Item w3 (KBA request a definition of alternative performance value)
Mr. Hansen of KBA withdrew the item.

Item w6 (Support load for C50 coupling with pivoting Jaw) ( R55_13_14; R55_14_15)
Mr. Alguëra argued that this was a mistake when transferring the requirements from 94/20/EC to the regulation 55. I.e. there had been a 94/20/EC approval on 80 kg support load. However when checking up the latest version of 94/20/EC, it was found that there was a requirement/limitation of maximum support load 50 kg. The general opinion at the meeting was that the coupling shall be retested. Mr. Alguëra withdrew the argumentation. He will reconsider the situation. No further action will be taken in this forum on this item.

Item w10 (General review of class …-X)
No discussion due to lack documentations. The item was dropped.

Item w11 (What masses to use in performance requirement calculations) (R55_11_18; R55_13_06)
Mr. Svensson noted that this was a very important subject. However this is a major task that will require some effort. Mr. Svensson volunteered to take this task on. This shall be done outside this working group. Mr. Stokreef and Mr. Hansen announced that would like to contribute in this work. This solution was accepted by the meeting.

Item w12 (Cop testing) (R55_12_11)
Mr. Stokreef repeated the background for the proposal, e.g. the result of the test is very sensitive to the set-up. Many experts at the meeting had a say on this matter. Mr. Svensson argued that the regulations shall be kept as is. At the meeting in January it was said that the successful testing was sometimes a lucky coincidence. By keeping testing COP-testing at the same level as the certification testing those designs that were approved on a lucky coincidence would over time be done away with. If any changes shall be done then a more strict documentation of the test set-up by the certification tests shall be required in the information package for the certification. Mr. Alguëra was open to some changes but was not specific on how to change. Mr. Westphäling argued on the basis of statistics. To get any kind of statistical foundation you need to make at least 6 tests. Mr. Conrads was open to a lower COP test load at 80% to 85%. Mrs. Domagala argued that there should be a combinantion with a static test after the endurance test. The discussion went on for some time but no agreement could be reached.

Item w14 (Coupling installed to vehicles without towable mass) (GRSG/2016/4)
This item was originating from Poland that had brought it up at the TAAM. It concerns retrofitting a coupling (class A) to a vehicle not having a towable mass assigned by the vehicle manufacturer. Would it be possible to have this installation approved? The general opinion was that it is not possible to have such a vehicle approved according to regulation 55. There is no a possibility make a change to regulation 55 to have such an approval. The argument around this issue went like this. Assigning a towable mass to a vehicle includes a rigorous testing and analysis by the vehicle manufacturer. There are uphill tests, stability test, slalom test, cooling system capacity tests, endurance test for the fixing points, braking system tests, … A vehicle not having a towable mass assigned by the vehicle manufacturer has not been subject to these tests. Accordingly it cannot have a coupling with D-, Dc-, S- or V- value installed. If such installations shall anyway be brought up for an approval it shall be shown that the relevant tests as required by the vehicle manufacturer to assign a towable mass have been carried out. It is the general opinion of the working group that it is a bad practice to install a class A coupling for the sole purpose to enable the usage of special appliances as e.g. bicycle carriers. If such arrangements are still on the agenda it is the opinion of this working group that measures shall be taken that excludes the installation can be used to tow a trailer. Detailed regulation for appliances aimed at other applications than towing a trailer shall be the subject for the GRSG to consider.

Item w16 (Class A coupling with integrated articulation sensor)
Mr. Westphäling consulted the experts of our working group to get advice on the possibility to get a modified class A coupling type approved as class A. The modification was such that typically a 8 to 10 mm wide and ~4 mm deep groove is cut around the “equator” of the 50 mm ball. In that groove articulation sensor elements are arranged. The experts were concerned with that modification. Most serious was the decreased contact surface and the sharp edge at the groove. Those items will according to the unanimous opinion of the experts accelerate the wear of the coupling ball as well as the coupling head (class B). On this basis the recommendation from the group was not to approve.