Global NCAP Advisory Council, 28 October 2016

1. C-NCAP Updates
C-NCAP Management Center

2. Review for decade of C-NCAP1
2 Introduction of 2018 version

3. August 29,2006

4. Over 300 vehicle types have been
evaluated in the past 10 years

5. 2018 version

6. 9.1%
25
%
26.1%
37.5%
2.3
%
２ star
3
stars
4 star
5 star
5star
+
result of 2006 protocol
result of 2009 protocol
56
%
21%
17%
6%
3stars
4stars
5stars
5stars
+
result of 2012 protocol
73.8%
18%
3.3%
4.9%
3 star
4 star
5 star
2 star
Numbers of 4- and 5-star cars
keep increasing

7. Organize auto safety tour around China for
consecutive 10 years
Promoted UN Decade of Action in China
National Traffic Safety Day

8. Active Participation of International Communication

9. Review for decade of C-NCAP1
2 Introduction of 2018 version

10. • Adjust chest index
• Quantitative evaluation of
submarine
• Adjust whiplash test
• Abolish bonus points for
ISOFIX and safety belt
reminder on driver side
• Adjust rating system
C-NCAP launched
in 2006
C-NCAP launched
in 2006
2012 version
2006 version
2015 version
2009 version
2018
version
• Whiplash test
• Higher offset test speed
• Quantitative evaluation of
rear seat occupants
• Bonus point for ESC
• New rating system
• Rear seat dummy
in side impact test
• Child dummy
• New barrier in side impact test
• Higher whiplash test speed
• Stricter requirements for
bonus point of air curtain
• Bonus point for safety belt
reminder of rear seats
• Increased weight of rear seat
dummy
• Pedestrian protection
• AEB system
• New rating system

11.  Test item:
1.100% frontal
impact
2. 40% OBD
3. Side impact
(new
barrier to
be
adopted)
4. Whiplash
test
(increased
speed)
 Bonus
point:
1. Side air
Occupa
nt
protecti
on
Activ
e
safet
y
Pedest
rian
protect
ion
 Headfor
m test
 Legform
test
—upper
leg
—lower
leg
 AEB
 Rear end
― Target vehicle
at low speed
― Target vehicle
in stationary
― Target vehicle
in braking
 Pedestrian
− Offside
crossing in
daytime
− Nearside
crossing in
daytime
 Bonus point
for ESC
Elect
ric
safet
y
 Anti
shock
—Insulation
resistance
at battery
side
—Any one out of
the rest
four
 Leakage
of
electrolyt
e
 REESS
EV/Hybrid vehicleEV/Hybrid vehicle
Conventional vehicleConventional vehicle

12. 2015
version
2018
version

14. WAD1700
40km/h ， 50 °
40km/h ， 65 °3.5kg child headform
4.5kg adult headform
Free fly, 40km/h
75mm
or
WAD2100
Legform
test
Headform
test
Height of lower
end of bumper

15.  AEB-CCR
 Target vehicle in stationary, target vehicle
at low speed and target vehicle in braking
 HMI and malfunctioning
 Setting of weight of each scenario
AEB-VRU-pe
Nearside and offside crossing in daytime
Determine the weight of various speeds in
terms of injury distribution and injury severity
Scenario
Test
item
Target vehicle in
stationary
Target vehicle at
low speed
Target vehicle
in braking
AEB FCW AEB FCW AEB FCW
Scena
rio
20kph 35kph 30kph 50kph 12m 12m
30kph 45kph 45kph 60kph 40m 40m
40kph 55kph 65kph 75kph
75kph
Speed of target
vehicle: 20kph
Speed of
target vehicle
and test
vehicle: 50kph
4m/s2

16.  No effects to the existing evaluation system for conventional vehicle
 In consideration of the hazard of high-voltage in battery and circuit,
additional test to be adopted
 Compliance of vehicles after impact tests with the requirements for
electric safety to be tested
 More stringent requirements than those in Chinese standards to be
applied
 Independent mark to be applied for indicating the level of electric safety
 In case of failing to meet the electric safety requirements, only the test
results will be released and no star rating will be conducted.
EV/Hybrid Vehicle Evaluation

17.  Requirements in GB/T31498
 Anti shock
——The insulation resistance must
meet relevant requirements. Any one of the
rest four shall meet the requirements.
 Electrolyte leakage
 REESS
 Requirements specified in C-NCAP protocol are more stringent than
those in GB/T31498.
EV/Hybrid Vehicle Evaluation
 Low-voltage
 Electricity
 Physical protection
 Insulation resistance
on loading side
 Insulation resistance
on battery side

18. BOX Category Item
Points
BOX
Total
Scoring rate
Weig
ht
Scoring rate 最 得分终
Front Rear
Occupant
protection
Evaluated
through test
100%
frontal
16 4
70
BOX scoring/BOX
total
0.7 ×70%
Final
scoring
(scoring
rate)
40% OBD 16 4
Side impact 16 4
Whiplash 5
Bonus
Side
airbag+curta
in
3
Safety belt
reminder
2
＋
Pedestrian
protection
Evaluated
through test
型头 12
15
BOX scoring/BOX
total
0.15 ×15%
腿型 3
＋
Active
safety
Bonus ESC 4
15
(ESC scoring +
AEB
scoring×configurati
on rate)/BOX total
0.15 ×15%Evaluated
through test
AEB 追尾 8
AEB 行人 3
Score distributionScore distribution

19. Configuration rateConfiguration rate
Item Requirements
Configuration
coefficient
ESC No requirements
AEB
Test vehicle with AEB 1
Test vehicle without AEB
A≥25% 1
25% ＞ A≥15% 0.8
15% ＞ A≥5% 0.6
A ＜ 5% 0
Note:
A—proportion of sales volume of configurations equipped with AEB in the total sales
volume of the vehicle type. It is set in terms of the forecast average installation rate
and future trend on the market.
Optional installation is not considered. OEM provides configuration list and sales
volume. AEB must be standard configuration and C-NCAP Management Center will
verify the list provide by OEM.

20. Star Rating and Minimum Scoring RateStar Rating and Minimum Scoring Rate
Star Rating and
Scoring Rate
Minimum Scoring
Occupant
Protection
Pedestrian
Protection
Active Safety
2018 2019 2020
5+ 95% 95% 75% 50% 55% 72%
5 85% 85% 70% 26% 38% 55%
4 75% 75% 60% / / /
3 60% 65% 50% / / /
2 45% 55% 40% / / /
1 ＜ 45% ＜ 55% ＜ 40% / / /

21. Test vehicles
in place
Notification to vehicle
manufacturers
Pedestrianprotection
test(5workingdays)
Release of
final results
Final results
C-NCAP test
Preparation for pedestrian
protection test (30 working
days)
AEB test
(7-10
working
days)
Crashtestand
whiplashtest(5
workingdays)
Feedback of
pedestrian
protection
parameters by
vehicle
manufacturers
(5 working
days)