Dr. Dümmler presented document IGPG-04-03 as a comparison of the abrasion tests. Some input from ISO is still awaited, to be available in June 2012. It was made clear that should the problem of the wheels be solved, the Taber test would provide much better reproducibility.

Dr. Dümmler insisted that the initial haze should also be defined.

The Chair

• ► Pointed out that the requirements for helmet visors per UN R22 are not comparable
  because the regulation permits a choice between 3 performance requirements, are
  interdepending and subject to different measurement procedures.
• ► Recalled that the experts are unhappy about the spray test of UN R112 and would like to go
  to the Taber test

KRD remarked that some side windows are required to fulfill the 1000 cycles and 2% performance.

Mr. Benyahya questioned whether the presentation could apply to the side windows (movable).

The Chair pointed out that dropping the Taber test now would not be logical toward the existing side window performance requirements.

Mr. Terragni pointed out that the ISO procedure is well defined and could bring new information. In addition, Mr. Terragni questioned which test would best reproduce the wiper scratches as seen in the presentation IGPG-04-05 and the pictures. It was pointed out that this would vary depending on the vehicle usage.

The Chair requested the group to provide comments about the above debate.

Mr. Hoshikawa was of the opinion to continue with the Taber test with the Daiwa wheels.

It was pointed out that the main problem of the Taber tests is the wheels reproducibility and that ISO does not assess this parameter.

The European Commission stressed that the COP for Amtec-Kistler is acceptable. For side windows, there is no wiper, rather movable windows.

Dr. Dümmler favoured investigation of a wiper test.

Bayer mentioned their internal wiper test procedure, based on an existing procedure (SAE 198 J). The expert urged other parties to conduct tests using the same test methods for comparing the results and improving the test. In the case this test had to be investigated, some prolongation of the informal group mandate should be asked.

SABIC informed that they will present in April 2012 at SAE the outcomes of a 2-year investigation of a wiper test method.

John Deere also mentioned some internal investigations.

The group was informed that the blade pressure is usually around 20 kg/cm², as indicated by one of the two main wiper manufacturers.

SABIC pointed out that the blade speed is important, and that it is difficult to simulate in a laboratory (radius speed). In addition, the idea is to replicate the kind of scratch and distribution that we can find in real life, hence the rotation of the blade may be of some importance.

It was suggested to contact the wiper Industry as they must have some data available. However, this Industry rather looks for the data on motor durability and wiper blade durability.

It was then suggested to include a wheel calibration in the Taber test method. However it would be difficult to find out the correct reference material and the question of the limited time was raised as well.

Conclusion: SAE SABIC presentation, addressing wiper action on back light, available at the following website address: http://papers.sae.org/2012-01-0750/.

Mr. Helmich strongly supported the idea of a new wiper test.

The Secretariat suggested to keep the Taber test up to the time the 3 other tests (Amtec Kistler, sand drop and wiper tests) are ready and well established, because only the combination of these three can deliver a good simulation of the reality, and there is no certainty of what the Taber test simulates.

PSA supported that point of view and informed the informal group that France is about to start an in-depth evaluation of the Taber test with the hope to achieve improvement of the test method. However only well coated plastic glazing would then pass the 2% haze value.

JASIC was of the opinion that the Taber test should still be investigated as they were confident that Daiwa would produce wheels less subject to variations than those currently used for the Taber test. The expert in addition said that improvement of the wheels quality would permit to achieve results similar for both the glass and the plastic glazing.

The Chair summarized that the group decided to start investigation of a wiper test.

It was revealed that some experience of the wiper test does exist, but some information about the reproducibility of the test method was requested.

► Experience shows that reproducibility seems not sufficient.
► Bayer also explained that they have experience only with one equipment used by one unique operator. In this frame the reproducibility is acceptable.
► John Deere has some experience but there was doubt whether this is applicable or convenient for passenger cars.

The European Commission pointed out that some procedures do exist. The European Commission supported the investigation of the wiper test.

VDA on behalf of OICA informed that the manufacturers are interested in a wiper test and committed to investigate the wish to start work on this.

SABIC committed to internally investigate the willingness to share their experience in a wiper test.

Conclusion:

• ► Wiper test remains in the agenda for the next meeting
• ► All interested parties are requested to provide input for the next meeting
• ► At the next meeting, the group will start investigating a draft test method.

Dr. Buckel presented document IGPG-04-04.

He stressed that, when the test method destroys the coating, the influence of the coating cannot be high. It can be expected that both PC and PMMA can well withstand the tests. If there is no advantage for the OEMs and to the final users then it is not necessary to add these tests on the regulation.

Mr. Esser concluded from the presentation that the visibility for the driver would be maintained even after the test, what is important for safety.

Dr. Dümmler pointed out that other materials than PC and PMMA will arrive on the market and was of the opinion that the tests should remain in the regulation.

It was mentioned that the stone shipping test is expensive, and the cross cut test should remain, followed by the chemical resistance test.

Conclusion:

• ► keep cross-cut followed by the chemical resistance. All the experts also agreed to keep the chemicals proposed.
• ► It was decided to keep the combination III. Humidity test followed by 227g Ball drop, contrary to what was decided at the previous meeting.