Presentation of Results documents... · Page 4-Brussels, November 2008 Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems Definition Types • Direct (Active) 9Pressure (±0.1 bar), Temperature (±

Presentation of Results

Study on Type approval requirements for the general safety of motors vehicles

Page 2 - Brussels, November 2008

Contents

IntroductionTyre Pressure Monitoring SystemsLow Rolling Resistance TyresTyre Wet GripSafetyCO2 reductionNoiseEco-labellingConclusions


IntroductionStudy report based on the questions raised by the European Parliament on the proposal for a Regulation concerning type approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles. Centred on mandatory safety devices, tyre requirements, and noise emissions. Safety and environmental objectives of the proposal.The study is based on a thorough literature review, as well as a full analysis of available tyre test reports. Complemented by a survey and feedback from different stakeholders most likely to be affected by type approval requirements.


Tyre Pressure Monitoring SystemsDefinitionTypes• Direct (Active)

Pressure (±0.1 bar), Temperature (± 2ºC),Detection almost real time, Independent from tyre type

• Indirect (Passive)Only pressure (deviation 30%), Detection time at least 5 min, Dependant on tyre type

CostsUnderinflation• Effect on vehicle:Aquaplaning, Endurance, External impacts, Tread wear,

Rolling resistance, Rolling noise, Wet grip, Handling, Tyre Integrity, Fuel consumption, Stability


Definition – Coefficient of Rolling Resistance CRRFactors• Material

• Dimensions

• Extent of inflation

• Tread thickness

CostsScientific evidences• Influence on fuel consumption, a10 to 20% decrease in CRR will result in a

2 to 4% decrease in fuel consumption

• From 2003 tests: CRR 8.70 to 14.20. 50% of summer tyres could meet 2012 CRR;15% of them could meet 2016 CRR limits. Winter tyres, 25% of them could meet 2012 CRR 3% of them proposed 2016.

Low Rolling Resistance Tyres


Tyre Wet Grip

Definition – G (wet grip index)

Factors• Tread

• Inflation

• Materials

CostsScientific evidence• Aquaplaning: Vehicle Speed, tyre size, tread design.• Silica: to increase the performance of Low Rolling Resistance

and Wet Grip by all tyre manufacturers


SafetyTyre influence on safety• The tyre is the only vehicle element in contact with

the road, it is a safety active elementGrip (Dry and Wet)Wear, ageing and durabilityRolling resistanceHandlingCost

TPMS on Safety Appropriate inflation levelTyres will perform accordingly to designed


SafetyLow Rolling Resistance & Wet Grip on Safety

Low Rolling Resistance and Wet Grip are important factors in tyre design. Winter tyres and Summer tyres have Different purposes and designs

Endurance - Fatigue

Adherence - Wet Grip

Resistance to aquaplaning

Adherence - Dry Grip

Handling (Cornering Power)Rolling Sound

Comfort

Wear life

Rolling resistance +++=-

- -

Endurance - Fatigue

Adherence - Wet Grip

Resistance to aqu

Adherence - Dry Grip

Handling (Cornering Power)Rolling Sound

Comfort

Wear life

Rolling resistance +++=-

- -

Tyre design charts. Trade-offsSource: ETRMA


CO2 reduction

Tyre influence on CO2 reduction

Rolling Resistance

Fuel consumption

CO2 emissions

Energy Loss in a vehicle.

Rolling resistance loss approx. 5 to 15% of the fuel consumed


CO2 reductionTPMS influence

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

M.t

.CO

2 "1%""2.5%"

Annual CO2 emission reduction with "concept"inflation pressure maintenance.

LAT Stock 2005 Hakanen & Jukka GRRF TPMS

2.10%TPMS CO2 benefit assuming 0.5 bar deflation avoided

2.50% 3% 3%

Source

Source: UN-ECE GRRF TPMS

Source: ETRMA

Source: UN-ECE GRRF TPMS

% Tyre wear vs. Underinflation


CO2 reduction

Low Rolling Resistance & Wet Grip• 10 – 20% decrease in RR => 2-4% fuel consumption

Source: TNO, IEEP and LAT CO2-emissions from passenger cars Report.

Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4Additional manufacturer costs 42 42 42 42 €/vehicleInvestment costs 49 49 49 49 €/vehicleCO2 reduction 3,00% 3,00% 3,00% 3,00%CO2 emission 192 192 192 192 gCO2/kmBase fuel consumption 0,065 0,065 0,065 0,065 l/kmYearly mileage 16000 16000 16000 16000 kmYearly CO2 emission 3,07 3,07 3,07 3,07 tonneYearly CO2 Savings 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 tonneFuel price 0,21 0,3 0,4 0,6 €/lCO2 net costs 139 109 73 15 €/tonne

CO2 net cost estimation for TLRR


Noise

TPMS• A tyre rolling with 0.5 bar underinflation produces a

1dB(A) increase in rolling noise (sources TÜV and UN-ECE GRRF TPMS).

TPMS

Maintain Inflation

↓ Noise emissions


NoiseTyre influence on Rolling Noise

Reduction of tyre/road noise through tyre design:Tread pattern designTread rubber compoundTyre internal structure

Road influence on Rolling Noise

Source: ETRMA


NoiseTLRR & TWG influence on Noise

Discrepancies between test results

Source: TRL Limited

Source: FEHRL and Netherlands


Effects of noise reduction on• Aquaplaning

• Wet grip

• Wear

• Handling

Noise

Source: Michelin


NoiseNoise reduction Potential, according to VROM study and French “CPB” database :

Road 9-11 dB(A)Tyres 3-4 dB(A)

Tyre/road noise in real life is generated on a wide range of different road surfaces.

0

2

4

6

8

10re

du

cti

on

po

ten

tia

l in

dB

40 km/h 70 km/h 100 km/h

engine

tyre

road

Source: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/46


Eco-labellingRolling resistance and noise labelling.• Tyres that meet certain noise criteria (and decrease CO2 emissions or fuel

consumption) may be marked with an environmental label. • It is feasible that the use of such labelling might influence consumers in

their purchases. • Balanced against safety considerations so consumers could make informed

choices.

Labelling systems for tyre/road noise that are in operating currently in Europe.• German Blue Angel: Criteria for awarding of the label have been specified

for low noise and fuel-saving automobile tyres (RAL _ UZ89) and retread tyres (RAL _ UZ I)

• The Nordic Swan: Tyres for light as well as heavy vehicles are products for which the label can be obtained, and retread tyres are also eligible.


Conclusions

Regarding TPMS:• They are currently on the market and have proven their

efficiency• The threshold should be set in 1.5 bar (although warnings

should appear before in order to achieve max fuel efficiency)• Accuracy it is a vital issue in order to maintain safety• Final consumers should not be able to use system settings.• Its mandatory implementation will help achieving targeted

CO2 emission reductions, as well as noise reductions while increasing drivers safety.


Conclusions

Regarding Tyres Low Rolling Resistance and Wet Grip:

• There is a relation between performance of a tyre regarding rolling resistance, wet grip, noise, comfort, durability, etc. In a tyre design stage a compromise among those performances must be achieved.

• Current state-of-the art does not achieve future requirements. In our opinion increasing the requirements will cause an increase in the investments to promote innovation and possibly employment but there is no guarantee that those requirements will be achieved only by acting on tyres.


Conclusions

• There is no doubt regarding the benefits of low rolling resistance tyres supported by TPMS in order to decrease CO2emissions. Although safety should be ensured by wet grip requirements and also aquaplaning, handling and cornering performance.

• C3 tyres, currently less than 1% of existing tyres, are normallyused on unpaved roads. In this case tyre/road noise is not a consideration.


Conclusions

Regarding CO2 emissions

• A more integrated approach by means of impact assessment addressing possible additional measures to achieve CO2reduction targets should be done. Currently, there are new technologies available in the market which have an impact on fuel consumption (more efficient air conditioners, low friction lubricants, etc.)

• Production times, prototyping and validation, mould manufacture and adjustments, as well as supply chains are important issues to estimate time needed by industry to adjust to new requirements.


Conclusions

• A simplification of the implementation schedule seems possible. Tyre industry can only develop solutions once they know the requirements, a 36 months time frame to implement new requirements should be granted.

• Maybe a reformulation of the implementation dates introducing the manufacturing date as a reference point for market implementation should be carried out.


ConclusionsRegarding expected noise reductions:

• Improving the quality of roads seems to be a key factor to achieve expected noise reductions, while having a positive impact on decreasing CO2 emissions.

• Normative regulations in order to make noise maps of EU25 roads and encouraging Member States to invest more and to improve their road surfaces are interesting and important future lines of work.


Conclusions

• It seems clear the adverse effect noise has on health, although noise impact on health is not clearly valuated.

• Further study and investment should be done in order to assess an road/tyre approach to decrease noise levels, specially in populated/urban areas. Member States also should be aware of this problem.

• The possibility of increasing noise limits in the proposal should be considered. A state-of-the art review could be done in 2016 in order to estimate if potential noise reduction has change, in that case noise limits could be re-adjusted

Thank you for your attention

Study on Type approval requirements for the general safety of motors vehicles

Documents

Presentation of Results documents... · Page 4-Brussels, November 2008 Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems Definition Types • Direct (Active) 9Pressure (±0.1 bar), Temperature (±