| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | European L-EPPR study update | ||||||||
| Reference Number | EPPR-02-05 | ||||||||
| Date |
24 Apr 2013
|
||||||||
| Summary | Updated presentation on the TRL/ECORYS study on environmental and propulsion performance requirements for motorcycles and other L-category vehicles under the auspices of the European Commission. | ||||||||
| Source(s) | TRL and ECORYS | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 2 WMTC, UN R40 Motorcycle Emissions, and UN R47 Moped Emissions | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| EPPR | Session 2 | 25-26 Apr 2013 |
Document EPPR-02-05, slides 6 – 11 were presented by Ecorys. Japan understood the questionnaire highlights the cost-impact, and explained that cost is not the only reason for worldwide harmonization. E.g. from authority viewpoint, Japan looks first at environmental impact, and 2nd at consistency e.g. with domestic regulations. Japan added that if there are no details available about the test it is not possible to analyse the cost. As an example, Japan explained that there is no test for crankcase emissions in the domestic regulation. And if a test would be introduced, the cost could be hugely different. India expressed its support for the remarks of Japan, and explained they did not supply cost estimates. India expected the questionnaire to focus more on technical side instead of the cost. The EC suggested to at least giving cost estimation a try. Document EPPR-02-05 was presented by TRL. With regards to slide no. 19, the EC clarified that the presented document does not reflect latest developments. Japan pointed out that all their regulations are translated in English. Japan requested to update the report according to the information given under agenda item 6.b. Japan also suggested adding a description to the test type numbers as not everyone is familiar with the numbering only. Japan asked for clarification about the plan for Type I. TRL explained they see some issues in the current test procedure and they are now in the process of identifying/listing the issues. Japan repeated its suggestion to focus on L3 gasoline vehicles first. TRL disagreed as new technologies could be restricted this way. Japan pointed out that we are focusing on 2016 and there won’t be much new technologies by that time. The EC pointed out that updates needed to include certain other technologies should be really simple. The EC added they would like to discuss L1 and not only L3. Japan an India agreed to that. Italy could agree to include L1 provided that the inherent characteristics compared to motorcycles would be taken into account. The chair commented that the group should look at what might come to the market in the future, and make the regulation as ‘future proof’ as possible. The chair recommended starting with a holistic view. IMMA suggested looking at the majority of the vehicles, which are currently L3 – petrol. IMMA repeated that we have to be realistic, and not put too much in our work plan otherwise we risk not to make the deadline of 2016. Italy informed that a group within ISO is also discussing a procedure for evaporative emissions testing. India questioned why TRL mentioned running loss testing, and suggested it is not appropriate to discuss this now. TRL explained that this is currently considered in California. China explained their domestic regulatory situation, having now ‘Chinese #3’ including type I-V and a regulation for net power, maximum speed. And they are updating the regulations now to ‘Chinese #4’ and ‘#5’. For ‘Chinese #4’ WMTC may be used for L3 and L4. The chair asked if the presentation could be given in writing as well in one of the coming meetings as input from the major contracting parties is important for the work of the EPPR group. |
||||||||