Frequently Asked Questions

Vehicle nominations are generally submitted by manufacturers or authorised representatives. Depending on the programme cycle, other approved submission channels may also be recognised where eligibility and documentation can be properly verified.

No. A submitted entry first undergoes eligibility and documentation review. Only vehicles that satisfy the programme's baseline requirements may proceed to official candidate status.

A submitted entry is a vehicle that has been formally entered for review. An official candidate is a vehicle that has passed baseline eligibility and documentation checks and has been accepted into the recognised programme pathway.

Vehicles are generally expected to fall within the defined eligibility window, represent a genuine production model, demonstrate sufficient market availability and hold the necessary road approval or equivalent compliance status required for fair comparison.

No. The programme is intended to evaluate real customer-facing vehicles rather than concept-only or prototype-only products. Vehicles must be capable of meaningful assessment under practical and comparable conditions.

Where applicable, submission-related fees support the administration and review of the entry. Such fees do not guarantee official candidate recognition, shortlist inclusion, finalist status or award selection.

The shortlist is formed after eligibility and candidate-stage review in order to ensure that each selected vehicle can receive meaningful evaluation time under reasonably comparable conditions. Not every official candidate progresses to the shortlist.

Testing generally takes place after shortlist confirmation. This helps ensure that detailed review activity is focused on the vehicles progressing into the main comparative evaluation stage.

Shortlisted vehicles are generally expected to be made available through the manufacturer, authorised representative or other approved market entity. The programme may define requirements relating to vehicle condition, configuration and access in order to support fair and meaningful review.

If sufficient access cannot be achieved to support meaningful and reasonably comparable review conditions, the vehicle's progression within the programme may be affected.

Testing may include observation of driving behaviour, comfort, usability, safety-system behaviour in use, software integration and overall ownership relevance. The process is intended to complement published specifications through practical review rather than replace regulatory certification or laboratory testing.

The programme is not designed as a media-only award. Evaluation may involve IAF-appointed experts, qualified committee members, independent automotive evaluation professionals and, where appropriate, editors or review specialists contributing within the programme structure.

Not necessarily. The programme may distinguish between evaluation contributors, specialist advisors, authorised voting participants and internal oversight functions. This distinction helps maintain clarity between technical input, structured review and final score handling.

Participants involved in evaluation, review or voting are expected to declare relevant professional, commercial or financial relationships. Depending on the nature of the declared conflict, mitigation may include limited participation, recusal or exclusion from relevant stages of the programme.

Not generally. The programme may publish its methodology, governance approach and, where appropriate, stage-based programme outcomes. Individual score details may remain confidential where confidentiality is necessary to protect independence and process integrity.

The programme may publish participant identities at a defined stage of the cycle, such as near the final evaluation period or alongside shortlist or finalist communications, depending on governance, timing and operational considerations.

The winner is determined through the programme's published evaluation framework, applying weighted criteria, structured review inputs and controlled score handling procedures. Final totals support the annual ranking and winner determination.

In the event of equal final totals, the programme may apply predefined tie-break logic, such as higher outcomes in safety-related priorities, innovation or other defined programme criteria, followed by further controlled review if necessary.

Yes. Questions or concerns relating to process integrity, governance or procedural consistency may be submitted through the appropriate programme channel. Requests based solely on disagreement with the outcome, without a governance or process basis, may not constitute grounds for formal review.