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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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.
Category R3: Trailers with a sum of technically permissible masses per
axle > 3,500 kg but 21,000 kg.
Draft
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 12
Category R4: Trailers with a sum of technically permissible masses per
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
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 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
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 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
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 15
Figure 2.6: Rubber half-track Category C track-laying tractors
(Copyright CNH Industrial)
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)
Figure 2.8: Example Category R2 agricultural trailers
(Copyright Fliegl & Fleming)
Draft
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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)
(Copyright CNH Industrial)
Draft
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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.
Figure 2.19: Example Category R4 agricultural trailers
(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
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 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
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 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 R4 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 T4.1 tractors
Category T4.2 tractors
Category C tractors
Category R1 trailers
Category R2 trailers
Category S1 interchangeable towed equipment Draft
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 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
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 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
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 31
Figure 3.3: Change in average agricultural holding size (area) in selected EU Member States
Source: Analysis of Eurostat database (Eurostat, 2017)
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)
Source: Analysis of Eurostat database (Eurostat, 2017)
Draft
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 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
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 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