Proposal to incorporate the latest outcomes of discussions within the VPSD working group.
VPSD recommendations (GRPE/2015/13 & GRPE-71-xyz) and other definitions were reviewed by Bill Coleman:
VPSD recommendations (GRPE/2015/13 & GRPE-71-xyz) and other definitions were reviewed by Bill Coleman:
53. The Secretary of the IWG on VPSD introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 on a new draft Mutual Resolution (draft M.R.2) containing vehicle powertrain definitions. She presented GRPE-71-12 proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 following the latest discussions and conclusions of the group. She referred to GRPE-71-13-Rev.1 as a consolidated version to facilitate the understanding of the proposal.
54. The Chair of the IWG on GFV presented GRPE-71-31 proposing to add new paragraphs to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 to define different internal combustion engine vehicles depending on the fuel storage system/s and the fuel/s used by the engine to operate. He highlighted that these definitions might not necessarily be aligned with those in the regulations and, therefore, the current definitions in the existing regulations should not immediately be aligned with those proposed in draft M.R.2 but should be progressively adjusted.
55. The Chair of the IWG on WLTP mentioned that his group might not be able to take into account all definitions proposed by the IWG on VPSD due to time critical circumstances.
56. The Chair of the IWG on VPSD clarified that the proposed definitions should be used as a basis for harmonization and that they probably matched with those in the UN GTR on WLTP.
57. The expert from OICA underlined the importance of the exercise to harmonize vehicle propulsion system definitions. He announced that further work would certainly be needed to clarify several issues such as how to define an internal combustion engine when it is not used for propulsion.
58. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 as amended by Annex V of this report. GRPE requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.3 for consideration at their November 2015 sessions as draft Mutual Resolution No. 2.
59. GRPE acknowledged the work performed by the IWG on VPSD and noted the conclusion of its activities. GRPE agreed that further amendments to the proposed M.R.2 would be proposed by the relevant IWGs.
53. The Secretary of the IWG on VPSD introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 on a new draft Mutual Resolution (draft M.R.2) containing vehicle powertrain definitions. She presented GRPE-71-12 proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 following the latest discussions and conclusions of the group. She referred to GRPE-71-13-Rev.1 as a consolidated version to facilitate the understanding of the proposal.
54. The Chair of the IWG on GFV presented GRPE-71-31 proposing to add new paragraphs to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 to define different internal combustion engine vehicles depending on the fuel storage system/s and the fuel/s used by the engine to operate. He highlighted that these definitions might not necessarily be aligned with those in the regulations and, therefore, the current definitions in the existing regulations should not immediately be aligned with those proposed in draft M.R.2 but should be progressively adjusted.
55. The Chair of the IWG on WLTP mentioned that his group might not be able to take into account all definitions proposed by the IWG on VPSD due to time critical circumstances.
56. The Chair of the IWG on VPSD clarified that the proposed definitions should be used as a basis for harmonization and that they probably matched with those in the UN GTR on WLTP.
57. The expert from OICA underlined the importance of the exercise to harmonize vehicle propulsion system definitions. He announced that further work would certainly be needed to clarify several issues such as how to define an internal combustion engine when it is not used for propulsion.
58. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2015/13 as amended by Annex V of this report. GRPE requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.3 for consideration at their November 2015 sessions as draft Mutual Resolution No. 2.
59. GRPE acknowledged the work performed by the IWG on VPSD and noted the conclusion of its activities. GRPE agreed that further amendments to the proposed M.R.2 would be proposed by the relevant IWGs.
ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRPE-2015-13e (VPSD) (although gaseous fuel definitions are not yet included) and GFV-40-03
5. There is still a lot of work being done on the other definitions in the first phase dealing with various propulsion systems. GFV had provided VPSD with a set of definitions and the Chairman responded with his comments. On 11th May the GFV reacted to the VPSD comments and then developed refinements based on those comments and returned them to the VPSD for their further consideration. The VPSD chairman suggested that the gaseous fuel vehicle definitions must be ‘technology neutral’ and generic as possible. The GFV provided input on definitions for bi-fuel, dual-fuel, mono-fuel, and flex-fuel gaseous fuel vehicles.
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.
14. Question is whether the explanatory remarks being discussed now will be added to the VPSD. Mr. Rijnders indicated that this will be discussed when the VPSD enters its second phase of work. This document is only an internal GFV document.
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.