8. The Chair of the informal working group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12 proposing to insert provisions on automated couplings into UN Regulation No. 13. He presented GRRF-75-03, containing the ISO standard which is referred to in the proposal. He also introduced GRRF-75-23 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12. He provided updated information requested during the seventy-fourth session of GRRF (GRRF-75-22). GRRF adopted this proposal, as amended by Annex II of the meeting report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2014 sessions as draft Supplement 11 to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13.

8. The Chair of the informal working group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12 proposing to insert provisions on automated couplings into UN Regulation No. 13. He presented GRRF-75-03, containing the ISO standard which is referred to in the proposal. He also introduced GRRF-75-23 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12. He provided updated information requested during the seventy-fourth session of GRRF (GRRF-75-22). GRRF adopted this proposal, as amended by Annex II of the meeting report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2014 sessions as draft Supplement 11 to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13.

8. The Chair of the informal working group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12 proposing to insert provisions on automated couplings into UN Regulation No. 13. He presented GRRF-75-03, containing the ISO standard which is referred to in the proposal. He also introduced GRRF-75-23 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12. He provided updated information requested during the seventy-fourth session of GRRF (GRRF-75-22). GRRF adopted this proposal, as amended by Annex II of the meeting report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2014 sessions as draft Supplement 11 to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13.

8. The Chair of the informal working group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12 proposing to insert provisions on automated couplings into UN Regulation No. 13. He presented GRRF-75-03, containing the ISO standard which is referred to in the proposal. He also introduced GRRF-75-23 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/12. He provided updated information requested during the seventy-fourth session of GRRF (GRRF-75-22). GRRF adopted this proposal, as amended by Annex II of the meeting report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2014 sessions as draft Supplement 11 to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13.

7. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-74-42). He introduced the group’s most recent proposal (GRRF-74-22) amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2 and introducing provisions for ACV. He reported that the informal group updated the previous proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2), taking into account the concerns of GRRF on interoperability and safety provided by such systems (GRRF-74-23). He added that some additional work was still needed and sought GRRFs guidance, whether the relevant ISO standard shall be referenced or copied into the Regulation. The Chair of GRRF offered to follow up on this issue after the March 2013 session of WP.29. This item would be reviewed at GRRFs September 2013 session on the basis of a revised proposal to be submitted in due time by the ACV group.

7. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-74-42). He introduced the group’s most recent proposal (GRRF-74-22) amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2 and introducing provisions for ACV. He reported that the informal group updated the previous proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2), taking into account the concerns of GRRF on interoperability and safety provided by such systems (GRRF-74-23). He added that some additional work was still needed and sought GRRFs guidance, whether the relevant ISO standard shall be referenced or copied into the Regulation. The Chair of GRRF offered to follow up on this issue after the March 2013 session of WP.29. This item would be reviewed at GRRFs September 2013 session on the basis of a revised proposal to be submitted in due time by the ACV group.

7. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-74-42). He introduced the group’s most recent proposal (GRRF-74-22) amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2 and introducing provisions for ACV. He reported that the informal group updated the previous proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2), taking into account the concerns of GRRF on interoperability and safety provided by such systems (GRRF-74-23). He added that some additional work was still needed and sought GRRFs guidance, whether the relevant ISO standard shall be referenced or copied into the Regulation. The Chair of GRRF offered to follow up on this issue after the March 2013 session of WP.29. This item would be reviewed at GRRFs September 2013 session on the basis of a revised proposal to be submitted in due time by the ACV group.

Document ACV-11-09 was created with lots of discussion. For the outcome of the meeting see document ACV-11-09. During the drafting of this document a big discussion was also held on response time measurement.

The agenda was approved without additions.

7. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-74-42). He introduced the group’s most recent proposal (GRRF-74-22) amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2 and introducing provisions for ACV. He reported that the informal group updated the previous proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/2), taking into account the concerns of GRRF on interoperability and safety provided by such systems (GRRF-74-23). He added that some additional work was still needed and sought GRRFs guidance, whether the relevant ISO standard shall be referenced or copied into the Regulation. The Chair of GRRF offered to follow up on this issue after the March 2013 session of WP.29. This item would be reviewed at GRRFs September 2013 session on the basis of a revised proposal to be submitted in due time by the ACV group.

The report of the previous meeting, document ACV-10-06 was approved without changes.

There are two different issues, there is the drawbar coupling and there is the 5th wheel and the ACV part that is behind it. This group is looking at existing technology as specified in our Terms of Reference.

The Chairman gave a history of the work of this group for the new participants. We could either wait for ISO or put harmonised requirements in the Regulation.

Volvo felt that a solution without standardisation is a step backward. In the proposal only ACV vehicles are looked at and Volvo asks what about ACV and non-ACV vehicles.

The group explained that if the proposal is understood like that then some adjustments to the text are needed.

The situation today is that the driver has to make a decision on the pneumatic connector. And it works. The pneumatic connector is not specified to a standard. Our paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 address this problem. We give the driver a warning.

If the connection is not fully functional the driver gets a warning. We must be careful that we don’t over-legislate. Volvo was concerned that if we don’t specify a standard today then we may have a situation that is not an improvement on today. The group answered that if you specify a standard today, without field experience, the wrong option may be gone for and that you may annoy the user even more.

The meeting was of the opinion that responsibility for compatibility lies with the user. And over time one connector will emerge as the standard. If we legislate today then we may create a situation that is worse than today. The user must make sure that he has the male and female connector from the same company. The fleet operator has to make a conscious decision on what connector he wants to work with.

The example of mobile phones was given. If we would have taken a charger from 20 years ago and made it a standard then that would not have been a good standard because we have USB now. The technology has developed. For connectors there may be a solution that we can’t envisage yet today.

An important point was highlighted. There are two different things : a mismatch is a safety issue and interchangeability is a cost issue. We don’t need to legislate for cost issues.

A long discussion was held on a compatibility matrix from Sweden. When we exclude everything from the matrix which is not regulated by R13 then we get to document ACV-10-03 from The Netherlands.

This compatibility matrix from The Netherlands is to be included in the justification of the proposal. The matrix from Sweden will be presented to GRRF together with an explanation on how the document has been used to find provisions regarding mismatching and incompatibility.

During the discussion on paragraph 2.4 of the proposal, a matrix ‘warning modes’ was drawn up. This matrix too is to be included in the justification of the proposal.

Document ACV-10-04 is the proposal which is the outcome of the discussions under this agenda item.

There are two different issues, there is the drawbar coupling and there is the 5th wheel and the ACV part that is behind it. This group is looking at existing technology as specified in our Terms of Reference.

The Chairman gave a history of the work of this group for the new participants. We could either wait for ISO or put harmonised requirements in the Regulation.

Volvo felt that a solution without standardisation is a step backward. In the proposal only ACV vehicles are looked at and Volvo asks what about ACV and non-ACV vehicles.

The group explained that if the proposal is understood like that then some adjustments to the text are needed.

The situation today is that the driver has to make a decision on the pneumatic connector. And it works. The pneumatic connector is not specified to a standard. Our paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 address this problem. We give the driver a warning.

If the connection is not fully functional the driver gets a warning. We must be careful that we don’t over-legislate. Volvo was concerned that if we don’t specify a standard today then we may have a situation that is not an improvement on today. The group answered that if you specify a standard today, without field experience, the wrong option may be gone for and that you may annoy the user even more.

The meeting was of the opinion that responsibility for compatibility lies with the user. And over time one connector will emerge as the standard. If we legislate today then we may create a situation that is worse than today. The user must make sure that he has the male and female connector from the same company. The fleet operator has to make a conscious decision on what connector he wants to work with.

The example of mobile phones was given. If we would have taken a charger from 20 years ago and made it a standard then that would not have been a good standard because we have USB now. The technology has developed. For connectors there may be a solution that we can’t envisage yet today.

An important point was highlighted. There are two different things : a mismatch is a safety issue and interchangeability is a cost issue. We don’t need to legislate for cost issues.

A long discussion was held on a compatibility matrix from Sweden. When we exclude everything from the matrix which is not regulated by R13 then we get to document ACV-10-03 from The Netherlands.

This compatibility matrix from The Netherlands is to be included in the justification of the proposal. The matrix from Sweden will be presented to GRRF together with an explanation on how the document has been used to find provisions regarding mismatching and incompatibility.

During the discussion on paragraph 2.4 of the proposal, a matrix ‘warning modes’ was drawn up. This matrix too is to be included in the justification of the proposal.

Document ACV-10-04 is the proposal which is the outcome of the discussions under this agenda item.

The group decided to re-formulate part of point 4 of the report of the previous meeting. After discussion, two lines were struck through. For the revised report see document ACV-08-08 Rev 1.

The report of the previous meeting, document ACV-09-06, was approved without changes.

Volvo comments are added to the agenda and will be handled at the appropriate point of the discussion.

9. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-73-09). The informal group produced the informal document GRRF-73-15 proposing to amend UN Regulation No. 13 with provisions for Automated Connections between Vehicles. Following a discussion on the interoperability and safety provided by such systems, GRRF requested the informal group to provide some clarifications and a risk analysis for consideration at the next session of GRRF.

10. The expert from Sweden sought GRRF’s guidance on the part of the mandate of ACV informal group with respect to road trains. Some governmental experts expressed their wish to work on this matter. The expert from CLEPA reminded GRRF about the existence of GRRF-66-08. This document will be reinserted into the agenda of the next session of GRRF. At the request of the informal group, the chair provided guidance on the prioritization of work, proposing to finish the work on ACV and then to start to work on road trains. In this respect, the chair requested the informal group to review the terms of reference of ACV and to prepare an updated version if necessary.

9. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-73-09). The informal group produced the informal document GRRF-73-15 proposing to amend UN Regulation No. 13 with provisions for Automated Connections between Vehicles. Following a discussion on the interoperability and safety provided by such systems, GRRF requested the informal group to provide some clarifications and a risk analysis for consideration at the next session of GRRF.

10. The expert from Sweden sought GRRF’s guidance on the part of the mandate of ACV informal group with respect to road trains. Some governmental experts expressed their wish to work on this matter. The expert from CLEPA reminded GRRF about the existence of GRRF-66-08. This document will be reinserted into the agenda of the next session of GRRF. At the request of the informal group, the chair provided guidance on the prioritization of work, proposing to finish the work on ACV and then to start to work on road trains. In this respect, the chair requested the informal group to review the terms of reference of ACV and to prepare an updated version if necessary.

11. The expert from OICA introduced a proposal for editorial corrections to Regulation No. 13 (GRRF-73-02). GRRF agreed to two of the three proposed changes and adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex 3 to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2013 session as Corrigendum 2 to UN Regulation No. 13.

12. GRRF noted the state of discussions in WP.29 on dynamic or static references to other UN Regulations and private standards. GRRF welcomed the recommendation to proceed on a case by case approach. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal to insert in Regulations Nos. 13 and 13-H a reference to Regulation No. 10 and its 04 series of amendments. The experts from OICA and CLEPA proposed to make a reference to the 03 series, as the 04 series only defines new requirements for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and electric vehicles (EV) vehicles. OICA recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP29/GRRF/2011/34 and especially the justification part. GRRF agreed to resume the discussion at its next session. For this purpose, the Chair requested the secretariat to distribute GRRF-73-14 with an official symbol, to keep ECE/TRANS/GRRF/2012/21 and to reinsert ECE/TRANS/GRRF/2011/34 on the agenda.

13. The expert from Belgium recalled the work progress (GRRF-73-09) made by the informal group on AMEVSC proposing updated provisions of Annex 21 (and its appendix) to UN Regulation No. 13 dealing with the use of simulation tools duly validated to prove compliance of the vehicle stability function (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/2). The Secretary introduced GRRF-73-06. GRRF was supportive of the proposal but raised some detailed issues. The Chair invited GRRF to provide the Secretary of the informal group with written comments to allow a revision to be prepared as an official document for consideration by GRRF at its next session .

14. The Chair recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/11 and GRRF-72-28 on the introduction of an electro-hydraulic transmission for electrical brake systems. The expert from the Netherlands reported on a first meeting with Germany and his intention to produce an enhanced proposal for consideration at the next session. GRRF agreed to resume the discussion at its next session, keeping these documents as a reference.

Under this agenda item document ACV-08-06 was worked on. For the outcome of the discussions see document ACV-09-04.

A document from this group was drafted for sending to the GRRF/IG on R55. See document ACV-09-05 for the outcome of the discussions.

The group decided to re-formulate part of point 4 of the report of the previous meeting. After discussion, two lines were struck through. For the revised report see document ACV-08-08 Rev 1.

Two items need correcting in the report :

• - on the length of the EBS cable, the most common on trailers is 12 to 13m
• - under point 7 the gentleman’s name is Wartenberg

Under this agenda item document ACV-08-06 was worked on. For the outcome of the discussions see document ACV-09-04.

ISO 13044 parts 1 and 2 need to be studied. 13044 guarantees a location and best wiring for the connector to ensure compatibility between every tractor and trailer. But 13044 is still a draft at this moment; we don’t know yet when it will be released. 13044 contains rules that have to be followed and later several standards could be harmonised with the regulation. There is no standardisation at the moment.

OICA and Clepa prefer a standard. A document will be made available to this group with the outcome of OICA/Clepa discussions. If we were to put another standard in R13 then in 5 years time we may need to do this work again.

Automatic couplings may become a next generation of couplings without making it mandatory. That will open the market. It is most acceptable for it to become a market standard.

At the current time, no application is ‘standard’ but it is geometrically compatible with everything else.

There is a real need for this ACV application but ISO7638 postponed the application.
The question is asked as to whether we can write in the regulation that one point to consider is that the connector used can have one wiring plan as per 13044 or a wiring diagram.

Over time, the market will establish a standard but for the next few years only specialist operators will use the system. We need to ask OICA and Clepa for more support on the development of the ISO standard.

This group will advise GRRF to:

• 1. Wait for the ISO
• 2. begin and work with the ISO in parallel

Note : deleted as a result of review at 9th meeting.

The ISO is now voted on, DIS voting is still to come. There is no real link between the ISO work and the UN-ECE.

The question was considered as to what would happen if this group set the technical part. We cannot enforce interchangeability in R13. Clepa and OICA should drive that within the standards organisations.

Standardisation is needed for economic reasons. It is not needed for safety issues or anything else. Standardisation will open the market, now we are looking for an intermediate solution.

Conclusion of the discussion : OICA/Clepa to send a paper, this group answers and sends the document to Geneva.

On the question of cable length, maybe if a repeater is needed less cable length will be used.

Exemptions are asked for only on a few vehicles. Only ACV vehicles? In the future there may be more but not in the next couple of years. 40m is the natural CAN-bus limit. 40m is one second response time. We need to modify the text for all cases now. Or we might use a footnote.

In paragraph 2.2, in square brackets, we have a 20m-20m split. In mixed mode there is no change, in ACV mode we have a 19m-21m split.

If the vehicle is ACV equipped, the vehicle split is 20m-20m for retro fit we fit a repeater.

With regard to the proposal, the Chairman concludes that rather than add something here it is maybe easier to change the body building instruction.

Consideration was given as to whether this group should also look at road trains.

The group had a lengthy discussion on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4

Two items need correcting in the report :

• - on the length of the EBS cable, the most common on trailers is 12 to 13m
• - under point 7 the gentleman’s name is Wartenberg

ISO 13044 parts 1 and 2 need to be studied. 13044 guarantees a location and best wiring for the connector to ensure compatibility between every tractor and trailer. But 13044 is still a draft at this moment; we don’t know yet when it will be released. 13044 contains rules that have to be followed and later several standards could be harmonised with the regulation. There is no standardisation at the moment.

OICA and Clepa prefer a standard. A document will be made available to this group with the outcome of OICA/Clepa discussions. If we were to put another standard in R13 then in 5 years time we may need to do this work again.

Automatic couplings may become a next generation of couplings without making it mandatory. That will open the market. It is most acceptable for it to become a market standard.

At the current time, no application is ‘standard’ but it is geometrically compatible with everything else.

There is a real need for this ACV application but ISO7638 postponed the application.
The question is asked as to whether we can write in the regulation that one point to consider is that the connector used can have one wiring plan as per 13044 or a wiring diagram.

Over time, the market will establish a standard but for the next few years only specialist operators will use the system. We need to ask OICA and Clepa for more support on the development of the ISO standard.

This group will advise GRRF to:

• 1. Wait for the ISO
• 2. begin and work with the ISO in parallel

Note : deleted as a result of review at 9th meeting.

The ISO is now voted on, DIS voting is still to come. There is no real link between the ISO work and the UN-ECE.

The question was considered as to what would happen if this group set the technical part. We cannot enforce interchangeability in R13. Clepa and OICA should drive that within the standards organisations.

Standardisation is needed for economic reasons. It is not needed for safety issues or anything else. Standardisation will open the market, now we are looking for an intermediate solution.

Conclusion of the discussion : OICA/Clepa to send a paper, this group answers and sends the document to Geneva.

On the question of cable length, maybe if a repeater is needed less cable length will be used.

Exemptions are asked for only on a few vehicles. Only ACV vehicles? In the future there may be more but not in the next couple of years. 40m is the natural CAN-bus limit. 40m is one second response time. We need to modify the text for all cases now. Or we might use a footnote.

In paragraph 2.2, in square brackets, we have a 20m-20m split. In mixed mode there is no change, in ACV mode we have a 19m-21m split.

If the vehicle is ACV equipped, the vehicle split is 20m-20m for retro fit we fit a repeater.

With regard to the proposal, the Chairman concludes that rather than add something here it is maybe easier to change the body building instruction.

Consideration was given as to whether this group should also look at road trains.

The group had a lengthy discussion on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4

In R55 we need a warning for the mechanical coupling.

In R55 if there is remote control then we must have remote indication.

For the result of the discussions on R55 please see document ACV-07-05.

In R55 we need a warning for the mechanical coupling.

In R55 if there is remote control then we must have remote indication.

For the result of the discussions on R55 please see document ACV-07-05.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The conclusion of last time was that we need not do anything on this point as the only mixed market is Australia and Australia do not have any problem. In Europe this concerns very few vehicles only.

Measuring response time
Jost did some tests with TÜV and confirms that the way of measuring in annex 6 is sufficient. In annex 6 point 3.3.3. we need to add not less than 10mm “except for the connector”.

Solid connection of hoses
After discussion, the group decided that there was no need to handle cables that are not in use.

In the case of a tractor, flexible hoses are part of the tractor according to annex 6, paragraph 2.5. For full trailers they are part of the trailer.

The group was of the opinion that this point does not need to be discussed any further, the driver has to come out of his cab.

We need to add to R13 that flexible hoses are not needed for ACV’s.

For wording of paragraph 5.1.3.8. see document ACV-07-04.

Length of EBS cables
12 to 13m is standard on the majority of vehicles but some suppliers sell also 16m. For special trailers that need extra length repeaters are used.

The group is to verify two points:

• - Whether we shall place the coiled cable in line
• - How to split the cable between truck and trailer

Driver warnings
The same signals and warnings available today remain.

With an automatic connector the driver has no ‘feel’ that the connection is good. In that case he shouldn’t drive the combination.

The electrics need to be engaged before the pneumatics are engaged. VBG are of the opinion that we must focus on alarming any risk of losing the trailer. This could introduce a lot of control that we don’t have with a conventional coupling. We should get a light when the connection is well made and a red light if it is not well made plus a message from the trailer. Question is what kind of message.

Jost propose a red light when the connection is open until the connector is mechanically properly closed and then we should get a green light.

An automated connector is much safer than a convential connection. We can give additional information also but must develop this together with the OEM.

The group agrees that we must have a signal that the connection is closed. We must say that the electric connections must come first but this is design restrictive. Or, alternatively it must not be possible to move the combination if the connection is not properly closed.

A warning system is an improvement over what we have today. If something is wrong we must have a permanent warning.

ISO 13044 parts 1 and 2 need to be studied. 13044 guarantees a location and best wiring for the connector to ensure compatibility between every tractor and trailer. But 13044 is still a draft at this moment; we don’t know yet when it will be released. 13044 contains rules that have to be followed and later several standards could be harmonised with the regulation. There is no standardisation at the moment.

OICA and Clepa prefer a standard. A document will be made available to this group with the outcome of OICA/Clepa discussions. If we were to put another standard in R13 then in 5 years time we may need to do this work again.

Automatic couplings may become a next generation of couplings without making it mandatory. That will open the market. It is most acceptable for it to become a market standard.

At the current time, no application is ‘standard’ but it is geometrically compatible with everything else.

There is a real need for this ACV application but ISO7638 postponed the application.
The question is asked as to whether we can write in the regulation that one point to consider is that the connector used can have one wiring plan as per 13044 or a wiring diagram.

Over time, the market will establish a standard but for the next few years only specialist operators will use the system. We need to ask OICA and Clepa for more support on the development of the ISO standard.

This group will advise GRRF to:

• 1. Wait for the ISO
• 2. begin and work with the ISO in parallel

Note : deleted as a result of review at 9th meeting.

The ISO is now voted on, DIS voting is still to come. There is no real link between the ISO work and the UN-ECE.

The question was considered as to what would happen if this group set the technical part. We cannot enforce interchangeability in R13. Clepa and OICA should drive that within the standards organisations.

Standardisation is needed for economic reasons. It is not needed for safety issues or anything else. Standardisation will open the market, now we are looking for an intermediate solution.

Conclusion of the discussion : OICA/Clepa to send a paper, this group answers and sends the document to Geneva.

On the question of cable length, maybe if a repeater is needed less cable length will be used.

Exemptions are asked for only on a few vehicles. Only ACV vehicles? In the future there may be more but not in the next couple of years. 40m is the natural CAN-bus limit. 40m is one second response time. We need to modify the text for all cases now. Or we might use a footnote.

In paragraph 2.2, in square brackets, we have a 20m-20m split. In mixed mode there is no change, in ACV mode we have a 19m-21m split.

If the vehicle is ACV equipped, the vehicle split is 20m-20m for retro fit we fit a repeater.

With regard to the proposal, the Chairman concludes that rather than add something here it is maybe easier to change the body building instruction.

Consideration was given as to whether this group should also look at road trains.

The group had a lengthy discussion on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and expressed his pleasure in seeing that also the truck manufacturers were now participating in this meeting.

The report of the meeting ACV-06-11 was approved without changes.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The conclusion of last time was that we need not do anything on this point as the only mixed market is Australia and Australia do not have any problem. In Europe this concerns very few vehicles only.

Measuring response time
Jost did some tests with TÜV and confirms that the way of measuring in annex 6 is sufficient. In annex 6 point 3.3.3. we need to add not less than 10mm “except for the connector”.

Solid connection of hoses
After discussion, the group decided that there was no need to handle cables that are not in use.

In the case of a tractor, flexible hoses are part of the tractor according to annex 6, paragraph 2.5. For full trailers they are part of the trailer.

The group was of the opinion that this point does not need to be discussed any further, the driver has to come out of his cab.

We need to add to R13 that flexible hoses are not needed for ACV’s.

For wording of paragraph 5.1.3.8. see document ACV-07-04.

Length of EBS cables
12 to 13m is standard on the majority of vehicles but some suppliers sell also 16m. For special trailers that need extra length repeaters are used.

The group is to verify two points:

• - Whether we shall place the coiled cable in line
• - How to split the cable between truck and trailer

Driver warnings
The same signals and warnings available today remain.

With an automatic connector the driver has no ‘feel’ that the connection is good. In that case he shouldn’t drive the combination.

The electrics need to be engaged before the pneumatics are engaged. VBG are of the opinion that we must focus on alarming any risk of losing the trailer. This could introduce a lot of control that we don’t have with a conventional coupling. We should get a light when the connection is well made and a red light if it is not well made plus a message from the trailer. Question is what kind of message.

Jost propose a red light when the connection is open until the connector is mechanically properly closed and then we should get a green light.

An automated connector is much safer than a convential connection. We can give additional information also but must develop this together with the OEM.

The group agrees that we must have a signal that the connection is closed. We must say that the electric connections must come first but this is design restrictive. Or, alternatively it must not be possible to move the combination if the connection is not properly closed.

A warning system is an improvement over what we have today. If something is wrong we must have a permanent warning.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

Given that the Chairman, Mr Gunneriusson, will have to miss this meeting because of illness, the group decided that Mr Svensson should chair the meeting.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

Document ACV-07-04 was added under agenda item 5.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

Four new documents were added under agenda item 4.

The report of the meeting ACV-05-08 was approved without changes.

A new task for the future was noted : we need to review annex 6.

A long discussion was held on what if both the automated connector and the ISO 7638 are connected.
We need to ask the trailer manufacturers what the usual length is of the EBS cable and we must think about driver warning.

New drawings need to be put in our working/final document.

The report of the meeting ACV-04-05 was amended. This revised report will also be forwarded to Geneva.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

10. The expert from Sweden, chairing the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/8 on the terms of reference and rules of procedures of the group. It was clarified that amendments to Regulations Nos. 29 and 55 were not covered by the mandate of the informal group. The GRRF Chair invited all experts to contribute to the work of the informal group. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/8 as reproduced in Annex VIII to this report.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The comments received from Mr W. Gaupp were noted, these will be discussed under agenda item 7.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. Given that new members joined the working group, all members introduced themselves.

Document ACV-05-03 does not need to be considered now as the text is to be transferred to the new document.

The various working documents submitted for this meeting were discussed in detail. For the outcome of the discussions, please see document ACV-06-10.

Provisions for mismatching between 12/24 volt
The group went through the 12/24v document from Jost. In Australia most trailers are 12v. The group concluded that this working group does not need to make mention of this at all as the situation is not critical.

Measuring response time
Jost made some measurements. Response time of an ACV is lower than with a helix cable. When we are measuring with a simulator, we have to measure the supply system. We need a set of rules for the conventional system (annex 6) and a set of rules for the automated system.

If volume L in annex 6 is left then we have a problem. A valve adds 0.06s. We need to change the volume in annex 6 for the automated system.

If the connection line between truck and trailer is different then this must be taken into account. We actually need a longer length.

The group agreed that the method as outlined still applies but there are open issues:
- Is there room for a different value of L? If the volume L is changed then it must be changed in the calibration also.
- Timing is a secondary issue. We know the measurement is good but we don’t know how it should be changed.

Solid connection of hoses
This item was not discussed.

A point for the next meeting : think about a manual button that would make the driver leave his cab.

This agenda item is to be got back to.

Document ACV-04-02
Knorr-Bremse expressed the opinion that this working document was written more like an ISO standard than as a piece of legislation. The question was asked as to why we needed to delete the references to ISO 7638 given that a simpler solution would be to have an alternative reference to an automatic coupling system. Wabco shared this view.

The Chairman confirmed that this item was looked at and that ISO 7638 was still in there. The document was written in this way on the recommendation of Mr Wilfried Gaupp who may join the group next year as a private individual.

We need a definition of an automatic coupling system between vehicles and if we have an alternative, then in annex 22 we have the special requirements.

The Chairman explained that we have a three step approach :

• - Introduce an interface
• - Put a definition in R55
• - Specify which vehicles will use ISO 7638 and which vehicles will use ACV

Durability appears in this document and in R55. Durability can be handled separately.

In R13 there are 46 references to ISO 7638. 44 of those are there because the signals have not been defined. ISO 7638 is not a pure interface. In future maybe other signals will be added. The text as we have it now is robust against future changes.

In R55 there are references to R13. Currently the proposal is to add a level of automation in R55. We could refer to R55 every time FACS is mentioned in R13.

VBG feels that if we go the shortcut way, there may be a misinterpretation and this is what we should try to avoid. Knorr-Bremse however feels that each regulation should stand on its own given that Contracting Parties may sign up to one regulation and not to the other.

The Chairman concludes that we must have a solution for the technical requirements. We should consider this first and write it one way or the other afterwards.

BPW would like to speak about functionality rather than about pins. The text wants to go towards specifying functionality.

ISO 13044 is the interface of FACS. This reference standard was not available yet when this working group started its work. ISO13044 is still not established so we can‟t use that.

Two options were identified : carry on with the technical requirements or talk about the approach.

The Netherlands was unclear as to whether on durability ISO7638 is only the pins or also the robustness of it.

The working group concluded that the group would talk about the technical requirements first and would look at where to put it later.

The technical requirements for ISO 13044 have now been voted but the process is still going on. It will be the autumn of next year before we have a standard.

Knorr-Bremse will draft a proposal for an automated connector as an alternative to the ISO 7638 in R13.

12/24 volt

There is always a technical solution but all have disadvantages. Europe and South America have 24v, The USA has 12 volt, Australia have both but with more 24v, they use a converter. The Australian Design Rule (ADR) 35-03 gives an option. Japan has 24v.

On FACS it is difficult to make 12v and 24v such that they mechanically do not fit. The Regulation needs to mention safety critical points and the driver needs a sign to say which is which on a type plate or on a sticker.

Response time

There is no longer a need to discuss this, the approval authority or the test house will get an agreement on this with the vehicle manufacturer. This has been taken out of the proposal.

Solid connection of hoses

The semi-trailer flexible hose is part of the truck, the full trailer flexible hose is part of the trailer. For FACS we don’t need to regulate as for non-automated vehicles. We need to add to R13 that flexible hoses are not needed in the case of automated connections.

In annex 6, point 2.5 : add : This requirement for flexible hoses and cables does not need to be applied to fully automatic coupling systems.

References to R55

Given that every regulation should stand on its own, it is better to amend RE3 with the definition of fully automatic coupling systems. But the definition should be in R13 also. In R13 we also need to define “automated connector”.

Example of truck and trailer drawing

The drawings need to be updated so they look different from the ISO drawings. Jost took it upon himself to do that.

In 5.1.3.6.2. we need to add a sentence and a link to the drawings saying “A manual option for …” VBG agreed to circulate a draft to the group. We need an automatic switch between manual coupling and automated coupling.

The list of action items resulting from the 3rd meeting of this working group was run through. Some progress had been made on mixed voltages but this was still being worked on.

Under agenda item 7 discussion of document ACV-01-04 Rev 1, Terms of Reference was added.

17. The Chair of the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV, former “FACS”) reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-71-22). GRRF discussed again the scope of work of this group and invited the informal group to clarify its Terms of Reference (presently ACV-01-04-Rev.1) for the February 2012 session of GRRF.

17. The Chair of the informal group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV, former “FACS”) reported on the progress made by the group (GRRF-71-22). GRRF discussed again the scope of work of this group and invited the informal group to clarify its Terms of Reference (presently ACV-01-04-Rev.1) for the February 2012 session of GRRF.

N1 vehicles can tow a semi-trailer. So N1 vehicles stay in the Terms of Reference. The number of meetings planned are to be taken out of the document.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. Participants introduced themselves given that a new member joined the working group.

R55 is connected with which way the group goes with paragraph 5.1.3.6.3.2 and 5.1.3.6.3.3. This agenda item will be come back to at a later stage.

Under this agenda item document ACV-03-02 was looked at.

The group considered that there should be a requirement for the numbering to be consistent with the definitions in 2.34.

Concerning point 5.1.3.6.2.3 the group decided that BPW should consider how the installation can be easily handled. This point will be come back to when Mr Manz from BPW is present in the meeting. Maybe we should say that the length and the capacitance has to be split to a maximum value. The Secretary is to send a message to Mr Manz to inform him that the meeting wanted to go to a specific length.

The group questioned as to whether the ISO 7638 : 2003 should be referred to instead of ISO 7638 : 1997.

A discussion was had on combinations consisting of both 12v and 24v vehicles. Conclusion was that a paragraph is needed to make it clear that it must be safe and possible to connect both. All brake related systems on the trailer powered through the brake electric/electronic interface should be capable of handling both voltages.

For point 5.1.3.6.2.6 the group considered that the input from the braking systems manufacturers is needed to know whether it is reasonable that all systems are supplied through the connector. How are trailers equipped today? Does 12v/24v tractor/trailer work? Can you move the vehicle if the EBS does not work? The Secretary is to ask the three braking systems manufacturers and Mr Manz to attend the next meeting of this working group.

The whole group is to review 5.1.3.6.3.2 and 5.1.3.6.3.3.

The group decided that it should point out that there are N1 vehicles capable of towing more than 3.5 tonnes. This is to be included in the open issues.

This document is to become ACV-03-02 Rev1, Results of discussions at the 3rd session.

For the outcome of the discussions under this agenda item, see ACV-03-02 Rev 1.

The agenda was approved. Under agenda item 5, a new document was added ACV-03-03.

Under this agenda item document ACV-03-02 was looked at.

The group considered that there should be a requirement for the numbering to be consistent with the definitions in 2.34.

Concerning point 5.1.3.6.2.3 the group decided that BPW should consider how the installation can be easily handled. This point will be come back to when Mr Manz from BPW is present in the meeting. Maybe we should say that the length and the capacitance has to be split to a maximum value. The Secretary is to send a message to Mr Manz to inform him that the meeting wanted to go to a specific length.

The group questioned as to whether the ISO 7638 : 2003 should be referred to instead of ISO 7638 : 1997.

A discussion was had on combinations consisting of both 12v and 24v vehicles. Conclusion was that a paragraph is needed to make it clear that it must be safe and possible to connect both. All brake related systems on the trailer powered through the brake electric/electronic interface should be capable of handling both voltages.

For point 5.1.3.6.2.6 the group considered that the input from the braking systems manufacturers is needed to know whether it is reasonable that all systems are supplied through the connector. How are trailers equipped today? Does 12v/24v tractor/trailer work? Can you move the vehicle if the EBS does not work? The Secretary is to ask the three braking systems manufacturers and Mr Manz to attend the next meeting of this working group.

The whole group is to review 5.1.3.6.3.2 and 5.1.3.6.3.3.

The group decided that it should point out that there are N1 vehicles capable of towing more than 3.5 tonnes. This is to be included in the open issues.

This document is to become ACV-03-02 Rev1, Results of discussions at the 3rd session.

For the outcome of the discussions under this agenda item, see ACV-03-02 Rev 1.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

None needed to be discussed.

The report of the second meeting of the informal group on ACV, ACV-02-12, was approved without changes.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. As participants were all present at the 1st session, no new introductions needed to be made.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

In the draft proposal, the group will highlight sections in a different colour so as to show that we have the same requirements as in the ISO standard.

Documents ACV-02-06 and ACV-02-07 were reviewed by the group.

The representative of BPW gave the presentation contained in document ACV-02-08.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

In the draft proposal, the group will highlight sections in a different colour so as to show that we have the same requirements as in the ISO standard.

Documents ACV-02-06 and ACV-02-07 were reviewed by the group.

The representative of BPW gave the presentation contained in document ACV-02-08.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

Discussion on document ACV-02-02 :

This document contains editorial changes only. Document ACV-02-02 was agreed with the word ‘function’ being replaced by the word ‘signal’, with incorporation of the paragraph on point-to-point from the JOST document ACV-02-10 and with moving paragraph 5.1.3.6.1. back under paragraph 2.34. Also, ‘shall include’ is replaced by ‘includes’ in paragraph 5.1.3.6.1.

Discussion on document ACV-02-04 :

The text of the entire document is to be merged with the text of document ACV-02-02. Also, in paragraph 5.1.3.6.2.we need to include that if more than one ISO 7638 is present, then a switch is needed so that only one connector can be active at any one time. That text no longer appears in 5.1.3.6.4.2. of document ACV-02-04. The group also decided that a sentence is needed to say that the reference to ISO 7638 only refers to manual connectors. The text of 5.1.3.6.4. parts 1, 2 and 3 is to be made more compact. In 6.4.2. the group considered it better not to refer to the ISO but rather to the technical content. Also the text of document ACV-02-10 is to be merged with this new text.

Discussion on document ACV-02-03 :

The group decided that this document can be left for discussion at a later stage but that it should be ready for when the amendments to R13 are presented to GRRF. This document will be a document separate from the proposal mentioned above.

Conclusion : VBG is to make a new proposal.

Discussion on document ACV-02-05 :

The content of this document was covered by the discussions above under this agenda item.

Discussion on document ACV-02-10 :

The group considered paragraph 2.32 ok. The functionality of the connector should be considered. If the tidying up earlier is agreed then this paragraph will be no longer necessary.

The second paragraph of 2.32 assures compatibility.

Paragraph 5.1.3.6 was discussed earlier under this agenda item.

In the 2nd paragraph of the amended text we need to say something on the capacitance of the cable.

This document ACV-02-10 needs to be put together with documents ACV-02-04 and ACV-02-02.

The response time on an ACV trailer should not be more than when it was manually operated.

Conclusion : a new document will be prepared for the next meeting.

The agenda was approved. Discussion on document numbers ACV-06, ACV-07 and ACV-08 was moved from agenda item 6 to agenda item 7.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

In the draft proposal, the group will highlight sections in a different colour so as to show that we have the same requirements as in the ISO standard.

Documents ACV-02-06 and ACV-02-07 were reviewed by the group.

The representative of BPW gave the presentation contained in document ACV-02-08.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

Discussion on document ACV-02-02 :

This document contains editorial changes only. Document ACV-02-02 was agreed with the word ‘function’ being replaced by the word ‘signal’, with incorporation of the paragraph on point-to-point from the JOST document ACV-02-10 and with moving paragraph 5.1.3.6.1. back under paragraph 2.34. Also, ‘shall include’ is replaced by ‘includes’ in paragraph 5.1.3.6.1.

Discussion on document ACV-02-04 :

The text of the entire document is to be merged with the text of document ACV-02-02. Also, in paragraph 5.1.3.6.2.we need to include that if more than one ISO 7638 is present, then a switch is needed so that only one connector can be active at any one time. That text no longer appears in 5.1.3.6.4.2. of document ACV-02-04. The group also decided that a sentence is needed to say that the reference to ISO 7638 only refers to manual connectors. The text of 5.1.3.6.4. parts 1, 2 and 3 is to be made more compact. In 6.4.2. the group considered it better not to refer to the ISO but rather to the technical content. Also the text of document ACV-02-10 is to be merged with this new text.

Discussion on document ACV-02-03 :

The group decided that this document can be left for discussion at a later stage but that it should be ready for when the amendments to R13 are presented to GRRF. This document will be a document separate from the proposal mentioned above.

Conclusion : VBG is to make a new proposal.

Discussion on document ACV-02-05 :

The content of this document was covered by the discussions above under this agenda item.

Discussion on document ACV-02-10 :

The group considered paragraph 2.32 ok. The functionality of the connector should be considered. If the tidying up earlier is agreed then this paragraph will be no longer necessary.

The second paragraph of 2.32 assures compatibility.

Paragraph 5.1.3.6 was discussed earlier under this agenda item.

In the 2nd paragraph of the amended text we need to say something on the capacitance of the cable.

This document ACV-02-10 needs to be put together with documents ACV-02-04 and ACV-02-02.

The response time on an ACV trailer should not be more than when it was manually operated.

Conclusion : a new document will be prepared for the next meeting.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

Discussion on document ACV-02-02 :

This document contains editorial changes only. Document ACV-02-02 was agreed with the word ‘function’ being replaced by the word ‘signal’, with incorporation of the paragraph on point-to-point from the JOST document ACV-02-10 and with moving paragraph 5.1.3.6.1. back under paragraph 2.34. Also, ‘shall include’ is replaced by ‘includes’ in paragraph 5.1.3.6.1.

Discussion on document ACV-02-04 :

The text of the entire document is to be merged with the text of document ACV-02-02. Also, in paragraph 5.1.3.6.2.we need to include that if more than one ISO 7638 is present, then a switch is needed so that only one connector can be active at any one time. That text no longer appears in 5.1.3.6.4.2. of document ACV-02-04. The group also decided that a sentence is needed to say that the reference to ISO 7638 only refers to manual connectors. The text of 5.1.3.6.4. parts 1, 2 and 3 is to be made more compact. In 6.4.2. the group considered it better not to refer to the ISO but rather to the technical content. Also the text of document ACV-02-10 is to be merged with this new text.

Discussion on document ACV-02-03 :

The group decided that this document can be left for discussion at a later stage but that it should be ready for when the amendments to R13 are presented to GRRF. This document will be a document separate from the proposal mentioned above.

Conclusion : VBG is to make a new proposal.

Discussion on document ACV-02-05 :

The content of this document was covered by the discussions above under this agenda item.

Discussion on document ACV-02-10 :

The group considered paragraph 2.32 ok. The functionality of the connector should be considered. If the tidying up earlier is agreed then this paragraph will be no longer necessary.

The second paragraph of 2.32 assures compatibility.

Paragraph 5.1.3.6 was discussed earlier under this agenda item.

In the 2nd paragraph of the amended text we need to say something on the capacitance of the cable.

This document ACV-02-10 needs to be put together with documents ACV-02-04 and ACV-02-02.

The response time on an ACV trailer should not be more than when it was manually operated.

Conclusion : a new document will be prepared for the next meeting.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

Discussion on document ACV-02-02 :

This document contains editorial changes only. Document ACV-02-02 was agreed with the word ‘function’ being replaced by the word ‘signal’, with incorporation of the paragraph on point-to-point from the JOST document ACV-02-10 and with moving paragraph 5.1.3.6.1. back under paragraph 2.34. Also, ‘shall include’ is replaced by ‘includes’ in paragraph 5.1.3.6.1.

Discussion on document ACV-02-04 :

The text of the entire document is to be merged with the text of document ACV-02-02. Also, in paragraph 5.1.3.6.2.we need to include that if more than one ISO 7638 is present, then a switch is needed so that only one connector can be active at any one time. That text no longer appears in 5.1.3.6.4.2. of document ACV-02-04. The group also decided that a sentence is needed to say that the reference to ISO 7638 only refers to manual connectors. The text of 5.1.3.6.4. parts 1, 2 and 3 is to be made more compact. In 6.4.2. the group considered it better not to refer to the ISO but rather to the technical content. Also the text of document ACV-02-10 is to be merged with this new text.

Discussion on document ACV-02-03 :

The group decided that this document can be left for discussion at a later stage but that it should be ready for when the amendments to R13 are presented to GRRF. This document will be a document separate from the proposal mentioned above.

Conclusion : VBG is to make a new proposal.

Discussion on document ACV-02-05 :

The content of this document was covered by the discussions above under this agenda item.

Discussion on document ACV-02-10 :

The group considered paragraph 2.32 ok. The functionality of the connector should be considered. If the tidying up earlier is agreed then this paragraph will be no longer necessary.

The second paragraph of 2.32 assures compatibility.

Paragraph 5.1.3.6 was discussed earlier under this agenda item.

In the 2nd paragraph of the amended text we need to say something on the capacitance of the cable.

This document ACV-02-10 needs to be put together with documents ACV-02-04 and ACV-02-02.

The response time on an ACV trailer should not be more than when it was manually operated.

Conclusion : a new document will be prepared for the next meeting.

Discussion on document ACV-02-09:

Problem 1 : has been incorporated into the reworked document.

Problem 2: The standard ISO 7638 is technically not up-to-date, this could be addressed either via ISO or via GRRF. It is a question of technical hardware on the vehicle; there is no pin to connect the red wire from the truck, this goes via the CAN bus. Assuming that all trucks have technical equipment then the other concern is one of philosophy.

The group considered that R13 is clear enough today but that all manufacturers have to come to an agreement on how to use it. This group has to work independently from the decision by the manufacturers and should start the discussion in GRRF. However, this group will wait with that until it has a complete overview.

Problem 3: This problem addresses the terminology of this group. The group has to make a clear definition that it is impossible to make dead ends or loops.

The group looked at the sketches of document ACV-02-10.

Proposal: To allow only one connector on the truck and one connector on the trailer to avoid dead ends and reflections in these dead ends. The group proposes a split of the flex cable. Today, some manufacturers produce trucks with two 7-pin connectors. Or the second connector is added afterwards. This can cause problems to the CAN bus. The proposal could be that attachment of the towing hitch can only happen if the other connector is de-coupled, as we must always have ABS. In other words, only one connector is allowed to be active at any one time. JOST is to draft a first text for a proposal.

Problem 4: Solved given our solution for problem 3.

Problem 5: There is a standard on functional safety, ISO26262. A development process fulfilling that standard would, according to the representative of VBG, with high certainty deliver products and systems that fulfill the requirements in R13 Annex 18. As regards the current proposals, the handling of the connection of the compressed air for the braking of the towed vehicles are already subject to requirements of the R13 Annex 18 if that connection is handled by a complex electronic system. In the case of the VBG MFC coupling, the control system is reviewed as a separate part. The review report is thus a document to be included in the Annex 18 review of the complete braking system.

The reference to R13 Annex 18 in the proposal for change to R55 is only for the safety of the mechanical coupling, i.e. the realization of the requirement for a double locking device. The VBG MFC coupling is the first coupling having the mechanical connection controlled through a complex electronic system. Knowing the existence of R13 Annex 18, the representative of VBG reckons that it is good to require such a review with respect to the handling of the mechanical coupling. I.e. there is no need for the braking expert to know that there is a requirement for a review complex electronic system controlling the mechanical coupling. However, there is a requirement for the braking expert to know how the braking system is realized.

A good technical assessment of the system is necessary. The manual situation is no problem but with a control system judged to be complex, a report of the assessment is needed but nothing more. In R55 something is needed about remote opened coupling systems, such as that it must have an indicator, a double locking device and other so as to fulfill a certain safety level.

The reason why we have so many references to ISO 7638 lies in the fact that signals are not defined in R13. Only 1 or 2 references are really needed. Annex 18 is not the way to ensure that a certain safety level is reached, something must be done in R55.

When the mechanical part is closed and there is some loss of connection then a signal in the cab is needed. As not all solutions include that, we may need something specific.

Conclusion : problem 5 is solved if the reference to annex 18 is deleted.

Editorial comments on document ACV-02-09 were considered ok.

Discussion on document ACV-02-02 :

This document contains editorial changes only. Document ACV-02-02 was agreed with the word ‘function’ being replaced by the word ‘signal’, with incorporation of the paragraph on point-to-point from the JOST document ACV-02-10 and with moving paragraph 5.1.3.6.1. back under paragraph 2.34. Also, ‘shall include’ is replaced by ‘includes’ in paragraph 5.1.3.6.1.

Discussion on document ACV-02-04 :

The text of the entire document is to be merged with the text of document ACV-02-02. Also, in paragraph 5.1.3.6.2.we need to include that if more than one ISO 7638 is present, then a switch is needed so that only one connector can be active at any one time. That text no longer appears in 5.1.3.6.4.2. of document ACV-02-04. The group also decided that a sentence is needed to say that the reference to ISO 7638 only refers to manual connectors. The text of 5.1.3.6.4. parts 1, 2 and 3 is to be made more compact. In 6.4.2. the group considered it better not to refer to the ISO but rather to the technical content. Also the text of document ACV-02-10 is to be merged with this new text.

Discussion on document ACV-02-03 :

The group decided that this document can be left for discussion at a later stage but that it should be ready for when the amendments to R13 are presented to GRRF. This document will be a document separate from the proposal mentioned above.

Conclusion : VBG is to make a new proposal.

Discussion on document ACV-02-05 :

The content of this document was covered by the discussions above under this agenda item.

Discussion on document ACV-02-10 :

The group considered paragraph 2.32 ok. The functionality of the connector should be considered. If the tidying up earlier is agreed then this paragraph will be no longer necessary.

The second paragraph of 2.32 assures compatibility.

Paragraph 5.1.3.6 was discussed earlier under this agenda item.

In the 2nd paragraph of the amended text we need to say something on the capacitance of the cable.

This document ACV-02-10 needs to be put together with documents ACV-02-04 and ACV-02-02.

The response time on an ACV trailer should not be more than when it was manually operated.

Conclusion : a new document will be prepared for the next meeting.

The report of the first meeting was approved without changes. In the Terms of Reference, N1 category vehicle was added under point 2d).

Participants introduced themselves. For current members of this working group and participants in this meeting, see participants list.

The agenda was approved with the addition of a new working document from Jost (ACV-01-02) to be discussed under agenda item 4. Also a discussion of document GRRF- 67-15 was added to the agenda.