95
Spett.le PROXEL Corso PASTRENGO 42 10093 COLLEGNO (TO) Alla cortese attenzione dell’Ing. Fernando Bolla e del Dott. Mauro Del Signore Trofarello, 09/03/1999 REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES Components tested VALEO ULTRASOUNDS DEVICE EPS ELECTROMAGNETIC PARKING SYSTEM PROXEL

COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

Spett.le

PROXEL

Corso PASTRENGO 42 10093 COLLEGNO (TO)

Alla cortese attenzione

dell’Ing. Fernando Bolla

e del Dott. Mauro Del Signore

Trofarello, 09/03/1999

REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES

Components tested

VALEO ULTRASOUNDS DEVICE

EPS ELECTROMAGNETIC PARKING SYSTEM PROXEL

Page 2: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 2/95

Date: 09/03/99

Adressee Ing. Fernando Bolla

Dott. Mauro Del Signore

Car Model: Multipla 1.6

Allestimento: -

Motore: -

Component tested: EPS parking device and ultrasonic parking device

Type of test: Comparison of the performances of the two systems

Norma di riferimento: -

SUMMARY

The two systems have been subjected to comparative tests for determine the characteristics of

answer in different conditions of use.

CONCLUSIONS

Test responsible

Ing. Ivano Ottino

Project responsible

Ing. Giuseppe Migliora

Our REF.: PROXEL_SENSORE99I01023

Page 3: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 3/95

Date: 09/03/99

FINALITY OF TEST

Comparative test of the performance between the EPS (Electromagnetic Parking System) by

PROXEL and the ultrasounds parking device by VALEO.

USED INSTRUMENTATION

· data acquisition system TESSERACT and DALO software

· phonic wheel with encoder 360 impulses/ turn model ELCIS 59C15-360-824/ 5-M-B-CV-R-

03

Fig.1 Phonic wheel

TEST CONDITIONS

For each performed test it has been acquired the covered space (at a frequency of 100 Hz).

Known therefore the initial space is possible determining the distance of the car from the obstacle in

each instant. Acquiring in the same time the signal furnished by the sensor and elaborating the data

graphically, it is possible to draw the different areas of influence in base at the different tone and

frequency of the signal.

On the drawings it has drawn at the same time graphic of the speed in function of the time

obtained for derivation of the space..

The resolution of the phonic wheel is of 5 mm/ pulse and the error that is committed on the

measures of the space is of around 2-3 cm (acceptable value for the type of characterisation that is

needed). This error is due to the fact that, in phase of arrest of the car, sometime it is counted some

impulse in more because of the inactivity of the phonic wheel.

WORKING PRINCIPLE OF THE EPS SYSTEM

The electronic unit is connected through a cable to the antenna sensor installed to the inside of the

bumper for all his length. When an obstacle enters the zone of influence of the electromagnetic near

field generated by the antenna sensor, the same field suffers a variation of his physical

characteristics due to the modification of the environment and this variation is as greater as more

the obstacle is near to the same antenna sensor.

Page 4: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 4/95

Date: 09/03/99

At the first activation of the unit a self-adjustment of the system is obtained. The time of this

automatic operation is around 15-40 seconds and after that a sound of "OK" is heard from the

acoustic unit signal (three different notes in rapid succession). This operation is necessary only

during the first installation of the system and is made in order to adapt the unit parameters to the

installation characteristics.

At the engaging of the back gear a control of the connection of the sensor is performed (absence of

interruptions of the cable of connection to the antenna sensor or of interruption of the same): in case

of anomalies the acoustic device gives a sound of alarm composed by two notes a tall and a low for

3-4 seconds.

If the control is regular the acoustic device gives in about 2 seconds after the activation three

different notes in rapid succession for confirm the normal operation of the system (sound of OK).

During the approach to an obstacle the electronic unit activates the acoustic signaller beginning

from a distance between bumper and obstacle (measured in the central zone of the bumper) of

around 50-60 cm with 3 separate types of signalling.

a) increasing sequence of "BEEP» which makes the driver informed that an obstacle is

approaching (Pre-alarm)

b) continuous sound at a more acute frequency when the obstacle is in proximity of the

bumper at a distance of 20 to 30 cm measured in the central zone of the bumper. The continuous

sound is maintained for a time of about 2 seconds.

c) continuous sound at a different higher frequency when an obstacle is in a very close

proximity of the bumper (3-20 cm) giving an alarm of possible contact.

In presence of relevant variations of temperature (10 °C) in the place were the electronic unit is

allocated (inside the car if the unit is mounted in the trunk or outside the car if the unit is mounted

on the bumper) the electronic module performs a self-adjustment in order that the sensitivity of the

system should not be interested by the weather conditions.

The beginning of the signalling is function of the speed of approach to the obstacle: higher it is

the speed and sooner it will start the signal of pre-alarm and the continuous one for allow a good

arrest of the car. Finally, if there is not a relative movement of approaching between the car and the

obstacle, the acoustic device does utter no sound.

OPERATING FEATURES OF THE VALEO SYSTEM

This device is essentially constituted by four ultrasonic transducers disposed on the back

bumper, and connected to an electronic control unit. Two of them are disposed at around 250 mm

from the centre of the bumper and at a height from earth of 440 mm while the other two

respectively to around 680 mm and 555 mm. The ultrasonic transducers utter the impulses and

receive the signal reflected from the obstacle transmitting it to the electronic unit for the evaluation

of the distance.

When the system is activated, by the insertion of the back gear, it is emitted issued a sonorous

signal from the loudspeaker for point out that the system is ready to work. At the recognition of the

obstacle the system generates an alternate signal of pre-alarm that increases its frequency as the

distance is reduced, up to become a permanent signal.

Page 5: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 5/95

Date: 09/03/99

MAPPING OF THE DETECTION ZONE OF THE REAR PARKING DEVICE

Before performing the test in external environment the measurement of the three areas of detection

by means of the aid of a pneumatic piston connected to a trolley has been proceeded (you see

Fig.2).

The frontal dimensions of the trolley are: width 600 mm and height 850 mm. Regulating the flow

of air through two air cock it has been performed the tests at three speed of reference: 10. 20 and 30

cm/ s. The following charts show the results in cm obtained for the different areas and speed

Fig.2 Mapping device

PROXEL DEVICE

The following chart shows the results in cm obtained for the different areas and speed.

Orthogonal approaching of the trolley towards the bumper centre 10 cm/s 20 cm/s 30cm/s

Pre-alarm 61 74 79

1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5

2° continuous signal 18 25 30

Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45 50.5 59.5

1° continuous signal 20.5 23.5 30

2° continuous signal 13.5 15 19

Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper according to the longitudinal axis of he car

body Pre-alarm 21.5 24 25

Page 6: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 6/95

Date: 09/03/99

Concerning the last measurement it has not been indicated the distances of the continuous signals

owing to a little bit difficulty in appreciating the right value in this condition. Indicative values at a

speed of 20 cm/s could be around 5-6 cm for the 1° continuous signal and 1 cm for the 2°

continuous signal.

Through a metallic bar of diameter 50 mm, applied to the trolley, it has been detected the superior

limits of the zones of influence. The following values represent the heights from the ground.

Vertical section in the middle of the bumper

10 cm/s 20 cm/s 30 cm/s Pre-alarm 76 82 85

1° continuous signal 65 66 68 2° continuous signal 62 64 65

The following figures represent graphically the zones of protection obtained.

Page 7: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 7/95

Date: 09/03/99

Fig.3 Superior and section view at 10 cm/s

Page 8: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 8/95

Date: 09/03/99

Fig.4 Superior and section view at 20 cm/s

Page 9: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 9/95

Date: 09/03/99

Fig.5 Superior and section view at 30 cm/s

Page 10: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 10/95

Date: 09/03/99

VALEO DEVICE

This device is not influenced by the speed of manoeuvre. For such a motive it has been performed

an only tests at a constant speed of 10 cm/s with the trolley perpendicular to the middle of the

bumper.

Pre-alarm 150-170 cm

1° continuous signal 37.5 cm

The following features have been observed:

• loss of the signal when the goes itself off (fact not serious in as if it increases the distance from

the obstacle there it is not danger of collision)

• Loss of the signal, after some second, when the trolley stops at the maximum distance and at

any passage of person in front of the transducers.

After this test the determination of the cones of influence of the system has been proceeded to,

using the metallic tube of diameter 50-mm. Like it is displayed in the Fig.6 it has been maintained

active an only of the two transducers at the centre of the bumper, annulling the others with a piece

of adhesive ribbon.

The tube has been positioned and moved most possible perpendicular to the ground. In this test it

has been noticed that according to the inclination of the bar the transducer sometime is able and

sometime not to receive the reflected signal; from this fact it is possible already to notice that the

system is therefore influenced from the surface of reflection and from the geometry of the obstacle.

Fig.6 Determination of the cone of influence of a single transducer

Page 11: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 11/95

Date: 09/03/99

The Fig.7 shows the area of the continuous signal and that of pre-alarm of the device. These zones

have been drawn multiplying on the four transducer the cone of influence resulted for one single

transducer (in base to as formerly described). It is not therefore told that the general area

corresponds perfectly to that drawn, but surely to a sort of influence of the four.

Fig 7. Zones of detection

Page 12: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 12/95

Date: 09/03/99

Fig.7 displays the sight in plant of the area of pre-alarm (green colour), designed in base to the

values of the underlying chart, and that of the continuous signal (red colour).

Angle as regards the axis of

the transducer

Radial distance from the

centre of transducer (cm)

0° 160

10° 155

20° 60.5

30° 48.5

40° 53

50° 53.5

60° 38

As it is possible to see, the course of the graph is not very regular for the alternate signal while for

the continuous what it has been obtained is a ray of 30 cm and an opening of 120°. In transversal

section for the alternate signal it was difficult to obtain a precise measurement; approximately it is

possible to say that departing from 20 cm off the transducer and for the length of 1m the area of

influence has a height between the 60 and the 70 cm from the ground. The continuous signal instead

has an opening of around 37° (it well to notice that the axis of the transducers is not perfectly

parallel to the longitudinal axis of the car, but rotated of around 2.5° upwards).

An important verification which has been made is the following: we suppose to call A and B the

nearer transducer to the centre of the bumper, lets activates only A and put the vertical tube to the

inside of the area with ray 30 cm of A. The system furnishes a continuous signal. Now without

move the tube we open B and we close A. The signal becomes alternate. Finally with both open a

continuous sound is obtained. This experiment doesn't serve to anything else than to approximately

demonstrate that the signal that detected is the corresponding one to the nearer transducer nearer to

the obstacle.

The tests performed with this sensor-device have been made by activating and deactivating the

system, as it has been noticed that at the activation the device answers with better efficiency.

EXTERNAL ENVIROMENT TESTS WITH THE PARKING DEVICE MOUNTED ON THE

REAR OF THE CAR

The tests have been performed using different types of obstacles of different dimensions for verify

the efficiency of the system when used in a normal operating conditions.

Like told already in the descriptive paragraph regarding the conditions of test, the graphic of each

test reports the signal of the sensor and the indication of the distance in cm from the obstacle at

which the different signalling happen. Besides the corresponding areas of the different signals have

been coloured in a different way.

The initial distances of the car from the obstacle are measured from the centre of the bumper,

except where otherwise indicated.

.

Page 13: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 13/95

Date: 09/03/99

1) APPROACHING TOWARDS A METALLIC GATE

Dimensions

• height: 2 m

• width: 6 m

Proxel Device

Starting distance from the obstacle: 167 cm

Valeo Device

Starting distance from the obstacle:: 299 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.8 ETALLIC GATE

In this case the system has given also the fourth signal of anomaly at a distance of 12 cm from the

gate

Page 14: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 14/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]

70

36 2512

Page 15: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 15/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio [cm/s]

168

31

Page 16: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 16/95

Data: 09/03/99

2) REVERSING TOWARDS Euro Cargo IVECO

Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 215 cm

Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 301 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.9 Euro Cargo Iveco

Page 17: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 17/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]

6127 13

Page 18: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 18/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]

17135

Page 19: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 19/95

Data: 09/03/99

3) APPROACHING TOWARDS A WOODEN POLE FOR AERIAL LINE

Diameter: 160 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 178 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 300 cm

Fig.10 Wooden pole

Page 20: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 20/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]57

20 14

Page 21: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 21/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]

17030

Page 22: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 22/95

Data: 09/03/99

4) REVERSING TOWARDS A METALLIC POLE

Diameter: 50 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 267 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 210 cm

Page 23: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 23/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

7522 15

Page 24: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 24/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]178

31

Page 25: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 25/95

Data: 09/03/99

5) APPROACHING TOWARDS A METALLIC POLE FOR AERIAL LINE

Diameter: 150 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 248 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 238 cm

Fig.12 Aerial line pole

The Proxel system has given the fourth signal of anomaly to a distance of 15 cm from the pole

(you see graphic).

Page 26: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 26/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

61

31

23

15

Page 27: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 27/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]18132

Page 28: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 28/95

Data: 09/03/99

6) APPROACHING TOWARDS A WAYSIDE STONE

Dimensions:

• diameter: 500 mm

• height: 550 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 265 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 270 cm

Fig.13 Wayside stone

Page 29: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 29/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]57

27 13

Page 30: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 30/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

17935

Page 31: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 31/95

Data: 09/03/99

7) APPROACHING TOWARDS A WAYSIDE STONE WITH THE CORNER-EDGE OF

THE BUMPER

Dimensions:

• diameter: 500 mm

• height: 550 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance measured from the corner-edge of the bumper: 147 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance measured from the corner-edge of the bumper: 210 cm

Fig.14 Wayside sone

Page 32: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 32/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

52

24 17

Page 33: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 33/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]174 25

Page 34: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 34/95

Data: 09/03/99

8) REVERSING TOWARDS GUARDRAIL

Height: 700 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 194 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 235 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.15 Guardrail

Page 35: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 35/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]72

3930

Page 36: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 36/95

Data: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

176

40

Page 37: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

RELAZIONE N° INTG/99018/GM

Prove comparative tra sensori di parcheggio

Pag. 37/95

Data: 09/03/99

9) REVERSING TOWARDS GUARDRAIL

Height: 700 mm

Sensore Proxel

Approaching distance measured from the middle of bumper: 238 cm

Approaching angle: 30°

Sensore Valeo

Approaching distance measured from the corner-edge of the bumper to the obstacle: 72 cm

Approaching angle e: 30°

Approaching with angled movement

Fig.16 Guardrail

Approaching with this inclination, the detection of Preoxel system is given by the final part of the

antenna inside the lateral part of the bumper and therefore for this reason it is not possible to have

a reference to the initial measured distance from the center of the bumper. The suitable distances on

the graph have been obtained therefore from the mapping drawing made first at a speed of 10 cm/s

tracing a tangent straight line to the varied areas of influence and tilted of 30° as regards the

longitudinal axle of the vehicle. The speed of 10 cm/ s is the real speed of approach to the obstacle,

drawn multiplying the speed in the points, where the beginning of the different signalings start, for

the sine of 30 .

Page 38: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 38/95

Date: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

4218

10

Page 39: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 39/95

Date: 09/03/99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

64 25

Page 40: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 40/95

Date: 09/03/99

10) REVERSING TOWARDS A CAR SIDE

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 215 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 300cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.17 Car side

Page 41: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 41/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]68

39 27

Page 42: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 42/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità ( cm/s )

173

28

Page 43: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 43/95

Data: 09/03/1999

11) REVERSING TOWARDS A CAR SIDE

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance measured from the corner-edge of the bumper: 70 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance measured from the corner-edge of the bumper : 150 cm

Pproaching with an angle of 30°

Fig.18 Car side

Also in this case the distances reported on the graph for the Proxel have been reported in an

analogous way as done for the test n.9.

Page 44: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 44/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]42

1810

Page 45: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 45/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità ( cm/s )

8018

Page 46: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 46/95

Data: 09/03/1999

12) APPROACHING TOWARDS A STEP

Height: 23 cm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the bumper: 212 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the bumper: 275 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.19 Step

Page 47: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 47/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]

51

37 25

Page 48: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 48/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

17119

Page 49: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 49/95

Data: 09/03/1999

13) APPROACHING TOWARDS A STEP

hEIGHT: 37 cm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 306 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 235 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.20 Step

Page 50: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 50/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

61

39

29

Page 51: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 51/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

180

34

Page 52: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 52/95

Data: 09/03/1999

14) APPROACHING TOWARDS A METALLIC WHEEL-GUARD

Dimensions:

• height: 500 mm

• diameter: 80 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 245 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 245 cm

Fig.21 Metallic wheel-guars

These acquisitions on the curbstones have been made with both the system in operation,.

Page 53: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 53/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]48

2216

Page 54: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 54/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]171 37

Page 55: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 55/95

Data: 09/03/1999

15) APPROACHING TOWARDS A METALLIC WHEEL-GUARD

Dimensions:

• Height: 400 mm

• diameter: 80 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 253 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 253 cm

Fig.22 Metallic wheel-guard

Acquisitions made with both the systems in operation. The Valeo sensor, like it is seen from the

graph, has given only a continuous signal at a distance of 25 [cm] from the obstacle.

Page 56: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag.56 /95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio [cm]

52

19 12

Page 57: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag.57 /95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio [cm]25

Page 58: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking

Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag.58 /95

Data: 09/03/1999

16) APPROACHING TOWARDS A METALLIC WHEEL-GUARD WITH THE CORNER -

EDGE OF THE BUMPER

Dimensions:

• Heght: 400 mm

• diameter: 80 mm

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 91 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 81 cm

Fig.23 Metallic wheel-guard

The acquisitions have been made separately. The ultrasonic system gives almost no signal (you

see graphic).

Page 59: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 59/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

57

19 9

Page 60: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 60/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

Page 61: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 61/95

Data: 09/03/1999

17) APPROACHING TOWARDS AN ANGLED METALLIC TUBE

DimensionS:

• height from ground: 520 mm

• diameter: 50 mm

• inclination respect the ground: 35°

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 335 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 335 cm

Fig.24 Angled metallic tube

The acquisitions have been made together. The ultrasonic system doesn’t give any signal

Page 62: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 62/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]42

21 9

Page 63: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 63/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]

Page 64: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 64/95

Data: 09/03/1999

17) APPROACHING TOWARDS AN ANGLED METALLIC TUBE

Dimensions:

• height from ground: 580 mm

• diameter: 80 mm

• inclination respect the ground: 26°

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 199 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 199 cm

Fig.25 Angled metallic tube

The acquisitions have been made together. The ultrasonic system doesn’t give any signal.

Page 65: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 65/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]40

18

11

Page 66: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 66/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]

Page 67: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 67/95

Data: 09/03/1999

19) REVERSING TOWARDS A PERSON

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 253 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 240 cm

Fig.26 Approaching towards a person

Page 68: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 68/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]

47

2823

Page 69: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 69/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]

17029

Page 70: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 70/95

Data: 09/03/1999

20) REVERSING INTO A CAR-BOX

Dimensions:

• height: 2.6 m

• width: 2.7 m

• lenght: 5.4 m

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 177 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 185 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.27 Box

While the car begins to enter the box, the sensors have given a signal of pre-allarm owed to two

columns that are at the entry of the same box and that reduce the section of passage up to 2.24 m

accordingly.

Page 71: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 71/95

Data: 09/03/1999

Besides to the inside of the box have been introduced some objects like it is seen in the Fig.28. in

a particular way on the leading wall of the box a bicycle has been positioned as regards which it has

been measured the initial distance reported in the preceding page.

Fig.28 Objects in the box

The VALEO ultrasonic system, for all the time in which the car was inside the box, has given an

alternate signal of difficult interpretation, mainly during the insertion of the back-gear. This could

depend on different factors: reflection or rebounds of the impulses owed to the objects to the inside

of the box, sides walls at the inside of the area of detection of the transducers, etc.

The continuous signal gives the distance of the car from the bicycle positioned on the leading

wall.

Page 72: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 72/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[cm/s]

Spazio [cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

8329

15

Page 73: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 73/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]25

Page 74: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 74/95

Data: 09/03/1999

21) REVERSING TOWARDS A PLASTC DOOR

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 290 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 290 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.29 Plastic door

The acquisition on the two systems have been made at the same time. For the Valeo system it is

difficult to give a distance of pre-allarm because, at a distance of 3 m it gives an alternate signal

due probably to the presence of the rug.

Page 75: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 75/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

72

32 16

Page 76: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 76/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

42

Page 77: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 77/95

Data: 09/03/1999

22) APPROACHING WITH WET BIMPER TOWARDS LATERAL SIDE OF A CAR

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 242 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 205 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.30 Car lateral side

The Valeo syste doesn’t give any signal

Page 78: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 78/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]

48

34

27

Page 79: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 79/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]

Page 80: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 80/95

Data: 09/03/1999

23) APPROACHING TOWARDS A CAR WITH THE BUMPER COVERED BY MUD

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 235 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 35 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.31 Car bumper

The VALEO system has given only the continuous signal close the obstacle at a distance of 33

mm.

Page 81: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 81/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

7641 29

Page 82: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 82/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]33

Page 83: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 83/95

Data: 09/03/1999

24) APPROACHING TOWARDS A PERSON WITH BUMPER COVERED BY MUD

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 260 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 220 cm

Fig.32 pERSON

The Valeo system, on the contrary of the previous test, doesnt'give any signal. This depends,

besides to the fact that the transducers are dirty, from the reflecting surface of the obstacle.

Page 84: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 84/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

7641 29

Page 85: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 85/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

Page 86: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 86/95

Data: 09/03/1999

25) APPROACHING TOWARDS AN IRON CHEST WITH BUMPER COVERED BY MUD

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance from the obstacle: 260 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance from the obstacle: 210 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.33 Iron chest

The Valeo system doesn't work properly, with a loss of the alternate signal before the continuous

one.

Page 87: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 87/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

40 45 50 55 60 65Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

[cm/s]

Spazio [cm]

Segnale Proxel

Velocità [cm/s]

60

31

20

Page 88: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 88/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio [cm]102 45

Page 89: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 89/95

Data: 09/03/1999

26) APPROACHING TOWARDS AN ANGLED IRON CHEST

Sensore Proxel

Starting distance e from the obstacle: 205 cm

Sensore Valeo

Starting distance e from the obstacle: 245 cm

Fig.34 Iron chest

The Valeo ultrasonic system has given a signal only at 17 cm from the obstacle.

Page 90: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 90/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]57

21

12

Page 91: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 91/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

[cm/s]

Spazio[cm]

Segnale Valeo

Velocità [cm/s]

17

Page 92: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 92/95

Data: 09/03/1999

27) REVERSING TOWARDS A METALLIC NET

As a last acquisition has been reported a peculiar case of backing towards a net slightly tilted with

a sweater of 50 x 70 mm. The two systems has been tested at the same time

Sensore Proxel

Distanza iniziale dall’ostacolo: 235 cm

Sensore Valeo

Distanza iniziale dall’ostacolo: 235 cm

Orthogonal approaching

Fig.35 Metal net

Page 93: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 93/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Proxel

Spazio[cm]

80

37 16

Page 94: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparative test between Parking Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 94/95

Data: 09/03/1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Tempo [s]

[cm]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[cm/s]

Velocità [cm/s]

Segnale Valeo

Spazio[cm]157

54

Page 95: COMPARATIVE TESTS BETWEEN PARKING AID DEVICES · 1° continuous signal 28 36 41.5 2° continuous signal 18 25 30 Orthogonal approaching towards the bumper corner-edge Pre-alarm 45

TEST REPORT N° INTG/99018/GM

Comparison test between Parking Aid Devices

PROXEL/VALEO

Pag. 95/95

Date: 09/03/99

REMARKS

PROXEL DEVICE

Analysing the graphics there is not always a correspondence between the detection zones

obtained at the three speeds of reference and the distances from the obstacle at which the different

signalling happen.

For instance for the metallic gate the pre-alarm is obtained at a distance of 70 cm, while the

detection zone for the speed of 20 cm/sec furnishes a value of 74 cm. In an analogous way the two

continuous signals are obtained respectively at 36 and 25 cm, while from the mapping drawing for

the speed of 10 cm/sec is drawn 28 and 18 cm.

For the pole of wood the signalling happen nearer to the obstacle as regards as is drawn from the

mapping drawing made for 30 cm/sec.

In general we could tell that the differences obtained are due essentially to the followings two

factors that influence the sensibility of the sensor:

· surface of the obstacle: bigger it is the obstacle and first the sensor will give the signal of pre-

alarm and the continuous signals

· variation of speed: repetitive values are succeeded to get only during the mapping, where the

speed is constant.

Finally the system doesn't present anomalies of operation when the bumper is wet or covered by

mud.

VALEO DEVICE

Also for this device, we could tell that its sensibility is influenced by the surface of the obstacle

and by the geometry, important factors for the reflection of the impulses and the receipt of the

signal of return by the ultrasonic transducers. Difficulty of signalling has been had with bumper

covered by mud and wet, in the case of the metallic tilted bolts and in the car-box. It has also been

observed that noises with a component of high frequency, like the agitation of keys, the

compressed air, the noise of a grindstone etc. could cause a malfunction of the system which

furnishes a signalling not in presence of obstacle.

In all the other tests the system has given fairly constant signals, with a pre-alarm at around 170

cm and a continuous signal at around 30 cm from the obstacle.