Dr. Matthai, as Pilot for IGPG-task force Wiper-SG1, tabled the presentation IGPG-09-03.

Dr. Buckel pointed out that with a haze of 0.2% in 50,000 cycles, the reality of the field seems less severe than the wiper test.

Dr. Buckel summarized bilateral discussions with Dr. Matthai. Assuming the same initial haze value of 0.1% in the 95% confidence area, the data of Audi show that minor changes in the delta haze are to be expected. Dr. Matthai explained that at her company, they succeeded in having more cycles than the suppliers (up to 50,000). As a summary, plastic glazing shows damage very soon, the Taber test is not relevant for plastic glazing, and some OEMs would reject it.

A debate took place on the possible correlation between mileage and lab wiper cycles. It was also found necessary to avoid a comparison with glass and rather focus on the absolute quality of plastic glazing with regard to safety.

Dr. Matthai stressed that OEMs focus on traffic safety, hence optical distortion for example is an important criterion, in particular when the customer is key for the choice of an OEM with regard to optical qualities. OICA pointed out that the OEM internal quality levels should not influence the discussions on Type Approval regulation.

Evonik was optimistic that products could evolve and suggested to put the number of cycles to 20,000. In addition, it is necessary to compare plastic with plastic (hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic) in order to make a correlation between real road tests and lab tests. Hence the correlation factor for glass cannot be used for plastic. Some experts were convinced that the wiper test is more severe for plastic than for glass, but were lacking data to know how much harder.

SABIC questioned some choices in the test method (e.g. flow of water poured on the test sample).

The spirit of the 1958 Agreement was recalled (i.e. the performance tests in a regulation could only simulate the reality) with UN R94 (frontal impact) and UN R83 (pollutant emissions) taken as examples, and the Secretary stressed that durability was an additional criterion added in the case of resistance to abrasion, and already existing in the case of UN R83 (160,000-km durability test).

The experts were lacking justifications for the values and test method for the wiper test.

Polyplastic proposed that the OEMs focus on the wiper system in addition to the windscreens since the plastic glazing is by nature a hydrophobic material. The group convened that this was out of its mandate, and that progress will happen as from the time the plastic windscreens will be allowed.

Rough evaluation of some key figures:

Proposal for a summary to date:

• Agreed to:
  • Keep Taber test
  • Add a set of 3 tests as an alternative to Taber test for plastic glazing if the informal group can demonstrate that the set is representative of reality.
  • Comments:
    • Bayer, KRD, Momentive, MPA, Evonik, Polyplastic some OEMs believe the set to be representative
    • Sabic believes the wiper test as shown by SG2 not shown to be representative
    • Final OICA position to be defined
  • Set of 3 tests to be:
    1. Sand drop
    2. Amtec Kistler
    3. Wiper test
  • Wiper test to be finalized with regard to:
    • Test method
    • Number of samples
    • Pass/fail values

  Wiper test method:

  item	value	Comments
  Test conditions	See document of SG2 (wiper test)
  Measurement machine	See document IGPG-09-04 (IGPG-TF Wipe-SG2) (wiper test): Machine, Wiper blade, Aqueous suspension (with test dust)	Wiper blade can be best adapted to the windscreen material.
  Test procedure	See document IGPG-09-04 (IGPG-TF Wipe-SG2) (wiper test) including expression of the results
  Number of cycles	[20.000]/[50.000]	20.000 in 3 labs (round robin test). 2 days of testing time; i.e. 3 samples = 6 working days (solution supported by the majority) 50.000 in one lab (supported by some OEMs) OICA to make a position for next meeting Informal document to contain [20.000]
  Number of samples	3	As in the other tests
  Pass/fail method	Hazemeter
  Pass/fail limits	[2] / [0,5] % Delta haze	Problem of correlation to mileage. Note: hazemeter precision is 0,8 + needs to take account of results distribution. Figure to be confirmed at 10th meeting (June 2014). Considered to be challenging for the coating producers, hence technical progress is expected. 0,5% is supported by some OEMs (50.000 cycles and 0,5% haze). OICA is requested to take a position for June meeting.

  Some experts from the automotive industry were of the opinion that the values of “20,000 cycles” and “2% haze” could not sufficiently guarantee traffic [safety].