Documents (Latest posted on 16 Apr 2021)
Related Meetings : Informal Group on Amendments to UN R55.01 | Session 12
Documentation Discussion/Report
R55-12-01
R55-12-02
R55-12-03
R55-12-04
R55-12-05
R55-12-06
R55-12-07
R55-12-08
R55-12-10
R55-12-11
R55-12-12
R55-12-13
R55-12-14/Rev.2
R55-12-15/Rev.2
R55-12-16
R55-12-17
R55-12-18
R55-12-19/Rev.1
R55-12-20/Rev.1
R55-12-21
R55-12-22
R55-12-23
R55-12-24
R55-12-25
R55-12-26
R55-12-27
R55-12-28

Mr. Westphäling wanted to add two points under the heading any other business, “EU-proposal –on A50 couplings hiding vehicle registration plate” and “Information from IWG-MVC”.
Mr. Svensson wanted to add an item concerning remote indication in the instrument cluster. Decision on next meeting was also added under AOB.

Mr. Lescail remarkerd that in the consolidated document the angle denomination on page 10 shall be in Greek characters. The formula on page 8 shall be stricken through.

There was a general discussion on consolidated documentation with respect to the different regulations and in our case specifically on regulation 55. It was noted that since our last meeting the secretary of GRRF had published a second revision of regulation 55. This was well received by the working group. It was challenged why that could not be done in general instead of issuing amendments.

There was also a short information that the secretary of our working group had made a further consolidation in the working documents R55-12-01 and R55-12-02 just in order to keep track of a correct numbering in forthcoming proposals.

At our meeting in October we agreed to send this proposal to the GRRF 81 as an informal document. This agreement was subject to any important information being brought up to this meeting. Since our October meeting Mr. Westphäling had requested RDW for any measurement values that possibly had been made in The Netherlands. Mr. Stokreef responded to that request saying that there was no measurement data available. However in some correspondence from 1982 some recommendations were found. Mr. Svensson commented those in the light of that many measurements had been made in Australia during the late eighties and even more just the last couple of years in Sweden. The foundation for our proposal is well good and sound. It is not affected by the comments from 1982. Hence it was decided to proceed with the informal document to the GRRF 81.

This item was agreed at our Poznan meeting. To our October meeting it was included in the proposal for Item 21. In order to make each proposal easier to comprehend it was now separated out. It was subject to the same principle discussion as Item 20. It was agreed to submit this proposal as an informal document to the GRRF 81.

Mr. Stokreef had elaborated the proposal from our October meeting. Mr. Stokreef was not present at the meeting. However we tried to do the best we could.

The first observation was that the measurement method, need to be further detailed. Comparing to the standard ISO11407 the dimensions of the drawbar itself need to be addressed in some way. Currently the proposal just refers to a straight line from the coupling point to measure the angles. It was then challenged what added value this proposal was giving as compared to the §1.3.4. Annex 7.

Looking then to the proposal for the fifth wheel couplings it was referred to the standard ISO1726-2. There the pivoting angles around a transverse axle is set to 3,5° towards the front and 4,5° towards the rear. We had also received comments from Volvo that the far from all semitrailers comply with any standard e.g. dimensions from 1230/2012/EU. This makes it hard to secure that this proposal will really give any major improvement. The manufacturers of fifth wheels also commented that the attachment bolts towards the mounting plate need to be disregarded when measuring the articulation angles for the fifth wheels.

The discussion was ended with a message to Mr. Stokreef to elaborate a bit more. Then consideration should be given to whether Annex 7 §1.3.4. could possibly be enough for drawbar couplings and whether something similar could be set up for fifth wheel couplings. Next meeting.

Mrs. Domagala had got the message from the October meeting. In relation to that information she proposed change in the text to be absolutely clear about that the testing shall be done with the worst case installation. The proposed Annex 6 §1.1.1. was considered superfluous. The proposal was given in document R55-12-13. The proposal for change in §1.1. was accepted.

Mr. Alguëra proposed a change to the last sentence of the third section of Annex 5 §3.3. The proposal was a change in the allowable support load from 50 kg to 80 kg for C50 couplings with a jaw that can pivot around a transvers axle. In principle the delegates were in favor of the proposal. However it was an open question how to handle V-values. Should it be the same as for class A? How then to treat this on the type plate? Mr. Alguëra will contact KBA and discuss this issue. A detailed proposal will be proposed to the next meeting.

Mr. Stokreef had prepared a proposal (R55-12-11) for COP testing of class B. In principle this proposal was to say that at COP a 10 % reduction of the number of cycles could be accepted. Some delegates were slightly positive to this proposal. However Mr. Westphäling argued that according to his experience the S-N-curve had several vertices. One of these often at 1,8 Mc. After just a short discussion this item was postponed to the next meeting when hopefully Mr. Stokreef is present.

During the meeting we got the information that the German BMVI will propose a separate informal working group to finish a separate regulation for agricultural couplings. In light of this and the process up to now within the Task Force Agricultural Couplings, Mr. Westphäling gave a review of the status of the agricultural couplings regulation.

For different reasons the work within the task force has lacked continuity. The starting point was three different national regulations. The merger of those has resulted in a proposal that needs a lot of processing to be coherent. The general impression of the current status is that there is an apparent risk that the safety level is lowered. A special concern is that there might be situations where tractors with allowable speed above 40 kmph appear in general road traffic using couplings that are only tested statically. Hence such couplings are not proven to be safe in fatigue dominated applications. In the details Mr. Westphäling expressed many concerns. The working group agreed to mandate Mr. Westphäling to present to the GRRF 82 an official statement from the group about the Agricultural couplings.

It was agreed that we shall approach the GRRF-81 with informal documents. The final versions of those documents shall be agreed at our next meeting prior to the GRRF-81. The plan for finishing the work in the Working group requested at the GRRF 80 had been prepared and approved by the working group. (R55-12-24) This plan will be submitted as an informal document to the GRRF 81.

It was agreed to work in mail conversations on the open items until our next meeting. It was then noted that it is of high importance that the response from the members is prompt.

  1. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2014_05
  2. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2013_05; R55-12-13
  3. SPP_Proposal_Conformity of production_2013_10
  4. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2. Definitions_alternative values
  5. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 6_3.7.2.2_lever bearing at least 1,0…
  6. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 7_T = 32 t
  7. JOST_Application for an amendment of R55-Jost-06-10-2014; R55-12-18
  8. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2 Definitions_Class H50 (R55-09-07…)
  9. Orlandi, Diagram correction wedge (R55-09-20-Wedge)
  10. Fixing point information and vehicles N1
  11. General review Class …-X
  12. What masses to use when calculating required performance values for coupling equipment.
  13. COP testing /RDW; R55-12-11
  14. Proposal from the European commission GRRF-80-29