EXPERIENCES OF EPT DRAFT Based on test planning and actual testing following DraftTestingProcedure_ _secondversion

Transcription

1 EXPERIENCES OF EPT DRAFT Based on test planning and actual testing following DraftTestingProcedure_ _secondversion Main comments on 1 & 3: Remove everything that is meaningless or impossible to fulfill for a third party (for example 3.3: The first two vehicles per manufacturer and year to be selected for EPT shall be cover the two engine with the highest sales numbers in Europa of the OEM) This is not a good requirement when a Member state selects a vehicle for EPT. additional detailed comments in excel sheet 1

2 EXPERIENCES OF EPT DRAFT Based on test planning and actual testing following DraftTestingProcedure_ _secondversion Main comments on equipment (Table 1 ): Allow fuel volumetric flow meter, this is the current practice. The sensors for measuring the rotational speed can have accuracy requirements, not the speed measurement. Maximum drift of Kistler wheels 4% or 100 Nm 150 Nm. Accuracy requirement of Torque wheels must be updated to what suppliers can deliver. additional detailed comments in excel sheet. 2

3 EXPERIENCES OF EPT DRAFT Based on test planning and actual testing following DraftTestingProcedure_ _secondversion Main comments on test procedure (mainly Table 2 ): requires interaction with the technical service, this is unnecessary burden for 3rd party testing. No maximum warm-up time because it is difficult to define in a good way. Minimum share of motorway 80 % instead of 85 %, because it is difficult to find suitable routes. Only idling at standstill should count. additional detailed comments in excel sheet. 3

4 RESULTS OF EPT DRAFT Table 2 should be updated to give a little more flexibility. OEM 1 OEM 2 Driving Limits Achieved Urban (Dist) <50km/t 2-8% 4.4% Rural (Dist) km/t 7-13% 8.9% Speed profile NOK Highway (Dist) >70km/t 85-91% 86.7% OK 70 Speed [km/h] Time [min] 4

5 RESULTS Energy balance doesn t add up Bug in VECTO the alternative power calculations don t add up VECTO 1: P_wheel_in_pos [kw] ( E_fcmap_pos - E_aux E_gbx_loss E_axl_loss )/ time? VECTO 2: Alternativ calculation Using results from Vecto vsum file: E_Wheel_in_pos = E_fcmap_pos - E_aux E_gbx_loss E_axl_loss VECTO 3: Alternative calculation Using results from Vecto vmod file - Only when P_wheel_in_pos > 0: E_Wheel_in_pos = E_fcmap_pos E_aux E_gbx_loss E_axl_loss VECTO 1 VECTO 2 VECTO 3 Fuel_In E_fcmap_pos [kwh] Flywheel work [kwh] (calculated) Gearbox loss E_gbx_loss [kwh] (calculated) Rear axle loss E_axl_loss [kwh] (calculated) AUX_Loss E_aux_sum [kwh] Kistler work [kwh] (measured) 5

6 0,00 1,10 8,23 8,45 10,31 10,90 14,14 18,38 19,41 24,58 25,55 38,93 39,62 42,86 45,58 49,81 109,01 128,08 RESULTS losses in transmission during 18 tests can be calculated in two ways, this indicates 2-3 per cent error on Kistler wheel power ca 10 kwh This is 3 % of total kwh Kistler-Svänghjul, pos-arbete [kwh] Kistler flywheel [kwh] VECTO gearbox + axle losses [kwh] Förlustar Växellåda - Bakaxel [kwh] Drift of Kistler [% of limit] The fuel efficiency in VECTO is robust against this error, but the test method cannot be used to verify components because the measured losses are 0-70 % too small. 6

7 EXPERIENCES OF EPT DRAFT Based on test planning and actual testing following DraftTestingProcedure_ _secondversion 4 OEMS have tested 4 vehicles, the other 2 are in the process of testing Different classes and engines tested. If test conditions are fulfilled the 7.5 % target seems to be fulfilled Empty vehicle class 9 did not pass the test, reasons under investigation. Drift below 150 Nm or 4 % of average torque in all but one test (in one test it was 300 Nm). 7

8 CO2 VEHICLE TEST Why the test should not be CoP CoP provisions are relevant for type approved data, in this case the component data, not the values produced by Commission s VECTO software. Member states who base tax-systems or procurement rules on the simulated values need to understand the relevance, this is best gained when competent authorities doing the testing. For checking the robustness of the whole procedure that involves both OEM, assumptions with respect to vehicle completion, and the VECTO tool, an accredited third party is the best auditor. 8

9 REGULATIONS/STANDARD FOR EX-POST VERIFICATION TEST Principles HDV CO2 regulation 2017/xxx, incl. provisions for OEMs responsibility on - Data requests from TAA/MS authorities/ Commission - Input data and licence compliance verifications Data request to OEM EC verification test (?) MS market surveillance test 2007/46 Ex-post verification test standard 3rd party independent test Discrepancy? TAA 9