[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by thermalpaste

I know many people who have worked with and are affiliated with ARAI. There are a few bright chaps in your organisation, but most are indifferent and lackadaisical.

ARAI does rigorously test all vehicles that need to be homologated -- but is limited to the road tests and recently, a few crash tests if I'm not mistaken.

Hi Thermalpaste,

You are indeed mistaken as your opinion is based on hearsay and not first-knowledge. (Exactly my point about the awareness of ARAI, and other test agencies).
Please refer to the links posted in my earlier posts which tell you about the different tests conducted as mandatory by ARAI. If you are more interested, I have also given the link to actual standards how the tests are conducted.

Originally Posted by thermalpaste

.
However, ARAI is not very transparent about what it does. For any regulatory entity, they seldom publish, distribute and share knowledge with the end-consumers.

Rightly so, most people believe that ARAI is indifferent and I agree with many. A consumer-centric approach would have saved ARAI's reputation.

You are incorrect again here as ARAI's customer are vehicle and component manufacturers and if it wasn't customer driven, it would have been shut by now.

ARAI is more than transparent in sharing the Fuel Economy data and this is the only data which is of use to normal road users. It could be better if you elaborate when you say "knowledge-sharing" because there is no need for the road-users (which is what you mean by end-users, I think). If you mean, the actual test reports and results, I will repeat that this contains technically confidential data which cannot be shared for legal reasons.

Originally Posted by Max

Gansbab, thank you for taking out your valuable time and posting here. We need more people like you from government agencies to participate in discussion to improve and implement regulations.

Gansbab, can you do something about 3 wheeler diesel auto rickshaws?. They make too much loud noise while running and I actually have to change my house because of traffic noise and now I have promised myself, I will never ever buy house on road side in my life.

I used to live in house who's windows was on road side and where road is on slope (slope is small not that big). Many vehicles use to produce lots of sound while traveling on road due to steep road. However, diesel auto rickshaws was the one making most sound, engine sound use to be almost like gun machine firing when they used to cross near my house. My room window was nearly 30 ft. away from road then also sound used to be too much to wake me up in my closed room running split air conditioner. Its engine sound was more then passing by truck. For demonstration, give me few days and I will take some time and take its video and post it here in few days.

My immediate solution was to install window air conditioner which use to produce its own sound hence traffic sound used to get absorbed in its sound, however, it was not complete solution and after few days i got so fed up due to traffic noise, I decided to buy another house which cost me huge some of money.

Now, I am very happy after changing house, here there is no traffic sound. But why I have to change my house and go through so much trauma and pain just because manufacturers produce so much noisy vehicles. And, i am really lucky I am able to change house, how many people can actually buy house in this overpriced market?

Hi Max,

Yes, it is indeed difficult to keep up with the rate questions are being thrown, but I am making all efforts to attempt and answer it.

Coming to your point about noisy 3wheelers, I would love to do many things but unfortunately, I do not have the powers to do so. unless you put in a petition referring me to the Govt. of India as a transport advisory expert (with a fat paycheque..)

The problem as some earlier posters have rightly mentioned is enforcement. (which is outside the scope of ARAI). There are steps being taken towards it and there will be a change in the next couple of years.

The main problem is inherently these diesel engines are noisy. NVH is a lot costlier and often difficult solutions make it difficult for 3w manufacturers to afford the development towards that. Nevertheless, to give the manufacturer's their due credit, they do provide some noise shielding which restricts the noise( and helps them pass the noise test). But once the vehicle is registered, the end-user (rickshawallah) has never bothered to keep the same where its supposed to be.

A bit from ourside which could be done is refusing to ride an auto which is polluting (noisy or smokey), but is it practical when we are in a rush to get somewhere? Probably not..

But I do sympathise with your condition and believe me, I am more irritated by these knowing the background...

Originally Posted by 007

What about use of Xenon / bi Xenons (with bluish tint) on vehicles in India ?
Is it approved by ARAI ?

Asking this even though I know the answer, for benefit of others.

Some high end vehicle trims have xenons approved as OE fitment which are legal. However, the problem lies in aftermarket fitment of cheap imports from neighbouring countries, which are "powerfull" as some put it, but illegal as the beam is not tested to meet the requirements for that car. With respect to the light tint, there is detailed luminous colour requirement for the headlight (white light).

I hope you are answered.

[aniketi]

Gansbab one question for you.

Why can't ARAI make it compulsory for all car manufacturer's to provide both left side & right side mirrors? I still see many cars having no left side mirror. I guess its a very important basic safety feature. Right? One should always have both mirrors on the car and also both open & well adjusted

I gets very frustrated when people comes towards left without seeing. Many times they have mirrors but are closed :( They don't care for others.

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by aniketi

Why can't ARAI make it compulsory for all car manufacturer's to provide both left side & right side mirrors? I still see many cars having no left side mirror. I guess its a very important basic safety feature. Right? One should always have both mirrors on the car and also both open & well adjusted
I gets very frustrated when people comes towards left without seeing. Many times they have mirrors but are closed :( They don't care for others.

I could not agree with you more here. My Nano has no rear mirror on the left side. I did my best to get it fitted, but was told that the provision does not exist either. I need to look out in the after market I guess

I have experienced that it creates a blind spot to the immediate rear/ half rear of the car on the left side and I have to be extra careful while maneuvring. its OK in b2b traffic, but at higher speeds (read >20) this is an issue, especially as we have a lot of wannable Rossi's on Pune streets who keep wanting to swerve in and out; no way to watch out for them!

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by aniketi

Gansbab one question for you.

Why can't ARAI make it compulsory for all car manufacturer's to provide both left side & right side mirrors? I still see many cars having no left side mirror. I guess its a very important basic safety feature. Right? One should always have both mirrors on the car and also both open & well adjusted

I gets very frustrated when people comes towards left without seeing. Many times they have mirrors but are closed :( They don't care for others.

Hi Aniket,

Apologies for a late-ish reply.. However, I was away from a stable net connection so couldn't reply.

This is one area which I agree it is still lacking. Both side mirrors are a necessity than a mere optional feature!

However, in my recent trip around 30% of cars had the LH mirrors folded away inspite of them being present. I again think it is the awareness that needs to come in and force the manufacturer's to provide them. As even if it is mandated to have both side ORVM, how many would actually use it?

I think the impetus needs to be awareness forcing legislation than being the other way round.

Gandhar

[aniketi]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

Hi Aniket,

Apologies for a late-ish reply.. However, I was away from a stable net connection so couldn't reply.

This is one area which I agree it is still lacking. Both side mirrors are a necessity than a mere optional feature!

However, in my recent trip around 30% of cars had the LH mirrors folded away inspite of them being present. I again think it is the awareness that needs to come in and force the manufacturer's to provide them. As even if it is mandated to have both side ORVM, how many would actually use it?

I think the impetus needs to be awareness forcing legislation than being the other way round.

Gandhar

Thanks Gansbab for the reply.

I agree with you that awareness is important. People should know why they need left side mirrors. But first step is to have that mirror in your car factory fitted & not as a accessory. Many people don't want to pay 500-1000 bucks for the left mirrors. Once it is factory fitted then at least they try to use it. In India sales of basic small cars like Alto, 800, Omni, Santro, Indica etc is very high. They account for almost 60-70 % of the cars on road. Most of them don't come with left mirrors. So that's why i guess its necessary to make it a compulsion

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Max

can you do something about 3 wheeler diesel auto rickshaws?. They make too much loud noise while running

Sound pollution is indeed an area of concern. And while these 3-wheelers are obnoxiously loud, there are other more mainstream automobiles too that are too loud. An eg, is the Bolero (non_CRDI version) - we have 1 in our complex and the racket it creates is horrible. Aren't there any noise-decibel levels these vehicles have to adhere to ? It is possible that the non-DICOR Sumos would also create a similar racket - just that we dont have a Sumo in our complex, so I dont know.

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by aniketi

Thanks Gansbab for the reply.

I agree with you that awareness is important. People should know why they need left side mirrors. But first step is to have that mirror in your car factory fitted & not as a accessory. Many people don't want to pay 500-1000 bucks for the left mirrors. Once it is factory fitted then at least they try to use it. In India sales of basic small cars like Alto, 800, Omni, Santro, Indica etc is very high. They account for almost 60-70 % of the cars on road. Most of them don't come with left mirrors. So that's why i guess its necessary to make it a compulsion

Yes, this is a problem and it needs to be addressed

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Sound pollution is indeed an area of concern. And while these 3-wheelers are obnoxiously loud, there are other more mainstream automobiles too that are too loud. An eg, is the Bolero (non_CRDI version) - we have 1 in our complex and the racket it creates is horrible. Aren't there any noise-decibel levels these vehicles have to adhere to ? It is possible that the non-DICOR Sumos would also create a similar racket - just that we dont have a Sumo in our complex, so I dont know.

There are noise levels these vehicles have to adhere to.. 74 dBA. (75 dB in some cases..) The vehicle is made to accelerate from a start line to end line (20 mtrs apart) from an approach speed of 50 kmh and the noise is measured on both side at 10m from start line. 2-3 wheelers are tested in 2nd / 3rd gear with approach at 75% of max speed rpm.

The problem afterwards is that once the vehicle is sold, if there is any issue with the silencer (crack, rust, etc.) the owner never bothers to get it repaired which is why they cause the racket. Unfortunately, this is due to poor maintenance.

All is not lost though as the Dept. of Transport is keen to introduce Inspection and Maintenance requirements for in use vehicles which will be more structured and detailed to check the vehicle functioninhg(at the moment the only requirement is PUC). This is mandatory in western countries..

Gandhar

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

The problem afterwards is that once the vehicle is sold, if there is any issue with the silencer (crack, rust, etc.) the owner never bothers to get it repaired which is why they cause the racket. Unfortunately, this is due to poor maintenance.

No. I am talking new here - as in a 1-month old Bolero. I stay on the 1st floor and still the racket it makes while circling the block is painful.

[bzr77k]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

There are noise levels these vehicles have to adhere to.. 74 dBA. (75 dB in some cases..) The vehicle is made to accelerate from a start line to end line (20 mtrs apart) from an approach speed of 50 kmh and the noise is measured on both side at 10m from start line. 2-3 wheelers are tested in 2nd / 3rd gear with approach at 75% of max speed rpm.

The problem afterwards is that once the vehicle is sold, if there is any issue with the silencer (crack, rust, etc.) the owner never bothers to get it repaired which is why they cause the racket. Unfortunately, this is due to poor maintenance.

All is not lost though as the Dept. of Transport is keen to introduce Inspection and Maintenance requirements for in use vehicles which will be more structured and detailed to check the vehicle functioninhg(at the moment the only requirement is PUC). This is mandatory in western countries..

Gandhar

Sir, is there any means to ensure that OEMs maintain the dBA levels during mass production. I am assuming that a test vehicle would be used to measure and certify this. But during mass production, there could be numerous process-related reasons leading to variations in the sound levels. Is this captured by a sampling plan of off-the-process vehicles or is only one/two vehicles used for this testing?

My point here is... how do we ensure that vehicles manufactured during mass production adhere to the same level as the ones that were tested and certified!

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

No. I am talking new here - as in a 1-month old Bolero. I stay on the 1st floor and still the racket it makes while circling the block is painful.

Hi SupremeBaleno,

That's interesting. May be the guy driving the Bolero knows ur irritated by the sound (He is a part of this forum) and does it to wind you up

Or he actually feels by revving the poor old Bolero engine, he may make it sound like a V6 or V12..

Jokes apart, as per the approval, it cannot be more than the values I specified in test situations, but the actual noise level may depend on various factors like driving at high rpm in low gears, adulterated diesel, minor crack in the exhaust, intake system (even though it is 1 month old..), etc.

Mind you unless it is a new Crde (or whatever Mahindra calls its new engine line-up), the other engines have their design origins atleast 2 decades old and they are inherently noisey..

Gandhar.

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by bzr77k

Sir, is there any means to ensure that OEMs maintain the dBA levels during mass production. I am assuming that a test vehicle would be used to measure and certify this. But during mass production, there could be numerous process-related reasons leading to variations in the sound levels. Is this captured by a sampling plan of off-the-process vehicles or is only one/two vehicles used for this testing?

My point here is... how do we ensure that vehicles manufactured during mass production adhere to the same level as the ones that were tested and certified!

Hi bzr77k,

Nice point. There are 2 aspects to type approval. One is the tests and other is the Conformity of Production (COP). The COP ensures that every succcesive vehicle manufactured is exactly as per the original tested vehicle and that it continues to meet the legislation.

At the moment, COP is implemented for emissions in India, but soon, we would have COP mandatory for all topics.

In your case, the manufacturer would need to conduct a Noise test on randomly selected vehicles (decided by production volume / year) from a sample batch and these vehicles need to meet the applicable noise limits.The standard mandates the sampling plan. (Refer UN-ECE Reg 83 which details a sampling plan for Emission Tests)

If found that the vehicle fails to meet the requirements, the Certificate issued for sale may be withdrawn by the issuing authority.

The Type approval authorities (ARAI, VRDE, iCAT) would audit the manufacturers to verify that the COP requirements are met. They already do that for emissions. I met an ARAI engineer here in UK who was at Landrover to witness some COP tests last week.

Gandhar

[bzr77k]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

Hi bzr77k,

At the moment, COP is implemented for emissions in India, but soon, we would have COP mandatory for all topics.


If found that the vehicle fails to meet the requirements, the Certificate issued for sale may be withdrawn by the issuing authority.


Gandhar

I was aware of COP as being only for emissions, as you mentioned. But its good to know that a similar rule will be in place for all other standards too. But i suppose this would make it extremely difficult to enforce and monitor unless more 'agencies' can be licensed to do it on behalf of ARAI/VRDE etc...

What role do you think the industry bodies should play in such scenarios?
Because, i assume it would not only make it more cumbersome to implement the COP rule for all standards, but also make it more expensive!

This is where i think industry associations can come in and help with the enforcement. The manufacturers would be more 'pressurized' to meet the regulations.

Honestly, i think neither the industry associations nor the regulatory framework are strong enough to handle the growth and infusion of technology we are noticing in the industry... We are getting there, albeit very slowly!

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by bzr77k

...
Because, i assume it would not only make it more cumbersome to implement the COP rule for all standards, but also make it more expensive!

It wouldn't be any more costlier to the manufacturer's as they do it anyways. (As per the TS16949 requirements) It is just that they would need to furnish evidence for the same. Again only the vehicle level COP would be done by vehicle manufacturers. The component approvals COP would be done by Tier 1 suppliers. Considering the overall program costs, this cost is peanuts to the manufacturers.

Originally Posted by bzr77k

This is where i think industry associations can come in and help with the enforcement. The manufacturers would be more 'pressurized' to meet the regulations.

Unfortunately, the industry associations would not have any legal backing whereas as and when COP comes into action, it would be mandated and the approval authorities would confirm that it has been conducted.

Originally Posted by bzr77k

Honestly, i think neither the industry associations nor the regulatory framework are strong enough to handle the growth and infusion of technology we are noticing in the industry... We are getting there, albeit very slowly!

In a sense, yes. But if you compare it in context with the EU, it is at a rapid pace. Just for example, Emission norms have been established since the year 1970 in the EU and the Euro 4 level was mandated in 2005 (35 years). As against, in India, rudimentary emission norms came into existence in 1991 whereas Euro 4 was mandated (OK, in metros) in 2010 (19 years)..
Think again now.. are we slow?

Gandhar.

[SPIKE ARRESTOR]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

The component approvals COP would be done by Tier 1 suppliers. Considering the overall program costs, this cost is peanuts to the manufacturers.

Isn't component approval COP still done by the suppliers?

Unfortunately, the industry associations would not have any legal backing whereas as and when COP comes into action, it would be mandated and the approval authorities would confirm that it has been conducted.

What are these?

Spike

[bzr77k]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

It wouldn't be any more costlier to the manufacturer's as they do it anyways. (As per the TS16949 requirements) It is just that they would need to furnish evidence for the same. Again only the vehicle level COP would be done by vehicle manufacturers. The component approvals COP would be done by Tier 1 suppliers. Considering the overall program costs, this cost is peanuts to the manufacturers.

Unfortunately, the industry associations would not have any legal backing whereas as and when COP comes into action, it would be mandated and the approval authorities would confirm that it has been conducted.

I dont think TS16949 requires them to verify all 'regulatory' standards are being met. But yes, they should be doing it already (if they have a good process quality control system). I have seen a few assembly lines and i do not think they are as well 'controlled' as would be required

Component-level COP by Tier-1s or OEMs, the cost would ultimately have to be borne by the OEMs. In fact, i think the best way (lead by the European example) is to have greater levels of standardization leading to minimal new 'developments' for every new platform. This will help optimize resources and time-to-market.
A typical example is the GADSL standards for SoC/ELV material requirements. These standards have been embraced by all mature manufacturers, Tier 1s, Tier 2s and all suppliers down the line. But Indian manufacturers are still 'unaware' about this and insist on their own system increasing overall cost for all the suppliers down the way.

Originally Posted by Gansbab

In a sense, yes. But if you compare it in context with the EU, it is at a rapid pace. Just for example, Emission norms have been established since the year 1970 in the EU and the Euro 4 level was mandated in 2005 (35 years). As against, in India, rudimentary emission norms came into existence in 1991 whereas Euro 4 was mandated (OK, in metros) in 2010 (19 years)..
Think again now.. are we slow?

My point was to look at the growth of 'regulatory framework' against the growth of the industry in-general. In 1991, India was still selling/making lesser vehicles than the EU in 1970. As the market grew in EU, the regulatory framework grew at a good pace to keep-up with it. In India, the situation is very different, the regulations are off by a long way (and i am not talking about emissions only!) compared to the industry growth. This given the fact that we should, in general, be 'copying' the regulations already existing in the rest of the world as most of them are directly applicable to the market here!