ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
Sustainable Growth and EU 2020
Sustainable Mobility and Automotive Industry
Brussels, 27 March 2013
ENTR.F1/KS
WLTP meeting in Tokyo, 20 – 22 March 2013:
Various follow up issues for EU
The list below may not be complete.
(1) Mode construction for vehicles that cannot follow the cycle driving curve. When can the "final" results of Heinz Steven's work be expected, how to proceed?
(2) Regional temperature corrections (note of COM presented in Tokyo). How can the appreciation for heat-storage systems be included into this process? Who will further work out the proposal, possibly based on the "heat storage" eco-innovation draft?
(3) How should we proceed further to establish the default table of running resistances, e.g. along the line of the note of COM presented in Tokyo? Who will do what & when?
(4) How do we proceed for demonstrating equivalence of the 3 methods for determining running resistances (coast down, torquemeter, wind tunnel & flat belt)? Until when could industry provide data? Possible tests could be combined with task (3).
(5) Running resistance determination: "worst" case. The current procedures in principle try to define "best" limits for parameters and conditions, which may influence the CO2 emission test results, in order to avoid that this parameters a chosen to favourably for obtaining artificially low running resistances and CO2 emissions. This is done under the assumption that vehicle manufacturers control the running resistance determination.
In the future there will however also be surveillance tests of running resistances by independent organisations. In order to make these results better comparable to the results provided by vehicle manufacturers it would be helpful to define also "worst" limits to these parameters and conditions. This would first require the identification of relevant parameters and conditions and then the definition of "worst" limits.
2