Mr. Terragni informed that the last meeting was unfortunately not held in English, with problem of exchange of information. He added that his company found no benefits in investing 40 000€ in purchasing machines for performing a round robin test if there is no perfect transparency in the exchange of data.
Dr. Buckle recalled that in Mannheim a meeting in Wolfsburg was decided, with the 2 sub-groups. 2 instruments were compared, and the Wolfsburg meeting was dedicated to a common protocol for both the instruments. A campaign was conducted with 3 ISO instruments, with 5 testing houses, but there was the need for an additional test house with the other equipment, for performing a robin test. Then the meeting was mainly devoted to the ISO instrument.
Dr. Buckle showed the ISO wiper laboratory test method description.
It was encouraging that the size and nature of the scratches were of the same order as those of the real world tests of sub-group 1. The cost of instruments was about 4 to 6000 €. The reference ISO standard was ISO-11998. Momentive, Evonik and Bayer (BMS) so far provided results. The analysis is dated 25 November 2013; hence no conclusion could be drawn at the time of the 8th meeting of the informal group.
The informal group was informed that the sub-group is currently discussing the number of wipe cycles that are needed to make it equivalent to a certain life time in real world. (20 000 cycles takes 2 days).
Mr. Meyer found that 20 000 cycles are enough. He added that the problem is that the glass sample is still quite good with this figure. Sometimes 5000 cycles is sufficient; it seems this test is more discriminating than the Taber test.
About the need for a Straylizer, Dr Buckle stressed that the problem is more about what is really measured with this instrument. The software may have to be updated (reflective index) to use the Straylizer for plastic, and coating.
For most of the experts haze is still the best criterion for measuring the abrasion. But the Straylizer may better capture fine scratches. A remaining question is how to measure that the nature of the scratches (e.g. depth measured with nano-profilometry) are similar in real car test vs. labo test. Sub-group1 committed to perform such test.
Dr. Buckle committed to produce a written report of the Wolfsburg and Ingolstadt meetings. The sub-group 1 also was of the opinion to be in line with the proposed timeline, and that definitive results could be ready for the informal group March 2014 meeting.
At the end of the meeting, the Chair clarified that the sub group 2 will continue its work, focusing on the adaptation of the ISO instrument, with a further meeting to be scheduled end of January/beginning of February 2014.