## 4 Simulations and Results
### Results with Balanced Technology Distribution  
**Transmission range:** Figure 10 illustrates the transmission range with a balanced number of VNR and V11p running on the road. As the red lines and the gray dashed lines show, the eMA-time-split has a similar performance compared with the Only-1-tech scenario. This is reasonable because the eMA-time-split has half of the accessible resources and half of the nodes in each technology compared to Only-1-tech. Compared with the No-method results, dMC-preamble and MC-preamble-no-SF improve the transmission range of IEEE 802.11p (Figure 10b), while not reducing the performance of NR-V2X (Figure 10a). Because the use of the preamble added to NR-V2X signals, the V11p can assess the channel status more accurately, which reduces the packet collision probability compared to the No-method test. It can be noted that the improvement obtained is lower than with LTE-V2X (as shown in [12] and consistently with the discussion in [11]). This is due to a shorter slot in NR-V2X, which implies a higher probability that a new transmission from NR-V2X starts during the transmission of the generic IEEE 802.11p packet. Similarly to the results observed in [12] concerning LTE-V2X, MC-preamble-no-SF never performs worse than dMC-preamble also in the case of NR-V2X, despite its simpler implementation. Rather, MC-preamble-no-SF even slightly outperforms dMC-preamble from the NR-V2X perspective. To understand this behavior, it should be noted that with MC-preamble-no-SF the VNR have access to all resources instead of part of them; this makes the interference generated and received by VNR spread in time over a longer interval, but with the same average intensity. Figure 10: Transmission range vs. density applying different mitigation methods with the balanced distribution; (**a**) shows the transmission range of NR-V2X, and (**b**) shows the transmission range of IEEE 802.11p. Figure 9: Exemplification of (**a**) end-to-end delay and (**b**) data age. M\({}_{\rm B}\)-E-signals and M\({}_{\rm F}\)-CTS-to-Self improve the transmission range of V\({}_{\rm NR}\) compared to dM\({}_{\rm C}\)-preamble and M\({}_{\rm C}\)-preamble-no-SF, as these methods can deny V\({}_{\rm 11p}\) access to the NR slot more effectively than the other two, either through the energy signals or the CTS-To-Self messages. However, the performance of V\({}_{\rm 11p}\) with M\({}_{\rm B}\)-E-signals is reduced because the used energy signals do not have a sensing process before accessing the channel, and therefore strongly increase the probability of collisions with 11p packets. With M\({}_{\rm F}\)-CTS-to-Self, the performance of V\({}_{\rm 11p}\) are reduced under high density due to the fact that not all of the V\({}_{\rm 11p}\) always receive the CTS-To-Self messages; therefore they may access the channel during S\({}_{\rm NR}\) and be interfered with by NR-V2X transmissions. _End-to-end delay:_ The results in terms of average EED for links within 300 m are plotted in Figure 11. Looking at Figure 11a, the average EED of NR-V2X is not influenced by the mitigation methods, as already highlighted for LTE-V2X in [12]. NR-V2X is in fact designed to respect a certain delay budget, and the average EED is equal to the mean between the minimum and maximum allowed delay. As shown in Figure 11b, the EED changes for IEEE 802.11p. In particular, the eM\({}_{\rm A}\)-time-split significantly increases the average EED of IEEE 802.11p packets, because all packets generated by V\({}_{\rm 11p}\) during the S\({}_{\rm NR}\) are delayed until the next S\({}_{\rm 11p/bd}\). The additional average delay introduced by the eM\({}_{\rm A}\)-time-split depends on the superframe structure and is not different when comparing LTE-V2X and NR-V2X. M\({}_{\rm B}\)-E-signals and M\({}_{\rm F}\)-CTS-to-Self also cause an increased delay for the same reason, although this is lower.