UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
Report from the 11th meeting of the Informal Working
group concerning regulation 55 under UNECE GRRF
2015-Oct-20 – 21
Welcome
The workgroup chairman Jürgen Westphäling welcomed all experts to the meeting venue at TüV-Nord in
Essen, Germany. The group got a welcome address from Mr. Michael Gutsfeld, Key-Account Manager at
TüV-Nord.
Call around the table
There were eleven experts that attended the meeting. Apologies were received from Alberto Musso, Alan
Feltham, Dominique Lescail, Joachim Zander, Michael Riesterer, Magdalena Domagala, Pierre Teyssier
and Robert Schreck.
Approval of the agenda
KBA wanted to add an item on towable masses from the TAAM. It was decided to add that under the
discussion of Item 21.
RDW wanted to add an item concerning COP-testing. It was decided to have that item under the
discussion on the waiting list.
From the GRRF the working group was assigned the task to outline a plan for the remaining work in the
group. This item was put under “Any other business”.
With those amendments the agenda was approved.
Comments on the report from meeting no. 10 if any
There were no comments to the report. Hence it was approved and filed.
Comments on the working documents, GRRF-80-41 and Report from the GRRF-80 plus remarks
on the data to be submitted at A50 approval.
Mr. Westphäling reported that all the proposed documents GRRF/2015/34, GRRF/2015/35 and
GRRF/2015/36 were approved at the GRRF. In connection to the approval there was a discussion on
transitional provisions introduced with the document GRRF/2015/36. There was also a challenge from
OICA on the form that all the individually approved proposals shall have in the end. For the three
documents concerned this time it was decided that they should be compiled to one document before
bringing them to the WP29. (The secretary of IWG-R55 executed that merger the week after the GRRF
80, This the informal document GRRF-80-41) The transitional provision was hence included and applied
to all the approved changes.
In connection to this discussion Mr. Westphäling brought back some comments from Germany that
German industry was not satisfied with the decision on information for A50 couplings. There were
several proposals for changes. One of these was to move the appendix from Annex 2 to Annex 7. Another
proposal was to have a fixed format in a given form. There was a vivid discussion on this. At the end of
the discussion it was decided not to change anything. The Annex 2 is about information of vehicle
approval hence it was judged to be a relevant place for this appendix.
Furthermore there was a proposal to the GRRF from the European commission about restrictions to the
location of couplings in such cases where the coupling partly or fully hided the registration plate or the
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
fog light. This proposal was not approved by the GRRF.
Finally there was a discussion at the GRRF about the work plan and the time left for the IWG-R55.
Among other things the progress and the shape of the Agricultural regulations for coupling was brought
up. As a result of this discussion the chair of GRRF assigned the IWG-R55 to outline a plan for the
remaining work.
Review of the list of items
Item 2 (Auxiliary usage Class A) (R55_03_09, R55_03_10, R55_03_11, R55_04_05, R55_04_06,
R55_04_07, R55_05_17, R55_06_02, R55_07_12)
Mr. Westphäling reported that the work at DIN that he had earlier talked about had at 2015 Oct 16
resulted in an agreed draft standard for load carrier to be used in connection with trailer balls i.e. A50.
Taking part in this work are appliance manufacturers, universities, caravan manufacturers and technical
services. This draft does not address the interface to the coupling ball. That standardization work is yet to
start. According to Mr. Westphäling this is a high priority item. The risk with having the auxiliary loads
increasing and no control over the coupling ball is large. Just a product at the lower end of the tolerance
band of the throat diameter is substantially worse than one at the upper limit. Mr. Westphäling further
reported that he found A50 couplings approved in Poland without a D-value. Situation is chaotic.
Following the road map to wait for DIN and then ISO would take some four years until there is anything
of substance to improve the current situation.
Other delegates noted that some OEM:s already apply Carlos-BC testing to safeguard their designs to
some extent. Comparisons were also made to the situation with cranes where are diagrams showing how
the crane could be loaded at different horizontal distances from the base. Further comments were also
made on the mechanical interface and some existing proposals that are designed to put most of bending
moment away from the throat of the ball.
The time frame of four years and maybe even longer seems too long and some experts asked for some
interim solution with simple rules. It was decided to await any new proposals from the experts to the next
meeting. If there are no new proposal the item will be put on ice for future actions. Next meeting
Item 14 (2nd stage built) (R55_06_02)
Mr. Westphäling reported that “Space extender” (produced and marked by the company SMV) has set out
30 vehicles for field test. http://www.spaceextender.com/ Up to the present time no reports on the
findings from the field tests are available.
Further Mr. Westphäling reported that the design by Lohr for car carriers has been tested and approved as
class F coupling equipment.
Mr. Westphäling showed pictures from tests on a test bench with similar installation from another
manufacturer. Through 7 tests it has not been successful due to the cracking of the fixture. I.e. the fixture
design is a critical point. On the other hand tis leads back to the definition of what is coupling equipment
and what is chassis extension.
Mr. Tagliaferri showed some pictures of a truck frame with a recess aft of the last axle such that the last
~1,5 m of the frame was one frame height lower than the rest of the frame. At the rear end of that lower
frame a underrun protection and a coupling was mounted. The question was: “is the lower part of the
frame coupling equipment or part of the chassis?”
The discussion on this was vivid. Some parts of the discussion had the flavor of that the answer to that
question depends on the reputation of the 2nd stage manufacturer making the changes to the chassis. Many
experts found this unsatisfactory. It was argued that such large changes to the chassis shall not be made
without a thorough dialog with and a following consent from the OEM.
Mr. Svensson was in this context assigned the task to approach OICA for advice on this matter. Next
meeting
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02_13, R55_04_08, R55_04_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20,
R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13)
Mr. Svensson had at the 10th meeting (R55-10-08) elaborated a proposal to handle the speed dependence
of coupling performance requirements. This is one possible way to handle heavy transports. At previous
meetings the German TA31 way (now in TüV merkblatt) has been up for discussion (R55-05-06) Some
comments were given about the current state of affairs. Mr. Tagliaferri and Mr. Svensson expressed their
support for a speed dependent adaptation of the requirement. Mr. Werner proposed to have the base speed
in the linearformula propsed set to 90 kmph rther than 80 kmph Mr. Matyas commented that off-road
applications could result in high forces. However Mr. Svensson assumed that these transports are
probably not aimed at off-road applications. If and when we agree on a proposal perhaps off-road
applications could be excluded from the application. Mr. Alguëra commented in favor of some dynamic
factor to be applied without saying anything about what would be his preference. However Jost has over
time applied some requirements reduction as a function of reduced speed. Traditionally Orlandi has
applied an old CUNA regulation for gross combination mass of 250 tonnes to 500 tonnes. It was decided
to distribute “TA31” formula to the experts. (instead of distributing this formula the experts are
recommended to study the document R55-05-06. The first D-value formula in that document is valid from
GCM 48 tonnes and ascending. Take then a look at the diagram at the bottom of the document. The blue
graph illustrates the “TA31” function. ) The experts were asked to consider this item until next meeting.
Next meeting
Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04_11, R55_05_05,
R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05,
R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08;
R55_10_15, R55_11_ 12; R55_11_13; R55_11_15 )
At the previous meeting Mr. Westphäling took on the task to get more measurement data to this case.
Unfortunately he had had no success in this mission. However Mr. Svensson argued that there were
enough measured data already. In order to support the discussion on this item Mr. Svensson had made a
survey of the history of this item going all the way back to the first initiatives in the ISO working group
concerned. The different initiatives were summarized in the document R55-11-12. It turns out that the
item started in the ISO working group in 2001. I.e. the background to the proposal is very well
scrutinized.
Mr. Matyas observed that from the BPW perspective the Australian road conditions are very servere and
worse than in Germany. Mr. Westphäling argued that it was rather the German traffic rhythm with
frequent braking and acceleration that was making conditions in Germany worse for the coupling. To that
Mr. Svensson pointed to all measurements done in recent years showing that the traction and braking
related forces are not those that are the highest. Rather this is the forces related to the road profile and the
interaction with the geometry of the vehicle combinations. I.e. it might be true that the braking and
accelerations are more frequent in Germany than Australia. However this does not in a significant way
influence the life of the coupling equipment as those related forces are low.
After a long discussion it was agreed that the proposal from the document R55-10-08 shall with respect to
the multi vehicle combinations be turned in to an informal document to the GRRF-81 in February 2016.
In doing so the sections for trade-off and speed dependence shall be separated. The experts were urged to
scrutinize the informal document that shall be review at our next meeting to be held in January of 2016.
Next meeting
Item 25 (Articulation angles as installed) (R55_02_05, R55_05_13, R55_07_10, R55-09-21)
Mr. Stokreef presented the proposal based on a review of several relevant standards. Some comments
were given. A proposed articulation angle limit for drawbar coupling around a vertical axle through the
coupling point was proposed to be 60 degrees. This was considered to be too low. Rather a limit of 90
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
degrees was recommended. For fifth wheel couplings the limits for pitching angles was recommended to
be set to +6/-7 degrees. Mr. Stokreef will prepare a proposal for an informal document to the next
meeting. The experts shall to that meeting have considered the angles recommended at this meeting.
Next meeting.
Item 29 (Drawbar a separate technical unit) (R55_04_04, R55_05_02, R55_09_08; R55_10_xx;
R55_11_03; R55_11_08)
Mr. Bröckling had prior to the meeting sent in the document R55_11_08. Unfortunately this was not
discussed. There have been many proposals under this item before. Mr. Bröckling has proposed “A
drawbar is always a separate technical unit”. This was up in the discussion also this time as was the
ISO7641. No agreement was reached. Any initiative to the next meeting is awaited and welcomed.
Next meeting
Item 30 (Simple designs) (R55_02_09, R55_03_06, R55_05_09, R55_07_07, R55_09_08; R55_11_03;
R55_11_08)
Having decided whether we are dealing with a separate technical unit or not, we are faced with the issue
whether the design is simple or not. This issue is about having the option to have a calculation based
approval or not. At the last meeting Mr. Svensson argued that the basic assumption have to be that an
equipment approved based on calculation shall withstand a physical fatigue test if arranged. This is also
supported by R55 Annex 6 § 1.1. At the same meeting Mr. Svensson also argued that there need at least
to exist an agreed calculation procedure. To this meeting he had supplied document R55_11_03 which is
a well-documented and maintained design standard that is freely available. In addition Mr. Bröckling had
supplied document R55_11_08. Neither of those proposals were considered at any depth. Mr Westphäling
argued that the designs concerned are so simple that even a first year student can make the calculation.
Mr. Svensson then argued that it would be easy for the technical services to come together to draft a
calculation procedure proposal. This was not accepted as “you would not like to disclose some calculation
secrets”. At the last meeting Mr. Svensson offered to fatigue test two drawbars that are approved based on
calculations. Mr. Westphäling was of the opinion that this was not needed. Instead he proposed that a
truly simple structure like a RHS profile bar should be set up according to his instructions and compared
to calculations in a static test. According to Mr. Svensson this is not relevant. He repeated the offer from
the last meeting that still remains. No agreement was reached.
Next meeting
The waiting list
According to the discussion on the future of this informal working group the waiting list items are
activated.
Item w1 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19; R55_11_14)
Mrs. Domagala was not present but had sent in a document R55_11_14. This document was discussed. It
was agreed that the proposal was not bringing any improvement. The current text of the regulation R55
Annex 6 §1.1. is sufficiently clear allowing caculations as a tool to identify worst case(s).
Item w13 Mr. Stokreef proposed to make a review of the COP testing requirements. Based on an
observation that the test set up influences the test results he asked whether it was appropriate to lower the
test force by COP testing. This started a lot of discussions. One statement that came from different experts
was that a successful fatigue test for type approval might be just a lucky coincidence. From such a
perspective Mr. Svensson argued that the COP-testing shall be performed at the same level as the
approval test. Over time such a procedure would disclose any “lucky coincidence”. In this context Mr.
Svensson asked the experts how the COP-testing would be carried out for components that were approved
based on calculations. After some thinking Mr. Westphäling responded that the safety margin in the
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
calculation based approvals are so high that no COP testing is needed. To that Mr. Svensson reminded
that the offer to test two drawbars still remains. The discussion did not end in a conclusion other than that
Mr. Stokreef should reassess the basis for the proposal and outline a proposal for an informal document
on the subject until next meeting.
Item w11 (Masses)( R55_11_18)
Mr. Hansen had got a task from the TAAM meeting to bring up for discussion a matter of how to decide
towable mass and what masses to use in the calculation of required performance for the coupling
equipment. This was not discussed to any detail.
Due to lack of time and poor preparation by the secretary the remaining items were left to be processed
later meetings.
Report from TFAC
Since last meeting there had been an exchange of documents between Mr. Schauer and Mr. Svensson.
Among these documents were first of all reformatted documents. There were also examples of a separate
regulation and fully integrated regulations.
During the GRRF-80 based on discussions with Mr. Schauer Mr. Westphäling announced that the
agricultural regulation might not be finished within the time frame of the IWG-R55. There was also an
inclination to have the agricultural regulation as a separate regulation R55A.
At this meeting the questions was raised whether the Agricultural regulation shall be a separate regulation
that should be administered by a new working group. The experts decided that that should be the
recommendation from IWG-R55.
Approach towards the 80th session of the GRRF
It was agreed that we shall approach the GRRF-81 with informal documents. The final versions of those
documents shall be agreed at our next meeting prior to the GRRF-81. Furthermore we shall present a plan
for the finish of the work of the working group. This plan was requested at the GRRF-80.
Documents to the next informal meeting shall be made available to the secretary at the latest 4 week
before the meeting.
New Items to the waiting list (R55-11-23)
1. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2014_05_
a. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2013_05
2. SPP_Proposal_Conformity of production_2013_10
3. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2. Definitions_alternative values
4. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 6_3.7.2.2_lever bearing at least 1,0...
5. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 7_T = 32 t
6. JOST_Application for an amendment of R55-Jost-06-10-2014
7. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2 Definitions_Class H50 (R55_09_07-…)
8. Orlandi, Diagram correction wedge (R55_09_20-Wedge)
9. Fixing point information and vehicles N1
10. General review Class …-X
11. What masses to use when calculating required performance values for coupling
equipment.
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
12. COP testing requirement
Any other business
Next meeting will be a two-day meeting to be held in the Paris. Mr. Preud´homme arranges the details.
Venue will be communicated at a later stage. The time for the meeting is 2016 January 14 - 15 starting at
1000 ending at 1200 hours.
It was noted that the target is to have all items managed such that the last GRRF for this Informal working
group would be 2016 September.
A tentative plan looks like this:
January
2016
Working group meeting
February
2016
GRRF 81 presentation of informal documents and finishing plan
April
2016
Working group meeting
Jun
2016
Submission of working documents to the GRRF 82
September
2016
GRRF 82
October
2016
Possible tidying up Working group meeting
November
2016
Possible resubmission of working documents for GRRF 83
February
2017
Possible presentations at GRRF 83
Close of the meeting
The chairman thanked all participating experts for their contribution and wished them a safe journey
home. Welcome back in January of 2016. The attendees expressed their gratitude for the hospitality by
the TÜV-Nord to host the meeting.
Resolutions and actions
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Description
Item list in ToR extended with two items.
29. Integrated drawbar, 30. Simple drawbar
The German TA 31 sent to the secretary
TûV-Nord procedure on rigid drawbars sent to
the secretary
Invite Lucien Vogel of Lohr to the group
Invite German trailer manufacturers to the
group
Invite other trailer manufacturers through
CLCCR
Invite representatives from UTAC to the
group
Investigate further experts to the agricultural
subgroup
Item 6, Collect further information on locking
of foldable class A couplings
Item 7, In principle agreed but formulation
shall be reconsidered.
Item 8, Agreed without modifications
Time
2012 Oct 11
Actor
Svensson
Closed
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Conrad
Conrad
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Preud´homme
Westphäling
Yes
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Svensson
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Preud´homme
Yes
2012 Oct 11
All
Yes
2012 Oct 11
van Ittersum
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Westphäling,
Stokreef
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Yes
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Item 10, No agreement reached, reclassified as
complex.
Item 11, Proposal agreed in principle. Mr.
Teyssier of Volvo volunteered to reconsider
the formulation. Mr. Tagliaferri offered his
support.
Item 12, The drawings proposed needed
improvement. The justification is required to
be better founded in the statistics.
Item 17, Agreed
Item 18, Proposal was agreed. The
formulation does cover fully automatic
coupling systems.
Item 23, Proposal disagreed and withdrawn
Item 22, Proposal supported and Mr. Svensson
was assigned the task to elaborate the proposal
Item 2, No agreement was reached at this time
more information on accident statistics needed
Item 2, AL-KO to send internal procedure to
Mr. Westphäling
Item 2, TÜV-Rheinland to send internal
procedure to Westphäling
Item 2, Try to get documentation on the Dutch
automobile club procedures and send to
Westphäling
Item 13, Support but further information
wanted. Contact Mr. Bonacker for more
background.
Item 3, Proposal in principle agreed. More
information on mechanism required.
Westphäling contacts DLG. Svensson contacts
Mr. Bonacker.
Item 4, Pommier is invited to outline a new
class L2 intended for use with pin type
couplings with cylindrical (prismatic) pin.
Items agreed at the 2012 Oct 10-11 will be
formalized in a working document for the
GRRF session 2013 Feb
Next meeting to be held in Garching 2013 Jan
15-16
Italian UNACOMA to prepare a proposal for
agricultural couplings
Simple items will go in the current series of
amendments.
No transition period needed for the simple
items
Handle both ball and pin couplings in the
context of secondary coupling. New proposal.
2012 Oct 11
Decided
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Teyssier,
Tagliaferri
YES
2012 Oct 11
Zander
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Yes
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Svensson
Yes
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Westphäling
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Jaumouille
YES
2012 Oct 11
?
2012 Oct 11
Stokreef
2012 Oct 11
Svensson
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Westphäling,
Svensson
(Challenge to all
experts)
Preud´homme
Yes
Westphäling,
Svensson
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
YES
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Decided
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Decided
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
Yes
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
32
Introduce clevis in the definition of Class C
clearing out ambiguities. New proposal
Further detail the requirement for remote
indication. New proposals.
Distribute new sketches on free space
definition.
Comment on the new sketches for free space
Proposal for item 17 adjusted
Further elaborate on the trade-off proposal,
aiming for a straight line
Send the German documented procedure FS5
to the secretary
Start outline requirements for auxiliary usage
of coupling equipment.
Supply information on force level from
coupling brakes.
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
Yes
2013 Jan 16
YES
2013 Jan 16
2013 Jan 16
2013 Jan 16
Tagliaferri,
Teyssier
Westphäling,
Alguëra
All
Decided
Turlier, Svensson
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
2013 Jan 16
van Ittersum
YES
2013 Jan 16
Yes
Investigate the outcome from the changed
rules for drawbar lateral forces in NewZeeland
Coupling in existing classes developed to
become fully automatic coupling remain in the
original class.
Outline a new Class W for coupling systems
of unique concept. Draw on the Class T when
outlining the definition
Review Annex 7 §1.5.2
Investigate and compile statistics concerning
king-pin and supporting structure in semitrailers.
2013 Jan 16
Turlier,
van Ittersum,
Preud´home,
Westphäling,
Jaumouille
Svensson
2013 Jan 16
Decided
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Svensson,
Gunneriusson
Yes
2013 Jan 16
2013 Jan 16
Yes
YES
46
Investigate and compile information on
limiting articulation angles for coupling
equipment as installed on the vehicles
2013 Jan 16
47
Item 2, Put the ISO15263DIS and French
experimental standard XPR-18-904-4 side by
side and try to extract relevant parts.
Item 2, Contact Mr. Pierre Martin of BNA to
get some background information to the
ISO15263 work failing.
Item 4, Outline a proposal including the test
conditions for applications of class L drawbar
eyes with pin couplings.
Item 5, Finalize a proposal text for Class W
2013 Apr 12
Algüera
Stokreef, Hansen,
Gunneriusson,
Bailey,Preud´home,
Tagliaferri
Stokreef, Hansen,
Gunneriusson,
Bailey,Turlier,
Erario/Tagliaferri
van Ittersum
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
49
50
2013 Jan 16
YES
YES
Yes
YES
Yes
YES
2013 Apr 12
Preud’homme,
Westphäling
2013 Apr 12
Preud´homme
YES
2013 Apr 12
Stokreef, Svensson
YES
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
51
Item 7, Check-up whether there are anything
in the French law that makes an integrated
approval of coupling and drawbeam
impossible.
2013 Apr 12
Lescail
52
Item 11, Communicate with the OEM about
the implementation of indication in the
instrument cluster. Consider also monochrome
options.
Item 13, Outline an alternative regulation
text/requirements for lateral force
performance of drawbars.
Item 14, Cancelled from the item list
Item 20, Investigate the UNECE R54 (tyres)
for the consideration of speed there in.
Item 20, Investigate how axle manufacturers
treat axle load an reduced speed.
Item 20, A procedure used for a long time by
VBG shall be applied a posteriori to historic
certificates or recommendations issued by
other manufacturers, Jost/Rockinger,
Pommier, Orlandi, SAF/Holland
Item 20, Make a try to see how the Germans
procedure of TA31 and the provisions in the
CARLOS-testing could be integrated in to the
regulation 55
Item 22, Outline a regulation text proposal to
incorporate Dc vs. V trade-off
Item 24, Contact CLCCR-TC concerning
rubbing plate deformations and any damage
caused thereof.
Item 25, Outline requirements on articulation
angles in-use including center axle trailers and
semi-trailers.
Item 26, Outline a regulation text proposal for
requirements on information on fixing points.
Item 17 withdrawn from list
Item 3 Agreed
Item 5 Agreed
Item 10 Agreed
Item 11 Agreed
Item 13 Lateral forces new proposal
Item 14 Outline new proposal
Item 20 Evaluate current practices towards the
proposal from Mr. Alguëra
2013 Apr 12
Teyssier,
Tagliaferri
YES
2013 Apr 12
Westphäling,
Tagliaferri,
Svensson
YES
Item 26 Feedback from OICA
2013 Oct
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
Svensson
Yes
YES
2013 Apr 12
Svensson
YES
2013 Apr 12
Algüera,
Tagliaferri,
Feltham,
Preud’homme
Svensson
Westphäling,
Svensson
YES
Turlier,
Svensson
Algüera,
Tagliaferri
YES
2013 Apr 12
Stokreef
YES
2013 Apr 12
Stokreef
YES
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
2013 Oct
2013 Apr
2014 Jan
2013 Apr
2014 Jan
2013 Oct
2013 Oct
2013 Oct
Bröckling
Westphäling
WAP,Jost,VBG,
Pommier, Orlandi,
SAF/Holland
Teyssier
YES
YES
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YES
Yes
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Item 29 Outline proposal for separate
technical unit
Item 2 Further accident statistics
2013 Oct
Bröckling
Yes
2014 Jan
YES
Item 4 New proposal for class L to be
evaluated by all concerned
Item 13 Detail the concerns and alternatives
around the latest proposal
2014 Jan
Stokreef, van
Ittersum,
Jaumouille
All
YES
Item 14 gather more information from OEM:s
and bodybuilders concerned
Item 20 Contact OEM:s to get more
background information
2014 Jan
Item 21 Evaluate alternative means to include
the rules from ISO 18868, Follow up on AVC
group continuation,
Item 22 Outline a master graphics to be
possibly included in a coupling user´s manual
Item 24 dropped from the list of Items
Item 26 outline a link between §§5.x and
§3.2.8.
Item 26 no surplus information in list of new
appendix to Annex 7. §§5.x enough possibly
Item 11 change of Annex 5 § 3.7.5. to be
formulated as an informal document to the
76th session of GRRF
Put agricultural proposal in line with WP29
documentation guidlines
External representation in the DIN working
group on Auxiliary coupling usage standard
Reconsider the proposal for Item 4 in view of
the comments received at the meeting in
Zoetemeer
Draft a proposal for requirement on Av value
certification
Introduce definition of dolly and consider
making distinction between certified
performance and calculated requirement in the
context of Item 21
Draft a new definition of Class E that would
resolve the issues around “Separate technical
units” for drawbars.
2014 Jan
Svensson,
Westphäling,
Bröckling, Alguëra
Westphäling,
Tagliaferri, Turlier
Westphäling,
Svensson, Alguëra,
Tagliaferri,
Preud´homme,
Stokreef
Svensson
2014 Jan
Svensson
Yes
2014 Jan
2014 Jan
Stokreef
Yes
YES
2014 Jan
Stokreef
YES
2014 Jan
Svensson
Yes
2015 Jan
Schauer
2015 Dec
Westphäling
2015 Jan
Preud´homme
YES
2014 Nov
Alguëra
YES
2104 dec
Svensson
YES
2015 Jan
Bröckling
2014 Jan
2014 Jan
YES
Yes
Yes
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
90
Put Agreed items in format that is in line with
WP29 guidelines for working documents
2014 Nov
91
92
93
94
95
Report on PNWI with ISO from DIN
Follow up and report on 2nd stage approval
OEM couplingforce measurements
Elaborate justification waiting lits item 1
Alternative performance values
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
96
97
98
H50 ?
Elaborate Agricultural proposal
Proposal for interim solution for auxiliary
usage of class A50 couplings
99 Challenge through OICA the OEM:s how to
handle frame extensions
100 Informal document for Articulation angles
101
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
2015 Oct
Experts responsible
for the different
items
Westphäling
Westphäling
Westphäling
Domagala
Westphäling /
Hansen
Hansen
Schauer
ALL
2015 Oct
Svensson
2015 Oct
Stokreef
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES