ASEP Working Group .


43 views
Uploaded on:
Description
(super) wear autos. In the dBase we discovered no avocation for an additional remittance contrasted with ordinary vehicles. ... Each auto can be sold in a noiseless nd a loud form (LEGALY) ... :SS_SEPE:
Transcripts
Slide 1

NL ASEP proposition Presentation to GRB form 01-09 issued by the Netherlands GRB 50; September 2009 Informal report No . GRB-50-14 (50th GRB, 1 – 3 September, 2009, motivation thing 3.c))

Slide 2

ASEP Working Group A strategy in exchange in the ASEP Working Group (created and proposed by OICA) Germany and Netherlands raised the issue of stringency of this technique: debilitating present limit up to 10 dB Netherlands chose to get an option ASEP technique (ref: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2009/5)

Slide 3

NL proposition: rundown It depends on the accompanying components: a stay point (decided from estimations of Annex 3) a not to surpass point (Annex 3 limit esteem in addition to a \'quality\') over the grapple point: a straight line between the grapple indicate and the not surpass point underneath the grapple point: a line with a settled incline a reward for quiet vehicles an edge (to take into account instability of single estimations) Essential: Right end of utmost line in light of a Not To Exceed Level

Slide 4

Comparison amongst NL and ADBO ASEP strategies Note ADBO = ASEP technique "As Developed By OICA" in the specially appointed WG Same in both techniques: - Area of control (peripheral distinction) both in light of 99% of all urban driving Anchor point (same place and esteem) An edge Bonus quiet vehicles Difference in slant beneath or more stay point Difference: Limitation line above stay point Potential contrasts: Value of slant underneath stay point The estimation of the edge

Slide 5

Difference in constraint line above grapple point The NL proposition depends on a NTE level (= limit Annex3 + [8] dB) The ADBO proposition depends on a slant -slant ADBO depends on relapse -with a greatest of X+Y dB/1000 rpm) The most extreme suitable commotion: NL = altered (NTE level) ADBO = relying upon motor velocity range and admissible slant

Slide 6

cases Vehicle 99-09 Pmr 65 kW/t Vehicle 200-14 Pmr 166 kW/t

Slide 7

Confrontation of NL strategy with ASEP dBase Vehicles that pass R51.02 yet fizzle NL ASEP are: Vehicles with non direct stable conduct, tuned to R51.02 Vehicles with amazingly soak sound slant, tuned to R51.02 Border line vehicle (one) Vehicles that fall flat R51.02 however pass NL ASEP are: - Border line vehicles (all)

Slide 8

Comparison of NL strategy and ADBO strategy The NL ASEP proposition can recognize loud from noiseless vehicles and includes a specific prerequisite notwithstanding Annex 3. Particularly vehicles from which the sound conduct is tuned to the present strategy are recognized. Typical vehicles pass the NL ASEP proposition genuinely simple .

Slide 9

(super) brandish autos In the dBase we found no support for an additional recompense contrasted with typical vehicles. In the event that there is an avocation, we could talk about it

Slide 10

NL Proposal: connection with EU checking After the observing stage there will be an investigations, exchange and a choice about the Annex 3 limits. The NL ASEP proposition can be adjusted on the result

Slide 11

Our Concern Certainly not the (super)sportcars Every new innovation drops down: (Airco, ABS, ESP, Launch C. and so on.) So: likewise \'Solid Design\' Sporty autos GTI\'s Convertibles The \'SEAT Leons\' Every auto can be sold in a quiet ánd an uproarious rendition (LEGALY) And they will be sold: Outside you can hear there is a client request

Slide 12

THANK YOU

Recommended
View more...