INGAS project

1
INGAS project Year 2 Review Meeting
2
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Time Item Name (Company)
0900 Answers to general comments / questions General status of the project Coordinator Massimo Ferrera (CRF) PM Stefania Zandiri (CRF)
1000 SPA1 answers to reviewers comments/questions Andrea Gerini (CRF)
1045 SPA2 answers to reviewers comments/questions Alois Fuerhapter (AVL), Harry Schüle (CONTI)
1130 SPA3 answers to reviewers comments/questions Christoph Bollig (FEV), Bertold Hüchtebrock (FEV), Kenth Johansson (SAPT), Martin Müther (RWTH)
1230 Lunch
1300 SPB0 answers to reviewers comments/questions Manfred Hoppe (EON), Michal Takats (CVUT) Micheline Montero (GDF SUEZ)
1345 SPB1 answers to reviewers comments/questions David Storer (CRF), Volker Strubel (Xperion)
1500 SPB2 answers to reviewers comments/questions Michel Weibel (DAI), Matthias Rink (USTUTT), Alois Fuerhapter (AVL)
1630 End of reviewers meeting
1730 Feedback of the reviewers PO to the Core Group
3
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011

• Reply to Technical Review Report for Period 2
  issued by Reviewers
• Written responses
• Revised 24 months Periodic Report
• New version of rejected deliverables
• Release of some delayed deliverables

4
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches
5
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches
6
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches
7
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches
8
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches
9
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches
10
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Common methodology to compare the 3 engine
technology approaches This
methodology has been approved by PO and reviewers
on October 2010
11
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Competitiveness vs benchmark A comparison
with a certain vehicle available today in the
market is feasible only if vehicle parameters are
well known and applied at the same time to all
technologies considered inside INGAS project.
Moreover current NG engines available into the
market show a gap compared to gasoline ones that
can be overcome only thanks to technologies
developed in INGAS project.
12
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Competitiveness vs benchmark
13
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Emission targets As written in table 3 of
original and last amended versions of INGAS DoW,
all demonstrators of INGAS Project have to comply
with emission limits halved respect to Euro 6

14
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Cost assessment of different technologies INGAS
Consortium agrees that the control of costs of NG
powered vehicles is a critical issue and we have
scheduled in the final assessment / comparison of
the 3 engine technology platforms to carry out a
cost evaluation of innovative developed
technologies, but before to manage this issue
its mandatory to freeze the technologies to
apply on final demonstrators.   Therefo
re the Consortium will provide a cost evaluation
according to the list of technologies developed
in INGAS project and mentioned above by
Reviewers. This activity SP by SP will be carried
only in the 3rd year of the project after the
completion of definition of integrated
technologies to apply on final demonstrators.
15
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
Choice of monofuel approach The main scope of
INGAS project is to develop technologies to apply
on engines running only on NG and therefore the
focus it to optimize and to maximize the
exploitation of NG features to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 and to increase the
performances. This approach is based on the
hypothesis of a short term development of
refuelling station network suitable for CNG
monofuel vehicles. If this event wont occur due
to lack of adequate infrastructure available in
the near future, theres no chance that INGAS
project can change this status because out of its
scope according to contractual documents (i.e.
DoW).
16
(No Transcript)
17
Reviewed INGAS GANTT (1/2)
18
Reviewed INGAS GANTT (2/2)
19
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
SPA1 - Answers to Reviewer Comments
20
Review meeting Period 2 Brussels, 8 April 2011
SPA3 - Answers to Reviewer Comments