Explanation of recommendations developed for the European Commission by LAT, TNO, Heinz Steven, and TÜV Nord for the improvement of the regulations with regard to additional sound emission provisions.

13. The expert from EC informed GRB about a study on how to enhance the sound test requirements for mopeds, three-wheeled vehicles in Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and replacement exhaust silencing systems for L categories (L1 to L5) in Regulations Nos. 92 before the European Union (EU) could accept these Regulations (GRB-63-18). This study included public consultations and had been launched in response to frequent requests by citizens to improve the sound level of mopeds and three-wheeled vehicles as well as of replacement silencers for all L-category vehicles. On a similar note, the expert from EC reported about the ongoing public consultations on the EU Environmental Noise Directive1 (GRB-63-18-Add.1).

14. Based on the outcome of the study, the expert from EC proposed a set of collective amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (GRB-63-03, GRB-63-05, GRB-63-07, GRB-63-08, GRB-63-09). The experts from France, Germany, IMMA and OICA delivered a number of remarks on these documents. GRB invited all experts to transmit their written comments, if any, to the expert from EC. Finally, GRB decided to continue consideration of these amendment proposals at its next session based on official documents to be submitted by the expert from EC.

Study on the durability of replacement catalytic converters.

11. The expert from Germany presented a report (GRPE-71-08) by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) of the study undertaken by Germany on the performance and the durability of replacement catalytic converters. On the basis of the findings of the study he explained that the performance of these converters was very variable and, therefore, UN Regulation No. 103 may need to be amended to limit these performance variations. He recommended keeping this issue under close surveillance and offered to prepare a proposal as early as possible (GRPE-71-09).

12. The expert from AECC stressed the importance of durability requirements for all replacement components and expressed his readiness to cooperate in this project.

13. The Chair of GRPE recalled the importance of this issue and the need for action. He invited all stakeholders to share their data and contribute to the process.

3.5 Comparison of proposals Va and V (Documents TFAC-02-08 and TFAC-03-06)

The majority of the participants are in favor to keep the current formulas for D and Dc values.

It was agreed to establish a small group (Mr. Inverardi, Mr. Afflerbach, Mr. Conrads, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Stokreff) to make a common proposal based on document TFAC-03-06 for the next meeting.

Proposed language for UN R13 paragraph 3.3 by Mr. W. Gaupp as considered by the VDA special “test reports in type-approval” working group at their meeting held 12th March 2012 in Berlin.

There was insufficient time to discuss the various documents and, as a result, come to a conclusion. However, it was clear that there are still widely differing views on the responsibilities and implications in the use of test reports within a type-approval.

While it was agreed that only the vehicle manufacturer can obtain a braking system type-approval and in the case of a problem related to the type-approval it is the vehicle manufacturer who is responsible for the consequences, there was disagreement as to whether this was clearly the case in the actual use of a test report.

• ► Paragraph 3.3. specifies that “a vehicle, representative of the vehicle type to be approved, shall be submitted to the Technical Service conducting the approval tests.”
  • o Does this mean, for example, that:
    • a) the vehicle referred to in paragraph 3.3. and a vehicle in the test report shall be the same with regard to type, i.e. the same type from the same manufacturer, or
    • b) the vehicle referred to in paragraph 3.3. shall contain the same item that is the subject of the test report and the “approval tests” referred to in paragraph 3.3. are the tests to be carried-out at the time of type-approval for which there are no test reports.
• ► Regarding paragraph 3.4. is the need for the vehicle manufacturer to show conformity of production sufficient for the vehicle manufacturer to be aware of their responsibilities when using test reports.

As a means to resolve the issues surrounding the use of test reports, OICA suggested the replacement of the test report with a component or system type-approval and indicated that this was under investigation by a Germany Industry (VDA) special working group.

After a long discussion there remained widely differing views, with the consensus being that none of the proposals being considered provided a clear way forward in resolving these differences.

Therefore, it was agreed that no specific amendment proposal would be made to GRRF and the chairman would report on the various points that had been discussed with a view to GRRF deciding:

• - Is there a problem that requires resolution?
  • o Annex 21 specific, ECE R13 specific or ’58 Agreement specific?

In the event of a yes decision, the recommendation would be the establishment of a new informal working group.

• - Before the introduction of test reports within the type-approval process it was appropriate that the Technical Service conducting the type approval was provided with a vehicle on which to conduct the tests as required by the regulation, hence paragraph 3.3. – “a vehicle, representative of the vehicle type to be approved, shall be submitted to the Technical Service conducting the approval tests.” With the addition of test reports within the type-approval process, and no change to paragraph 3.3. does this mean, for example, that:
  • a) the vehicle referred to in paragraph 3.3. and a vehicle in the test report shall be the same with regard to type, i.e. the same type from the same manufacturer, or
  • b) the vehicle referred to in paragraph 3.3. shall contain the same item that is the subject of the test report and the “approval tests” referred to in paragraph 3.3. are the tests to be carried-out at the time of type-approval for which there are no test reports.

• - Should an Approval Authority only grant an approval when all the Technical Services providing test reports used in a braking system type-approval are designated by them for that specific work? Is there a difference in the case of a system type-approval and in the case of a vehicle type-approval?

Discussion points:

• - Is there a difference in responsibility when a Technical Service sub-contracts type-approval test work (with or without an Approval Authority approved test report) or when they receive an Approval Authority approved test report from another Technical Service that they then use in a type-approval? Is there a difference between a system type-approval and a vehicle type-approval?

• - Although it is only the vehicle manufacturer who can obtain a braking system type-approval and, as a result, it is the vehicle manufacturer who is responsible in the first instance for any resulting consequences, is it clear that this responsibility goes not go away when a provided test report is used in the type approval?

• - Is the need for the vehicle manufacturer to show satisfactory arrangements at the time of type-approval with regard to conformity of production, as required by paragraph 3.4., sufficient for the vehicle manufacturers to be aware of their responsibilities when using test reports?

Presentation on testing of heavy-duty hybrid vehicles on a chassis dynamometer.

Mr. Schulte presented working paper HDH-09-05 on the experience with chassis dyno testing in the context of the EU CO2 work program. The presentation mainly focuses on energy recuperation in real world operation vs. chassis dyno operation for an articulated city bus.

In case of parallel activation of the mechanical and electrical (recuperation) brake system, brake forces of the axle(s) not in operation/rotation on the chassis dyno may be “over” recuperated by the axles in operation/rotation, which would give a positive effect to the final test result. This might require additional testing of the mechanical brake forces of the HDV. The recuperation correction is shown on pages 6 to 9. Other issues with chassis dyno testing are the necessity of coast-down measurements, which are often not possible, the cooling of power electronics, converter and energy storage, and additional measurement systems for electrical values in a high-voltage environment. Japan indicated that measurement of current is sufficient, since battery voltage normally does not change very much.