1. SLR-28-14
IMMA Proposal for Stage 2 RID: Symmetrical Passing Beam and Classification
22 February 2019
IMMA LWG

2. Index Questions raised in SLR-27
Why motorcycles has a different pattern?
Why on cm3 (or kW) and not on speed?
IMMA passing beam proposal
Conclusion

3. 1. Questions raised in SLR-27
Since we IMMA could not fully attend the last SLR in December, we could not directly answer to the following questions raised there:
This presentation intends to provide answers to these questions.
Questions for IMMA:
Provide justifications why requirements for motorcycles are different from cars even if both drive at the same speed and on the same roads
Provide justifications why the discrimination is based on cm3 (or kw) and not on speed

4. 2. Why motorcycles has a different pattern?
Let us start from the first question: ‘Why requirements for motorcycles are different from cars even if both drive at the same speed and on the same roads?’
To illuminate the road ahead is a primary function of a headlamp. It is the same for cars and motorcycles. However, there is a significant difference: Motorcycles inherently lean while negotiating curves, and a rider can estimate current lean angle with a help of an illumination pattern while night-time riding. Therefore a symmetrical passing beam pattern has an advantage. Additionally, this symmetrical pattern has practically achieved harmonisation with US FMVSS108 motorcycle lower beam headlamp requirement.
In the next slide, let us briefly cite a historical background of symmetrical passing beam patterns.

5. 2. Symmetrical passing beam – History
Historically, symmetrical passing beam patterns have been widely allowed for motorcycle use.
In Europe, until 1970’s, several countries (e.g. France, Italy, Netherlands…) had their own homologation regulations which allow symmetrical patterns for motorcycle use.
In 1978, aiming Europe-wide harmonisation, the 2nd GRE had drafted the regulation of headlamps for motorcycle (TRANS/SC1/WP29/R.164) which has a symmetrical beam pattern. It officially entered into force as Regulation No. 57.
In USA, FMVSS108 had been adopted in 1967, allowing symmetrical beams for motorcycles by a reference to ‘SAE J584: Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps’.
In Japan, nevertheless not mandated, an industry standard which has a symmetrical pattern for motorcycle, ‘JIS D5500: Automobile parts – Lighting and light signalling devices’ has been widely applied to motorcycle headlamps since 1970’s.

6. 2. Symmetrical passing beam – Performance
In 2000, to achieve worldwide harmonisation with greater performance, IMMA proposed a new symmetrical passing beam pattern for motorcycle in GRE/2000/24 with test results GRE-44-14, explaining:
‘Because motorcycles bank when in a curve or turn, symmetrical beam patterns provide the rider with well-balanced visibility.’
This proposal was endorsed in 45th GRE, and later crystallised as UN R113 Class C/D patterns. Today, UN R113 headlamps have realised virtually perfect harmonisation all around the world.
It is worth mentioning that the preference for a symmetrical pattern for motorcycle was also adopted in USA. In 1982, US NHTSA issued a technical report titled as ‘Improved Motorcycle and Moped Headlamps’ (DOT-HS ), concluding through an extensive survey and subjective evaluation:
‘Symmetrical low beam patterns are recommended, based on the expressed preference of motorcyclists and their superior performance on road-edge targets when cornering.’
This knowledge is consistent to the above-mentioned IMMA’s own experience.
This is why motorcycles need a different beam pattern from cars.

7. 3. Why on cm3 (or kW) and not on speed?
Then let us go on the second question raised in SLR-27: ‘why the discrimination is based on cm3 (or kw) and not on speed?’
IMMA would like to maintain current alignment between UN R53 and EU Regulation for L-category Whole Vehicle Type Approval, which set a major threshold by engine capacity.
This alignment is also an outcome of past GRE activities aiming simplification of regulations.
Again, let us shortly cite the history of the threshold.

8. 3. Threshold – History
Originally, the motorcycle lighting installation regulation UN R53-00, which entered into force in 1983, had a vehicle maximum design speed criterion for allowable headlamp class. However, this criterion had been replaced by engine capacity by the following consequence.
Aiming to reduce the number of headlamp regulations and to make them less design restrictive, GRE had extensive discussions in late-1990’s, which ultimately consolidated ten existing headlamp regulations into two. Among this simplification activities, R53 was also taken care as a package. In 40th GRE, GRE/R.287 was adopted, introducing the 125 cm3 threshold for the headlamp installation. This amendment was entered into force as UN R53-01-S2 in 2001 and is still active.
Discussions were also held in the context of the headlamp component itself. IMMA explained its consideration on the threshold in GRE/2001/24 by contrasting two possible solutions; by maximum speed 120 km/h and by engine capacity 125 cm3, and concluded that the criterion should be by engine capacity with a number of practical factors. This was also discussed and adopted in 47th GRE, and integrated into the symmetrical beam pattern proposal, which was previously mentioned in this presentation.

9. 3. Threshold – Aligned regulations
Today, the 125 cm3 threshold is aligned with the EU Regulation vehicle category threshold between L3e-A1 (low performance motorcycle) and L3e-A2 (medium performance motorcycle), which is a major distinction point for several vehicle requirements. In addition, the threshold is also aligned with the EU Directive driver license requirement.
Furthermore, in elsewhere in the world, 125 cm3 is also an established major break point for motorcycles.
IMMA is of course eager to pursue more aligned regulations, i.e. to add maximum rated power 11 kW criterion, which is additionally defined in the EU Regulation. It would be more technology-neutral, therefore it would serve the purpose of the simplification.
On the other hand, IMMA has a hesitation to increase complexity by newly introducing another criterion by speed, which would be not compatible with any other regulation.
This is why the threshold is based on the engine capacity.
Then let us explain the concept behind IMMA’s proposal.

10. 4. Concept behind IMMA proposal
The concept behind IMMA’s proposal is to consider these two aspects and to realise both in one regulation.
Motorcycle-specific aspect
Symmetrical beam pattern
Harmonisation with FMVSS motorcycle headlamp requirements
Already achieved by current UN R113 symmetrical passing-beam patterns
IMMA proposal is based on UN R113
General performance aspect
SLR principle (technology-neutral, performance- based)
New lighting performance assessment method from CIE TC4-45 expertise
Need to be addressed on SLR Stage 2
IMMA proposal contains substantial improvement from UN R113, in parallel to simplified classification

11. 4. Proposed passing beam pattern
Red: Change from R113
Blue italic: update reflecting the outcome of November 2018 WG-FL meeting
Green bold: update reflecting IMMA internal reexamination for improved visibility, adopted in
February 2019 WG-FL meeting
4. Proposed passing beam pattern
Current UN R113-01/02
IMMA Symmetrical passing beam proposal
Description
Test points
Minimum
Maximum
Class CS: for low-performance vehicle (<= 125 cm3/11 kW)
Class DS: for high-performance vehicle (>125 cm3/11 kW)
Class C
Class D
Class E
Classes C,D,E 1
0.86°D
3.5°R
2,000
2,500
13,750 -
Integrated with No.3 / segmentised (equiv. to Segment 50)
Reintroduced only as a maximum value; see also Seg 123 2
2,450
4,900 3
3.5°L
Removed by integration to No.1 4
0.50°U
1.50°L and 1.50°R --
900
Removed by integration to Zone 1
Seg 123
3.5°R to 3.5°L
Segmentised minimum value between point 1 and 3 (equiv. to WGFL Seg 50)
Seg 4　 RR
1.07° D
9°R to 3.5°R
425
850
New segment introduced (equiv. to WGFL Seg 40) The value for Class DS is from Basic passing beam proposal in WG-FL. For Class CS is a half of the value. Split to RR/LL to avoid too close/superfluous measurement to Seg 123, and renamed LL
9°L to 3.5°L
1.72D
1250
2500
New point introduced (equiv. to 25V) to judge the maximum requirement for No. 6 The value for Class DS is from Basic passing beam proposal in WG-FL. For Class CS is a half of the value.
Removed by integration to Point 2 as an error correction 5
2.00°D
15°L and 15°R
550
1,100
Seg 5
15°L to 15°R －
Segmentised (equiv. to WG-FL Segment 25/15) 6
4.00°D
20°L and 20°R
150
300
600
Seg 6
20°L to 20°R
0.8*the actual measured value at Point 2
Segmentised (equiv. to WG-FL Segment 10/15) Maximum requirement is introduced See description above 7
1,700
Line 1
9°L to 9°R
1,350
1,900
Removed by integration to Seg 5
8**
4.00°U
8.0°L
∑ ≧ 150 cd **
700
∑ ≧ 150 cd **
9**
10**
8.0°R
11**
2.00°U
4.0°L
∑ ≧ 300 cd **
∑ ≧ 300 cd **
12**
13**
4.0°R
14**
8.0°L and 8.0°R
50 cd**
15**
4.0°L and 4.0°R
100 cd**
Zone 1
1°U/8°L-4°U/8°L-4°U/8°R -1°U/8°R-0/4°R-0/1°R -0.6°U/0-0/1°L-0/4°L-1°U/8°L
Zone 2
>4U to <15 U
8°L to 8°R

12. 4. Proposed passing beam pattern
IMMA Seg 123
(WG-FL Basic PB Seg 50 equiv.)
IMMA Seg 4 RR/LL
(WG-FL Basic PB Seg 40 equiv.)
IMMA Seg 5
(WG-FL Basic PB Seg25/Seg15 equiv.)
IMMA Seg 6
(WG-FL Basic PB Seg10/Seg15 equiv.)
R113-02
IMMA Symmetrical PB proposal

13. 4. Comparison: illumination on road
0.8
5.5
2.4
2.0
2.9
2.6
Line 1
0.8
5.5
2.0
0.5
2.4
2.6
R113 Class D
IMMA proposal Class DS
Compared to current UN R113, IMMA proposal has achieved wider pattern for pedestrian visibility, and more smooth (homogenized) light distribution.

14. If you have anything unclear, please let us know.
5. Conclusion
Questions for IMMA:
Provide justifications why requirements for motorcycles are different from cars even if both drive at the same speed and on the same roads
Provide justifications why the discrimination is based on cm3 (or kw) and not on speed
Answers from IMMA:
Motorcycles lean in corners, therefore a symmetrical beam pattern has an advantage for well-balanced visibility.
The current threshold 125 cm3 is an outcome of the past simplification effort, and is well aligned with other regulations.
IMMA is more than willing to contribute to the effort of IWG-SLR for simplification.
If you have anything unclear, please let us know.

15. Reference material

16. R53-00

17. GTB WG HEADLAMP REGULATIONS
Draft Amendment to Regulation No.53
June 1995

19. R53-01-S2 Draft proposal (adopted)
TRANS/WP.29/1999/2

20. GRE44

21. GRE45

22. GRE46

23. GRE47

24. GRE48

25. UN R53-02
Regulation (EU) No. 168/2013

26. GRE/2000/24

27. GRE/2001/24

30. Comparison: to asymmetrical beam pattern
0.8
5.5
2.4
2.0
2.9
2.6
Line 1
Compared to current R113, IMMA proposal has achieved wider pattern for pedestrian visibility, and more smooth (homogenized) light distribution.
Symmetrical
(motorcycle use)
R113 Class D
IMMA proposal Class DS
But compared to cars, questions would arise:
Why the motorcycle pattern is narrower than car’s one?
Why 75R/50R is missing?
(Seg 40LL)
Asymmetrical
(car use)
(50R)
(75R)
(Seg 40RR)
R112 Class B
WG-FL proposal basic PB

31. Discussion for Segment 40RR/40LL
As for WG-FL Segment 40RR/40LL (1.07D 9R-14R/9L-14L), WG-FL has justified the requirement as ‘Zone C & Zone D of TC4-45’.
Zone C is for pedestrian detection (defined in CIE S 021 by TC4-45)
Zone D is for visibility on curve

32. Discussion for Segment 40LL/40RR – Zone C
The pedestrian detection is similarly important for motorcycles as that for passenger cars, therefore the requirement should be kept.
Zone C is m offside, corresponding the inside area between (1.07D 9L/9R) points.
In our proposal, the illumination area is newly set as IMMA Seg 4 RR/LL (1.07D 9R-3.5R, 9L-3.5L) to ensure the homogeneity in the area.

33. Why the motorcycle pattern is narrower than car’s one?
The wide pattern around 40 m ahead in WG-FL Basic PB corresponds to Zone D (defined in CIE S 021 by TC4-45), for visibility on curve, 500 m radius.

34. Why the motorcycle pattern is narrower than car’s one?
In case of motorcycles, lean angle on a curve directly affects the illumination on road.
Wide illumination (WG-FL Segment 40RR/40LL) is not able to effectively implemented for motorcycles.
Illumination for curved road could be supplemented by some new concepts other than the basic beam pattern. Currently, HIAS and bend lighting are applicable under R113 requirements.
Future RID should allow such visibility improvement technologies.
Passing-beam illuminating area
Illumination pattern shift by a lean
Illumination point shift by a lean
lean angle
58 km/h
@500R
82 km/h
116 km/h
On-the-road illumination shift by a lean
(Seg 40RR)

35. Why 75R/50R is missing?
symmetrically
expanded
GRE/2000/24
Harmonized symmetrical passing beam pattern
(later R113)
GRE/1999/18
Harmonized asymmetrical passing beam pattern
To avoid glare for oncoming drivers, the symmetrical passing beam has been obtained by the symmetrical expansion of the left-hand portion of the asymmetrical pattern.

36. Why 75R/50R is missing?
Asymmetrical passing beam
3 m lane
h = 750 mm
Symmetrical passing beam
75R
(0.57D-1.15R)
75R:
On the cut-off
Imax
Cut-off
Far-side
kerb
Road
centre
line
Cut-off
Far-side
kerb
Road
centre
line
Imax
Near-side
kerb
Near-side
kerb
50R
(0.86D-1.72R)
50R:
Close to the cut-off
In case of a symmetrical beam pattern, 75R/50R become no longer adequate as special illumination points, since they are directly on the cut-off, or close to the cut-off. Therefore they had been removed in the discussion in R113 development process.
Of course, the removal of 75R/50R has, to some extent, compromised near-side kerb visibility. Still, this has been justified in order to achieve a symmetrical pattern which brings a more advantage for motorcycles.
The visibility of the road lane ahead has been assured similarly as an asymmetrical pattern.