German-language presentation on ISOFIX child seat and top tether positioning

Progress report on RLD issues was given by R. Cuelenaere (WLTP-11-11e).

OIL # 18: Wind tunnel method as alternative RLD method: Updated GTR proposal (WLTP-11-12e), incl. tolerances, was reviewed by the task force and was adopted by IWG WLTP. Drafted text for the wind tunnel method will be finished in the next Drafting Subgroup meeting. Flat Belt /dyno part will be developed further; proposal expected for adoption at IWG meeting #12.

OIL # 48: Correction Algorithms (Dyno load setting (2.7)) Proposal on time gaps between warm up and coast down by Audi (WLTP-10-19-rev1e) was accepted by the task force and adopted by the IWG. Drafted text is provided to the DC. On request of the RLD TF coordinator the Chair clarified that no further RLD related issues from the COM proposal for correction algorithms (WLTP-08-38e) will be put on the RLD TF agenda for Phase 1B.

OIL# 1b_5: Manufacturer’s responsibility for accuracy of road load specifications: Proposal was presented by Japan (WLTP-11-13e). Chair welcomed the more generic approach in phase 1b of WLTP, since in-use-provisions are foreseen in phase 2. EU Com welcomed the proposal for phase 1b, but stressed the importance of a specification of tolerances within WLTP phase 2. Proposal was discussed and adopted by the IWG with the following changes: “specification” —> “coefficients”, “should” —> “shall”.

OICA remarked the lacking alignment of specified tolerances in Annex 4 and will develop an amendment for review in the RLD TF and SG Drafting (no IWG document required).

RLD TF will provide the Japanese overview matrix of applied Annex 4 tolerances for information purposes in advance of IWG meeting #12.

OIL # 11, 13: Onboard-anemometry / wind conditions: Draft GTR proposal (WLTP-11-14e) was presented by Ford. Discussion arose about referring to SAE or ISO standards. Chair recommended a standalone text in the GTR with explanation in the technical report (note: the issue has been reported to GRPE on June 11th and guidance was requested. The UN Secretariat informed about the ongoing general discussions on WP.29 level and offered to prepare the discussions with the SAE representative). T&E asked for the need of other mounting positions. Ford will provide background to the task force.

Proposed deletion of regional option of more open wind conditions was adopted by the IWG. DC will change the GTR accordingly. OIL #11 is closed.

OIL # 4, 7, 14- 16, 20: Torque meter method (incl. road load curve correction/chassis dyno load setting). Validation results presented by Ford (WLTP-11-15e) showed good equivalence, which was confirmed as sufficient by WLTP IWG. Rob Cuelenaere explained the draft gtr proposal (WLTP-11-16e) and outlined the approaches to solve the remaining OIL items. WLTP IWG agreed to the approaches. TF will further work on the text and involve the SG Drafting in advance before the meeting #12.

EU Com raised concerns about the chain of tolerances in getting road load coefficients backwards out of the road measurement and followed dyno setting. TF will handle that issue within a dedicated torque meter meeting. Basic approach is accepted by the IWG.

OIL# 17: Default road load parameters.: Combined progress report by RDW/Daimler (WLTP-11-17e) incl. initial draft GTR proposals for the so called Road Load Matrix Family. TF Leader appreciated the constructive work in the task force. Chair welcomed the progress on this open issue.

EU Com appreciated the summarizing overview of methods (table page 31) and recommended inclusion in GTR (technical report). Approach for selection of a representative test vehicle was supported by IWG.

Compromise proposal by TF on the necessary amount of safety margin was explained. T&E requested greater margin. EU Com will review the safety margin in EU-WLTP. Japan had no reservation as long as the method is restricted to heavy cars as proposed. Political decision is expected. Taskforce is asked to prepare a decision paper for gaining feedback of the CP’s until end of June.

OICA will provide a proposal for an adapted range of CO2 for a road load matrix family (Bill Coleman).

OIL # 1b_3: Tyre selection status report was given by K. Steininger. Data from ETRTO will be further investigated. EU will consider circulating a proposal well in advance before meeting#12.

OIL# 10: Wind tunnel for combined approach: editorial updated draft document (WLTP-11-18e) was already adopted in meeting#10. OIL#10 is closed.

The objective of the research carried out by MB and TUD is to determine the effect of different sound characteristics in a situation where a stopped vehicle near a pedestrian resumes motion. It intends to clarify the necessity for having sound at idle. So to ensure for a visually impaired pedestrian to quickly recognize vehicle has started its movement.

The following basic variances in sound of the quiet vehicle were compared:

  • Vehicle with sound at idle
  • Vehicle without sound at idle
  • Vehicle without sound at idle but with commencing motion sound (CMS)

In all cases the sound of vehicles when driving complied with the NPRM.

In a testing arrangement, the subject should signal the approach of a vehicle that was original stopped at a distance of 10m. The a.m. variances of vehicle sound where overlaid by different types of ambient noise. Test is carried in the TUB sound using recordings taken in the MB indoor test rack. 30 subject (25 sighted/5 visually impaired or blind) were exposed to. Test conditions differing not only in the a.m. variances but also in randomized starting time of the vehicle. It was their task to signal. The average results:

  • Stationary sound 1.43s delay after start of vehicle
  • No station sound: 1,12 s
  • CMS +6 dB(A): 1,02
  • CMS +12 dB(A): 0,84s

In summary it can be concluded that the capability of detecting a starting vehicle w/o sound at idle is bigger (1.12 s) compared to a vehicle with stationary sound (1.43 s) and the application of a CMS accelerates detection even further (0.84 s – 1.02 s). The different ambient didn’t not result a significant difference in detection time.

These test results suggest that the sound change (contrast) transitioning from no sound while stationary to alert sound active in motion has a measurable effect on detectability.

The results are in line with the joint demonstration conducted by Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi, showing that sound level of sound at idle as proposed by NHTSA can mask the sound of an approaching vehicle. A vehicle poses a danger to a visually impaired person only as it starts to move. Therefore, quick detection of a vehicle approaching is paramount to the detection of a stationary vehicle. For this situation the study shows that CMS is more effective than sound at idle. It is therefore proposed to allow CMS as an alternative to stationary sound.

NFB: What would be the result in the case of sound at idle and CMS?

OICA this risk to result in a vicious circle as it would always request in CMS to be louder than the sound at idle with all its negative impact on the environment.

NFB: The concern of no sound at idle is that a blind would not know of the presence of a vehicle at all and can therefore not take any appropriate action. A vehicle would only be recognisable when in motion, but not earlier. Also, hearing a vehicle would not only give information about the vehicle itself but also about the presence of a street and can therefore increase the orientation.

OICA: from a safety aspect, it may be important to have as much information available as possible. We must prioritize, which information is of higher value: a vehicle in standstill which in this condition does not pose a risk or a moving vehicle.

NFB: blind unions and associated institutions have all expressed their preference for sound at idle over CMS.

EU: Isn’t there a risk of masking of vehicles behind vehicles with sound at idle?

NFB: the risk is minor as once you hear one vehicle, you are aware, that a second one might be masked so that you can take appropriate action.

OICA: In terms of improved orientation, there are other items that better serve, such as house wall and curb stones

NFB: in a residential area this may be true, but in normal urban traffic with multilane roads, any acoustical info is very helpful. Start/Stop systems of ICEV risk posing a similar concern.

OICA: For an engineer it is important to collect data that can be analysed. It was not the intention of this presentation to argue against navigation aids, but some of the mentioned arguments are difficult to measurement and with it difficult to evaluate. The presentation intended to show that there is a risk of masking other potential risk. So we must balance our knowledge between safety aspects, but also we must consider the environmental aspect in parallel.

EU: we support the OICA position and are interested in learning about the NFB’s attitude towards the potential lowering of environmental noise from EVs.

NFB agrees overall sound level going down is beneficial. The final solution will have to be determined based on a concerted compromise between safety and environmental aspects.

The Chairman concluded that there is a general conflict in approaching the subject of the necessity of a sound at idle. While a sound at idle may be used for general navigation purposes as it includes the information about the location of a nearby road, it is not supportive for the cognition of a vehicle that changes its condition from standstill to move.