Proposal for Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51
Document GRB/2017/6
16 June 2017
  1. Paragraph 1: The scope was originally drafted for the Annex 3 test which refers to normal urban driving. A proposed additional sentence covers the intention of Annex 7.
  2. Paragraph 2.8.1.: Adopt the wording from standard ISO 362-1:2015 for clarity. If an electric motor is not operational during the type approval tests, then its power must not contribute to the calculation of the power to mass ratio (PMR).
  3. Paragraph 2.24., table: Amendments regarding paragraph 2.2.7.4. of Annex 3 because paragraph 2.2.7.4. is new. Amendments also for line BB’ to reflect that the measurement will not end after line BB’. For the speeds vAA’, vBB’ and vPP’, a wrong reference coming from ISO was corrected.

  4. Paragraph 2.27.: A new definition of “kickdown” was introduced since this term is used in this Regulation. With a large variety of products, it is unclear what “kickdown” exactly means. This definition is a design neutral approach and reflects the intention of Annex 3 and Annex 7.
  5. Paragraph 2.28.: Prevention of downshift is a legal measure to ensure that the vehicle can be tested within the test conditions as specified by this Regulation.
  6. Paragraph 3.3.: Deletion of meaningless sentence given the requirement that the vehicles have to be loaded in order to be able to achieve the urban driving conditions as described in paragraph 3.1.2.2. of Annex 3. The sentence has similarly already been deleted in Regulation (EU) No. 540/2014.
  7. Paragraph 6.2.3.: The current specification requires a hybrid vehicle to be assessed according to the additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), even though such a vehicle does not have the internal combustion engine running within the control range of Annex 7. There will be no valid test result. Such vehicles should be exempted from ASEP.
  8. Annex 1, Appendix 1: For the test method according to 3.1.2.1 the pre-acceleration length may differ per gear ratio. In this case, it is necessary to report the pre-acceleration length per gear ratio.
  9. Annex 1, Appendix 2 : Missing elements of the information document have been added, namely “0.2. type” and “3.2.6. pressure charger(s)”.
  10. Annex 3, paragraph 2.1.: Lower temperatures will lead to slightly higher test results due to an increased tyre rolling sound. Thus, testing at lower temperatures will be a disadvantage for the manufacturer. If for practical reasons the manufacturer wishes to carry out tests at lower temperatures, this shall be accepted by the type approval authority.
  11. Annex 3, paragraph 2.2.1.: For M1 and N1, the current provision has led to ambiguities about its meaning. The proposed new sentence clarifies the meaning. Further, the tolerances are broadened, as research shows, that the impact of the test mass can be neglected in a wide range. For M2, M3, N2 and N3, the current provision has led to ambiguities about its meaning. The proposed new sentence clarifies the meaning. If the test mass of the vehicle is equal to the target mass, the target mass shall be achieved with a tolerance of ±5 per cent according to equation (2) in paragraph 2.2.7.1. of Annex 3. Consequently this has to be valid also for the test mass mt. If the test mass of the vehicle is lower than the target mass according to equation (12) and (13) in paragraph 2.2.7.1. of Annex 3, the test mass shall be achieved with a tolerance of ±5 per cent. Concerning M2 and M3, for clarification and to avoid misunderstanding, the loading conditions for complete vehicles of category M2 (M > 3,500 kg) and M3 were aligned with the requirements for incomplete vehicles of category M2 (M > 3,500 kg) and M3. As a consequence, vehicles of category M2 (M ≤ 3,500 kg) have to be added to the table and their test mass requirement has to be aligned with those of vehicles of category M1 and N1.
  12. Annex 3, paragraph 2.2.7.1.: See the above justification for M2, M3, N2 and N3 in paragraph 2.2.1.
  13. Annex 3, paragraph 2.2.7.4.: If a manufacturer does not produce vehicles with two axles only, he is not able to calculate the right test mass for his vehicles with more than two axles. For calculating the test mass, a vehicle with two axles has to be put on a scale to measure the unladen front axle load, mfa load unladen, and the unladen rear axle load, mra load unladen, for being able to calculate munladen as given in formula (3) of paragraph 2.2.7.1. of Annex 3. In addition, a new paragraph provides a procedure for calculating the test mass of a virtual vehicles with two axles, based on an existing vehicle with more than two axles, when a vehicle with two axles is physically not available to be put on a scale.
  14. Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.1.: Proposal to extend the measurement to a position where misfiring is detectable. A redundant sentence is deleted per paragraph 2.2.4.
  15. Annex 3, paragraph 1.1.2.1.4.1.(d): Clarify gear usage where one gear ratio is above 2 m/s² and the other below aurban.
  16. Annex 3, paragraph 1.1.2.1.4.1. (e): The suggested changes clarify the proper setup for testing for vehicles with very short gear ratios.
  17. Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.1.4.3.: Introduction of specifications for vehicles with only one gear ratio.
  18. Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.1.5. : Simplify testing. With a fixed vehicle length, it is not necessary to adjust the test equipment (light barriers, pylons) for each vehicle.
  19. Annex 3, paragraph 3.2.3.: Reference correction
  20. Annex 3, paragraph 3.2.5.3.: Reference correction
  21. Annex 4, paragraph 1.: The performance of the fibrous material can be checked by completely removing the fibrous material. This reintroduces an option removed when Annex 5 of the 02 series of amendments was revised.

  22. Annex 6, paragraph 2.1.: Proposal to simplify and clarify CoP. During the conformity of production procedures, neither the vehicle nor tyres will have a proper preconditioning. In many cases, the vehicles are foiled and parts may be missing as theft protection. It is very unlikely that the vehicles will have already the same performance as the type approval vehicle. This provision adopts the specifications from the revised ASEP provisions (Informal document GRB-65-26, Annex 7, para. 1). In addition, the range of masses was broadened in the same way as proposed for type approval.
  23. Annex 6, paragraph 3.: Reference correction.

Submitted by Germany and OICA
Status: Superseded
Download document
Previous Documents, Discussions, and Outcomes
3.5.3. | Working Party on Noise (GRB) (Sixty-seventh session, 24-26 January 2018)

53. In particular, the GRB chair mentioned that GRB had adopted amendment proposals to Regulation No. 51 which would introduce an option of indoor testing, according to standard ISO 362-3, upon understanding that the Type Approval Authority could always mandate an outdoor test for verification. He further pointed out that GRB had addressed the pending issue of transitional provisions for the earlier amendment proposals to Regulation No. 51 which had been submitted to the March 2018 session of WP.29 as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/7. GRB had agreed that these proposals should be introduced as a Supplement with an 18-month transitional period and requested the secretariat to issue an addendum to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/7.

4.6.2. | Proposal for Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 51 (Noise of M and N categories of vehicles)
4. (a) | Regulation No. 51 (Noise of M and N categories of vehicles): Development

8. On behalf of a group of experts, the expert from OICA proposed a number of amendments updating and revising the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2017/6). These proposals received comments from the experts of China, Russian Federation and Switzerland (GRB-66-11, GRB-66-13 and GRB-66-19). The expert from OICA also proposed some further modifications (GRB-66-20).

9. The expert from Italy expressed concerns about the suggested extension of the sound pressure level measurement to line BB’ plus 20 m, with the aim to properly assess the possible “backfire”. According to him, this modification would be a new requirement which should be introduced by means of a new series of amendments with transitional provisions, rather than by a supplement, as proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2017/6. He also pointed out that the above modification would need to be accompanied with a similar change in the relevant ISO standard. The experts from Germany, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland supported this amendment proposal in the form of a supplement. The expert of the Russian Federation supported the proposal as a supplement and agreed that Regulation No. 51 and the ISO standard should be aligned. The experts from France and EC were of the view that a new series of amendments would be more appropriate.

10. Given a large number of amendment proposals to Regulation No. 51, including the ones transmitted by the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) (see para. 12 below), GRB consolidated and provisionally adopted these proposals, as contained in Annex II. At the same time, GRB was not in a position to reach consensus on whether or not the adopted proposals would require a new series of amendments and/or transitional provisions. GRB decided to come back to this issue at its next session in January 2018. Meanwhile, the secretariat was requested to submit, in December 2017, the adopted text (Annex II) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51, upon the understanding that any possible modifications, to be decided by GRB in January 2018, could exceptionally be submitted to WP.29 as a corrigendum or addendum to the original WP.29 document.

Related and Previous Documents
GRB-66-11
GRB-66-13
WP.29/2018/7
Relates to UN R51 |