Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IMMA Contribution to QRTV IG
5-7 December 2011, Bonn
Edwin Bastiaensen IMMARégis Biguinet IMMA / Peugeot ScootersKazuki Takahashi IMMA / Yamaha Motors
*AVAS :Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System*PTW :Powered Two-Wheelers
1
2
Overview
• IMMA requests the IG QRTV to currently exclude PTWs from the scope of the GTR.
• There are strong indications that the risk of PTW collision with (impaired) pedestrian is significantly less than with a car and it should be remembered that PTWs are different from cars:1. ePTW powertrains are not hidden and make more sound than EV /
hybrid cars
2. Risks on car parks and driving in reverse gear are excluded
3. Better and earlier detection of the pedestrian
4. Less danger to pedestrians with PTWs
5. Better in avoiding an imminent crash
6. Potential confusion and annoyances
7. Development of ePTW
8. Car – centric QRTV analysis
3
1. The powertrain of an ePTW is not hidden and makes more sound than a EV car (I)
• Benchmarking test of noise emissions
– 2 electric scooters (ePTW) on the Japanese market
– 1 normal ICE scooter
with
– ICE car
– EV/Hybrid cars
• Results from tests:
– ePTW is quieter than normal scooter
– Noise of ePTW at low speed is equal to, or more than normal car
4
4
test track
2 m
2 m
Microphone (h = 1.2 m)
Riding condition and speed:• Constant speed: 10, 15, 20, 30 km/h• Slow acceleration: less than 10 km/h(Approx. 1 m/s2)
Test PTW
ISO Committee Draft engineering method for measuring the minimum
noise emitted by road vehicles)
1. The powertrain of an ePTW is not hidden and makes more sound than a EV car (II)
Pass-by noise measured at test layout (2m, right and left)
AA'PP'BB'+2 m
5
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40A-weighted sound pressure level [dB]
Vehicle speed [km/h]
Stationary & constant speed (ICE passenger car -1)
Stationary & constant speed (ICE passenger car -2)
Stationary & constant speed (Hybrid passenger car)
Background noise
Car reference noise values for PTW comparison
1. The powertrain of an ePTW is not hidden and makes more sound than a EV car (III)
6
1. The powertrain of an ePTW is not hidden and makes more sound than a EV car (IV)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40A-w
eig
hte
d s
ound
pre
ssure
le
vel
[dB
]
Vehicle speed [km/h]
PTW EV-1 comparing with cars
Constant speed (PTW)
Slow acceleration (PTW)
Stationary (PTW)
Background noise
7
1. The powertrain of an ePTW is not hidden and makes more sound than a EV car (V)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40A-w
eig
hte
d s
ound
pre
ssure
le
vel
[dB
]
Vehicle speed [km/h]
Constant speed (PTW)
Slow acceleration (PTW)
Stationary (PTW)
Background noise
PTW EV-2 comparing with cars
8
1. The powertrain of an ePTW is not hidden and makes more sound than a EV car (VI)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40A-w
eig
hte
d s
ound
pre
ssure
le
vel
[dB
]
Vehicle speed [km/h]
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40A-w
eig
hte
d s
ound
pre
ssure
le
vel
[dB
]
Vehicle speed [km/h]
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40A-w
eig
hte
d s
ound
pre
ssure
le
vel
[dB
]
Vehicle speed [km/h]
（PTW EV-1） （PTW EV-2） （PTW ICE）
Constant speed (PTW)
Slow acceleration (PTW)
Stationary (PTW)
Background noise
Stationary & constant speed (ICE passenger car -1)
Stationary & constant speed (ICE passenger car -2)
Stationary & constant speed (Hybrid passenger car)
Background noise
EV Scooter is quieter than normal scooter Noise of ePTW at low speed is equal to or more than normal car
9
2. Risks on car parks and driving in reverse
gear are excluded.
• Studies show that hybrid and electric cars crash with pedestrians while backing.
• PTWs usually deploy parking spaces separate from cars or spots shared with bicycles.
• Very few PTWs have reverse gear and reverse movement is generally non-applicable excluding this risk factor.
10
3. Better and earlier detection of the pedestrian (I).
• PTWs do not have blind spots which reduce perception, (No A/B pillars, high seating position)
No Blind Spots
11
3. Better and earlier detection of the pedestrian (II)
• The PTW Rider has minimal distractionscompared to a car driver, particularly at low speeds.
• The rider needs his attention to keep the vehicle stable.
12
4. Less danger for pedestrians with PTWs
• Drivers of cars and motorcycles are generally very attentive to pedestrians and disabled road users.
• In addition to this attentiveness; PTW ridersare also protecting themselves in avoiding crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.
13
5. Better in avoiding an imminent crash
• PTWs have a higher potential to avoid imminent crash with pedestrian due to less frontal collision surface compared to a car.
14
• It is not possible to isolate the rider from the sound generated by the AVAS which could lead to difficulty to develop appropriate sound easy to recognize for pedestrian and non annoying for rider.
• The rider may defeat (destroy) the system because an AVAS sound would be annoying for the rider.
14
6. Potential Confusion and annoyances
15
7. Development of ePTWs
• The development of hybrid and electric PTWs has trailed behind automobiles and has not reached the same technical level and there are very few products on the market except for e-bicycles.
• There is less space for the systems in comparison with a car; less protection to weather conditions; …
16
8. Car – centric QRTV analysis
• All QRTV studies relate to electric cars. IMMA has a concern that restrictions will be defined without considering the specific use of the PTW.
• If AVAS-devices for PTWs should be considered, the appropriate condition suitable to PTWs should be well considered.
17
Conclusion
• IMMA proposes to currently exclude PTWs from the scope of the GTR until relevant data become available.
• At a later stage it should be decided if and how to address PTWs to prevent that provisions for PTWs would be defined which are purely based on assessment for cars.
• If the scope is extended to include PTWs the specific requirements accounting for motorcycles should be identified.
