Wltp-2013-019 Consolidated Draft gtr 12. 04. 2013 Running history of the consolidated draft gtr


PROPOSED DRAFT ANNEX 3: REFERENCE FUELS



Yüklə 1,89 Mb.
səhifə4/16
tarix12.01.2019
ölçüsü1,89 Mb.
#95311
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

PROPOSED DRAFT ANNEX 3: REFERENCE FUELS
The reference fuel specifications will be established in Phase III of the WLTP process. The rest of this annex will remain intentionally blank until this process has been completed.
PROPOSED DRAFT ANNEX 4: ROAD AND DYNAMOMETER LOAD


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.




Yüklə 1,89 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin