There are two different issues, there is the drawbar coupling and there is the 5th wheel and the ACV part that is behind it. This group is looking at existing technology as specified in our Terms of Reference.

The Chairman gave a history of the work of this group for the new participants. We could either wait for ISO or put harmonised requirements in the Regulation.

Volvo felt that a solution without standardisation is a step backward. In the proposal only ACV vehicles are looked at and Volvo asks what about ACV and non-ACV vehicles.

The group explained that if the proposal is understood like that then some adjustments to the text are needed.

The situation today is that the driver has to make a decision on the pneumatic connector. And it works. The pneumatic connector is not specified to a standard. Our paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 address this problem. We give the driver a warning.

If the connection is not fully functional the driver gets a warning. We must be careful that we don’t over-legislate. Volvo was concerned that if we don’t specify a standard today then we may have a situation that is not an improvement on today. The group answered that if you specify a standard today, without field experience, the wrong option may be gone for and that you may annoy the user even more.

The meeting was of the opinion that responsibility for compatibility lies with the user. And over time one connector will emerge as the standard. If we legislate today then we may create a situation that is worse than today. The user must make sure that he has the male and female connector from the same company. The fleet operator has to make a conscious decision on what connector he wants to work with.

The example of mobile phones was given. If we would have taken a charger from 20 years ago and made it a standard then that would not have been a good standard because we have USB now. The technology has developed. For connectors there may be a solution that we can’t envisage yet today.

An important point was highlighted. There are two different things : a mismatch is a safety issue and interchangeability is a cost issue. We don’t need to legislate for cost issues.

A long discussion was held on a compatibility matrix from Sweden. When we exclude everything from the matrix which is not regulated by R13 then we get to document ACV-10-03 from The Netherlands.

This compatibility matrix from The Netherlands is to be included in the justification of the proposal. The matrix from Sweden will be presented to GRRF together with an explanation on how the document has been used to find provisions regarding mismatching and incompatibility.

During the discussion on paragraph 2.4 of the proposal, a matrix ‘warning modes’ was drawn up. This matrix too is to be included in the justification of the proposal.

Document ACV-10-04 is the proposal which is the outcome of the discussions under this agenda item.