Task Force 7 – fire resistance:
Mr. Jung, as the leader of TF7, reported the research result, its activities, and action plan.
OICA expert showed its appreciation for the TF work, but also showed his objection for the long duration fire resistance test. He believes that this requirement is much more severe than the requirement for vehicles with internal combustion engines.
US quoted the test result data from Canada and trying to define the appropriate and equivalent of new “long duration” for the fire resistance test..
China will report the fire test result with 20 minutes duration at the next EVS meeting.
TF7 will continue to discuss, with supportive data from the US, Canada, China, and others , what is the appropriate test protocol for a long duration fire test along with its purpose (i.e.; keep escaping time, responding time for fire fighter, etc).
TF7 leader also gave the presentation of the research result of Korean government regarding the actual fire test protocol switching from gasoline fire to burner fire and its technical justification. They used a mock-up this time, and when they use the battery test the results will be reported to the EVS IWG.
OICA reminded that the research should not discriminate against the electrical vehicles (as opposed to conventional gasoline vehicles) when comparing the test methods with UNECE R100.
Task Force 8 – scope study:
Mr. Wu Yichao, as the leader of TF8, provided its progress. TF8 found in their technical study that some criteria and/or test protocol of current requirement of EVS GTR can be applied for commercial vans, and some such as mechanical integrity test or cell safety test can differ from those applicable to passenger cars.
OICA mentioned they are in positive stance toward the expansion of GTR scope. However, OICA questioned about the general concern that the priority can be considered as personal car and commercial car. Too wide expansion of GTR scope as the initial stage will increase the complexity of the GTR and OICA is concerned that inclusion of commercial vehicles would take too long since some tests are not compatible between passenger and commercial vehicles.
China also raised the issue whether this task force should identify the scope expansion for all heavy duty car or buses and coaches only. In general, trucks have less people to carry than buses and the safety requirements would be very different among the vehicle classes, so that the framework needs to be carefully considered in the GTR discussion.
After the round table discussion, Japan, United States, and China agreed to continue the discussion of possible future potential expansion of the GTR scope to heavy duty area.
TF8 will draft the requirements for heavy vehicles in an annex of this GTR including a definition for heavy duty vehicles by the next EVS IWG meeting. Depending on further discussion, IWG will decide on the actual vehicles’ scope for the GTR. For those tests that appear to be applicable to all vehicle categories, they can be directly referred to in the main GTR document. An open invitation to participate has been extended to the US truck manufacturers.
Annex can mainly consist of the mechanical integrity part, however, all TFs’ inputs are expected to TF8 allowing for other requirements to be specified for heavy duty vehicles.
EVS-06-12 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 7 (Fire resistance)
EVS-06-13 | Notes from the 17 October 2014 meeting of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 8 (Heavy-duty electric vehicles)
EVS-06-27 | Battery System Test Project and Test Methods’ Adaption to Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EVS-06-38 | Progress report of EVS Task Force 7 (Fire Resistance)-revised (Korea)