# Peer Review of Lotus Engineering

Vehicle Mass Reduction Study Work Assignment 3 - 04

(RTI 004)
Technical Memorandum

Prepared for Hugh Harris & Michael Olechiw U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

Wa shington, DC 20460
Prepared by Dileep K. Birur RTI International Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

EPA Contract Number EP
- C
- 08 - 008 RTI Project Number 0211577.004.004

November 2010

### Technical Memorandum on Peer Review of Lotus Engineering Vehicle Mass Reduc tion Study

Table of Contents **Contents Page**  Background
................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1
- 1 Description of Review Process
................................ ................................ ............ 2
- 3 Summary of Review Comments
................................ ................................ .......... 3
- 1 2 Appendix
- A: Resumes of Selected Reviewers
................................ ............... A1
- A 16 Appendix
- B: Charge Questions
................................ ................................ ........ B1
- B2 Appendix
- C: Questions and Answer s ................................ ............................... C1
- C2 Appendix
- D: Cover Letters
................................ ................................ ............... D1
- D 4 Appendix
- E: Review Reports
................................ ................................ ......... E1
- E66RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institu te

**TO:** Hugh Harris and Michael Olechiw, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) **FROM:** Dileep K. Birur , RTI International. **DATE:** No vember 24 , 2010
. **SUBJECT:** Peer Review of Lotus Engineering’s Study “An Assessment of Mass Reduction

Opportunities for a 2017
- 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.” 

### 1. Bac kgro und As EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality develops regulations to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light
- duty highway v ehicles, there is a need to evaluate the feasibility

o f technologies likely

to be used to meet these standards. EPA has worked in conjunction with the California Air Resources Board (CA
- ARB), Lotus Engineering, and the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) to perform a detailed anal ys is of the potential to reduce light
- duty v ehicle mass through the application of low density or high strength materials, component consolidation, and changes to vehicle architecture. EPA believes this holistic vehicle approach establishes a potential path for future feasible vehicle mass reduction in light duty vehicles to meet more stringent GHG and Fuel Economy standards. Lotus Engineering has completed its anal ys is of a ty pical Cross
- over Utility

V ehicle (CUV), as outlined in the Lotus Engineering document, “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.”, and has presented two levels of mass reduction. The first is termed a “Low Development” vehicle and is presented under the premise that the mass reduction solutions are readily available in 2014 and can be implemented for production in 2017 upon a current redesign schedule for manufacturers. The second is a “High Development” vehicle based on mass reduction solutions targeted for 2017 technology readiness and 2020 production
. EPA had sought the reviewers ’ expert opinion on the methodologies being u sed in this mass reduction work, whether they are likely

to yi eld accurate results, the feasibility

o f the proposed solutions to meet all vehicle and manufacturing requirements, cost conclusions, and other key f actors such as the customer acceptance and technology

m aturity
. RTIInternational facilitated this peer review and this technical memorandum contains documentation of the peer review process of the vehicle mars reduction study
.Hugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 2 

### 2. Description ofReview Process EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality contacted RTI international in August 2010 to facilitate the peer review of the Lotus Engineering’s study entitled “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.” EPA provided a non - comprehensive list of subject matter experts from academia and public sector (Appendix A of the performance work statement , WA 2
- 04 ) to RTI , and this served as a “starting point” from which we assembled the list of subject matter experts
. To ensure that the review process was performed in a timely

m anner, RTI contacted the potential reviewers within ten days of submitting the work plan and determined that each expert would be able to review the study during the period of performance. RTI selected four independent (as defined in Sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of EPA’s Peer Review Handbook) subject matter experts based on their expertise and their interest to perform the review in the stipulated time frame
. Inorder to make the review process as credible as possible, RTIdid not consult the EPA in the final selection of the reviewers. The subject matter experts consist of a range of expertise in holistic vehicle, system and sub
- system mass reduction methodologies and costing. Appendix
- A of this technical memorandum provides the resumes obtained from the selected reviewers. The selected experts have (i) sufficient knowledge to judge the merits of both metallic and composite based material substitutions in addition to the design changes required to support said substitutions, (ii) experience in manufacturing, both in body and overall vehicle assembly, and (iii) expertise in vehicle development such as vehicle safety, durability, vehicle dy namics, and noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH). RTIp rovided the panel reviewers with the Lotus Engineering report on “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program” submitted to the International Council on Clean Transportation 1

. Inaddition, the panel reviewers were also given a set of charge questions prepared by the EPA. The note from RTIs ent to the reviewers with the charge questions is included in Appendix
- B of this memorandum. After two weeks of the review process, a teleconference call was organized between EPA, the panel reviewers and RTI to provide an opportunity to the panel to discuss any questions or concerns they

may have regarding the review material provided and the expected deliverables. Some of the questions addressed in this process and the answers provided are included in Appendix
- C of this memorandum. RTIreceived the completed reviews from the p anel reviewers and sent to EPA by the requested date. The review reports included the response to charge questions and any additional

1 The Lotus report is available at: http://www.theicct.org/2010/03/lightweight
- future/Hugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 3
comments or recommendations the reviewers may have had. From each panel participant, RTI obtained a cover letter that stating the reviewer’s name, the name and address of their organization if applicable, which model review documents/media were received by the reviewer and which were actually

reviewed and a statement of any real or perceived conflict(s) of interest. These cover letters and the review reports are included in Appendices

– D and E, respectivel y, of this memorandum. 

### 3. Summary ofRev iew Comments Lotus Engineering studied the potential mass reduction opportunities for a selected baseline vehicle (2009 Toyota Venz a) representing the crossover utility s egment, although the materials, concepts and methodologies are applicable to other vehicle segments such as passenger cars and trucks. This study encompassed all vehicle system s, sub
- systems and components. The study anal yz ed two categories, allowing two distinct vehicle architectures appropriate for production in 2017 and 2020
. The first vehicle architecture, titled the “Low Development (LD) ” vehicle, utiliz ed technologies feasible for a 2014 pro gram start and 2017 production, involved competitive industry l eading mass reducing technologies, improved materials, component integration, and assembled using existing facilities. The mass reduction estimated for the low development vehicle was 21% (excluding powertrain) with a nominal estimated cost saving of 2%. The second vehicle architecture, titled the “High Development (HD) ” vehicle estimated a 38% reduction in vehicle mass (excluding powertrain) with a nominal estimated 3% increase in component costs. The high development vehicle technology utilized engineering technologies viable for 2020 mainstream production, and a mix of primarily n on ferrous materials, high degree component integration with advanced joining and assembl y methodologies. The study c oncluded that b o th the vehicle scenarios showed potential to meet their mass reduction targets with minimal piece cost impact. The Lo tus report recommends further follow
-up and independent studies to validate the materials, technologies, and methods referenced for the LD and HD vehicles scenarios. The rest of this section gives a summary o f the review comments received from the four panel reviewers: Mercedes Benz Technology team (MB
- tech team lead by M s. Christie Coplen), Mr. Sujit Das (Oak Ridge National Laboratory

– UT
- B attelle , Knoxville, TN), Mr. John E. Fillion (the Energy

S ociety o f Detroit , Tro y, MI), and Dr. Donald E. Malen (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI). 3.1 An Overview of the Reviews MB
- tech team reports that the Lo tus study has merit , however, they qual ified their assessment in saying the Lotus study was specific to only the To yota Venza model, as feasibilityHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 4 of various technologies presented in the report is not proven for seri e s production implementation. The MB
- tech reviewer team disagrees with the Lotus Engineering report that 21% and 38% total vehicle mass reduction will be achievable by 2 017 and 2020 for LD and HD technologies, respectively
. MB
- tech states that this is because most of the high
- tech or luxury vehicles OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturer) such as Mercedes Benz, have already adapted many of the technology c oncepts presented in the LD and HD sections of the report , however, MB
- tech includes a contradictory s tatement that “
... many High Development solutions
... will exceed the deadlines f or implementation”. MB
- tech recommends a review of these technologies and also an anal ys is of the resulting impacts due to overall proposed mass reduction. Mr. John Fillion comments that the methodology u sed in the LD and HD vehicle scenarios is sound and the bill of materials (BOMs) suggested by L otus study

i s viable. But Mr. Fillion recommended to examine if the advanced technologies for the 2020 BOMs commercially viable with conventional powertrain and chassis system using a high technology d emonstrati on vehicle such as GM Volt. The other two reviewers: Mr. Sujit Das and Dr. Donald Malen , report that the Lo tus mass reduction opportunities are reasonable and likel y to meet the stated objectives
. H owever, those reviewers identif

ied some of the caveats in the current approach and recommended further wor k for improvement in the study
. Mr. Das suggested estimating cost using a consistent methodology

f or all veh icle non -powertrain subsystems
. Dr. Malen provided a detailed set of recommendations specific to improvements in several subsystem s. Overall, Dr. Malen has also recommended for a more transparent, data
- driven methodology that can be examined at each step of the anal ys is
. 3. 2 Methodology This section highlights some of the key i ssues raised by

the review panel regarding the methodology

employed in the Lo tus study
. On selection of technology and weight calculations, MB
- tech team recommended a regression based approach in determining optimal solution set, instead of scaled
- weight approach used for sel ecting benchmarked components. The factors recommended for a regression based study are: price gap drivers, technology
-product concept drivers, and performance
- gap drivers. This reviewer team also pointed out that the Lo tus report did not analy

ze the vehi cle packaging issues, and the impact of weight reduction on other vehicle requirements such as safety, noise
- vibration
- and
-harshness (NVH), fatigue strength and corrosion. Mr. Fillion comments that the BOMs suggested by the Lotus study

in the LD and HD c ase are entirel y viable. He believes that , s ince the new vehicles designed for 2017 and 2020, will likely

replace a vehicle that is already using lighter BOMs than Venza baseline , the massHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 5 savings opportunities would be numericall y smaller than 21% and 38 %, respectively f or LD and HD cases. Mr. Fillion cites several studies of Dr. Malen on mass compounding and benchmarking techniques and compares that those studies support the methodology adopted by the Lotus study
. While Mr. Das stated that “Overall, the detailed vehicle teardown approach used for identifying mass reduction opportunities seems like reasonable one” he comments that “the approach used for identifying mass reduction opportunities in the Lotus study s eems to be prohibitively

expensive and time
- consuming for a regular use when other vehicle segments such as passenger cars and trucks need to be considered for similar anal ys is in the future.” He further reports that , though the initial tear- down approach was a good beginning, the ad
-hoc approach used for estimation of components’ cost lacks repeatability and validity
. Dr. Malen raises several questions that emerge from the methodology adopted by

the Lotus study
. H e recommends for adopting a transparent improved methodology which includes casting a wide net of potential mass reducing technologies, having explicit data driven approach at each step, using a metric to order technologies based on maturity /readiness, etc. Dr. Malen suggested several tools such as statistical mass benchmark models, co mponent function for quantitative material selection, spreadsheet based cost models that allow for volume sensitivity anal ys is, use of marginal cost, and a mass compounding model
. These tools could be used to generate and supplement expert opinion on cost estimation. Dr. Malen’s recommendations also included an alternate methodology that supplements and greatly enhances the conclusions of the Lotus study

and improves their downstream collaboration. This methodology comprised four major steps: (1) determining mass for the reference vehicle, (2) Id entifying mass reduction technologies, (3) sort mass reduction technologies by cost, and (4) e stimate the new vehicle mass using mass compounding. Overall, though one reviewer completel y agreed on the precision and viability o f the Lotus methodology, the other three members of the review panel had varied opinion. The latter assessed that the Lotus methodology i s expensive, prolonged, should use statistical anal ys is in selecting the benchmarked components, the metho dology should be explicit data driven and transparent. 3. 3 Feasibility Feasibility

of the Lotus mass reduction technologies has been an important concern of the reviewers. The MB
- tech team comments “ feasibility o f various technologies presented in the rep ort is not proven for series production implementation. These technologies must be reviewed and the impact must be taken into account on the overall proposed weight reduction calculations. As an example, the proposed plastic injection molded fenders versu s steel is not realistic asHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 6 demonstrated based on various MB
- tech investigations.” , however, MB
- tech also offers a contradictory

s tatement that the majority of the mass reduction solutions are already in production. Mr. Das comments “ although the (L otus) approach is considered to be a sy nergistic one , providing a high level of flexibility in selecting feasible materials, processes, manufacturing and assembly m ethods, but the design feasibility yet remains to be proven since the interdependency of designs o f vehicle components if at all considered in the analysis was not exp licitly discussed in the report.” Dr. Malen provides computed ratios of each subsystem mass to the corresponding vehicle mass. He comments, “this ratio provides a useful rule
- of
- thumb to see if the proposed subsystem mass is roughl y consistent with the vehicle mass which the subsystem is a part of .” One of these ratios, the body

ratio for the HD vehicle is low compared to the Venza. Dr. Malen expresses his concern if it is the acceptab le level of risk for the body proposal. Based on these rations, Dr. Malen has also presented insights on how additional mass reduction opportunities are feasible for with respect to each subsystem such as bumpers and glazing. On the whole, two of the revi ewers reported that the Lo tus mass reduction technologies are feasible and are of “low technical risk” and “sound”. While one reviewer stated the mass reduction solutions ye t to be proven for series production another reviewer suggested further mass reduction opportunities that are feasible in addition to the Lotus technology
. 3. 4 Cost Conclusions The MB
- tech team comments that the costs in the Lo tus study are based entirely

on piece cost, rather they

recommend including total landed cost and total cost of ownership as these costs would give a different perspective on the overall cost impact on the market. The reviewer suggests that the total landed cost should comprise of cost to design, acquire, manufacture, and manage, and the total cost of ownership should involve the total landed cost as well as cost to assemble into vehicle, cost to maintain, and cost of service. Mr. Das suggests that due to improper derivation of cost factors in the Lotus study, the cost anal ys is is inconsistent among various vehicl e subs ys tems and therefore the cost anal ys is need to be revisited. Dr. Malen has pointed out that the Lo tus study has not explicitly included the tooling costs in the cost estimates. H e comments “this cost would be a significant one since the lower volum e will favor materials and systems which allow integration of several parts into one (the module idea mentioned in the report), and which have a lower tooling cost with a slower cycle time (the emphasis on plastics and non
- ferrous alloy metals in the report). So not only is the costHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 7 estimate influenced by

v olume, but the actual configuration design. Given these uncertainties, the cost conclusions need to be clarified and extended. ” Ingeneral, the three reviewers’ comments impl y that the cost estimates given in the Lotus study are inconsistent and lack scientific judgment . Those reviewers suggested for alternate cost anal ys is in the wake of their suggestions and also recommended proper documentation of all the cost assumptions. 3. 5 Customer Acceptance The MB
- tech comments that the future vehicle technology d emands must be taken into account which are mainly driven by

l egislation and consumer demand. S ince vehicle safety i s a crucial issue , MB
- tech suggests that the major technology growth in North Americ a will likel y be associated with safety. A s a result, the safety related technologies will have intrinsic value to both the OEM and the end consumer which results in cost penalty to the vehicle cost as well as to the overall mass reduction efforts. Mr. Das report s that it is hard to determine the consumer acceptance of LD and HD vehicles until the follow
- on validation especiall y on the vehicle safety performance is completed. Dr. Malen reports that researchers in general have been very c onservati ve on a ssessing technology

impact on the consumer. He believes that the proposed technologies would be transparent to the customer and positive on the performance aspect. He comments “the conservative bias may

b e excessive in two areas: The proposed large wheels and tires (heavier) were selected to maintain styling proportions. Given the focus on mass reduction, why not challenge designers to make the smaller wheels visually acceptable? Also, the lighter rear suspension twist axle was rejected as not appropriate for the market. Was this based on functionality, or customer perceptions? If the latter, perhaps perceptions need to be changed .” In the general, the reviewers expressed their difficulty in assessing customer acceptance without surveying customers’ opinion. Two of the reviewers suggested that the vehicle safety features would be a major factor determining customer acceptance. H owever, a panel member suggested that since the Lotus technologies are positive towards vehicle performance , it is also important to visually

reflect these improvements so that it helps in changing consumer perceptions. 3. 6 Technology Maturity The MB
- tech team comments that the lead time in the given time frame of 2017
- 2020 would be a limiting factor since the proposed mass reducing technologies require significant development time with often major changes in production technologies and facilities. TheyHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 8 report that s ince the vehicle development life
- cycle range from three to seven years, the 2017
- 2020 time period is much shorter. The MB
- tech team further suggests that since many of the LD and HD technologies are already in production or planed for near
- term production, an assessment of OEM usages of LD and HD concepts should be undertaken which would statistically v alidate the technology
. Mr. Fillion comments “the Lotus study relies on the technical readiness of advanced high strength steel (AHHS), aluminum, magnesium, and composites for the ye ar 2020. The automotive industry has been working on these issues since about 1993, through a cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy (DOE), Chrysler, Ford, and GM. This agreement is managed through the United States Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP). The stated goal of USAMP is to significantly

reduce the mass of the vehicle at affordable costs. USAMP envisions that a vehicle in the time frame of 2020, that was significantly lighter than current vehicles, would be a multi
material vehicle consisting of AHSS, high strength steel (HSS), aluminum, magnesium, and composites, similar to the bill of materials proposed by the Lotus study.” Mr. Das comments that some of the lightweighting technology options involve materials such as composites and magnesium are ye t to be introduced on commercial scale in the automotive market. He further expresses his concern on technology maturity, since the viability of using magnesium and composites in the HD case requires technology readiness, which is highl y optimistic to be available b y 2017. Dr. Malen reports that except for the proposal on body s tructure of the HD vehicle, the technology

m aturity of the proposals in the Lotus study i s appropriate for the timeframes. H e comments, “the High Development body i s challenging because of the many and demanding functional requirements (crashworthiness, NVH, durability), because the body i s the platform of the vehicle (i.e. presents a high vehicle system failure risk, not just a technology risk for the subsystem), and because so many advanced body

technologies are being proposed (alternative materi als, joining methods for dissimilar materials, manufacturing strategy, dimensional control, etc. ” H e further suggests for reevaluating the body structure proposal of the HD vehicle as it involves higher level of risk. Overall, the four reviewers reported that the technology under LD scenario for 2017 production would be matured given the pace of developments in the lightweighting materials used in LD case. H owever, three reviewers felt that the technology readiness for HD case for 2017 start and 2020 prod uction is optimistic , and challenging. Therefore, those reviewers further recommended for reevaluating the HD vehicle scenario and the stipulated time frame.Hugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 9 3. 7 Summary of Reviews on Subsystems The table below lists some of the key comments made by

the review panel on the specific subsystems. **Subsystems: MB**  **- tech team**  **Mr. Sujit Das Mr. John Fillion**  **Dr. Donald Malen**
**Body structure**  Total landed cost

and cost of ownership should also be considered. Cost estimation

procedure for baseline body is inaccurate as it based solel y on material cost. Lotus approach is

reasonable, though technologies proposed face a barrier of cost effectiveness. HD
- at the lower

edge of most expert option for technology regardless of date of use.

**Closures** Use of

normalized weight a s baseline is incorrect; rather a regression
- based anal ys is should be employed. Several cost

factors both in LD & HD cases are too optimistic (see review for details) The mass savings

achieved at the respective cost factors in LD & HD cases are credible. Clarification on the

basis for choosing (plastic outer, HSS inner) vs. (plastic outer, HSS inner) is needed. **Front and Rear Bumpers**  - Clarify if the cost factor is 106% or 103%. Agrees with

Lotus findings. LD & HD
- should

be scaled down for curb mass. **G lazing**  **(windshield, backlight,**  **doors, sunroof, fixed)**  - Clarify how the cost competitiveness was determined. Agrees with

Lotus findings. HD
- Polycarbonate

glazing (at least on side fixed glass) is worth a try
.

**Interior** The latest trends

in control systems benchmarking and instrument panel, console, and insulation are offered (useful for any further anal ys is) Interior

components seem to have least weight reduction potential. Needs clarifications & references on cost assumptions. Lotus report has a

good summary on interior choices available. The mass savings results are credible. LD & HD
- Low

risk subsystem for mass reduction and this large value is very appropriate.

**Chassis**
- Overview of cost estimation is excellent. Need Agrees with the

mass savings potential, but the cost factor is too LD & HD
-

Scaling used in the report may

have lead to greater thanHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 10 clarifications & references on u sing projected costs generous. achievable reduction in this mature subs ys tem.

**Air conditioning**  **system** It is possible to

realize considerable weight reduction in air conditioning due to advanced energy saving technologies & other factors. - Agrees with Lotus findings. LD & HD: Carry

over Venza HVAC module & air distribution systems.

**Electrical** Electric

conductive poly mers with Carbon Nano Tubes (CNT) could be used for light weight casing material. References are

needed for clarifying Copper clad aluminum (CCA) is 40% lighter than copper, and how it is less sensitive to market price. Lotus

assumptions are reasonable. Results on mass savings & cost factors are credible. LD & HD: CCA

for all wiring. HD:
- thin wall Noryl cladding.

- carry over Venza lighting in LD & HD.

**Powertrain**
- Need to address the interdependency between powertrain & non -powertrain masses. Though selection

o f hy brid technology

is acceptable assumption, the study could have included the conventional powertrain also. The powertrain

scaling for the new vehicle mass should be confirmed.

**Engine**
- Clarification is needed for using the Lotus developed engine, SABRE
. Lotus could have

showed the effect of using 2020 BOMs with a 4
- cylinder engine vs. the baseline 6
- cylinder one. Here is where

mass compounding would be useful. Engine is not sized for vehicle mass.Hugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 11 3. 8 Reviewers’ Recommendations Though there are several similarities in the comments made by the peer reviewers on the Lotus study, each of the review panel has given different recommendations and follow
- on options. The MB
- tech team disagrees with the Lo tus results on 21% and 38% mass reduction in the LD and HD scenarios, by 2017 and 2020, respectivel y, and they estimate that onl y in the case of in
- car entertainment (ICE) based vehicles, an additional 10
- 12% vehicle mass reduction by 2020 would be possible. The MB
- tech team also suggested for additional studies to be carried out with respect to body
- in
- white requirements, specificall y on crash, NVH, strength, corrosion, repair costs, manufacturing and associated costs, environment and recycling concerns, and material availability. Mr. Fillion comments that the holistic system approach adopted by the Lo tus study

c ould be an effective mass reduction effort at a reasonable cost. H owever, he suggests that the mass reduction method by

p art to part substitution is not significant rather it needs to be an enabler technology

f or meeting an important vehicle target. He further states that, apart from technical challenges on choosing the BOMs, it is important to understand the financial pay back to a customer who pays higher purchase price and receives lower operational costs over the life of ownership. Mr. Fillion offers some insights on supporting the new improved fuel economy technology

at various gasoline prices and the pay
- back period for the customer. He further raises a question unanswered by the Lotus study, “ i s the advanced technology approach for HD vehicle BOMs viable with conventional powertrain systems?” Mr. Fillion recommends that since the automotive industry

will be deplo ying the recommended 2017 BOMs for the new vehicles, it is not necessary

to undertake the follow
- on studies reported in the Lotus study f or the LD vehicle segment. H owever, Mr. Fillion suggests an alternate follow
- on study to address a question on how the rest of the market especially the lower cost end of the market would respond to the mass reduction developments. For this purpose, he suggests to select a high technology vehicle such as GH Volt as demonstration vehicle and appl y mass compounding (decompounding) concepts to carry out the anal ys is similar to that of Lotus study. Mr. Das has recommended follow
- on cost estimation for all vehicle non -powertrain subsystems using a consistent and transparent methodology
. Dr. Malen has given detailed recommendations on improvements that could be readily done in the Lotus study

as well as the improvement that require more exploratory analysis. Some of the recommendations that could be readily incorporated are: using a transparent and simple cost model to capture tooling and equipment costs, technology s election done based on a suggested first order analysis, revisiting the Lotus decision on using larger wheels and tires than those functionall y required which lead to increase in mass by o ver 4 kg, accounting for the interaction between the selected subs ys tems, etc. S ome of the improvements that are moreHugh Harris, Michael Olechiw

November 24 , 2010 Page 12 exploratory

a s suggested by

Dr. Malen include: searching alternative potentially significant mass reducing technologies from non - traditional sources such as patents, lateral technologies, aerospace, universities, etc., performing a similar study but focusing on mass reducing vehicle architecture changes, focusing further work to lower risk in interior components which have greater mass reduction potential, and work on the HD body proposal instead of LD body structure as the latter is already being undertaken by OEMs and steel supplier groups. 3.9 Overall Conclusions The reviews on Lo tus study p erformed by

the four panel members indicate that , in general, the mass reduction methodology is reasonable and has merit. E ach reviewer, however, qualifie d their conclusions agreeing that the methodology should be revisited as it is expensive , and lacks transparency and statistical judgment on selection of benchmarked components. The reviewers’ opinion on technology f easibility w as mixed. While two of the reviewers felt the Lotus mass reduction technologies are not yetp roven for series production, the other reviewer suggested further mass reduction opportunities that are feasible in addition to the Lotus technology
. All the reviewers who commented on cost conclusions indicated inconsistency in cost estimation procedure adopted in both LD and HD scenario s . The reviewers also suggested that all the cost assumptions should be properly reported. S ince vehicle safety features are the major determining factors for customer acceptance, two of the reviewers suggested including these features in the analysis. A panel member though indicated that the suggested Lotus technology

would improve vehicle performance which is a positive indicator for customer acceptance , also recommended certain visual changes that could be made to the vehicle to influence customer perception. Though all the reviewers reflected that the Lotus technology under LD case would be matured for 2017 production, three of reviewers felt that the technology under HD scenario for 2020 production is optimistic and challenging. As highlighted in the previous section, the four reviewers gave varied recommendations on improvements to Lo tus study and follow
- on options. In general, all the reviewers supported the structure and presentation of the Lotus study, though they have sought several clarifications and references on some of the assumptions and cost estimations made in the study
. The complete reviews from the panel reviewers are included in Appendix
- E of this memorandum.

### A. Ap pendix A: Resumes ofSelected Rev iewers
**Resume of Panel Participants Page**  1. Dr. Donald Malen A1
- A4 2. Mr. John Fillion A5
- A 7 3. Mr. Sujit Das A 8
- A 9 4. Ms. Christie Coplen & team members

Dr.
- In g. Peter Klose Mr. Ehsaan T aqbeem Mr. Michael J. Vitek Mr. Eric Jork Zeiss A 1 0
- A 11 A 1 2 A 13
- A 14 A 1 5 A16A
- 1 **DONALD E. MALEN** 1051 Rock Spring Bloomfield, MI 48304 (248) 212
- 0564 dmalen@umich.edu **Teaching/Research Interests** Automotive body

s tructure engineering, vehicle integration and innovation, First Order Anal ys is modeling of vehicle systems, statistical product benchmarking, translating customer preference into engineering requirements, improving decision making methods in product design, techniques for system innovation by small multidisciplinary t eams, designing sets of products, lead time reduction in product design. **Educational Background University of Michigan**  September, 1989 to December, 1992 Interdisciplinary

D egree Awarded: Ph.D. from Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering & Department of Mechanical Engineering. Dissertation: Engineering for the Customer

-Decision Methodology for Preliminary Design Co
- chairs: Dr. Walton Hancock (IOE) and Dr. R. Scott (ME), (David Cole and G. Herrin committee members .) **Massachusetts Institute of Technology** January, 1969 to February, 1970 Degree Awarded: Master of Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering Thesis: Applied Damping in the Automobile Body Advisor: Dr. J. P. Den Hartog. **General Motors Inst itute**  January, 1965 to January, 1970 Degree Awarded: Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Alpha Tau Omega , academic honor society Industry Sponsor: Chevrolet Engineering Center, Warren, MI. **Current Activities at the University of Michigan**  **Auto Body**  **Structures ME513** 
- Developed the original ME599 course in 1998 for delivery to industry and on - campus students in collaboration with N. Kikuchi. The material includes a new book. The course has also been offered as a short course at Pan A sia Technical Automotive Center, Shanghai, 1999; the American Iron and Steel Institute 2000, Toyota, Japan 2002; Nissan, Japan 2003; Mahindra and Mahindra, India, 2011. **Design for**  **Manufacture ME452** 
- Project based course in which students redesign a consumer product to improve functionality and manufacturability
. Collaborated with S. Kota to add value for off
- campus student projects and developed new material for translating customer needs toA
- 2

engineering requirements, quantifying customer preference, product platform architecture, and robust design. **Design for**  **Manufacture MFG599** 
- Developed and teach a graduate level module addressing anal ytical customer preference modeling and optimization; offered Fall 2007 to present. **Integrated Vehicle**  **Systems Design** , **AUTO5 01**  , Invited lecturer for the Body Structure session (each ye ar since 2003). **Global Product**  **Development ME**  **581**
- Concurrent course at Seoul National University and Berlin Technical Institute, UM where cross - university t eams develop a global product. Develope d distance learning logistics for the first offering to industry students, Fall 2004. **Sponsored research**  **-** Mass benchmarking; mass compounding; first
- order analysis models for body structure design; use of overlapping activities to reduce product lead time. **AISI Summer**  **Internship -** Recurring project with UM engineering students working in collaboration with Industrial Design interns from the College for Creative Studies to create innovative steel vehicle structures. (First offered in 2006). **Capstone Auto Progr am** **Advisor**
- Capstone Project advisor for over 40 students since 2002. **Work History** Present : **University of**  **Michigan**

**— Department**  **of Interdisciplinary**  **and Professional**  **Engineering** , Adjunct Associate Research Scientist. 2001 : Retired from General Motors, joined University of Michigan, Department of Interdisciplinary

and Professional Engineering, College of Engineering as Adjunct Assistant Professor. 1997
- 2001 : **Innovation Zone**

**— General Motors**  Creator and Executive Director of a unique organization for multidisciplinary c ollaborative innovation on key

product needs. The activity i dentifies technical gaps in future products and creates innovative solutions to close those gaps. Summary of earlier GM work 1970
- 1997 : **Portfolio Development**  **Center -**  Systems engineering executive for future product

planning activity
. **Advance Body Design Leader -**  Identified, developed, and transferred to production new vehicle body

technology
. e.g. Ultra
- light composite vehicle, Impact electric vehicle, scale plastic structural modeling.A
- 3 **Saturn Car**  **Program -**  Body design team leader for the original vehicle. This project pioneered simultaneous product/process engineering, team decision making, CAD, and numerical controlled machining at GM. **Underbody structure**  **for Cadillac**  **C body**  **-** analysis and design of structure for integral body

vehicle. **Project 300** : Designed an innovative three wheel cambering vehicle. **Integrated Vehicle**  **Line:** Pioneering effort on high fuel economy using integral body construction and transverse power trains. **GM Special**  **Product Development**  **Group**

**—**Body design on a vehicle program exploring a rotary

engine power- train and the first proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. **Selected Accomplishments**

 Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan, Registration No. 20945.
 Outstanding Distance Learning Faculty Award, 2006 and 2007.

 General Motors Chairman's Honors Award for creating a Product Innovation Process and department, 1999.

 Engineering Achievement Award, General Motors, 1985. For the work done on a method to shape automobile panels resulting in highl y efficient structural performance. Patents

 Method for Determining the Shape of a Vehicle Body Panel
- 4,581,192. (European Patent 85303349.6)

 Vehicle Body Floor Pan Assembly
- 4,572,571. (European Patent 85303 350.4).

 Vehicle Front End Structure
- Patent 4,428,447.
 Low Force Transmissibility Mount
- Patent 4,403,762. (Co
- inventor J. Cogswell, II). **Selected Publications Fundamentals**  **of Automobile**  **Body Structure**  **Design** , SAE International. A text book to be published January, 2011. **Automotive Mass Benchmarkin** g, American Iron and Steel Technical Publication, May, 2010. **Crush Performance**  **of Thin**  **Walled Spot** **- Welded**  **and Weld**  **- Bonded**  **Section** s, American Iron and Steel Technical Publication, January, 2009. (with P. Davidson). **Mass Compounding** 

**– Phase**  **2** , American Iron and Steel Technical Publication, December, 2008. (A. bin Md Saad). **Preliminary Vehicle**  **Mass Estimation**  **Using Empirical**  **Subsystem Influence**  **Coefficients** , American Iron and Steel Technical Publication, May, 2008. (with K. Reddy).A
- 4

**Decision Making**  **in Preliminary**  **Product Design:**  **Combining Economic**  **and Quality**  **Considerations** , The Engineering Economist, V. 41, No. 2, Winter, 1996, pp105
- 122. E. L . Grant Award for best paper in Volume 41 by the ASEE **Engineering for**  **the Cus**  **tomer: Pa**  **rt I**  **Theory** , Journal of Engineering Design , V. 6, No. 4, December, 1995, pp315
- 328. (with W. Hancock). **Engineering for the**  **Customer: Pa**  **rt II**  **Application** , Journal of Engineering Design , V. 6, No. 4, December, 1995, pp329
- 341. (with W. Hancock). **Imp roving**  **Automobile Door** **- Closing**  **Sound for**  **Customer Preference**  , Noise Control Engineering Journal, V. 41, No. 1, July
- August, 1993, pp261
- 271. (with R. Scott). Others in the areas of body structure design, analytic design tools, crashworthiness, vibration, a nd scale
.A
- 5 **JOHN FILLION** 6197 Silverstone Dr. Troy, M I 48085 Home phone 248
- 828
- 7326 Mobile phone 248
- 505
- 5862 Email : John.Fillion@comcast.net **Current** Leadership position at the Engineering Society of Detro it (ESD) with the following roles:

 Chairman of the member benefits committee

 Program coordinator for member conferences

 Director for student engineer internships programs

 Mentor in the public schools, grade 6 through 8, for programs promoting engineering as a career Perform as a consultant regarding the use of materials in automotive applications. **Education** 1978 Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering University of Toledo 1980 Master of Arts in Management Central Michigan University 1985 Mas ter of Science in Materials Engineering University of Day ton. **Career Experience (Retired December 31, 2007)**  **Chrysler, LLC 2001**  **- 2007**  **Senior Manager of Chassis and Powertrain Materials Engineering** The position was responsible for 55 engineers and technicians with an operation budget of $7 million per ye ar and a capital budget of $2 million per year. The Department specified and developed metallic materials for components used in engines, transmissions, and chassis systems. The primary

technical challenge for the Department was to balance the material performance for the competing component requirements of low cost, quality, manufacturing capability, and long term durability
. The materials of choice were usually in the domain of aluminum, iron, or magnes ium castings and steel bar products ranging from commodity grades to specialty

alloys. In addition, the Department was responsible for the failure analysis of current product parts, and the recommendation for corrective actions. The laboratory w as full y equipped for micro and macro testing of both metallic and organic materials. **Department Highlights**

 The Department met its budget each and every year
 The Department routinely saved the company

$20 million per year
 Completed over 2000 tests per year at b est in class cost and quality

 Provided same day

turn around for plant production issues

 Maintained a staff of highly competent experts at a high retention rate

 The Department strongly supported external technical organizations

 The Department was viewed by senior management as a vital asset to the companyA
- 6

**Senior Manager Highlights**

 Chairman of United States Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP)
- a consortium of Ford, GM, and Chrysler with Department of Energy (DOE) funding o Oversaw a technical portf olio of $15 million annually o Drove USAMP to a balanced portfolio that included steel, aluminum, magnesium and composites

 In addition to the duties above, oversaw the development of a web based network system that tracked and predicted testing costs for the entire Scientific Laboratory and Proving Grounds Organization (SL&PG) o Tracked $300 million in tests per year for all vehicle programs o Predicted vehicle testing cost for new programs. o Established the SL &PG budget based on the product plan (approximate ly $ 325 million per year) o Used the data to establish productivity improvement metrics that were tracked on Scoreboards throughout the SL&PG organization o Directed a dedicated staff of 3 people, in addition to the main department, to execute the tracking s ystem along with 30 additional people within SL&PG through a matrix organization o The program proved to senior management, through hard data, that over 70% of the SL &PG testing organization was best in class for cost, productivity, and quality
. **1997 -**  **2001 Senior Manager of Body Materials Engineering**  This Department functioned similarly to the above department focusing body m aterials such as sheet metal, welding, corrosion, composites, adhesives, and paint. **Highlights**
 Key m ember of a process redesign team that completely reshaped the organization and internal processes used to paint vehicles resulting in significant improvements in quality and costs

 Key m ember of the auto steel partnership team that redefined the strategic vision for the organization which led to significantl y increased technical funding from DOE

 Performed the same USAMP functions as the above department **1992 -**  **1997 Senior Manager of Organic Materials Engineering**  This department was responsible for the Materials, Process, and Performance Standards for elastomers, fluids, glass and plastics applied to Chrysler vehicles. In addition the position was responsible for leading Chrysler composite activities associated with the Automotive Composite Consortium (ACC)

– a consortium of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Also, was one of the founding directors of USAMP in 1993, and an active participant in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) sponsored b y the Clinton Administration. **1989 -**  **1992 Supervisor Interior Plastics and Soft Trim**  This position was responsible for the Material, Process, and Performance Standards of all interior decorative materials used for Chrysler products.A
- 7

**1985 -**  **1989 Senior Materials Development Engineer**  The position was responsible for the development of pla stics used for interior trim, instrument panels, and seats **1980 -**  **1985 The Duriron Company**  **- Materials Development Engineer**  The position was responsible for the development of plastic liners for corrosion resistant pumps and valves. **1978 -**  **1980 Chrysler**  **Corporation -**  **Materials Development Engineer** The position was responsible for the development of elastomeric materials for seals in transmission applications.A
- 8 **SUJIT DAS** Oak Ridge National Laboratory National Transportation Research Center 2360 Cherahala Blvd. Knoxville, Tennessee 37932
- 6472 Phone: (865) 946
- 1222 Fax: (865) 946
- 1314 Email: dass@ornl.gov **Education MBA**  Management Science and Computer Science, University of Tennessee 1984 **MS** Metallurgical Engineering, University of Tennessee, 1982 **B. Tech** Metallurgical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India,

1979. Ranked II in class with Honors. **Professional Experience Sr.**  **Research Staff**  **Member, Energy**  **and Transportation**  **Science Divisio**  **n, Oak**  **Ridge National Laboratory, December 1984**  **- present.**  Program manager of the cost modeling of lightweight materials and biomass energy anal ys is programs for the U.S. Department of Energy
. Develop, manage and lead projects for the DOE Office of FreedomC AR and Vehicle Technologies. Responsible for a total annual budget of more than $750K consistently

o ver the past several years. Develop cost models of advanced materials and transportation technologies and decision
- making tools for several resource markets
. Provide market assessments of energy e fficient technologies including environmental implications for both domestic and international markets. Developed expertise in several multi
- disciplinary research areas including:

 Market potential and infrastructure assessment of ethanol and hydrogen as alternative transportation fuels

 Cost modeling and life cycle anal ys is of advanced vehicles and lightweight materials Technologies for DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies

 Material technology

a ssessments related to Partnership for A New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)/Freedom Cooperative Automotive Research (FreedomCAR)

 Biomass refinery

anal ys is

 Economic anal ys is of advanced power electronics, electric motors, and intelligent transportation systems
 Energy

efficiency

of dis tribution transformers

 Cost of alternative fuels

 Forecasting of petroleum and uranium supplies

 Estimation of flood
- stage economic damages

 The economic viability of plastics and automobile recycling

 Environmental implications of privatization of the power s ector in India

 Market assessments of energy efficient technologies such as home refrigerators in IndiaA
- 9

 Inspection and Maintenance of two
- wheeler vehicles in India   Assessment of uranium resources **Visiting Fellow,**  **Tata Energy**  **Research Institute**  **(TERI), Ne** **w Delhi,**  **India, October**  **1992 -**  **June 1993.** Developed a comprehensive, computerized, and PC
-based Energy
- Economic
- Environment database for TERI
-- the first of its kind in India and provided technical support in their ongoing energy and economic modeling activities. **Research Assistant,**  **Energy and**  **Economic Analysis**  **Section, Oak**  **Ridge National**  **Laboratory, September 1982 -** **December 1984.** Documented and evaluated several EIA, DOE maintained computers models, i.e., Headwater Benefit Energy

G ains Model and the Petro leum Allocation Model. Developed a computer software "BIOCUT" for Economic Evaluation Model for Wood Energy Plantations. **List of Publications Book Published**  “Material Use in Automobiles.” A Book Chapter in Encyclopedia of Energy, published by Elsevier Inc., Vol. 3, pp. 859
- 869, 2004.

" Plastic Wastes: Management, Control, Recycling, and Disposal ." N oyes Data Corporation, NJ (Co
- Authored with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and T. R. Curlee), 1991. **Selected Refereed Articles (Out of 50+ articles)** “P rimary M agnesium Production Costs for Automotive Applications,” Journal of Metals, Vol. 60, No. 11, 2008, pp. 51
- 58. “A Systems Approach to Li fe Cycle Truck Cost Estimation,” SAE Paper No. 2006
- 01
- 3562, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. “Automotive Li ghtweighting Materials Benefit Evaluation,” ORNL/TM
- 2006/545, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Nov. 2006 “Lightweight Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2005
- 01
- 0007, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. A Comparative Assessment of Alternative Powertrains and Body- in
- White Materials for Advanced Technology

V ehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2004
- 01
- 0573, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. “Back To Basics? The Viability o f Recycling Plastics by T ertiary Approaches,” Working Paper #5, Program on Solid Waste Policy, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, September 1996. (with T. R. Curlee) “Determination Anal ys is of Energy C onservation Standards for Distribution Transformers. ORNL
- 6847, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, July 1996.A
- 10 **CHRISTIE COPLEN** Director MB
- technology

NA LLC 400 E. Big Beaver Road Suite 300 Troy, M I 48083 Phone: 248
- 434
- 5697/ 248
- 703
- 2576 Fax: 248 312
- 0279 Email: christie.coplen@mbtech
- group -na.com Languages: English, Spanish (intermediate), German (cursory) **Education** Michigan State University: Master of Business Administration University

of Michigan: Master of Science

Maj or: Mechanical Engineering Auburn University: Bachelor of Science Major: Mechanical Engineering Minor: Spanish **Professional Experience** Since 2008 Director
- Engineering Services, Mercedes

- Benz Technology 2002
- 2008 CEO / President
- Design & Consulting, AlterUrban, LLC. 2007
- 2008 Supervisor
- Advanced Engineering Systems, Chrysler. 2006
- 2007 Manager
- Advanced Safety S ys tems , Mercedes
- Benz Research & Development
. 2005
- 2007 Senior Engineer
- Manufacturing , DaimlerChrysler
. 1999
- 2005 Senior Engineer
- Product Development , DaimlerChrysler
. **Industry Expertise**

 Automotive

 Design

 Start
-ups
 Manufacturing

 Military **Method s & Skills** 

 Technology

Assessments
 Process Improvement Mapping

 Program Management
 Design Optimization

 Black Belt Problem SolvingA
- 11

**Key projects** 

 Defined strategic business direction, market position and the financial operating model.
o Managed supplier contract negotiation and small business loans
. o Led start-up activities including: business plan completion, state/federal licenses and per mits, and financing
.

 Managed OEM supplier bid process for a multimillion dollar award of advanced safety system technologies including technical anal ys is, project presentation and acted as the main contact for business segment
.

 Led cost/benefit anal ys is of potential new advanced safety technology systems; balancing profit opportunities, safety improvements, market segment demand and related risks
.

 Led product strategy

to define business case for new technologies selection and funding approval resulting in a profit opportunity of $26.7 million within 3 years .

 Coordinated engineering, manufacturing, assembly, & quality departments within an OEM plant to an issue free launch directed the launch effort which included quality resolution meetings, the warranty / customer complaints meetings, and engineering design change management.A
- 12 **Dr. -**  **Ing. PETER KLOSE** Principal MBtech (Mercedes Benz Technology) Division 5 (Germany) Email: peter.p.klose@mbtech
- group.com Languages: German (native language), English **Education** 1978
- 1984 Study

of Material Science and Engineering, Univ. of (FAU) Erlangen
-Nuernberg, masters degree 1984
- 1987 Doctorate Degree 2004 Lead Auditor (TÜV) Industrial Processes & Services **Professional Experience** 1987
- 1993 AUDI AG Proj. mgt. Light We ight Design, New Materials & Technology 1993
- 2001 AUDI AG, Head of QM , Materials Technology 2001
- 2004 ThyssenKrupp Steel, Director R&D Since 2004 TKS, Senior VP Dep. of Strategy & Business Excellence MBtech Consulting GmbH Technology & Innovation Management **Industry Expertise**
 Automotive/truck industry OEM, OES
 Steel/Aluminum/Glas s industry

 Rail industry, Aerospace
 Automotive suppliers (steel sheets, Mg. Al, plastics, fiber reinforced poly mers, glas s/ceramics, surface technology)

 Materials for nuclear po wer and gas turbines **Method Expertise**
 Quality

management, - methods and tools, Audit

 Value stream
- , functional
- , failure
- anal ys is

 Launch Management Purchased parts

 Change
- Management competence
 Intercultural competence (India, China)

 International technical assessments **Key projects**
 Project management: Launch of innovative materials and production processes in car manufacturing (e.g. AL
- Space frame Audi A8,A2, A6, E and S
- Class)

 International supplier management (auditing, qualification and development of su ppliers) e.g. in Europe, China, USA, India

 Validation of internal production processes of series production and global launch of innovative technologies

 Audit, qualification and change management of global suppliers

 Initializing and introduction of continuous improvement processes (TPS, FMEA, modul e strategy, standardization)

 Organization and development of technology and innovation management at MBtech.A
- 13 **EHSAAN TAQBEEM** Senior Associate MBtech (Mercedes Benz Technology) **Summary of**  **Experience:** Strong in product development & program management
. Twenty ye ars of experiences in technology s trategy, trends & diversification of advance energy technology, engineering, new investment portfolio, entrepreneurship, g overnmental relations and five ye ars of publi c service
. **Education** 1994 MBA
- International Business , Way ne State University
. 1987 BSEE
- Bachelor of Science Electrical Engineering , Way ne State University
. **Professional Experience** 2008
-present: Senior Associate , Mercedes
- Benz Technology
. 2006
- 2008: Executive, Mercedes
- Benz RDNA
. 2001
- 2006: Portfolio Manager , Product Strategy, Chrysler
. **Industry Expertise**
 Automotive OEM and Suppliers

 Plug
- in Hy

brid / Alternative Propulsion Technology, Active Safety Tech, etc

 Center for Automotive Research (CAR)

 USC AR Industry

Collaboration **Other Experience** 
 President, BAPAC (Bangladeshi American Public affairs Committee)

 Member , Michigan Governor Council on Asia Pacific Affairs Commission

 Chamber of Commerce / Board of Investment
 NAFTA (Trade Agreement)

 Tech Town Selection Committee (Technology Incubator) **Method s & Skills** 
 Develop & Deplo y New Technology

 Technology

Trends, Roadmap, Diversify & Strategy

Development

 Funding Disbursement

 Effective Profit and Loss (P&L) Mgmt

 Personnel recruitment and training

 Systems Engineering Methodology

 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS), QFD and Voice of the Customer Anal ys is

 Vehicle Program Management (from Market Research to Launch)A
- 14

**Key projects**

 Plug InH ybrid Technology, Product Development & Program Management, Investor Package for Venture Capitals

 Worked with TARDEC/ TACOM, DOE, DARPA for Hy brid technology, DHS
 Developed Strategies and Managed Personnel for the development of E/E, Active Safety, HMI , Chassis Electronics and Diagnostics

 $16.9M Annual Net Profit from Active Safety and $7.05 M from RSE

 Led a team to transfer Tools and Technologies between Mercedes
- Benz and Chrysler

 Strategized commercial eletronics for automotive application

 Patent Pending

– Collaborative Product Creation

 Led a NRB Business Team to Bangladesh for Trade & Investment
 Mobilized a Nationwide campaign for support of New Trade Bill H.R. 3905A
- 15 **MICHAEL J. VITEK** Vice President MBtech (Mercedes Benz Technology) **Education** Bachelor of Science, G eneral Motors Institute
. M ajor: Manufacturing Systems Minor: Electrical Engineering **Professional Experience** 2008
-present: Vice President, Consulting Services , Mercedes
- Benz Technology 2005
- 2007: Director

– Consulting Services , M ercedes
- Benz Technology 2002
- 2004: CEO/President , Burk, Vitek & Associates 1999
- 2002: Senior Manager/Account Manager, The North Highland Company
. 1994
- 1999: Operations Manager/Account Manager, Sandalwood
. 1992
- 1994: Associate , Lucas Engineering & S ys tems, Ltd. **Industry Expertise**
 Automotive

 Internet Start-ups
 Venture Capital

 Retail/Consumer Products

 Manufacturing

 Military **Method s & Skills** 
 Organizational Assessment

 Technical Due Diligence

 Value Stream Mapping

 Supply

Chain Optimization
 Value Anal ys is/Value Engineering **Key projects**

 Led Organizational Development, Program Management, and Technical Assessment Activities with several Automotive Hy brid and Electric vehicle ventures:  Chrysler NSEV  Mercedes
- Benz M
- Class  Fisker Karma  Led Lean projects driving significant improvements in cycle time, inventory and cost in the fabrication of automotive convertible tops, instrument panels, diesel engines, flat screen DVDs, and gearboxes.  Led effort to deliver an incremental $ 42 million profit improvement at a Automo tive OEM through C omplexity Reduction and Con sumer Option pricing  Developed Collaboration Methodology to allow Engineers, Procurement Specialists, Marketing, and Suppliers to review Product, Process and Testing Specifications for impact to Product Costs.A
- 16 **ERIC JORK ZEISS** Senior Consultant MBtech (Mercedes Benz Technology) Languages: German (native language), English **Education** 1954 Primary

School Wien 9 1958 Residential school (Grammar school) 1963 Technologisches Gewerbemuseum (Pol yt echnic), Wien 9, Manufacturing systems and automotive engineering , High school diploma 1968 Military

duty, Wien 1970
- 1974 Technical University Braunschweig, Electro technology ; Graduate Engineer **Professional Experience** 1974 General Quality

Assurance VW AG 1982 Team Leader Product Audit, VW AG 1984 QA Manager VW / TES Berndorf/A 1987 QA Manager VW / BARKAS, Chemnitz 1990 Assistant to Group Manager QA 1992 QA Manager VW Bratislava; 1998 QA Manager Product Team VW Golf 1999 Manager Human Resources, Auel 2001
- 2004 Project Mgmt (self employed) since 7/2004 MBtech Consulting **Industry Expertise**
 Automotive (OEM and suppliers)

 Poly mers and Carbon

 Electrical components

 Steel and iron industry

 Aluminum and magnesium pressure die casting **Method s & Skills** 
 QM automotive industry (SPC, CIP...)

 Process audit VDA Volume 6 and DPA

 PPAP and initial sample VDA 2

 Lean Manufacturing

 Management Assessment **Key projects**
 Manager QM / QA: Planning, configuration and management QA for automobile and gearbox production VW Bratislava

 Support Relocation of a pressure die inventory f rom Stuttgart to Hof: Optimization process layout and product quality
.  Support Porsche DI
- Cylinder
-head: Optimization cast system
 Support iron casting VW crankcase: Reduction scrap rate

 Flat Spring Manufacture: Optimization product quality for NCV3

 Paint: Hedging water based innovative corrosion protection System.

### B. Ap pendix B: Charge Questions

**Particulars Page**  1. Letter to Panel Participants with Charge questions B 1
- B2B
- 1

**TO:** Christie Coplen (Mercedes
- Benz Technology)

Sujit Das ( Oak Ridge National Laboratory) John E. Fillion ( The Engineering Society of Detroit) Donald E. Malen (University of Michigan) **FROM:** Dileep K. Birur **CC:** Michael P. Gallaher **DATE:** September 2, 2010 **SUBJECT:** Charge Questions for Peer Review of Vehicle Mass Reduction Study
. The U .S. EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality i s currentl y analyzing the potential to reduce light
- duty v ehicle mass through the application of low density or high strength materials, component consolidation, and changes to vehicle architecture. This holistic vehicle approach establishes a potential path for future feasible vehicle mass reduction in light duty v ehicles to meet more stringent GHG and Fuel Economy standards. Lotus Engineering has completed a study

entitled “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.” EPA is seeking the reviewer’s expert opinion on the methodologies being used in this mass reduction work, the feasibility o f the proposed solutions to meet all vehicle and manufacturing requirements, cost conclusions, customer acceptance and technology

maturity, and whether they are likel y t o yield accurate results. EPA has provided direction and charge questions for this review and these are included below. A teleconference call will also be arranged so that EPA can respond to questions from individual reviewers on the material that was provided for review. The review will involve a written report that includes the response to the charge questions and any additional comments you may h ave, e.g., margin notes on review materials. Comments should be provided in an enclosure to a cover letter that clearl y states the reviewer’s name, the name and address of their organization if applicable, which model review documents/media were received by

the reviewer and which were actually reviewed and a statement of any real or perceived conflict(s) of interest. The completed review reports are to be furnished to RTI by September 27, 2010. Though the document under review is publicly available, please keep your comments confidential until the initial release of the peer review report by the EPA. I f you review the document as a team, please provide the details of your team members as well.Christie Coplen

Sujit Das John E. Fillion Donald E. Malen Page 2 September 2, 2010.

B
- 2 **Elements to**  **be addressed**  **in the**  **Charge to**  **the Reviewers**  **of Lotus**  **Eng ineering’s**  **report: “An**  **Assessment of**  **Mass Reduction**  **Opportunities for**  **a 2017**  **- 2020**  **Model Year**  **Vehicle Program”**  Lotus Engineering’s report is the result an extensive effort being carried out under contract with the California Air Resources Board to assess the opportunities to reduce light
- duty vehicle mass as an enabling vehicle technology to meet future light
- duty highway v ehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. This report details the methodologies used by L otus Engineering to determine the feasib ility and associated variable cost impact for various mass reduction strategies and reports the results of this assessment. No independent data anal ys is will be required for this review. Specificall y, EPA is seeking the reviewer’s expert opinion on the methodologies being used in this mass reduction work and whether they are likel y to yi eld accurate results. Toward this end, we ask that each subject matter expert comment on all aspects of the report, with particular emphasis on the mass reduction methodolo gy, the feasibility o f the proposed solutions to meet all vehicle and manufacturing requirements, cost conclusions, and other key factors, such as the customer acceptance and technology maturity
. In preparing their comments, each reviewer should distingui sh between recommendations for clearl y defined improvements that can be readily made, based on data or literature reasonabl y available to EPA, and improvements that are more exploratory o r dependent, which would be based on information not readily availabl e to EPA. Comments should be clear and detailed enough to EPA readers or other parties familiar with the report to allow a thorough understanding of the comment’s relevance to material provided for review. EPA requests that the reviewers not release the pe er review materials or their comments until the Agency m akes its report/cost model and supporting documentation public. EPA will notify the reviewers when this occurs. Any

questions about what is required in order to complete this review or request for additional background material from a reviewer shall be directed back to RTI ’s project manager for this work assignment. If a reviewer has any questions about the EPA peer review process itself, the reviewer may

c ontact Ms. Ruth Schenk in EPA’s Quality O ffic e, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory by phone (734
- 214
- 4017) or through e
- mail ( schenk.ruth@epa.gov).

### C. Ap pendix C : Questions and Ans wers Prov ided During the Rev iew Process

**Particulars Page**  1. Questions and answers provided during the review process C 1
- C2C
- 1

Questions from Dr. Donald Malen. 1. Is the intent to show that the mass reductions of 20% and 40% are feasible? Ans. from EPA : Yes. The intent of the study i s to demonstrate a methodology by which vehicle manufacturers could reduce weight. The report is not meant to replace all of the required validation to demonstrate feasibility, but rather a potential for reducing mass. 2. Is the intent to have a follow
-up proof
- of
- concept by

anal ys is or hardware build based on the recommendations of this report? Ans. from EPA : There are on - going proof
- of
- concept activities that will be informed by the recommendations. 3. Costs are highl y volume dependent, was the target yearl y volume specified? Ans. from E

PA : The annual volume target was 60,000 (page
- 304 of the report). 4. Is the primary

audience for the findings policy makers or influencing auto companies? Ans. from EPA : Both regulatory entities and vehicle manufacturers will be reviewing the peer review results. Questions from Mr. John Fillion 1. Is any part of the Lotus report confidential? Ans. f rom EPA : Lotus report is publicly available study
. 2. Will my

report be public information? Ans. f rom EPA : The review report is confidential until the first release o f the report by the EPA. The peer review results will be made public. 3. Can I discuss my

work with anyone I choose while I am in the process of preparing the report? Ans. f rom EPA : Yes, if yo u are reviewing as a team, please provide the details of the other experts involved in the review work. 4. Should I let anyone know in advance if I expect to be critical of the Lo tus report and its recommendations? Ans. f rom EPA : There is no need for advance notification. EPA only a sks that each peer reviewer have a full understanding of the methodology b eing presented and associated constraints.C
- 2

Questions from Mr. Sujit Das 1. How the benchmarking results were used in the final selection of vehicle subs ys tem components? Ans. from Lotus : “ They drove the selection of LD components and were used as reference for the HD model.” It is EPA’s understanding that the concern was based on how the final selection of the benchmarking results were applied. ( i.e., cost, weight, complexity, etc.). Hugh Harris to follow up with Lo tus. 2. Why w ere the detailed cost factors at the component level available only f or some of the vehicle subs ys tems, starting with chassis subsystems in the document? Ans. from Lotus : “ Ins ome cases subs ys tem only c ost estimates were published. A judgment was made that either the background information would overwhelm the reader, e.g., there were several thousand calculations used to optimize the LD body in white cost or that the number of parts had been reduced substantially and that it was clear what parts remained.” 3. Was the cost methodology u sed consistent with various subsystems and quantitative in nature? Any

g eneric cost model used to insure that consistent underl ying assumptions have been used across all vehicle subs ys tems? Any supporting informatio n available in order to verify

the underlyingassumptions used in the methodology? Ans. from Lotus : “Was the cost methodology u sed consistent with various subsystems and quantitative in nature? Yes; material cost sources referenced as required. Any g eneric cost model used to insure that consistent underl ying assumptions have been used across all vehicle subs ys tems? Standard industry p ractices were followed
. Any supporting information available in order to verify the underl ying assumptions used in the methodology? All supporting information used is referenced in the report; in many c ases this was supplier dependent” 4. Was there any consideration of interdependency among vehicle subs ys tems in the final technology

selection of vehicle components? Ans. from Lotus : “This was a key driver in parts elimination and consolidation.” 5. Since the objective of the report is on non
-powertrain mass and cost of two potential mid
term scenarios, what is the objective behind the inclusion of discussion on powertrain in the report? Ans. from Lotus : “The powertrain mass was required to develop the chassis system masses such as tire and wheel size. Additionally, fuel economy improvement estimates require total vehicle mass.” In addition, the inclusion of a powertrain provide d some perspective as to the downsizing and hy bridization that could be facilitated through mass reduction.

### D. Ap pendix D : Co ve r Letters
**Particulars Page**  1. Cover letter from Ms. Christie Coplen for MB
- tech D 1 2. Cover letter from Mr. Sujit Das D 2 3. Cover letter from Mr. John Fillion D 3 4. Cover letter from Dr. Donald Malen D 4D
- 1

**T o**  **:** M essrs. Hugh Har

ris and M ichael Olechiw U. S . Environm ental P ro tecti on Ag ency, As s es sm ent and Standard s D ivisi on (O TAQ) 2 0 0 0 Trav er

wo o d D riv e Ann Ar b or, M i chig an 4 8 1 0 5
- 2 4 9 8 USA **Fr o**  **m** : C hristina E. C op len MB
- te chn o l o gy NA LL C (Mb te ch) D ire ctor - Vehicle Engine erin g & Gov ernm ent S o lu ti on s christie.coplen@mbtech
- group - na.com 4 0 0 E Big B e av er Ro ad, S uite 3 0 0 Tro y, M ichi g an 4 8 0 8 3 U S A Sep temb er 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 **Re: Pe**  **e r**  **r e** **vi e** **w o**  **f t** **h e**  **L o**  **t u**  **s E**  **n g** **i nee**  **ri n**  **g “An**  **A s**  **s e**  **ss me**  **n t**  **o f M**  **a ss**  **Re du**  **c t** **i o**  **n O**  **ppo r** **t un**  **i t** **i e**  **s f** 

**o r**  **a 2**  **0 17**  **- 2**  **0 2**  **0 M**  **o de** **l Y**  **ea r**  **V e** **h icl**  **e P**  **r o**  **g r**  **a m**  **. ”**  M essrs . H ar

ris and O l echiw , MBte ch re c eiv ed a m emo c ontaining charg e que sti on s and a link to the Lo tus Engine ering rep ort f ro m the U. S
. Environm ental P ro t e cti on Ag en c y (EP A) via RT I Inter nati onal. M Bte ch has revi ew ed all o f the no te d do cu m ents in dev el op ing the provi ded expert op ini ons. The s e op ini on s are c ontained in the M Bte ch “P e er Revi ew o f the U. S
. Environm ental P ro te cti on Ag ency / L o tus Engi ne ering : An A ss ess m en t of M ass R edu ctio n Op

p o rtu n ities for a 2 0 1 7

– 202 0 M o d el Yea r Veh ic le Prog

ra m ” submitted on Sep temb er 28 , 2 0 1 0
. MBte ch declare s tha

t there are no re al or perce iv ed c onfl i cts o f interest c onc erning our inv o lv em ent in thi s review f or th e U. S . Environm ental P ro te cti on Ag enc y . We a ppre ci ate th e opp o r

tunity, l o ok f

orward to your f

e e db ack and c ontinuing our wor kin g re lati on ship
. Thank you , C hristina E. C op len MB
- te chn o l o gy NA LL C D ire ctor - Vehicle Engine erin g & Gov ernm ent S o lu ti on s Mob ile +1 2 4 8 7 0 3 2 5 7 6 christie. c op len @mbte ch
- grou p - na.c om htt

p : //www . mb te ch
- grou

p .c o mD
- 2

T o: Hugh Harris and Michael Olechiw US EPA, Assessment and Standards Division (OTAQ) 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
- 2498.
From: Sujit Das Affiliation : Oak Ridge National Laboratory

– UT
- Battelle. Email : dass@ornl.gov Address : 12305 Fort West Drive Knoxville, T ennessee 37934 September 28, 2010 Cover Letter to Accompany “Review of Lotus Study, An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017
- 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program .” Greetings : The documents that I received from EPA (or RTIInternational) were a memo containing the charge questions and the study report by Lotus Engineering. I reviewed all of the documents that I received in developing my expert opinion as contained in the “Review of Lotus Study, An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

- 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program .” submitted on September 28, 2010
. I declare that there are no real or perceived conflicts of interest concerning my involvement in this review for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. Best regards, Sujit DasD
- 3

To: Hugh H ar ris and Mi chae l Ol echiw US EP A, A ssessment and S tandards D ivi sion (O TA Q ) 2000 Trav er

wood Drive Ann Arbor , Mi chi gan 4 8 10 5
- 2498.
From: J ohn F i l l i on Aff i liatio n : C hrysl e r (reti re d) , En gine erin g S o c iety of D etroit. Email : john.fill i on@ c omca st.net Address : 6197 S i lv erstone Dr. Tro y, M i chigan 48085 Phone : 248
- 505
- 5862
S eptemb er 2 6, 2010 Cov er Letter to Acc omp any “Revi ew of Lotus S tu dy, An Ass ess m ent ofM ass R edu c tion Opportunities for a 201 7

- 2020 M od e l Y ear V eh icle Program .” Greetin g s: The do cuments that I re c e ived f rom EPA ( o r RT I Intern a ti onal) w ere a m emo containing the charge qu e sti ons and the study rep o rt b y Lotus En gine erin g . I review e d all of the do cuments that I re c e ived in dev e lop ing m y exp ert opini on a s containe d in the “Review of Lotus S tu dy, An Ass ess m ent ofM ass R edu c tion Opportunities for a 201 7

- 2020 M od e l Y ear V ehicle Progra m .” submitted on S eptemb er 2 6, 2010. I d ec l are that there are no real or p erc e ived c on flicts of intere st con c ernin g my involvem ent in thi s review f

or the U.S. Environm ental P rotecti on Ag enc y. B e st re g ards, J ohn F i l l i onD
- 4

To: Hugh H arri s and Mi chael O l echiw US EPA, Asses sment and Standards Division (OTA Q) 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michi g an 4 8 105
- 2498.
Fro m : Dr. Donald Malen Affiliatio n : University of Michi gan, Ann Arbor. Emai l : dmal en@umi ch.edu Address : 1051 Rock Spring B l oomfield Township, Michi g an 48304. September 28, 2010 C over Letter to A ccomp any “Revi ew of Lo tus Stu dy, An Assess m ent ofM ass Reduction Opportunitiesfor a 201 7

- 2020 Model Y

ear Vehicle Program .” Greetin g s : The docum ent s that I re c e ived from EP A ( o r RT I Inte rnati onal ) w ere a m emo containing the charge qu estions and the study rep o rt b y Lotus Engin e erin g . I rev i ew ed al l of the do c um ent s that I re c e ived in developing m y expert opinion as contained in the “Revi ew of Lo tus Study, An Assess m ent ofM ass Redu c tion Opportunities for a 2017

- 2020 Model Y ear Vehicle Progra m .” submitted on September 28, 2010. I d ecl are that ther e are no real or p erc eived co n f licts of interest conc ernin g m y involvement in this revi ew for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y. Best re gards, Donald Malen

### E. Ap pendix E : Rev iew Repor ts
**Particulars Page**  1. Review Report from MB
- tech E 1
- E 19 2. Review Report from Mr. Sujit Das E 20
- E29 3. Review Report from Mr. John Fillion E 3 0
- E4 3 4. Review Report from Dr. Donald Malen E4 4
- E 66E
- 1 

### Review- 1 by: MB -technology NA LLC . Review of Lotus Engineering Study “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.”
**Introduction** The EPA has funded MBtech to act as a peer reviewer of the methodolo gies and results presented in the Lotus Engineering: “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program”. L otus Engineering’s report is the result of a contract with the California Air Resources Board to assess mas s reduction as a path to meet future light
- duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. MBtech has prepared this document independently and commented on the report, with particular focus on the mass reduction methodology, the feasibility o f the proposed solutions to meet all vehicle and manufacturing requirements, cost conclus ions, and other key f actors. In preparing this document they h ave distinguished between recommendations for improvements and exploratory or dependent improvements. F inall y, no independent data analysis was completed nor required for this peer review of the Lotus Engineering report. Al ink to the Lo tus Report can be found at: [ http://www.theicct.org/pubs/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf ]. **MBtech Background** MB
- technology

NA, LLC (MBtech), is a leading international engineering and consulting company for the automotive industry
. The company has 2500 employees at locations in Europe, North America and Asia. MBtech is distinguished by the tightl y meshed development and consulting services covering the entire automotive value chain. The MBtech brand combines all of its products and services into four segments: Vehicle Engineering, Powertrain Solutions, Electronics Solutions and Consulting. F lexible, inter
- disciplinary p roject teams work in close collaboration with customers, suppliers and cooperation partners for automotive and other industries. MBtech supports manufacturers and suppliers beginning with the detailed specifications, design, modeling and testing to series maturity
. MBtech is a corporate subsidiary of the Daimler group. Business is conducted independently and in open competition to established engineering and consulting companies within the a utomotive, defense, aerospace and commercial vehicle arena. Their top priorities are customer- oriented services, confidentiality, and independent results. **Methodology** With respect to the methodology utilized in the development of the Lotus study, MBtech has selected four specific areas for potential improvement and further clarification:

 Technology

Selection and Weight Calculations  Piece Price Calculation  Technology

Development Timing  Future Technology

/ LegislationE
- 2

**Technology Selection & Weight Calcu lations:**  The report noted weight calculations or technology s election resulting in either normalized or predicted weight reductions, however, it has been the experience of MBtech that any normalization should include consideration for additional or reduced features and functions, rather than the scaled
-weight approach that was utilized in the study ’s selection of benchmarked components. It is the recommendation of MBtech that a regression
-based approach be utilized to determine the optimal solution set. F actors that should be considered as part of this regression
based study :

 Price Gap Drivers  Technology

/Product Concept Drivers  Performance Gap Drivers

As an example, the hood in section 6.0: Closures. The normalized weight of the smallest hood is used as the baseline to determine the weight reduction potential of the overall Toyota Venza's hood. H owever, a detailed anal ys is of the selected benchmark hood would highlight a more limited feature and function set than provided by the Venza hood. There fore, the structure of a smaller hood cannot and should not be linearly s caled to hoods of greater dimensions as noted in Table 6.3.d. Additionally, ancillary c omponents, such as hinges, fasteners, deadening material and support struts will also have a larger contribution as hood dimensions grow. These items were also not included in the overall hood analysis. It is MBtech’s recommendation that a systematic tool, such as regression
- based anal ys is, be used to select and normalize the impact of the selecte d technology
. This would result in theE
- 3

desired and repetitive trade off of weight, cost, fit feature and functional requirements noted within the study
. **Piece Price Calculation** The Lotus report bases costs entirely on the piece cost differential. The in clusions of the Total Landed Cost (cost to design, acquire, manufacture, and manage) and Total Cost of Ownership (Total Landed Cost + Cost to Assemble into Vehicle + Cost to Maintain + Cost of Service) would provide a much different perspective on overall cost impact to the market. As an example, the magnesium casting for rear hatch costs should include the Total Landed Cost differential of tooling and Engineering Development & Design (ED&D). The actual tooling cost for a magnesium casting tool would not be significantly greater than that for other material options. H owever, the abrasiveness of the magnesium material would decrease the number of parts that could be produced by a given tool. It is the experience of MBtech that in higher volume applications, tool life would be 70% of standard tools. Additionally, the Total Cost of Ownership differential would require the investigation of costs for service and the potential replacement costs to the end consumer and the OEM. It is the recommendation of MBtech that the total delivered cost be computed to understand actual impact on new technology development and implementation. A s a secondary measure the following total costs should be reviewed, noted and categorized on overall new technology

developments: transportation & logistics (land, sea, air, surcharges, dunnage, add
- ons), product/component/system grouping (dunnage, quality controls, size, weight), customs/duties/taxes (international, domestic, C
TPAT), inventory

b ased on supply chain length (effect on capital, inventory

e fficiencies, safety stock), additionally quality c onstraints due changes in technology (internal and external), global cash management (cost of cash, exchange rates, terms and conditions), supply chain tracking technology

( domestic and international), compliance implications (ITAR, C
- TPAT, staff, suppl y disruption), SG&A associated with suppl y chain effects (procurement resources, new relationship growth & maintenance, new supplier learning curves). Perhaps some of these f

undamentals where considered as percentage of the pieces costs noted in the Lotus report, however, the details needed to come to this conclusion were not disclosed in the report. It is MBtech’s conclusion that a holistic review is needed to fully understand the financial impact to the OEMs. Figure 1.0: System Level Cost AnalysisE
- 4

**Technology Development Timing** For many High Development solutions, the design, development and testing windows for specific technologies will ex ceed the deadlines for implementation. A s an ex ample, the development tim e required for the magnesium casting for the rear hatch would be at a significant premium to applications utilizing standard materials. MBtech Program Managers ty pically p lan a 30% development time premium for all magnesium applications. In addition to the design & development timeframe, testing constraints/unknowns would likely exceed the implementation window for the following elements of the vehicle development process: crash, NVH, durability, manufacturability, assembly and service. Additionally, the majority o f the weight saving technologies can onl y be implemented in conjunction with a completely n ew vehicle design and development program. M id
- model ye ar face lifts or “top hats” will not be able to realize the majority of these technologies. The proposed weight reducing technologies not only require significant development time but often major changes in production technologies and facilities. Therefore, lead time is also a limiting factor with respect to the weight reduction potential in the time frame being reviewed, 2017
- 2025. The vehicle development life
- cycle can range from three to seven ye ars; this is OEM and market segment dependent. Thus, the time period 2017
- 2025 is only one and a half of the required vehicle development life
- cycle. This needs to be considered when assessing the total weight reduction potential in the targeted time period. Finally, it is critical to note that many o f the Lo w Development technologies are already in production. T o that end, MBtech finds that many o f the High Development technologies are in production or planed for near- term mass production. An assessment of OEM usages of the various technologies presented in the LD and HD concepts should be undertaken. This effort would allow for statistically valid review of the industry and would provide an understanding of what is achievable versus a generic extrapolation based on a sample size of one vehicle. **Future Technology / Legislation** Finally, with respect to the vehicle mass, the future vehicle technology d emands must be taken into account. These requirements will be driven by l egislation and consumer demand. The major growth technologies in North America will likely b e associated with safety
. This is because of the emphasis that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) places on reducing crashes and saving lives associated with vehicle crashes. The safety- related technologies will be adopted at a rate that depends on legislation, which is heavily influenced by NHTSA **.** While the safety f eatures have intrinsic value to both the OEM and the end consumer, this is a cost penalty

allocated to the vehicle cost but also to overall weight reduction efforts.E
- 5

**Section 5.0: Body Structure** Low Development (LD) and High Development (H D) Li ght weight concepts require a collective consideration by a utomotive manufactures. An individual approach to each individual component does not result in an overall weight reduction. Additional expenses such as NVH, strength, crash, corrosion, repair, environment, recycling, material availability, manufacturing, thermal management, drive comfort must be considered. In addition to cost, quality and quantity, many approaches are driven by l egal requirements, image, corporate strategy and the market place. MBtech proposes a reduction of 10
- 12% by 2020 is realistic. M any technologies noted in the Lotus report failed in series production implementation due to the fact most high tech materials and production processes are not globally available (forming technology, joining technology, surface technology) nor are they sufficientl y developed for series production (test procedures, repairing methods). Thus, the demand on the global supply
-base, incumbent processes and technology advancement will increa se greatly

in the years to come. This is especiall y true with globalization and the increasingly diversified manufacturing footprint. Production locations must be reviewed as the standardization of materials and the need for specific material properties become a more critical issue to the overall body s tructure. Production location changes combined with various governmental mandates and incentives to increasing local part content will drive inconsistencies in the overall material content. These issues may

limit technology

implementation. **Trends: High Strength Steel** Steel will continue to be a critical material and the foundation of the LD area. Inthe HD arena the challenge will be the availability o f suitable forming technologies (ex. warm in
- mold hardening), joining technologies (ex. cold joining technologies such as Flow Drill, punch riveting and clinching) and surface technology with multi
- material design. With the new technologies, new challenges will appear with respect to corrosion and surfac e technology in body construction for the OEMs. As an example, OEMs will be faced with leakage currents or hydrogen embitterment. Developments of new materials and constructions are not likely in the near- term as an extended understanding of the material properties (static / dy namic) and the overall context of construction are needed. The current automotive suppliers often lack the basics in high developed alloys (HSS, DP, LIP , TRIP and TWIP steels) for numeric forming,E
- 6

vehicle properties (ex. modal anal ys is) or crash simulation. O ther considerations must be reviewed as well such as packaging, integration, and quality . (Figure 2.0) The packaging and integration of these parts must be included in the overall cost calculation. This is important as the use of new materials can often be justified by the elimination of components (sandwich base with thermal insulation) or by enhanced quality measures (elimination of additional insulation material or dynamic vibration absorber).

**Trends: Aluminum** Depending on material, Audi Space Frame (ASF) or profile intensive constructions are prevailing in the industry
. Problems exist in finding the required experience in forming and surface technology
. As an example, spot welding aluminum alloys is not reliably a pp licable in the automotive arena. Alternative processes, such as friction steel welding, are not ye t applicable in automotive manufacture due to the low wall thicknesses. Rather, in this area, there is a trend towards low
- temperature diffusion soldering, bonding or a combination of glue and riveting. **Trends: Magnesium Castings** Magnesium continues to be used to a high degree in several automotive series for interior application such as steering wheels, switchboards, seat frames, and electric components casings. Magnesium is only

rarely used in exterior application due to surface protection issues. However, there are a few applications of usage for exterior systems such as the current Mercedes
- Benz E
Class trunk lid. Currently there is a push within the indu stry to develop new technologies focused on improving the surface protection of magnesium sheets (ex. MOCVD processes, ZnMgAl layers). A s new technologies are available that resolve the surface protection issue; magnesium Figu re 2.0: Trends toward reducing CO 2E
- 7

components used by

a utomotive manufacture will increase. The manufacturing effects must be understood and incorporated into the cost study
. The actual tooling cost for a magnesium casting tool would not be significantly greater than that for other material options. H owever, due to the abrasiveness of magnesium, tool life would be 70% of standard steel based tools. **Trends: Composites** The primary

European OEMs are focused on the development of fiber reinforced bodies. There is a concentrated effort in the development of new matrix system s with ductile and graded material behaviors. The use of suitable joining processes, surface protection, long
- term suitability and availability

o f sustainable and cost effective repairing concepts are still not resolved. In particular, with respect to fiber composites, there is a trend from isotropic materials towards anisotropic, micro dispersed and nano materials in material selection. The potential of these material properties in the area of automotive light weight manufacture is not yet understood. A s an example: The combination of material and dimensional properties, as noted in the Thyssen Krupp report, (tailored blanks, tailored rolled tubes) results in a cost neutral approach and some potential savings. **Benchmarking** In comparison to current Europe an vehicle series, the benchmark shows similar approaches and values. European OEMs rely on functional light weight construction and multi
material design concepts. As noted in the Lo tus study, the largest applications are in body, chassis and the drivetrain. **Architecture Notes** There are a variety

o f possibilities with respect to vehicle construction. With the introduction of new drive technologies the possibilities will increase. In general the realization of these concepts depends on available of robust and cost effective processing, joining and surface technologies. N ew processes newl y implemented in series production or in development for near- term deplo ym ent are: super plastic reshaping, hydro forming, mechanical joining, glue, clinching, visible frame structure, targeted application of “bulk structures”, and bionic design. **Floor and Under Body** As noted by

L otus, there is an increased usage of micro disperse thermal insulation and sandwich materials in the floor and under body assemblies. To validate L otus’ findings, MBtech finds that thermal insulation will result in a cost neutral weight reduction of 4.8kg. Additionally, MBtech studies have shown that the thermal insulation introduction results in a modular design concept resulting in the elimination of up to ten stand alone sub
- components based on historical design reviews (Figure 3.0).E
- 8

**High Development Summary** Based on the information presented, a weight reduction of approximately 6 0kg with the cost impact of more than 135% is moderatel y achievable for the To yota Venza and, perhaps, other vehicles in this segment. It is the estimation of MBtech that 40
- 50% of the hy pothesized weight saving is achievable. The total landed cost and cost of ownerships must be considered, MBtech proposes that the overall cost impact will be much higher than noted in the Lotus report. To realize this potential weight savings, the materials, forming and processing technologies have to be developed and deployed. This will affect the fast
- follower OEMs and suppliers. Further weight reduction potential can be achieved with new designs and the functional integration of concepts within the development organizations. Finally, these findings cannot be extrapolated to other vehicle segments or OEMs currentl y deploying the technologies presented in this Body Structure HD review. The findings are very v ehicle and model specific. Extrapolation must be done only with a detailed understanding of how each OEM is using the proposed technologies. (Figure 4.0)

Figure 3.0: Integrated Acoustics and Insulation StudyE
- 9

**Section 11.0 Air Conditioning System: Trends** The basic automotive air condition system has been in use for over 60 ye ars. H owever, there have been some systematic advancements that boost overall improvements. The latest systems are primaril y based in the energy s aving combination of an IR
-reflected insulated glass, solar roofs, electric fans and compact air conditioners. With this combination, it is possible to reduce the cabin temperature by 2 0 degrees while realizing a considerable weight reduction in the air conditioner and cooling liquid required. Other technologies are based on the recuperation of thermal energy

f rom exhaust gas, efficient insulation with micro dispersed materials and the use of heat exchanger made of plastic. **Benchmarking** Additional weight reducing technologies can be expected in this arena with the use of smart structures and electric drives for a load dependent control. **Results** In spite of the highl y refined and developed air conditioning system technologies, there will be new developments and advancement in the future. The new systems will incorporate the use of solar energy

and/or rejected heat. These advancements are expected to further reduce the weight of the current HVAC systems. Figure 4.0: Body Desings of the FutureE
- 10

**Section 9.3 Instrument Panel, Conso le and Insulation:**  **Trends** As described in the report, there are numerous opportunities for “Plug and Play” and integration of E/E Components for mass reduction, however, that there is mismatch in life cycle between Consumer Electronics and Automotive Ele ctronics product development. When planned for mass reduction, the life cycle implication must be considered. The differences in the traditional product development processes for automobiles versus electronics are emphasized and demonstrated below. The first challenge is the timeline. Automobiles are developed over three to five ye ars, approximately, before production begins. In electronics the development phase for many technologies, especially

c onsumer electronics that might be used for infotainment and telematics, is often under twelve months. There are also differences in product quality expectations and validation, which will be discussed later. The vehicle development process is another aspect of co -product development that differs significantly between auto companies. C ompanies in Japan tend to make fewer performance requirements demands on the supplier. S pecificall y, Honda is identified as the most straightforward companies to work with. G enerally, they provided the performance expectations , geometric requirements (space), and connectivity requirements, and kept these items constant for the supplier across their vehicle platforms. Experiences with other OEMs, both in the U.S. and in Europe, are less stable and supplier demands are higher. **Wi -**  **Fi / Entertainment / Wireless** In fotainment products have a short lifecycle which resembles that of consumer electronics more closel y than it does the relatively l ong lifecycle of automobiles. This lifecycle results in consumers replacing external infotainment products more often than they replace their vehicles, giving producers of infotainment products potential for more frequent sales. This will place an additional burden on both parties as newly developed products would have to be backward compatibl e. While wireless connectivity, particularly through widespread application of Bluetooth technology, is already in use in current vehicles, care must be taken with Electromagnetic Compatibility

(EMC) and other possible interferences. N ot to mention hackers ability to disrupt the intended functions. This measure must be taken for the critical vehicle features like safety and propulsion systems. The next hurdle is the transfer of power wirelessly, the trend is continuing and the EMC issues are becoming more prominent. **Information Display / Open Integration** While earlier versions of head
-up displays have been available in the marketplace for a number of ye ars, the future designs will address the brightness and resolution challenges of current systems while also being capable of displaying much more complex images, such as instrumentation, on the vehicle’s windshield. The streaming of customized or on - demand content to vehicles is expected to appear this ye ar. The challenge automakers and suppliers face in providing this capability i s not the technology necessary to display

c ontent. Rather, finding the necessary

b andwidth or accomplishing sufficient compression to stream the content to the vehicle is the main obstacle.E
- 11

Telematics, the use of telecommunications and information technology, are the first step towards deplo ying a true Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). B y enabling communication between the vehicle and the road system (Vehicle Infrastructure Integration, or VII) and between vehicl es (Vehicle to Vehicle, or V2V), telematics promises to benefit both the driver and society as a whole by

e asing traffic congestion and improving traffic system efficiency
. This ye ar, the first examples of Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) are expe cted to be deplo yed. Ayear later, in 2011, the first examples of Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication are anticipated. Each of these telematics systems is then expected to continue increasing its market penetration, with the potential for universal adoption being ultimately m andated by

government authorities. Telematics technologies are extremely challenging to deplo y as they require close cooperation between automakers, suppliers, government, and local officials. This will be one of the next hurdles faced b y the automotive industry
. Telematics navigation products have enjo ye d popularity with consumers and are beginning to migrate to less expensive vehicle segments. The chief benefit of these benefits includes turn -by
- turn navigation that is integrated into the vehicle’s audio system, as well as local information such as restaurants and points of interest for tourism. Information on traffic congestion and suggested re - routing is beginning to be made available in North America after having been avail able in many European and Asian countries for several years. This ty pe of plug & play

requires open E/E Architecture and requires non -proprietary technology

that minimizes development risk. Additionally, OEMs will develop significant firewalls between the vehicle electronic systems and any consumer product that connects to the vehicle. The computer on wheels concept is inaccurate because of the open operating system that exists on a computer will never likely exist on an automobile. There is a growin g trend toward non - OEM accessorizing and personalizing of the vehicle with options available through the dealer network in multiple areas including electronics. The aftermarket availability

of accessories, especially e lectronics, has mushroomed in North America with the huge growth of the Specialty E quipment Manufacturers’ Association (SEMA). S EMA products represent hundreds of electronic technologies that, in some instances, are intended to replace ones from the OEM (e.g., radios, powertrain controllers , DVDs, televisions, etc.), or interact with OEM equipment. There are several issues that confront the SEMA companies:

 SEMA involves an eclectic group of companies that are difficult to coordinate.  Warranty issues when an aftermarket technology affects the vehicle’s performance.  Many c ompanies work in isolation from the OEM even though their technology m ay interact with OEM devices. The ability o f the aftermarket companies to integrate their technologies into improving s ys tem performance is limited.  There may

be legal issues involving safety and liability
.E
- 12

**Section 9.5 Control Systems Benchmarking: Trends** The need and opportunity f rom integrating multiple electronic systems on the vehicle greatl y outweighs the challenge of developing isolated technologies. In the case of alternative fuel vehicles, for example, development of comprehensive energy management and control systems is lagging the development of the powertrain systems themselves. Current electronic systems are poorl y integrated and far from optimal. The challenge for OEMs and electronic systems suppliers to develop comprehensive, integrated technology solutions has been uniformly identified as a critical issue. U .S. companies (OEM and suppliers) tend to be functionall y organized with different functional groups possessing deep knowledge in narrow fields (brakes, powertrain, body, etc.), and the expertise to integrate technologies is a barrier to developing integrated solutions. H owever, the new Lexus is consolidating the number of on -board controllers from 70 to 4 through systems integration, resulting in significant cost and complexity reduction. The opportunity to integrate the communication function of the wiring harness (e.g., with fiber optics) and elimination of redundant electrical c omponents (like numerous controllers) could result in a mass savings of nearl y 200 pounds. At roughly a $2.00/pound value, this could be worth nearl y $400 per vehicle. The key areas of growth opportunity f rom the Electrical area will result from technol ogy integration. Individual technologies will continue to grow rapidl y, but the biggest benefit will occur from integration of different technologies. This is true for both safety and infotainment applications and such materials substitution would need to be evaluated individually and against other light
- weight materials options. At the end, a full evaluation must be done in light of cost and function versus the number of pounds saved. **Electronics/New Technologies** There are additional possibilities to reduce weight by u sing new technologies in the electrical arena. These technologies include zero current switch technology
. The technology i s based on electrostatic fields, which are used in substitution of wired switching functions. The switches can be u sed for the adoption of wireless and switch less sensor systems, adoption of non - contact switches, anti
- trap systems or safety e quipment (e.g. roofs of cabriolets, electric door), and connection with bus systems. The possibilities for system supplier/ vehicle manufacturer are endless. They provide the opportunity

f or new materials, surface design and functionality, reduction of wiring, reduction of space required, decoupling of technical function and feel of the surface, and eas y update and expansion of f unction by

s oftware updates. This technology

has a high potential due to its estimated weight reduction impact of 20
- 25%, approximately

3 0% reduction of installation costs, reworking costs and quality c osts, improved freedom of design without higher compl exity of E/E systems, increasing the degree of confectioning with concurrent cost reduction, high degree of standardization, improved user’s ease of use, improved comfort by recognizing the approach to operating elements, and option to personalize various functions. **Section 12 Electrical: Trends** E
- 13

The Copper Clad Aluminum (CCA) approach noted in the report is To yo ta specific, the technology

w as used by

s ome suppliers for U.S. customers at a low implementation rate. At German OEMs, the trend is focused on pure -bred (stranded) aluminum cable. The pure -bred (stranded) aluminum cable weight reduction potential is minimal. H owever, with cost as the primary driver, there are significant cost disadvantage between the connecting method of aluminum cable and the c ontacts. In the Lotus study, it is assumed that Toyota uses CCA for all cable sections. In contrast, the German OEMs will only see an aluminum (Cu
- ) cross section of 2.5 mm2. The cross - sectional distribution based on the currents leads to an accumulation in 0.35
- 0.5 mm2 (aluminum replacement due to lack of strength is not represented here) and only 2 .5 mm2 is an aluminum wire in the combination of number of lines times the mass over the line. In the previously

m entioned range, 0.35 to 0.5 mm2, a very different approach is available and is already in production: the copper line from 0.35 to 0.5 mm2 is replaced by a 0.13 mm2 conductor with high strength core (usually c opper base alloy). Additionally, 0.08mm2 is already in the development process. Weight reduction potential in the mid
- class is greater than 3kg. However, the potential of aluminum must be taken into account, thus the delta could remain within the specified 3kg. At the current copper prices, this technology i s almost cost-neutral, but decreases with further development of mass manufacturing and with the increasing demand resulting in higher prices of copper. The weight reduction through the thin
-wall cladding/coating or ultra
- thin walled insulation is already available and on pilot project s and in series production in the USA and Europe. Thus, MBtech opines this should not be included in the HD category
. Pilot projects can usually accomplish 20
- 40% of the theoretical weight saving potential due to the imposed boundaries such as the exis ting contacting systems, space limitations, the specific requirements for strength, flexibility, corrosions resistance and temperature stability. However, MBtech believes that no more than 75% of the HD electrical results could be realized during the peri od being considered. There is a high potential for weight reduction within the electrical architecture: reduced number of bus lines, optimization line lengths with optimized placement of components and channel layout, minimizing cross - sections with improv ed design methodology and possibly improved separation elements. This can only achieve by

a holistic design approach that currentl y fails due to many functional and organization limitations. **High Voltage Applications Considerations** Interestingly, there i s no mention of the forty- two volt electric system in future vehicles that would have a significant impact on the introduction of electronic technologies on the vehicle. This will help reduce the wiring bundle size to a minimum, as less current is require d to power up similar electrical devise. F orty- two volt systems will be an important step toward introducing more electro
- mechanical systems. In order to fulfill the 2017
- 2020 expectations, particular attention must be placed on the alternative drive s ystems developments.E
- 14

These areas include fundamental areas of potential weight reduction as a result of the substitution of metal and poly mer materials in the hy brid and electric drivetrain. E lectro technique poly

mer materials are preferabl y suitable for the isolation of live parts and components. They

f orm the material for the case, cable and connector. P oly mers are mainl y electrical insulators. Properties such as resistance, dielectric strength and tracking resistance are important for the use of insulating material. The thermal properties of the poly mers include thermal conductivity, dimensional stability in heat and specific fire behavior. T oday the current poly mer technology

enables the replacement of non - metallic ingredients in many motor vehicle applications. In the case of the electrical control units, which require an electromagnetic shielding, metal casings have been the best solution until now. Although poly mers are currentl y used for some shielding of motor vehicles, they are molded components, which are coated with a metallic layer with an additional immersion or spraying process. The main disadvantage of this approach is limitation of cost savings potential. The progress in digital electronics are the essential facts which explain the larg e number of new vehicle systems and the increasing number of modules with high component density
. The decreasing digital circuits support the need for space savings. The use of these components in harsh electrical environments (e.g. at existing HV systems) induce constructive and technical design problems. In the light of the preceding paragraph, it is necessary to develop shielded electronic casings to avoid interferences with other modules and to prevent emissions of interfering signals which could influence other s ys tems. Conductive poly

mers, which can be manufactured in one step, are as powerful as the metallic components on the market today . These new materials offer significant advantages in design and application. They

enable the replacement of metal casings in many motor vehicle applications such as in the high voltage ranges. The following list provides examples of areas were metal was substituted by

high performance pol ym ers:

 Electric axle drive and starter generator

– use of poly mer material as casing or casing components (also hybrid versions)  Power electronics and inverter

– substitution of aluminum by p lastic in the cooling system of DC/DC
- converter  HV harness

– narrow -banded partiall y shielded for the decoupling of high and low voltage circuit to reduce weight of the proportion of shielding of harness  HV battery

– casing or bearing structure made of poly mer composites or mixed material design (e.g. aluminum foam, steel, poly mer mix) Electric conductive polymers with Carbon Nano Tubes (CNT) could be used for light weight casing material in future. CNT comprise of one to several graphite layers, which are rolled up into tubes. Because of their structure they have extremely

high electric conductivity properties. Furthermore, they

have excellent m echanical characteristic values such as elastic modulus and tensile strength. The expected applications are ideal to fulfill the requirements in terms of weight reduction and EMC security
. Another economically

and environmentall y important point: the deve lopment of low
emission vehicles has become a critical issue for all OEMs. The motivation for OEMs comesE
- 15

from mounting pressures from lawmakers (emission legislation, consumption rules, driving bans, limitations, local fees, and ZEV laws), society (awareness on costs and environment, climate change concerns, lobbyists and organizations), the competition (global push and hy brid positioning), and the energy industry ( fuel availability, reserve stocks, and the decline of oil delivery). Due to the limited av ailability o f oil and the continued reduction of emission limits, many a utomobile manufacturers are placing more emphasis on “e
- mobility” to offer mobility solutions in future. The trend towards battery
-powered electric vehicles will replace conventional v ehicle components such as combustion engine and transmission. Electric motor, power electronics and high
- voltage batteries now appear in our vehicles. However, this development and the production of battery
-powered electric vehicles requires fundamental mo difications to many o f the conventional components in the areas of body, chassis and of course of electronics. They have to be redesigned and reinterpreted. **Intellectual Property (IP) Rights/Security/Architectural Integration** The Lo tus study

i s based on utilizing commercially available, open source solutions to replace proprietary

architecture. H owever, MBtech suggests that the integration of the Apple iTouch for use as Center Console Human Machine Interface (HMI) will not be as streamlined and cost effective as noted in the report. The following IPrights, security and architectural issues hurdles will have to be eliminated: access to base/core technology, application development, and architectural integration. Finally, for most OEMs the interior and customer interface are brand specific and closely associated with brand identity
. C ommonizing the HMIglobally or even across vehicle brands within an OEM will reduce the end
- consumer appeal, especially in mid
- level or luxury

v ehicles. Thus, MBtech feels this concept will not be widely adopted as this is a tightl y held image consideration for all OEMs. **Conclusion:** The Lo tus report has merit; specificall y as it apply to the To yota Venza. H owever, Mbtech recommends additional studies to validate the materials, technologies and methodologies referenced in the Lo tus Engineering report. F easibility o f the various technologies presented in the report is not proven for series production implementation. These technologies must be reviewed and the impact must be taken into account on the overall proposed weight reduction calculations. A s an example, the proposed plastic injection molded fenders versus steel is not realistic as demonstrated based on various MBtech investigations. MBtech finds that max imizing value
- added propositions by developing complete systems or system - focused solutions will result in overall fuel economy gains via weight reductions. This concept is explored in the report and is directionally c orrect. A chieving progress and improving fuel economy must be done with the optimization of the following areas in addition to weight reduction: quality, durability, compatibility, aerodyn amic efficiency, parasitic reduction and machine efficiency improvements, differentiation from competitors, and innovativeness which some end
- consumers demand. When focused on light weighting, true potential can beE
- 16

realized with a holistic approach of efficient material processing, innovating joining technologies, reduced complexity, functional integration , modular designs, and flexible manufacturing concepts (Figure 5.0). MBtech finds the primary t echnologies in which to invest time and resources are: light weight materials and the other noted enablers to achieve mass reduction, aerodyn amics, operating ef ficiency o f the vehicle, and the total value proposition to the end
- consumer.

Finally, it is critical to note that many o f the Low Development technologies are already in production. T o that end, MBtech finds that many of the High Development technologies are in production or planed for near- term mass production. An assessment of OEM usages of the various technologies presented in the LD and HD concepts should be undertaken. This effort would allow for statistically v alid review of the industry and would provide an understanding of what is achievable versus a generic extrapolation based on a sample size of one vehicle. MBtech’s findings are summarized as follows: Body- In
- White Requirements: Additional studies must be done that consider the fo llowing vehicle body- in
- white requirements: crash, NVH, strength, corrosion, repair costs, manufacturing and associated costs, environment and recycling concerns, and material availability
. All aspects in the vehicle life cycle must be reviewed and considered in the overall weight reaction anal ys is. Impact of weight reduction on other vehicle requirements
- safety, fatigue strength, NVH, corrosion
- have not been considered in the report. Additionally, vehicle packaging issues were not fundamentall y considered in the Lo tus report. This will have a considerable impact on the feasibility o f various proposed technologies and the downstream cost with respect to manufacturing, dunnage, transportation, and repair cost. Figure 5.0: Trends in TechnologyE
- 17

Costing Methodology : a) Piece Cost Calculation. In the initial Lo tus study, many of the selected lightweight technologies are cast a favorable Piece Cost comparison. While the piece cost comparison might have been favorable; total costs, whether measured as Total Landed Cost or Total Cos t of Ownership, would show a more realistic view on the impact of select lightweight technologies to the industry
. b) Technology

Selection and Weight Calculations: It is MBtech’s recommendation that a systematic tool, such as regression
-based analysis, be used to select and normalize the impact of selected technology
. This would result in the desired and repetitive trade off of weight, cost, fit feature and functional requirements noted within the study . (ex. Hood) Technology

Development Timing: Inmany of the presented examples, the time to fully design, develop, and test would exceed the expressed implementation timing. This will have a varying effect on the industry

b ased on the technical advancement and market segments targeted by e ach OEM. This will drive varying cost, timing and quality advantages to those currentl y using the proposed LD and HD technologies. Additionally, the majority o f the weight saving technologies can only b e implemented in conjunction with a completely n ew vehicle design and development program. M id
- model ye ar face lifts or “top hats” will not be able to realize the majority of these technologies. Finally, the proposed weight reducing technologies not only require significant development time but often major changes in production technologies and facilities. Therefore, lead time is also a limiting factor. The time period 2017
- 2025 is only one and a half of the required vehicle development life
- cycle. This needs to be considered when assessing the total weight red uction potential in the targeted time period. Future Technology

/ Legislation: As the industry is tasked with more stringent safety and exhaust gas emission requirements, the impact on weight must be considered in more detail in any f uture study
. These technology applications are expected to result in weight increases in future vehicle designs. Propulsion Systems: By

2 030, the number of vehicles on the road is expected to nearly double. As a result, CO 2 production would increase by 5 4%. However, c arbon emission reductions of 50% are required to stabilize atmospheric carbon levels, therefore stabilizing average global temperatures. The impact of advanced technology on the total vehicle weight must be a fundamental consideration on overall vehicle we ight reduction. A s fuel cells, CNG, hy brids enter the market place, the overall weight of these systems range from 11% to 40% more than the standard ICE powertrain systems. This must be a consideration as environmental and oil dependency

c oncerns drive the non - traditional powertrain configurations. The implementation of advanced powertrain technologies well add significant weight to the vehicle which has not been adequatel y considered in the initial study completed by

L otus.E
- 18

Intellectual Property/ Security /Architectural Issues : While commercially available technology might be used to replace proprietary s ys tems, further delays/issues will ensue as automakers attempt to modify

provided core technology, as well as integrate these systems into their own architecture. Assessment of OEM Deploy ment of the Lotus LD & HD Technologies: Finally, it is critical to note most luxury v ehicle OEMs, including Mercedes
- Benz, have already reached the Lo w Development weight reduction level and have implemented the majority o f the High Development body material concepts. Thus, MBtech fundamentally disagrees with the Louts Engineering report on the following two points:

 21% total vehicle (less powertrain) mass reduction will not be achievable by 2017  38% total vehicle (less powertrain) mass reduction will not be achievable by 2020 It is not possible to reach an additional 20% vehicle reduction by 2017 for OEMs which have already implemented these concepts. MBtech estimates that an additional 10
- 12% vehicle mass reduction is possible by

2 020 for IC E based vehicles. M ost OEMs, especiall y those working within the high tech / luxury vehicle market segment, are using many of the technology

c oncepts noted in the LD and HD sections of the Louts report. Finally, in reviewing luxury v ehicle OEMs that have implemented the proposed LD and the majority o f the HD technologies, the overall vehicle weight has not been drastically reduced. This is primarily

d ue to the introduction of new technologies which add to the overall vehi cle complexity

and weight. **Acknowledgements:** The following MB
- tech team contributed to the peer review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

/ Lotus Engineering: “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program” report: 1. Christie Coplen, Vehicle Engineering & Government Solutions 2. Eric Jork Zeiss, Technology & Innovation Management 3. Peter Klose, Body in White & Innovation Management 4. Mike Vitek, Strategy

& Operational Consulting, Program Management 5. Ehsan Taqb eem, Electrical / Electronics EngineeringE
- 19 

### Review-2 by: Sujit Das (ORNL- UT- Battelle) . Review of Lotus Engineering Study “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.”
This document provides expert opinions on the review of 2010 Lotus study “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017
- 2020 Model Model Year Vehicle Program.” This study

h as received a lot of attention in the industry b ecause of its timeliness and the growing importance of vehicle lightweighting to meet anticipated fuel economy and emissions regulations. The level of detail considered for a complete vehicle in this study (with the exception of powertrain components) using the teardown approach in order to assess mass reduction opportunities is first of its kind in the industry
. The approach involves identifying the baseline component masses using the teardown approach, then selection of lightweighitng components based on a combination of benchmarking data and available data in the industry, and finally c ost estimation of the lightweight components. Since the approach used to assess mass reduction opportunities is more or less similar across major nine vehicle subsystems, the first section summarizes the overall comments that are applicable to the entire report. The following sections then attempt to address the specific comments related to each of the nine vehicle subsystems as organized in the report. Overall, the identification of baseline vehicle component masses was found to b e quite satisfactory, but the technology s election of lightweight components and subsequently its cost estimation has been found to be inconsistent among various subs ys tems and particularl y the overall final component cost estimation procedure needs a lot of reevaluation in order to validate some of the findings of the report. **A. SUMMARY**  1. Overall, the detailed vehicle teardown approach used for identifying mass reduction opportunities seems to be a reasonable one. However, this approach seems to be prohibitive ly

expensive and time
- consuming for a regular use when other vehicle segments such as passenger cars and trucks need to be considered for similar anal ys is in the future. Itw as mentioned that the benchmarking approach was used for the selection of various lightweighting options at the specific component level, particularly f or LD components, which was then used as reference for HD components. This approach was not evident in most cases of components and the benchmarking instead was used to determine the vi ability

o f overall desired system level weight reduction goal in majority of cases. Although the approach is considered to be a sy nergestic one providing a high level of flexibility

in selecting feasible materials, processes, manufacturing and assembly methods, but the design feasibility yet remains to be proven since the interdependency o f designs of vehicle components if at all considered in the anal ys is was not explicitly discussed in the report. The initial teardown approach was a good start, but after wards the ad
- hoc approach used for the estimation of component mass reduction and cost lacks repeatability

and validity.E
- 20

2. A lot of lightweighting technology options considered in the anal ys is include such materials which are yet to be introduced in a large volume in the automotive market, particularl y magnesium. The viability o f using magnesium in high development scenario which requires to have a technology readiness within the next seven ye ars, i.e., by 2 017 appears to be too optimistic. Some of the technology options considered to be applicable for high
- end niche vehicles, not for an average vehicle even in the latest technology readiness ye ar of 2017. T echnology maturity remains a concern for component technology

s elections, such as composites and magne sium made for high development scenario. 3. It’d have been useful if a table in regard to component breakdown under nine major vehicle systems, including its baseline weights were presented at the very outset of the report. Also, a summary table showing the major differences in vehicle subsystem technologies among three scenarios would have been useful. On what basis was the system definition made? Itdoesn’t seem to have any resemblance to the Uniform Parts Grouping (UPG) system most commonly u sed by

O EMs. There appears to be inconsistency

in the number of vehicle systems considered between the earlier chapters on discussion of specific non -powertrain eight sy stems and while the final results on pg. 244 were discussed. On pg. 244, there were ten (all but pow ertrain) systems (no air conditioning instead thermal, lighting, and Misc.) than the original eight systems which make the evaluation of final results difficult. 4. The vehicle component cost estimation approach using a cost factor method is completely unsati sfactory

a s these cannot be validated without knowing underl ying assumptions which have not been adequately discussed in the report. In addition, since indirect costs, including tooling and assembly plant architecture were mentioned to be beyond the scope of this study, the comparative costs were not true representative since they are important for advanced materials costs due to part consolidation potential that these materials offer. Inmost cases the derivation of cost factor appears to be either based on supplier quote without explicit reference of the basis or metal prices. The source of metal prices was mentioned to be Intellicosting, which is a consulting company involved in the actual vehicle component cost estimation and not a renowned metal price supply information source (as also mentioned in the report). However, in the case of chassis components as discussed on p. 189, the right data source, i.e., www.metalprices.com was used. F or composite metal prices, no specific supplier names for the information source were provided. Although under Executive Summary s ection it has been mentioned that costs were estimated using supplier input, material costs, and projected manufacturing costs

– particularl y the last co st estimation approach was found to be the least one mentioned and discussed in the subsequent chapters on the discussion of various vehicle system components. The cost analysis approach used seems to be inconsistent among various vehicle subsystems and thereb y needs to be definitely revisited before the results can be of any value. 5. p. 25 is the only

p lace that has provided some details regarding the cost estimation procedure in addition to later in Sect. 10 on chassis. The procedure provided is as follow s which is quite an ad
- hoc and on a qualitative basis as it consisted of the following steps, i.e., material costs were provided by industry experts; costs for all comparativeE
- 21

lightweight systems sub
- systems, and components were then assigned a value relative to the cost of the Venza component by the original system assessor. The approach used in the last two above steps was not clear in the report. Iti s difficult to verify the cost estimates since it was mentioned that the underlying cost assumptions were supplier dependent which further demonstrates the inconsistency in the cost methodology

used. 6. The overall cost factors estimated for two scenarios seem to be incorrect. Due to a lack of one - to - one correspondence between the systems mentioned on Table 14. a (pg. 244) and a discussion of actual estimates by specific systems presented in earlier chapters, it is hard to compare the estimates at the specific system level. Also, in cases where they do match, values are different. For example, the cost factor under Low development scenario for Closures/Fenders is estimated to be 1.08 (p. 64) but Table 14.a indicates a value of 1.02. Also in the case of High development scenario, assuming that cost factors are correct for each system, using the mass distribution by v arious systems for the baseline (Chart 14.a p. 237), the overall cost factor is estimated to be 105% and not 103% as noted in Table 14.a. The overall cost factor definitely needs to be rechecked. 7. In general cost factors estimated particularl y for the H igh Development vehicle components appear to be too optimistic, i.e., for a 38% mass reduction a cost penalty o f only 1 03%. This generally

c ontradicts the general findings of the literature today
. For example, the 2010 NRC study on assessment of fuel econo my technologies for light
- duty vehicles indicates a vehicle price penalty in the range of $1,660

- $2,625 per vehicle depending on the engine size in the range of I4

– V8 for a 20% vehicle mass reduction. 8. One of the major factors affecting the vehicle component cost would be the assumption made for annual production volume. Ithasn’t been mentioned any where within the main body o f the report, and only

s ingle mention of it was made in Appendix, Sect. 18, p. 304 under the economic analysis discussion of the MuCell option. Itl ooks like most the suppliers contacted for cost information are low
- volume vehicle system suppliers and the applicability

o f the report results for a high
-production volume vehicle platform needs to be validated. Whether the overall project scope is for mass -produced or niche vehicles, thereb y needs to be explicitly mentioned at the outset of the report. 9. Results of a crossover utility v ehicle presented need some adjustments if they need to be applied for a generic baseline mid
- size car. In addition, p. 250 in Appendix classifies Toyota Venza as MPV. It is unclear why a crossover utility v ehicle was selected if the study results were meant to be representative of the light
- duty vehicle market. 10. Is a trial
- and
- error process used to insure the u pper limits of +20% and +50% on the total vehicle system piece costs for low development and high development cases, respectivel y? 11. It is not clear whether secondary m ass savings has been taken into consideration in the anal ys is since at various vehicle sub system levels, the percentage mass reduction targets have been assumed to be the same. 12. What specific estimation procedure was used to maintain the system and vehicle level cost targets without having any such targets at the sub
- system and component levels?E
- 22

13. Itis hard to determine the consumer acceptance of low and high development vehicles till the follow
- on validation of vehicle component materials and technologies, particularl y in regard to vehicle safety performance is completed. Since the estimated vehicle cost as one of the major elements of consumer acceptance looks attractive, its validity remains to be seen after revised cost estimates are available based on the suggestions made here. 14. p.24

– Itl ooks like the selection of lightest component part was derived from the A2Mac1 library

o f vehicles and vehicles outside the database. Since A2Mac1 has a limited number of teardown vehicle data and that too mostly f or European vehicles, and so most of vehicle systems and component benchmark data should hav e been based on the outside A2Mac1 database. What was the specific other database source used since no documentation was available in the report? 15. p. 25

– Itw as mentioned that the cost variability among different suppliers was addressed by reporting nominal values. Since no actual part cost values were estimated and so not sure in what respect this was used. The use of cost factor should avoid the use of nominal values, as long as both baseline and lightweight technology option part costs are based on the same supplier quote. **B. BODY STRUCTURE**  16. p. 32 provides the cost estimation procedure for baseline body which is inaccurate since entirely b ased on material cost. Iti s likely then that lightweighting option body c ost was based entirel y on the difference in material price and part weight. 17. In tables 17.2.b
- 17.2.d (p. 290
- 292) how % reduction in thickness due to high strength steel was derived for various body structure components. 18. p. 36

– Itwas explicitly m entioned that that for high development body scenario property considerations were taken into account at the level of five major sections, i.e., floor and underbody, dash panel assembly, front structure, body sides, and roof assembly . Was it as well for low development body scenario? 19. p. 43 It was mentioned that for body s ide inner all aluminum was rejected because of cost. How does the selected option of using composite aluminum and magnesium body side instead provide lower the cost compared to all aluminum? Needs explanation. 20. Table 17.2.e p. 293

– An assumption of 54% weight reduction in Panel
- Body S ide OTR due to use of PP G30 seems unrealistic. 21. p. 46
- 47: it’d be good to know the unit material price assumptions made for aluminum, magnesium, and composites in order to derive the cost factors for various system s of body s tructure for both scenarios. Under high development scenario, although a significant mass reduction is shown for body exterior trim items, but no corresponding cost impacts have been taken into account. Estimated
- 2% and 35% cost penalty f or low development and high development body s tructure seem reasonable. It is not sure whether cost premium necessary f or joining of dissimilar materials particularly in the case of high development scenario has been taken into consideration. The market viability o f projected use of such a large amount of magnesium under high developmentE
- 23

scenario in underbody, dash panel, and body s ides, particularl y for the high development case is questionable. **C. CLOSURES**  22. In consistent definition of vehicle systems. For example, Sect. 6 on Closures starts with the definition as doors, hood, and liftgate. But latter in the section fenders were also included as a part of this system. 23. p. 51
- 54 provide a benchmarking for closure components and demonstrated the feasibility of 50% cost reduction with a cost factor of 185%. But not sure why subsequently f or various scenarios none of the benchmarked components were used. 24. p. 56 Table 6.4.1.a
-- Not sure why the cost of aluminum outer panels with cast magnesium inner panels is lower than aluminum outer panels with stamped steel inner panels? Same in the case of tailgate as well as shown in Table 6.4.1.b. Not sure why the magnesium inner panels for tailgate was selected but not in the case of panels. Inthe former case, it says the reason be ing for meeting the overall mass reduction objective. 25. p. 59
-- the cost factor of 0.44 used for injection molded plastic fenders under Lo w Development scenario seems to be too optimistic. 26. p. 62 For hood under low development scenario, the cost factor of only 1 02% with 18% mass reduction using aluminum seems to be too optimistic. 27. p. 66
- 67: An overall cost factor of 0.76 for High Development Closure and Fenders mass reduction seems to be optimistic even with the use of 33% magnesium. Particularl y, the use of thermoplastic and magnesium in the case of side door rear and tailgate shows a cost factor in the range of 0.28
- 0.52. 28. p. 70 (Table 6.5.3.b): What was the purpose of showing the comparison of Venza closures in MS & HSS although not specificall y considered none of these options in any of the two scenarios considered?

**D. FRONT AND REAR BUMPERS**  29. p. 73: The cost factor for bumper systems was estimated to be 106% under Sect. 7.4 but mentions a value of 103% instead in Sect. 7.5.

**E. GLAZING (WINDSHEILD, BACKLIGHT, DO**  **ORS, SUNROOF, FIXED)** 30. p. 74
- 75: For glazing no change in both mass and cost was assumed since the benchmarking study

showed that the current Venza was competitive in terms of mass for the windshield, liftgate glass and door dropping glass. Not sure whether and how the cost competitiveness was determined.E
- 24

**F. INTERIOR**  31. More than 1/3 rd of the report has focused on interior components although it has the least weight reduction potential in the overall vehicle weight reduction context. 32. p. 96
-- No cost details were available to verify the seat cost estimation done by F aurecia. For low development, the estimated cost factor of 0.88 appears to be too optimistic. 33. High Development seat was based on Faurecia design with an extensive use of pol ym er materials and for which Faurecia estimated no cost penalty . No cost penalty a ppears to be too optimistic in the absence of a discussion on the procedure and underlying assumptions in the report. 34. p. 100

– For high development passenger seat it was assumed that a composite seat frame under development by

F aurecia could offer the same mass reduction as magnesium with no cost increase relative to the baseline Venza seat frame. Reference and a discussion on this would be useful. 35. p. 101

– Itis hard to believe that the high developm ent proposal could offer high levels of mass reduction at a reduced cost compared to the Venza baseline. 36. p. 103

– 106
-- Low development front driver and passenger seat are estimated to have the same cost factor of 0.88 although % mass reduction in the latter case is considerabl y higher. Not sure why no additional mass included for 300C power equipment replacement in the case of front passenger seat (although its inclusion was mentioned on p. 95). Same true in the case of high development scenario as well. An excellent breakdown of mass savings for seat has been provided on these pages, and so a similar breakdown of cost factor accompanying the mass reduction estimates would have been extremely useful. 37. It is strange that cost factors were constant across the three major seat components for a given scenario (i.e., 0.88 for Low Development vs.0.94 for High Development), although % mass savings varied among the seat components. 38. p. 109
- 121 have provided an excellent technology trend background information related to instrument panel, console, and insulation. But it lacks specific reference list for the potential mass and cost reduction related to various technologies. This section has focused relativel y more on technology d escription rather than actual mass and co st reduction potential

– the report focus. 39. p. 124
- 125 has a detailed mass breakdown for IP , center console, and insulation, but the table title as sensitivity

anal ys is is confusing. The table title needs to be appropriatel y changed. 40. p. 133 second paragra ph (table 9.3..1 a should be 9.3.4.1.a) 41. p. 134 has no mention of Table 9.3.4.2.a about the details of mass savings breakdown being presented later on. For high development instrument panel (using cast magnesium and composite dash panel, Faurecia airbag do or system) a cost penalty of 10% same asE
- 25

that in the Low development scenario for a 45% mass reduction seems to be too optimistic (Table 9.3.4.2.a) 42. For both low and high development scenarios had no cost penalty although mass reduction was assumed to be almost double in the latter case compared to the former case. Is it with timing technology maturity will cause cost reductions in the latter case and so providing at the same cost higher mass reduction? 43. Sect. 9.4.1 indicates that the Venza hard trim integration and system is mass competitive although a hard trim benchmarking (Table 9.4.2.a, p. 145) indicates a mass range of 5.423 kg. It is unclear on what basis the mass competitiveness was determined. 44. p. 147 Table 9.4.3.a Table title of trim sensitivity anal ysis is misleading since it provides a sub
- system mass breakdown and nothing any sort of sensitivity

information. 45. p. 148 Intentionally

left blank? 46. p. 147
- 149: No references of Table 9.4.3.a and 9.4.3.b are being made in the document. 47. p. 145
- 152 provides a discussion on hard trim results, but overall interior trim results are being immediatel y followed without providing any discussion on soft trim. 48. p. 150 shows a 20% mass reduction for low development hard trim and an overall estimated cost factor of 105% without a cost factor breakdown at the specific component level. 49. p. 151 indicates for high development hard trim scenario a 42% mass savings but the same cost factor of 105% as in the case of low development hard trim scenario in spite of using aluminum roof panel combined with magnesium cross bows in the former case. 50. For both low development and high development interior trim scenarios the cost factor is estimated to be the same although the mass savings in the latter scenario is almost double than that in the former scenario. 51. p. 155
-- 80% weight reduction assumed for using MuCell technology f or panels under both scenarios for interior trim seem to be too optimistic. A reference included in this regard would be useful. 52. For control systems, no different li ghtiweighting options were considered between low and high development scenarios, and thereb y the mass reduction and cost factors were the same in both cases. Although magnesium material substitution has been considered in several other vehicle components, why then the use of magnesium for steering wheel column not considered, particularl y for high development scenario. 53. p. 165 mentions that only difference in high development controls from low development controls is in a small mass reduction due to more integrated voice command interfaces. But the detailed control systems results on p. 166
- 167 do not indicate any mass difference, in fact both are identical.E
- 26

54. p. 170: The sentence “The total Venza mass was 9.57 kg” should instead read as “ The total Venza heating system mass was 9.57 kg”. 55. p. 171: Low development scenario for HVA/C & Ducting indicates a 26% mass savings for a cost factor of 99% using MuCel l foamed plastic technology
. No reason was provided for resulting one percent cost premium for mass saving s. The mass savings should be 24% as indicated later on the same page below. As in other cases, a detailed breakdown of cost factor estimates would have been useful. 56. p. 173: Although high development HVA/C & Ducting scenario used the low development enhanc ements and incorporated a higher level of integration and the MuCell technology

but mass savings achieved in this case was lower, i.e., 17% vs. 26% for low development. Needs explanation. 57. It doesn’t make sense why c losure trim has been considered as an additional item in Sect. 9.7 from the earlier discussion of interior trim in Sect. 9.4. 58. Consideration of Zero Power Concept for the closure trim components seems to be a far
fetched technology

whose implementation is unlikely d uring the period considered in the anal ys is. 59. For both low and high development closure trim scenarios, the effect of mass decompounding was explicitly mentioned. As observed earlier for other components, the cost factor was lower for high development scenario even with a higher mass reduction compared to low development scenario. 60. Sect. 9.8.3 Summary interior mass distribution by material indicates that wood fiber content will occur under higher development scenario, compared to magnesium use in low development scenario. The material di stribution charts need to be re
- examined. **G. CHASSIS**  61. P. 188 Itw as mentioned that projected costs were also used as selection criteria for the low and high development chassis components. What’s the information source and is it for chassis components only p rojected costs were used since not explicitly m entioned earlier for other vehicle subsystem components? 62. High development chassis subsystems utilized the selected low development mass subsystems normalized to a 40% mass reduction plus systems integration and innovations in component design and materials that are expected to be production feasible by the 2020 model year (p. 188). Iti s unclear how this was implemented. Isit by decreasing the weights of low development subsystem components by an additional 20 % in order to obtain the overall 40% subsystem reduction? 63. Chassis subsystem weights were determined based on benchmarking o f current production chassis hardware, and adjusted mass reduction only a s a straight proportion to the vehicle mass (p. 188). Itl o oks like weights of other subs ys tem components were not considered while determining the chassis subsystem component weights. Specific components technology and mass selection have been done in isolation withoutE
- 27

consideration of any secondary m ass savings effect. No evidence of the consideration of subsystem interdependency was noted in the report. 64. p. 189 Table 10.1.a shows the same powertrain weight under both scenarios, thereb y it indicates that same v ehicle performance has not been maintained between the two scenarios. Itis clear here that the effect of secondary mass savings has not been explicitly considered. 65. An excellent overview of cost estimation procedure for chassis components was provided on pg. 189. It ’d have been better if similar level of discussion was provided earlier for other vehicle subs ys tems. Use of a standard costing methodology in addition to the use of standard material prices rather than varying methodologies used by suppliers would have provided consistency

in the cost estimates among various vehicle subs ys tems. 66. The example given to demonstrate the chassis component cost estimation procedure on p. 189 doesn’t seem to have applied the right value of low development GAWR as shown in Table 10.1.a. This example further proves that the cost factor has been mainly b ased on metal prices and processing cost was not taken into consideration. In addition, no details were available how the mass reduction value was estimated. Its eems in most cases, the estimated mass reduction value was positive (i.e., cost savings) which cannot be verified due to a lack of discussion of methodology and underlying assumptions in the report. 67. p. 199 Tables 12.4.1.a and 12.4.1.b are missing. 68. A mass reduction of 32% and 33% in front and rear suspension, respective ly had corresponding cost factors of 108% and 96%, respectivel y. Iti s hard to verify the lower cost with higher savings due to a lack of information. 69. p. 205 Table 10.4.1.c referred to on this page for brakes is missing. 70. On p. 206 there is a mention of breakouts for the electric apply f or integral park brake caliper but was missing. 71. p. 209: Tables 12.4.2.a and 12.4.2.b are missing 72. p. 209 talks about the potential use of foam reinforced stamped assemblies for control arms and subframes having a 25% weight reduction potential with no cost penalty
. A reference needs to be included to substantiate this assumption. 73. For chassis components results in Sect. 10.5 results were at a detail level by including both mass savings as well as cost factors at the component level. A similar detailed approach is suggested for components of other vehicle subsystems. 74. On p. 213 low development cost factor assumption of 1.14 for subframe (cast magnesium) appears to be too optimistic. 75. On p. 214 and 218 the assumption of no cost penalty f or low development knuckle (aluminum) for rear suspension seems to b e too optimistic. Similarly, a cost factor ofE
- 28

0.90 for high development knuckle (aluminum) for rear suspension. Why in the latter case the cost factor is better? 76. On p. 220 why is the cost factor is better for the overall chassis systems better in the case of high development even with a higher weight reduction potential of 43%? **H. ELECTRICAL** 77. Talked about copper clad aluminum (CCA) is the latest trend instead of copper wire u se. It is 40% lighter and less sensitive to the market price fluctuations of copper. A reference in this regard would be useful. 78. On p. 226 it is mentioned that copper clad aluminum (CCA) will be less sensitive to the market price fluctuations of copper. The CCA market price sensitivity will remain but to a smaller extent since aluminum prices also fluctuate as are other non
- ferrous metals. 79. As in the cases of cost estimation of other vehicle components, the CCA wiring cost reflects only

in change in metal price. **I. POWERTRAIN** 80. It was good to find the detailed cost factor estimates for various electrical subsystem components along with their assumed mass reduction values. 81. On p. 231 under Sect. 13, the powertrain mass was calculated by accounting for the ma ss reduction of the major vehicle systems and by allowing a reduction of the powertrain system hp and torque but maintaining similar vehicle performance. If that’s the case, why the powertrain mass for a lighter weight high development vehicle is same as that of heavier weight low development vehicle? There was no mention of any specific model used for the powertrain mass estimation. There was a mention about mass decompounding but a discussion of its estimation procedure was not included in the report. I f powertrain mass were used to develop the chassis s ys tem masses, fuel economy improvement estimates, and downsizing and hy bridization, a discussion of these major mass reduction considerations were unavailable in the report. The need for vehicle fuel economy estimate in the overall context of the report was not evident in the report. 82. Itwas mentioned on p. 231 that a single potential solution and placeholder for powertrain mass, accounting for system mass reductions and allowing a downsized powertrain with emerging technologies capable of production in the 2017 timeframe of the study w as used. How the interdependency b etween powertrain and non -powertrain masses remains to be discussed in the report. 83. Any specific reason why only a charge sustaining hy

brid option (IC engine with electric motor assist) was selected for the powertrain?E
- 29

84. Similarly, why was the engine developed by L otus called SABRE (Spark
- injection Advanced Baseline Research Engine) selected for this study? 85. It’d be good to provide the reference EPA’s OMEGA model used for hy brid system component cost estimates in order to provide a better understanding of the cost estimation methodology

used. Any s pecific model used for powertrain component sizing? 86. p. 232 indicates that by m aintaining a

c onsi stent HP/Mass ratio after vehicle mass reduction and powertrain resizing implies that vehicle performance will remain equivalent. If that’s the case, for lower non -powertrain mass of high development scenario would require a lower powertrain mass since HP will be reduced in order to maintain the same HP/mass ratio. It was not the case in the report. The reasoning for that as indicated on p. 236 is: the same powertrain mass used for the high development scenario due to other hybrid systems in production or available in this timeframe may be used and anticipated system mass, cost, and benefits will be similar or improved. This reasoning needs further explanation. 87. On what basis are the powertrain component unit cost assumptions used on p. 235 for the estimation of hy

brid system cost? A cost assumption of $320/kWh for Li
- Ion battery pack on Table 13.6.a seems too optimistic when current plug
- in
- hy brid 10 (PHEV10) battery c ost is estimated to be around $1100/kWh. Since the hy brid system evaluated is based on 2 007 Camry

hyb rid which has a net 192 HP or 143 kW, which translates to about $20/kW based on total estimated powertrain cost of $2,820 as noted on p. 235. This cost estimate is overly

optimistic since since today’s conventional powertrain cost is $30/kW. 88. Any reason why specifically in Appendix (Sect. 17) a discussion on European Trends was included in the reason? Although this was referenced in Sect. 4, p. 23, how the information was used in the study i s unclear. Appendix on Case Study : Volkswagen needs a Sect. no. This section, 17.3, and 18 were not explicitly referenced in the main body of the report. 89. p. 237 mentions that the mass contribution of body, interior, suspension/chassis, and closures w as relativel y consistent and represented 88% of the total vehicle mass (less powertrain) for each model. Inthe actual vehicle design this may not be the cause since the % mass reduction assumptions for each of the four s ys tems are rarel y the same. 90. On p. 246, Sect. 16 under Recommendations suggested the following mass and cost anal ys is including tooling and piece cost for: B IW (high and low development), closures (high development), and chassis/suspension and interior (high and low development). Any specific reason for no follow
- on mass and cost analysis for low development closures? Iti s highl y recommended for a follow
- on cost estimation using a consistent methodology

f or all vehicle non -powertrain subsystems in order to improve its validity and traceability
.E
- 30



### Review- 3 by: John Fillion ( Engineering Society of Detroit ). Review of Lotus Engineering Study “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.” **Background** The purpose of the Lotus study w as to identify

m ass savings potential for a new vehicle with a program start in 2014 and production in 2017, and a second new vehicle with a program start of 2017 and production start of 2020. The study used the 2009 Toyota Venza as the baseline vehicle. The first vehicle was called the low development vehicle and had a c ost target of less than 20% increase relative to the Venza. The second vehicle was called the high development vehicle and had a cost target of less than a 50% cost increase relative to the Venza. The study concludes that both targets can be met. To evaluate the Lo tus claims this writer has relied on his experience in the area of automotive vehicle lightweighting. During the years of 1978 through 2007 this writer was employed by C hrysler in the area of Materials Engineering and from 1992 through 2007 the writer was Chrysler’s subject matter expert assigned to the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) for projects regarding lightweighting of future vehicles. The Lotus report Figure 4.1.a shows the mass distribution for the vehicle; the cha ssis and suspension, body, and interior make up the bulk of the vehicle mass. This is a credible mass distribution and shows where to look for the main opportunities to reduce mass. The Lotus report correctly

f ocused on these areas, for both the low and high development vehicles. T o develop mass savings opportunities the Lo tus report took a holistic approach to each section of the vehicle using benchmarking, materials trends, and parts consolidation through new design. This approach was used for both the low and high development vehicles and is the standard method used in the automotive industry for this ty

pe of engineering effort. For the purpose of the Lotus study all mass savings opportunities were measured against the Venza as a baseline. So the mas s savings claim, in percentage form, is only accurate for this vehicle. The bill of materials for vehicles is forever evolving; the new bill of materials recommended by

L otus could have either greater or less mass savings when compared to another vehicle on a percentage basis, simply b ecause any

o ther vehicle would have a different starting point. In evaluating the mass saving potential for both the low and high development vehicle it is useful to look at the recommended bill of materials, and determine the likelihood of new vehicles being built to that recipe in the ye ar 2017, for the low development vehicle, and in the ye ar 2020 for the high development vehicle. **Low Development Vehicle** Section 15 of the Lo tus report concludes, “This study indicates that a 21% total vehicle(less powertrain) mass reduction may b e achievable for 2017 production year vehicle using current and near term technologies with little or no cost impact by u sing a sy

nergist, total vehicle approach to reducing mass”. Areasonable way to validate this claim is to evaluate the viability o f the recommended bill of materials for other vehicles in the 2017 timeframe. T ableE
- 31

14.d lists the materials distribution used in the baseline Venza and Table 14.e lists the materials distribution for the low development (LD) vehicle. The data for the major materials is summarized in the table below. **Table 1** : **Summary of Materials Distribution taken from the Lotus Report**

**Material Venza (%)**  **Low Dev (%)**  **point change** Mild Steel & iron 52 15 (37) Aluminum 5 6 1 HSS & AHSS 15 48 33 Plastics & composites 9 9 0 Magnesium 0 2 2 Other 19 20 1 The Lotus recommended bill of materials has a strong increase in the use of high strength steel (HSS) and advanced high strength steel (AHSS) at the expense of mil d steel and iron and there is some increase in aluminum (Al) usage along with the introduction of magnesium (Mg). Below is a link to a presentation given by J odi Hall from GM at the 2008 Great Design Steel conference.

“50 year Perspective of Automotive Engineering Body Materials and an Analysis of the Future ” Jody Hall , General Motors Corporation
. Available at: http://www.steel.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?Template=/CM/ContentDisplay .cfm&ContentI D=24026 The table below summarizes data taken from the Hall presentation that is similar to the Lotus study

in that the presentation compares the ty pical bill of materials for a 2007 vehicle to the ty pical bill of materials for a future 2015 vehicle. **Table 2: Summary of Material Distribution data taken from the Hall Presentation**  **Material 2007 MY (%)**  **2015 MY (%) point change**  Mild Steel & iron 52 42 (10) Aluminum 8 10 2 HSS & AHSS 12 18 6 Plastics & composites 8 9 1 Magnesium 0 1 1 Other 19 20 1 The 2007 base data is in strong agreement with the Venza baseline data. The Hall presentation suggests that the shift in bill of materials for a 2015 vehicle will be largel y due to the increased usage of HSS and AHSS at the expense of mild steel and iron; and like the LotusE
- 32

study the presentation shows some increase in the use of aluminum and an introduction of the use of magnesium. The primary difference between the Lotus study and the Hall presentation is the amount of mild steel converted to HSS and AHSS and the time frame the year 2015 versus the ye ar 2017. Table 3 below, is a summary o f data also taken from the Hall presentation. This table shows the trends in the automotive bill of materials from 1 975 to 2015 and the overall vehicle mass. The table shows two basic trends. F irst the mass of vehicles has not seen much change in 30 ye ars, and that mild steel and iron have been steadil y losing their share of the vehicle to mostly

HSS and AHSS steel. The growth of HSS and AHSS has been greater than the growth of aluminum, plastics and composites combined. A reasonable explanation for the fact the bill of materials for the automobile has steadil y increased in the use of lightweight materials, while the total mass of the vehicle has remained constant, is that the content of safety and customer features has also steadily increased over the same period. S o the increased mass caused by the growth in vehicle content has been substantially

p aid for by

the re duction of mild steel and iron through the increased use of HSS, AHSS, aluminum, plastics, and composites. In others words the technology shift to lightweight materials has been an enabler for improvements in vehicle functionality. **Table 3: North America n Vehicle Materials Trends in Pounds** 
**1975 2007**  **2015 Change from**  **1975** Mild Steel & iron 2830 2108 1635 (1195) Aluminum 84 327 374 290 HSS & AHSS 140 483 718 578 Plastics & composites 180 340 365 185 Magnesium 0 9 22 22 Other 666 783 794 128 Vehicle total 3900 4050 3908 8 For the ty

pical vehicle in the Hall presentation to reach the level of HSS and AHSS recommended by

the Lotus study, the switch to these materials would require acceleration compared to the already increasing trend. There are no significant technical barriers for the automotive industry

to switch to more HSS and AHSS. The primary driver for the change is to offset mass increases in the vehicle due to increases in mass driven by new components with greater capability
. In oth er words the low development vehicle bill of materials will be accomplished if it is an enabler for the new vehicle to meet its new functional targets. Restating the study

target: “This study

indicates that a 21% total vehicle(less powertrain) mass reduction may

b e achievable for 2017 production ye ar vehicle using current and near term technologies, with little or no cost impact by using a sy

nergist, total vehicle approach to reducing mass”. W ith the ex ception of the precise percent of reduction the statement is credible. The problem with the 21% number is that a new vehicle, designed for 2017, will likely replace a vehicle that already is using a bill of materials that is lighter than the Venza baseline, thus mass savings opportunity will be numericall y smaller than 21%. The bill of materials suggested by the Lotus study

i s, however, entirely

viable. Since the new bill of materials will be developed at theE
- 33

initial stages of the vehicle program, the material cost will be part of the vehicle’s overall cost targets, and would be considered neutral at that point. O verall the Lotus methodology f or the low development vehicle is sound. **High Development Vehicle** Section 15 of the Lo tus report concludes, “This study indicates that a 38% total vehicle(less powertrain) mass reduction may b e achievable for 2020 production year vehicle using current and near term technologies with a moderate cost impact by u sing a sy

nergist, total vehicle approach to reducing mass”. T o accomplish this target Lotus used primaril y new designs with an emphasis on aluminum, magnesium, and composites. Asummary taken from figure 14.f of the Lotus report is listed below in Table 4. **Table 4 .**  **Material Venza (%)**  **High Dev (%)**  **point change** Mild Steel & iron 52 7 (45) Aluminum 5 23 18 HSS & AHSS 15 14 (1) Plastics & composites 9 16 7 Magnesium 0 16 16 Other 19 24 5 When something new is added to a vehicle, the mass of the vehicle increases, which in turn requires the vehicle structure to be increased, which then adds additional mas s to the vehicle. This concept that mass additions increase secondary mass was seen in the low development vehicle. Through the ye ars new content has added mass to the vehicle, and mass savings countermeasures such as HSS were needed just to keep the vehicle mass constant. T o achieve the mass savings for the high development vehicle Lotus used the reverse concept of reducing structural mass enough to allow the supporting structure to be reduced, thus gaining additional mass savings. The concept of secondary mass savings or penalty

has always been part of the automotive industry ; however, Professor Donald Malen, from U of M, has explained this concept well in a series of papers and presentations. The following links to theses write
-ups have been taken from the Auto/Steel Partnership web site and are offered as support for the Lotus methodology

used f or the high development vehicle. The Mass Compounding Report available at: http://www.a
- sp.org/database/custom/Mass%20Compounding%20
- %20Final%20Report.pdf **Date: June 2007 Committee:**  FGPC Committee **Description:** This report defines and quantifies the mass compounding effect during vehicle design with current mass influence coefficients developed from mass data of 35 contemporary vehicles. Mass compounding considers that a mass increase in a component has a ripple effect throughout the vehicle; other components need to be resized increasing vehicle mass even more. A more encouraging view of this behavior is considering a reduction in a component mass resulting in a greater mass saving.E
- 34

The Mass Compounding Calculator available at: http://www.a
- sp.org/database/custom/Mass%20Compounding%20Calculator.xls **Date: June 2007 Committee:**  FGPC Committee **Description:** This Excel Spreadsheet implements the findings of the mass compounding study into a tool for estimating initial vehicle mass based on conventional vehicle baselines and calculating the additional mass savings possible from an initial mass reduction of a vehicle system(s) or component(s). PowerPoint Version available at: http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=24041&TEMPLATE=/ CM/ContentDisplay .cfm Professor Malen used benchmarking techniques like those used by L otus and developed empirical formulas that related primary mass savings to secondary mass savings. In an example used in the PowerPoint Version above, a 1500 kg vehicle was resized for a new vehicle program using both primary

and secondary

m ass reduction. The calculations suggested a vehicle mass target goal of 883 kg was possible, a 42% reduction in mass. An important part of this analysis was the downsizing of the powertrain. I f downsizing the powertrain is not possible the mass target was 1022 kg or a mass savings of 32%. These studies support the methodology u sed by L otus for high development vehicle. In addition to leveraging secondary m ass savings, the Lotus study relies on the technical readiness of AHHS, aluminum, magnesium, and composites for the year 2020. The automotive industry has been working on these issues since about 1993, through a cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy

(DOE), Chrysler, Ford, and GM. This agreement is managed through The United States Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP). The stated goal of USAMP is to significantl y reduce the mass of the vehicle at affordable costs. USAMP envisions that a vehicle in the time frame of 2020, that was significantly l ighter than current vehicles, would be a multi
material vehicle consisting of AHSS, HS S, aluminum, magnesium, and composites, similar to the bill of materials proposed by the Lotus study
. The following information was taken from the USAMP web site: 2010 USAMP
- AMD Li ghtweight Materials and Enabling Technologies Sy mposium , Presented by

the United States Automotive Materials Partnership

– Automotive Metals Division Li ghtweighting Automotive Metals and Enabling Technologies Sy mposium (LAMETS) , Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 8:00 am to 3:30 pm
. Location: United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) , 1000 Town Center, Suite 300 , Southfield, Michigan
. Ac omplete listing of presentation abstracts/ agenda is available at: http://www.uscar.org/guest/news/433/ A review of the presentation abs tracts shows that significant research has been performed in the area of both magnesium and aluminum. The HSS and AHSS and composites research is reported in separate sy

mposiums.E
- 35

Since little magnesium is used on vehicles today this material requires more development than others. In recognition of this fact, USAMP has developed a separate strategy f or the development of magnesium for the 2020 time frame. From the USCAR website, USAMP consortia, Automotive Metals Division. “Magnesium Vision 2020: A North American Automotive Strategic Vision for Magnesium.” Is available at: http://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=99 These links are offered as support evidence that the high development bill of materials would achieve technical readiness by the ye ar 2020. The Lotus report concludes, “This study indicates that a 38% total vehicle(less powertrain) mass reduction may b e achievable for 2020 production ye ar vehicle, using current and near term technologies with a moderate cost impact by u sing a sy

nergist, total vehicle approach to reducing mass”. With the exception of the precise percentage number, the statement is credible. Av ehicle introduced in 2020 will have as a baseline a bill of materials that is significantly different from the Venza and likely to already be much richer in lightweight materials. As a consequence a 2020 vehicle will likely not be 38% lighter than the vehicle it replaces simply b ecause it would have a lighter bill of materials as a starting point. The methodology u sed by L otus for the development of the high development vehicle is sound. **Discussion** The Lo tus study

suggests that mass reduction, through changing the automotive vehicle bill of materials, is possible at a reasonable cost if the mass reduction effort is done at the beginning of a program using a holistic system approach. I find this conclusion consistent with my career work experience. It was my experience that mass reduction efforts applied on a part to part substitution method were not significantly m eaningful. T o be effective, mass reduction efforts need to be an enabler technology f or meeting an important vehicle target. While there are technical challenges to making the bill o f materials for the high development vehicle a reality, the primary

barriers to vehicle lightweighting are not issues in the materials engineering domain. A basic non materials technology i ssue that needs to be solved, to enable the use of lightweight materials, is a better understanding of the financial pay back to a customer that purchases a vehicle at a higher price, but receives lower operational costs over the life of ownership as a consequence. The Lotus study suggested that the cost penalty for using a hy brid engine for the 2020 high development vehicle was $2820. The report does not give a dollar figure for the cost penalty f or the high development vehicle bill of materials; for discussion purposes I will assume it is $1000. The following table shows the time it would take for a driver to be paid back for purchasing a vehicle that cost $3820 more than the conventional alternative vehicle.E
- 36

**Table 5 . Pay back to improve a vehicle of 22 MPG to 30 MPG at a cost of $3820.**  Cost of gas $3 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 10.51 7.00 5.25 Cost of gas $5 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 6.30 4.20 3.15 Cost of gas $7 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 4.37 2.91 2.19 From this simple analysis the following qualitative statement can be made. At $7 per gallon for gas, it is possible to support the new technology f or improved fuel economy with a reasonable pay

back for the customer, and much harder to do so at $3 per gallon. Looking at the Lotus study another way, they

c ould have shown that the mass savings from the high development vehicle bill of materials enables a 4 cylinder engine to reasonabl y match the performance of the baseline 6 cylinder engine. Since the 4 cylinder engine is less expensive than the 6 cylinder engine, the costs saved could be applied to the bill of materials. While the fuel economy would not be as great, the cost would be much less. F or discussion purposes I will assume the net cost penalty would be $820. (A savings of $180 applied to the $1000 bill of materials penalty) The table below displays the new pay back time for the customer, using the new assumptions. **Table 6 .**  **Pay back to improve a vehicle of 22 MPG to 26 MPG at a cos t of $820**  Cost of gas $3 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 3.91 2.61 1.95 Cost of gas $5 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 2.35 1.56 1.17 Cost of gas $7 miles driven per ye ar 1000 0 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 0.94 0.63 0.47 From this simple analysis the following qualitative statement can be made. At $7 per gallon for gas, it is easy

to support the new technology f or improved fuel economy with a short pay back for the customer, and it is possible to support the new technology with a reasonable pay back at $3 per gallon. While my anal ys is has some degree of speculation, it opens a questionE
- 37

not answered by

the Lotus study
. Is the advanced technology a pproach for high development vehicle bill of materials viable with conventional powertrain s ys tems? The Lotus study

recommends several follow on studies for both the low and high development vehicles. The low development vehicle follow on projects would be of little value. The automotive industry has the know how to use the HSS and AHSS materials recommended and will be close to deploying the recommended 2017 bill of materials for new vehicles released in MY 2017. The work for the high vehicle development would supplement efforts already underway in the automotive industry
. While the supplemental efforts would be nice to have, the efforts underway, by

the automotive industry, should be sufficient to support the technical readiness of the 2020 bill of materials. **Alternative Suggest ion for a Follow on Project**  I agree with the Lotus study that more work is required to make technically ready the bill of materials for the high development vehicle, which I prefer to call the 2020 bill of materials. However, there are considerable efforts underway throughout the automotive industry, its suppliers, Universities, and in both United States and Canadian governments. There seems little need to add to these programs. The hole in the research efforts that I see is the answer to this question: Are the advanced technologies for the 2020 bill of materials commercially viable with conventional powertrain and chassis s ys tems? Today there are considerable efforts in research and new production vehicles using both hy brid electric and pure electric vehi cles. A s time passes their viability will be demonstrated through actual use data for cost and performance. Over time these new fuel efficient vehicles will gain their appropriate share of the market. B ut what about the rest of the market, especially the lower cost end of the market? T o truly b e successful in the societal goal of reducing greenhouse gasses and improving the nation’s aggregate fleet fuel economy, the needs of this end of the market must be addressed as well. I believe the timing is good to address this issue. The first step in answering the above question is to select a high technology v ehicle to be used as a demonstration vehicle, sometimes called a mule in the automotive industry . While there are several choices, I like the GM Volt as the demonstration vehicle mule. The GM volt is soon to be a commercial vehicle that will have a lightweight body and interior. I do not have any specific knowledge of the GM Volt bill of materials, but it is likely to resemble the mass of the Lo tus high development body and interior. F or the Volt development at GM, I am certain that the pressure to keep the non powertrain aspects of the GM Volt as light as possible were great, so the GM Volt should, from a body and interior point of view, represent the state of the art for lightweighting that is both reasonable in cost and suitable for high volume production. The Volt bill of materials is critical technology that enables its new powertrain and chassis components to be successful. The program I suggest leverages mass compounding concepts used in the Lo tus study and echoed in the Professor Malen paper “Mass Compounding”. I believe the term mass decompounding better describes the concept. The program is simple: Use the GM Volt as a representation of 202 0 bill of materials vehicle, and use the mass decompounding concept to select downsized conventional, commercial powertrain and chassis components, and retrofit several GM Volt vehicles with these components. To complete the study, a baseline vehicle is ne eded for comparison purposes. The Chevrolet Cobalt is similar inE
- 38

size to the Volt and represents a good baseline vehicle for the lower cost end of the market. The goal for the project is to determine if the retrofitted Volt can beat the Cobalt in a straight up competition. The Cobalt has a combined fuel economy of 29 MPG. My speculation is that by

f ull y exploiting the concept of mass decompounding the mass of the retrofitted Volt would approach that of the Smart Fortwo, which has a combined fuel economy rating of 36 MPG. F or the purpose of discussion I have assumed the retrofitted Volt would achieve 34 MPG at a cost increase relative to the Cobalt of $1000. Using these assumptions the following pay back table was developed. **Table 7 .**  **Pay back to improve a vehicle of 29 MPG to 34 MPG at a cost of $1000**  Cost of gas $3 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 2.08 1.39 1.04 Cost of gas $5 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 3.94 2.63 1.97 Cost of gas $7 miles driven per ye ar 10000 15000 20000 ye ars for pay

back 1.14 0.76 0.57 From this simple calculation the following qualitative statement can be made. Aretrofitted GM Volt that uses powertrain and chassis components that are commercially available and selected using the full effect of mass decompounding, may have a favorable pay

back to the customer, for even low miles per ye ar drivers, at $3 per gallon for gas. This project could be executed by L otus or a number of other companies. The pro ject could flow as follows:

 Fill in any

holes in the benchmarking data for powertrain and chassis components  Use the mass decompounding concept to select the best powertrain and chassis components based on mass, cost, performance and ease of retrofitting to the Volt body  Strip the GM Volt of all its high tech chassis and powertrain components and replace them with current commercial components  Use the lightweight Volt body and interior as the starting point to begin to reconfigure the vehicle making sure that the appearance of both the exterior body and interior are well protected  Purchase several standard Chevrolet Cobalts as baseline vehicles  Retrofit the GM Volt with selected powertrain and chassis components  Drive the vehicles at a proving grounds and resolve any handling issues  Measure the actual fuel economy of both the retrofitted Volt and the Cobalt  Develop accurate vehicle operational costs  Develop accurate vehicle costsE
- 39

 Determine true driver pay back time  Dress up both the retrofitted Volt and Cob alt vehicles for first class appearance  Arrange for ride and drive events for key a utomotive and government leaders to promote the fuel economy gains possible with the 2020 bill of materials
. The cost for the approximately one year project is estimated as follows: Purchase of several GM Volts, Cobalts, and downsized powertrain and chassis components
. $250,000 Engineering and mechanic time for retrofitting the Volt and vehicle test plan $200,000 Vehicle testing and problem resolution $175,000 Promoting the results $75,000 Total $700,000 While a company

such as Lo tus would execute this program, I recommend the project have an oversight council that consists of automotive industry v ehicle development executives and government officials from DOE and EPA. The USCAR organization could be used as the forum for this project. Ib elieve this step is critical in order to gain acceptance of the results by key decision makers in both the automotive industry and government. The retrofitted Volt would provide trem endous credibility to the viability

o f the 2020 bill of materials. Having a drivable retrofitted Volt, that meet or exceeds the performance of the Cobalt through measured data, and that is made completel y from commercial components, greatl y reduces doubt regarding the technology
. I f the hard data is as favorable as my s imple calculation suggests, the retrofitted Volt could be deemed best in class, in this market segment, including for cost effectiveness. As a consequence, there would be a significant accel eration of 2020 bill of materials throughout the automotive industry
. P erhaps many n ew vehicles would use the technology

years before 2020. As a result the aggregate US vehicle fleet fuel economy could be improved in a shorter timeframe. **Appendix Review by John Fillion**  **1. Executive Summary** Methodology

u sed by L otus was acceptable. The follow on project recommended by Lotus is not supported b y this peer review writer. See the peer review discussion above. **2. Nomenclature** OK as written **3. Introduction** The general method for comparing the low development vehicle and the high development vehicle to the baseline is acceptable. The deliverables defined by the report were met. **4. Work scope** The approach of using benchmarking to establish a baseline bill of materials is the standard approach used within the automotive industry
. The pie chart that depicts how mass isE
- 40

distributed across the vehicle is consistent with data that I have seen within the automotive industry except that ty

pically p owertrain is inc luded. The Lotus study m entions the benefits of mass decompounding; however I would have preferred that Lotus had studied the effect that mass reduction has on engine downsizing within the technology of the Venza. For example, that mass reduction of the primary s tructure for the high development vehicle might have made it possible to do with a four cylinder engine what was done with a six. **5. Body** The Lotus approach of using benchmarking data to establish the baseline data is sound is an approach ty

pic all y used in the automotive industry . Also the approach to look at trend data in material selection is also consistent with standard automotive engineering practice. The Lo tus report remarks on the usage trends for high strength steel, aluminum, magnesium and composites are consistent with the current thinking of automotive materials engineers. The table included from the Auto Steel Partnership is valid. The vehicle benchmarking data is a reasonable foundation for establishing baseline data for the report
. The Venza materials distribution chart, figure 5.4.1.b, appears to be accurate in that current vehicles from other manufacturers use a similar distribution of materials for their body construction. The Lotus report cited several steel industry studies that suggest significant mass reduction possibilities through the use of a new gage of high performing steel. These studies are found to be credible by

automotive materials engineers and are a good source of background data for the Lotus study
. The new materials distribution chart, figure 5.4.2.b, suggested in the report for the low development vehicle is reasonable and should be found credible by most automotive materials engineers. For the high development vehicle the Lotus report cited several industry s tudies as backgrounds which are appropriate sources for establishing a base of information for the report. The proposed architecture for the high development vehicle body in white, figure 5.4.3.c is a reasonable approach. The report suggests breaking the body into sections consisting of the floor and underbody, dash panel assembl y, front structure, body sides, and roof assembl y. For the floor and underbody L otus suggests a multiple materials approach using aluminum extrusions, aluminum sheet, molded compos ites and magnesium castings. This approach would be accepted by most automotive materials engineers as a reasonable method to reduce the mass of this section of the vehicle. While technologies proposed are not used in today ’s high volume vehicles, they are technically

viable; their primary barrier has been their cost effectiveness. For the dash panel and front structure assembly Lotus suggests a large magnesium casting with aluminum extrusions. Like the above this approach would be seen as technicall y vi able by a utomotive materials engineers. The primary b arrier to its application is cost and a ready suppl y base to produce the large magnesium in the quantities needed. For the front end module Lo tus proposes a large magnesium casting. This approach would be seen as viable by a utomotive materials engineers. Like above the primary b arrier is cost and adequate suppl y base. For the body

s ide Lotus suggests a multiple material approach of aluminum sheet, aluminum extrusions, magnesium casts and structural comp osites. Lotus recognized that theE
- 41

body s ide could be made from all aluminum, but chose a multiple material approach based on cost. M ost automotive materials engineers would agree with this approach, with the understanding that commercial suppl y issues would need to be resolved. For the roof Lotus suggests an aluminum sheet approach which is viable technology
. Table 5.5.1 lists the results for the low development vehicle claiming a mass savings of 15.9% and a cost of 98% of the baseline vehicle. S ince there are many a ssumptions and variables in the study

it is better to list the results as a range. A more appropriate result would be a 10% to 15% mass savings with the cost being 100% to 105 % of the baseline. Table 5.5.2 lists the results for the high deve lopment vehicle claiming a mass savings of 42.2% and a cost of 135% relative to the baseline. A more appropriate result would be to list the results as a range: a mass savings potential of 30% to 40% and a cost of 135% to 150% of the baseline vehicle. The materials distributions for both the low and high development vehicles listed in charts 5.5.3.a and 5.5.3.b are reasonable expectations. **6. Closures**  The Lotus report recognizes that in the area of closures the automotive industry ha s done considerable wor

k in the area of lightweighting. The benchmarking tables, 6.3.a, 6.3.b, 6.3.c, and 6.3.d, for the front door, the rear door, the tailgate and the hood are accurate. The rough mass savings of 50% as listed in table 6.3.e is credible. For the low development vehicle the Lo tus report considered high steel strength stampings, aluminum stampings, magnesium castings, and thermoplastics for side doors, tailgates, hoods and fenders. The analysis tables 6.4.1.a, 6.4.1.b, 6.4.1.c, and 6.4.1.d present reasonable mas s savings opportunities and cost factors. The report summarizes the mass savings and cost factors for the low development vehicle in table 6.5.1.a. The mass savings of 24.7% at a cost factor of 108% is credible. For the high development vehicle Lotus con sidered changes in architectural design as well as alternate materials to achieve mass savings. The results are reported in table 6.5.2.a; the mass savings is reported as 41.3 % with a cost factor of 76%. The primary c ost gains are through parts consolidation. **7. Front and Rear Bumpers** Table 7.3.a is a good benchmarking summary f or front and rear bumpers. The Lotus report suggests that mass savings opportunities in this area are small which is a credible. **8. Glazing (windshield, backlight, doors, sunr oof, fixed)**  The Lo tus report suggests that there is little opportunity f or mass savings in the area of glazing. This is a credible result. **9. Interior** Lotus spent considerable effort anal yz ing the interior, page 76 through page 185. The information presented demonstrates that the automotive designer has significant degrees of freedom on which approach to take to execute the interior of the vehicle. H istorically the automotive designers and engineers have used the interiors to make tradeoffs for content, mass, and cost for the vehicle targets as a whole. While far from a complete review of interior designE
- 42

possibilities, the Lo tus report is a good summary o f the ty pes of choices that could be made for interiors. Table 9.8.1.a shows a potential mass savings of 27% for the low development vehicle and a cost factor of 97%. This result is credible given the large degrees of freedom that are possible. Table 9.8.2.a shows a potential mass savings of 39% for the high development vehicle and a cost factor of 96%. This result is also credible given the degrees of freedom that are possible. **10. Chassis** Like the interior area the chassis and suspension of the vehicle offer the automotive engineer many choices in executing the function. The Lo tus report reviewed many o f the possibilities that are viable, pages 190 though 194, which is evidence of a large body of technical information and products available for the chassis system. Tables 4.3.a and 4.3.b represent good benchmarking data for the front and rear suspensi on systems. The benchmarking tables for suspension architecture, low mass brakes system, and tire wheel s ystems are also good background information. The Lotus report details possible design and materials changes for the chassis and suspension, from pages 199 through 208, which are credible suggestions for mass reduction. The high development vehicle design changes are discussed in pages 209 through 212. The suggested technologies are viable in the 2020 timeframe, including the ablation casting technology listed on page 212. This technology is promising; however, large scale commercial readiness must be developed. However, this could be accomplished in the 2020 time frame. The low development chassis summary, table 10.6.1.a, lists a mass savings potential of 26% at a cost factor of 100%. This result is credible on the mass savings, but appears to be too generous on cost. A 110% cost factor would be more credible. The high development chassis summary, table 10.6.2.a, lists a mass savings potential of 43% at a cost factor of 95%. The cost factor appears to understate the costs; a 100% or 105% cost factor would seem more credible. The materials distribution charts 10.5.3.a and 10.5.3.b are credible. **11. Air conditioning system** The Lo tus study

suggests that there is little opportunity f or mass reduction in the air conditioning system. This is a credible result. **12. Electrical** The study suggests that the automotive industry will begin using Aluminum clad copper wire as a substitute for pure copper wire which is a credible assumption. Table 12.5.1.a suggests a mass savings of 29.3% for the low development vehicle at a cost factor of 95%. This is a credible result. Table 12.5.2.a suggests a mass savings of 36.4% for the high development vehicle at a cost factor of 96%. This is a credible result. **13. Powertrain** The Lo tus study

took advantage of mass reductions for both the low and high development vehicles to resize the engines downward and maintain the vehicle performance. The reduced mass powertrain also aide d in downsizing chassis components. The selection ofE
- 43

hy brid engine technology

i s an acceptable assumption for the study and Lo tus recognizes that other choices could also be made. Lotus could have added additional value to the study b y also selecting conventional powertrain approaches. F or example, Lo tus could have shown the effect of using the 2020 bill of materials along with a 4 cylinder engine and compared performance to the baseline 6 cylinder engine, thereby showing the benefits of engine downsizing through primary m ass reduction. In addition Lotus could have selected a smaller 4 cylinder engine and compared it to the baseline larger 4 cylinder engine. F or more discussion on this see the discussion in the “Alternative Suggestion for a Follow on Project” section of this report. In general the methodology

used by the Lotus study

was sound. **14. Discussion of results** Covered in the main body of this report
. **15. Conclusions** Covered in the main body of this report
. **16. Recommendations** Covered in the main body of this report
. **17. Appendix** Seems complete
. **18. Footnotes** Seems complete
. **19. References** Seems complete
.E
- 44



### Review-4 by: Donald E. Malen (University of Michigan). Review of Lotus Engineering Study “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportuni ties for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.” This review addresses An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

– 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program, prepared by L otus Engineering, Inc, March 2010 Rev 006A (the ‘Report’ hereafter)

. The sp ecific charge questions posed to the reviewer are: Specificall y, EPA is seeking the reviewer’s expert opinion on the methodologies being used in this mass reduction work and whether they are likely

to yi eld accurate results. Toward this end, we ask that e ach subject matter expert comment on all aspects of the report, with particular emphasis on the mass reduction methodology, the feasibility o f the proposed solutions to meet all vehicle and manufacturing requirements, cost conclusions, and other key f actors, such as the customer acceptance and technology maturity
. Inpreparing their comments, each reviewer should distinguish between recommendations for clearly defined improvements that can be readily m ade, based on data or literature reasonably available to EPA, and improvements that are more exploratory

or dependent, which would be based on information not readil y available to EPA This review is organized as follows: First, a brief summary o f the reviewer’s understanding of the facts of the report are provided in Section 1. In Section 2, are comments on the overall methodology
. Aresponse to the charge questions is provided in Section 3. In the appendices are more specific comments; Appendix A contains comments for each specific subsystem, and Appendix B contains a detailed recommendation on methodology enhancements. **1. Brief Description of the Report**  This report describes mass reducing technology recommendations for the subsystems of two vehicle programs using a reference vehicle

—2009 Toyota Venza

— to establish vehicle size and market needs. The two vehicles are 1) a Low Development vehicle using technologies available in 2014 with start of production in 2017, and 2) a High Development vehicle using technologies available in 2017 with start of production in 2020. Investigation targets for the Low Development vehicle were at 20% mass reduction (less powertrain) within a 20% piece cost increase; and for the High Development vehicle a 40% mass reduction (less powertrain) within a 50% piece cost increase
. Constraints on the investigation included maintaining the functional performance of the Venza in the areas of seating, cargo space, noise
- vibration
- harshness qualities, driving range, power- to - weight ratio, and compliance with current and near term federal regulations. The overall length, wheelbase, and track were constrained to that of the Venza for the LowE
- 45

Development vehicle, but wheelbase and track were increased for the High Development vehicle. The 4 cylinder, FWD configuration was used as the basel ine. (The Venza is a 5 passenger, 1700 kg cross - over vehicle with FWD and AWD available. It achieves a five star rating for both front and side impact, with a fuel economy of 21 mpg city /29 mpg highway .) Additional constraints were those subs ys tems carrie d over directly f rom the Venza to the development vehicles; these include supplemental occupant restraints, the HVAC system, and front and rear suspension architecture to maintain ride and handling performance, p20. The mass reducing technologies were focu sed on eight of the major vehicle subsystems: Body Structure, Closures, Bumpers, Glazing , Interior, Chassis, Air Conditioning System, and Electrical. (The report states that the powertrain investigation was performed separatel y by the US Environmental Protection Agency) Alternatives for each of these categories were discussed and recommendations made for subs ys tems for each of the development vehicles. These subsystems were then consolidated for each development vehicle to arrive at the potential vehicle ma ss reduction and cost deviation from the reference To yota Venza. A pro forma high level Bill of Materials (report Table 14a) was also provided. S tructural analysis and design of the subsystems for the development vehicles was beyond the scope of this inve stigation. The general methodology used consisted of (the reviewer’s summary): 1) Anal ys is of To yota Venza mass distribution by subsystem. 2) For key

subsystems, benchmark a set of current mass - efficient production vehicles in the A2Mac1 database. Considering functional requirements and size, scale mass for comparison. 3) Survey trends and technologies appropriate for inclusion (including those from step 2). 4) Anal ys is to determine mass and piece cost estimate. (Suppliers experienced in the specific subs ys tem provided piece cost information) 5) Final selection of technologies b y Lotus experts to arrive at recommendations. Also, “...it was recognized that a holistic approach ...would yield the best opportunity to meet the vehicle mass targets. The vehicle sys tems interdependency w as a key

f actor...” An example of this philosophy

w as given as the side door where the target was to incorporate multiple functions for each component, resulting in a relatively s mall number of light weight modules which enabled further mass reduction in other areas such as door latch and wiring. The benchmarking data was provided by A2Mac1 and this data identified the Venza subsystem mass distribution. The eight highest mass subsystems (those mentioned above) were chosen for primary

fo cus. The report includes detail sections for each subs ystem describing the alternatives considered, the recommended subs ys tem for each of the development vehicles, and the estimated mass and cost. These are summarized in Appendix A. The Venza costs were estimated, and then the proposed low mass subsystem costs were quoted as a percent of that cost. These subs ys tem costs were estimated by c omponent suppliers and industry

experts. Significant variability in quoted cost across suppliers was observed. The c ost included piece cost only, and for those subsystems manufactured by the OEM the estimate did not include tooling. (“Indirect costs, including tooling and assembl y plant architecture, were beyond the scope of this study”, p6.)E
- 46

The results are summarized in report Table 14a which shows the estimated mass and cost of each development vehicle less powertrain. Given the recommended subsystems the Low Development vehicle is estimated to be at 78.5 % that of the Venza and cost at 97.9 %. For the High Development vehicle the mass is at 61.6 % and cost at 103 %. The report includes recommendations for follow
- up design and analysis work on a select set of subsystems:

 Design and anal ys is of the body s tructure for stiffness, vibration, and impact performance; and estimation of the resulting mass and cost for High and/or Low Development Vehicle.  Design and anal ys is of the High Development vehicle side closures including impact performance, and estimation of the resulting mass and cost.  Design and anal ys is of the suspension system including geometry analysis, suspension loads, and estimation of the resulting mass and cost for High and Low Development Vehicle.  Design and anal ys is of interior models for occupant packaging and head impact, and estimation of the resulting mass and cost for High and Low Development Vehicle. **2. Comments on the Methodology** This investigation relies heavily on the expert evaluation of Lo tus engineers and automotive suppliers to identify the mass reduction technologies, to evaluate technic al readiness, to estimate subsystem cost, and to make the final selection of subs ys tems to include in the development vehicles. Lotus is highl y regarded internationally a s a premier engineering house, and the recommendations are very l ikel y to meet the stated objectives (see some specific reservations are contained in Appendix A, especially those related to the High Development body s tructure and to cost estimation methods). The subsystem recommendations (less cost estimates) would not be unexpected to thos e in advance design at an OEM. However, the question is open as to whether the proposed subsystems are the best or most cost efficient set of subsystems. An OEM seeking to appl y these recommendations would be very interested in ensuring that they are. Inthe absence of a more traceable methodology in which explicit data is provided for all the alternatives, this critical question of efficiency i s not answered. For example, for each subs ys tem a set of technology alternatives are reported (Are these all the reasonable alternatives; What criteria were used to be included this specific set; How was technical readiness determined?). Following a short discussion of alternatives, a subsystem recommendation is given (What process was used to screen out the other alternatives; Was there a formal ranking of all the alternatives; W here is the comparative data for mass saved and for cost of each alternative considered; Might it not be more effective to reduce the percent mass of one subsystem much more than another to m eet the overall vehicle mass target and minimize risk; What about the interactions with other subsystems?)
. S ubsystem cost is given with the caution that it is piece cost onl y (investment not included on OEM components), and is based on supplier estimates which have substantial variability (Smaller volumes favor materials which are conducive to part integration and low cost tooling

-How was this bias handled; Subsystems which can be shared across several vehicle lines will increase volume

- Was this considered; Would not application of a simple cost model help clarify this important area?)
.E
- 47

Questions of this nature may have been considered and answered by the investigators, but the report does not share the answers with the reader. Therefore, this work could be improved by supplementing it with a more transparent methodology

in which the resulting information can be examined at each step. S ome methodological improvements would: 1. Cast a wider net in gathering potential mass reducing technologies. This would minimize the risk of overlooking a very promising technology
. 2. Be more explicitly

data driven at each step (see items 3
- 7 below) so the reader will ‘buy in’ to the proposed solutions. 3. Show very

c lear and quantitative mass reduction and cost estimates for each technology (even those not selected). 4. Use some clear metric to group technologies for technical maturity /readiness, rather than just the final judgment. 5. Use a metric to order technologies for inclusion in the final recommendations which insures efficiency
. For example, the metric of ratio of cost increase to the mass reduction provided by

the technology, (i.e. the marginal cost of including the technology). B y ranking with this metric, the most cost effective technology set will be selected first. 6. Show al l these estimates in a tabular and graphical form which the reader could examine (see Appendix B of this review for an example). 7. Use first order analysis tools to generate and supplement expert opinion (especiall y for cost). These tools include:  Statistical mass benchmark models to compare mass estimates with a large vehicle population.  Material selection based on component function. For example, the Ashb y method. This is particularl y useful in the case of the body structure.  Spreadsheet based cost models which include material cost, tooling cost, equipment cost, and assembl y cost. This will allow volume sensitivity anal ys is.  A mass compounding model to adjust the subsystem mass estimates to scale to the resized vehicle mass. (This was done in the report in an ad hoc fashion for the suspension systems.) Appendix B of this review outlines a methodology which would supplement and greatl y enhance the conclusions of the report and improve downstream collaboration and buy
- in. **3. Response to Charge Questions wit h Recommendations** 

**- Comments**  **on feasibility**  **of proposed**  **solutions to**  **meet all**  **vehicle and**  **manufacturing requirements:**  Appendix A contains more detailed comments on the specific subsystem proposals. Here are comments from a vehicle perspective. In Table 3 .1 are shown the Venza baseline mass data in blue, the low development mass data in ye llow, and the high development mass data in green. On the far right is the ratio of each subs ys tem mass to the corresponding vehicle mass. This ratio provides a useful rule
- of

- thumb to see if the proposed subsystem mass is roughly c onsistent with the vehicle mass which the subsystem is a part of. T able 3.1 also includes some of the more general comments for selected subs ys tems, more detailed comments are found in Appendix A.E
- 48 **Table 3.1 Summary and Analysis of Mass for Development Vehicles** [Data taken from report Table 14.a. Values may differ slightly

due to rounding]

**RefVeh** Venza (kg) low dev (kg) delta mass (kg) mass delta / venza comments high dev (kg) delta mass (kg) mass delta / venza comments Venza low dev high dev
Body 382.5 324.8 57.7 15% 221 161.5 42% At the lower edge of most expert opinion for technology regardless of date of use 13% 14% 11%

Closures / fenders 143 107.6 35.4 25% 84 59 41% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3% bumpers 18 16 2 11% Should be scaled down for curb mass 16 2 11% Should be scaled down for curb mass 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% thermal 9.3 9.3 0 0% 9.3 0 0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% elec 23.6 16.7 6.9 29% 15 8.6 36% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8%

interior 250.6 182 68.6 27% Low risk subsystem for mass reduction and this large value is very appropriate 153 97.6 39% Low risk subsystem for mass reduction and this large value is very appropriate 8.4% 7.7% 7.9%
lighting 9.9 9.9 0 0% 9.9 0 0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% suspension / chassis 378.9 275.5 103.4 27% Scaling used in report may have lead to a greater than achievable reduction in this mature subsystem 217 161.9 43% Scaling used in report may have lead to a greater than achievable reduction in this mature subsystem 13% 12% 11%

glazing 43.71 43.7 0.01 0% 43.7 0.01 0% Polycarbonate glazing (at least on side fixed glass) is worth a try here 1.5% 1.8% 2.3% misc 30 22.9 7.1 24% 22.9 7.1 24% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% sum less p.t. 1289.5 1008 78% 792 61%
engine 410 356 54 13% Here is where mass compounding would be useful. Engine is not sized for vehicle mass 356 54 13% Here is where mass compounding would be useful. Engine is not sized for vehicle mass 14% 15% 18%
Curb 2989 2373 616.2 21% 1940 1049 35%

**Low Development Vehicle High Development Vehicle**  **sub sys mass/curb mass**

These subs ys tem mass - to - curb mass ratios (far right side of Table 3.1) are shown in Figure 3.1. S everal general comments can be made based on this bar chart. F irst, powertrain mass is high relative to curb mass for both development vehicles. This may bedue to the change in powertrain ty

pe, but a confirmation is needed. S econd, the chassis ratio for both development vehicles is lower than the Venza. The changes to the chassis were relatively minor other than theE
- 49

material change in the sub
- frame. In such a technically m ature subs ys tem as the suspensions, one would not expect to see such a ratio reduction. The suspensions were scaled linearl y using gross axle mass. This procedure may have been overly

optimistic (see Appendix A.10 and Equations B.2 & B.3 of this review). F inall y, note that the body ratio for the High Development vehicle is low (proportionally much lighter) compared to the Venza. This raises a question as to the acceptable level of risk for the body p roposal. This is a great concern; Refer to Appendix A.5 of this review for more detailed comments on the body proposals. This graph als o suggests additional mass reduction opportunities exist for bumpers and glazing. **subsyst em mass**  **/ c ur** **b mass**  **of g**  **iv en**  **vehci le** 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Bod y Cl osur es / f end ers bumper s th er ma l el ec in terior li ght in g suspensi on / chassi s gl azi ng mi sc engi ne Venza

lo w d ev hi ghd ev

**Figure 3.1 Subsystem mass -** **to -**  **curb weight ratio for study vehicles**

(Based on data in Table 3.1)

**- Comments on the cost conclusions**  **:** The reliance on supplier estimates may introduce a low
- side bias to the cost estimates (suppliers having an interest in promoting their technology). A larger concern is that tooling costs have not explicitly b een included in the estimates. Given that many of the proposed technologies have pro cess time slower than the current automobile manufacturing rates, this cost will be an important one to comprehend. The very important ye arl y volume is only discovered in a footnote (p. 304) and a reference note (12) as 60,000/year. This piece of information is critical to valid cost estimates and needs to be clarified even more. For example, most subsystems in production today

support a vehicle platform which is shared across several vehicles. Is this the case here? If so, the yearly volume may b e much greater than 60k. This is significant because the lower volume will favor materials and systems which allow integration of several parts into one (the module idea mentioned in the report), and which have a lower tooling cost with a slower cycle time (the emphasis on plastics and non - ferrous alloy m etals in the report). S o, not only i s the cost estimate influenced by v olume, but the actual configuration design. Given these uncertainties, the cost conclusions need to be clarified and extended.

**- Customer ac**  **ceptance :**  The researchers have been very c onservative regarding the technology impact on the consumer. The proposed technologies would be transparent to the customer or a positive from aE
- 50

performance aspect. This conservative bias may b e excessive in two areas: The proposed large wheels and tires (heavier) were selected to maintain styling proportions. Given the focus on mass reduction, why not challenge designers to make the smaller wheels visually acceptable? Also, the lighter rear suspension twist axle was rejected as not appropriate for the market. Was this based on functionality, or customer perceptions? If the latter, perhaps perceptions need to be changed.

**- Technology maturity**  : Other than the body

proposal for the High Development Vehicle, the technology maturity of the proposals is appropriate for the timeframes. The High Development body i s challenging because of the many

and demanding functional requirements (crashworthiness, NVH, durability), because the body

i s the platform of the vehicle ( i.e. presents a high vehicle system failure risk, not just a technology

risk for the subs ys tem), and because so many advanced body technologies are being proposed (alternative materials, joining methods for dissimilar materials, manufacturing strategy, dim ensional control,.. ). In a recommendation below is a suggestion for development work on this subsystem proposal before basing a vehicle program around it.

**- Im** **provements that**  **can be**  **readily mad**  **e: Concerns**  **and recommendations**  **for improvement**  **:** 1) Cost estimates “did not include indirect costs”, and “including tooling costs was beyond the scope”. This is a serious omission as discussed above in the comments on the cost conclusions. Recommendation

-Use a simple, transparent cost model to capture tooling and equipment costs, and also consider volume sensitivity . (See Appendix B.3 of this review.) 2) Technology

selection relied heavily

on expert judgment. Some form of explicit analysis for all alternatives would allow the reader to evaluate the evidence for the report conclusions and also gain downstream buy
- in (It is preferable to debate data leading to a conclusion rather than to debate the final outcome). Recommendations

- Present a clearly

defined mass reduction number for each technology even for those not adapted, with a ranking by marginal value (e.g. mass savings per unit cost)

- Some first order analysis should be done beyond expert judgment. For example, comparison of recommendations with a statistical benchmark model would give confidence that the recommendation is neither to aggressive nor not aggressive enough. M aterial selection procedures like the Ashby m ethod will do the same for material recommendations. (See Appendix B of this review.) 3) The lightest mass rear suspension configuration, the twist axle, was not adapted because “it is not a competitive architecture for the Venza’s target market segment”.E
- 51

Recommendation

- This decision should be revisited. Is the twist axle not functionally capable of meeting requirements, or is the rejection due to cus tomer perceptions of this type of axle? 4) It is not clear if the interactions between the selected subs ys tems were taken into account. For example, given the change from I.C. powertrain to hybrid, was the effect of battery packaging and mass taken into account in the body recommendations? 5) Larger wheels and tires than those functionally required were recommended due to styling constraints. It was estimated that this increased mass by over 4 kg. Recommendation
- Review this decision in comparison to the more risky technologies used in the High Development body structure to save the same 4kg. 6) The body proposal for the High Development is very high risk. It should be reevaluated.

**- Im** **provements that are more exploratory :**  1) There is a risk of omission of a potentially s ignificant mass reducing technology alternatives. A key e lement of the design process is to generate many, many alternatives before the anal ys is and selection step. The objective of this is to insure that the risk of overlooking a high value technology

is minimized. Recommendation

- Do a broader search of technologies from sources outside of traditional automotive suppliers; patents, lateral technologies, aerospace, university research. 2) Most technologies suggested were subs ys tem material or subsystem configuration changes. Suggestions for overall vehicle architecture changes were very l imited. (An example of an architecture change which was included in the report is the very e ffective idea of seat attachment points at the rocker and tunnel.) O ften changes to the vehicle architecture can have a large influence on mass and are also very cost effective. Recommendation

- Perform a similar study but focused on mass reducing vehicle architecture changes. Examples to illustrate this point are: a) Bolt
- in hood which becomes a structural member thereb y reducing body s tructure mass b) Structural door latches and locks which contribute to the overall stiffness of the body c) Thinner, larger section roof pillars using a truss - like construction to have minimal vision obscuration. d) Interior cross - car beam at the B pillar mid
-height to provide a load path for side impact loads (side impact loads are today an important mass driver) 3) Generally, development of a new technology which can be modularize d has a much lower risk than those technologies which are part of the vehicle platform. Here a module is defined as a subsystem which fits to the platform at interfaces and can easil y be interchanged for another. If the new technology

i s modular and does not prove to be feasible, an alternative technology can be ‘plugged in’ its place without causing a system failure. This reduces overall programE
- 52

risk. If however, the new platform does not prove feasible, the whole vehicle system fails. The extremes of thi s notion in the context of this investigation are the interior components (modules) which provide low system risk and are appropriately aggressively

pursed in the report; and the body

s tructure (platform) which has high system risk and should be pursued only with caution. Recommendation a) Direct future work to the lower risk interior components where the benefits of mass reduction are great and the risk of s ys tem failure is low. b) For the high s ys temic risk body structure, see the following. 4) A report recommendation was made to “Design and anal yz e the body s tructure for stiffness, vibration, and impact performance; and estimation of the resulting mass and cost for High and/or Low Development Vehicle”. Recommendation

- Work at the level of the Low Development body s tructure is already occurring at OEMs and steel supplier groups. There would be very l ittle value in duplicating these. H owever, the body s tructure for the High Development vehicle has many challenges even given the advanced timeframe. The High development body proposal would benefit from analysis and investigation of joining methods, structural performance at interfaces, robustness studies (e.g. thermal expansion differences), optimal part breaks and modules, etc. 5) Styling can act as a mass driver in vehicle design in many ways. The proportions a styl ist looks for can result in the compromises which increase mass (an example is wheel and tire sizing). Recommendation

- Consider a project in which engineering requirements for mass reduction plac e constraints on styling. The exploration of the visual results of these constraints would be very useful in future light weight vehicle designs. Example constraints include right
- sized wheels and tires, less glass, structurally advantages proportions. **Ap pendix A. Comments on Specific Subsystems**  **by Dr. Donald Malen** For each of the following sections, the report recommendations are summarized in the box. This is followed by the reviewer’s comments. ( Sections are denoted A.X where X denotes the section number in the original report.) **A.5 Body Structure** Material alternatives described: High strength steel, aluminum stampings and castings, magnesium castings, composites (sheet, multi
- layer, carbon fiber). For each area a qualitative list of the primary functions was provided. Recommendations (Part details are in Appendix Table 17b to 17h): Low Development vehicle
- Targeted substitution of high strength and advanced high strength steel grades based on studies performed by TyssenKrupp Steel AG 9
-NewSteeelBody concept, and Volkswagen et al.
- Superlight
- CAR project. High Development vehicle
high level of part consolidation ( mo dularization) floor and underbody:E
- 53 aluminum roll form section at tunnel magnesium castings in transition areas composite load f

loor using long glass fiber reinforced polypropylene dash panel: single magnesium casting using over mold process to provide NVH materials shock tower: magnesium casting front chassis rail: aluminum extrusion front transition at dash: magnesium casting front end module: magnesium casting body side: aluminum extrusions at sills multiple aluminum stampings for inner, rear quarter panel, and shotgun magnesium castings reinforcements thermoplastic door aperture roof assembly: aluminum stamping surface magnesium castings cross members The resulting mass and cost estimate as a percent of the Venza are Low Development: mass 84.1% and cost 98%; High Development: mass 57.8% and cost 135%. The low development vehicle proposal is low technical ri sk and should meet cost goals. There is extensive literature on applications of Advanced High Strength Steel, and this proposal is consistent with those estimates for both mass reduction and cost. There is concern that the high development body proposal has high technical risk even given the 2017 timeframe. While there are some examples of experimental bodies using some of the suggested technologies, the reviewer is not aware of any applications in even limited production which apply

all these technologies
. The multi
- material proposal will have several challenges. For example, 1) joining the dissimilar materials in a means that will meet dimensional control during manufacturing, 2) meeting the process time for an automotive rate of production, 3) meeting d urability requirements particularl y at the interfaces, 4) meeting robustness requirements over the wide range of thermal, humidity, servicing/repair which the body will be subjected to. The last point is particularly challenging in scaling up the experience from limited production or experimental applications to a mass produced vehicle used in the full range of environments in the US. Further concern is directed to the extensive part consolidation (modularity) proposed, Figure 5.4.3.e to Figure 5.4.3.f. The benefits of this ty pe of modularity are in part elimination and the resulting joining process elimination. This is motivated by the need to lower total cost when higher cost materials are used (magnesium and composite in this case). An additional motivation for modularity when using these materials is the lower tooling cost. The down
- side to modularity

i s the loss of some ability to optimize the structure for shape, thickness, and tailored material properties at specific locations. Also, the forming process for these large modules places more constraints on the structural shapes which can be achieved. The execution of these very

l arge modules with reasonable die actions and production volumes will be challenging, as will be dimensional control. Figure 5.4.3.a and b show illustrations of the exterior vehicle design. While attractive appearing, what is it about these designs that are enabling mass reduction? The exterior shapesE
- 54

should be promoting light weight subs ys tems or a vehicle architecture which in some way uniquely allows mass reduction. For example, specific panel crowns to promote structural stiffness. Perhaps the panel breaks link to the suggested modularity, but the report does not describe these points in detail. Figure 5.4.3.g illustrate s the High Development roof module concept. It is uncertain why a magnesium casting is preferred here, given the aluminum roof panel. Optimal magnesium beams do offer a marginal mass advantage relative to aluminum, however the optimum section size for magnesium is larger. This area of the roof, near the occupant head, is tightly c onstrained for package space and the full benefit of a magnesium beam might not be fully realized. Also, in this application, the increase in material cost is not offset by parts consolidation as with the other module proposals. Figure 5.4.3.f illustrates the High Development side assembly c oncept. Ac oncern with this ty pe of construction is the small package space remaining for roof side rail and pillar structural sections. In this ty pe of construction, the side frame is unexposed and covered by the door. Vision obscuration dictates the overall size of the pillars from the outside, and the build up of door, trim, seal, and flanges leave a relatively s mall space for the structural section. This package size issue coupled with use of lower modulus materials makes meeting stiffness and roof crush requirements with this proposal a challenge. Only detailed packaging and anal ys is can assess the degree of risk for this case. Prior to adoption of this high development body proposal, the report’s recommendation to “Design and anal ys is of the body s tructure for stiffness, vibration, and impact performance; and estimation of the resulting mass and cost for High and/or Lo w Development Vehicle” is strongl y endorsed. Finally, given the method for cost estimation focusing on piece cost alone, the cost estimate for the High Development vehicle body i s very troublesome. B ody

c omponents are highl y tooling dependent. M ost of the technology p roposals will require a manufacturing process with very

different cycle times (much slower) than today ’s production rate. The efficient manufacturing volume using current body c onstruction and processes is approximately 2 00,000 units per ye ar. T o reach this volume, OEMs will consider the body to be a platform shared by several vehicles. This makes comparing costs between a current body and an alternative body with a substantiall y different cost structure difficult at best. A recommendation is made to do a first order analysis of total costs for the high development body which includes a sensitivity anal ys is with respect to ye arl y volume. Further, the target volume needs to be clarified for the case of the body. **A.6 Closures** Alternatives: S everal alternatives were considered with combinations of materials: high strength steel stampings, aluminum, magnesium, thermoplastic outer panels, composites, and integration of multiple functions (modularity). Recommendations: Low Development Side doorsE
- 55 Faurecia integrated door module high strength steel inner and outer (94% Venza mass, 108% cost) aluminum inner and outer (80% Venza mass, 161% cost) aluminum outer, steel inner (91% Venza mass, 101% cost) aluminum outer, cast magnesium inner (91% Venza mass, 125% cost) selected> thermoplastic outer, h
. s . steel inner (89% Venza mass, 93% cost) Hood high strength steel inner and outer (91% Venza mass, 102% cost) selected> aluminum inner and outer (77% Venza mass, 185% cost)

aluminum outer, steel inner (85% Venza mass, 137% cost) Tailgate high strength steel inner and outer (91% Venza mass, 101% cost)

aluminum inner and outer (87.5% Venza mass, 184% cost) aluminum outer, steel inner (91% Venza mass, 151% cost) aluminum outer, c ast magnesium inner (60% Venza mass, 196% cost) selected> thermoplastic outer, cast mag
. inner (55% Venza mass, 148% cost)

thermoplastic outer, h
. s . steel inner (72% Venza mass, 86% cost) Fender
- polyphenylene oxide/polyamide alloy (57% Venza ma ss, 44% cost) High Development Side doors Faurecia advanced integrated door module inner panel: molded composite (trim integrated & carry operating mechanisms) door structure: cast magnesium (including mounting points for hinges and latch) outer panel: composite Hood aluminum inner and outer conventional rear hinging and latch Tailgate see side door description above The resulting mass and cost estimate as a percent of the Venza are Low Development: mass 75% and cost 108% (Table 6.5.1a); H igh Development: mass 58.7% and cost 76%. (Table 6.5.2a) Itis not clear why

the low development vehicle would use a costly c ast magnesium inner Tailgate. F igure A.1 of this review illustrates the cost- mass reduction trade
- off. It appears plastic outer, high strength steel inner would be appropriate given the cost constraint of the low development vehicle. The trade
- off line shown in Figure A.1 is a 2.4% cost increase for a 1% mass reduction. At this value for mass reduction, both (plastic outer, high s trength steel inner) and (plastic outer, magnesium inner) are equally preferred. If the decision maker’s value
- of
mass - reduction is more than this, the (plastic outer, magnesium inner) would be preferred, if not the (plastic outer, high strength steel inner) would be preferred. More clarification for the basis of this decision would be helpful.E
- 56 **Ta ilgate**  **com par**  **ison low de**  **vel opm** **en t**  **veh icle**  **ta ilgate**  **m ate**  **rial oute r/**  **inne r**  **note d** 
al pl/m g pl/s t steel

al/s t al/m g

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0 0.5 1 **conce pt m** **ass as fr action of V**  **en za** **c o** **n c** **e p** **t c** **o s** **t a** **s f** **r a** **c t** **i o** **n o** **f V** **e n** **z a** 

**Figure A.1 Low development tailgate alternatives** (Using data from report Table 6.4.1.b) Has the thermal expansion difference between metal inners and thermoplas tic outers been considered? This may

drive unanticipated mass into a fastening system which allows relative motion. A bolt
- down hood has syn ergy with body

s tructure mass. W as this architecture change considered for the high development vehicle? Figure 6 .4.2g illustrates the hood assembly on the styling concept. D oes this exterior style enable any

mass reduction in the hood? **A.7 Bumpers** Alternatives described: aluminum, magnesium castings, energy absorbing foam. Recommendation: Both Low and High Dev.
- alum front and rear (89% mass and 103 % cost) Bumper mass should be scaled down based on the new curb mass for each vehicle, it appears high based on Figure 3.1 of this review. Both steel and aluminum are very mass competitive for bumpers. S teel bumpers may b e a better mass reduction
- to - cost trade
- off for the low development vehicle. A rigidly mounted front bumper has sy nergy with body

s tructure mass. Was this architecture change considered? **A.8 Glazing**E
- 57

Alternatives: reduce glazed area, reduce glass thi ckness, lighter substitute material (polycarbonate) Recommendation: Both Low and High Development
- carry over Venza glazing It would be useful to consider slightl y thinner glass (both development vehicles), or polycarbonate on the side fixed glass on the high development vehicle. **A.9 Interior** Seats
- see report pp 95
- 107 Instrument Panel/console
- report pp 139
- 142 Hard trim/interior trim
- report pp 150
- 155 Controls
-report pp 163
- 167 Safety
- not targeted, carried over Venza HVAC and ducting
-report pp 171
- 1 74 Closure trim
-report pp 183
- 184 The interior is a relatively l ow risk/high opportunity area for mass reduction and it is appropriate that so much effort has been devoted to this area. The interior mass as a fraction of curb mass for each vehicle appears to be appropriatel y scaled down; The work on interiors is thorough and appropriate. **A.10 Chassis** Several alternative technologies were identified and described for each of the partitions: front and rear suspensions, steering, wh eels & tires, sub
- frame, and brake. The methodology for the chassis systems selection differed somewhat from that for the other subsystems. Here the lightest systems from the benchmark data set were selected and scaled using the ratio of Gross Axle Weights (Table 10.1a). These s elections were further modified with selected mass reducing parts. Recommendations: Front suspension, steering, and sub
- frame (both Low and High Development Vehicles) Scaled 2005 VW Passat (McPherson strut type) High strength steel spring Nylon upper spring seat Aluminum strut top mount Cast Magnesium sub
- frame Tubular stabilizer bar Aluminum Knuckle Integral Hub/knuckle/bearing Additional technology for High Development Vehicle: Foam filled steel control arm Rear suspension (both Low and High De velopment Vehicles) Scaled 2005 Alfa Romeo (Three link Chapman strut type) High strength steel spring Aluminum top mount Aluminum knuckle Brakes (both Low and High Development Vehicles) ( could not locate Table 10.4.1c) Scaled 2008 Toyota Prius Modi fied hydraulic pump, bracket, pipes, Park brake actuator Additional technology for High Development Vehicle: Floating cast aluminum caliperE
- 58 Tires and wheels (both Low and High Development Vehicles) 2009 Toyota Prius (P225/60R19) Additional technology for High Dev
. Veh: Ablation cast wheel, eliminate spare & tools Two decisions seem perplexing given the objective of mass reduction. First, the wheel diameter was constrained to 19 inches for styl ing reasons (maintaining side view appearance). ‘Right siz ing’ wheels and tires offer a significant mass reduction of 4.4 kg as reported. Is it a forgone conclusion that an attractive vehicle cannot be styl ed around smaller wheels? Second, is the selection of other than the lowest mass rear suspension configuration (twist axle), because “it is not a competitive architecture for the Venza’s target market segment”. (The twist axle is 4.3 kg lighter than the next lightest suspension in the benchmark data of Table 10.3f.) Given the wide range of vehicles using twist axles one would expect that performance could be made acceptable. The scaling method to down
- size the front and rear suspension may have been too aggressive. When the suspensions are compared as a fraction of the curb mass of the vehicle they support, both low and high development vehicle suspensions are a much smaller fraction compared with the original Venza, Figure 3.1 of this review. Given the relatively m odest changes to the suspensions this is an area of concern. **A.11 Air Conditioning System** Recommendation: Both Lo w and High Development
- C arry over Venza HVAC mo dule and air distribution systems. Given the comprehensive nature of the investigation, it would seem there could be some suggestions for this system, even if only f or the High Development v ehicle. B eyond the AC system mass influence, the power requirement of the AC has a large influence on real fuel consumption. Just as an example technology : The air conditioning module is sized in part by time
- to - cool the interior after a hot soak under so lar load. A solar powered ventilation fan running during the soak (vehicle parked, engine off) will greatl y reduce the interior temperature and allow a smaller A/C unit. **A.12 Electrical** Alternatives: Copper clad aluminum (CCA), aluminum low mass wire coatings, optical based signal transmission and multiplexing. Recommendation: Lo w Development: CCA for all wiring,
- carry over Venza lighting (71% mass and 95 % cost) High Development: CCA for all wiring,
- thin wall Noryl cladding, carry over Venza lighting (63.6% mass and 96 % cost) Was a 24 volt electrical system considered or adapted? How does the exchange of internal combustion powertrain for hybrid affect wire mass? **A.13 Powertrain**E
- 59 The task for the powertrain investigation of this report wa s to estimate a powertrain mass consistent with the subsystem mass reductions recommended. This powertrain estimation wo uld act as a placeholder prior to mo re detailed design and analysis. One powertrain wa s estimated for both the Lo w and High Development vehicles, but with the possibility of additional technology applied to the High Development Vehicle for further mass reduction. A hybrid single planetary dual mo de system

was selected using a resized Lotus project SABRE engine. The three cylinder engine was sized to a displacement of 1 liter to maintain a consistent HP/mass ratio with the Venza. (A

b alance shaft eliminates the primary shaking couple.) A LiMn2O4
- Spinel battery wa s selected and sized for the vehicle parameters of the Development vehicles. T he resulting mass estimate is 356.2 kg for the overall powertrain system including fuel mass, com pared with 410.4 kg for the Venza. When powertrain mass is compared as a fraction of curb mass for the vehicle it moves, the fraction is greater for both the high and low development vehicles as compared with the original Venza fraction, Figure 3.1 in this review. This may be due to the change in powertrain ty pe. The powertrain scaling for the new vehicle mass should be confirmed.

**Appendix B: Recommendation for Methodo logy by Dr. Donald Malen**  In Section 2, a recommendation was made to supplement the report with a transparent, data
- driven methodology. Such a method is suggested here along with some supporting anal ys is tools. A generally

accepted approach to mass reduction consists of the following steps [4]: **Step 1: Determine mass for the reference vehicle** (The Toyota Venza) **Step 2: Identify Mass Reduction Technologies** a) Id entify

a s many technologies as possible meeting the technical risk criteria for the time horizon. b) Technologies should be sized to function in the reference vehicle at that gross vehicle mass. (S ee Section B.1 for a statistical mass benchmarking tool to support this step.) **Step 3: Sort Mass Reduction Technologies by Cost** a) Determine total mass and total cost for each technology
. (See Section B.2 for a material selection technique and Section B.3 for a cost modeling tool to support this step.) b) Calculate the mass increase relative to the subsystem in the reference vehicle, and the cost increase relative to the reference vehicle. c) Determine the marginal cost of mass, mc , (cost increase per unit mass reduction) for each technology
. d) Rank all technologies from the lowest marginal cost to greatest (lower marginal cost technologies are more cost e fficient). (See Section B.4 for an example of selection by marginal cost.) e) Beginning at the top of the ranking and moving down, select technologies until the vehicle mass target is met (or the cost budget is exceeded). **Step 4: Estimate the new Vehicle Mass Using Mass Compounding** E
- 60

The mass reduction is step 3 was based on a gross vehicle mass for the reference vehicle (Step 1). Mass compounding will adjust the final subsystem masses as they are resized for secondary mass reductions. (See Section B.5 for a Mass Compounding Model.) Several first order anal ys is tools support this methodology . The most significant are 1) Statistical mass benchmarking, 2) Quantitative material selection, 3) Cost modeling, 4) Use of marginal cost, and 5) Mass compounding. **B .1 Statistical Mass Benchmarking**  In statistical mass benchmarking [2, 3], data from a large population of vehicles are investigated using statistical models. Regression is used to fit predictive equations relating subsystem mass to parameters on which ma ss depends (mass drivers). F or example, Figure B.1 shows McPherson strut lower control arm mass data for several vehicles (using the A2Mac1.com database). Both aluminum arms (dark dots) and steel arms (red dots) were in the sample. The Front Gross Axle Ma ss proved to be a statistically significant mass driver. Plotting the report recommendations on this graph quickl y shows the validity of the recommendations with respect to this population of vehicles. Charts like this enhance the reader’s confidence in the recommendations by direct comparison with a large sample of vehicles.

**Figure B.1 Example of statistical model application: Lower Control arm mass (with ball joint)**  (Report recommendations shown as open circles, Table 10.1 .a, 10.5.1.1, and 10.5.5.a )

[Presentation to American Axle Manufacturing, 8/31/2010] A further application of statistical benchmarking is shown using Equation B.1 which is an empirical relation for front suspension mass as a function of the statistically significant mass drivers. This was fit using the A2Mac1.com data base using 107 vehicles. It can be seen that the suspension mass is not linear with Front Gross Axle Mass, FGAM, but is proportional to approximately

the square root (power 0.5). The suspension mass also depends on suspension ty pe and vehicle typ e. average steel
average alum efficient steel

0 4 8 12 16

400 800 1200

Front Gross Axle Mass (kg) McPherson Lower Control Arm Mass (kg)

steel aluminum Venza Low Dev. HighE
- 61                
 Vehicle Utility .000 1 Vehicle

ger .881Passen 0 SLA 000
. 1 son .733McPher 0 ) , ( 45
. 1 5392
. 0 kg FGAM m SUSPENSION FRONT  Eqn. B.1
Inthe report, the front and rear suspension were assumed to vary l inearly with the Gross Axle Mass:

. 2 1 2 1 FGAM FGAM m m    Eqn. B.2 Also, a passenger c ar front suspension was scaled for use in an SUV vehicle. E quation B.1 would suggest a different scaling taking into account both the FGAM difference and the difference in service cycle resulting in Equation B.3 and a heavier mass estimate for the strut:      
 881

. 0 1
VWPASSANT LOWDEV VWPASSANT LOWDEV FGAM

FGAM m m

  Eqn. B.3 Using this scaling results is a slightly heavier suspension which may explain the low suspension
to - curb mass ratio, Figure 3.1 of this review. **B. 2 Quantitative Material Selection** The Ashb y method for material selection [5, 6] is a widel y accepted method to quickl y screen material alternatives based on functional objectives. For a specific function and objective, a Material Index ranks materials for that purpose. For example, for the application of a light, stiff thin - walled beam the Material Index is:

 9 / 5 E MI  Eqn. B.4 Materials with larger MI are preferred in the specific application. U sing this approach, a wide range of materials may

b e assessed for a given application in a very short time. F or example, Figure B.2 shows how materials would rank for the roof bow application (report recommends magnesium). C omparing aluminum with magnesium in Figure B.2, we see that magnesium is marginally

l ighter, but much more expensive (note log scale). Also the optimum magnesium section will require more package space in a highly constrained area.E
- 62 section size b (mm) steel aluminum CFRP GFRP magnesium titanium

log Material cost ( $)
Mass ( kg) steel aluminum CFRP magnesium titanium GFRP

**Figure B.2 Example of material selection for a light stiff beam** [Fundamentals of Auto Body Structure Design , SAE International, 2011] Tools such as the Ashb y method may not ultimately

lead to a different material recommendation (there other factors such as ability to consolidate parts and tooling cost), but the reader can follow the logic, and make the comparisons invited in plots like Figure B.2 **B. 3 First O rder Cost Model**  A full picture of subs ys tem cost should include volume sensitivity [5, 7]. As an example, Figure B.3 illustrates body- in
- white production cost sensitivity to production volume. Ty pical of this ty pe of anal ys is, different materials will have different efficient manufacturing volumes due to tooling cost, equipment cost, cycle time differences, and the ability to consolidate parts (modularity).

**Figure B.3 Example first order cost analysis sensitivity to volume** (Excerpt from Strategic Materials Selection In The Automobile Body: Economic Opportunities

For Polymer Composite Design , Figure 2 [8] ) Rather than quoting onl y a part cost as in the report, this ty pe of sensitivity

anal ys is will allow more strategic questions to be addressed. What are the break points in volume at which an alternate technology

becomes lower cost (total manufacturing cost)? Will it help to consider platforming a subsystem to increase volume? The data to evaluate such a cost model is modest, at least for screening purposes. Equation B.5 shows the basic equation and the parameters required.E
- 63 Eqn. B.5

Examples of a spreadsheet implementation of this cost model, which allows rapid volume sensitivity

studies, is at reference [9]. Also, the CES software package (www.grantadesign.com) allows rapid evaluation of cost. [5,6] **B. 4 Marginal cost of mass reduction** One means to insure that the selection of technologies is efficient is to rank technologies on marginal cost increase per unit of ma ss saved. An example of this approach is shown in Figure B.4 where 18 hy

pothetical mass reduction technologies are ranked by increasing marginal cost, mc , in column 4. I f the technologies are introduced into the design in this order, we will arrive at the most cost efficient solution. In the right
- most two columns are the resulting total cost and total mass for the vehicle including all technologies above that row (the beginning point is cost=100 and mass=100). F or this example, assume we hope to reduce mass by 2 0% (to 80) within a cost budget of a 20% increase (at most 120). The sequence of introducing the technologies is illustrated in Figure B.5. The point on the far right is the starting point. The first point to the left of the starting point is the introduction of technology A , the next left is with the additional introduction of technology B , etc. It can be seen that introducing technologies A to M to the design will meet the mass reduction target of 20% and be within the mass budget of 120. This set of technologies is the most efficient in meeting this goal. S uch an analysis would be very useful in supporting the recommendations of the report. Cost of equipment C **c** Cost of tooling C **t** Production rate ń Characteristics of the process Batch size n

Capital write
- off time two Load factor L Overhead rate C oh 

##   oh wo c t m C n t L C n n C f C m C 

  1 1 1         

              

  Characteristics of the material Cost of material C **m**

Mass of component m scrap fraction f Material cost Tooling

cost Equipment

cost Labor,

overheadE
- 64 **mass reduction**  **technology mass** 

**red. cost**  **inc. cost**  **unit mass**  **(mc) total** 

**cost total**  **mass**
100 100 A 1 -1.2 -0.12 98.8 99 B 0.5 -0.5 -0.1 98.3 98.5 C 0.6 0 0 98.3 97.9 D 0.7 0.4 0.057 98.7 97.2 E 1.5 1 0.067 99.7 95.7 F 1 0.7 0.07 100.4 94.7 G 0.7 0.5 0.071 100.9 94 H 6.5 5 0.077 105.9 87.5 I 0.5 0.5 0.1 106.4 87 J 2.1 2.2 0.105 108.6 84.9 K 0.4 0.5 0.125 109.1 84.5 L 4 5.5 0.138 114.6 80.5 M 1.2 2.5 0.208 117.1 79.3 N 0.6 2 0.333 119.1 78.7 O 0.5 1.7 0.34 120.8 78.2 P 0.2 0.7 0.35 121.5 78 Q 2.8 10 0.357 131.5 75.2 R 1.5 7.5 0.5 139 73.7 **Figure B.4 Example of mass reduction technologies ranked by margin cost (hypothetical data)** 

90 100 110 120 130 140 150

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 **Total Mass T** **o t** **a l** **C o** **s t** 

**Figure B.5 Efficient mass reduction. Starting point at far right (100, 100)** Mass objective of 20% reduction shown by the vertical line in green, Cost budget of +20% shown by the horizontal line in red A E L ME
- 65

**B.5 Mass Compounding Model** Mass compounding allows a subs ys tem designed for a reference vehicle mass to be adjusted or downsized to fit the vehicle under consideration. For example, given a balanced vehicle under design, a primary

m ass reduction occurs before the design is finalized. What is the f inal vehicle mass after resizing subsystems for this primary mass change? To visualize this situation consider a vehicle with reference mass M GVM = 1000 kg
. All subsystems have been sized based on this gross vehicle mass. N ow assume a 10 kg reduction is made in a subsystem

—the primary

mass reduction. A ssume that for this vehicle, the vehicle mass influence coefficient is 0.4
. ( The influence coefficient is the incremental change in subsystem mass for a unit change in gross vehicle mass).

980 990 1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resizing iteration Gross vehicle mass ( kg) Primary

mass change

0 0.4*10 0.4*(0.4*10) 0.4*(0.4*(0.4*10)) 983.3 Secondary mass change due to resizing subsystems • 1000 kg GVM

• 10 kg of initial mass change (primary change)
• vehicle mass influence coefficient = 0.4

**Figure B.6 Mass Compounding Example**  Figure B.6 illustrates the changes in gross vehicle mass as this vehicle is redesigned in response to the initial 10 kg mass reduction. The first change is the primary reduction of 10 kg resulting in new M

GVM=990 kg
. All subsystems were based on a 1000 kg vehicle mass, and subsystems can now be resized to this lower gross vehicle mass. This resizing results in a further reduction of (0.4)(10kg) =4 kg, and a new M GVM=990

- 4=986 kg
. N ow the components are sized for 990 kg, but the vehicle mass is 986 kg so another resizing can occur, as shown in the figure. The resizing repeats for an infinite number of iterations, but does converge to a final value of M GVM =983.3 kg
. This final vehicle mass represents a primary reduction of 10 kg, and a secondary reduction due to this resizing of 6.7 kg
. This mass compounding behavior can be modeled very c onvenientl y to allow adjustments to the subsystem mass estimates. The report makes some adjustments to subsystem mass given the vehicle mass (suspension system and powertrain). But other subs ys tems appear not to have been adjusted. Mass compounding would facilitate this adjustment. A spreadsheet model is available at reference [4].E
- 66 **Appendix C: Selected References by Dr. Donald Malen**

**- Statistical**  **based mass estimation and management** [1] de Weck , O., A Systems Approach to Mass Budget Management, Paper AIAA 2006
- 7055, 11th AIAA/I SSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, September 2006. [2] Malen, D., Automotive Mass Benchmarking, Internal report of the Auto
- Steel Partnership and US Automotive Materials Partnership, May 15, 2010. [3] Reinventing Automotive Steel, Great Designs in Steel conference, May 5, 2010 http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisp lay .cfm&CONTENTID=38292

**- Mass compounding**  [4] Malen, D., & Reddy, K., Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using Empirical Subsystem Influence Coeff

icients , American Iron and Steel Institute, April, 2007, http://www.a
sp.org/publications.htm select: Future Generation Passenger Compartment, then select: Mass Compounding Calculator or http://www.worldautosteel.org/Projects/MassReduction/ASPReport.aspx

**- Material selection**  [5] Ashby, M. F., **Materials Selection in Mechanical Design** , Elsevier Science, Burlington MA 19 92. [6] Ashby, M. F., **Materials Engineering, Science, Processing and Design** , Elsevier Science, Burlington MA 2007.

**- Cost estimation: MIT Materials Systems Laboratory**  [7] Field, F., Kirchain, R., and Roth, R. Process Cost Modeling: Strategic Engineering an d Economic Evaluation of Materials Technologies , **JOM** , October, 2007 [8] Fuchs, E., Field, F., Roth, R., Kirchain, R., Strategic Materials Selection In The Automobile Body: Economic Opportunities For Polymer Composite Design , **Composites Science and Technolo**  **gy** , 68 (2008) 1989

–2002 [9] Spreadsheet Cost Models Available http://www.worldautosteel.org/Projects/CostModels/Free
- Cost
- Models.aspx

**- Current Advanced High Strength**  **Steel body projects by suppliers** [10] Overview Report: FutureSteelVehicle Steel Technology Assessment and Design Methodology , 30June 2010. http://www.worldautosteel.org/Proj ects/Future
- Steel
- Vehicle.aspx http://www.worldautosteel.org/Projects/UL SAB
- AVC/Programme
- Detail.aspx