Scientist/environmentalist Amory Lovins believes that America can solve oil dependency with efficiency. In the early '90s, Lovins conceptualized the Hypercar: an ultra-light, aerodynamic hybrid vehicle with three-to-five-times better mpg than your average bear, with comparable performance, safety, usefulness and affordability. According to US News and World Report, Lovins recently told a National Academy of Sciences energy summit that building cars with advanced lightweight materials like carbon fiber (instead of steel) would boost automotive efficiency to 85 mpg for midsize cars, 66 mpg for midsize SUVs. Lovins claims that "lightweighting" would also improve vehicle safety since the advanced materials can absorb "up to 12 times as much crash energy per pound as steel." Automakers aren't buying it. Literally. "Lightweight materials are horrendously expensive," GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told Automotive News [sub]. "People keep forgetting the cost equation." D'oh! Anyway, Lovins and Lutz must live in parallel worlds. "I'd say lightweighting is the hottest strategic trend in the industry right now," Lovins counters. Ah, "strategic." Meanwhile, Lovins' FiberForge seeks to capitalize on his faith in adding lightness.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The idea that carbon fiber is inherently safer than steel– promulgated by the extensive use of the material in motor sports– has become commonly accepted. HOWEVER…
As Camilo Pardo pointed-out to me when the (steel) Ford GT was launched, carbon fiber cars are one-hit wonders. The material can absorb and dissipate enormous crash forces, but then they’re gone.
In the real world, most car crashes involve multiple impacts. Steel can take multiple hits.
Like RF said, carbon fiber isn’t malleable and that’s why it’ll never be more than an exotic material for exotic cars and aftermarket dashboard dress-ups.
It cannot be stamped into a body panel, so its also several times more expensive to produce. Maybe it’ll fly if America is ready to pay $50,000 for a carbon firber Corolla that used to cost $16,000 in steel. Limited use of aluminum and plenty of plastic are the way to go. But that’s already in play.
The real problem is reducing frontal area to improve aerodynamics. You can’t have efficiency and usability without going back to the “aero” look of the late 1980s. Slim noses, low beltlines, more overhangs, flush door handles, etc.
Lighter cars would go a long way to helping efficiency. But you don’t need exotic materials to achieve an appreciable weight decrease.
Check out what Citroen came up with — the C-Cactus.
The basic thrust is rethinking the parts that are necessary with modern tech, and those that aren’t (ie, the C-Cactus has no dashboard assembly, etc..) It has about 1/2 the parts inside that a conventional car does, but isn’t a penalty box.
On an easy evening bike ride with about twenty other cyclists, this one fellow had a newish, carbon fiber Trek. We were coasting downhill on some winding city road when, looking down for his water bottle, he sailed off the road into the grassy swale. He was fine, but the frame cracked in half. I’ll never forget those jagged tubes.
Now this is an environmentalist movement I can get behind! Add lightness!!!! I will gladly drive a 2500lb aerodynamic car with a turbo 4.
Most of the carbon fiber processes of which I’m aware cannot get around the issues of putting the fibers down in a controlled manner for optimum mechanical properties, and then somehow getting the resin to infiltrate between and around the fiber yarns in a manner that prevents delaminations, air pockets etc. All this is very costly.
As far as ‘multi-hit’ resistance, there can always be cases where the initial deformation of a steel structure inherently compromises any further ability to take additional loadings, whether in the same incident or after “repairs”. Better than carbon composite? In many cases yes, but not in every one.
And Sajeev, don’t the new EU regulations regarding frontal design of cars (to make them less lethal to pedestrians) tend to override any desire for restoring sleeker aerodynamics?
it will not have “comparable safety.”
a five-star golf is not the same as a five-star suburban in a multi-vehicle accident. if all you ever do is hit trees, brick walls, or other immovable objects, yes–they’re essentially the same. when it’s one vehicle versus another, weight *definitely* matters.
Donal Fagan :
Don’t worry about your friend’s bike. If he broke a carbon frame in half, he would have bent a steel, aluminum, or titanium frame. They have different modes of failure, but any frame would have been trashed by that accident.
bill h. : As far as ‘multi-hit’ resistance, there can always be cases where the initial deformation of a steel structure inherently compromises any further ability to take additional loadings, whether in the same incident or after “repairs”. Better than carbon composite? In many cases yes, but not in every one.
Great point, but factor the cost advantage of steel (or even aluminum) and the extra chance for metal loading capabilities make them a slam-dunk winner.
bill h. :And Sajeev, don’t the new EU regulations regarding frontal design of cars (to make them less lethal to pedestrians) tend to override any desire for restoring sleeker aerodynamics?
Yup. But as someone who lives in a more geographically open area (Texas) I do like the idea of lower, sleeker designs for the American interstate. We have more space to drive faster, and hopefully American designs (Camry, Fusion, Mustang, etc) will stick to this principle as this country goes green and demands more efficiency in every aspect of motoring.
“I’d say lightweighting is the hottest strategic trend in the industry right now,”
That’s funny, seems to me that every single existing vehicle model is getting heavier, not “lightweighting”. Ask Scion.
Personally, I get fed up with “scientists” telling people how to build cars. Scientists don’t build cars, engineers do. Get an engineer to show me some blueprints for a production model, and I’ll listen. Until then, it’s all cold fusion (or a Tesla).
Been a while since I’ve had a chance to comment on anything, more like a year.
I’ve worked on lots of “lightweight” programs over the years, from aluminum spaceframes for Fieros to carbon fiber seat frames. Guess what?
Every weight saving you can get with aluminum or carbon fiber or plastic you can get with steel, for less money. When it comes to actually making things, steel is your friend.
When it comes to safety, the energy that can be absorbed by crumpling, bending, etc. is what really counts. And, guess what? Steel can absorb more energy per pound than any other common material, be it aluminum, carbon fiber, or any injection molded plastic. Steel is, once again, your friend.
Bob Elton
Steel has another advantage–it can be recycled after the structure has served its purpose. Composite structures aren’t proven in that regard.
And as far as overall vehicle weight is concerned, doesn’t the current trend of porking up have as much to do with all the subsystems (like electronics, bigger engines and brakes to stop them etc.) as the structure itself?
NICKNICK: I’m sure my Serotta Classique would have deformed, but it wouldn’t have impaled me.
ScottGSO Personally, I get fed up with “scientists” telling people how to build cars. Scientists don’t build cars, engineers do. Get an engineer to show me some blueprints for a production model, and I’ll listen. Until then, it’s all cold fusion (or a Tesla).
Lovins is much more than an ordinary scientist. He’s a polymath. One of the ablest minds in the world.
From what I understand, the current automotive obesity problem has more to do with content than with materials. 8-way power seats, 17-speaker stereos, additional wiring, sound-deadening material and other “must-have” features all add a hell of a lot of weight.
I used to think Lovins went too far, but now it’s quite the opposite. Ditch the exotic materials for fabrics stretched over steel tube frames, and you see the template for a workable EV today. Zero luxury, zero safety but a way to perpetuate suburbia, which will not function without personal transportation.
Barring huge and unforeseen miraculous developments the future is ultralight. I just don’t think circumstances favour high tech or exotic solutions.
“Lovins is much more than an ordinary scientist. He’s a polymath. One of the ablest minds in the world.”
OK, then he can go ahead and build his affordable 85 mpg car; if he’s so damn brilliant, he shouldn’t have any trouble doing it, and as Tesla shows, there’s lots of billionaires with big egos and money to burn who would finance it. Personally, I’m not holding my breath.
So carbon fiber is expensive and hard to manufacture. Add: what are the experiences with maintenance in something analogous to an automotive environment over a 10-15 year life? Lovins is an interesting guy, but he lost me on cars when he said a hypercar would just bounce off many accidents. No, I want the car to fold up gracefully so my family aren’t like so many dice being shaken vigorously in a cup. Design intent, Mr. Lovins – keep my family safe, not preserve the car.
Its worthwhile looking outside the box, even if most of what you find is too blue sky. For the past few years, I’ve been involved with a design using Michell least weight structural optimization. This theory was articulated around 1900 by the Australian engineer A. G. M Michell. You couldn’t do a whole car with it but various bits and pieces might be better weight optimized. And you can use any material you want in the process. Michell had many ideas and inventions that were more immediately useful, too. Ask a bearing/lubrication guy.
A couple years ago I ran across an engineering professor who was trying to change the rules of the game in aerodynamic drag. Prof Sinha’s product is a riblet surface treatment that maintains laminar flow and avoids boundary layer separation, resulting in a lower drag coefficient. Right now, it looks fine for high cost, high maintenance efforts like America’s Cup yacht racing or somewhat slightly less costly efforts like sport sailplaning. On a car it seems to me that the riblets would get clogged up pretty quick. But what if you could come up with a way for self cleaning? He’s showing measured 10-15% drag reductions in both airfoils and cars/trucks. Worth thinking about.
We went through all this in aviation.
Right now CF won’t do because of cost and technology. However, look to it getting more and more use over time as the market adapts to it, and the price comes down.
Also, the present model of disposable cars would need to change. A CF chassis could be built that would not be loose after 5 years and 100k. In fact, you could build the chassis that would more likely be used UNTIL it got destroyed in an accident.
If people thought the car would last 50 years, then a 50k corolla would not be that big of a deal.
As mentioned by others, I think the weight problem is largely content-related, rather than safety related. All these features that we demand in our cars add weight and complexity. Ten airbags, ten speakers (probably 50-60lb worth of magnets!), sound insulation, power everything.
I think the automotive X-prize will show that seriously high fuel economy will demand compromises. Whether consumers are prepared to make these compromises will determine the success of high mileage vehicles, not the capabilities of automotive engineers.
Also, the present model of disposable cars would need to change. A CF chassis could be built that would not be loose after 5 years and 100k. In fact, you could build the chassis that would more likely be used UNTIL it got destroyed in an accident.
At the current rate of accidents in this country the mean life span of a car would be reduced to less than 10 years. I’m all for reduced weight while maintaining necessary structural integrity and passenger safety, but I don’t agree with the assertion that carbon fiber cars would be safer and affordable. To use the bike example, how much does that lightweight carbon fiber frame cost? If it weren’t either a) an expensive toy (not meant in a pergorrative way, I have expensive “toys” as well, a couple of classic cars) or b) necessary sports equipment for a competitive rider, would it really be worth it? If it weren’t so “unstylish”, wouldn’t a relatively light weight Schwinn ten speed from the 80’s be a more sensible, useful form of transportation? In much the same way, carbon fiber is cool, but it still isn’t practical for everyday commuter cars. It only makes sense on a car that is a “toy” or used for competitive racing (often overlapping categories) where every ounce and/or coolness factor matter.
my article on the hypercar
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_4_113/ai_n13677348
Dean: As mentioned by others, I think the weight problem is largely content-related, rather than safety related. All these features that we demand in our cars add weight and complexity. Ten airbags, ten speakers (probably 50-60lb worth of magnets!), sound insulation, power everything.
I think the automotive X-prize will show that seriously high fuel economy will demand compromises. Whether consumers are prepared to make these compromises will determine the success of high mileage vehicles, not the capabilities of automotive engineers.
The advantage of light weighting is the more weight you remove, the more you can remove. Lighten the car enough, the power brakes and steering can go. The engine can get smaller, likewise the trans. Then the brakes and wheels can be smaller. etc. But Dean is right that some stuff you ‘ll need to do without. But who really needs electronic seat adjustment?
I think the economics will ultimately make people quite willing to do without some of this garbazh.
This reference in the US News article, about a 900 lb Prius equivalent, is well worth a look.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/Releases/View?id=TYT2008020168848
Limbergh,
The statements about CF cars being destroyed by accidents overstates the case by a HUGE degree.
We presently rebuild glass planes that would be totaled if made of steel or aluminum. Also, the resilience is astounding. Small bumper benders that ruin quarter panels now, could result in epoxy fixes that are LESS expensive than current steel repairs (if in fact they result in damage at all).
I do not believe that we presently total 1 in 10 cars every year.
Lastly, you miss my point that CF will likely get much less expensive. I believe it is analagous to the glass for flat screens. As they build more fabrication plants, more and more applications will become workable which will mean more plants etc.
Unless you disagree with that last point, then arguing against CF on the basis of cost doesn’t work. It’s just a matter of time.
The advantage of light weighting is the more weight you remove, the more you can remove.
Eventually you’ll have a velomobile, some of which are pretty cool objects like the Flevo Versatile:
http://www.flevobike.nl/content/view/25/55/lang,en/
But the problem with driving such lightweight vehicles is what happens when a Mercury Marquis hits you.
So essentially the market is forced to stagnate somewhat because each successive new small or light car needs to contend with the theoretical hit by an existing (unnecessarily large/heavy) car.
I’d say that getting stricter with licensing and what is considered a private vs. commercial vehicle would be a good step toward fixing the glut of overly large and heavy vehicles currently on the road.
Lovins is now a high level advisor to Ford.
The interesting idea of Amory Lovins is that the total cost of ownership counts, not just the cost of the material the frame is made of.
It’s okay to use carbon fiber that is more expensive, if you save money by: having a smaller engine, smaller battery (in a hybrid), lower fuel cost, less maintenance cost, no body paint, etc.
The production process is very different, of course. It looks more like injection molding than heavy duty stamping. That could save money on capital equipment in car factories.
You can see the idea of Lovins really nicely in the Toyota 1/X concept, which has 1/3 the weight, 1/3 the engine size and beams that are really thin (because they’re so strong) and made of CFRP.
In a world where iron is getting more and more expensive, materials made of carbon and plastic gain appeal.
“Also, the present model of disposable cars would need to change.”
You must be young. We now routinely keep cars for 8 to 10 years. When I was young cars were done, and I mean toast, after 3 or 4 years. If you got 100,000 mi out of a car in the 50s, you had accomplished something. Now that is not regarded as high mileage.
What happens when a CF Ferrari Enzo goes at high speeds. No greater love hath any car …
I am not a member of the Amory Lovins fan club. The X-prize has given him a chance to put up or shut up, and we will see if he can rise to the challenge.
But, he does have a point. The cars on the market today are way too heavy. And not just the %^&$#@ SUVs. When exotic GTs made with aluminum and CF can tip in near 2 tons. Something is very wrong.
I don’t know why this is so. I am not persuaded of the explanations I have read above. I am more inclined to think that any weight advantage created by modern electronics has been eaten up by leather upholstery, than I am to blame the electronics.
I would very much like to see lighter smaller vehicles. They can and should be more fun to drive. I drive a 2002 Accord V6 it has 200 hp and weighs 3300 lbs. for a power weight ratio of 16.5 lbs/hp. I like it a lot. The 2003 Accord that used to own, but sold, had a 240 hp V6 and weighed a bit more, about 3450 lbs. a bit less than 14.5. It was plenty fast enough.
However, I also own a Mercury Mystique V6 that has 170 hp and weighs about 2900 lbs. it is as much fun to drive as the Hondas. Mechanical reliability is another story.
I hope the trend of the future is to lighter cars. I want to see the return of the 2800 lbs. mid size car. Such a vehicle with a 200 hp. 4 could be a hoot to drive.
RS,
I am not that young, but it’s always a matter of perspective. Sen. McCain’s mother is a bit upset about people calling her boy “old”.
10 years is still “disposable” in my mind. There is no reason for it. Even with the current abuse most of us put our cars through, they should not be so worn out in 10 years. I would like to see repainting, new interiors, and engine rebuilds become something the average person thinks about for their car rather than a trade-in.