2. OICA asked whether a filtered, unified driving database had been agreed between the chair, JRC, Mr Steven and Ms Ericsson. This had not yet been agreed, but the chair agreed to inform the group when it was agreed and to upload the database to CIRCA. It was not expected that the characteristics of the agreed database would be significantly different to the driving databases that each party currently held.

3. Mr Haniu presented document DHC-09-02. OICA noted that the idling sections were not selected from evenly distributed increments in the idling frequency distribution. It was explained that the duration of each selected idle period had been increased by the same percentage in order to match the required total idling duration to match the idle/driving ratio in the database. Concerns were expressed regarding the resultant duration of the longest idling period. It was agreed that validation 1 would proceed with the current idling periods, but that Mr Steven would provide an alternative proposal for idling periods for consideration following validation 1.

4. The vice chair noted that the relatively long initial idle period might impact on the effectiveness of the cycle at encouraging rapid catalyst light off. It was agreed that the impact of the length of the initial idle period on emissions during the cold start, Low speed phase should be investigated during validation 1.

5. The draft Extra High speed phase was discussed at length. Mr Steven expressed the view that the use of incomplete (as well as complete) short trips from the Extra High speed database reduced the significance of acceleration periods in the unified distribution, resulting in a less dynamic cycle than expected. Mr Steven presented a comparison of the characteristics of the draft cycle with those of the EU driving database. He noted in particular that the Extra High speed phase corresponded to only the 10th percentile of data in the EU database in terms of velocity x positive acceleration, positive acceleration and maximum acceleration. He showed an alternative Extra High speed phase based on a complete short trip, rather than constructed from partial short trips, and noted that this matched EU relative positive acceleration and acceleration data better, but gave a worse Χ² relative to the unified speed-acceleration distribution. Mr Haniu confirmed that both the Χ² and relative positive acceleration and cruising ratio for this alternative phase were a worse match with the unified distribution than the Japanese proposal. OICA and Mr Steven noted that this was in part due to the definitions of acceleration and cruising used in Japan’s analysis.

6. OICA and Belgium expressed concerns about the EU public acceptance of an Extra High speed phase with a relatively low “ramp” acceleration and short period at cruise speed. It was agreed that proposals for an alternative Extra High speed phase should be submitted by 21st July along, with an explanation of the methodology used to develop them, and a Teleconference would be held on 27th July to discuss these proposals and agree the Extra High speed phase profile. In order to ensure that they are working from a consistent dataset Mr Steven, JRC and Japan will share the parameters of the unified distributions from which they are working as soon as possible.