Tests Utac Inclding Rolling Resistance (Only For Cars)

Informal document GRBP-75-18
75th GRBP, 8-11 February 2022

Submitted by the expert from OICA Agenda Item 2
RAPPORT D’ESSAI N°: AFFSAS1801813

(Revision 19/10/2021)
ACEA Tyre Performance Study Report
DEMANDEUR : EUROPEAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION - ACEA

APPLICANT 85 AVENUE DES NERVIENS
1040 BRUXELLES
OBJET : Rapport final d’étude sur la performance des pneumatiques

SUBJECT Tyres performance study final report
Objet soumis aux essais: pneumatique, voir descriptif en annexe

Object submitted to tests: tyre, see description in annex
Référence interne du dossier: AFFSAS1801813

Internal reference: AFFSAS1801813
RESULTATS : Voir Appendix C et Appendix D

RESULTS See Appendix C and Appendix D
MONTLHÉRY, 19/10/2021
(day/month/year)
Elodie COLLOT PASCHAL Jérôme

Expert sénior
Senior expert
NB: Les présents essais ne sauraient en aucune façon engager la responsabilité de l'UTAC en ce qui concerne les réalisations industrielles ou commerciales qui pourraient en résulter. La
reproduction de ce rapport d'essai n'est autorisée que sous la forme de fac-similé photographique intégral. Les résultats des essais ne concernent que le matériel soumis aux essais, et
identifié dans le rapport d'essais. L'accréditation par la Section Essais du COFRAC atteste uniquement de la compétence technique du laboratoire pour les essais ou analyses couverts par
l'accréditation.
UTAC shall not be liable for any industrial or commercial applications that occur as a result of these tests. This test report may only be reproduced in the form of a full photographic facsimile.
Tests results are only available for the materiel submitted to tests or materiel identified in the present test report.
Seule la version française fait foi / Only the french version is the authentic text.
Union Technique de l'Automobile, du Motocycle et du Cycle
Société par actions simplifiée au capital de 7 800 000 euros TVA FR 89 438 725 723- Siren 438 725 723 RCS Evry – Code APE 7120 B
Autodrome de Linas-Montlhéry BP20212 - 91311 Montlhéry Cedex France Centre d'essais de Mortefontaine Route du golf - 60128 Mortefontaine France
PV.EAC.000.006 Rev.05 Ce document comporte 232 page(s) dont 191 annexe(s) / This document contains 232 page(s) including 191 annex(es)
RAPPORT N° AFFSAS1801813
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
2 LITERATURE STUDY .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Reason for why the literature study was conducted ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 References which have been analyzed ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Main conclusions from the review of published literature ............................................................................................ 10
3 TEST PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Sample ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Test content ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 Rolling Resistance .................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1.1 Rolling Resistance Test conditions ..................................................................................................................14
3.2.1.2 Rolling Resistance Test Methods .....................................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Rolling Sound ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2.1 Rolling Sound Test conditions ..........................................................................................................................15
3.2.2.2 Rolling Sound Test Methods ............................................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Wet Grip ................................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3.1 Wet Grip Test conditions ..................................................................................................................................17
3.2.3.2 Wet Grip Test Methods ....................................................................................................................................17
3.2.4 Dry Grip .................................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.4.1 Dry Grip Test conditions...................................................................................................................................18
3.2.4.2 Dry Grip Test Methods .....................................................................................................................................18
3.2.5 Dry handling (Flat Trac) ............................................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.5.1 Flat Trac Test conditions ..................................................................................................................................19
3.2.5.2 Flat Trac Test Methods ....................................................................................................................................19
3.2.6 Aquaplaning .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.6.1 Aquaplaning Test conditions ............................................................................................................................20
3.2.6.2 Aquaplaning Test Methods ..............................................................................................................................20
3.2.7 Wear study................................................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2.7.1 Tyres / drivers’ permutation..............................................................................................................................21
3.2.7.2 Test vehicles ....................................................................................................................................................21
3.2.7.3 Circuit definition ...............................................................................................................................................23
3.2.8 Additional tyre characteristics measurements........................................................................................................... 24
3.2.8.1 Weight ..............................................................................................................................................................24
3.2.8.2 Void ratio ..........................................................................................................................................................24
3.3 Schedule ............................................................................................................................................................................ 25
4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 26
4.1 Tests Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.1 Radar Charts ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.1.1 The 4 best tyres for Safety performances ........................................................................................................28
4.1.1.2 The 3 best tyres for Noise performances .........................................................................................................28
4.1.1.3 The 3 best tyres for CO2 Emissions performances ..........................................................................................29
4.1.1.4 Wear results .....................................................................................................................................................30
2/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.1.1.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................32

4.1.2 2D charts and Scatterplots ....................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Rolling Sound tests correlation ....................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.1 Representing Rolling Sound ..................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.2 2D charts and Scatterplots for Rolling Sounds ......................................................................................................... 35
4.3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.3.1 Definition ................................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.2 PCA results ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.2.1 1st axis ..............................................................................................................................................................37
4.3.2.2 2nd axis .............................................................................................................................................................38
4.3.2.3 3rd axis .............................................................................................................................................................39
5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Literature Study conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 39
5.2 Test Program conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 39
5.3 Statistical Analysis conclusions...................................................................................................................................... 40
5.4 Main conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
5.4.1 General conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 40
5.4.2 Suggestions .............................................................................................................................................................. 40
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41
3/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Literature Study......................................................................................................................................................45
Appendix B: Tool Box ...............................................................................................................................................................100
Appendix C: Statistics results ...................................................................................................................................................110
Appendix D: Test Reports ........................................................................................................................................................117
4/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4-1: All important information from the studies review ...................................................................................................10
Table 3.1-1: The 16 tested tyres used in this project ..................................................................................................................12
Table 4.1-1: Summary of all test results .....................................................................................................................................27
Table 4.1-2: Weight and groove evolution of tyres .....................................................................................................................30
Table 4.3-1: Correlation coefficients between variables and dimensions ...................................................................................37
Table A.3-1: Tests results for the handling in the wet ................................................................................................................49
Table A.3-2: Tests results for the dry and wet breaking .............................................................................................................50
Table A.3-3: Tests results for the rolling resistance ...................................................................................................................50
Table A.3-4: Test results for aquaplaning limits .........................................................................................................................50
Table A.3-5: Tests results for the handling in the dry .................................................................................................................51
Table A.3-6: Test results for the comfort and driving noise ........................................................................................................51
Table A.3-7: Tyres used for the test campaign Auto Express ....................................................................................................53
Table A.3-8: Label of each tyres used for the Auto Express tests ..............................................................................................53
Table A.3-9: Test results for wet braking ....................................................................................................................................57
Table A.3-10: Test results for the dry braking ............................................................................................................................57
Table A.3-11: Test results for the slalom ....................................................................................................................................57
Table A.3-12: Test results for the handling circuit ......................................................................................................................58
Table A.4-1: Average tyre label per tyre class and criterion, assuming A=1, B=2, C=3, etc. .....................................................59
Table A.4-2: End-user perspective: Annual fuel, cost and CO2 reduction in case of changing to A labelled tyres ....................60
Table A.4-3: Societal perspective: Annual fuel, cost and CO2 reduction in case of changing to A labelled tyres ......................61
Table A.4-4: Reduced number of fatalities, serious injuries, slight injuries and societal benefits respectively for C1, C2 and C3
tyres ...........................................................................................................................................................................................61
Table A.4-5: Subdivisions on the tyre classes C1, C2 and C3 ...................................................................................................62
Table A.4-6: Tyre classes database for the FEHRL study..........................................................................................................64
Table A.4-7: Overview of C1 tyre noise measurement results database ....................................................................................65
Table A.4-10: Overview of tyre noise results database obtained from various vehicle noise measurement projects .................65
Table A.6-1: Tested tyres in the 2015 winter season (all in new condition) ................................................................................88
Table A.6-2: Tested tyres in 2016 winter season. The last four (in italics) were tested in used condition, the other tyres in new
condition .....................................................................................................................................................................................88
Table A.6-3: Tested pavement surfaces and their average MPD values ...................................................................................88
Table B.1-1: Unit used in the chart of scatterplots ....................................................................................................................102
Table C.1-1: Data description used ..........................................................................................................................................111
Table C.2-1: Variables correlation ............................................................................................................................................115
5/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1-1: Pattern pictures of the 16 tested tyres used in this project ....................................................................................13
Figure 3.2-1: UTAC Bench test for Rolling Resistance test ........................................................................................................14
Figure 3.2-2: Vehicles used for Rolling Sound test ....................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.2-3: UTAC sound track for Rolling Sound test..............................................................................................................16
Figure 3.2-4: UTAC means for wet grip test ...............................................................................................................................17
Figure 3.2-5: Vehicle used for Dry Grip test ...............................................................................................................................18
Figure 3.2-6: UTAC dynamic area for Dry Grip test ...................................................................................................................18
Figure 3.2-7: Bench test for Flat Trac test ..................................................................................................................................19
Figure 3.2-8: Vehicle used for Aquaplaning test.........................................................................................................................20
Figure 3.2-9: Longitudinal Aquaplaning test method ..................................................................................................................20
Figure 3.2-10: Lateral Aquaplaning test method ........................................................................................................................20
Figure 3.2-11: Test sequence ....................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 3.2-12: Vehicles fleet.......................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 3.2-13: Depth gauge .......................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 3.2-14: Circuit definition ..................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 3.2-19: Void ratio calculation ...........................................................................................................................................25
Figure 3.3-1: Schedule of the tests program ..............................................................................................................................25
Figure 4.1-1: The 4 best tyres for Safety ....................................................................................................................................28
Figure 4.1-2: The 3 best tyres for Noise .....................................................................................................................................29
Figure 4.1-3: The 3 best tyres for CO2 emissions ......................................................................................................................29
Figure 4.1-4: Spider diagram with absolute measurement of groove depth evolution ................................................................31
Figure 4.1-5: Spider diagram with relative measurement of groove depth evolution ..................................................................31
Figure 4.1-6: Spider diagram with absolute measurement of weight evolution ..........................................................................32
Figure 4.1-7: Scatterplot .............................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 4.2-1: Radar chart of all Rolling Sound tests according to each tyre ...............................................................................34
Figure 4.2-2: 2D charts and Scatterplots for Rolling Sounds......................................................................................................35
Figure 4.3-1: Decomposition of the total inertia on the components of the PCA ........................................................................36
Figure 4.3-2: R117_80 vs Axis 1 “Safety”...................................................................................................................................37
Figure 4.3-3: R117_80 vs Axis 2 “Handling”...............................................................................................................................38
Figure 4.3-4: R117_80 vs Axis 3 “CO2” ......................................................................................................................................39
Figure A.3-1: Tyres used for the test campaign EVO103_LD ....................................................................................................47
Figure A.3-2: VW Golf GTI 230 Performance used for the test campaign ..................................................................................48
Figure A.3-3: Handling test of each tyre in the wet .....................................................................................................................49
Figure A.3-4: Dry breaking test ..................................................................................................................................................49
Figure A.3-5: Aquaplaning test ...................................................................................................................................................50
Figure A.3-6: Handling test in the dry .........................................................................................................................................51
Figure A.3-7: "Noise" route used for the test ..............................................................................................................................51
Figure A.3-8: VW Golf used for the test campaign .....................................................................................................................53
Figure A.3-9: Rail system used for the wet braking test .............................................................................................................54
Figure A.3-10: Tyres used for the test campaign Whichcar........................................................................................................56
Figure A.3-11: Mazda 6 Touring used for the test campaign......................................................................................................56
Figure A.4-1: Example of a tyre label according to EC1222/2009 ..............................................................................................59
Figure A.4-2: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and wet brake deceleration values for C1 and C2 tyres ............................66
Figure A.4-3: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and wet brake deceleration values for C3 tyres .........................................66
Figure A.4-4: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and rolling resistance coefficients for C1 and C2 tyres ..............................67
Figure A.4-5: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and rolling resistance coefficient for C3 tyres ............................................67
Figure A.4-6: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and aquaplaning speeds for C1 tyres ........................................................68
Figure A.4-7: Results from 2005 study and previous TRL study in 2001....................................................................................69
Figure A.5-1: Influence of the tread pattern ................................................................................................................................73
Figure A.5-2: Influence of the tread compound ..........................................................................................................................74
Figure A.5-3: Influence of the tread thickness ............................................................................................................................74
Figure A.5-4: Influence of the void volume lateral ......................................................................................................................74
Figure A.5-5: Longitudinal aquaplaning vs. Noise level ..............................................................................................................75
Figure A.5-6: Acceleration in curve vs. Noise level ....................................................................................................................75
Figure A.5-7: Wet braking vs. Noise level ..................................................................................................................................76
Figure A.5-8: Cornering power/Wear vs. Noise level .................................................................................................................76
Figure A.5-9: Cornering power/Wear vs. Noise level .................................................................................................................76
Figure A.5-10: Cost vs. Noise level ............................................................................................................................................77
Figure A.5-11: Contribution on tyre/road noise to total vehicle noise .........................................................................................78
Figure A.5-12: Mechanisms involved in the noise ......................................................................................................................79
Figure A.5-13: Decomposition of noise sources .........................................................................................................................79
Figure A.5-14: Tyre performances depending of the texture wavelength ...................................................................................79
Figure A.5-15: The drum and the Road replicas ........................................................................................................................80
Figure A.5-16: Pattern of the six tyres ........................................................................................................................................80
6/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure A.5-17: Noise level vs. Frequencies (smooth road in blue, coarse road in green) ..........................................................80
Figure A.5-18: Microphone placement .......................................................................................................................................81
Figure A.5-19: Handheld probe, fixed camera and sound intensity vectors ...............................................................................81
Figure A.5-20: Plots of the sound intensity results and sound pressure results .........................................................................82
Figure A.5-21: Resume of the mains phenomena ......................................................................................................................84
Figure A.5-22: Pattern of inflation pressure and load increase...................................................................................................84
Figure A.5-23: Tyres sizes and Categories vs. Noise level ........................................................................................................85
Figure A.5-24: Wet braking, Aquaplaning in curve vs. Noise level .............................................................................................85
Figure A.5-25: Cornering Power, Wear vs. Noise level ..............................................................................................................85
Figure A.5-26: Rolling resistance, Wear vs. Noise level .............................................................................................................86
Figure A.6-1: Noise levels measured at 50km/h (left part) and 80km/h (right part), on an ISO 10844:1994 test track, using the
coast-by method of ISO 13325:2003 ..........................................................................................................................................89
Figure A.6-2: CPX noise levels for all the tyres; average values measured on the SMA 8 and DAC 16 surfaces. The tyre
categories are distinguished by different colours. The order of the tyres within each category is essentially random (although
the 2016 measurements are always at the right end) ................................................................................................................90
Figure A.6-3: CPX noise levels: average for each tyre category. Average values measured on the SMA 8 and DAC 16
surfaces......................................................................................................................................................................................90
Figure A.6-4: CPX noise levels for the winter tyres without studs; distinguishing between the tyres optimized for central
European use (left ) and for north European use (right). Average values measured on the SMA 8 and DAC 16 surfaces. .......91
Figure A.6-5: Comparison of noise levels for tyres in new condition and similar tyres in used condition ...................................91
Figure A.6-6: Measured CPX noise levels versus the tyre noise label values ............................................................................92
Figure A.6-7: Rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) for the tested tyres at 80km/h, average for two road surfaces. The data
measured for some tyres at 50km/ are indicated in the same diagram as green points .............................................................92
Figure A.6-8: Rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) at 80km/h, average for the two tested road surfaces. The RRC values for
tyres within each category were averaged to give a value for each category.............................................................................93
Figure A.6-9: Comparison of RRC values for tyres in new condition and similar tyres in used condition ...................................93
Figure A.6-10: Measured rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) and tyre energy label values ......................................................94
Figure A.6-11: Rolling resistance coefficient of tyre 175/70 R14 with outer diameter at 2.1 bars as per the ISO 8767 standard
(with base 100 ............................................................................................................................................................................96
Figure A.6-12: Rolling resistance coefficient change with tyre diameter and surface types .......................................................96
Figure A.6-13: Variation of rolling resistance coefficient with inflation pressure of tyres on various surfaces ............................96
Figure A.6-14: Rolling resistance measures at 2.1bars as per the ISO 8767 standard ..............................................................97
Figure A.6-15: Dependence of rolling resistance on inflation pressure for the FR78-14 tyre tested at1280lbs load and 60mph97
Figure A.6-16: Rolling resistance measured at 80% of the tyre’s maximum load capacity as per the ISO 8767 standard .........97
Figure A.6-17: Dependence of rolling resistance on wheel load for FR78-14 tyre tested at 32psi pressure and 60mph speed .98
Figure A.6-18: Variation of RRC of radial and bias-ply car tyres with speed on smooth and flat surface under rated load and
inflation pressure ........................................................................................................................................................................98
Figure A.6-19: Stationary conditions at 80 km/h followed by a longer period of 50 km/h. Y-axis is RRC multiplied 1000times .98
Figure B.1-1: The p-value area in the set of possible results ...................................................................................................101
Figure B.1-2: Symmetric explanation .......................................................................................................................................101
Figure B.1-3: The chart of scatterplots .....................................................................................................................................102
Figure B.3-1: Variables factor map ...........................................................................................................................................108
Figure B.3-2: Decomposition of the total inertia on the components of the PCA ......................................................................108
Figure B.3-3: Individual factor map ..........................................................................................................................................109
Figure C.1-1: Noise distribution by method ..............................................................................................................................111
Figure C.1-2: Box-plot graphic of each variable .......................................................................................................................113
Figure C.1-3: Radar Charts of each tyre ..................................................................................................................................114
Figure C.2-1: Scatter plot between each two by two variable...................................................................................................116
Figure D.9-2: Groove identification ...........................................................................................................................................229
Figure D.9-3:: Groove depth evolution for front left hand side tyres .........................................................................................229
Figure D.9-4:: Groove depth evolution for front right hand side tyres .......................................................................................230
Figure D.9-5:: Groove depth evolution for rear left hand side tyres ..........................................................................................231
Figure D.9-6: Groove depth evolution for rear right hand side tyres .........................................................................................232
7/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
CONTEXT
It has long been believed that regulating the noise emission of vehicles, particularly their engines and exhaust
systems, was sufficient to reduce road noise. This is why the regulation on vehicle noise is old and has long been the only
regulatory tool in the more general field of road noise.
Since the first European directive on vehicle noise levels appeared in 1970, the authorized limits have been set according to
vehicle categories defined by power, maximum authorized mass, engine type (direct injection diesel or not) and vehicle use.
These limits have evolved significantly with the following regulatory texts, the division into categories having also been somewhat
modified.
For passenger cars, the limit of the permitted noise level has been reduced from 82 dB(A) to 74 dB(A). It has been more
pronounced for goods vehicles: the permitted limit has been reduced from 91 dB(A) to 80 dB(A) for vehicles with a maximum
mass greater than 3.5 t and an engine power of 150 kW or more.
One of the most comprehensive studies on the subject was conducted at the initiative of the International Institute of
Noise Control Engineering. The resulting report noted benefits related to noise regulation. For example, it has led to a uniformity
of noise levels by vehicle category, which has had a positive influence on the personal protection of residents. On the other
hand, in addition to the effective reduction in the sound level emitted by new vehicles, a change in the spectral characteristics
of the sound pressure emitted has appeared, with less marked bands, making the spectrum less annoying for local residents.
However, this study notes that the available information on the evolution of noise levels in cities tends to show that they have
remained almost constant since the introduction of the regulations. There are many reasons for this stagnation:
• The vehicle fleet did not only include products approved according to the latest regulations in force. Thus, old vehicles
whose authorized noise level limit is much higher than that of newer vehicles, constitute a dominant point source of
noise energy in a vehicle flow and therefore a nuisance.
• Road traffic has increased significantly and the number of noise sources has increased accordingly.
• The noise level emitted by a vehicle can be significantly modified by making unauthorized changes that make the
vehicle non-compliant with regulations. Often carried out on two wheels by the owner, this illegal manipulation can be
verified during a traffic check by comparing the noise level at standstill measured on the vehicle with that recorded on
the vehicle's registration document or manufacturer's plate as described in paragraph 3.1.3. The directive on the noise
level of two and three wheels now includes an "anti-handling" chapter that limits the possibilities of modifying vehicles.
The potential for reducing overall noise through the treatment of vehicles and tyres is already being addressed and controlled
through several regulatory actions and deadlines:
• The noise levels of four or more wheels are processed by their approval, in accordance with Regulation CE/540/2014
and UN Regulation No. 51.
• These texts require reductions in limits up to 6dB by 2026. In addition, it is mentioned that there is a desire to label
vehicles in a way that is equivalent to that of tyres.
• The noise levels of tyres are dealt by their approval imposed by GSR Regulations CE/661/2009 and UN Regulation
n°117. In addition, mandatory tyre labelling is defined by EU Regulation CE/1222/2009. It is mandatory to display the
regulatory performances of tyres in terms of Rolling Resistance, Wet Grip and Noise level. For this one, the noise level
of the tyre is indicated as well as its performance in relation to the regulatory limit: one wave if it is more than 3 dB
below the 2016 limits, two waves if it respects the 2016 limits and three waves if it only respects the current regulations.
In this context, ACEA selected UTAC CERAM to conduct a study to assess the influence of tyre performances (Rolling
Resistance, Wet Grip, Noise level, …) on each other, in order to understand the improvement potential of noise emissions.
8/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 Introduction
The literature study will specially focus on methods, results and processes of statistical analysis applied. It will also
analyse the scope of the assessment, the volume and the range of tested materials and type of test methods applied. It will
mainly be based on literature in English language.
2.2 Reason for why the literature study was conducted

The noise level produced by tyre on the road is more and more a major preoccupation for the tyre & vehicles
manufacturers. Manage to subjugate the noise levels and purpose high performance in the safety area is an increasing request
of the modern society. Thus, the question is:
Is it possible to optimize Rolling Sound performance without compromising other parameters essential for vehicle safety and
CO2 emission reduction ?
Three parameters essential are considered:
1. Rolling Sound (coast-by) which is an aspect of Health Protection.
2. Rolling Resistance which is an aspect of Environmental Protection (by CO2 emission reduction).
3. Wet Grip which is an aspect of Safety (braking distance, handling).
The modification of one of these parameters can affect other performance parameters like:
• Longitudinal and Lateral Aquaplaning
• Rolling Sound during Cruise
• Dry Grip
• Dry Handling
• Wet Performance
• Wear Life
2.3 References which have been analysed

The studies were classified into the following categories:
• Journalistic Studies
o EVO103_LD (2015)
o Auto Express Studies (2018)
o Whichcar Wheels (2017)
• European Research Organization Studies
o GRB-61-03 Study based on TNO 2014 R10735 report (12 June 2014)
o FEHRL – Study SI2,408210 Tyre/Road Noise (2007)
• Internal Manufacturer Studies
o Noise Technology Basics (Continental - 2011)
o Noise Tradeoffs (Michelin - 2007)
o Tire-Road Noise (GoodYear - 2018)
o Noise (Michelin – 2015)
• Technical University Studies
o Inter.noise_HAMBURG (2016)
o Tyre modelling for rolling resistance (MASTER’S THESIS IN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING)
(2014)
A comprehensive review of the literature relevant to this study was completed during the period covered by this project. The
literature review is provided in full in Appendix A.
9/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813
REPORT
2.4 Main conclusions from the review of published literature

All important information regarding measured parameters and test method used are summarize in this following table:
Longitudinal Aquaplaning Snow Rolling RS during

Study Wet-Grip Dry-Grip Handling Rolling Sound Wear
aquaplaning in curve Performance Resistance acceleration
- EU Regulation - EU Regulation
TNO R10735 EU Regulation EU Regulation EC1222/2009 EC1222/2009
No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information
report (2014) EC1222/2009 EC1222/2009
- VENOLIVA - VENOLIVA
- ECE R117 - ECE R117

FEHRL – - ISO 867:1992 or
Study - 80 to 10km/h ; - Water depth 8mm No Information No Information No Information No Information 9948:1992 ECE R117 No Information No Information
water depth ; slip of 15% was
(2007) - ISO 18164:2005
1,5mm reach
Continental
No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information ECE R117 No Information No Information
(2011)
- 80 to 10 km/h - Water depth 7mm

Michelin - Water depth 8mm
- On macro - Acceleration 55 to No Information No Information No Information No Information ISO 10844 No Information No Information
(2007 & 2015) - 82 to 66km/h
rough surface 85km/h
- ISO 10844 at
GoodYear 50km/h
No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information
(2018)
- ISO 3745
Inter-noise CPX method

HAMBURG No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information Trailer method nowadays specified No Information No Information
(2016) ISO/FDIS 11 819-2
Tyre modelling
No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information No Information
for RR (2014)
EVO103_LD
(2015)
Auto Express
Studies (2018)
Whichcar
Wheels (2017)
Table 2.4-1: All important information from the studies review
10/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
We note that no studies fill all the columns.
The main points that can be retained after this review are:
• Three Tyre Manufacturers studies show antagonistic relationship between Noise and Safety (Aquaplaning, Wet
Grip and Handling).
• Two Tyre Manufacturers studies show relationship between Noise and Rolling Resistance.
• Test procedures or testing methods vary from one study to another.
• General agreement on the major role of road surface on the noise emission.
• Due to the purpose of the journalistic studies and the lack of technical information it is difficult to make a statement
about the results:
▪ The main goal of the journalistic studies is to rank a sample of tyres.
▪ Test methods are not described precisely.
▪ In some studies, repeatability criteria & test conditions are questionable.
▪ Test data are not often provided.
11/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
TEST PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of the test standards at EU and Member State level for the tyre
performance parameters mentioned in the existing legislation regarding tyre labelling. This description is preceded by
the references of the tyres used to conduct this study.
3.1 Sample
This study has tested 16 different tyre references including 4 tyres from Tyre Suppliers and 12 from After Market.
The tyres dimensions are 205 55 R16 with a load index of 91 for all and speed index of H, T, V or W. These tyres are the most
common size on European market.
Among the 16 tyres, there are 2 snow tyres (3PMSF).
Table 3.1-1: The 16 tested tyres used in this project
Note: Tyre P is the reference tyre for Dry Grip and Longitudinal Aquaplaning.
Tyre J and M are the reference for snow tyres.
On the next page, pictures of the patterns of the 16 different tyres used for the tests.
12/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure 3.1-1: Pattern pictures of the 16 tested tyres used in this project
13/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2 Test content

Below a description of the test standards at EU and Member State level for the tyre performance parameters.
3.2.1 Rolling Resistance

Bench test / MTS 860 – Rolling Resistance
RR Coefficient
Figure 3.2-1: UTAC Bench test for Rolling Resistance test
3.2.1.1 Rolling Resistance Test conditions

− Test Speed (kph): 80
− Load (kg): 482
− Tyre initial reference pressure (kPa): 210
− Room temperature (°C): 24<T°C<25
3.2.1.2 Rolling Resistance Test Methods

− UN-R117 procedure
The resistance to forward motion of a tyre rolling on the road is expressed as a ratio between straight-line motion drag force and
vertical load, i.e. Fx / Fz, in N / kN, the result is express as Rolling Resistance Coefficient (RRC or RR).
We measure the Rolling resistance level of the tyre through the Torque Method on a roller bench:
The test measurements convert a force acting at the tyre/drum interface, the Torque input is measured at the test drum.
The tyre is launch at 80 kph with a load equal to 80% of the tyre Load-index during a certain time duration, after stabilization the
measurements of the Torque and Force are proceed in order to provide the Rolling Resistance Coefficient.
14/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.2 Rolling Sound

Vehicle test / NISSAN LEAF
Figure 3.2-2: Vehicles used for Rolling Sound test
3.2.2.1 Rolling Sound Test conditions

The measurements shall be made when the ambient air temperature is within the range from 5°C to 40°C and the test surface
temperature is within the range from 5°C to 50°C.
The tests shall not be carried out if the wind speed exceeds 5m/s.
Test conditions following regulation UN-R117:
− Tyre load (kg):
• Front left: 526.5
• Front right: 498
• Rear left: 383
• Rear right: 397.5
− Tyre inflation (kPa):
• Front left: 210
• Rear left: 150
• Rear right: 150
Test conditions following regulation UN-R51:
− Tyre load (kg):
• Front left: 486.5
• Front right: 439.5
• Rear left: 343.5
• Rear right: 343.5
− Tyre inflation (kPa):
• Front left: 250
• Rear left: 250
• Rear right: 250
15/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.2.2 Rolling Sound Test Methods

Tests are based on UN-R117 and UN-R51. Those tests are both pass-by noise tests. Pass-by noise (PBN) testing includes
acceleration tests, constant speed tests vehicle on a dedicated test track. Two microphones on each side of the test track are
used for measuring sound pressure level.
4 runs at 50 kph and 8 runs between 70 and 90 kph.
Cruise at 50 kph: 4 runs.
Acceleration at 50 kph: 4 runs.
Cruise at 80 kph: 4 runs.
Figure 3.2-3: UTAC sound track for Rolling Sound test
16/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.3 Wet Grip

Trailer method test on wet surface / Dufournier Technologies RME 04
Wet Grip index
Figure 3.2-4: UTAC means for wet grip test
3.2.3.1 Wet Grip Test conditions

− Test Speed (kph): 65
− Water depth (mm): 0,9
− Track texture depth (mm): 1
− Track Length (m): 200
− Load (kg): 461
− Ambient Temperature (°C): T°C<20
3.2.3.2 Wet Grip Test Methods

In accordance to the Regulation, tyres have to meet several criteria. It includes the Wet-grip index (WGI or WG) who is the ratio
between the performance of the candidate tyre and the performance of the standard reference test tyre (SRTT).
The Wet Grip index is the relative braking performance on a wet surface of a skid trailer equipped with the candidate & reference
tyre. This skid trailer is launch at 65kph on the wet track, then based on 6 valid braking the Wet Grip Index is calculated.
17/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.4 Dry Grip

Vehicle test / PEUGEOT 308
Braking performance on dry surface
Figure 3.2-5: Vehicle used for Dry Grip test
3.2.4.1 Dry Grip Test conditions

− Test speed (km/h): 100
− Vehicle weight (kg):
• Unladen: 863 Front and 573 Rear
• Laden: 943 Front and 926,5 Rear
− Tyre pressure (kPa):
• Laden: 260 Front and 340 Rear
− Average Track Temperature (°C): 20,8
− Average Air Temperature (°C): 13,1
3.2.4.2 Dry Grip Test Methods

− UN-R13H procedure Type 0
Braking test with average deceleration measurement between 80km/h and 10 km/h.
Figure 3.2-6: UTAC dynamic area for Dry Grip test
18/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.5 Dry handling (Flat Trac)

Bench test / MTS Flat Trac III CT
Cornering stiffness
Figure 3.2-7: Bench test for Flat Trac test
3.2.5.1 Flat Trac Test conditions

− Test speed (km/h): 80
− Test duration (min): 20
− Tyre pressure (kPa): 210
− Rim width and material (inch): 6,5 – Steel
− Room temperature (°C): 24<T°C<25
3.2.5.2 Flat Trac Test Methods

− Procedure proposed by ETRTO
Simplified flat trac procedure for the measurement of the tyre cornering stiffness as a handling relevant performance.
Part 1: Warm up Sequence
1. 10 min @vertical load [FZ] of 70% LI, 80 km/h straight rolling
2. 1 min @ slip angle [SA] of ±3° (±2°/sec constant gradient)
3. 10 min @ 70% LI, 80 km/h straight rolling
Part 2: Measurement of Cornering Stiffness
1. Sequence of vertical loads: 140%, 110%, 80%, 50%, 20% of LI
2. Slip angle: ±1° @ (±1°/sec constant gradient)
3. Each vertical load is measured for 2 complete periods of slip angle variation Data Acquisition: > 50 Hz
Evaluation:
Cornering stiffness as a function of the vertical load, by linear regression of the data (slip angle) < 0.5 deg.
19/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.6 Aquaplaning
Vehicle test / PEUGEOT 308
Aquaplaning speed and acceleration under aquaplaning condition
Figure 3.2-8: Vehicle used for Aquaplaning test
3.2.6.1 Aquaplaning Test conditions

− Vehicle weight (kg):
− Tyre pressure (kPa):
− Average Wind (m/s): 2,1
− Average Air Temperature (°C): 16,4
3.2.6.2 Aquaplaning Test Methods
− VDA E08 Longitudinal Aquaplaning
The driver goes through the aquaplaning area with continuous speed, and accelerates with full throttle in the bath. Then, sensors
detect tyres' slip, by comparing car's speed and front wheels' speed. Aquaplaning is detected when slip reaches 15% in the first
front wheel. Three repetitions were done for each tyre set and traction control was turned off to measure accurately tyres
performance regarding the « E08-VDA_Testprocedure_Hydroplaning_longitudinal-03_2013 » document.
Figure 3.2-9: Longitudinal Aquaplaning test method

− VDA E05 Lateral Aquaplaning
The driver goes through the aquaplaning area at constant speeds from 50 km/h to 100 km/h, with steps of 5 km/h and sensors
permit to measure lateral acceleration at each run. To measure accurately tyres performance, ESC was turned off for this test,
done regarding the « E05 - VDA Test procedure Hydroplaning lateral - May 2011 » document. The result for each tyre is the
integral calculation of lateral acceleration between 50km/h and Speed 40%LatAccelMAX relative to entrance speeds.
Figure 3.2-10: Lateral Aquaplaning test method
20/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
3.2.7 Wear study
It appears that the tyre lifespan depends on numerous features:

• Asphalt type
• Car (weight, wheel alignment, power, transmission)
• Driving style (longitudinal and lateral acceleration)
• Driving circuit (% city, road, highway)
• Weather
This number of external parameters makes each tyre wear very specific and this is the reason why it is not possible to have an
absolute study of this phenomenon.
This part of study was focused on six tyre references among the 16 ones described in table 3.1-1 and figure 3.1-1. The tyres
selection was discussed and approved by ACEA on April 19th, 2021, leading to keep references B, C, I, L, O and P.
3.2.7.1 Tyres / drivers’ permutation
The principle consisted in having a wear comparison between all the tested tyres. In order to ensure a similar use of every set,
we applied the following procedure:
• All the sets were to be driven simultaneously in a convoy of 6 identical cars. This ensures that every tyre set is used
under the same weather and road conditions (such as traffic, or temporary gravel on the road…). The 6 vehicles were
running in 2 convoys of 3 vehicles 10 minutes apart.
• At the beginning of each shift, the tyres were switched between all cars, according to the sequence described by
figure 1, from left-hand side to right-hand side. Such a way, each tyre set was used along the same distance with
each car, leading to have the same influence of car and the same influence of tyres tread wear.
• During each shift and within each convoy, the drivers switched 3 times between cars to ensure the same driver
influence on each tire set.
Figure 3.2-11: Test sequence
The following organization was applied:

• One shift per day
• Five days a week
• Two convoys of 3 identical cars
According to figure 3.2-11, measurements of groove depth and weight of wheels were realized initially and at each end of
running cycle every 3,000 km (6 shifts). The wheels weight permitted us to evaluate the current weight of the tyres.
3.2.7.2 Test vehicles
The vehicles fleet dedicated to the test campaign was composed of a total of six Peugeot 308 (figure 3.2-12) presenting the
same configuration (degree of finishing Allure”, tyre size 205/55 R16 91V). The car selection was validated by ACEA on April
22nd, 2021.
21/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure 3.2-12: Vehicles fleet
The vehicles alignment measurements were realized first, just after their receipt, using the standard specifications of the car
manufacturer. Any possible adjustment was done. Additional checks were carried out in the middle and at the end of the test.
The tyres were inflated at 2.4 bars for the front wheels and 2.3 bars for the rear wheels, according to the car manufacturer
information.
The measurements were performed two ways:

• Weight measurement of the wheels
• Depth of tyres grooves (figures 3.2-13 and 3.2-14), measured on four angular positions (figure 4b), leading to 24
measurement points per tyre
Figure 3.2-13: Depth gauge
22/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure 3.2-14: Depth gauge
3.2.7.3 Circuit definition
Each vehicle completed 15,000 km on an established circuit UTAC of 500 km per shift. The circuit definition aimed at reaching
the following features (technical proposal FIA-20-099).
The circuit where the cars were driven was defined as illustrated by figure 3.2-15.
23/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure 3.2-15: Circuit definition
The average speed was evaluated at 74km/h (whole stop periods included) compared to the target value 71%. The two values
were very closed to each other.
The speed profile was evaluated at different moments, confirming that it was very close to the target values as well.
It can be noticed that tyre I had a puncture repair at km 6,000 with a plug insertion (puncture detected during planned
controls).
3.2.8 Additional tyre characteristics measurements
3.2.8.1 Weight
Each tyre reference has been weighted on a calibrated scale.
3.2.8.2 Void ratio

To measure the void ratio, we need to identify the proportion of void for each tyre. We select the photos of tyres and we worked
on image processing. Each tyre picture is studied with GIMP software to distinguish the percentage of void. The binary method
is used by GIMP to approximate this value. Then a list of void ratios is made by type of tyre to see if a potential trend is noted
or not.
To ensure the software method we manually measured the depth grooves of tyres on the same surface scale. We put the results
into a chart to conclude about the impact of the ratios.
24/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Binary
configuration
Void ratio: 39,7%
Figure 3.2-16: Void ratio calculation
3.3 Schedule
The first step of tests were carried out according to the following schedule:
ACEA January Febuary March April May
Study W1902 W1903 W1904 W1905 W1906 W1907 W1908 W1909 W1910 W1911 W1912 W1913 W1914 W1915 W1916 W1917 W1918 W1919 W1920 W1921 W1922
Schedule MEETING MEETING MEETING
Tire
conditionning
Rolling Resistance & Wet Grip tests
SET #1 Reception
Rolling Sound cruising & torque influence tests
Longitudinal & Lateral Aquaplanning

Tire
conditionning
SET #2
Dry Handling (flat trac)
Dry Grip
Figure 3.3-1: Schedule of the tests program
Two sets of tyres were used to avoid influence on each test.

At the end of this period, a statistical analysis was conducted on all test results.
The last part dedicated to the wear study was performed from June 14 th 2021 to July 27th 2021.
25/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The goal of this study is to analyse the influence of the noise reduction of the tires regarding their essential
characteristics. The statistical analysis is composed of three main stages:
• First visualizing for each tire all tests measurements by means of spider diagrams,
• Secondly studying two by two correlations with scatter plots,
• Thirdly visualizing rolling noise versus all of the other 8 characteristics (Rolling Resistance, Wet Grip, Flat
Trac 80%, Flat Trac 50%, Dry Grip Unladen, Dry Grip Laden, Longitudinal Aquaplaning and Lateral
Aquaplaning).
For the third stage as it is in high dimension, we use a dimension reduction (factorial) method which is called “Principal
Component Analysis” (see Appendix B: Tool Box) to select directions of maximum variability and summarize data
minimizing the information loss.
We will keep the first three principal components, and thus interpret the representations of rolling noise versus each
of these three components.
4.1 Tests Results

The tests program described above generated a set of results. All the results according to the test performed are summarized
in this table:
26/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Table 4.1-1: Summary of all test results
Note: Tyre P is the reference tyre for Dry Grip and Longitudinal Aquaplaning.
Tyre J and M are the references for snow tyres.
All test reports are attached to this document in Appendix C.
27/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.1.1 Radar Charts

“A radar chart is a graphical method of displaying multivariate data in the form of a two-dimensional chart of three or more
quantitative variables represented on axes starting from the same point.” (Wikipedia, Radar chart, 2019)
In order to visualize all results for each tyre, we gave a score of 0 to 10 so that each result is comparable with each other (0 for
the lowest results and 10 for the best results). The radar chart provide a first vision of tyre performances.
All the results are in the Appendix C. In the next section, we focus only on the best and worst tyres for the three factors: Safety,
Noise and CO2 Emission.
4.1.1.1 The 4 best tyres for Safety performances

Among the 16 different tyre references, we focused on the tyres with the highest Safety scores.
The graduation of the Figure 4.1-1 is the following:
• 0: defined by the worst tyre of the sample.
• 10: defined by the best tyre of the sample.
Figure 4.1-1: The 4 best tyres for Safety
We can notice that these 4 tyres are good on the Safety performances but they are also quite noisy.
4.1.1.2 The 3 best tyres for Noise performances

Among the 16 different tyre references, we focused on the quietest tyres.
28/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure 4.1-2: The 3 best tyres for Noise
We can notice that these 3 tyres are good on Rolling Sound but they have poor aquaplaning scores.
4.1.1.3 The 3 best tyres for CO2 Emissions performances

Among the 16 different tyre references, we focused on the tyres with the highest Rolling Resistance scores.
Figure 4.1-3: The 3 best tyres for CO2 emissions
We can notice that these 3 tyres are good on Rolling Resistance but they have poor handling and aquaplaning scores.
29/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.1.1.4 Wear results
The results hereafter are presented in terms of weight evolution, such as groove depth evolution, for the six tyres selected for
the wear study.
Table 4.1-2 gives the values as mean values for each axle, with absolute and relative values of weight loss and groove depth
loss, at the final state at 15,000 kms. For a given axle composed of tyres A and B, at any time, the current mean value of tyre
weight is an average calculated this way:
Mean_Weight_Axle = (Weight_A+Weight_B)/2
Between time t1 and time t2, the weight loss associated to a given axle is calculated this way:
Mean_Weight_Axle (t2) – Mean_Weight_Axle (t1).
Table 4.1-2: Weight and groove evolution of tyres
These values are used to give the following charts, diagrams and tables.
Considering the mean values for the 4 wheels of a given tyre set, we got the following diagram related to the absolute
measurement of the groove depth evolution (figure 4.1-4).
The next diagram (figure 4.1-5) takes into account the relative measurement value. The relative value is calculated as the ratio
between the current groove depth and its initial value for the considered tyre and groove. Beyond the raw measurement of wear,
the relative value has the interest of highlighting the global lifespan of a tyre, i.e. its ability to withstand a larger distance before
reaching the legal limit of depth.
30/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure 4.1-4: Spider diagram with absolute measurement of groove depth evolution
Figure 4.1-5: Spider diagram with relative measurement of groove depth evolution
31/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
For the wear test, the result of Tyre B (green) is representing 0 (worst result) and the result for Tyre O (brown) is representing
10 (best result).
It is difficult to draw conclusions after our tests on interactions between the three features represented by wear, noise and grip
ability. The tendency is quite clear for 4 of 6 tyres references (B, C, O and P), with a combined evolution between the three
features i.e.:
• a better grip tends to be synchronous with a higher noise generation combined to a more significant wear for tyres B,
C and P
• the opposite tendency for tyre O.
At last, the two references B and C present low performance on numerous features, leading to a more complex analysis.
With the relative measurement value of groove depth, the obtained rank does not change between the tyres, compared to the
rank obtained from the absolute measurement of the groove depth evolution.
The same principle is used to give the following diagram, based on mean values for the 4 wheels of a given tyre set for the
measurement of weight evolution (figure 4.1-6).
Figure 4.1-6: Spider diagram with absolute measurement of weight evolution
Tyre I position appeared more dependent on this feature. The relative position of the other tyres did not change.
4.1.1.5 Conclusion
We can see that the radar charts make it possible to visualize for a given performance a potential trend on the other
characteristics. However, it is not easy to produce a correlation law.
This is why we have to go further in the analysis with other statistical tools.
32/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.1.2 2D charts and Scatterplots

Before starting, all the methods used during this study are described in the § B.1The first approach: Bivariate Analysis.
All the red boxes enlighten significant correlation between two characteristics considered p-value (probability value) <0.05.
Figure 4.1-7: Scatterplot
Wear results could not be integrated in the results above due to the limited range of tyres which were considered to the wear
study.
33/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.2 Rolling Sound tests correlation

There are five ways to measure rolling sound following:
1. UN-R117 at 50km/h
2. UN-R117 at 80km/h
3. UN-R51A at 50km/h
4. UN-R51C at 50km/h
5. UN-R51C at 80km/h
The objective is to determine a correlation between these 5 ways of measuring.
4.2.1 Representing Rolling Sound

We have plotted the radar chart of all rolling sound tests according to each tyre.
The tyres behave differently depending on the sensitivity of each tyre to the test procedures used (R117, R51C and R51A).
Figure 4.2-1: Radar chart of all Rolling Sound tests according to each tyre
At first glance on the radar chart, the majority of tests follow the same trend for all tyres. In general, the shape of each “circle”
shows a quite good correlation, better for R117 80 vs R51C 80, R51A 50 vs R51C 50, then for R117 50 vs R51C 50.
To confirm this trend, we carry out a correlation check.
34/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.2.2 2D charts and Scatterplots for Rolling Sounds

As described in Appendix B.1, we used the Pearson correlation coefficient to look for a linear correlation. A comparison between
each Rolling Sound test was performed with p-value < 1%.
As the p-value is less than 1% we have a top level of probability of correlation.
In the following chart of scatterplots, the red boxes show a strong probability of correlation. Obviously we see for each red boxes
that a straight line can be drawn for each scatterplot group (Blue points):
Figure 4.2-2: 2D charts and Scatterplots for Rolling Sounds
These correlations confirm that we can only keep one representative characteristic among the five.
So, we have the opportunity to report on the Rolling sound performance only through one noise characteristic which is the UN-
R117 at 80km/h.
The UN-R117 at 80 km / h also used for the approval of tyres with regard to rolling noise emissions is retained as the
representative parameter/characteristic of the Rolling sound.
35/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

As we have quantitative data, we chose to perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). It's a factor analysis method
that allows multivariate analyses between quantitative variables. This method can be considered a descriptive method
because it summarizes the information but does not explain it.
As reminder, all the methods used during this study are described in the § B.1The second approach: Principal Component
Analysis.
4.3.1 Definition
“Principal component analysis (PCA) is a statistical procedure that uses an orthogonal transformation to convert a set of
observations of possibly correlated variables (entities each of which takes on various numerical values) into a set of values of
linearly uncorrelated variables called principal components”. (Wikipedia, Principal component analysis, 2019)
In our case it is used to reduce the number of 8 studied characteristics (Rolling Resistance, Wet Grip, Flat Track 80%, Flat
Track 50%, Dry Grip unladen, Dry Grip laden, Longitudinal & Lateral Aquaplaning) to 3 variables.
4.3.2 PCA results

The inertia of the first dimensions shows if there are strong relationships between variables and suggests the number of
dimensions that should be studied.
The first two components of PCA express 68% of the total dataset inertia ; that means that 68% of the total cloud variability is
explained by the plane. This percentage is relatively high and thus the first plane well represents the data variability.
aleurs propres Variance expliquée
1.0
➢ The first 3 axis represent 88 % cumulative inertia
0.8
➢ The first 2 axis 68 %
Proportion
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
6 8 2 4 6 8
mponent Principal Component
Cumulé
Accumulated
Proportion
Proportion
Figure 4.3-1: Decomposition of the total inertia on the components of the PCA
36/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
An estimation of the right number of axis to interpret suggests restricting the analysis to the description of the first 3 axis (detailed
after), which represent 88% of cumulative inertia.
As a consequence, the description will stand to these axes.
The description of the three components (according to the 8 characteristics) selected is:
• Axis 1 is mainly directed by Wet Grip, Dry Grip, Lateral aquaplaning
➢ This axis should be understood as the most representative for Safety.
• Axis 2 is mainly directed by Flat Trac
➢ This axis should be understood as the most representative for Handling.
• Axis 3 is mainly directed by Rolling Resistance and Longitudinal Aquaplaning
➢ This axis should be understood as the most representative for CO2 Emissions because Rolling Resistance
factor is the most important.
Table 4.3-1: Correlation coefficients between variables and dimensions
All these three components are then compared with the Rolling Sound performance (from R117 at 80km/h).
4.3.2.1 1st axis

As a reminder, axis 1 is mainly directed by “safety” tests show through this “3D representation”.
Noisier
Quieter
Less safe Safer
Figure 4.3-2: R117_80 vs Axis 1 “Safety”
37/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
On top right direction, tyres are noisier and better in these axis characteristics (like tires E).
On bottom right direction, tyres are quieter and better in these axis characteristics.
Most of tyres are either good in safety tests but noisier or low noise but less good in safety tests (like tyre O).
In this sample, variability is mainly in this opposition, except two tyres: P & I;
➢ The statistical approach concerning our sample of 16 tyres shows a conflict between Rolling Sound and Safety
performances.
➢ Among the 6 references tested for wear, 2 of them were well represented on axis 1 (safety axis), tyres O and P, P
which is the safest and O the 2nd less safe among the 16 references, P presents less good performances on wear
and O the best performances
4.3.2.2 2nd axis

As a reminder, axis 2 is mainly directed by “handling” test.
Noisier
Quieter
Worse Better
Handling Handling
Figure 4.3-3: R117_80 vs Axis 2 “Handling”
On top left direction, tyres are noisier and weak in flat trac (like tyres M & C).
On bottom right direction, tyres are quieter and better in flat trac (like tyres G & I).
This seems consistent because more the tyre deforms, the louder the noise.
➢ Noise and Handling performances improve together along Axis 2 (Except for E which does not follow the
trend)
➢ Tyres B, C and I are quite well represented on axis 2 (handling axis), B and C are worse on handling and on wear
performances too, tyre I is quite better on handling and has 2nd rank performances for wear.
38/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
4.3.2.3 3rd axis

As a reminder, axis 3 is mainly directed by rolling resistance and aquaplaning test.
Noisier
Quieter
Worse Better
Longitudinal Aquaplaning Longitudinal Aquaplaning
Better Worse
Rolling Resistance Rolling Resistance
Figure 4.3-4: R117_80 vs Axis 3 “CO2”
Careful in this axis, performance in rolling resistance decrease while increase in longitudinal aquaplaning.
On left direction, tyres are higher rolling resistance and weak in aquaplaning and conversely to the right direction.
➢ Simple conclusion cannot be drawn on Axis 3
CONCLUSION
5.1 Literature Study conclusions

• 3 Tyre Manufacturers studies show antagonistic relationship between Noise and Safety performances
(Aquaplaning, Wet Grip and Handling).
• 2 Tyre Manufacturers studies show relationship between Noise and Rolling Resistance.
• Test procedures or testing methods are disparate from one study to another.
• General agreement on the major role of road surface on the noise emission.
• Due to the purpose of the journalistic studies and the lack of technical information it is difficult to make a statement
about the results:
• The main goal of the journalistic studies is to rank a sample of tyres.
• Test methods are not described precisely.
• In some studies, repeatability criteria & test conditions are questionable.
• Test data are not often provided.
5.2 Test Program conclusions

• This new study offers a comprehensive toolbox to evaluate the relationship between Rolling Sound and the main
other tyre performances using standard measurement protocols.
• Correlation analysis shows that the 5 acoustic characteristics regarding UN-R51.03 (Vehicle measurement) and UN-
R117 (Tyre measurement) at different speeds are correlated and can be grouped into only one.
39/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
5.3 Statistical Analysis conclusions

• We have described the relationship between 8 characteristics through 3 axes with a good level of representativeness
(part of inertia is 88%).
• The radar charts and the Principal Components Analysis show a conflict between rolling sound (R117) and Safety
performances (Wet Grip, Dry Grip, Lateral Aquaplaning).
• Simple conclusions regarding Rolling Sound, Rolling Resistance and Safety performance (Longitudinal Aquaplaning)
cannot be drawn.
• It is difficult to draw conclusions after our tests on interactions between the three features represented by wear, noise
and grip ability. The tendency is quite clear for 4 of 6 tyres references, with a combined evolution between the three
features, i.e. a better grip synchronous with a higher noise generation combined to a more significant wear. At last, two
references present low performance on numerous features, leading to a more complex analysis. The study was
performed on an amount of 15,000 kms, giving a first tendency. But regarding the legal limit of depth (1.6mm) and the
current wear level, the study should be carried on beyond this mileage. At last, the study shall be extended to a larger
selection of tyres, in order to strengthen the results of the PCA.
5.4 Main conclusion

5.4.1 General conclusion
• Obtaining a low level of Rolling Sound performance without a compromise regarding other parameters essential
for vehicle safety and CO2 emission reduction could not be proven as feasible by this Study.
• Compared to the legal limit of depth (1.6mm), the wear study should be carried on beyond the 15,000 kms.
• ACEA Tyre Performance Study is the first study that analyses the interdependence of the all parameters of the tyre
with accurate, reliable and repeatable measurement methods.
• ACEA Tyre Performance Study conclusions are consistent with the outcomes of the Literature Study regarding Rolling
Sound and Vehicle Safety.
• The ACEA Tyre Performance Study has not observed or deduced any correlation between Rolling Sound and Rolling
Resistance as claimed by the FEHRL Study.
Remark: WLTP has caused a shift in tyre technology in recent years, in order to provide improved Rolling Resistance. The tyres
in the study may have been designed before this shift.
5.4.2 Suggestions
• The conclusions of this study need to be validated as well for other tyre types. Therefore we suggest to expand the
test program to:
• Class C1 tyres with bigger outer diameter, tyre width, and lower rolling resistance.
• Class C1 tyres (winter and reinforced tyres).
• Class C2 tyres and Class C3 tyres with bigger outer diameter and tyre width.
40/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Literature Study .......................................................................................................................................... 45

A.1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
A.2 Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46
A.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 46
A.2.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................. 46
A.2.3 References which have been analyzed .................................................................................................................... 46
A.3 Journalistic Studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 47
A.3.1 EVO103_LD (2015) .................................................................................................................................................. 47
A.3.1.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................47
A.3.1.2 Content ............................................................................................................................................................47
A.3.1.3 Tests means ....................................................................................................................................................48
A.3.1.4 Tests performed ...............................................................................................................................................48
A.3.1.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................52
A.3.2 Auto Express Studies (2018) .................................................................................................................................... 53
A.3.2.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................53
A.3.2.2 Content ............................................................................................................................................................53
A.3.2.3 Tests means ....................................................................................................................................................53
A.3.2.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................55
A.3.3 Whichcar Wheels (2017) .......................................................................................................................................... 56
A.3.3.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................56
A.3.3.2 Content ............................................................................................................................................................56
A.3.3.3 Tests means ....................................................................................................................................................56
A.3.3.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................58
A.4 European Research Organization Studies ...................................................................................................................... 59
A.4.1 GRB-61-03 Study based on TNO 2014 R10735 report (12 June 2014) ................................................................... 59
A.4.1.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................59
A.4.1.2 Content ............................................................................................................................................................59
A.4.1.3 Tests means ....................................................................................................................................................59
A.4.1.4 Energy savings potential ..................................................................................................................................60
A.4.1.5 Safety improvement potential ...........................................................................................................................61
A.4.1.6 Noise reduction potential..................................................................................................................................62
A.4.1.7 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................63
A.4.2 FEHRL – Study SI2,408210 Tyre/Road Noise (2007) .............................................................................................. 64
A.4.2.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................64
A.4.2.2 Content ............................................................................................................................................................64
A.4.2.3 Tests means ....................................................................................................................................................64
A.4.2.5 Relevance of the ISO test surface ...................................................................................................................69
A.4.2.6 Calculating the effects of the proposed reductions in the tyre noise limits .......................................................70
A.4.2.7 Amendments to the tyre noise Directive other than limit values .......................................................................70
41/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.8 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................72

A.5 Internal Manufacturer Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 73
A.5.1 Noise Technology Basics(Continental – 2011) ......................................................................................................... 73
A.5.1.1 Contents...........................................................................................................................................................73
A.5.1.3 Methods for simulating tyre noise ....................................................................................................................73
A.5.1.4 Tire Design Trade-Offs.....................................................................................................................................73
A.5.1.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................74
A.5.2 Noise Trade-offs - Michelin (October 2007) .............................................................................................................. 75
A.5.2.1 Contents...........................................................................................................................................................75
A.5.2.3 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................77
A.5.3 Tire-Road Noise - GoodYear (27 November 2018) .................................................................................................. 78
A.5.3.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................78
A.5.3.2 Contents...........................................................................................................................................................78
A.5.3.4 Future reduction of road traffic noise ...............................................................................................................83
A.5.3.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................83
A.5.4 Noise - Michelin (March 2015) .................................................................................................................................. 84
A.5.4.1 Contents...........................................................................................................................................................84
A.5.4.2 Impacting factors ..............................................................................................................................................84
A.5.4.3 Influencing factors ............................................................................................................................................85
A.5.4.4 Tire effects: size and category .........................................................................................................................85
A.5.4.5 Tire effects: Performance balance ...................................................................................................................85
A.5.4.6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................86
A.6 Technical University Studies ........................................................................................................................................... 87
A.6.1 Inter.noise_HAMBURG (2016) ................................................................................................................................. 87
A.6.1.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................87
A.6.1.2 Contents...........................................................................................................................................................87
A.6.1.3 Tests means ....................................................................................................................................................87
A.6.1.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................94
A.6.2 Tyre modelling for rolling resistance (MASTER’S THESIS IN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING) (2014) ................... 95
A.6.2.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................................................95
A.6.2.2 Content ............................................................................................................................................................95
A.6.2.3 Influencing factors ............................................................................................................................................95
A.6.2.4 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................99
Appendix B: Tool Box..................................................................................................................................................... 100
B.1 The first approach: Bivariate Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 101
B.1.1 The P-value ............................................................................................................................................................ 101
B.1.2 Relationship representation .................................................................................................................................... 101
B.2 The second approach: Principal Component Analysis ............................................................................................... 103
B.2.1 The problem............................................................................................................................................................ 103
B.2.1.1 Data ...............................................................................................................................................................103
B.2.1.2 We are trying to represent the cloud of individuals ........................................................................................103
B.2.1.3 Loose as little information as possible............................................................................................................104
42/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.2.1.4 The choice of the distance between individuals .............................................................................................104

B.2.1.5 Total inertia ....................................................................................................................................................104
B.2.2 The solution of the problem posed.......................................................................................................................... 105
B.2.2.1 Variable representation ..................................................................................................................................105
B.2.2.2 Interpretation of "proximities" between variables ...........................................................................................105
B.2.3 Validity of representations ...................................................................................................................................... 106
B.2.3.1 Global criteria: ................................................................................................................................................106
B.2.4 Individual criteria ..................................................................................................................................................... 106
B.2.4.1 Square Cosine ...............................................................................................................................................106
B.2.4.2 Contribution....................................................................................................................................................106
B.2.5 Variable representation........................................................................................................................................... 107
B.3 Method applied in our study .......................................................................................................................................... 107
B.3.1 Data ........................................................................................................................................................................ 107
B.3.2 Variable representation........................................................................................................................................... 108
B.3.3 Validity of representations ...................................................................................................................................... 108
B.3.4 The contribution and 2D representation .................................................................................................................. 109
Appendix C: Statistics results ....................................................................................................................................... 110
C.1 Univariate Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 111
C.1.1 Data description ...................................................................................................................................................... 111
C.1.2 Box-plot graphics .................................................................................................................................................... 111
C.1.3 Tyre Radar Charts .................................................................................................................................................. 113
C.2 Bivariate Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 115
C.2.1 Correlation between each variables ........................................................................................................................ 115
C.2.2 Linear correlations visualizations two by two .......................................................................................................... 116
Appendix D: Test Reports .............................................................................................................................................. 117
D.1 Rolling Resistance Report ............................................................................................................................................. 118
D.2 Rolling Sound Report ..................................................................................................................................................... 136
D.3 Wet grip Report ............................................................................................................................................................... 173
D.4 Dry Hangling (Flat Trac) Report ..................................................................................................................................... 191
D.5 Report Compiled ............................................................................................................................................................. 211
D.5.1 Instrumentation pictures ......................................................................................................................................... 213
D.5.2 Test vehicle description .......................................................................................................................................... 214
D.5.3 Sign conventions: ................................................................................................................................................... 214
D.5.4 Vehicule weight:...................................................................................................................................................... 215
D.5.5 Pressures:............................................................................................................................................................... 215
D.6 Dry Grip Report ............................................................................................................................................................... 216
D.6.1 Track description - Dynamic Area: .......................................................................................................................... 216
D.6.2 Weather Conditions (Unladen):............................................................................................................................... 217
D.6.3 Measurement results and Classification (Unladen):................................................................................................ 217
D.6.4 Weather Conditions (Laden): .................................................................................................................................. 219
D.6.5 Measurement results and Classification (Laden): ................................................................................................... 219
D.7 Longitudinal Aquaplaning .............................................................................................................................................. 221
D.7.1 Track description: ................................................................................................................................................... 221
D.7.2 Weather Conditions: ............................................................................................................................................... 222
D.7.3 Measurement results and Classification: ................................................................................................................ 222
D.8 Lateral Aquaplaning........................................................................................................................................................ 224
43/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
D.8.1 Track description: ................................................................................................................................................... 224

D.8.2 Weather Conditions: ............................................................................................................................................... 226
D.8.3 Measurement results and Classification: ................................................................................................................ 226
D.9 Wear results .................................................................................................................................................................... 228
44/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Appendix A: Literature Study
45/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.1 Executive Summary

The noise level produced by Tyre on the road is more and more a major preoccupation for the Tyre manufacturers.
Manage to subjugate the noise levels and purpose high performance in the safety area is an increasing request of the modern
society.
In this context, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) aims to study the influence of the noise reduction
of the Tyres regarding their essential parameters in order to provide the results to the European institution.
The ACEA wants this study to analyse the Tyre Performance Parameters used by the Automotive Industry. This project started
with a literature study concerning Tyre Parameters including:
• An up to date overview of existing studies including the date of publication and period time of the data collection,
• Scope of the assessment, the volume and the range of tested materials,
• Type of tests methods applied,
• Results,
• Results depending on different geographic regions, over time.
A.2 Background
A.2.1 Introduction
The literature study will specially focus on methods, results and processes of statistical analysis applied. It will also
analyse the scope of the assessment, the volume and the range of tested materials and type of test methods applied. It will
mainly be based on literature in English language.
A.2.2 Objectives
The Literature Study will consist on an overview of existing studies including, abstracts and the date of publication
and period of the data collection.
The aim is to make a review of the different studies comparing tyre performance. The final objective is:
• To present the studies (tests, tyre selection and sourcing, objective, subjective criteria, rating, ...),
• To comment on results by noting the advantages or weaknesses of the analyses,
• To carry out analyses if the data are available.
A.2.3 References which have been analysed

The studies were classified into the following categories:
• Journalistic Studies
o EVO103_LD (2015)
o Auto Express Studies (2018)
o Whichcar Wheels (2017)
• European Research Organization Studies
o GRB-61-03 Study based on TNO 2014 R10735 report (12 June 2014)
o FEHRL – Study SI2,408210 Tyre/Road Noise (2007)
• Internal Manufacturer Studies
o Noise Technology Basics (Continental - 2011)
o Noise Tradeoffs (Michelin - 2007)
o Tire-Road Noise (GoodYear - 2018)
o Noise (Michelin – 2015)
• Technical University Studies
o Inter.noise_HAMBURG (2016)
o Tyre modelling for rolling resistance (MASTER’S THESIS IN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING) (2014)
46/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3 Journalistic Studies

Some journalist studies evoke test campaigns performed to compare tyres and make their classification
regarding some items. Their test methods are not described precisely and does not seem to follow norms. However, it
seems relevant to study the way they are measuring performance for each test.
A.3.1 EVO103_LD (2015)
A.3.1.1 Framework
The test campaign carried out in 2015 (probably in the second half of the year, no precise information on dates). The
aim is to demonstrate the importance of tyres in time performance.
A comparison is made on 10 different manufacturers' tyres but equal tire sizes: 225/40 R18:
Bridgestone Continental Dunlop Goodyear Hankook

Potenza RE002 (W92) ContiSportContact 5 Sport Maxx RT Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2 Ventus S1 Evo 2
80,29 € (86,06 €) 95,04 € (96,16 €) 86,13 € (89,43 €) 90,30 € (92,59 €) 81,92 € (82,01 €)
Michelin Pirelli Toyo Vredestein Yokohama

Pilot Sport 3 P Zero Proxes T1 Sport Ultrac Vorti Advan Sport V105
95,45 € (103,96 €) 98,62 € (93,73 €) 82,41 € (83,00 €) 76,56 € (82,14 €) 80,94 € (84,07 €)
Figure A.3-1: Tyres used for the test campaign EVO103_LD
All tyres are 225/40R18 Y92 except for bridgestone whose speed and load indices are W92. The prices calculated by the website
ww.rezulteo-pneu.fr are the average of the prices including VAT recorded during the first week of September 2015 at 6
representative stores in France (AlloPneus, 123pneus, 1001Pneus, Euromaster, Norauto, Feu Vert). In brackets, you find the
average price over a year.
A.3.1.2 Content
The tyres are scored on 11 items:
1. Lap of the wet track
2. Wet behaviour - Subjective
3. Wet ring
4. Wet breaking
5. Aquaplaning on straight line
6. Aquaplaning in curve
7. Lap of the dry track
8. Dry behaviour - Subjective
9. Dry breaking
10. Rolling resistance
11. Comfort and driving noise
The subjective parameter is the most important (40% of the overall score). Parameters influencing performance (braking, timing)
dominate price and noise criteria. For each test, the most performing tyre is awarded a score of 100 percent and marking is
relative to its performance, for the other ones.
47/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.1.3 Tests means
A.3.1.3.1 Tyres
All tyres are 225/40R18 Y92 except for bridgestone whose speed and load indices are W92.
Each set of tyres comes from independent sources.
They were all slightly sanded before the tests.
No information about tyres inflations as well as tyres load.
A.3.1.3.2 Cars
The car used for all tests is a VW Golf GTI 230 Performance with a limited-slip electronic differential and a DSG box (this dual-
clutch gearbox guarantees constant gear passages).
Figure A.3-2: VW Golf GTI 230 Performance used for the test campaign
On wet ground, testers remain on the third report to eliminate a potential source of fluctuation in the measurements.
A.3.1.3.3 Tracks
A.3.1.3.3.1 Track tests Pirelli de Vizzola, near Milan (for 1 week)
Takes the form of a "8" with 1.2 km long with a few tight chicanes and medium-fast curves.
The 40 m diameter ring of the Vizzola test centre measures the lateral grip.
A.3.1.3.3.2 The Tazio Nuvolari circuit located one hour south of Milan (for dry track tests)
2.9 km track includes some tight turns in second as well as beautiful fast curves.
Fast left-right sequence at the halfway point.
A.3.1.3.3.3 Open roads
The "noise" route used the paths with a wide variety of coatings at the Vizzola site.
Subjectively judges the noise and comfort offered by our ten tyres, without concrete measures.
For the "comfort" part, it was the surrounding roads that served as the framework for the test.
A.3.1.4 Tests performed
A.3.1.4.1 Handling of each tyre in the wet

The ESP is disabled on the Golf GTI, the ABS remains in operation.
Six laps were performed, and an average time being then calculated.
The check of the evolution of the track as well as the driver during the procedure was performed three times at start, at middle,
and at end of the same set of so-called reference tyres. No information about the reference tyre.
The water film remains constant on the test track but no more information on the water depth.
In the event of a significant discrepancy, the average times recorded are then adjusted to be directly comparable to each other.
48/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure A.3-3: Handling test of each tyre in the wet
Tyres are judged subjectively on: mid-turn grip, motor skills, steering feeling, confidence generated and braking. The ranking of
the tyres is as follows:
Lap of the wet track Wet behaviour - Subjective Wet ring
Table A.3-1: Tests results for the handling in the wet
Tests results for the handling in the wet

A.3.1.4.2 Breaking tests on dry and wet track
The dry bitumen braking test is carried out from 100 km/h and on the wet from 80 km/h.
The measures of stopping distances are purely objective.
Figure A.3-4: Dry breaking test
49/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
The ranking of the tyres is as follows:

Dry breaking Wet breaking
Table A.3-2: Tests results for the dry and wet breaking
A.3.1.4.3 Rolling resistance

No methods, no tests equipment used has been reported. Nothing is described.
Rolling resistance
Table A.3-3: Tests results for the rolling resistance
A.3.1.4.4 Aquaplaning limits

The test takes place in a straight line of 700m and on a constant radius curve on a 7mm film of water.
The procedure consists of accelerating gradually until the car can no longer keep its line, reduce the load and then maintain this
speed limit.
Figure A.3-5: Aquaplaning test

Aquaplaning in straight line Aquaplaning in curve
Table A.3-4: Test results for aquaplaning limits
50/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.1.4.5 Handling of each tyre in the dry

The test includes two laps of the track from which one draws an average time but also subjective evaluations.
The first turn is a long straight that follows 700 m straight.
Many of the track's pins highlight the "traction" ability of each tyre, while the fast left-right will serve as a justice of the peace
for mid-turn grip and behaviour in the ever-delicate transitional phases.
Figure A.3-6: Handling test in the dry

Lap of the dry track Dry behaviour - Subjective
Table A.3-5: Tests results for the handling in the dry
A.3.1.4.6 Comfort and driving noise

This test on open roads aims to judge subjectively the noise and comfort offered by the ten tyres, without concrete measures.
The "noise" route used the paths to the very varied coatings at the Vizzola site. The route was used twice, once at 60 km/h, the
other at 100 km/h.
Figure A.3-7: "Noise" route used for the test
For the "comfort" part, these are the roads that provided the framework for the test. No other description.
Road route
Table A.3-6: Test results for the comfort and driving noise
51/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.1.5 Conclusions
The test methods are not described precisely and most of them are based on subjective assessment. No
shared data available.
No information about:
• Tyre inflation pressure: From the manufacturer or the vehicle ? Tyre load ?
• Track and ambient temperature: Period of tests during 2015 ?
• Technical tools used: sound level meter distance to the vehicle, dB weighted, personal qualification …
• Technical guidelines or standard used.
52/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.2 Auto Express Studies (2018)
A.3.2.1 Framework
The tests carried out in 2018 by Auto Express, to make a classification between tyres whose size is: 225/45 R17.
A comparison is made on 10 different manufacturers' tyres:
Avon Bridgestone Continental Dunlop Pirelli

ZV7 Turanza T005 Premium Contact 6 Sport Maxx RT2 P Zero
Falken Goodyear Hankook Michelin Nokian

Azenis FK510 Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 S1 evo2 Pilot Sport 4 z Line
Table A.3-7: Tyres used for the test campaign Auto Express
A.3.2.2 Content
The test covers nine criteria, including a more driver-relevant cabin noise rating, rolling resistance, dry grip and a range of wet
road tests. Auto Express drivers carried out all tests apart from aquaplaning, which requires special training.
Wet and dry grip tests were done with Continental near Hanover, and the rolling resistance at its nearby R&D facility.
In each test, the results are converted into percentages to provide an accurate reflection of the performance differences. These
percentages are then added together, with the wet tests forming half of the results and the rest making up the remaining 50 per
cent.
Pass-by noise is measured in decibels (no weighting is mentioned).
A.3.2.3 Tests means
A.3.2.3.1 Tyres
There is 10 tyres from different manufacturer. All 225/45R17 tyres had weight ratings of 94, as well as speed ratings of Y (up
to 186mph (≈ 300km/h)). The tyre labelling is the following:
Tyres Rolling Resistance Wet Grip Noise
Avon ZV7 C A 70
Bridgestone Turanza T005 B A 72
Continental Premium Contact 6 A C 72
Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 C A 68
Falken Azenis FK510 C A 69
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 C A 68
Hankook S1 evo2 E A 71
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 C A 71
Nokian zLine C A 72
Pirelli P Zero F A 72
Table A.3-8: Label of each tyres used for the Auto Express tests
No information about tyres inflations as well as tyres load.
A.3.2.3.2 Cars
Different vehicles are used to carry out the tests. Most of the tests was performed with a VW Golf (without any other
information). Another VW and Audi were used for wet braking and aquaplaning but here again no further information.
Figure A.3-8: VW Golf used for the test campaign
53/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.2.3.3 Track
The tests campaign carried out on the Continental’s proving ground at Uvalde, Texas.
The 1.8km Uvalde wet handling track is a recreation of the one at Continental’s Contidrom facility near Hanover, Germany.
Continental has opened its new dry handling track and it is a massive improvement on its predecessor. Out of flat scrubland the
designers have created a 2km track with elevation change, off-camber turns and a challenging series of high-speed direction
changes.
For the wet tests, the tyre labelling just measures braking in the wet. Auto Express also assess cornering, handling and how a
tyre copes with deep water at speed. The tarmac was shipped from Europe to ensure comparable results. An average of lap
times provides the result, but the number of laps was not mentioned.
A.3.2.4.1 Lateral wet grip
The tests were performed on the 55-metre wet circle, with a 5mm water depth, which measures a tyre’s pure lateral grip without
aquaplaning coming into play.
The driver accelerate until the line cannot be held. This test was repeated up to 10 times. No more description of the test is
explained.
A.3.2.4.2 Wet braking
The wet braking is measured from 50mph (≈ 80km/h) to a stop using a rail system.
Figure A.3-9: Rail system used for the wet braking test
A hefty bar is bolted across the front of the car, with a shoe clamping to the rail. The car is accelerated – no need to steer – until
just over 50mph (≈80km/h) before braking. The distance is measured and an average of up to 10 runs taken to get the result.
A.3.2.4.3 Straight aquaplaning
The test used the same rail that the wet braking test.
The car is accelerated with one wheel in the water. No information on the water depth.
Electronics measure the difference between the driven wheels until one is spinning more than 15 per cent faster than the other
and the speed recorded. An average is used but the method is not mentioned.
A.3.2.4.4 Curved aquaplaning
The car is driven through a flooded section of a 200-metre circular track at ever higher speeds. No information about the
speed values.
Lateral grip is measured until all grip is lost. The methodology is not developed.
A.3.2.4.5 Tyre balance
This test was performed on a high-speed curve. An average of lap times allows to decide the winner.
No further description of this test is reported.
A.3.2.4.6 Dry braking
The three-mile oval is used for the brake test.
A series of stops from 62mph (≈ 100km/h) was performed and the distance taken is measured. A rest time between stops is
taken for the brakes to cool down. The number of series of stops is not defined and the method of calculation neither.
Handling test is relative to fast direction changes and long sweeps but the way the assessment was made is not described.
54/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.2.4.7 Rolling resistance

The result provides from an average of results from two tyres for each model. All tests carried out to industry standards.
These standards are not mentioned.
A.3.2.4.8 Cabin noise
Auto Express coasted down from 50mph over three surfaces on the three-mile oval, using a sound meter to rate cabin noise.
This was done twice and an average is taken from each surface – rough tarmac, smooth asphalt and concrete – to get the
final verdict.
The detail of the equipment used is not defined as well as their placement. The average method is not mentioned and
it seems that the decibel values are not weighted.
A.3.2.5 Conclusions
The test methods are not described precisely. No shared data available.
55/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.3 Whichcar Wheels (2017)
A.3.3.1 Framework
That study was performed in 2017 by members of Wheels, an Australian magazine. Their aim was to compare eight
brands in order to answer at the following question: How to rationalize increasing your car’s stopping distance and reducing its
cornering grip and feel, just to save a couple of hundred bucks on tyres.
A comparison is made on 8 different manufacturers' tyres but equal tire sizes 225/55R17:
Figure A.3-10: Tyres used for the test campaign Whichcar
They assembled eight original equipment replacement tyres for the 2017 Wheels Tyre Test.
A.3.3.2 Content
Each dynamic test discipline is scored out of 10, and tyre noise is out of five. Scores are assigned relative to the best performer.
A series of hot laps of our compact handling circuit, which served to scrub the surface of the tyres. A control tyre was deployed
at regular intervals as a means of measuring track and car evolution, which could be addressed in the analysis.
A.3.3.3 Tests means
A.3.3.3.1 Tyres
They used 8 tyres from different manufacturer but equal tire sizes 225/55R17 because that is the standard fitment on the Mazda
6 test mule.
The tyres are inflated each to 33psi as per the Mazda’s placard.
A.3.3.3.2 Car
The car used for the study is a Mazda 6 Touring with aluminium rims.
Figure A.3-11: Mazda 6 Touring used for the test campaign
It is a consumer car rather than a high-performance model, in line with the style of the tyres under test, and its electronic stability
control system had to be able to be completely deactivated so that we could test only the chassis and tyres.
A.3.3.3.3 Track
The tarmac surrounding the Sydney Dragway scrutineering shed is used to perform this study.
56/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.3.4.1 Wet braking

The driver accelerated to 80km/h before standing on the left pedal. Nothing is noticed about the number of repetitions.
The journalist mentions that “the wet stop never fails to provide some strange results. Last year some tyres stopped better in
the wet than the dry, which we put down to slightly different types of tarmac for the coarse wet and smooth dry braking zones”.
Table A.3-9: Test results for wet braking
A.3.3.4.2 Dry braking

Carried out dry-surface emergency stops more than 50 times over the course of the tyre test. The discipline conducted over the
same dusty coarse-chip section of Sydney Dragway, from 80km/h.
Sending the control tyres out at regular intervals gave them a gauge on whether the track conditions were changing with tarmac
temperature or dust level. The reference of the control tyres is not mentioned.
The Performance Box Racelogic equipment permitted them to record stopping distances and decelerations (average and peak).
We do not exactly know how many repetitions were done for each contestant. It is only explained that more than 50 dry
braking were done during the test campaign.
Table A.3-10: Test results for the dry braking
A.3.3.4.3 Slalom
The Slalom, or ‘swerve and recover’ test, is a neat way to gather data on a tyre’s transient grip level – and collision avoidance
ability. Entry speed is 65 km/h and the goal is to pass the test zone as fast as possible. For the test, ESC was disconnected on
the Mazda 6. Upwards of 50 slalom runs but we do not exactly know how many.
Table A.3-11: Test results for the slalom
57/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.3.3.4.4 Performance on a handling on circuit

The handling circuit instead puts every aspect of tyre ability together as a compact way of measuring a tyre’s handling and
collision-avoidance capability.
A lap starts with an open right-hand sweeper, which feeds into right and left hairpins, followed by a short straight. Then there’s
a 90-degree right-hander, a left/right chicane, and the start/finish line.
The time is the measure of performance on the circuit and they record lateral G-force, too. Tyre temperature is added (but no
reported).
Table A.3-12: Test results for the handling circuit
A.3.3.5 Conclusions
The test methods are not described precisely and most of them are based on subjective assessment. No
shared data available.
58/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4 European Research Organization Studies

In order to study the possibility to lower the noise limits and the possible trade-offs this might have on safety
and rolling resistance, the Commission issued a call for tenders for “Study about technical possibility to apply the
tyre/road noise emission levels of Directive 2001/43/EC without compromising vehicle safety”. These reports collect
and compile information related to the technical possibilities to require tyres to meet lower noise limits currently in
force.
A.4.1 GRB-61-03 Study based on TNO 2014 R10735 report (12 June 2014)
A.4.1.1 Framework
The ministry of Infrastructure and Environment in the Netherlands has asked TNO and M+P to perform a ‘quick-scan’
study to evaluate the potential of high-quality tyres in terms of energy, safety and noise.
This study assesses the benefits of A-rated as well as triple-A tyres. It provides a first-order estimate of the monetary and non-
monetary benefits, highlighting the following aspects:
• The energy savings expressed in reduced amount of fuel consumption, costs and CO2 emissions;
• The safety improvement potential expressed in reduced amount of injuries, (fatal) injuries and costs, and;
• The noise reduction potential expressed in reduced amount of annoyed and sleep-disturbed people and monetary
benefits.
A.4.1.2 Content
The study compares two scenarios of tyre distribution in the Netherlands:
1. The first scenario, which acts as a baseline scenario, represents the tyre distribution as it currently exists in the Dutch
vehicle fleet. The distribution of tyre labels is based on the tyre labels available in the retail database of VACO (VACO
is the Dutch industry association for tyres and wheels).
2. The second scenario assumes that all currently-used tyres in the Netherlands are replaced by A-rated tyres
The overall savings potential for the Netherlands is calculated as the difference of the current distribution as determined in the
VACO database and the potential distribution on A-rated tyres.
A.4.1.3 Tests means
A.4.1.3.1 Tyres
The current tyre distribution in the Netherlands constituting the baseline is shown in Table A.4-1:
Table A.4-1: Average tyre label per tyre class and criterion, assuming A=1, B=2, C=3, etc.
On average vehicles in the Netherlands drive with a D-label for energy, a C-label for wet grip and a B-label for noise. Note it is
indicated dB and not dB(A) in the table, we still assume that the decibels are weighted because the values come from
the label.
Tyres are classified according to the EU Regulation EC1222/2009.
Figure A.4-1: Example of a tyre label according to EC1222/2009
59/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
In this study, some assumptions have been made:

• The study focusses on new tyres coming into the market, rather than existing tyres already mounted on vehicles,
• Tyres coming into the market via other channels (e.g. tyres mounted on new vehicles, tyre bought on internet) are
assumed to have the same label distribution.
This approach was chosen because it is believed that this leads to a larger stability of the dataset (in time and location).
A.4.1.3.2 Cars
As the study is carried out on the distribution of tyres as it exists, it does not take into account the model of the vehicle that
the tyre equips.
It is expected that this method is accurate enough to represent 90% of the tyres actually used in practice.
A.4.1.3.3 Sets configuration
The distribution of tyre labels as used in this report is based on the tyre labels available in the retail database of VACO. VACO
is the Dutch tyre and rim branch organization. This database contains all tyres currently available for sale in the Netherlands.
The database is normally used by retail companies to support their sales and ordering administration. The status of 1 November
2013 is used.
From all the tyres available in the database a subgroup was used as data set. This set is based on the 7 brands and the 7 sizes
with the highest market share. This smaller data set was used for the following reasons:
• The focus of this study is the mass production tyre, with significant market share and significant coherence with real-
life situation on the road;
• The statistics of this control data set is not to be influenced by rare special purpose tyres or niche market products,
with little market share and little influence on the real-life situation on the road;
• It is assumed that this control data set of tyres and its tyre label values is well correlated to the group of tyres found on
new vehicles and the group of tyres that is sold via internet and other channels;
• This control data set is thought to be well representative for the tyres found in other EU countries;
• This data set is thought to be more reliable and stable over time when future regular evaluations are made.
A.4.1.4 Energy savings potential

The energy savings potential of a shift to A-rated tyres for energy is evaluated for different vehicle types and tyre classes based
on:
• The relative reduction in rolling resistance between the tyre X and tyre Y (based on the average of the range of RRCs);
• The driving pattern, e.g. predominantly urban or highway (are estimated) because the rolling resistance is proportional
to the vehicle weight and the share of air resistance in the vehicle’s total driving resistance increases with speed;
• The fuel consumption, mileage and fuel costs (petrol and diesel).
The rolling resistance of a vehicle depends on many factors of different sources: the vehicle (wheel load and wheel
configuration), the road (texture, condition, evenness) and the tyre itself. The rolling resistance of a tyre depends on its geometry
(rim width, tyre exterior radius, tyre cross section ratio), material (radial tyre stiffness), design, pressure and temperature.
The potential annual energy savings are calculated from an end-user and societal perspective in terms of fuel consumption (in
litres), costs (in Euros) and CO2 emissions (in tons). The results are the following:
Table A.4-2: End-user perspective: Annual fuel, cost and CO2 reduction in case of changing to A labelled tyres
60/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Table A.4-3: Societal perspective: Annual fuel, cost and CO2 reduction in case of changing to A labelled tyres
Assumptions have been made: the tyre classes are assumed to be such that C1 is typically for passenger cars, C2 for
urban vans and distribution vehicles and C3 for heavy duty vehicles and buses. Furthermore, an arbitrary value has
been taken for annual mileage (17 000km/year), fuels consumption (7,5l/100km), tyre lifetime (4 years), …
A.4.1.5 Safety improvement potential
The potential annual safety improvement is calculated as reduced (severe) injuries, fatalities and their societal monetary
benefits. The safety impact study is aimed to assess the safety potential of a shift to ‘A labelled’ tyres.
The dry grip performance is therefore not related to the safety label for tyres and thus not assessed in this study. The wet grip
performance is assessed by measuring the friction potential, which is highly correlated to the acceleration levels that can be
achieved with the vehicle. From the acceleration levels the safety related quantities such as braking distance and safe cornering
speed are calculated. In the analyses the calculation is done for a wet grip level of the reference tyre of 0.6 (this is in the required
range defined by the standard).
Several assumptions are made in the translation from impact speed reduction to societal cost. Seven assumptions are
listed:
1. A division of accidents in car to pedestrian accidents and city roads, rural roads and motorway car to non-pedestrian
accident is used in the current study,
2. Data from the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) database regarding impact speeds for the scenarios
investigated in the European Assessment of vehicle Safety Systems (ASSESS) project is also representative for the
situation in Netherlands and is applied to the generalized scenarios used in this study,
3. Data on impact speed for pedestrian related accidents in the European project on Assessment methodologies for
forward looking Integrated Pedestrian and further extension to Cyclists Safety (AsPeCSS) project is used for the
generalized pedestrian scenario this study,
4. The injury risk relation for pedestrians is taken from the database created in the UK On The Spot (OTS) project and
applied to the situation in the Netherlands,
5. The injury risk relation for car occupants from the ASSESS project is applied to the generalized scenarios used in this
study,
6. The Bestand geRegistreerde Ongevallen in Nederland (BRON) accident data from 2009 is used to reflect the current
situation in the Netherlands,
7. The factor of decrease in chance of injury or fatality, found from the injury risk relations for the calculated reductions of
impact speed, is used to calculate the reduction of injuries and fatalities.
The reduced number of fatalities, serious injuries and slight injuries and their societal monetary benefits are shown in Table
A.4-4, respectively for C1, C2 and C3 tyres and in total.
Table A.4-4: Reduced number of fatalities, serious injuries, slight injuries and societal benefits respectively for C1, C2 and C3
tyres
Assumptions have been made for the societal costs.
61/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.1.6 Noise reduction potential

The potential benefits in terms of environmental impact and health of a transition from the currently available tyre mix to tyres
with the best performance for external rolling noise emission are computed according to the methods and assumptions that were
developed in the VENOLIVA (VEhicle NOise LImit VAlues) study under assignment of the EC [VENO, 2011: Vehicle Noise Limit
Values - Comparison of two noise emission test methods, Final report, TNO report MON-RPT-2010-02103, 30 March 2011].
In this method the EC database of type approval test results was used to assess the expected noise emission reduction during
the acceleration and the constant speed tests caused by noise reducing measures, either to the power train or to the tyres or to
both. From this emission reduction during the test the emission reduction in normal traffic was estimated, making a distinction
between accelerating and free flowing traffic.
The five different vehicle types used in the VENOLIVA computation method, were regrouped into three different vehicle
categories (Light, Medium and Heavy) to be consistent with the Dutch statutory noise impact calculation method [RMV, 2012:
Regulation for Computation and Measurement of Noise - 2012 – Regeling van de Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu,
van 12 juni 2012].
A distinction was made between the tyre classes C1, C2 and C3. Within these classes the following subdivisions are made,
following the specification of the noise emission limit values:
Summer tyre Winter tyre
C1 Section width < 185 mm Section width 195 – 245 mm
With Extra Load capacity Without Extra Load capacity
C2 Summer tyre Winter tyre
C3 Traction tyre Steering tyre Trailer tyre
Table A.4-5: Subdivisions on the tyre classes C1, C2 and C3
The first computation step was to derive the average reductions of the tyre rolling noise for each of the tyre classes assuming a
transition of the average noise emission of the current tyre mix in each sub-category of a tyre class to the best performing low
noise tyre sample within this sub-category.
The second step was to compute the effective reductions of in-traffic vehicle noise emissions, resulting from a reduction of the
average rolling noise emission. The reductions were computed as a function of the following road and traffic characteristics:
• Vehicle category: Light Vehicles (LV), Medium Vehicles (MV) and Heavy Vehicles (HV)
• Operating condition: Accelerating or Free flowing (= constant speed)
• Driving speed: 30, 40, 50, 80, 100 and 120
• Type of road surface:
o Dense Asphalt Concrete (DAC),
o Porous Asphalt Concrete (PAC),
o 2-layer PAC,
o 2-layer PAC with fine grading of the top layer (2/4 mm)
o Thin noise reducing surface layer (porous or semi-porous)
The third step was to compute the reduction of the characteristic noise impact of a traffic flow for 8 different road / traffic
combinations.
The fourth step was to compute the reduction of the numbers of (highly) annoyed and (highly) sleep disturbed people from the
changes of the traffic flow noise impact. These computations were carried out using the dose-effect relationships for road traffic
noise as recommended in the position paper published by the EC [Annoy, 2002: Position paper on dose response relationships
between transportation noise and annoyance, European Commission, Brussels, February 2002.].
The results of the computations show that the average noise emission per vehicle will be reduced by:
• 1.2 – 2.6 dB(A) for light vehicles;
• 0.6 – 2.6 dB(A) for medium vehicles;
• 0.6 – 3.4 dB(A) for heavy vehicles,
depending on the type of road, type of road surface and traffic conditions.
62/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.1.7 Conclusions
This study is based on an evaluation of potential of high-quality tyres in terms of energy, safety and noise.
No tests conducted.
• Many assumptions taken in order to conduct this analytical method.

• No trades-off considered.
• Wet-Grip based on EU Regulation EC1222/2009.
• Rolling Resistance based on EU Regulation EC1222/2009.
• Rolling Sound (and during acceleration) based on EU Regulation EC1222/2009 and VENOLIVA (VEhicle
NOise LImit VAlues) study.
63/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2 FEHRL – Study SI2,408210 Tyre/Road Noise (2007)
A.4.2.1 Framework
The European Commission has announced its programme to review the tyre regulations, and to consider the
possibilities for applying a next stage of noise limit reductions. It is anticipated that the Commission will propose an amendment
to the Directive that will include reductions in the permissible noise from vehicle tyres, which will include considerations of safety
(wet grip adhesion) and fuel economy (rolling resistance).
The main objective of the study is to assess the potential for reducing tyre noise through the implementation of more stringent
type approval limit values, and to assess the impacts that such reductions might have on overall traffic noise, road safety and
economy.
A.4.2.2 Content
The collation of a comprehensive database collected from previous studies examining tyre noise, safety performance and rolling
resistance. Included noise surveys where measurements were carried out according to that described in the Directive for tyre
noise type approval.
Each measured value was classified in terms of tyre class and tyre dimensions together with information on whether the value
had been corrected for temperature.
Some measurements are not taken precisely in accordance with the procedure provided in the tyre noise Directive but they are
included in the database as additional useful information.
The datasets assembled for the very wide C1 tyres and C2 tyres were smaller than the datasets for the other tyre classes. There
seems to be enough data available to provide answers to the questions raised in the objectives to this study.
To determining the tyre noise level of the database, it is necessary to adjust the raw measured values according to the
procedures for rounding stipulated in the Directive. The measured results must to be rounded down to the nearest integer. 1 dB
is then subtracted from the resulting integer value to obtain the rest result.
Other correction to the data is required in the Directive to adjust measured values for variations in temperature. These corrections
were applied to C1 and C2 tyres and whenever surface temperature values were available. A comparison of corrected and
uncorrected results showed that the corrections were generally very small and close to zero.
In each case examined, the results of each data source/study were kept separate and the results have been subdivided
according to the different nominal section width classes because there is a possible influence of tyre width on the tyre noise
levels.
No significant difference could be found in the data between winter and summer tyres.
A.4.2.3 Tests means
A.4.2.3.1 Tyres
In this study, the important aspect was the collation of a comprehensive database collected from previous studies examining
tyre noise, safety performance and rolling resistance.
The databases were compiled mainly from data taken as part of previous studies involving members of the partnership. Each
measured value was classified in terms of tyre class and tyre dimensions together with information on whether the values had
been corrected for temperature.
The basic structure of the databases compiled for each tyre class are listed below:
UBA/TÜV Automotive, 2002, 82 types
TRL, 2003, 28 types
Class C1 SINTEF, 2004, 20 types
TRL, 2005, 11 types
UTAC, 30 types
Class C2 TRL, 2003, 4 types
UTAC, 11 types
TRL, 2003, 10 types
Class C3
UTAC, 55 types
BASt/M+P, 2003, 15 types
Table A.4-6: Tyre classes database for the FEHRL study
64/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Table A.4-7: Overview of C1 tyre noise measurement results database
The above databases include all available data on tyre noise level obtained using test methods that are effectively identical to
the tyre noise type approval procedure. However, a considerable body of data which is not in accordance with the test procedure
provided in the tyre noise Directive, is included in the database as additional useful information.
Table A.4-10: Overview of tyre noise results database obtained from various vehicle noise measurement projects
A.4.2.3.2 Cars
As the study is carried out on the database collected from previous studies, it does not take into account the model of the
vehicle that the tyre equips.
A.4.2.4.1 Wet grip performance (UBA/TÜV Automotive)

The wet grip performance was determined by wet braking tests carried out on an artificially wetted asphalt surface. The water
depth wad permanently kept below 1,5mm in order to exclude the effects of aquaplaning.
ABS braking system on the 4 wheels was used. The vehicle was decelerated from approximately 85km/h to standstill. Speed
and distance were measured from 80 to 10 km/h with a satellite-based measuring device.
For each tyre set, at least 6 valid measurements were performed.
A.4.2.4.1.1 Tyre noise and wet braking performance results
The tyre/road noise levels are compared with the wet brake deceleration values.
No clear trend/correlation can be found between increasing noise levels and with increasing deceleration levels.
65/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure A.4-2: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and wet brake deceleration values for C1 and C2 tyres
Figure A.4-3: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and wet brake deceleration values for C3 tyres
66/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.4.2 Rolling resistance performance (UBA/TÜV Automotive)

The rolling resistance performance was measured using methods described in ISO 8767:1992 or ISO 9948:1992 (provided by
the ISO 18164: first edition from the 1st June 2005). The coefficient Cr [%] is calculated from the average values of the rolling
resistance force in Newton [N] divided by the test load in [kg] multiplied by 100 [%]. The relationship is shown below:
𝑅𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝑁)
𝐶𝑅 = × 100%
𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑘𝑔) × 𝑔 (𝑚⁄𝑠²)
The mean weight of all four tyres of one set is determined prior the rolling resistance measurements.
A.4.2.4.2.1 Tyre noise and rolling resistance results
The tyre/road noise levels are compared with the rolling road resistance coefficients values. No clear trend/correlation can be
found between tyre/road noise levels and rolling resistance coefficients.
C1c winter tyres and C1c summer show opposite trend and no significant trends in either direction can be seen for the other C1
classes.
Figure A.4-4: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and rolling resistance coefficients for C1 and C2 tyres
Figure A.4-5: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and rolling resistance coefficient for C3 tyres
67/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.4.3 Aquaplaning
For C1 tyres the aquaplaning behaviour in the longitudinal direction was determined. The test vehicles were equipped with
rotational speed sensors on both wheels of the front axle.
For the measurement of the floating speed the test vehicle was run on the test track with the right front wheel aligned with a
water basin with 8mm water depth. When the vehicle reached the basin, it was accelerated maximally. The floating speed V Aqu
is defined as that speed, at which a slip of 15% was reached. The slip is defined as the ration between the difference of wheel
rotational speed of left and right wheel and the wheel rotational speed of the wheel which was not running in the water basin.
For each tyre set, at least 6 valid measurements were performed.
A.4.2.4.3.1 Tyre noise levels and aquaplaning performance results
The tyre/road noise level are compared with the aquaplaning speed values.
No clear trend/correlation can be found between tyre/road noise levels and aquaplaning speed values.
Figure A.4-6: Comparison of tyre/road noise levels and aquaplaning speeds for C1 tyres
A.4.2.4.4 Additional tests

In addition to the UBA/TUEV Automotive results, some data for C1 tyres, taken in 1997-1999 by the Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute (VTI) and the Technical University of Gdansk (TUG) was obtained. The data included the results
of noise tests, wet friction and rolling resistance of nearly 100 tyres.
Tyre/road noise emission was measured with a CPX trailer (close proximity tyre/road noise measurements) and on a laboratory
drum.
The rolling resistance was determined on a safety walk surface and a rough surface dressing.
All data confirm the results present in the previous conclusion, there is no significant relation between noise and wet friction.
68/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.4.5 Main conclusions of literature review by FEHRL

The main conclusions and recommendation are as follows:
• Practically all C1 tyres currently in service produce noise levels, under conditions of type approval testing, below the
current limit values. Similar results were found for C2 an dC3 tyres. Less than 4% of the sample gave higher values
than the current limits and about 50% of the sample gave levels that were 3 or more dB(A) below the limit
• No evidence could be found, either as part of the analysis or from published literature, of a significant relationship
between tyre noise and safety performance
• No significant relationship between tyre noise and rolling resistance could be found from the available data.
• Although there is no evidence in current tyre performance data that reducing tyre noise levels will have a noticeable
effect on tyre safety or tyre rolling resistance. It is recommended that adequate safeguards are put in place with regard
to tyre safety and rolling resistance performance because it is not possible to guarantee that for some future designs
of tyre there will not be a conflict between noise and safety or noise and rolling resistance.
• Consider changing the test surface used for type approval as currently the surface is smoother than surfaces typically
used on high speed roads
• Resurfacing many of Europe’s roads with very low noise surfaces would lead to reductions in road traffic noise that are
comparable with those that the proposed new tyre noise limits will bring
A.4.2.4.6 Future trends in tyre design

Regarding conventional tyres the literature review examines the potential benefits from adapting winter tyres for all year round
use and describes modifications to the tread design to include changing the air/rubber ratio, changing the size of the tread
elements and using different rubber compounds.
The increasing use of run-flat tyre designs is also examined together with the potential noise advantages of ensuring that tyres
are correctly inflated in use.
Unconventional tyre designs include an overview of non-pneumatic composite tyres. The noise-reducing potential for a
composite wheel has been demonstrated to be around 10dB(A).
There are several possibilities (not provided) for a breakthrough in tyre design for low noise and low rolling resistance.
A.4.2.5 Relevance of the ISO test surface
It was mentioned that reductions in the tyre noise limit value do not necessarily mean that there will be a similar reduction in
vehicle and traffic noise levels. Some dilution of the effect is expected due partly to the fact that the test conditions cannot be a
perfect march with the broad range of conditions encountered in practice. Part of the mismatch between testing and real
situations lies in the test surface used for type approval.
In order to determine the effects of reducing the limit values on the ISO surface it is necessary to examine the relationships
between noise levels on the ISO surface and corresponding noise levels on other surfaces.
Figure A.4-7: Results from 2005 study and previous TRL study in 2001
A reduction of 1dB(A) on the ISO surface produces an average reduction of 0,65dB(A) on SMA 8 to 11.
For the rougher surfaces, SMA14 and HRA, the corresponding reduction was found to be less at 0,29dB(A).
69/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.6 Calculating the effects of the proposed reductions in the tyre noise limits
In order to translate the reductions on tyre noise achieved via type approval to the levels of traffic noise a suitable mathematical
mode is need. This study presents two models which have been developed for use in traffic noise calculation and noise mapping
in European towns and cities.
A.4.2.6.1 The HARMONOISE model
In the HARMONOISE model the vehicles are divided into three main categories corresponding to light, medium heavy and heavy
vehicles.
Two-point sources are used for each vehicle category:
• One represents mainly the tyre sources (referred to as tyre/road noise in the model) and is located close to the road
surface,
• The other represents mainly the propulsion noise sources.
The tyre source is located 0,01m above the road surface and the other, power unit source, is located either at 0,3m for light
vehicles or 0,75m for heavy vehicles.
Dense Asphalt Concrete (DAC) and Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) can be modelled using an adjustment to the maximum chipping
size (only apply to light vehicles).
The pass-by noise energy in terms of the Sound Exposure Level dB(A) was calculated at a distance of 7,5m from the center of
the lane. The receptor height was 1,5m. Using a total pass-by sample of 1000 vehicles per hour the average was calculated
using different proportions of light and heavy vehicles.
A.4.2.6.2 The TraNECam model
The TraNECam model was originally developed for German Environmental Agency (UBA) over the period 1998-2000. This
database was extended to an European level within the frame of an EU research project in 2003.
The model is sufficient versatile to allow accurate forecasts to be made for different traffic conditions.
The model can examine different noise source control options. It also able to discriminate between the major source groups
associated with an operating vehicle. The model discriminates between tyre/road noise sources and propulsion noise sources.
The model distributes the average daily traffic volume over 24 hours of the day using in-built normalized and vehicle category
specific diurnal traffic load variation curves.
A.4.2.6.3 Discussion on the models
The effect on traffic noise of reductions in tyre/road noise were calculated using two noise prediction models: HARMONOISE
and TraNECam. Predictions were made for a range of scenarios from motorways to congested urban conditions. It was
concluded that there was considerable agreement between model predictions.
However, assumptions were made in the analyses of the two models (average decibel reduction depending on the surface,
the tyre categories).
A.4.2.7 Amendments to the tyre noise Directive other than limit values
A.4.2.7.1 Testing tyre safety and rolling resistance

It is argued that additional tests will help to ensure that regulation concerning one particular aspect of tyre performance does
not compromise other important tyre performance characteristics.
Previous studies shown that there is no underlying statistical correlation between tyre noise level as measured using the type
approval procedure and safety performance as assessed using various measures of wet grip, deceleration and aquaplaning.
The data is dependent on the method and test track used.
A.4.2.7.1.1 Tyre Safety
A possible, but not checked if suitable, method to measure the wet grip performance is described in ISO/DIS 23671. This method
for measuring a relative wet grip braking performance index to a reference tyre under loaded conditions for new tyres for use on
passenger cars on wet-paved surface is specified.
The use of the SRTT (Standard Reference Test Tyres) as the reference tyre can be seen critical. First, because every tested
tyre of any dimension is compared use of the above-mentioned control tyre. Another point is that the SRTT does not represent
the stated of the art of wet braking performance, which is important about possible limit values, which will presumably be related
to the wet braking performance of the SRTT.
70/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.7.1.2 Tyre Rolling resistance

One possible method for measuring the rolling resistance is provided by the ISO 18 164 (at the study moment). It represents a
compilation of three individual standards into a consolidated, technically revised single document:
• ISO 8767: 1992 Passenger car tyres — Methods of measuring rolling resistance
• ISO 9948: 1992 Truck and bus tyres — Methods of measuring rolling resistance
• ISO 13327: 1998 Motorcycle tyres — Method of measuring rolling resistance
Four alternative measurement principles are listed in ISO 18164:

1. Force Method: the reaction force measured at the tyre spindle
2. Torque Method: the torque input measured at the test drum
3. Power Method: the measurement of the input to the test drum
4. Deceleration Method: the measurement of deceleration of the test drum and tyre assembly
In addition, three different methods are specified to record the so-called parasitic losses, which refer to loss of energy per unit
distance excluding internal tyre loss, and attributable to aerodynamic loss of different rotating elements of the test equipment,
bearing friction and other sources of systematic loss which may be inherent in the measurement.
No conversion formula is given in the ISO document which allows to determine the influence of the rolling resistance on the fuel
consumption quantitatively.
ISO 18164 reveals a number of degrees of freedom which means the measurement can be carried out with several variants.
For the same tyre measured in compliance with ISO norms, the result may differ by an estimated +/-10%. Therefore, more
stringent specifications in the ISO are necessary to obtain a greater accuracy.
A.4.2.7.2 Amendments to the tyre noise test procedure
It is felt that the subtraction of 1dB(A) from the measured results is no longer needed as modern measuring equipment is now
capable of greater accuracy than when the recommendations were first introduced and measurement errors of a magnitude
sufficient to justify this adjustment no long occur. This subtraction is also a potential source of confusion, since it is sometimes
difficult to determine, in published data, whether or not the posted values have been amended.
As a result, it is recommended that when the Directive is revised the test result is simply rounded to the nearest integer. These
suggested changes would then bring the tyre noise measurement practice into alignment with the rounding procedure specified
in the proposed revisions to the separate vehicle noise type approval procedure.
If greater precision could be obtained in the measurement of tyre/road noise it may, in the future, be possible to alter the
procedure such that values to 1 decimal place could be recorded as the test value. However, large changes in the test procedure
would be required to reduce measurement error. It is likely that an indoor controlled environment would be required to reach this
level of accuracy.
A.4.2.7.2.1 Test vehicle
If greater precision could be obtained in the measurement of tyre/road noise it may, in the future, be possible to alter the
procedure such that values to 1 decimal place could be recorded as the test value. However, large changes in the test procedure
would be required to reduce measurement error. It is likely that an indoor controlled environment would be required to reach this
level of accuracy.
A.4.2.7.2.2 Correction for temperature
The directive requires that both air and surface temperature are measured to an accuracy of 1°C but the correction is base only
on the surface temperature. It could be argued that corrections based on air temperature would also have the advantage of
harmonization with recently determined correction formula. However, using a correction based on surface temperature may
overcome the problem where test surfaces are artificially heated to assist in drying the surface.
A.4.2.7.2.3 The ISO test surface
It has been argued that the current test surface, due to its smooth texture, is not representative of rougher surfaces commonly
found on high speed roads. These surfaces are constructed with much larger maximum stone size aggregates than the ISO
surface. There is a poor correlation between tyre noise produced on the ISO surface with the corresponding noise produced on
these coarser textured surfaces.
A.4.2.7.2.4 Test speeds
Controlling tyre/road noise at high speeds may not simply translate to low speeds. Reversals in the rank ordering of the tyres at
different speeds clearly illustrates the point that controlling tyre noise at high speeds cannot always be assumed to offer the
same benefit at lower speeds.
71/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.4.2.7.2.5 Alternative test procedures

In addition to problems in ensuring that the surface is both representative of real road surfaces and that it produces consistent
results at different test centres, there are also inherent problems associated with testing outdoors due to variations in weather
conditions.
There are some advantages of the drum method. This method is not subject to the vagaries of the weather and temperature
control is not a problem, thereby avoiding the need to correct the results for differences in temperature. The surface of the drum
can also be covered with a replica road surface which can be reproduced for use on all drums used for type approval. However,
testing for noise generation using drums is challenging due to the fact that the noise generated by the drum drive mechanisms
has to be suitably screened and the fact that the curvature of the drum affects the contact patch with the tyre when compared
with a flat road surface.
The advantages of the close proximity (CPX) methods are that the directional properties of the noise generation can be
adequately assessed and possible problems associated with extraneous noise can be eliminated. A wide range of tyre types
can be tested and loaded appropriately.
The modelling of tyre noise method provide an insight into the mechanisms of tyre noise and help to generate basic tyre design
concepts. To determine roadside noise levels any model should also consider sound propagation and vehicle shielding factors.
A.4.2.7.2.6 Tyre wear
Tyres are tested when they are new, they are “run in” for 100km prior to testing, and the noise level achieve at type approval is
therefore representative of the level when the tyre has full tread depth.
Further research is required to consider the relationship between wear and noise and to determine whether an artificially worn
tyre is more representative than a new tyre.
A.4.2.8 Conclusions
In this study, a collation of a comprehensive database was necessary, but some data are thus old. So,
progress on tyre design has been made since then.
• Transparent in their approach: test methods and procedures are referenced.

• Although several design properties of tyres seem to be in conflict when designing for noise reduction by
conventional pattern and rubber changes, no significant conflicts have been detected.
• No significant conflict between requirements for low noise and low rolling resistance.
• No evidence could be found of a significant relationship between tyre noise and safety performance.
• Wet-Grip based on ECE R117 (with speed reduction from 80 to 10km/h and water depth of 1,5mm).
• Longitudinal aquaplaning based on ECE R117 (with water depth of 8mm and a slip of 15%).
• Rolling Resistance based on ISO 8767:1992, ISO 9948:1992, ISO 18164:2005.
• Rolling Sound based on ECE R117.
72/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5 Internal Manufacturer Studies

Each tyre manufacturer has carried out internal tests to try to understand and describe the physical
phenomena involved. All parameters are reviewed to establish their potential influence on noise level and safety limits.
This allows them to establish technical documents for their design.
A.5.1 Noise Technology Basics(Continental – 2011)
A.5.1.1 Contents
Tyre development is managing of target conflicts. These relevant target conflicts are: Resistance ; Braking ; Noise.
A tyre which have a Rolling Resistance optimized compound, is impacted by the performance on: Dry Grip, Wet Grip, Mileage
and Noise.
Continental performed a test on the rolling noise according to ECE R117. Use a reference tyre which is a motorcycle tyre (no
dimensions provided) with a noise level of 68,1dB(A). Use 4 other car tyres of size 235/45R17 but with different tread
compounds:
• 235/45 R 17 / T-Compound A: 66.6dB (A)
• 235/45 R 17 / T-Compound B: 67.7dB (A)
• 235/45 R 17 / T-Compound C: 69.3dB (A)
• 235/45 R 17 / T-Compound D: 71.7dB (A)
The conclusions of this test are:

• Small slick tires are not always less noisy than wide slick tyres.
• The average sound level of a modern slick tyre is 68dB (A).
• The sound level depends on the tread compound.
A.5.1.3 Methods for simulating tyre noise

Continental use an (internal?) methodology to simulate the tyre noise. For this, some assumptions are made:
• Focus on a tyre perimeter (contact with the road surface)
• Divide the tyre by tracks (groove separation) (in general n)
• Suppose a shift step
• Compute the total number of positions for each track (in general m)
These assumptions allow to compute the total number of track constellations for a pattern: m(n-1).
Each constellation requires two analysis steps: One for leading and one for trailing edge.
So, number of analysis steps = 2 * m(n-1).
A.5.1.4 Tire Design Trade-Offs
A.5.1.4.1 Reduction of tire/road noise by the tire: Tread pattern design

A tyre with a 34% void ratio is better than a slick tyre for the wet braking and the aquaplaning in curve but is 3dB(A) noisier.
Figure A.5-1: Influence of the tread pattern
73/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.1.4.2 Reduction of tire/road noise by the tire: Tread material design

A tyre with a summer tread compound is better than a tyre with a very low stiffness tread compound for the cornering stiffness
and the wear but is 3dB(A) noisier.
Figure A.5-2: Influence of the tread compound
A.5.1.4.3 Reduction of tire/road noise by the tire: Tread thickness design

A tyre with a very low stiffness tread compound is 3dB(A) quieter than a tyre with normal tread but has a 15% increase in rolling
resistance.
Figure A.5-3: Influence of the tread thickness
A.5.1.4.4 Void volume effect on Tyre noise

A tyre with a double of void volume is noisier. Dependency of noise on void volume:
• Longitudinal void is less important
• Lateral void influences the noise level more
Figure A.5-4: Influence of the void volume lateral
By changing the void volume, it is possible to gain 6dB, but the hydroplaning behaviour is reduced.
A.5.1.5 Conclusions
This presentation describes the tyre technologies impact on tyre noise which fits into the tyre
development.
• Simulation of tyre noise is complicated and depend of the assumptions considered.

• There are several different design criteria used to reduce tyre/road noise.
• Rolling Sound based on ECE R117.
74/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.2 Noise Trade-offs - Michelin (October 2007)
A.5.2.1 Contents
There are several different design criteria used to reduce tyre/road noise when creating a new tyre:
• Tread pattern design
• Tread rubber compound
• Tyre internal structure

Michelin performed tests on a new tyre Primacy HP 225/55 R16 95V (launch March 2006) in order to predict the effects of noise
reduction on: aquaplaning (longitudinal and in curve), wet grip, wear, handling and cost.
A.5.2.2.1 Effects of the tread pattern design on longitudinal aquaplaning
The test settings are:
• Speed at onset of aquaplaning: 82km/h to 66km/h.
• Water depth 8mm.
Figure A.5-5: Longitudinal aquaplaning vs. Noise level
Sculptured tyre with a void ratio of 28% is 3,5dB(A) noisier than a slick tyre but is more safety on a longitudinal aquaplaning.
A.5.2.2.2 Effects of the tread pattern design on aquaplaning in curve
The test settings are:
• Mean lateral acceleration between 55 to 85 km/h.
• Water depth 7mm.
Figure A.5-6: Acceleration in curve vs. Noise level
Sculptured tyre with a void ratio of 28% is 3,5dB(A) noisier than a slick tyre but is more safety on an aquaplaning in curve.
75/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.2.2.3 Effect of the tread pattern design on wet braking

Braking from 80 to 10 km/h on macro rough surface.
Figure A.5-7: Wet braking vs. Noise level
Sculptured tyre with a void ratio of 28% is 3,5dB(A) noisier than a slick tyre but is more safety on a wet braking.
A.5.2.2.4 Effects of the tread rubber compound on wear and handling
Figure A.5-8: Cornering power/Wear vs. Noise level
A tyre with a very soft tread compound is quieter of -1dB(A) than a tyre with a standard tread compound but it is -15% in handling,
thus less safety in avoidance manoeuvres. Furthermore, the wear decrease of -25%.
A.5.2.2.5 Effects of the tread internal structure on wear and handling
Figure A.5-9: Cornering power/Wear vs. Noise level
76/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.2.2.6 Effect on cost
Figure A.5-10: Cost vs. Noise level
A tyre with a thicker under-tread more important is +12% more expensive than a tyre with a normal tread.
A.5.2.3 Conclusions
• There are several different design criteria used to reduce tyre/road noise when creating a new tyre
• All of design criteria present trade-offs.
• Wet-Grip based on speed reduction from 80 to 10km/h, on macro rough surface.
• Longitudinal aquaplaning based on speed reduction from 82 to 66km/h with a water depth of 8mm.
• Aquaplaning in curve based on speed acceleration from 55 to 85km/h with water depth of 7mm.
• Rolling Sound based ISO 108844 Acoustics — Specification of test tracks for measuring noise emitted by road
vehicles and their tyres.
77/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.3 Tire-Road Noise - GoodYear (27 November 2018)
A.5.3.1 Framework
Goodyear Innovation Center Luxembourg supports the product development for Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) and Asia
Pacific.
Goodyear Dunlop’s development goal is a balanced tyre with a strong focus on safety-related criteria
EU tire regulation combines two key aspects (Regulation 661/2009 and Regulation 1222/2009):
• Environmental performances (rolling resistance and noise)
• Safety (wet grip)
A.5.3.2 Contents
Tyre development considers 50+ tyre performances. Optimized performances in function of vehicle, road and weather
conditions.
Trade-Off: Improving one performance can lead to decreasing another performance.
A.5.3.2.1 Noise requirements
Two regulations linked to tyre/road noise:
• Tire Noise: Reg. (EC) No 661/2009:
➢ 80 km/h coast-by (C1&2)
➢ 70 km/h coast-by (C3)
➢ Engine off and neutral gear
➢ Noise limits dependent on tire width
• Vehicle Noise: Reg. (EC) No 540/2014:
➢ 50 km/h
➢ Constant speed test
➢ Acceleration test (1,5-2m/s²)
Significantly different noise testing in tyre and vehicle legislation.

A.5.3.2.2 Tyre/Road Noise as a Source of Vehicle Noise
The total vehicle noise comes from:
• Engine noise
• Exhaust line noise
• Wind noise
• Tyre/Road noise
Figure A.5-11: Contribution on tyre/road noise to total vehicle noise
Balancing of the different noise sources required to reach an overall vehicle noise target under the vehicle noise regulation.
78/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.3.2.3 Tyre/Road Noise Generation

Eleven mechanisms of noise generation are identified:
Figure A.5-12: Mechanisms involved in the noise
Key role of road surface in all aspects of tyre/road generation. Significant potential of road surface properties to influence
tyre/road noise.
Figure A.5-13: Decomposition of noise sources
A.5.3.2.4 Road Surface Characteristics

Texture wavelength influence on tyre/road interactions:
Figure A.5-14: Tyre performances depending of the texture wavelength
Most relevant road surface characteristics impacting tyre/road noise:

• Macro- and Mega texture
• Porosity (sound absorption)
79/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.3.3.1 Tyre and Road Influence on Noise

Laboratory noise test at 50 km/h on a drum with 2 different road surfaces: Smooth road replica and Coarse road replica.
Figure A.5-15: The drum and the Road replicas
6 tyres of the same size with different construction and tread pattern. 1 slick tyre (no tread pattern) with low noise construction.
Figure A.5-16: Pattern of the six tyres
Result: 10dB difference between the two road surfaces. For majority frequency, slick tyre is quieter:
Figure A.5-17: Noise level vs. Frequencies (smooth road in blue, coarse road in green)
80/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.3.3.2 Performed tyre sound power measurements

A.5.3.3.2.1 Tests means
• Semi-anechoic room
• Rotating drum of radius 1.5m covered with a replica of a coarse road surface
• Slick tyre of size 205/55R16
• Load: 4000N; Inflation pressure: 2.2 bar; Speed: 60 km/h
GoodYear performed and compare the low and high spatial resolution method.
A.5.3.3.2.2 Low spatial resolution method based on Sound Pressure

• Setup based on standard ISO 3745 Acoustics -- Determination of sound power levels of noise sources -- Precision
methods for anechoic and semi-anechoic rooms
• 7 microphones on a hemisphere of radius 1.5 m around the tire
• Assumption of symmetric noise radiation about the tire mid-plane
• Final result: sound power level (coming from the 7 microphones and with a correction term for room temperature and
atmospheric pressure)
Figure A.5-18: Microphone placement
A.5.3.3.2.3 High spatial resolution method based on Sound Intensity

• Sound intensity scanning probe, called LMS Soundbrush
• Handheld probe with the 3D sound intensity sensor and fixed camera used for the position tracking
• Sound intensity vectors by means of solid sphere with four phase-matched microphones in tetrahedron configuration
Figure A.5-19: Handheld probe, fixed camera and sound intensity vectors
81/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.3.3.2.4 Comparison of both sound power methods

Sound power levels radiated through the half-hemisphere resulting from both measurement techniques (overall and 1/3rd octave
band, A-weighted):
Figure A.5-20: Plots of the sound intensity results and sound pressure results
The sound power level for the individual 1/3rd octave bands differs on average by 0,5 dB(A). The overall sound power level
differs by 0,2 dB(A).
A.5.3.3.3 Examples of tyre/road noise trade-offs
A.5.3.3.3.1 Slick tire vs. normal tyres
Size and dimensions: 235/40 R19.
Noise at 50km/h: 67dB(A). Slick tyre is -1,5dB(A) quieter. Noise measured on ISO 10844 test track.
Rolling Resistance: Slick tyre is 10% worse.
Straight Aquaplaning: Slick tyre have an unacceptable level.
Note: A slick tire does not meet the minimum legal safety requirement and cannot be used on public roads.
A.5.3.3.3.2 Tread compound vs. High hysteresis tread compound
Noise at 50km/h: High hysteresis tread compound is -0,5dB(A) quieter. Noise measured on ISO 10844 test track.
Rolling Resistance: High hysteresis tread compound 25% worse.
Conclusion for the two previously test: The noise level of a slick tire is close to the lowest achievable noise level for that size
due to the absence of most tire/road noise generation mechanisms
A.5.3.3.3.3 Standard belt vs. Heavy belt
Noise at 50km/h: Heavy belt is -0,3dB(A) quieter. Noise measured on ISO 10844 test track.
Tyre weight: Heavy belt is 10% heavier.
A.5.3.3.3.4 Tread pattern vs. Tread 25% lower groove volume
Noise at 50km/h: tread 25% lower groove volume is -0,5dB(A) quieter. Noise measured on ISO 10 844 test track.
Rolling Resistance: same result.
Straight Aquaplaning: tread 25% lower groove volume is 15% worse.
Conclusion for the two previously test: Majority of tire design changes influence:
• Noise generation mechanisms
• Physical phenomena linked to other performances
82/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.3.4 Future reduction of road traffic noise

Current approach:
• Separately optimized for noise - safety - environmental impact
• Vehicle: Reg. (EC) 540/2014. Noise reduction with lowest trade-off on other vehicle performances.
• Tyre: Reg. (EC) 661/2009 and Label (EC) 1222/2009. Noise reduction with lowest trade-off on other tyre performances.
• Road: No regulatory noise requirements - Noise mapping in EU. Noise reduction with lowest trade-off on other road
performances.
Holistic approach:
• Overall optimized for noise - safety - environmental impact
• Balanced requirements
• Noise reduction with lowest trade-off on overall performances
• Maximum benefit for society by considering:
• Improvement potential from all actors and
• Associated trade-offs from all actors
A.5.3.5 Conclusions
This presentation describes tyre mechanisms entering in the noise generation and examples of trade-off
include these mechanisms, but the method used to measure noise is not referenced. A comparison of two methods of
noise level measurement is mentioned too.
• Eleven mechanisms of noise generation are identified.

• Majority of tyre design changes influence: noise generation mechanisms and physical phenomena linked to
other performances.
• Key role of road surface characteristics in all aspects of tyre/road noise generation
• Holistic approach for road traffic noise abatement:
o three major actors: tyres, vehicles and roads
o consider feasibility and potential of all individual actors
o highest societal benefit
83/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.4 Noise - Michelin (March 2015)
A.5.4.1 Contents
2 main phenomena dominate the generation of exterior noise:
• The structural vibration of the tyre caused by the roughness of the road surface and the tyre’s tread pattern.
• Air pumping caused by the compression and decompression of the air trapped within the tread block and the road
surface.
3 main phenomena dominate the mechanisms that affect the exterior noise:
• Resonance of air in the void network: Organ pipe.

• The horn effect in front and behind the contact patch.
• The absorption of the ground.
Figure A.5-21: Resume of the mains phenomena
A.5.4.2 Impacting factors

Michelin explains three impacting factors:
1. Temperature impacts the noise level because:
• Tyre behaviour is temperature dependent.
• Road surface behaviour is temperature dependent.
2. The increase of the load leads to:
• Expansion of the contact patch area.
• Small effect on contact pressure.
3. The increase of inflation pressure leads to:
• Shrinkage of the contact patch area.
• Higher contact pressure.
Figure A.5-22: Pattern of inflation pressure and load increase
84/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.4.3 Influencing factors

For the ISO standard there was a grandfathering period between June 2014 and June 2019, where two version of the ISO 10844
was used (ISO 10844:1994 and ISO 10844:2014)
• Track effect can be up to ~7 dB(A) among 10844:1994 ISO tracks
• Track effect is already known to be up to ~3 dB(A) among 10844:2014 tracks
A.5.4.4 Tire effects: size and category

Car manufacturer choses tire size and category (sporty, all season, luxury, winter, …) to fit the vehicle.
For a given tire size and category, difference in noise may be up to 3 dB(A):
Figure A.5-23: Tyres sizes and Categories vs. Noise level
A.5.4.5 Tire effects: Performance balance
A.5.4.5.1 Effects of the tread pattern design on Wet braking and Aquaplaning in curve
Sculptured tyre with a void ratio of 34% is 4dB noisier than a slick tyre but is more safety on an aquaplaning in curve and wet
braking.
Figure A.5-24: Wet braking, Aquaplaning in curve vs. Noise level
A.5.4.5.2 Effects of the tread material on the cornering power and the wear
A tyre with a standard compound is 1dB noisier than a tyre with very soft compound but is more safety in avoidance manoeuvres
and furthermore, the wear is better.
Figure A.5-25: Cornering Power, Wear vs. Noise level
85/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.5.4.5.3 Effects of the tyre internal structure on the rolling resistance and the wear
A tyre with a standard thickness is 3dB noisier than a tyre with a very thick under-tread but its wear is better. Furthermore, its
rolling resistance is more important.
Figure A.5-26: Rolling resistance, Wear vs. Noise level
A.5.4.6 Conclusions
In this presentation, phenomena that generate and mechanisms that affect noise generation are presented.
• Track is the most influential parameter on noise level.

• Temperature, Load and inflation pressure are impacting factors on tyre noise.
• Impact of the tyre and performance balance is known.
86/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6 Technical University Studies

Some Technical University have worked on the impact of the reduction of tyre noise on the other tyre
performance. In addition, they seek to describe the physical phenomena associated with each performance and its
potential influence on others.
A.6.1 Inter.noise_HAMBURG (2016)
A.6.1.1 Framework
This paper presents a study where noise and rolling resistance properties of tyres for winter conditions are compared
to summer and all-season tyres. The purpose of the study is to provide information related to the environmental performance of
winter tyres in new condition (and few in used condition) intended for use on passenger cars.
The study has been performed by the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI) in cooperation with the
Technical University of Gdansk (TUG) in Poland, where TUG made all the measurements on commission from VTI.
A.6.1.2 Contents
The measurements have been made in two times periods: first February-April 2015, then in March-April 2016.
Approximatively 50 car tyres have been measured with a trailer method, according to the procedure given in ISO/FDIS 11 819-
2 “Acoustics – Measurement of the influence of road surfaces on traffic noise -Part.2: The close-proximity method”. The selected
speeds were 30, 50, 80km/h with a minimum of two (usually four) runs were made for each test condition.
All measurements made on two road surfaces: SMA 8 and DAC 16. The noise levels measured on both road surfaces were
averaged and are A-weighted.
All measurements results have been normalized to a reference air temperature of 10°C in order to minimize that varying
temperatures during the measurements affect the results (10°C it is more representative to winter conditions and is similar to
the average temperature during the measurements). Only air temperatures were used for normalization.
For noise, the correction procedure described in ISO/DTS 13 471-1 “Acoustics – Temperature influence on tyre/road noise
measurement – Part.1: Correction for temperature when testing with the CPX method, was used but 10°C as reference
temperature instead of 20°C.
Air, road and tyre surface temperatures were measured simultaneously with the noise and rolling resistance measurements.
Rolling resistance measurements were performed with the trailer owned and operate by the Technical University of Gdansk
(TUG).
The selected speeds were 50 and 80km/h with a minimum of three runs were made for each test condition. Speed is usually not
an important factor for the RRC. Therefore, some tyres were measured also at 50km/h.
The coefficients measured on both surfaces were averaged. The SRTT measurements values cannot be compared with the
others du to different load condition.
A.6.1.3 Tests means
A.6.1.3.1 Tyres
The winter tyres include:
• types optimized for central European climate,
• tyres optimized for Nordic climate and,
• tyres with studs.
There is a type called “all-season” tyres which used to be a compromise between normal (“summer”) tyres and winter tyres.
There is a special winter tyre design which is essentially optimized for northern climates but having silicium carbide granules
evenly mixed into the rubber compound of the tyres tread.
Use a SRTT: standard reference test tyre according to ASTM 2493:14.
The tyre were load in accordance with ECE regulation R117 (406kg for noise, 408kg for rolling resistance).
Inflation pressure was also adjusted in accordance with the specifications in ECE R117 (fixed 180kPad in cold conditions for
noise, regulated 200kPa for rolling resistance).
87/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Table A.6-1: Tested tyres in the 2015 winter season (all in new condition)
Table A.6-2: Tested tyres in 2016 winter season. The last four (in italics) were tested in used condition, the other tyres in new
condition
A.6.1.3.2 Car
As the study is carried out on trailer or drum method, it does not take into account the model of the vehicle that the tyre
equips.
A.6.1.3.3 Tracks
Road surface SMA 8 was selected in order to serve as a proxy for the surface used when testing tyres according to EU
regulations on tyre noise limits and tyre labelling (ISO 10 844:1994). The surface texture was characterized according to ISO
13 473-1
Road surface DAC 16 was selected as its texture appeared to be similar to the SMA 16 road surface.
Table A.6-3: Tested pavement surfaces and their average MPD values
88/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6.1.4.1 Previous work by VTI and TUG regarding noise of winter tyres
The first major testing of winter tyres was within a VTI/TUG project run in 1995-2000, in which approximately 100 car tyres of
rather similar dimensions were tested for noise, rolling resistance and wet friction properties.
The test program included 41 winter tyres, of which 7 were studded, compared to approximately 60 “summer tyres”.
Noise was measured with an early version of the CPX method (ISO/FDIS 11819-2 “Acoustics – Measurement of the influence
of road surfaces on traffic noise – Part 2: The close-proximity method”), and rolling resistance with an early version of today’s
drum method (ECE R117 rev2, “Uniform Provisions concerning the Approval of Tyres with regard to Rolling Sound Emissions
and to Adhesion on Wet Surfaces and/or to Rolling Resistance”).
The tests were carried out on a dense concrete asphalt (DAC) with 16 maximum aggregate size, and the results can be
summarized as follows with the summer tyres as reference:
• The winter tyres were on average 0,9dB(A) quieter.
• The studded winter tyres were 2,3dB(A) noisier.
• The rolling resistance values were approximately 4% lower for the winter tyres then for the summer tyres.
• Studded tyres were not tested because they damage the drum equipment.
The next study was made in 2011-2012, to compare noise and friction properties of tyres (relation between tyre/road noise and
ice and snow friction of winter tyres). The results regarding the noise levels (measured with the coast-by method on an ISO
10844:1994 surface) at 50 an d80km/h are shown in Figure A.6-:
Figure A.6-1: Noise levels measured at 50km/h (left part) and 80km/h (right part), on an ISO 10844:1994 test track, using the
coast-by method of ISO 13325:2003
Each bar represents one tested tyre.
89/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6.1.4.2 Noise results: comparison of individual tyres

The A-weighted CPX noise levels for different tyre types and the three test speeds are presented in Figure A.6-2, only the
averaged values of noise levels on the both surfaces are shown:
Figure A.6-2: CPX noise levels for all the tyres; average values measured on the SMA 8 and DAC 16 surfaces. The tyre
categories are distinguished by different colours. The order of the tyres within each category is essentially random (although
the 2016 measurements are always at the right end)
Figure A.6-3: CPX noise levels: average for each tyre category. Average values measured on the SMA 8 and DAC 16
surfaces.
The following feature are noteworthy:

• The different speeds o not create any remarkable change in tyre ranking; but tyres differences are larger at the low
speed than at the high speed.
• The only clear difference between the tyre categories is that the studded tyres are much noisier, seen as an average,
but there is considerable overlap.
• Within each category there is a large difference between the noisiest and quietest tyres (4-6dB).
90/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A distinction between the two winter tyre categories optimized for central Europe and northern Europe. The northern Europe
category is marginally quieter (1dB) than the central Europe category.
Figure A.6-4: CPX noise levels for the winter tyres without studs; distinguishing between the tyres optimized for central
European use (left ) and for north European use (right). Average values measured on the SMA 8 and DAC 16 surfaces.
A.6.1.4.3 Noise results: comparison of used and new tyres

The differences between the noise levels measured for the four tyre pairs that were tested both in new and used condition.
This is a large difference in noise level. The used tyres are quieter than the new tyres by 2 to 7dB. The tyres tested in used
condition are only four and many more would be needed to be able to make robust estimations:
Figure A.6-5: Comparison of noise levels for tyres in new condition and similar tyres in used condition
91/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6.1.4.4 Noise results: labelling

For those of our tested tyres that have a tyre label according to Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009: Labelling of tyres with respect
to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters 2009. The relationship between the measured CPX noise levels and the label
values are:
Figure A.6-6: Measured CPX noise levels versus the tyre noise label values
The relationship between the measured CPX noise levels and the label values shows no correlation at all, however, one must
note that the measurements in this project have been made with the CPX method, while measurements for the label are made
with the coast-by method.
A.6.1.4.5 Rolling resistance result: comparison of individual tyres
The rolling resistance coefficients (RRC) for tested tyres grouped into four types at the speed of 80km/h are presented in Figure
A.6-7, only the averaged values of coefficient on the both surfaces are shown. The green point in circles indicated some tyres
were measured at 50km/h, but the speed is usually not an important factor for the RRC.
Figure A.6-7: Rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) for the tested tyres at 80km/h, average for two road surfaces. The data
measured for some tyres at 50km/ are indicated in the same diagram as green points
92/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
The average levels within each tyre category:
Figure A.6-8: Rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) at 80km/h, average for the two tested road surfaces. The RRC values for
tyres within each category were averaged to give a value for each category
The following features are noteworthy:

• The two speeds give very similar values.
• There is no clear difference between the tyre categories, perhaps expect that the all seasons tyres have higher RRC
than the other categories, but there is considerable overlap.
• There is remarkably large range of RRC, both seen over the entire tyre selection and within each tyre category.
• There is no significant difference between tyres optimized for central Europe versus tyres optimized for northern
Europe.
• The studded tyres as a group give about 5% higher rolling resistance then the non-studded winter tyres, but there is
such an overlap that this is not statistically significant difference.
A.6.1.4.6 Rolling resistance: comparison of used and new tyres

The differences between the RRC measured for the four tyre pairs that were tested both in new and used condition. The RRC
increase between tyres in used condition and tyres in new condition:
Figure A.6-9: Comparison of RRC values for tyres in new condition and similar tyres in used condition
93/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6.1.4.7 Rolling resistance: labelling

The measured rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) values were also compared to the tyre label values, which were taken from
the labels attached to the tyres:
Figure A.6-10: Measured rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) and tyre energy label values
The relationship between the measured RRC and the label values shows no correlation at all but in the measurements in this
project have been made with a non-standardized trailer method operate on real road surfaces, while measurements for the label
were made with the laboratory drum method specified in ECE R117 rev2.
A.6.1.5 Conclusions
This study on noise and rolling resistance includes various winter tyres and studded tyres. All tests are
performed in similar conditions: road surface, speeds, noise measurements method. Moreover, tyres are tested in new
and in used conditions.
• Winter tyres (expected studded tyres) are not noisier than summer tyres.
• Tyre in used condition has lower noise levels than for the same tyre in new condition.
• The used tyres showed higher values for rolling resistance.
• There are substantial noise differences both between all the tested tyres and within each tyre category.
• There is no correlation at all between measured values and values indicated on the tyre labels, both for noise
and rolling resistance.
• Tyres load and tyre inflation pressure were in accordance with ECE Regulation 117 (406kg, 180kPa fixed in
cold condition for noise and 408kg, 200kPa regulated for rolling resistance)
• Rolling Resistance based on trailer method.
• Rolling Sound based on CPX method specified on ISO/FDIS 11 819-2.
94/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6.2 Tyre modelling for rolling resistance (MASTER’S THESIS IN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING)
(2014)
A.6.2.1 Framework
This thesis work was carried out from January 2014 to June 2014 under the supervision of Dr. Gunnar Olsson and
Rudolf Brziak at LeanNova Engineering AB and Professor Bengt Jacobson at Chalmers University of Technology.
This study investigates mathematical models based on physical understanding and literature reviews of tyre rolling resistance
phenomena.
The work aims to develop a tyre model that explains the influence of tyre inflation pressure, tyre size, velocity and normal load
on the rolling resistance coefficient.
A.6.2.2 Content
Some design parameters such as tyre material, tread pattern, road types and temperature are not considered.
Furthermore, the tyre model applies to free rolling cases and does not include any torque application to wheels or longitudinal
slip.
There are many assumptions such as:
• Contact patch shape is assumed to be perfect rectangle
• Inflation pressure doesn’t change with deflection
• Tyre material and tread pattern are kept constant
• Road type is fixed to hard, dry and flat surface
Most of the tyre information has been taken from various research papers and correspondingly, most constants used have been
obtained thereof.
A.6.2.3 Influencing factors
A literature review was performed to bring information/data about phenomena and/or parameters which contribute to rolling
resistance.
Three important phenomena contribute to rolling resistance:
1. The tyre deformation in contact path: constitutes a major part of rolling resistance
2. The rotational aerodynamic drag of the wheel
3. The slip between tyre and road or wheel rim: becomes significant in case of braking or acceleration
Many tyre parameters influence rolling resistance. Although the data obtained from laboratory tests, many expression and
coefficient have been determined but these approaches are specific for each kind of tyre and so, they do not provide a physical
understanding of tyre rolling resistance phenomena.
A.6.2.3.1 Influence of tyre size.
With supposition that the tyre is a perfect circle, increasing tyre diameter decreases vertical deformation for the same contact
path length. So theoretically, decreasing the vertical deformation shall practically mean low transition of radius on the leading
and trailing edges of the contact patch and hence bending of tyre tread region is lower for bigger diameter which results in lower
hysteresis losses.
95/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
From experimental data, there is a dependence linearly between the rolling resistance coefficient and the tyre out diameter. The
more tyre out diameter larger is, the smaller rolling resistance coefficient is. If we associate it with the surface parameter, then
on hard ground the effect is less pronounced whereas on deformable surfaces the effect is magnified.
Figure A.6-11: Rolling resistance coefficient of tyre 175/70 R14 with outer diameter at 2.1 bars as per the ISO 8767 standard
(with base 100
Figure A.6-12: Rolling resistance coefficient change with tyre diameter and surface types
Moreover, the more the tyre width compared to section height, the lesser is the rolling resistance coefficient.
Experimental data are based on the ISO 8767:1992 standard (which has been revised by ISO 18164:2005).
A.6.2.3.2 Influence of tyre inflation pressure
For parameters kept constant, the tyre rolling resistance decreases with increase in pressure on level road surface. As the
pressure increases, the tyre holds its shape more firmly and vertical deflection decreases. In case of deformable road surfaces,
there is a lot of bending and shearing of tyre sidewall and tread region, which amounts to losses in the rubber resulting in an
increase in rolling resistance.
Figure A.6-13: Variation of rolling resistance coefficient with inflation pressure of tyres on various surfaces
96/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
From experimental data (based on the ISO 8767:1992), The tyre rolling resistance coefficient reduces as the pressures
increases indicating lowered hysteresis losses at higher inflation pressure. Around the nominal tyre inflation pressure, the values
are linearly scaled but the dependence tends to be less linear in the region of low tyre inflation pressure.
Figure A.6-14: Rolling resistance measures at 2.1bars as per the ISO 8767 standard
Tests data, from the FR78-14 tyre tested at 1280lbs load and 60mph speed, are concurrent with the trend obtain from
experimental data.
Figure A.6-15: Dependence of rolling resistance on inflation pressure for the FR78-14 tyre tested at1280lbs load and 60mph
A.6.2.3.3 Influence of normal load

An increase in normal load will increase radial deformation of tyre elements. There is more bending and shearing of the tyre
structure as the normal load applied increases, thus increasing rolling resistance force.
Figure A.6-16: Rolling resistance measured at 80% of the tyre’s maximum load capacity as per the ISO 8767 standard
97/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
However, a comparative study to determine the effect of a normal load on rolling resistance between vehicle tyres (FR78-14
tyre tested at 32psi pressure and 60mph speed) and bicycle tyres (no information) shows different results. For the bicycle, the
coefficient of rolling resistance was determined by coasting method, indoors.
Figure A.6-17: Dependence of rolling resistance on wheel load for FR78-14 tyre tested at 32psi pressure and 60mph speed
The conclusion is that the behaviour of RRC with vertical force is specific to a type of tyre and may increase or decrease.
A.6.2.3.4 Influence of longitudinal velocity
Under rated load and inflation pressure, the variation of the rolling resistance coefficient with speed is quite flat till 100km/h (for
radial car tyre) and then increases notably. But tyre rolling resistance can hardly be explained purely with velocity. The
thermodynamic tyre behaviour must be taken into account.
Figure A.6-18: Variation of RRC of radial and bias-ply car tyres with speed on smooth and flat surface under rated load and
inflation pressure
A test was performed for stationary speed conditions. The first speed was 80km/h for a rolling resistance coefficient given. The
speed was lowered to 50km/h in few seconds and the rolling resistance coefficient reduced transiently. This value of rolling
resistance coefficient is higher because the tyre was still hot. After being driven at 50km/h for a long time, the tyre temperature
dropped and the rolling resistance coefficient increase to a stable value.
Figure A.6-19: Stationary conditions at 80 km/h followed by a longer period of 50 km/h. Y-axis is RRC multiplied 1000times
98/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
A.6.2.4 Conclusions
In this study, the “Modelling” part was not taken in account.
• A sensitivity analysis of the parameters’ influence suggests that change in tyre inflation pressure has the
maximum influence on rolling resistance while outer diameter is the most sensitive parameter.
• The influence of contact patch width is very moderate.
• This study is based on the literary review. However, the experimental data come from only one type of tyre.
• The proposed model is based on a small sample size.
99/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Appendix B: Tool Box
100/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
The tool box is a help to describe the methods used and how to proceed during statistical analysis.
B.1 The first approach: Bivariate Analysis

In this study, the first approach was to check if there was a relationship between the performance parameters. For
this approach we used the Pearson correlation coefficient which is a comparative test between two set of data in order to
research a linear correlation.
B.1.1 The P-value

The P-value or probability value is, for a given statistical model, the probability that, when the null hypothesis is true, the
statistical summary would be greater than or equal to the actual observed results.
In our case the hypothesis is “there is no correlation between characteristics”.
In other words, if p-value is low then our hypothesis is false and we can conclude that there is a correlation.
The admitted threshold value is 5%.
Figure B.1-1: The p-value area in the set of possible results
B.1.2 Relationship representation

We have plotted the graphs of the 11 performance parameters: Rolling Resistance, Wet Grip, Flat Trac 80%, Flat Trac 50%,
Dry Grip Unladen, Dry Grip Laden, Longitudinal Aquaplaning, Lateral Aquaplaning, Weight, Void Ratio, Tread Depth.
The Rolling Sound parameter no enter in this scope.
All performance parameters are displayed in relation to each other. A set of 100 scatterplots is then obtained.
In the Figure B.1-3, each red boxes show strong probability of correlation (p-value < 5%).
The performance parameters are placed diagonally, which gives a symmetrical chart with respect to this diagonal. Thus, the
grey boxes are the symmetries of the red boxes.
Figure B.1-2: Symmetric explanation
101/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Figure B.1-3: The chart of scatterplots
This tool allows us to show direct relationship between the parameters.
The units used in this chart as the following:
Test Units
Rolling Resistance RR Index
Wet Grip WG Index
Flat Track N/°
Dry Grip %
Longitudinal
%
Aquaplaning
m/s
Lateral Aquaplaning
(integer)
Weight Kg
Void Ratio %
Tread Depth mm
Table B.1-1: Unit used in the chart of scatterplots
102/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.2 The second approach: Principal Component Analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a dimension-reduction tool that can be used to reduce a large set of variables
to a small set that still contains most of the information in the large set.
It is a mathematical procedure that transforms a number of (possibly) correlated variables into a (smaller) number of uncorrelated
variables called principal components.
The first principal component accounts for as much of the variability in the data as possible, and each succeeding component
accounts for as much of the remaining variability as possible.
B.2.1 The problem
B.2.1.1 Data
n individuals observed on p quantitative variables.
Individual: element of Rp
Variable: element of Rn
PCA allows to explore the links between variables and the similarities between individuals.
B.2.1.2 We are trying to represent the cloud of individuals
To each individual noted ei, a point can be associated in Rp = individual space.
Each variable in table X is associated with an axis of Rp.
Unable to view as soon as p > 3.
We are looking for a representation of the n individuals, in a subspace F k of Rp of dimension k.

In other words, we are trying to define k new variables linear combinations of the p initial variables that will cause as little
information loss as possible.
These variables will be called "Principal Components"

The axes they determine: "Principal Axes"
The associated linear shapes: "Principal Factors"
103/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.2.1.3 Loose as little information as possible

1. Fk will have to be "adjusted" as best as possible to the cloud of individuals: the sum of the squares of the distances
from individuals to Fk must be minimal.
2. Fk is the subspace such that the projected cloud has a maximum inertia (dispersion).
1 and 2 are based on the notions of distance and orthogonal projection.
The distance between fi and fj is less or equal to that between ei and ej.
B.2.1.4 The choice of the distance between individuals
In the plane: d² (A,B) = (xB - xA)² + (yB - yA)²
In the space Rp with p dimensions, this notion is generalized: the Euclidean distance between two individuals is written:
𝑝 𝑝
𝑒𝑖 = (𝑋𝑖1 𝑋𝑖2 … 𝑋𝑖 ) 𝑒𝑗 = (𝑋𝑗1 𝑋𝑗2 … 𝑋𝑗 )
2 2 𝑝 𝑝 2
𝑑2 (𝑒𝑖 , 𝑒𝑗 ) = (𝑋𝑖1 − 𝑋𝑗1 ) + (𝑋𝑖2 − 𝑋𝑗2 ) + ⋯ (𝑋𝑖 − 𝑋𝑗 )
𝑝
2
𝑑2 (𝑒𝑖 , 𝑒𝑗 ) = ∑(𝑋𝑖𝑘 − 𝑋𝑗𝑘 )
𝑘=1
To solve the units problem, we choose to transform the data into centred-reduced data.
The observation 𝑋𝑖𝑘 is then replaced by standard deviation units:
𝑋𝑖𝑘 − 𝑋̅ 𝑘
𝑆𝑘
where 𝑋̿ 𝑘 = mean of the variable 𝑋 𝑘 and 𝑆𝑘 = standard deviation of the variable 𝑋 𝑘
B.2.1.5 Total inertia

Inertia is the weighted sum of the squares of the distances of individuals at the center of gravity g.
𝐼𝑔 = ∑ 𝑝𝑖 𝑑2 (𝑒𝑖 , 𝑔)
𝑖=1
with ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑝𝑖 = 1
Inertia measures the total dispersion of the point cloud.
104/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Inertia is therefore also equal to the sum of the variances of the variables studied.
By noting V the variance -covariance matrix:
𝐼𝑔 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖2 = 𝑇𝑟(𝑉)
𝑖=1
B.2.2 The solution of the problem posed

The search for axes with the maximum inertia is equivalent to the construction of new variables (with which these
axes are associated) of maximum variance.
In other words, we change the reference point in Rp in order to place ourselves in a new representation system where the first
axis provides as much as possible of the total inertia of the cloud, the second axis as much as possible of inertia and orthogonal
to the first axis, and so on…
This reorganization is based on the diagonalization of the variance-covariance matrix.
B.2.2.1 Variable representation
The "proximities" between the main components and the initial variables are measured by covariances, and especially
correlations.
R(cj,xi) is the linear correlation coefficient between c j and xi.
B.2.2.2 Interpretation of "proximities" between variables

A scalar product is used between variables to associate the following with the current parameters: standard deviation, linear
correlation coefficient of the geometric representations. We assume the centred variables.
𝑛
1 𝑗
⟨𝑋 𝑖 , 𝑋𝑗 ⟩ = ∑ 𝑋𝑘𝑖 𝑋𝑘
𝑛
𝑘=1
X1 and X2 have a correlation close to 1.

X1 and X3 have a correlation close to 0.
105/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.2.3 Validity of representations
B.2.3.1 Global criteria:

𝜆𝑖
measures the inertia portion explained by the i-axis.
𝜆1 +𝜆2 +⋯𝜆𝑝
This criterion (often expressed as a percentage) measures the degree of reconstitution of the squares of distances.
The reduction of dimension is all the greater as the starting variables are more correlated.
How many axes ?:
Different procedures are complementary:
1. Desired percentage of inertia.
2. Divide the total inertia by the number of initial variables: keep all axes with an inertia greater than this value.
3. Keep the axes associated with the eigenvalues located before the break (λ4).
B.2.4 Individual criteria
B.2.4.1 Square Cosine
𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃2
For each individual, the quality of his representation is defined by the square of the cosine of the angle between the projection
axis and the vector ei. The closer the value is to 1, the better is the quality of representation.
In general, the qualities of representation are given axis by axis. To have the quality of representation in a plane, the criteria
corresponding to the axes studied are added.
This criterion has no significance for individuals close to the origin.
When detecting an individual for whom the square cosine is weak, its distance at the origin must be taken into account before
indicating that it is poorly represented.
B.2.4.2 Contribution
It is also very useful to calculate for each axis the contribution made by the various individuals to that axis.
Let us consider the kth main component ck, cik the value of the component for the ith individual.
𝑛
1 2
∑ (𝑐𝑖𝑘 ) = 𝜆𝑘
𝑛
𝑖=1
The contribution of the individual ei to the component no k is defined by:
1 𝑘
(𝑐 )²
𝑛 𝑖
𝜆𝑘
106/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.2.5 Variable representation

The circle of correlations is the projection of the cloud of variables on the level of the main components.
Correlation = cosine
The variables well represented are those close to the circle, those close to the origin are poorly represented.
B.3 Method applied in our study

In this study:
• Individuals (tyre references): two tyre references will be close to each other if their results to the events are close. We
want to see the variability between the individuals. Are there similarities between individuals for all the variables ? Can
we establish different profiles of individuals ? Can we oppose a group of individuals to another one ?
• Variables (tyre performance): We want to see if there are linear relationships between variables. The two objectives
are to summarize the correlation matrix and to look for synthetic variables: can we resume the performance of a tyre
by a small number of variables ?
B.3.1 Data
In our case it is used to reduce the number of input characteristics (variables) from 8 to 3 to allow a 2D or 3D visualization:
Rolling Resistance
Dry Grip Laden
Dry Grip Unladen
Axes 1
Flat Trac 80%
➔ Axes 2
Flat Trac 50%
Axes 3
Wet Grip
Longitudinal Aquaplaning
Lateral Aquaplaning
The result obtained:
Letters A to P correspond to the 16 tyres tested (individuals).
107/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.3.2 Variable representation

The "proximities" between the main components and the initial variables are the following:
Caractéristiques de la composante Caractéristiques de la composante
1.0 1.0 Correlation with axe 3

Correlation with axe 2 FT 1
RR
0.8 FT 2 0.8
LoA_Mean RR = Rolling Resitance
0.6 0.6
LaA_Integer FT1 = Flat Trac 80%
0.4 0.4
Composante 2 (20.61%)
Composante 3 (19.92%)
FT 1
No correlation FT2 = Flat Trac 50%
0.2 Correlation with axe 1 0.2
RR Ratio_unladen = Dry grip
FT 2
0.0 Ratio_unladen
0.0 No correlation
unladen
Ratio_laden
WG
-0.2
LaA_Integer Ratio_laden = Dry grip
-0.2 Ratio_unladen
WG Ratio_laden laden
-0.4 LoA_Mean -0.4 Correlation with axe 1 LoA_Mean = Longi
-0.6 -0.6
aquaplaning
-0.8
LaA_Integer = Lateral
-0.8
aquaplaning
-1.0 -1.0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Composante 1 (47.13%) Composante 1 (47.13%)
Figure B.3-1: Variables factor map
B.3.3 Validity of representations

We used the Histogram method to keep the axes associated with the eigenvalues located before the break.
Diagramme des valeurs propres Variance expliquée

4 1.0
88%
0.8
3
68%
Eigenvalue
Proportion
0.6
2
Break 0.4
1
0.2
0 0.0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8
Principal Component Principal Component

Cumulé
Proportion
Figure B.3-2: Decomposition of the total inertia on the components of the PCA
The percentage of cumulative inertia for the two first axes represents 68% and raise to 88% with the third axis.
108/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
B.3.4 The contribution and 2D representation

Characterization of factors using individuals is represented by the font size of the tyre in question. The formula used is:
𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒋 = (𝑞𝑙𝑡𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝑞𝑙𝑡𝑦𝑖𝑗 ) ∗ 2
2
(𝐴𝐶𝑃 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑖𝑗 )
Where 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑞𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑗 =
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑗
2
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑗 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝐴𝐶𝑃 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑖𝑗 )
With n the number of ACP axis
i the ACP axis
j the tyre
𝑞𝑙𝑡𝑥𝑖𝑗 / 𝑞𝑙𝑡𝑦𝑖𝑗 the data quality of tyre j on the axis i
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑗 the distance of tyre (in relation to the centroid of the point cloud)
Here an example with axis 1 and axis 2.

ACP Axis 2
ACP Axis 1
Figure B.3-3: Individual factor map
When replacing axis 2 by Noise we choose 𝑞𝑙𝑡𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 0.5
The bigger the letters, the more the axis is driven by the tyre in comparison to the others for this 16 tyres sample.
The smaller the letters, the less the axis is driven by this tyre in comparison to the others for this 16 tyres sample.
109/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Appendix C: Statistics results
110/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
C.1 Univariate Analysis

C.1.1 Data description
Lower Upper
Median Standard
Variable Unit Minimum quartile Mean quartile Maximum
(50%) deviation
(25%) (75%)
R117 50 dB(A) 62,9 63,6 64,4 64,8 65,1 66,0 0,98
R117 80 dB(A) 68,4 69,7 70,2 70,3 70,9 72,4 1,02
R51A 50 dB(A) 65,0 66,1 66,7 66,6 67,4 69,2 1,01
R51C 80 dB(A) 70,4 71,5 72,1 72,3 72,7 73,8 0,87
R51C 50 dB(A) 63,8 64,8 65,5 65,5 66,3 66,8 0,92
Rolling Resistance Cr (N / kN) 6,45 7,77 8,30 8,36 8,97 9,95 0,936
Wet Grip G(T) 1,06 1,45 1,51 1,56 1,64 1,74 0,171
Flat trac 80% N/° 1265 1367 1454 1441 1528 1669 122
Flat trac 50% N/° 1080 1126 1220 1200 1291 1507 120
Dry Grip unladen % 76,5 92,2 93,7 94,8 96,9 100,0 5,76
Dry Grip laden % 75,5 92,1 93,7 94,9 98,0 100,0 6,25
Aquaplaning longi % 92,1 96,4 101,1 101,4 103,8 110,3 5,62
Aquaplaning lateral 41,3 54,8 60,2 62,4 66,9 73,1 8,93
Weight Kg 7,84 8,21 8,85 8,60 9,37 11,80 0,97
Void ratio % 23,1 32,1 36,1 37,1 41,4 46,2 6,66
Tread Depth mm 6,39 6,88 7,25 7,22 7,64 8,18 0,51
Table C.1-1: Data description used
C.1.2 Box-plot graphics
Distribution de noise par method

75.0
E
E
72.5
70.0 I
M
noise
I
E
67.5
E
65.0
I
62.5 I
R117_50 R117_80 R51A _50 R51C_80 R51C_50
method
Figure C.1-1: Noise distribution by method
111/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Rolling
Distribution deresistance
RR par variable Wet Grip
Distribution de WG par variable
10 1.8
B
P
9 1.6
WG
RR
8 1.4
O
7 1.2
L
J
6 1.0
. .
Flat Track 80%

Distribution de FT1 par variable Flat Track 50%
Distribution de FT2 par variable
1700 1600
E
1500 E
1600
1400
1500
FT2
FT1
1300
1400
1200
1300
1100
C B
1200 1000
. .
Dry Grip unladen

Distribution de Ratio_unladen par variable Dry Grip laden
Distribution de Ratio_laden par variable
100 100
P P
95 95
90 90
Ratio_unladen
Ratio_laden
M
85 85
M
80 80
J J
75 75
. .
Longitudinal Aquaplaning
Distribution de LoA_M ean par variable Lateral
Distribution deAquaplaning
LaA_Integer par variable
115 80
110 M N
70
105
LaA_Integer
LoA_Mean
60
100
50
95
O
J
90 40
. .
112/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Weight
Distribution de weight par variable Void Ratio
Distribution de void par variable
50
12
J C
45
11
40
10
G
weight
void
35
30
8
25
C
G
7 20
.
.
Tread Depth
Distribution de depth par variable
8.5
J
8.0
7.5
depth
7.0
K
6.5
6.0
Figure C.1-2: Box-plot graphic of each variable
The tyre J bring out atypical for wet grip, dry grip and weight. It’s a heavy tire with very bad results in grip (wet and dry). The
tyre M bring out atypical for R51A50.
C.1.3 Tyre Radar Charts

In order to visualize all results for each tire, we gave a score of 0 to 10 so that each result is comparable with each other (0 for
very bad resultat and 10 for very good result). Thereby having a first visual of tyre performances.
A B C
D E F
113/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
G H I
J K L
M N O
Figure C.1-3: Radar Charts of each tyre
114/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
C.2 Bivariate Analysis

C.2.1 Correlation between each variables
We computed the correlations of each variable between them. The table below only shows the relationships for which the
Pearson correlation coefficient is significant (p-value <0.05).
Pearson Proba > |r|

Obs Variable 1 Variable 2 Correlation under H0:
coefficient (p-value)
1 Dry Grip laden Dry Grip unladen 0.96268 <.0001
2 Longi Aquaplaning Lateral Aquaplaning 0.84026 <.0001
3 Flat Trac 80% Flat Trac 50% 0.75858 0.0007
4 Wet Grip Dry grip unladen 0.74708 0.009
5 Dry Grip laden Weight -0.69360 0.0029
6 Dry Grip laden Tread Depth -0.69258 0.0029
7 Rolling resistance Tread Depth 0.67008 0.0045
8 Wet Grip Lateral Aquaplaning 0.66442 0.0050
Weight 0
9 Dry Grip unladen -0.66169
.0052
10 Wet Grip Dry grip laden 0.66160 0.0052
11 Dry Grip unladen Tread Depth -0.64746 0.0067
12 Dry Grip unladen Lateral Aquaplaning 0.63505 0.0082
13 Flat Trac 80% Void Ratio -0.59846 0.0123
14 Rolling resistance Weight 0.59821 0.0144
15 Wet Grip Weight -0.59564 0.0149
16 Dry Grip laden Lateral Aquaplaning 0.58815 0.0166
17 R117_80 Lateral Aquaplaning 0.54865 0,0278
18 R117_80 Longi Aquaplaning 0.53591 0.0324
19 Flat Trac 50 % Tread Depth -0.49887 0.0492
Table C.2-1: Variables correlation
115/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
C.2.2 Linear correlations visualizations two by two
Figure C.2-1: Scatter plot between each two by two variable
The graph above represents the scatter plot between each two by two variable. The graphs which have a linear correlation
significant are frame in red.
116/232
REPORT
(Revision 19/10/2021)
Appendix D: Test Reports
117/232
ACCREDITATION
N°1-0193
PORTEE
DISPONIBLE SUR
WWW.COFRAC.FR
D.1 Rolling Resistance Report
RAPPORT N°: AFFSAS1801813_RR_01

REPORT
DEMANDEUR : EUROPEAN AUTOMOBILE MANAFACTURER’S ASSOCIATION - ACEA

1040 BRUXELLES
OBJET : Mesure de la résistance au roulement d'un pneumatique suivant la norme ISO 28580 (Sept 09)
SUBJECT et le règlement 117.02.
Tyre rolling resistance measurement following ISO 28580 (Sept 09) and Regulation 117.02.
CONCLUSION (*) : Voir annexe(s) page 120

CONCLUSION See appendix page 120
Florian LE BOUQUIN Marc-Antoine SCORIANZ

Responsable d’affaire Responsable de Section Bancs d'Essais
Contract Leader Head of Section Test Rigs
l'accréditation. (*)Pour déclarer, ou non, la conformité à la spécification, il n'a pas été tenu compte de l'incertitude associée aux résultats.
Tests results are only available for the materiel submitted to tests or materiel identified in the present test report. Accreditation by the Cofrac test department only certifies the technical
competence of the laboratory for the tests or analyse covered by this accreditation. (*)In vue to declare the compliance or non compliance to the requirements, the uncertainty of the test
results has not been explicitly taken into account.
Société par actions simplifiées au capital de 7 800 000 euros TVA FR 89 438 725 723- Siren 438 725 723 RCS Evry – Code APE 7120 B
PV.CSA.057.711 Rév 05
AFFSAS1801813 Ce document comporte 18 page(s) dont 16 annexe(s) / This document contains 18 page(s) including 16 annex(es)
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
1- BANC D’ESSAI & LISTE DES PNEUMATIQUES / BENCH TEST & TIRE LIST
1.1. Banc de mesure de Résistance au Roulement méthode: couple

Rolling Resistance test Bench method: torque
1.2. Puissance électrique: 75 kW

Electrical power: 75 kW
1.3. Diamètre du tambour: 2000 mm

Drum diameter: 2000 mm
1.4. Vitesse maximale: 250 Km/h

Maximum speed: 250 Km/h
1.5. Surface du tambour: Surface en acier et lisse

Drum surface: Slick & hard-faced
1.6. Annexe 1 / Appendix 1: A 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 2 / Appendix 2: B 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 3 / Appendix 3: C 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 4 / Appendix 4: D 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 5 / Appendix 5: E 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 6 / Appendix 6: F 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 7 / Appendix 7: G 205/55R16 91W
Annexe 8 / Appendix 8: H 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 9 / Appendix 9: I 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 10 / Appendix 10: J 205/55R16 91H
Annexe 11 / Appendix 11: K 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 12 / Appendix 12: L 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 13 / Appendix 13: M 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 14 / Appendix 14: N 205/55R16 91V
Annexe 15 / Appendix 15: O 205/55R16 91H
Annexe 16 / Appendix 16: P 205/55R16 91V
119/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 1
APPENDIX 1
A.1. Date et lieu de l’essai / Test date: 25/02/2019 à/in Montlhéry (UTAC)
A.2. Caractéristiques du pneumatique – PN9014

Tire descriptions
A.2.1. Dimensions et description de service / Dimensions and service description: 205/55R16 91V
A.2.2. Fabricant du pneumatique / Tire manufacturer: NC
A.2.3. Marque du pneumatique / Tire brand: NC
A.2.4 Désignation commerciale / Trade et commercial name: NC
A.2.5. Classe de pneumatique (C1,C2 ou C3) / Tire class (C1, C2 or C3): C1
A.2.6. Catégorie d’utilisation / Category of use: Normal
A.2.7. Pression de gonflage de référence (kPa) / Reference pressure (kPa): 210
A.3. Paramètres d’essai

Test parameters
A.3.1. Méthode de mesure / Test method: Couple / Torque
A.3.2. Vitesse d’essai (Km/h) / Test Speed (km/h): 80
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482
A.3.4. Pression de gonflage d’essai initiale (kPa) / Test initiale reference pressure (kPa): 210
A.3.5. Distance de l’axe du pneumatique à la surface exterieure du tambour en stationnaires (rL en mètre): 0,315
Stationary distance from tire axis to the drum outside surface ( rL in meter)
A.3.6. Largeur et matériau de la jante (pouce) / Rim width and material (inch): 6,5 - Acier
A.3.7. Température ambiante (°C) / Room temperature (°C): 24,4
A.3.8. Charge pour la mesure à charge minimale (sauf pour la méthode de la décélération) en N: 100
Load for mimimum load measurement (except for deceleration method) in N
A.4. Coefficient de résistance au roulement

Rolling restistance coefficient
M1 M2 M3 M4
Valeur initiale (ou moyenne dans le cas où il y a plus d’une valeur) en N/kN:
Initial value (or average in case of more than one value) in N/kN 9,100 8,976 9,047 8,952
Valeur N/kN (corrigée pour la température):

Value N/kN (with temperature correction) 9,054 8,940 9,017 8,927
Valeur N/kN (corrigée pour la température et le diamètre du tambour):

Value N/kN (with temperature and drum diameter correction) 9,235 9,120 9,197 9,107
120/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 2
APPENDIX 2
A.2. Caractéristiques du pneumatique - PN8062

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


121/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 3
APPENDIX 3

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


122/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 4
APPENDIX 4

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


123/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 5
APPENDIX 5

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


124/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 6
APPENDIX 6

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


125/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 7
APPENDIX 7

Tire descriptions
A.2.1. Dimensions et description de service / Dimensions and service description: 205/55R16 91W

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


126/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 8
APPENDIX 8

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


127/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 9
APPENDIX 9

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


128/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 10
APPENDIX 10
A.2. Caractéristiques du pneumatique - PN8044

Tire descriptions
A.2.1. Dimensions et description de service / Dimensions and service description: 205/55R16 91H
A.2.6. Catégorie d’utilisation / Category of use: Neige / Snow

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


129/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 11
APPENDIX 11

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


130/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 12
APPENDIX 12

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


131/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 13
APPENDIX 13

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


132/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 14
APPENDIX 14

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


133/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 15
APPENDIX 15

Tire descriptions
A.2.1. Dimensions et description de service / Dimensions and service description: 205/55R16 91H

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


134/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RR_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 16
APPENDIX 16

Tire descriptions

Test parameters
A.3.3. Charge (N) / Load (N): 482

M1 M2 M3 M4


135/232
D.2 Rolling Sound Report
RAPPORT D’ESSAI N°: AFFSAS1801813_RS_01

TEST REPORT

1040 BRUXELLES
OBJET : Essais d'un type de pneumatique selon les prescriptions:

SUBJECT Tests of a type of tyre according the requirements of
- De l’annexe 3 (Bruit de roulement) du Règlement ECE 117R02 complément 9
The annex 3 (Tyre-rolling sound emission) of the ECE Regulation 117R02 supplement 9
- De l’annexe 3 (Bruit émis par les véhicules à moteur) du Règlement ECE 51R03 complément 4
The annex 3 (Sound made by motor vehicle) of the ECE Regulation 51R03 supplement 4
Objet soumis aux essais : pneumatique, voir descriptif en annexe

Object submitted to tests: tire, see description in annex
RESULTATS : Voir §6.

RESULTS See §6.
(day/month/year)
Yoni MEYER
Responsable de Section Acoustique et Vibration
Head of Section Noise and Vibration
l'accréditation.
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Référence interne du dossier: AFFSAS1801813_RS_01

Internal reference
1. PRESCRIPTION D'ESSAIS
TESTING SPECIFICATIONS
Prescription d’essais basée sur:

Test specifications based on
L’annexe 3 (Bruit de roulement) du Règlement ECE 117R02 complément 9

The annex 3 (Tyre-rolling sound emission) of the ECE Regulation 117R02 supplement 9
L’annexe 3 (Bruit émis par les véhicules à moteur) du Règlement ECE 51R03 complément 4
The annex 3 (Sound made by motor vehicle) of the ECE Regulation 51R03 supplement 4
2. EQUIPEMENT SOUMIS AUX ESSAIS

DEVICE UNDER TEST
Véhicule: NISSAN Leaf 30kwh 109 cv

Vehicle
Pneumatiques:
Tires
Annexe 1 / Appendix 1: A 205/55R16 91V

137/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
3. CONDITIONS D’ESSAI
TEST CONDITION(S)
- Chargement des pneus pour les méthodes d’essai basées sur le règlement ECE 117
Tire load for the test method based on regulation ECE 117
Avant gauche: 526.5 kg

Front left
Avant droit: 498 kg
Front right
Arrière gauche: 383 kg
Rear left
Arrière droit: 397.5 kg
Rear right
Total: 1805 kg
Total
- Pression des pneumatiques pour les méthodes d’essai basées sur le règlement ECE 117
Tire inflation pressure for the test method based on regulation ECE 117
Avant gauche: 210 kPa

Front left
Avant droit: 210 kPa
Front right
Arrière gauche: 150 kPa
Rear left
Arrière droit: 150 kPa
Rear right
- Chargement des pneus pour les méthodes d’essai basées sur le règlement ECE 51
Tire load for the test method based on regulation ECE 51
Avant gauche: 486.5 kg

Front left
Avant droit: 439.5 kg
Front right
Arrière gauche: 343.5 kg
Rear left
Arrière droit: 343.5 kg
Rear right
Total: 1613 kg
Total
- Pression des pneumatiques pour les méthodes d’essai basées sur le règlement ECE 51
Tire inflation pressure for the test method based on regulation ECE 51
Avant gauche: 250 kPa

Front left
Avant droit: 250 kPa
Front right
Arrière gauche: 250 kPa
Rear left
Arrière droit: 250 kPa
Rear right
- Conditions météorologique
Weather conditions
Voir annexes page 141

See appendixes page 6
138/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
4. MATERIEL UTILISE
USED INSTRUMENTATION
Piste d’essai: PTS0020

Test track
Localisation de la piste d’essai: Linas-Montlhéry

Location of test track
Caractéristiques de la piste d’essai: Conformes à la norme ISO 10844:2014

Test track characteristics: In accordance with ISO 10844:2014
Microphones: B&K Type 4189: MIC0170 (gauche) ; MIC0180 (droite)

Microphone: (left) ; (right)
Source sonore de référence: B&K 4231: ACO0063

Calibrator
Tachymètre (vitesse): RACELOGIC VBSS05: VIT0032

Tachometer (speed)
Station météorologique: MWS 5MV REINHARDT:THE0127+THE0128

Weather station
Système d’acquisition LMS PBN system: ACQ0063

Acquisition system
5. ESSAIS
TESTS
Essais selon le règlement ECE 117 (8 passages entre 70 et 90 km/h) appelés R117 80 kph dans les annexes
Tests according to ECE 117 (8 passes between 70 and 90 kph) called R117 80 kph in the appendixes
Essais basés sur le règlement ECE 117 (4 passages à 50 km/h) appelés R117 50 kph dans les annexes
Tests based on regulation ECE 117 (4 passes at 50 kph) called R117 50 kph in the appendixes
Essais selon le règlement ECE 51: stabilisé (4 passages) appelés R51C 50 kph dans les annexes et accéléré (4
passages) R51A 50 kph dans les annexes
Tests according to regulation ECE 51: cruise (4 passes) called R51C 50 kph in the appendixes and acceleration (4
passes) called R51A 50 kph in the appendixes
Essais basés sur le règlement ECE 51: stabilisé à 80 km/h (4 passages) appelés R51C 80 kph dans les annexes
Tests based on regulation ECE 51: cruise at 80 kph (4 passes) called R51C 80 kph in the appendixes
139/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
6. RESULTATS
RESULTS
Essais selon le règlement ECE 117 (8 passages entre 70 et 90 km/h): le résultat d’essais correspond à celui du ECE
117
Tests according to ECE 117 (8 passes between 70 and 90 kph): test result according to ECE 117
Essais basés sur le règlement ECE 117 (4 passages à 50 km/h): le résultat final correspond à la moyenne des
valeurs de niveaux sonores relevés à gauche et à droite pour tous les passages.
Tests based on regulation ECE 117 (4 passes at 50 kph): final result corresponds to the average of the sound level
values recorded on the left and on the right for all the passages
Essais selon le règlement ECE 51: stabilisé (4 passages) et accéléré (4 passages): le résultat d’essais correspond à
celui du ECE 51 Lcrs et Lwot
Tests according to regulation ECE 51: cruise (4 passes) and acceleration (4 passes): test result corresponds to Lcrs
and Lwot of ECE 51
Essais basés sur le règlement ECE 51: stabilisé à 80 km/h (4 passages): le résultat d’essais correspond à celui du
ECE 51 Lcrs
Tests based on regulation ECE 51: cruise at 80 kph (4 passes): test result corresponds to Lcrs of ECE 51
Une correction en température selon le règlement ECE 117 est réalisée pour chaque type d’essai
Temperature correction according to ECE 117 is made on each test
Tableau récapitulatif des résultats:

Summary table of results:
Rolling Sound modified (dB(A))
R117 50 kph R117 80 kph Arr R51A 50 kph T° R51C 80 kph T° R51C 50 kph T°
List
AVG (dB(A)) LR-1dB (dB(A)) corr (dB(A)) corr (dB(A)) corr (dB(A))
A 64,8 70,7 66,3 72,4 65,5

B 64,9 70,3 66,4 72,2 65,7
C 65 70,8 66,9 72,8 66,1
D 65,1 71,1 67,1 73 66,4
E 65,8 72,4 67,4 73,8 66,8
F 64,7 70,3 66,4 72,5 65,4
G 63,6 69,6 65,5 71,7 64,9
H 63,2 68,5 66,3 71,1 64,6
I 62,9 68,4 65 70,4 64,3
J 63 70,1 67,4 71,8 63,8
K 65,1 71,0 66,9 73 66,6
L 63,9 69,7 65,9 71,5 65
M 66 70,6 69 72,6 66,9
N 65,1 70,9 67,2 72,5 66
O 63,6 69,2 65,8 71,2 64,7
P 63,9 69,7 66 71,4 64,9
Paramètres d’essai et mesures brutes: Voir annexes page 141

Test parameters and raw data: See appendixes page 1413232
140/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
ANNEXE 1 / APPENDIX 1
Date de l’essai / Test date: 18/02/2019 (day/month/year)
A.1 Caractéristiques du pneumatique / Tire descriptions
Marque commerciale: NC Désignation commerciale: NC

Brand Name Trade description
Dimensions et description de service: 205/55R16 91V

Dimensions and service description
Classe de pneumatique: C1 Référence: S1_PN9014_01,02,03,04

Tire class Reference
Catégorie d’utilisation: Normal Pneumatique pour voiture: standard

Category of use Tyre for car
A.2 Paramètres d’essai et mesures brutes / Test parameters and raw data
Background noise (dB(A)) Temperature (°C) Atmosph

Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
Before After Air Track Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
49 49 14 17 995 42 4 S
R51A 50 kph
Pre-acc Speed(km/h) SPL dB(A) TEMPERATURE (°C)
(m)
AA PP BB Left Right AIR TRACK
5 44,2 49,3 55,2 65,9 65,9 14,3 17,4
5 44,6 49,9 55,9 66,7 66,5 14,2 17,8
5 44,5 49,6 55,4 66,4 66 14,3 17,6
5 44,2 49,1 55,2 66,6 65,9 14,3 17,7
R51C 50 kph
Speed (km/h) SPL (dB(A)) TEMPERATURE (°C)

49,7 49,8 50 65,7 65,3 14,6 18,3
49,8 49,8 49,9 65,4 65,8 14,6 18,1
49,7 49,7 49,9 65,5 65,6 14,6 18,1
49,7 49,8 50 65,6 65,2 14,6 17,5
R51C 80 kph

80,4 80,3 80,2 72,9 72,2 14,4 18
80,2 80,2 80,1 72,4 72,6 14,4 18,4
80,4 80,3 80,3 72,4 72 14,3 17,8
80,1 80 79,9 72,4 72,2 14,3 17,7
141/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Background noise (dB(A)) humidity speed
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
49 996 41 0,5 S
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
MAX Temperat Temperat
PP' MAX Left ure ure
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
70,1 70,4 69,8 15,1 17
72,8 70,6 70,3 15,1 16,6
75,4 71,3 71,4 15 17,3
78 71,4 71,2 14,8 17
81,2 71,9 72,1 14,7 17,2
83,7 73 72,5 14,7 16,8
85,7 73 72,7 14,8 16,6
87,5 73,2 72,9 14,7 16,5
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,6 65,3 64,9 14,6 16
50,9 65 65,1 14,6 16,1
50,8 65,3 64,8 14,7 16
50,7 65 64,8 14,6 16
142/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT




Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
46,2 46,2 17 23,7 1010 37 1,6 N
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,4 49,7 55,2 66,4 66,3 16,6 23,7
5 43,9 49,3 55,3 66,5 66,6 16,9 23,6
5 44,4 49,7 55,5 66,1 66,1 17,1 23,5
5 43,9 49,2 55 66,3 66 17,2 23,2
R51C 50 kph

49,8 49,9 50,1 65,4 65,4 16,9 23
49,7 49,9 50,1 65,7 65,8 16,7 23,1
49,9 49,9 50 65,3 65,6 16,6 23,4
49,8 49,9 50 65,1 65,4 16,6 23,8
R51C 80 kph

79,3 79,2 79 72,5 71,7 17 23,6
79,4 79,3 79,1 72 71,5 17,1 23,4
80,1 80 79,8 72 71,8 16,9 23
80,1 80 79,9 71,7 71,7 16,8 22,9
143/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
46,2 1010 33 2,3 E
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72 69,8 69,4 16,8 22,6
73,7 70,3 70,2 16,8 22,8
76,3 71,1 70,6 16,6 23,1
78,4 70,9 70,5 16,7 22,9
81,8 71,8 71,6 16,5 22,6
84,6 72,4 71,7 16,6 23
86,2 72,5 71,6 16,6 23,2
87,9 73,1 72,1 16,4 23
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,5 65 64,7 16,5 23
50,5 64,9 64,5 16,4 22,8
50,4 64,8 64,6 16,5 22,6
50,2 65,3 65 16,3 22,4
144/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT




A.2 Paramètres d’essai / Test parameters

Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
49 49 15 17 1008 55 2 S
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,8 50,1 55,8 67,2 67 16,2 17,1
5 44,8 50,2 56,1 67,3 67,1 15,5 17,5
5 43,9 49,2 55 66,8 66,7 16,1 17,4
5 44,2 49,5 55,5 67 66,6 16,3 17
R51C 50 kph

49,7 49,8 49,9 66,4 66,2 16,1 17,5
49,6 49,7 49,9 66 66,3 16 17,3
49,8 49,9 49,8 66,3 66,2 16 17,5
49,7 49,8 49,8 66,2 66 16,1 18
R51C 80 kph

80,4 80,7 80,6 72,9 72,8 16,2 18
80,1 80 79,9 73,1 72,6 16,2 18,1
80,2 80,1 80 72,8 72,6 16,1 18,1
80,5 80,4 80,2 72,9 72,9 16,2 18
145/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
49 1008 42 1,5 SW
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
71,9 70,5 70,4 16 17
73,7 71 70,7 16,2 17,3
75,6 71,1 71 16,4 16,6
78,4 71,6 71,6 16,2 16,2
81 72,6 72,1 16,3 16,2
83,6 72,7 72,5 16,2 16,3
85,4 73 73,1 16,3 16,1
87,1 73,4 73,2 16,6 15,5
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50 65,5 65,2 16,5 15,9
50 65,3 65,1 16,2 16
50,2 65,6 65,1 16,2 16,3
50,1 65,3 65,1 16,1 16,4
146/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
47 47 9 13 1013 46 2,5 NE
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,7 50,1 55,9 67,2 67,4 8,8 14,2
5 44,9 50,1 56,1 67,7 67,6 9 14
5 44,5 49,9 55,8 67,4 67,6 9,2 14,1
5 44,4 49,8 55,6 67,7 67,4 9 14,1
R51C 50 kph

50 50 50,1 66,7 66,4 9,3 14,7
50 50,2 50,1 66,7 66,8 9,1 14,8
50,1 50,1 50,2 66,6 66,6 8,9 14
50,1 50,1 50,2 66,7 66,9 8,5 15,2
R51C 80 kph

79,8 79,6 79,5 73,6 73,5 8,7 14,5
79,5 79,4 79,2 73,2 73,4 8,7 13,2
79,5 79,5 79,3 73,1 73,6 8,6 13,8
79,6 79,6 79,3 73,2 73,2 8,5 13
147/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
47 1013 48 2 NE
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,3 70,9 71 9,6 12,7
74,2 71,4 71,2 9,7 12
76,1 71,6 71,9 10 12,8
77,8 72,2 72 10 12,4
80,7 72,8 72,3 10,2 12,8
82,4 73,4 72,9 10,1 13,2
84,7 73,3 73,6 10 13,2
87,9 73,8 73,6 10 14
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
49,9 66,1 65,9 10,2 14,2
50 65,4 65,2 10,2 13,9
50 65,5 65,3 10,3 14,3
50,2 65,4 65,1 10,3 14
148/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
48 49 11 19 1002 46 2 N
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 43,8 49,1 55 67,1 67,2 12 20
5 44,7 50 55,8 67,5 67,2 12 20
5 44,1 49,3 55,3 67,5 67,2 12 20
5 44,1 49,4 55,3 67,4 67,1 12 20
R51C 50 kph

50,2 50,3 50,4 66,7 66,3 13 21
50,2 50,2 50,3 66,5 66,4 12 21
50,1 50,2 50,4 67,3 66,5 12 21
50,2 50,2 50,4 66,6 65,9 12 21
R51C 80 kph

79,8 79,5 79,4 73,4 73,4 13 22
79,8 79,7 79,5 74 73,3 13 22
80,2 80,1 80 73,8 73,2 12 22
80 79,9 79,8 73,5 72,9 12 22
149/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
48 1002 45 3 NW
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72 71,5 71,2 11,1 21
73,8 72 71,4 11,2 21,1
76,3 72,8 72,4 10,4 21,2
79,9 73,8 73,5 10,7 21,2
80,9 73,8 73,7 10,8 20,5
82,8 74,2 74 10,9 20,5
84,6 74,2 74,4 10,9 20,5
87,6 74,9 75,1 10,7 20,3
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,6 66,2 65,6 10,5 19,9
50,5 66,2 65,6 10,5 20
50,2 66,1 65,4 10,5 20
50,4 66,2 65,5 10,6 19,9
150/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
44 44 13 24 1012 37 3 NE
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,7 49,8 55,6 66,3 66,3 13,1 24
5 44,7 50 55,9 66,3 66,2 13,3 24,7
5 44,3 49,7 55,8 66,3 65,7 13,4 24,8
5 44,5 49,8 56 66,1 65,9 13,7 24,5
R51C 50 kph

49,8 49,8 50,1 65,2 65,7 13,7 24,3
49,7 50 50,2 65,4 65,5 13,3 24,1
49,8 50 50,1 65,4 65,6 13,6 24,8
49,8 49,9 50,1 65 65,2 16,4 24,2
R51C 80 kph

79,3 79,2 79,1 72,8 72,4 13,1 24,2
79,4 79,3 79,1 71,8 72,2 13,2 24,5
79,4 79,2 79 71,8 72,5 13 24,5
80,4 80,3 80,1 71,9 72,4 13,1 24,4
151/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
44 1011 34 2,5 NE
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,2 69,5 69,8 13,6 24,2
73,7 69,8 70,2 13,5 23,9
75,6 70 70,8 13,3 24
78,5 70,5 70,7 13,4 24,1
81,1 71,6 72,1 13,5 23,9
83 71,1 71,9 14 24,1
85,7 71,9 72,5 13,9 23,5
87,9 72,1 72,8 13,6 23,2
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50 64,8 65 13,4 23,4
49,7 64,5 64,5 13,4 23,5
49,7 64,4 64,5 13,8 23,4
49,8 64,5 64,6 13,8 23,1
152/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT

Dimensions et description de service: 205/55R16 91W




Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
44 44 18 20 1014 31 1,5 NE
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,7 50,1 56 65,8 65,7 17,8 19,2
5 44,1 49,3 55 65,1 65,5 17,3 20
5 44 49,6 55,6 65,3 65,3 18,1 19
5 43,8 49,2 55,3 65,4 65,3 17,9 19,3
R51C 50 kph

49,7 49,8 49,9 64,8 64,5 17,3 19,9
49,8 49,8 49,9 64,7 65 17,4 20,3
49,8 49,9 50 64,6 65,2 17,4 20,1
50 50 50,1 64,3 64,9 17,4 20
R51C 80 kph

80,1 80,1 79,9 71,5 72,1 17,5 20,2
80,3 80,2 80 71,5 71,6 17,5 20,1
80,2 80,1 80 71,5 71,5 18,6 186
80,3 80,2 80 71,4 71,7 18,6 18,3
153/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
44 1013 38 1,5 NE
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
71,7 69,1 69,2 18,2 18,3
73,7 69,6 69,5 18,3 18,3
75,4 69,6 69,6 18,4 17,9
78,3 70,6 70,7 18,3 18,1
81,2 70,9 71,1 18,3 18
83,1 71,2 71,2 18,3 17,8
85,8 72,1 71,6 18,4 18
87,6 72 72,3 18,3 17,3
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,1 63,9 63,7 18,1 17,4
50,1 64 63,9 18,1 17,4
49,8 63,4 63,6 18,2 17,5
50,1 63,5 63,9 18,1 17,5
154/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
49 49 9 13 1002 71 2 S
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 43,9 49 54,7 65,6 66,2 7,7 14,6
5 45,3 50,5 56,4 67,1 66,9 7,8 14,5
5 44,2 49,7 55,8 66,5 66,6 7,9 14,7
5 45,1 50,3 56,2 66,9 66,8 8 14,5
R51C 50 kph

49,9 49,9 50,1 64,4 64,8 8 14,1
50,1 50,1 50,1 64,5 65,2 8 14
49,8 49,9 50,2 64,4 65,2 8 14,3
50 50 50,1 64,5 64,6 8 14
R51C 80 kph

80,1 80 80 71,6 71,4 8 13,6
80 79,8 79,8 71,4 71,6 8,1 13,5
80,4 80,3 80,1 71,4 71,5 8,4 14,4
80,1 80 79,8 71,4 71,5 9,1 13,1
155/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
49 1002 71 2 SW
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,2 68,5 68,8 10 12,4
74,9 68,9 69,1 9,5 13
76,7 69,3 69,2 9,5 13,5
79,7 69,9 69,5 9,5 12,5
81,5 70,4 70,1 9,5 12,7
83,3 70,4 70,3 9,5 12,6
84,7 70,7 71 9,8 12,3
87,9 71,3 71,8 9,8 12,5
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,9 63,6 63,9 10 12,4
50,2 63,5 63,7 10 12,7
50,3 63,6 63,7 9,9 12,5
50,3 63,8 63,4 9,8 12,7
156/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
48 48 19 22 1003 38 3 SW
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,2 49,7 55,7 65 65 20 21,8
5 44,5 49,7 55,8 65 64,8 19,8 21,2
5 44,1 49,3 55,1 64,6 64,8 20 21
5 44,4 49,7 55,5 65,1 65,2 20 20,5
R51C 50 kph

50 50,1 50,3 64,2 64 19,8 20,8
50 50,1 50,3 63,9 64,4 19,7 20,8
50,1 50,1 50,1 64,5 63,9 19,8 20,8
49,9 50,1 50,4 64,1 64,8 19,6 20,8
R51C 80 kph

79,9 79,8 79,7 70,6 70,4 19,8 20,2
79,9 79,8 79,7 70,3 70,2 19,6 20,1
80 79,8 79,7 70,1 70,1 19,6 20,1
79,8 79,8 79,6 70,4 70,2 19,6 20
157/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
48 1003 35 2 W
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,8 68,7 67,8 19,3 18,9
75,5 68,8 68,4 19,3 18,5
77,5 69,2 68,8 19,4 18,8
79,3 69,3 69,2 19,3 18,1
82 70,6 69,9 19,3 18
83,8 70,3 70,2 19,3 18,3
86,5 70,5 70,3 19,3 18,4
89 71,2 71,1 19,3 18,3
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,5 63 63,1 19,3 18,1
50,6 63,2 63,1 19,4 18,1
50,3 62,9 62,8 19,4 17,6
50,7 63 63,2 19,3 17,6
158/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT

Dimensions et description de service: 205/55R16 91H




Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
46 45,95 17 20,1 1012 23 3,5 N
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,1 49,4 55,3 67,4 67,3 16,8 21,8
5 44,1 49,4 55,1 67,4 67,2 16,9 21,6
5 44,1 49,2 55 67,6 67 16,8 21,3
5 44,1 49,2 54,8 67,2 67,3 17,2 21,3
R51C 50 kph

49,7 49,7 49,9 64 64,3 16,9 20,8
49,8 49,9 49,9 63,9 64 16,7 21,2
49,9 49,8 49,9 64 63,9 16,8 21,5
49,9 49,9 49,9 63,4 63,8 16,8 21,5
R51C 80 kph

80,3 80,3 79,9 71,7 71,9 16,8 21,1
80,4 80,3 80,1 71,8 71,1 17 21,3
80,2 80,2 80 71,9 71,5 16,9 21
80,4 80,4 80,2 71,8 71,5 16,8 21,3
159/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
46,0 1012 25,5 3 N
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,4 69 68,7 17,2 21,1
74 69,4 69,4 17,4 21,1
75,8 70 69,9 17,3 20,7
77,6 69,9 70,1 17,4 20,7
82,2 71,4 71,9 17,4 20,9
83,8 71,9 72,2 17,2 20,8
85,8 72,9 72,6 17,4 21
87,5 73,1 72,9 17,6 20,8
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50 62,6 63,1 17,7 20,2
50,3 63,1 63,3 17,9 20
50,2 63 63,2 17,7 19,9
49,9 62,7 62,8 17,8 20,3
160/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 50 9 9 1012 51 2 NE
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 43,9 49,3 55,3 67,5 67,7 9,7 10,5
5 43,5 49,2 55,2 67,4 67,3 9,7 10,6
5 44,1 49,6 55,4 67,5 67,5 9,9 10,8
5 43,8 49,2 55,1 67,1 67,4 9,9 10,7
R51C 50 kph

50,3 50,4 50,4 66,9 67,2 10 11
50,3 50,3 50,4 66,9 67,1 10,1 11,2
50,3 50,3 50,4 67,2 67,2 10 11,2
50,7 50,6 50,5 66,9 66,9 10,1 11,4
R51C 80 kph

80,1 80 79,8 73,5 73 10,6 11,6
80,2 80,1 79,9 73,4 73 10,5 11,6
80,2 80,1 79,9 73,5 73,4 10,8 12,2
80,3 80,2 79,9 73,4 73 11,1 11,9
161/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 1012 45 2 NE
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
73,1 71,4 71 12,7 13,8
74,9 71,1 71,3 12,8 14
76,3 71,9 71,8 12,8 13,9
79,1 72,3 71,8 12,9 14,3
81,8 72,9 72 12,5 13,6
83,9 73,1 72,7 13 14,5
85,8 73,7 72,9 13 14,3
88,6 74,2 73,6 13,1 14,5
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,5 65,9 65,4 13,1 14,5
50,4 65,3 64,9 13,3 14,5
50,6 65,6 65,6 13,7 15,3
50,6 65 65,4 13,7 15,4
162/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 49 13 24 1008 32 2 NE
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,6 49,9 55,8 65,7 65,4 14 23,7
5 43,8 49,2 55,1 65,3 65,2 13,6 23,9
5 45 50,2 55,9 66,9 66,4 13,7 24
5 44,5 49,9 55,9 65,4 65,7 13,7 24,2
R51C 50 kph

50,4 50,4 50,5 65,6 65,1 13,5 24,2
50,4 50,3 50,4 65,3 65,1 13,8 24,3
50,5 50,5 50,7 64,5 64,6 13,9 23,7
50,5 50,5 50,6 64,3 64,4 14 24,2
R51C 80 kph

80,7 80,5 80,4 71,6 71,5 14 24,5
80,5 80,3 80,1 71,7 71,4 13,8 24,1
80,6 80,7 80,5 71,1 70,8 13 24,4
80,6 80,5 80,4 71,2 71 12,8 24,6
163/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 1008 34 1,5 NE
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
73,3 69,4 68,9 12 22,4
72,3 69,5 69 12,1 23,3
75,7 69,9 70,1 12,2 22,4
77,9 70,3 70,3 12,7 21,8
81,3 70,7 71 12,7 21,3
84,2 70,9 71,6 12,8 21,3
86,1 72 71,4 12,8 21,3
88,7 72,4 71,8 13 21,8
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,5 63,8 63,8 12,6 21
50,6 64,1 63,9 12,3 21,9
50,7 63,6 64 12,2 22,4
50,7 63,9 63,7 12,3 22,8
164/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 50 12 16 1003 60 1 S
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,9 49,9 55,5 68,7 69,2 11,7 16,6
5 44,5 49,7 55,5 68,8 69,5 11,8 16,4
5 44 49,2 55,5 68,8 69,1 11,8 16,2
5 44,2 49,6 55,8 68,9 69,1 11,8 16,2
R51C 50 kph

49,7 49,7 49,7 66,9 67 12,3 16,2
49,7 49,7 49,9 66,8 67 12,3 15,7
49,7 49,7 49,9 66,7 66,9 12,4 15,7
49,7 49,7 49,8 67 67,4 12,2 15,8
R51C 80 kph

80,2 80,1 80 72,6 72,8 14 14,9
80,2 80,1 79,9 73 72,9 13,8 14,3
80,3 80,2 80 72,7 72,8 13,4 15,6
80,3 80,1 79,9 72,5 73,1 13,2 15,6
165/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 1003 56 2 SW
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
71,1 70,1 70,4 13,5 15,9
73,9 70,9 70,6 13,6 15,2
75,6 70,8 71,2 13,4 15,3
78,5 71,6 71,6 13,2 15,6
81,3 72,1 72,4 13,3 15,7
84 72,7 72,7 13,2 15,1
85,9 72,6 73,1 12,8 15,6
87,7 73,2 72,9 12,5 16,8
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,2 66,2 66,5 12,6 16,5
50,2 65,9 66,3 12,9 16,5
50,2 66,5 66,3 13 14,2
50,2 65,8 66,4 13,1 16
166/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
48,7 48,7 14 19 1012 47 1,5 W
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,6 49,8 55,7 67,6 66,8 13,7 18,9
5 43,6 49 54,9 66,9 66,8 13,6 18,9
5 44,6 49,7 55,6 67,6 66,8 13,8 18,9
5 43,7 49,1 55,1 66,9 66,7 13,8 18,8
R51C 50 kph

49,9 50 50,2 66,2 65,8 13,8 18,6
50 50 50,2 65,9 65,5 13,7 18,8
49,9 50,1 50,2 65,9 65,7 13,7 18,6
49,9 50 50 66,2 65,6 13,5 18,3
R51C 80 kph

79,4 79,4 79,2 72,6 72,4 13,6 18,6
79,4 79,3 79,1 72,5 72,3 13,7 18,4
79,4 79,2 79,2 72,6 72,3 13,8 18,5
79,4 79,3 79,1 72,5 72,2 13,8 18,4
167/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
48,7 1013 48,3 0,8 W
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,4 70,3 70,2 13,5 18,3
74,1 70,9 70,5 13,5 18,3
76,1 71,4 70,7 13,5 18,1
78,5 71,9 71,3 13,3 18,1
82,3 72,8 72,6 13,4 18,1
84 73,1 72,5 13,4 18,1
86 73,6 73 13,5 18,2
87,8 73,4 73,2 13,4 18,1
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50 65,3 65,4 13,4 18,1
49,9 65,3 65,2 13,4 18,1
49,9 65,1 65,1 13,3 17,9
50 65,2 64,8 13,3 17,8
168/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 50 9 7 1007 72 2 S
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,1 49,4 55,4 66,4 66,8 9,5 7,6
5 44,5 49,7 55,6 66,2 66,3 9,5 7,6
5 44,3 49,5 55,2 66,2 66,6 9,5 7,5
5 44 49,2 55 66 66,1 9,5 7,8
R51C 50 kph

50 50 50,1 65,1 65,4 9,4 8,7
50 50 50,1 65,2 65,2 9,5 8,9
50 50 50 64,5 65,5 9,6 8,8
50 50,1 50,1 64,9 65,3 9,7 9,2
R51C 80 kph

80,5 80,4 80,2 71,6 71,9 10 9,4
80,7 80,5 80,4 71,6 71,7 10 9,2
80,7 80,5 80,3 71,4 71,6 10,1 8,9
80,8 80,7 80,5 71,4 71,9 10,1 9,4
169/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
50 1007 68 2 S
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,9 69,3 69,3 10,5 10
75,3 69,7 70,1 10,6 10,4
77,2 70,1 70 10,7 10,1
79 70,4 70,8 10,8 10,6
81,8 71 71,2 11 10,8
84,3 71,8 71,8 11,1 11,4
86,1 71,6 71,6 11,1 10,8
87,9 72 72,3 11,1 10,7
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,6 64 64,3 11 10,8
50,6 63,7 64,4 11 10,8
50,8 64,1 64,5 11,3 11,9
50,6 63,9 64,2 11,6 11,9
170/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT





Relative Wind
eric Direction
humidity speed
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
45 45 17 22 1010 34 3 E
R51A 50 kph
(m)
5 44,5 49,6 55,3 64,9 65,4 17,6 21,9
5 45,1 50,4 56,2 65,3 66,1 17,8 21,6
5 45,1 50,3 56,1 65,5 66,1 17,8 21,8
5 44,8 50,3 56,4 65,4 66 17,8 21,8
R51C 50 kph

50 50,1 50,3 64,2 64,9 17,6 21,5
50 50 50,1 64,3 64,8 17,7 21,8
49,9 50 50,1 64,1 64,6 17,5 21,8
49,9 50,1 50,2 64,9 64,8 17,5 21,8
R51C 80 kph

79,7 79,5 79,3 71,1 71,3 17,8 21,6
79,6 79,5 79,3 71,3 71,7 17,7 21,5
79,6 79,4 79,3 71,2 71,1 17,7 21,5
79,6 79,4 79,3 71,1 71,6 17,7 21,6
171/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_RS_01
REPORT
Atmosph
Relative Wind
eric Direction
Pressure of wind
(%) (m/s)
(hPa)
45 1009 34 3 E
R117 80 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
Right
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
72,7 69,1 68,9 18,2 20,5
75,3 70,1 69,6 18,2 20,8
76,9 70,1 70,2 18,2 20,7
79,8 70,8 70,7 18,3 20,5
81,5 71 70,4 18,4 20,4
84,4 71,3 71,3 18,4 20,5
86,1 72,1 72,1 18,3 20,4
88 72,8 72,4 18,1 20,5
R117 50 kph
Speed SPL AIR TRACK
PP' MAX Left
Right ure ure
(km/h) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (°C) (°C)
50,1 64,1 64 17,9 20,8
50,3 63,5 63,7 17,9 20,8
50,3 64,1 63,7 18 20,7
50,3 64,4 63,6 18,3 20,2
172/232
ACCREDITATION
N°1-0193
PORTEE
DISPONIBLE SUR
WWW.COFRAC.FR
D.3 Wet grip Report
RAPPORT N°: AFFSAS1801813_WG_01

REPORT

1040 BRUXELLES

- de l’annexe 5 (Adhérence sur sol mouillé) du Règlement ECE 117R02 complément 9.
the annex 5 (Wet grip) of the ECE Regulation 117R02 supplement 9.

CONCLUSION (*) : Voir annexe(s) page 175

CONCLUSION See appendix page 175
Florian LE BOUQUIN Marc-Antoine SCORIANZ

Responsable d’affaire Responsable de Section Bancs d'Essais
Contract Leader Head of Section Test Rigs
l'accréditation. (*)Pour déclarer, ou non, la conformité à la spécification, il n'a pas été tenu compte de l'incertitude associée aux résultats.
Tests results are only available for the materiel submitted to tests or materiel identified in the present test report. Accreditation by the Cofrac test department only certifies the technical
competence of the laboratory for the tests or analyse covered by this accreditation. (*)In vue to declare the compliance or non compliance to the requirements, the uncertainty of the test
results has not been explicitly taken into account.
PV.CSA.058.584 Rév 08 Ce document comporte 18 page(s) dont 16 annexe(s) / This document contains 18 page(s) including 16 annex(es)
AFFSAS1801813
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT
1. DESCRIPTION METHODE ET PISTE

METHOD AND TRACK DESCRIPTION
1.1. Emplacement de la piste d'essais : UTAC CERAM Montlhéry 91

Location of test track
1.2. Caractéristiques de la piste d’essai : Conforme au § 3.1 de l'annexe 5 du Règlement

Test track characteristics 117R02
Conform to § 3.1 of annex 5 of 117R02 regulation
1.3. Hauteur au sable : 0,997 mm

Texture depth
Hauteur d’eau : 0,900 mm

Water depth
1.4. Méthode d’essai : Remorque Dufournier Technologies RME 04

Test method Trailer
1.5. Vitesse d’essai (Km/h) : 65 Km/h

Test Speed
1.6. Type de capteurs de température : Thermocouple k

Temperature measurement sensor type
1.7. Caractéristique du SRTT : UNIROYAL 225/60R16 TIGER PAW

Identification of the SRTT
1.8. Annexe 1 / Appendix 1: A 205/55R16 91V
174/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT


Classe de pneumatique: C1 Référence: S1_PN9014_03

Tire class Refrence

Méthode remorque / Trailer method SRTT 1 TIRE SRTT 2
Charge d’essai: (kg) / Test Load (kg) 548 461 548
Température piste mouillée (°C) / Wetted track temperature (°C) 9,8 10,0 11,0
Température de l’air (°C) / Air temperature (°C) 9,6 9,9 10,4
Pression de gonflage, à froid (kPa) / Cold inflation pressure (kPa) 180 180 180
Méthode de certification BPN: 50 Largeur de la jante (pouce): 6,5

Method of certification BPN Rim width (inch)
A.3 Résultats / Results
TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,02 0,83 0,80
2 1,02 0,88 0,77
pour chaque passage 3 1,03 0,85 0,83
measurement for each run 4 1,04 0,89 0,81
5 1,01 0,88 0,82
6 1,00 0,85 0,83
moyenne de chaque série
1,02 0,86 0,81
average for each serie
Ecart-type
0,01 0,02 0,03
Standard deviation
Coefficient de variation (%) (≤ 5%)
1,43 2,64 3,12
Coefficient of variation (%)
Coefficient de variation entre les 2 séries de SRTT (%)
- 4,35
Coefficient of variation between the 2 series of SRTT (%)
Ra: coefficient de force de freinage corrigé
Ra: adjusted average peak braking force 0,84 -
Indice d’adhérence G(T) déterminé conformément aux §
4.1.6.5 ou § 4.2.8.5 de l'annexe 5 du Règlement 117R02
Wet grip index G(T) according to § 4.1.6.5. or § 4.2.8.5 1,57
of annex 5 of 117R02 regulation
*: calcul du Ra avec la formule Ra = 1/2 (R1 +R2) avec l’utilisation de deux autres pneumatiques candidats non pris en compte dans le présent rapport.
calculation of the Ra with the formula Ra = 1/2 (R1 +R2) using two candidate tires not concerned by this test report.
175/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,94 0,85 0,80
2 1,00 0,81 0,85
5 0,96 0,85 0,87
6 0,96 0,84 0,87
0,96 0,84 0,84
Ecart-type
0,03 0,01 0,03
Standard deviation
2,70 1,61 3,82
- 2,81
*: calcul du Ra avec la formule Ra = 1/4 R1 + 3/4 R2 avec l’utilisation de deux autres pneumatiques candidats non pris en compte dans le présent rapport.
calculation of the Ra with the formula Ra = 1/4 R1 + 3/4 R2 using two candidate tires not concerned by this test report.
176/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,94 0,83 0,80
2 1,01 0,88 0,77
5 0,97 0,88 0,82
6 1,04 0,85 0,83
1,00 0,86 0,81
Ecart-type
0,04 0,02 0,03
Standard deviation
4,10 2,64 3,12
- 4,35
*: calcul du Ra avec la formule Ra = 3/4R1+1/4R2 avec l’utilisation de deux autres pneumatiques candidats non pris en compte dans le présent rapport.
calculation of the Ra with the formula Ra = 3/4R1+1/4R2 using two candidate tires not concerned by this test report.
177/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,01 0,85 0,80
2 1,04 0,81 0,85
5 1,01 0,85 0,87
6 1,04 0,84 0,87
1,02 0,84 0,84
Ecart-type
0,03 0,01 0,03
Standard deviation
,11 1,61 3,82
- 2,81
178/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,03 0,80 0,81
2 1,07 0,85 0,89
5 0,97 0,87 0,81
6 1,06 0,87 0,84
1,02 0,84 0,83
Ecart-type
0,04 0,01 0,03
Standard deviation
4,11 1,61 3,52
- 3,58
*: calcul du Ra avec la formule Ra = 1/2 (R1 + R2) sans l’utilisation d’autres pneumatiques candidat.
calculation of the Ra with the formula Ra = 1/2 (R1 + R2) without using other candidate tire.
179/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,97 0,74 0,75
2 0,89 0,78 0,73
5 0,93 0,76 0,69
6 0,93 0,74 0,71
0,92 0,76 0,72
Ecart-type
0,03 0,02 0,03
Standard deviation
3,19 2,26 3,64
- 3,73
180/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,90 0,90 0,83
2 0,88 0,89 0,81
5 0,93 0,84 0,91
6 0,93 0,84 0,87
0,93 0,88 0,86
Ecart-type
0,03 0,03 0,04
Standard deviation
2,73 3,18 4,81
- 3,94
181/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,80 0,74 0,75
2 0,84 0,78 0,73
5 0,79 0,76 0,69
6 0,83 0,74 0,71
0,81 0,76 0,72
Ecart-type
0,03 0,02 0,03
Standard deviation
3,88 2,26 3,64
- 3,73
182/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,07 0,83 0,81
2 1,09 0,81 0,81
5 1,12 0,91 0,81
6 1,12 0,87 0,85
1,09 0,86 0,81
Ecart-type
0,02 0,04 0,02
Standard deviation
2,08 4,81 2,14
- 4,78
183/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,73 0,83 0,81
2 0,71 0,81 0,81
5 0,72 0,91 0,81
6 0,70 0,87 0,85
0,71 0,86 0,81
Ecart-type
0,03 0,04 0,02
Standard deviation
4,45 4,81 2,14
- 4,78
184/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,95 0,90 0,83
2 0,98 0,89 0,81
5 1,03 0,84 0,91
6 1,06 0,84 0,87
1,01 0,88 0,86
Ecart-type
0,05 0,03 0,04
Standard deviation
4,47 3,18 4,81
- 3,94
185/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,97 0,74 0,75
2 0,95 0,78 0,73
5 0,97 0,76 0,69
6 1,04 0,74 0,71
0,98 0,76 0,72
Ecart-type
0,03 0,02 0,03
Standard deviation
3,16 2,26 3,64
- 3,73
186/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,14 0,83 0,81
2 1,08 0,81 0,81
5 1,05 0,91 0,81
6 1,11 0,87 0,85
1,10 0,86 0,81
Ecart-type
0,04 0,04 0,02
Standard deviation
3,67 4,81 2,14
- 4,78
187/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,05 0,85 0,80
2 1,05 0,81 0,85
5 0,99 0,85 0,87
6 1,03 0,84 0,87
1,02 0,84 0,84
Ecart-type
0,04 0,01 0,03
Standard deviation
3,46 1,61 3,82
- 2,81
188/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 0,85 0,90 0,83
2 0,85 0,89 0,81
5 0,88 0,84 0,91
6 0,89 0,84 0,87
0,87 0,88 0,86
Ecart-type
0,03 0,03 0,04
Standard deviation
3,10 3,18 4,81
- 3,94
189/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_WG_01
REPORT



Tire class Refrence


TIRE SRTT1 SRTT2

1 1,18 0,83 0,80
2 1,04 0,88 0,77
5 1,13 0,88 0,82
6 1,16 0,85 0,83
1,12 0,86 0,81
Ecart-type
0,05 0,02 0,03
Standard deviation
4,67 2,64 3,12
- 4,35
190/232
D.4 Dry (Flat Trac) Report
RAPPORT D’ESSAI N°: AFFSAS1801813_FT_01

TEST REPORT

1040 BRUXELLES

- De la procédure d’essai Flat Trac proposé par l’ETRTO conformément à l’annexe 2 de l’appel
d’offre ACEA Tyre Performance Study
The Flat Trac test procedure proposed by ETRTO according to the appendix 2 of the ACEA
tender

RESULTATS : Voir §6.

RESULTS See §6.
(day/month/year)
Jocelyn MERRIEN
Chef de projet Tyre Performance Parameters
Tyre Performance Parameters Project Leader
l'accréditation.
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT
Référence interne du dossier: AFFSAS1801813_FT_01

Internal reference
1. PRESCRIPTION D'ESSAIS
TESTING SPECIFICATIONS
Prescription d’essais basée sur:

Test specifications based on
L’annexe 2 de l’appel d’offre ACEA Tyre performance study

The annex 2 of the ACEA Tyre Performance Study tender
2. EQUIPEMENT SOUMIS AUX ESSAIS

DEVICE UNDER TEST
Pneumatiques:
Tires
Annexe 1 / Appendix 1: A 205/55R16 91V

3. CONDITIONS D’ESSAI
TEST CONDITION(S)
Vitesse d’essai (Km/h) / Test Speed (km/h): 80
Charge (N) / Load (N): 140%, 110%, 80%, 50%, 20% of LI
Pression de gonflage d’essai initiale (kPa) / Test initiale reference pressure (kPa): 210
Largeur et matériau de la jante (pouce) / Rim width and material (inch): 6,5 - Acier
Température ambiante (°C) / Room temperature (°C): 22<T°<25
Voir annexes pages 195

See appendixes pages 193
192/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT
4. MATERIEL UTILISE
USED INSTRUMENTATION
Banc d’essai: MTS Flat Trac III CT

Test bench
Jante Flexwheel MAXION ( BFB ) - 6.5J16 H2 ET41

Rim:
Système d’acquisition LMS PBN system: ACQ0063

Acquisition system
5. ESSAIS
TESTS
Simplified flat trac procedure for the measurement of the tyre cornering stiffness as a handling relevant performance.
Part 1: Warm up Sequence

1. 10 min @vertical load [FZ] of 70% LI, 80 km/h straight rolling
2. 1 min @ slip angle [SA] of ±3° (±2°/sec constant gradient)
3. 10 min @ 70% LI, 80 km/h straight rolling
Part 2: Measurement of Cornering Stiffness

1. Sequence of vertical loads: 140%, 110%, 80%, 50%, 20% of LI
2. Slip angle: ±1° @ (±1°/sec constant gradient)
3. Each vertical load is measured for 2 complete periods of slip angle variation Data Acquisition: > 50 Hz
Evaluation:
Cornering stiffness as a function of the vertical load, by linear regression of the data for abs (slip angle)<0.5 deg
193/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT
6. RESULTATS
RESULTS
Tableau récapitulatif des résultats:

Summary table of results:
FLAT TRAC
80% LI 50% LI T0 TEnd
List PKY1 PKY2
(N/°) (N/°) (°C) (°C)
A 1417 1288 -21,6005608 1,23285854 24,5 24,6
B 1387 1080 -23,0007803 1,86769259 23,7 23,9
C 1265 1099 -19,1657965 1,29671813 24,3 24,3
D 1462 1144 -22,9237275 1,57098125 23 23
E 1669 1507 -25,3184635 1,23319048 23,5 23,5
F 1500 1294 -23,5542041 1,43745809 23,8 23,9
G 1641 1337 -25,4974194 1,57226637 23,3 23,7
H 1420 1130 -22,3773139 1,66763772 23,1 23,3
I 1550 1278 -24,2608945 1,56807336 23,4 23,7
J 1479 1090 -26,8887759 2,30211624 23,2 23,4
K 1351 1232 -21,0218243 1,261259 23,5 23,7
L 1326 1126 -20,2800653 1,41779713 24 24,2
M 1294 1126 -19,7792398 1,34385715 23,6 23,6
N 1618 1271 -25,1838502 1,66500463 23,1 23,3
O 1382 1168 -21,4390989 1,47831847 22,6 22,6
P 1505 1351 -23,4227127 1,32121029 23,9 24,2
Paramètres d’essai et mesures brutes: Voir annexes pages 4195

Test parameters and raw data: See appendixes pages 4
194/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT


Classe de pneumatique: C1 Référence: S2-PN-9014-05


Raw data file: cornering-stiffness-for-utac_S2-PN-9014-05____UTAC_-_15FEB19-a
FZ (N) P (bar) V (kph) Vs (rpm) cycle1 cycle2 cycle3 cycle4 cycle5 -mean 4&5
1202 2,1 80 687 -621 -616 -618 -616 -618 617
3015 2,1 80 693 -1292 -1287 -1291 -1286 -1289 1288
4832 2,1 80 695 -1419 -1416 -1419 -1417 -1417 1417
6645 2,1 80 696 -1281 -1283 -1285 -1283 -1280 1282
8453 2,1 80 697 -1100 -1097 -1096 -1094 -1095 1095
8448 2,1 80 697 -1090 -1087 -1088 -1089 -1088 1088
Cornering stiffness (N/deg) vs Load (N)

S2-PN-9014-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1202 3015 4832 6645 8453 8448
195/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT



1198 2,1 80 684 -480 -479 -480 -480 -481 480
3013 2,1 80 690 -1083 -1079 -1082 -1078 -1082 1080
4833 2,1 80 692 -1393 -1385 -1390 -1384 -1390 1387
6646 2,1 80 693 -1466 -1459 -1462 -1459 -1461 1460
8459 2,1 80 694 -1430 -1426 -1422 -1421 -1417 1419
8453 2,1 80 694 -1410 -1406 -1407 -1404 -1405 1404

1600 S2-PN-8062-05
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1198 3013 4833 6646 8459 8453
196/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1197 2,1 80 686 -538 -535 -536 -535 -536 535
3012 2,1 80 692 -1103 -1098 -1100 -1097 -1100 1099
4834 2,1 80 694 -1265 -1265 -1263 -1265 -1264 1265
6648 2,1 80 695 -1169 -1166 -1167 -1168 -1167 1167
8454 2,1 80 696 -1008 -999 -993 -998 -995 997
8453 2,1 80 696 -993 -994 -991 -994 -992 993

S2-PN-9017-05
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1197 3012 4834 6648 8454 8453
197/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




Raw data file: cornering-stiffness-for-utac_S2-PN-9031-05____UTAC_-_26MAR19-a
1198 2,1 80 682 -527 -524 -527 -524 -525 525
3013 2,1 80 687 -1212 -1203 -1211 -1202 -1210 1206
4832 2,1 80 689 -1475 -1471 -1472 -1469 -1472 1470
6645 2,1 80 690 -1457 -1450 -1444 -1450 -1445 1447
8459 2,1 80 691 -1333 -1331 -1325 -1330 -1320 1325
8454 2,1 80 691 -1315 -1319 -1314 -1319 -1313 1316

S2-PN-9031-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1198 3013 4832 6645 8459 8454
198/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1202 2,1 80 681 -728 -720 -724 -716 -719 717
3015 2,1 80 685 -1520 -1504 -1514 -1502 -1512 1507
4832 2,1 80 686 -1676 -1669 -1672 -1668 -1670 1669
6643 2,1 80 687 -1520 -1507 -1514 -1511 -1515 1513
8454 2,1 80 688 -1277 -1272 -1276 -1277 -1277 1277
8451 2,1 80 688 -1269 -1263 -1266 -1265 -1266 1266

1800 S2-PN-8052-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1202 3015 4832 6643 8454 8451
199/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1202 2,1 80 684 -633 -629 -630 -629 -632 630
3014 2,1 80 690 -1299 -1292 -1295 -1291 -1297 1294
4831 2,1 80 692 -1510 -1494 -1506 -1493 -1506 1500
6643 2,1 80 694 -1471 -1450 -1462 -1450 -1464 1457
8451 2,1 80 695 -1343 -1323 -1325 -1318 -1327 1323
8450 2,1 80 695 -1322 -1309 -1319 -1308 -1316 1312

1600 S2-PN-8051-05
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1202 3014 4831 6643 8451 8450
200/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT


Classe de pneumatique: C1 Référence: S2-PN9007-05


Raw data file: cornering-stiffness-for-utac_S2-PN9007-05____UTAC_-_11FEB19-a
1204 2,1 80 685 -586 -580 -583 -579 -584 582
3016 2,1 80 691 -1346 -1331 -1342 -1331 -1343 1337
4831 2,1 80 693 -1649 -1639 -1646 -1637 -1645 1641
6643 2,1 80 695 -1619 -1618 -1621 -1619 -1621 1620
8453 2,1 80 696 -1473 -1466 -1467 -1466 -1468 1467
8450 2,1 80 696 -1465 -1466 -1461 -1461 -1461 1461

S2-PN9007-05
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1204 3016 4831 6643 8453 8450
201/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1203 2,1 80 683 -488 -485 -489 -487 -489 488
3015 2,1 80 689 -1134 -1128 -1132 -1127 -1133 1130
4831 2,1 80 692 -1423 -1420 -1421 -1419 -1421 1420
6641 2,1 80 693 -1435 -1429 -1426 -1428 -1426 1427
8451 2,1 80 694 -1338 -1327 -1324 -1326 -1321 1323
8444 2,1 80 694 -1329 -1319 -1312 -1312 -1311 1312

S2-PN-9003-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1203 3015 4831 6641 8451 8444
202/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1203 2,1 80 681 -568 -566 -566 -564 -566 565
3015 2,1 80 686 -1281 -1277 -1279 -1277 -1280 1278
4831 2,1 80 689 -1554 -1551 -1552 -1550 -1550 1550
6642 2,1 80 690 -1533 -1530 -1532 -1532 -1529 1531
8453 2,1 80 691 -1412 -1408 -1406 -1407 -1405 1406
8451 2,1 80 691 -1398 -1396 -1394 -1392 -1393 1393

S2-PN-9004-05
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1203 3015 4831 6642 8453 8451
203/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1208 2,1 80 684 -476 -472 -475 -473 -474 473
3019 2,1 80 689 -1097 -1086 -1095 -1085 -1095 1090
4829 2,1 80 691 -1490 -1475 -1485 -1472 -1485 1479
6637 2,1 80 692 -1670 -1651 -1662 -1644 -1663 1653
8446 2,1 80 694 -1731 -1710 -1714 -1701 -1711 1706
8440 2,1 80 693 -1709 -1691 -1698 -1685 -1697 1691

1800 S2-PN-8044-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1208 3019 4829 6637 8446 8440
204/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1199 2,1 80 678 -621 -620 -620 -617 -621 619
3014 2,1 80 683 -1237 -1232 -1235 -1231 -1234 1232
4832 2,1 80 685 -1350 -1352 -1351 -1352 -1349 1351
6645 2,1 80 686 -1248 -1248 -1243 -1252 -1245 1249
8455 2,1 80 687 -1100 -1095 -1094 -1100 -1093 1097
8453 2,1 80 687 -1089 -1093 -1090 -1096 -1089 1093

1600 S2-PN-8063-05
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1199 3014 4832 6645 8455 8453
205/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1201 2,1 80 676 -512 -509 -508 -509 -509 509
3013 2,1 80 681 -1129 -1126 -1126 -1126 -1127 1126
4832 2,1 80 683 -1327 -1327 -1326 -1326 -1326 1326
6643 2,1 80 684 -1274 -1264 -1261 -1267 -1262 1265
8450 2,1 80 686 -1132 -1116 -1112 -1114 -1111 1112
8451 2,1 80 685 -1105 -1104 -1103 -1106 -1103 1104

1400 S2-PN-8053-05
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1201 3013 4832 6643 8450 8451
206/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1201 2,1 80 686 -532 -529 -530 -529 -531 530
3014 2,1 80 692 -1133 -1123 -1131 -1122 -1130 1126
4832 2,1 80 694 -1300 -1291 -1297 -1292 -1297 1294
6644 2,1 80 696 -1220 -1210 -1215 -1217 -1216 1217
8455 2,1 80 697 -1054 -1058 -1055 -1054 -1053 1053
8452 2,1 80 697 -1051 -1052 -1052 -1050 -1047 1049

S2-PN-9015-05
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1201 3014 4832 6644 8455 8452
207/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1203 2,1 80 683 -525 -524 -523 -525 -524 524
3014 2,1 80 689 -1275 -1272 -1272 -1270 -1272 1271
4831 2,1 80 691 -1626 -1615 -1620 -1614 -1622 1618
6644 2,1 80 692 -1628 -1620 -1627 -1620 -1623 1621
8450 2,1 80 692 -1486 -1470 -1477 -1473 -1476 1475
8451 2,1 80 692 -1468 -1461 -1466 -1463 -1466 1464

S2-PN-8064-05
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1203 3014 4831 6644 8450 8451
208/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1202 2,1 80 682 -527 -527 -531 -529 -526 527
3014 2,1 80 687 -1169 -1166 -1170 -1166 -1169 1168
4832 2,1 80 689 -1390 -1381 -1385 -1380 -1385 1382
6645 2,1 80 690 -1343 -1335 -1343 -1337 -1343 1340
8455 2,1 80 691 -1216 -1209 -1213 -1209 -1209 1209
8446 2,1 80 691 -1219 -1203 -1200 -1198 -1201 1199

S2-PN-9016-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1202 3014 4832 6645 8455 8446
209/232
RAPPORT N°
AFFSAS1801813_FT_01
REPORT




1202 2,1 80 682 -666 -660 -660 -659 -657 658
3016 2,1 80 688 -1357 -1348 -1354 -1349 -1353 1351
4831 2,1 80 690 -1505 -1505 -1504 -1506 -1504 1505
6642 2,1 80 691 -1412 -1411 -1409 -1415 -1412 1413
8454 2,1 80 692 -1254 -1258 -1257 -1257 -1256 1257
8450 2,1 80 692 -1253 -1248 -1247 -1249 -1246 1247

S2-PN-8065-05
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1202 3016 4831 6642 8454 8450
210/232
Rapport d’essais
Référence:
D.5 Report Compiled
Test Report
Reference: AFFSAS1801813_DG/A_01
EUROPEAN AUTOMOBILE MANAFACTURER’S ASSOCIATION - ACEA

Applicant 85 AVENUE DES NERVIENS
1040 BRUXELLES
Object Dry Grip and Aquaplaning tests
Active Safety and Vehicle Behaviour Department

Centre d’essais de Mortefontaine
Location
Route du golf - 60128 Mortefontaine
France
Internal
Test days 27/03/2019 – 10/05/2019 AFFSAS1801813_DG/A_01
reference
Technicians Olivier ANDRIEUX ; Léa RABINOVITCH ; Cédric AUBIER
Summary:
Aquaplaning and Dry Grip tests report performed with a Peugeot 308.
Summary
You will find bellow all the results, with the classification of all test tyres.
Name Cédric Aubier Charles Renaudin

cedric.aubier@utacceram.com charles.renaudin@utacceram.com
Contact details
+33 (0)3 44 54 59 24 +33 (0)3 44 54 59 15
Hierarchical status Test engineer Vehicle Dynamics team Manager
Date 14/06/2019 14/06/2019
Signature
NB: Les présents essais ne sauraient en aucune façon engager la responsabilité de l'UTAC en ce qui concerne les réalisations industrielles ou commerciales qui pourraient en
résulter. "La reproduction de ce document n'est autorisée que sous la forme de fac-similé photographique intégral". Les résultats des essais ne concernent que le matériel soumis
aux essais et identifié dans ce rapport d'essais. / UTAC shall not be liable for any industrial or commercial applications that occur as a result of these tests. This test report may only
be reproduced in the form of a full photographic facsimile. Tests results are only available for the material submitted to tests or material identified in the present test report.
Union Technique de l'Automobile, du Motocycle et du Cycle Société par actions simplifiée au capital de 7 800 000 euros
Autodrome de Linas-Montlhéry BP2012 - 91311 Montlhéry Cedex France TVA FR 89 438 725 723- Siren 438 725 723 RCS Evry
Centre d'essais de Mortefontaine Route du golf - 68128 Mortefontaine Code APE 7120 B
Tel: Montlhéry: +33 (0)1 69 80 17 00 / Mortefontaine: +33 (0) 3 44 54 51 51
211/232
Test Report
Summary
Instrumentation pictures .......................................................................................................................................................... 213

Test vehicle description ........................................................................................................................................................214
Sign conventions: ..................................................................................................................................................................214
Vehicule weight: ...................................................................................................................................................................215
Pressures: ................................................................................................................................................................................215
Dry Grip ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 216
Track description - Dynamic Area: ......................................................................................................................................216
Weather Conditions (Unladen): ...........................................................................................................................................217
Measurement results and Classification (Unladen): ..........................................................................................................217
Weather Conditions (Laden): ..............................................................................................................................................219
Measurement results and Classification (Laden): ..............................................................................................................219
Longitudinal Aquaplaning ...................................................................................................................................................... 221
Track description: ..................................................................................................................................................................221
Weather Conditions: .............................................................................................................................................................222
Measurement results and Classification:.............................................................................................................................222
Lateral Aquaplaning ................................................................................................................................................................ 224
Track description: ..................................................................................................................................................................224
Weather Conditions: .............................................................................................................................................................226
Measurement results and Classification:.............................................................................................................................226
212/232
Test Report
D.5.1 Instrumentation pictures
Global view VBOX
OBD Connector (CAN acquisition) Braking pad temperature sensor
Pedal Trigger Antenna + Inertial measurement unit
213/232
Test Report
D.5.2 Test vehicle description
D.5.3 Sign conventions:
• Lateral acceleration: Positive when turning left

• Longitudinal acceleration: Positive when accelerating, negative when braking
214/232
Test Report
D.5.4 Vehicule weight:
Configuration 1: Unladen vehicle, with a driver, full tank and sensors
Front Axle Weight: 863 Kg

(60%)
Rear Axle Weight: 573 Kg

(40%)
Total Weight: 1436 Kg
Configuration 2: Laden vehicle (GVWR – Gross Vehicle Weight Rating)
Front Axle Weight: 943 Kg

(50%)
Rear Axle Weight: 926,5 Kg

(50%)
Total Weight: 1869,5 Kg
D.5.5 Pressures:
Configuration 1 (Unladen)
Front Axle: 2,5 Bars
Rear Axle: 2,4 Bars
Configuration 2 (Laden)
Front Axle: 2,6 Bars
Rear Axle: 3,4 Bars
215/232
Test Report
D.6 Dry Grip Report
D.6.1 Track description - Dynamic Area:
• Area: 77,000m2
• Width: 130m
• Length: 400m and 750m
Test conditions: Two different weight configurations:
• Configuration 1: Unaden vehicle, with a driver, full tank and sensors

• Configuration 2: Laden vehicle (GVWR – Gross Vehicle Weight Rating)
Test description: Braking test with average deceleration measurement between 80km/h and 10km/h.
216/232
Test Report
D.6.2 Weather Conditions (Unladen):
Maximal Track Minimal Track Average Track Maximal Air Minimal Air Average Air
Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature
(°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
32,7 11,6 21,6 21,4 7,8 14,6
D.6.3 Measurement results and Classification (Unladen):
MFDD pneu test Equivalence REF

Dry Grip: 100km/h Unladen (m/s²) (m/s²)
1 REFERENCE: P 100,00% 10,55 10,55
2 F 99,74% 10,53 10,55
3 K 97,85% 10,42 10,65
4 I 97,14% 10,25 10,56
5 D 96,58% 10,17 10,53
6 C 96,37% 10,10 10,48
7 E 96,04% 10,14 10,56
8 A 95,52% 10,00 10,47
9 L 94,12% 10,00 10,62
10 B 94,06% 9,82 10,44
11 N 93,92% 9,91 10,56
12 H 92,59% 9,74 10,52
13 G 91,89% 9,73 10,59
14 O 89,69% 9,48 10,57
15 M 86,53% 9,15 10,57
16 J 76,48% 8,13 10,63
217/232
Test Report
100.00%99.74%
100.00% 97.85%97.14%96.58%96.37%
96.04%95.52%
94.12%94.06%93.92%92.59%
91.89%
89.69%
86.53%
80.00% 76.48%
N
K
B
REFERENCE : P
J
F
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
218/232
Test Report
D.6.4 Weather Conditions (Laden):
Maximal Track Minimal Track Average Track Maximal Air Minimal Air Average Air
Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature
(°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
31,3 10,5 20,0 15,0 7,2 11,4
D.6.5 Measurement results and Classification (Laden):
MFDD
MFDD
Deceleration -
Dry Grip: 100km/h Laden Deceleration -
Reference tyres
test tyres (m/s²)
(m/s²)
1 REFERENCE: P 100,00% 10,46 10,46
2 K 99,02% 10,30 10,4
3 E 98,66% 10,16 10,3
4 F 98,18% 10,41 10,61
5 C 97,76% 10,09 10,32
6 L 96,90% 10,04 10,37
7 D 96,71% 9,99 10,33
8 I 95,57% 10,11 10,58
9 B 94,31% 9,73 10,31
10 G 94,03% 9,72 10,33
11 A 93,70% 9,96 10,63
12 N 93,14% 9,82 10,55
13 O 90,99% 9,41 10,34
14 H 90,06% 9,55 10,6
15 M 84,63% 8,95 10,57
16 J 75,54% 7,97 10,55
219/232
Test Report
100.00%99.02%98.66%
98.18%97.76%96.90%96.71%
100.00% 95.57%94.31%94.03%
93.70%93.14%
90.99%90.06%
84.63%
80.00% 75.54%
K
N
I
G
REFERENCE : P
J
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
220/232
Test Report
D.7 Longitudinal Aquaplaning

D.7.1 Track description:
• Average water depth: 7,24mm

• Length: 50m
• Width: 0,8m
Test conditions: Unladen vehicle, with a driver, full tank and sensors
Test description: The driver goes through the aquaplaning area with continuous speed, and accelerates with full throttle
in the bath. Then, sensors detect tyres' slip, by comparing car's speed and front wheels' speed. Aquaplaning is
detected when slip reaches 15% in the first front wheel. Three repetitions were done for each tyre set and traction
control was turned off to measure accurately tyres performance regarding the « E08-
VDA_Testprocedure_Hydroplaning_longitudinal-03_2013 » document.
221/232
Test Report
D.7.2 Weather Conditions:
Maximal Air Minimal Air Average Air Maximal temperature Average Average Average
Temperature Temperature Temperature variation during a Humidity Wind (m/s) Atmo
(°C) (°C) (°C) sequence (°C) (%) pressure (hPa)
18,3 9,6 15,6 4,2 73,9 3,0 1013,1
D.7.3 Measurement results and Classification:
Reference tyre's
Aquaplaning speed
Longitudinal Aquaplaning (km/h) of test tyres
Aquaplaning speed
(km/h) associated
1 M 110,29% 89,76 81,39
2 N 109,43% 86,39 78,95
3 B 108,76% 87,99 80,91
4 F 103,99% 87,16 83,82
5 C 103,67% 86,69 83,62
6 A 103,22% 83,51 80,91
7 D 103,20% 86,29 83,62
8 G 102,05% 80,57 78,95
9 K 100,80% 84,49 83,82
10 E 100,18% 83,97 83,82
11 REFERENCE: P 100,00% 81,74 81,74
12 L 97,92% 79,23 80,91
13 H 94,96% 74,97 78,95
14 I 94,76% 79,24 83,62
15 J 93,03% 75,71 81,39
16 O 92,08% 74,94 81,39
222/232
Test Report
120.00%
110.29%
109.43%
108.76%
103.99%
103.67%
103.22%
103.20%
102.05%
100.80%
100.18%
100.00%
100.00% 97.92%
94.96%94.76%
93.03%92.08%
N
D
M
H
REFERENCE : P
O
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
223/232
Test Report
D.8 Lateral Aquaplaning

D.8.1 Track description:
• Average water depth: 6,95mm

• Length: 20m
• Width: 5m
• Radius: 100m
Test conditions: Unaden vehicle, with a driver, full tank and sensors
Test description: The driver goes through the aquaplaning area at constant speeds from 50 km/h to 100 km/h, with
steps of 5 km/h and sensors permit to measure lateral acceleration at each run. To measure accurately tyres
performance, ESC was turned off for this test, done regarding the « E05 - VDA Test procedure Hydroplaning lateral -
May 2011 » document. The result for each tyre is the integral calculation of lateral acceleration between 50km/h and
Speed40%LatAccelMAX relative to entrance speeds.
224/232
Test Report
225/232
Test Report
D.8.2 Weather Conditions:
Maximal Air Minimal Air Average Air Maximal temperature Average Average Average
Temperature Temperature Temperature variation during a Humidity Wind (m/s) Atmo
(°C) (°C) (°C) sequence (°C) (%) pressure (hPa)
22,1 11,7 17,2 5,7 60,4 1,2 1012,5
D.8.3 Measurement results and Classification:
Reference results
Lateral Aquaplaning Result of test Tyres
associated
1 N 73,05 66,35
2 B 70,52 65,38
3 F 69,75 72,03
4 REFERENCE: P 67,65 67,65
5 E 66,15 72,03
6 A 63,96 65,38
7 M 63,39 68,04
8 D 63,29 66,47
9 C 61,43 66,47
10 K 59,74 72,03
11 G 57,49 66,35
12 L 55,48 65,38
13 I 54,18 66,47
14 H 49,11 66,35
15 O 47,52 68,04
16 J 41,28 68,04
226/232
Test Report
80
73.05
70.52 69.75
70 67.65
66.15
63.96 63.39 63.29
61.43
59.74
60 57.49
55.48 54.18
49.11
50 47.52
41.28
40
N
O
REFERENCE : P
J
30
20
10
227/232
Test Report
D.9 Wear results
228/232
Test Report
Wear measurements presented by table 4.1-1 used the values presented by figures D-9.3 to D-9.6, i.e. the evolution of the treads
for the six tyres concerning the groove depth. Grooves are numbered 1 to 6 according to figure D-9.2, from the outer side of the
tyre to the inner side. The groove depth scale is the same between all the graphs, in order to help the comparison at a first glance.
Figure D.9-2: Groove identification
Figure D.9-3:: Groove depth evolution for front left hand side tyres
229/232
Test Report
Figure D.9-4:: Groove depth evolution for front right hand side tyres
230/232
Test Report
Figure D.9-5:: Groove depth evolution for rear left hand side tyres
231/232
Test Report
Figure D.9-6: Groove depth evolution for rear right hand side tyres
Obviously, the tyre wear is larger for the front tyres than the rear ones. Moreover, it appears that the wear is more significant on
the sides than on the central area of the tread.
Compared to the legal limit of depth (1.6mm), the study should be carried on beyond the 15,000 kms. Actually, ACEA chose that
the circuit was defined to give as many kilometres as possible. It led to drive often on straight lines at higher speeds, the driving
conditions having been not as harsh as for tough circuits (mountains circuits for example).
232/232

Tests Utac Inclding Rolling Resistance (Only For Cars)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Tests Utac Inclding Rolling Resistance (Only For Cars)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Informal document GRBP-75-18

75th GRBP, 8-11 February 2022

RAPPORT D’ESSAI N°: AFFSAS1801813

ACEA Tyre Performance Study Report

DEMANDEUR : EUROPEAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION - ACEA

OBJET : Rapport final d’étude sur la performance des pneumatiques

Objet soumis aux essais: pneumatique, voir descriptif en annexe

Référence interne du dossier: AFFSAS1801813

RESULTATS : Voir Appendix C et Appendix D

Elodie COLLOT PASCHAL Jérôme

4.1.1.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................32

Appendix B: Tool Box ...............................................................................................................................................................100

Appendix C: Statistics results ...................................................................................................................................................110

Appendix D: Test Reports ........................................................................................................................................................117

2.2 Reason for why the literature study was conducted

2.3 References which have been analysed

2.4 Main conclusions from the review of published literature

Longitudinal Aquaplaning Snow Rolling RS during

- ECE R117 - ECE R117

- 80 to 10 km/h - Water depth 7mm

Inter-noise CPX method

Table 2.4-1: All important information from the studies review

We note that no studies fill all the columns.

Table 3.1-1: The 16 tested tyres used in this project

3.2 Test content

3.2.1 Rolling Resistance

Figure 3.2-1: UTAC Bench test for Rolling Resistance test

3.2.1.1 Rolling Resistance Test conditions

3.2.1.2 Rolling Resistance Test Methods

3.2.2 Rolling Sound

Figure 3.2-2: Vehicles used for Rolling Sound test

3.2.2.1 Rolling Sound Test conditions

3.2.2.2 Rolling Sound Test Methods

Figure 3.2-3: UTAC sound track for Rolling Sound test

3.2.3 Wet Grip

Figure 3.2-4: UTAC means for wet grip test

3.2.3.1 Wet Grip Test conditions

3.2.3.2 Wet Grip Test Methods

3.2.4 Dry Grip

Figure 3.2-5: Vehicle used for Dry Grip test

3.2.4.1 Dry Grip Test conditions

3.2.4.2 Dry Grip Test Methods

Figure 3.2-6: UTAC dynamic area for Dry Grip test

3.2.5 Dry handling (Flat Trac)

Figure 3.2-7: Bench test for Flat Trac test

3.2.5.1 Flat Trac Test conditions

3.2.5.2 Flat Trac Test Methods

Figure 3.2-8: Vehicle used for Aquaplaning test

3.2.6.1 Aquaplaning Test conditions

Figure 3.2-9: Longitudinal Aquaplaning test method

Figure 3.2-10: Lateral Aquaplaning test method

3.2.7 Wear study

It appears that the tyre lifespan depends on numerous features:

3.2.7.1 Tyres / drivers’ permutation

Figure 3.2-11: Test sequence

The following organization was applied:

3.2.7.2 Test vehicles

Figure 3.2-12: Vehicles fleet

The measurements were performed two ways:

Figure 3.2-13: Depth gauge

Figure 3.2-14: Depth gauge

3.2.7.3 Circuit definition

Figure 3.2-15: Circuit definition