|Document Title: GFV response to VPSD comments on GFV 38-02|
|Document Reference Number: GFV-40-03|
Further input to the Vehicle Propulsion Systems Definition group on definitions concerning gaseous-fuelled vehicles.
|Meeting Session: 40th GFV session (11 May 2015)|
|Document date: 19 May 15 (Posted 20 May 15)|
This document concerns United Nations Agreement | Mutual Resolution No. 2: Vehicle Propulsion System Definitions.
This submission is related to the following document(s):
Informal Group on Gaseous Fueled Vehicles | Session 40 | 11 May 2015
5. GRPE – VPSD. (Vehicle Propulsion System Definitions). GFV provided VPSD with definitions of gaseous fuel definitions (Document VPSD-06-08 (GFV 38-02)) and Mr. Albus, Chairman of VPSD has provided some comments and reaction. The language discussed is highlighted from the original with Mr. Albus’s comments. Mr. Albus’s comments all were discussed and preferred revisions were made as follows (paragraphs 4-7, below). A new GFV definitions document will be prepared for the VPSD that incorporates the debated changes. The bi-fuel and dual fuel definitions annotated in red in this text is what was returned with comments from the VPSD. Below each is the result of the GFV discussion with the preferred option returned to VPSD (Document GFV-40-03).
ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRPE-2015-13e (VPSD) (although gaseous fuel definitions are not yet included) and GFV-40-03
6. The European Commission commented that the GFV use of ‘compression ignition’ in its original definitions was not ‘neutral’ enough. The new version of the definitions refer only to a ‘propulsion energy converter’, which is terminology adopted by the VPSD as an engine/motor. The thinking is to provide a generic definition at first and then to narrow it or make it more specific if it is required in some regulations. GFV provided optional definitions as ‘preferred’ and ‘acceptable’. The Commission indicated that, for dual-fuel the GFV’s ‘acceptable’ definition likely is one that can be used.
7. Question was raised how the Commission feels about the removal of ‘compression ignition’ but leaving in that ‘one fuel ignites the other’. The Commission expressed interest that this might be a reasonable approach.
8. India asked if the dual-fuel definition also is applicable to a ‘limp-home’ option in the dual-fuel energy storage system. The Chairman said that that this issue was fully discussed and that the GFV had settled on the more simplified approach.
9. India felt that the ‘limp home’ option in a gaseous fuel mono-fuel vehicle has to be an established part of the definition.
10. European Commission indicated that regulations 49 and 83 also have allowances for the limp-home mono-fuel vehicle. Mr. Rijnders indicated that there also are some other technical details of systems (like bi-fuel vehicles that can run on petrol/gas simultaneously).
11. These definitions are designed to be generic but not to replace the definitions in existing regulations. These new definitions would be aimed at new Global Technical Regulations. The new definitions should be clear but also to allow some of the variances and more detail as might be required in a particular regulation for clarification of specifics.
12. The Commission indicated that a definition might be changed in an amendment or made into an explanatory note. The substantive requirement of the definition should be in place.
13. During the second phase of discussions at the VPSD it should be noted that some additional requirements might be made so it is still within the scope of bi-fuel and dual-fuel vehicles in new regulations.
15. Question is raised if other groups in the United Nations, like the International Maritime Organization, would be consulted for their input? Answer (by the Commission) is that the idea of harmonization and the use of these definitions will be included in safety and environmental regulations and at some future date other parts of the UN dealing with these issues will be considered.