Karl on Cars - New Year's Resolutions - for the Auto- and Policy Makers

New Year's Resolutions - for the Auto- and Policy Makers

Rather than list off my New Year's resolutions let's talk about the resolutions I'd really like to see the automakers and policymakers embrace and keep. Below are my Top Five Automaker/Policy Maker Resolutions for 2008 (note: may not represent any actual resolutions made by any actual automakers or policymakers, real or imagined):

1. We as automakers resolve to put each and every model on a diet. We understand that technology can usually overcome increasing vehicle poundage by improving power, thus maintaining straightline acceleration (often with a minimal hit to fuel mileage as well). But we also know that a heavier car is harder to turn or stop, to say nothing of the impact (literally) in an accident situation. Thus, we vow to put our vehicles on a diet, which improves acceleration, handling and fuel mileage.

2. We as policy makers vow to acknowledge that we can never completely end automobile-related injuries. We understand that no matter how many safety devices we mandate in an automobile we can never fully address the loose nut behind the wheel. Furthermore, for every additional device we mandate we add complexity, cost and weight (see resolution #1 above) and we realize these devices are in and of themselves something of a safety hazard. After all, really safe cars that nobody can afford don't save lives; neither do really heavy cars that are difficult to slow down and/or tend to plow through other cars/people/buildings when they crash.

3. We as automakers resolve to produce hybrid vehicles that actually conserve natural resources in a fiscally responsible manner. That means these vehicles get better mileage under real-world driving conditions than their non-hybrid counterparts and/or the additional cost of the hybrid technology can't take at least 10 years to pay for itself. We further resolve to badge these vehicles in a aesthetically responsible manner, meaning no billboard sized "HYBRID" badges that suggest the car's theoretical earth-friendliness is far more important than it's actual earth-friendliness.

4. As policy makers we resolve to either legislate real-world, effective policies to conserve natural resources or do nothing at all. We realize that legislating symbolic energy conservation may serve our political needs, but it also tends to cost the automakers money, which ultimately means it costs consumers money. It has further occurred to us that being paid through taxation to create more expensive cars for citizens to buy, all while having minimal to no positive impact on energy conservation, doesn't make a lot of sense.

5. We as automakers and policy makers agree to work together to find solutions to energy, safety and emissions concerns. As automakers, we won't claim the death of the auto industry if higher mileage standards are established for vehicles, and as policy makers we won't claim the destruction of the planet if the internal combustion engine remains the primary powertrain for personal transportation.

There you have it, the New Year's resolutions I'd like to see embraced by both automakers and policy makers...but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Karl Dec 31, 2007 7:00 am

Permalink

Categories: Domestic Manufacturers Problems/Challenges | Safety Systems | Hybrid Vehicles

Comments

chavis10 - Dec 31, 2007 7:52 am (#1 Total: 19)

Philadelphia, PA United States of America

I agree with everything except part #1. High tensil strength steel, while lighter, is very expensive compared to regular grade auto steel. Small "economy" cars now approach and exceed 3000lbs and that makes them feel more expensive and premium than their predecessors. Some lament this change as these cars loose their friskiness but average buyers appreciate the added solidity and condifident driving experience. To make these cars lighter while maintaining an equal size will result in a) a vastly more expensive vehicle because of high strength steel and/or aluminum or b) a wet noodle chassis due to decreased stiffness and lower natural body frequency (~ less than 20 hz.) Lowering the weight of these vehicles is really a Catch22

I do agree with limiting these new saftey "features" as they add more weight than benefit. I don't understand the point of lane depature and preemptive braking systems. If people can't slam on their brakes or stay within their lane at freeway speeds, they need to give up their driving privelage. It is not as if we are driving at autobahn speeds here in the US so I don't see why we need them. I'd reckon most freeway incidents happen during stop and go situations where high speeds are less of an issue and driver focus is the main culprit.

The bottom line is that the government does not really care. They seem to want all the pressure on the auto industry while they look like the Good Guys to the public. They've let tractor trailers spew emissions for decades with no regulation while cars and freight trains have had their wrists spanked at every oppurtunity.

opfreak - Dec 31, 2007 9:34 am (#2 Total: 19)

i agree with all.even 1. weight should not = solid feel.

and the ligther the car the easier alot of things become. milage, control, acceleration, braking control

crowb - Dec 31, 2007 10:06 am (#3 Total: 19)

Those resolutions seem pretty reasonable and logical, Karl. While also displaying a willingness to cooperate and seek mutually beneficial solutions to problems of cost, pollution, and energy consumption, all while leaving the door open to keeping driving fun for those who enjoy it. All very good ideas.

That is why none of them will ever be adopted by anyone with any power to make them a reality. But its nice to think about at least.

chavis10 - Dec 31, 2007 10:34 am (#4 Total: 19)

Philadelphia, PA United States of America

opfreak- I agree with you but my point was lowering weight while maintaining current refinement will not be a cheap solution. These small cars are now pretty big. The Civic's wheelbase is now 106"+ for crying out loud. Since the econo car's bar has been raised, I'm not sure the public will compromise on refinement any time soon.

You're right though- nobody really cares. Good press is the only thing they really value

blackadder5639 - Dec 31, 2007 11:46 am (#5 Total: 19)

Karl, I agree with all the points, even Point 4. But I have some comments about Point 4. I'd very much want "policy makers....legislate real-world, effective policies to conserve natural resources". The "do nothing alternative" is not an option. But unless policy makers can find some really creative ways of encouraging most consumers to opt for the most efficient solution possible, I feel that taxation might be the only way forward. Humans are just not motivated by efficiency if there are no financial implications. Of course, taxation can be sensibly implemented.......

I'm all for Point 1, but I think Chavis has a very valid point that lowering weight while maintaining current refinement will not be cheap. But I believe in "where there is the will, there is a way" and I'm sure manufactures can eventually reduce wieght while maintaining or slightly reducing current refinement levels. I know I'd be willing to sacrifice some refinement for significant fuel economy gains.......

Chavis, I'd say that by-and-large regulators have so far been reasonable with safety legislation. It appears to me that since the seatbelt, the only major mandatory safety feature has been stability control, which has (supposedly??) been proven to provide significant safety improvement. Manufacturers voluntarily made side airbags mandatory (Karl, am I right?), and those offer significant improvements too. I do agree that TPMS, as it is currently implemented on most vehicles, is a useless feature.

Frivolous features like lane departure and pre-emptive braking is more of a result of manufacturers seeking a competitive advantage.

opfreak - Dec 31, 2007 12:14 pm (#6 Total: 19)

chavis: i get your point now. Car sizes would have to start to at least somewhat shinrk.

or engineering can get smarter. A bit more radical, a bit more engineered, and a bit less 'market/artist designed'. I think it could be done. But it would cost a bit more... esspically up front. I'm a firm beliver that if you spend more money up front, you can save over the long term.

however, if car sizes continue to grow it,,, it will be hard to keep weight down

blackadder5639 - Dec 31, 2007 12:42 pm (#7 Total: 19)

Question: do safety features add that much weight? When you look at features like stability an traction control, lane departure, pre-emptive braking, lane departure, they're all mostly software enhancements of already existing parts! Do they really add that much weight? While the tiny cameras and sensors would add cost, I doubt they add much weight......

I think what is adding more weight is the increasing size of cars with every generation and the increasing demand for refinement. I felt the current Corolla and the previous Civic were large enough, but manufacturers added more size/room/weight in the next gen models. Of course manufacturers would say "customers demanded more space" but I feel they should have said "if you want more space buy a Camry or Accord".....and if customers honestly felt the Civic and Corolla were too small and were unwilling to buy then perhaps they should have been dropped altogether!
[Honda has already told CR-V owners that "if you want a V6, get a Pilot", so what I've said is not radical.]

jstandefer - Dec 31, 2007 2:16 pm (#8 Total: 19)

San Diego, CA

Lowering weight does not have to come with big price increases, nor does it have to impact the feeling of refinement. If the engineering process includes weight savings as a goal, particularly when designing a vehicle from scratch, it can be very effective.

Take the current generation Mazda MX-5 (Miata). When Mazda set out to redesign their roadster, they took weight savings to a nearly insane level using their "gram method." Under the gram method, everything, including the overall weight of the car, was measured in grams. The engineering and design process of every single part was modified to include a weight reduction analysis. If it was determined that more than a particular number of grams could be shaved off, the part was re-engineered. Mazda was even boasting about how they re-engineered the rear-view mirror to save about 200 grams (that's less than half a pound). That's not much, but spread out over thousands of parts, it adds up!

The end result was a new Miata that was larger than the previous generations in every dimension (body, interior, engine, brakes, wheels, etc.) and packed with a lot more features (stability/traction control, side-impact airbags, roll structure, etc.), but barely weighed more than the outgoing model. In fact, the rolling chassis was lighter than the old rolling chassis. The new Miata doesn't use anything exotic like carbon fiber, but it does make use of high-tensile steel and aluminum.

Compare this to the Solstice/Sky roadsters. Size, performance, and price are extremely similar to the Miata. But the Miata weighs nearly 400 pounds less. As a result, the Miata has quicker reflexes, better acceleration from a smaller engine, better braking, and better fuel economy. Plus, the Miata has more safety features. And many would argue that the Miata feels more refined.

Karl's resolution #1 can be done. The Miata is a perfect example, and it's a low-volume car. Imagine what could be done on a high-volume car where even more engineering work could be performed because the cost is spread out over hundreds of thousands of units.

Amen, Karl. Amen!

opfreak - Dec 31, 2007 2:22 pm (#9 Total: 19)

i agree with you black on car size.

when the corrolla is about an inch or 2 smaller then the camery in the late 80's. it justs amazing how much bigger it has gotten.

this week we changed the oil in the scion at the dealer, (first three are free on scion) but a tire rotation was recommended by the book, we had a coupon so it was 5 dollars for the whole thing.

but I sat in a crv, which I geuss is still a 'small' suv, felt huge. (then again compared to my sunfire, just about anything is big). but even compared to my friends liberty it smeed big, and dont tell him, but, at least on the inside i'd rather have the cr-v then the jeep. But its a sign of better interior design.

back to the first point. all the sensors you list, indivudal dont weigh alot. maybe a pound total for each system. But there are hundreds of these:
abs sensors, tpms, front impact sensor, side impact, roller over sensor. Acceleratmoters, tps, wheel position sensors, etc etc etc. then you have things that added 'real' weight... abs systems. front air bags, side air bags, crumple zones, etc.

add the growing size of cars to this list and you see why cars weigh 3,000 lbs easy.

i forgot to menition alloy wheels being very 'standard' these days, and HUGE wheel sizes, 16"+ becoming the norm.you went from a 14" steel wheel that weight what, 14-16lbs? to alloy that wheigh almost double that, not only hurting fuel economy, (due to needed to spin up a heavier wheel). but added weight...
not to mention the need for beefier wheel bearings, strengthed control arms, and suspense components to handle all this 'fat'

savetheland - Dec 31, 2007 4:17 pm (#10 Total: 19)

CA United States of America

It is funny that American cars are now smaller than competing Japanese cars. E.g. Fusion and Malibu are smaller than Camry and Accord. Accord became bigger than Taurus, and I thought that Taurus was a concieved as a bigger alternative to Accord in 80s. Of course fuel economy is different story. But there is no other reason for Japanese to make bigger cars other than thats what Americans want to drive.

Germans cars though are most ridiculous in adding unnecessary weight and features nobody asked for.

chavis10 - Dec 31, 2007 5:18 pm (#11 Total: 19)

Philadelphia, PA United States of America

JST- valid point but as you said, the MX-5 is low volume and it's price point is higher than say an entry level economy car. We have to realize that economy cars have less profit built into their prices which is why high volume is essential to make a return on the investment. The MX-5 (or other low volume specialty models) has the 3 to make up for any additional cost its specialized development may have incurred. That's the way it works, high volume cars enable manufacturers to create narrow focused special models. Therefore, $ can't be waisted on higher priced steel or aluminum at this present time in small econo cars. Perhaps that will change in a few years if everyone decides to bit the bullet for the greater good (>mpg).

blackadder5639 - Dec 31, 2007 6:05 pm (#12 Total: 19)

Chavis, are you an automotive engineer? You seem to know a bit more about what I would call the "ins and outs" of car manufacture. If I'm right, what manufacturer do you work for? (LOL....I don't expect you to tell me that but I'm curious.......)

While high volume cars make up for their low profit margins by selling in high volumes? And, as far as cost savings go, do size increases not increase costs? If so, I think the Corolla, Civic and Accord shouldn't have got larger.......

hondacura4 - Jan 1, 2008 11:24 am (#13 Total: 19)

I find this to be a touchy subject as people often complain about the lack of rear seat space of "economy" cars but when the manufacturer makes them larger people complain that its too big.

More vehicle weight doesnt necessarily mean that the vehicle will have greater solidity than a comparable vehicle of lighter weight. More than a few of the lighter vehicles feel substantial. A lot of variables to consider here.

gcn - Jan 1, 2008 3:40 pm (#14 Total: 19)

I agree with all these points, however point 1 needs to come with a rider for the automotive media: stop criticizing smaller vehicles for not being as large as the next size up. I can't remember how many times I've seen compact cars criticized for not having the amount of legroom or shoulder room you'd find in a medium sized car.

It's pretty darned obvious that a smaller car isn't going to be as roomy as a larger one: it goes with the territory, so there is no point criticizing it for that reason. However, such criticism does lead to marketing pressure to make every new model bigger, and therefore heavier, than the previous one. Hence Civics which are now larger than Accords used to be, etc..

It's also worth noting that a very few car companies do manage to keep the weight of updated models in check. Subaru is an example of this (apart from the rather heavy Tribeca). If Subaru can do it, companies with vastly greater resources ought to be able to do it too.

savetheland - Jan 1, 2008 4:55 pm (#15 Total: 19)

CA United States of America

Camry is large inside even though externally is not so big. The reason is "packaging" or in other words - simplified suspension setup.

Yet with the new regulations car manufacturers will start making flimsy car again unless they start using more expensive steel or aluminum. So thanks to Congress you can choose between flimsy car with primitive suspension for middle class and expensive solid cars for rich.
.

chavis10 - Jan 2, 2008 7:58 am (#16 Total: 19)

Philadelphia, PA United States of America

Savetheland,
Actually, the Camry still uses MacPherson struts in the rear which intrude into the trunk area since the housings are tall and vertical. Many newer designs abandon the coil over strut design using seperate compacted coil springs that are placed completely underneath the trunk floor. That way, the isolated shock absorber's trunk intrusion is greatly reduced. The Mazda 3/6 would be a good example of this design rear suspension design.

Blackadder- I'm not in auto engineering field but I did study manufacturing processes, plant design, work flow and all related subject matter in school. I'd love to get into it, but I doubt I'd want to move where these plants are located as I'm used to the big city life. Building any kind of mass produced product follows essentially the same fundmental principles whether its a complex car or simple cell phone. That is, until Toyota rocked the boat with its lean manufacturing (Toyota Production System).

mr215 - Jan 2, 2008 10:10 am (#17 Total: 19)

I wouldnt ever expect to see politicians and auto industry people working together to come up with new policies. By nature politicians feel they are all knowing and they will see any consultation of the industry as a sign of being compromised. Politicians have no idea about how cars work and thus feel making changes is as simple as passing a bill. we supposedly have a new energy policy and yet no provisions were made to make diesels more affordable via tax credits nor has anyone addressed the fact that toughening emissions standards (led by states like CA) will make it very tough to sell diesels here.

Lowering weight isnt easy and should not be treated as such. Cars used to be a lot lighter but not because engineers were more intelligent. The high strength steel used today is part of the equation, but you also have to look at larger wheels, brakes, more computers and wiring, safety devices, increased sound deadening, larger engines (remember when imports only came with four cylinders?), etc. People want better mileage but it may not be at the expense of the luxuries and safety features they are used to.

aspade - Jan 2, 2008 11:46 am (#18 Total: 19)

When looking back fondly at how light cars used to be 15 or 20 years ago, don't look at the 2500lb Civics and Corollas and the 3000lb Accords and Camrys - you're forgetting how rough, noisy, cramped, and cheap feeling they were.

Weight is an integral part of a solid, luxury feel. The new Malibu that's so lauded for its quiet cabin and good ride balance is the heaviest in its class at 3600lbs.

This isn't something we've just figured out. Look back those same 15 or 20 years at the roomy, comfortable sedans you'd actually want and they're just as portly - the LS400 (3900lbs), 5 series (3700lbs), E Class (3500lbs).

2008's volume cars don't have the wood trim and $4000 stereos, but the way to a solid smooth ride remains the same.

mr215 - Jan 2, 2008 1:32 pm (#19 Total: 19)

Americans are getting bigger and cars are doing the same unsurprisingly. Sometimes people fondly reminisce about the days when Accords and Camrys were under 3000lbs but they fail to mention those cars were compacts and had under 100hp 30 years back. For better or worse small cars are seen as first cars for those who are just starting out. Once people get older, make more money and get families they seem to want larger vehicles. Unlike Europe and Japan small cars have always been a small part of the market in the US.