## 4 Simulations and Results
### Results with Unbalanced Technology Distribution  
Transmission range:The TR with unbalanced technology distribution is plotted in Figure 13, both for More-V\({}_{\text{11p}}\) (Figure 13a,b) and More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\) (Figure 13c,d). When we focus on the TR of NR-V2X (see Figure 13a,c), eM\({}_{\text{A}}\)-time-split provides better performance than all the other methods, even with heavier NR-V2X traffic (More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\)). M\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble-no-SF is the only method that maintains similar performance in the two scenarios. It also performs slightly better than the dM\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble in the More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\) scenario, because the dM\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble has to reserve at least 5 ms for S\({}_{\text{11p}/\text{bd}}\) while M\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble-no-SF does not have this limitation.  
Observing Figure 13b,d, dM\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble and M\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble-no-SF improve the TR of IEEE 802.11p compared to the No-method results and outperform the other methods if we exclude the eM\({}_{\text{A}}\)-time-split method. In the case of eM\({}_{\text{A}}\)-time-split, the resources reserved for each technology are always approximately the 50% (we are assuming a static configuration) and therefore the average number of IEEE 802.11p transmissions attempted in the S\({}_{\text{11p}}\) is lower than in the balanced case with More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\) and higher with More-V\({}_{\text{11p}}\). This implies that under the More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\) scenario there are on average fewer 11p transmissions in the same interval compared to the balanced case, implying a lower collision probability. When there are relatively more V\({}_{\text{11p}}\), it means that more transmissions are performed on average in the same time interval and therefore the packet collision probability increases, in turn reducing the transmission range.  
Furthermore, in the unbalanced case, M\({}_{\text{B}}\)-E-signals for any vehicle density and M\({}_{\text{F}}\)-CTS-to-Self for high vehicle density imply lower TR for IEEE 802.11p than with the No-method test.  
Figure 12: Average data age within 500 m vs. density applying different mitigation methods with the balanced distribution: (**a**) shows the average DA of NR-V2X, and (**b**) shows the average DA of IEEE 802.11p.  
_End-to-end delay:_ Results of average EED within 300 m with unbalanced technology percentages are very similar to the balanced case, and are therefore not shown.  
_Data age:_ Figure 14 shows the results of DA for links within 500 m in the unbalanced cases. Similar conclusions to the balanced case can be inferred. Concerning NR, as shown in Figure 13(a),c, the No-method and the Only-NR are the upper and lower bounds of all mitigation methods, which means that the lower number of vehicles are equipped with IEEE 802.11p, the better DA is for VNR. From the 11p perspective (Figure 13(b),d), overall, only dM\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble and M\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble-no-SF do not perform worse than the No-method scenario (dotted gray line) for both technologies.  
Figure 13: Transmission range vs. density applying different mitigation methods with the unbalanced distribution: (**a**) TR of NR-V2X with More-V\({}_{\text{11p}}\), (**b**) TR of IEEE 802.11p with More-V\({}_{\text{11p}}\), (**c**) TR of NR-V2X with More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\), (**d**) TR of IEEE 802.11p with More-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\)