GRE-72-24
Alternative definition of photometric requirements for documents GRE/2014/35 and 36
Downloads
UNECE server
Related documents
Proposals for the draft supplements to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 112 and to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 123.
43. The expert from France proposed to delete a design restrictive requirement of a minimum luminous flux of 1,000 lm for LED in Regulations Nos. 112 and 123 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/35, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/36, GRE-72-25). The expert from Poland proposed an alternative definition of photometric requirements (GRE-72-24). GRE supported the deletion of the 1,000 lm requirement, but could not agree with the requirement for light distribution of the beam pattern proposed as an alternative. GRE invited the expert from France, in cooperation with the expert from Poland, to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. All GRE experts were invited to contribute.
43. The expert from France proposed to delete a design restrictive requirement of a minimum luminous flux of 1,000 lm for LED in Regulations Nos. 112 and 123 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/35, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/36, GRE-72-25). The expert from Poland proposed an alternative definition of photometric requirements (GRE-72-24). GRE supported the deletion of the 1,000 lm requirement, but could not agree with the requirement for light distribution of the beam pattern proposed as an alternative. GRE invited the expert from France, in cooperation with the expert from Poland, to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. All GRE experts were invited to contribute.
43. The expert from France proposed to delete a design restrictive requirement of a minimum luminous flux of 1,000 lm for LED in Regulations Nos. 112 and 123 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/35, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/36, GRE-72-25). The expert from Poland proposed an alternative definition of photometric requirements (GRE-72-24). GRE supported the deletion of the 1,000 lm requirement, but could not agree with the requirement for light distribution of the beam pattern proposed as an alternative. GRE invited the expert from France, in cooperation with the expert from Poland, to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. All GRE experts were invited to contribute.