1. TF8 – OICA considerations for the draft annex for heavy vehicles

2. OICA TF8 members …. 2 Annika Ahlberg TidbladScania CV AB Olle SchälinVolvo Trucks Max RosengrenVolvo Buses Jean-Louis ChazaletteVolvo Group Samarendra TripathyRenault Christian KetzerMAN Nobuya OsakiMitsubishi Fuso Yoshitaka AskuraToyota Masato KumatsukiToyota Ryö YamadaHino Naoki KinoshitaHonda Kevin KokrdaHino Motors USA

3. Approach to drafting annex proposal First overview  Define what categories of vehicles should be included in the Heavy Vehicle Draft Annex  Attempt to identify topics where the needs of heavy vehicles differ from those of passenger vehicles  Identify questions to the IWG Documents  6th IWG Summary – preliminary assessment of applicability of tests (EVS-06-27e)  EVS-GTR Draft (EVS-06-14e) Communication  Teleconferences on 2 Feb 2015 and 10 Mar 2015  E-mail chains for exchange of information, ideas, suggestions and opinions 3

4. Scope and application  Scope: to specify how the requirements and tests described in chapters 5 and 6 of the main document of the EVS-GTR apply to electrically propelled heavy duty road vehicles (e.g. buses, coaches and trucks) and their rechargeable energy storage systems.  Purpose: avoid human harm that may occur from the electric power train  Vehicle included: Vehicles intended for transportation of persons  Category 1-2 vehicles exceeding 4 500 kg Vehicles intended for transportation of goods  Category 2 vehicles (GVM) exceeding 3 500 kg, incl vehicles for transportation of dangerous goods (ADR approved)  Not included:  Special purpose part of special vehicles (e.g. ambulance, fire trucks…)  Vehicles permanently connected to the grid, incl vehicles that can operate off-grid for very limited duration (e.g. trolley bus) 4

5. Questions regarding scope “This GTR addresses the unique safety risks posed by EVs and their components, considering the following points:  To ensure a safety level equivalent to conventional vehicles with internal combustion engine ant to prevent EV-specific hazardous events, assuming reasonable level of robustness.” (Chapter 3, Principles for development of this GTR)  How should this statement be interpreted with regards to ADR?  ADR requirements are not harmonized to extent of GTR (e.g. R105 in EU; Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) in Japan)  What is the appropriate lower GVM limit/alternative limit for a category 2 vehicle to be considered ”heavy”  Small pickups are common household cars and should be coverec by main GTR. 5

6. Evaluation level and vehicle type definition  For practical reasons, Heavy vehicles are expected to need the option for component level test (REESS or battery pack) to a greater extent than passenger vehicles.  Important that component based test option exists whenever possible  Ensure equivalency of test requirements  Heavy vehicles are ”customized”. This implies there are a multitude of similar vehicles but with potentially different physical appearances.  Necessary to come to an agreement about a reasonable representative set that covers a wide spectrum of vehicles  Within the type approval system, this can be managed by Testing Services together with Manufacturer.  How is it handled within self certification? 6

7. Mounting and placement of REESS  Size of heavy vehicle enables multiple placement and mounting options  Affects likelihood of inadvertent contact, direct or indirect, with live parts  Should be weighed in when deciding applicable construction and design requirements  Location of REESS can affect relevant condition of test and/or applicability of test. e.g.  Vibration experienced by the REESS depends on locations and vehicle application  Fire exposure  Water protection 7

8. Charging methods and inlets  A wide range of charging methods considered for heavy vehicles  Conventional charging via plug-in contact inlet on the side, front or back of vehicle  Inlet located under the floor  Roof mounted inlets (Electric drive and charging at standstill contact to the special external electric power supply via e.g. air wires, pantograph type connector, etc.)  Inductive charging at standstill  Charging while in driving mode (e.g. slide on-slide off connection to air wire and inductive road segments)  Current EVS-GTR draft does not  Allow charging while in driving mode (Paragraph 5.1.3.4)  Consider roof mounted inlets (Paragraph 5.1.1.1.3 and 5.1.1.1.5.2)  Electrical safety in use requirements must allow variety of charging methods (Paragraph 5.1) 8

9. Post crash  There are no equivalent passive safety requirements for heavy vehicles as there are for passenger cars (e.g. R94 and 95)  Post crash requirements in draft EVS-GTR are not applicable 9

10. Outline of draft annex proposal 1.Scope and application 2.Definitions 3.Specific considerations and justifications for heavy vehicles 4.Requirements and verification methods a.Overview – summary of interpretation and understanding of applicability of requirements and test procedures based on currently available information b.Assessment of applicability may change depending on evolution of EVS-GTR and the work in other TFs 10