Open Points: Annex 4 Road and Dynamometer Load
|
|
Running number (not comment number)
|
Paragraph, table #
|
Subject
|
Action to be taken/action taken
|
|
1.
|
4.1.1.1.
|
|
31.10.2012: The table will be modified should the on-board anemometry method not be included in the final GTR.
21.11.2012 web/telecon: The on-board anemometric method is apparently used in the US. Ford Mo. Co. is investigating.
10.12.2012: What is meant by “average wind speed” (direction in relation to the track)? How does this relate to the table below? What is a recognised meteorological instrument? Should the location and height be defined? What is a representative wind condition?
10.12.2012: Should on-board anemometry disappear, the text could become:
Coastdowns may not be performed if the absolute wind speed exceeds 5 m/s and the crosswind component exceeds 3 m/s.
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
4.1.2.
|
Road slope
|
31.10.2012: Text accepted but 0.1% remains; information from JAMA to be supplied.
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): The current design of oval track has been investigated (data from 4 Mfrs)
The sum of the longitudinal slope of oval track, all data are [zero].
21.11.2012 web/telecon: This issue to remain open.
18.12.2012 DC and I.R.: editorial change regarding slope and inclination (see text in blue)
|
|
4
|
4.2.1.
|
Test vehicle preparation
|
18.12.2012 DC and I.R.: (see text in blue)
|
|
5
|
4.2.1.1.
|
Test vehicle selection
|
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): Support the Audi proposal from Audi.
Reason: it should be more appropriate to run test TML condition with [best aerodynamics].
|
|
6
|
4.2.1.1.1.
|
Test vehicle selection
|
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): All of factory options. Reason: determination of [permanently installed] could make flexibility.
21.11.2012 web/telecon: Rewritten by DC to include permanently installed factory options to be used under normal conditions.
The section is currently being rewritten by I. Riemersma.
02.12.2012: Proposed paragraph from I. Riemersma.
18.12.2012 DC and I.R.: should “for which approval is sought” be deleted?
|
|
7
|
4.2.1.1.2.
|
-----
|
19.10.2012: Paragraph to be deleted, paragraphs below it will be renumbered once the section is finished.
|
|
8
|
4.2.1.1.3.
|
Moveable body parts
|
I. Riemersma asks if worst case should be tested for TMH and best case for TML.
05.10.2012: Moveable body parts could lead to discontinuity of the coast down curve.
Manufacturers are requested to submit data on the influence of moveable parts on coastdown curves.
18.10.2012: Proposal that moveable aerodynamic body parts shall operate as intended under normal driving conditions.
“normal driving conditions” means: a vehicle with TMH driven through a WLTC cycle at temperatures between [274 and 308] K
19.10.2012: M. Bergmann to redo PowerPoint slides on CO2, vehicle mass and aerodynamic parts.
19.10.2012: Aoyama-san to discuss this in Japan.
31.10.2012: To be discussed at LabProcICE in November 2012.
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): Worst case condition + negotiation with authorities. If moveable control by vehicle speed only, it is OK to run as-is.
Because CO2 impact by the moveable parts is depending on the control. Even in the condition of WLTP cycle running under 1-35degC, it could have flexibility.
|
|
9
|
4.2.1.1.5.
|
Minimum vehicle weight
|
19.10.2012: Subject to be discussed at the LabProcICE meeting in November in Brussels.
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): We support the proposal of T&E, which are;
- Higher than the objected weight (TMH or TML) during coast down testing.
- Road load is calculated by the averaged weight of the highest and lowest during coast down testing.
20.11.2012: New text agreed upon at the LabProcICE meeting November 2012.
02.12.2012: Proposed text from I. Riemersma.
|
|
10
|
4.2.1.1.5.1.
|
Calculation of TMH
|
To remain an open point; percentages remain in square brackets.
02.12.2012: Proposed §4.2.1.1.5.1. from I. Riemersma.
|
|
11
|
4.2.1.1.7.
|
Best case
|
05.10.2012: To be discussed separately and remains an open point.
19.10.2012: If §4.2.1.1.3. is changed, §4.2.1.1.7.3. must be modified accordingly.
|
|
12
|
4.2.1.1.7.5.1.
|
|
02.12.2012: Proposed text from I. Riemersma.
|
|
13
|
4.2.1.2.1.
|
Test vehicle run-in mileage
|
German RLD experts: value changed from 3,000 to 10,000 kilometres
5.10.2012: Objections should be submitted before Friday, October 19.
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): Vehicle run-in.
Min. 3,000km, Max. 10,000km. For certification test. (ISC is separated discussion.)
21.11.2012 web/telecon: To remain an open point.
|
|
14
|
4.2.1.2.2.
|
Test vehicle condition
|
18.12.2012 DC and I.R.: proposed text in blue.
|
|
15
|
4.2.1.2.3.
|
Test vehicle condition: alignment parameters
|
18.12.2012 DC and I.R.: proposal to replace test vehicle with production vehicle.
|
|
16
|
4.2.1.2.4.
|
Test vehicle condition: items to be closed
|
18.12.2012 DC and I.R.: manually-operated moveable panels
|
|
17
|
4.2.1.2.5.
|
Coastdown mode
|
Proposed text from I. Riemersma.
07.10.2012: Also found in §6.3.2.
|
|
18
|
4.2.1.2.6.
|
Presence of a coastdown mode
|
Text changes from German RLD experts.
07.10.2012. Moved to §6.3.2.1.
|
|
19
|
4.2.2.1.
|
Tyre selection
|
14.10.2012: Text provided by I. Riemersma.
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): We support the proposal from EU commission, which is: the widest tyre shall be selected.
21.11.2012 web/telecon: Rewritten by DC to eliminate specific reference to ECE-R 117.
08.01.2013: instead of referring to the contracting parties, would it be possible to refer to ISO 28580: 2009?
|
|
20
|
4.2.2.2.
|
Tyre condition
|
4.9.2012: Proposal from André Rijnders.
07.11.2012 (Japanese position): 80% of original tread depth or more, over the full width of the tire.
Mechanical shaving is OK, but at least 300km driving on the road after shaving is required.
5% proposal from EU commission seems too stringent comparing with vehicle run-in condition.
|
|
21
|
4.2.2.3.
|
Tyre pressures
|
Comments from JAMA.
See §6.3.1.
|
|
22
|
4.2.2.3.1.
|
Tyre pressures
|
08.01.2013: proposal from I.R.: tyres should be shielded from direct sun
|
|
23
|
4.2.4.
|
Vehicle warm up
|
20.11.2012: The time span of 5 to 10 seconds was agreed during the LabProcICE meeting, November 2012.
21.11.2012 web/telecon: Clutch shall be disengaged. Added during web/telecom and agreed by all.
|
|
24
|
-----
|
-----
|
-----
|
|
25
|
4.2.5.
|
Vehicle warm up
|
W. Coleman to define the warming up procedure (possibly based on repeatability)
German RLD experts: 10 km/h proposed as this is required to trigger the measurement system (ISO?)
Should there be a minimum speed?
19.10.2012: is it necessary to describe how to warm up the vehicle?
31.10.2012: remains an open point until the results of validation 3 are received.
|
|
26
|
4.3.
|
Measurement of total resistance by the coastdown method
|
21.11.2012 web/telecon: K. Kolesa proposes a non-drafting meeting on this section.
|
|
27
|
4.3.
|
Measurement of total resistance by the coastdown method
|
31.10.2012: It is not known if any manufacturer uses the on-board anemometer-based coastdown method to determine the total resistance curve.
This will be discussed at an LabProcICE meeting.
|
|
28
|
4.3.1.
|
Multi-segment calculation method
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
General suggestion for 4.3.1 to 4.3.3: give just one way of calculation (4.3.1) in detail and allow all other methods that provide the same values.
|
|
29
|
4.3.1.2.
|
Data collection
|
08.01.2013: DC/IR: would a minimum of 10 Hz be more up to date with modern technology?
|
|
30
|
4.3.1.3.1.
|
Vehicle warm up
|
28.10.2012: Reference to vehicle warm up will be removed if it is decided not to have any warm up before starting a set of coastdowns.
08.01.2013: proposal from I.R.
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
4.3.1.4.1.
|
Coast down delta V’s
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
V = 10km/h delivers more accurate time values but little less overall accuracy (calculated with actual data of several different vehicles);
suggestion: standard V = 5km/h; V = 10km/h as an option
|
|
WEB/TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21 STOPS AT §4.3.1.4.1.
|
|
33
|
4.3.1.4.2.
|
Statistical accuracy
|
Equation comes from ECE-R 101.
German RLD experts: 3 % brings in line with EV (ECE-R 101: +/- 4%).
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord: Equations are OK.
|
|
34
|
4.3.1.4.2.
|
Statistical accuracy
|
Standard deviation symbol is normally rho, not s
|
|
35
|
43143
|
Rejecting a measurement
|
08.01.2013: DC/IR proposal
|
|
36
|
4.3.1.4.4.
|
Total resistance: test mass
|
German RLD experts: test mass is measured at the beginning of the test.
4.9.2012: proposal not accepted.
31.10.2012: Point to be discussed at next LabProcICE.
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
Calculation formulas are correct; using average mass is okay; (change of mass about 1 kg per coast down on consecutive runs, dependent on vehicle)
|
|
37
|
4.3.1.4.5.
|
Total resistance curve
|
Comments, questions from I. Riemersma.
German RLD experts: text struck through. Three coefficients are accepted in the WLTP process.
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
Both ways of calculation are correct; US directive takes the average of Fa and Fb and derives f out of Favg
|
|
38
|
4.3.1.4.5.1.
|
Alternative calculation
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
Calculation formulas are correct; also averaging of the times in this case is correct because it is done by using the reciprocal values
|
|
39
|
4.3.2.
|
Average deceleration method
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
General suggestion for 4.3.1 to 4.3.3: give just one way of calculation (4.3.1) in detail and allow all other methods that provide the same values.
24.01.2013: text deleted and added marked in yellow.
|
|
40
|
4.3.2.4.1.
|
Determination of total resistance
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
Should be: …. (Vj + V) to (Vj - V)…;
..,where V is more than 10km/h (limit for maximum V?) compare to 4.3.1.4.1.
|
|
41
|
4.3.2.4.2. and 4.3.2.4.3.
|
Determination of deceleration
|
How are A1 , A2 and A3 derived from A1a, A1b,…..,A3b?
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
How to derive A1 to A3 from A1a, A1b… is not clear.
|
|
42
|
4.3.2.4.3. to 4.3.2.4.6.
|
Total resistance equations
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
Calculation equations are correct.
|
|
43
|
4.3.3.
|
Direct regression calculation method
|
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
General suggestion for 4.3.1 to 4.3.3: give just one way of calculation (4.3.1) in detail and allow all other methods that provide the same values.
|
|
44
|
4.3.3.1.
|
Road load curve determination
|
General comment from I. Riemersma.
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
43345
|
Calculation
|
08.01.2013: proposal from I.R.
|
|
47
|
4.4.
|
Anemometer-based coastdown method
|
German RLD experts: German RLD experts: on-board anemometer method not supported by these experts. Table 1 must be changed accordingly.
28.10.2012: This is also a coastdown method and should become §4.3.4.
19.11.2012 from TÜV Nord:
Method not supported by TÜV Nord.
20.11.2012: The method is struck through for the time being.
|
|
