International environmental and propulsion performance requirements for L-category vehicles – EC perspective
Document EPPR-03-05
5 June 2013
Submitted by EC
Download document
Previous Documents, Discussions, and Outcomes
5. | Contributions from stakeholders

The European Commission presented document EPPR-03-05e:

  • Test type I emission laboratory test equipment can be commonly used for 2-, 3- or 4-wheeled vehicles.
  • The only differentiation for 2-, 3- or 4-wheeled vehicles that needs to be made, is for the determination of the test bench settings: ‘coast down’ provisions and equivalent inertia mass & running resistances.
  • The EC proposes all types of L-category vehicles (2-, 3- or 4-wheels) should follow the same test cycle, the WMTC.

Part of this suggestion is to replace conventional ECE47 test cycle used to type approve L1e (mopeds and light scooters), L2 (three-wheel mopeds) and L6e (light quadricycles) with a new test cycle based on urban, low vehicle speed, part 1 of WMTC test cycle.

The EC explained that R47 is an artificial test cycle: It contains idle, wide open throttle, constant speed phases (20 and 40 km/h) and some accelerations in between, but does not allow sufficient assessment of emission performance in the part-load area. Phase 1 of the WMTC is applied for 50 cm3 motorcycles and should therefore also be applied for 49 cm3 mopeds, allowing a more realistic emission verification of low displacement vehicles operated simulating dynamic conditions occurring in modern urban traffic.

Following the EC’s explanation for Type I, IMMA expressed its concern that the group is losing the agreed emphasis for OBD and EVAP.

The chair disagreed and confirmed that OBD and EVAP remain top priorities as requested by Japan.

The chair added it was his understanding from previous working group meeting that OBD and EVAP would be dealt with as first together with Type I.

Hungary asked for a justification to change the current test cycle for mopeds.

India explained that WMTC was designed for L3 vehicles and that driving data was collected for the creation of it. India considered EC’s synthesis a paper exercise. For expansion to other categories, India suggested collecting data or at least doing a validation.

NL suggested that EC should not only address the problem of mopeds not able to reach the maximum speed of WMTC part 1. NL doubted that mopeds with 1 or 2 horsepower would be able to follow the trace and suggested this needs to be looked at, stating also there would be no time to do this.

D-Heinz Steven explained that the specific dynamic behavior of vehicles cannot be ignored. If WMTC part one would need to be applied to mopeds, the whole cycle would need to be rescaled.

The EC saw no need to collect data, as lots of data was collected for WMTC. The EC stated that the border at at 50 cc is arbitrary and is not technically justified. 50cc motorcycles are already in the scope but are only limited to a certain maximum speed.. The EC said a test cycle is a compromise between regions and the same compromise for mopeds should be made.

6. | Structure of UN Regulations and GTRs with regard to EPPR

The European Commission presented earlier document EPPR-03-05e:

  • For regulatory structure of the EPPR-output under the 1998 Agreement, the EC proposed:
    • Expand scope of GTR2:
      1. Include engine displacement < 50 cm3

      2. Add durability (type V) apart from cold start pollutant emissions (type I), idle (II) and CO2 (VII). The EC noted India’s proposal to create a new GTR for durability, for reason of test fuel. But EC suggested to find a creative solution for the test fuel issue.

    • New GTR for crankcase and evaporative emissions (types III and IV)

    • New GTR for test type VIII, to be discussed if functional OBD can be included. In EU, OBD includes functional safety.

    • New GTR for propulsion performance (max vehicle design speed, max torque and power)

  • For regulatory structure of the EPPR-output under the 1958 Agreement:
    • The EC sees 2 options:
      1. Replicate structure of R83 & R101 (include all environmental test types in one new UN Regulation and the propulsion performance requirements into another new one); or

      2. Mimic structure as proposed for 1998 Agreement in new “shadow” Regulations.
        EC is neutral, and is open to any of the two options above.

    • The EC proposed to consider upgrading R40 and R47 with measurement equipment requirements (NOT the test cycles) from GTR No 2.
      The EC suggests to discuss if categories L6 and L7 (light 4-wheel vehicles) can be included in the scope of new UN Regulations (58 Agreement only). As a principle, EC suggests to consider applying provisions for 3-wheel vehicles also to 4- wheelers.

Relates to UN R40 |