| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document title | Draft Cost/Benefit Analysis: TPMS for M1 Vehicles | ||||||||||
| Date | 17 Jun 2008 | ||||||||||
| Source(s) | Schrader, Knorr-Bremse, and VDO | ||||||||||
| Status | |||||||||||
| Rulemaking area(s) | |||||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||||
| Related documents | |||||||||||
| Downloads: | .pdf format | ||||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||||
| TPM | Session 3 | 19-20 Jun 2008 |
A representative from Schrader presented a draft for a cost/benefit-analysis of TPMS. The draft was supported by further companies (Conti VDO, Knorr-Bremse, Beru, Entire Solutions LLC) but it is not a CLEPA or an ETRTO paper. The calculations in the draft which are based on a direct system show a very positive benefit/cost-relation even if the lower end of the range is taken for comparison. Besides fuel/CO2 saving and accident avoidance the TPMS can contribute a lot to tyre cost reduction because tyre wear increases considerably on under-inflated tyres. There was agreement that the draft could be refined by taking into account further aspects like changing from summer to winter tyres or replacement/disposal of sensors and sealings. However, it is obvious that the EU commission wants to use the potential for CO2-reduction which is given by TPMS and therefore further refinement of the cost/benefit calculation does not seem to be necessary. |
||||||||||