Renault statements and questions: Page Autor/Abt.: ACEA WLTP EV Group /Samarendra Tripathy 1] Phase specific calculation (appendix YYY of attached file): for PEV ???  On principle we agree on this proposal but this needs to be evaluated on vehicle tests or simulation data A : Japan has already provided validation data and it indicates this method well works for also WLTC. ( OVC-HEV  We don’t think the validation test is necessary. If this formula is not acceptable, we request to run each phase test to obtain each phase specific value. )  The ‘drive energy measurement’ will be an additional measurement compared to the present WLTP range determination test procedure for PEV  A : this is why we can make testing duration shorter  Clarification required on drive energy measurement: whether it is only current measurement or ‘current + voltage’ measurement?  As we have previously discussed during the ‘phase 1a’ the voltage measurement can be difficult task (need feedback from other members )  A : SAE describes high voltage measurement can be done with no concern. However, alternative ideas are welcome ( i.e. use “nominal voltage” ) 2] Shortening of test procedure for PEV (appendix ZZZ of attached file):  The basic test procedure is not very clear from the documents  A : same concept as SAE J1634  The required speed for CSC (constant speed cycle) is taken as 89 km/h and which is same as that of SAE J1634. But there is no technical justification provided on why this value should be accepted for WLTC cycle.  A : same as SAE J1634. Other speed with technical justification is welcome.  Additional low & mid parts are repeated (L12-M12 & L22-M22). It is not clear on why only these two phases are considered and not the high & extra-high phase. If this is based on some vehicle data then please share the test/simulation data.  A : L+M combined data is required for EU needs. Calculation formula is just sample, ex-H need to be calculated if CP requires.  The ratio of CSCe distance and CSCm distance is not clear. Is it 1:5?  A: it’s not fixed value. As described in draft gtr, manufacture develop CSCe and CSCm distance based on good engineering judgment  There should be a minimum expected range bellow which the shortening procedure should not be allowed to use. Otherwise this can give some incoherent results  A : SAE J1634 recommend 97km(60mile), but we don’t mind to review this requirement during phase1b

BMW statements and questions Page Autor/Abt.: ACEA WLTP EV Group / Nico Schütze 1] Phase specific calculation (appendix YYY of attached file):  The approach can only be applied to vehicles that are able to drive the whole first cycle in charge depleting! The transient cycle has to be excluded for the determination of the electric consumption to calculate the estimated electric range for the specific phase. A : Proposed calculation formula doesn’t take care of such a vehicle. Thank you for your feedback. Need to consider the alternative method for those vehicles.  The approach is based on RCB corrected charge sustaining values. What happens, if the correction is not necessary. Therefore a correction is always necessary, but it is not required in the GTR now. à test burden? Validation of the method if it is not required to correct the RCB for the CS test. A : If no correction is necessary for whole cycle, no correction is required for each phase as basis. It’s OK to allow manufacture to develop each phase correction factor.  Is it lawful to use one UF curve to calculate the weighting for phase specific consumptions? A : We’ve made a decision to adopt regional UF for OVC-HEV calculation. Each region can adopt their own UF for also phase specific calculation. (JPN has only one UF and this UF is used for all kinds of calculation)  How do the validation schemes/-results look like?  A : We don’t think the validation test is necessary. If this formula is not acceptable, we request to run each phase test to obtain each phase specific value. 2] Shortening of test procedure for PEV (appendix ZZZ of attached file):  How do the validation schemes/-results look like?  A : Japan has already provided validation data and it indicates this method well works for also WLTC.

Seite Autor/Abt.: Stephan Hartmann PHASE SPECIFIC CONSUMPTION FOR OVC-HEV. SUMMARY. R : The number of estimated phases that could be driven consecutively is the basis for all following phase specific calculations. R : The approach can only be applied to vehicles that are able to drive the whole first cycle in charge depleting because the transient cycle has to be excluded for the determination of the electric consumption to calculate the estimated electric range for the specific phase. Q : How to handle with vehicles that are able to drive a transient cycle only? A : Proposed calculation formula doesn’t take care of such a vehicle. Thank you for your feedback. Need to consider the alternative method for those vehicles. Q : How big is the impact of the “cold start” conditions if only one cycle can be used because the second one is a transient cycle? A : It’s depends on the system, however, it has negative impact on performance value. It’s OK for us to have an option to run the consecutive each phase test ( L-L-L-L…, M-M-M-M…., ) as an option. R: The CO2,CDavg,Low will always be zero if there is no power-triggered engine start because the transient cycle is excluded. That means EAERm equals RCDC,m. Q: Is it valid to use the same UF curve for the weighting of each phase consumptions or do we need more criteria concerning the analysis of databases to determine a UF curve for the low, mid, high and exHigh – phase (e.g. a filter that distinguishes between urban and non-urban drive)! A : We’ve made a decision to adopt regional UF for OVC-HEV calculation. Each region can adopt their own UF for also phase specific calculation. (JPN has only one UF and this UF is used for all kinds of calculation). R : The CO2,CSavg,Low is always essentially influenced by the “cold start” conditions. R : RCB-correction for each phase in charge sustaining is necessary! That is not required in the GTR now! A : If no correction is necessary for whole cycle, no correction is required for each phase as basis. It’s OK to allow manufacture to develop each phase correction factor.  Validation of the remarked topics, especially the influence of cold start conditions (deviation between calculation and testing).  What is an acceptable tolerance between calculation and testing?  Validation of the approach concerning vehicles with power-triggered engine start during charge depleting test.  If the RCB of each phase is done with the RCB-correction factor that is based on the whole cycle, there will be a deviation that is not analyzed yet. Now these values are used for the next calculation that implicates a deviation. What is the quality of these values?