C-NCAP UpdatesC-NCAP Management Center

Review for decade of C-NCAP1

2 Introduction of 2018 version

August 29,2006

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

2018 version

9.1%

25%

26.1%

37.5%

2.3%

２star

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

Organize auto safety tour around China for consecutive 10 years

Promoted UN Decade of Action in China

National Traffic Safety Day

Active Participation of International Communication

Review for decade of C-NCAP1

2 Introduction of 2018 version

• 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

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

Test item:1.100% frontal

impact2. 40% OBD3. Side impact

(new barrier to be adopted)

4. Whiplash test (increased speed)

Bonus point:

1. Side air curtain (stricter requirements)

2. Safety belt reminder (requirements for rear seats)

Occupant

protection

Active

safety

Pedestrian

protection

Headform 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

Electric

safety

Anti shock

—Insulation resistance at battery side

—Any one out of the rest four

Leakage of electrolyte

REESSEV/Hybrid vehicleEV/Hybrid vehicle

Conventional vehicleConventional vehicle

2015 version

2018 version

WAD1700

40km/h ， 50 °40km/h ， 65 °3.5kg child headform4.5kg adult headform

Free fly, 40km/h

75mm

or

WAD2100

Legform test

Headform test

Height of lower end of bumper

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

Scenario

20kph 35kph 30kph 50kph 12m 12m30kph 45kph 45kph 60kph 40m 40m40kph 55kph 65kph 75kph

75kph

Speed of target vehicle: 20kph

Speed of target vehicle

and test vehicle: 50kph

4m/s2

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

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

BOX Category Item Points

BOX Total

Scoring rateWeig

ht Scoring rate 最终得分

Front Rear

Occupant protection

Evaluated through test

100% frontal

16 4

70BOX scoring/BOX

total0.7 ×70%

Final scoring (scoring

rate)

40% OBD 16 4Side impact 16 4Whiplash 5

Bonus

Side airbag+curtain

3

Safety belt reminder

2

　 　 　 　 　 　 ＋Pedestrian protection

Evaluated through test

头型 1215

BOX scoring/BOX total

0.15 ×15%腿型 3　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 ＋Active safety

Bonus ESC 4

15

(ESC scoring + AEB

scoring×configuration rate)/BOX total

0.15 ×15%Evaluated through test

AEB追尾 8

AEB行人 3

Score distributionScore distribution

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.

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% / / /

Test vehicles in place

Notification to vehicle manufacturers

Pedestrian

protection test (5 w

orking days)

Release of final results

Final results

C-NCAP test

Preparation for pedestrian protection test (30 working

days)

AEB test (7-10

working days)

Crash test and

whiplash test (5

working days)

Feedback of pedestrian protection

parameters by vehicle

manufacturers (5 working

days)