In response to my coverage of the new CAFE standards and the rise of more fuel-efficient vehicles, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) sent me an email. A representative wanted to make sure I was using correct information about the relationship between vehicle efficiency, weight and safety.
Just who is RMI anyway? After viewing their main websites RMI.org and Move.RMI.org, I too quickly perceived them as just another Colorado think-tank organization, kind of like the Sierra Club. That perception appears true only by the fact they totally support green and by the demeanor of their members, but their logic and use of technology screams engineering. It made me feel right at home.
Question is who backs them? Fact is RMI is world-renown for their support of efficiency and design; but are nonprofit, although they bring in money from actual service projects to industry and communities. At first, I admit that really makes me suspicious, because non-profit always smell PACish; in other words, political. Nothing on their site indicated that. Still, their philosophy and personalities seem to imply heavy green influence, but in a rationale way that Detroit is helped, not hindered, in my opinion.
RMI’s approach to green is what really impressed me. It seems based on problem solving using a logical use of real-world technology, not just politically-green rhetoric. For example, they want to approach the automobile from a clean sheet of paper. Come to think of it, isn’t that what GM’s Saturn was supposed to do in 1986? I know; I was there when we actually considered a 24 volt system but couldn’t due to corporate and industry limitations.
Still, RMI believes the industry must consider the fuel-efficiency issue from a “systems approach,” not just a propulsion approach. That’s not new either, because systems approach was Saturn’s mode of operation, albeit that excluded a drastic propulsion change. Their contribution was the lost-foam process for engine castings.
So, in that respect I agree with RMI. In the Navy, I was taught to maintain aircraft as a weapons system. It may have been an entire airplane, but it was the efficacy of the entire system, not just its jet engine that made it into a valuable weapon. Now the military has learned to do the job with efficient and less-costly drones. Likewise, we need to design cars with that same philosophy.
For too long, the auto industry has paid lip service to maximizing efficiency in the form of concept cars. That's what happens when bean counters run auto companies. In essence, they never went all-out except in concept. Sure, a few tech ideas have made their way on the street, but not in any meaningful way that actually reduced the cost of transportation for their customers; and that is what has made them noncompetitive.
In cold terms, the auto industry must now consider the total cost of moving human bodies, just like trucks, planes and trains count the cost of moving bulk freight.
Weight vs. Safety Argument
RMI just released a briefer with a full report expected in July on why more efficient cars are not necessarily less-safe and how they could actually be safer than our current “heavy” fleet. It was entitled, “Lightweight, Fuel-Efficient Cars Not Necessarily Less Safe” by Mike Simpson, Kristine Chan-Lizardo, Cory Lowe, and Cameron M. Burns. You may read the writ in its entirety at their site.
There are a few points that I need to highlight, because they support my own philosophical view of green-tech issue.
1) RMI believes “one of the barriers to widespread adoption is the common-yet-misleading line of logic (emphasis mine) that most consumers follow – that fuel efficiency equates to smaller, less safe cars.”
No argument there, except that's all the public ever sees. In fact, high fuel efficiency and materials now in production indeed make for smaller and less-safe cars. The present crash tests on those mini-cars are NOT misleading. Read my article, “Mini-cars may be unsafe for human transportation"
2) They also point out that any misperception that fuel-efficient cars have to be small and unsafe is “fed by the media.” Their article especially refers to "Study Says Small-Car Buyers Sacrifice Safety for Economy,” (April 14 New York Times) and "Safety Could Suffer If We Boost Mileage by Making Cars Smaller" ( USA Today.)
Likewise, no argument necessary, because the media reports on what they think they know at the time (as do I), unless they are purely political; and all they ever know is what the government or the auto industry tells them.
3) Then the RMI article gets down to a few key, engineering-planning details with comments like – “Sure, based purely upon a typical vehicle's design, geometry, and occupant position, we agree that larger - but not necessarily heavier - vehicles can offer considerable safety advantages to passengers within." (Again emphasis mine) And that’s where I believe we need to focus this discussion - size.
Did you get that? RMI is admitting that larger is better for safety, especially when ultra-light materials are used; and that’s what the auto industry has known all along. Physics don’t lie; plus there’s no secret to the concept. In fact, every designer learns that in auto engineering 101. Lightweight vehicles in high-speed crashes need ample crush zones to dissipate energy. That means lighter but larger cars. However, RMI seems to imply that we can get around the small-size issue by somehow revising the geometry of the structure.
In that respect, I do NOT totally agree with RMI. Outer structural shape is now predicated on contact with a pedestrian by government mandate, let alone aerodynamics. I often created the digital criteria as a gage to ensure the design team (styling) didn't violate structural clearance zones based on those mandates.
Internal structures are another story, though, as there is ample room for improvement; especially for side impact, like distributing the crashload through the seat frame to a crush box in the console area. Still, a light car crashing into a heavy car is not an experience I wish on anyone. Did you ever see that Smart Car crash video? It lterally bounced so violent that I cringed.
Examiner Bottom Line
For the record, I still stand by my position against mini-cars until the engineering data proves otherwise. I will not espouse the use of ultra-small cars, especially where side-impact and frontal loads are involved against heavier vehicles. My concern right now is this: I know as a designer that our roads are still traveled by all size and weight-class of vehicles, and will be for some time. Until that entire fleet is made ultra-light, the mini-cars will always be at a disadvantage for safety. I will not put myself in one, let alone my grandchildren.
A key factor left out of the equation is the costs involved for high-volume production of lightweight vehicles. It's a major retooling event for an industry on the ropes let alone on the mat, flat on its back. RMI is NOT the first to realize this, as all automakers are aware of that realities. RMI’s experience with their own Hypercar® and Fiberforge® may indeed place them in a position of experience to help, but high-volume production is still the forte of the auto industry, and their profit needs are a financial hurdle that is quite high right now.
For years, automakers have been hampered by elements beyond engineering, like government mandates, currency manipulations, cheapest price only materiala, non-competitive wage scales, health-care, limited work rules and job protection. Get those items out of the way, not to mention the bean-counting CEOs, and the auto industry will definitely energize its own end-use game plan. In all fairness, RMI is not hampered by any of those things; they’re non-profit. Neither do they have to produce vehicles at 60 units per hour to make sufficient profits just to meet investors' expectations.
We’ve already established the basis for lightweight and safety is indeed size. Structural geometry can indeed contribute, but not enough to enable a mini-car perform like a Hummer, at least not yet. Structural crush still requires space, and that means more room to dissipate crash energy; and, in my mind, that means nothing less than mid-size vehicles with ultra-light materials.
I challenge the auto industry and RMI to openly debate this issue by commenting right here or on their own blogs!
Right now, we have large, heavy vehicles attempting to achieve fuel efficiency solely with hybrid propulsion systems. Why? It’s the costs involved in changing from steel to ultra-light materials. Do we have these materials? Yes. Are companies in business to make a profit? Yes. So, until that ultra-light formula allows a profit, you are not going to see big/light cars; and small/light cars as presently made, in my opinion, should be banned for safety's sake, not applauded. Perhaps RMI can show the way, but I firmly believe Detroit knows that. They just need the economic shackles of the past removed.
On the other hand, we're stuck with small cars on the road that are nothing more than down-sized heavy vehicles with a meter or two taken out of the wheelbase. Where are those wow -factor materials that will make us feel safe? In the minds of some in the industry, it might as well be called Unobtainium, because they think they can't afford it. In that respect, RMI has some answers. And now is certainly the time to at least listen.
Photo Source: UPI
Author's Note: Technology changes faster than you or I can peruse the net. So, I intend to do more than just reheat what you can already learn on your own through a simple Google search. I’m an examiner; and that means I perform research and/or autopsies on technical ideas and gadgets pertinent to the automobile to gain insight on feasibility and practicality based on my 39 years in the auto industry. Hope you enjoy! You may contact me at my personal site, AuthorFrank.com
Comments
Well reasoned and supported comments with which I agree! The problem with government mandates is they are made by morons and idiots in the government who know not what they talk about. They shoot from the hip and make unreasonable demands of the auto industry and that is also one of the reasons the American auto industry which is now Obama American Motors is in the toilet and will stay there as long as the U.S. Government is running it!
It's a chicken or the egg situation. What we need to do is get a light fleet. We need to replace the heavy fleet. We need to get off of petroleum as well.
Since people want safe and convenient transportation they will not drive the Smart Car in any significant numbers.
Since it's political suicide to raise the price of fossil fuels to reflect their true cost (risk of depletion, environmental, national security, health, etc.) we have to wait for the price to naturally rise. We have to wait for peak oil.
Don't worry, it's already here. As soon as we get up to 86 mbd (million barrels per day) again we will see. Our drilling rigs are old, oil companies are canceling millions of barrels per day worth of projects and we have to go further and deeper and thus it's getting more expensive. These are the facts that cannot be denied. It's just a question of time.
We can mandate using smaller and more efficient cars and alternative energy cars but we wont. We will wait until we hit t
...We will wait until we hit that brick wall. We will dust off and then change.
I thought GM was stuffed because they made a big mistake writing off the EV-1 electric vehicle that soo many people want but the auto industry continues to say people don't want. They put their money on the Hummer ---Big mistake.
Sorry to say that size or weight alone, have little to do with an auto's safety as long as we have the capabilities of designing better small and efficient cars. Regardless of size or nearly so, safety pre-collision comes with handling, stability, balance, stance and brake/horsepower/weight ratios. Vision and visibility are also important. I'm not able to put a number on it but I'm sure someone here can. Avoiding collisions is a huge part of safety considerations.
Then, it's about energy absorption, light, strong materials to keep the occupants properly, safely positioned and a 'safety cocoon' including air bag or similar technology.
Well designed, small cars can incorporate all of these features and better avoid collisions as well as protecting the occupants in a collision.
I suspect that with advantages of scale producing safe, small cars will soon be quite feasible.
...and have you seen this?
Google 'Mini cooper vs Ford F150' and visit the bridger.us web page...
Both the astonishing crash test results and the stats posted on deaths at this site, belie the notion that 'bigger' is correctly presumed to mean 'safer'.
I recognize that the Mini Cooper is a relatively expensive small car and that the F150's performance is notably bad. Also that the design improvements to make all small cars this safe will add cost to them but this certainly suggests a very different set of possibilities.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!