| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Justification for an acceleration greater than 1.0 m/s² under document GRRF-82-08 (CSF) | ||||||||
| Reference Number | GRRF-82-14 | ||||||||
| Date |
18 Sep 2016
|
||||||||
| Summary | In order to enhance the safety of B1 corrective steering functions (by reducing the probability of driver over-reliance and misunderstanding of system limitations), OICA proposes a minimum value of 0.8 m/s2 for maximum lateral acceleration in place of the draft 1 m/s2 for the speed range between 100-130 km/h for M1 and N1 vehicles. OICA believes that this would ensure that a system is capable under all conditions of generating the required minimum acceleration. | ||||||||
| Source(s) | OICA | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R79 Steering Equipment | ||||||||
| Proposal Status | Superseded | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | .doc format | |||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| GRRF | Session 82 | 20-23 Sep 2016 |
53. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/45, containing four options as possible ways forward to progress on ACSF. The Secretary of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) gave a presentation reporting on the progress made by the group (GRRF-82-17). He reported on definitions proposed for ACSF of Categories A to E, clarifications proposed for Corrective Steering Functions (CSF) and new provisions proposed for RCP. GRRF acknowledged the status report received and agreed to work on an amendment to Option 4 as proposed by GRRF-82-12. The proposal for Option 4 received several comments in GRRF-82-08, GRRF-82-09, GRRF-82-14, GRRF-82-15, GRRF-82-18, GRRF-82-19 and GRRF-82-26. 54. The expert from Sweden commented on GRRF-82-14 informing that road construction standards would define design requirements (inclination profile) leading to the road side forces corresponding to 1 m/s2 and that this value was even higher on roads designed for low speed. GRRF adopted the value 0.8 m/2 proposed in this document for ACSF of categories A and B1 only, as a strict minimum, noting that it was taking account of a 0.2 m/2 measurement uncertainty and that the value 0.8 m/2 would de facto impose manufacturers to design systems according to a higher value in practice. |
||||||||