Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for ... · anti-lock braking systems for...

Written by: A J Scarlett (Scarlett Research Ltd), I M Knight (Apollo Vehicle Safety Ltd) and P A Morgan (TRL Limited) August – 2017

Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for

agricultural and forestry vehicles with a maximum

design speed between

40 km/h and 60 km/h

Final Report

Draft

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

2017

This document does not represent an official position of the European Commission. The

suggestions contained in this document do not prejudge the form and content of any possible position by the European

Commission.Draft

August 2017

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate C — Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains Unit C.4 — Automotive and Mobility Industries

Contact: Andreas Vosinis E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels

Draft

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

2017

Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for

agricultural and forestry

vehicles with a maximum design speed between 40 km/h and 60 km/h

Final Report

Draft

August 2017

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN 978-92-79-70240-2 doi:10.2873/580390 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Image(s) © TRL Limited, 2017 (unless otherwise specified)

DISCLAIMER

This report has been produced by the Transport Research Laboratory under a contract with the European Commission. Any views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the European Commission. The information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the customer for whom this report was prepared. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the matter presented in this report is relevant, accurate and up-to-date, TRL Limited cannot accept any liability for any error or omission, or reliance on part or all of the content in another context. Framework Contract No: 470/PP/2015/FC Specific Contract No: SI2.741735 Document Number: PPR831 Prepared By: TRL Limited. Quality approved: Phil Morgan (Project Manager), Richard Cuerden (Technical Referee)

Draft

http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1

Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for agricultural and forestry vehicles with a maximum design speed between 40 km/h and 60 km/h

August 2017 1

Table of contents

Table of contents ............................................................................................. 1

Executive summary ......................................................................................... 3

Glossary of symbols, abbreviations and industry body acronyms ........................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................................. 7 1

Background to the investigation ......................................................... 7 1.1

Information gathering methodology .................................................... 8 1.2

Structure of the report ...................................................................... 9 1.3

Classification and selection of agricultural vehicles, trailers and 2interchangeable towed equipment .............................................................. 11

Agricultural vehicle, trailer and interchangeable towed equipment 2.1categories....................................................................................... 11

Vehicle categories excluded from the investigation scope ..................... 12 2.2

Vehicle categories included in the investigation scope .......................... 17 2.3

Summary of vehicle categories .......................................................... 28 2.4

Current and future usage of agricultural vehicles in the EU............................ 29 3

Changes in the nature of agricultural operations and farming ................ 29 3.1

The rationale for increased speed ...................................................... 32 3.2

The EU agricultural vehicle fleet ........................................................ 35 3.3

Existing legislation and policy regarding on-road use of agricultural 3.4vehicles .......................................................................................... 47

Accidents related to agricultural vehicles..................................................... 51 4

Influence of speed on injury risk ........................................................ 51 4.1

Effect of Mass on Injury Severity ....................................................... 55 4.2

Review of accident data for all agricultural vehicles .............................. 56 4.3

Accidents involving SbS and ATVs ...................................................... 74 4.4

Overview of anti-lock braking systems (ABS) .............................................. 77 5

Current use of ABS on agricultural vehicles ......................................... 77 5.1

The effectiveness of ABS .................................................................. 85 5.2

Perception of benefits and impacts of implementing ABS on agricultural 5.3vehicles ........................................................................................ 100

Issues affecting the wider implementation of ABS systems on agricultural 6vehicles ................................................................................................ 107

Technical availability ...................................................................... 107 6.1

Practical issues associated with ABS installation / implementation ....... 110 6.2

Potential benefits of ABS installation / implementation on agricultural 6.3vehicles ........................................................................................ 116

Practical availability and economic availability ................................... 119 6.4

Summary ..................................................................................... 121 6.5

Possible alternative criteria for ABS implementation ................................... 123 7

Draft


August 2017 2

Cost benefit analysis .............................................................................. 129 8

Overview of CBA methodology ........................................................ 129 8.1

Development of CBA scenarios ........................................................ 129 8.2

Costs of ABS when fitted to a new vehicle ........................................ 131 8.3

The benefits of ABS ....................................................................... 132 8.4

Forecasting the distribution of sales by vehicle type and how the fleet 8.5changes as a consequence .............................................................. 134

Developing the business as usual baseline (option 1- remove 8.6requirement for ABS) ..................................................................... 137

Estimating and valuing casualty reductions ....................................... 139 8.7

Results of the CBA ......................................................................... 140 8.8

Analysis and discussion .......................................................................... 147 9

Conclusions ........................................................................................... 151 10

Possible options for amendment of Regulation (EU) 2015/68 ....................... 155 11

Agricultural Tractors (Category Tb) .................................................. 155 11.1

Agricultural trailers and interchangeable towed equipment 11.2(Categories R3, R4 & S2)................................................................ 156

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 157

References .................................................................................................. 157

Annex 1 Review of alternative measures ....................................................... 161

Annex 1.1 Braking measures already in the RVBR ................................. 162

Annex 1.2 Control of trailer braking system via drive stick input (CVT Transmission/vehicle travel speed control ......................................... 162

Annex 1.3 Seat belts ......................................................................... 163

Annex 1.4 Roll-Over Protective Structures (ROPS) ................................. 163

Annex 1.5 Electronically controlled braking systems (EBS) for trailers ...... 164

Annex 1.6 Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) Communication ............................... 164

Annex 1.7 Electronic Stability Control (ESC) for towing vehicles .............. 166

Annex 1.8 Improved Lighting/Signalling ............................................... 166

Annex 1.9 Improved conspicuity (by means other than lighting) ............. 167

Annex 1.10 Improved field of vision for tractor driver (e.g. mirrors, close proximity or junction cameras, blind spot proximity alarms) ............... 167

Annex 1.11 Driver assist systems – collision warnings or avoidance systems 168

Annex 1.12 Improved maintenance & roadworthiness checks ................... 168

Annex 1.13 Driver training/education (for drivers of both agricultural vehicles and other vehicles) ............................................................ 169

Draft


August 2017 3

Executive summary

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 sets out in Article 17, together with its delegated act

Regulation (EU) 2015/68, the braking safety requirements necessary for EU type-

approval of all categories of agricultural and forestry vehicle (AFV). This includes

provisions for the use of ABS on such vehicles, set out in Delegated Regulation (EU)

2015/68.

TRL was commissioned by the European Commission to undertake an assessment

addressing Recital (6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/68 to provide the Commission with the

information necessary to amend, as appropriate, the Delegated Regulation for AFVs with

a maximum design speed of 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h.

It was agreed with the Commission that there was the opportunity to refine the focus of

the investigation by excluding those vehicles where ABS is deemed either not to be

applicable or is unlikely to be technically supported. This excluded consideration of

dedicated forestry vehicles and included agricultural tractors under Category T1, T2 and

T4.3, Side-by-Side vehicles or All-Terrain Vehicles when type-approved as agricultural

tractors, Category R3 and R4 trailers and Category S2 interchangeable towed equipment.

Data to inform the investigation was collated using a multi-faceted approach, comprising

stakeholder surveys, face-to-face discussions with stakeholders, and reviews of technical

and manufacturer literature, vehicle fleet data, legislation and policy regarding on-road

usage of agricultural vehicles, cost data related to ABS development / installation /

implementation for agricultural vehicles, and data related to accidents involving

agricultural vehicles. However, in some cases the information available was very limited,

identifying vehicles by speed capability in fleet and accident data was problematic and

cost information relied on responses from a relatively small set of stakeholders.

The investigation identified the following

Technical availability: ABS is technically feasible and available for nearly all

relevant agricultural vehicle types (Categories Tb, R3b, R4b and S2b). However,

the ease and economic feasibility of their installation is currently dependent upon

the brake application method / medium used on the vehicle and the physical

space available to accommodate system components. Mature pneumatically-based

ABS technology is readily-available for use on agricultural tractors (T1b) and also

on agricultural trailers/towed equipment (R3b, R4b and S2b). Such ABS systems

are already in commercial use on a limited number of T1 tractor models, whilst

hydraulic (mineral oil) ABS systems are at advanced stages of product

development. Commercially-available hydraulic (brake fluid)-based light / medium

truck systems are, based on discussions with industry, understood to be suitable

for installation on Category T4.3b vehicles. ABS for other (tractor) categories are

either at a proof-of-concept stage or in development (e.g. a commercial hydraulic

system for ATVs is expected to be marketed in the very near future).

Whilst ABS is readily-available for trailers / towed equipment fitted with

pneumatic braking systems, it is not currently available for such vehicles which

employ hydraulically-actuated braking systems and may not be brought to the

market in the foreseeable future. Such (typically lower-mass, less expensive)

trailers / towed equipment would therefore require conversion to pneumatic

braking systems to permit ABS installation. However, most trailers / towed

equipment intended for V > 40 km/h use tends to feature pneumatic braking

systems.

Practical availability and applicability: Vehicle braking system actuation

method and/or medium is significant in determining the complexity and

associated cost of ABS system installation on agricultural vehicles, particularly as

the majority of tractors employ hydraulic (mineral oil) brake actuation systems.

The diverse nature of tractor design may well require ABS installation to be

approached on a model-range by model-range basis. The space available for

Draft


August 2017 4

installation of some current ABS system components may also present a

challenge. ABS implementation also requires installation of wheel speed sensors,

but this appears to be a surmountable engineering challenge. For larger

(pneumatically-braked) agricultural trailers and interchangeable towed equipment,

ABS systems may be installed without difficulty. Smaller vehicle applications are

likely to be more costly. ABS systems are not currently available for hydraulically-

braked trailers. Valid concerns regarding ABS behaviour during off-road braking

have been addressed by the provision of manual or automatic system disablement

functionality and/or alternative (slower speed) operating characteristics.

Economic availability: The likely system diversity for ABS implementation on

agricultural tractors will potentially increase system installation and development

costs, thereby increasing cost to the vehicle user. For reasons of commercial

confidentiality it has only been possible for this investigation to estimate potential

overall system costs. ABS suppliers have commented that, depending upon

production volumes, tractor system costs to Original Equipment (vehicle)

Manufacturers (OEMs) may be in the region ~€1000 – €1300, to which installation

and vehicle-based development costs must be added. Where offered as optional

equipment, tractor manufacturers currently retail ABS at ~€4000–€5000. For

agricultural trailers and interchangeable towed equipment, mature pneumatic ABS

systems are readily available at an OEM cost of ~€500.

Cost benefit analysis: Based on the net (benefits minus costs) present value

figures, removing the requirement to fit ABS to agricultural vehicles (40 < Vmax ≤

60 km/h) would result in the best monetary gain (from between €1.3 billion - 3.0

billion). Within this net gain, the ‘cost’ is an increase in the number of fatalities

from collisions involving agricultural vehicles. There is substantial uncertainty in

the analysis which results in a wide range of estimated effects. However, it can be

seen that even at the extremes of the possible ranges, the overall effect of this

option is always beneficial with respect to the benefit to cost ratios (BCRs), which

are always substantially in excess of 1. This option introduces some non-

monetised risks around future investment in agricultural vehicle safety

technology.

The best BCR is achieved by mandating the fitment of ABS on either all R3b and

R4b trailers or just those of MPMaxles > 12 tonnes, in combination with amending

the mandatory requirement for T1b tractors to include only those of

Vmax > 50 km/h capability. Such options would however lessen the overall net gain

to between €1.0 billion - 2.1 billion. However, the improved BCR comes from the

fact that the associated increase in casualties is lessened by proportionally more

than the cost of fitting the systems is increased. The non-monetised risks would

be lessened in this option.

The only new policy options that achieve a BCR of less than one are to fit ABS on

all 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h Category T1b, R3b and R4b vehicles or to fit ABS on

Category T1b and Categories R3b and R4b vehicles of MPMaxles > 12tonnes.

Considering how to balance the overall monetary value, benefit to cost ratio, and

non-monetised risks to conclude which option is best overall is a matter for the

Commission.

The investigation concluded the following:

Technical Availability of ABS: In the majority of instances, systems are readily

available for relevant agricultural vehicles.

Applicability of ABS: Systems are applicable for use on relevant agricultural

vehicles deemed likely to undertake agricultural transport operations on-road.

Cost Benefit Analysis: The likely costs of ABS implementation on relevant

agricultural vehicles of 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h capability are high and are unlikely to

be outweighed by monetised savings resulting from reduction in casualty numbers

during the 15-year evaluation period.

Draft


August 2017 5

Glossary of symbols, abbreviations and industry body acronyms

ABS Anti-Lock Braking System (singular)

ADAS Advanced Driver-Assistance System

AFV Agricultural or Forestry Vehicle

AoH Air-over-Hydraulic

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

ATVEA All-Terrain Vehicle Industry European Association

AWU Agricultural Work Unit

BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

cc Cubic Capacity

CEMA European Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers Association

CLEPA European Association of Automotive Suppliers

CoG Centre-of-Gravity

CVT Continuously-Variable Transmission

delta_V Change in velocity

EBS Electronically-controlled Braking System

ESC Electronic Stability Control

EU European Union

GB Great Britain (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales)

GVW Gross Vehicle Weight

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

hp Horse power

IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

KE Kinetic Energy

KSI Killed and Seriously Injured

MPM (Vehicle) Maximum Permissible Mass

MPMaxles Sum of Technically Permissible Masses per axle

NAAC National Association of Agricultural Contractors (UK)

NTT Narrow-Track Tractors

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

PTW Powered Two Wheeler

RAV Relevant Agricultural Vehicle

ROPS Roll-Over Protective Structure

RVBR Regulation with regards to Vehicle Braking Requirements ((EU) 2015/68)

SbS Side-by-Side vehicle

TRS Technology Readiness Stage

Draft


August 2017 6

UK United Kingdom (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)

ULM (Vehicle) Unladen mass

V2V Vehicle 2 Vehicle

Vmax (Vehicle) Maximum design speed

Draft


August 2017 7

Introduction 1

Background to the investigation 1.1

Transport, both in terms of commodity haulage and travel to/from fields, has long been

recognised as an important activity for vehicles such as agricultural tractors. However, in

recent decades, rationalisation has led to the creation of larger farm units, each with a

greater geographic spread of land. This trend, together with sales of fewer but larger

tractors, has resulted in a reduced labour force being required to travel further from/to

the base farmstead to perform operations. Additionally, the scope of application for

vehicles such as agricultural tractors has also changed, transportation of goods to/from

renewable energy generation plants being an increasingly common operation. As a result

of these factors, the prevalence of such vehicles on the highway network has increased

significantly. In turn, this has led to the introduction of faster tractors, capable of greater

productivity during transport operations. As such, the risks posed to other road users by

such vehicles have potentially risen. Low speeds relative to other road traffic, poor

maintenance and a lack of visibility are all common factors. The parties most commonly

killed or injured are those outside of the agricultural or forestry vehicle (AFV) rather than

its occupants.

Braking performance is fundamental in ensuring the drivability and functional safety of

AFVs during both on-road and off-road operations. One means of potentially improving

the braking performance of AFVs is through the use of anti-lock braking systems (ABS),

as already demonstrated through their implementation on heavy goods vehicles, where

this is now a mature technology.

Whilst the speed and mass of these agricultural vehicles has increased over the last

decade, improvements in safety systems have not necessarily kept pace with these

changes and the use of ABS technology is still not widespread, despite certain similarities

with commercial vehicles in terms of, for example, large laden / unladen ratio, varying

wheel load distribution, and vehicle combinations with up to two trailers and many

degrees of freedom.

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 (European Union, 2013) sets out in Article 17, together

with its delegated act Regulation (EU) 2015/68 (European Union, 2015), the braking

safety requirements necessary for EU type-approval of all categories of AFV (as defined

in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 167/2013). These categories are:

Category T: Wheeled tractors.

Category C: Track-laying tractors propelled by endless tracks or a combination

of wheels and endless tracks.

Category R: Agricultural trailers.

Category S: Interchangeable towed equipment.

This includes provisions for the use of ABS on AFVs, set out in Delegated Regulation (EU)

2015/68 as follows:

Clause 2.2.1.21.1 of Annex 1 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/68 states that

"tractors of category Tb with a maximum design speed exceeding 60 km/h shall

be equipped with anti-lock braking systems of category 1 in accordance with the

requirements of Annex XI."

Clause 2.2.2.16 of Annex 1 of the same Delegated Regulation states that "towed

vehicles with a maximum design speed exceeding 60 km/h of categories R3b, R4b

and S2b shall be equipped with an anti-lock braking system in accordance with

Annex XI."

However, no mention is made regarding the use of ABS systems on Category C tractors.

This is due to there being practically no (if any) 'fast' (Category Cb) tractors of this type

currently available in the European Union (see Section 2.2).

Draft


August 2017 8

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/68 also states in Annex 1, Clause 2.2.1.21.2 that

"tractors of category Tb with a maximum design speed exceeding 40 km/h and not

exceeding 60 km/h shall be equipped with anti-lock braking systems of category 1 in

accordance with the requirements of Annex X

a) for new vehicle types as from 1 January 2020; and

b) for new vehicles as from 1 January 2021."

Recital (6) of the Delegated Regulation states that "while anti-lock braking systems are

wide-spread for vehicles with a maximum design speed of above 60 km/h and could thus

be considered as appropriate and made compulsory as of its application by this

Regulation, such systems are not yet widely available for vehicles with a design speed

between 40 km/h and 60 km/h. For those vehicles, the introduction of anti-lock braking

systems should thus be confirmed after a final assessment by the Commission of the

availability of such systems… Should this assessment not confirm that such technology is

available or applicable, the Commission should amend this Regulation in order to provide

that these requirements will not become applicable to vehicles with a design speed

between 40 km/h and 60 km/h."

TRL was commissioned by the European Commission to undertake an investigation

addressing Recital (6) to provide the Commission with the information necessary to

amend, as appropriate, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/68. This report presents the

findings from that investigation.

The investigation was to consider three areas, namely:

The availability of ABS on AFVs, i.e. the technical availability and/or the

readiness of ABS technologies for application on AFVs.

The applicability of ABS on AFVs, i.e. both the practical applicability and

economic feasibility of installing ABS technologies and the likely practical

advantages (and/or disadvantages).

A cost-benefit assessment to determine whether benefits from vehicle safety

improvements using ABS technologies may counterbalance system

implementation costs.

Information gathering methodology 1.2

The data required to inform the investigation into ABS technology availability and

applicability and to provide input to the Cost Benefit Analysis was collated using a multi-

faceted approach, since it was considered that the breadth of information required could

not be addressed by a single methodology. The different approaches are summarised as

follows:

Stakeholder surveys: Three separate questionnaires were developed, each

designed for a different target audience and seeking to gather information

relevant to that audience. These were disseminated both online and in MS Word

format.

o National Approval Authorities, Enforcement Authorities and Technical

Services): A total of 140 parties from all EU Member States were contacted.

At least six parties reviewed the questionnaire but no completed

questionnaires were received; it is suspected that this was due in part to a

lack of named contacts within these organisations.

Subsequently a modified version of the questionnaire was sent by the

European Commission directly to named contacts within National Transport

Authorities in all 28 EU Member States. Responses were received from five

Member States.

o Manufacturers of agricultural tractors (or vehicles type-approved as

tractors), agricultural trailers and towed equipment, trailer or trailed

equipment axles, and vehicle braking equipment systems: A total of 72

Draft


August 2017 9

manufacturers were contacted. Responses were received from 33

manufacturers across all of the product groups.

o Industry Bodies and Social Partners: A total of 156 parties were

contacted. Only 12 responses were received.

Stakeholder discussions: To supplement the information from the surveys and

manufacturers, these discussions were held between members of the project team

and both industry bodies and manufacturers as set out below. These discussions

were expected to provide the most useful information for the investigation:

o Face-to-face meetings were held with CEMA, CLEPA and ATVEA in March 2017.

o Face-to-face meetings, detailed conversations and telephone discussions were

held with a range of manufacturers of braking systems and agricultural

tractors, side-by-side vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, agricultural trailers and

interchangeable towed equipment.

Literature review: A review of technical and manufacturer literature on ABS

systems in relation to agricultural vehicles.

Data reviews: These data were sourced directly by the project team or provided

by stakeholders and included vehicle fleet data, legislation and policy regarding

on-road usage of agricultural vehicles, cost data related to ABS

development/installation/implementation for agricultural vehicles, and data

related to accidents involving on-road use of agricultural vehicles.

The scale and quality of the data available varied. Where this has impacted on the

investigation or required assumptions to be made, this is reflected in the text of

this report.

Structure of the report 1.3

The structure of the report is as follows:

Section 2 presents the agricultural vehicle categories defined by EU legislation,

and highlights those which the investigation focusses upon and those which have

been excluded.

Section 3 discusses changes in the nature of agricultural operations and farming

over the last 20 years, presents the rationale for increased on-road agricultural

vehicle speeds, and presents overviews of the EU agricultural vehicle fleet and

existing legislation / policy regarding on-road use of agricultural vehicles.

Section 4 discusses accidents related to agricultural vehicles, including the

influence of speed and vehicle mass, and a review of accident data related to the

on-road use of agricultural vehicles.

Section 5 presents an overview of ABS systems, addressing the current use of

ABS on agricultural vehicles, the effectiveness of ABS and the perceived safety

benefits and impacts of implementing ABS on agricultural vehicles. It also

identifies those alternative measures perceived by stakeholders as potentially

offering equivalent or greater safety benefits with regards to accident reduction

when compared to ABS.

Section 6 addresses the wider implementation of ABS on agricultural vehicles,

taking into account technical availability, practical issues associated with ABS

implementation and installation, the potential practical benefits of ABS fitment,

and both the practical and economic availability of ABS systems for agricultural

vehicles.

Section 7 outlines possible alternative criteria for ABS implementation such as

mass and speed thresholds.

Section 8 presents the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), addressing the methodology,

scenarios used and inputs. It also presents the full results of the CBA.

Draft


August 2017 10

Section 9 presents analysis and discussion of the findings from Sections 2-8.

Section 10 presents the conclusions of the project, based on the findings

presented in Section 9.

Annex 1 discusses the alternative measures to ABS, as identified in Section 5,

that are perceived to offer equivalent or greater safety benefits with regard to

accident reduction.

Draft


August 2017 11

Classification and selection of agricultural vehicles, trailers 2and interchangeable towed equipment

Agricultural vehicle, trailer and interchangeable towed equipment categories 2.1

The vehicle types initially included in the scope of the investigation are defined in

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 (European Union, 2013) as follows:

Tractor: Any motorised, wheeled or tracked agricultural or forestry vehicle having

at least two axles and a maximum design speed of not less than 6 km/h. It is

designed to pull, push, carry and actuate certain interchangeable equipment

designed to perform agricultural or forestry work, or to tow agricultural or forestry

trailers or equipment; it may be adapted to carry a load in the context of

agricultural or forestry work.

Trailer: Any agricultural or forestry vehicle intended mainly to be towed by a

tractor and intended mainly to carry loads or to process materials and where the

ratio of the technically permissible maximum laden mass to the unladen mass of

that vehicle is equal to or greater than 3.0.

Interchangeable towed equipment: Any vehicle used in agriculture or forestry

which is designed to be towed by a tractor, changes or adds to its functions,

permanently incorporates an implement or is designed to process materials, which

may include a load platform designed and constructed to receive any tools and

appliances needed for those purposes and to store temporarily any materials

produced or needed during work and where the ratio of the technically permissible

maximum laden mass to the unladen mass of that vehicle is less than 3.0.

The vehicle categories included in the scope of the investigation are defined within

Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 167/2013, noting that each category is supplemented by

the index ‘a’ (for vehicles with a maximum design speed (Vmax) below or equal to 40

km/h), or ‘b’ (for vehicles with a maximum design speed above 40 km/h). The categories

can be summarised as follows:

Category T1: Wheeled tractors of > 600 kg unladen mass (ULM), in running

order, and a minimum wheel track width of ≥ 1,150 mm.

Category T2: Wheeled tractors of > 600 kg ULM (in running order), but with

narrow wheel track widths, i.e. < 1,150 mm.

Category T3: Wheeled tractors of ≤ 600 kg ULM.

Category T4.1: High-clearance wheeled tractors.

Category T4.2: Extra-wide wheeled tractors.

Category T4.3: Low-clearance, low centre-of-gravity tractors, of ≤ 10,000 kg

maximum permissible mass.

Category C: Track-laying tractors propelled by endless tracks or by a

combination of wheels and endless tracks (Subcategories are

analogous to Category T).

Category R1: Trailers with a sum of technically permissible masses per axle

(MPMaxles) of 1,500 kg.

Category R2: Trailers with a sum of technically permissible masses per

axle > 1,500 kg but 3,500 kg.


axle > 3,500 kg but 21,000 kg.

Draft


August 2017 12


axle > 21,000 kg.

Category S1: Interchangeable towed equipment with a sum of technically

permissible masses per axle 3,500 kg.

Category S2: Interchangeable towed equipment with a sum of technically

permissible masses per axle > 3,500 kg.

In addition the following vehicle categories are also included within the study:

Side-by-Side Vehicles (SbSs) type-approved either as Category T1 or T3

(depending upon vehicle mass). These are small motorised vehicles, with at least

four wheels, with two or more seating positions intended for a variety of uses

primarily on unpaved surfaces and equipped with a steering wheel.

All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) type-approved as Category T3. These are motorised

vehicles designed to travel on four low pressure tyres on unpaved surfaces,

having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for

steering control.

Vehicle categories excluded from the investigation scope 2.2

Whilst the initial scope of the investigation covered all categories of agricultural and

forestry vehicles, it was agreed with the Commission at the commencement of the work

that there was the opportunity to narrow the focus of the investigation, by excluding

those vehicles where ABS is deemed either not to be applicable or is unlikely to be

technically supported. The following exclusions were agreed with the Commission:

Dedicated forestry vehicles: Whilst agricultural tractors are sometimes used

(with appropriate protective guarding) for farm-based forestry activities, modern

forestry vehicles are generally considered as off-road / Non-Road Mobile Machines,

are therefore not categorised as tractors and are outside of the scope of Regulation

(EU) No 167/2013. Dedicated tree harvesters, incorporating timber processing

heads (Figure 2.1 (left)), are used to fell, de-limb and cut timber to length, prior to

its extraction to the roadside by specialist forwarder vehicles (Figure 2.1 (right)).

Onward transportation is then undertaken by road vehicles. As these specialist

forestry machines are not tractors and are not used for on-road transportation of

forest products, they and related vehicles (i.e. self-propelled, vehicles designed for

use solely in forestry) were excluded from the study.

Figure 2.1: Dedicated forestry harvester (left) and forwarder (right) vehicles

(Copyright Ponsse)

Draft


August 2017 13

Category T3 tractors: These vehicles are not of high mass, are generally not used

for road transport operations and in most instances are unlikely to incorporate

sufficient build-complexity to support the installation of ABS technology. The mass

limitation (≤ 600 kg) of the T3 vehicle category primarily restricts it to what are

usually known as “Lawn Tractors” (Figure 2.2 (left)), which frequently incorporate

mid-mounted grass cutting equipment for use in larger residential ground care

applications. Such vehicles do not generally have > 30 km/h max design speed

capability. However it should be noted that ATVs type-approved as Category T3b

vehicles were included in the study.

Figure 2.2: Category T3 lawn tractor (left) & Category T4.1 high-clearance tractor (right)

(Copyright Kubota & Tecnoma)

Category T4.1 tractors: These specialist vehicles incorporate raised chassis to

enable them to straddle and travel along rows of tall growing crops (> 1 m high)

such as vines, olives and field-scale soft-fruit (Figure 2.2 (right)). Such tractors are

specifically designed for specialist in-field working and are unlikely to be used for

road transport operations; additionally they are likely to suffer from poor stability if

used at speeds > 40 km/h. It is also worthwhile noting that, as EU type-approval of

Category T4.1 vehicles is not mandatory, manufacturers may alternatively choose

to comply with the national regulatory requirements of individual Member States;

consequently the installation of ABS may not be a requirement.

Figure 2.3: Category T4.2 tractor in-work (left) and travelling on-road (right)

(Copyright CNH Industrial)

Category T4.2 tractors: These ‘extra-wide’ tractors are characterised by their

high engine power and large dimensions. They are primarily intended for in-field

operations, are unlikely to undertake any significant road transport, except for

Draft


August 2017 14

travel between field sites (Figure 2.3) and are unlikely to have Vmax > 40 km/h

capability. Once again it is worthwhile noting that, as EU type-approval of Category

T4.2 vehicles is not mandatory, manufacturers may alternatively choose to comply

with the national regulatory requirements of individual Member States.

Consequently the installation of ABS may not be a requirement.

Category C tractors: Historically, track-laying (crawler) tractors were slow speed

vehicles fitted with steel tracks (Figure 2.4) and were unsuitable for on-highway

use due to the damage caused to the road surface. The small numbers of these

vehicles sold today tend to be used for specialist applications and/or in hilly areas.

They are not used for transport applications and/or at high speeds.

Figure 2.4: Steel-tracked Category C track-laying tractors

(Copyright SDF)

The introduction of rubber-tracked crawlers in the late-1980s enhanced the on-road

mobility of track-laying vehicles, but generally they are designed as high-power

alternatives to Category T4.2 tractors, intended for in-field heavy draught

operations (Figure 2.5). On-road use tends to be limited to travel between the farm

and fields. Rubber track or half-track conversions have been developed for

wheeled tractors (Figure 2.6), but they are primarily intended to enhance in-field

tractive performance. Absence of track / axle suspension tends to limit Vmax to

≤ 40 km. In common with vehicle Categories T4.1 and T4.2, the EU type-approval

of Category C vehicles is not mandatory under Regulation (EU) No 167/2013:

manufacturers may instead elect to comply with the relevant national regulatory

requirements of individual Member States for this vehicle type which, in any case,

tends only to be sold in relatively small numbers.

Figure 2.5: Rubber-tracked Category C track-laying tractors

(Copyright Scarlett Research & AGCO)

Draft


August 2017 15

Figure 2.6: Rubber half-track Category C track-laying tractors


Category R1 trailers: This vehicle category, of MPMaxles ≤ 1500 kg, primarily

includes small single-axle trailers of up to 1500 – 1750 kg carrying capacity.

Smaller capacity trailers, intended for use with ATV and SbS vehicles, tend to limit

the vertical drawbar loading applied to the towing vehicle, whereas those designed

for use with conventional tractors often increase this parameter by locating the

trailer axle towards the rear of the chassis (Figure 2.7 (right)). Regulation

(EU) 2015/68 (European Union, 2015) stipulates that all Category R1a trailers and

R1b vehicles of MPMaxles ≤ 750 kg are not required to be fitted with a braking

system (Table 2.1). R1b vehicles of 750 < MPMaxles ≤ 1500 kg may be fitted with

either an inertia or power-operated braking system. ABS technology is not available

for such lightweight, inertia-braked vehicles and so Category R1 vehicles were

excluded from the investigation.

Figure 2.7: Example Category R1 agricultural trailers

(Copyright Logic & Fleming)


(Copyright Fliegl & Fleming)

Draft


August 2017 16

Table 2.1: Trailed vehicle braking systems permitted by Regulation (EU) 2015/68

(RVBR)

Trailed Vehicle Category

Sum of Technically-Permissible Axle Loads

(kg)

Max. Design Speed (km/h)

Required Braking System

R1a m ≤ 1500 Vmax ≤ 40

NONE S1a m ≤ 3500 Vmax ≤ 40

R1b / S1b m ≤ 750 Vmax ≤ 40

R1b 750 < m ≤ 1500 Vmax > 40

Inertia or Power-operated

S1b m ≤ 3500 Vmax > 40

R2 1500 < m ≤ 3500

ANY R3 3500 < m ≤ 21000

Power-operated (continuous or semi-

continuous) R4 m > 21000

S2 m > 3500

R3a 3500 < m ≤ 8000 Vmax ≤ 30 (brakes not on all wheels) / 40 (brakes

on all wheels)

Inertia-operated (derogation)

Category R2 trailers: Agricultural trailers of 1500 < MPMaxles ≤ 3500 kg which,

in single-axle form, typically equates vehicles of 1500 – 1750 kg to 3000 –

4000 kg carrying capacity (Figure 2.8): this being dependent upon axle location

on the chassis and the magnitude of mass transfer to the towing vehicle. Category

R2 trailers may be fitted with either an inertia or power-operated braking system

(Table 2.1). Consequently they were excluded from the investigation for the

reasons given above.

Category S1 interchangeable towed equipment: This vehicle category

encompasses a wide range of trailed agricultural implements of

MPMaxles ≤ 3500 kg. S1a vehicles (Vmax ≤ 40 km/h) are not required to be fitted

with a braking system (Table 2.1), whereas S2b vehicles (Vmax > 40 km/h) may

be fitted with either an inertia or power-operated braking system. As explained

above, ABS technology was not found to be available for inertia-braked vehicles

and, in any case, the gross mass and likely on-road usage of Category S1 vehicles

is likely to be limited. They were therefore excluded from the investigation.

Figure 2.9: Category S1 interchangeable towed equipment: Round baler (left) and trailed mower-conditioner (right)

(Copyright Kverneland / CEMA)

Draft


August 2017 17

Vehicle categories included in the investigation scope 2.3

Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 refers to ensuring that agricultural and

forestry vehicles "with a maximum design speed of more than 40 km/h meet an

equivalent level of functional safety with regard to brake performance and, where

appropriate, anti-lock braking systems as motor vehicles and their trailers."

The above statement focuses on on-road use of vehicles. It was therefore agreed with

the Commission that the focus of this investigation should be further-refined to

concentrate upon agricultural tractors, trailers and towed equipment used on-

road for operations necessary to agricultural purposes, with an emphasis on larger

mass vehicle combinations. The vehicle categories included in the investigation scope

were therefore as follows:

2.3.1 Category T1 tractors

These wheeled vehicles of > 600 kg ULM and ≥ 1150 mm minimum wheel track width

represent the vast majority of ‘conventional’ agricultural tractors sold in the EU.

However, due to the broad spectrum of demands placed upon them by users, T1 tractors

are manufactured in a very wide range of sizes and capabilities, both in terms of physical

dimensions, engine sizes and rated power outputs; such variation also extends to

maximum design speed (Vmax) capability.

It has been found that current production T1 tractors may be reliably placed in one of a

range of generic size categories (Table 2.2, Figure 2.10 & Figure 2.11), these being

based primarily upon vehicle rated engine power, but also considering vehicle wheelbase,

unladen mass, max permissible mass, payload and 3-point linkage lift capacity. This

investigation has found that, currently, 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h capability is widely available

as a customer-specified option on tractors in the High-Power 4 cylinder and Lightweight

6 cylinder categories (generally those of > 130 hp / 97 kW rated engine power) and also

in all larger vehicle categories (Lower Middleweight 6 cylinder, Upper Middleweight 6

cylinder and Heavyweight 6 cylinder). These basically cover the rated power range of

130 – 500 hp (97 – 375 kW). The market availability of such vehicles in certain Member

States may currently be limited by national road usage legislation (see Section 3.4), but

these higher-speed tractors have been offered in certain EU markets since 2003 – 2006

(depending upon vehicle size / power). They therefore represent a key area of focus for

this investigation.

Draft


August 2017 18

Table 2.2: Generic T1 tractor size categories (Source: Scarlett Research Ltd)

Size Category Typical Rated

Power Range (hp / kW)

Wheelbase (m)

Unladen Mass (kg)

Max. Permissible Mass (kg)

Vmax > 40 km/h available?

Low-Power 3 & 4 cylinder

50 – 75 hp

(37 – 56 kW) 1.9 – 2.15 1600 - 3000 4000 – 5500 No

Med-Power 3 & 4 cylinder

75 – 100 hp

(56 – 75 kW) 2.3 ± 0.2 3000 - 4500 5000 – 8500 No

High-Power 4 cylinder

100 – 150 hp

(75 – 112 kW)

2.55 ± 0.15

4500 - 7000 8000 – 10000 Yes

(≥130 hp / 97 kW)

Lightweight 6 cylinder

100 – 150 hp

(75 – 112 kW) 2.6 ± 0.1 6000 - 7000 8000 – 10000

Yes

(≥130 hp / 97 kW)

Lower Middleweight

6 cylinder

150 – 230 hp

(112 – 172 kW) 2.9 ± 0.1 7300 - 9000 11500 – 13500 Yes

Upper Middleweight

6 cylinder

230 – 320 hp

(172 – 239 kW) 3.0 ± 0.1

9500 -

11500 14000 - 17000 Yes

Heavyweight 6 cylinder

320 – 500 hp

(239 – 375 kW) 3.1 ± 0.05

11500 - 14000

17000 - 22000 Yes

Figure 2.10: Initial generic categories of T1 tractors: Low-power 3 & 4 cylinder (top left),

Medium power 3 & 4 cylinder (top right), High-power 4 cylinder (bottom left) and Lightweight 6 cylinder (bottom right)

(Copyright Deere & Co, Claas & CNH Industrial)

Draft


August 2017 19

Figure 2.11: Remaining T1 tractor categories: Lower Middleweight 6 cylinder (top left), Upper Middleweight 6 cylinder (top right) and Heavyweight 6 cylinder (bottom)

(Copyright SDF, CNH Industrial & Deere & Co.)

2.3.2 Category T2 tractors

Category T2 tractors are characterised by their narrow overall width and narrow wheel

track widths (minimum track width ≤ 1150 mm). Within the industry, T2 tractors are

usually referred to as Narrow-Track Tractors (NTT) and are primarily intended for use in

applications which require a vehicle of limited overall width. These are often areas of

semi-permanent cropping where moderately-tall (> 1 m high) plants are grown in a

rectilinear arrangement and tractors are required to travel between each crop row on a

regular basis, to perform crop treatment and harvesting operations. Typical examples

found within the EU and worldwide include vineyards, orchards, field-scale soft fruit

(e.g. raspberries, blackcurrants) and hops (Nathanson, Scarlett, & Barlow, 2014).

Figure 2.12: Example T2 tractors performing crop treatment operations in a vineyard (left) and an orchard (right)


Draft


August 2017 20

Figure 2.13: Example articulated-chassis (left) and rigid chassis (right) Category T2

tractors

(Copyright Scarlett Research)

Whilst in-field / vineyard / orchard work typically represents a substantial proportion of

the activities undertaken by T2 tractors, during the harvest season they would also be

expected to transport the crop back to the farm / processing plant. The time spent during

the growing season travelling between the farm and field during crop treatment

operations (e.g. agrochemical application) also detracts from daily work output.

Consequently rapid and comfortable on-road transport capabilities are desirable T2

vehicle features. To this end the majority of current T2 tractors are offered with

Vmax = 40 km/h transmissions either as optional or standard equipment but, at present,

no Vmax > 40 km/h T2b tractors are marketed. This is possibly due in part to the virtual

necessity of a front axle suspension system to maintain both driver comfort levels and

vehicle drivability on rural roads at speeds above 40 km/h. Few T2 tractor manufacturers

currently offer this feature, but it may become more widespread in the future and Vmax

capability may increase, hence the inclusion of T2 vehicles in this investigation.

2.3.3 Category T4.3 tractors

Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 defines T4.3 vehicles as

“low-clearance four-wheel drive tractors whose interchangeable equipment is

intended for agricultural or forestry use and which are characterised by a

supporting frame, equipped with one or more power take-offs, having a

technically permissible mass of ≤ 10,000 kg, for which the ratio of this mass to

the maximum unladen mass in running order is < 2.5 and having the centre of

gravity, measured in relation to the ground using the tyres normally fitted, of less

than 850 mm.”

These rather specialised transporter-type vehicles are characterised by their low centre

of gravity and consequent very favourable stability characteristics. Whilst they are used

both in agricultural and municipal applications, the niche area they fill in agriculture

primarily involves operations to support livestock-based farming systems on steeply-

sloping fields in Alpine regions. The vehicle’s frame-type chassis accepts alternative

bodies for fodder collection, manure / slurry distribution and other purposes (Figure

2.14). The capability of the braking systems offered on these machines reflects their

frequent operation on steeply-sloping ground. Both T4.3a (Vmax ≤ 40 km/h) and T4.3b

(Vmax ≤ 50 km/h) versions are available, but none are currently offered with ABS. Their

Vmax > 40 km/h capability and the fact that they are required to be subject to EU type-

approval, resulted in their inclusion within the investigation.

Draft


August 2017 21

Figure 2.14: Example T4.3 low-clearance, transporter-type tractors

(Copyright Aebi-Schmidt)

2.3.4 Side-by-Side (SbS) vehicles

ATVEA (the All-Terrain Vehicle Industry European Association) describes SbS vehicles as

small motorised vehicles with at least four wheels, equipped with a steering wheel and

with two or more seating positions. They are intended for a variety of uses including

leisure and utility / work tasks (e.g. agriculture and forestry applications), primarily on

unpaved surfaces. In agricultural and forestry applications, SbS utility vehicles are

designed to perform light-duty tasks for which conventional tractors are too heavy,

inconvenient or inefficient.

Whilst used for similar purposes and utilising some similar components, SbS vehicles

(Figure 2.15) differ from All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) due to their size, seating position,

and the presence of a rear load-carrying platform and a roll-over protective structure

(ROPS). Indeed in certain EU markets (e.g. the United Kingdom (UK; i.e. England,

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) agricultural market) SbS utility vehicles are

displacing ATVs to an extent, partly because of their greater capability (passenger & load

carrying), greater operator comfort (partly or totally enclosed cab) and improved stability

on sloping ground.

Figure 2.15: Example SbS vehicles

(Copyright ATVEA)

Draft


August 2017 22

SbS vehicles come in a wide range of sizes, including 4-wheel and larger 6-wheel

variants, but their typical masses and payloads may be summarised as follows:

Unladen Mass: ~450 – 870 kg.

Payload: ~400 – 700 kg (4 wheel) or ~900 kg (6 wheel).

Towing Capacity: ~500 – 900 kg.

Current SbS engine capacities range from ~400 – 1100 cc, but the larger capacity

engines (the most popular in agriculture) are diesel rather than petrol-powered. All SbS

makes / models encountered by the investigation were fitted with mechanically-

controlled, belt-type continuously-variable transmissions (CVTs). Vehicle suspension and

braking system designs were found to be similar to those of ATVs, with independent front

and rear wheel suspension being most prevalent and external automotive-type, non-

servo-assisted ‘dry’ disc and caliper brakes usually being mounted at the wheel ends.

Due to their range of unladen masses, when type-approved as agricultural tractors,

individual SbS vehicles may be classified either as Category T3 (ULM ≤ 600 kg) or

Category T1 (ULM > 600 kg); in practice the majority fall into the T1 category.

Interestingly their (unrestricted) max speed capability can be as high as 90 km/h, but

when type-approved as tractors their Vmax is limited electronically (via engine &

transmission management systems) to 40 or 60 km/h, depending upon the manufacturer

and whether type-approved as Ta or Tb. At the time of writing this report, ABS systems

are not currently offered on SbS vehicles; however, their potential high-speed capability

and inclusion within the tractor type-approval system resulted in their consideration by

the investigation.

2.3.5 All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)

ATVEA describes ATVs as motorised vehicles fitted with four low pressure tyres, designed

to travel on unpaved surfaces, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator

and handlebars for steering control (Figure 2.16). ATVs are subdivided into two types as

designed by the manufacturer:

Type I: Intended for use by a single operator and no passenger.

Type II: Intended for use by an operator and a passenger.

ATVs are rider-active vehicles, meaning operators are required to shift their body weight

to enhance the performance capabilities of the vehicle. This requires special skills and

training to ensure safe operation, especially when on challenging off-road terrain. ATVs

are widely-sold for leisure and sporting purposes. However within agriculture in addition

to being utilised as a convenient form of off-road transport around the farm, often to

support livestock rearing activities (Figure 2.16 (right)), they are also utilised with a wide

range of mounted or trailed implements to perform tasks for which the physical size

and/or mass of a conventional tractor may cause it to be less suitable (Figure 2.17).

Due to their low unladen mass (typically ~250 – 325 kg), when type-approved as

agricultural vehicles ATVs tend to be classified as Category T3 tractors. Petrol engine

capacities vary from ~270 – 950 cc, but most vehicles intended for agricultural use tend

to fall within the ~550 – 750 cc range. Independent front and rear wheel suspension is

now the most common design. Front wheel brakes tend to be automotive-type ‘dry’ disc

and caliper units mounted at the wheel ends, whereas rear brakes are of a similar type or

oil-immersed ‘wet’ multi-disc-type fitted in the rear axle / transmission. All are actuated

by conventional non-servo-assisted automotive-type hydraulic systems employing brake

fluid. At the time of writing, ABS systems are not offered, irrespective of the max speed

capability of the vehicles. However, the investigation has been advised that an ATV

manufacturer intends to market a Vmax > 60 km/h vehicle, type-approved as an

agricultural tractor. This will be fitted with an ABS system to comply with the current

requirements of Regulation (EU) 2015/68.

Draft


August 2017 23

Figure 2.16: Example single-seat ATV and a typical agricultural use (inspecting livestock)

(Copyright KYMCO & ATVEA)

Figure 2.17: Example agricultural uses of ATVs: slug pellet application (top left), field spraying (top right), timber extraction (bottom left) and mowing (bottom right)

(Copyright Stocks AG & Logic)

Draft


August 2017 24

2.3.6 Category R3 trailers

This grouping encompasses agricultural trailers and tractor-towed load carrying vehicles

of 3500 < MPMaxles ≤ 21,000 kg. In practice this corresponds to a very wide range of

vehicle carrying capacity and consequent design complexity. However, it is important to

appreciate that whilst trailers are normally marketed in terms of their carrying capacity,

the manner in which this relates to the parameter chosen to categorise such vehicles

within the EU type-approval process (sum of the technically-permissible masses per axle,

MPMaxles), is very dependent upon vehicle design configuration.

Regulation (EU) 2015/68 (European Union, 2015) further sub-divides Category R and S

towed vehicles into one of the following designs categories:

Drawbar Towed Vehicle: A towed vehicle with at least two axles of which at

least one is a steered axle, equipped with a

towing device which can move vertically in

relation to the towed vehicle and which transmits

no significant static vertical load to the tractor.

Centre-axle Towed Vehicle: A towed vehicle where one or more axles are

positioned close to the centre of gravity of the

vehicle so that, when uniformly loaded, only a

small vertical static load, not exceeding 10% of

the maximum mass of the towed vehicle or a load

of 1000 daN, whichever is less, is transmitted to

the tractor.

Rigid drawbar Towed Vehicle: A towed vehicle with one axle or group of axles,

fitted with a drawbar which transmits significant

(vertical) static load to the tractor due to its

construction. The coupling used for a vehicle

combination shall not consist of a king pin and a

fifth wheel. Some slight vertical movement may

occur at a rigid drawbar.

These somewhat lengthy definitions are largely derived from on-road truck-trailer

terminology and in this instance have been adapted to suit agricultural trailers and towed

equipment. Previous terminology referred to ‘Balanced’ trailers / towed equipment which

do not impose a vertical load on the towing vehicle and ‘Unbalanced’ trailers / towed

equipment which do transfer mass onto the towing vehicle. In practice few, if any

examples of agricultural towed vehicles fall within the ‘Centre-Axle’ definition.

The reason for highlighting these definitions and vehicle design variations at this point is

as follows. The vast majority of larger (Category R3 and R4) trailers used in the EU are of

the Rigid Drawbar / Unbalanced type (Figure 2.18 (left)) which, depending upon their

specific design may transfer up to 3000 – 4000 kg of vertical loading onto the towing

tractor when fully-laden, thereby greatly assisting in-field tractive performance.

‘Drawbar’ or ‘Balanced’ trailers (Figure 2.18 (right)) are still popular in certain EU

member states (mainly Germany), primarily for on-road transport but, it will be

appreciated that, for a given MPMaxles value, they generally offer lower carrying capacities

(Table 2.3).

As Rigid Drawbar-type trailers transfer a significant vertical load onto the towing tractor,

for a given MPMaxles value, their total (gross) laden mass will be higher than that of a

Drawbar-type trailer of an identical MPMaxles level. The mass-transfer nature of their

design requires a more robust construction, which is reflected in a higher unladen mass

but, overall, the carrying capacity of the Rigid Drawbar-type vehicle is greater (Table

2.3). This is important to appreciate, particularly given the potential influence of trailer-

imposed loadings on the tractor during transport operations.

Draft


August 2017 25

Figure 2.18: Example Category R3 trailers: rigid drawbar / unbalanced (left) and drawbar / balanced (right)

(Copyright Fliegl / CEMA)

Table 2.3: Influence of agricultural trailer design / configuration upon carrying capacity

Trailer Type MPMaxles

(kg)

Total (Gross)

Laden Mass (kg)

Unladen Mass (kg)

Drawbar

Vertical Load (kg)

Carrying Capacity (kg)

R3 Drawbar (Balanced)

18,000 18,000 4200 0 13,800

R3 Rigid Drawbar (Unbalanced)

18,000 21,000 5800 3000 15,200

As mentioned previously, the Category R3 trailer 3500 < MPMaxles ≤ 21,000 kg range

corresponds to a very wide range of vehicle carrying capacity and design complexity,

potentially from a relatively simplistic ~4000 kg carrying capacity single-axle trailer

(Figure 2.8 (right)) up to a ~18,000 kg capacity tandem-axle trailer of similar design to

that depicted in Figure 2.18 (left). It should also be appreciated that the power output

and the Vmax capabilities of the tractors likely to be towing these trailers from either end

of the Category R3 range are also likely to be significantly different. Category R3 trailers

probably represent the largest proportion of the current EU-28 agricultural trailer fleet

which is in regular / frontline use, in many cases at speeds above 40 km/h. Their

consideration by this investigation was therefore essential.

2.3.7 Category R4 trailers

The R4 category encompasses agricultural or forestry trailers and tractor-towed load

carrying vehicles of MPMaxles > 21,000 kg. The national legislation of most EU Member

States does not permit such loadings to be carried on only two axles, so Category R4

trailers are generally of tri-axle design (Figure 2.19). In order to enable the towing

tractor to generate sufficient tractive effort to effectively tow these large trailers in-field,

the majority of vehicle designs are of the Rigid Drawbar type. Given that the vertical load

which may be imposed on the tractor is usually limited to ~3000 – 4000 kg by the

tractor manufacturer and that few Member States permit imposed loadings of greater

than 8000 kg per axle for close-spaced tri-axle trailer bogies (MPMaxles ≤ 24,000 kg), the

total laden mass of such Category R4 vehicles is generally limited to ~28,000 kg,

resulting in a max carrying capacity of ~21,500 kg.

The axles and foundation braking equipment used on such vehicles are very similar if not

identical to that found on on-road truck trailers. However, given that the ‘flotation’-type

Draft


August 2017 26

tyres used on agricultural trailers (in order to minimise in-field soil compaction) have

very much larger ground contact areas than those used on truck trailers of comparable

axle loadings, tri-axle agricultural trailers are frequently fitted with steerable axles (either

the rear or both the front & rear axles of the bogie) to improve vehicle manoeuvrability

and to reduce turning forces and tyre wear due to scrubbing.


(Copyright Fliegl / CEMA & Claas / Joskin)

It should also be remembered that Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 defines a trailer as

“any agricultural or forestry vehicle intended mainly to be towed by a tractor and

intended mainly to carry loads or to process materials and where the ratio of the

technically permissible maximum laden mass to the unladen mass of that vehicle

is equal to or greater than 3.0.”

Consequently the Category R definition includes what may be regarded as trailed

agricultural implements, if their primary purpose is either:-

(i) to carry loads, or

(ii) to process materials and their Laden : Unladen mass ratio is ≥ 3.0.

Therefore trailed equipment such as those vehicles shown in Figure 2.20 are classified as

Category R vehicles. It should be noted that this arrangement applies across the entire

Category R vehicle mass range and not just within Category R4.

Figure 2.20: Trailed agricultural implements classified as Category R4 trailers: Tri-axle self-loading forage wagon (left) and slurry tanker (right)

(Copyright Pöttinger / CEMA & CNH Industrial / Joskin)

Draft


August 2017 27

2.3.8 Category S2 interchangeable towed equipment

This vehicle category potentially encompasses an extremely wide range of semi-mounted

and trailed agricultural implements (Figure 2.21), from ploughs and cultivators, to

seeders, agrochemical application equipment (sprayers), and to a wide variety of trailed,

crop-specific harvesting machinery such as mowers, tedders & rakes, balers, forage,

potato and sugar beet harvesters. Given that in 2016, in a number of EU Member States

≥ 35% of tractors sold were of ≥ 150 hp / 112 kW rated power (see Section 3.3), the

corresponding implements required to effectively utilise these power levels will be

capable of considerable work output. This requires a robust implement construction

and/or a substantial working width: factors which both contribute to an increase in

implement mass. Consequently it is not unrealistic to suggest that the majority of trailed

or semi-mounted implements used in modern European agriculture will exceed the

MPMaxles > 3500 kg threshold and fall within the S2 vehicle category. However, it should

be remembered that the primary purpose of this equipment is in-field or off-road use and

that on-road travel should (in all probability) comprise only a limited amount of their

daily operation.

Figure 2.21: Examples of Category S2 interchangeable towed equipment: Semi-mounted reversible plough (top left), seeder (top right), crop sprayer (bottom left) and large square

baler (bottom right)

(Copyright CEMA & Valtra / Amazone)

To aid practical interpretation of which trailed agricultural machinery may be considered

as Category R vehicles and which as Category S, CEMA (European Agricultural Machinery

Manufacturers Association) have produced a useful guidance document (CEMA, 2016a;

CEMA, 2016b) which illustrates a wide range of modern agricultural trailers and trailed

implements and provides pertinent vehicle data.

Draft


August 2017 28

Summary of vehicle categories 2.4

Table 2.4 summarises which vehicle categories are included and excluded from further

consideration within the investigation.

Table 2.4: Vehicle categories included and excluded from the investigation

Included in the investigation

Category T1 tractors

Category T2 tractors

Category T4.3 tractors

Side-by-side (SbS) vehicles type-approved as Category T3 or T1 tractors

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) type-approved as Category T3 tractors

Category R3 trailers


Category S2 interchangeable towed equipment

Excluded from the investigation

Dedicated forestry vehicles

Category T3 tractors (except for those SbSs and ATVs type approved as Category T3b)



Category C tractors



Category S1 interchangeable towed equipment Draft


August 2017 29

Current and future usage of agricultural vehicles in the EU 3

Changes in the nature of agricultural operations and farming 3.1

The last 20 years has witnessed significant changes to European agriculture. Whilst EU

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support systems were in place throughout the period,

substantial fluctuations in agricultural commodity prices, coupled with significant

increases in input costs such as energy and fertilisers, have adversely affected

profitability. One of the few options available to counteract these trends was to reduce

farm labour overhead costs, either by reducing staff numbers or by increasing the size of

the farm enterprise. In either case greater levels of productivity were required, both of

the labour force and the equipment operated by it.

The expansion of farm enterprises led to the creation of larger farm units, which has

resulted in a greater geographic spread of land and associated farming activities.

Particularly in the case of arable farming operations, fewer workers were required to use

fewer but larger tractors to travel further away from the base farmstead to perform

operations. Associated rationalisation of farming enterprises frequently resulted in

greater reliance being placed upon the services of specialist agricultural contractors

whose tractors, by the very nature of the businesses, have to travel substantial distances

to perform their duties. In recent years, the subsidised development of anaerobic

digestion plants for renewable energy generation in a number of EU Member States has

further increased the geographic spread of agricultural activities and the associated on-

road transport workload of agricultural tractors and trailers. These changing

requirements have placed greater emphasis upon the productivity, operator comfort and

road transport capabilities of modern agricultural tractors (Scarlett, 2013).

These assertions are supported by EU agricultural statistics relating to the period in

question. It is noteworthy that just six Member States (France, Germany, Italy, Spain,

the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) together generate over 68% of EU-28 total

agricultural output (Figure 3.1). These Member States also account for the majority of

new agricultural tractor sales in the EU (see Section 3.2). Over the 1997–2013 period the

domestic agriculture of these Member States all demonstrated the trends outlined above,

namely:

No. of Agricultural Holdings: Decreased by an average of 36% (Figure 3.2).

Italy demonstrated the largest reduction (56%),

followed by Germany (47%): Spain and the UK

returned the smallest changes (21%).

Average Farm Size: Increased on average by 32% (Figure 3.3).

Italian and German farm size increased by the

largest margin (~46%), Spanish farm size by

the smallest amount (13%).

Farm Labour Force: Decreased by an average of 32% (Figure 3.4).

Italy demonstrated the largest reduction (54%),

followed by the UK (34%): Germany returned

the smallest change (20%).

Generally, over the last 20 years, the share of utilised agricultural area within the EU

cultivated by smaller farms has decreased and that of larger farms has grown. This

change is reflected in the size and/or work capacity of agricultural machinery utilised

(see Section 3.3).

Draft


August 2017 30

Figure 3.1: Output of EU Member States agricultural industries: Contribution to the EU-28 total (in %)

Source: (European Union, 2016)

Figure 3.2: Change in the number of agricultural holdings in selected EU Member States

Source: Analysis of Eurostat database (Eurostat, 2017)

Draft


August 2017 31

Figure 3.3: Change in average agricultural holding size (area) in selected EU Member States


Figure 3.4: Change in the size of the farm labour force in selected EU Member States. (AWU = Agricultural Work Unit = the work of one full-time employee)


Draft


August 2017 32

The rationale for increased speed 3.2

Modern agriculture is very firmly run as a business and so it can be safely assumed that

the purchase of an agricultural vehicle is in most instances economically rational. Thus,

the changes described above in farming will create a different set of requirements that a

farmer might have for their machine. That is to say, a fast agricultural vehicle purchase

will in most cases be motivated by an economic benefit brought about because of the

higher speed and not because, for example, the driver is a thrill seeker who likes to drive

fast.

A full economic analysis of agricultural transport operations is beyond the scope of this

research. However, some existing research evidence exists that allows a simplistic

illustration of the order of magnitude of the potential effect that increased tractor speed

can have on the economics of farming. This should not be taken as a robust

quantification, merely an indication of the order of magnitude and the type of information

that would be required if it was considered beneficial to undertake a robust analysis at

some future time.

It is generally accepted that the quantity of road transport undertaken with agricultural

vehicles is increasing. (Gotz, Holzer, Winkler, Bernhardt, & Engelhardt, 2011) cited

examples of the reason for such growth as including increasing size of individual

agricultural businesses, centralisation of processes, closing of sugar beet refineries and

increasing demand for biogas. (European Union, 2016) showed that the average farm

size increased from 12.6 ha to 16.1 ha between 2007 and 2013. (Gotz, Zimmerman,

Engelhardt, & Bernhardt, 2014) also cited increasing productivity in terms of tonnes of

product per hectare of field and an increased utilisation area per active farm. However,

the distances that goods are moved within agriculture are relatively short, though

growing. Many operations will transport goods from field to farm which can be a very

short distance up to around 20-30 km (Gotz, Zimmerman, Engelhardt, & Bernhardt,

2014). Where markets are national or international, those products may well be taken

from farm to market in a road-going HGV because the distances are large and HGVs are

more fuel efficient. Thus, the additional costs of transhipping goods from the tractor to

an HGV are reversed by the reduction in the onward transport costs. If the product is

stored at the farm for any length of time then there is no additional trans-shipment cost

of loading onto a specialist transport vehicle (HGV). However, in more local or more

specialist operations (e.g. biomass, sugar beet, etc.) the farmer may transport products

direct from field to market and the distances involved in this can be longer. (Gotz,

Zimmerman, Engelhardt, & Bernhardt, 2014) cites distances to sugar beet refineries of

up to around 100 km.

In Germany, the distribution of freight transport in agriculture is compared to standard

road, rail and barge freight in Figure 3.5.

Although only a relatively small fraction of all road freight traffic (1.2% of tonne kms),

agricultural transport is still significant at 5 billion tonne kms in a year. Dividing the total

freight traffic (tonne kms) by the total freight lifted (tonnes) shows that the average

length of haul is short at just under 12 km. Unfortunately, no information was presented

on the total vehicle kms and there was no information on the average load per vehicle so

it cannot be calculated from the data that was presented. If the average load per vehicle

was 5 tonnes then there would have been 1 billion vehicle kms by agricultural vehicles. If

it was 10 tonnes then there would only have been around 0.5 billion vehicle kms by

agricultural vehicles.

(Gotz, Zimmerman, Engelhardt, & Bernhardt, 2014) tested a range of different vehicles

on a real road route containing a mixture of different urban and rural road types that

they considered representative of an agricultural transport operation in Germany. The

vehicles were two agricultural tractors (one 121 kW and Vmax of 40 km/h, the other

243 kW and Vmax 50 km/h) a Unimog (210 kW and Vmax of 80 km/h) and a standard

articulated truck (310 kW and Vmax of 90 km/h). All but the truck was tested with an

agricultural trailer and a semi-trailer. The results for average speeds achieved are shown

in Figure 3.6.

Draft


August 2017 33

Figure 3.5: Inland goods transport volumes in Germany

Source: (Gotz, Zimmerman, Engelhardt, & Bernhardt, 2014)

Figure 3.6: Average speeds achieved by different test vehicles in public road trials of different vehicles on a route designed to be representative of German agricultural

transport operations.

It can be seen that the increases in average speed were of course less than the increases

in maximum speed, likely reflecting the fact that other factors than Vmax constrain the

actual travel speed. This can also be seen in the fact that urban speeds were lower than

rural speeds (likely a consequence of lower speed limits and increased traffic congestion

in many urban areas) and also that the difference between vehicles was less (also

contributed to by engine power considerations with increased frequency of

acceleration/deceleration cycles). The data was also presented separated by whether the

vehicle was full or empty but averaged across both road types. Based on this data

increasing the maximum speed of an agricultural tractor from 40 km/h to 50 km/h (with

3209

428 341 235398

5 92 64

Road Haulage Agriculture Rail Barge

Transport quantity (million t)

Traffic performance (billion tkm)

33.21

Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for ... · anti-lock braking systems for...

Documents

Transcript of Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for ... · anti-lock braking systems for...