The workgroup chairman Jürgen Westphäling welcomed all experts to the meeting venue at the Arosa Hotell in Paderborn, Germany. Mr. Bröckling introduced the facilities at the hotel.

There were thirteen experts that attended the meeting. Apologies were received from Andrási Mátyás, Joachim Zander, Michael Riesterer.

R55-13-22 | Participants list from the 13th UN R55 informal group session

Two items were added to the agenda under Any other Business. These were Towable mass and Approval of a class A variant under Class S.

There were no comments to the report. Hence it was approved and filed.

R55-12-25 | Report of the 12th UN R55 informal group session

Mr. Svensson read up the relevant parts of the official report from GRRF 81. The finalizing plan was noted. The document GRRF-81-06 and GRRF-81-07 were endorsed to be sent as working documents to the GRRF-82. The document GRRF-80-29 was adopted with the addition that a locking key is allowed.

The German delegation proposed to establish a separate working group to finalize the work with a regulation for agricultural couplings. This was approved. The chair of that working group shall be nominated by the German ministry. The secretary will be nominated from CEMA.

A short discussion over what was happening on the establishment of that new working group took place at our meeting. Mr. Tagliaferri told that he had been contacted by UnaComa to give names of suitable candidates to take part of the work in this new working group. Apparently some work with the organization of the new working group has started.

Item 7 (Secondary coupling)( R55_07_20)
UTAC had prepared a proposal documented in the document R55_07_20. This Item had been overseen at previous meetings. Now UTAC brought it back for consideration. It was noted that not too long ago the Annex 7 §1.2.3 had been added to handle any unpredictable behavior of a center axle trailer broken loose. The proposal in document R55_07_20 is to safeguard the immediate braking of a trailer broken loose. The proposal was agreed. Mr. Lescail accepted the task to put this proposal in the format of a working document for the GRRF 82. That document shall be sent to the secretary.

R55-07-20 | UN R55- Item 7: Attachment point Requirement of a brake away cable also for drawbar-couplings

Item 11.1 (Remote indication in instrument cluster)
This item was shortly discussed. The urgency of the item was agreed. There was no proposal how to handle the issue. It was agreed to initiate a standardization work to establish a common signal interface for the signals from the remote indication. The secretary took on the task to initiate such work.

Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02­­_13, R55_04­­_08, R55_04­­_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20, R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13; R55_13_07; R55_13_08)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had augmented the proposal to include a lower limit for reduction. This limit had two components. The reduction is proposed to be linear from 80 km/h to 36 km/h ending at a maximum requirement reduction of 33%. On top of that a requirement on D-value corresponding to startability in 15% ascent. In general the concept got good acceptance. Some comments stressed the importance that the proposal does not apply in off-road applications. Mr Svensson pointed to the option to do away with the upper limit on speed. While the reference speed is still 80 km/h an increase in allowable maximum speed to let say 90 km/h would result in an increase in the requirements. There were some comments on application to exceptional transports only. That of course is a given as this is under the heading “Special operations”. The agreement reached was that all manufactures of coupling shall evaluate the proposal towards exemption certificates for heavy transports that they had issued hitherto. These evaluations shall be reported to Mr. Svensson who will compile the results. The compilation will be on the form xx% of the exemptions would have been safely handled through the proposed formalism. On the basis of this compilation a mail vote would judge whether to take this proposal as a working document to GRRF-82 or not.

R55-12-03 | Working draft proposal to amend UN R55 with regard to vehicle combination applications Draft proposal under development within the R55 informal group.

R55-12-10 | UN R55: Proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications

R55-12-20/Rev.1 | UN R55: Proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications Revised proposal developed by the UN R55 informal group to introduce provisions for mechanical couplings used in modular vehicle combinations (e.g., rigid truck + dolly + semi-trailer) presently not addressed within the regulation.

R55-12-28 | Comments on the old Dutch couplings application

R55-13-07/Rev.1 | Working draft amendment to UN R55 with regard to speed reduction, speed dependence, and heavy transports Working draft proposal of the UN R55 informal group for a uniform procedure to rate couplings for extreme heavy transport configurations based upon a speed-reduction method. The intent is to address conditions where there are no coupling products with appropriate certified performance values.

R55-13-08 | UN R55: Demonstration of speed reduction proposal

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04­­_11, R55_05_05, R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05, R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08; R55_10_15, R55_11_ 12; R55_11_13; R55_11_15; R55_12_03; R55_12_10; R55_12_20; R55_12_28; R55_13_07; R55_13_08 )
This proposal had been endorsed at the GRRF-81. A small change was made to the proposal in that the definition of a dolly was aligned to the definition agreed in the IWG-MVC. The definition was challenged by Mr. Westphäling saying that the word “dolly” was originating from Germany and meaning a rear axle group of extreme long cargo transports. After some discussion it was agreed to investigate the use of converter dolly instead of just dolly. Several experts were skeptic. [Since the meeting the secretary has made some investigations to find out the risk for misinterpretation. That risk was found to be very low. Hence he proposes to go forward with the word dolly without any word “converter”. ] One further minor change was made to Annex 6 §3.6.1 to align that paragraph with the changes made in the definition part of the regulation. With these changes it was agreed to go forward with this proposal as a working document for GRRF 82.

R55-12-03 | Working draft proposal to amend UN R55 with regard to vehicle combination applications Draft proposal under development within the R55 informal group.

R55-12-10 | UN R55: Proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications

R55-12-20/Rev.1 | UN R55: Proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications Revised proposal developed by the UN R55 informal group to introduce provisions for mechanical couplings used in modular vehicle combinations (e.g., rigid truck + dolly + semi-trailer) presently not addressed within the regulation.

R55-12-28 | Comments on the old Dutch couplings application

R55-13-07/Rev.1 | Working draft amendment to UN R55 with regard to speed reduction, speed dependence, and heavy transports Working draft proposal of the UN R55 informal group for a uniform procedure to rate couplings for extreme heavy transport configurations based upon a speed-reduction method. The intent is to address conditions where there are no coupling products with appropriate certified performance values.

R55-13-08 | UN R55: Demonstration of speed reduction proposal

Item 22(Interpolation formula) (R55-02-11; R55-03-23; R55-03-14; R55-04-03; R55-05-04; R55_06_06; R55_07_06; R55_07_13; R55_10_08; R55_10_14; R55_12_05; R55_12_19; R55_13_03)
This proposal was endorsed at the GRRF 81. It was agreed to submit this proposal as working document to the GRRF 82.

R55-12-05 | UN R55: Working draft proposal for allowable performance values Proposal under preparation for the GRRF by the R55 informal group. This proposal concerns a procedure to identify allowable combinations of performance values Dc and V for drawbar coupling equipment. This proposal would amend the Revision 2 proposal for UN R55.

R55-12-19/Rev.1 | UN R55: Revised working draft proposal for allowable performance values Proposal as developed by the UN R55 informal group during its 12th session. This proposal concerns a procedure to identify allowable combinations of performance values Dc and V for drawbar coupling equipment. This proposal would amend the Revision 2 proposal for UN R55.

R55-13-03/Rev.2 | UN R55: Updated proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications

Item 25 (Articulation angles as installed) (R55-02-05; R55-05-13; R55_07_10; R55_09_21; R55_12_06; R55_12_07; R55_13_09; R55_13_10; R55_13_17; R55_13_19¸ R55_13_20; R55_13_21; R55_13_29; R55_13_30)
Mr. Stokreef had elaborated the proposal from our January meeting R55_13_09 and R55_13_10. This proposal was discussed. The change annex 7 proposed for a drawbar coupling was agreed. The change to annex 7 for fifth wheel coupling was not agreed. For fifth wheel couplings Mr. Alguëra during the meeting worked out a proposal to make a change to annex 5. Mr. Svensson had got comments from one OEM that 3,5° towards the front and 4,5° towards the rear would be what can be achieved on a general base as installed on a vehicle. The general opinion at the meeting was that in annex 5 the focus is on the component and not the installation. The large variability in the installation and combination with different trailers has to be accounted for by the OEM. It is believed that interference between trailer and tractor will cause damage but not result in lost trailers. The proposal from Mr. Alguëra was summarized in document R55_13_30. This was agreed. [In retrospect the secretary found the R55_13_30 not to be unambiguous. Hence he has challenged the experts with a reformulated proposal. This is done through a separate mail.]

R55-13-09 | UN R55: Minimum articulation angles of couplings mounted to the vehicles Proposal to introduce provisions for minimum articulation of couplings in order to prevent damage from maneuvers that exceed coupling capacities.

R55-13-10 | UN R55: Overview of angles of rotation

R55-13-30 | UN R55: Minimum articulation angles of couplings mounted to the vehicles

Item 29 (Drawbar a separate technical unit) (R55_04_04, R55_05_02, R55_09_08; R55_10_xx; R55_11_03; R55_11_08; R55_13_05)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had investigated the different options to make the definition of a drawbar stricter in order to distinguish a separate technical unit. Such efforts have been made before. This was a last effort. To be very consistent it is necessary to have clear criteria how to make the judgement. This try was not successful. To summarize the situation Mr. Westphäling concluded that this is a difficult task. The best but not good enough attempt has been based on the function of a chassis and of a drawbar.

R55-13-05 | UN R55: Theoretical design assessment Working draft proposal of the R55 informal group to introduce amendments concerning: (a) Identification of worst cases for design assessment, and (b) Procedures for COP.

Item 30 (Simple designs) (R55_02­­_09, R55_03_06, R55_05_09, R55_07_07, R55_09_08; R55_11_03; R55_11_08; R55_13_05)
This item was also in the scope of the investigation reported under Item 29. The important issue with the discussion on “simple designs” is whether calculation based approval according the Annex 6 §1.1. is applicable or not. This procedure is very ambiguous as no statement is given about how to perform such calculations. There is however a clear statement in annex 6 §1.1. that the result of the calculations shall be the same as if the design had been tested. It has not been possible to find a generally acceptable recommendation how to calculate. One guidance/alternative may be the validation procedure set out in the directive 2007/46/EC annex XVI. No agreement could be reached on recommending only to use validated procedures. On the basis of the discussion and the investigations done, the items 29 and 30 were dropped. Mr. Gunneriusson commented that the failure to reach an agreement on those two items leaves the regulations with two major shortcomings. He announced that he would comment on this in the GRRF 82.

Minor editorial changes as in the document R55_13_05 was agreed.

R55-13-05 | UN R55: Theoretical design assessment Working draft proposal of the R55 informal group to introduce amendments concerning: (a) Identification of worst cases for design assessment, and (b) Procedures for COP.

Item w3 (KBA request a definition of alternative performance value)
Mr. Hansen of KBA withdrew the item.

Item w6 (Support load for C50 coupling with pivoting Jaw) ( R55_13_14; R55_14_15)
Mr. Alguëra argued that this was a mistake when transferring the requirements from 94/20/EC to the regulation 55. I.e. there had been a 94/20/EC approval on 80 kg support load. However when checking up the latest version of 94/20/EC, it was found that there was a requirement/limitation of maximum support load 50 kg. The general opinion at the meeting was that the coupling shall be retested. Mr. Alguëra withdrew the argumentation. He will reconsider the situation. No further action will be taken in this forum on this item.

R55-13-14 | Proposal to amend UN R55 with regard to drawbar couplings Proposal for a higher vertical load for drawbar couplings with a jaw that pivots about the horizontal transverse axis.

Item w10 (General review of class …-X)
No discussion due to lack documentations. The item was dropped.

Item w11 (What masses to use in performance requirement calculations) (R55_11_18; R55_13_06)
Mr. Svensson noted that this was a very important subject. However this is a major task that will require some effort. Mr. Svensson volunteered to take this task on. This shall be done outside this working group. Mr. Stokreef and Mr. Hansen announced that would like to contribute in this work. This solution was accepted by the meeting.

R55-13-06/Rev.1 | UN R55: TAAM input on masses to be used in requirement calculations Information on TAAM discussions concerning cases where the sum of the mass of the towing vehicle (M) [T] and the mass of the towed vehicle <notextile>(TM) [R or C]</notextile> is higher than the maximum combination mass (MC) set for the towing vehicle.

Item w12 (Cop testing) (R55_12_11)
Mr. Stokreef repeated the background for the proposal, e.g. the result of the test is very sensitive to the set-up. Many experts at the meeting had a say on this matter. Mr. Svensson argued that the regulations shall be kept as is. At the meeting in January it was said that the successful testing was sometimes a lucky coincidence. By keeping testing COP-testing at the same level as the certification testing those designs that were approved on a lucky coincidence would over time be done away with. If any changes shall be done then a more strict documentation of the test set-up by the certification tests shall be required in the information package for the certification. Mr. Alguëra was open to some changes but was not specific on how to change. Mr. Westphäling argued on the basis of statistics. To get any kind of statistical foundation you need to make at least 6 tests. Mr. Conrads was open to a lower COP test load at 80% to 85%. Mrs. Domagala argued that there should be a combinantion with a static test after the endurance test. The discussion went on for some time but no agreement could be reached.

R55-12-11 | Discussion paper with regard the dynamic tests of class-B couplings for COP

Item w14 (Coupling installed to vehicles without towable mass) (GRSG/2016/4)
This item was originating from Poland that had brought it up at the TAAM. It concerns retrofitting a coupling (class A) to a vehicle not having a towable mass assigned by the vehicle manufacturer. Would it be possible to have this installation approved? The general opinion was that it is not possible to have such a vehicle approved according to regulation 55. There is no a possibility make a change to regulation 55 to have such an approval. The argument around this issue went like this. Assigning a towable mass to a vehicle includes a rigorous testing and analysis by the vehicle manufacturer. There are uphill tests, stability test, slalom test, cooling system capacity tests, endurance test for the fixing points, braking system tests, … A vehicle not having a towable mass assigned by the vehicle manufacturer has not been subject to these tests. Accordingly it cannot have a coupling with D-, Dc-, S- or V- value installed. If such installations shall anyway be brought up for an approval it shall be shown that the relevant tests as required by the vehicle manufacturer to assign a towable mass have been carried out. It is the general opinion of the working group that it is a bad practice to install a class A coupling for the sole purpose to enable the usage of special appliances as e.g. bicycle carriers. If such arrangements are still on the agenda it is the opinion of this working group that measures shall be taken that excludes the installation can be used to tow a trailer. Detailed regulation for appliances aimed at other applications than towing a trailer shall be the subject for the GRSG to consider.

GRSG/2016/4 | Proposal for amendment to Regulation No. 55 At the May 2015 Type Approval Authorities Meeting (TAAM), Poland raised concerns (attached with this submission) over small M₁ vehicles being equipped with aftermarket coupling devices where the vehicle in question is not designed for towing a trailer. In effect, these vehicles are not permitted to tow trailers, but are nonetheless enabled to be equipped for such a purpose by the aftermarket devices. Therefore, Poland proposes to amend UN R55 to ensure that coupling devices are only approved for use on vehicles approved for towing trailers.

Item w16 (Class A coupling with integrated articulation sensor)
Mr. Westphäling consulted the experts of our working group to get advice on the possibility to get a modified class A coupling type approved as class A. The modification was such that typically a 8 to 10 mm wide and ~4 mm deep groove is cut around the “equator” of the 50 mm ball. In that groove articulation sensor elements are arranged. The experts were concerned with that modification. Most serious was the decreased contact surface and the sharp edge at the groove. Those items will according to the unanimous opinion of the experts accelerate the wear of the coupling ball as well as the coupling head (class B). On this basis the recommendation from the group was not to approve.

Approach towards the 82th session of the GRRF
It was agreed that we shall approach the GRRF-82 with working documents for the item agreed at this meeting.

Any other business
Mr. Westphäling expressed the gratitude from the group towards Mr. Bröckling who arranged the details.
Our next meeting will be a one day meeting. The date for the meeting will be set through a doodle request to the experts. The location of the meeting will be decided later.

The chairman thanked all participating experts for their contribution and wished them a safe journey home. Welcome back sometime in October of 2016. The attendees expressed their gratitude for the hospitality by the WAP to host the meeting.