalrequired information. The Phase 1 dossier will contain the following chapters,
the contents of which are further detailed in the next paragraphs:
1) INNOVATION: whether it is a completely new technology or a new
application of an existing technology; what restrictions there are on its use2) SAFETY ISSUE: what is the safety issue which the innovation is seeking
to address; whether the innovation prevents accidents or prevents ormitigates injuries in the event of an accident; the extent of the safety
problem on European roads.

4.1

Chapter 1: Innovation
An extensive level of technical detail about the innovation, to fully understandits functionality, relevant components, and intended availability should begiven in this chapter. In particular the car models to which the innovation is tobe fitted (including model names and breakdown into variants) should bementioned next to technical details like the warning sequence (includingtiming) and sensing system.

4.2

Chapter 2: Safety issue
The safety issue is the number of casualties who suffer from accidents or
injuries of the identified type across Europe. To determine the safety issue, adedicated GIDAS database containing the years 2005-2010 needs to be used.
This dedicated database is assumed to be representative for the EU27, and an
automatic scaling from GIDAS to the EU27 is included in the template.

slightly
injuredseverly
injuredfatally
injuredCar Occupants

GIDAS

51%

EU27

46%

GIDAS

40%

EU27

Motorised
Two-Wheelers

3% 13%
4%

GIDAS

3%

53%

EU27

59%
20%18%

3% 16%

46%0%
Version 2.0
September 2012

Goods Vehicle
Occupants

Cyclists

Pedestrians

10%
7%

22%
19%

24%0%
6%

16% 1%

22%

11%

14% 4%

2% 11%

24%

7%3%

3% 15%
40%

Other

60%

9% 9% 4%80%

100%

As a first step, the manufacturer needs to select the scenarios from GIDAS
which are applicable for the innovation. These scenarios need be detailed in
the dossier. The result needs to be subdivided based on road type, city (urban),rural and motorway. This is called the problem at large and needs to be enteredin the excel template by the manufacturer.
As a next step, the manufacturer needs to determine the safety potential fromthe problem at large. This is done by filtering the problem at large using thetechnical system limitations, like speed, overlap, lighting conditions etc. The
filters applied need to be justified in the dossier. Again, the result is enteredinto the template, subdivided based on road type.
In addition to the required GIDAS analysis, manufacturers may include analternative accident database and corresponding analysis in the dossier. The
alternative analysis needs to be presented in the same manner as is required for
the GIDAS analysis, so that an easy comparison can be made.
When a manufacturer does not have access to GIDAS, he may contact thefollowing organizations to have the analysis performed:
Hannover University

Dresden University

Prof. Dietmar Otte

Lars Hannawald

Karl Wiechert Allee 3
D-30625 Hannover, Germany

Verkehrsunfallforschung an der TU
Dresden GmbH

Tel.: +49 511 5326410

Zellerscher Weg 24

Otte.Dietmar@mh-hannover.de

Tel.: +49 351 43898920
hannawald@vufo.de

Version 2.0
September 20125PHASE II: DETAILED TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The aim of the second phase is to provide a detailed technical assessment ofthe Innovation. The possible safety potential established in Phase I needs to besupported by test results and other supporting information.
The Phase II dossier will contain the following chapters in addition to thePhase I part, of which the contents are further detailed in the next paragraphs:
3) TEST PROCEDURES: the way in which the innovation has been tested
to establish whether or not it is meeting it targets.
4) EXPECTED BENEFIT: given the performance identified in tests, theSafety Potential of the Innovation should be updated.
5) REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE: information, if any exists, on how theinnovation works in practice; whether or not a safety benefit can be seen in
accident statistics.

5.1

Chapter 3: Test procedures and results
This chapter addresses the test procedures, criteria and limits by which theperformance of the innovation was verified. The level of technical detailprovided must be sufficient for Euro NCAP to understand under whatcircumstances and environment the system was tested, and whether state-ofthe-art methods have been applied.
Euro NCAP will only reward innovations for which the validation methods,
criteria and limits are well-documented, relevant and credible. For all systems
Euro NCAP requires that the system performance has been independently
verified. When timing does not allow testing to be performed by anindependent third party before the launch or when special test equipment
needs to be used, the manufacturer must contact the Euro NCAP secretariat toagree on the way forward. Preference is given to the use of open, accepted
standards.

5.2

Chapter 4: Expected benefit
The dossier should clearly qualify the expected benefit that the innovation is
finally able to deliver on a European scale. This expected benefit is based on
the safety potential that was determined in the first phase.
This potential needs to be further multiplied with the ON-rate, RTA rate
(ready to assist rate), HMI and any other factor influencing the real-life
performance of the system. These multiplication factors need to be well
supported by surveys, test results or other sources.
Additionally, it needs to be shown, by means of expected fitment rates, how
widely available the innovation will be made available and what the actual
impact of the system is.
These numbers also need to be entered into the template to calculate the final
expected benefit the innovation is thought to offer.

Version 2.0
September 2012

5.3

Chapter 5: Real world experienceIf available, the dossier should summarize the findings from real-world or
simulated real-world evaluations. Examples are so-called field operationaltrials (FOT) or driving simulator studies, although the possibilities togeneralize the conclusions in the latter case are limited. The most reliable realworld data source is the actual tracking of system performance using
instrumented vehicles in the whole or parts of Europe. It is acknowledged thatsuch studies however are rare and hard to perform. Consumer feedback can bereviewed as well.

Version 2.0
September 2012