At our meeting in October we agreed to send this proposal to the GRRF 81 as an informal document. This agreement was subject to any important information being brought up to this meeting. Since our October meeting Mr. Westphäling had requested RDW for any measurement values that possibly had been made in The Netherlands. Mr. Stokreef responded to that request saying that there was no measurement data available. However in some correspondence from 1982 some recommendations were found. Mr. Svensson commented those in the light of that many measurements had been made in Australia during the late eighties and even more just the last couple of years in Sweden. The foundation for our proposal is well good and sound. It is not affected by the comments from 1982. Hence it was decided to proceed with the informal document to the GRRF 81.

At our meeting in October we agreed to send this proposal to the GRRF 81 as an informal document. This agreement was subject to any important information being brought up to this meeting. Since our October meeting Mr. Westphäling had requested RDW for any measurement values that possibly had been made in The Netherlands. Mr. Stokreef responded to that request saying that there was no measurement data available. However in some correspondence from 1982 some recommendations were found. Mr. Svensson commented those in the light of that many measurements had been made in Australia during the late eighties and even more just the last couple of years in Sweden. The foundation for our proposal is well good and sound. It is not affected by the comments from 1982. Hence it was decided to proceed with the informal document to the GRRF 81.

At our meeting in October we agreed to send this proposal to the GRRF 81 as an informal document. This agreement was subject to any important information being brought up to this meeting. Since our October meeting Mr. Westphäling had requested RDW for any measurement values that possibly had been made in The Netherlands. Mr. Stokreef responded to that request saying that there was no measurement data available. However in some correspondence from 1982 some recommendations were found. Mr. Svensson commented those in the light of that many measurements had been made in Australia during the late eighties and even more just the last couple of years in Sweden. The foundation for our proposal is well good and sound. It is not affected by the comments from 1982. Hence it was decided to proceed with the informal document to the GRRF 81.

Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02­­_13, R55_04­­_08, R55_04­­_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20, R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13; R55_13_07; R55_13_08)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had augmented the proposal to include a lower limit for reduction. This limit had two components. The reduction is proposed to be linear from 80 km/h to 36 km/h ending at a maximum requirement reduction of 33%. On top of that a requirement on D-value corresponding to startability in 15% ascent. In general the concept got good acceptance. Some comments stressed the importance that the proposal does not apply in off-road applications. Mr Svensson pointed to the option to do away with the upper limit on speed. While the reference speed is still 80 km/h an increase in allowable maximum speed to let say 90 km/h would result in an increase in the requirements. There were some comments on application to exceptional transports only. That of course is a given as this is under the heading “Special operations”. The agreement reached was that all manufactures of coupling shall evaluate the proposal towards exemption certificates for heavy transports that they had issued hitherto. These evaluations shall be reported to Mr. Svensson who will compile the results. The compilation will be on the form xx% of the exemptions would have been safely handled through the proposed formalism. On the basis of this compilation a mail vote would judge whether to take this proposal as a working document to GRRF-82 or not.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04­­_11, R55_05_05, R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05, R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08; R55_10_15, R55_11_ 12; R55_11_13; R55_11_15; R55_12_03; R55_12_10; R55_12_20; R55_12_28; R55_13_07; R55_13_08 )
This proposal had been endorsed at the GRRF-81. A small change was made to the proposal in that the definition of a dolly was aligned to the definition agreed in the IWG-MVC. The definition was challenged by Mr. Westphäling saying that the word “dolly” was originating from Germany and meaning a rear axle group of extreme long cargo transports. After some discussion it was agreed to investigate the use of converter dolly instead of just dolly. Several experts were skeptic. [Since the meeting the secretary has made some investigations to find out the risk for misinterpretation. That risk was found to be very low. Hence he proposes to go forward with the word dolly without any word “converter”. ] One further minor change was made to Annex 6 §3.6.1 to align that paragraph with the changes made in the definition part of the regulation. With these changes it was agreed to go forward with this proposal as a working document for GRRF 82.

Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02­­_13, R55_04­­_08, R55_04­­_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20, R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13; R55_13_07; R55_13_08)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had augmented the proposal to include a lower limit for reduction. This limit had two components. The reduction is proposed to be linear from 80 km/h to 36 km/h ending at a maximum requirement reduction of 33%. On top of that a requirement on D-value corresponding to startability in 15% ascent. In general the concept got good acceptance. Some comments stressed the importance that the proposal does not apply in off-road applications. Mr Svensson pointed to the option to do away with the upper limit on speed. While the reference speed is still 80 km/h an increase in allowable maximum speed to let say 90 km/h would result in an increase in the requirements. There were some comments on application to exceptional transports only. That of course is a given as this is under the heading “Special operations”. The agreement reached was that all manufactures of coupling shall evaluate the proposal towards exemption certificates for heavy transports that they had issued hitherto. These evaluations shall be reported to Mr. Svensson who will compile the results. The compilation will be on the form xx% of the exemptions would have been safely handled through the proposed formalism. On the basis of this compilation a mail vote would judge whether to take this proposal as a working document to GRRF-82 or not.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04­­_11, R55_05_05, R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05, R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08; R55_10_15, R55_11_ 12; R55_11_13; R55_11_15; R55_12_03; R55_12_10; R55_12_20; R55_12_28; R55_13_07; R55_13_08 )
This proposal had been endorsed at the GRRF-81. A small change was made to the proposal in that the definition of a dolly was aligned to the definition agreed in the IWG-MVC. The definition was challenged by Mr. Westphäling saying that the word “dolly” was originating from Germany and meaning a rear axle group of extreme long cargo transports. After some discussion it was agreed to investigate the use of converter dolly instead of just dolly. Several experts were skeptic. [Since the meeting the secretary has made some investigations to find out the risk for misinterpretation. That risk was found to be very low. Hence he proposes to go forward with the word dolly without any word “converter”. ] One further minor change was made to Annex 6 §3.6.1 to align that paragraph with the changes made in the definition part of the regulation. With these changes it was agreed to go forward with this proposal as a working document for GRRF 82.

Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02­­_13, R55_04­­_08, R55_04­­_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20, R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13; R55_13_07; R55_13_08)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had augmented the proposal to include a lower limit for reduction. This limit had two components. The reduction is proposed to be linear from 80 km/h to 36 km/h ending at a maximum requirement reduction of 33%. On top of that a requirement on D-value corresponding to startability in 15% ascent. In general the concept got good acceptance. Some comments stressed the importance that the proposal does not apply in off-road applications. Mr Svensson pointed to the option to do away with the upper limit on speed. While the reference speed is still 80 km/h an increase in allowable maximum speed to let say 90 km/h would result in an increase in the requirements. There were some comments on application to exceptional transports only. That of course is a given as this is under the heading “Special operations”. The agreement reached was that all manufactures of coupling shall evaluate the proposal towards exemption certificates for heavy transports that they had issued hitherto. These evaluations shall be reported to Mr. Svensson who will compile the results. The compilation will be on the form xx% of the exemptions would have been safely handled through the proposed formalism. On the basis of this compilation a mail vote would judge whether to take this proposal as a working document to GRRF-82 or not.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04­­_11, R55_05_05, R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05, R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08; R55_10_15, R55_11_ 12; R55_11_13; R55_11_15; R55_12_03; R55_12_10; R55_12_20; R55_12_28; R55_13_07; R55_13_08 )
This proposal had been endorsed at the GRRF-81. A small change was made to the proposal in that the definition of a dolly was aligned to the definition agreed in the IWG-MVC. The definition was challenged by Mr. Westphäling saying that the word “dolly” was originating from Germany and meaning a rear axle group of extreme long cargo transports. After some discussion it was agreed to investigate the use of converter dolly instead of just dolly. Several experts were skeptic. [Since the meeting the secretary has made some investigations to find out the risk for misinterpretation. That risk was found to be very low. Hence he proposes to go forward with the word dolly without any word “converter”. ] One further minor change was made to Annex 6 §3.6.1 to align that paragraph with the changes made in the definition part of the regulation. With these changes it was agreed to go forward with this proposal as a working document for GRRF 82.