Peer Review of Demonstrating the 

Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 

Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover 

Vehicle (Lotus Phase 2 Report) 
Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

Systems Research and Appliction Corporation

EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-007

Submitted February 2012

Peer Review of Demonstrating the 

Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 

Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover 

Vehicle (Lotus Phase 2 Report) 

EPA-420-R-12-028

September 2012
2

Peer Review of Demonstrating the Safety and 

Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, MassReduced Crossover Vehicle (Lotus Phase 2 Report)

Table of Contents

I. Peer Review of the Lotus Phase 2 Report, Conducted by SRA International p. 4

1. Background p. 4

2. Description of Review Process p. 5

3. Compilation of Review Comments p. 6

4. References p. 54

Appendices

A. Resumes of Peer Reviewers p. 55

B. Conflict of Interest Statements p. 75

C. Peer Review Charge & Conference Call Notes p. 93

D. Reviews p. 101

II. EPA’s Response to Peer Review Comments p. 142
3

Executive Summary

In September 2011, EPA contracted with SRA International (SRA) to conduct a peer review of 

Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle 

(Lotus Phase 2 Report), developed by Lotus Engineering, Inc.

The peer reviewers selected by SRA were William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), CG Cantemir, 

Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, Tony Luscher, and Leo Rusli (The Ohio State University), 

Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, 

Srdjan Simunovic and members of the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated LS-DYNA 

modeling. EPA would like to extend its appreciation to all of the reviewers for their efforts in evaluating 

this report and the modeling. The reviewers brought useful and distinctive views in response to the 

charge questions. 

The first section of this document contains the final SRA report summarizing the peer review of the 

Lotus Phase 2 Report, including the detailed comments of each peer reviewer and a compilation of 

reviewer comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in the peer review charge.

The SRA report also contains the peer reviewers’ resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias 

questionnaires for each reviewer, and the peer review charge letter. The second major section contains 

our responses to the peer reviewers’ comments. In this section, we repeat the compiled comments 

provided by SRA and, after each section of comments, provide our response. We have retained the 

organization reflected in SRA’s compilation of the comments to aid the reader in moving from the SRA

report to our responses. 
4

TO: Cheryl Caffrey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality (OTAQ)

FROM: Brian Menard, SRA International

DATE: February 28, 2012

SUBJECT: Peer Review of Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, 

Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle (Lotus Phase 2 Report), developed by Lotus 

Engineering, Inc.

1. Background

In developing programs to reduce GHG emissions and increase fuel economy, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) have to assess the use of mass-reduction technology in 

light-duty vehicles. The availability, feasibility, and validation of lightweight materials and design 

techniques in the 2020 – 2025 timeframe is of high importance, especially considering its potential to be 

one of the major technology areas that could be utilized to help achieve the vehicle GHG and fuel 

economy goals.

The 2011 study by Lotus Engineering, Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 ModelYear, Mass Reduced Crossover Vehicle, was done under contract from CARB, coordinated by EPA and 

CARB, and involved technical collaboration on safety with NHTSA. The study was conducted specifically 

to help assess a number of critical questions related to mass-reduced vehicle designs in the 2020 – 2025 

timeframe. 

The Lotus study involves the design development and crashworthiness safety validation of a massreduced redesign of a crossover sport utility vehicle (i.e., starting from a 2009 Toyota Venza baseline)

using advanced materials and design techniques. The research entails the full conceptual redesign of a 

vehicle. This review for the 2011 Lotus study is referred to as “Phase 2” because it builds upon Lotus’ 

previous 2010 study An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017–2020 Model Year 

Vehicle Program, which for context is referred to as “Phase 1” here and in the 2011 study. This is noted 

because the 2011 “Phase 2” study involves the non-body components (e.g., interior, suspension, chassis)

relating back to “Phase 1” work. The Phase 1 BIW was redesigned in the Phase 2 work using an 

engineering design, safety testing, and validation of the vehicle’s body-in-white structure. 

This report documents the peer review of the Lotus Phase 2 Report. Section 2 of this memorandum 

describes the process for selecting reviewers, administering the review process, and closing the peer 

review. Section 3 summarizes reviewer comments according to the series of specific questions set forth 

in matrix contained in the peer review charge. The appendices to the memorandum contain the peer 

reviewers’ resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires for each reviewer, and the 

peer review charge letter. 
5

2. Description of Review Process

In August 2011, OTAQ contacted SRA International to facilitate the peer review of the Lotus Phase 2 

Report. The model and documentation were developed by Lotus Engineering, Inc.

EPA provided SRA with a short list of subject matter experts from academia and industry to serve as a 

“starting point” from which to assemble a list of peer reviewer candidates. SRA selected three 

independent (as defined in Sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of EPA’s Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition) 

subject matter experts to conduct the requested reviews. SRA selected subject matter experts familiar 

with automotive engineering and manufacturing, automotive materials, crash simulation, and cost 

assessment. The coverage of these subject areas is shown below in Table A.

Table A:

Peer Reviewer Experience and Expertise

Name Affiliation

Coverage

Automotive 

materials

Bonding

forming

Manufacturing 

assembly

Crash 

simulation

Cost 

assessment

LS-DYNA 

analysis

Douglas Richman Kaiser 

Aluminum Y Y Y / Y /

William Joost US DOE Y Y Y / / /

Srdjan Simunovic

Oak Ridge 

National 

Laboratory

Y Y / Y / Y

Glenn Daehn 

et al.

The Ohio State 

University Y Y Y Y Y Y

To ensure the independence and impartiality of the peer review, SRA was solely responsible for 

selecting the peer review panel. Appendix A of this report contains the resumes of the three peer 

reviewers. A crucial element in selecting peer reviewers was to determine whether reviewers had any 

actual or perceived conflicts of interest or bias that might prevent them from conducting a fair and 

impartial review of the CVCM and documentation. SRA required each reviewer to complete and sign a 

conflict of interest and bias questionnaire. Appendix B of this report contains an explanation of the 

process and standards for judging conflict and bias along with copies of each reviewer’s signed 

questionnaire.

SRA provided the reviewers a copy of the most recent version of the Lotus Phase 2 Report as well as the 

peer review charge. The charge included a matrix of questions issues upon which the reviewers were 

asked to comment. Reviewers were also encouraged to provide additional comments, particularly in 

their areas of expertise and work experience. Appendix C of this report contains the memo to reviewers 

from SRA with the peer review charge.

Two teleconferences between EPA, Lotus Engineering, the reviewers, and SRA was held to allow 

reviewers the opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they might have about the Lotus Phase 2 

Report and associated LS-DYNA modeling, and to raise any other related issues with EPA and SRA, 
6

including EPA’s expectations for the reviewers’ final review comments. The notes of this conference 

call are contained in Appendix C, following the peer review charge. SRA delivered the final review 

comments to EPA by the requested date. These reviews, contained in Appendix D of this report,

included the reviewers’ response to the specific charge questions and any additional comments they 

might have had.

3. Compilation of Review Comments

The Lotus Phase 2 Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), CG Cantemir, 

Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, Tony Luscher, and Leo Rusli (The Ohio State University 

(OSU)), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In

addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated 

LS-DYNA modeling. Appendix A contains detailed resumes for each of the reviewers. This section 

provides a compilation of their comments. The complete comments may be found in Appendix D. 
7

1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA 

SOURCES

COMMENTS

Please comment on the validity of 

any data sources and assumptions 

embedded in the study’s material 

choices, vehicle design, crash 

validation testing, and cost 

assessment that could affect its 

findings.

[Joost] The accuracy of the stress-strain data used for each material during CAE and crash analysis is critically important 

for determining accurate crash response. The sources cited for the material data are credible; however the Al yield 

stresses used appear to be on the high side of the expected properties for the alloy-temper systems proposed here. The 

authors may need to address the use of the slightly higher numbers (for example, 6061-T6 is shown with a yield stress of 

308 MPa, where standard reported values are usually closer to 275 MPa).

[Richman] Aluminum alloys and tempers selected and appropriate and proven for the intended applications. Engineering 

data used for those materials and product forms accurately represent minimum expected minimum expected properties 

normally used for automotive design purposes. 

Simulation results indicate a vehicle utilizing the PH 2 structure is potentially capable of meeting FMVSS requirements. 

Physical test results have not been presented to confirm model validity, some simulation results indicate unusual 

structural performance and the models do not address occupant loading conditions which are the FMVSS validation 

criteria. Simulation results alone would not be considered “validation” of PH 2 structure safety performance.

Cost estimates for the PH 2 vehicle are questionable. Cost modeling methodology relies on engineering estimates and 

supplier cost projections. The level of analytical rigor in this approach raises uncertainties about resulting cost estimates. 

Inconsistencies in reported piece count differences between baseline and PH 2 structures challenge a major reported 

source of cost savings. Impact of blanking recovery on aluminum sheet product net cost was explicitly not considered. 

Labor rates assumed for BIW manufacturing were $20/Hr below prevailing Toyota labor rate implicit in baseline Venza cost 

analysis. Cost estimates for individual stamping tool are substantially below typical tooling cost experienced for similar 

products. Impact of blanking recovery and labor rates alone would increase BIW cost by over $200. 

[OSU] Material data, for the most part, seems reasonably representative of what would be used in this type of automotive 

construction. Some of the materials are more prevalent in other industries like rail, than in automotive. 

Material specifications used in this report were nominal; however, reviewers would like to see min/max material 

specifications taken into consideration. 
8

If you find issues with data sources 

and assumptions, please provide 

suggestions for available data that 

would improve the study.

[Joost] Materials properties describing failure are not indicated (with the exception of Mg, which shows an in-plane failure 

strain of 6%). It seems unlikely that the Al and Steel components in the vehicle will remain below the strain localization or 

failure limits of the material; it’s not clear how failure of these materials was determined in the models. The authors 

should indicate how failure was accounted for; if it was not, the authors will need to explain why the assumption of 

uniform plasticity throughout the crash event is valid for these materials. This could be done by showing that the 

maximum strain conditions predicted in the model are below the typical localization or failure limits of the materials (if 

that is true, anyway).

Empirical determination of the joint properties was a good decision for this study. The author indicates that lap-shear tests 

demonstrated that failure occurred outside of the bond, and therefore adhesive failure was not included in the model. 

However, the joints will experience a variety of stress states that differ from lap-shear during a crash event. While not a 

major deficiency, it would be preferable to provide some discussion of why lap-shear results can be extended to all stress 

states for joint failure mode. Alternatively, the author could also provide testing data for other joint stress states such as 

bending, torsion, and cross tension.

[Richman] No comment.

[OSU] References for all of the materials and adhesives would be very helpful.

[Simunovic] The overall methodology used by the authors of the Phase 2 study is fundamentally solid and follows 

standard practices from the crashworthiness engineering. Several suggestions are offered that may enhance the outcome 

of the study. 

Material Properties and Models

Reduction of vehicle weight is commonly pursued by use of lightweight materials and advanced designs. Direct 

substitution of materials on a component level is possible only conceptually because of the other constraints stemming 

from the material properties, function of the component, its dimensions, packaging, etc. Therefore, one cannot decide on 

material substitutions solely on potential weight savings. In general, an overall re-design is required, as was demonstrated 

in the study under review. An overview of the recent lightweight material concept vehicle initiatives is given in Lutsey, 

Nicholas P., "Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to Automobile Mass-Reduction Technology." Institute of 

Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-10-10 (2010).

The primary body material for the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, is mild steel. Except for about 8% of Dual Phase 

steel with 590 MPa designation, everything else is the material which has been used in automobiles for almost a century 

and for which extensive design experience and manufacturing technologies exist. On the other hand, the High 

Development vehicle concept employs novel lightweight materials, many of which are still under development, such as Mg 
9

alloys and fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites. These materials are yet to be used in large quantities in mass 

production automobiles. Their lack of market penetration is due not only to a higher manufacturing cost , but also due to 

an insufficient understanding, experience and characterization of their mechanical behavior. To compensate for these 

uncertainties, designers must use higher safety factors, which then often eliminate any potential weight savings. In 

computational modeling, these uncertainties are manifested by the lack of material performance data, inadequate 

constitutive models and a lack of validated models for the phenomena that was not of a concern when designing with the 

conventional materials. For example, mild steel components dissipate crash energy through formation of deep folds in 

which material can undergo strains over 100%. Both analytical [Jones, Norman, "Structural Impact", Cambridge University 

Press (1997).] and computational methods [Ted Belytschko, T., Liu, W.-K., Moran, B., "Nonlinear Finite Elements for 

Continua and Structures", Wiley (2000).] of the continuum mechanics are sufficiently developed to be able to deal with 

such configurations. On the other hand, Mg alloys, cannot sustain such large deformations and strain gradients and, 

therefore, require development of computational methods to model material degradation, fracturing, and failure in 

general.

The material data for the vehicle model is provided in section 4.4.2. of the Phase 2 report. The stress-strain curves in the 

figures are most likely curves of effective plastic strain and flow stress for isotropic plasticity material constitutive models 

that use that form of data, such as the LS-DYNA ["LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual", Livermore Software Technology 

Corporation (LSTC), version 971, (2010).] constitutive model number 24, named MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY. A 

list detailing the constitutive model formulation for each of the materials of structural significance in the study would help 

to clarify this issue. Also the design rationale for dimensioning and selection of materials for the main structural parts 

would help in understanding the design decisions made by the authors of the study. The included material data does not 

include strain rate sensitivity, so it is assumed that the strain rate effect was not considered. Strain rate sensitivity can be 

an important strengthening mechanism in metals. For hcp (hexagonal close-packed) materials, such as AM60, high strain 

rate may also lead to change in the underlying mechanism of deformation, damage evolution, failure criterion, etc. Data 

for strain rate tests can be found in the open source [http://thyme.ornl.gov/Mg_new], although the properties can vary 

considerably with material processing and microstructure. The source of material data in the study was often attributed to 

private communications. Those should be included in the report, if possible, or in cases when the data is available from 

documented source, such as reference ["Atlas of Stress-Strain Curves", 2nd Ed., ASM International (2002).], referencing 

can be changed. Properties for aluminum and steel were taken from publicly available sources and private 

communications and are within accepted ranges.

Material Parameters and Model for Magnesium Alloy AM60

The mechanical response of Mg alloys involves anisotropy, anisotropic hardening, yield asymmetry, relatively low ductility, 

strain rate sensitivity, and significant degradation of effective properties due to the formation and growth of micro-defects 

under loading [Nyberg EA, AA Luo, K Sadayappan, and W Shi, "Magnesium for Future Autos." Advanced Materials & 

Processes 166(10):35-37 (2008).]. It has been shown, for example, that ductility of die-cast AM60 depends strongly on its 
10

microstructure [Chadha, G; Allison, JE; Jones, JW, "The role of microstructure and porosity in ductility of die cast AM50 and

AM60 magnesium alloys," Magnesium Technology 2004, pp. 181-186 (2004).], and, by extension, on the section thickness 

of the samples. In case when a vehicle component does not play a strong role in crash, its material model and parameters 

can be described with simple models, such as isotropic plasticity, with piecewise linear hardening curve. However, 

magnesium is extensively used across the High Development vehicle design [An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program, Lotus Engineering Inc., Rev 006A, (2010).]. In Phase 1 report, 

magnesium is found in many components that are in the direct path of the frontal crash (e.g. NCAP test). Pages 40-42 of 

Phase 1 report show magnesium as material for front-end module (FEM), shock towers, wheel housing, dash panel, toe 

board and front transition member. The front transition member seems to be the component that provides rear support 

for the front chassis rail. However, in Phase 2 report, pages 35-37, shock towers and this component were marked as made 

out of aluminum. A zoomed section of the Figure 4.2.3.d from the Phase 2 report is shown in Figure 1. [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 4.] The presumed part identified as the front transition member is marked with an arrow.

These assignments were not possible to confirm from the crash model since the input files were encrypted. In any case, 

since Mg AM60 alloy is used in such important role for the frontal crash, a more detailed material model than the one 

implied by the graph on page 32 of Phase 2 report [1] would be warranted. More accurate failure model is needed, as well. 

The failure criteria in LS-DYNA [6] are mostly limited to threshold values of equivalent strains and/or stresses. However, 

combination of damage model with plasticity and damage-initiated failure would probably yield a better accuracy for 

AM60.

Material Models for Composites

Understanding of mechanical properties for material denoted as Nylon_45_2a (reference [1] page 33) would be much 

more improved if the constituents and fiber arrangement were described in more detail. Numbers 45 and 2 may be 

indicating +/- 450 fiber arrangement, however, a short addition of material configuration would eliminate unnecessary 

speculation. An ideal plasticity model of 60% limit strain for this material seems to be overly optimistic. Other composite 

models available in LS-DYNA may be a much better option. 

[Simunovic, cont.]

Joint Models

Welded joints are modeled by variation of properties in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and threshold force for cutoff 

strength. HAZs are relatively easy to identify in the model because their IDs are in 1,000,000 range as specified on page 21 

of the report [1]. An example of the approach is shown in Figure 2 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 5.], where the arrows 

mark HAZs.

This particular connection contains welds (for joining aluminum parts) and bolts (for joining aluminum and magnesium). 

HAZ properties were not given in the report and they could not be checked in the model due to encryption. The bolt model 

properties were described that it fails at 130 MPa (page 38 of the report [1]), which corresponds to the yield stress of 
11

AM60. The importance of these joints cannot be overstated. They enforce stability of the axial deformation mode in the 

rails that in turn enables dissipation of the impact energy. The crash sequence of the connection between the front end 

module and the front rail is shown in Figure 3. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 6.]

The cracks in the front end module (Figure 3.2) and the separation between the front end module and the front rail (Figure 

3.3) are clearly visible. This zone experiences very large permanent deformations, as shown in Figure 4. [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 6.]

It is not clear from the simulations which failure criterion dominates the process. Is it the failure of the HAZ or is it the spot 

weld limit force or stress. Given the importance of this joint on the overall crash response, additional information about 

the joint sub-models would be very beneficial to a reader.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman] Study includes an impressive amount of design, crash, and cost analysis information. The radical part count reduction needs to be more fully 

explained or de-emphasized. Report also should address the greatly reduced tooling and assembly costs relative to the experience of today's automakers. 

Some conservatism would be appropriate regarding potential shortcomings in interior design and aesthetics influencing customer expectations and acceptance.

[OSU] One broad comment is that this report needs to be more strongly placed in the context of the state of the art as established by available literature. For 

example the work only contains 7 formal references. Also, it is not clear where material data came from in specific cases (this should be formally referenced, 

even if a private communication) and the exact source of data such in as the comparative data in Figure 4.3.2 is not clear. Words like Intillicosting are used to 

denote the source of data and we believe that refers to a specific subcontract let to the firm ‘intellicosting’ for this work and those results are shown here. This 

needs to be made explicitly clear. 
12

2. VEHICLE DESIGN 

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR

COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods 

used to analyze the materials 

selected, forming techniques, 

bonding processes, and parts 

integration, as well as the resulting 

final vehicle design.

[Joost] While appropriate forming methods and materials appear to have been selected, a detailed description of the 

material selection and trade-off process is not provided. One significant exception is the discussion and tables regarding 

the replacement of Mg components with Al and steel components in order to meet crash requirements.

Similarly, while appropriate joining techniques seem to have been used, the process for selecting the processes and 

materials is not clear. Additionally, little detail is provided on the joining techniques used here. A major technical hurdle in 

the implementation of multi-material systems is the quality, durability, and performance of the joints. Additional effort 

should be expended towards describing the joining techniques used here and characterizing the performance.

[Richman] Adhesive bonding and FSW processes used in PH 2 have been proven in volume production and would be 

expected to perform well in this application. Some discussion of joining system for magnesium closure inner panels to 

aluminum external skin and AHSS “B” pillar to aluminum body would improve understanding and confidence in those 

elements of the design.

Parts integration information is vague and appears inconsistent. Parts integration. Major mass and cost savings are 

attributed to parts integration. Data presented does not appear to results.

Final design appears capable of meeting functional, durability and FMVSS requirements. Some increase in mass and cost 

are likely to resolve structure and NVH issues encountered in component and vehicle level physical testing.

[OSU] More details are needed on the various aspects of joining and fastening. Comment on assembly.

Please describe the extent to 

which state-of-the-art design 

methods have been employed as 

well as the extent to which the 

associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

[Joost] Design is a challenging process and the most important aspect is having a capable and experienced design team 

supporting the project; Lotus clearly meets this need and adds credibility to the design results.

One area that is omitted from the analysis is durability (fatigue and corrosion) performance of the structure. Significant 

use of Al, Al joints, and multi-material joints introduces the potential for both fatigue and corrosion failure that are 

unacceptable in an automotive product. It would be helpful to include narrative describing the good durability 

performance of conventional (i.e. not Bentley, Ferrari, etc.) vehicles that use similar materials and joints in production 

without significant durability problems. In some cases, (say the weld-bonded Al-Mg joints), production examples do not 

exist so there should be an explanation of how these could meet durability requirements.

[Richman] Vehicle design methodology utilizing Opti-Struct, NASTRAN and LS-Dyna is represents a comprehensive and 
13

rigorous approach to BIW structural design and materials optimization.

[OSU] In order to qualify for mass production, a process must be very repeatable. Figure 4.2.4.a shows the results from 5 

test coupons. There are significant differences between all of these in peak strength and energy absorption. Such a spread 

of results would not be acceptable in terms of production.

[Simunovic] The Phase 2 design study of the High Development vehicle considered large number of crash scenarios from 

the FMVSS and IIHS tests. The simulations show reasonable results and deformations. Energy measures show that models 

are stable and have no sudden spikes that would lead to instabilities. The discretization of the sheet material is primarily 

done by proportionate quadrilateral shell elements, with relatively few triangular elements. The mesh density is relatively 

uniform without large variations in element sizes and aspect ratios. However, in my opinion, there are two issues that 

need to be addressed. One is the modeling of material failure/fracture and the other is the design of the crush zone with 

respect to the overall stopping distance. While the former may be a part of proprietary technology, the latter issue should 

be added to the description in order to better understand the design at hand. 

Material Failure Models and Criteria

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional designs is modeling of material fracture/failure. 

In the Phase 2 report [1] material failure is indicated only in AM60 although it may be reasonably expected in other 

materials in the model. Modeling of material failure in continuum mechanics is a fairly complex undertaking. In the current 

Lotus High Development model, material failure and fracture are apparently modeled by element deletion. In this 

approach, when a finite element reaches some failure criteria, the element is removed from simulations, which then 

allows for creation of free surfaces and volumes in the structure. This approach is notoriously mesh-dependent. It implies 

that the characteristic dimension for the material strain localization is of the size of the finite element where localization 

and failure happen to occur. Addition of the strain rate sensitivity to a material model can both improve fidelity of the 

material model, and as an added benefit, it can also help to regularize the response during strain localization. Depending 

on the amount of stored internal energy and stiffness in the deleted elements, the entire simulation can be polluted by the 

element deletion errors and become unstable. Assuming that only AM60 parts in the Lotus model have failure criterion, it 

would not be too difficult for the authors to describe it in more depth. Since AM60 is such a critical material in the design, 

perturbation of its properties, mesh geometry perturbations and different discretization densities, should be considered 

and investigate how do they affect the convergence of the critical measures, such as crash distances.

A good illustration of the importance of the failure criteria is the response of the AM60 front end module during crash. 

This component is always in the top group of components ranked by the dissipated energy. Figure 5 [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 7.] shows deformation of the front end module during the full frontal crash.

Notice large cracks open in the mid span, on the sides, and punched out holes at the locations of the connection with the 

front rail and the shotgun. Mesh refinement study of this component would be interesting and could also indicate the 
14

robustness of the design. Decision to design such a structurally important part out of Mg would be interesting to a reader.

There are other components that also include failure model even though they are clearly not made out of magnesium nor 

are their failure criteria defined in the Phase 2 report. Figure 6 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 8.] shows the sequence of 

deformation of the front left rail as viewed from the right side of the vehicle.

The axial crash of the front rails is ensured by their connection to the front end, rear S-shaped support and to the 

connections to the sub-frame. Figure 7 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 8.] shows the detail of the connectors between the 

left crush rail to the subframe.

Tearing of the top of the support (blue) can be clearly observed in Figure 7. The importance of this connection for the 

overall response may warrant parametric studies for failure parameters and mesh discretization.

Crash Performance of the High Development Vehicle Design

From the safety perspective, the most challenging crash scenario is the full profile frontal crash into a flat rigid barrier. The 

output files for the NCAP 35 mph test were provided by Lotus Engineering and used for evaluation of the vehicle design 

methodological rigor.

The two accelerometer traces from the simulation at the lower B-pillar locations are shown in Figure 8. [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 9.] When compared with NHTSA test 6601, the simulation accelerometer and displacement traces indicate 

much shorter crush length than the baseline vehicle.

When compared vehicle deformations before and after the crush, it becomes obvious where the deformation occurs. 

Figure 9 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 10.] shows the deformation of the front rail members.

It can be seen that almost all deformation occurs in the space spanned by the front frame rails. As marked in Figure 1, the 

front transition member (or a differently named component in case my material assignment assumption was not correct), 

supports the front rail so that it axially crushed and dissipated as much energy, as possible. For that purpose, this front rail 

rear support was made extremely stiff and it does not appreciably deform during the crash (Figure 10). [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 10.] It has internal reinforcing structure that has not been described in the report. These reinforcements 

enables it to reduce bending and axial deformations in order to provide steady support for the axial crush of the aluminum 

rail tube.

This design decision reduces the possible crush zone and stopping distance to the distance between the front of the 

bumper and the front of the rail support (Figure 9). The effective crash length can be clearly seen in Figure 11. [See 

Simunovic Comments, p. 11.]
15

We can see from the above figure that the front rail supports undergo minimal displacements and that all the impact 

energy must be dissipated in a very short span. Figure 12 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 12.] shows the points of interest to 

determine the boundary of the crush zone, and an assumption that crash energy dissipation occurs ahead of the front 

support for the lower rail.

Figure 13 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 12.] gives the history of the axial displacements for the two points above. At their 

maximum points, the relative reduction of their distance from the starting condition is 0.7 inches.

Since the distance between the front of the rail support and the rocker remains practically unchanged during the test, we 

can reasonably assume that majority of the crash energy is dissipated in less than 22 inches. To quickly evaluate the 

feasibility of the proposed design, we can use the concept of the Equivalent Square Wave (ESW) ["Vehicle crashworthiness 

and occupant protection", American Iron and Steel Institute, Priya, Prasad and Belwafa, Jamel E., Eds. (2004).]. ESW 

assumes constant, rectangular, impact pulse for the entire length of the stopping distance (in our case equal to 22 in) from 

initial velocity (35 mph). ESW represents an equivalent constant rectangular shaped pulse to an arbitrary input pulse. In 

our case ESW is about 22 g. Sled tests and occupant model simulations indicate that crash pulses exceeding ESW of 20 g 

will have difficulties to satisfy FMVSS 208 crash dummy performance criteria [11]. For a flat front barrier crash of 35 mph 

and an ESW of 20 g, the minimum stopping distance is 24 in. Advanced restraint systems and early trigger airbags may 

need to be used in order to satisfy the injury criteria and provide sufficient ride down time for the vehicle occupants.

The authors of the study do not elaborate on the safety indicators. I firmly believe that such a discussion would be very

informative and valuable to a wide audience. On several places, the authors state values for average accelerations up to 30 

ms from the impact, and average accelerations after 30 ms. When stated without a context, these numbers do not help 

the readers who are not versed in the concepts of crashworthiness. The authors most likely refer to the effectiveness time 

of the restraint systems. An overview of the concepts followed by a discussion of the occupant safety calculations for this 

particular design would be very valuable.

If you are aware of better methods 

employed and documented 

elsewhere to help select and 

analyze advanced vehicle materials 

and design engineering rigor for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest 

how they might be used to 

improve this study.

[Joost] No comment.

[Richman] No comment.

[OSU] No suggestions at this time.
16

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] This is a very thorough design process, undertaken by a very credible design organization (Lotus). There are a variety of design assumptions and tradeoffs that were made during the process (as discussed above), but this would be expected for any study of this type. Having a design team from Lotus adds 

credibility to the assumptions and design work that was done here.

Section 4.5.8.1 uses current “production” vehicles as examples for the feasibility of these techniques. However, many of the examples are for extremely highend vehicles (Bentley, Lotus Evora, McLaren) and the remaining examples are for low-production, high-end vehicles (MB E class, Dodge Viper, etc.). The cost of 

some technologies can be expected to come down before 2020, but it is not reasonable to assume that (for example) the composites technologies used in 

Lamborghinis will be cost competitive on any time scale; significant advances in composite technology will need to be made in order to be cost competitive on a 

Venza, and the resulting material is likely to differ considerably (in both properties and manufacturing technique) from the Lamborghini grade material.

[Richman] [1] Achieving a 37% BIW mass reduction with a multi material design optimized for safety performance is consistent with recent research and 

production vehicle experience. BIW mass reductions resulting from conversion of conventional BIW structures to aluminum based multi-material BIW have 

ranged from 35%-39% (Jaguar XJ, Audi A8) to 47% (OEM study). BIW related mass reductions above 40% were achieved where the baseline structure was 

predominantly mild steel. A recent University of Aachen (Germany) concluded BIW structures optimized for safety performance utilizing low mass engineering 

materials can achieve 35-40% mass reduction compared to a BIW optimized using conventional body materials. A recent BIW weight reduction study 

conducted at the University of Aachen (Germany)”. http://www.eaa.net/en/applications/automotive/studies/

Most of the BIW content (materials, manufacturing processes) selected for the PH 2 vehicle have been in successful volume auto industry production for 

several years. 

[2] Closures/Fenders: Mass reduction in the closure and fender group is 59 Kg, 41% of baseline Venza. This level of mass reduction is consistent with results of 

the Aachen and IBIS studies and industry experience on current production vehicles. Hood and fenders on the PH 2 vehicle are aluminum. Recent Ducker 

Worldwide Survey of 2012 North American Vehicles found over 30% of all North American vehicles have aluminum hoods and over 15% of vehicle have 

aluminum fenders. PH 2 use of aluminum for closure panels is consistent with recognized industry trends for these components. PH 2 doors utilize aluminum 

outer skins over cast magnesium inner panels. 

[3] Material properties: Aluminum alloy and temper selection for BIW and Closures are appropriate for those components. Those materials have been used in 

automotive applications for several years and are growing in popularity in future vehicle programs.

[4] Typical vs. Minimum properties: Automobile structural designs are typically based on minimum mechanical properties. Report does not identify the data 

used (minimum or typical). Aluminum property data used in for the PH 2 design represents expected minimum values for the alloys and tempers. This 

reviewer is not able to comment on property values used for the other materials used in the BIW.

[5] Aluminum pre-treatment: PH 2 vehicle structure utilizes adhesive bonding of major structural elements. Production vehicle experience confirms pre-
17

treatment of sheet and extruded aluminum bonding surfaces is required to achieve maximum joint integrity and durability. PH 2 vehicle description indicates 

sheet material is anodized as a pre-treatment. From the report it is not clear that pretreatment is also applied to extruded elements. 

The majority of high volume aluminum programs in North America have moved away from electrochemical anodizing as a pre-treatment. Current practice is 

use of a more effective, lower cost and environmentally compatible chemical conversion process. These processes are similar to Alodine treatment. 

Predominant aluminum pre-treatments today are provided by Novelis (formerly Alcan Rolled Products) and Alcoa (Alcoa 951). Both processes achieve similar 

results and need to be applied to the sheet and extruded elements that will be bonded in assembly

[6] Suspension and Chassis: Suspension/chassis PH 2 mass reduction is 162 Kg (43% of baseline). This level of mass reduction is higher than has been seen in 

similar studies. Lotus PH 2 includes conversion of steering knuckles, suspension arms and the engine cradle to aluminum castings. Mass reductions estimated 

for conversion of those components are estimated at approximately 50%. Recent Ducker study found aluminum knuckles are currently used on over 50% of 

North American vehicles and aluminum control arms are used on over 30% of North American vehicles. Achieving 50% mass reduction through conversion of 

these components to aluminum is consistent with industry experience.

[7] Wheel/Tire: Total wheel and tire mass reduction of 64 Kg (46%) is projected for the wheel and tire group. Project mass reduction is achieved through a 

reduction in wheel and tire masses and elimination of the spare tire and tool kit. 

Tire mass reduction is made possible by a 30% reduction in vehicle mass. Projected tire mass reduction is 6 Kg for 4 tires combined. This mass reduction is 

consistent with appropriate tire selection for PH 2 vehicle final mass. 

Road wheel mass reduction is 5.6 Kg (54%) per wheel. It is not clear from the report how this magnitude of reduction is achieved. The report attributes wheel 

mass reduction to possibilities with the Ablation casting process. PH 1 report discussion of Ablation casting states: “The process would be expected to save 

approximately 1 Kg per wheel.” Considering the magnitude of this mass reduction a more detailed description of wheel mass reduction would be appropriate.

Elimination of the spare tire and jack reduces vehicle mass by 23 Kg. This is feasible but has customer perceptions of vehicle utility implications. Past OEM 

initiatives to eliminate a spare tire have encountered consumer resistance leading to reinstatement of the spare system in some vehicles.

[8] Engine and Driveline: Engine and driveline for the PH 2 vehicle were defined by the study sponsors and not evaluated for additional mass reduction in the 

Lotus study. Baseline Venza is equipped with a technically comprehensive conventional 2.7 L4 with aluminum engine block and heads and conventional 6 

speed transmission. PH 2 vehicle is equipped with a dual mode hybrid drive system powered by a turbocharged 1.0 L L-4 balance shaft engine. Engine was 

designed by Lotus and sized to meet the PH 2 vehicle performance and charging requirements. Mass reduction achieved with the PH 2 powertrain is 54 Kg. 

This level of mass reduction appears achievable based on results of secondary mass reductions resulting from vehicle level mass reductions in excess of 20%.

[9] Interior: Lotus PH 2 design includes major redesign of the baseline Venza interior. Interior design changes achieve 97 Kg (40%) weight reduction from the 

baseline interior. Majority of interior weight reduction is achieved in the seating (43 Kg) and trim (28 Kg). Interior weight reduction strategies in the PH 2 

design represent significant departures from baseline Venza interior. New seating designs and interior concepts (i.e.: replacing carpeting with bare floors and 

floor mats) may not be consistent with consumer wants and expectations in those areas. Interior trim and seating designs used in the PH 2 vehicle have been 
18

explored generically by OEM design studios for many years. 

[10] Energy balance: Is presented as validation of the FEM analysis. For each load case an energy balance is presented. Evaluating energy balance is a good 

engineering practice when modeling complex structures. Energy balance gives confidence in the mathematical fidelity of the model and that there are no 

significant mathematical instabilities in the calculations. Energy balance does not confirm model accuracy in simulating a given physical structure. 
19

3. VEHICLE 

CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING 

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR.

COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods 

used to analyze the vehicle body 

structure’s structural integrity and 

safety crashworthiness. 

[Joost] Regarding my comment on joint failure under complex stress states, note that in figure 4.3.12.a the significant 

plastic strains are all located at the bumper-rail joints. While this particular test was only to indicate the damage (and cost 

to repair), the localization of plastic strain at the joint is somewhat concerning.

The total-vehicle torsional stiffness result is remarkably high. If this is accurate, it may contribute to an odd driving “feel”, 

particularly by comparison to a conventional Venza; higher torsional stiffness is usually viewed as a good thing, but the 

authors may need to address whether or not such extreme stiffness values would be appealing to consumers of this type 

of vehicle. While there doesn’t appear to be a major source of error in the torsional stiffness analysis, the result does call 

into question the accuracy; this is either an extraordinarily stiff vehicle, or there was an error during the analysis.

[Richman] LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part art as 

well as science, the assumption had to be made that Lotus has sufficient skills and experience to generate a valid 

simulation model.

[OSU] The crash simulations that were completed seem to be well created models of the vehicle that they represent. The 

geometry was formed from mid-surface models of the sheet metal. Seat belt and child restraint points are logically 

modeled.

Please describe the extent to 

which state-of-the-art crash 

simulation testing methods have 

been employed as well as the 

extent to which the associated 

analysis exhibits strong technical 

rigor. 

[Joost] This is outside of my area of expertise

[Richman] Model indicates the PH 2 structure could sustain a peak load of 108 kN under FMVSS 216 testing. This is 

unusually high for an SUV roof, and stronger than any roof on any vehicle produced to date. Result questions stiffness and 

strength results of the simulations.

Intrusion velocities and deformation are used as performance criteria in the side impact simulations. Performance 

acceptability judgments made using those results, but no data was given for comparison to any other vehicle.

Occupant protection performance cannot be judged based entirely on deformations and intrusion velocities.

Report states that “the mass-reduced vehicle was validated for meeting the listed FMVSS requirements.” This is an 

overstatement of what the analysis accomplished. FMVSS test performance is judged based on crash dummy accelerations 

and loads. The FEM analysis looked only at BIW acceleration and intrusion levels. While these can provide a good basis for 
20

engineering judgment, no comparison to physical crash test levels is provided. “Acceptable” levels were defined by Lotus 

without explanation. Results may be good, but would not be sufficient to “validate” the design for meeting FMVSS 

requirements.

Model has not been validated against any physical property. In normal BIW design development, an FEM is developed and 

calibrated against a physical test. The calibrated model is considered validated for moderate A:B comparisons.

[OSU] Animations of all of the crash tests were reviewed. These models were checks for structural consistence and it was 

found that all parts were well attached. The deformation seen in the structure during crash seems representative of these 

types of collisions. Progressive deformation flows in a logical manner from the point of impact throughout the vehicle.

[Simunovic] The documented results in the study show that authors have employed current state-of-the-art for 

crashworthiness modeling and followed systematic technical procedures. This methodology led them through a sequence 

of model versions and continuous improvement of the fidelity of the models. I would suggest that a short summary be 

added describing the major changes of the Phase 2 design with respect to the original High Development vehicle body 

design.

For reviewers with vehicle crash 

simulation capabilities to run the 

LS-DYNA model, can the Lotus 

design and results be validated?*

[Joost] N/A

[Richman] Some validation can be done by reviewing modeling technique and assumptions, but without any form of 

physical test comparison, the amount of error is unknown and can be significant. 

FEM validation was presented in the form of an energy balance for each load case. Energy balance is useful in confirming 

certain internal aspects of the model are working correctly. Energy balance does not validate how accurately the model 

simulates the physical structure. Presenting energy balance for each load case and suggesting balance implies FEM 

accuracy is misleading.

[OSU] The actual LS-DYNA model crash simulations were not rerun. Without any changes to the inputs there would be no 

changes in the output. Discussion of the input properties occurs in Section 2.

[Simunovic] The authors had several crash tests of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, to use for comparison and 

trends. Tests 6601 and 6602 were conducted in 2009 so that they could be readily used for the development. The data 

from test 6601 was used in the Phase 2 report for comparison. Test 6602 was not used for comparison in the report. 

While the report abounds with crash simulations and graphs documenting tremendous amount of work that authors have 

done, it would have been very valuable to add comparison with the 6602 test even at the expense of some graphs. Page 

72 of the Phase 2 report starts with comparison of the simulations with the tests and that is one of the most engaging parts 

of the document. I suggest that it warrants a section in itself. It is currently located out of place, in between the simulation 
21

results and it needs to be emphasized more. This new section would also be a good place for discussion on occupant 

safety modeling and general formulas for the subject.

One of the intriguing differences between the simulations and baseline vehicle crash test is the amount and the type of 

deformation in the frontal crash. As noted previously, computational model is very stiff with very limited crush zone. 

Viewed from the left side (Figure 14) [See Simunovic Comments, p. 14.], and from below (Figure 15) [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 15.], we can see that the majority of the deformation is in the frame rail, and that the subframe’s rear 

supports do not fail. The strong rear support to the frame rail, does not appreciably deform, and thereby establishes the 

limit to the crash deformation.

The overall side kinematics of the crash is shown in Figure 16. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 15.] The front tires barely 

touch the wheel well indicating a high stiffness of the design. Note that the vehicle does not dive down at the barrier.

The numbers 1-4 below the images denote times after impact of 0ms , 35ms, 40 ms, and 75ms, respectively. The times 

were selected based on characteristic event times observed in crash simulations.

The following images are from the NHTSA NCAP crash test 7179 for 2011 Toyota Venza. The response is essentially the 

same as for the 2009 version, but the images are of much higher quality so that they have been selected for comparison. 

These times corresponding to the times in Figures 15 and 16 are shown in Figure 17. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 16.]

The subframe starts to rapidly break off of the vehicle floor around 40 ms, and therefore allows for additional deformation. 

In Lotus vehicle this connection remains intact so that it cannot contribute to additional crash length. The left side view of 

the test vehicle during crash at the same times is shown in Figure 18. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 17.]

There is an obvious difference between the simulations and the tests. The developed lightweight model and the baseline 

vehicle do represent two different types of that share general dimensions, so that the differences in the responses can be 

large. However, diving down during impact is so common across the passenger vehicles so that different kinematics 

automatically raises questions about the accuracy of the suspension system and the mass distribution. If such kinematic 

outcome was a design objective, than it can be stated in the tests.

If you are aware of better methods 

and tools employed and 

documented elsewhere to help 

validate advanced materials and 

design engineering rigor for 2020-

2025 vehicles, please suggest how 

they might be used to improve the 

study.

[Joost] While it’s not made explicit in the report, it seems that the components are likely modeled with the materials in a 

zero-strain condition – i.e. the strain hardening and local change in properties that occurs during stamping is not 

considered in the properties of the components. While not widely used in crash modeling (as far as I am aware), including 

the effects of strain hardening on local properties from the stamping process is beginning to find use in some design tools. 

While none of the materials used in this study have extreme strain hardening properties (such as you might find in TRIP 

steels or 5000 series Al), all of these sheet materials will experience some change in properties during stamping.

I do not consider the study deficient for having used zero-strain components, but it may be worth undergoing a simple 
22

study to determine the potential effects on some of the components. This is complicated by the further changes that may 

occur during the paint bake cycle. 

[Richman] Cannot truly be validated without building a physical prototype for comparison.

[OSU] LS-DYNA is the state of the art for this type of analysis. As time allows for the 2020-2025 model year, additional 

more detailed material modeling should occur. As an example the floor structure properties can be further investigated to 

answer structural creep and strength concerns.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman] Study is very thorough in their crash loadcase selections and generated a lot of data for evaluation. Might have included IIHS Offset ODB and IIHS 

Side Impact test conditions which most OEM's consider.

Study is less thorough in analyzing normal loads that influence BIW and chassis design (i.e. pot holes, shipping, road load fatigue, curb bump, jacking, twist 

ditch, 2g bump, etc.). 

Report indicates “Phase 2 vehicle model was validated for conforming to the existing external data for the Toyota Venza, meeting best-in-class torsional and 

bending stiffness, and managing customary running loads.” Only torsional stiffness is reported.

Modal frequency analysis data Is not reported.

Conclusions for many of the crash load cases (primarily dynamic) did not use simulation results to draw quantitative comparisons to the Toyota Venza or other 

peer vehicles. For instance, intrusion velocities for side impacts are reported. But, no analytical comparison is made to similar vehicles that currently meet the 

requirements. Comparable crash tests are often available from NHTSA or IIHS.

Remarkable strength exhibited by the FEM roof under an FMVSS test load raises questions validity of the model.

Model assumes no failures of adhesive bonding in materials during collisions. Previous crash testing experience suggest[s] some level of bonding separation 

and resulting structure strength reduction is likely to occur. 

Unusual simulation results – [1] Models appear reasonable and indicate the structure has the potential to meet collision safety requirements. Some unusual 

simulation results raise questions about detail accuracy of the models. 

[2] FMVSS 216 quasi-static roof strength: Model indicates peak roof strength of 108 KN. This is unusually high strength for an SUV type vehicle. The report 

attributes this high strength to the major load being resisted by the B-pillar. Several current vehicles employ this construction but have not demonstrated roof 

strength at this level. The report indicates the requirement of 3X curb weight is reached within 20 mm which is typically prior to the test platen applying 

significant load directly into the b-pillar.
23

[3] 35 MPH frontal rigid barrier simulation: Report indicates the front tires do not contact the sill in a 35 MPH impact. This is highly unusual structural 

performance. Implications are the model or the structure is overly stiff.

[4] Body torsional stiffness: Torsional stiffness is indicated to be 32.9 kN/deg. Higher than any comparable vehicles listed in the report. PH 2 structure torsional 

stiffness is comparable to significantly more compact body structures like the Porsche Carrera, BMW 5 series, Audi A8. It is not clear what elements of the PH 2 

structure contribute to achieving the predicted stiffness.

[5] Door beam modeling: Door beams appear to stay tightly joined to the body structure with no tilting, twisting or separation at the lock attachments in the 

various side impact load modes. This is highly unusual structural behavior. No door opening deformation is observed in any frontal crash simulations. This 

suggests the door structure is modeled as an integral load path. FMVSS requires that doors are operable after crash testing. Door operability is not addressed 

in the report.

[6] Safety analysis of the PH2 structure is based on collision simulation results using LS-Dyna and Nastran software simulations. Both software packages are 

widely used throughout the automotive industry to perform the type of analysis in this report.

Accuracy of simulated mechanical system performance is highly dependent on how well the FEM model represents the characteristics of the physical structure 

being studied. Accurately modeling a complete vehicle body structure for evaluation under non-linear loading conditions experienced in collisions is a 

challenging task. Small changes in assumed performance of nodes and joints can have a significant impact on predicted structure performance. Integration of 

empirical joint test data into the modeling process has significantly improved the correlation between simulated and actual structure performance. 

[OSU] This reviewer sat down with the person who created and ran the LS-DYNA FEA models. Additional insight into how the model performs and specific 

questions were answered on specific load cases. All questions were answered. 

Another reviewer which did not visit Lotus commented on the following: 1. The powertrain has more than 15% of the vehicle mass and therefore the right 

powertrains should be used in simulation.

2. The powertrain is always mounted on the body by elastic mounts. The crash behavior of the elastic mounts might easy introduce a 10% error in 

determination of the peak deceleration (failure vs not failure might be much more than 10%). So modeling a close-to-reality powertrain and bushing looks like a 

must (at least for me).

3. Although not intuitive, the battery pack might have a worst crash behavior than the fuel tank. Therefore the shoulder to shoulder position might be inferior 

to a tandem configuration (with the battery towards the center of the vehicle).

4. The battery pack crash behavior is of high importance of its own. It is very possible that after a crash an internal collapse of the cells and/or a penetration 

might produce a short-circuit. It should be noted that by the time of writing there are not developed any reasonable solutions to mitigate an internal shortcircuit. Although not directly life treating, this kind of event will produce a vehicle loss.
24

Also, very important, but subtle would be literature references that give an idea of how accurate the community can expect LS-DYNA crash simulations to be in 

a study such as this. Often manufacturers have the luxury of testing similar bodies, materials and joining methodologies and tuning their models to match 

broad behavior and then the effects of specific changes can be accurately measured. Here the geometric configuration, many materials and many joining 

methods are essentially new. Can Lotus provide examples that show how accurate such ‘blind’ predictions may be? 

Model calibration – Analytical models have the potential to closely represent complex non-liner structure performance under dynamic loading. With the 

current state of modeling technology, achieving accurate modeling normally requires calibration to physical test results of an actual structure. Models 

developed in this study have not been compared or calibrated to a physical test. While these simulations may be good representations of actual structure 

performance, the models cannot be regarded as validated without some correlation to physical test results.

Project task list includes dynamic body structure modal analysis. Report Summary of Safety Testing Results” indicates the mass reduced body exhibits “best in 

class” torsional and bending stiffness. The report discusses torsional stiffness but there is no information on predicted bending stiffness. No data on modal 

performance data or analysis is presented.
25

4. VEHICLE 

MANUFACTURING COST 

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR

COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods 

used to analyze the mass-reduced 

vehicle body structure’s 

manufacturing costs.

[Joost] The report does a good job of identifying, in useful detail, the number of workstations, tools, equipment, and other 

resources necessary for manufacturing the BIW of the vehicle. These are all, essentially, estimates by EBZ; to provide 

additional credibility to the manufacturing assessment it would be helpful to include a description of other work that EBZ 

has conducted where their manufacturing design work was implemented for producing vehicles. Lotus is a well-known 

name, EBZ is less well known. 

[Richman] Notable strengths of this analysis, besides the main focus on crash analysis, are the detail of assembly facility 

design, labor content, and BIW component tooling identification. 

Main weakness of the cost analysis is the fragmented approach of comparing costs derived in different approaches and 

different sources, and trying to infer relevant information from these differences. 

[OSU] Flat year-over-year wages for the cost analysis seems unrealistic.

Additional source information requested for wage rates for various locations. 

Please describe the extent to 

which state-of-the-art costing 

methods have been employed as 

well as the extent to which the 

associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

[Joost] This is not my area of expertise

[Richman] Vulnerability in this cost study appears to be validity and functional equivalence of BIW design with 169 pieces 

vs. 407 for the baseline Venza. 

Total tooling investment of $28MM for the BIW not consistent with typical OEM production experience. BIW tooling of 

$150-200MM would not be uncommon for conventional BIW manufacturing. If significant parts reduction could be 

achieved, it would mean less tools, but usually larger and more complex ones, requiring larger presses and slower cycle 

times. 

[OSU] Difficult to evaluate since this portion of the report was completed by a subcontractor. The forming dies seem to be 

inexpensive as compared to standard steel sheet metal forming dies.

If you are aware of better methods 

and tools employed and 

documented elsewhere to help 

[Joost] This is not my area of expertise

[Richman] Applying a consistent costing approach to each vehicle and vehicle system using a manufacturing cost model 
26

estimate costs for advanced 

vehicle materials and design for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest 

how they might be used to 

improve this study.

approach. This approach would establish a more consistent and understandable assessment of cost impacts of vehicle 

mass reduction design and technologies.

[OSU] None.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The assessment of the energy supply includes a description of solar, wind, and biomass derived energy. While the narrative is quite positive on the 

potential for each of these energy sources, it’s not clear in the analysis how much of the power for the plant is produced using these techniques. If the 

renewable sources provide a significant portion of the plant power, then the comparison of the Ph2 BIW cost against the production Venza cost may not be fair. 

The cost of the Venza BIW is determined based on the RPE and several other assumptions and therefore includes the cost of electricity at the existing plant. 

Therefore, if an automotive company was going to invest in a new plant to build either the Ph2 BIW or the current Venza BIW (and the new plant would have 

the lower cost power) then the cost delta between the two BIWs would be different than shown here (because the current Venza BIW produced at a new plant 

would be less expensive). The same argument could be made for the labor costs and their impact on BIW cost. By including factors such as power and labor 

costs into the analysis, it’s difficult to determine what the cost savings/penalty is due only to the change in materials and assembly – the impact of labor and 

energy are mixed into the result. 

[OSU] The number of workers assigned to vehicle assembly in this report seems quite low. Extra personal need to be available to replace those with unexcused 

absences. Do these assembly numbers also include material handling personnel to stock each of the workstations? 

While this work does make a compelling case it downplays some of the very real issues that slow such innovation in auto manufacturing. Examples: multimaterial structures can suffer accelerated corrosion if not properly isolated in joining. Fatigue may also limit durability in aluminum, magnesium or novel joints. 

Neither of these durability concerns is raised. Also, automotive manufacturing is very conservative in using new processes because one small process problem 

can stop an entire auto manufacturing plant. Manufacturing engineers may be justifiably weary of extensive use of adhesives, until these are proven in mass 

production in other environments. These very real impediments to change should be mentioned in the background and conclusions.

[Richman] Summary – Cost projections . . . lack sufficient rigor to support confidence in cost projections and in some cases are based on “optimistic” 

assumptions. Significant cost reduction is attributed to parts consolidation in the body structure. Part count data presented in the report appears to reflect 

inconsistent content between baseline and PH 2 designs. Body manufacturing labor rates and material blanking recovery are not consistent with actual 

industry experience. Using normal industry experience for those two factors alone would add $273 to body manufacturing cost. Tooling cost estimates for 

individual body dies appear to be less than half normal industry experience for dies of this type.

Cost modeling -- Assessing cost implications of the PH 2 design [is] a critically important element of the project. 

Total vehicle cost was derived from vehicle list price using estimated Toyota mark-up for overhead and profit. This process assumes average Toyota mark-up 

applies to Venza pricing. List price for specific vehicles is regularly influenced by business and competitive marketing factors. (Chevrolet Volt is believed to be 
27

priced significantly below GM corporate average margin on sales, while the Corvette is believed to be above target margin on sales.) System cost assumptions 

based on average sales margin and detailed engineering judgments can be a reasonable first order estimate. These estimates can be useful in allocation of 

relative to costs to individual vehicle systems, but lack sufficient rigor to support definitive cost conclusions

Baseline Venza system costs were estimated by factoring estimated total vehicle cost and allocating relative cost factors for each major sub-system (BIW, 

closures, chassis, bumpers, suspension, ...) based on engineering judgment. Cost of PH 2 purchased components were developed using a combination of 

estimated baseline vehicle system estimated costs, engineering judgment and supplier estimates. Cost estimates for individual purchased components appear 

realistic. 

Body costs for PH 2 design were estimated by combining scaled material content from baseline vehicle (Venza) and projected manufacturing cost from a new 

production processes and facility developed for this project. This approach is logical and practical, but lacks the rigor to support reliable estimates of new 

design cost implications when the design changes represent significant departures from the baseline design content. 

Body piece cost and tooling investment estimates were developed by Intgellicosting. No information was provided on Intellicosting methodology. Purchased 

component piece cost estimates (excluding BIW) are in line with findings in similar studies. Tooling costs supplied by Intellicosting are significantly lower than 

actual production experience would suggest.

Assembly costs were based on detailed assembly plant design, work flow analysis and labor content estimates. Assembly plant labor content (minutes) is 

consistent with actual BIW experienced in other OEM production projects.

The PH 2 study indicates and aluminum based multi material body (BIW, closures) can be produced for at a cost reduction of $199 relative to a conventional 

steel body. That conclusion is not consistent with general industry experience. This inconsistency may result from PH 2 assumptions of material recovery, labor 

rates and pars consolidation. 

A recent study conducted by IBIS Associates “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: Manufacturing and Life Cycle Cost Analysis” estimated a cost increase $560 for an 

aluminum vehicle BIW and closures. 

http://aluminumintransportation.org/members/files/active/0/IBIS%20Powertrain%20Study%20w%20cover.pdf

That study was conducted with a major high volume OEM vehicle producer and included part cost estimates using detailed individual part cost estimates. 

Majority of cost increases for the low mass body are offset by weight related cost reductions in powertrain, chassis and suspension components. Conclusions 

from the IBIS study are consistent with similar studies and production experience at other OEM producers.

BIW Design Integration -- Report identifies BIW piece count reduction from a baseline of 419 pieces to 169 for PH 2. Significant piece cost and labor cost savings 

are attributed to the reduction in piece count. Venza BOM lists 407 pieces in the baseline BIW. A total of 120 pieces are identified as having “0” weight and “0” 

cost. Another 47 pieces are listed as nuts or bolts. PH 2 Venza BOM lists no nuts or bolts and has no “0” mass/cost components. With the importance 
28

attributed to parts integration, these differences need to be addressed.

Closure BOM for PH 2 appears to not include a number of detail components that are typically necessary in a production ready design. An example of this is the 

PH 2 hood. PH 2 Hood BOM lists 4 parts, an inner and outer panel and 2 hinges. Virtually all practical aluminum hood designs include 2 hinge bracket 

reinforcements, a latch support and a palm reinforcement. Absence of these practical elements of a production hood raise questions about the functional 

equivalency (mounting and reinforcement points, NVH, aesthetics,...) of the two vehicle designs. Contents of the Venza BOM should be reviewed for accuracy 

and content in the PH 2 BOM should be reviewed for practical completeness.

Tooling Investment -- Tooling estimates from Intellicosting are significantly lower than have been seen in other similar studies or production programs and will 

be challenged by most knowledgeable automotive industry readers. Intellicosting estimates total BIW tooling at $28MM in the tooling summary and $70 MM 

in the report summary. On similar production OEM programs complete BIW tooling has been in the range of $150MM to $200MM. The report attributes low 

tooling cost to parts consolidation. This does not appear to completely explain the significant cost differences between PH 2 tooling and actual production 

experience. Parts consolidation typically results in fewer tools while increasing size, complexity and cost of tools used. The impact of parts consolidation on PH 

2 weight and cost appears to be major. The report does not provide specific examples of where parts consolidation was achieved and the specific impact of 

consolidation. Considering the significant impact attributed to parts consolidation, it would be helpful provide specific examples of where this was achieved 

and the specific impact on mass, cost and tooling. Based on actual production experience, PH 2 estimates for plant capital investment, tooling cost and labor 

rates would be viewed as extremely optimistic

Material Recovery -- Report states estimates of material recovery in processing were not included in the cost analysis. Omitting this cost factor can have a 

significant impact on cost of sheet based aluminum products used in this study. Typical auto body panel blanking process recovery is 60%. This recovery rate is 

typical for steel and aluminum sheet. When evaluation material cost of an aluminum product the impact of recovery losses should be included in the analysis. 

Potential impact of material recovery for body panels:

Approximate aluminum content (BIW, Closures) 240 Kg

Input material required at 60% recovery 400 Kg

Blanking off-all 160 Kg

Devaluation of blanking off-all (rough estimate)

Difference between raw material and

Blanking off-all $1.30/Kg $211

Blanking devaluation increases cost of aluminum sheet products by over $ 0.90/Kg.

Appropriate estimates of blanking recoveries and material devaluation should be included in cost estimates for stamped aluminum sheet components. 

Recovery rates for steel sheet products are similar to aluminum, but the economic impact of steel sheet devaluation is a significantly lower factor in finished 

part cost per pound.
29

Report indicates total cost of resistance spot welding (RSW) is 5X the cost of friction spot welding (FSW). Typical total body shop cost (energy, labor, 

maintenance, consumable tips) of a RSW is $0.05 - $0.10. For the stated ratio to be accurate, FSW total cost would be $0.01-$0.02 which appears unlikely. It is 

possible the 5X cost differential apply to energy consumption and not total cost. 

Labor rates -- Average body plant labor rates used in BIW costing average $35 fully loaded. Current North American average labor rates for auto manufacturing 

(typically stamping, body production and vehicle assembly) 

Toyota $55

GM $56 (including two tier)

Ford $58

Honda $50

Nissan $47

Hyundai $44

VW $38

Labor rate of $35 may be achievable (VW) in some regions and circumstances. The issue of labor rate is peripheral to the central costing issue of this study 

which is assessing the cost impact of light weight engineering design. Method used to establish baseline BIW component costs inherently used current Toyota 

labor rates. Objective assessment of design impact on vehicle cost would use same labor rates for both configurations.

Labor cost or BIW production is reported to be $108 using an average rate of $35. Typical actual BIW labor content from other cost studies with North 

American OEM’s found actual BIW labor content approaching $200. Applying the current Toyota labor rate of $55 to the PH 2 BIW production plan increases 

labor content to $170 (+$62) per vehicle.
30

5. CONCLUSION AND 

FINDINGS

COMMENTS

Are the study’s conclusions 

adequately backed up by the 

methods and analytical rigor of the 

study? 

[Joost] In the summary section there is an analysis that attempts to project the “potential weight savings” for vehicle 

classes beyond the Venza. The analysis is based on specific density which assumes that the architecture of the vehicles is 

the same. For example, the front-end crash energy management system in a micro car is likely quite different from the 

comparable system in a large luxury car (aside from differences in gauge to account for limited crash space, as discussed in 

the report). While this analysis provides a good starting point, I do not feel that it is reasonable to expect the weight 

reduction potential to scale with specific density. In other words, I think that the 32.4 value used in the analysis also 

changes with vehicle size due to changes in architecture. Similarly, the cost analysis projecting cost factor for other vehicle 

classes is a good start, but it’s unlikely that the numbers scale so simply. 

[Richman] 

Summary – General: Engineering analysis is very thorough and reflects the vehicle engineering experience and know-how 

of the Lotus organization. Study presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle total vehicle mass reduction using 

available design optimization tools, practical light weight engineering materials an available manufacturing processes. 

Results of the study provide important insight into potential vehicle mass reduction generally achievable by 2020.

Summary – Conclusions: Report Conclusions overstate the level of design “validation” achievable utilizing state-of-the- art 

modeling techniques with no physical test of a representative structure. From the work in this study it is reasonable to 

conclude the PH 2 structure has the potential to pass FMVSS and IIHS safety criteria. 

Summary – Mass Reduction: Majority of mass reduction concepts utilized are consistent with general industry trends. 

Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components appear reasonable and consistent with industry experience 

with similar components. As an advanced design concept study, the PH 2 project is a valuable and important piece of 

work. 

The PH 2 study did not include physical evaluation of a prototype vehicle or major vehicle sub system. Majority of 

the chassis and suspension content was derived from similar components for which there is extensive volume 

production experience. Some of the technologies included in the design are “speculative” and may not mature to 

production readiness or achieve projected mass reduction estimates by 2020. For those reasons, the PH 2 study is 

a “high side” estimate of practical overall vehicle mass reduction potential.

Summary – Safety: Major objective of this study is to “validate” safety performance of the PH 2 vehicle concept. Critical 

issue is the term “validate”. Simulation modeling and simulation tools used by Lotus are widely recognized as state-of-the-
31

art. Lotus modeling skills are likely to among the best available in the global industry. Project scope did not include 

physical test of the structure to confirm model accuracy. 

Safety performance data presented indicates the current structure has the potential to meet all FMVSS criteria, but would 

not be generally considered sufficient to “validated” safety performance of the vehicle. Physical test correlation is 

generally required to establish confidence in simulation results. Some simulation results presented are not consistent with 

test results of similar vehicles. Explanations provided for the unusual results do not appear consistent with actual 

structure content. Overstating the implications of available safety results discredits the good design work and conclusions 

of this study.

FMVSS test performance conclusions are based on simulated results using an un-validated FE model. Accuracy of the 

model is unknown. Some simulation results are not typical of similar structures suggesting the model may not accurately 

represent the actual structure under all loading conditions.

[OSU] Yes.

Are the conclusions about the 

design, development, validation, 

and cost of the mass-reduced 

design valid?

[Joost] Yes. Despite some of the critical commentary provided above, I believe that this study does a good job of 

validating the technical and cost potential of the mass-reduced design. The study is lacking durability analysis and, on a 

larger scale, does not include constructing a demonstration vehicle to validate the model assumptions; both items are 

significant undertakings and, while they would add credibility to the results, the current study provides a useful and sound 

indication of potential. 

[Richman] Safety performance and cost conclusions are not clearly support by data provided. 

Safety Conclusion – A major objective of the PH 2 study is to “validate” the light weight vehicle structure for compliance 

with FMVSS requirements. State of the art FEM and dynamic simulations models were developed. Those models indicate 

the body structure has the potential to satisfy FMVSS requirements. FMVSS requirements for dynamic crash test 

performance is defined with respect to occupant loads and accelerations as measured using calibrated test dummies. The 

FEM simulations did not include interior, seats, restraint systems or occupants. Analytical models in this project evaluate 

displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the body structure. Predicting occupant response based on body structural 

displacements velocities and accelerations is speculative. Simulation results presented are a good indicator of potential 

performance. These simulations alone would not be considered adequate validation the structure for FMVSS required 

safety performance.

[OSU] Yes.
32

Are you aware of other available 

research that better evaluates and 

validates the technical potential 

for mass-reduced vehicles in the 

2020-2025 timeframe?

[Joost] The World Auto Steel Ultra Light Steel Auto Body, the EU SuperLight Car, and the DOE/USAMP Mg Front End 

Research and Development design all provide addition insight into weight reduction potential. However, none are as 

thorough as this study in assessing potential in the 2020-2025 timeframe. 

[Richman] Most studies employing a finite element model validate a base model against physical testing, then do 

variational studies to look at effect. Going directly from an unvalidated FEM to quantitative results is risky, and the level of 

accuracy is questionable

[OSU] No.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
33

6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS 

FOR COMMENT

COMMENTS

Has the study made substantial 

improvements over previous 

available works in the ability to 

understand the feasibility of 2020-

2025 mass-reduction technology 

for light-duty vehicles? If so, 

please describe. 

[Joost] Yes. The best example was the Phase 1 study, which lacked much of the detail and focus included here. The other 

studies that I mentioned above do not go into this level of detail or are not focused on the same time frame. 

[Richman] Fundamental engineering work is very good and has the potential to make a substantial and important 

contribution to industry understanding of mass reduction opportunities. The study will receive intense and detailed critical 

review by industry specialists. To achieve potential positive impact on industry thinking, study content and conclusions 

must be recognized as credible. Unusual safety simulation results and questionable cost estimates (piece cost, tooling) 

need to be explained or revised. As currently presented, potential contributions of the study are likely to be obscured by 

unexplained simulation results and cost estimates that are not consistent with actual program experience.

[OSU] Yes.

Do the study design concepts have 

critical deficiencies in its 

applicability for 2020-2025 massreduction feasibility for which 

revisions should be made before 

the report is finalized? If so, 

please describe. 

[Joost] There is nothing that I would consider a “critical deficiency” however many of the comments outlined above could 

be addressed prior to release of the report. 

[Richman] Absolutely. Recommended adjustments summarized in Safety analysis, and cost estimates (recommendations

summarized in attached review report). Credibility of study would be significantly enhanced with detail explanations or 

revisions in areas where unusual and potentially dis-crediting results are reported. Conservatism in assessing CAE based 

safety simulations and cost estimates (component and tooling) would improve acceptance of main report conclusions. 

Impact of BIW plant site selection discussion and resulting labor rates confuse important assessment of design driven cost 

impact. Suggest removing site selection discussion. Using labor and energy cost factors representative of the Toyota 

Venza production more clearly identifies the true cost impact of PH 2 design content.

[OSU] No.

Are there fundamentally different 

lightweight vehicle design 

technologies that you expect to be 

much more common (either in 

addition to or instead of) than the 

one Lotus has assessed for the 

2020-2025 timeframe? 

[Joost] Some effort was made in the report to discuss joining and corrosion protection techniques, however it is possible 

that new techniques will be available prior to 2025. For example, there was very little discussion on how a vehicle which 

combines so many different materials could be pre-treated, e-coated, and painted in an existing shop. There will likely be 

new technologies in this area. 

[Richman] Technologies included in the PH 2 design are the leading candidates to achieve safe cost effective vehicle mass 

reduction in the 2020-25 timeframe. Most technologies included in PH 2 are in current volume production or will be fully 
34

production ready by 2015.

[OSU] No.

Are there any other areas outside 

of the direct scope of the analysis 

(e.g., vehicle performance, 

durability, drive ability, noise, 

vibration, and hardness) for which 

the mass-reduced vehicle design is 

likely to exhibit any compromise 

from the baseline vehicle?

[Joost] As discussed above, durability is a major factor in vehicle design and it is not addressed here. The use of advanced 

materials and joints calls into question the durability performance of a vehicle like this. NVH may also be unacceptable 

given the low density materials and extraordinary vehicle stiffness. 

[Richman] Most areas of vehicle performance other than crash performance were not addressed at all. Even basic 

bending stiffness and service loads (jacking, towing, 2-g bump, etc) were not addressed. The report claims to address 

bending stiffness and bending/torsional modal frequencies, but that analysis is not included in the report.

[OSU] The proposed engine size is based on the assumption that decreasing the mass of the vehicle and holding the same 

power–to-weight ratio will keep the vehicle performances alike. This assumption is true only if the coefficient of drag (Cda) 

will also decrease (practically a perfect match in all the dynamic regards is not possible because the quadratic behavior of 

the air vs speed). The influence of the airdrag is typically higher than the general perception. In this particular case is very 

possible that more than half of the engine power will be used to overcome the airdrag at 65 mph. Therefore aerodynamic 

simulations are mandatory in order to validate the size of the engine.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] Clallam county, WA is an interesting choice for the plant location (I grew up relatively nearby). Port Angeles is not a “major port” (total population 

<20,000 people) and access to the area from anywhere else in the state is inconvenient. 

[OSU] The Lotus design is very innovative and pushes the design envelope much further than other advanced car programs. The phase 1 report shows a great 

deal of topological innovation for the different components that are designed. 
35

Please provide any comments not characterized in the tables above.

[Joost] No comment.

[Richman] State-of-the art in vehicle dynamic crash simulation can provide A/B comparisons and 

ranking of alternative designs, but cannot reliably produce accurate absolute results without careful 

correlation to crash results. CAE is effective in significantly reducing the need for hardware tests, 

making designs more robust, and giving guidance to select the most efficient and best performing design 

alternatives. OEM experience to date indicates CAE can reduce hardware and physical test 

requirements, but cannot eliminate the need for some level of crash load physical testing. Quasi-static 

test simulations show potential for eliminating most if not all hardware (FMVSS 216 etc.), simulations of 

FMVSS 208, 214, IIHS ODB and others still required several stages of hardware evaluation. Given the 

challenges of simulating the complex crash physics of a vehicle composed of advanced materials and 

fastening techniques, hardware testing would generally be considered necessarily to “validate” BIW 

structures for the foreseeable future. 

Editorial – [1] Report makes frequent reference to PH 1 vehicle LD and HD configurations. These 

references seem unnecessary and at times confusing. PH 1 study references do not enhance the 

findings or conclusions of the PH 2 study. Suggest eliminating reference to the PH 1 study.

[2] Report would be clearer if content detail from PH 1 project that is part of PH 2 project (interior, 

closure, chassis content) is fully reported in PH 2 report. 

[3] Weight and Cost reduction references: Baseline shifts between Total Vehicle and Total Vehicle Less 

Powertrain. A consistent baseline may avoid confusion. Suggest using total vehicle as reference.

[4] Cost increases statements: Report makes a number of cost references similar to: 

Pg 4 - “The estimation of the BIW piece cost suggests an increase of 160 percent – over $700 – for the 

37-percent mass-reduced body-in-white.” 

The statement indicates the increase is 160%. The increase of $700 is an increase of 60% resulting in a 

total cost 160% of the baseline. 

Site selection – [1] PH 2 project includes an extensive site selection study. Site selection is not related to 

product design. Including economics based on preferential site selection confuses the fundamental 

issue of the design exercise. Assumption of securing a comparable site and achieving the associated 

preferential labor rates and operating expenses are at best unlikely. Eliminating the site selection and 

associated cost would make the report more focused and cost projections more understandable and

believable.

[2] Advantaged labor rates and possible renewable energy operating cost savings could be applied to 

any vehicle design. Entering those factors into the design study for the light weight redesign mixes 

design cost with site selection and construction issues.

[3] Site plan includes use of PV solar and wind turbines. Plant costs indicate general plant energy 

(lighting, support utilities, HVAC) (not processing energy) will be at “0” cost. True impact of renewable 

energy sources net of maintenance costs is at best controversial. Impact of general plant energy cost on 
36

vehicle cost is minimal. The issue of renewable energy sources is valid but peripheral to the subject of 

vehicle design. It would be clearer to use conventional general plant energy overhead in cost analysis of 

the Phase II design cost.

Development experience – PH 2 vehicle design described is representative of a predevelopment design 

concept. All OEM production programs go through this development stage. Most vehicle programs

experience some increase in mass and cost through the physical testing and durability development 

process. Those increases are typically driven by NVH or durability issues not detectable at the modeling 

stage. Mass dampers on the Venza front and rear suspension are examples of mass and cost increases. 

Vehicle mass increases of 2-3% through the development cycle are not unusual. It would be prudent to 

recognize some level of development related mass increase in the PH 2 mass projection.

Vehicle content – Pg. 214 Bumpers: Need to check statement: “Current bumpers are generally 

constructed from steel extrusions, although some are aluminum and magnesium.”

In North America 80% of all bumpers are rolled or stamped steel. Aluminum extrusions are currently

20% of the NA market. There are no extruded steel bumpers. There are no magnesium bumpers.

Technology – Majority of the design concepts utilized for PH 2 have been in reasonable volume 

automotive production for multiple years and on multiple vehicles. A few of the ideas represent a 

change in vehicle utility or are dependent on significant technology advancements that may not be 

achievable. Identifying the impact of currently proven technologies from speculative technologies may 

improve understanding of the overall study. 

Specific speculative technologies:

[1] Eliminate spare tire, jack, tools (23 Kg) - feasible, may influence customer perception of utility

[2] Eliminate carpeting - feasible, customer perception issue

[3] Dual cast rotors (2 Kg) - have been tried, durability issues in volume production, differential 

expansion and bearing temperature issues may not be solvable

[4] Wheels Ablation cast (22.4 Kg) - process has been run experimentally but has not been proven in 

volume. Benefit of process for wheel applications may not be achievable due to resultant metallurgical 

conditions of the as-cast surfaces.

[OSU] No comment.

[Simunovic] I would suggest that the organization of the document be reconsidered to add some 

information from the Phase 1 and more discussion about the design process. Especially interesting 

would be the guiding practical implementation of Lotus design steps as outlined at the beginning of the 

Phase 2 report. 
37

Review of Lotus Engineering Study “Demonstrating the Safety and 

Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle”

Srdjan Simunovic

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

simunovics@ornl.gov

Summary

This document provides expert opinions about the 2011 Lotus study titled “Demonstrating the Safety 

and Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle” (Lotus Phase 2 Study). 

The Phase 2 Study used the High Development lightweight vehicle design from the previous study titled 

“An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program” (Lotus 

Phase 1 Study), as the basis for the development of a new vehicle design that would meet the US 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests. The 

crashworthiness of the new design was evaluated using the computational modeling and simulations, 

only. This document reviews the methodologies, research findings, and conclusions from this study. In a 

nutshell, the Lotus Phase 2 crashworthiness study was performed in a consistent and professional 

manner, employing state-of-the-art computational modeling and simulation technology. Several design 

decisions, sub-model selections, discretization, material and failure assumptions have been identified 

for potential clarification and improvement.

1. Introduction

This document provides expert review of the 2011 Lotus study “Demonstrating the Safety and 

Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle“ [1]. The 2011 Lotus study 

builds on the previous 2010 Lotus project [2] that developed two lightweight conceptual designs of the 

existing vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza. The first design, referred to as the “Low Development” vehicle, was 

based on the materials and technologies that were deemed feasible for 2017 production. Its estimated 

reduction in mass mass compared to the baseline production vehicle was 21%. The second version, 

named “High Development” vehicle, was designed based on the materials and technologies that are 

expected to be viable for mainstream production in 2020. Estimated weight savings for this vehicle were 

38%. The study under review used the High Development concept as the basis for the development of a 

new engineering design that would be expected to pass crash tests specified by the US Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Compliance with the crash tests 

requirements was established using the computational models, only. This review offers opinions and 

suggestions about the methods and models used in computational simulations, and about the findings 

and conclusions derived from the simulations. The scope of the review is on the computational 

simulations of vehicle crashworthiness. The primary source of the review opinions was the Lotus Phase 2 

report. Lotus Engineering, Inc. provided encrypted files for the crash models and crash configurations. 

Due to encryption, specifics of the material, failure, fracture, joining and structural sub-models 

employed in the models and simulations could not be evaluated. Later, Lotus Engineering Inc. also 

provided output files of simulation of FMVSS 208 front crash test into rigid barrier. This review is based 

on the above noted documents and files.
38

2. Methodology of the Review

The review of the Lotus Phase 2 study was conducted in order to provide specific opinions on the 

following aspects of the study as charged by the EPA: (1) assumptions and data sources; (2) vehicle 

design methodological rigor; (3) vehicle crashworthiness testing methodological rigor; (4) vehicle 

manufacturing cost methodological rigor; (5) conclusion and findings; and (6) other comments. Each of 

the subjects is further split into sub-subjects as needed for an in-depth evaluation. As noted above, this 

review does not comment on item (4) as it is not in the field of expertise of the reviewer. The following 

sections follow the outline of the EPA charge questions. 

3. Assumptions and Data Sources

This section contains comments on validity of data sources, material modeling approaches, and joint 

models used in this study. The overall methodology used by the authors of the Phase 2 study is 

fundamentally solid and follows standard practices from the crashworthiness engineering. Several 

suggestions are offered that may enhance the outcome of the study. 

Material Properties and Models

Reduction of vehicle weight is commonly pursued by use of lightweight materials and advanced designs. 

Direct substitution of materials on a component level is possible only conceptually because of the other 

constraints stemming from the material properties, function of the component, its dimensions, 

packaging, etc. Therefore, one cannot decide on material substitutions solely on potential weight 

savings. In general, an overall re-design is required, as was demonstrated in the study under review. An 

overview of the recent lightweight material concept vehicle initiatives is given in reference [3].

The primary body material for the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, is mild steel. Except for about 

8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, everything else is the material which has been used in 

automobiles for almost a century and for which extensive design experience and manufacturing 

technologies exist. On the other hand, the High Development vehicle concept employs novel lightweight 

materials, many of which are still under development, such as Mg alloys and fiber reinforced polymer 

matrix composites. These materials are yet to be used in large quantities in mass production 

automobiles. Their lack of market penetration is due not only to a higher manufacturing cost , but also 

due to an insufficient understanding, experience and characterization of their mechanical behavior. To 

compensate for these uncertainties, designers must use higher safety factors, which then often 

eliminate any potential weight savings. In computational modeling, these uncertainties are manifested 

by the lack of material performance data, inadequate constitutive models and a lack of validated models 

for the phenomena that was not of a concern when designing with the conventional materials. For 

example, mild steel components dissipate crash energy through formation of deep folds in which 

material can undergo strains over 100%. Both analytical [4] and computational methods [5] of the 

continuum mechanics are sufficiently developed to be able to deal with such configurations. On the 

other hand, Mg alloys, cannot sustain such large deformations and strain gradients and, therefore, 

require development of computational methods to model material degradation, fracturing, and failure 

in general.
39

The material data for the vehicle model is provided in section 4.4.2. of the Phase 2 report [1]. The stressstrain curves in the figures are most likely curves of effective plastic strain and flow stress for isotropic 

plasticity material constitutive models that use that form of data, such as the LS-DYNA [6] constitutive 

model number 24, named MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY. A list detailing the constitutive model 

formulation for each of the materials of structural significance in the study would help to clarify this 

issue. Also the design rationale for dimensioning and selection of materials for the main structural parts 

would help in understanding the design decisions made by the authors of the study. The included 

material data does not include strain rate sensitivity, so it is assumed that the strain rate effect was not 

considered. Strain rate sensitivity can be an important strengthening mechanism in metals. For hcp 

(hexagonal close-packed) materials, such as AM60, high strain rate may also lead to change in the 

underlying mechanism of deformation, damage evolution, failure criterion, etc. Data for strain rate tests 

can be found in the open source [7], although the properties can vary considerably with material 

processing and microstructure. The source of material data in the study was often attributed to private 

communications. Those should be included in the report, if possible, or in cases when the data is 

available from documented source, such as reference [8], referencing can be changed. Properties for 

aluminum and steel were taken from publicly available sources and private communications and are 

within accepted ranges.

Material Parameters and Model for Magnesium Alloy AM60

The mechanical response of Mg alloys involves anisotropy, anisotropic hardening, yield asymmetry, 

relatively low ductility, strain rate sensitivity, and significant degradation of effective properties due to 

the formation and growth of micro-defects under loading [9]. It has been shown, for example, that 

ductility of die-cast AM60 depends strongly on its microstructure [10], and, by extension, on the section 

thickness of the samples. In case when a vehicle component does not play a strong role in crash, its 

material model and parameters can be described with simple models, such as isotropic plasticity, with 

piecewise linear hardening curve. However, magnesium is extensively used accross the High 

Development vehicle design [2]. In Phase 1 report [2], magnesium is found in many components that are 

in the direct path of the frontal crash (e.g. NCAP test). Pages 40-42 of Phase 1 report [1] show 

magnesium as material for front-end module (FEM), shock towers, wheel housing, dash panel, toe board 

and front transition member. The front transition member seems to be the component that provides 

rear support for the front chassis rail. However, in Phase 2 report [1], pages 35-37, shock towers and this 

component were marked as made out of aluminum. A zoomed section of the Figure 4.2.3.d from the 

Phase 2 report [1] is shown in Figure 1. The presumed part identified as the front transition member is 

marked with an arrow.
40

Figure 1. Material assignments in the front end.

These assignments were not possible to confirm from the crash model since the input files were 

encrypted. In any case, since Mg AM60 alloy is used in such important role for the frontal crash, a more 

detailed material model than the one implied by the graph on page 32 of Phase 2 report [1] would be 

warranted. More accurate failure model is needed, as well. The failure criteria in LS-DYNA [6] are mostly 

limited to threshold values of equivalent strains and/or stresses. However, combination of damage 

model with plasticity and damage-initiated failure would probably yield a better accuracy for AM60.

Material Models for Composites

Understanding of mechanical properties for material denoted as Nylon_45_2a (reference [1] page 33) 

would be much more improved if the constituents and fiber arrangement were described in more detail. 

Numbers 45 and 2 may be indicating +/- 450 fiber arrangement, however, a short addition of material 

configuration would eliminate unnecessary speculation. An ideal plasticity model of 60% limit strain for 

this material seems to be overly optimistic. Other composite models available in LS-DYNA may be a 

much better option. 

Joint Models

Welded joints are modeled by variation of properties in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and threshold 

force for cutoff strength. HAZs are relatively easy to identify in the model because their IDs are in 

1,000,000 range as specified on page 21 of the report [1]. An example of the approach is shown in Figure 

2, where the arrows mark HAZs.
41

Figure 2. Joint between the front-end module and the crush rail.

This particular connection contains welds (for joining aluminum parts) and bolts (for joining aluminum 

and magnesium). HAZ properties were not given in the report and they could not be checked in the 

model due to encryption. The bolt model properties were described that it fails at 130 MPa (page 38 of 

the report [1]), which corresponds to the yield stress of AM60. The importance of these joints cannot be 

overstated. They enforce stability of the axial deformation mode in the rails that in turn enables 

dissipation of the impact energy. The crash sequence of the connection between the front end module 

and the front rail is shown in Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Crush of the front rail and front end module connection.

The cracks in the front end module (Figure 3.2) and the separation between the front end module and 

the front rail (Figure 3.3) are clearly visible. This zone experiences very large permanent deformations, 

as shown in Figure 4.
42

Figure 4. Plastic deformation distribution in the front end joint. Colors denote magnitude of the 

equivalent plastic strain.

It is not clear from the simulations which failure criterion dominates the process. Is it the failure of the 

HAZ or is it the spot weld limit force or stress. Given the importance of this joint on the overall crash 

response, additional information about the joint sub-models would be very beneficial to a reader.

4. Vehicle Design Methodological Rigor

The Phase 2 design study of the High Development vehicle considered large number of crash scenarios 

from the FMVSS and IIHS tests. The simulations show reasonable results and deformations. Energy 

measures show that models are stable and have no sudden spikes that would lead to instabilities. The 

discretization of the sheet material is primarily done by proportionate quadrilateral shell elements, with 

relatively few triangular elements. The mesh density is relatively uniform without large variations in 

element sizes and aspect ratios. However, in my opinion, there are two issues that need to be 

addressed. One is the modeling of material failure/fracture and the other is the design of the crush zone 

with respect to the overall stopping distance. While the former may be a part of proprietary technology, 

the latter issue should be added to the description in order to better understand the design at hand. 

Material Failure Models and Criteria

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional designs is modeling of 

material fracture/failure. In the Phase 2 report [1] material failure is indicated only in AM60 although it 

may be reasonably expected in other materials in the model. Modeling of material failure in continuum 

mechanics is a fairly complex undertaking. In the current Lotus High Development model, material 

failure and fracture are apparently modeled by element deletion. In this approach, when a finite 

element reaches some failure criteria, the element is removed from simulations, which then allows for 

creation of free surfaces and volumes in the structure. This approach is notoriously mesh-dependent. It 

implies that the characteristic dimension for the material strain localization is of the size of the finite 

element where localization and failure happen to occur. Addition of the strain rate sensitivity to a 

material model can both improve fidelity of the material model, and as an added benefit, it can also help 

to regularize the response during strain localization. Depending on the amount of stored internal energy 
43

and stiffness in the deleted elements, the entire simulation can be polluted by the element deletion 

errors and become unstable. Assuming that only AM60 parts in the Lotus model have failure criterion, it 

would not be too difficult for the authors to describe it in more depth. Since AM60 is such a critical 

material in the design, perturbation of its properties, mesh geometry perturbations and different 

discretization densities, should be considered and investigate how do they affect the convergence of the 

critical measures, such as crash distances.

A good illustration of the importance of the failure criteria is the response of the AM60 front end 

module during crash. This component is always in the top group of components ranked by the 

dissipated energy. Figure 5 shows deformation of the front end module during the full frontal crash.

Figure 5. Plastic deformation distribution in the front end connection

Notice large cracks open in the mid span, on the sides, and punched out holes at the locations of the 

connection with the front rail and the shotgun. Mesh refinement study of this component would be 

interesting and could also indicate the robustness of the design. Decision to design such a structurally 

important part out of Mg would be interesting to a reader.

There are other components that also include failure model even though they are clearly not made out 

of magnesium nor are their failure criteria defined in the Phase 2 report. Figure 6 shows the sequence of 

deformation of the front left rail as viewed from the right side of the vehicle.

Figure 6. Constraints for controlling the crush of the front rail
44

The axial crash of the front rails is ensured by their connection to the front end, rear S-shaped support 

and to the connections to the sub-frame. Figure 7 shows the detail of the connectors between the left 

crush rail to the subframe.

Figure 7. Connections between the front rail and the subframe

Tearing of the top of the support (blue) can be clearly observed in Figure 8. The importance of this 

connection for the overall response may warrant parametric studies for failure parameters and mesh 

discretization.

Crash Performance of the High Development Vehicle Design

From the safety perspective, the most challenging crash scenario is the full profile frontal crash into a 

flat rigid barrier. The output files for the NCAP 35 mph test were provided by Lotus Engineering and 

used for evaluation of the vehicle design methodological rigor.

The two accelerometer traces from the simulation at the lower B-pillar locations are shown in Figure 8. 

When compared with NHTSA test 6601, the simulation accelerometer and displacement traces indicate

much shorter crush length than the baseline vehicle.
45

Figure 8. Accelerometers at the bases of B-pillars

When compared vehicle deformations before and after the crush, it becomes obvious where the 

deformation occurs. Figure 9 shows the deformation of the front rail members.

Figure 9. Top view of the crash deformation during NCAP test

It can be seen that almost all deformation occurs in the space spanned by the front frame rails. As 

marked in Figure 1, the front transition member (or a differently named component in case my material 

assignment assumption was not correct), supports the front rail so that it axially crushed and dissipated 

as much energy, as possible. For that purpose, this front rail rear support was made extremely stiff and 

it does not appreciably deform during the crash (Figure 10). It has internal reinforcing structure that has 
46

not been described in the report. These reinforcements enables it to reduce bending and axial 

deformations in order to provide steady support for the axial crush of the aluminum rail tube.

Figure 10. Configuration of the front rail support

This design decision reduces the possible crush zone and stopping distance to the distance between the 

front of the bumper and the front of the rail support (Figure 9). The effective crash length can be clearly 

seen in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Crush zone for NCAP test

We can see from the above figure that the front rail supports undergo minimal displacements and that 

all the impact energy must be dissipated in a very short span. Figure 12 shows the points of interest to 
47

determine the boundary of the crush zone, and an assumption that crash energy dissipation occurs 

ahead of the front support for the lower rail

Figure 12. Points of interest for determining crush zone

Figure 13 gives the history of the axial displacements for the two points above. At their maximum 

points, the relative reduction of their distance from the starting condition is 0.7 inches.

Figure 13. X displacements of the base of B-pillar (A) and front of the support rail (B) for the NCAP test
48

Since the distance between the front of the rail support and the rocker remains practically unchanged 

during the test, we can reasonably assume that majority of the crash energy is dissipated in less than 22 

inches. To quickly evaluate the feasibility of the proposed design, we can use the concept of the 

Equivalent Square Wave (ESW) [11]. ESW assumes constant, rectangular, impact pulse for the entire 

length of the stopping distance (in our case equal to 22 in) from initial velocity (35 mph). ESW represents 

an equivalent constant rectangular shaped pulse to an arbitrary input pulse. In our case ESW is about 

22g. Sled tests and occupant model simulations indicate that crash pulses exceeding ESW of 20 g will 

have difficulties to satisfy FMVSS 208 crash dummy performance criteria [11]. For a flat front barrier 

crash of 35 mph and an ESW of 20 g, the minimum stopping distance is 24 in. Advanced restraint 

systems and early trigger airbags may need to be used in order to satisfy the injury criteria and provide 

sufficient ride down time for the vehicle occupants.

The authors of the study do not elaborate on the safety indicators. I firmly believe that such a discussion 

would be very informative and valuable to a wide audience. On several places, the authors state values 

for average accelerations up to 30 ms from the impact, and average accelerations after 30 ms. When 

stated without a context, these numbers do not help the readers who are not versed in the concepts of 

crashworthiness. The authors most likely refer to the effectiveness time of the restraint systems. An 

overview of the concepts followed by a discussion of the occupant safety calculations for this particular 

design would be very valuable.

5. Vehicle Crashworthiness Testing Methodological Rigor

The documented results in the study show that authors have employed current state-of-the-art for 

crashworthiness modeling and followed systematic technical procedures. This methodology led them 

through a sequence of model versions and continuous improvement of the fidelity of the models. I 

would suggest that a short summary be added describing the major changes of the Phase 2 design with 

respect to the original High Development vehicle body design.

The authors had several crash tests of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, to use for comparison 

and trends. Tests 6601 and 6602 were conducted in 2009 so that they could be readily used for the 

development. The data from test 6601 was used in the Phase 2 report for comparison. Test 6602 was 

not used for comparison in the report. While the report abounds with crash simulations and graphs 

documenting tremendous amount of work that authors have done, it would have been very valuable to 

add comparison with the 6602 test even at the expense of some graphs. Page 72 of the Phase 2 report 

starts with comparison of the simulations with the tests and that is one of the most engaging parts of 

the document. I suggest that it warrants a section in itself. It is currently located out of place, in between

the simulation results and it needs to be emphasized more. This new section would also be a good place 

for discussion on occupant safety modeling and general formulas for the subject.

One of the intriguing differences between the simulations and baseline vehicle crash test is the amount 

and the type of deformation in the frontal crash. As noted previously, computational model is very stiff 

with very limited crush zone. Viewed from the left side (Figure 14), and from below (Figure 15), we can 

see that the majority of the deformation is in the frame rail, and that the subframe’s rear supports do 
49

not fail. The strong rear support to the frame rail, does not appreciably deform, and thereby establishes 

the limit to the crash deformation.

Figure 14. Crush zone of the front structure during the NCAP test.

Figure 15. Crush zone of the front structure during the NCAP test viewed from below. Note that the rear 

subframe connection does not fail.
50

The overall side kinematics of the crash is shown in Figure 16. The front tires barely touch the wheel well 

indicating a high stiffness of the design. Note that the vehicle does not dive down at the barrier.

Figure 16. Overall vehicle kinematics for the NCAP test.

The numbers 1-4 below the images denote times after impact of 0ms , 35ms, 40 ms, and 75ms, 

respectively. The times were selected based on characteristic event times observed in crash simulations.

The following images are from the NHTSA NCAP crash test 7179 for 2011 Toyota Venza. The response is 

essentially the same as for the 2009 version, but the images are of much higher quality so that they have 

been selected for comparison. These times corresponding to the times in Figures 15 and 16 are shown in 

Figure 17
51

Figure 17. Vehicle subframe deformation for NCAP test

The subframe starts to rapidly break off of the vehicle floor around 40 ms, and therefore allows for 

additional deformation. In Lotus vehicle this connection remains intact so that it cannot contribute to 

additional crash length. The left side view of the test vehicle during crash at the same times is shown in 

Figure 18.
52

Figure 18. Vehicle side kinematics during NCAP test

There is an obvious difference between the simulations and the tests. The developed lightweight model 

and the baseline vehicle do represent two different types of that share general dimensions, so that the 

differences in the responses can be large. However, diving down during impact is so common across the 

passenger vehicles so that different kinematics automatically raises questions about the accuracy of the 

suspension system and the mass distribution. If such kinematic outcome was a design objective, than it 

can be stated in the tests.

6. Other Comments

I would suggest that the organization of the document be reconsidered to add some information from 

the Phase 1 and more discussion about the design process. Especially interesting would be the guiding 

practical implementation of Lotus design steps as outlined at the beginning of the Phase 2 report. 

7. Conclusions

Lotus Phase 2 crashworthiness study has been reviewed based on the charge questions by the US EPA. It 

has been found that the study followed all the relevant technical guidelines and state-of-the-art 

practices for computational crash simulation and design. Several areas of improvement were suggested 

that pertain to material modeling, structural design and organization of the report.
53

References

1. Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover 

Vehicle, Lotus Engineering Inc., Draft Report, (2011).

2. An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program, 

Lotus Engineering Inc., Rev 006A, (2010).

3. Lutsey, Nicholas P., "Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to Automobile MassReduction Technology." Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 

Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-10-10 (2010).

4. Jones, Norman, "Structural Impact", Cambridge University Press (1997).

5. Ted Belytschko, T., Liu, W.-K., Moran, B., "Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and 

Structures", Wiley (2000).

6. "LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual", Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), version 

971, (2010).

7. http://thyme.ornl.gov/Mg_new

8. "Atlas of Stress-Strain Curves", 2nd Ed., ASM International (2002).

9. Nyberg EA, AA Luo, K Sadayappan, and W Shi, "Magnesium for Future Autos." Advanced 

Materials & Processes 166(10):35-37 (2008). 

10. Chadha, G; Allison, JE; Jones, JW, "The role of microstructure and porosity in ductility of die cast 

AM50 and AM60 magnesium alloys," Magnesium Technology 2004, pp. 181-186 (2004).

"Vehicle crashworthiness and occupant protection", American Iron and Steel Institute, Priya, Prasad and 

Belwafa, Jamel E., Eds. (2004).
54

4. References

Lotus Engineering. Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced 

Crossover Vehicle. 2012.
55

Appendix A: Resumes of Peer Reviewers

William Joost

3300 East West Hwy Apt 534 william.joost@gmail.com Mobile: (202) 674-8900

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Education:

Working toward Ph.D. Materials Science and Engineering Est. May 2014

University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

M.S. Materials Science and Engineering May 2009

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

B.S. Materials Engineering May 2005

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Troy, NY. 

Employment Experience:

General Engineer Jan. 2010-Present

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC

- Serves as the Technology Area Development Manager for the Lightweight Materials portfolio in the 

Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP). Supports research on improving properties, manufacturability & 

joining, and modeling & simulation of advanced steels, aluminum alloys, and magnesium alloys for 

automotive applications.

- Directs a budget of ~$10M per year supporting research in structural metals for conventional and electric 

drive vehicles. Manages projects that involve teams from diverse disciplines including materials science, 

mechanical engineering, computer science, and physics. Supports interaction between participants from 

industry, national laboratories, and academia.

- Develops solicitation topics, coordinates proposal reviews, and manages project performance. Participates 

in the formulation, justification, tracking, and execution of the Lightweight Materials budget. Manages 

publication of Annual Report for the Lightweight Materials sub-program. Coordinates activities in metals 

with the Office of Advanced Manufacturing, U.S Department of Energy.

- Led the light-duty vehicles portion of the 2011 VTP Advanced Materials Workshop. Used the industrysupported results to develop new program goals, establish weight reduction targets for vehicle systems, 

and draft road mapping priorities. 

Manufacturing Engineer/Equipment Engineering Supervisor Apr. 2008-Dec. 2009

Heraeus Materials Technology LLC, Chandler, AZ

- Managed the Equipment Engineering Team, responsible for maintaining functionality, capability, and 

uptime of ~180 pieces of capital equipment including high power, high vacuum, and precision machining 

tools.

- Created a high yielding process technique for Pt-containing alloys, saving more than $500,000 per year in 

refining costs

- Developed vacuum induction melting (VIM) and hot rolling processing techniques for specialty Co, Ni, and 

Fe based alloys and intermetallic materials

- Introduced a scrap metal recycling process for machining chips of Co and Pt based alloys, reducing scrap 

costs by more than $40,000 per month

Process Engineer/Manufacturing Engineering Production Supervisor Oct. 2005-Apr. 2008

Heraeus Materials Technology LLC, Chandler, AZ

- Managed a 16-person rolling team across four shifts

- Developed a stress/strain model of the hot rolling process which included equipment behavior and 

material characteristics

- Modeled material properties as a function of alloy and ingot dimensions to automate roll schedule creation

- Applied Design of Experiments methodology in melting and hot rolling processes to identify significant 

process factors and improve yields on high value sputtering targets
56

Research Experience:

Graduate Researcher in Ph.D. program, Materials Science and Engineering Aug. 2010 - Present 

University of Maryland, College Park, MD

- Exploring the microstructural-scale deformation behavior of Ti alloys using computational materials 

science techniques

- Developing finite element models (ANSYS) of Ti microstructures and determining the impact of grain 

interaction stresses on the deformation mechanisms during creep

Graduate Researcher in M.S. program, Materials Science and Engineering Jan. 2007-May 2009 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

- Determined sputtering recipes for optimal deposition of textured Ru films in perpendicular magnetic 

recording media

- Characterized the effects of CoCrX alloy seed layers for Ru in perpendicular magnetic recording media by 

X-ray diffraction, Rutherford backscattering, atomic force microscopy, and transmission electron 

microscopy

- Demonstrated improved coherency at the interface of Ru films deposited on CoCrV seed layers by 

calculation of Ru film strain energy

Publications and Presentations

1) Joost, W., Das, A., Alford, T.L. "Effects of varying CoCrV seed layer deposition pressure on Ru crystallinity 

in perpendicular magnetic recording media" Journal of Applied Physics, 106, 073517 (2009).

2) Joost, W. “Lightweight Materials for Vehicles: Needs, Goals, and Future Technologies.” Invited 

presentation at the 47th Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference on Advanced Lightweight Metals 

Technology, St. Michaels, MD, 06/17/2010.

3) Joost, W. “Lightweight Materials for Vehicles: Needs, Goals, and Future Technologies.” Invited keynote 

presentation at the 3rd Annual Advanced Lightweight Materials for Vehicles conference, Detroit, MI, 

8/11/2010.

4) Joost, W. “Materials Development for Vehicle Weight Reduction and the Impacts on Energy Efficiency.” 

Invited keynote presentation at the Materials Science and Technology (MS&T) 2011 conference, Columbus, 

OH, 10/18/2011.
57

Codrin-Gruie (CG) Cantemir

Research Scientist

Ohio State University Center for Automotive Research

http://car.osu.edu 

cantemir.1@osu.edu

Codrin-Gruie Cantemir is a Research Scientist with Ohio State University and he is the 

Center for Automotive Research Chief Designer. He received his Diplomat Engineer 

degree in 1989 (Electromechanics) and his Ph.D. in 1997 (Electric Drives), both from 

“Gh. Asachi” Technical University of Iasi in Romania. He has been with OSU-CAR since 

2001 and he is responsible for research / design programs in hybrid-electric vehicles, 

drivetrains, heavy-duty vehicle and vehicle concept designs.

Dr. Cantemir has a concept design portfolio of 12 conventional vehicles, 4 military 

vehicles, 2 aircrafts, 2 high-speed trains, 4 heat engines and 2 marine jet propulsion 

systems He also holds 18 patents and authored 2 books and 40+ technical papers.

Dr. Cantemir’s special research interests are related to creative methods applied to 

advanced vehicle concepts and influence of new technologies in vehicle architecture 

and styling. He has also professional interests and is active in:

Aerodynamics - Fundamental and applied works based on CFD modeling and testing. Bluff 

and non-laminar bodies. Application of Coanda and Miller effects. Forward Swept Wings 

aerodynamics. Small Reynolds number effects and applications

Batteries Architecture, packaging, advanced active/passive safety features, cooling, drop an go 

systems, fuses, on board integration of the battery charger and BMS

Cooling - Advanced cooling system architecture, design, modeling and simulation. Cooling 

systems for heavy duty electric drives and fuel cells (low ∆T). Unconventional cooling systems 

for armored vehicles (very small air in/out ports)

Design- Development and application of creative methods for vehicle concept generation. 

Design space exploration and trend assessing procedures development.

Engines – New thermodynamic cycles and mechanisms for implementation, “cycles on 

demand” solutions, free piston compound engines, turbo/super-charging and turbomachinery 

(including electronic management). Thermo-jet applications in marine and aviation propulsion

Electric Drives - Fundamental research and applied design of high performance electric 

machines and power electronics. Development of new electric drives principles and applied 

technologies. High power drives

Powertrain and Transmission - Conventional and hybrid electric powertrain design, 

modeling and simulation. Advance multi-role EVT and CVAWD (continuously variable all 

wheel drive) system concepts and development. Drive lines and high-torque CV joints

Suspension - Advance independent suspension concepts for the trucking industry, design 

modeling and simulation. Novel architecture (multi stage) suspensions for high performance high 
58

speed off road vehicles. New suspension mechanism and dynamics for multimode active/semi 

active suspensions. 

Structures - Steel based honeycomb type structures and afferent technologies. New high 

energy absorption principles and related structures.
59

GLENN S. DAEHN

Department of Materials Science and Engineering

The Ohio State University

2041 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210

P: 614/292-6779, E: Daehn.1@osu.edu, W: osu.edu/mse/~daehn

EDUCATION: 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY Palo Alto, CA

Ph.D., Materials Science & Engineering, 1988.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY Palo Alto, CA

M.S., Materials Science & Engineering, 1985.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Evanston, Illinois

B.S. (departmental honors), Materials Science & Engineering, 1983. 

Received Gotaas Award for outstanding undergraduate research. 

EXPERIENCE:

11/87-pres Professor (1996-pres), Assoc, Asst. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, OH

Teaching and research focus on mechanical behavior and processing of 

structural materials. High velocity sheet metal forming and mechanical behavior 

of composites are focus areas.

7/04-10/07 V. P. Technology EXCERA MATERIALS GROUP Worthington, OH

Co-founder (1993) developer/manufacturer ceramic composites by reactive processing. 

Sabbatical in 04-05 academic year. OSU-based, technology now 

commercialized by Fireline, Inc. & Rex Materials Group. 

1/97-7/97 Visiting Scientist, ROCKWELL SCIENCE CENTER, Thousand Oaks, CA

Sabbatical period; engaged in manufacturing and materials performance issues.

9/83-11/87 Research Assistant, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Palo Alto, CA

Dissertation under Oleg D. Sherby: laminated composites of superplastic 

ultrahigh carbon steel and stainless steel. 

SELECT PROFESSIONAL AWARDS & ACTIVITIES:

2010 – pres Executive Director; Honda-Ohio State Partnership

2010 Named Fellow ASM International

2010 - Member, Board of Trustees, ASM Materials Education Foundation.

2010- Chair, International Impulse Forming Group

2009 - pres Director, Ohio Manufacturing Institute – New organization focused on linking 

industry and Ohio’s research assets 

2009 Innovators Award of Ohio State College of Engineering

2008- Founding Vice-Chair, International Impulse Forming Group

2007 ASM Jacquet-Lucas Award for Excellence in Metallography.
60

2002-3 Served on National Research Council Committee on “Use of Lightweight 

Materials in 21st Century Army Trucks”

1996 One of 13 invited speakers at second National Academy of Engineering Frontiers 

of Engineering Meeting 

1995-1997 Chair, TMS Shaping and Forming Committee

1995 Named Mars G. Fontana Professor of Metallurgical Engineering.

1992 National Young Investigator of National Science Foundation.

1992 Army Research Office Young Investigator Award.

1992&’00, 04 Lumley Research Award of Ohio State University College of Engineering.

1992 Robert Lansing Hardy Gold Medal of TMS, recognizing outstanding promise in 

the broad field of metallurgy.

1990 ASM Marcus A. Grossmann Young Author Award, for "Deformation of WhiskerReinforced MMC's Under Changing Temperature Conditions".

SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS

“Creep Behavior and Deformation Mechanisms for Nanocluster-Strengthened Ferritic Steels”, 

M. C. Brandes, L. Kovarik, M. Miller, G. S. Daehn and M. J. Mills, in press: Acta Materialia 

(2011). 

“Predictive Mechanism for Anisotropy Development in the Earth’s Inner Core”, D. M. Reaman, 

G. S. Daehn and W. R. Panero, accepted in Earth Planetary Science Letters (2011). 

“Dislocation Mediated Time-Dependent Deformation in Crystalline Solids”, M. J. Mills and G. S. 

Daehn, Chapter in: Computational Methods for Microstructure-Property Relationships, S. Ghosh 

and D. M. Dimiduk, editors, Springer Science, 311-363 (2011). 

“Energy Field Methods and Electromagnetic Metal Forming”, G. S. Daehn, Chapter 18 in: 

Intelligent Energy Field Methods and Interdisciplinary Process Innovations, Wenwu Zhang, 

Editor, CRC Press, 2011, pp. 471-504. 

“Production of Low-Volume Aviation Components Using Disposable Electromagnetic Actuators” 

Steven Woodward, Christian Weddeling, Glenn Daehn, Verena Psyk, Bill Carson, A. Erman 

Tekkaya, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 886-895, (2011).

“Electromagnetic Impulse Calibration of High Strength Sheet Metal Structures”, E. Iriondo, M. A. 

Gutiérrez, B. González, J. L. Alcaraz and G. S. Daehn, Journal of Materials Processing 

Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 909-915, (2011).

“Simulation and Instrumentation of Electromagnetic Compression of Steel Tubes”, A. Vivek, K-H 

Kim, and G. S. Daehn, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 840-850, 

(2011).

Selected Patents and Applications

“Low Temperature Spot Impact Welding Driven Without Contact”, Glenn D. Daehn and John C. 

Lippold. US Patent 8084710, Issued December 27, 2011. 

“Electromagnetic Actuator for Multiple Operations”, Glenn S. Daehn, PCT Applicaton: 

PCT/US08/61066, Filed 4/19/08. 

“Driver Plate for Electromagnetic Forming of Sheet Metal”, John R. Bradley and Glenn S. 

Daehn, US Patent Application 2009/0090162, Published 4/9/09. 
61

“Electromagnetic Metal Forming” (Uniform Pressure Actuator), G. S. Daehn, U. S. Patent, 

2,069,756, Issued 7/4/06. 

“Electromagetic Formation of Fuel Cell Plates” John, R. Bradley, James G. Schroth and Glenn 

S. Daehn, U.S. Patent 7,076.981, Issued 7/18/2006. 

“High Velocity Forming of Local Features Using a Projectile”, G. S. Daehn, U. S. Patent 

7,000,300, Issued 2/21/06. 

“5000 series alloys with improved corrosion properties and methods for their manufacture and 

use”, M. C. Carroll, M. J. Mills, R. G. Buchheit, G. S. Daehn, B. Morere, P. Kobe, and H. S. 

Goodrich, US Patent Application 10/628579, published 5/13/04. 

Courses Developed and Recently Taught:

Developed: Engineering 198a / “Engineering, Manufacturing and the Creation of Wealth” 

Developed: MSE 605: Quantitative Introduction to Materials Science and Engineering 

MSE 581.02: Materials Science Lab II (Junior Level)

MSE 765: Mechanical Behavior of Materials

MSE 863: Time Dependent Deformation of Solids

MSE 561 Mechanical Behavior of Materials 
62

David Emerling

1896 Cass Lake Front Rd (248) 877- 4718

Keego Harbor, MI 48320 David@Emerling.us 

ENGINEERING EXECUTIVE

Highly motivated and innovative Engineering Executive with a strong technical background. Excellent 

communicator with the ability to sell technical products to a customer. Six Sigma Green Belt certification. 

Demonstrated achievements in:

 Expanding Sales  Promoting innovative Product Solutions

 Creating and leading Advanced Engineering and 

Program Teams 

 Developing and implementing Program 

Management Systems

 Implementing Technical Shows and Exhibits  Directing technical teams

 Working within Asian cultural differences  Patenting new products

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

The Ohio State University (OSU), Columbus, OH 2008- Present

Industrial Collaborations Director

Executing a broad strategy targeted at attracting industrial funding for OSU in the form of consortium 

membership fees, gifts, student scholarships, fellowships, and research programs.

Microheat Incorporated (bankrupt), Farmington Hills, Michigan 2008

Program Director

Responsible for all Microheat programs launching for Ford Motor Company. This includes responsibility for 

the programs over all timing, cost, open issues, tooling, testing, customer interface, ordering of parts, PPAP, and 

over all program success.

 Ford was a critical customer of Microheat’s expansion which would have led to $20 million dollars in sales.

Lear Corporation, Southfield, Michigan 1988-2007

Director of Corporate Development-International Automotive Components – Lear JV (2007)

Responsible for internal/external communications, including media relations and development of IACNA’s 

website; corporate identity

 Assigned as Member, Employee Involvement Team and Corporate Community Service Committee

Director of Advanced Sales/Technical Support – Lear Asian OEM Division (1999-2007)

Directed the advanced sales activity for the Asian OEMs, including Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai and Honda. 

Responsible for implementing private technology shows at the OEM plus creating a Lear technology booth at 

the Tokyo Motor Show, Japan SAE and the MEMA/JAMA Conference. Asian OEM representative to Corporate 

Patent Council

 Increased sales with Asian OEMs from $10M in 2002 to $175M in 2007.

 Invented and patented a MediaConsole, sold it to Nissan, designed and produced it adding $500K in sales.

 Provided technical support to the advanced sales team which was awarded over 50 patents and increased sales over 

$36M annually.

 Hosted Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Indian delegations to Lear US

 Created an advanced engineering team which developed new products for sale to Asian OEMs

 Created a global company presentation database which saved over $1M per year and provided standardized presentations 

quickly to the sales team.

 Speaker at Detroit Chinese Business Association convention

 Corporate champion for implementation of Chinese Certification

Director of Advanced Engineering – Lear Donnelly – Lear JV (1989–1999)

Created, hired and led a new team of advanced engineers to support the product development for the new joint 

venture. This team included interior, electrical/electronic engineers and process engineering. 
63

 Hired a team and created the systems to track new technology development resulting in sales increases.

 Invented and patented an overhead audio system trademarked as OASys 

 Provided technical support to the sales team both internally and with customers.

Manager of Advanced Engineering – Interior Trim (Lear Technology Division) (1995–1998)

Developed advanced technology and products, including door trim, door modules, visors, hard trim, liftgate 

modules, headliners and safety countermeasures 

 Received Lear’s President’s Award for Outstanding Technological Innovation and Achievement

Design and Engineering Manager – Automotive Industries – Lear Acquisition (1993–1995) 

Responsible for 1997 Ford Winstar quarter panels and pillars, 1997 Ford Explorer quarter panels, pillars, scuffs 

and interior trim, and 1998 Ford F150/F250 entire interior of three cab configurations. Managed 10 engineers 

and 55 designers

 Oversaw design/engineering of components, program timing, progress tracking, engineering disciplines, tooling, 

manpower, and design/engineering budget and profitability

 Advanced development of door products and manufacturing processes which kept the company portfolio on the cutting 

edge of technologies and products.

 Team leader for development of a complete patented door module which is in production. 

 Published technical paper on door modules by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Program Manager-Fibercraft//Descon – Lear Acquisition (1988–1995)

1993 Firebird/Camaro car total interior, HVAC, electrical and audio, exterior mirrors; 1995 Century IP, 

electrical and HVAC

 Assured program profitability, timing, progress tracking, invoicing of deliverables and sales related to design, 

illustration, dimensional management and engineering clays 

 Oversaw die model build, design for assembly, assembly process, quality assurance fixtures and mockup

General Motors, Warren, Michigan 1981–1988

System Engineer – Firebird/Camaro Electrical

Plant Resident Engineer

Manager - Master Parts List Project 

Engineering Change Authorization Task force

Senior Product Engineer – Interior and Electrical

Test and Development Engineer

PATENTS

#7,050,593 Vehicular Audio System and Electromagnetic Transducer Assembly May 2006

#6,719,343 Vehicle Console Assembly (production 2002 – 2007) Apr 2004

#6,546,674 Vehicle Door Assembly with a Trim Panel forming a Structural Door Module Component 

Carrier (production 2006 to current) Apr 2003

#6,409,210 Integrated Side Air Curtain and Inflator Overhead System Jun 2002

#6,019,418 Modular Vehicle Liftgate Module Feb 2000

#6,125,030 Vehicle Overhead Console with Flip Down Navigation Unit Sep 2000 

#5,904,002 Motor Vehicle Door Module May 1999
64

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Bachelor of Science Degree, Mechanical Engineering

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Dale Carnegie Course

Taguchi Designed Experiments

Six Sigma Green Belt Certified

Karrass Effective Negotiating

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

 Society of Automotive Engineering – Detroit Chapter (30 years)

 Ohio State Alumni Club of Detroit – current/past president, treasurer and board member

 Ohio State Engineering CAR Consortium – advisory board member
65

Kristina Kennedy

7263 Fitzwilliam Drive ◊ Dublin, Ohio 43017 ◊ 614-395-3568 ◊ kennedy.443@osu.edu

_____________________________________________________________________________________

EDUCATION THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH

Master of Business Administration August 2008

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA Iowa City, IA

Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering December 2000

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

EXPERIENCE THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH

Business Development Manager, Ohio Manufacturing Institute Aug. 2010 - Present

• Coordinate collaborative R&D opportunities, including tracking possible opportunities, 

assembling multi-disciplinary teams, and assisting with proposal development in order to 

develop and improve the operation, visibility and effectiveness of OMI

• Successfully secured $100K+ seed funding and developed related procedures and 

documentation in order to launch Co-Located Internship Program in March 2011 to deploy 

OSU students to industry partners as technology transfer mechanisms within commerciallyexpected time-scales. 

• Efficiently manage inquiries of potential customers of research and development services; 

develop and sustain customer satisfaction through new survey mechanism

GREIF Delaware, OH

Regional Marketing Manager (Midwest) Nov. 2008 – Oct. 2009

• Effectively managed cross functional engineering / marketing new product development team 

to ensure timely and effective roll out of earth-friendly green consumer product line.

• Key member of competitive intelligence team for green product line in charge of seeking out 

competitor product offerings, customer base, sales strategy and sales channels in order to 

gain valuable competitive knowledge, create value added reports of findings, and make sales / 

strategy recommendations to upper management.

• Oversaw and implemented effective go-to-market pricing strategies for all product lines based 

on deep analysis of current market indices, close analysis of raw material prices, and 

segmentation of targeted customer base.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH

Assistant Director – Outreach Jan. 2006 – Oct. 2008

• Developed, managed and successfully executed all aspects of engineering outreach 

programming for the College of Engineering in order to foster educational outreach initiatives 

and expand the recruitment candidate pool.

• In conjunction with Math and Science Departments, developed targeted retention strategy 

involving special activities, student involvement workshops, and free tutoring sessions which 

resulted in ~15% increase in retention of undergraduate students.

• Fostered relationships with corporate sponsors and community partners in order to cultivate 

funding for STEM outreach and education initiatives. 

HONDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Raymond, OH

Quality Engineer III Jan. 2001 – Jan. 2006

• Co-leader of special project team which successfully and efficiently developed and rolled out 

company-wide Access database making competitive information, quality information, and 

warranty data easily and quickly accessible to over 1100 Honda associates.

• Managed cross functional joint design and test teams in order to identify vehicle problem 

items and develop cost effective, timely countermeasures for implementation.
66

• Project Manager of special market investigation teams that saved the company over $750K in 

future warranty costs based on successful implementation of design changes on models 

including Acura TL and Honda Pilot.

____________________________________________________________________________________

LEADERSHIP Society of Women Engineers, Central Ohio Section

• Outreach & Education Chair Jun. 2010 – Present

• President Jun. 2008 – Jun. 2010

• Marketing / Communications Chair Jun. 2007 – Jun. 2008

• Member Sept. 1996 - Present

Society of Manufacturing Engineers

• Executive Board Member December 2011 - Present

• Member Sept. 2010 – Present

Women in Engineering Advocacy Network (WEPAN)

• Communications Committee Co-Chair Jun. 2007 – Jun. 2008

• Distinguished Service Award (Communications Committee) Jun. 2008

Engineering Education Insights Magazine

• Featured Monthly Columnist Aug. 2007 – Jun. 2008

Toastmasters, Honda R&D Section

• Vice President Jan. 2005 – Dec. 2005

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
67

LEONARD (Leo) RUSLI, Ph.D.

Research Engineer

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

The Ohio State University

201 W. 19th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210

Phone: (614) 805-2495

Email: Rusli.10@osu.edu

PROFILE

Development of practical design solutions as shown in the following areas:

− Technical expertise in design: mechanical part assembly design, design optimization, assembly 

product architecture, plastic part design and snap-fit assembly, assembly ergonomics.

− Broad experience in experimental study: design of experiments (DOE), statistical analysis, design of 

custom testing fixtures, and rapid prototyping. Measurement system design and testing 

instrumentation, sensor electronics, Instron/MTS machine.

− Project management: advised and supervised multiple student design teams for short term projects 

(3-6 months) and graduate student research. Managed research lab facility to support projects.

− Successful consulting in a wide variety of industrially sponsored design projects.

EDUCATION

Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 2008

Ph.D. Dissertation: Design and Analysis of Mechanical Assembly via Kinematic Screw Theory

Developed a design tool to evaluate and optimize assembly constraint feature and fastener location, 

orientation, quantity.

M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 2003

M.S. Thesis: A Study of the Effect of Force and Tactile Feedback to Snap-fit Manual Assembly

Developed design guidelines to create a snap-fit assembly that enhances manual assembly force 

feedback. 

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 2000

B.S. Honor’s Thesis: Evaluation of Rapid Prototyping Methods for Functional Testing in Snap-fits

Conducted an experimental study to evaluate suitability of rapid prototyping technologies (SLS, FDM, 

machined) for functional testing in snap-fits.

WORK EXPERIENCE

The Ohio State University Research Engineer and Lecturer, Mech. Eng. Dept. 2008-present

The Ohio State University Graduate Research Associate, Mech. Eng. Dept. 2006-2008

The Ohio State University Capstone Design Program Coordinator, Mech. Eng. Dept. 2003-2006

The Ohio State University Graduate Teaching Associate, Math Dept. 2001-2003

Honeywell Engineering intern 2001
68

TRW Engineering intern 1998

Mettler - Toledo Engineering intern 1997

INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH PROJECTS

• Current main research area: Design of lightweight multi-material assembly strategy using 

electromagnetic formed joints (Alcoa, 2011-current)

• Design of assembly verification system using infrared tracking and vision recognition (Honda of 

America manufacturing, 2009-2011)

• Optimization of lightweight bumper crush can for energy absorption (Honda R&D, 2010)

• Shear pin design for sub-sea chemical injection valve (Cameron, 2010)

• High pressure oil seal power loss experimental study (John Deere, 2010-2011) 

• Design of interchangeable tractor power take-off (PTO) shaft (John Deere, 2008-2009).

• Experimental study of DC torque tool ergonomics using universal position ergonomic test stand and 

hand stiffness tester (Honda of America manufacturing, 2008-2010).

• Redesigned and optimized a medical spray housing end cap snap-fit assembly (Vivus, 2008). 

• Coordinated multiple capstone student design project as a project manager, technical advisor, and 

industrial liaison for Goodrich aerospace, Rockwell automation, Honda of America, John Deere, 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Columbus zoo (2003-2007)

• Designed a 4-axis adjustable MRI table for equestrian applications (OSU Vet School, 2000-2001)

• Various manufacturing automation design projects as an engineering intern in work experience 

(1998-2001)

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

• Faculty advisor for multiple industrially sponsored capstone design course 

• Faculty advisor for SAE Baja student competition team

• ENG 658, ME 564: Senior capstone design projects

• ME 581: Senior experimental design laboratory

• ME 563: Design of machine elements.

• ME 410, 420: Engineering mechanics: statics and strength of materials 

PUBLICATIONS

• Rusli, L., Luscher, A., Schmiedeler, J., 2012, “Analysis of constraint configurations in mechanical 

assembly via kinematic screw theory”, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.

• Rusli, L., Luscher, A., 2012,” Fastener identification via IR tracking”, Assembly Automation Journal.

• Rusli, L., Derck, J., “OSU designs a lightweight tie rod for baja SAE”, SAE Momentum, Nov 2011.

• Rusli, L., Luscher, A., Sommerich, C., 2010, "Force and tactile feedback in preloaded cantilever snapfits under manual assembly", International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(6), pp. 618-628

• Rusli, L., Luscher, A., 2001, "Evaluation of Rapid Prototyping Methods for Functional Testing in Snapfits", ANTEC conference Vol 3: Special areas, Paper no. 848..

• Rusli, L., Luscher, A., Schmiedeler, J., 2011, Design space exploration of constraint features location 

and orientation in mechanical assembly via mechanical assembly via kinematic screw theory, under 

review for ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.
69

• Rusli, L., Luscher, A., 2012, “Use of machine vision technology for assembly verification”, under 

review for Assembly Automation Journal.

● Reviewer for Rapid Prototyping Journal
70

DOUGLAS A. RICHMAN

1660 Lochridge Business: 248.352.4630 X 220

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 E-mail: doug.richman@ep.kaiseral.com

KAISER ALUMINUM FABRICATED PRODUCTS, LLC 2002 - PRESENT

VP - Engineering and Technology 

Lead engineering group providing engineering support to customers and Kaiser plants serving 

technically demanding automotive and industrial markets. Assist customer engineering organizations 

with product design guidance, metallurgical engineering and design for manufacturing. Support 

customer design and development of innovative aluminum products to satisfy new end product 

requirements. Advanced process strategic planning supporting future product requirements. 

Aluminum Association

Kaiser technical representative to the Aluminum Association and ASTM.

Aluminum Association – Member - Aluminum Transportation Group (ATG)

Board of Directors – ATG

Chairman – Technology Work Group (ATG)

Member – Product Standards and Data Committee

Steering Committee – Sustainability Work Group

BOSAL INTERNATIONAL, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1999-01

President North American Operations 

P & L responsibility Bosal North America: 5 plants and Tech Center. Automotive exhaust system 

manufacturing and sales in the US, Canada and Mexico. North American sales of $100+MM 

Member, Board of Directors - Bosal International 

KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION

VP & General Manager Kaiser Automotive Castings and Kaiser K-Fab Operations 1996-99

P & L responsibility for Kaiser Foundry $18MM and K-Fab, extrusion fabrication $8MM businesses. 

ALCAN ALUMINUM CORPORATION1988-96

VP - Alcan Automotive Castings / General Manager Altek 1993-96

Business development and P&L responsibility for Altek, a 50/50 Joint Venture between Alcan and 

Teksid (Fiat),sales $30MM. International commercialization of cast aluminum automotive control 

arms.

General Manager – Automotive Castings Division- North America 1992-93

P & L responsibility, foundry producing automotive cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Expanded 

product focus to automotive control arms using innovative casting process technology.

Director - Engineering and Automotive Business Development 1988-91

Responsible for automotive market strategic planning and led product and process engineering 

support group. Business grew from start-up to over $100 MM in four years.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Warren, MI 1969-88

Manager Engine Development Chevrolet-Pontiac-Cadillac Group 

Manager Chevrolet L-4 and V-6 Advanced Design

Senior Development Engineer – V-8 Engine Control Systems

Development Engineer – V-8 Truck Engine Control Systems

Passenger Fleet Planner – Chevrolet Fuel Economy Planning 

System Design Engineer – GM Transportation Systems
71

Product Assurance Analyst – Engineering Staff

Manager – Chevrolet Military Vehicle Proving Ground Operations

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

MBA - University of Detroit – Finance and Operations Research

BSME - General Motors Institute

Registered Professional Engineer, Michigan

Society of Automotive Engineers 

Co-Director – Light Materials Section 

American Extruders Council

Aluminum Association

Aluminum Transportation Group (ATG) – Member (since 1990)

Member of the Executive Committee

Chairman – Technology Work Group

Aluminum Products and Standards Group – Member (since 1998)

Sustainability Work Group – Member (since 2009)

Advanced studies / Certifications

Ohio State Univ. (Fisher College) – Certified Lean Manager

MIT – Lean Manufacturing / Value Stream Management

Plante & Moran - Executive Leadership Forum

Goldradt Institute - Theory of Constraints Leader Certification

TMB - Kaizen Implementation
72

Srdjan Simunovic

Computational Engineering and Energy Sciences Group

Computer Science and Mathematics Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Tennessee Knoxville

865-771-9919

865-241-0381(fax)

simunovics@ornl.gov

Education: 

University of Split, Croatia Civil Engineering B.S. 1988

Carnegie Mellon University, USA Civil Engineering M.S. 1991

Carnegie Mellon University, USA Civil Engineering Ph.D. 1993

Professional Expertise: 

My research expertise includes computational modeling of materials and structures, modeling of impact 

and armor materials, strain rate sensitivity of materials, high velocity loading tests, polymer composite 

materials manufacturing and crashworthiness, physics of fracture, and effect of size on material 

properties. Current projects involve development of the next generation multi-physics code for simulation 

of nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor thermomechanics problems, impact simulation of lightweight materials 

for transportation, and material design optimization for impact performance.

Professional Experience: 

2009 – Present Joint Faculty Appointment, University of Tennessee and ORNL. 

2004 – Present Distinguished Research Staff, Computational Materials Science and Computational 

Engineering and Energy Sciences Group, ORNL.

1999 – 2003 Group Leader, Computational Materials Science Group, ORNL.

1998 – 2003 Senior Research Staff, Computational Materials Science Group, ORNL.

1994 – 1998 Research Staff, Computational Materials Science Group,ORNL.

1993 – 1994 Postdoctoral Researcher, Modeling and Simulation Group, ORNL.

1990 – 1993 Graduate Researcher, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon 

University, Pittsburgh, PA

1988 – 1990 Junior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, University of Split, Croatia

Recent Journal Publications (2006+): 

1. Piro, M. H. A., Besmann, , T. M., Simunovic, S., Lewis, B. J., Thompson, W. T., Numerical 

verification of equilibrium thermodynamic computations in nuclear fuel performance codes Journal of 

Nuclear Materials, 414 (2011) pp. 399-407.

2. Wang, Y. L., Xu, H. B., Erdman, D. L.,Starbuck, M. J., Simunovic, S., Characterization of HighStrain Rate Mechanical Behavior of AZ31 Magnesium Alloy Using 3D Digital Image Correlation, 

Advanced Engineering Materials, 13 (2011) pp. 943-948.

3. Barai, P., Nukala, P. K. V. V., Sampath, R., and Simunovic, S., Scaling of surface roughness in 

perfectly plastic disordered media. Physical Review E. 82 (2010) 056116.

4. Mishra, S.K., Deymier, P.A., Muralidharan, K., Frantziskonis, G., Pannala, S. and Simunovic, S. 
73

Modeling the coupling of reaction kinetics and hydrodynamics in a collapsing cavity. Ultrasonics 

Sonochemistry, 2010, 17(1), 258-265.

5. Nukala, P. K. V. V., Barai, P., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Fracture roughness in 

three-dimensional beam lattice systems. Physical Review E. 82 (2010) 026103.

6. Frantziskonis, G., Muralidharan, K., Deymier, P., Simunovic, S., Nukala, P. and Pannala, S. Timeparallel multiscale/multiphysics framework. Journal of Computational Physics, 2009, 228(21), 8085-

8092.

7. Nukala, P. K. V. V., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Crack roughness in the twodimensional random threshold beam model. Physical Review E. 78 (2008) 046105.

8. Nukala, P. K. V. V., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Anomalous roughness of fracture 

surfaces in 2D fuse models. International Journal of Fracture. 154 (2008) pp. 119 – 130.

9. Mishra, S.K., Muralidharan, K., Deymier, P.A., Frantziskonis, G., Pannala, S. and Simunovic, S. 

Wavelet-Based Spatial Scaling of Coupled Reaction-Diffusion Fields. International Journal for 

Multiscale Computational Engineering, 2008, 6(4), 281-297.

10. Mishra, S.K., Muralidharan, K., Pannala, S., Simunovic, S., Daw, C.S., Nukala, P., Fox, R., Deymier, 

P.A. and Frantziskonis, G.N. Spatiotemporal compound wavelet matrix framework for 

multiscale/multiphysics reactor simulation: Case study of a heterogeneous reaction/diffusion system. 

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 2008, 6.

11. Muralidharan, K., Mishra, S.K., Frantziskonis, G., Deymier, P.A., Nukala, P., Simunovic, S. and 

Pannala, S. Dynamic compound wavelet matrix method for multiphysics and multiscale problems. 

Physical Review E, 2008, 77(2).

Synergistic Activities: 

• US DOT FHWA sponsored projects: Development of Heavy Vehicle Models for Roadside Barriers

o Finite Element Models for Semitrailer Trucks

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/FHWA/TractorTrailer

o Single-Unit Truck Heavy Vehicle Finite Element Model

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/FHWA/F800WebPage

• US DOT NHTSA sponsored project:

o Parametric Finite Element Model of Sport Utility Vehicle

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/newexplorer

• US DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sponsored projects on lightweight 

materials technologies:

o High Strain Rate Characterization of Magnesium Alloys

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/Mg_new

o Dynamic Characterization and Modeling of Advanced High Strength Steel

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/ASP_Main

o Development of material models for composite materials, fracture, and high strain rate 

deformation

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/composites

o Crashworthiness of Aluminum Intensive Vehicles
74

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/audi

o Steel Processing Properties and their Effect on Impact Deformation of Lightweight 

Structures

 http://thyme.ornl.gov/aisi

• US DOE Office of Nuclear Energy:

o Development of new multi-physics nuclear fuel simulation code AMP 
75

Appendix B: Conflict of Interest Statements

Conflict of Interest and Bias for Peer Review

Background

Identification and management of potential conflict of interest (COI) and bias issues are vital to

the successes and credibility of any peer review consisting of external experts. The 

questionnaire that follows is consistent with EPA guidance concerning peer reviews.1

Definitions

Experts in a particular field will, in many cases, have existing opinions concerning the subject of 

the peer review. These opinions may be considered bias, but are not necessarily conflicts of 

interest.

Bias: For a peer review, means a predisposition towards the subject matter to be discussed that 

could influence the candidate's viewpoint. 

Examples of bias would be situations in which a candidate:

1. Has previously expressed a position on the subject(s) under consideration by the panel; or

2. Is affiliated with an industry, governmental, public interest, or other group which has 

expressed a position concerning the subject(s) under consideration by the panel.

Conflict of Interest: For a peer review, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences,2

includes any of the following:

1. Affiliation with an organization with financial ties directly related to the outcome;

2. Direct personal/financial investments in the sponsoring organization or related to the 

subject; or

3. Direct involvement in the documents submitted to the peer review panel... that could 

impair the individual's objectivity or create an unfair competitive advantage for the 

individual or organization.

 1 U.S. EPA (2009). Science Policy Council Peer Review Handbook. OMB (2004). Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review.

2 NAS (2003). "Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflict or Interest for Committees Used in 

the Development of Reports" (www.nationalacademies.org/coi).
76

Policy and Process

● Candidates with COI, as defined above, will not be eligible for membership on those panels 

where their conflicts apply.

● In general, candidates with bias, as defined above, on a particular issue will be eligible for all 

panel memberships; however, extreme biases, such as those likely to impair a candidate's 

ability to contribute to meaningful scientific discourse, will disqualify a candidate.

● Ideally, the composition of each panel will reflect a range of bias for a particular subject, 

striving for balance.

● Candidates who meet scientific qualifications and other eligibility criteria will be asked to 

provide written disclosure through a confidential questionnaire of all potential COI and bias 

issues during the candidate identification and selection process.

● Candidates should be prepared, as necessary, to discuss potential COI and bias issues.

● All bias issues related to selected panelists will be disclosed in writing in the final peer 

review record.
77

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
78

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

William Joost

Name

10/24/2011

Signature Date
79

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
80

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

CG Cantemir

Name

1/23/12

Signature Date
81

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES_X_ NO___ DON'T KNOW___

[Work will be indirectly related. This is a broad area.]

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
82

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

Glenn Daehn

Name

10 Nov 2011

Signature Date
83

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES_X_ NO___ DON'T KNOW___

[OSU will form a lightweight structure consortium.]

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
84

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES_X_ NO___ DON'T KNOW___

[Reviewer has known the author of this report for many years but he says it will have no 

impact on his review.]

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

David Emerling

Name

11/10/2011

Signature Date
85

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
86

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

Kristina Kennedy

Name

11-15-11

Signature Date
87

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
88

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

Anthony Luscher

Name

11/13/2011

Signature Date
89

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES_X_ NO___ DON'T KNOW___

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES_X_ NO___ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES_X_ NO___ DON'T KNOW___
90

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

D. A. Richman________

Name

__________________________ Oct 27, 2011_____

Signature Date
91

Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the 

circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the 

extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse, 

dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing 

the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to 

accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author, 

contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current 

plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the 

completion of this peer review panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known 

financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related 

to the subject of peer review)?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented, 

reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the 

subject of this peer review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___
92

5. Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an 

objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or 

comments on the subject review of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

7. Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias 

issues for you as a member of the panel?

YES___ NO_X_ DON'T KNOW___

Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that 

no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I 

further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to 

answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change 

in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.

Srdjan Simunovic_

Name

10/21/2011

Signature Date
93

Appendix C: Peer Review Charge and Conference Call Notes

Charge to Peer Reviewers of Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 ModelYear, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle (Lotus 2 Report)

In developing programs to reduce GHG emissions and increase fuel economy, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) have to assess the use of mass-reduction technology in 

light-duty vehicles. The availability, feasibility, and validation of lightweight materials and design 

techniques in the 2020 – 2025 timeframe is of high importance, especially considering its potential to be 

one of the major technology areas that could be utilized to help achieve the vehicle GHG and fuel 

economy goals.

The 2011 study by Lotus Engineering, Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 ModelYear, Mass Reduced Crossover Vehicle, was done under contract from CARB, coordinated by EPA and 

CARB, and involved technical collaboration on safety with NHTSA. The study was conducted specifically 

to help assess a number of critical questions related to mass-reduced vehicle designs in the 2020 – 2025 

timeframe. 

The Lotus study involves the design development and crashworthiness safety validation of a massreduced redesign of a crossover sport utility vehicle (i.e., starting from a 2009 Toyota Venza baseline) 

using advanced materials and design techniques. The research entails the full conceptual redesign of a 

vehicle. This review for the 2011 Lotus study is referred to as “Phase 2” because it builds upon Lotus’ 

previous 2010 study An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017–2020 Model Year 

Vehicle Program, which for context is referred to as “Phase 1” here and in the 2011 study. This is noted 

because the 2011 “Phase 2” study involves the non-body components (e.g., interior, suspension, chassis) 

relating back to “Phase 1” work. The Phase 1 BIW was redesigned in the Phase 2 work using an 

engineering design, safety testing, and validation of the vehicle’s body-in-white structure. 

You are asked to review and provide expert written comments on the Phase 2 report, to which you are 

being provided full access. As background information (particularly on the interior/suspension and 

chassis components) you are being provided a copy of the Phase 1 report and the peer review of the 

Phase 1 report. You are not required to review either of the Phase 1 documents.

EPA is seeking your expert opinion on the technologies utilized, methodologies employed, and validity of 

findings regarding the Lotus study. EPA asks that you orient your comments on the report toward the 

following six general areas: (1) assumptions and data sources; (2) vehicle design methodological rigor; 

(3) vehicle crashworthiness testing methodological rigor; (4) vehicle manufacturing cost methodological 

rigor; (5) conclusion and findings; and (6) other comments. These areas will be split into sub-issues in 

the final charge to reviewers. Although EPA is requesting response to these six areas, you will be 

expected to identify additional topics or depart from these examples as necessary to best apply your 

particular area(s) of expertise to review the overall study. You should provide your responses in the 
94

table that will be attached to the peer reviewer charge, adding comments, as necessary, at the end of 

each table. 

The Lotus study covers areas of material properties, forming techniques, bonding techniques, 

manufacturing processes, bending and torsional tests, full vehicle crash simulation, and manufacturing 

cost estimation. We ask that you comment on all of these aspects, with emphasis on the sources of 

information, methods employed, crash simulation testing techniques, and whether improved studies 

and methods exist elsewhere to develop, validate, and estimate costs for the potential of massreduction technology in the 2020 – 2025 timeframe. This broad span of technical areas suggests that 

reviewers may well have much deeper technical expertise and experience in some areas and a working 

knowledge in others. As a result, the level of detailed technical review to be given by each reviewer 

might vary significantly across the general category areas. 

Your comments should be sufficiently clear and detailed to allow readers to thoroughly understand their 

relevance to the Lotus study. Please deliver your final written comments to SRA International no later 

than Wednesday, December 14.

All materials provided to you as well as your review comments should be treated as confidential, and 

should neither be released nor discussed with others outside of the review panel. Once Lotus has made 

its report public, EPA will notify you that you may release or discuss the peer review materials and your 

review comments with others.

Should you have questions about what is required in order to complete this review or need additional 

background material, please contact Brian Menard at SRA (Brian_Menard@sra.com or 434-979-3700 

x136). Should you have any questions about the EPA peer review process itself, please contact Cheryl 

Caffrey in EPA’s Quality Office, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, (caffrey.cheryl@epa.gov 

or 734-214-4849).
95

PEER REVIEW OF THE LOTUS REPORT DEMONSTRATING THE SAFETY AND CRASHWORTHINESS OF A 

2020 MODEL YEAR, MASS REDUCED CROSSOVER VEHICLE

Conference Call

Friday, December 2, 2011

Participating in the call:

Will Joost, DOE

Doug Richman, Kaiser Aluminum

Srdjan Simunovic, ORNL

David Emerling and C.G. Cantemir, OSU

Gregg Peterson, Lotus Engineering

Cheryl Caffrey, EPA

Brian Menard and Doran Stegura, SRA

NOTE: Reviewers should send follow-up questions to Brian Menard by COB Monday, December 5, for 

prompt response by Lotus so that reviewers are able to submit their final comments by December 14.

Issue 1: 

The Labor Rate appears lower than industry standard and why is renewable energy included in the cost? 

Acknowledging that this is a small contributor to the cost, but question just the same.

This question is related to the piece cost issue. Did these 2 factors influence costs very much?

Lotus Engineering (Lotus) Response:

[1] The report will include a cost for the BIW using a typical industry rate as well as the known 

labor rate stipulated for the plant site.

[2] The energy cost is $69/vehicle; the assumption is that the plant uses conventional electrical 

power to build the body structure and closures. There is a discussion in the manufacturing report 

relative to using sustainable energy and the advantages and disadvantages. EBZ, the firm that 

designed the plant, is a European company and typically equips their current customer 

manufacturing facilities with solar roofs and includes potential wind turbines sites. In other 

words, on site sustainable energy systems are already common in European automotive plants. 

We see that trend being mainstream in the US in the timeframe of this vehicle. Because we expect 

conventional steel BIW plants to do the same, there is no cost savings assigned to the use of 

sustainable energy vs. conventional sources (coal, hydro, nuclear).
96

To the reviewer’s knowledge the Toyota plant has the lowest costs in the US, but these rates are lower 

than these

Ok for other plants but may not be applicable for automobile plants (est. $55/hr)

Piece Cost and Labor Content - labor rates are different for 1) and 2) below

1) **Manufacturing study (assembly, stamping – Toyota in-house parts)

2) Part component cost – no – labor rates realistic

Issue 2: 

Body Build - Are Mag parts coated?

o Were sheet metal parts pre-treated? Anodized aluminum

o Nobody is anodizing sheets for aluminum in NA (automotive production)

Lotus Response: Lotus uses anodizing.

Most body programs use some sort of a coating so as long as there’s a cost for coating the sheet metal 

then that’s ok.

Issue 3: 

Material property – were these minimal or typical properties? Toyota insists on minimal properties in 

design.

Lotus Response: The baseline Venza BOM is being revised to clarify that the $0 cost, 0 kg mass 

parts are already included in sub-assemblies; this shows the individual parts but does not include 

their cost and mass as that would be double counting the parts. The material specifications were 

provided by the material supplier; these specifications are the same as those provided to any 

supplier/OEM using those materials.

Issue 4: 

Durability is mentioned several times in the report and Lotus has experience in durability. Otherwise, 

there is no other analysis of durability. How comfortable is Lotus with durability? The paper lacks 

analysis with NVH and fatigue issues – not addressed and may result in some additional weight.

Lotus Response: Durability is beyond the scope of the project; however, Lotus did due diligence with 

coupon testing and past experience and other things in joining and materials.

Louts has built aluminum rear bonded vehicles for 16-17 years – the cars are used more at tracks than 

public roads, has adhesive bonding experience

Lotus Response: Lotus will place a statement to this effect in the final report.

Lotus has been told they’re overdesigned. IIHS – 4x wt for roof crush, FMVSS – 3x wt for roof crush and 

Lotus uses 6x weight for roof crush –hence no need to add additional weight
97

Issue 5: 

The mass damper was removed from the Lotus original design –

Lotus Response: Toyota had hands tied and bandages were evident throughout the BIW. With the 

Lotus design it is possible to remove these bandages.

Issue 6:

L3 engine – 1 L Engine isn’t in production yet, but well along... Lotus Saber engine – has balance shaft.

Issue 7: 

Collision performance says body is quite stiff

Data is coming that says body is “remarkably stiff”

As part of process – 50 mph flat not have any discontinuities

Evident in pulse time for crash events

Tire and wheel don’t hit cross tire – interesting observation

Lotus Response: Engine mount design was worked over to get this result.

Issue 8: 

Appendix C-1 – part count – body BOM – quite a large number of 0 cost 0 weight parts removed – 127 

parts were 0 wt, 0 cost, 

47 nut/weld studs in original – no nuts/studs listed in new vehicle parts list

407 parts seem like a very large number of parts in the original Venza compared to other programs 

reviewers has experience with

BIW – Venza – Phase 1 welded – not costed and no weight – how is it considered a part then? Numbers 

missing?

Lotus Response: Lotus will provide additional information to the reviewers.

Issue 9:

Is report for a technical audience or an illustration of possibilities to the general public?

Add more info for technical document – mention CAE done on HD vehicle earlier in report

Material data – isotropic – for modeling all materials

Material 24 in Dyna
98

Issue 10:

For each material, explain why specific material selected for later on – materials are tied together 

Give info on grades of aluminum used in various locations in the vehicle

Mag – only one – AM60 – only one property given, but how was this decided?

Explain materials choices – hot stamped boron used in door beams –for don’t want to have large 

displacement.....

Mag – chose AM rather than AZ for galvanic properties

Lotus Response: Lotus worked with Alcoa and others for stiffness.

Lotus Response: Agreed to include language in the report concerning efforts with suppliers and 

supplier recommendations and test results.

Which aluminum used where in BOM at end of report – bring up front part of report

Why use 6061 in rails and not 6063 – or other way around?

Issue 11:

Use different FEA technologies for different parts – was the cast mag a solid element or approximated 

by shells?

Issue 12:

Stiffness – one crash – page 72 have test from NHTSA to compare results – new design consistently 

higher than original vehicle - explain.

Any other tests NHTSA ran? Bring other comparisons

Lotus Response: The original Venza had higher peak pulse than the new vehicle.

Srdjan Simunovic said that new vehicle has earlier spike and lower difference between simulation and 

real car crash.

Lotus Response: Lotus changed materials 10% (sensitivity) and changed peak acceleration by 30%. 

Lotus wanted tuning to ensure not fire airbag early hence control peak acceleration, chose 23g 1st

35ms - beyond scope to do full airbag development.

Simunovic suggested Lotus include explanation – graphs not as valuable as discussion as to decisions.

Lotus Response: Agreed to incorporate the reviewer’s recommendations.
99

Issue 13: 

In Sec. 4.5.8 Lotus lists systems (ex: aluminum extrusion) and lists where systems are in production – the 

places in production include very high end vehicles such as the McLaren and other similar cars. Any 

higher production such as the Toyota Prius/Chevy Cruze?

Lotus Response: Agreed to take this into consideration.

Says costs estimate is applicable to higher volume

Issue 14:

Design shows lots of 6022 aluminum – not standard in automotive – is it?

Doug Richman: It is used in body sheet.

6013 not used much now, but will likely be used in body sheet in next 10 years

Not revolutionary - there are 2 plants with high volume in North America

Doug mentioned none of the aluminum have aerospace technology – more civilian markets.

Issue 15:

Can you stamp and form this aluminum at room temp?

Richman: Yes, absolutely- from an industry perspective.

Issue 16:

Does moving from friction spot welding to friction spot joining save money?

Lotus Response: Spot joining is used with adhesive and so uses half as many joints as spot welding—

this is a Kawasaki process which allows the aluminum to stay in parent properties and not change 

properties.

Is there any riveting or spot riveting?

Lotus Response: Yes, it includes riveting and spot welds.

Issue 17: 

Crash simulation question in the charge letter – “whether lotus can be validated” – what are you looking 

for? EPA will clarify this. 

Issue 18:

Remove discussion to Phase 1 report – is it needed?
100

EPA Response: It should be considered that the report assumes the mass reduction and costs from all 

of the other parts of the vehicle from the Phase 1 report.

Lotus Response: The report is being reviewed to eliminate any need for the reader to refer to the 

Phase 1 report. The intent is that the Phase 2 report is complete by itself and does not require the 

reader to read another large (300 page) document as a requirement for fully understanding the 

Phase 2 report. In other words, all pertinent Phase 1 information will be included in the Phase 2 

report rather than refer the reader to the Phase 1 report.

Issue 19:

It was noted that the model takes away the spare tire and tool kit – this results in a notable mass and 

cost savings – is this a philosophy difference on whether this is reaching too far? No further discussion

at this time. The issue does need to be addressed.

Issue 20:

Test of marketability - Interior radical – departures from expectations – smaller steps may be needed –

bad reaction ex: Honda Civic

Honda Civic downgraded interior – major decline in sales and marketability. Will have new model in 2 

years to try to recover (sooner than 5 typical)

Parts look cheaper and fit and finish is bad – took out weight and cost out and road tests of vehicle not 

good.

Lotus Response: The materials were not downgraded; they were either kept on par or were upgraded. 

Lotus received feedback that the Lotus interior was preferred over the original Venza interior and that 

the Lotus materials were soft to the touch and high grade.

Issue 21:

It is important to proofread the numbers in the tables and graphs and those referred to in the report 

text as in some instances they are inconsistent.
101

Appendix D: Reviews

William Joost, Department of Energy

1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES COMMENTS

Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions embedded in 

the study’s material choices, vehicle design, crash validation testing, and cost 

assessment that could affect its findings.

The accuracy of the stress-strain data used for each material during CAE 

and crash analysis is critically important for determining accurate crash 

response. The sources cited for the material data are credible; however 

the Al yield stresses used appear to be on the high side of the expected 

properties for the alloy-temper systems proposed here. The authors may 

need to address the use of the slightly higher numbers (for example, 

6061-T6 is shown with a yield stress of 308 MPa, where standard 

reported values are usually closer to 275 MPa).

If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions 

for available data that would improve the study.

Materials properties describing failure are not indicated (with the 

exception of Mg, which shows an in-plane failure strain of 6%). It seems 

unlikely that the Al and Steel components in the vehicle will remain 

below the strain localization or failure limits of the material; it’s not clear 

how failure of these materials was determined in the models. The 

authors should indicate how failure was accounted for; if it was not, the 

authors will need to explain why the assumption of uniform plasticity 

throughout the crash event is valid for these materials. This could be 

done by showing that the maximum strain conditions predicted in the 

model are below the typical localization or failure limits of the materials 

(if that is true, anyway).

Empirical determination of the joint properties was a good decision for 

this study. The author indicates that lap-shear tests demonstrated that 

failure occurred outside of the bond, and therefore adhesive failure was 

not included in the model. However, the joints will experience a variety 

of stress states that differ from lap-shear during a crash event. While not 

a major deficiency, it would be preferable to provide some discussion of 

why lap-shear results can be extended to all stress states for joint failure 

mode. Alternatively, the author could also provide testing data for other 

joint stress states such as bending, torsion, and cross tension.
102

2. VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the materials selected, forming 

techniques, bonding processes, and parts integration, as well as the resulting final 

vehicle design.

While appropriate forming methods and materials appear to have been 

selected, a detailed description of the material selection and trade-off 

process is not provided. One significant exception is the discussion and 

tables regarding the replacement of Mg components with Al and steel 

components in order to meet crash requirements.

Similarly, while appropriate joining techniques seem to have been used, 

the process for selecting the processes and materials is not clear. 

Additionally, little detail is provided on the joining techniques used here. 

A major technical hurdle in the implementation of multi-material systems 

is the quality, durability, and performance of the joints. Additional effort 

should be expended towards describing the joining techniques used here 

and characterizing the performance.

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have been 

employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

Design is a challenging process and the most important aspect is having a 

capable and experienced design team supporting the project; Lotus 

clearly meets this need and adds credibility to the design results.

One area that is omitted from the analysis is durability (fatigue and 

corrosion) performance of the structure. Significant use of Al, Al joints, 

and multi-material joints introduces the potential for both fatigue and 

corrosion failure that are unacceptable in an automotive product. It 

would be helpful to include narrative describing the good durability 

performance of conventional (i.e. not Bently, Ferrari, etc.) vehicles that 

use similar materials and joints in production without significant 

durability problems. In some cases, (say the weld-bonded Al-Mg joints), 

production examples do not exist so there should be an explanation of 

how these could meet durability requirements.

If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help 

select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
103

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

This is a very thorough design process, undertaken by a very credible design organization (Lotus). There are a variety of design assumptions and trade-offs that 

were made during the process (as discussed above), but this would be expected for any study of this type. Having a design team from Lotus adds credibility to 

the assumptions and design work that was done here.

Section 4.5.8.1 uses current “production” vehicles as examples for the feasibility of these techniques. However, many of the examples are for extremely highend vehicles (Bently, Lotus Evora, McLaren) and the remaining examples are for low-production, high-end vehicles (MB E class, Dodge Viper, etc.). The cost of 

some technologies can be expected to come down before 2020, but it is not reasonable to assume that (for example) the composites technologies used in 

Lamborghinis will be cost competitive on any time scale; significant advances in composite technology will need to be made in order to be cost competitive on 

a Venza, and the resulting material is likely to differ considerably (in both properties and manufacturing technique) from the Lamborghini grade material.
104

3. VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure’s 

structural integrity and safety crashworthiness. 

Regarding my comment on joint failure under complex stress states, note 

that in figure 4.3.12.a the significant plastic strains are all located at the 

bumper-rail joints. While this particular test was only to indicate the 

damage (and cost to repair), the localization of plastic strain at the joint 

is somewhat concerning.

The total-vehicle torsional stiffness result is remarkably high. If this is 

accurate, it may contribute to an odd driving “feel”, particularly by 

comparison to a conventional Venza; higher torsional stiffness is usually 

viewed as a good thing, but the authors may need to address whether or 

not such extreme stiffness values would be appealing to consumers of 

this type of vehicle. While there doesn’t appear to be a major source of 

error in the torsional stiffness analysis, the result does call into question 

the accuracy; this is either an extraordinarily stiff vehicle, or there was an 

error during the analysis.

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing 

methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated 

analysis exhibits strong technical rigor. 

This is outside of my area of expertise

For reviewers with vehicle crash simulation capabilities to run the LS-DYNA model, 

can the Lotus design and results be validated?

N/A

If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented 

elsewhere to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.

While it’s not made explicit in the report, it seems that the components 

are likely modeled with the materials in a zero-strain condition – i.e. the 

strain hardening and local change in properties that occurs during 

stamping is not considered in the properties of the components. While 

not widely used in crash modeling (as far as I am aware), including the 

effects of strain hardening on local properties from the stamping process 

is beginning to find use in some design tools. While none of the materials 

used in this study have extreme strain hardening properties (such as you 

might find in TRIP steels or 5000 series Al), all of these sheet materials 

will experience some change in properties during stamping.

I do not consider the study deficient for having used zero-strain 
105

components, but it may be worth undergoing a simple study to 

determine the potential effects on some of the components. This is 

complicated by the further changes that may occur during the paint bake 

cycle.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
106

4. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body 

structure’s manufacturing costs.

The report does a good job of identifying, in useful detail, the number of 

workstations, tools, equipment, and other resources necessary for 

manufacturing the BIW of the vehicle. These are all, essentially, 

estimates by EBZ; to provide additional credibility to the manufacturing 

assessment it would be helpful to include a description of other work 

that EBZ has conducted where their manufacturing design work was 

implemented for producing vehicles. Lotus is a well-known name, EBZ is 

less well known.

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been 

employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

This is not my area of expertise

If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented 

elsewhere to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.

This is not my area of expertise

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The assessment of the energy supply includes a description of solar, wind, and biomass derived energy. While the narrative is quite positive on the potential 

for each of these energy sources, it’s not clear in the analysis how much of the power for the plant is produced using these techniques. If the renewable 

sources provide a significant portion of the plant power, then the comparison of the Ph2 BIW cost against the production Venza cost may not be fair. The cost 

of the Venza BIW is determined based on the RPE and several other assumptions and therefore includes the cost of electricity at the existing plant. Therefore, 

if an automotive company was going to invest in a new plant to build either the Ph2 BIW or the current Venza BIW (and the new plant would have the lower 

cost power) then the cost delta between the two BIWs would be different than shown here (because the current Venza BIW produced at a new plant would 

be less expensive). The same argument could be made for the labor costs and their impact on BIW cost. By including factors such as power and labor costs into 

the analysis, it’s difficult to determine what the cost savings/penalty is due only to the change in materials and assembly – the impact of labor and energy are 

mixed into the result.
107

5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS COMMENTS

Are the study’s conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical 

rigor of the study? 

In the summary section there is an analysis that attempts to project the 

“potential weight savings” for vehicle classes beyond the Venza. The 

analysis is based on specific density which assumes that the architecture 

of the vehicles is the same. For example, the front-end crash energy 

management system in a micro car is likely quite different from the 

comparable system in a large luxury car (aside from differences in gauge 

to account for limited crash space, as discussed in the report). While this 

analysis provides a good starting point, I do not feel that it is reasonable 

to expect the weight reduction potential to scale with specific density. In 

other words, I think that the 32.4 value used in the analysis also changes 

with vehicle size due to changes in architecture. Similarly, the cost 

analysis projecting cost factor for other vehicle classes is a good start, but 

it’s unlikely that the numbers scale so simply.

Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the 

mass-reduced design valid?

Yes. Despite some of the critical commentary provided above, I believe 

that this study does a good job of validating the technical and cost 

potential of the mass-reduced design. The study is lacking durability 

analysis and, on a larger scale, does not include constructing a 

demonstration vehicle to validate the model assumptions; both items are 

significant undertakings and, while they would add credibility to the 

results, the current study provides a useful and sound indication of 

potential.

Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the 

technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2020-2025 timeframe?

The World Auto Steel Ultra Light Steel Auto Body, the EU SuperLight Car, 

and the DOE/USAMP Mg Front End Research and Development design all 

provide addition insight into weight reduction potential. However, none 

are as thorough as this study in assessing potential in the 2020-2025 

timeframe.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
108

6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT COMMENTS

Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works in the 

ability to understand the feasibility of 2020-2025 mass-reduction technology for 

light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe. 

Yes. The best example was the Phase 1 study, which lacked much of the 

detail and focus included here. The other studies that I mentioned above 

do not go into this level of detail or are not focused on the same time 

frame.

Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2020-

2025 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the 

report is finalized? If so, please describe. 

There is nothing that I would consider a “critical deficiency” however 

many of the comments outlined above could be addressed prior to 

release of the report.

Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you 

expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one 

Lotus has assessed for the 2020-2025 timeframe? 

Some effort was made in the report to discuss joining and corrosion 

protection techniques, however it is possible that new techniques will be 

available prior to 2025. For example, there was very little discussion on 

how a vehicle which combines so many different materials could be pretreated, e-coated, and painted in an existing shop. There will likely be 

new technologies in this area.

Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle 

performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the 

mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline 

vehicle?

As discussed above, durability is a major factor in vehicle design and it is 

not addressed here. The use of advanced materials and joints calls into 

question the durability performance of a vehicle like this. NVH may also 

be unacceptable given the low density materials and extraordinary 

vehicle stiffness.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Clallam county, WA is an interesting choice for the plant location (I grew up relatively nearby). Port Angeles is not a “major port” (total population <20,000 

people) and access to the area from anywhere else in the state is inconvenient. 
109

January 13, 2012 

Dear Brian, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this Lotus study on a potential new lightweight vehicle 

design. We have taken this task quite seriously and have enlisted a small interdisciplinary team 

from Ohio State University including the following:

Tony Luscher, Faculty, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering

Leo Rusli, Researcher, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering

CG Cantemir, Researcher, Center for Automotive Research

David Emerling, Industry Liaison Director, Center for Automotive Research

Kristina Kennedy, Program Manager, Ohio Manufacturing Institute

Glenn Daehn, Faculty, Material Science & Engineering

All of us have read the report and Tony, Leo, and David travelled to Lotus earlier this month to 

further review the FEA results. We also met as a group to discuss the report. 

Collectively and individually we are very impressed with this work. It is very careful, wellreasoned and the assumptions are all broadly reasonable. We agree with the essential 

conclusion that significant weight savings are possible in vehicles that are manufacturable in the 

near term that will reduce weight by roughly 30%. Such vehicles can be as safe as current 

vehicles as judged by NTHSA standard tests and they should be quite durable and desirable. 

The multi-material strategy espoused here is a viable approach. 

Specific, and in the main, minor criticisms and comments are provided in the reviewer matrix. 

One broad comment is that this report needs to be more strongly placed in the context of the 

state of the art as established by available literature. For example the work only contains 7 

formal references. Also, it is not clear where material data came from in specific cases (this 

should be formally referenced, even if a private communication) and the exact source of data

such in as the comparative data in Figure 4.3.2 is not clear. Words like Intillicosting are used to 

denote the source of data and we believe that refers to a specific subcontract let to the firm 

‘intellicosting’ for this work and those results are shown here. This needs to be made explicitly 

clear. 

Also, very important, but subtle would be literature references that give an idea of how accurate 

the community can expect LS-DYNA crash simulations to be in a study such as this. Often 

manufacturers have the luxury of testing similar bodies, materials and joining methodologies 

and tuning their models to match broad behavior and then the effects of specific changes can 

be accurately measured. Here the geometric configuration, many materials and many joining

177 Watts Hall

2041 College Rd.

 Columbus, OH 43210

 

Department of Materials Science and Engineering
110

methods are essentially new. Can Lotus provide examples that show how accurate such ‘blind’ 

predictions may be? 

While this work does make a compelling case it downplays some of the very real issues that 

slow such innovation in auto manufacturing. Examples: multi-material structures can suffer 

accelerated corrosion if not properly isolated in joining. Fatigue may also limit durability in 

aluminum, magnesium or novel joints. Neither of these durability concerns are raised. Also, 

automotive manufacturing is very conservative in using new processes because one small 

process problem can stop an entire auto manufacturing plant. Manufacturing engineers may be 

justifiably weary of extensive use of adhesives, until these are proven in mass production in 

other environments. These very real impediments to change should be mentioned in the 

background and conclusions. 

Of course, there are many more details that must be considered for full vehicle production and 

innovation is hard. But this is an excellent motivation and vision for weight reduction. Overall, 

this is an outstanding piece of work that will move the automotive industry forward. We feel 

privileged to have had an advance look. 

Sincerely yours,

Glenn S. Daehn

Mars G. Fontana Professor of Metallurgical Engineering 

Executive Director, Honda-OSU Partnership

Director, Ohio Manufacturing Institute
111

Ohio State University (CG Cantemir, Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, Tony Luscher, Leo Rusli)

1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES COMMENTS

Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions embedded in 

the study’s material choices, vehicle design, crash validation testing, and cost 

assessment that could affect its findings.

Material data, for the most part, seems reasonably representative of 

what would be used in this type of automotive construction. Some of the 

materials are more prevalent in other industries like rail, than in 

automotive. 

Material specifications used in this report were nominal; however, 

reviewers would like to see min/max material specifications taken into 

consideration. 

If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions for 

available data that would improve the study.

References for all of the materials and adhesives would be very helpful.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

One broad comment is that this report needs to be more strongly placed in the context of the state of the art as established by available literature. For 

example the work only contains 7 formal references. Also, it is not clear where material data came from in specific cases (this should be formally referenced, 

even if a private communication) and the exact source of data such in as the comparative data in Figure 4.3.2 is not clear. Words like Intillicosting are used to 

denote the source of data and we believe that refers to a specific subcontract let to the firm ‘intellicosting’ for this work and those results are shown here. This 

needs to be made explicitly clear. 
112

2. VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the materials selected, forming 

techniques, bonding processes, and parts integration, as well as the resulting final 

vehicle design.

More details are needed on the various aspects of joining and fastening. 

Comment on assembly. 

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have been 

employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

In order to qualify for mass production, a process must be very 

repeatable. Figure 4.2.4.a shows the results from 5 test coupons. There 

are significant differences between all of these in peak strength and 

energy absorption. Such a spread of results would not be acceptable in 

terms of production.

If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help 

select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.

No suggestions at this time.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
113

3. VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure’s 

structural integrity and safety crashworthiness. 

The crash simulations that were completed seem to be well created 

models of the vehicle that they represent. The geometry was formed 

from mid-surface models of the sheet metal. Seat belt and child restraint 

points are logically modeled. 

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing 

methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis 

exhibits strong technical rigor. 

Animations of all of the crash tests were reviewed. These models were 

checks for structural consistence and it was found that all parts were well 

attached. The deformation seen in the structure during crash seems 

representative of these types of collisions. Progressive deformation flows 

in a logical manner from the point of impact throughout the vehicle. 

For reviewers with vehicle crash simulation capabilities to run the LS-DYNA model, 

can the Lotus design and results be validated?*

The actual LS-DYNA model crash simulations were not rerun. Without 

any changes to the inputs there would be no changes in the output. 

Discussion of the input properties occurs in Section 2. 

If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere 

to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 2020-2025 

vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.

LS-DYNA is the state of the art for this type of analysis. As time allows for 

the 2020-2025 model year, additional more detailed material modeling 

should occur. As an example the floor structure properties can be further 

investigated to answer structural creep and strength concerns.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

This reviewer sat down with the person who created and ran the LS-DYNA FEA models. Additional insight into how the model performs and specific questions 

were answered on specific load cases. All questions were answered. 

Another reviewer which did not visit Lotus commented on the following: 

1. The powertrain has more than 15% of the vehicle mass and therefore the right powertrains should be used in simulation.

2. The powertrain is always mounted on the body by elastic mounts. The crash behavior of the elastic mounts might easy introduce a 10% error in 

determination of the peak deceleration (failure vs not failure might be much more than 10%). So modeling a close-to-reality powertrain and bushing looks like 

a must (at least for me).
114

3. Although not intuitive, the battery pack might have a worst crash behavior than the fuel tank. Therefore the shoulder to shoulder position might be inferior 

to a tandem configuration (with the battery towards the center of the vehicle).

4. The battery pack crash behavior is of high importance of its own. It is very possible that after a crash an internal collapse of the cells and/or a penetration 

might produce a short-circuit. It should be noted that by the time of writing there are not developed any reasonable solutions to mitigate an internal shortcircuit. Although not directly life treating, this kind of event will produce a vehicle loss.

Also, very important, but subtle would be literature references that give an idea of how accurate the community can expect LS-DYNA crash simulations to be in 

a study such as this. Often manufacturers have the luxury of testing similar bodies, materials and joining methodologies and tuning their models to match 

broad behavior and then the effects of specific changes can be accurately measured. Here the geometric configuration, many materials and many joining 

methods are essentially new. Can Lotus provide examples that show how accurate such ‘blind’ predictions may be? 
115

4. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body 

structure’s manufacturing costs.

Flat year-over-year wages for the cost analysis seems unrealistic.

Additional source information requested for wage rates for various 

locations. 

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been 

employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

Difficult to evaluate since this portion of the report was completed by a 

subcontractor. The forming dies seem to be inexpensive as compared to 

standard steel sheet metal forming dies. 

If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere 

to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 2020-2025 

vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.

None. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The number of workers assigned to vehicle assembly in this report seems quite low. Extra personal need to be available to replace those with unexcused 

absences. Do these assembly numbers also include material handling personnel to stock each of the workstations? 

While this work does make a compelling case it downplays some of the very real issues that slow such innovation in auto manufacturing. Examples: multimaterial structures can suffer accelerated corrosion if not properly isolated in joining. Fatigue may also limit durability in aluminum, magnesium or novel 

joints. Neither of these durability concerns is raised. Also, automotive manufacturing is very conservative in using new processes because one small process 

problem can stop an entire auto manufacturing plant. Manufacturing engineers may be justifiably weary of extensive use of adhesives, until these are proven 

in mass production in other environments. These very real impediments to change should be mentioned in the background and conclusions. 
116

5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS COMMENTS

Are the study’s conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical 

rigor of the study? 

Yes. 

Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the 

mass-reduced design valid?

Yes. 

Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the 

technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2020-2025 timeframe?

No. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
117

6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT COMMENTS

Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works in the 

ability to understand the feasibility of 2020-2025 mass-reduction technology for 

light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe. 

Yes. 

Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2020-

2025 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the 

report is finalized? If so, please describe. 

No. 

Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you 

expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one 

Lotus has assessed for the 2020-2025 timeframe? 

No. 

Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle 

performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the 

mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline 

vehicle?

The proposed engine size is based on the assumption that decreasing the 

mass of the vehicle and holding the same power–to-weight ratio will keep 

the vehicle performances alike. This assumption is true only if the 

coefficient of drag (Cda) will also decrease (practically a perfect match in 

all the dynamic regards is not possible because the quadratic behavior of 

the air vs speed). The influence of the airdrag is typically higher than the 

general perception. In this particular case is very possible that more than 

half of the engine power will be used to overcome the airdrag at 65 mph. 

Therefore aerodynamic simulations are mandatory in order to validate 

the size of the engine.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The Lotus design is very innovative and pushes the design envelope much further than other advanced car programs. The phase 1 report shows a great deal of 

topological innovation for the different components that are designed. 
118

Douglas Richman, Kaiser Aluminum

1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES COMMENTS

Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions embedded in 

the study’s material choices, vehicle design, crash validation testing, and cost 

assessment that could affect its findings.

Aluminum alloys and tempers selected and appropriate and proven for 

the intended applications. Engineering data used for those materials and 

product forms accurately represent minimum expected minimum 

expected properties normally used for automotive design purposes. 

Simulation results indicate a vehicle utilizing the PH 2 structure is 

potentially capable of meeting FMVSS requirements. Physical test 

results have not been presented to confirm model validity, some 

simulation results indicate unusual structural performance and the 

models do not address occupant loading conditions which are the FMVSS 

validation criteria. Simulation results alone would not be considered 

“validation” of PH 2 structure safety performance.

Cost estimates for the PH 2 vehicle are questionable. Cost modeling 

methodology relies on engineering estimates and supplier cost 

projections. The level of analytical rigor in this approach raises 

uncertainties about resulting cost estimates. Inconsistencies in reported 

piece count differences between baseline and PH 2 structures challenge a 

major reported source of cost savings. Impact of blanking recovery on 

aluminum sheet product net cost was explicitly not considered. Labor 

rates assumed for BIW manufacturing were $20/Hr below prevailing 

Toyota labor rate implicit in baseline Venza cost analysis. Cost estimates 

for individual stamping tool are substantially below typical tooling cost 

experienced for similar products. Impact of blanking recovery and labor 

rates alone would increase BIW cost by over $200. 

If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions for 

available data that would improve the study.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Study includes an impressive amount of design, crash, and cost analysis information. The radical part count reduction needs to be more fully explained or deemphasized. Report also should address the greatly reduced tooling and assembly costs relative to the experience of today's automakers. Some conservatism 

would be appropriate regarding potential shortcomings in interior design and aesthetics influencing customer expectations and acceptance.
119

2. VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the materials selected, forming 

techniques, bonding processes, and parts integration, as well as the resulting final 

vehicle design.

Adhesive bonding and FSW processes used in PH 2 have been proven in 

volume production and would be expected to perform well in this 

application. Some discussion of joining system for magnesium closure 

inner panels to aluminum external skin and AHSS “B” pillar to aluminum 

body would improve understanding and confidence in those elements of 

the design.

Parts integration information is vague and appears inconsistent. Parts 

integration. Major mass and cost savings are attributed to parts 

integration. Data presented does not appear to results.

Final design appears capable of meeting functional, durability and FMVSS 

requirements. Some increase in mass and cost are likely to resolve 

structure and NVH issues encountered in component and vehicle level 

physical testing.

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have been 

employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

Vehicle design methodology utilizing Opti-Struct, NASTRAN and LS-Dyna 

is represents a comprehensive and rigorous approach to BIW structural 

design and materials optimization.

If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help 

select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
120

3. VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure’s 

structural integrity and safety crashworthiness. 

LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of 

analysis. FEM analysis is part art as well as science, the assumption had 

to be made that Lotus has sufficient skills and experience to generate a 

valid simulation model.

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing 

methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis 

exhibits strong technical rigor. 

Model indicates the PH 2 structure could sustain a peak load of 108 kN 

under FMVSS 216 testing. This is unusually high for an SUV roof, and 

stronger than any roof on any vehicle produced to date. Result questions 

stiffness and strength results of the simulations.

Intrusion velocities and deformation are used as performance criteria in 

the side impact simulations. Performance acceptability judgments made 

using those results, but no data was given for comparison to any other 

vehicle.

Occupant protection performance cannot be judged based entirely on 

deformations and intrusion velocities.

Report states that “the mass-reduced vehicle was validated for meeting 

the listed FMVSS requirements.” This is an overstatement of what the 

analysis accomplished. FMVSS test performance is judged based on crash 

dummy accelerations and loads. The FEM analysis looked only at BIW 

acceleration and intrusion levels. While these can provide a good basis 

for engineering judgment, no comparison to physical crash test levels is 

provided. “Acceptable” levels were defined by Lotus without 

explanation. Results may be good, but would not be sufficient to 

“validate” the design for meeting FMVSS requirements.

Model has not been validated against any physical property. In normal 

BIW design development, an FEM is developed and calibrated against a 

physical test. The calibrated model is considered validated for moderate 

A:B comparisons.

For reviewers with vehicle crash simulation capabilities to run the LS-DYNA model, Some validation can be done by reviewing modeling technique and 
121

can the Lotus design and results be validated?* assumptions, but without any form of physical test comparison, the 

amount of error is unknown and can be significant. 

FEM validation was presented in the form of an energy balance for each 

load case. Energy balance is useful in confirming certain internal aspects 

of the model are working correctly. Energy balance does not validate 

how accurately the model simulates the physical structure. Presenting 

energy balance for each load case and suggesting balance implies FEM 

accuracy is misleading.

If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere 

to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 2020-2025 

vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.

Cannot truly be validated without building a physical prototype for 

comparison.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Study is very thorough in their crash loadcase selections and generated a lot of data for evaluation. Might have included IIHS Offset ODB and IIHS Side Impact 

test conditions which most OEM's consider.

Study is less thorough in analyzing normal loads that influence BIW and chassis design (i.e. pot holes, shipping, road load fatigue, curb bump, jacking, twist 

ditch, 2g bump, etc.). 

Report indicates “Phase 2 vehicle model was validated for conforming to the existing external data for the Toyota Vensa, meeting best-in-class torsional and 

bending stiffness, and managing customary running loads.” Only torsional stiffness is reported.

Modal frequency analysis data Is not reported.

Conclusions for many of the crash load cases (primarily dynamic) did not use simulation results to draw quantitative comparisons to the Toyota Vensa or other 

peer vehicles. For instance, intrusion velocities for side impacts are reported. But, no analytical comparison is made to similar vehicles that currently meet the 

requirements. Comparable crash tests is often available from NHTSA or IIHS.

Remarkable strength exhibited by the FEM roof under an FMVSS test load raises questions validity of the model.

Model assumes no failures of adhesive bonding in materials during collisions. Previous crash testing experience suggest some level of bonding separation and 

resulting structure strength reduction is likely to occur. 
122

4. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body 

structure’s manufacturing costs.

Notable strengths of this analysis, besides the main focus on crash 

analysis, are the detail of assembly facility design, labor content, and BIW 

component tooling identification. 

Main weakness of the cost analysis is the fragmented approach of 

comparing costs derived in different approaches and different sources, 

and trying to infer relevant information from these differences. 

Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been 

employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

Vulnerability in this cost study appears to be validity and functional 

equivalence of BIW design with 169 pieces vs. 407 for the baseline Venz. 

Total tooling investment of $28MM for the BIW not consistent with 

typical OEM production experience. BIW tooling of $150-200MM would 

not be uncommon for conventional BIW manufacturing. If significant 

parts reduction could be achieved, it would mean less tools, but usually 

larger and more complex ones, requiring larger presses and slower cycle 

times. 

If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere 

to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 2020-2025 

vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.

Applying a consistent costing approach to each vehicle and vehicle 

system using a manufacturing cost model approach. This approach 

would establish a more consistent and understandable assessment of 

cost impacts of vehicle mass reduction design and technologies.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
123

5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS COMMENTS

Are the study’s conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical 

rigor of the study? 

FMVSS test performance conclusions are based on simulated results using 

an un-validated FE model. Accuracy of the model is unknown. Some 

simulation results are not typical of similar structures suggesting the 

model may not accurately represent the actual structure under all loading 

conditions.

Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the 

mass-reduced design valid?

Safety performance and cost conclusions are not clearly support by data 

provided. 

Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the 

technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2020-2025 timeframe?

Most studies employing a finite element model validate a base model 

against physical testing, then do variational studies to look at effect. 

Going directly from an unvalidated FEM to quantitative results is risky, 

and the level of accuracy is questionable

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
124

6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT COMMENTS

Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works in the 

ability to understand the feasibility of 2020-2025 mass-reduction technology for 

light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe. 

Fundamental engineering work is very good and has the potential to 

make a substantial and important contribution to industry understanding 

of mass reduction opportunities. The study will receive intense and 

detailed critical review by industry specialists. To achieve potential 

positive impact on industry thinking, study content and conclusions must 

be recognized as credible. Unusual safety simulation results and 

questionable cost estimates (piece cost, tooling) need to be explained or 

revised. As currently presented, potential contributions of the study are 

likely to be obscured by unexplained simulation results and cost 

estimates that are not consistent with actual program experience.

Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2020-

2025 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the 

report is finalized? If so, please describe. 

Absolutely. Recommended adjustments summarized in Safety analysis, 

and cost estimates (recommendations summarized in attached review 

report). Credibility of study would be significantly enhanced with detail 

explanations or revisions in areas where unusual and potentially discrediting results are reported. Conservatism in assessing CAE based 

safety simulations and cost estimates (component and tooling) would 

improve acceptance of main report conclusions. 

Impact of BIW plant site selection discussion and resulting labor rates 

confuse important assessment of design driven cost impact. Suggest 

removing site selection discussion. Using labor and energy cost factors 

representative of the Toyota Venza production more clearly identifies the 

true cost impact of PH 2 design content.

Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you 

expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one 

Lotus has assessed for the 2020-2025 timeframe? 

Technologies included in the PH 2 design are the leading candidates to 

achieve safe cost effective vehicle mass reduction in the 2020-25 

timeframe. Most technologies included in PH 2 are in current volume 

production or will be fully production ready by 2015. 

Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle 

performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the 

mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline 

vehicle?

Most areas of vehicle performance other than crash performance were 

not addressed at all. Even basic bending stiffness and service loads 

(jacking, towing, 2-g bump, etc) were not addressed. The report claims 

to address bending stiffness and bending/torsional modal frequencies, 

but that analysis is not included in the report.
125

Please provide any comments not characterized in the tables above.

State-of-the art in vehicle dynamic crash simulation can provide A/B comparisons and ranking of alternative designs, but cannot reliably produce accurate 

absolute results without careful correlation to crash results. CAE is effective in significantly reducing the need for hardware tests, making designs more robust, 

and giving guidance to select the most efficient and best performing design alternatives. OEM experience to date indicates CAE can reduce hardware and 

physical test requirements, but cannot eliminate the need for some level of crash load physical testing. Quasi-static test simulations show potential for 

eliminating most if not all hardware (FMVSS 216 etc.), simulations of FMVSS 208, 214, IIHS ODB and others still required several stages of hardware evaluation. 

Given the challenges of simulating the complex crash physics of a vehicle composed of advanced materials and fastening techniques, hardware testing would 

generally be considered necessarily to “validate” BIW structures for the foreseeable future. 
126

Review of Lotus Engineering Study:

“Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020

Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle”

By: Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum and The Aluminum Association)

This report is a review the 2011 Lotus report on design optimization of a mass reduced 

mass-reduced crossover sport utility vehicle based on the 2009 Toyota Venza. 

Objective of the study is to demonstrate the mass reduction potential of a practical 

vehicle engineered to meet or exceed FMVSS and IIHS safety performance criteria. 

Design effort included mass optimization of all vehicle systems. Study included 

extensive BIW and closures design optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction 

potential from proven lite weight automotive materials and advanced manufacturing 

processes. Vehicle redesign included interior and chassis systems. All materials, 

manufacturing processes and purchased components included in the PH 2 vehicle 

design were judged by Lotus to be proven, cost effective and available for use on 2020 

production vehicles. The PH 2 vehicle achieves a 31% (527 Kg) mass reduction 

compared to the baseline Venza. 

The 2011 Lotus study (PH 2) is a continuation of a 2010 Lotus study (PH 1) “An 

Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017–2020 Model Year Vehicle 

Program”. BIW from PH 1 study was extensively redesigned to address safety 

performance and manufacturing issues. Mass reduced interior, chassis and suspension 

designs developed in PH 1 were carried-over to the PH 2 vehicle. A detailed BIW 

manufacturing plan with BIW manufacturing plant layout and capital plan was developed 

address multi-material BIW manufacturing requirements. PH 2 project includes cost 

projections for all design changes and a projection of complete vehicle production cost. 

Per direction from EPA, this report is a review of technologies utilized, methodologies 

employed, and validity of findings in the Lotus PH 2 study. Review comments were 

requested in six general areas:

(1) assumptions and data sources

(2) vehicle design methodological rigor

(3) vehicle crashworthiness testing methodological rigor

(4) vehicle manufacturing cost methodological rigor

(5) conclusions and findings

(6) other comments
127

1.0 Summary of Review Comments

1.1 Summary – General

Engineering analysis is very thorough and reflects the vehicle engineering 

experience and know-how of the Lotus organization. Study presents a realistic 

perspective of achievable vehicle total vehicle mass reduction using available 

design optimization tools, practical light weight engineering materials an available 

manufacturing processes. Results of the study provide important insight into 

potential vehicle mass reduction generally achievable by 2020.

1.2 Summary – Conclusions

Report Conclusions overstate the level of design “validation” achievable utilizing 

state-of-the- art modeling techniques with no physical test of a representative 

structure. From the work in this study it is reasonable to conclude the PH 2 

structure has the potential to pass FMVSS and IIHS safety criteria. 

1.3 Summary – Mass Reduction

Majority of mass reduction concepts utilized are consistent with general industry 

trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components appear 

reasonable and consistent with industry experience with similar components. As 

an advanced design concept study, the PH 2 project is a valuable and important 

piece of work. 

The PH 2 study did not include physical evaluation of a prototype vehicle or 

major vehicle sub system. Majority of the chassis and suspension content was 

derived from similar components for which there is extensive volume production 

experience. Some of the technologies included in the design are “speculative” 

and may not mature to production readiness or achieve projected mass reduction 

estimates by 2020. For those reasons, the PH 2 study is a “high side” estimate 

of practical overall vehicle mass reduction potential.

 

1.4 Summary – Safety

Major objective of this study is to “validate” safety performance of the PH 2 

vehicle concept. Critical issue is the term “validate”. Simulation modeling and 

simulation tools used by Lotus are widely recognized as state-of-the-art. Lotus 

modeling skills are likely to among the best available in the global industry. 

Project scope did not include physical test of the structure to confirm model 

accuracy. 

Safety performance data presented indicates the current structure has the 

potential to meet all FMVSS criteria, but would not be generally considered 

sufficient to “validated” safety performance of the vehicle. Physical test 
128

correlation is generally required to establish confidence in simulation results. 

Some simulation results presented are not consistent with test results of similar 

vehicles. Explanations provided for the unusual results do not appear consistent 

with actual structure content. Overstating the implications of available safety 

results discredits the good design work and conclusions of this study.

1.5 Summary – Cost

Cost projections are based on lack sufficient rigor to support confidence in cost 

projections and in some cases are based on “optimistic” assumptions. 

Significant cost reduction is attributed to parts consolidation in the body structure. 

Part count data presented in the report appears to reflect inconsistent content 

between baseline and PH 2 designs. Body manufacturing labor rates and 

material blanking recovery are not consistent with actual industry experience. 

Using normal industry experience for those two factors alone would add $273 to 

body manufacturing cost. Tooling cost estimates for individual body dies appear 

to be less than half normal industry experience for dies of this type.

2.0 PH 2 Vehicle Design / Mass Reduction

The Phase 2 vehicle design demonstrates the level of technology required to achieve a 

30% reduction in total vehicle mass while maintaining functional performance and utility 

of the current Toyota Venza. PH 2 vehicle is intended to have the same seating space, 

cargo space and capacity, driving performance, ride and handling, NVH characteristics, 

range, safety performance and compliance with all current and anticipated future 

Federal requirements. PH 2 vehicle length, width and track are the same as the 

baseline Venza. Wheelbase of PH 2 is 162 mm longer than the Venza and PH 2 height 

is 15 mm lower than baseline. 

Powertrain on the baseline Venza is a conventional 2.7 L L-4 FWD engine with 6 speed 

conventional transmission. At the direction of the study sponsor powertrain for the PH 

2 design is an EPA defined hybrid powertrain utilizing the Lotus SABRE 1.0 L L-3 turbo 

charged engine. Mass and cost information for the hybrid powertrain were supplied by 

the sponsors and beyond the scope of Lotus engineering review. 

Design process in PH 1 included:

- detail teardown analysis of the “09 Toyota Venza

- benchmarking of current mass efficient production vehicles

- trend analysis of advancements in vehicle weight reduction technologies

- establishing system and component mass and cost projections scaled from 

existing components and engineering judgment

- selection of mass reduction technologies to meet PH1 project objectives

- development of PH 1 total vehicle design
129

Design process and tools (Opti-Struct, Nastran, LS-Dyna) are widely deployed within 

the automotive industry and represent a state-of-the-art approach to comprehensive 

vehicle design. Lotus Engineering recognized as experienced and eminently qualified 

for vehicle design engineering.

For analysis purposes, Lotus decomposed the total vehicle into 10 major vehicle 

systems:

- Body structure (BIW)

- Closures / fenders

- Suspension / chassis

- Bumpers

- Interior

- Electrical

- Lighting

- Glazing

- Powertrain

- Misc.

3.0 Mass Reduction

Lotus examined each vehicle systems for weight reduction opportunities. PH 2 mass 

reduction by major vehicle system is summarized in Figure 1. Total mass reduction of 

527 Kg, 31% of Venza mass was achieved. Systems with significant mass reduction 

are: BIW, Closures, Suspension/Chassis and Interior. Major sources of mass reduction 

are Chassis/Suspension (162 Kg), BIW (140 Kg), Interior (97 Kg), Closures (59 Kg).

 Figure 1.

Lotus PH 2 Venza

 Mass Reduction by Vehicle System
130

3.1 Body-in-White (BIW)

Current Toyota Venza body (BIW, closures) is predominantly a mix of mild steel (48%) 

and high strength steels (49%) with a resulting mass of 383 Kg (Figure 2). Extensive 

use of HSS in this structure is consistent with efficient use of current automotive 

materials to meet current vehicle mass objectives. 

BIW design has a dominant influence on vehicle safety performance and received the 

majority of Lotus engineering effort. For the PH 2 analysis, Lotus optimized the new 

BIW design for safety performance at minimum mass. The design optimization process 

resulted in a multi-material structure utilizing aluminum, steel, high strength steel, 

advanced high strength steel, magnesium and plastic composite. PH 2 BIW structure is 

predominantly aluminum (69%) with AHSS where appropriate to achieve strength 

requirements where available structure space is limited. A multi-material BIW solution 

for mass reduction is consistent with most recent vehicle optimization studies. Several 

current production vehicles utilize many of the design concepts included in the PH 2 

BIW design. PH 2 BIW structure is 141 Kg (37%) lighter than the baseline Venza.

 Figure 2. Figure 3.

 Baseline Venza BIW Lotus PH 2 Venza BIW

 Materials Materials

Achieving a 37% BIW mass reduction with a multi material design optimized for safety 

performance is consistent with recent research and production vehicle experience. 

BIW mass reductions resulting from conversion of conventional BIW structures to 

aluminum based multi-material BIW have ranged from 35%-39% (Jaguar XJ, Audi A8) 

to 47% (OEM study). BIW related mass reductions above 40% were achieved where 

the baseline structure was predominantly mild steel. A recent University of Aachen 

(Germany) concluded BIW structures optimized for safety performance utilizing low 

mass engineering materials can achieve 35-40% mass reduction compared to a BIW 

optimized using conventional body materials. A recent BIW weight reduction study 

conducted at the University of Aachen (Germany)“.
131

http://www.eaa.net/en/applications/automotive/studies/

Most of the BIW content (materials, manufacturing processes) selected for the PH 2 

vehicle have been in successful volume auto industry production for several years. 

3.2 Closures/Fenders

Mass reduction in the closure and fender group is 59 Kg, 41% of baseline Venza. This 

level of mass reduction is consistent with results of the Aachen and IBIS studies and 

industry experience on current production vehicles. Hood and fenders on the PH 2 

vehicle are aluminum. Recent Ducker Worldwide Survey of 2012 North American 

Vehicles found over 30% of all North American vehicles have aluminum hoods and over 

15% of vehicle have aluminum fenders. PH 2 use of aluminum for closure panels is 

consistent with recognized industry trends for these components. PH 2 doors utilize 

aluminum outer skins over cast magnesium inner panels. 

3.3 Material properties

Aluminum alloy and temper selection for BIW and Closures are appropriate for those 

components. Those materials have been used in automotive applications for several 

years and are growing in popularity in future vehicle programs.

3.3.1 Typical vs. Minimum properties - Automobile structural designs are typically 

based on minimum mechanical properties. Report does not identify the data used 

(minimum or typical). Aluminum property data used in for the PH 2 design represents 

expected minimum values for the alloys and tempers. This reviewer is not able to 

comment on property values used for the other materials used in the BIW.

3.3.2 Aluminum pre-treatment 

PH 2 vehicle structure utilizes adhesive bonding of major structural elements. 

Production vehicle experience confirms pre-treatment of sheet and extruded aluminum 

bonding surfaces is required to achieve maximum joint integrity and durability. PH 2 

vehicle description indicates sheet material is anodized as a pre-treatment. From the 

report it is not clear that pretreatment is also applied to extruded elements. 

The majority of high volume aluminum programs in North America have moved away 

from electrochemical anodizing as a pre-treatment. Current practice is use of a more 

effective, lower cost and environmentally compatible chemical conversion process. 

These processes are similar to Alodine treatment. Predominant aluminum pretreatments today are provided by Novelis (formerly Alcan Rolled Products) and Alcoa 

(Alcoa 951). Both processes achieve similar results and need to be applied to the sheet 

and extruded elements that will be bonded in assembly
132

3.4 Suspension and Chassis

Suspension / chassis PH 2 mass reduction is 162 Kg (43% of baseline). This level of 

mass reduction is higher than has been seen in similar studies. Lotus PH 2 includes 

conversion of steering knuckles, suspension arms and the engine cradle to aluminum 

castings. Mass reductions estimated for conversion of those components are estimated 

at approximately 50%. Recent Ducker study found aluminum knuckles are currently 

used on over 50% of North American vehicles and aluminum control arms are used on 

over 30% of North American vehicles. Achieving 50% mass reduction through 

conversion of these components to aluminum is consistent with industry experience.

3.5 Wheel / Tire

Total wheel and tire mass reduction of 64 Kg (46%) is projected for the wheel and tire 

group. Project mass reduction is achieved through a reduction in wheel and tire 

masses and elimination of the spare tire and tool kit. 

Tire mass reduction is made possible by a 30% reduction in vehicle mass. Projected 

tire mass reduction is 6 Kg for 4 tires combined. This mass reduction is consistent with 

appropriate tire selection for PH 2 vehicle final mass. 

Road wheel mass reduction is 5.6 Kg (54%) per wheel. It is not clear from the report 

how this magnitude of reduction is achieved. The report attributes wheel mass 

reduction to possibilities with the Ablation casting process. PH 1 report discussion of 

Ablation casting states: “The process would be expected to save approximately 1 Kg 

per wheel.” Considering the magnitude of this mass reduction a more detailed 

description of wheel mass reduction would be appropriate.

Elimination of the spare tire and jack reduces vehicle mass by 23 Kg. This is feasible 

but has customer perceptions of vehicle utility implications. Past OEM initiatives to 

eliminate a spare tire have encountered consumer resistance leading to reinstatement 

of the spare system in some vehicles.

3.6 Engine and Driveline

Engine and driveline for the PH 2 vehicle were defined by the study sponsors and not 

evaluated for additional mass reduction in the Lotus study. Baseline Venza is equipped 

with a technically comprehensive conventional 2.7 L4 with aluminum engine block and 

heads and conventional 6 speed transmission. PH 2 vehicle is equipped with a dual 

mode hybrid drive system powered by a turbocharged 1.0 L L-4 balance shaft engine. 

Engine was designed by Lotus and sized to meet the PH 2 vehicle performance and 

charging requirements. Mass reduction achieved with the PH 2 powertrain is 54 Kg. 

This level of mass reduction appears achievable based on results of secondary mass 

reductions resulting from vehicle level mass reductions in excess of 20%.
133

3.7 Interior

Lotus PH 2 design includes major redesign of the baseline Venza interior. Interior 

design changes achieve 97 Kg (40%) weight reduction from the baseline interior. 

Majority of interior weight reduction is achieved in the seating (43 Kg) and trim (28 Kg). 

Interior weight reduction strategies in the PH 2 design represent significant departures 

from baseline Venza interior. New seating designs and interior concepts (i.e.: replacing 

carpeting with bare floors and floor mats) may not be consistent with consumer wants 

and expectations in those areas. Interior trim and seating designs used in the PH 2 

vehicle have been explored generically by OEM design studios for many years. There 

may be customer acceptance issues that have 

4.0 Safety

Safety analysis of the PH2 structure is based on collision simulation results using LSDyna and Nastran software simulations. Both software packages are widely used 

throughout the automotive industry to perform the type of analysis in this report.

Accuracy of simulated mechanical system performance is highly dependent on how well 

the FEM model represents the characteristics of the physical structure being studied. 

Accurately modeling a complete vehicle body structure for evaluation under non-linear 

loading conditions experienced in collisions is a challenging task. Small changes in 

assumed performance of nodes and joints can have a significant impact on predicted 

structure performance. Integration of empirical joint test data into the modeling process 

has significantly improved the correlation between simulated and actual structure 

performance. 

4.1 Unusual simulation results

Models appear reasonable and indicate the structure has the potential to meet collision 

safety requirements. Some unusual simulation results raise questions about detail 

accuracy of the models. 

FMVSS 216 quasi-static roof strength

Model indicates peak roof strength of 108 KN. This is unusually high strength for 

an SUV type vehicle. The report attributes this high strength to the major load 

being resisted by the B-pillar. Several current vehicles employ this construction 

but have not demonstrated roof strength at this level. The report indicates the 

requirement of 3X curb weight is reached within 20 mm which is typically prior to 

the test platen applying significant load directly into the b-pillar.

35 MPH frontal rigid barrier simulation

Report indicates the front tires do not contact the sill in a 35 MPH impact. This is 

highly unusual structural performance. Implications are the model or the 

structure is overly stiff.
134

Body torsional stiffness

Torsional stiffness is indicated to be 32.9 kN/deg. Higher than any comparable 

vehicles listed in the report. PH 2 structure torsional stiffness is comparable to 

significantly more compact body structures like the Porsche Carrera, BMW 5 

series, Audi A8. It is not clear what elements of the PH 2 structure contribute to 

achieving the predicted stiffness.

Door beam modeling

Door beams appear to stay tightly joined to the body structure with no tilting, 

twisting or separation at the lock attachments in the various side impact load 

modes. This is highly unusual structural behavior. No door opening deformation 

is observed in any frontal crash simulations. This suggests the door structure is 

modeled as an integral load path. FMVSS requires that doors are operable after 

crash testing. Door operability is nt addressed in the report.

4.2 Energy balance - is presented as validation of the FEM analysis. For each load 

case an energy balance is presented. Evaluating energy balance is a good engineering 

practice when modeling complex structures. Energy balance gives confidence in the 

mathematical fidelity of the model and that there are no significant mathematical 

instabilities in the calculations. Energy balance does not confirm model accuracy in 

simulating a given physical structure. 

4.3 Model calibration

Analytical models have the potential to closely represent complex non-liner structure 

performance under dynamic loading. With the current state of modeling technology, 

achieving accurate modeling normally requires calibration to physical test results of an 

actual structure. Models developed in this study have not been compared or calibrated 

to a physical test. While these simulations may be good representations of actual 

structure performance, the models cannot be regarded as validated without some 

correlation to physical test results.

Project task list includes dynamic body structure modal analysis. Report Summary of 

Safety Testing Results” indicates the mass reduced body exhibits “best in class” 

torsional and bending stiffness. The report discusses torsional stiffness but there is no 

information on predicted bending stiffness. No data on modal performance data or 

analysis is presented.

4.4 Safety Conclusion

A major objective of the PH 2 study is to “validate” the light weight vehicle structure for 

compliance with FMVSS requirements. State of the art FEM and dynamic simulations 

models were developed. Those models indicate the body structure has the potential to 

satisfy FMVSS requirements. FMVSS requirements for dynamic crash test 

performance is defined with respect to occupant loads and accelerations as measured 

using calibrated test dummies. The FEM simulations did not include interior, seats, 
135

restraint systems or occupants. Analytical models in this project evaluate 

displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the body structure. Predicting occupant 

response based on body structural displacements velocities and accelerations is 

speculative. Simulation results presented are a good indicator of potential performance. 

These simulations alone would not be considered adequate validation the structure for 

FMVSS required safety performance.

5.0 Cost modeling

Assessing cost implications of the PH 2 design a critically important element of the 

project. 

Total vehicle cost was derived form vehicle list price using estimated Toyota mark-up for 

overhead and profit. This process assumes average Toyota mark-up applies to Venza 

pricing. List price for specific vehicles is regularly influenced by business and 

competitive marketing factors. (Chevrolet Volt is believed to be priced significantly 

below GM corporate average margin on sales, while the Corvette is believed to be 

above target margin on sales.) System cost assumptions based on average sales 

margin and detailed engineering judgments can be a reasonable first order estimate. 

These estimates can be useful in allocation of relative to costs to individual vehicle 

systems, but lack sufficient rigor to support definitive cost conclusions

Baseline Venza system costs were estimated by factoring estimated total vehicle cost 

and allocating relative cost factors for each major sub-system (BIW, closures, chassis, 

bumpers, suspension, ...) based on engineering judgment. Cost of PH 2 purchased 

components were developed using a combination of estimated baseline vehicle system 

estimated costs, engineering judgment and supplier estimates. Cost estimates for 

individual purchased components appear realistic. 

Body costs for PH 2 design were estimated by combining scaled material content from 

baseline vehicle (Venza) and projected manufacturing cost from a new production 

processes and facility developed for this project. This approach is logical and practical, 

but lacks the rigor to support reliable estimates of new design cost implications when 

the design changes represent significant departures from the baseline design content. 

Body piece cost and tooling investment estimates were developed by Intgellicosting. 

No information was provided on Intellicosting methodology. Purchased component 

piece cost estimates (excluding BIW) are in line with findings in similar studies. Tooling 

costs supplied by Intellicosting are significantly lower than actual production experience 

would suggest.

Assembly costs were based on detailed assembly plant design, work flow analysis and 

labor content estimates. Assembly plant labor content (minutes) is consistent with 

actual BIW experienced in other OEM production projects.
136

The PH 2 study indicates and aluminum based multi material body (BIW, closures) can 

be produced for at a cost reduction of $199 relative to a conventional steel body. That 

conclusion is not consistent with general industry experience. This inconsistency may 

result from PH 2 assumptions of material recovery, labor rates and pars consolidation. 

A recent study conducted by IBIS Associates “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: 

Manufacturing and Life Cycle Cost Analysis” estimated a cost increase $560 for an 

aluminum vehicle BIW and closures. 

http://aluminumintransportation.org/members/files/active/0/IBIS%20Powertrain%20Stud

y%20w%20cover.pdf

That study was conducted with a major high volume OEM vehicle producer and 

included part cost estimates using detailed individual part cost estimates. Majority of 

cost increases for the low mass body are offset by weight related cost reductions in 

powertrain, chassis and suspension components. Conclusions from the IBIS study are 

consistent with similar studies and production experience at other OEM producers.

5.1 BIW Design Integration

Report identifies BIW piece count reduction from a baseline of 419 pieces to 169 for PH 

2. Significant piece cost and labor cost savings are attributed to the reduction in piece 

count. Venza BOM lists 407 pieces in the baseline BIW. A total of 120 pieces are 

identified as having “0” weight and “0” cost. Another 47 pieces are listed as nuts or 

bolts. PH 2 Venza BOM lists no nuts or bolts and has no “0” mass/cost components. 

With the importance attributed to parts integration, these differences need to be 

addressed.

Closure BOM for PH 2 appears to not include a number of detail components that are 

typically necessary in a production ready design. An example of this is the PH 2 hood. 

PH 2 Hood BOM lists 4 parts, an inner and outer panel and 2 hinges. Virtually all 

practical aluminum hood designs include 2 hinge bracket reinforcements, a latch 

support and a palm reinforcement. Absence of these practical elements of a production 

hood raise questions about the functional equivalency (mounting and reinforcement 

points, NVH, aesthetics,...) of the two vehicle designs. Contents of the Venza BOM 

should be reviewed for accuracy and content in the PH 2 BOM should be reviewed for 

practical completeness.

5.2 Tooling Investment

Tooling estimates from Intellicosting are significantly lower than have been seen in other 

similar studies or production programs and will be challenged by most knowledgeable 

automotive industry readers. Intellicosting estimates total BIW tooling at $28MM in the 

tooling summary and $70 MM in the report summary. On similar production OEM 

programs complete BIW tooling has been in the range of $150MM to $200MM. The 

report attributes low tooling cost to parts consolidation. This does not appear to 
137

completely explain the significant cost differences between PH 2 tooling and actual 

production experience. Parts consolidation typically results in fewer tools while 

increasing size, complexity and cost of tools used. The impact of parts consolidation on 

PH 2 weight and cost appears to be major. The report does not provide specific 

examples of where parts consolidation was achieved and the specific impact of 

consolidation. Considering the significant impact attributed to parts consolidation, it 

would be helpful provide specific examples of where this was achieved and the specific 

impact on mass, cost and tooling. Based on actual production experience, PH 2 

estimates for plant capital investment, tooling cost and labor rates would be viewed as 

extremely optimistic

5.3 Material Recovery

Report states estimates of material recovery in processing were not included in the cost 

analysis. Omitting this cost factor can have a significant impact on cost of sheet based 

aluminum products used in this study. Typical auto body panel blanking process 

recovery is 60%. This recovery rate is typical for steel and aluminum sheet. When 

evaluation material cost of an aluminum product the impact of recovery losses should 

be included in the analysis. Potential impact of material recovery for body panels:

Approximate aluminum content (BIW, Closures) 240 Kg

Input material required at 60% recovery 400 Kg

Blanking off-all 160 Kg

Devaluation of blanking off-all (rough estimate)

Difference between raw material and

Blanking off-all $1.30/Kg $ 211

Blanking devaluation increases cost of aluminum sheet products by over 

$ 0.90/Kg.

Appropriate estimates of blanking recoveries and material devaluation should be 

included in cost estimates for stamped aluminum sheet components. Recovery rates 

for steel sheet products are similar to aluminum, but the economic impact of steel sheet 

devaluation is a significantly lower factor in finished part cost per pound.

Report indicates total cost of resistance spot welding (RSW) is 5X the cost of friction 

spot welding (FSW). Typical total body shop cost (energy, labor, maintenance, 

consumable tips) of a RSW is $0.05 - $0.10. For the stated ratio to be accurate, FSW 

total cost would be $0.01-$0.02 which appears unlikely. It is possible the 5X cost 

differential apply to energy consumption and not total cost. 
138

5.4 Labor rates

Average body plant labor rates used in BIW costing average $35 fully loaded. Current 

North American average labor rates for auto manufacturing (typically stamping, body 

production and vehicle assembly) 

Toyota $55

GM $56 (including two tier)

Ford $58

Honda $50

Nissan $47

Hyundai $44

VW $38

Labor rate of $35 may be achievable (VW) in some regions and circumstances. The 

issue of labor rate is peripheral to the central costing issue of this study which is 

assessing the cost impact of light weight engineering design. Method used to establish 

baseline BIW component costs inherently used current Toyota labor rates. Objective 

assessment of design impact on vehicle cost would use same labor rates for both 

configurations.

Labor cost or BIW production is reported to be $108 using an average rate of $35. 

Typical actual BIW labor content from other cost studies with North American OEM’s 

found actual BIW labor content approaching $200. Applying the current Toyota labor 

rate of $55 to the PH 2 BIW production plan increases labor content to $170 (+$62) per 

vehicle.

6.0 General

Editorial:

Report makes frequent reference to PH 1 vehicle LD and HD configurations. 

These references seem unnecessary and at times confusing. PH 1 study 

references do not enhance the findings or conclusions of the PH 2 study. 

Suggest eliminating reference to the PH 1 study.

Report would be clearer if content detail from PH 1 project that is part of PH 2 

project (interior, closure, chassis content) is fully reported in PH 2 report. 

Weight and Cost reduction references

Baseline shifts between Total Vehicle and Total Vehicle Less Powertrain

A consistent baseline may avoid confusion

Suggest using total vehicle as reference

Cost increases statements: 

Report makes a number of cost references similar to: 
139

Pg 4 - “The estimation of the BIW piece cost suggests an increase of 160 

percent – over $700 – for the 37-percent mass-reduced body-in-white.” 

The statement indicates the increase is 160%. The increase of $700 is an 

increase of 60% resulting in a total cost 160% of the baseline. 

6.1 Site selection

PH 2 project includes an extensive site selection study. Site selection is not related to 

product design. Including economics based on preferential site selection confuses the 

fundamental issue of the design exercise. Assumption of securing a comparable site 

and achieving the associated preferential labor rates and operating expenses are at 

best unlikely. Eliminating the site selection and associated cost would make the report 

more focused and cost projections more understandable and believable.

Advantaged labor rates and possible renewable energy operating cost savings could be 

applied to any vehicle design. Entering those factors into the design study for the light 

weight redesign mixes design cost with site selection and construction issues.

Site plan includes use of PV solar and wind turbines. Plant costs indicate general plant 

energy (lighting, support utilities, HVAC) (not processing energy) will be at “0” cost. 

True impact of renewable energy sources net of maintenance costs is at best 

controversial. Impact of general plant energy cost on vehicle cost is minimal. The issue 

of renewable energy sources is valid but peripheral to the subject of vehicle design. It 

would be clearer to use conventional general plant energy overhead in cost analysis of 

the Phase II design cost.

6.2 Development experience

PH 2 vehicle design described is representative of a predevelopment design concept. 

All OEM production programs go through this development stage. Most vehicle 

programs experience some increase in mass and cost through the physical testing and 

durability development process. Those increases are typically driven by NVH or 

durability issues not detectable at the modeling stage. Mass dampers on the Venza 

front and rear suspension are examples of mass and cost increases. Vehicle mass 

increases of 2-3% through the development cycle are not unusual. It would be prudent 

to recognize some level of development related mass increase in the PH 2 mass 

projection.

6.3 Vehicle content

Pg. 214 Bumpers: Need to check statement:

“Current bumpers are generally constructed from steel extrusions,

although some are aluminum and magnesium.”
140

In North America 80% of all bumpers are rolled or stamped steel. Aluminum extrusions 

are currently 20% of the NA market. There are no extruded steel bumpers. There are 

no magnesium bumpers.

Technology – Majority of the design concepts utilized for PH 2 have been in reasonable 

volume automotive production for multiple years and on multiple vehicles. A few of the 

ideas represent a change in vehicle utility or are dependent on significant technology 

advancements that may not be achievable. Identifying the impact of currently proven 

technologies from speculative technologies may improve understanding of the overall 

study. 

Specific speculative technologies:

Eliminate spare tire, jack, tools (23 Kg) - feasible, may influence customer 

perception of utility

Eliminate carpeting - feasible, customer perception issue

Dual cast rotors (2 Kg) - have been tried, durability issues in volume 

production, differential expansion and bearing temperature issues 

may not be solvable

Wheels Ablation cast (22.4 Kg) - process has been run experimentally but 

has not been proven in volume. Benefit of process for wheel 

applications may not be achievable due to resultant metallurgical 

conditions of the as-cast surfaces. 
141

[Please Note: These comments are located immediately following the tables in 

Section. 3: Summary of Comments.] 

Review of Lotus Engineering Study “Demonstrating the Safety and 

Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle”

Srdjan Simunovic

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

simunovics@ornl.gov
142

[insert date]

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Response to Comments on the peer review of Demonstrating the Safety and 

Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle (Lotus Phase 2 

Report)

FROM: Cheryl Caffrey, Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The Lotus Phase 2 Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), CG Cantemir, 

Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, Tony Luscher, and Leo Rusli (The Ohio State University 

(OSU)), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In 

addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of the OSU Team reviewed various elements of the associated 

LS-DYNA modeling. 

This memo includes a compilation of comments prepared by SRA International and responses and 

actions in response to those comments from EPA.
143

1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA 

SOURCES

COMMENTS

Please comment on the validity of 

any data sources and assumptions 

embedded in the study’s material 

choices, vehicle design, crash 

validation testing, and cost 

assessment that could affect its 

findings.

[Joost] The accuracy of the stress-strain data used for each material during CAE and crash analysis is critically important 

for determining accurate crash response. The sources cited for the material data are credible; however the Al yield 

stresses used appear to be on the high side of the expected properties for the alloy-temper systems proposed here. The 

authors may need to address the use of the slightly higher numbers (for example, 6061-T6 is shown with a yield stress of 

308 MPa, where standard reported values are usually closer to 275 MPa).

[Richman] Aluminum alloys and tempers selected and appropriate and proven for the intended applications. Engineering 

data used for those materials and product forms accurately represent minimum expected minimum expected properties 

normally used for automotive design purposes. 

Simulation results indicate a vehicle utilizing the PH 2 structure is potentially capable of meeting FMVSS requirements. 

Physical test results have not been presented to confirm model validity, some simulation results indicate unusual 

structural performance and the models do not address occupant loading conditions which are the FMVSS validation 

criteria. Simulation results alone would not be considered “validation” of PH 2 structure safety performance.

Cost estimates for the PH 2 vehicle are questionable. Cost modeling methodology relies on engineering estimates and 

supplier cost projections. The level of analytical rigor in this approach raises uncertainties about resulting cost estimates. 

Inconsistencies in reported piece count differences between baseline and PH 2 structures challenge a major reported 

source of cost savings. Impact of blanking recovery on aluminum sheet product net cost was explicitly not considered. 

Labor rates assumed for BIW manufacturing were $20/Hr below prevailing Toyota labor rate implicit in baseline Venza cost 

analysis. Cost estimates for individual stamping tool are substantially below typical tooling cost experienced for similar 

products. Impact of blanking recovery and labor rates alone would increase BIW cost by over $200. 

[OSU] Material data, for the most part, seems reasonably representative of what would be used in this type of automotive 

construction. Some of the materials are more prevalent in other industries like rail, than in automotive. 

Material specifications used in this report were nominal; however, reviewers would like to see min/max material 

specifications taken into consideration. 
144

If you find issues with data sources 

and assumptions, please provide 

suggestions for available data that 

would improve the study.

[Joost] Materials properties describing failure are not indicated (with the exception of Mg, which shows an in-plane failure 

strain of 6%). It seems unlikely that the Al and Steel components in the vehicle will remain below the strain localization or 

failure limits of the material; it’s not clear how failure of these materials was determined in the models. The authors 

should indicate how failure was accounted for; if it was not, the authors will need to explain why the assumption of 

uniform plasticity throughout the crash event is valid for these materials. This could be done by showing that the 

maximum strain conditions predicted in the model are below the typical localization or failure limits of the materials (if 

that is true, anyway).

Empirical determination of the joint properties was a good decision for this study. The author indicates that lap-shear tests 

demonstrated that failure occurred outside of the bond, and therefore adhesive failure was not included in the model. 

However, the joints will experience a variety of stress states that differ from lap-shear during a crash event. While not a 

major deficiency, it would be preferable to provide some discussion of why lap-shear results can be extended to all stress 

states for joint failure mode. Alternatively, the author could also provide testing data for other joint stress states such as 

bending, torsion, and cross tension.

[Richman] No comment.

[OSU] References for all of the materials and adhesives would be very helpful.

[Simunovic] The overall methodology used by the authors of the Phase 2 study is fundamentally solid and follows 

standard practices from the crashworthiness engineering. Several suggestions are offered that may enhance the outcome 

of the study. 

Material Properties and Models

Reduction of vehicle weight is commonly pursued by use of lightweight materials and advanced designs. Direct 

substitution of materials on a component level is possible only conceptually because of the other constraints stemming 

from the material properties, function of the component, its dimensions, packaging, etc. Therefore, one cannot decide on 

material substitutions solely on potential weight savings. In general, an overall re-design is required, as was demonstrated 

in the study under review. An overview of the recent lightweight material concept vehicle initiatives is given in Lutsey, 

Nicholas P., "Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to Automobile Mass-Reduction Technology." Institute of 

Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-10-10 (2010).

The primary body material for the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, is mild steel. Except for about 8% of Dual Phase 

steel with 590 MPa designation, everything else is the material which has been used in automobiles for almost a century 

and for which extensive design experience and manufacturing technologies exist. On the other hand, the High 

Development vehicle concept employs novel lightweight materials, many of which are still under development, such as Mg 
145

alloys and fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites. These materials are yet to be used in large quantities in mass 

production automobiles. Their lack of market penetration is due not only to a higher manufacturing cost , but also due to 

an insufficient understanding, experience and characterization of their mechanical behavior. To compensate for these 

uncertainties, designers must use higher safety factors, which then often eliminate any potential weight savings. In 

computational modeling, these uncertainties are manifested by the lack of material performance data, inadequate 

constitutive models and a lack of validated models for the phenomena that was not of a concern when designing with the 

conventional materials. For example, mild steel components dissipate crash energy through formation of deep folds in 

which material can undergo strains over 100%. Both analytical [Jones, Norman, "Structural Impact", Cambridge University 

Press (1997).] and computational methods [Ted Belytschko, T., Liu, W.-K., Moran, B., "Nonlinear Finite Elements for 

Continua and Structures", Wiley (2000).] of the continuum mechanics are sufficiently developed to be able to deal with 

such configurations. On the other hand, Mg alloys, cannot sustain such large deformations and strain gradients and, 

therefore, require development of computational methods to model material degradation, fracturing, and failure in 

general.

The material data for the vehicle model is provided in section 4.4.2. of the Phase 2 report. The stress-strain curves in the 

figures are most likely curves of effective plastic strain and flow stress for isotropic plasticity material constitutive models 

that use that form of data, such as the LS-DYNA ["LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual", Livermore Software Technology 

Corporation (LSTC), version 971, (2010).] constitutive model number 24, named MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY. A 

list detailing the constitutive model formulation for each of the materials of structural significance in the study would help 

to clarify this issue. Also the design rationale for dimensioning and selection of materials for the main structural parts 

would help in understanding the design decisions made by the authors of the study. The included material data does not 

include strain rate sensitivity, so it is assumed that the strain rate effect was not considered. Strain rate sensitivity can be 

an important strengthening mechanism in metals. For hcp (hexagonal close-packed) materials, such as AM60, high strain 

rate may also lead to change in the underlying mechanism of deformation, damage evolution, failure criterion, etc. Data 

for strain rate tests can be found in the open source [http://thyme.ornl.gov/Mg_new], although the properties can vary 

considerably with material processing and microstructure. The source of material data in the study was often attributed to 

private communications. Those should be included in the report, if possible, or in cases when the data is available from 

documented source, such as reference ["Atlas of Stress-Strain Curves", 2nd Ed., ASM International (2002).], referencing 

can be changed. Properties for aluminum and steel were taken from publicly available sources and private 

communications and are within accepted ranges.

Material Parameters and Model for Magnesium Alloy AM60

The mechanical response of Mg alloys involves anisotropy, anisotropic hardening, yield asymmetry, relatively low ductility, 

strain rate sensitivity, and significant degradation of effective properties due to the formation and growth of micro-defects 

under loading [Nyberg EA, AA Luo, K Sadayappan, and W Shi, "Magnesium for Future Autos." Advanced Materials & 

Processes 166(10):35-37 (2008).]. It has been shown, for example, that ductility of die-cast AM60 depends strongly on its 
146

microstructure [Chadha, G; Allison, JE; Jones, JW, "The role of microstructure and porosity in ductility of die cast AM50 and

AM60 magnesium alloys," Magnesium Technology 2004, pp. 181-186 (2004).], and, by extension, on the section thickness 

of the samples. In case when a vehicle component does not play a strong role in crash, its material model and parameters 

can be described with simple models, such as isotropic plasticity, with piecewise linear hardening curve. However, 

magnesium is extensively used across the High Development vehicle design [An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program, Lotus Engineering Inc., Rev 006A, (2010).]. In Phase 1 report, 

magnesium is found in many components that are in the direct path of the frontal crash (e.g. NCAP test). Pages 40-42 of 

Phase 1 report show magnesium as material for front-end module (FEM), shock towers, wheel housing, dash panel, toe 

board and front transition member. The front transition member seems to be the component that provides rear support 

for the front chassis rail. However, in Phase 2 report, pages 35-37, shock towers and this component were marked as made 

out of aluminum. A zoomed section of the Figure 4.2.3.d from the Phase 2 report is shown in Figure 1. [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 4.] The presumed part identified as the front transition member is marked with an arrow.

These assignments were not possible to confirm from the crash model since the input files were encrypted. In any case, 

since Mg AM60 alloy is used in such important role for the frontal crash, a more detailed material model than the one 

implied by the graph on page 32 of Phase 2 report [1] would be warranted. More accurate failure model is needed, as well. 

The failure criteria in LS-DYNA [6] are mostly limited to threshold values of equivalent strains and/or stresses. However, 

combination of damage model with plasticity and damage-initiated failure would probably yield a better accuracy for 

AM60.

Material Models for Composites

Understanding of mechanical properties for material denoted as Nylon_45_2a (reference [1] page 33) would be much 

more improved if the constituents and fiber arrangement were described in more detail. Numbers 45 and 2 may be 

indicating +/- 450 fiber arrangement, however, a short addition of material configuration would eliminate unnecessary 

speculation. An ideal plasticity model of 60% limit strain for this material seems to be overly optimistic. Other composite 

models available in LS-DYNA may be a much better option. 

Joint Models

Welded joints are modeled by variation of properties in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and threshold force for cutoff 

strength. HAZs are relatively easy to identify in the model because their IDs are in 1,000,000 range as specified on page 21 

of the report [1]. An example of the approach is shown in Figure 2 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 5.], where the arrows 

mark HAZs.

This particular connection contains welds (for joining aluminum parts) and bolts (for joining aluminum and magnesium). 

HAZ properties were not given in the report and they could not be checked in the model due to encryption. The bolt model 

properties were described that it fails at 130 MPa (page 38 of the report [1]), which corresponds to the yield stress of 
147

AM60. The importance of these joints cannot be overstated. They enforce stability of the axial deformation mode in the 

rails that in turn enables dissipation of the impact energy. The crash sequence of the connection between the front end 

module and the front rail is shown in Figure 3. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 6.]

The cracks in the front end module (Figure 3.2) and the separation between the front end module and the front rail (Figure 

3.3) are clearly visible. This zone experiences very large permanent deformations, as shown in Figure 4. [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 6.]

It is not clear from the simulations which failure criterion dominates the process. Is it the failure of the HAZ or is it the spot 

weld limit force or stress. Given the importance of this joint on the overall crash response, additional information about 

the joint sub-models would be very beneficial to a reader.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman] Study includes an impressive amount of design, crash, and cost analysis information. The radical part count reduction needs to be more fully 

explained or de-emphasized. Report also should address the greatly reduced tooling and assembly costs relative to the experience of today's automakers. 

Some conservatism would be appropriate regarding potential shortcomings in interior design and aesthetics influencing customer expectations and acceptance.

[OSU] One broad comment is that this report needs to be more strongly placed in the context of the state of the art as established by available literature. For 

example the work only contains 7 formal references. Also, it is not clear where material data came from in specific cases (this should be formally referenced, 

even if a private communication) and the exact source of data such in as the comparative data in Figure 4.3.2 is not clear. Words like Intillicosting are used to 

denote the source of data and we believe that refers to a specific subcontract let to the firm ‘intellicosting’ for this work and those results are shown here. This 

needs to be made explicitly clear. 
148

2. VEHICLE DESIGN 

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR

COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods 

used to analyze the materials 

selected, forming techniques, 

bonding processes, and parts 

integration, as well as the resulting 

final vehicle design.

[Joost] While appropriate forming methods and materials appear to have been selected, a detailed description of the 

material selection and trade-off process is not provided. One significant exception is the discussion and tables regarding 

the replacement of Mg components with Al and steel components in order to meet crash requirements.

Similarly, while appropriate joining techniques seem to have been used, the process for selecting the processes and 

materials is not clear. Additionally, little detail is provided on the joining techniques used here. A major technical hurdle in 

the implementation of multi-material systems is the quality, durability, and performance of the joints. Additional effort 

should be expended towards describing the joining techniques used here and characterizing the performance.

[Richman] Adhesive bonding and FSW processes used in PH 2 have been proven in volume production and would be 

expected to perform well in this application. Some discussion of joining system for magnesium closure inner panels to 

aluminum external skin and AHSS “B” pillar to aluminum body would improve understanding and confidence in those 

elements of the design.

Parts integration information is vague and appears inconsistent. Parts integration. Major mass and cost savings are 

attributed to parts integration. Data presented does not appear to results.

Final design appears capable of meeting functional, durability and FMVSS requirements. Some increase in mass and cost 

are likely to resolve structure and NVH issues encountered in component and vehicle level physical testing.

[OSU] More details are needed on the various aspects of joining and fastening. Comment on assembly.

Please describe the extent to 

which state-of-the-art design 

methods have been employed as 

well as the extent to which the 

associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

[Joost] Design is a challenging process and the most important aspect is having a capable and experienced design team 

supporting the project; Lotus clearly meets this need and adds credibility to the design results.

One area that is omitted from the analysis is durability (fatigue and corrosion) performance of the structure. Significant 

use of Al, Al joints, and multi-material joints introduces the potential for both fatigue and corrosion failure that are 

unacceptable in an automotive product. It would be helpful to include narrative describing the good durability 

performance of conventional (i.e. not Bentley, Ferrari, etc.) vehicles that use similar materials and joints in production 

without significant durability problems. In some cases, (say the weld-bonded Al-Mg joints), production examples do not 

exist so there should be an explanation of how these could meet durability requirements.

[Richman] Vehicle design methodology utilizing Opti-Struct, NASTRAN and LS-Dyna is represents a comprehensive and 
149

rigorous approach to BIW structural design and materials optimization.

[OSU] In order to qualify for mass production, a process must be very repeatable. Figure 4.2.4.a shows the results from 5 

test coupons. There are significant differences between all of these in peak strength and energy absorption. Such a spread 

of results would not be acceptable in terms of production.

[Simunovic] The Phase 2 design study of the High Development vehicle considered large number of crash scenarios from 

the FMVSS and IIHS tests. The simulations show reasonable results and deformations. Energy measures show that models 

are stable and have no sudden spikes that would lead to instabilities. The discretization of the sheet material is primarily 

done by proportionate quadrilateral shell elements, with relatively few triangular elements. The mesh density is relatively 

uniform without large variations in element sizes and aspect ratios. However, in my opinion, there are two issues that 

need to be addressed. One is the modeling of material failure/fracture and the other is the design of the crush zone with 

respect to the overall stopping distance. While the former may be a part of proprietary technology, the latter issue should 

be added to the description in order to better understand the design at hand. 

Material Failure Models and Criteria

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional designs is modeling of material fracture/failure. 

In the Phase 2 report [1] material failure is indicated only in AM60 although it may be reasonably expected in other 

materials in the model. Modeling of material failure in continuum mechanics is a fairly complex undertaking. In the current 

Lotus High Development model, material failure and fracture are apparently modeled by element deletion. In this 

approach, when a finite element reaches some failure criteria, the element is removed from simulations, which then 

allows for creation of free surfaces and volumes in the structure. This approach is notoriously mesh-dependent. It implies 

that the characteristic dimension for the material strain localization is of the size of the finite element where localization 

and failure happen to occur. Addition of the strain rate sensitivity to a material model can both improve fidelity of the 

material model, and as an added benefit, it can also help to regularize the response during strain localization. Depending 

on the amount of stored internal energy and stiffness in the deleted elements, the entire simulation can be polluted by the 

element deletion errors and become unstable. Assuming that only AM60 parts in the Lotus model have failure criterion, it 

would not be too difficult for the authors to describe it in more depth. Since AM60 is such a critical material in the design, 

perturbation of its properties, mesh geometry perturbations and different discretization densities, should be considered 

and investigate how do they affect the convergence of the critical measures, such as crash distances.

A good illustration of the importance of the failure criteria is the response of the AM60 front end module during crash. 

This component is always in the top group of components ranked by the dissipated energy. Figure 5 [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 7.] shows deformation of the front end module during the full frontal crash.

Notice large cracks open in the mid span, on the sides, and punched out holes at the locations of the connection with the 

front rail and the shotgun. Mesh refinement study of this component would be interesting and could also indicate the 
150

robustness of the design. Decision to design such a structurally important part out of Mg would be interesting to a reader.

There are other components that also include failure model even though they are clearly not made out of magnesium nor 

are their failure criteria defined in the Phase 2 report. Figure 6 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 8.] shows the sequence of 

deformation of the front left rail as viewed from the right side of the vehicle.

The axial crash of the front rails is ensured by their connection to the front end, rear S-shaped support and to the 

connections to the sub-frame. Figure 7 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 8.] shows the detail of the connectors between the 

left crush rail to the subframe.

Tearing of the top of the support (blue) can be clearly observed in Figure 7. The importance of this connection for the 

overall response may warrant parametric studies for failure parameters and mesh discretization.

Crash Performance of the High Development Vehicle Design

From the safety perspective, the most challenging crash scenario is the full profile frontal crash into a flat rigid barrier. The 

output files for the NCAP 35 mph test were provided by Lotus Engineering and used for evaluation of the vehicle design 

methodological rigor.

The two accelerometer traces from the simulation at the lower B-pillar locations are shown in Figure 8. [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 9.] When compared with NHTSA test 6601, the simulation accelerometer and displacement traces indicate 

much shorter crush length than the baseline vehicle.

When compared vehicle deformations before and after the crush, it becomes obvious where the deformation occurs. 

Figure 9 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 10.] shows the deformation of the front rail members.

It can be seen that almost all deformation occurs in the space spanned by the front frame rails. As marked in Figure 1, the 

front transition member (or a differently named component in case my material assignment assumption was not correct), 

supports the front rail so that it axially crushed and dissipated as much energy, as possible. For that purpose, this front rail 

rear support was made extremely stiff and it does not appreciably deform during the crash (Figure 10). [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 10.] It has internal reinforcing structure that has not been described in the report. These reinforcements 

enables it to reduce bending and axial deformations in order to provide steady support for the axial crush of the aluminum 

rail tube.

This design decision reduces the possible crush zone and stopping distance to the distance between the front of the 

bumper and the front of the rail support (Figure 9). The effective crash length can be clearly seen in Figure 11. [See 

Simunovic Comments, p. 11.]
151

We can see from the above figure that the front rail supports undergo minimal displacements and that all the impact 

energy must be dissipated in a very short span. Figure 12 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 12.] shows the points of interest to 

determine the boundary of the crush zone, and an assumption that crash energy dissipation occurs ahead of the front 

support for the lower rail.

Figure 13 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 12.] gives the history of the axial displacements for the two points above. At their 

maximum points, the relative reduction of their distance from the starting condition is 0.7 inches.

Since the distance between the front of the rail support and the rocker remains practically unchanged during the test, we 

can reasonably assume that majority of the crash energy is dissipated in less than 22 inches. To quickly evaluate the 

feasibility of the proposed design, we can use the concept of the Equivalent Square Wave (ESW) ["Vehicle crashworthiness 

and occupant protection", American Iron and Steel Institute, Priya, Prasad and Belwafa, Jamel E., Eds. (2004).]. ESW 

assumes constant, rectangular, impact pulse for the entire length of the stopping distance (in our case equal to 22 in) from 

initial velocity (35 mph). ESW represents an equivalent constant rectangular shaped pulse to an arbitrary input pulse. In 

our case ESW is about 22 g. Sled tests and occupant model simulations indicate that crash pulses exceeding ESW of 20 g 

will have difficulties to satisfy FMVSS 208 crash dummy performance criteria [11]. For a flat front barrier crash of 35 mph 

and an ESW of 20 g, the minimum stopping distance is 24 in. Advanced restraint systems and early trigger airbags may 

need to be used in order to satisfy the injury criteria and provide sufficient ride down time for the vehicle occupants.

The authors of the study do not elaborate on the safety indicators. I firmly believe that such a discussion would be very 

informative and valuable to a wide audience. On several places, the authors state values for average accelerations up to 30 

ms from the impact, and average accelerations after 30 ms. When stated without a context, these numbers do not help 

the readers who are not versed in the concepts of crashworthiness. The authors most likely refer to the effectiveness time 

of the restraint systems. An overview of the concepts followed by a discussion of the occupant safety calculations for this 

particular design would be very valuable.

If you are aware of better methods 

employed and documented 

elsewhere to help select and 

analyze advanced vehicle materials 

and design engineering rigor for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest 

how they might be used to 

improve this study.

[Joost] No comment.

[Richman] No comment.

[OSU] No suggestions at this time.
152

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] This is a very thorough design process, undertaken by a very credible design organization (Lotus). There are a variety of design assumptions and tradeoffs that were made during the process (as discussed above), but this would be expected for any study of this type. Having a design team from Lotus adds 

credibility to the assumptions and design work that was done here.

Section 4.5.8.1 uses current “production” vehicles as examples for the feasibility of these techniques. However, many of the examples are for extremely highend vehicles (Bentley, Lotus Evora, McLaren) and the remaining examples are for low-production, high-end vehicles (MB E class, Dodge Viper, etc.). The cost of 

some technologies can be expected to come down before 2020, but it is not reasonable to assume that (for example) the composites technologies used in 

Lamborghinis will be cost competitive on any time scale; significant advances in composite technology will need to be made in order to be cost competitive on a 

Venza, and the resulting material is likely to differ considerably (in both properties and manufacturing technique) from the Lamborghini grade material.

[Richman] [1] Achieving a 37% BIW mass reduction with a multi material design optimized for safety performance is consistent with recent research and 

production vehicle experience. BIW mass reductions resulting from conversion of conventional BIW structures to aluminum based multi-material BIW have 

ranged from 35%-39% (Jaguar XJ, Audi A8) to 47% (OEM study). BIW related mass reductions above 40% were achieved where the baseline structure was 

predominantly mild steel. A recent University of Aachen (Germany) concluded BIW structures optimized for safety performance utilizing low mass engineering 

materials can achieve 35-40% mass reduction compared to a BIW optimized using conventional body materials. A recent BIW weight reduction study 

conducted at the University of Aachen (Germany)”. http://www.eaa.net/en/applications/automotive/studies/

Most of the BIW content (materials, manufacturing processes) selected for the PH 2 vehicle have been in successful volume auto industry production for 

several years. 

[2] Closures/Fenders: Mass reduction in the closure and fender group is 59 Kg, 41% of baseline Venza. This level of mass reduction is consistent with results of 

the Aachen and IBIS studies and industry experience on current production vehicles. Hood and fenders on the PH 2 vehicle are aluminum. Recent Ducker 

Worldwide Survey of 2012 North American Vehicles found over 30% of all North American vehicles have aluminum hoods and over 15% of vehicle have 

aluminum fenders. PH 2 use of aluminum for closure panels is consistent with recognized industry trends for these components. PH 2 doors utilize aluminum 

outer skins over cast magnesium inner panels. 

[3] Material properties: Aluminum alloy and temper selection for BIW and Closures are appropriate for those components. Those materials have been used in 

automotive applications for several years and are growing in popularity in future vehicle programs.

[4] Typical vs. Minimum properties: Automobile structural designs are typically based on minimum mechanical properties. Report does not identify the data 

used (minimum or typical). Aluminum property data used in for the PH 2 design represents expected minimum values for the alloys and tempers. This 

reviewer is not able to comment on property values used for the other materials used in the BIW.

[5] Aluminum pre-treatment: PH 2 vehicle structure utilizes adhesive bonding of major structural elements. Production vehicle experience confirms pre-
153

treatment of sheet and extruded aluminum bonding surfaces is required to achieve maximum joint integrity and durability. PH 2 vehicle description indicates 

sheet material is anodized as a pre-treatment. From the report it is not clear that pretreatment is also applied to extruded elements. 

The majority of high volume aluminum programs in North America have moved away from electrochemical anodizing as a pre-treatment. Current practice is 

use of a more effective, lower cost and environmentally compatible chemical conversion process. These processes are similar to Alodine treatment. 

Predominant aluminum pre-treatments today are provided by Novelis (formerly Alcan Rolled Products) and Alcoa (Alcoa 951). Both processes achieve similar 

results and need to be applied to the sheet and extruded elements that will be bonded in assembly

[6] Suspension and Chassis: Suspension/chassis PH 2 mass reduction is 162 Kg (43% of baseline). This level of mass reduction is higher than has been seen in 

similar studies. Lotus PH 2 includes conversion of steering knuckles, suspension arms and the engine cradle to aluminum castings. Mass reductions estimated 

for conversion of those components are estimated at approximately 50%. Recent Ducker study found aluminum knuckles are currently used on over 50% of 

North American vehicles and aluminum control arms are used on over 30% of North American vehicles. Achieving 50% mass reduction through conversion of 

these components to aluminum is consistent with industry experience.

[7] Wheel/Tire: Total wheel and tire mass reduction of 64 Kg (46%) is projected for the wheel and tire group. Project mass reduction is achieved through a 

reduction in wheel and tire masses and elimination of the spare tire and tool kit. 

Tire mass reduction is made possible by a 30% reduction in vehicle mass. Projected tire mass reduction is 6 Kg for 4 tires combined. This mass reduction is 

consistent with appropriate tire selection for PH 2 vehicle final mass. 

Road wheel mass reduction is 5.6 Kg (54%) per wheel. It is not clear from the report how this magnitude of reduction is achieved. The report attributes wheel 

mass reduction to possibilities with the Ablation casting process. PH 1 report discussion of Ablation casting states: “The process would be expected to save 

approximately 1 Kg per wheel.” Considering the magnitude of this mass reduction a more detailed description of wheel mass reduction would be appropriate.

Elimination of the spare tire and jack reduces vehicle mass by 23 Kg. This is feasible but has customer perceptions of vehicle utility implications. Past OEM 

initiatives to eliminate a spare tire have encountered consumer resistance leading to reinstatement of the spare system in some vehicles.

[8] Engine and Driveline: Engine and driveline for the PH 2 vehicle were defined by the study sponsors and not evaluated for additional mass reduction in the 

Lotus study. Baseline Venza is equipped with a technically comprehensive conventional 2.7 L4 with aluminum engine block and heads and conventional 6 

speed transmission. PH 2 vehicle is equipped with a dual mode hybrid drive system powered by a turbocharged 1.0 L L-4 balance shaft engine. Engine was 

designed by Lotus and sized to meet the PH 2 vehicle performance and charging requirements. Mass reduction achieved with the PH 2 powertrain is 54 Kg. 

This level of mass reduction appears achievable based on results of secondary mass reductions resulting from vehicle level mass reductions in excess of 20%.

[9] Interior: Lotus PH 2 design includes major redesign of the baseline Venza interior. Interior design changes achieve 97 Kg (40%) weight reduction from the 

baseline interior. Majority of interior weight reduction is achieved in the seating (43 Kg) and trim (28 Kg). Interior weight reduction strategies in the PH 2 

design represent significant departures from baseline Venza interior. New seating designs and interior concepts (i.e.: replacing carpeting with bare floors and 

floor mats) may not be consistent with consumer wants and expectations in those areas. Interior trim and seating designs used in the PH 2 vehicle have been 
154

explored generically by OEM design studios for many years. 

[10] Energy balance: Is presented as validation of the FEM analysis. For each load case an energy balance is presented. Evaluating energy balance is a good 

engineering practice when modeling complex structures. Energy balance gives confidence in the mathematical fidelity of the model and that there are no 

significant mathematical instabilities in the calculations. Energy balance does not confirm model accuracy in simulating a given physical structure. 
155

3. VEHICLE 

CRASHWORTHINESS 

TESTING 

METHODOLOGICAL 

RIGOR.

COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods 

used to analyze the vehicle body 

structure’s structural integrity and 

safety crashworthiness. 

[Joost] Regarding my comment on joint failure under complex stress states, note that in figure 4.3.12.a the significant 

plastic strains are all located at the bumper-rail joints. While this particular test was only to indicate the damage (and cost 

to repair), the localization of plastic strain at the joint is somewhat concerning.

The total-vehicle torsional stiffness result is remarkably high. If this is accurate, it may contribute to an odd driving “feel”, 

particularly by comparison to a conventional Venza; higher torsional stiffness is usually viewed as a good thing, but the 

authors may need to address whether or not such extreme stiffness values would be appealing to consumers of this type 

of vehicle. While there doesn’t appear to be a major source of error in the torsional stiffness analysis, the result does call 

into question the accuracy; this is either an extraordinarily stiff vehicle, or there was an error during the analysis.

[Richman] LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part art as 

well as science, the assumption had to be made that Lotus has sufficient skills and experience to generate a valid 

simulation model.

[OSU] The crash simulations that were completed seem to be well created models of the vehicle that they represent. The 

geometry was formed from mid-surface models of the sheet metal. Seat belt and child restraint points are logically 

modeled.

Please describe the extent to 

which state-of-the-art crash 

simulation testing methods have 

been employed as well as the 

extent to which the associated 

analysis exhibits strong technical 

rigor. 

[Joost] This is outside of my area of expertise

[Richman] Model indicates the PH 2 structure could sustain a peak load of 108 kN under FMVSS 216 testing. This is 

unusually high for an SUV roof, and stronger than any roof on any vehicle produced to date. Result questions stiffness and 

strength results of the simulations.

Intrusion velocities and deformation are used as performance criteria in the side impact simulations. Performance 

acceptability judgments made using those results, but no data was given for comparison to any other vehicle.

Occupant protection performance cannot be judged based entirely on deformations and intrusion velocities.

Report states that “the mass-reduced vehicle was validated for meeting the listed FMVSS requirements.” This is an 
156

overstatement of what the analysis accomplished. FMVSS test performance is judged based on crash dummy accelerations 

and loads. The FEM analysis looked only at BIW acceleration and intrusion levels. While these can provide a good basis for 

engineering judgment, no comparison to physical crash test levels is provided. “Acceptable” levels were defined by Lotus 

without explanation. Results may be good, but would not be sufficient to “validate” the design for meeting FMVSS 

requirements.

Model has not been validated against any physical property. In normal BIW design development, an FEM is developed and 

calibrated against a physical test. The calibrated model is considered validated for moderate A:B comparisons.

[OSU] Animations of all of the crash tests were reviewed. These models were checks for structural consistence and it was 

found that all parts were well attached. The deformation seen in the structure during crash seems representative of these 

types of collisions. Progressive deformation flows in a logical manner from the point of impact throughout the vehicle.

[Simunovic] The documented results in the study show that authors have employed current state-of-the-art for 

crashworthiness modeling and followed systematic technical procedures. This methodology led them through a sequence 

of model versions and continuous improvement of the fidelity of the models. I would suggest that a short summary be 

added describing the major changes of the Phase 2 design with respect to the original High Development vehicle body 

design.

For reviewers with vehicle crash 

simulation capabilities to run the 

LS-DYNA model, can the Lotus 

design and results be validated?*

[Joost] N/A

[Richman] Some validation can be done by reviewing modeling technique and assumptions, but without any form of 

physical test comparison, the amount of error is unknown and can be significant. 

FEM validation was presented in the form of an energy balance for each load case. Energy balance is useful in confirming 

certain internal aspects of the model are working correctly. Energy balance does not validate how accurately the model 

simulates the physical structure. Presenting energy balance for each load case and suggesting balance implies FEM 

accuracy is misleading.

[OSU] The actual LS-DYNA model crash simulations were not rerun. Without any changes to the inputs there would be no 

changes in the output. Discussion of the input properties occurs in Section 2.

[Simunovic] The authors had several crash tests of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, to use for comparison and 

trends. Tests 6601 and 6602 were conducted in 2009 so that they could be readily used for the development. The data 

from test 6601 was used in the Phase 2 report for comparison. Test 6602 was not used for comparison in the report. 

While the report abounds with crash simulations and graphs documenting tremendous amount of work that authors have 

done, it would have been very valuable to add comparison with the 6602 test even at the expense of some graphs. Page 
157

72 of the Phase 2 report starts with comparison of the simulations with the tests and that is one of the most engaging parts 

of the document. I suggest that it warrants a section in itself. It is currently located out of place, in between the simulation 

results and it needs to be emphasized more. This new section would also be a good place for discussion on occupant 

safety modeling and general formulas for the subject.

One of the intriguing differences between the simulations and baseline vehicle crash test is the amount and the type of 

deformation in the frontal crash. As noted previously, computational model is very stiff with very limited crush zone. 

Viewed from the left side (Figure 14) [See Simunovic Comments, p. 14.], and from below (Figure 15) [See Simunovic 

Comments, p. 15.], we can see that the majority of the deformation is in the frame rail, and that the subframe’s rear 

supports do not fail. The strong rear support to the frame rail, does not appreciably deform, and thereby establishes the 

limit to the crash deformation.

The overall side kinematics of the crash is shown in Figure 16. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 15.] The front tires barely 

touch the wheel well indicating a high stiffness of the design. Note that the vehicle does not dive down at the barrier.

The numbers 1-4 below the images denote times after impact of 0ms , 35ms, 40 ms, and 75ms, respectively. The times 

were selected based on characteristic event times observed in crash simulations.

The following images are from the NHTSA NCAP crash test 7179 for 2011 Toyota Venza. The response is essentially the 

same as for the 2009 version, but the images are of much higher quality so that they have been selected for comparison. 

These times corresponding to the times in Figures 15 and 16 are shown in Figure 17. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 16.]

The subframe starts to rapidly break off of the vehicle floor around 40 ms, and therefore allows for additional deformation. 

In Lotus vehicle this connection remains intact so that it cannot contribute to additional crash length. The left side view of 

the test vehicle during crash at the same times is shown in Figure 18. [See Simunovic Comments, p. 17.]

There is an obvious difference between the simulations and the tests. The developed lightweight model and the baseline 

vehicle do represent two different types of that share general dimensions, so that the differences in the responses can be 

large. However, diving down during impact is so common across the passenger vehicles so that different kinematics 

automatically raises questions about the accuracy of the suspension system and the mass distribution. If such kinematic 

outcome was a design objective, than it can be stated in the tests.

If you are aware of better methods 

and tools employed and 

documented elsewhere to help 

validate advanced materials and 

design engineering rigor for 2020-

[Joost] While it’s not made explicit in the report, it seems that the components are likely modeled with the materials in a 

zero-strain condition – i.e. the strain hardening and local change in properties that occurs during stamping is not 

considered in the properties of the components. While not widely used in crash modeling (as far as I am aware), including 

the effects of strain hardening on local properties from the stamping process is beginning to find use in some design tools. 

While none of the materials used in this study have extreme strain hardening properties (such as you might find in TRIP 
158

2025 vehicles, please suggest how 

they might be used to improve the 

study.

steels or 5000 series Al), all of these sheet materials will experience some change in properties during stamping.

I do not consider the study deficient for having used zero-strain components, but it may be worth undergoing a simple 

study to determine the potential effects on some of the components. This is complicated by the further changes that may 

occur during the paint bake cycle. 

[Richman] Cannot truly be validated without building a physical prototype for comparison.

[OSU] LS-DYNA is the state of the art for this type of analysis. As time allows for the 2020-2025 model year, additional 

more detailed material modeling should occur. As an example the floor structure properties can be further investigated to 

answer structural creep and strength concerns.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman] Study is very thorough in their crash loadcase selections and generated a lot of data for evaluation. Might have included IIHS Offset ODB and IIHS 

Side Impact test conditions which most OEM's consider.

Study is less thorough in analyzing normal loads that influence BIW and chassis design (i.e. pot holes, shipping, road load fatigue, curb bump, jacking, twist 

ditch, 2g bump, etc.). 

Report indicates “Phase 2 vehicle model was validated for conforming to the existing external data for the Toyota Venza, meeting best-in-class torsional and 

bending stiffness, and managing customary running loads.” Only torsional stiffness is reported.

Modal frequency analysis data Is not reported.

Conclusions for many of the crash load cases (primarily dynamic) did not use simulation results to draw quantitative comparisons to the Toyota Venza or other 

peer vehicles. For instance, intrusion velocities for side impacts are reported. But, no analytical comparison is made to similar vehicles that currently meet the 

requirements. Comparable crash tests are often available from NHTSA or IIHS.

Remarkable strength exhibited by the FEM roof under an FMVSS test load raises questions validity of the model.

Model assumes no failures of adhesive bonding in materials during collisions. Previous crash testing experience suggest[s] some level of bonding separation 

and resulting structure strength reduction is likely to occur. 

[Richman cont.] 

Unusual simulation results – [1] Models appear reasonable and indicate the structure has the potential to meet collision safety requirements. Some unusual 

simulation results raise questions about detail accuracy of the models. 
159

[2] FMVSS 216 quasi-static roof strength: Model indicates peak roof strength of 108 KN. This is unusually high strength for an SUV type vehicle. The report 

attributes this high strength to the major load being resisted by the B-pillar. Several current vehicles employ this construction but have not demonstrated roof 

strength at this level. The report indicates the requirement of 3X curb weight is reached within 20 mm which is typically prior to the test platen applying 

significant load directly into the b-pillar.

[3] 35 MPH frontal rigid barrier simulation: Report indicates the front tires do not contact the sill in a 35 MPH impact. This is highly unusual structural 

performance. Implications are the model or the structure is overly stiff.

[4] Body torsional stiffness: Torsional stiffness is indicated to be 32.9 kN/deg. Higher than any comparable vehicles listed in the report. PH 2 structure torsional 

stiffness is comparable to significantly more compact body structures like the Porsche Carrera, BMW 5 series, Audi A8. It is not clear what elements of the PH 2 

structure contribute to achieving the predicted stiffness.

[5] Door beam modeling: Door beams appear to stay tightly joined to the body structure with no tilting, twisting or separation at the lock attachments in the 

various side impact load modes. This is highly unusual structural behavior. No door opening deformation is observed in any frontal crash simulations. This 

suggests the door structure is modeled as an integral load path. FMVSS requires that doors are operable after crash testing. Door operability is not addressed 

in the report.

[6] Safety analysis of the PH2 structure is based on collision simulation results using LS-Dyna and Nastran software simulations. Both software packages are 

widely used throughout the automotive industry to perform the type of analysis in this report.

Accuracy of simulated mechanical system performance is highly dependent on how well the FEM model represents the characteristics of the physical structure 

being studied. Accurately modeling a complete vehicle body structure for evaluation under non-linear loading conditions experienced in collisions is a 

challenging task. Small changes in assumed performance of nodes and joints can have a significant impact on predicted structure performance. Integration of 

empirical joint test data into the modeling process has significantly improved the correlation between simulated and actual structure performance. 

[OSU] This reviewer sat down with the person who created and ran the LS-DYNA FEA models. Additional insight into how the model performs and specific 

questions were answered on specific load cases. All questions were answered. 

Another reviewer which did not visit Lotus commented on the following: 1. The powertrain has more than 15% of the vehicle mass and therefore the right 

powertrains should be used in simulation.

2. The powertrain is always mounted on the body by elastic mounts. The crash behavior of the elastic mounts might easy introduce a 10% error in 

determination of the peak deceleration (failure vs not failure might be much more than 10%). So modeling a close-to-reality powertrain and bushing looks like a 

must (at least for me).

3. Although not intuitive, the battery pack might have a worst crash behavior than the fuel tank. Therefore the shoulder to shoulder position might be inferior 

to a tandem configuration (with the battery towards the center of the vehicle).
160

4. The battery pack crash behavior is of high importance of its own. It is very possible that after a crash an internal collapse of the cells and/or a penetration 

might produce a short-circuit. It should be noted that by the time of writing there are not developed any reasonable solutions to mitigate an internal shortcircuit. Although not directly life treating, this kind of event will produce a vehicle loss.

Also, very important, but subtle would be literature references that give an idea of how accurate the community can expect LS-DYNA crash simulations to be in 

a study such as this. Often manufacturers have the luxury of testing similar bodies, materials and joining methodologies and tuning their models to match 

broad behavior and then the effects of specific changes can be accurately measured. Here the geometric configuration, many materials and many joining 

methods are essentially new. Can Lotus provide examples that show how accurate such ‘blind’ predictions may be? 

Model calibration – Analytical models have the potential to closely represent complex non-liner structure performance under dynamic loading. With the 

current state of modeling technology, achieving accurate modeling normally requires calibration to physical test results of an actual structure. Models 

developed in this study have not been compared or calibrated to a physical test. While these simulations may be good representations of actual structure 

performance, the models cannot be regarded as validated without some correlation to physical test results.

Project task list includes dynamic body structure modal analysis. Report Summary of Safety Testing Results” indicates the mass reduced body exhibits “best in 

class” torsional and bending stiffness. The report discusses torsional stiffness but there is no information on predicted bending stiffness. No data on modal 

performance data or analysis is presented.
161

4. VEHICLE 

MANUFACTURING COST 

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR

COMMENTS

Please comment on the methods 

used to analyze the mass-reduced 

vehicle body structure’s 

manufacturing costs.

[Joost] The report does a good job of identifying, in useful detail, the number of workstations, tools, equipment, and other 

resources necessary for manufacturing the BIW of the vehicle. These are all, essentially, estimates by EBZ; to provide 

additional credibility to the manufacturing assessment it would be helpful to include a description of other work that EBZ 

has conducted where their manufacturing design work was implemented for producing vehicles. Lotus is a well-known 

name, EBZ is less well known. 

[Richman] Notable strengths of this analysis, besides the main focus on crash analysis, are the detail of assembly facility 

design, labor content, and BIW component tooling identification. 

Main weakness of the cost analysis is the fragmented approach of comparing costs derived in different approaches and 

different sources, and trying to infer relevant information from these differences. 

[OSU] Flat year-over-year wages for the cost analysis seems unrealistic.

Additional source information requested for wage rates for various locations. 

Please describe the extent to 

which state-of-the-art costing 

methods have been employed as 

well as the extent to which the 

associated analysis exhibits strong 

technical rigor. 

[Joost] This is not my area of expertise

[Richman] Vulnerability in this cost study appears to be validity and functional equivalence of BIW design with 169 pieces 

vs. 407 for the baseline Venza. 

Total tooling investment of $28MM for the BIW not consistent with typical OEM production experience. BIW tooling of 

$150-200MM would not be uncommon for conventional BIW manufacturing. If significant parts reduction could be 

achieved, it would mean less tools, but usually larger and more complex ones, requiring larger presses and slower cycle 

times. 

[OSU] Difficult to evaluate since this portion of the report was completed by a subcontractor. The forming dies seem to be 

inexpensive as compared to standard steel sheet metal forming dies.

If you are aware of better methods 

and tools employed and 

documented elsewhere to help 

[Joost] This is not my area of expertise

[Richman] Applying a consistent costing approach to each vehicle and vehicle system using a manufacturing cost model 
162

estimate costs for advanced 

vehicle materials and design for 

2020-2025 vehicles, please suggest 

how they might be used to 

improve this study.

approach. This approach would establish a more consistent and understandable assessment of cost impacts of vehicle 

mass reduction design and technologies.

[OSU] None.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The assessment of the energy supply includes a description of solar, wind, and biomass derived energy. While the narrative is quite positive on the 

potential for each of these energy sources, it’s not clear in the analysis how much of the power for the plant is produced using these techniques. If the 

renewable sources provide a significant portion of the plant power, then the comparison of the Ph2 BIW cost against the production Venza cost may not be fair. 

The cost of the Venza BIW is determined based on the RPE and several other assumptions and therefore includes the cost of electricity at the existing plant. 

Therefore, if an automotive company was going to invest in a new plant to build either the Ph2 BIW or the current Venza BIW (and the new plant would have 

the lower cost power) then the cost delta between the two BIWs would be different than shown here (because the current Venza BIW produced at a new plant 

would be less expensive). The same argument could be made for the labor costs and their impact on BIW cost. By including factors such as power and labor 

costs into the analysis, it’s difficult to determine what the cost savings/penalty is due only to the change in materials and assembly – the impact of labor and 

energy are mixed into the result. 

[OSU] The number of workers assigned to vehicle assembly in this report seems quite low. Extra personal need to be available to replace those with unexcused 

absences. Do these assembly numbers also include material handling personnel to stock each of the workstations? 

While this work does make a compelling case it downplays some of the very real issues that slow such innovation in auto manufacturing. Examples: multimaterial structures can suffer accelerated corrosion if not properly isolated in joining. Fatigue may also limit durability in aluminum, magnesium or novel joints. 

Neither of these durability concerns is raised. Also, automotive manufacturing is very conservative in using new processes because one small process problem 

can stop an entire auto manufacturing plant. Manufacturing engineers may be justifiably weary of extensive use of adhesives, until these are proven in mass 

production in other environments. These very real impediments to change should be mentioned in the background and conclusions.

[Richman] Summary – Cost projections . . . lack sufficient rigor to support confidence in cost projections and in some cases are based on “optimistic” 

assumptions. Significant cost reduction is attributed to parts consolidation in the body structure. Part count data presented in the report appears to reflect 

inconsistent content between baseline and PH 2 designs. Body manufacturing labor rates and material blanking recovery are not consistent with actual 

industry experience. Using normal industry experience for those two factors alone would add $273 to body manufacturing cost. Tooling cost estimates for 

individual body dies appear to be less than half normal industry experience for dies of this type.

Cost modeling -- Assessing cost implications of the PH 2 design [is] a critically important element of the project. 

Total vehicle cost was derived from vehicle list price using estimated Toyota mark-up for overhead and profit. This process assumes average Toyota mark-up 

applies to Venza pricing. List price for specific vehicles is regularly influenced by business and competitive marketing factors. (Chevrolet Volt is believed to be 
163

priced significantly below GM corporate average margin on sales, while the Corvette is believed to be above target margin on sales.) System cost assumptions 

based on average sales margin and detailed engineering judgments can be a reasonable first order estimate. These estimates can be useful in allocation of 

relative to costs to individual vehicle systems, but lack sufficient rigor to support definitive cost conclusions

Baseline Venza system costs were estimated by factoring estimated total vehicle cost and allocating relative cost factors for each major sub-system (BIW, 

closures, chassis, bumpers, suspension, ...) based on engineering judgment. Cost of PH 2 purchased components were developed using a combination of 

estimated baseline vehicle system estimated costs, engineering judgment and supplier estimates. Cost estimates for individual purchased components appear 

realistic. 

Body costs for PH 2 design were estimated by combining scaled material content from baseline vehicle (Venza) and projected manufacturing cost from a new 

production processes and facility developed for this project. This approach is logical and practical, but lacks the rigor to support reliable estimates of new 

design cost implications when the design changes represent significant departures from the baseline design content. 

Body piece cost and tooling investment estimates were developed by Intgellicosting. No information was provided on Intellicosting methodology. Purchased 

component piece cost estimates (excluding BIW) are in line with findings in similar studies. Tooling costs supplied by Intellicosting are significantly lower than 

actual production experience would suggest.

Assembly costs were based on detailed assembly plant design, work flow analysis and labor content estimates. Assembly plant labor content (minutes) is 

consistent with actual BIW experienced in other OEM production projects.

The PH 2 study indicates and aluminum based multi material body (BIW, closures) can be produced for at a cost reduction of $199 relative to a conventional 

steel body. That conclusion is not consistent with general industry experience. This inconsistency may result from PH 2 assumptions of material recovery, labor 

rates and pars consolidation. 

A recent study conducted by IBIS Associates “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: Manufacturing and Life Cycle Cost Analysis” estimated a cost increase $560 for an 

aluminum vehicle BIW and closures. 

http://aluminumintransportation.org/members/files/active/0/IBIS%20Powertrain%20Study%20w%20cover.pdf

That study was conducted with a major high volume OEM vehicle producer and included part cost estimates using detailed individual part cost estimates. 

Majority of cost increases for the low mass body are offset by weight related cost reductions in powertrain, chassis and suspension components. Conclusions 

from the IBIS study are consistent with similar studies and production experience at other OEM producers.

[Richman cont.] 

BIW Design Integration -- Report identifies BIW piece count reduction from a baseline of 419 pieces to 169 for PH 2. Significant piece cost and labor cost savings 
164

are attributed to the reduction in piece count. Venza BOM lists 407 pieces in the baseline BIW. A total of 120 pieces are identified as having “0” weight and “0” 

cost. Another 47 pieces are listed as nuts or bolts. PH 2 Venza BOM lists no nuts or bolts and has no “0” mass/cost components. With the importance 

attributed to parts integration, these differences need to be addressed.

Closure BOM for PH 2 appears to not include a number of detail components that are typically necessary in a production ready design. An example of this is the 

PH 2 hood. PH 2 Hood BOM lists 4 parts, an inner and outer panel and 2 hinges. Virtually all practical aluminum hood designs include 2 hinge bracket 

reinforcements, a latch support and a palm reinforcement. Absence of these practical elements of a production hood raise questions about the functional 

equivalency (mounting and reinforcement points, NVH, aesthetics,...) of the two vehicle designs. Contents of the Venza BOM should be reviewed for accuracy 

and content in the PH 2 BOM should be reviewed for practical completeness.

Tooling Investment -- Tooling estimates from Intellicosting are significantly lower than have been seen in other similar studies or production programs and will 

be challenged by most knowledgeable automotive industry readers. Intellicosting estimates total BIW tooling at $28MM in the tooling summary and $70 MM 

in the report summary. On similar production OEM programs complete BIW tooling has been in the range of $150MM to $200MM. The report attributes low 

tooling cost to parts consolidation. This does not appear to completely explain the significant cost differences between PH 2 tooling and actual production 

experience. Parts consolidation typically results in fewer tools while increasing size, complexity and cost of tools used. The impact of parts consolidation on PH 

2 weight and cost appears to be major. The report does not provide specific examples of where parts consolidation was achieved and the specific impact of 

consolidation. Considering the significant impact attributed to parts consolidation, it would be helpful provide specific examples of where this was achieved 

and the specific impact on mass, cost and tooling. Based on actual production experience, PH 2 estimates for plant capital investment, tooling cost and labor 

rates would be viewed as extremely optimistic

Material Recovery -- Report states estimates of material recovery in processing were not included in the cost analysis. Omitting this cost factor can have a 

significant impact on cost of sheet based aluminum products used in this study. Typical auto body panel blanking process recovery is 60%. This recovery rate is 

typical for steel and aluminum sheet. When evaluation material cost of an aluminum product the impact of recovery losses should be included in the analysis. 

Potential impact of material recovery for body panels:

Approximate aluminum content (BIW, Closures) 240 Kg

Input material required at 60% recovery 400 Kg

Blanking off-all 160 Kg

Devaluation of blanking off-all (rough estimate)

Difference between raw material and

Blanking off-all $1.30/Kg $ 211

Blanking devaluation increases cost of aluminum sheet products by over $ 0.90/Kg.

Appropriate estimates of blanking recoveries and material devaluation should be included in cost estimates for stamped aluminum sheet components. 

Recovery rates for steel sheet products are similar to aluminum, but the economic impact of steel sheet devaluation is a significantly lower factor in finished 

part cost per pound.
165

Report indicates total cost of resistance spot welding (RSW) is 5X the cost of friction spot welding (FSW). Typical total body shop cost (energy, labor, 

maintenance, consumable tips) of a RSW is $0.05 - $0.10. For the stated ratio to be accurate, FSW total cost would be $0.01-$0.02 which appears unlikely. It is 

possible the 5X cost differential apply to energy consumption and not total cost. 

Labor rates -- Average body plant labor rates used in BIW costing average $35 fully loaded. Current North American average labor rates for auto manufacturing 

(typically stamping, body production and vehicle assembly) 

Toyota $55

GM $56 (including two tier)

Ford $58

Honda $50

Nissan $47

Hyundai $44

VW $38

Labor rate of $35 may be achievable (VW) in some regions and circumstances. The issue of labor rate is peripheral to the central costing issue of this study 

which is assessing the cost impact of light weight engineering design. Method used to establish baseline BIW component costs inherently used current Toyota 

labor rates. Objective assessment of design impact on vehicle cost would use same labor rates for both configurations.

Labor cost or BIW production is reported to be $108 using an average rate of $35. Typical actual BIW labor content from other cost studies with North 

American OEM’s found actual BIW labor content approaching $200. Applying the current Toyota labor rate of $55 to the PH 2 BIW production plan increases 

labor content to $170 (+$62) per vehicle.
166

5. CONCLUSION AND 

FINDINGS

COMMENTS

Are the study’s conclusions 

adequately backed up by the 

methods and analytical rigor of the 

study? 

[Joost] In the summary section there is an analysis that attempts to project the “potential weight savings” for vehicle 

classes beyond the Venza. The analysis is based on specific density which assumes that the architecture of the vehicles is 

the same. For example, the front-end crash energy management system in a micro car is likely quite different from the 

comparable system in a large luxury car (aside from differences in gauge to account for limited crash space, as discussed in 

the report). While this analysis provides a good starting point, I do not feel that it is reasonable to expect the weight 

reduction potential to scale with specific density. In other words, I think that the 32.4 value used in the analysis also 

changes with vehicle size due to changes in architecture. Similarly, the cost analysis projecting cost factor for other vehicle 

classes is a good start, but it’s unlikely that the numbers scale so simply. 

[Richman] 

Summary – General: Engineering analysis is very thorough and reflects the vehicle engineering experience and know-how 

of the Lotus organization. Study presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle total vehicle mass reduction using 

available design optimization tools, practical light weight engineering materials an available manufacturing processes. 

Results of the study provide important insight into potential vehicle mass reduction generally achievable by 2020.

Summary – Conclusions: Report Conclusions overstate the level of design “validation” achievable utilizing state-of-the- art 

modeling techniques with no physical test of a representative structure. From the work in this study it is reasonable to 

conclude the PH 2 structure has the potential to pass FMVSS and IIHS safety criteria. 

Summary – Mass Reduction: Majority of mass reduction concepts utilized are consistent with general industry trends. 

Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components appear reasonable and consistent with industry experience 

with similar components. As an advanced design concept study, the PH 2 project is a valuable and important piece of 

work. 

The PH 2 study did not include physical evaluation of a prototype vehicle or major vehicle sub system. Majority of 

the chassis and suspension content was derived from similar components for which there is extensive volume 

production experience. Some of the technologies included in the design are “speculative” and may not mature to 

production readiness or achieve projected mass reduction estimates by 2020. For those reasons, the PH 2 study is 

a “high side” estimate of practical overall vehicle mass reduction potential.

Summary – Safety: Major objective of this study is to “validate” safety performance of the PH 2 vehicle concept. Critical 

issue is the term “validate”. Simulation modeling and simulation tools used by Lotus are widely recognized as state-of-the-
167

art. Lotus modeling skills are likely to among the best available in the global industry. Project scope did not include 

physical test of the structure to confirm model accuracy. 

Safety performance data presented indicates the current structure has the potential to meet all FMVSS criteria, but would 

not be generally considered sufficient to “validated” safety performance of the vehicle. Physical test correlation is 

generally required to establish confidence in simulation results. Some simulation results presented are not consistent with 

test results of similar vehicles. Explanations provided for the unusual results do not appear consistent with actual 

structure content. Overstating the implications of available safety results discredits the good design work and conclusions 

of this study.

FMVSS test performance conclusions are based on simulated results using an un-validated FE model. Accuracy of the 

model is unknown. Some simulation results are not typical of similar structures suggesting the model may not accurately 

represent the actual structure under all loading conditions.

[OSU] Yes.

Are the conclusions about the 

design, development, validation, 

and cost of the mass-reduced 

design valid?

[Joost] Yes. Despite some of the critical commentary provided above, I believe that this study does a good job of 

validating the technical and cost potential of the mass-reduced design. The study is lacking durability analysis and, on a 

larger scale, does not include constructing a demonstration vehicle to validate the model assumptions; both items are 

significant undertakings and, while they would add credibility to the results, the current study provides a useful and sound 

indication of potential. 

[Richman] Safety performance and cost conclusions are not clearly support by data provided. 

Safety Conclusion – A major objective of the PH 2 study is to “validate” the light weight vehicle structure for compliance 

with FMVSS requirements. State of the art FEM and dynamic simulations models were developed. Those models indicate 

the body structure has the potential to satisfy FMVSS requirements. FMVSS requirements for dynamic crash test 

performance is defined with respect to occupant loads and accelerations as measured using calibrated test dummies. The 

FEM simulations did not include interior, seats, restraint systems or occupants. Analytical models in this project evaluate 

displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the body structure. Predicting occupant response based on body structural 

displacements velocities and accelerations is speculative. Simulation results presented are a good indicator of potential 

performance. These simulations alone would not be considered adequate validation the structure for FMVSS required 

safety performance.

[OSU] Yes.

Are you aware of other available [Joost] The World Auto Steel Ultra Light Steel Auto Body, the EU SuperLight Car, and the DOE/USAMP Mg Front End 
168

research that better evaluates and 

validates the technical potential 

for mass-reduced vehicles in the 

2020-2025 timeframe?

Research and Development design all provide addition insight into weight reduction potential. However, none are as 

thorough as this study in assessing potential in the 2020-2025 timeframe. 

[Richman] Most studies employing a finite element model validate a base model against physical testing, then do 

variational studies to look at effect. Going directly from an unvalidated FEM to quantitative results is risky, and the level of 

accuracy is questionable

[OSU] No.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
169

6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS 

FOR COMMENT

COMMENTS

Has the study made substantial 

improvements over previous 

available works in the ability to 

understand the feasibility of 2020-

2025 mass-reduction technology 

for light-duty vehicles? If so, 

please describe. 

[Joost] Yes. The best example was the Phase 1 study, which lacked much of the detail and focus included here. The other 

studies that I mentioned above do not go into this level of detail or are not focused on the same time frame. 

[Richman] Fundamental engineering work is very good and has the potential to make a substantial and important 

contribution to industry understanding of mass reduction opportunities. The study will receive intense and detailed critical 

review by industry specialists. To achieve potential positive impact on industry thinking, study content and conclusions 

must be recognized as credible. Unusual safety simulation results and questionable cost estimates (piece cost, tooling) 

need to be explained or revised. As currently presented, potential contributions of the study are likely to be obscured by 

unexplained simulation results and cost estimates that are not consistent with actual program experience.

[OSU] Yes.

Do the study design concepts have 

critical deficiencies in its 

applicability for 2020-2025 massreduction feasibility for which 

revisions should be made before 

the report is finalized? If so, 

please describe. 

[Joost] There is nothing that I would consider a “critical deficiency” however many of the comments outlined above could 

be addressed prior to release of the report. 

[Richman] Absolutely. Recommended adjustments summarized in Safety analysis, and cost estimates (recommendations 

summarized in attached review report). Credibility of study would be significantly enhanced with detail explanations or 

revisions in areas where unusual and potentially dis-crediting results are reported. Conservatism in assessing CAE based 

safety simulations and cost estimates (component and tooling) would improve acceptance of main report conclusions. 

Impact of BIW plant site selection discussion and resulting labor rates confuse important assessment of design driven cost 

impact. Suggest removing site selection discussion. Using labor and energy cost factors representative of the Toyota 

Venza production more clearly identifies the true cost impact of PH 2 design content.

[OSU] No.

Are there fundamentally different 

lightweight vehicle design 

technologies that you expect to be 

much more common (either in 

addition to or instead of) than the 

one Lotus has assessed for the 

2020-2025 timeframe? 

[Joost] Some effort was made in the report to discuss joining and corrosion protection techniques, however it is possible 

that new techniques will be available prior to 2025. For example, there was very little discussion on how a vehicle which 

combines so many different materials could be pre-treated, e-coated, and painted in an existing shop. There will likely be 

new technologies in this area. 

[Richman] Technologies included in the PH 2 design are the leading candidates to achieve safe cost effective vehicle mass 

reduction in the 2020-25 timeframe. Most technologies included in PH 2 are in current volume production or will be fully 
170

production ready by 2015.

[OSU] No.

Are there any other areas outside 

of the direct scope of the analysis 

(e.g., vehicle performance, 

durability, drive ability, noise, 

vibration, and hardness) for which 

the mass-reduced vehicle design is 

likely to exhibit any compromise 

from the baseline vehicle?

[Joost] As discussed above, durability is a major factor in vehicle design and it is not addressed here. The use of advanced 

materials and joints calls into question the durability performance of a vehicle like this. NVH may also be unacceptable 

given the low density materials and extraordinary vehicle stiffness. 

[Richman] Most areas of vehicle performance other than crash performance were not addressed at all. Even basic 

bending stiffness and service loads (jacking, towing, 2-g bump, etc) were not addressed. The report claims to address 

bending stiffness and bending/torsional modal frequencies, but that analysis is not included in the report.

[OSU] The proposed engine size is based on the assumption that decreasing the mass of the vehicle and holding the same 

power–to-weight ratio will keep the vehicle performances alike. This assumption is true only if the coefficient of drag (Cda) 

will also decrease (practically a perfect match in all the dynamic regards is not possible because the quadratic behavior of 

the air vs speed). The influence of the airdrag is typically higher than the general perception. In this particular case is very 

possible that more than half of the engine power will be used to overcome the airdrag at 65 mph. Therefore aerodynamic 

simulations are mandatory in order to validate the size of the engine.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] Clallam county, WA is an interesting choice for the plant location (I grew up relatively nearby). Port Angeles is not a “major port” (total population 

<20,000 people) and access to the area from anywhere else in the state is inconvenient. 

[OSU] The Lotus design is very innovative and pushes the design envelope much further than other advanced car programs. The phase 1 report shows a great 

deal of topological innovation for the different components that are designed. 
171

Please provide any comments not characterized in the tables above.

[Joost] No comment.

[Richman] State-of-the art in vehicle dynamic crash simulation can provide A/B comparisons and 

ranking of alternative designs, but cannot reliably produce accurate absolute results without careful 

correlation to crash results. CAE is effective in significantly reducing the need for hardware tests, 

making designs more robust, and giving guidance to select the most efficient and best performing design 

alternatives. OEM experience to date indicates CAE can reduce hardware and physical test 

requirements, but cannot eliminate the need for some level of crash load physical testing. Quasi-static 

test simulations show potential for eliminating most if not all hardware (FMVSS 216 etc.), simulations of 

FMVSS 208, 214, IIHS ODB and others still required several stages of hardware evaluation. Given the 

challenges of simulating the complex crash physics of a vehicle composed of advanced materials and 

fastening techniques, hardware testing would generally be considered necessarily to “validate” BIW 

structures for the foreseeable future. 

Editorial – [1] Report makes frequent reference to PH 1 vehicle LD and HD configurations. These 

references seem unnecessary and at times confusing. PH 1 study references do not enhance the 

findings or conclusions of the PH 2 study. Suggest eliminating reference to the PH 1 study.

[2] Report would be clearer if content detail from PH 1 project that is part of PH 2 project (interior, 

closure, chassis content) is fully reported in PH 2 report. 

[3] Weight and Cost reduction references: Baseline shifts between Total Vehicle and Total Vehicle Less 

Powertrain. A consistent baseline may avoid confusion. Suggest using total vehicle as reference.

[4] Cost increases statements: Report makes a number of cost references similar to: 

Pg 4 - “The estimation of the BIW piece cost suggests an increase of 160 percent – over $700 – for the 

37-percent mass-reduced body-in-white.” 

The statement indicates the increase is 160%. The increase of $700 is an increase of 60% resulting in a 

total cost 160% of the baseline. 

Site selection – [1] PH 2 project includes an extensive site selection study. Site selection is not related to 

product design. Including economics based on preferential site selection confuses the fundamental 

issue of the design exercise. Assumption of securing a comparable site and achieving the associated 

preferential labor rates and operating expenses are at best unlikely. Eliminating the site selection and 

associated cost would make the report more focused and cost projections more understandable and 

believable.

[2] Advantaged labor rates and possible renewable energy operating cost savings could be applied to 

any vehicle design. Entering those factors into the design study for the light weight redesign mixes 

design cost with site selection and construction issues.

[3] Site plan includes use of PV solar and wind turbines. Plant costs indicate general plant energy 

(lighting, support utilities, HVAC) (not processing energy) will be at “0” cost. True impact of renewable 

energy sources net of maintenance costs is at best controversial. Impact of general plant energy cost on 
172

vehicle cost is minimal. The issue of renewable energy sources is valid but peripheral to the subject of 

vehicle design. It would be clearer to use conventional general plant energy overhead in cost analysis of 

the Phase II design cost.

Development experience – PH 2 vehicle design described is representative of a predevelopment design 

concept. All OEM production programs go through this development stage. Most vehicle programs 

experience some increase in mass and cost through the physical testing and durability development 

process. Those increases are typically driven by NVH or durability issues not detectable at the modeling 

stage. Mass dampers on the Venza front and rear suspension are examples of mass and cost increases. 

Vehicle mass increases of 2-3% through the development cycle are not unusual. It would be prudent to 

recognize some level of development related mass increase in the PH 2 mass projection.

Vehicle content – Pg. 214 Bumpers: Need to check statement: “Current bumpers are generally 

constructed from steel extrusions, although some are aluminum and magnesium.”

In North America 80% of all bumpers are rolled or stamped steel. Aluminum extrusions are currently 

20% of the NA market. There are no extruded steel bumpers. There are no magnesium bumpers.

Technology – Majority of the design concepts utilized for PH 2 have been in reasonable volume 

automotive production for multiple years and on multiple vehicles. A few of the ideas represent a 

change in vehicle utility or are dependent on significant technology advancements that may not be 

achievable. Identifying the impact of currently proven technologies from speculative technologies may 

improve understanding of the overall study. 

Specific speculative technologies:

[1] Eliminate spare tire, jack, tools (23 Kg) - feasible, may influence customer perception of utility

[2] Eliminate carpeting - feasible, customer perception issue

[3] Dual cast rotors (2 Kg) - have been tried, durability issues in volume production, differential 

expansion and bearing temperature issues may not be solvable

[4] Wheels Ablation cast (22.4 Kg) - process has been run experimentally but has not been proven in 

volume. Benefit of process for wheel applications may not be achievable due to resultant metallurgical 

conditions of the as-cast surfaces.

[OSU] No comment.

[Simunovic] I would suggest that the organization of the document be reconsidered to add some 

information from the Phase 1 and more discussion about the design process. Especially interesting 

would be the guiding practical implementation of Lotus design steps as outlined at the beginning of the 

Phase 2 report. 
LOTUS ENGINEERING RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW COMMENTS 

Grouping of Like Comments in Lotus Peer Review Report (Lotus HD Phase 2) 

TOPIC COMMENT WHO in 

Peer Rev 

COMMENT FROM LOT

Material Properties Stress/strain 

The sources cited for the material data are credible; however the Al yield stresses used appear to be on the high side of the expected properties for the alloy-temper systems proposed here. The authors may need to address the use of the slightly higher numbers (for example, 6061-T6 is shown with a yield stress of 308 MPa, where standard reported values are usually closer to 275 MPa).

Reviewers would like to see min/max material specifications taken into consideration. 

Ques 1. Joost 

The material suppliersHenkel and Allied Comproperties. These comare experts in their resaccurate information fmodeling. The input data suppliewas sufficient to creatfidelity of +/- 10%. Thistage of the design.Based on our modelinperformance of the veintrusions, time to zer±5% using finalized angenerated for a produ

A list detailing the constitutive model formulation for each of the materials of structural significance in the study would help to clarify this issue. Also the design rationale for dimensioning and selection of materials for the main structural parts would help in understanding the design decisions made by the authors of the study. The included material data does not include strain rate sensitivity, so it is assumed that the strain rate effect was not considered. Strain rate sensitivity can be an important strengthening mechanism in metals. For hcp (hexagonal closeQues 1 OSU Strain rate was not co

constitutive material mmaterial sample undeconditions would show higher stress/strain remodeling could be conAM60 material model Meridian in LS-Dyna foproduction experience 
packed) materials, such as AM60, high strain rate may also lead to 

change in the underlying mechanism of deformation, damage evolution, failure criterion, etc. These assignments were not possible to confirm from the crash model since the input files were encrypted. In any case, since Mg AM60 alloy is used in such important role for the frontal crash, a more detailed material model than the one implied by the graph on page 32 of Phase 2 report [1] would be warranted. More accurate failure model is needed, as well. The failure criteria in LS-DYNA [6] are mostly limited to threshold values of equivalent strains and/or stresses. However, combination of damage model with plasticity and damage-initiated failure would probably yield a better accuracy for AM60. 

Ques 1 OSU 

The constitutive matedata that was provided where no data was suwww.matweb.com. Th

information is shown iLS-Dyna material modplasticity) with the exc#123 (modified piecew

Understanding of mechanical properties for material denoted as Nylon_45_2a (reference [1] page 33) would be much more improved if the constituents and fiber arrangement were described in more detail. Numbers 45 and 2 may be indicating +/- 45

0 fiber 

arrangement, however, a short addition of material configuration would eliminate unnecessary speculation. An ideal plasticity model of 60% limit strain for this material seems to be overly optimistic. Other composite models available in LS-DYNA may be a much better option. 

Ques 1 Simunovic 

Henkel provided an LSthe fields completed. Pinformation were consdisclosed. If additional informatiowould have been possmaterial models in LS-modeling of the fibers components. The resusame as the Henkel daof production parts. 

While appropriate forming methods and materials appear to have been selected, a detailed description of the material selection and trade-off process is not provided. One significant exception is the discussion and tables regarding the replacement of Mg components with Al and steel components in order to meet crash requirements. 

Ques 2 Joost 

The material selection components’ was basecarried out during Phabecame clear that the limited to the areas of considered non-criticaof the structure evolvethat improved the crasselection was driven p
requirements to ensur

adequate crash perforlightweight, has a loweand elongation to failuso it was not considereareas of large deforma

Addition of the strain rate sensitivity to a material model can both improve fidelity of the material model, and as an added benefit, it can also help to regularize the response during strain localization. Depending on the amount of stored internal energy and stiffness in the deleted elements, the entire simulation can be polluted by the element deletion errors and become unstable. Assuming that only AM60 parts in the Lotus model have failure criterion, it would not be too difficult for the authors to describe it in more depth. Since AM60 is such a critical material in the design, perturbation of its properties, mesh geometry perturbations and different discretization densities, should be considered and investigate how do they affect the convergence of the critical measures, such as crash distances.

Ques 2 Simunovic 

Material failure, in LS-ways: - firstly, the matrepresent the yielding subsequent post yield its own will leave the pthus they will continue limit at which materiaunder a tensile load. Sbe defined to allow fothe analyses to represthat would be seen in with the material data The CAE crash models modeling parameters step, etc.) as used in thnot an academic study of different mesh size/The fidelity of the modwhich is an acceptable development. Lotus asfor all models; as a resrequirements in some be heavier than necesimpact targets. The next step in a prodstructure based on an 
that as the basis for th

Regarding my comment on joint failure under complex stress states, note that in figure 4.3.12.a the significant plastic strains are all located at the bumper-rail joints. While this particular test was only to indicate the damage (and cost to repair), the localization of plastic strain at the joint is somewhat concerning.

Ques 3 Joost 

The figure shows that predicted to be in the only. It would be imprunder this loading the the armature only. Thearmature and crush cawelding on aluminum both reduces the matethe elongation at failuthis type of low speed speed’ structure is inte

Welds and Joints 

This particular connection contains welds (for joining aluminum parts) and bolts (for joining aluminum and magnesium). HAZ properties were not given in the report and they could not be checked in the model due to encryption. The bolt model properties were described that it fails at 130 MPa (page 38 of the report [1]), which corresponds to the yield stress of AM60. The importance of these joints cannot be overstated. They enforce stability of the axial deformation mode in the rails that in turn enables dissipation of the impact energy. The crash sequence of the connection between the front end module and the front rail is shown in Figure 3. 

Ques 1 Simunovic 

Figure 4.2.4.a. added tan explanation of the methodology. Joining methodologies the MIG welds, friction HAZ material informatstated as follows: - Hewelding were modeled properties. Based on ereduction in the base mT6 a yield stress of 184This is a conservative ereduction in material samount of heat applieThe specification of thstrength properties shas originally specified ‘failure’ (element delelimit criterion of 10-12
It is not clear from the simulations which failure criterion dominates 

the process. Is it the failure of the HAZ or is it the spot weld limit force or stress. Given the importance of this joint on the overall crash response, additional information about the joint sub-models would be very beneficial to a reader. 

Ques 1 Simunovic 

To go through each crsequence of the failure be a substantial task ubeyond the scope of tfor a production progrthis failure criterion. The ‘failure criterion’ idominated by failure ithe front end of the veand end of the high sp

Similarly, while appropriate joining techniques seem to have been used, the process for selecting the processes and materials is not clear. Additionally, little detail is provided on the joining techniques used here. A major technical hurdle in the implementation of multimaterial systems is the quality, durability, and performance of the 

joints. Additional effort should be expended towards describing the joining techniques used here and characterizing the performance. 

Ques 2 Joost 

A detailed explanation several illustrations of typical section in Figur

Some discussion of joining system for magnesium closure inner panels to aluminum external skin and AHSS “B” pillar to aluminum body would improve understanding and confidence in those elements of the design. 

Ques 2 Richman 

Mechanical fastener dnoting that this discuswell as the BIW. The magnesium compwould not be subject tIt was determined thawould have to be eithealuminum. The magneon several Ford modelThe B-Pillar constructisteel inner and outer cflanges with a nylon stthe B-Pillar outer using fasteners used). This w
with Henkel and based 

structural inserts whicproduction vehicles. 

Parts integration information is vague and appears inconsistent. Parts integration. Major mass and cost savings are attributed to parts integration. Data presented does not appear to results. 

Ques 2 Richman 

The parts count for the the Phase 2 BIW has 1

More details are needed on the various aspects of joining and fastening. Comment on assembly. 

Ques 2 OSU 

The joining and fastenmore details. The assepage assembly plant s

Durability One area that is omitted from the analysis is durability (fatigue and 

corrosion) performance of the structure. Significant use of Al, Al 

joints, and multi-material joints introduces the potential for both 

fatigue and corrosion failure that are unacceptable in an automotive product. It would be helpful to include narrative describing the good durability performance of conventional (i.e. not Bentley, Ferrari, etc.) vehicles that use similar materials and joints in production without significant durability problems. In some cases, (say the weld-bonded Al-Mg joints), production examples do not exist so there should be an explanation of how these could meet durability requirements. 

Ques 2 Joost 

Fatigue and corrosion of the study. Although not specificausing steel and aluminfatigue/corrosion issueapplied to the model aaluminum (Alcoa) and Ford uses magnesium-vehicles that have beefatigue. Jaguar and Audi use alcurrent production vecorrosion and fatigue bodies. Ford is also repaluminum body for the(http://online.wsj.com128045775312822271Ford’s internal truck sabusive duty cycle thaThere are no welded Athere was no process t
capability in the time f

Fe joints are joined wmechanical fasteners o

As discussed above, durability is a major factor in vehicle design and it is not addressed here. The use of advanced materials and 

joints calls into question the durability performance of a vehicle like 

this. NVH may also be unacceptable given the low density materials and extraordinary vehicle stiffness. 

Ques 6 Joost 

As discussed above, a outside the project scoand joints are used on had riv-bonded aluminstructures in productioThe baseline Venza NVhas high stiffness (>32stiffness, 6x curb weigindicating that it has tand still have adequattarget for BIW stiffnesthan many world class NVH isolation. High enbodies like the Audi A8 demonstrated acceptaAdditionally, active noplay a major role in imfuture. The Lotus Pha

Wheel Mass Reduction 

Road wheel mass reduction is 5.6 Kg (54%) per wheel. It is not clear from the report how this magnitude of reduction is achieved. The report attributes wheel mass reduction to possibilities with the Ablation casting process. PH 1 report discussion of Ablation casting states: “The process would be expected to save approximately 1 Kg per wheel.” Considering the magnitude of this mass reduction a more detailed description of wheel mass reduction would be appropriate. Elimination of the spare tire and jack reduces vehicle mass by 23 Kg. 

Ques 2 Richman 

The Phase 1 wheel wawheel and normalized was applied to save adin the Phase 1 report. savings, 3 kg., came frwidth from 245 to 225vehicle mass the tire seven more. Appearancuse of a smaller width for this class of vehicle
This is feasible but has customer perceptions of vehicle utility 

implications. Past OEM initiatives to eliminate a spare tire have encountered consumer resistance leading to reinstatement of the spare system in some vehicles. 

allow a further reductA spare tire is an optiocars including the DodCruze Eco (manual). 

Interior [9] Interior: Lotus PH 2 design includes major redesign of the 

baseline Venza interior. Interior design changes achieve 97 Kg (40%) weight reduction from the baseline interior. Majority of interior weight reduction is achieved in the seating (43 Kg) and trim (28 Kg). Interior weight reduction strategies in the PH 2 design represent significant departures from baseline Venza interior. New seating designs and interior concepts (i.e.: replacing carpeting with bare floors and floor mats) may not be consistent with consumer wants and expectations in those areas. 

Ques 2 Richman 

Ph 2 report utilizes all including the interior (trending towards the LThe 2012 Hyundai Elanless than the lightweigCUV rear seat and incothe Phase 1 report. The carpeting module3d in shape and use mthan traditional one pmass and cost while p

Energy Balance 

Energy balance does not confirm model accuracy in simulating a given physical structure. 

Ques 2 Richman 

Revised section 4.4 to balance does not conf

FEM validation was presented in the form of an energy balance for each load case. Energy balance is useful in confirming certain internal aspects of the model are working correctly. Energy balance does not validate how accurately the model simulates the physical structure. Presenting energy balance for each load case and suggesting balance implies FEM accuracy is misleading. 

Ques 3 Joost 

The plotting of the eneindication to the CAE eperformed correctly (fperspective) and is noto the complex nature not typically be includwas only included as dwere held between Loindicated that they haand this was used to snot exist in the models 

Modeling observations

The cracks in the front end module (Figure 3.2) and the separation between the front end module and the front rail (Figure 3.3) are clearly visible. This zone experiences very large permanent deformations, as shown in Figure 4. 

Ques 1 Simunovic 

Cracks are typical in a following a high speed a magnesium front str
However, in my opinion, there are two issues that need to be 

addressed. One is the modeling of material failure/fracture and the other is the design of the crush zone with respect to the overall stopping distance. While the former may be a part of proprietary technology, the latter issue should be added to the description in order to better understand the design at hand. 

Ques 2 Simunovic 

The dynamic crush zonincluded in the report Material failure/fractuwas provided by the maluminum was providematerial’ (represented Element deletion was the lows speed crush crails. The failure strain material was 11%. Basconservative value. The full crush zone of under the flat frontal ienough mass in the veof the governing factobased upon a vehicle wwould use up all of the impact loading. The praluminum as used in tgage that could be usematerial warping durinThe above paragraph w

Notice large cracks open in the mid span, on the sides, and punched out holes at the locations of the connection with the front rail and the shotgun. Mesh refinement study of this component would be interesting and could also indicate the robustness of the design. Decision to design such a structurally important part out of Mg would be interesting to a reader. There are other components that also include failure model even though they are clearly not made out of magnesium nor are their failure criteria defined in the Phase 

The “shotgun” causes module to completely although not ideal, dothe results due to the shotgun bends under tcrushing axially. The mtaken by the main rail
2 report. Figure 6 [See Simunovic Comments, p. 8.] shows the 

sequence of deformation of the front left rail as viewed from the right side of the vehicle. Tearing of the top of the support (blue) can be clearly observed in Figure 7. The importance of this connection for the overall response may warrant parametric studies for failure parameters and mesh discretization. 

Ques 2 Simunovic 

The role of this supporThere are 995,000 mewere made to ensure for the following: Element mesh size Number of triangles pTria. Interior angle Quad Interior angle Warping Jacobian Aspect Ratio Total %age of failed elquality criteria’s) 

It can be seen that almost all deformation occurs in the space spanned by the front frame rails. As marked in Figure 1, the front transition member (or a differently named component in case my material assignment assumption was not correct), supports the front rail so that it axially crushed and dissipated as much energy, as possible. For that purpose, this front rail rear support was made extremely stiff and it does not appreciably deform during the crash (Figure 10). [See Simunovic Comments, p. 10.] It has internal 

reinforcing structure that has not been described in the report. These reinforcements enables it to reduce bending and axial deformations in order to provide steady support for the axial crush of the aluminum rail tube. 

Ques 2 Simunovic 

The design/analysis priterations to improve ttransition so that the pbe seen in the front ratransition pieces are 3castings with extensive significant deformatiocomment, the rail (606are 2.25mm and the toaxial crushing to take pas part of the structurthe rail was too stiff anmode. A sensitivity analysis wgauges further; this im
and increased the ove

However, the thinner because of potentially (beyond the scope of tthroughout the design materials provided a pairbag technology (per “G” level of 10% below 

To quickly evaluate the feasibility of the proposed design, we can use the concept of the Equivalent Square Wave (ESW) ["Vehicle crashworthiness and occupant protection", American Iron and Steel Institute, Priya, Prasad and Belwafa, Jamel E., Eds. (2004).]. ESW assumes constant, rectangular, impact pulse for the entire length of the stopping distance (in our case equal to 22 in) from initial velocity (35 mph). ESW represents an equivalent constant rectangular shaped pulse to an arbitrary input pulse. In our case ESW is about 22 g. Sled tests and occupant model simulations indicate that crash pulses exceeding ESW of 20 g will have difficulties to satisfy FMVSS 208 crash dummy performance criteria [11]. For a flat front barrier crash of 35 mph and an ESW of 20 g, the minimum stopping distance is 24 in. Advanced restraint systems and early trigger airbags may need to be used in order to satisfy the injury criteria and provide sufficient ride down time for the vehicle occupants. 

Ques 2 Simunovic 

Front NCAP test resulthttp://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/datatabase=v&tstno=660

the following is observmax dynamic crush - 6peak acceleration 49GThe Venza crush distagreater than a pulse thVenza pulse would be ESW analysis. The NHTacceleration was 21G ESW predicted value. TESW threshold value oIt may be difficult to mFMVSS208 requiremenpredicted but there arsold that are able to d500); the 2008 Smart Fdynamic crush of ~400Phase 2 model), and a (average acceleration 

Report does not identify the data used (minimum or typical). Aluminum property data used in for the PH 2 design represents 

Ques 2 Richman Values from the suppl
expected minimum values for the alloys and tempers. This 

reviewer is not able to comment on property values used for the other materials used in the BIW. 

were those used for thfound on www.matwe

LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part art as well as science, the assumption had to be made that Lotus has sufficient skills and experience to generate a valid simulation model. 

Ques 3 richman 

This is a correct assum

Model indicates the PH 2 structure could sustain a peak load of 108 kN under FMVSS 216 testing. This is unusually high for an SUV roof, and stronger than any roof on any vehicle produced to date. Result questions stiffness and strength results of the simulations.

Ques 3 Richman 

IIHS results for the 200good rating (which is 4resulted in a maximum the roof structure is cothe 2011-2012 Dodge maximum force of 105

The analysis result maactual test as the physand the analysis is conbe some dynamic effeapparent load capacitybeen used successfully program to be considecarried out here. There is a sufficient safor ’dynamic’ discrepa

While the report abounds with crash simulations and graphs documenting tremendous amount of work that authors have done, it would have been very valuable to add comparison with the 6602 test even at the expense of some graphs. Page 72 of the Phase 2 report starts with comparison of the simulations with the tests and that is one of the most engaging parts of the document. I suggest that it warrants a section in itself. It is currently located out of place, in between the simulation results and it needs to be emphasized more. This new section would also be a good place for 

Ques 3 Simunovic 

The simulation sectionseparate sections: 4.3and 4.5. Closures. Occupant safety modescope. 
discussion on occupant safety modeling and general formulas for 

the subject. One of the intriguing differences between the simulations and baseline vehicle crash test is the amount and the type of deformation in the frontal crash. As noted previously, computational model is very stiff with very limited crush zone. Viewed from the left side (Figure 14) [See Simunovic Comments, p. 14.], and from below (Figure 15) [See Simunovic Comments, p. 15.], 

we can see that the majority of the deformation is in the frame rail, and that the subframe’s rear supports do not fail. The strong rear support to the frame rail, does not appreciably deform, and thereby establishes the limit to the crash deformation. 

Ques 3 Simunovic 

The difference betweeand the simulation lies vehicle. The baseline vwhile the simulation creduction in mass has crash performance, (1‘stiffer’ as shown by thand shorter time to zedynamic crush is less. Additional analyses weresults predicted by thThese analyses involvebond on the vehicle stwindshield. This was a roof crush test is perfoplace. The restrictions appliepackaging, manufactuaffected the part size/components are simila57% heavier baseline v

There is an obvious difference between the simulations and the tests. The developed lightweight model and the baseline vehicle do represent two different types of that share general dimensions, so that the differences in the responses can be large. However, diving down during impact is so common across the passenger vehicles so that different kinematics automatically raises questions about the accuracy of the suspension system and the mass distribution. If such kinematic outcome was a design objective, than it can be stated in the tests. 

Ques 3 Richman 

The motion of the vehdictated by the CoG fomodel was ‘mass adjudistribution between tThere was no informatthe baseline vehicle CG the simulation model. model was 560mm abfrontal load case there 
pitching. This is becau

spans the vehicle CG lothen there could be sigimpact. The potential was not studied; the lithe CG height. 

Another reviewer which did not visit Lotus commented on the following: 1. The powertrain has more than 15% of the vehicle mass and therefore the right powertrains should be used in simulation. 2. The powertrain is always mounted on the body by elastic mounts. The crash behavior of the elastic mounts might easy introduce a 10% error in determination of the peak deceleration (failure vs not failure might be much more than 10%). So modeling a close-to-reality powertrain and bushing looks like a must (at least for me). 3. Although not intuitive, the battery pack might have a worst crash behavior than the fuel tank. Therefore the shoulder to shoulder position might be inferior to a tandem configuration (with the battery towards the center of the vehicle). 

Ques 3 OSU 

The EPA provided a paLotus Sable engine wamass optimization was scope of this study to Phase 2 BIW study. Lotus spent a substantthe powertrain mountduring front impacts. A 2 kWh battery pack smaller fuel tank to prrange. The total energto original fuel system (fuel, battery) is constrestraints have less masystem. 

Here the geometric configuration, many materials and many joining methods are essentially new. Can Lotus provide examples that show how accurate such ‘blind’ predictions may be? 

Ques 3 OSU 

All materials and joininreport are in productiovehicle. The materials results used in the moThere are no examples how accurate the modtest. A prototype build 
project.

The current state of than OEM vehicle prograconfidence in the ideostructure is capable of requirement (concept program developed ancomponents were finastructure/doors/etc.) tresults would improveThe methods that wercrash models have beevehicle programs to prwould therefore be exhere would be within a prototype were built

Compare models to tests 

For instance, intrusion velocities for side impacts are reported. But, no analytical comparison is made to similar vehicles that currently meet the requirements. Comparable crash tests are often available from NHTSA or IIHS. 

Ques 3 Richman 

NHTSA has carried out production vehicle. Ththe NHSTA website (htnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/dat

impact test report (35the simulation results following link (http://w

nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/datatabase=v&tstno=660

Results from IIHS testiwebsite (www.iihs.org

While a direct comparthe Lotus model and t
IIHS test results, the re

presented in this repoperformance, e.g., comintrusion levels from tmodel 208 results. 

Treatment of aluminum and other metals 

From the report it is not clear that pretreatment is also applied to extruded elements. The majority of high volume aluminum programs in North America have moved away from electrochemical anodizing as a pre-treatment. Current practice is use of a more effective, lower cost and environmentally compatible chemical conversion process. These processes are similar to Alodine treatment. Predominant aluminum pre-treatments today are provided by Novelis (formerly Alcan Rolled Products) and Alcoa (Alcoa 951). Both processes achieve similar results and need to be applied to the sheet and extruded elements that will be bonded in assembly. 

Ques 2 Richman 

Alodine, a Henkel prodpre-treatment includinproducts were not eva

Study is very thorough in their crash loadcase selections and generated a lot of data for evaluation. Might have included IIHS Offset ODB and IIHS Side Impact test conditions which most OEM's consider. 

Ques 3 Richman 

The customer specifie214 side impact includ208 included offset ba

Some effort was made in the report to discuss joining and corrosion protection techniques, however it is possible that new techniques will be available prior to 2025. For example, there was very little discussion on how a vehicle which combines so many different materials could be pre-treated, e-coated, and painted in an existing shop. There will likely be new technologies in this area.

Ques 6 Joost 

The steel B pillar woulprimed prior to delivealuminum panels wouthe current aluminum cars. Non-metallic wasThe assembly methodwhite plant section. 

Stiffness but the authors may need to address whether or not such extreme 

stiffness values would be appealing to consumers of this type of vehicle. While there doesn’t appear to be a major source of error in the torsional stiffness analysis, the result does call into question the accuracy; this is either an extraordinarily stiff vehicle, or there was 

Ques 3 Joost 

Allowing for a 10% errpredicted stiffness is aX5. The current X5 bodvs. the previous generPhase 2 BIW torsional 
an error during the analysis. next generation X5. In

suspension to be bettehandling. 

Remarkable strength exhibited by the FEM roof under an FMVSS test load raises questions validity of the model. 

Ques 3 Richman 

The roof structure is cthe 2011-2012 Dodge maximum force of 105

strength steel B pillarsproduction steel vehic

Unusual simulation results – [1] Models appear reasonable and indicate the structure has the potential to meet collision safety requirements. Some unusual simulation results raise questions about detail accuracy of the models. [2] FMVSS 216 quasi-static roof strength: Model indicates peak roof strength of 108 KN. This is unusually high strength for an SUV type vehicle. The report attributes this high strength to the major load being resisted by the B-pillar. Several current vehicles employ this construction but have not demonstrated roof strength at this level. The report indicates the requirement of 3X curb weight is reached within 20 mm which is typically prior to the test platen applying significant load directly into the b-pillar. [3] 35 MPH frontal rigid barrier simulation: Report indicates the front tires do not contact the sill in a 35 MPH impact. This is highly unusual structural performance. Implications are the model or the structure is overly stiff. 4] Body torsional stiffness: Torsional stiffness is indicated to be 32.9 kN/deg. Higher than any comparable vehicles listed in the report. PH 2 structure torsional stiffness is comparable to significantly more compact body structures like the Porsche Carrera, BMW 5 series, Audi A8. It is not clear what elements of the PH 2 structure contribute to achieving the predicted stiffness. 5] Door beam modeling: Door beams appear to stay tightly joined to the body structure with no tilting, twisting or separation at the lock attachments in the various side impact load modes. This is highly unusual structural behavior. No door opening deformation 

Ques 3 Richman 

performance. The modperformance (3x curb and met the standard; strength is similar to tlower curb weight, the performance is improvFMVSS 208 rigid barriepreviously. 4. Body stiffness addreis 4” shorter than the shorter than the Audi was the result of a subthe model. The key wasections and minimizin5. The door beam systpillars using conventiois a minimal amount odoors are predicted to 
is observed in any frontal crash simulations. This suggests the door 

structure is modeled as an integral load path. FMVSS requires that doors are operable after crash testing. Door operability is not addressed in the report. 

Bending Stiffness and modal frequency analysis - not reported

Report indicates “Phase 2 vehicle model was validated for conforming to the existing external data for the Toyota Venza, meeting best-in-class torsional and bending stiffness, and managing customary running loads.” Only torsional stiffness is reported. Modal frequency analysis data Is not reported. 

Ques 3 Richman 

All references to “valid“model analysis resultequivalent; the referehas been deleted. The the test methodology Lotus model was evaluBMW did not publish bwas possible. The modal frequency report. 

Report Summary of Safety Testing Results” indicates the mass reduced body exhibits “best in class” torsional and bending stiffness. The report discusses torsional stiffness but there is no information on predicted bending stiffness. No data on modal performance data or analysis is presented. 

Ques 3 OSU 

The baseline X5 was chindicated it was the ststructure and significaLotus tested. BMW pubut did not disclose thcomparison was not p

Most areas of vehicle performance other than crash performance were not addressed at all. Even basic bending stiffness and service loads (jacking, towing, 2-g bump, etc) were not addressed. The report claims to address bending stiffness and bending/torsional modal frequencies, but that analysis is not included in the report. 

Ques 6 Richman 

Service loads were not 

Simulation alone not validation 

Simulation results alone would not be considered “validation” of PH 2 structure safety performance. 

Ques 1. Joost 

“Validation” commen

Report states that “the mass-reduced vehicle was validated for meeting the listed FMVSS requirements.” This is an overstatement of what the analysis accomplished..... “Acceptable” levels were 

Ques 3 Richman 

Acceptable is based on externally and indicateconsistent with the tes
defined by Lotus without explanation. Results may be good, but 

would not be sufficient to “validate” the design for meeting FMVSS requirements. 

stage of development

Cannot truly be validated without building a physical prototype for comparison. 

Ques 3 Richman 

All validation referenc

the models cannot be regarded as validated without some correlation to physical test results. 

Ques 3 OSU 

Context changed to rea level of performance built, there is a reasonrequirements. 

Report Conclusions overstate the level of design “validation” achievable utilizing state-of-the- art modeling techniques with no physical test of a representative structure. From the work in this study it is reasonable to conclude the PH 2 structure has the potential to pass FMVSS and IIHS safety criteria. 

Ques 5 Richman 

Validation references 

The PH 2 study did not include physical evaluation of a prototype vehicle or major vehicle sub system. Majority of the chassis and suspension content was derived from similar components for which there is extensive volume production experience. Some of the technologies included in the design are “speculative” and may not mature to production readiness or achieve projected mass reduction estimates by 2020. For those reasons, the PH 2 study is a “high side” estimate of practical overall vehicle mass reduction potential. 

Ques 5 Richman 

It could turn out that saggressive. Most Phaswere at a late prototyapplications were autoattrition in the technocost effectively transfereport doesn’t include so there is the potentiprocesses to be develoSome 2020 MY goals hthan three years after For example, the 2012 weighs 20 kg or about set for the Phase 1 202Venza rear seat weighthe Elantra seat to norresults in less mass thaseat. 
A key unknown to red

to adopt a holistic, totsystem mass and cost between groups that rand cost even though individual goals. Additmass reductions, such closure systems, althodecompounding that lsuspension re-design aDI turbocharged, cylinengine. A synergistic, to reach a “tipping” podecompounding. 

Overstating the implications of available safety results discredits the good design work and conclusions of this study.

Ques 5 Richman 

The report has been rethe implications are as modeling. 

FMVSS test performance conclusions are based on simulated results using an un-validated FE model. Accuracy of the model is unknown. Some simulation results are not typical of similar structures suggesting the model may not accurately represent the actual structure under all loading conditions. 

Ques 5 Richman 

The model uses the sacurrent production ve10% of a finished prodexperience. The modebuilding an actual test 

Safety performance and cost conclusions are not clearly support bydata provided. A major objective of the PH 2 study is to “validate” the light weight vehicle structure for compliance with FMVSS requirements. State of the art FEM and dynamic simulations models were developed. Those models indicate the body structure has the potential to satisfy FMVSS requirements. FMVSS requirements for dynamic crash test performance is defined with respect to occupant loads and accelerations as measured using calibrated test dummies. The FEM simulations did not include interior, seats, restraint systems or 

Ques 5 Richman 

Model indicates feasibrequirements as a resudisplacements of the mresponses have been dthe testing of an actua
occupants. Analytical models in this project evaluate 

displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the body structure. Predicting occupant response based on body structural displacements velocities and accelerations is speculative. Simulation results presented are a good indicator of potential performance. These simulations alone would not be considered adequate validation the structure for FMVSS required safety performance. Most studies employing a finite element model validate a base model against physical testing, then do variational studies to look at effect. Going directly from an unvalidated FEM to quantitative results is risky, and the level of accuracy is questionable 

Ques 5 Richman 

A physical model is reqmodeling results. 

Costing Cost estimates for the PH 2 vehicle are questionable. Cost 

modeling methodology relies on engineering estimates and supplier cost projections. The level of analytical rigor in this approach raises uncertainties about resulting cost estimates. Inconsistencies in reported piece count differences between baseline and PH 2 structures challenge a major reported source of cost savings. Impact of blanking recovery on aluminum sheet product net cost was explicitly not considered. Labor rates assumed for BIW manufacturing were $20/Hr below prevailing Toyota labor rate implicit in baseline Venza cost analysis. Cost estimates for individual stamping tool are substantially below typical tooling cost experienced for similar products. Impact of blanking recovery and labor rates alone would increase BIW cost by over $200. 

Ques 1. Joost 

Intellicosting completeIntellicosting does not and prices are based oIntellicosting quoted a hour base. Fully fringehour. Intellicosting uses a stestimating worksheet Intellicosting reviewed including only parts w= 259 

Section 4.5.8.1 uses current “production” vehicles as examples for the feasibility of these techniques. However, many of the examples are for extremely high-end vehicles (Bentley, Lotus Evora, McLaren) and the remaining examples are for low-production, high-end vehicles (MB E class, Dodge Viper, etc.). The cost of some technologies can be expected to come down before 2020, but it is not reasonable to assume that (for example) the composites 

Ques 2 Joost 

Carbon fiber did not mBIW and was not used composite material us(the plastic used in wapanels used directionawith a PET foam innersubstantially lower tha
technologies used in Lamborghinis will be cost competitive on any 

time scale; significant advances in composite technology will need to be made in order to be cost competitive on a Venza, and the resulting material is likely to differ considerably (in both properties and manufacturing technique) from the Lamborghini grade material. 

Carbon fiber, currently will be used for the upstructure. Per BMW, tcompetitive”; preliminAutomobilwoche, a Gebetween $44,000 and The Nissan Leaf EV 20cost is about 22%. This cost differential betweindicator that BMW hamanufacturing cost foAnother example that making substantial promaterials and new convolume, more mainstrThe 2014 Ford F-150 (Edmunds.com) will repaluminum body (http://online.wsj.com128045775312822271type of construction ucars and the Phase 2 m

Main weakness of the cost analysis is the fragmented approach of comparing costs derived in different approaches and different sources, and trying to infer relevant information from these differences. 

Ques 4 

joost 

This was a customer d

Flat year-over-year wages for the cost analysis seems unrealistic. Ques 4 

OSU 

The trend is towards locurrently paid by VolkVW cost discussion be

Vulnerability in this cost study appears to be validity and functional equivalence of BIW design with 169 pieces vs. 407 for the baseline 

Ques 4 Richman 

Parts count revised frocosted parts. 
Venza. 

Total tooling investment of $28MM for the BIW not consistent with typical OEM production experience. BIW tooling of $150-200MM would not be uncommon for conventional BIW manufacturing. If significant parts reduction could be achieved, it would mean less tools, but usually larger and more complex ones, requiring larger presses and slower cycle times. 

Ques 4 richman 

Intellicosting quotes to$28MM is based on threquired. Tooling life i

Tooling estimates from Intellicosting are significantly lower than have been seen in other similar studies or production programs and will be challenged by most knowledgeable automotive industry readers. Intellicosting estimates total BIW tooling at $28MM in the tooling summary and $70 MM in the report summary. On similar production OEM programs complete BIW tooling has been in the range of $150MM to $200MM. The report attributes low tooling cost to parts consolidation. This does not appear to completely explain the significant cost differences between PH 2 tooling and actual production experience. Parts consolidation typically results in fewer tools while increasing size, complexity and cost of tools used. The impact of parts consolidation on PH 2 weight and cost appears to be major. The report does not provide specific examples of where parts consolidation was achieved and the specific impact of consolidation. Considering the significant impact attributed to parts consolidation, it would be helpful provide specific examples of where this was achieved and the specific impact on mass, cost and tooling. Based on actual production experience, PH 2 estimates for plant capital investment, tooling cost and labor rates would be viewed as extremely optimistic 

Ques 4 Richman 

Intellicosting quoted lovolume. Examples of part consreport.

Difficult to evaluate since this portion of the report was completed by a subcontractor. The forming dies seem to be inexpensive as compared to standard steel sheet metal forming dies. 

Ques 4 osu 

Intellicosting quoted lovolume. 

Applying a consistent costing approach to each vehicle and vehicle system using a manufacturing cost model approach. This approach would establish a more consistent and understandable assessment of cost impacts of vehicle mass reduction design and technologies. 

Ques 4 richman 

Intellicosting applies a our company developeIntellicosting methodoreport. 
The assessment of the energy supply includes a description of solar, 

wind, and biomass derived energy. While the narrative is quite positive on the potential for each of these energy sources, it’s not clear in the analysis how much of the power for the plant is produced using these techniques. If the renewable sources provide a significant portion of the plant power, then the comparison of the Ph2 BIW cost against the production Venza cost may not be fair. The cost of the Venza BIW is determined based on the RPE and several other assumptions and therefore includes the cost of electricity at the existing plant. Therefore, if an automotive company was going to invest in a new plant to build either the Ph2 BIW or the current Venza BIW (and the new plant would have the lower cost power) then the cost delta between the two BIWs would be different than shown here (because the current Venza BIW produced at a new plant would be less expensive). The same argument could be made for the labor costs and their impact on BIW cost. By including factors such as power and labor costs into the analysis, it’s difficult to determine what the cost savings/penalty is due only to the change in materials and assembly – the impact of labor and energy are mixed into the result.

Ques 4 Joost 

This is a 2020 model vstudy was done by an team, EBZ, who builds including BMW, Audi awill incorporate what low environmental imtheir US assembly planThis trend is already stIndiana assembly planall plant waste is eitheelectricity. A single-famin a day than the SubaSource: Subaru.com No attempt was made build a CUV eight year

The number of workers assigned to vehicle assembly in this report 

seems quite low. Extra personal need to be available to replace those with unexcused absences. Do these assembly numbers also include material handling personnel to stock each of the workstations? While this work does make a compelling case it downplays some of the very real issues that slow such innovation in auto manufacturing. Examples: multi-material structures can suffer accelerated corrosion if not properly isolated in joining. Fatigue may also limit durability in aluminum, magnesium or novel joints. Neither of these durability concerns is raised. Also, automotive manufacturing is very conservative in using new processes because one small process problem can stop an entire auto manufacturing 

Ques 4OSU 

Labor figures include They do not include personnel with no asSee previous discussThe 2014 Ford F-150 use a riv-bonded all 
plant. Manufacturing engineers may be justifiably weary of 

extensive use of adhesives, until these are proven in mass production in other environments. These very real impediments to change should be mentioned in the background and conclusions. 

IC Summary – Cost projections . . . lack sufficient rigor to support 

confidence in cost projections and in some cases are based on “optimistic” assumptions. Significant cost reduction is attributed to parts consolidation in the body structure. Part count data presented in the report appears to reflect inconsistent content between baseline and PH 2 designs. Body manufacturing labor rates and material blanking recovery are not consistent with actual industry experience. Using normal industry experience for those two factors alone would add $273 to body manufacturing cost. Tooling cost estimates for individual body dies appear to be less than half normal industry experience for dies of this type.

Ques 4 richman 

Intellicosting applies a our company developeIntellicosting methodomethodology to suppo

System cost assumptions based on average sales margin and detailed engineering judgments can be a reasonable first order estimate. These estimates can be useful in allocation of relative to costs to individual vehicle systems, but lack sufficient rigor to support definitive cost conclusions 

Ques 4 Richman 

Intellicosting does not in our calculation / meThis information was aclarification. 

Body costs for PH 2 design were estimated by combining scaled material content from baseline vehicle (Venza) and projected manufacturing cost from a new production processes and facility developed for this project. This approach is logical and practical, but lacks the rigor to support reliable estimates of new design cost implications when the design changes represent significant departures from the baseline design content. 

Ques 4 Richman 

Intellicosting applies a our company developeIntellicosting methodomethodology to suppo

Body piece cost and tooling investment estimates were developed by Intellicosting. No information was provided on Intellicosting methodology. Purchased component piece cost estimates (excluding BIW) are in line with findings in similar studies. Tooling costs supplied by Intellicosting are significantly lower than actual production experience would suggest. 

Ques 4 Richman 

Intellicosting applies a our company developeIntellicosting methodomethodology to suppoIntellicosting quotes to$28MM is based on th
required. Tooling life i

The PH 2 study indicates and aluminum based multi material body (BIW, closures) can be produced for at a cost reduction of $199 relative to a conventional steel body. That conclusion is not consistent with general industry experience. This inconsistency may result from PH 2 assumptions of material recovery, labor rates and pars consolidation. A recent study conducted by IBIS Associates “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: Manufacturing and Life Cycle Cost Analysis” estimated a cost increase $560 for an aluminum vehicle BIW and closures. http://aluminumintransportation.org/members/files/ active/0/IBIS%20Powertrain%20Study%20w%20cover.pdf

That study was conducted with a major high volume OEM vehicle producer and included part cost estimates using detailed individual part cost estimates. Majority of cost increases for the low mass body are offset by weight related cost reductions in powertrain, chassis and suspension components. Conclusions from the IBIS study are consistent with similar studies and production experience at other OEM producers. 

Ques 4 Richman 

The estimated Phase 2 over $700 more than tuse of less expensive treduced number of tolower assembly costs djoining methods and feoffset the more expenThe synergistic cost savehicle (from the Phasand further offset the reviewed Phase 1 2020 mass reduction of nea(less powertrain) while The savings associated the materials from the to further offset the Bestimated average savsystems. Because this manufacturing cost, thBIW included was at nvehicle. 

Material Recovery -- Report states estimates of material recovery in processing were not included in the cost analysis. Omitting this cost factor can have a significant impact on cost of sheet based aluminum products used in this study. Typical auto body panel blanking process recovery is 60%. This recovery rate is typical for steel and aluminum sheet. When evaluation material cost of an aluminum product the impact of recovery losses should be included in the analysis. Potential impact of material recovery for body panels: Approximate aluminum content (BIW, Closures) 240 Kg 

Ques 4 Richman 

Sheet utilization varied cost was used with no material, i.e., Intellicorecovery in their calcuno allowance for the looperations to be recovcosts. 
Input material required at 60% recovery 400 Kg

Blanking off-all 160 Kg Devaluation of blanking off-all (rough estimate)  Difference between raw material and  Blanking off-all $1.30/Kg $211 

Blanking devaluation increases cost of aluminum sheet products by over $ 0.90/Kg. 

Appropriate estimates of blanking recoveries and material devaluation should be included in cost estimates for stamped aluminum sheet components. Recovery rates for steel sheet products are similar to aluminum, but the economic impact of steel sheet devaluation is a significantly lower factor in finished part cost per pound. Report indicates total cost of resistance spot welding (RSW) is 5X the cost of friction spot welding (FSW). Typical total body shop cost (energy, labor, maintenance, consumable tips) of a RSW is $0.05 - $0.10. For the stated ratio to be accurate, FSW total cost would be $0.01-$0.02 which appears unlikely. It is possible the 5X cost differential apply to energy consumption and not total cost. 

FSW (friction stir weldJoining (FSJ), a process Industries, was utilizedservo-motor to spin a sheets of aluminum anmaterial remains in ththe parent material prKawasaki (www.khi.co.jp/englis

“ the FSJ system uses l

consumed by resistancaddition, there is no nsupply equipment resuequipment costs.” 

Labor rates -- Average body plant labor rates used in BIW costing average $35 fully loaded. Current North American average labor rates for auto manufacturing (typically stamping, body production and vehicle assembly) 

Toyota $55 

Ques 4 Richman 

The industry trend is ttargeting a 40% reductOrion, Michigan plant and will use that as a m(http://www.gminside
GM $56 (including two tier)

Ford $58 Honda $50 Nissan $47 Hyundai $44 VW $38 

Labor rate of $35 may be achievable (VW) in some regions and circumstances. The issue of labor rate is peripheral to the central costing issue of this study which is assessing the cost impact of light weight engineering design. Method used to establish baseline BIW component costs inherently used current Toyota labor rates. Objective assessment of design impact on vehicle cost would use same labor rates for both configurations. Labor cost or BIW production is reported to be $108 using an average rate of $35. Typical actual BIW labor content from other cost studies with North American OEM’s found actual BIW labor content approaching $200. Applying the current Toyota labor rate of $55 to the PH 2 BIW production plan increases labor content to $170 (+$62) per vehicle. 

small-car-helping-rew). Improved efficiency, (about $20/hr with bereplacement of retirinabout 60% of the existcontinue to reduce GM projected to the 2020 close to this rate todayThe Volkswagen Tenne$14.50/hr and utilizes http://www.wsws.orgs23.shtml

Identical labor rates wcosts and the Phase 2 Two keys to lower assassembly time by subsand 2. utilizing less cos2 BIW uses structural aspacing between the jreduces the number oCUV/SUV requires 5,00That is approximately the number of joints bdecreasing the joint cocost of using structurasavings was applied to 2 BIW piece costs. 

Clallam county, WA is an interesting choice for the plant location (I grew up relatively nearby). Port Angeles is not a “major port” (total population <20,000 people) and access to the area from anywhere 

Ques 6 Joost 

Section eliminated.
else in the state is inconvenient. 

Piece count reduction concerning 

BIW Design Integration -- Report identifies BIW piece count reduction from a baseline of 419 pieces to 169 for PH 2. Significant piece cost and labor cost savings are attributed to the reduction in piece count. Venza BOM lists 407 pieces in the baseline BIW. A total of 120 pieces are identified as having “0” weight and “0” cost. Another 47 pieces are listed as nuts or bolts. PH 2 Venza BOM lists no nuts or bolts and has no “0” mass/cost components. With the importance attributed to parts integration, these differences need to be addressed. Closure BOM for PH 2 appears to not include a number of detail components that are typically necessary in a production ready design. An example of this is the PH 2 hood. PH 2 Hood BOM lists 4 parts, an inner and outer panel and 2 hinges. Virtually all practical aluminum hood designs include 2 hinge bracket reinforcements, a latch support and a palm reinforcement. Absence of these practical elements of a production hood raise questions about the functional equivalency (mounting and reinforcement points, NVH, aesthetics,...) of the two vehicle designs. Contents of the Venza BOM should be reviewed for accuracy and content in the PH 2 BOM should be reviewed for practical completeness. 

Ques 4 Richman 

Intellicosting reviewed including only parts w= 259. There were two scenatypical hinged hood syhood. For the fixed hofluid checking and fluid front fascia . The bolt-BOM. The crash modecase” hinged hood syshood hinge reinforcemneed for a “palm” reinhinges and the hood dThis approach saves a eliminating the hinge smass decompounding

Failure specifications for materials 

Materials properties describing failure are not indicated (with theexception of Mg, which shows an in-plane failure strain of 6%). It seems unlikely that the Al and Steel components in the vehicle will remain below the strain localization or failure limits of the material; it’s not clear how failure of these materials was determined in the models. The authors should indicate how failure was accounted for; if it was not, the authors will need to explain why the assumption of uniform plasticity throughout the crash event is valid for these materials. This could be done by showing that the maximum strain 

Ques 1 Joost 

Addressed previously.
conditions predicted in the model are below the typical localization 

or failure limits of the materials (if that is true, anyway). Model assumes no failures of adhesive bonding in materials during collisions. Previous crash testing experience suggest[s] some level of bonding separation and resulting structure strength reduction is likely to occur. 

Ques 3 Richman 

There could be some dadhesively bonded; hothe bonded regions wothe global results. Theare typically dealt with application (2 strips vsmechanical fastener dwith actual vehicles. 

Part Count The radical part count reduction needs to be more fully explained 

or de-emphasized. Report also should address the greatly reduced tooling and assembly costs relative to the experience of today's automakers. Some conservatism would be appropriate regarding potential shortcomings in interior design and aesthetics influencing customer expectations and acceptance. 

Ques 1 Richman 

Parts count revised to 

references References for all of the materials and adhesives would be very 

helpful. 

Ques 1 OSU 

References and supplimaterials. 

One broad comment is that this report needs to be more strongly placed in the context of the state of the art as established by available literature. For example the work only contains 7 formal references. Also, it is not clear where material data came from in specific cases (this should be formally referenced, even if a private communication) and the exact source of data such in as the comparative data in Figure 4.3.2 is not clear. Words like Intillicosting are used to denote the source of data and we believe that refers to a specific subcontract let to the firm ‘intellicosting’ for this work and those results are shown here. This needs to be made explicitly clear. 

OSU Ques 1 

More detailed referenbackground and their included Alcoa (alumin(magnesium support), structural composite i(composite support), EIntellicosting (costing s

Misc I would suggest that a short summary be added describing the 

major changes of the Phase 2 design with respect to the original High Development vehicle body design.

Added.

This reviewer sat down with the person who created and ran the LS-DYNA FEA models. Additional insight into how the model 

Ques 3 OSU 

The Ohio State UniverLotus to review confid
performs and specific questions were answered on specific load 

cases. All questions were answered. 

analysis that could not team reviewed the baset up and how the dranalysis that formed tThe below information methodology. The model was createprovided for all of the up the ARB vehicle strused to create the mofor creating an appropDiscretion was used dthe level of detail and created with the followAll holes less than 10mHoles >ø10mm should concentric ring of elemAt least two rows of eSpot-welds (i.e. frictiomodeled with single soBIW and Closure shell points Tied contact’s were de*CONTACT_TIED_NOD*CONTACT_TIED_SHEL(*CONTACT_SPOTWEL‘weld’ beam definitionMesh quality checks wmet the criteria set for 
Element mesh size

Number of triangles pTria. Interior angle Quad Interior angle Warping Jacobian Aspect Ratio Total %age of failed elquality criteria’s) Components were also Free edges, duplicate element normal, LS-DYeasier identification) anodes The flat frontal model and 3-D) 

to provide additional credibility to the manufacturing assessment it would be helpful to include a description of other work that EBZ has conducted where their manufacturing design work wasimplemented for producing vehicles. Lotus is a well-known name, EBZ is less well known. 

Ques 4 Joost 

EBZ, the firm Lotus coBIW assembly plant, hAudi, BMW, VW, Porsc(Europe) as well as othinformation was adde

The analysis is based on specific density which assumes that the architecture of the vehicles is the same. For example, the front-end crash energy management system in a micro car is likely quite different from the comparable system in a large luxury car (aside from differences in gauge to account for limited crash space, as discussed in the report). While this analysis provides a good starting point, I do not feel that it is reasonable to expect the weight reduction potential to scale with specific density. In other words, I think that the 32.4 value used in the analysis also changes with 

Ques 5 Joost 

The objective was to con current vehicles. Tand mass of future veh
vehicle size due to changes in architecture. Similarly, the cost 

analysis projecting cost factor for other vehicle classes is a good start, but it’s unlikely that the numbers scale so simply. Fundamental engineering work is very good and has the potential to make a substantial and important contribution to industry understanding of mass reduction opportunities. The study will receive intense and detailed critical review by industry specialists. To achieve potential positive impact on industry thinking, study content and conclusions must be recognized as credible. Unusual 

safety simulation results and questionable cost estimates (piece cost, tooling) need to be explained or revised. As currently presented, potential contributions of the study are likely to be obscured by unexplained simulation results and cost estimates that are not consistent with actual program experience. Absolutely. Recommended adjustments summarized in Safety analysis, and cost estimates (recommendations summarized in attached review report). Credibility of study would be significantly enhanced with detail explanations or revisions in areas where unusual and potentially dis-crediting results are reported. Conservatism in assessing CAE based safety simulations and cost estimates (component and tooling) would improve acceptance of main report conclusions. Impact of BIW plant site selection discussion and resulting labor rates confuse important assessment of design driven cost impact. Suggest removing site selection discussion. Using labor and energy cost factors representative of the Toyota Venza production more clearly identifies the true cost impact of PH 2 design content. 

Ques 6 Richman The overall tone of pa

required to insure that meaning of the results implementation. The snot represent that the will meet the FMVSS arequire building a vehperformance. The “unusual simulatioconsistent with the prDurango. The 2011-20results in a maximum www.iihs.org). Additioactual would reduce th108 kN). The high strength steesimilar to those used ovehicles and are key coUsing a key structural much heavier vehicles body structure providemargin for roof crush aperformance. The “questionable cosincluding revising the cThe Phase 2 BIW piece baseline which is cons
provided by the review

related savings detaileincreased cost BIW. Thwas used as the basis cost offsets that impacThe site selection discThe reader can substitcalculate the impact opreviously discussed, tlabor rates; GM is targ(Tennessee assembly p$14.50/hr to direct emcontract employees (a

The proposed engine size is based on the assumption that decreasing the mass of the vehicle and holding the same power–toweight ratio will keep the vehicle performances alike. This assumption is true only if the coefficient of drag (Cda) will also decrease (practically a perfect match in all the dynamic regards is not possible because the quadratic behavior of the air vs speed). The influence of the airdrag is typically higher than the general perception. In this particular case is very possible that more than half of the engine power will be used to overcome the airdrag at 65 mph. Therefore aerodynamic simulations are mandatory in order to validate the size of the engine. 

Ques 6 OSU 

The baseline body in waero aids including a fheight, integrated rea(no fender gaps). The low mass Phase 2 maintain the Venza’s warea, a 0.28 Cd and an estimated 12.2 HP reqat 70 MPH. 

PEER REVIEW OF THE LOTUS REPORT DEMONSTRATING THE SAFETY AND CRASHWORTHINESS OF A 2020 MODEL YE

CROSSOVER VEHICLE 

Conference Call 

Friday, December 2, 2011 

Participating in the call: Will Joost, DOE Doug Richman, Kaiser Aluminum Srdjan Simunovic, ORNL David Emerling and C.G. Cantemir, OSU Gregg Peterson, Lotus Engineering Cheryl Caffrey, EPA Brian Menard and Doran Stegura, SRA NOTE: Reviewers should send follow-up questions to Brian Menard by COB Monday, December 5, for prompt response breviewers are able to submit their final comments by December 14. 
Issue 1: 

The Labor Rate appears lower than industry standard and why is renewable energy included in the cost? Acknowledging 

contributor to the cost, but question just the same. This question is related to the piece cost issue. Did these 2 factors influence costs very much? Lotus Engineering (Lotus) Response:

[1] The report will include a cost for the BIW using a typical industry rate as well as the known labor rate stipulated 

[2] The energy cost is $69/vehicle; the assumption is that the plant uses conventional electrical power to build the 

closures. There is a discussion in the manufacturing report relative to using sustainable energy and the advantagEBZ, the firm that designed the plant, is a European company and typically equips their current customer manufac

solar roofs and includes potential wind turbines sites. In other words, on site sustainable energy systems are alre

European automotive plants. We see that trend being mainstream in the US in the timeframe of this vehicle. Becauconventional steel BIW plants to do the same, there is no cost savings assigned to the use of sustainable energy 

sources (coal, hydro, nuclear). 

To the reviewer’s knowledge the Toyota plant has the lowest costs in the US, but these rates are lower than these Ok for other plants but may not be applicable for automobile plants (est. $55/hr) Piece Cost and Labor Content - labor rates are different for 1) and 2) below 

1) **Manufacturing study (assembly, stamping – Toyota in-house parts) 

2) Part component cost – no – labor rates realistic 

Issue 2: 

Body Build - Are Mag parts coated? 

o Were sheet metal parts pre-treated? Anodized aluminum 

o Nobody is anodizing sheets for aluminum in NA (automotive production) 

Lotus Response: Lotus uses anodizing.
Most body programs use some sort of a coating so as long as there’s a cost for coating the sheet metal then that’s ok. 

Issue 3: 

Material property – were these minimal or typical properties? Toyota insists on minimal properties in design. 

Lotus Response: The baseline Venza BOM is being revised to clarify that the $0 cost, 0 kg mass parts are already in

assemblies; this shows the individual parts but does not include their cost and mass as that would be double cou

material specifications were provided by the material supplier; these specifications are the same as those provide

using those materials. 

Issue 4: 

Durability is mentioned several times in the report and Lotus has experience in durability. Otherwise, there is no other an

How comfortable is Lotus with durability? The paper lacks analysis with NVH and fatigue issues – not addressed and may additional weight. Lotus Response: Durability is beyond the scope of the project; however, Lotus did due diligence with coupon testing an

other things in joining and materials. Louts has built aluminum rear bonded vehicles for 16-17 years – the cars are used more at tracks than public roads, has ad

experience Lotus Response: Lotus will place a statement to this effect in the final report.

Lotus has been told they’re overdesigned. IIHS – 4x wt for roof crush, FMVSS – 3x wt for roof crush and Lotus uses 6x weig

hence no need to add additional weight Issue 5: 

The mass damper was removed from the Lotus original design – Lotus Response: Toyota had hands tied and bandages were evident throughout the BIW. With the Lotus design it is p

bandages. 
Issue 6:

L3 engine – 1 L Engine isn’t in production yet, but well along... Lotus Saber engine – has balance shaft.

Issue 7:

Collision performance says body is quite stiff Data is coming that says body is “remarkably stiff”

As part of process – 50 mph flat not have any discontinuities 

Evident in pulse time for crash events Tire and wheel don’t hit cross tire – interesting observation Lotus Response: Engine mount design was worked over to get this result. 

Issue 8: 

Appendix C-1 – part count – body BOM – quite a large number of 0 cost 0 weight parts removed – 127 parts were 0 wt, 0 

47 nut/weld studs in original – no nuts/studs listed in new vehicle parts list 407 parts seem like a very large number of parts in the original Venza compared to other programs reviewers has experie

BIW – Venza – Phase 1 welded – not costed and no weight – how is it considered a part then? Numbers missing? Lotus Response: Lotus will provide additional information to the reviewers.

Issue 9:

Is report for a technical audience or an illustration of possibilities to the general public? Add more info for technical document – mention CAE done on HD vehicle earlier in report 
Material data – isotropic – for modeling all materials 

Material 24 in Dyna Issue 10:

For each material, explain why specific material selected for later on – materials are tied together Give info on grades of aluminum used in various locations in the vehicle Mag – only one – AM60 – only one property given, but how was this decided? Explain materials choices – hot stamped boron used in door beams –for don’t want to have large displacement..... 

Mag – chose AM rather than AZ for galvanic properties Lotus Response: Lotus worked with Alcoa and others for stiffness.

Lotus Response: Agreed to include language in the report concerning efforts with suppliers and supplier recommenda

Which aluminum used where in BOM at end of report – bring up front part of report Why use 6061 in rails and not 6063 – or other way around? Issue 11:

Use different FEA technologies for different parts – was the cast mag a solid element or approximated by shells? 

Issue 12:

Stiffness – one crash – page 72 have test from NHTSA to compare results – new design consistently higher than original v

Any other tests NHTSA ran? Bring other comparisons Lotus Response: The original Venza had higher peak pulse than the new vehicle.
Srdjan Simunovic said that new vehicle has earlier spike and lower difference between simulation and real car crash. 

Lotus Response: Lotus changed materials 10% (sensitivity) and changed peak acceleration by 30%. Lotus wanted tuni

airbag early hence control peak acceleration, chose 23g 1st 35ms - beyond scope to do full airbag development. 

Simunovic suggested Lotus include explanation – graphs not as valuable as discussion as to decisions. Done. Lotus Response: Agreed to incorporate the reviewer’s recommendations. 

Issue 13:

In Sec. 4.5.8 Lotus lists systems (ex: aluminum extrusion) and lists where systems are in production – the places in produc

end vehicles such as the McLaren and other similar cars. Any higher production such as the Toyota Prius/Chevy Cruze? 

Lotus Response: Agreed to take this into consideration.

Says costs estimate is applicable to higher volume Issue 14:

Design shows lots of 6022 aluminum – not standard in automotive – is it? Doug Richman: It is used in body sheet. 6013 not used much now, but will likely be used in body sheet in next 10 years Not revolutionary - there are 2 plants with high volume in North America Doug mentioned none of the aluminum have aerospace technology – more civilian markets. Issue 15:Can you stamp and form this aluminum at room temp? Richman: Yes, absolutely- from an industry perspective. 
Issue 16:

Does moving from friction spot welding to friction spot joining save money? Lotus Response: Spot joining is used with adhesive and so uses half as many joints as spot welding—this is a Kawasaki 

the aluminum to stay in parent properties and not change properties.

Is there any riveting or spot riveting? Lotus Response: Yes, it includes riveting and spot welds. 

Issue 17: 

Crash simulation question in the charge letter – “whether lotus can be validated” – what are you looking for? EPA will cla

Issue 18:

Remove discussion to Phase 1 report – is it needed?EPA Response: It should be considered that the report assumes the mass reduction and costs from all of the other parts 

the Phase 1 report.Lotus Response: The report is being reviewed to eliminate any need for the reader to refer to the Phase 1 report. Th

Phase 2 report is complete by itself and does not require the reader to read another large (300 page) document as 

understanding the Phase 2 report. In other words, all pertinent Phase 1 information will be included in the Phase 2 refer the reader to the Phase 1 report. 

Issue 19:

It was noted that the model takes away the spare tire and tool kit – this results in a notable mass and cost savings – is this 

difference on whether this is reaching too far? No further discussion at this time. The issue does need to be addressed. 

Issue 20:
Test of marketability - Interior radical – departures from expectations – smaller steps may be needed – bad reaction ex: H

Honda Civic downgraded interior – major decline in sales and marketability. Will have new model in 2 years to try to reco

typical) Parts look cheaper and fit and finish is bad – took out weight and cost out and road tests of vehicle not good. 

Lotus Response: The materials were not downgraded; they were either kept on par or were upgraded. Lotus received f

interior was preferred over the original Venza interior and that the Lotus materials were soft to the touch and high graIssue 21:

It is important to proofread the numbers in the tables and graphs and those referred to in the report text as in some insta

inconsistent. 

Intellicosting Process Steps: 

Component Cost Analysis:

• Photograph and weigh total component or assembly 

• Disassemble component and create Bill of Material structure 

• Weigh and photograph individual parts 

• Allocated components to cost analysts: 

o Mechanical: Plastic/Die Castings 

o Electronics: PCB/Sensors/Cameras 

• Cost analysts will enter physical dimension and manufacturing location data into Intellicosting Cost modeling app

• Cost modeling (high level) description: 

o Plastic example: 

 Cost analyst will determine material type 

 Part dimensions (wall thickness/overall projected area) will be entered cost model 

 Production volume and manufacturing region will be entered into Cost Model 
 Cost analyst will select correct tonnage of machine to effieciently product component 

• Machine level data resident in cost model (portion): 

o Machine cost 

o Machine installation costs 

o Cycle times 

o Efficiencies 

o # or % of operator required to man machine 

o Amount of regrind material 

o Manual or automate part handling 

 Cost analyst will determine based on entire manufacturing process, the size of facility required to 

 The cost model will analyze all the inputs and create a final report that will include: 

• Operational step, such as Op 10 Melting 

• Machine description: Name / Tonnage 

• Geographic region: State or Country 

• Cycle times • Fixed/Variable costs 

• Total costs for each Operational step and entire assembly 

 Cost analyst will determine tooling requirement for component 

o Electronics: 

 Cost Analyst will photograph and weigh printed circuit board 

 Cost Analyst will determine board population methodology 

 Cost Analyst will review type and functions of components 

 Cost Analyst will research costs for components based on volume and purchasing power 

 Cost Analyst will de-laminate integrated circuits to review silicone die, to determine die manufact

 Cost analyst will create virtual production line equipment: 

• Chip placement (shooters) 

• Component feeders 

• Soldering process • In-Line testing 
• End of line testing 

 Cost Analyst will determine Engineering Design and Development cost associate with each functio

develop Print Circuit Board over a determined period of time (ex: 4 years) 

 Facility size and manpower requirements are entered into cost model 

 Cost analyst will review preliminary final report with Quality Peer Review team 

 Upon approval Cost Analyst will submit Final Report to Client 
I

Draft Final Report:
II

Contract Number: 09-621

Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness 

of a 2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover 

Vehicle

Prepared By: 

Prepared for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

Principal Investigator: Lotus Engineering Inc.

Draft date: October 12, 2011
III

Disclaimer

The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not 

necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial 

products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to 

be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.

Acknowledgements

Many individuals across many organizations contributed to this study. Lotus gratefully 

acknowledges the organizations below that contributed or collaborated with Lotus in 

some way throughout the project. These organizations do not necessarily endorse or 

validate this report.

AISI (materials - American International Steel Institute)

Alcoa Aluminum (materials - Ground Transportation Group)

Allied Composite Technologies LLC (materials - Rochester Hills, Michigan)

American Trim (joining and forming technologies - Lima, Ohio)

American Trim (joining and forming technologies - Lima, Ohio)

Bayer Material Science (materials)

Böllhoff (joining technologies – Troy, Michigan; Bielefeld, Germany)

CAR (Center for Automotive Research – Ann Arbor, Michigan)

CARB (California Air Resources Board)

Department of Energy (DOE)

EBZ (manufacturing – Rochester Hills, Michigan; Ravensburg, Germany)

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency)

EWI (joining technologies – Columbus, Ohio)

Henkel (Automotive Group – adhesives, coatings and structural foams)

Henrob (joining technologies – Livonia, Michigan)

Hydro – Automotive Structures (materials forming – Holland, Michigan)

Intellicosting LLC (automotive costing – Troy, Michigan)

Kawasaki Robotics (joining and assembly technologies – Wixom, Michigan)

Meridian Automotive Systems (Tier 1 automotive magnesium part supplier)

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Ohio State University (joining technologies)

Plasan Carbon Composites (Tier 1 automotive carbon fiber supplier – Bennington, 

Vermont)

United States Steel Corporation (Troy, Michigan)

This Report was submitted in fulfillment of CARB contract number 09-621. The objective 

was to use an existing lightweight vehicle concept and develop it to demonstrate that it 

meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for light duty vehicles. The 

work was performed by Lotus Engineering Inc. under the sponsorship of the California 

Air Resources Board. Work was completed in the second quarter of 2011.
IV
V

Table of Contents

1. Abstract................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 2

2.1. Background......................................................................................................................... 2

2.2. Methods............................................................................................................................... 2

2.3. Results................................................................................................................................. 3

2.4. Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 3

2.5 Recommendations............................................................................................................... 4

3. Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols ................................................................... 6

4. Report: Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 2020 Model-Year, MassReduced Crossover Vehicle.......................................................................................................... 16

4.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 16

4.2. Materials and Methods...................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1. Model Creation ............................................................................................................. 21

4.2.1.1. BIW............................................................................................................................... 23

4.2.1.2. Simulated Doors (beams only)...................................................................................... 23

4.2.1.3. Front Sub-frame/Suspension......................................................................................... 24

4.2.1.4. Rear Sub-frame/Suspension.......................................................................................... 24

4.2.1.5. Cooling Pack/Front Under Hood .................................................................................. 25

4.2.1.6. Powertrain/Exhaust....................................................................................................... 25

4.2.1.7. Fuel Tank/Battery ......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2. Material Data ................................................................................................................ 27

4.2.2.1. Steel............................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.2.2. Aluminum ..................................................................................................................... 29

4.2.2.3. Magnesium.................................................................................................................... 32

4.2.2.4. Composites.................................................................................................................... 33

4.2.2.5. Adhesives/Mastics/Composites .................................................................................... 34

4.2.3. Material Usage (location in vehicle)............................................................................. 35

4.2.4. Joining Methodologies.................................................................................................. 37

4.2.5. Model Mass/Other Information .................................................................................... 39

CAE Test Set-Up .......................................................................................................................... 40

4.2.5.1. FMVSS 208: 35 mph Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, offset deformable barrier)...... 40

4.2.5.2. FMVSS 208: 25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier......................................................... 41

4.2.5.3. FMVSS208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Left Side ........................................................ 42

4.2.5.4. FMVSS208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Right Side ...................................................... 43

4.2.5.5. FMVSS 210: Seatbelt Anchorages ............................................................................... 44

4.2.5.6. FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems.......................................................................... 45

4.2.5.7. FMVSS 214: 33.5 mph Side Impact – Crabbed Barrier............................................... 48

4.2.5.8. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (5th percentile Female) .............. 49

4.2.5.9. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (50th percentile Male)................ 50

4.2.5.10. FMVSS 216: Roof Crush.......................................................................................... 51

4.2.5.11. FMVSS 301: Rear Impact (moving deformable barrier).......................................... 52

4.2.5.12. IIHS Low Speed – Front........................................................................................... 53

4.2.5.13. IIHS Low Speed – Rear............................................................................................ 54

4.3. CAE Analysis.................................................................................................................... 56
VI

4.3.1. FMVSS 208: 35 mph Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, offset deformable barrier)...... 57

4.3.2. FMVSS 208: 25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier......................................................... 65

4.3.3. FMVSS208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Left Side ........................................................ 74

4.3.4. FMVSS208: 25mph 30° Flat Barrier – Right Side ....................................................... 80

4.3.5. FMVSS 210: Seatbelt Anchorages ............................................................................... 86

4.3.5.1. Front.............................................................................................................................. 86

4.3.5.2. Rear............................................................................................................................... 88

4.3.6. FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems.......................................................................... 90

4.3.7. FMVSS 214: 33.5 mph Side Impact – Crabbed Barrier............................................... 91

4.3.8. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (5th percentile Female) .............. 96

4.3.9. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (50th percentile Male).............. 101

4.3.10. FMVSS 216: Roof Crush............................................................................................ 106

4.3.11. FMVSS 301: Rear Impact (moving deformable barrier)............................................ 109

4.3.12. IIHS Low Speed – Front............................................................................................. 113

4.3.13. IIHS Low Speed – Rear.............................................................................................. 114

4.3.14 Body Stiffness/Modals................................................................................................ 115

4.4. Discussion....................................................................................................................... 118

4.4.1. Observations - FMVSS 208 Front Impact .................................................................. 118

4.4.1.1 FMVSS 208: 35 mph Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, offset deformable barrier).... 118

4.4.1.2 FMVSS 208: 25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier....................................................... 119

4.4.1.3 FMVSS 208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Left Side ..................................................... 119

4.4.1.4 FMVSS 208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Right Side ................................................... 119

4.4.2. Observations – FMVSS 210 Seatbelt Anchorages ..................................................... 120

4.4.2.1. Front Anchorages........................................................................................................ 120

4.4.2.2. Rear Anchorages......................................................................................................... 120

4.4.3. Observations – FMVSS 213 Child Restraint Anchorage ........................................... 121

4.4.4. Observation – FMVSS 214 Side Impact..................................................................... 121

4.4.4.1 FMVSS 214: 33.5 mph Crabbed Barrier .................................................................... 121

4.4.4.2 FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact ............................................................... 122

4.4.5. Observation – FMVSS 216 Roof Crush ..................................................................... 122

4.4.6. Observations – FMVSS 301 Rear Impact................................................................... 122

4.4.7. Observations - IIHS Low Speed – Front..................................................................... 123

4.4.8. Observations - IIHS Low Speed – Rear...................................................................... 124

4.4.9. Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Results............................................................................... 125

4.4.10. Summary of Safety Testing Results............................................................................ 128

4.5. Closures........................................................................................................................... 130

4.5.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 130

4.5.2. Model Updates............................................................................................................ 130

4.5.3. Model Mass/Other Information .................................................................................. 133

4.5.4. Analysis Results.......................................................................................................... 134

4.5.4.1. 33.5-mph Side Impact – Crabbed Barrier................................................................... 134

4.5.4.1.1. Observations - Side Impact MDB........................................................................... 140

4.5.4.2. 20mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (5th Percentile Female) .................................. 141

4.5.4.3. 20-mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (50th percentile Male).................................... 146

4.5.4.3.1. Observations - Side Impact Pole............................................................................. 151

4.5.4.4. Roof Crush.................................................................................................................. 152
VII

4.5.4.4.1. Observations - Roof Crush...................................................................................... 156

4.5.4.5. Rear Impact................................................................................................................. 157

4.5.4.5.1. Observations - Rear Impact .................................................................................... 162

4.5.4.6. IIHS Low Speed – Rear.............................................................................................. 164

4.5.4.6.1. Observations - IIHS Low Speed – Rear.................................................................. 167

4.5.5. Bill of Materials. ......................................................................................................... 169

4.5.5.1 Closures Bill of Materials........................................................................................... 177

4.5.6. Vehicle Manufacturing ............................................................................................... 180

4.5.6.1 Assembly..................................................................................................................... 180

4.5.6.2 Labor........................................................................................................................... 182

4.5.6.3 Investment and Manufacturing Costs ......................................................................... 183

4.5.7. Cost Discussion........................................................................................................... 196

4.5.7.1 Phase 1 Cost Study.......................................................................................................... 196

4.5.7.2 Phase 2 Cost Study.......................................................................................................... 198

4.5.7.3 Closures Piece Costs....................................................................................................... 204

4.5.7.4 Phase 2 HD BIW Technology..................................................................................... 206

4.5.8. Application of Results to Other Vehicle Classes........................................................ 208

4.5.8.1. Body-in-White ............................................................................................................ 208

4.5.8.1.1. Modularization........................................................................................................ 208

4.5.8.1.2. Materials ................................................................................................................. 208

4.5.8.1.3. Aluminum Extrusions and Stampings .................................................................... 209

4.5.8.1.4. Magnesium Castings............................................................................................... 209

4.5.8.1.5. High Strength Steel................................................................................................. 210

4.5.8.1.6. Composites.............................................................................................................. 210

4.5.8.1.7. Scalability Summary............................................................................................... 210

4.5.8.2. Closures....................................................................................................................... 215

4.5.8.2.1. Injection Molding.................................................................................................... 215

4.5.8.2.2. Mild Steel Castings................................................................................................. 215

4.5.8.2.3. Scalability Summary............................................................................................... 215

4.5.8.3. Front and Rear Bumpers............................................................................................. 216

4.5.8.4. Glazing (Windshield, Backlight, Doors, Sunroof, Fixed Panels)............................... 216

4.5.8.5. Interior......................................................................................................................... 216

4.5.8.5.1. Seats........................................................................................................................ 216

4.5.8.5.2. Electronic Transmission and Parking Brake Controls............................................ 217

4.5.8.5.3. Instrument Panel ..................................................................................................... 217

4.5.8.5.4. Center Console........................................................................................................ 218

4.5.8.5.5. Noise Insulation ...................................................................................................... 218

4.5.8.5.6. Interior Trim............................................................................................................ 218

4.5.8.5.7. HVA/C Ducting ...................................................................................................... 219

4.5.8.6. Chassis and Suspension .............................................................................................. 219

4.5.8.6.1. Suspension and Steering ......................................................................................... 219

4.5.8.6.2. Braking System....................................................................................................... 219

4.5.8.6.3. Tires and Wheels..................................................................................................... 220

4.5.8.7. Electrical ..................................................................................................................... 220

4.5.8.8. Powertrain................................................................................................................... 220

4.5.8.9. Competitive Set Study ................................................................................................ 222
VIII

4.5.8.10. Summary and Projected Weight Savings................................................................ 223

4.6.1 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 225

4.6.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 226

5. References........................................................................................................................... 226

6. List of Inventions Reported and Copyrighted Materials Produced .................................. 227

7. Appendices.............................................................................................................................. 1

7.1. Appendix A: Manufacturing Report ................................................................................... 1

1.0 General Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Location .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Climate................................................................................................................................ 2

2.2 Labor Costs......................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Available Resources............................................................................................................ 3

2.4 Taxes................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Process & Layout................................................................................................................ 4

3.5.1 Sub-Assemblies............................................................................................................. 64

3.5.2 Underbody Line ............................................................................................................ 64

3.5.3 Cross Transport............................................................................................................. 64

3.5.4 Framing Line................................................................................................................. 64

3.5.5 After Framing Line ....................................................................................................... 64

3.6 Buffer Concept.................................................................................................................. 64

3.7 Station Layouts ................................................................................................................. 65

7.0 Quality Concept ................................................................................................................ 99

7.1 Philosophy......................................................................................................................... 99

7.2 Quality Assurance Methods............................................................................................ 100

7.2.1 In-Line Quality Check ................................................................................................ 100

7.2.2 Off-Line Quality Check ................................................................................................. 101

8.0 Maintenance Concept...................................................................................................... 102

9.0 Environmental Assumptions........................................................................................... 104

9.1 Solar Panels..................................................................................................................... 104

9.2 Wind Turbines ................................................................................................................ 104

9.3 Biomass Power................................................................................................................ 105

9.4 Hydroelectric Power ....................................................................................................... 105

9.5 Water Recycle................................................................................................................. 105

9.6 Lighting........................................................................................................................... 105

9.7 Recycling, Reusables, and Returnables.......................................................................... 105

9.8 Living Roof..................................................................................................................... 106

9.9 Solvent Recovery............................................................................................................ 106

9.10 Plant Surroundings.......................................................................................................... 106

10.0 Investment/Costs............................................................................................................. 107

10.1 Capital Costs................................................................................................................... 107

10.2 Labor Costs..................................................................................................................... 114

10.3 Utilities............................................................................................................................ 115

10.4 Investment Summary ...................................................................................................... 116

10.5 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................................ 118

10.6 Tooling Costs.................................................................................................................. 120

7.1.1 Closures Manufacturing Report...................................................................................... 131
IX

7.2 Appendix B: Competitive Set Study................................................................................... 1

7.3 Appendix C: 2009 Toyota Venza and Phase 2 HD Piece Costs......................................... 1
X

List of Figures

Figure Description Page

4.2.1.a Phase 1 High Development Model Exterior Styling – Front 20

4.2.1.b Baseline Toyota Venza Exterior Styling – Front 21

4.2.1.c Phase 1 High Development Model Exterior Styling – Rear 21

4.2.1.d Baseline Toyota Venza Exterior Styling – Rear 21

4.2.1.1.a Phase 2 HD vehicle body-in-white - Front 22

4.2.1.2.a Phase 2 HD vehicle simulated door beams 22

4.2.1.3.a Phase 2 HD vehicle front sub-frame and suspension 23

4.2.1.4.a Phase 2 HD vehicle rear sub-frame and suspension 23

4.2.1.5.a Phase 2 HD vehicle cooling and under hood 24

4.2.1.6.a Phase 2 HD vehicle powertrain and exhaust 24

4.2.1.7.a Phase 2 HD vehicle fuel tank/battery 25

4.2.2.1.a Steel stress-strain curve at 300 MPa 26

4.2.2.1.b Steel stress-strain curve at 400 MPa 27

4.2.2.1.c Hot-stamped, boron steel stress-strain curve 27

4.2.2.2.a 6013 aluminum stress-strain curve 28

4.2.2.2.b 6022 aluminum stress-strain curve 28

4.2.2.2.c 6061 aluminum stress-strain curve 29

4.2.2.2.d 6063 aluminum stress-strain curve 29

4.2.2.2.e 6013 aluminum stress-strain curve 30

4.2.2.3.a AM60 magnesium stress-strain curve 31

4.2.2.4.a 45-2a nylon stress-strain curve 32

4.2.2.4.b 60-percent glass-fiber PET stress-strain curve 32

4.2.2.5.a 1811 Terocore stress-strain curve 33

4.2.2.5.b Terokal stress-strain curve 33

4.2.3.a Body-in-white material usage front three-quarter view 34

4.2.3.b Body-in-white material usage rear three-quarter view 35

4.2.3.c Body-in-white material usage underbody view 35

4.2.3.d Body-in-white material usage blow-up view 36

4.2.4.a Henkel & Kawasaki lap-shear tests 37

4.2.5.1.a Rigid, deformable wall crash-test model setup 39

4.2.5.2.a 40-percent barrier overlap crash-test model setup 40

4.2.5.3.a 30°, left-side barrier crash-test model setup 41

4.2.5.4.a 30°, right-side barrier crash-test model setup 42

4.2.5.5.a Front seatbelt anchorage test model setup 43

4.2.5.5.b Rear seatbelt anchorage test model setup 44

4.2.5.6.a Acceleration pulse applied to child-restraint model 45

4.2.5.6.b Child-restraint test model setup 46

4.2.5.7.a Crabbed barrier test model setup 47

4.2.5.8.a Side-pole impact test model setup 48
XI

4.2.5.9.a Side-pole impact test model setup 49

4.2.5.10.a Roof crush test model setup 50

4.2.5.11.a Deformable, moving barrier rear impact test model setup 51

4.2.5.12.a IIHS, low-speed front test model setup (‘full impact’) 52

4.2.5.12.b IIHS, low-speed front test model setup (‘offset impact’) 53

4.2.5.13.a IIHS, low-speed rear test model setup (‘full impact’) 53

4.2.5.13.b IIHS, low-speed rear test model setup (‘offset impact’) 54

4.3.1.a Vehicle deformation (t=0.1s) after full frontal impact 56

4.3.1.b Vehicle acceleration pulse during full frontal impact 57

4.3.1.c Average vehicle acceleration pulse during full frontal impact 58

4.3.1.d

Vehicle velocity during full frontal impact - time to 0 velocity 

(TTZ) = 59.5 ms 59

4.3.1.e Vehicle acceleration during full frontal impact 59

4.3.1.f

Vehicle displacement from full frontal impact - max dynamic 

crush = 555mm 60

4.3.1.g CAE dash intrusion analysis after full frontal impact 61

4.3.1.h Fuel tank plastic strain after full frontal impact 62

4.3.1.i Main energy absorbing frontal body structure 63

4.3.1.j Energy balance for full frontal impact 63

4.3.2.a

Vehicle deformation (t=0.15s) after 40-percent overlap 

frontal impact 64

4.3.2.b

Vehicle deformation (t=0.15s, barrier not shown) after 40-

percent overlap frontal impact 65

4.3.2.c

Vehicle acceleration pulse during 40-percent overlap frontal 

impact 65

4.3.2.d

Average vehicle pulse during 40-percent overlap frontal 

impact 67

4.3.2.e

Vehicle velocity after 40-percent overlap frontal impact -

time to zero (TTZ) = 0.117s 67

4.3.2.f

Vehicle displacement after 40-percent overlap frontal 

impact 68

4.3.2.g

CAE dash intrusion analysis after 40-percent overlap frontal 

impact 68

4.3.2.h Toyota Venza NCAP dash deformation 69

4.3.2.i

Main energy absorbing body structure – 40-percent overlap 

frontal impact 70

4.3.2.j Energy balance for 40-percent overlap frontal impact 70

4.3.2.k

Comparison of production vehicle and Phase 2 HD crash 

accelerations 71

4.3.2.l

Comparison of production vehicle envelope and Phase 2 

HD crash accelerations 72

4.3.3.a

Vehicle deformation (t=0.12s) after 30°, left-side frontal 

barrier impact 73

4.3.3.b

Vehicle acceleration pulse during 30°, left-side frontal 

barrier impact 74
XII

4.3.3.c

Average vehicle acceleration pulse during 30°, left-side 

frontal barrier impact 75

4.3.3.d

Vehicle velocity during 30°, left-side frontal impact - time to 

0 velocity (TTZ) = 76ms 75

4.3.3.e

Vehicle displacement during 30°, left-side frontal impact –

max dynamic crush = 500mm 76

4.3.3.f

CAE dash intrusion analysis after 30°, left-side frontal 

impact 76

4.3.3.g Fuel tank plastic strain after 30°, left-side frontal impact 77

4.3.3.h

Main energy absorbing body structure for Fuel tank plastic 

strain after 30°, left-side frontal impact 77

4.3.3.i Energy balance for 30°, left-side frontal impact 78

4.3.4.a

Vehicle deformation (t=0.12s) after 30°, right-side frontal 

impact 79

4.3.4.b

Vehicle acceleration pulse during 30°, right-side frontal 

impact 80

4.3.4.c

Vehicle average acceleration pulse during 30°, right-side 

frontal impact 80

4.3.4.d

Vehicle velocity during 30°, right-side frontal impact - time 

to zero velocity (TTZ) = 92ms 81

4.3.4.e

Vehicle displacement during 30°, right-side frontal impact -

maximum dynamic crush 524mm 81

4.3.4.f

CAE dash intrusion analysis after 30°, right-side frontal 

impact 82

4.3.4.g Fuel tank plastic strains after 30°, right-side frontal impact 82

4.3.4.h

Main energy absorbing body structure for 30°, right-side 

frontal impact 83

4.3.4.i Energy balance for 30°, right-side frontal impact 84

4.3.5.1.a Seatbelt anchorage plastic strains (@ 0.2s) 85

4.3.5.1.b Upper seatbelt anchorage plastic strain (@ 0.2s) 86

4.3.5.1.c Lower seatbelt anchorage plastic strain (@ 0.2s) 86

4.3.5.2.a Rear seatbelt anchorage plastic strain (@ 0.2s) 87

4.3.5.2.b Displacement at lower seatbelt anchorages (@0.2s) 88

4.3.6.a Child-restraint, lower anchorage plastic strain 89

4.3.6.b Child-restraint seat pan displacements 89

4.3.7.a Vehicle deformation (0.1s) after crabbed barrier impact 90

4.3.7.b

Vehicle deformation (barrier not shown) after crabbed 

barrier impact 91

4.3.7.c

Global vehicle and barrier velocities for crabbed barrier 

impact 91

4.3.7.d

Relative intrusion velocities (B-pillar) during crabbed barrier 

impact 92

4.3.7.e

Relative intrusion displacements (B-pillar) during crabbed 

barrier impact 92

4.3.7.f B-pillar intrusion profile after crabbed barrier impact, 93
XIII

x=2842

4.3.7.g Intrusion levels after crabbed barrier impact on struck side 93

4.3.7.h

Main energy absorbing body structure arts for crabbed 

barrier impact 94

4.3.7.i Energy balance for crabbed barrier impact 94

4.3.8.a

Vehicle deformation (0.1s) after 75°, side, pole impact – 5th 

percentile female 95

4.3.8.b

Vehicle deformation after 75°, side, pole impact (pole 

blanked) – 5th percentile female 96

4.3.8.c

Relative intrusion velocities during 75°, side, pole impact 

(B-pillar) – 5th percentile female 96

4.3.8.d

Relative intrusion displacements during 75°, side, pole 

impact (B-pillar) – 5th percentile female 97

4.3.8.e

Section through B-pillar after 75°, side, pole impact, x= 

2842 – 5th percentile female 97

4.3.8.f

Intrusion levels after 75°, side, pole impact on struck side –

5th percentile female 98

4.3.8.g

Main energy absorbing body structure for 75°, side, pole 

impact – 5th percentile female 98

4.3.8.h

Energy balance for 75°, side, pole impact – 5th percentile 

female 99

4.3.9.a

Vehicle deformation (0.1s) after 75°, side, pole impact –

50th percentile male 100

4.3.9.b

Vehicle deformation after 75°, side, pole impact (pole 

blanked) – 50th percentile male 101

4.3.9.c

Relative intrusion velocities during 75°, side, pole impact 

(B-pillar) – 50th percentile male 101

4.3.9.d

Relative intrusion displacements during 75°, side, pole 

impact (B-pillar) – 50th percentile male 102

4.3.9.e

Section through B-pillar after 75°, side, pole impact, x= 

2842 – 50th percentile male 102

4.3.9.f

Intrusion levels after 75°, side, pole impact on struck side –

50th percentile male 103

4.3.9.g

Main energy absorbing body structure for 75°, side, pole 

impact – 50th percentile male 103

4.3.9.h

Energy balance for 75°, side, pole impact – 50th percentile 

male 104

4.3.10.a

Deformation at 0/40/80/150mm of roof crush platen 

displacement 105

4.3.10.b

Deformation in relation to occupant head clearance zones 

(95th/99th) at 0/40/80/150mm of roof crush platen 

displacement 106

4.3.10.c Roof displacement vs. applied force – 3 times curb weight 106

4.3.10.d Roof displacement vs. applied force – 3 times Venza weight 107

4.3.10.e

Roof plastic strains at 0/40/80/150mm of roof crush platen 

displacement 107
XIV

4.3.11.a

Vehicle deformation (t=0.12s) after rear deformable barrier 

impact 108

4.3.11.b

Vehicle deformation (barrier blanked) after rear deformable 

barrier impact 108

4.3.11.c

Vehicle deformation (at 0ms/40ms/80ms/120ms) after rear 

deformable barrier impact 109

4.3.11.d

Vehicle acceleration pulse during rear deformable barrier 

impact 109

4.3.11.e

Vehicle & barrier velocities during rear deformable barrier 

impact 110

4.3.11.f Fuel tank plastic strains after rear deformable barrier impact 110

4.3.11.g

Main energy absorbing body structure for rear deformable 

barrier impact 111

4.3.11.h Energy balance for rear deformable barrier impact 111

4.3.12.a

Front plastic strain after low-speed frontal impact (‘full 

impact’) 112

4.3.12.b

Front plastic strain after low-speed frontal impact (‘offset 

impact’) 112

4.3.13.a

Rear plastic strains after low-speed rear impact (‘full 

impact’) 113

4.3.13.b

Rear plastic strains after low-speed rear impact (‘offset 

impact’) 113

4.3.14.a CAE body stiffness analysis 114

4.4.9.a

Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation setup 

– three-quarter view 124

4.4.9.b

Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation setup 

– side view 125

4.4.9.c

Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation result 

– three-quarter view 125

4.4.9.d

Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation result 

– side view 126

4.4.9.e

Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation result 

– three-quarter view, opaque Taurus 126

4.5.2.a Body-in-white -- V27 130

4.5.2.b Front closure view 131

4.5.2.c Rear closure view 131

4.5.4.1.a Model analysis setup 133

4.5.4.1.b

Vehicle deformation (0.1s) from 33.5-mph, crabbed barrier 

side-impact 134

4.5.4.1.c

Vehicle deformation (0.1s, barrier not shown) from 33.5-

mph, crabbed barrier side-impact 134

4.5.4.1.d

Global vehicle and barrier velocities during 33.5-mph, 

crabbed barrier side-impact 135

4.5.4.1.e

Relative intrusion velocities during 33.5-mph, crabbed 

barrier side-impact 135

4.5.4.1.f Relative intrusion displacements (b-pillar) from 33.5-mph, 136
XV

crabbed barrier side-impact

4.5.4.1.g

Relative intrusion displacements (front and rear doors) from 

33.5-mph, crabbed barrier side-impact 136

4.5.4.1.h

B-pillar intrusion profile x = 2842 from 33.5-mph, crabbed 

barrier side-impact 137

4.5.4.1.i

Intrusion levels on struck side from 33.5-mph, crabbed 

barrier side-impact 137

4.5.4.1.j

Plastic strain in struck-side doors from 33.5-mph, crabbed 

barrier side-impact 138

4.5.4.1.k 33.5-mph, crabbed barrier side-impact energy balance 138

4.5.4.2.a

20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (5th percentile 

female) model setup 140

4.5.4.2.b

Vehicle deformation from 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole 

impact -- front (5th percentile female) 141

4.5.4.2.c

Vehicle deformation from 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole 

impact -- front (5th percentile female, pole blanked) 141

4.5.4.2.d

Intrusion levels from 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact --

front (5th percentile female) 142

4.5.4.2.e

Intrusion levels from 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact --

front (5th percentile female) 142

4.5.4.2.f

Section through B pillar, x = 2842 after 20-mph, 75-degree 

side-pole impact -- front (5th percentile female, pole 

blanked) 143

4.5.4.2.g

Intrusion levels on struck-side from 20-mph, 75-degree 

side-pole impact -- front (5th percentile female) 143

4.5.4.2.h

Energy balance for 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact --

front (5th percentile female) 144

4.5.4.3.a

20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (50th percentile 

male) model setup 145

4.5.4.3.b

Vehicle deformation after 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole 

impact -- front (50th percentile male) 145

4.5.4.3.c

Vehicle deformation after 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole 

impact -- front (50th percentile male, pole blanked) 146

4.5.4.3.d

Intrusion Velocities (B-Pillar & Front Door) after 20-mph, 75-

degree side-pole impact -- front (50th percentile male) 146

4.5.4.3.e

Intrusion Displacements (B-Pillar & Front Door) after 20-

mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (50th percentile 

male) 147

4.5.4.3.f

Intrusion levels on struckside after 20-mph, 75-degree sidepole impact -- front (50th percentile male) 147

4.5.4.3.g

Section through B-Pillar, x= 2842 after 20-mph, 75-degree 

side-pole impact -- front (50th percentile male) 148

4.5.4.3.h

Plastic Strain in Front Door after 20-mph, 75-degree sidepole impact -- front (50th percentile male) 148

4.5.4.3.i Energy Balance for 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- 149
XVI

front (50th percentile male)

4.5.4.3.1.a

5

th percentile female vs. 50th percentile male front door 

intrusion comparison 150

4.5.4.4.a Roof crush model setup 151

4.5.4.4.b Deformation at 0/40/80/150mm of Platen Displacement 152

4.5.4.4.c

Deformation in Relation to occupant head clearance zones 

(95th/99th) at 0/40/80/150mm of Platen Displacement 152

4.5.4.4.d Roof Displacement vs. Applied Force – 3 times Curb Weight 153

4.5.4.4.e Roof Displacement vs. Applied Force – 3 times Venza Weight 153

4.5.4.4.f Plastic Strains @ 0/40/80/150mm of Roof Platen Displacement 154

4.5.4.4.1.a Resultant force magnitude in A & B-Pillars from roof crush test 155

4.5.4.5.a Rear Impact Model Set up 156

4.5.4.5.b Vehicle deformation after rear impact test 157

4.5.4.5.c Vehicle deformation after rear impact test (barrier blanked) 157

4.5.4.5.d

Vehicle Deformation (@ 0ms/40ms/80ms/120ms) after rear 

impact 158

4.5.4.5.e Vehicle Acceleration Pulse during rear impact 158

4.5.4.5.f Vehicle & Barrier Velocities during rear impact simulation 159

4.5.4.5.g Fuel Tank Plastic Strains after rear impact 159

4.5.4.5.h Rear impact energy balance 160

4.5.4.5.1.a Fuel Tank Plastic Strain location after rear impact 161

4.5.4.5.1.b Initial vehicle armature rotation during rear impact 162

4.5.4.6.a Low-speed IIHS impact model setup (‘full’) 163

4.5.4.6.b IIHS low-speed impact element plastic strains (‘full’) 164

4.5.4.6.c IIHS low-speed impact model setup ('offset') 164

4.5.4.6.d IIHS low-speed impact element plastic strain (‘offset’) 165

4.5.4.6.1.a Maximum barrier deflection from IIHS low-speed impact 166

4.5.4.6.1.b Deformation at maximum deflection from IIHS low-speed impact 167

4.5.5.a Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 vehicle body structure by material 175

4.5.5.b Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 full vehicle material construction 176

4.5.8.1.7.a Toyota Yaris body-in-white structure 205

4.5.8.1.7.b Toyota Corolla body-in-white structure 205

4.5.8.1.7.c Audi A4 body-in-white structure 206

4.5.8.1.7.d Audi A7 body-in-white-structure 206
1

1. Abstract

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) contracted Lotus Engineering Inc. to validate 

the safety of a low-mass vehicle body-in-white such as the crossover vehicle described 

in Lotus’ 2010 lightweight vehicle study, An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program. The 2010 study, which 

developed a vehicle comparable to the 2009 Toyota Venza (equivalent dimensions, 

utility objectives, and passenger and interior volume) with 38 percent less mass for all 

systems except powertrain, was used as a starting point for this study. The masses for 

all non-BIW systems were carried over from the Phase 1 report. This safety study uses 

computer aided analysis and simulation to evaluate the crash performance of the massreduced body. The following study validates that a low-mass body structure could meet 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for light duty vehicles for front, side, 

and rear impacts, roof crush, occupant restraints and several Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety requirements. 

This study also provides a discussion on the applicability of low-mass body structure 

engineering and manufacturing to other vehicle classes as well as a bill of material with 

a full cost analysis for the engineering and manufacturing of a body structure. A 

manufacturing feasibility study is included to insure the components can be costeffectively mass produced by automakers and suppliers by 2020, with widespread 

introduction by 2025. Both low volume and high volume studies are included. Lotus 

evaluated the functional design based on both direct costs and assembly considerations 

before refining the design to further reduce costs and improve assembly.
2

2. Executive Summary

2.1. Background

ARB contracted Lotus Engineering Inc to design a low-mass body structure and to 

evaluate the performance for key federal (FMVSS) and Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety (IIHS) requirements for a 2020 model year vehicle, which could be widely 

commercialized by 2025. The target was a mass reduction greater than 30 percent for the 

total vehicle. An original vehicle concept, referred to as Phase 1 in this report, was 

developed in 2009 and released publicly in 2010. This study, defined as Phase 2, validated 

the crash performance of a reduced-mass vehicle relative to federal and IIHS standards. 

The investigation took place between December 2010 and October 2011.

As a part of this study Lotus shared the FMVSS impact models with NHTSA and held 

regular meetings to compare results with the NHTSA analysis team. Additionally, NHTSA 

used in-house models to perform vehicle to vehicle impacts with the Lotus low mass 

model, including a Ford Taurus and a Ford Explorer.1 NHTSA is issuing a separate report 

documenting the car to car impact results.

2.2. Methods

Lotus Engineering based this Phase 2 study on the over 30-percent mass reduced vehicle 

(curb weight – includes powertrain) developed in the Phase 1 study and performed vehicle 

crash simulations to confirm the body structure would meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) for light duty vehicles for front, side, and rear impacts, roof crush and 

certain IIHS requirements.

For the Phase 2 study, Lotus designed a new body structure based on the Phase 1 bodyin-white (BIW) with identical exterior and interior dimensions. This new body structure was 

then developed into a partial vehicle model (BIW with full suspension and powertrain), 

which was analyzed to determine the optimum materials to maximize structural rigidity 

while minimizing weight. The fully developed and optimized body weighed 242 kg and the 

total vehicle mass was 1173 kg. Lotus carried over the EPA developed parallel hybrid 

powertrain used in the Phase 1 vehicle, which weighed 356 kg.

This mass-reduced and materially optimized vehicle was used to create the model for 

structural and crash simulations. Analyses were performed after every test to further 

optimize the vehicle’s crash performance and to create a body structure with very high 

stiffness. A total of 27 discrete models, which included multiple updates based on the 

previous model results, were developed. In total, several hundred design iterations were 

evaluated.
3

In addition to performing a crash analysis of the Phase 2 model, Lotus analyzed the body 

structure cost. This study is included in this report. Lotus also investigated the assembly 

process to ensure the low-mass BIW can be constructed. A complete new body in white 

assembly plant was engineered to build the multi-material body. This study is included in 

the Appendix, including financials. Further iterations of the body structure were developed 

to improve the build process, minimize tooling and processing expenses, and to reduce the 

cost of the body. This methodology is used by industry to develop production vehicles.

2.3. Results

This analysis applied state-of-the-art computer simulation modeling to develop and confirm 

a lightweight and commercially feasible body structure for a midsized passenger car or 

sport utility vehicle concept meets or exceeds the demands of modern automobiles in 

terms of size, cargo volume, comfort, crashworthiness, and structural integrity. The massreduced vehicle’s BIW structure, the primary vehicle system involved with overall 

passenger safety, was developed and validated in this study. The vehicle simulation 

demonstrated and validated that a 32 percent mass-reduced vehicle with a 37 percent 

lighter body structure has the potential to meet U.S. federal impact requirements including 

side impacts and door beam intrusion (FMVSS 214), seatbelt loading (FMVSS 210), child 

tether loadings (FMVSS 213), front and rear end chassis frame load buckling stability, full 

frontal crash stiffness and body compatibility (FMVSS 208), and frame validation under 

low-speed bumper impact loads (‘bumper A-surface offsets,’ as defined by the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety.

2.4. Conclusions

This engineering study successfully achieved its objectives of developing a low mass body 

structure and validating the crash performance of an over 30 percent mass-reduced 

vehicle. This was achieved through a holistic vehicle redesign. The analysis results 

indicate that such a vehicle could meet FMVSS and IIHS safety requirements. Final 

vehicle design began with a 2009 Toyota Venza crossover vehicle and integrated relatively 

large quantities of advanced materials (e.g. advanced high-strength steels, aluminum, 

magnesium, and composites) and advanced designs and bonding techniques to achieve a 

substantial vehicular mass reduction without degrading size, utility, safety, or performance. 

Overall, vehicle body mass was reduced by 37 percent (141 kg), which contributed to a 

total vehicle mass reduction of 31 percent (527 kg) including the mass of other vehicle 

systems (interior, suspension, closures, chassis, etc.) which were optimized in a holistic 

redesign as part of the Phase 1 study. Additionally, this mass reduction was achieved 

using a parallel-hybrid drivetrain, suggesting that with a lighter non-hybrid drivetrain, it may 

be possible to further reduce vehicle mass while maintaining equivalent performance.

This project uses emerging technologies, advanced materials, state-of-the-art 

manufacturing and bonding techniques, and innovative design to develop a low-mass 

vehicle that meets or exceeds modern vehicle demands in terms of functionality, safety, 

and structural integrity. The study developed a mass-reduced vehicle and validated that it 
4

achieves best-in-class stiffness and meets U.S. federal safety requirements as well as 

IIHS guidelines. This work indicates it is technically feasible to develop a 30-percent lighter 

crossover vehicle without compromising size, utility, or performance and still meet 

regulatory and consumer safety demands.

The mass-reduced design presented in this study resulted in an increased body-in-white 

cost, but a reduced overall vehicle cost. The estimation of the BIW piece cost suggests an 

increase of 160 percent – over $700 – for the 37-percent mass-reduced body-in-white. 

Including the estimated manufacturing and assembly costs, this cost increase decreases 

to $239 due primarily to the reduced parts count. When considering the comprehensive 

vehicle redesign – including body and non-body components – the Phase 2 High 

Development vehicle achieves a 32-percent mass reduction along with an estimated cost 

reduction of less than one percent, including amortizing the cost of a new body plant over 

a three year period. This cost reduction is based on tooling and assembly savings and the 

cost reductions contributed by non-body systems. 

This study illustrates how a holistic, total vehicle approach to system mass and cost 

reductions can help offset the additional cost of a 37 percent mass reduced body structure. 

This study also estimates how these mass reductions and costs scale to other vehicle 

classes, finding that roughly similar mass-reduction and associated costs can be applied to 

other models ranging from subcompact cars to full-sized light trucks.

This study’s findings also indicate that the 30 percent mass-reduced vehicle can be costeffectively mass-produced in the 2020 timeframe with known materials and techniques. It 

is estimated with high confidence that the assembly and tooling costs of the new massreduced body design would have greatly reduced tooling costs due to the substantial 

reduction in parts required, from 419 parts in the baseline body structure to 169 parts in 

the low-mass design. By factoring in the manufacturability of the materials and designs 

into the fundamental design process, it is expected that, not only will this type of design be 

production-ready in 2020, but it also has the potential for wide commercialization in the 

2025 timeframe.

2.5 Recommendations

A multi-material body structure should be built and tested to physically evaluate its 

structural characteristics for stiffness and modals (frequency response) using nondestructive testing methods.

Additionally, it is recommended that a low mass vehicle be constructed using the Lotus 

designed BIW presented in this study, fitted with components duplicating the non-body 

system masses, and then be evaluated for FMVSS impact performance and occupancy 

protection by NHTSA.
5
6

3. Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

3D

Three dimensional. Something having three dimensions e.g. width, length, and depth.

5th Percentile Female

This represents a very small woman; 95 percent of women are larger than a 5th percentile 

female.

99th Percentile Male

This represents a very large man; this size man is larger than 98 percent of the male 

population.

A arm

In automotive suspension systems, a control arm (sometimes called a wishbone or A-arm) 

is a nearly flat and roughly triangular member (or sub-frame) that pivots in two places. The 

broad end of the triangle attaches at the frame and pivots on a bushing. The narrow end 

attaches to the steering knuckle and pivots on a ball joint.

‘A’ Pillar

An A pillar is a name applied by car stylists and enthusiasts to the shaft of material that 

supports the windshield (windscreen) on either of the windshield frame sides. By denoting 

this structural member as the A-pillar, and each successive vertical support in the 

greenhouse after a successive letter in the alphabet (B-pillar, C-pillar etc.), car designers 

and those interested in car design have common points of reference when discussing 

vehicle design elements.

ABS (material)

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic used to make light, rigid, 

molded products.

Al or Alum.

Aluminum.

‘B’ pillar

See ‘A’ Pillar.

BH or Bake Hardenable Steel

A bake-hardenable steel is any steel that exhibits a capacity for a significant increase in 

strength through the combination of work hardening during part formation and strain aging 

during a subsequent thermal cycle such as a paint-baking operation.

A Segment

Vehicle classification used in Europe, equivalent to the American microcar and some 

subcompacts.
7

B Segment

Vehicle classification used in Europe, equivalent to the American subcompact.

C Segment

Vehicle classification used in Europe, equivalent to the American compact.

D Segment

Vehicle classification used in Europe, equivalent to the American midsize.

E Segment

Vehicle classification used in Europe, equivalent to the American fullsize

Belt Line

The beltline, also known as the waistline in the UK, is the horizontal or slightly inclined line 

below the side windows of a vehicle, starting from the hood and running to the trunk. It 

separates the glass area (the greenhouse) from the lower body.

BIW

BIW stands for body-in-white. All activities in the production of a vehicle body or shell 

before it goes to the paint shop are done in a weld shop and the end product of a weld 

shop is referred to as a BIW.

BOM

Bill of materials is a list of the raw materials, sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, 

sub-components, components, parts, cost, and the quantities of each needed to 

manufacture an end item (final product).

‘C’ Pillar 

See ‘A’ Pillar.

C Segment

Vehicle classification used in Europe, equivalent to the American compact.

CAD

Computer-aided design is the use of computer technology for the design of objects, real or 

virtual.

CAE

Computer-aided engineering is the use of information technology to support engineers in 

tasks such as analysis, simulation, design, manufacturing, planning, diagnosis, and repair.

CARB

California Air Resources Board 
8

CG

Center of gravity. The center of gravity or center of mass of a system of particles is a 

specific point where, for many purposes, the system behaves as if its mass were 

concentrated there.

Class A surface

A term used in automotive design to describe a set of freeform surfaces of high resolution 

and quality.

Closures

A term used to describe any aperture that can be opened on a vehicle. This includes 

doors, hoods, decklids and tailgates.

CO 

Chemical shorthand for carbon monoxide – a colorless, odorless, and tasteless, yet highly 

toxic gas. Exists as a gas in Earth’s atmosphere at standard temperature and pressure.

CO2

Chemical shorthand for carbon dioxide, a chemical compound composed of two oxygen 

atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and 

pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.

Composite

Composite materials are engineered materials made from two or more constituent 

materials with significantly different physical or chemical properties which remain separate 

and distinct on a macroscopic level within the finished structure.

CSA

Cross sectional area. In geometry, a cross-section is the intersection of a body in 2-

dimensional space with a line, or of a body in 3-dimensional space with a plane, etc. More 

plainly, when cutting an object into slices one gets many parallel cross-sections.

CUV

Crossover utility vehicle. Crossover is a marketing term for a vehicle derived from a car 

platform but borrows features from a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).

‘D’ Pillar

See ‘A’ Pillar.

DLO

Daylight opening. Automotive industry term for glassed-in areas of a vehicle's cabin

DP or Dual Phase Steel

Dual-phase steel (DPS) is a high-strength steel that has a ferrite and martensitic 

microstructure. DPS starts as a low or medium carbon steel and is quenched from a 

temperature above A1 but below A3 on a continuous cooling transformation diagram. This 
9

results in a microstructure consisting of a soft ferrite matrix containing islands of martensite 

as the secondary phase (martensite increases the tensile strength). The desire to produce 

high strength steels with formability greater than micro-alloyed steel led the development 

of DPS in the 1970s.

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency.

FEA

Finite element analysis. A computational method of stress calculation in which the 

component under load is considered as a large number of small pieces (‘elements’). The 

FEA software is then able to calculate the stress level in each element, allowing a 

prediction of deflection or failure

FEM

Front end module. An assembly or complex structure which includes the content of what 

was previously multiple separate parts.

FMVSS

FMVSS is the acronym for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. FMVSS norms are 

administered by the United States Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration.

FR plastic

Fiber reinforced plastic. Fiber-reinforced plastics (FRP) (also fiber-reinforced polymer) are 

composite materials made of a polymer matrix reinforced with fibers.

Frt

Front

FWD

Front-wheel drive is a form of engine/transmission layout used in motor vehicles, where 

the engine drives the front wheels only.

GAWR

Gross axle weight rating is the maximum distributed weight that may be supported by an 

axle of a road vehicle. Typically GAWR is followed by either the letters F, FR, R or RR 

which indicate Front or Rear axles.

GVW or GVWR

A gross vehicle weight rating is the maximum allowable total weight of a road vehicle or 

trailer when loaded - i.e., including the weight of the vehicle itself plus fuel, passengers,

cargo, and trailer tongue weight.

HIC
10

Head injury criterion. The head injury criterion is a measure of the likelihood of head injury 

arising from an impact.

HP

Horsepower (hp or HP or Hp) is the name of several non-SI units of power. One 

mechanical horsepower of 550 foot-pounds per second is equivalent to 745.7 watts.

HSS

High strength steel is low carbon steel with minute amounts of molybdenum, niobium, 

titanium, and/or vanadium. Is sometimes used to refer to high strength low alloy steel 

(HSLA) or to the entire group of engineered alloys of steels developed for high strength. .

ICE

Internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine is an engine in which the 

combustion of a fuel occurs with an oxidizer (usually air) in a combustion chamber.

IIHS

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a U.S. non-profit organization funded by auto 

insurers. It works to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes, and the rate of injuries 

and amount of property damage in vehicle crashes. It carries out research and produces 

ratings for popular passenger vehicles as well as for certain consumer products such as 

child car booster seats.

ISOFIX

The international standard for attachment points for child safety seats in passenger cars. 

The system is also known as LATCH (‘Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children’) in the 

United States and LUAS (‘Lower Universal Anchorage System’) or Canfix in Canada. It 

has also been called the ‘Universal Child Safety Seat System’ or UCSSS.

IP

Instrument panel. A dashboard, dash, ‘dial and switch housing’ or fascia, (chiefly in British 

English) is a control panel located under the windshield of an automobile. It contains the 

instrumentation and controls pertaining to the operation of the vehicle. During the design 

phase of an automobile, the dashboard or instrument panel may be abbreviated as ‘IP’.

kg

Kilogram, unit of weight, 1 kg = 2.205 pounds.

kW

The kilowatt equal to one-thousand watts, is typically used to state the power output of 

engines and the power consumption of tools and machines. A kilowatt is approximately 

equivalent to 1.34 horsepower.

kWh

The kilowatt hour, or watt-hour, (symbol W·h, W h) is a unit of energy equal to 3.6 

kilojoules. Energy in watt hours is the multiplication of power in watts and time in hours.
11

LATCH

Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children. See ISOFIX.

LCA

Lower control arm. See A arm.

LF

Left Front, e.g. left front door.

LH

Left hand

m^3 or m3 or m3 

Meters cubed or cubic meters, measure of volume.

mJ

Millijoules. The joule (symbol J), named for James Prescott Joule, is the derived unit of 

energy in the International System of Units. It is the energy exerted by a force of one 

newton acting to move an object through a distance of one metre. 1 mJ = 2.77x10-7 Watt 

hours.

mm

Millimeters, unit of length, 1 mm = 0.03937 inches.

Monocoque

Monocoque, from Greek for single (mono) and French for shell (coque), is a construction 

technique that supports structural load by using an object's external skin as opposed to 

using an internal frame or truss that is then covered with a non-load-bearing skin. 

Monocoque construction was first widely used in aircraft in the 1930s. Structural skin or 

stressed skin are other terms for the same concept. Unibody, or unitary construction, is a 

related construction technique for automobiles in which the body is integrated into a single 

unit with the chassis rather than having a separate body-on-frame. The welded ‘Unit Body’ 

is the predominant automobile construction technology today.

LWR

Lower

Mg

Magnesium

Modal 

Modal refers to the natural frequency of a specific point on a vehicle structure, e.g., a seat 

mount; it is essential that the modal frequency be separated from vehicle input frequencies 

so that suspension inputs and powertrain responses do not excite structural elements at 

their natural frequency causing vibrations.
12

MPa

Mega Pascals, unit of pressure or stress, 1 MPa = 145 Pounds per square inch.

MPV

Multi-purpose vehicle, people-carrier, people-mover or multi-utility vehicle (shortened 

MUV) is a type of automobile similar in shape to a van that is designed for personal use. 

Minivans are taller than a sedan, hatchback or a station wagon, and are designed for 

maximum interior room.

MS

Mild steel or Carbon steel, also called plain carbon steel, is steel where the main alloying 

constituent is carbon.

MSRP

The (manufacturer's) suggested retail price, list price or recommended retail price (RRP) of 

a product is the price the manufacturer recommends that the retailer sell it for.

MY

Model year. The model year of a product is a number used worldwide, but with a high 

level of prominence in North America, to describe approximately when a product was 

produced, and indicates the coinciding base specification of that product.

NCAP

The European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) is a European car safety 

performance assessment program founded in 1997 by the Transport Research Laboratory 

for the UK Department for Transport and now the standard throughout Europe.

NHTSA

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, often pronounced ‘nit-suh’) is 

an agency of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, part of the Department of 

Transportation.

NOx

NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2).

NPI

New product introduction.

NVH

Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), also known as noise and vibration (N&V), is the 

study and modification of the noise and vibration characteristics of vehicles, particularly 

cars and trucks.

OD

Outer diameter. Outside diameter of a circular object.
13

OEM

Original equipment manufacturer. The OEM definition in the automobile industry 

constitutes a federally-licensed entity required to warrant and/or guarantee their products, 

unlike ‘aftermarket’ which is not legally bound to a government-dictated level of liability.

OTR

Outer

PA

Polyamide, a polymer containing monomers of amides joined by peptide bonds. They can 

occur both naturally, examples being proteins, such as wool and silk, and can be made 

artificially through step-growth polymerization, examples being nylons, aramids, and 

sodium poly(aspartate).

PC

Polycarbonates are a particular group of thermoplastic polymers.

PHEV

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid vehicle with batteries that can be 

recharged by connecting a plug to an electric power source. It shares the characteristics of 

both traditional hybrid electric vehicles (also called charge-maintaining hybrid electric 

vehicles), with an electric motor and an internal combustion engine, and of battery electric 

vehicles, also having a plug to connect to the electrical grid (it is a plug-in vehicle).

PP

Polypropylene or polypropene is a thermoplastic polymer, made by the chemical industry 

and used in a wide variety of applications.

PPO

Poly(p-phenylene oxide), is a high-performance polymer and an engineering thermoplastic.

PU or PUR

Polyurethane

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride, (IUPAC Poly(chloroethanediyl)) commonly abbreviated PVC, is the third 

most widely used thermoplastic polymer after polyethylene and polypropylene.

QTR

Quarter

Rad

Radiator

Reinf

Reinforcement
14

RF

Right Front, as for right front door.

RH

Right hand

ROM

Rough order of magnitude. Term used in analysis equating to 'Estimate'

RR

Rear

RWD

Rear-wheel drive is a form of engine/transmission layout used in motor vehicles, where the

engine drives the rear wheels only.

SLA

A Short-long arm suspension is also known as an unequal length double wishbone 

suspension. The upper arm is typically an A-arm, and is shorter than the lower link, which 

is an A-arm or an L-arm, or sometimes a pair of tension/compression arms. In the latter 

case the suspension can be called a multi-link, or Dual ball joint suspension.

Strain energy density

Strain energy density is a measurement of the material deflection that occurs when a 

component is loaded with a force or torque

Stress is the relationship between strain and the material modulus and is defined as force 

divided by unit area (stress = strain x material modulus)

System

Nine separate system categories were created that included all vehicle components. The 

systems are: body structure, closures, front and rear bumpers, glazing, interior, chassis, air 

conditioning, electrical/lighting and powertrain.

Sub-system

A major assembly within a given system, e.g., a seat is a sub-system in the Interior system

SUV

A sport utility vehicle is a generic marketing term applied to some unibody and body-onframe light trucks and station wagons.

Topology analysis

A means of determining strain energy densities for a CAD model with defined interior and 

exterior dimensions. This methodology creates relative strain energy densities as a 

function of the available geometry and material utilized. This analysis is used to minimize 
15

material utilization and to maximize section inertias based on the material strain energy 

densities and the section geometry.

TRIP steel

TRIP steel is a high-strength steel typically used in the automotive industry. TRIP stands 

for ‘transformation induced plasticity.’ TRIP steel has a triple phase microstructure 

consisting of ferrite, bainite, and retained austenite. During plastic deformation and 

straining, the metastable austenite phase is transformed into martensite. This 

transformation allows for enhanced strength and ductility.

TRL

TRL is an acronym for ‘Technology Readiness Level’. TRL is defined, for the purposes of 

this study, as a technology that is considered feasible for volume production at the 

inception of a new vehicle program, i.e., approximately 3 years prior to start of production. 

The technology may be proven at the time of the new vehicle program start or is expected 

to be proven early in the production design process so that there is no risk anticipated at 

the targeted timing for production launch. 

UHSS

UHSS stand for ultra high strength steel – dual phase UHSS typically has tensile strengths 

from 500 MPA to 1000 MPa while low carbon martensite has tensile strengths ranging 

from 800 MPa to 1500 MPa (based on published Auto Steel Partnership definitions) 

US or U.S.

United States of America

UTS

Ultimate tensile strength.

V

The volt is the SI derived unit of electromotive force, commonly called ‘voltage’.

Whse

Wheelhouse

YS

Yield strength or yield point of a material is defined in engineering and materials science 

as the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically.
16

4. Report: Demonstrating the Safety and Crashworthiness of a 

2020 Model-Year, Mass-Reduced Crossover Vehicle

4.1. Introduction

In response to concerns about the impact of climate change on the economy and the 

health and welfare of its citizens, the State of California has taken steps to reduce 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the vehicle fleet as part of the larger effort to 

reduce GHG emissions from the state as a whole. To that end, California passed The 

Global Warming Solutions act of 2006 (known as AB 32) in an attempt to reduce GHG 

emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Additionally, 2005 Executive Order S-3-05 set a target 

for an 80-percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. These policies 

were preceded by California’s 2002 legislation, which led to the Pavley standards (named 

after the author of AB 1493) for light-duty vehicle GHG emissions. One approach to 

reducing vehicular GHG emissions not considered in the Pavley Standards is vehicle mass 

reduction by combining lightweight materials and innovative vehicle design. Emerging 

research and technical papers, along with recent auto industry developments, suggest that 

materials such as composites, high strength steels, aluminum, magnesium, and the latest 

adhesives integrated into innovative structures can yield substantial weight savings. The 

implications are that this can be done while maintaining or improving current vehicle 

characteristics – including safety, noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) control, durability, 

handling, interior volume, utility, and load carrying capacity – while still meeting current 

FMVSS and IIHS safety requirements.

Lotus responded to the Air Resources Board RFP 09-621 entitled ‘Computer Simulation to 

Optimize the Design of a Lightweight Light-Duty Vehicle and Demonstrate its 

Crashworthiness’ with a proposal to develop a solution to substantially reduce body 

structure mass relative to a current production crossover utility vehicle (CUV) in a cost 

effective manner for the 2020 – 2025 timeframe. The baseline CUV, a 2009 Toyota Venza, 

established the geometric and volumetric parameters as well as the reduced mass target. 

The low-mass vehicle maintained the same interior and cargo volume as the baseline 

vehicle. CARB contracted Lotus to initiate this study in July 2010.

Key features of this proposal included: 1. developing a topology analysis using key inputs 

of the proposed body to develop optimized load paths for structure and impact 

performance using a 3D CAD model and finite element analysis; 2. generating a 

representative total vehicle model including system masses (less powertrain) and 3. 

creating a CAD model of the topology-developed body structure. This optimized and 

meshed model served as the starting point for the FEA impact and structural studies 

including front, rear and side impact, roof crush, seatbelt and tether loadings, and low 

speed bumper impact strains. Altair/OptiStruct®software was used for the topology 

analysis.
17

The tests evaluated in this study were:

• FMVSS 208: Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, offset deformable barrier)

• FMVSS 210: Seatbelt Anchorages

• FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems

• FMVSS 214: Side Impact (side barrier, side pole)

• FMVSS 216: Roof Crush

• FMVSS 301: Rear Impact (moving deformable barrier)

• IIHS: Low Speed Bumper (front & rear)

LS-DYNA®software was used for all impact analysis.

Additionally, MSC/Nastran®software was used to analytically verify body stiffness.

The target weight was a minimum of 30-percent mass reduced vehicle relative to the 

baseline 2009 Toyota Venza, less powertrain.

The topology-based CAD model was refined through multiple iterations to meet the impact 

and structural requirements while minimizing body structure mass. The final model update 

is V26; several hundred iterations were performed to develop this model. An initial Bill of 

Materials (BOM) was created and revised throughout the modelling process to reflect 

component updates. The BOM included mass, cost, and material for all body structure 

components. A final BOM is included in this report in Section 4.4.10. An analysis 

examining the potential to extrapolate the low mass CUV results to other vehicle classes 

was also performed as part of this study and is included in Section 4.4.12.

This study utilized Lotus’ methodology for engineering a low mass vehicle, which includes: 

1. creating efficient load paths; 2. component integration and part elimination; 3. 

structural enhancements through optimized section inertias, an exponential function, vs. 

wall thickness increases, a linear function; 4. defining the minimum crush length targets at 

program initiation; 5. selecting world class suppliers experienced in low mass materials, 

structural reinforcements, joining technologies, coatings, adhesives, costing and 

manufacturing to provide input on the design feasibility and cost feedback for the Lotus low 

mass body structure and 6. mass decompounding in key areas, such as the 

chassis/suspension, as a direct result of reduced mass in other vehicle systems.
18

4.2. Materials and Methods

The following table lists all the tasks as described in Lotus’ contract with CARB, the 

method Lotus used to complete the task, and the final deliverable product.

Table 4.2.a: Overview of the report and tasks

Task 1: Develop a Mass Reduced Body Structure Model

Task Method Deliverable

Package study 

with respect to 

chassis frame 

interfaces

•Total vehicle package layout defined

•Critical interfaces and functions of current structure defined

•Major structure interfaces identified

•Effective structural package design space 

defined

FE topology 

analysis

•Optimization performed using FEA tools with respect to crash 

load paths and frame bending/torsion load paths

•Optimization to identify the structural efficiencies within the 

package design space

•Mass efficient structural load paths and initial 

section moduli defined in FE environment for 

output to CAD

CAD geometry 

generation for 

CAE 

optimization

•From identified structurally efficient load paths, generate concept 

design feasible sections with respect to package output to hybrid 

beam shape optimization

•CAD model of initial strucutural concept and 

section routing created using FEA results

•Concept design layout defines manufacturing 

and technology to be used based on required 

section shapes and sizes as well as packagte 

and cost

Crash structure 

sizing

•Front and rear crash structure energy absorption requirements 

using projected vehicle mass

•Energy management strategy devised to suit package and 

vehicle architecture

•Front and rear crash structures sized with 

respect to energy absorption requirement and 

strategy

•3D CAD models of concept body structure 

design

Concept CAD 

design 

generation

•CAD design of body strucutre created with respect to FEA sizing 

results and package

•CAD generation and design updated in conjunction with FEA 

analysis

•Manufacturing technology to be used is 

defined with respect to commercial and 

technical objectives

Detailed FEA 

chassis frame 

model build

•Detailed FEM built using initial concept CAD model

•Critical interfaces with carryover components included

•Detailed FEM of CAD body structure and 

associated body structural components 

modeled

•Model continually updated during concept 

design phase

Static 

stiffness/joint 

sensitivity 

analysis

•Static torsion and bending stiffness tuned in FE environment to 

achieve target requirements to support NVH and vehicle ride and 

handling objectives

•Joint sensitivity and development conducted in FE environment

•Continual feedback loop to CAD design

•Static torsion and vertical/lateral bending 

stiffness status for body/chassis structure for 

concept design phase

Dynamic body 

structure modal 

analysis

•Chassis/body structural modes analyzed and structure developed 

to achieve target modal frequencies required to give predicted 

trimmed body modal response

•Global chassis design/body shapes identified as well as local 

front and rear end modes between 20-150 Hz

•Chassis/body major mode frequencies 

predicted

Task 2: Initial Demonstration of Crashworthiness of 30% Mass Reduced Vehicle

Generate 

detailed FEA 

model

•Consolidate Task 1 result into a vehicle body structure model

•Consolidate Task 1 results into a 30-percent mass reduced total 

vehicle, less powertrain

•Generate body-in-white model to be used for 

FMVSS and IIHS modeling

Side intrusion 

FMVSS 214 

section sizing

•FE analysis used to determine critical section requirements to 

achieve side impact intrusion/energy absorption

•Requirements for door mounting support structure determined 

and A/B pillar structure sections sized accordingly

•Door beam intrusion velocities and 

displacement targets predicted. Rocker beam 

structural stability achieved to facilitate high 

confidence in achieving required side impact 
19

occupant injury level criteria

FMVSS 210/213 •Seatbelt and child tether anchorage loads analyzed and efficient 

structural load path back into main frame structure devised

•Chassis structure validated for seatbelt 

anchorage and child tether loadings

Front and rear 

sub-system 

crash FEA

•FE validation of front crash structure sizing conducted during 

initial chassis architecture concept layout phase using hybrid 

model with body representation and detailed energy absorbing 

structure

•FE validation of rear crash structure sizing conducted during 

initial chassis architecture concept layout phase using hybrid 

model with body representation and detailed energy absorbing 

structure

•Recovery of loads into main structure in order to determine main 

structure in order to determine main structure strength 

requirement for non-deformation during crash (front and rear)

•Section sized for front and rear crash structure

•Chassis frame end load buckling stability 

determined

Full vehicle 

frontal crash 

analysis FMVSS 

208

•Using crash structure defined via hybrid model analysis and 

chassis structure sized through durability/NVH and static stiffness

•Carryout analysis to confirm compatibility of main chassis 

structure with rear energy absorbing sub-system

•Section sizes for front crash structures defined

•Chassis frame rocker beams and passenger 

compartment structure section sizes defined to 

give adequate support to crash structure

Rear crash 

analysis (using 

FMVSS 301 as 

protocol)

•Using crash structure defined via hybrid model analysis and 

chassis structure sized through durability/NVH and static stiffness

•Carryout analysis to confirm compatibility of main chassis 

structure with rear energy absorbing sub-system

•Section sizes for front crash structures defined

•Chassis frame rocker beams and passenger 

compartment structure section sizes defined to 

give adequate support to crash structure

Structure 

validation for low 

speed bumper 

impact loads 

(IIHS)

•Using bumper A-surface offsets and generic peak loading 

expected for low speed and pendulum impacts, validate frame 

structure to minimize plastic strain

•Frame structure sized to give adequate 

support to bumper impact loads via A-surface 

offsets

Roof crush 

FMVSS 216

•Roof crush resistance over the passenger compartment analyzed 

and efficient structural load paths devised

•Body structure validated for roof crush 

displacement

Trimmed 

chassis/body 

FEA model build

•Chassis/body structure FE model updated using CAD and FEA 

output from concept design phase

•Trimmed body model produced that includes all major body 

structural and non-structural masses along with chassis and 

powertrain representations

•Crash models generated from master model

•Trimmed chassis/body FE model produced for 

use with crash analysis. Model to include all 

relevant sub-systems

Front impact FE 

crash analysis

•Front crash FE analysis carried out on base model

•Crash analyses conducted:

 -FMVSS 208

 -FMVSS 208/40% OBD (35 mph)

•Crash analyses conducted to validate the following areas:

 -Acceleration pulse analyzed and tuned to meet selected 

target

 -Passenger compartment intrusion

•Compare pulse results to baseline vehicle using public domain 

test results

•Body structure CAE validated to attain target 

crash acceleration pulse and intrusion level 

targets

•Body structure crash performance validated to 

provide good basis for restraint system to 

achieve legislative occupant injury criteria

Side impact FE 

crash analysis

•Side impact FE analysis to validate vehicle frame design for 

generic acceleration pulse and intrusion requirements

•Crash analyses:

 -FMVSS 214 oblique pole

 -FMVSS 214 deformable barrier (33.5 mph)

•Body structure validated to attain target side 

impact acceleration pulse and intrusion level 

targets

•Body structure crash performance validated to 

provide acceptable basis for restraint/interior 

trim system to achieve legislative occupant 

injury criteria
20

Rear impact FE 

crash analysis

•Rear crash FE analysis carried out on base model

•Crash analysis conducted to validate the following areas:

 -Acceleration pulse analyzed and tuned to meet internal target

 -General crush distances and impact on fuel system integrity

•Body structure validated to attain target fuel 

system integrity and intrusion level targets 

consistent with federal requirements

Finalized 

engineering 

CAD design

•Design of body structure completed

•Body structure ready for tooling release phase

•Plant processing defined

•Costed bill of materials completed

•Final CAD design that meets analysis and 

vehicle integration functions and is feasible 

from a processing standpoint

•Mass reduction summary vs. baseline 

completed

•Cost impact summary vs. baseline completed

Task 3: Develop Engineering Bill of Materials

Develop 

engineering bill 

of materials

•Create bill of materials tracking: 1. body structure, 2. materials, 3. 

cost with supporting data

•Utilize bill of materials to track parts, cost, mass, and materials 

throughout project

•Create initial bill of materials early in program 

and update on regular basis

•Create final bill of materials based on 

optimized and validated body structure and 

compare to baseline

Task 4: Extension of Results to Other Vehicle Classes

Extrapolate 

design results 

into other 

vehicle sizes 

and classes

•Provide guidance on using developed body structure for other 

vehicle size and weight classes

•Provide guidance on materials, components, sub-systems, 

systems, and processes relative to utilization on other vehicle 

classes

•Create a bill of materials study extrapolating 

finalized CUV body structure into other vehicle 

classes with feasibility analysis discussion 

document

Reporting

•Provide bi-monthly progress reports

•Provide interim reports at the end of each of the four tasks

•Provide final report draft ninety days prior to contract termination date

•Provide amended final report using State input within 45 days or earlier following receipt of State comments

•Deliver State-approved amended final report in multi-media form within two weeks of State approval
21

4.2.1. Model Creation

Lotus created the body of this ‘Phase 2’ vehicle model using the exterior styling and other 

non-body components from the 2010 Lotus study’s High Development vehicle, referred to 

as the ‘Phase 1’ design. Figures 4.2.1.a and 4.2.1.c show the front and rear exterior 

design, which is derived from the baseline Toyota Venza shown in Figures 4.2.1.b and 

4.2.1.d. The Phase 1 High Development vehicle served as the basis for the CAD design 

and individual components were developed based on the Phase 1 HD body and assigned 

part numbers. These parts created the basis for the BOM included in Section 4.4.12. The 

BIW CAD part numbering has been incorporated – with some modification – into the CAE 

model to cross-reference the parts listed in the BOM. See Section 4.4.12 for the complete 

CAD parts list definition which is included in the BOM. As an example the Panel Body-side 

Outer LH has a CAD part ID 7306-2300-185; the equivalent CAE part id is #231850 

(station id, last three numbers from part id, plus additional 0 to allow for multiple gauge 

definitions).Parts in the CAE model that need to be defined with a heat affected zone 

material definition are in the 1,000,000 range (i.e. CAE part 231850 heat affected zone ID 

1231850). Unless otherwise noted as the baseline Venza or the Phase 1 design (both of 

which are referenced for context herein), the diagrams, text, and results in this study are of 

the Phase 2 High Development design.

Figure 4.2.1.a: Phase 1 High Development Model Exterior Styling – Front
22

 Figure 4.2.1.b: Baseline Toyota Venza Exterior Styling – Front

Figure 4.2.1.c: Phase 1 High Development Model Exterior Styling – Rear

Figure 4.2.1.d: Baseline Toyota Venza Exterior Styling – Rear
23

The complete vehicle model is broken down into sub-models, which were also used for 

CAE analysis, as follows:

4.2.1.1. BIW

Figure 4.2.1.1.a: Body-in-white – Front

4.2.1.2. Simulated Doors (beams only)

Figure 4.2.1.2.a: Simulated door beams
24

4.2.1.3. Front Sub-frame/Suspension

Figure 4.2.1.3.a: Front sub-frame and suspension

4.2.1.4. Rear Sub-frame/Suspension

Figure 4.2.1.4.a: Rear sub-frame and suspension
25

4.2.1.5. Cooling Pack/Front Under Hood

Figure 4.2.1.5.a: Cooling and under hood

4.2.1.6. Powertrain/Exhaust

Figure 4.2.1.6.a: Powertrain and exhaust
26

4.2.1.7. Fuel Tank/Battery

Figure 4.2.1.7.a: Fuel tank/battery
27

4.2.2. Material Data

The vehicle design incorporated a number of different material types. Physical properties 

were obtained for the materials that were to be used and these were included in the CAE 

model simulations. Alcoa, Allied Composite Technologies, Henkel and Meridian supplied 

material properties for aluminum, composites, adhesives/mastics/composites and 

magnesium, respectively. The following is a list of these materials and the sources.

4.2.2.1. Steel

HSLA - Generic (Matweb):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 210,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.3

Yield Stress (σy) = 300MPa

Density (ρ) = 7.8e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.1.a: Steel stress-strain curve at 300 MPa
28

400MPa - Generic (Matweb):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 210,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.3

Yield Stress (σy) = 400MPa

Density (ρ) = 7.8e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.1.b: Steel stress-strain curve at 400 MPa

Hot Stamped Boron - Generic (Matweb):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 210,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.3

Yield Stress (σy) = 400MPa

Density (ρ) = 7.8e-9tonnes/mm3

4.2.2.1.c: Hot-stamped, boron steel stress-strain curve
29

4.2.2.2. Aluminum

AL 6013-T6 (Alcoa, Ed Forsythe 10/09/27):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 70,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.33

Yield Stress (σy) = 360MPa

Density (ρ) = 2.79e-9tonnes/mm3

Stress vs. Plastic Strain (i.e. post yield) as per following curve

Figure 4.2.2.2.a: 6013 aluminum stress-strain curve

AL 6022-T4 plus 20min Paint Bake @ 170°C (Alcoa, Ed Forsythe 10/09/27):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 70,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.33

Yield Stress (σy) = 172MPa

Density (ρ) = 2.79e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.2.b: 6022 aluminum stress-strain curve
30

AL 6061-T6 (Alcoa, Ed Forsythe 10/09/23):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 70,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.33

Yield Stress (σy) = 308MPa

Density (ρ) = 2.79e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.2.c: 6061 aluminum stress-strain curve

AL 6063-T6 (Alcoa, Ed Forsythe 10/09/27):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 70,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.33

Yield Stress (σy) = 220MPa

Density (ρ) = 2.79e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.2.d: 6063 aluminum stress-strain curve
31

A356-T061 (Matweb):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 72,400MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.33

Yield Stress (σy) = 179MPa

Density (ρ) = 2.79e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.2.e: 6013 aluminum stress-strain curve

Heat affected zones with ‘seam’ welding were modeled with reduced material properties. 

Based on experience, a 40-percent reduction in the base material was used (i.e. for 6061-

T6 a yield stress of 184.8MPa was used).
32

4.2.2.3. Magnesium

AM60 (Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc.):

Young’s Modulus (E) = 45000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.35

Yield Stress (σy) = 130MPa

Density (ρ) = 1.81e-9tonnes/mm3

Major In-Plane Failure Strain = 6%

Figure 4.2.2.3.a: AM60 magnesium stress-strain curve
33

4.2.2.4. Composites

Nylon_45_2a (Henkel Corporation – Uhlas Grover 11/24/10)

Young’s Modulus (E) = 7470MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.35

Yield Stress (σy) = 26.4MPa

Density (ρ) = 1.13e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.4.a: 45-2a nylon stress-strain curve

PET 60% glass Fill (Allied Composite Technologies – Tom Russell 11/02/10)

Young’s Modulus (E) = 16,000MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.35

Yield Stress (σy) = 310MPa

Density (ρ) = 1.89e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.4.b: 60-percent glass-fiber PET stress-strain curve
34

4.2.2.5. Adhesives/Mastics/Composites

Terocore-1811 (Henkel Corporation – Uhlas Grover 11/24/10)

Young’s Modulus (E) = 1226MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.194

Yield Stress (σy) = 18.7MPa

Density (ρ) = 4.8e-10tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.5.a: 1811 Terocore stress-strain curve

Terokal_5089_23c (Henkel Corporation –

tensile_test_5080_report_sr00482_10_20_08.pdf)

Young’s Modulus (E) = 1649MPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.412

Yield Stress (σy) = 3.434MPa

Density (ρ) = 1.14e-9tonnes/mm3

Figure 4.2.2.5.b: Terokal stress-strain curve

Note: all values shown in material curves above are true stress/true strain
35

4.2.3. Material Usage (location in vehicle)

Key:

Silver - Aluminum 

Purple - Magnesium

Blue - Composite

Red - Steel

Figure 4.2.3.a: Body-in-white material usage front three-quarter view
36

Figure 4.2.3.b: Body-in-white material usage rear three-quarter view

Figure 4.2.3.c: Body-in-white material usage underbody view
37

Figure 4.2.3.d: Body-in-white material usage blow-up view

4.2.4. Joining Methodologies

The components in the vehicle are attached using a variety of different joining techniques 

including MIG welds, friction stir welds, rivets (including flow drill screws), and adhesives. 

For the ‘point’ connection entities, a nominal pitch of 75 mm was used. In areas with higher 

loads the pitch was reduced to ~50 mm.

Material samples were provided by Alcoa, Allied Composite Technologies, Meridian, and 

Henkel. Material treatments and joining methodologies based on materials interfaces are 

as follows:

Friction stir welds were used to join aluminum components (Kawasaki method)

Aluminum-magnesium joints were secured using mechanical fastners

Magnesium samples were treated with Henkel’s Alodine coating for galvanic 

isolation

Aluminum coupons were anodized
38

Magnesium coupons were pretreated with Alodine – a production requirement to 

prevent a galvanic reaction with the aluminum (used by Ford on the Flex front 

structure)

Material lap-shear tests were carried out by Henkel & Kawasaki to empirically determine 

the properties for the joints. Results are shown in Figure 4.2.4.a.

Figure 4.2.4.a: Henkel & Kawasaki lap-shear tests

A CAE model was created to correlate the values from the lab testing to those used in the 

CAE model based on an average test value. A shear failure force of 3860 N was used for 

the LS-DYNA®*MAT_SPOTWELD modeling.

Joints using mechanical fasteners were modeled using 5 mm diameter bolts with a 

minimum shear failure force of 10,000 N. This force equates to a minimum shear stress of 

~130 MPa. 

Henkel supplied the Terokal 5089 adhesive and the material properties. Lap-shear tests on 

the Terokal only joints were carried out by Henkel. The results showed that the bond joint 

fails and not the adhesive, and as such, the model assumes there is no failure of the 

adhesive bond. 

The following summarizes the tests that were carried out:

Terokal Only Lap Shear Test

Bondline: 0.25 mm, Bake: 10 min Metal Temp @ 155°C, Pull Speed: 10 mm/min, 

Treatment: AM60B treated with Alodine

AL6061 to AL6061: Lap Shear – 35.8 MPa

AL6061 to AM60B: Lap Shear – 29.5 MPa
39

AL6061 to AL6061: Lap Shear – 20.5 MPa

The aluminum joint failures listed above are of a peel type, which results in a partial 

adhesive failure at the edge of the joint. A similar peel-type failure was seen in the 

magnesium joints. Here however, the adhesive removed the Alodine pretreatment, causing 

the failure.

4.2.5. Model Mass/Other Information

The total model weight was adjusted to the target curb weight of 1150 kg. This mass is 

based on the Phase 2 body mass and the Phase 1 High Development masses in An 

Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle 

Program published in March 20102. 

The non-body system masses for the Phase 1 study, along with the baseline system 

masses, are shown below in Table 4.2.5.a. 

Table 4.2.5.a: Phase 1 High Development System Masses

System Venza Baseline Mass (kg) Phase 1 HD Mass (kg)

Closures/Fenders 143.02 83.98

Bumpers 17.95 15.95

Thermal 9.25 9.25

Electrical 23.6 15.01

Interior 250.6 153

Lighting 9.9 9.9

Suspension/Chassis 378.9 217

Glazing 43.71 43.71

Miscellaneous 30.1 22.9

Powertrain 410.16 356.2

Totals 1317.19 926.90

The vehicle curb weight was calculated using the above masses and the Phase 2 body 

mass. The weight distribution was set at 55/45 front/rear percentage.

The fuel tank was modeled as an airbag at 90-percent full so that any change in pressure 

could be extracted and reviewed to determine if there was an instantaneous pressure 

change that could affect fuel retention.

The ground plane was set at 238.767z.
40

CAE Test Set-Up

4.2.5.1. FMVSS 208: 35 mph Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, 

offset deformable barrier)

The FMVSS 208 35-mph load case involves an impact against a perpendicular rigid wall. 

The vehicle model was analyzed with its curb weight, two frontal occupants, luggage and 

fuel. The figure below shows the vehicle in top, front, side, and isometric views.

Figure 4.2.5.1.a: Rigid, deformable wall crash-test model setup
41

4.2.5.2. FMVSS 208: 25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier

The FMVSS 208 25-mph load case involves an impact into a deformable barrier that 

overlaps the vehicle by 40 percent. The vehicle model was analyzed with its curb weight, 

two frontal occupants, luggage and fuel. The figure below shows the vehicle in top, front, 

side, and isometric views.

Figure 4.2.5.2a: 40-percent barrier overlap crash-test model setup
42

4.2.5.3. FMVSS208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Left Side

The FMVSS 208 25-mph, 30-degree flat rigid wall barrier load case is carried out to ensure 

the occupants stay within the bounds of the vehicle during the crash event. As no closures 

or occupants were included in the models this could not be assessed. The structure will be 

evaluated to ensure that there would be minimal (if any) deformation of the door aperture 

that would cause the occupant to be ejected.

Figure 4.2.5.3.a: 30°, left-side barrier crash-test model setup
43

4.2.5.4. FMVSS208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Right Side

The FMVSS 208 25-mph, 30-degree flat rigid wall barrier load case is carried out on both 

the left and right hand sides of the vehicle. This would be performed to ensure equal 

protection of both the driver and passenger.

Figure 4.2.5.4.a: 30°, right-side barrier crash-test model setup
44

4.2.5.5. FMVSS 210: Seatbelt Anchorages

Front

The FMVSS 210 seatbelt anchorage requirement ensures the seats, seatbelts, and 

corresponding anchorage points are strong enough to handle the test load. Load is applied 

to two loading devices called body blocks (shoulder and lap) which transfers load to the 

structure by the seatbelts. This test is performed at all seating locations.

It was assumed that the Phase 2 vehicle lower seatbelt was attached to the seat structure, 

so the lap block load would be transmitted into the four seat mounts. The Phase 2 model 

does not include any seating systems so these loads were applied to the rear seat mounts, 

applying higher loads to these locations.

The lower body block’s movement is constrained such that it can only move in the direction 

of the applied load (10° above horizontal), as there was no seat included in the model.

The load applied to the upper and lower body blocks is 17,125 N (3500 lbs +10 percent). 

This load is applied over 0.15 s and held constant for 50 ms.

As both the left and right side of the vehicle structure are symmetrical, this analysis was 

only performed on the right hand front occupant location.

Figure 4.2.5.5.a: Front seatbelt anchorage test model setup
45

Rear

The test load was applied simultaneously at all rear-seat locations.

The lower body block’s movement is constrained in the model such that it can only move in 

the direction of the applied load (10° above horizontal).

The load applied to both the left and right, upper and lower body blocks is 17,125 N (3500 

lbs +10 percent). This load is applied over 0.15 s and held constant for 50 ms.

Figure 4.2.5.5.b: Rear seatbelt anchorage test model setup

4.2.5.6. FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems

The FMVSS 213 child restraint anchorage requires that these systems are such that they 

will restrain a child occupant when subjected to a crash impact. 

The restraint mounting location was tested under conditions greater than the required load 

case in order to evaluate any potential structural problems.

A child dummy was represented using a beam element with the mass set to 30 kg, which 

is nearly 50-percent heavier than the heaviest necessary test dummy to account for 

unknowns at this early stage of vehicle development. This was attached to the body 

structure at four locations (retractor, D-ring, buckle, and fixed end) using seatbelt 

elements. Actual requirements specify a number of the child Hybrid III test dummies, the
46

heaviest being the 10-year old (which weighs 21 kg). The testing was performed using the 

heaviest weight to create a worst-case loading.

The test specifies that an acceleration pulse, representative of a vehicle pulse, be applied; 

the pulse is shown in the graph below.

Figure 4.2.5.6.a: Acceleration pulse applied to child-restraint model
47

Figure 4.2.5.6.b: Child-restraint test model setup
48

4.2.5.7. FMVSS 214: 33.5 mph Side Impact – Crabbed Barrier

The FMVSS 214 33.5-mph, 27-degree moving deformable barrier load case is carried out 

on both the left and right hand sides of the vehicle. This test monitors the severity of the 

injuries sustained by the occupants seated at the front and rear, outboard seating 

locations. This test is carried out on a complete vehicle with closures, dummies, interior, 

and occupant restraining systems. Since engineering those components was beyond the 

scope of this portion of the project, the B-Pillar intrusion velocity and displacement were 

monitored on the CAE model. The maximum allowable intrusion level was defined as 300 

mm – a typical distance to the closest outboard portion of the seat.

Figure 4.2.5.7.a: Crabbed barrier test model setup
49

4.2.5.8. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (5th 

percentile Female)

The FMVSS 214 20-mph, 75-degree, pole-load case is carried out with a rigid pole lined 

up with the occupant head CG location along the direction of travel. It is carried out with a 

5

thpercentile female dummy and a 50th

-percentile male dummy. This puts the seat in two 

different locations so the initial impact points are different.

The test requires monitoring injuries sustained by the occupants and would be carried out 

on a full vehicle with closures, dummies, interior, and an occupant restraining system. As 

noted above, this was beyond the project scope. The B-Pillar intrusion velocity and 

displacement were again measured on the CAE model.

Figure 4.2.5.8.a: Side-pole impact test model setup
50

4.2.5.9. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (50th 

percentile Male)

The FMVSS 214 20-mph, 75-degree, pole-load case for the male seating position put the 

initial pole contact point further rearwards in the vehicle than for the 5th-percentile female 

but still forward of the B pillar. 

Figure 4.2.5.9.a: Side-pole impact test model setup
51

4.2.5.10. FMVSS 216: Roof Crush

The FMVSS 216a roof-crush load case evaluates vehicle performance in a ‘roll-over’ crash 

scenario. The actual test is carried out quasi-statically to represent a load being applied to 

the upper A-pillar joint. The regulation specifies that the vehicle be able to withstand 3 

times its curb weight without loading the head of a Hybrid III 50th-percentile male occupant 

with more than 222 N (50 lbs). 

Figure 4.2.5.10.a: Roof crush test model setup
52

4.2.5.11. FMVSS 301: Rear Impact (moving deformable barrier)

The FMVSS 301 50-mph, 70-percent overlap rear moving deformable barrier load case 

primary function is to check the vehicle fuel system integrity to reduce potential vehicle 

fires caused by post-impact fuel spillage.

The CAE model incorporated a fuel tank, filler neck, and battery pack. Lotus evaluated the 

fuel tank/filler and battery pack to assess potential problems that could occur as a result of 

deformation in this area. The design objective was to create an environment that 

prevented any part of the body from contacting either the fuel tank or the battery pack.

The test was carried out on both the left and right sides of the vehicle. Only results for the 

left side are shown as this is where the fuel tank and fuel filler are located.

Figure 4.2.5.11.a: Deformable, moving barrier rear impact test model setup
53

4.2.5.12. IIHS Low Speed – Front

The low-speed IIHS requirement evaluates vehicle performance at impact speeds of 10 

kph and 5 kph in full and offset impacts. This test has been derived by the IIHS to establish 

the amount of damage and subsequent repair costs.

Impacts are into a contoured deformable barrier set to specific heights depending upon the 

impact being carried out (barrier lower edge 457 mm from ground in ‘full’ impacts and 406 

mm from ground in offset impacts). The offset impacts are carried out with a 15-percent 

overlap of the barrier to the vehicle.

A full evaluation of the damage was not carried out as the CAE body model does not 

include the fascia, hood, fenders, lights, grille, etc. The performance assessment was 

made based on the extent of permanent deformation (plastic strain) predicted in the 

structure. The vehicle curb weight was used with an additional 77.1-kg ballast at the 

driver’s seat.

The front and rear suspension models were replaced with simplified representations with 

springs for the vertical (tire/spring) and lateral (tire friction) directions. Values for the 

vertical spring were calculated from the suspension spring rates and the unloaded to 

loaded tire radius; the lateral rate was calculated from an estimated tire contact area and 

friction.

Figure 4.2.5.12.a: IIHS, low-speed, front test model setup (‘full impact’)
54

Figure 4.2.5.12.b: IIHS, low-speed front test model setup (‘offset impact’)

4.2.5.13. IIHS Low Speed – Rear

The low speed IIHS rear load case is set up the same as described for the front impact 

load cases.

Figure 4.2.5.13.a: IIHS, low-speed rear test model setup (‘full impact’)
55

Figure 4.2.5.13.b: IIHS, low-speed rear test model setup (‘offset impact’)
56

4.3. CAE Analysis

CAE analyses were performed for each of the specified load and impact cases, but direct 

comparisons to current production vehicles cannot be made for each case. Lotus can 

however, explain the facts behind the results.

For all of the FMVSS high speed crash load cases analyzed, the actual pass/fail criteria 

are judged on occupant injuries. This was beyond the scope of the project as Lotus was 

contracted to evaluate the lightweight structure itself. Occupant injuries could not be 

evaluated, but structural performance can be compared to available NCAP test data. The 

same comparison cannot be made to FMVSS data as this information is not released to 

the public domain and remains with the individual OEMs. After these analyses, Lotus can 

safely state that the Phase 2 HD vehicle is predicted to perform no worse than vehicles 

currently in production.

Energy balances were also performed on each crash simulation to ensure the calculations 

followed the laws of physics. The way the software carries out its millions of calculations 

can lead to apparent increases in total energy. Total energy should remain the same, but 

kinetic energy will decrease and internal energy will increase as the crash occurs. The 

kinetic energy is absorbed by the crash structure deforming, frictional sliding, compression 

of springs, etc. thereby increasing internal energy.

In simplistic terms, the energy balance is perfect if:

Total Energy = Initial Total Energy + External Work

Or if the energy ratio is equal to 1.0. This energy ratio is used in the LS-DYNA®software. 

The software tracks all of the various types of energy such that the full energy balance 

used is:

Energykin + Energyint + Energysi + Energyrw + Energydamp + Energyhg = Energy0

kin + Energy0int + Workext

Total Energy (Etotal)

Where: Energykin = current kinetic energy

Energyint = current internal energy

Energysi = current sliding interface energy (including friction)

Energyrw = current rigid wall energy

Energydamp = current damping energy

Energyhg = current hourglass energy

Energy0

kin = initial kinetic energy

Energy0

int = initial internal energy

Workext = external work
57

Internal energy includes elastic strain energy and the work done in permanent 

deformation. External work includes work done by applied forces and pressures as well as 

by velocity, displacement, or acceleration boundary conditions applied to the model.

4.3.1. FMVSS 208: 35 mph Front Impact (0°/30° rigid 

wall, offset deformable barrier)

The termination time for this CAE analysis is 0.1 seconds, by this time the vehicle is 

rebounding from the wall. This is confirmed by checking the time to zero velocity (TTZ) 

which occurred at 59.5 ms (shown later). The following image shows the vehicle at the 

analysis termination time.

Figure 4.3.1.a: Vehicle deformation (t=0.1 s) after frontal impact
58

Figure 4.3.1.b: Vehicle acceleration pulse during frontal impact

The red and blue lines on the graph above are the acceleration measured at the bottom of 

the B pillar close to the rocker for the left and right hand side. These points are taken as 

there is little or no deformation in the frontal impact load case. Most of the vehicle structure 

is symmetrical, but the engine is not creating asymmetrical acceleration pulses. The peaks 

represent specific events during the impact.

I. First peak of 8.8 G at 2.5 ms is due to the front bumper armature deforming.

II. Second peak of 21 G at 8.0 ms is the initiation of crush in the bumper brackets.

III. Once the bumper brackets have crushed (at 16 ms) crush initiation starts in the 

main rails which generates the third peak (21 G).

IV. As the main rails continue crushing load is transmitted through the front suspension 

sub-frame structure which results in a peak at 22 ms of 29 G.

V. The peak of 45.5 G at 36 ms due to the engine loading due to contact through the 

radiator fans/core to the rigid wall.

VI. When contact between the engine and the dash panel occurs at 45 ms it results in a 

37 G peak.

VII. The main rails bottom out resulting in the final peak of 40 G at 55 ms.

Averaging the left and right accelerations provides the pulse shown below. 
59

Figure 4.3.1.c: Average vehicle acceleration pulse during frontal impact

The overall average acceleration for the entire impact was 26.7 G. The average initial 

acceleration (5 to 30 ms) was 20.9 G. The average acceleration from 30 ms to TTZ was 

34.7 G. In this case TTZ was 59.5 ms as shown in the graph below. After 59.5 ms, the 

vehicle has rebounded from the wall and started to travel in the opposite direction.

Based on the average acceleration pulse peaks and the overall average accelerations, this 

vehicle exhibits passing structural performance under the 35 mph FMVSS 208 impact.
60

Figure 4.3.1.d: Vehicle velocity during frontal impact - time to 0 velocity (TTZ) = 59.5 ms

A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine how the gauge size of the front structure 

affects the crush pulse. The chart below shows the effect of an approximate 10-percent 

reduction in material thickness for the bumper crush cans and the main rails on the 

FMVSS 208 Flat Frontal 35-mph test. This analysis was run on an earlier model (V23). 

The chart below shows the resultant pulses for a model with reduced gauge main rails, 

vertical walls and bumper cans (green pulse) and a reduced gauge model with only the 

bumper cans and main rails down-gauged (blue pulse). The baseline model is indicated by 

the black pulse.

Figure 4.3.1.e: Vehicle acceleration during frontal impact
61

Ver #23 ‘std’ – black pulse:

Initial peak (bumper cans) @ 8 ms – 21.4 G; second peak (main rail) @ 16 ms - 31.8 G

Ver #23 – green pulse (as ‘std’ with main rail/bumper can vertical wall down-gauged 0.25 

mm):

Initial peak (bumper cans) @ 8 ms - 18.3 G; second peak (main rail) @ 16 ms - 25.2 G

Ver #23 ‘std’ – blue pulse (as ‘std’ with main rail/bumper can down-gauged 0.25 mm):

Initial peak (bumper cans) @ 8 ms - 14.7 G; second peak (main rail) @ 16 ms - 22.6 G

The maximum dynamic crush of the vehicle during this 35-mph frontal impact was 555 

mm. It was calculated based on the maximum displacements shown in Figure 4.3.1.f.

Figure 4.3.1.f: Vehicle displacement from frontal impact - max dynamic crush = 555 mm

Measuring the amount of intrusion into the dash for this load case showed minimal levels 

of dash displacement (<20 mm), a maximum of approximately 10 mm in the driver footwell 

and a maximum of approximately 15 mm in the passenger footwell. In English units this is 

less than one-inch maximum deflection (occurs in an unoccupied area) and a worst-case 

deflection of 0.6 inches in the footwell. This level of intrusion indicates that the front 

structure is absorbing the impact energy and not transferring it into the dash area. The 

lower A-pillar structure shows no visible damage after this impact. 
62

Figure 4.3.1.g: CAE dash intrusion analysis after frontal impact

The maximum fuel tank plastic strains were less than 10 percent (100 on the bar scale 

below equals 10-percent strain). This indicates that there should be no failure of the tank 

due to contact with any of the surrounding components. The tank mounting system created 

the peak strains; there was no body-to-fuel tank contact. An inflatable bladder modeled 

inside the tank indicated that there was minimal pressure rise in the tank during impact. 

(<0.2 psi).
63

Figure 4.3.1.h: Fuel tank plastic strain after impact

In this impact load case the majority of the energy is absorbed by the front end body 

structure and through the sub-frame. The top ten most energy absorbent components in 

the body structure were extracted from the analysis and evaluated for relative 

performance. This exercise showed that besides the front bumper, bumper brackets and 

main rails, the magnesium front end module (FEM) was another body component that 

absorbed a significant amount of the impact energy.
64

Figure 4.3.1.i: Main energy absorbing frontal body structure

An energy balance plot was extracted from the analysis to check for any mathematical 

instability possibly present in the model, leading to unrepresentative behavior. This is 

shown below; it shows that the model is performing as expected.

Figure4.3.1.j: Energy balance for frontal impact
65

4.3.2. FMVSS 208: 25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier

This analysis is run to 0.15 s as it is a longer duration crash event than the 35-mph load 

case. The actual time to zero forward velocity is predicted to be 0.117 s.

The barrier used in this load case is deformable and absorbs energy as it deforms. This 

barrier can absorb up to 50 percent of the total kinetic energy during impact making this a 

less severe impact than the 35-mph, rigid-wall load case.

Figure 4.3.2.a: Vehicle deformation (t=0.15 s) after 40-percent overlap frontal impact
66

Figure 4.3.2.b: Vehicle deformation (t=0.15 s, barrier not shown) after 40-percent overlap 

frontal impact

Figure 4.3.2.c: Vehicle acceleration pulse during 40-percent overlap frontal impact
67

Due to the asymmetry of the barrier, the left and right pulses were not identical and are 

represented in red and blue, respectively, on the graph above. In addition, the left side 

pulse is higher since the barrier overlaps the vehicle on the left side. This results in more 

loading going directly into the left side of the vehicle.

The peaks on the left pulse (in red on the graph) are used to described the events during 

the impact since this is an offset impact.

I. The first peak of 5 G at 4 ms was generated by the initial crush of the deformable 

barrier. Note the deformable barrier is made up of a main block and a bumper block. 

At 4ms the vehicle is in contact with the barrier bumper block but the initial crush 

began on the main barrier block, as this was less stiff.

II. The acceleration increases to 10 G at 24 ms until the bumper block on the barrier 

starts to crush. Through this time, there was no deformation on the vehicle.

III. At 31 ms the first vehicle deformation occurs, the front-end-module (FEM) and 

radiator take some load, this corresponded with the acceleration peak of 12.5 G. 

The acceleration drops as material fracture of the FEM occurs in a number of 

locations. 

IV. The pulse increases to a peak of 9 G at 42.5 ms, which corresponds to when the 

left bumper bracket starts to deform.

V. As the crush on the softer main barrier block progresses it begins to bottom out 

causing the the next peak of 14 G at 53 ms.

VI. Between 63 ms and 72 ms, crushing in the stiffer bumper barrier block continued 

until this bottomed out. Once this had occurred the stiffer vehice components 

started to defrom. At 78 ms there is a peak pulse of 18 G when the front suspension 

sub-frame, front bumper, and main rails start deforming.

VII. The next 2 peak acceleration pulses observed after the highest peak were caused 

by the deformable barrier coming into contact with the left tire (at 86 ms and 114 

ms).

Most of the kinetic energy, was absorbed by 120 ms and the vehicle velocity graph 

showed that the left B-Pillar velocity was at zero at 117 ms.

Averaging the left and right accelerations provides the pulse shown below. 
68

Figure 4.3.2.d: Average vehicle pulse during 40-percent overlap frontal impact

The overall average acceleration for the entire impact was below 10 G. The average initial 

acceleration (5 to 30 ms) was 6.5 G and the average acceleration from 30 ms to TTZ was 

9 G. In this case TTZ was 117 ms shown in the figure below.

Figure 4.3.2.e: Vehicle velocity after 40-percent overlap frontal impact - time to zero (TTZ) 

= 0.117 s
69

Figure 4.3.2.f: Vehicle displacement after 40-percent overlap frontal impact

The total dynamic crush cannot be calculated from the vehicle displacement graph as the 

barrier was deformable. The total vehicle dynamic crush was estimated to be around 180 

mm using the animation result files.

Figure 4.3.2.g: CAE dash intrusion analysis after 40-percent overlap frontal impact
70

The dash intrusion is very low at approximately 5 mm. This is because the barrier 

absorbed 50 percent of the kinetic energy and the front structure of the vehicle was stiff 

enough, i.e., did not deform extensively during this time, and had sufficient crush space in 

front of the passenger compartment to absorb the remaining kinetic energy.

For comparison, the dash intrusion levels of the 2009 Toyota Venza measured by NCAP 

exceed the CAE-predicted values for the Phase 2 HD vehicle. The NCAP underbody floor 

analysis is shown in Figure 4.3.3.h below and shows the floorboard deformation 

measured, none of which is seen in the Phase 2 HD crash simulations.

Figure 4.3.2.h: Toyota Venza NCAP dash deformation
71

The body structure components that absorb the majority of the energy are the front 

bumper, left bumper bracket, left main rails and the front end module (FEM), as shown 

below.

Figure 4.3.2.i: Main energy absorbing body structure – 40-percent overlap frontal impact

The energy balance for this analysis proves it was valid as no energy was lost or created.

Figure 4.3.2.j: Energy balance for 40-percent overlap frontal impact
72

The information presented heretofore in this section shows how the Phase 2 HD vehicle 

performs in crash simulations, but gives little context for comparison. This context is 

however, hard to provide as the Phase 2 HD vehicle was tested without occupants and a 

restraint system to test dummy injury criteria as standard. The occupant restraint system 

and crash structure work in tandem, so the results here don’t provide a complete safety 

picture. Forming and proving full vehicle safety was beyond the scope of this contract as it 

requires designing a full vehicle with seats, interior, and occupant restraints. While 

occupant protection cannot be fully proved in this study, the Phase 2 HD BIW performs no 

worse than vehicles currently in production, indicating that the vehicle could meet safety 

requirements, particularly since the safety system can be tuned to act based upon the 

specific vehicle acceleration pulses.

As the Phase 2 HD vehicle was tested without the occupant restraint system and 

occupants, no comparison of actual occupant test results can be made, but a comparison 

of crash structure acceleration data can be made.

A comparison of vehicular accelerations can be seen in Figure 4.3.2.k below. The figure 

shows a comparison between a 2009 Toyota Venza, 2007 Dodge Caliber, 2007 Ford 

Edge, 2007 Saturn Outlook, a 2009 Dodge Journey, and the Phase 2 HD vehicle. All of the 

standard production vehicles pass NHTSA safety criteria with four-star frontal crash ratings 

or above and the Phase 2 HD vehicle acceleration levels are comparable to those of the 

production vehicles. Based on this data and Lotus’ engineering judgment, the Phase 2 HD 

vehicle is predicted to perform as well as or better than comparable vehicles on the 

market.

Figure 4.3.2.k: Comparison of production vehicle and Phase 2 HD crash accelerations
73

Figure 4.3.2.l below shows the upper and lower acceleration envelopes from the 

comparative data for FMVSS 208, 35-mph, flat, frontal crash in Figure 4.3.2.k, showing 

more clearly that the Phase 2 HD vehicle is comparable to already proven vehicles. In very 

few instances does the acceleration pulse for the Phase 2 HD vehicle exceed the 

envelope.

Figure 4.3.2.l: Comparison of production vehicle envelope and Phase 2 HD crash 

accelerations
74

4.3.3. FMVSS208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Left Side

The analysis is run for 0.12 s which is sufficient for all the deformation to have occurred, 

after this time the direction of the vehicle momentum is typically partially parallel to the 

angled barrier. The TTZ for this load case is at 0.076 s.

Figure 4.3.3.a: Vehicle deformation (t=0.12 s) after 30°, left-side frontal barrier impact

Very little or noticeable deformation occurred at the front door aperture, which indicates the 

vehicle will likely retain the frontal occupants.
75

The left and right acceleration pulses are plotted in red and blue on Figure 4.3.3.b below. 

They are asymmetrical because the engine and left side of the vehicle were the first 

contact points.

Figure 4.3.3.b: Vehicle acceleration pulse during 30°, left-side frontal barrier impact

The peaks on the left pulse (colored in red) are used to describe the events during the 

impact. 

There are four significant acceleration pulse peaks at 4, 14, 32 and 63 ms generating 24, 

11, 25 and 35 Gs, respectively.

I. The first acceleration peak occurs when the front bumper begins deforming.

II. The second acceleration pulse peak is due to the bumper bracket starting to deform 

(the load case is not perpendicular so there is some crush and bending occurring).

III. The third acceleration pulse peak is due to the main rail on the left side bending 

along with the front suspension sub-frame.

IV. The fourth acceleration pulse peak was created by the engine stacking up against 

the radiator and the barrier as well as the front suspension sub-frame bottoming out.
76

Figure 4.3.3.c: Average vehicle acceleration pulse during 30°, left-side frontal barrier 

impact

The overall average acceleration pulse is just below 19 G. The average initial acceleration 

(5 to 30 ms) was 9.9 G. The average acceleration from 30 ms to TTZ was 18.6 G.

Figure 4.3.3.d: Vehicle velocity during 30°, left-side frontal impact - time to 0 velocity 

(TTZ) = 76 ms
77

Figure 4.3.3.e: Vehicle displacement during 30°, left-side frontal impact – max dynamic 

crush = 500 mm

Figure 4.3.3.f: CAE dash intrusion analysis after 30°, left-side frontal impact

The intrusion into the dash for this load case showed minimal levels (<15 mm)
78

Figure 4.3.3.g: Fuel tank plastic strain after 30°, left-side frontal impact

The predicted fuel tank plastic strains are below the expected material failure level, < 6 

percent.

The main energy absorbing body structure components are the front bumper, left bumper 

bracket, left main rails, the front end module (FEM) left shotgun inner and left front shock 

tower as shown below.

Figure 4.3.3.h: Main energy absorbing body structure for fuel tank plastic strain after 30°, 

left-side frontal impact
79

The energy balance for this analysis showed no issues with the model as no energy was 

lost or created.

Figure 4.3.3.i: Energy balance for 30°, left-side frontal impact
80

4.3.4. FMVSS208: 25mph 30° Flat Barrier – Right Side

In this test the right-side time to zero velocity was actually found to be longer than the left 

side: 0.092 s vs. 0.076 s for the left side impact. The analysis predicts acceptable 

performance from the body structure with very little noticeable deformation at the front door 

aperture.

Figure 4.3.4.a: Vehicle deformation (t=0.12 s) after 30°, right-side frontal impact
81

Figure 4.3.4.b: Vehicle acceleration pulse during 30°, right-side frontal impact

The left and right acceleration pulses (red and blue respectively) are different due to the 

angled barrier primarily loading the right side of the vehicle and also due to the asymmetry 

of the engine. Averaging both left and right side accelerations gives the average pulse 

shown below.

Figure 4.3.4.c: Vehicle average acceleration pulse during 30°, right-side frontal impact
82

The overall average acceleration pulse is just below 14 G. The average initial acceleration 

(5 to 30 ms) was 8.9 G. The average acceleration from 30 ms to TTZ was 9.5 G. These 

are less than for the left side impact and are a result of the longer TTZ.

Figure 4.3.4.d: Vehicle velocity during 30°, right-side frontal impact

- time to zero velocity (TTZ) = 92 ms

Figure 4.3.4.e: Vehicle displacement during 30°, right-side frontal impact - maximum

dynamic crush 524 mm
83

Figure 4.3.4.f: CAE dash intrusion analysis after 30°, right-side frontal impact

The intrusion into the dash for this load case were very similar to the left-side impact 

predicting minimal levels (<15 mm)

Figure 4.3.4.g: Fuel tank plastic strains after 30°, right-side frontal impact

The predicted fuel tank plastic strains are below the expected material failure level, < 4 

percent.
84

The main energy absorbing components for the right side impact include the front bumper, 

right bumper bracket, right main rails, front end module (FEM), and dash reinforcement, 

but not the shotgun or shock tower. This is due to the load path through the engine 

because of the ancillary mounting locations. This load path through the engine is not 

present for the left side. As a result of the loading through the engine, contact to the dash 

cross-member occurs sooner, transmitting more load.

Figure 4.3.4.h: Main energy absorbing body structure for 30°, right-side frontal impact
85

The corresponding energy balance validated the analysis, showing the total energy level 

was maintained. 

Figure 4.3.4.i: Energy balance for 30°, right-side frontal impact
86

4.3.5. FMVSS 210: Seatbelt Anchorages

This test is a worst-case analysis as it tests just two of the four floor seatbelt mounting 

locations. The front mounting locations are part of the seat assembly, which was beyond 

the scope of this project. Even in this worst case scenario the mounting locations showed 

acceptable deformation levels.

4.3.5.1. Front

Figure 4.3.5.1.a: Seatbelt anchorage plastic strains (@ 0.2 s)
87

Figure 4.3.5.1.b: Upper seatbelt anchorage plastic strain (@ 0.2 s)

Figure 4.3.5.1.c: Lower seatbelt anchorage plastic strain (@ 0.2 s)
88

4.3.5.2. Rear

Figure 4.3.5.2.a: Rear seatbelt anchorage plastic strain (@ 0.2 s)
89

Figure 4.3.5.2.b: Displacement at lower seatbelt anchorages (@0.2 s)
90

4.3.6. FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems

The child restraint system was tested using a worst-case situation with a 30-kg child 

representation to account for various unknowns. The highest mass child representation 

specified by NHTSA is a 21-kg mass, representative of a 10-year old child. The CAE 

analyses below show the Phase 2 HD passes these preliminary tests as the anchorage 

held the load case.

Figure 4.3.6.a: Child-restraint, lower anchorage plastic strain

Figure 4.3.6.b: Child-restraint seat pan displacements
91

4.3.7. FMVSS 214: 33.5 mph Side Impact – Crabbed 

Barrier

This is designed to test the intrusion levels in the event of a side impact. Full doors 

(closures) are typically included in this test, but were beyond the scope of this project. This 

test was performed with just the BIW structure – B-pillar and side impact beams. A 

maximum allowable intrusion level was set at 300 mm as this is the standard distance 

between the door panel and seat in a full interior. The Phase 2 HD BIW met this standard 

with a maximum intrusion of around 115 mm even without doors for further structure. The 

results of the CAE analysis for this test are shown below.

Figure 4.3.7.a: Vehicle deformation (0.1 s) after crabbed barrier impact
92

Figure 4.3.7.b: Vehicle deformation (barrier not shown) after crabbed barrier impact

Figure 4.3.7.c: Global vehicle and barrier velocities for crabbed barrier impact
93

Figure 4.3.7.d: Relative intrusion velocities (B-pillar) during crabbed barrier impact

Figure 4.3.7.e: Relative intrusion displacements (B-pillar) during crabbed barrier impact
94

Figure 4.3.7.f: B-pillar intrusion profile after crabbed barrier impact, x=2842

Figure 4.3.7.g: Intrusion levels after crabbed barrier impact on struck side
95

Figure 4.3.7.h: Main energy absorbing body structure parts for crabbed barrier impact

This energy balance validated the crabbed-barrier-impact model as no energy was created 

or destroyed during the simulation.

Figure 4.3.7.i: Energy balance for crabbed barrier impact
96

4.3.8. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front 

(5th percentile Female)

This test is usually performed with full closures and measures occupant acceleration 

levels, which were beyond the project scope. Intrusion levels were used to gauge occupant 

protection again, and with a maximum intrusion of around 250 mm, the Phase 2 HD BIW is 

below the maximum allowable of 300 mm. 

Figure 4.3.8.a: Vehicle deformation (0.1 s) after 75°, side, pole impact – 5

th percentile 

female
97

Figure 4.3.8.b: Vehicle deformation after 75°, side, pole impact (pole blanked) – 5

th

percentile female

Figure 4.3.8.c: Relative intrusion velocities during 75°, side, pole impact (B-pillar) – 5

th

percentile female
98

Figure 4.3.8.d: Relative intrusion displacements during 75°, side, pole impact (B-pillar) –

5

th percentile female

Figure 4.3.8.e: Section through B-pillar after 75°, side, pole impact, x= 2842 – 5

th

percentile female
99

Figure 4.3.8.f: Intrusion levels after 75°, side, pole impact on struck side – 5

th percentile 

female

Figure 4.3.8.g: Main energy absorbing body structure for 75°, side, pole impact – 5

th

percentile female

This energy balance validated the analysis because the total energy remained constant 

through the simulation.
100

Figure 4.3.8.h: Energy balance for 75°, side, pole impact – 5

th percentile female
101

4.3.9. FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front 

(50th percentile Male)

Using a 50th percentile male instead of a 5th percentile female movess the pole impact 

location, but reveals the Phase 2 HD BIW still has acceptable structural performance. A 

maximum intrusion level of around 225 mm was observed, which is below the 300 mm 

maximum allowable.

Figure 4.3.9.a: Vehicle deformation (0.1 s) after 75°, side, pole impact – 50th percentile 

male
102

Figure 4.3.9.b: Vehicle deformation after 75°, side, pole impact (pole blanked) – 50th

percentile male

Figure 4.3.9.c: Relative intrusion velocities during 75°, side, pole impact (B-pillar) – 50th

percentile male
103

Figure 4.3.9.d: Relative intrusion displacements during 75°, side, pole impact (B-pillar) –

50th percentile male

Figure 4.3.9.e: Intrusion levels after 75°, side, pole impact on struck side – 50th percentile 

male
104

Figure 4.3.9.f: Section through B-pillar after 75°, side, pole impact, x= 2842 – 50th

percentile male

Figure 4.3.9.g: Main energy absorbing body structure for 75°, side, pole impact – 50th

percentile male
105

Figure 4.3.9.h: Energy balance for 75°, side, pole impact – 50thpercentile male

This energy balance validated the analysis, showing no energy was created or destroyed 

during the simulation.
106

4.3.10. FMVSS 216: Roof Crush

The roof crush CAE analysis is shown below, where the platen is loaded to three times the 

curb weight of the vehicle and must not displace more than 127 mm and load a 95th

percentile male’s head to more than 222 N (50 lbs). This analysis shows that the Phase 2 

HD BIW meets this standard as only 20 mm of displacement is predicted at three times the 

vehicle curb weight, which does not even touch the occupant’s head.

Figure 4.3.10.a: Deformation at 0/40/80/150 mm of roof crush platen displacement
107

Figure 4.3.10.b: Deformation in relation to occupant head clearance zones (95th/99th) at 

0/40/80/150 mm of roof crush platen displacement

Figure 4.3.10.c: Roof displacement vs. applied force – 3 times curb weight
108

Figure 4.3.10.d: Roof displacement vs. applied force – 3 times Venza weight

Figure 4.3.10.e: Roof plastic strains at 0/40/80/150 mm of roof crush platen displacement
109

4.3.11. FMVSS 301: Rear Impact (moving deformable 

barrier)

The rear impact test is designed to test fuel system integrity, allowing a maximum strain of 

ten percent. The CAE analysis below indicates a strain of less than 3.5 percent after the 

test, confirming fuel system integrity.

Figure 4.3.11.a: Vehicle deformation (t=0.12 s) after rear deformable barrier impact

Figure 4.3.11.b: Vehicle deformation (barrier blanked) after rear deformable barrier impact
110

Figure 4.3.11.c: Vehicle deformation (at 0/40/80/120 ms) after rear deformable barrier 

impact

Figure 4.3.11.d: Vehicle acceleration pulse during rear deformable barrier impact
111

Figure 4.3.11.e: Vehicle and barrier velocities during rear deformable barrier impact

Figure 4.3.11.f: Fuel tank plastic strains after rear deformable barrier impact
112

Figure 4.3.11.g: Main energy absorbing body structure for rear deformable barrier impact

The energy balance validated the model as the total energy was maintained.

Figure 4.3.11.h: Energy balance for rear deformable barrier impact
113

4.3.12. IIHS Low Speed – Front

This test is designed to examine the damage and repair costs to the front bumper and 

fascia, which cannot be fully completed as it was beyond the scope of the project. 

Examining the plastic strain of the bumper beam shown in the CAE analysis below gives 

an indication of the potential damage.

Figure 4.3.12.a: Front plastic strain after low-speed frontal impact (‘full impact’)

Figure 4.3.12.b: Front plastic strain after low-speed frontal impact (‘offset impact’)
114

4.3.13. IIHS Low Speed – Rear

The IIHS low speed rear impact test is designed to look at repair costs in the event of a 

rear-end collision. As with the frontal impact scenario, the repair costs cannot be estimated 

for the Phase 2 HD, but the damage can be estimated from the plastic strain in the bumper 

beam.

Figure 4.3.13.a: Rear plastic strains after low-speed rear impact (‘full impact’)

Figure 4.3.13.b: Rear plastic strains after low-speed rear impact (‘offset impact’)
115

4.3.14 Body Stiffness/Modals

The body stiffness was analyzed using MSC/Nastran®software to determine the torsional 

stiffness and bending modals. The results are shown below. The torsional stiffness is 

32,900 Nm/degree for the low mass model. The BMW X5, a unibody SUV, was selected 

as the target vehicle as it is generally regarded as having ‘world class’ torsional stiffness. 

The published value for the X5 body structure is 27,000 Nm/degree3. The X5 body 

incorporates UHSS, aluminum and magnesium and is 15-percent stiffer than the previous 

version with virtually no weight penalty.

Creating a vehicle with a high torsional stiffness has a number of benefits to consumers as 

well as automakers. It allows for a better suspension design as the suspension won’t have 

to cope with large amounts of chassis flex, the vehicle will exhibit more predictable 

handling behavior because of these factors. A higher torsional stiffness also helps 

structural robustness because the chassis flexes less, which would cause the structure to 

fatigue and possibly fail eventually.

Table 4.3.14.a: Torsional stiffness

Torsional Stiffness Torsional Stiffness

(kNm/deg)

Phase 2 HD 2011-01-06-2 32.9

Figure 4.3.14.a: CAE body stiffness analysis

Table 4.3.14.b below gives a comparison of the Phase 2 HD torsional stiffness to other 

vehicles in a variety of classes. As can be seen in the table, a torsional stiffness of 32,900

Nm/degree is competitive even amongst sports cars, which have an average torsional 
116

stiffness of 25,427. It is also competitive with other SUVs, which have an average torsional 

stiffness of 26,350 Nm/degree.

Table 4.3.14.b: Torsional stiffness comparison

Vehicle Torsional Stiffness 

(Nm/degree)

Phase 2 HD 32,900

Sports cars

Aston Martin DB9 Coupe 27,000

Audi TT Coupe 19,000

BMW M Coupe 32,000

Ford GT 27,100

Königsegg CCX 28,100

Lamborghini Gallardo 23,000

Lamborghini Murciélago 20,000

Mazda RX-8 30,000

McLaren F1 13,500

Pagani Zonda F 27,000

Porsche 911 Carrera 33,000

Average 25,427

SUVs

BMW X5 27,000

BMW X6 29,000

Land Rover LR2 28,000

Volvo XC90 21,400

Average 26,350

Luxury cars

Aston Martin Rapide 28,390

Audi A8 25,000

BMW 7 Series 28,505

Jaguar XJ 20,540

Lexus RX 18,280

Maserati Quattroporte 18,000

Mercedes-Benz S-Class 25,400

Volvo S80 18,600

Average 22,839

Standard cars

Audi A2 11,900

BMW 3 Series 22,500

Jaguar X-Type 22,000

Mini Cooper 24,500

Volkswagen Fox 17,941

Volkswagen GTI 25,000
117

Volvo S60 20,000

Average 20,549
118

4.4. Discussion

This section discusses the results obtained during the CAE analyses and how they meet 

FMVSS regulations and IIHS requirements. No direct comparison with the Venza can be 

made as the public domain impact results are for an actual production vehicle.

An industry accepted standard for the software fidelity used for modeling is in the 5% to 

10% range. The maximum allowable peak acceleration target for front impact modeling 

was 90% of the Venza peak acceleration as measured and reported by NHTSA.

Lotus utilized the same analysis techniques used to make production vehicles in order to 

give the best possible results. The results are however, based on engineering software 

analyses rather than physical results. Overall, the Phase 2 HD acceleration levels are 

comparable to production vehicles and, based on the CAE data, shows a properly 

engineered, light weight vehicle can meet crash requirements. 

4.4.1. Observations - FMVSS 208 Front Impact

FMVSS 208 deals with occupant protection, specifying maximum forces, accelerations, 

and Head Injury Criteria (HIC) levels. Developing a full vehicle with tuned occupant 

restraint systems, seats, and full interior was beyond the scope of this contract and as 

such, Lotus based its CAE crash test analyses on vehicle crash acceleration data rather 

than occupant criteria. The data shows the model has performance comparable to existing 

production vehicles with all accelerations at acceptable levels. Furthermore, the occupant 

restraint system (the full Venza airbag system is included in the vehicle mass) would be 

tuned specifically to handle the specific acceleration pulses of the Phase 2 HD vehicle.

A material thickness sensitivity study was also conducted and found that acceleration 

levels could be reduced by over 30 percent by reducing wall thickness 10 percent in key 

areas, giving substantial opportunity to refine local acceleration pulses. Based on Lotus’ 

experience, material thicknesses were not reduced due to potential durability concerns.

The front structure is primarily aluminum and the use of magnesium was kept to areas 

outside of primary load paths due to the brittle nature of magnesium compared to steel and 

aluminum. The high loads experienced during a crash mean that magnesium is more likely 

to crack rather than crumple and absorb energy.

4.4.1.1 FMVSS 208: 35 mph Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, 

offset deformable barrier)

Maximum dash intrusion of less than 20 mm -- and less than 15mm in most areas – when 

subjected to the FMVSS 208 35 mph frontal impact indicates acceptable structural 
119

performance in this area. Analyses revealed this is primarily due to minimal intrusion of the 

engine bay components into the dash panels.

Some of the crash energy is absorbed by the magnesium dash panel, which is why there 

is some intrusion into the passenger compartment, but the majority of the crash energy is 

absorbed in the front bumper, bumper brackets, and the right and left main rails. A 

secondary load path to the structure is created by the engine and sub-frame, meaning the 

sill and body structure have less energy to absord. The tires don’t contact the sill and the 

A-pillar lower remained intact, indicating that most of the impact energy was absorbed by 

the front structure.

4.4.1.2 FMVSS 208: 25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier

This is a generally less severe test case than the 35 mph rigid barrier as the barrier can 

absorb up to 50 percent of the total impact energy. The test results reflect this as the 

maximum dash intrusion is < 6 mm, indicating acceptable performance in this test.

The majority of the crash energy is absorbed in the front bumper, front end module, left 

bumper bracket, and left main rail due to the barrier overlap location. The engine and subframe once again create a secondary load path, reducing the energy the sill and body 

structure have to absorb.

4.4.1.3 FMVSS 208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Left Side

Dash intrusion for this load case was < 15 mm, showing acceptable crash performance. 

This load case is a mix of the flat rigid wall and offset deformable barrier test as the vehicle 

impacts a flat, rigid wall at a 30° offset, with the left side contacting the wall first. The 

acceleration pulses are therefore asymmetrical again with the left side absorbing more 

crash energy.

The crash energy is once again mostly absorbed in the front bumper, front end module, left 

bumper bracket, and left main rail. The left shotgun inner and left front shock tower also 

absorb some of the crash energy as well as the engine and sub-frame. More of the energy 

is transmitted and absorbed by the magnesium dash panel in this test case as well, as 

indicated by the higher intrusion level.

4.4.1.4 FMVSS 208: 25 mph 30° Flat Barrier – Right Side

As with the left-side barrier impact, dash intrusion levels for the right-side barrier test case 

were < 15 mm indicating acceptable structural performance. The right side of the vehicle 

contacted the wall first, causing the right side of the front end structure to do more work 

than the left with a few minor differences.
120

The front bumper, right bumper bracket, right main rail, front end module, and dash 

reinforcement absorb most of the crash energy. The shotgun inner and shock tower don’t 

absorb any of the crash energy in this impact case due to the new load path through the 

engine and its ancillary mounting locations. These mounting locations, and therefore load 

path, are not present on the left side. As a result of the direct loading through the engine, it 

contacts the dash crossmember sooner, transmitting more load.

4.4.2. Observations – FMVSS 210 Seatbelt Anchorages

FMVSS 210 is concerned with seatbelt retention and also specifies certain dimensional 

constraints for the relationship between the seatbelts and seats. Designing a full interior 

with seats was beyond the scope of this project. The loads were tested on the body 

structure anchorages which would be used to attach the rear portion of the seat. 

Overall, both the front and rear seatbelt anchorages performed as expected, meeting the 

specified requirements. Strains for both systems were elevated due to the lack of modeled 

seats, but did not cause the Phase 2 HD BIW to fail. The front and rear anchorages are 

broken out below.

4.4.2.1. Front Anchorages

Although the strain in the lower anchorage points (rear, front-seat mounts) is elevated, the 

simulation shows acceptable structure for seatbelt retention. The elevated strain in the 

lower anchorage points is due to a lack of modeled seats, which were beyond the project 

scope, and thus transferred load through only two points instead of four as the front seat 

mounts were not defined. This is a worst case analysis as the majority of the load is 

supported by a combination of the composite sandwich floor and the aluminum structure. 

The seat will be mounted to a more structural aluminum cross-member under the floor.

This strain around the belt attachment location is artificially high due to the method used to 

attach the belts to the structure. Typically in CAE analysis there is higher stress at the 

point of load application than would be seen in reality as the clamping effects of fasteners 

between the parts are not modeled. 

The upper anchorage location shows there will be localized deformation, but no 

detachment of the anchorage. It should be noted that the D-ring attachment on the B-pillar 

typically allows for height adjustment and would therefore have a larger reinforcement than 

included on the Phase 2 HD body structure. This larger reinforcement would help spread 

the load and reduce the deformation and strain seen in this area. The existing structure is 

adequate for this purpose.

4.4.2.2. Rear Anchorages
121

Simulation results show the model has acceptable structure for seatbelt retention and the 

analysis predicts the highest strain areas are at the outboard lower-belt attachment 

locations. The plastic strain around the D-ring attachment is less than the strain shown in 

the front seatbelt pull analysis results. This is partly attributed to the narrower section 

which makes it stiffer than the same belt mounting location on the B-pillar.

Approximately 100 mm of rear-seat pan deformation between the two center belt mounting 

locations is predicted under this load case. The strain in this area is relatively low (<6 

percent), indicating that the mounting plates would not pull through the seat pan when 

tested in this configuration. An additional fore/aft reinforcement could be mounted under 

the seat pan to reduce the total deformation at the center belt mounting locations. 

4.4.3. Observations – FMVSS 213 Child Restraint 

Anchorage

This test is less severe (in terms of applied load) on the body structure than the seatbelt 

anchorage load case of FMVSS 210. The primary concern of this test is to ensure the child 

restraints will restrain a child under crash conditions, meaning the anchorages should not 

pull out of the vehicle. While less severe than the load case of FMVSS210, the load is still 

higher than required by FMVSS 213 as a 30-kg mass was used instead of the required 21-

kg mass. The model shows acceptable structure for child restraint anchorage with the 

added load.

The mounting locations for the child restraints were the same as for the seatbelt pull and 

the results indicate there should be no fracture or tearing of these mounting locations 

under this load case. This indicates the anchorage could be designed to hold once full 

seating and a full vehicle are developed as well.

4.4.4. Observation – FMVSS 214 Side Impact

The CAE analysis results of the FMVSS 214 side impact test show the Phase 2 HD BIW 

sill, B-pillar, and side door beam sub-systems effectively manage the side impact crash 

energy. The three FMVSS 214 side impact test results are broken down below. These 

tests deal with occupant injury, which is beyond the scope of this project, so a maximum 

allowable intrusion level of 300 mm was instituted. This is defined as the typical distance 

between the door panel and most outboard seat surface.

4.4.4.1 FMVSS 214: 33.5 mph Crabbed Barrier

CAE analysis showed the body structure has acceptable performance when subjected to 

the FMVSS 214 crabbed barrier side impact test.

The Phase 2 HD BIW intrusion level was measured at 115 mm, meaning the door panel 

would not come into contact with the passenger. This likely prevents any possible injury 
122

caused by contacting the hard surface of the inner door panel as is the primary concern of 

the FMVSS 214 tests.

4.4.4.2 FMVSS 214: 20 mph 75° Side Pole Impact 

This test is carried out using two different size dummies – 5

th percentile female and 50th

percentile male – and thus seating positions which moves the primary impact location due 

to the fact that the pole is lined up with the frontal occupant’s CG.

CAE analysis for the 5th percentile female revealed the pole struck nearly in the middle of 

the A- and B-pillars with an intrusion level of 120 mm. This greatly surpasses the Lotusdefined test requirements with a maximum allowable intrusion of 300mm.

A similar analysis was conducted for the 50th-percentile male with the seat and impact 

location moved accordingly. Intrusion for this test was measured at 190 mm, far below the 

300 mm allowed indicating acceptable structural performance.

Analyses showed the body structure has acceptable structural performance when 

subjected to the load cases of FMVSS 214. The intrusion was measured at 115 mm for the 

33.5 MPH crabbed barrier. The intrusion for the 20 mph 75 degree pole test for a 5th

percentile female was 120 mm. The intrusion for the 20 mph 75 degree pole test for a 50th

percentile male was 190 mm. This indicates that the sill, B pillar and side door beam subsystems are managing the energy in an effective manner.

4.4.5. Observation – FMVSS 216 Roof Crush

Simulations predict the Phase 2 HD vehicle will meet roof crush performance requirements 

under the specified load case. Only 20 mm of platen displacement was predicted to meet 

the 3*vehicle weight requirement. The simulation suggests that the requirement would be 

met even if the baseline Toyota Venza curb weight was used (e.g. a 45-percent increase).

The significant difference between the Phase 2 HD structure and that of a similar segment 

vehicle is due to the significant reduction in the curb weight (from 1700 kg to 1173 kg for 

the Phase 2 HD model). The body incorporates the structure of a larger segment vehicle 

even though the 3 time curb weight is similar to that of a small/medium passenger car. 

Based on these results there could be some optimization of both the panel gauges and the 

A-pillar section for weight if all other structural requirements are met. Other load cases and 

manufacturing requirements would need to be evaluated in parallel to ensure all criteria 

would be met.

4.4.6. Observations – FMVSS 301 Rear Impact
123

FMVSS 301 deals with the integrity of the fuel system after a rear crash, aiming to prevent 

any fuel spillage. The test allows a maximum plastic strain of ten percent in the fuel tank 

and system after the crash event.

The maximum plastic strain in the fuel tank/system components is predicted to be less 

than 3.5 percent, validating that the fuel system meets FMVSS 301 which allows no more 

than 10-percent strain. There was no contact with the body structure or vehicle 

components.

The pressure change in the fuel tank is less than 2 percent so the risk of the tank splitting 

due to an increase in internal pressure (caused by compressing the outside of the tank) is 

predicted to be minimal.

Barrier to vehicle crossover velocity is predicted to occur at 69 ms from the initial contact.

Due to the offset bumper beam, dynamics of the rear impact are not ideal. The ideal failure 

mode is an axial crush under load (i.e. pure compression mode), but the offset bumper 

beam means the rear bumper armature rotates. This creates a torque which results in a 

bending moment into the rear rail, causing it to fail. The rear bumper, left bumper bracket, 

left rail, rear end lower panels, and horizontal surfaces of the right rail absorb most of the 

energy.

4.4.7. Observations - IIHS Low Speed – Front

The analyses of these two front impact load cases predict that only the bumper system 

components would yield.

The higher levels of plastic strain are predicted to be in the heat affected zones at the 

welded joint between the bumper armature and the bumper brackets. In these areas the 

material yield strength was reduced by 60 percent (from the un-welded material properties) 

to compensate for the annealing that occurs due to welding.

In the ‘full’ impact case there is deformation of the bumper armature as this flattens under 

loading, resulting in lateral loading at the bumper brackets.

Analysis of the offset impacts predicts there will be minimal damage to the bumper system 

because there is less than 75 mm of overlap between bumper armature and the end of the 

barrier. This results in a ‘glancing’ impact, where the vehicle is pushed sideways as it 

travels forwards due to the curvature of the outer end of the armature.

The styling may be required to change in this area to allow the bumper beam to be moved 

outboard and forward in the side contact area to reduce any potential damage. The Phase 

1 front end styling moved the front lamps moved inboard and rearward of this contact area 

to minimize any possible damage to the lighting system. Developing the full front end 

styling, bumper system, lamps and sheet metal was beyond the scope of this project. 
124

4.4.8. Observations - IIHS Low Speed – Rear

The analyses of these two rear impact load cases predict there will be plastic strain in 

components other than the bumper system. 

For the ‘full’ load cases there is some body deformation. Modifying the exterior styling to 

allow the addition of bumper foam would move the barrier contact point further away from 

the body panels, improving performance. Additionally, the barrier displacement could be 

reduced by tuning the foam density and thickness.

The ‘offset’ impact analysis indicates a result similar to that predicted for the front ‘offset’ 

load case. This is due to minimal engagement of the barrier and the curvature of the 

armature which is more aggressive than the front. The vehicle ‘slides’ inboard off the 

barrier rather than staying perpendicular to the line of travel. The analysis predicts that the 

vehicle will move ~50 mm inboard.

This analysis also indicated that the lower rear corner of the body could be damaged by 

the upper portion of the barrier. This concern would be addressed by incorporating local 

styling changes to the bumper system including reducing the plan view curvature, moving 

the bumper armature ends rearward at the outboard ends and increasing the distance 

between the bumper and the body panels. This can be done by moving the body panels 

forward and inboard relative to the existing bumper or adjusting the bumper relative to the 

existing sheet metal. These revisions would create additional clearance to the barrier and 

also allow energy absorbing material to be added to the bumper beam. 

The rear bumper system is an example of the tradeoffs made between vehicle appearance 

and function. Preliminary styling concepts, such as the Phase 1 vehicle, do not necessarily 

comprehend all functional requirements even though they are based on ‘best practices’. 

Engineering analysis is used to verify the feasibility of the styling relative to functional 

requirements. This analysis indicated that a styling adjustment should be made to improve 

the rear bumper low speed performance. This is a typical example of using analytical tools 

to verify functional performance very early in the styling process. There are no body 

structural issues.
125

4.4.9. Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Results

This section shows results of a simulated impact between the Phase 2 HD vehicle and a 

Ford Taurus. This information was requested by the NHTSA to compare the performance 

to their metrics. The crash simulation was run such that both vehicles have the same 

kinetic energy, which necessitated the Phase 2 vehicle to be run at 40 mph while the 

Taurus was run at 27 mph. These analyses however, were run by Lotus and may be setup 

differently than the NHTSA analyses so no specific comments can be made. NHTSA will 

be publishing their test results separately in a report preliminarily titled: Evaluation of 

Lotus Phase II Finite Element Model for Fleet Simulation Studies authored by Aida BarsanAnelli and Stephen Summers. 

No crash acceleration or intrusion levels were objectively measured because of the 

possible differences in setup between NHTSA and Lotus. What can be observed is that 

there is no intrusion into the Lotus model passenger cell as occurred (<22 mm worst case) 

with the single vehicle FMVSS test results.

Figure 4.4.9.a: Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation setup – three-quarter 

view
126

Figure 4.4.9.b: Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation setup – side view

Figure 4.4.9.c: Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation result – three-quarter 

view
127

Figure 4.4.9.d: Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation result – side view

Figure 4.4.9.e: Phase 2 HD vehicle to Ford Taurus crash simulation result – three-quarter 

view, opaque Taurus
128

4.4.10. Summary of Safety Testing Results

Table 4.4.10.a below summarizes the findings from the above design, technical 

engineering analysis, and crash test simulations. The table reports specifically on the 

study’s objectives to develop and validate a mass-reduced vehicle structure that will meet 

known guidelines and requirements for crashworthiness – both governmental and 

voluntary testing, stiffness, and torsional bending. As part of Task 1, the mass-reduced 

Phase 2 vehicle model was validated for conforming to the existing external data for the 

baseline Toyota Venza, meeting best-in-class torsional and bending stiffness, and 

managing customary running loads.

As part of Task 2, the mass-reduced vehicle was validated for meeting the listed FMVSS 

requirements, as well as the IIHS bumper tests (the IIHS side impact and front and rear 

crash tests were not part of the contract). All of the tests were conducted using CAE 

analyses and BIW acceleration and intrusion levels. These tests measure dummy 

occupant acceleration levels on a physical vehicle typically. Developing a full occupant 

restraint system and interior as well as building a physical test vehicle were beyond the 

scope of this project. Using vehicle intrusion and acceleration levels shows whether the 

vehicle can meet crash test requirements, but small changes may be required once a 

physical vehicle is built and tested.

Table 4.4.10.a: Summary of Vehicle Test Validation

Area Requirement, Guideline, Test Result of Vehicle 

Simulation

Model

Conformance with existing external data for the baseline Venza Dimensions, interior 

volume, utility 

maintained

Standard 

Operating

Withstand and dampen major customary vehicle loads (e.g. running loads) Analyses showed 

vehicle robustness

Development Meet best-in-class torsional and bending stiffness 32,900 N

Frontal Impact

Full frontal crash analysis: static stiffness (FMVSS 208) and compatibility of main 

body structure and front end energy absorption subsystem including 35-mph, 0-

degree flat barrier; 25-mph, 30-degree flat barrier; 25-mph, 40-percent offset 

deformable barrier

Acceptable intrusion 

and acceleration 

levels

IIHS bumper: 6-mph centerline, 3-mph, 15-percent offset Acceptable strain 

levels

Side Impact

Side impact, door beam intrusion testing (FMVSS 214) including 35-mph, 27-

degree moving deformable barrier; 20-mph, 75-degree pole impact Acceptable intrusion 

and acceleration 

levels

Rear Impact

Rear impact, moving deformable barrier (FMBSS 301) Acceptable intrusion 

and acceleration 

levels

IIHS bumper: 6-mph centerline, 3-mph, 15-percent offset Acceptable strain 

levels

Rollover Protection

Roof crush (FMVSS 216) Acceptable intrusion 

levels

Restraint Systems

Seatbelt anchorages (FMVSS 210) Acceptable 

deformation levels
129

Child restraint systems (FMVSS 213) Acceptable 

deformation levels

Vehicle Structure

Front and rear energy management, non-deformation, and chassis frame buckling 

testing

Acceptable 

acceleration, intrusion, 

and deformation levels

Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Impacts

35-mph, car-to-car impact with NCAC Ford Taurus; Taurus velocity: 27 mph Acceptable 

acceleration and 

intrusion levels

35-mph, car-to-car impact with NCAC Ford Explorer; Explorer velocity: 18 mph Acceptable 

acceleration and 

intrusion levels
130

4.5. Closures

The analyses presented heretofore included only simulated door beams (see section 4.2.1.2) for 

FEA analysis. ARB contracted Lotus Engineering Inc. to determine the effect fully engineered 

closures would have on vehicle crash performance. The results of developing closures are presented 

in this section.

4.5.1. Objectives

The objectives of this set of analyses were to evaluate the vehicle performance with the addition of 

closures (hood, doors, tailgate, and fenders); with the updates to the BIW (revised upper Apillar/cowl/front header – changed as a result of the stiffness studies; and location of the rear 

bumper armature (translated rearwards to improve the IIHS low speed performance).

The updated model was run using the same load cases as the previous model (as listed below). 

• FMVSS 208: Front Impact (0°/30° rigid wall, offset deformable barrier)

• FMVSS 210: Seat Belt Anchorages

• FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems

• FMVSS 214: Side Impact (side barrier, side pole)

• FMVSS 216: Roof Crush

• FMVSS 301: Rear Impact (moving deformable barrier)

• IIHS: Low Speed Bumper (front & rear)

The changes made are won’t have a major impact on the front impact performance or occupant 

related load cases. Therefore the vehicle performance already reported for FMVSS 208 is still valid.

This report details the results from the side impact, rear impact, and roof crush load cases only.

4.5.2. Model Updates

The previous CAE model was updated with CAD data that was supplied for the following:

Hood Assembly

Tailgate Assembly

Front and Rear Door Assembly

Fenders and Mounting brackets

BIW Component Updates

Rear Bumper Armature Assembly

Figure 4.5.2.a. highlights the images of the main updated components only.
131

Figure 4.5.2.a: Body-in-White – V27
132

Figures 4.5.2.b and 4.5.2.c below shows front and rear isometric views of the closure systems added 

to the BIW model.

Figure 4.5.2.b: Front closure view

Figure 4.5.2.c: Rear closure view
133

4.5.3. Model Mass/Other Information

Total model weight for the V27 update was increased by 23.34 kg to a curb weight of 1173.34kg vs. 

the V26 model primarily due to the increased mass of the body in white which used a higher 

percentage of aluminum and less magnesium than the Phase 1 BIW. 
134

4.5.4. Analysis Results

The following sections show analysis results from crash tests that would be significantly affected by 

the changes made to the CAE model (V26) in previous sections. This new model with fully 

engineered closures is referred to as V27.

4.5.4.1. 33.5-mph Side Impact – Crabbed Barrier

Previously a representation of the door beams and the hinge and latch reinforcements had been 

included. With the inclusion of the closure in the model it is possible to monitor the intrusion of the 

door inner structure under this load case. The FMVSS214 test is a requirement where the pass/fail is 

determined on occupant injury so would require door trim and the restraints to be modeled for 

correctness. To ensure that the side airbag could deploy unhindered the door intrusion velocity and 

displacement is monitored. Figure 4.5.4.1.a shows the model setup with the barrier in place.

Figure 4.5.4.1.a: Model analysis setup
135

Figures 4.5.4.1.b and 4.5.4.1.c below show the vehicle deformation following impact.

Figure 4.5.4.1.b: Vehicle Deformation (0.1s)

Figure 4.5.4.1.c: Vehicle Deformation (barrier not shown)
136

Figures 4.5.4.1.d and 4.5.4.1.e show the vehicle and barrier velocities and the B pillar relative 

intrusion velocities. 

Figure 4.5.4.1.d: Global Vehicle and Barrier Velocities

Figure 4.5.4.1.e: Relative Intrusion Velocities (B-pillar)
137

Figures 4.5.4.1.f and 4.5.4.1.g show the B pillar and the front/rear door intrusion displacements. 

Figure 4.5.4.1.f: Relative Intrusion Displacements (B-pillar)

Figure 4.5.4.1.g: Relative Intrusion Displacements (Front/Rear Door)
138

Figure 4.5.4.1.h shows the intrusion for the B pillar at the B-pillar centerline. 

Figure 4.5.4.1.h: B-Pillar Intrusion profile x=2842

Figure 4.5.4.1.i shows the intrusion displacements for the struck side of the car.

Figure 4.5.4.1.i: Intrusion levels on Struck-side
139

Figure 4.5.4.1.j shows the plastic strain for the struck side of the car.

Figure 4.5.4.1.j: Plastic Strain in Struck-side Doors

Figure 4.5.4.1.k shows the energy balance for the struck side of the car.

Figure 4.5.4.1.k: Energy Balance
140

4.5.4.1.1. Observations - Side Impact MDB

With the inclusion of the doors into the CAE model the time for the cross-over velocity (vehicle is 

moving with same velocity as barrier) occurs at 48ms. This is 17ms earlier than without the 

closures. This indicates that the vehicle side impact performance is stiffer than previous analyses 

predicted.

The intrusion velocity of the B-Pillar is also predicted to have reduced slightly.

The intrusion of the B-Pillar into the vehicle during impact is predicted to be 65mm, which is a 

15mm improvement over the previous (#26) model or a reduction of 19% vs. the original model. 

The maximum intrusion of the door inner panel is also predicted to be 65mm maximum. This 

maximum occurs at the approximate z-height location with the pelvis of the dummy.

One of the reasons for the minimal predicted intrusion under this load case is the location of the 

door intrusion beams. These have been located such that there is an overlap with the B-Pillar which 

means that when it is loaded in side impact it becomes trapped between the barrier and the B-Pillar. 

The B pillar uses hot stamped boron steel material which has extremely high yield strength. This 

means that it has more elastic deformation capability than regular steel (i.e. HSLA). Note that 

elastic deformation will absorb more energy (per unit displacement) than plastic deformation. At the 

forward location of the rear door intrusion beam attachment to the door inner panel, the analysis 

predicts that there is material failure of the cast magnesium inner. 

With these improved results predicted by the analysis, the ability for the occupant restraints system 

to work should not be compromised by the body structure. 
141

4.5.4.2. 20mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (5th

Percentile Female)

The FMVSS214 20mph 75degree pole load case is carried out with a rigid pole lined up with the 

occupant head center-of-gravity location (2590.5x/-393.8y) along the direction of travel. It is carried 

out with a 5th %ile female dummy and a 50th %ile male dummy. As the two dummies put the seat in 

two different locations the initial impact points are different, requiring two separate analyses be 

preformed.

As with the moving barrier impact case, the requirement is to monitor the injury of the occupants. 

This analysis would be carried out on a full vehicle with closures, dummies, interior and a restraints 

system. The updated model (#27) includes the closures so their response (intrusion levels and 

velocities) can also be evaluated. Figure 4.5.4.2.a shows the model setup.

Figure 4.5.4.2.a: 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (5th percentile female) model 

setup
142

Figures 4.5.4.2.b and 4.5.4.2.c show the vehicle deformation following the pole strike.

Figure 4.5.4.2.b: Vehicle Deformation (0.1s)

Figure 4.5.4.2.c: Vehicle deformation from 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (5th 

percentile female, pole blanked)
143

Figures 4.5.4.2.d and 4.5.4.2.e show the intrusion velocities and displacements for the B pillar and 

front door.

Figure 4.5.4.2.d: Intrusion Velocities (B-Pillar & Front Door)

Figure 4.5.4.2.e: Intrusion Displacements (B-Pillar& Front Door)
144

Figure 4.5.4.2.f shows the intrusion levels at the centerline of the B pillar.

Figure 4.5.4.2.f: Section through B-Pillar, x= 2842

Figure 4.5.4.2.g shows the intrusion levels for the struck side of the front door.

Figure 4.5.4.2.g: Intrusion levels on struck side
145

Figure 4.5.4.2.h shows the energy balance for the struck side of the front door. The energy balance 

show the analysis is valid as the overall energy of the crash is conserved.

Figure 4.5.4.2.h: Energy Balance
146

4.5.4.3. 20-mph 75° Side Pole Impact – Front (50th

percentile Male)

The FMVSS214 20-mph, 75-degree pole load-case for the male seating position will put the initial 

pole contact point further rearwards (179.5mm) in vehicle than for the 5th percentile female. Figure 

4.5.4.3.a shows the model set-up.

Figure 4.5.4.3.a: 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (50th percentile male) model setup

Figures 4.5.4.3.b and 4.5.4.3.c show the vehicle deformation after impact.

Figure 4.5.4.3.b: Vehicle Deformation (0.1s) after impact
147

Figure 4.5.4.3.c: Vehicle Deformation (Pole Blanked)

Figures 4.5.4.3.d and 4.5.4.3.e show the intrusion velocities and displacements for the front door 

and B pillar.

Figure 4.5.4.3.d: Intrusion Velocities (B-Pillar & Front Door) after 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole 

impact -- front (50th percentile male)
148

Figure 4.5.4.3.e: Intrusion Displacements (B-Pillar & Front Door) after 20-mph, 75-degree sidepole impact -- front (50th percentile male)

Figures 4.5.4.3.f and 4.5.4.3.g show the intrusion displacements for the front door and at the 

centerline of the B pillar.

Figure 4.5.4.3.f: Intrusion levels on struckside after 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front 

(50th percentile male)
149

Figure 4.5.4.3.g: Section through B-Pillar, x= 2842 after 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact --

front (50th percentile male)

Figure 4.5.4.3.h shows the plastic strain for the front door.

Figure 4.5.4.3.h: Plastic Strain in Front Door after 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front 

(50th percentile male)
150

Figure 4.5.4.3.i shows the energy balance and that the analysis was valid as no energy was created 

nor destroyed.

Figure 4.5.4.3.i: Energy Balance for 20-mph, 75-degree side-pole impact -- front (50th percentile 

male)
151

4.5.4.3.1. Observations - Side Impact Pole

The side pole impact load cases show that for both the 5th female and the 50th male load cases the 

intrusion is predicted to be at a maximum at similar door locations. Figure 4.5.4.3.1.a shows a 

section cut @ 1100z showing the deformation of the 5th load case (in red) vs. the 50th(in green). 

Intrusion levels at the B-Pillar are different and are a result of the pole location loading directing 

into the B-Pillar in the 50th location compared to loading into the door on the 5th.

Figure 4.5.4.3.1.a: 5

th percentile female vs. 50th percentile male front door

intrusion comparison

The cast magnesium door inner material required the inner and outer waist rail reinforcements to be 

designed to provide extra support. In the 50th male load case there is some tearing of the door inner 

panel predicted by the analysis that is not predicted in the 5th. This material failure was not 

previously predicted. The location of the pole in the 50th load case results in more load being 

reacted at the rear end of the front door. This is a result of the longer moment arm between the pole 

location and the center of gravity for the forward vehicle mass including the engine and 

transmission more than offsetting the pole moving closer to the B pillar structure.

In both load cases the rocker is the first substantial load bearing member that the pole contacts 

which is supported by a number of cross-members. There is more deformation in this area in the 5th

load case as the pole deforms the rocker between two cross-members whereas in the 50th case one of 

the cross-members is directly behind the loaded point in the rocker.

In both load cases the levels of intrusion are predicted to be larger at the door ~50mm than at the BPillar. Neither load case is predicting dynamic deformation of the interior body structure above 

250mm.
152

4.5.4.4. Roof Crush

The FMVSS216a roof crush load case evaluates vehicle performance in a ‘roll-over’ crash scenario. 

The actual test is carried out quasi-statically to represent a load being applied to the upper A-pillar 

joint. The regulation specifies that the vehicle should be able to withstand 3 times its curb weight 

without loading the head of a Hybrid III 50th percentile male occupant with more than 222N (50lbs). 

This analysis includes testing for the 95th and 99th percentile male occupants.

The previous version (#26) of the CAE model predicted performance levels that were acceptable. 

The reasons for performing this analysis on the latest version of the model (#27) were due to the 

changes that were made to the A-Pillar/Front Header & Cowl to improve the stiffness performance. 

Figure 4.5.4.4.a shows the model setup.

Figure 4.5.4.4.a: Roof crush model setup
153

Figure 4.5.4.4.b shows the roof deformation for a series of increasing platen displacements.

Figure 4.5.4.4.b: Deformation at 0/40/80/150mm of Platen Displacement

Figure 4.5.4.4.c shows the roof deformation relative to 95th and 99thpercentile head clearance 

zones.

Figure 4.5.4.4.c: Deformation in Relation to occupant head clearance zones (95th/99th)

@ 0/40/80/150mm of Platen Displacement
154

Figures 4.5.4.4.d and 4.5.4.4.e show the roof deformation relative to the FMVSS 216 requirement.

Figure 4.5.4.4.d: Roof Displacement vs. Applied Force – 3 times Curb Weight

Figure 4.5.4.4.e: Roof Displacement vs. Applied Force – 3 times Venza Weight
155

Figure 4.5.4.4.f shows the roof plastic strain relative to platen displacement.

Figure 4.5.4.4.f: Plastic Strains @ 0/40/80/150mm of Roof Platen Displacement
156

4.5.4.4.1. Observations - Roof Crush

The current model is predicting results that are very similar to the previous version of the model 

(V26). The analysis predicts that the 3*vehicle weight requirement (FMVSS216a) is achieved 

within the first 20mm of platen displacement performance and that 4*vehicle weight requirement 

(IIHS – Good Rating) will be achieved within 25mm of platen displacement.

The styling of the upper greenhouse of the vehicle and the rake of the windshield direct the platen 

loads through the B-Pillar. This load is reacted in compression which provides a substantially higher 

load carrying capacity that at the base of the A-Pillar, which is put into bending. The figure below 

shows the location and magnitude of forces in the A & B-Pillars. Figure 4.5.4.4.1.a shows the 

relative forces acting on the A and B pillars.

Figure 4.5.4.4.1.a: Resultant force magnitude in A & B-Pillars from roof crush test
157

4.5.4.5. Rear Impact

The FMVSS301 50mph 70-percent overlap rear moving deformable barrier load case primary 

function is to ensure the vehicle fuel system integrity is maintained to reduce potential vehicle fires 

caused by fuel spillage, during and after impact. The previous model did not indicate that there 

would be any issues with the integrity of the fuel tank/filler; the model was re-evaluated under this 

load case as there had been a change to the rear bumper system.

Assessment was carried out by looking at the deformation of the body structure around the fuel tank 

as well as the fuel tank and the fuel tank/filler. Figure 4.5.4.5.a shows the model setup.

Figure 4.5.4.5.a: Rear Impact Model Set up
158

Figures 4.5.4.5.b and 4.5.4.5.c show the vehicle deformation.

Figure 4.5.4.5.b: Vehicle Deformation (t=0.12s)

Figure 4.5.4.5.c: Vehicle Deformation (Barrier Blanked)
159

Figure 4.5.4.5.d shows the vehicle deformation as a function of the event timing.

Figure 4.5.4.5.d: Vehicle Deformation (@ 0ms/40ms/80ms/120ms) after rear impact

Figure 4.5.4.5.e shows the B pillar acceleration levels as a function of the event timing.

Figure 4.5.4.5.e: Vehicle Acceleration Pulse during rear impact
160

Figure 4.5.4.5.f shows the vehicle & barrier velocities.

Figure 4.5.4.5.f: Vehicle & Barrier Velocities during rear impact simulation

Figure 4.5.4.5.g shows the fuel tank plastic strain.

Figure 4.5.4.5.g: Fuel Tank Plastic Strains after rear impact
161

Figure 4.5.4.5.h shows the energy balance is valid as the overall energy is held constant.

Figure 4.5.4.5.h: Rear impact energy balance
162

4.5.4.5.1. Observations - Rear Impact

The barrier to vehicle cross-over velocity occurs 2ms earlier than previously predicated at ~67ms; 

and the vehicle acceleration response also shows a slight increase in the peak accelerations reported 

for the struck side of the vehicle.

The reduced time to cross-over velocity and increase in the acceleration response is expected as 

there is less compliance in the vehicle; excluding the tailgate results in less stiffness of the rear 

aperture, and including the ‘full’ doors with result in less flexing of the door apertures.

There is an area on the fuel tank where there is plastic strain and this is more a modeling induced 

strain rather than a real factor, as there are four rigid connections used between the fuel tank straps 

and the fuel tank to hold it in place. Rigid elements concentrate the load transfer between the 

connected parts to discrete nodes which is somewhat unrealistic in the case of the tank straps as 

these would spread the load over a larger area. Plastic strain in the fuel tank is predicted to be 3.6-

percent maximum, which is less than the failure strain for the typical plastic fuel tank material 

properties (generic plastic properties used in the CAE model with a yield stress of 25MPa). This is 

shown in Figure 4.5.4.5.1 a.

Figure 4.5.4.5.1.a: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain location after rear impact
163

The airbag that was included to monitor the pressure change in the fuel tank indicates a change of 

less than 0.3psi (<2 percent); this is the same as predicted for the previous run.

As a result of moving the rear bumper armature rearwards the length of the crush can has increased. 

This increase in length increases the moment arm (measured from the rearward face of the bumper 

armature to the mounting surface). While this does not noticeably change the mode of deformation, 

it does make it harder to resist the rotation of the bumper armature. This rotation is shown in Figure 

4.5.4.5.1.b.

Figure 4.5.4.5.1.b: Initial vehicle armature rotation during rear impact

It will be difficult to get to the ideal failure mode (axial crush) using extrusions. The ideal loading 

would ensure 100-percent engagement of the vehicle armature with the barrier. The height locations 

of vehicle armatures are typically set based upon the requirements for FMVSS Part 581 pendulum. 

Extending the rail and bumper armature to get full engagement is not required as the analysis 

predict that the vehicle deformation occurs behind the rear wheels.
164

4.5.4.6. IIHS Low Speed – Rear

The previous V26 model IIHS rear low speed analysis indicated that in both the 10kph ‘full’ 

overlap and 5kph 15-percent overlap load cases there could be potential for damage to occur to the 

body. It was not possible to state that this would be eliminated 100 percent with the inclusion of 

bumper foam (which is typically used, but not included in the CAE model).

With the inclusion of the rear tailgate in the V27 model the rear lower edge was the rearward most 

point in the vehicle. This indicates that for these IIHS load cases there would be damage to the nonbumper system components.

The latest version of the CAE model (#27) include a modified bumper beam assembly, where the 

curvature of the bumper follows the curvature of the tailgate lower edge and is also the rearward 

most point in the vehicle. The model does not include the fascia or foam which would add an 

additional 40-50mm.

The CAE performance assessment is based on the extent of any permanent deformation and plastic 

strain that is predicted in the structure. Figure 4.5.4.6.a shows the model setup.

Figure 4.5.4.6.a: Low-speed IIHS impact model setup (‘full’)
165

Figure 4.5.4.6.b shows the plastic strain for the impact beam for a center impact.

Figure 4.5.4.6.b: IIHS low-speed impact element plastic strains (‘full’)

Figure 4.5.4.6.c shows the model setup for an offset impact.

Figure 4.5.4.6.c: IIHS low-speed impact model setup (‘offset’)
166

Figure 4.5.4.6.d shows the plastic strain for the impact beam for an offset impact.

Figure 4.5.4.6.d: IIHS low-speed impact element plastic strain (‘offset’)
167

4.5.4.6.1. Observations - IIHS Low Speed – Rear

In the ‘full’ overlap load case the center of the bumper armature is predicted to deform a maximum 

of ~85mm during impact and have ~66mm of permanent deformation once the impact event is over. 

With the change to the shape and location of the rear bumper armature there is ~125mm of available 

space (measured on vehicle centerline) before there would be contact.

The barrier upper ‘rigid’ plane does ‘intrude’ into the bottom edge of the tailgate by ~27mm (see 

figure below). Contact was not defined between these parts as the maximum interaction would be 

measured during post-processing. Typically bumper systems are comprised of an armature, EA 

foam and a plastic fascia. The ARB model does not include these additional items as they are part of 

a styled bumper system which was beyond the project scope. This hardware would (i) spread the 

load over a wider area of the armature and (ii) impart load onto the bumper armature earlier 

therefore slowing the vehicle down sooner. Typical EA foam thickness on vehicle centerline would 

be ~75mm. Under this impact case the EA foam would compress to approximately 60% of its 

original thickness (~45mm); therefore if the model did include a full bumper system there would be 

no direct contact between any bodywork and the barrier and no damage to the body. Figure 

4.5.4.6.1.a illustrates the maximum deflection showing barrier intrusion into tailgate.

Figure 4.5.4.6.1.a: Maximum deflection showing barrier intrusion into tailgate
168

Plastic strain under this loading is contained within the bumper system, with the maximum strain 

occurring in the heat affected zone (the welded area between the armature and crush can).

In the ‘offset’ impact load case, the analysis predicts that there will be no contact between the 

barrier and the vehicle bodywork. The maximum dynamic deflection at the end of the armature is 

predicted to be ~86mm and there is sufficient clearance to the body such that there should be not 

contact. Deflection at the end of the analysis (200ms) is predicted to be ~72ms. Unlike the 100-

percent overlap case the analysis predicts lateral movement of ~37mm in the vehicle during the 

impact as it ‘slides’ along the face of the barrier. During this sliding the barrier remains in contact 

will the bumper armature (still 50mm of engagement) until the vehicle starts to rebound. See Figure 

4.5.4.6.1.b below.

Figure 4.5.4.6.1.b: ‘Deformation’ @ maximum deflection

As with the 100-percent overlap load case the plastic strain is contained within the bumper system. 

As the barrier loads an unrestrained end of the armature, the plastic strains are confined to the 

armature and the crush can welded area on the struck side.
169

4.5.5. Bill of Materials.

The body structure Bill of Materials (BOM) is shown below in Table 4.5.5.a. The mass is 

241.8 kg, which is 37-percent lower than the baseline Toyota Venza body structure. The 

total parts count of the Phase 2 HD body is 169, compared to 211 for the Phase 1 HD 

body and 419 parts for the baseline Venza body. The direct manufacturing cost of this 

Phase 2 HD BIW design is approximately $432. Note that the front end module is not part 

of the BIW structure as it is a bolt on part. It is included in the parts count, mass and cost 

to provide parity with the baseline Venza BIW which includes this structure. The BIW mass 

is 234.1 kg.

Table 4.5.5.a: Bill of materials

Part Number Part Name Material Thickness 

(mm)

BIW Mass (kg)

Complete body - less bumpers and fenders 241.8

Front End

7305-2400-209 Front end module Magnesium - AM60 4.50 5.85

7305-2400-001 Small crossmember reinforcement Aluminum - 6022-T4 4.00 1.23

7305-2400-002 Large crossmember reinforcement Aluminum - 6022-T4 4.00 0.57

Sub-total 7.66

Floor

7306-2400-229 Floor panels (left and right) Composite 7.77

7306-2400-231 Center floor panel Composite 1.81

7307-2400-115 Rear passenger compartment floor panel Composite 3.27

Sub-total 12.85

Left-side Bodyside Outer Assembly

7306-2300-185 Rear panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.20 5.15

7306-2300-183 Front panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.20

7306-2300-187 Lower, rear, quarter panel closeout Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.41

7306-2300-189 Flange to body panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.46

7306-2300-191 Tail lamp close out panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 0.09

Sub-total 6.11

Right-side Bodyside Outer Assembly

7306-2300-186 Rear panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.20 5.16

7306-2300-184 Front panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.20

7306-2300-188 Lower, rear, quarter panel closeout Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.41

7306-2300-190 Flange to body panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.46

7306-2300-192 Tail lamp close out panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 0.09

Sub-total 6.12

Roof and Header

7306-2200-109 Roof panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.20 9.05

7306-2000-215 Rear roof side rail inner - left Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.00 0.78

7306-2000-171 Front roof side rail inner - left Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.00 0.40

7306-2000-216 Rear roof side rail inner - right Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.00 0.78
170

7306-2000-172 Front roof side rail inner - right Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.00 0.40

7306-2100-101 Front header Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 1.81

7306-2100-103 Center header Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 1.65

7307-2100-104 Rear header Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.99

Sub-total 16.86

Left-side D-Pillar Assembly

7307-2110-179 Liftgate reinforcement Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.14

7307-2110-105 D-pillar inner Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.47

7307-2110-177 Quarter panel inner Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.18

Sub-total 3.79

Right-side D-Pillar Assembly

7307-2120-180 Liftgate reinforcement Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.14

7307-2120-106 D-pillar inner Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.47

7307-2120-178 Quarter panel inner Aluminum - 6022 - T6 2.50 1.18

Sub-total 3.79

Shotgun Closeouts

7305-1900-159 Shotgun closeout panel - left Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.06

7305-1900-160 Shotgun closeout panel - right Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.06

Sub-total 0.12

Lower Left A-Pillar Outer Assembly

7305-1930-169 Shotgun outer panel Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.00 0.94

7305-1930-187 Lower panel Aluminum - 6061 - T6 3.00 3.33

7305-1930-171 Upper hinge reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.15

7305-1930-173 Lower hinge reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.12

Sub-total 4.54

Lower Right A-Pillar Outer Assembly

7305-1940-170 Shotgun outer panel Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.00 0.94

7305-1940-188 Lower panel Aluminum - 6061 - T6 3.00 3.33

7305-1940-184 Upper hinge reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.15

7305-1940-186 Lower hinge reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.12

Sub-total 4.54

Right Door Aperature Assembly

Right B-Pillar Sub-Assembly

7306-1920-190 Upper A-pillar outer panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 1.33

7306-1920-192 Outer roof side rail Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.50 0.86

7306-1920-194 C-pillar striker reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.30

7306-1920-196 C-pillar outer Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.50 3.24

Sub-total 5.72

Right B-Pillar Outer Sub-Assembly

7306-1924-002 Lower B-pillar outer SSAB Tunnplat Docol® 1400 

DP High-strength Steel

1.40 5.51

7306-1924-004 Upper B-pillar outer Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.49

7306-1924-006 Upper, inner reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.49

7306-1924-008 Middle, inner reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.23

7306-1924-010 Lower, inner reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.56

Sub-total 7.27

Right B-Pillar Inner Sub-Assembly
171

7306-1926-012 Lower B-pillar inner SSAB Tunnplat Docol® 1400 

DP High-strength Steel

1.40 2.72

7306-1915-001 Beltline reinforcement plate Mild Steel 3.18 0.06

7306-1915-002 B-pillar reinforcement Terocore structural 3.00 1.53

7306-1926-014 B-pillar, upper, inner Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.00 0.18

Sub-total 4.49

Left Door Aperature Assembly

Left B-Pillar Sub-Assembly

7306-1910-189 Upper A-pillar outer panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 1.33

7306-1910-191 Outer roof side rail Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.50 0.86

7306-1910-193 C-pillar striker reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.30

7306-1910-195 C-pillar outer Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.50 3.24

Sub-total 5.72

Left B-Pillar Outer Sub-Assembly

7306-1913-001 Lower B-pillar outer SSAB Tunnplat Docol® 1400 

DP High-strength Steel

1.40 5.51

7306-1913-003 Upper B-pillar outer Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.49

7306-1913-005 Upper, inner reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.49

7306-1913-007 Middle, inner reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.23

7306-1913-009 Lower, inner reinforcement Mild Steel 3.00 0.56

Sub-total 7.27

Left B-Pillar Inner Sub-Assembly

7306-1915-011 Lower B-pillar inner SSAB Tunnplat Docol® 1400 

DP High-strength Steel

1.40 2.72

7306-1915-001 Beltline reinforcement plate Mild Steel 3.18 0.06

7306-1915-003 B-pillar reinforcement Terocore structural 3.00 1.53

7306-1915-013 B-pillar, upper, inner Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.00 0.18

Sub-total 4.49

Cowl

7305-1800-145 Upper cowl panel Magnesium - AM60 4.00 2.52

7305-1700-147 Cowl support Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.50 1.86

Sub-total 4.38

Left Dash Transmission Assembly

7305-1530-221 Dash-transmission reinforcement Aluminum - 6013 - T6 3.00 1.55

7305-1530-223 Dash-transmission insert Aluminum - 6013 - T6 3.00 0.09

Sub-total 1.64

Right Dash Transmission Assembly

7305-1520-222 Dash-transmission reinforcement Aluminum - 6013 - T6 3.00 1.55

7305-1520-224 Dash-transmission insert Aluminum - 6013 - T6 3.00 0.09

Sub-total 1.64

Rear End Panel Assembly

7307-1510-111 Outer panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 2.13

7307-1510-117 Inner panel Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 3.61

Sub-total 5.74

Rear Crossmember Assembly

7307-1410-119 Rear compartment crossmember Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 4.26

7307-1410-120 Hanger bracket extrusion Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 0.35

Sub-total 4.61
172

Left Front Wheelhouse Assembly

7305-1310-151 Front shock tower Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 1.09

7305-1310-161 Front wheelhouse panel Magnesium - AM60 6.00 2.05

Sub-total 3.14

Right Front Wheelhouse Assembly

7305-1320-152 Front shock tower Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 1.09

7305-1320-162 Front wheelhouse panel Magnesium - AM60 6.00 2.05

Sub-total 3.14

Rear Seat Pan Assembly

7306-1200-113 Rear seat panel floor Aluminum - 6022-T4 1.50 3.98

7306-1200-111 Seatbelt anchrage plate - right and left Aluminum - 6022-T4 3.00 0.10

7307-1200-218 Rear frame rail outer transition - right Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 4.28

7307-1200-217 Rear frame rail outer transition - left Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 4.28

Sub-total 12.65

Rear Center Seat Riser Assembly

7306-1110-101 Rear center seat riser Aluminum - 6022-T4 1.50 1.63

7306-1110-103 Rear seat floor reinforcement - left Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.28

7306-1000-176 Rear seat riser - right Aluminum - 6022-T4 1.50 0.44

7306-1000-175 Rear seat riser - left Aluminum - 6022-T4 1.50 0.44

Sub-total 2.78

Rear Frame Rail Assembly

7307-1000-139 Rear frame rail - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.5/2.75 3.81

7307-1000-138 Rear frame rail mounting plate - right and left Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.28

Sub-total 4.09

Right Front Frame Rail Assembly

7307-1020-136 Front frame rail Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.5/2.75 1.54

7307-1020-224 Front frame rail mounting plate Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.00 0.18

Sub-total 1.71

Right Front Rail Mount Sub-Assembly

7307-1011-001 Front rail mount Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.09

7307-1011-003 Front rail mount cvr - left and right Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.12

Sub-total 0.21

Left Front Frame Rail Assembly

7307-1010-135 Front frame rail Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.5/2.75 1.54

7307-1010-223 Front frame rail mounting plate Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.00 0.18

Sub-total 1.71

Left Front Rail Mount Sub-Assembly

7307-1011-001 Front rail mount Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.09

7307-1011-003 Front rail mount cvr - left and right Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.12

Sub-total 0.21

Transitions

7305-1200-210 Front frame rail outer transition - right Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 3.11

7305-1200-209 Front frame rail outer transition - left Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 3.11

7305-0900-138 Front frame rail inner transition - right Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 3.07

7305-0900-137 Front frame rail inner transition - left Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 3.07
173

7307-0900-142 Rear frame rail inner transition - right Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 3.41

7307-0900-141 Rear frame rail inner transition - left Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 3.41

Sub-total 19.18

Small Floor Crossmember Assembly

7306-0830-124 Small outer extrusion - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 0.61

7306-0830-125 Small floor crossmember - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.50 4.89

7306-0830-126 Small inner extrusion - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 0.54

Sub-total 6.04

Large Floor Crossmember Assembly

7306-0840-010 Large outer extrusion - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 0.51

7306-0840-011 Large floor crossmember - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.50 2.62

7306-0840-012 Large inner extrusion - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 0.17

7306-0850-000 Fore and aft extrusion - right and left Aluminum - 6061-T6 3.00 1.89

7306-0860-000 Center tunnel bracket Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.50 0.33

Sub-total 5.51

Dash Panel

7305-1400-143 Upper dash panel Magnesium - AM60 3.00 3.69

7305-1400-144 Lower dash panel Magnesium - AM60 3.00 5.37

7305-1600-149 Dash panel reinforcement Magnesium - AM60 3.0/2.0 2.85

Sub-total 11.91

Miscellaneous Panels and Reinforcements

7307-1600-183 Rear wheelhouse outer panel - left Magnesium - AM60 3.00 2.02

7307-1600-184 Rear wheelhouse outer panel - right Magnesium - AM60 3.00 1.86

7307-1600-213 Rear closeout panel - left Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.50 0.49

7307-1600-214 Rear closeout panel - right Aluminum - 6022 - T4 1.50 0.49

7305-1500-157 Shotgun inner panel - left Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.00 1.05

7305-1500-158 Shotgun inner panel - right Aluminum - 6013 - T6 2.00 1.05

7305-1500-197 A-pillar inner reinforcement panel - left Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.00 0.22

7305-1500-198 A-pillar inner reinforcement panel - right Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.00 0.22

7305-1400-154 Lower A-pillar inner - right Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.00 0.40

7305-1400-153 Lower A-pillar inner - left Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.00 0.40

7307-1400-164 Rear wheelhouse inner - right Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 3.95

7307-1400-163 Rear wheelhouse inner - left Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 3.96

7305-1500-228 Lower A-pillar inner reinforcement - right Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.00 0.17

7305-1500-227 Lower A-pillar inner reinforcement - left Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.00 0.17

7307-1500-168 Shock tower reinforcement - right Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.61

7307-1500-167 Shock tower reinforcement - left Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.50 0.61

7305-1300-156 Upper A-pillar inner - right Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.00 1.60

7305-1300-155 Upper A-pillar inner - left Aluminum - 6022-T4 2.00 1.60

7305-1300-166 Rear shock tower - right Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 2.15

7305-1300-165 Rear shock tower - left Aluminum - 356-T6 3.00 2.15

7306-0820-124 Rocker sill extension - right Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.0/2.5 5.82

7306-0810-123 Rocker sill extension - left Aluminum - 6061-T6 2.0/2.5 5.82

Sub-total 36.77

Table 4.5.5.b below shows a condensed summary of the full BOM table above, breaking 

out the various body components and subsystems. The table exemplifies how an overall 

37-percent mass (141 kg) reduction from the baseline Venza was achieved while individual 
174

components had revised mass reductions. For example, the underbody and floor area 

went from the baseline steel to a mostly aluminum structure and resulted in an 18-percent 

(21 kg) reduction. The dash panel area was constructed out of magnesium instead of the 

baseline steel, which resulted in a 30-percent (5 kg) mass reduction. The new aluminum 

roof structure was 39-percent lighter (7.9 kg) than the conventional steel one. Within the 

vehicle body sides, each aluminum A-pillar resulted in a 50-percent (9.1 kg) mass 

reduction and each HSS B-pillar resulted in a 53-percent (19.7 kg) mass reduction from 

the conventional steel versions.

Table 4.5.5.b: Phase 2 HD Vehicle Body Structure

System Subsystem Standard 

Venza 

(kg)

Percent of 

Body 

Structure

Material Mass (kg) Revised 

Structure 

Total (kg)

Percent 

reduction 

from 

baseline

Piece 

Cost 

Relative 

to Venza

Steel Al Mg Composite Other

Body complete 403.24 260.8 35%

Windshield 

wiper system

9.15 - - - - - 8 13%

Body exterior 

trim items

11.59 - - - - - 6.55 43%

Body structure 382.5 241.8 39%

Underbody & 

floor

113.65 30% - 79.9 - 12.9 - 92.7 18% 110%

Dash panel 15.08 4% - - 11.9 - - 11.9 21% 141%

Front 

structure & 

radiator 

crossmember

25.15 7% - 11.6 5.5 - - 17.1 32% 167%

Body side LH 65.22 17% 10.1 16.5 1.9 - 1.5 33.3 49% 117%

Body side RH 65.22 17% 10.1 16.5 1.9 - 1.5 33.2 49% 117%

Roof 27.83 7% - 16.9 - - - 16.9 39% 298%

Internal 

Structure

58.35 15% - 24.6 - - - 24.6 58%

NVH 8 2% - - - - - 8 0% 100%

Paint 4 1% - - - - - 4 0% 100%

Total 382.5 18 167 27 11 12 241.8 37% 160%

The more prominent changes made between Phase 1 and 2 in order to refine the vehicle 

to meet crash test standards are shown in Table 4.5.5.c below. The table lists the baseline 

Venza, original Phase 1 HD design, and updated Phase 2 design. Several changes were 

made from Phase 1 to Phase 2 such as modifying the B-pillar from aluminum to dualphase 1400 HSS because of roof crush and side impact standards. The Phase 1 floor 

contained aluminum, magnesium, and significant amounts of composite material, but the 

Phase 2 floor has moved to a more aluminum-intensive composite structure for 

manufacturing reasons.

Magnesium was used extensively in the front structure, roof, and A-pillar design of the 

Phase 1 HD design, but the metal proved too brittle to meet crash standards. The 

validated Phase 2 HD model uses primarily aluminum for all these structures. The lower Apillar inner however, is integrated into the magnesium dash casting and the move to an 

aluminum A-pillar allowed for an increase in cross-sectional area to stiffen the body and 

increase torsional stiffness. Changes were made to the C-pillar design as well, moving 
175

from a magnesium structure to an aluminum and steel structure for the same reasons as 

the A-pillar.

Table 4.5.5.c: Summary of changes from Phase 1 HD to Phase 2 HD

Body Subsystem Venza 

(kg)

Phase 1 

HD (kg)

Phase 2 

HD (kg)

Phase 2 

Material Shift

Reason for 

Change

Underbody/Floor 113.7 83.8 92.7 Mix to mostly 

aluminum

Manufacturing

Front structure and radiator 

crossmember

25.2 18.6 17.1 Magnesium to 

aluminum

Frontal impact, 

FMVSS 208

Body-side A-pillar 18.2 12.8 9.1 Magnesium to 

aluminum

Roof crush, 

frontal impact

Body-side B-pillar 37.19 17.13 17.48 Magnesium to 

aluminum and 

HSS

Roof crush, side 

impact

C-pillar 12.8 10.2 3.5 Magnesium to 

steel and 

aluminum

Roof crush, side 

impact

Roof 27.8 16.8 16.9 Magnesium to 

aluminum

Roof crush

Figure 4.5.5.a below lists all masses in kg.

184

2 0

187

320

1 5 1 8

8 2

167

6 7

3 3

4 6

1 1

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

5

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

 Orig inal Venz a

 L ow Devt (P h as e 1)

Hig h Devt (P has e 1)Hig h Devt (P has e 2)

B IW mas s by material (kg )

O ther

P lastics

Magnesium

Aluminum

High-strength

steel

S teel/iron

7 % 42% 38%

Figure 4.5.5.a: Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 vehicle body structure by material

Table 4.5.5.d below shows a comparison of all system masses for the baseline 2009 

Venza, the Phase 1 Low Development and High Development models and the Phase 2 

model. The bumper mass for the Phase 2 model was adjusted from 15.95 kg to 20.17 kg 
176

to adjust for the increased front and rear bumper masses. These systems were designed 

in CAD as part of the Phase 2 study and were engineered as part of the energy absorbing 

structure. The bumper beam masses increased by 1.05 kg (front) and 1.39 kg (rear). The 

bumper crush cans added an additional 0.86 kg at the front and 0.92 kg at the rear. The 

total mass of the Phase 2 model was 1173 kg; this mass was used as the basis for all 

analyses performed as part of this study.

Table 4.5.5.d: Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 system masses

Area/System Venza Baseline 

Mass (kg)

Phase 1 Low 

Development 

Mass (kg)

Phase 1 High 

Development Mass 

(kg)

Phase 2 High 

Development 

Mass (kg)

Body-in-white 382.5 357.4 221.1 241.8

Closures/Fenders 143.02 107.6 83.98 83.98

Bumpers 17.95 15.95 20.17 20.17

Thermal 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25

Electrical 23.6 16.68 15.01 15.01

Interior 250.6 182.0 153 153

Lighting 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9

Suspension/Chassis 378.9 275.5 217.0 217.0

Glazing 43.71 43.7 43.71 43.71

Misc. 30.1 22.9 22.9 22.9

Powertrain 410.16 356.2 356.2 356.2

Total excluding powertrain 1290 1041 795 817

Reduction from baseline - 19% 39% 38%

Total including powertrain 1700 1397 1151 1173

Reduction from baseline - 18% 32% 31%

The baseline and Phase 1 mass information was published in 2010 by the International Council on 

Clean Transportation in a report titled: An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-

2020 Model Year Vehicle Program. The link to this study is: 

http://www.theicct.org/pubs/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf
177

Figure 4.5.5.b below shows the total vehicle material utilization by mass for the baseline, Phase 1, 

and Phase 2 models.

663

210

8 0 8 0

476

672

161 164

8 5

8 4

264 350

7

2 8

184

156

153

126

184 148

6 8

5 6

6 9 6 9

255

224

207 207

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

 Orig inal Venz a

 L ow Devt (P h as e 1)

Hig h Devt (P has e 1)Hig h Devt (P has e 2)

Vehic le mas s by material (kg )

O ther

G lass

P lastics

Magnesium

Aluminum

High-strength

steel

S teel/iron

18% 32% 31%

Figure 4.5.5.b: Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 full vehicle material composition

4.5.5.1 Closures Bill of Materials

A separate BOM was constructed for just the fully engineered closures. The total weight increased 

to 90.4 kg from the estimated 84.0 kg due to changes in material from magnesium to aluminum. 

The full BOM is listed in Table 4.5.5.1.a below.

Table 4.5.5.1.a: Closures BOM

Part Number Part Name Material Thickness 

(mm)

Mass (kg)

 Closures 90.4

Liftgate

7308-2610-001 Liftgate inner Magnesium - AM60 3.00 7.318

7308-2610-002 Liftgate outer Aluminum - 6063-T4 1.20 5.673

7308-2610-003 Panel - Spoiler PPO+PA Noryl GTX 3.00 1.034

7308-2610-004 Liftgate bracket – gas strut anchor - inner Aluminum - 6063-T4 3.00 0.036

7308-2610-005 Bracket – hinge upper Aluminum - 6063-T4 3.0 0.021

7308-2610-005 Bracket – liftgate hinge base Aluminum - 6063-T4 3.0 0.021

Sub-total 14.10
178

Door Front – LH

7308-2710-001 Panel - Door outer - LH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1.2 3.28

7308-2810-002 Panel - Door inner - LH Magnesium - AM60 3.0 4.18

7308-2810-003 Beam – Reinf’t Front Door HSS-950 1.4 1.381

7308-2810-004 Bracket- Frt. Dr. Hinge support HSS-950 1.4 0.4951

7308-2810-005 Beam – Reinf.-Frt. Dr. outer HSS-950 1.4 0.4917

7308-2810-006 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 3.0 0.0666

7308-2810-007 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-2810-008 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-2810-009 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-2810-010 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-2810-011 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-2810-012 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-2810-013 Striker – Front Door latch reinf’t HSS - 950 1.5 0.361

73082810-014 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 3.0 0.9276

Sub-total 13.68

Door Front – RH

7308-2710-001 Panel - Door outer - RH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1.2 3.28

7308-2810-002 Panel - Door inner - RH Magnesium - AM60 3.0 4.18

7308-2810-003 Beam – Reinf’t Front Door HSS-950 1.4 1.381

7308-2810-004 Bracket- Frt. Dr. Hinge support HSS-950 1.4 0.4951

7308-2810-005 Beam – Reinf.-Frt. Dr. outer HSS-950 1.4 0.4917

7308-2810-006 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 3.0 0.0666

7308-2810-007 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-2810-008 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-2810-009 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-2810-010 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-2810-011 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-2810-012 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-2810-013 Striker – Front Door latch reinf’t HSS - 950 1.5 0.361

73082810-014 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 3.0 0.9276

Sub-total 13.68

Door Rear - LH

7308-2910-001 Panel - Door rear outer - LH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1.2 2.871

7308-2910-002 Panel - Door rear inner - LH Magnesium AM60 3.0 4.3409

7308-2910-003 Beam – Reinf’t Rear Door HSS - 950 1.4 2.127

7308-2910-004 Hinge – Ft Dr Lwr LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-2910-005 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 3.0 0.0666

7308-2910-006 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-2910-007 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-2910-008 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-2910-009 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 5 0.601

7308-2910-010 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-2910-011 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-2910-012 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 3.0 0.6951

7308-2910-013 Striker – latch reinf’t Aluminum 6061 T4 1.4 0.256

7308-2910-014 Bracket – rr dr hinge support Aluminum 6063 T4 2.0 0.263

7308-2910-015 Reinf’t – rr dr outer Aluminum 6063 T4 2.0 0.649
179

7308-2910-016 Reinf’t – rr dr inner Aluminum 6063 T4 2.0 0.649

Sub-total 12.58

Door Rear - RH

7308-3010-001 Panel - Door rear outer - LH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1.2 2.871

7308-3010-002 Panel - Door rear inner - LH Magnesium AM60 3.0 4.3409

7308-3010-003 Beam – Reinf’t Rear Door HSS - 950 1.4 2.127

7308-3010-004 Hinge – Ft Dr Lwr LCS 2.5/2.0 0.364

7308-3010-005 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 3.0 0.0666

7308-3010-006 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 5.0 0.601

7308-3010-007 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-3010-008 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-3010-009 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 5 0.601

7308-3010-010 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 5.0 0.5448

7308-3010-011 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 4.0 0.1026

7308-3010-012 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 3.0 0.6951

7308-3010-013 Striker – latch reinf’t Aluminum 6061 T4 1.4 0.256

7308-3010-014 Bracket – rr dr hinge support Aluminum 6063 T4 2.0 0.263

7308-3010-015 Reinf’t – rr dr outer Aluminum 6063 T4 2.0 0.649

7308-3010-016 Reinf’t – rr dr inner Aluminum 6063 T4 2.0 0.649

Sub-total 12.58

Front Fender Outer - LH

7308-3110-001 Panel - Front Fender Outer - LH Aluminum - 6063 - T4 1.2 4.756

7308-3110-002 Reinf’t – Fender mount at lamp Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.662

7308-3110-003 Brkt – Fender mount mid-upr Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.048

7308-3110-004 Brkt – Fender mount upr Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.07

7308-3110-005 Brkt – Fender mount lwr Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.043

7308-3110-006 Brkt – Fender mount - upr rear Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.053

Sub-total 5.63

Front Fender Outer - RH

7308-3210-001 Panel - Front Fender Outer - LH Aluminum - 6063 - T4 1.2 4.756

7308-3210-002 Reinf’t – Fender mount at lamp Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.662

7308-3210-003 Brkt – Fender mount mid-upr Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.048

7308-3210-004 Brkt – Fender mount upr Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.07

7308-3210-005 Brkt – Fender mount lwr Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.043

7308-3210-006 Brkt – Fender mount - upr rear Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.5 0.053

Sub-total 5.63

Hood

7308-3310-001 Panel - Hood outer Aluminum - 6063 - T4 1.2 4.113

7308-3310-002 Panel - Hood inner Aluminum - 6063 - T4 2.50 8.11

7308-3310-003 Hinge – hood (2x) Aluminum - 6022 - T4 2.50 0.26

Sub-total 12.483
180

4.5.6. Vehicle Manufacturing

A vehicle assembly process was developed to insure that the BIW could be assembled 

and mass-produced in a cost-effective manner. This process was used to drive the part 

design; all parts were analyzed as part of the build flow to insure part to part compatibility 

as well as compatibility with the fixturing and joining processes. The full report is included 

in Appendix A in Sections 7.1 and 7.1.1.

4.5.6.1 Assembly

Vehicle assembly is broken up into 44 different stations across three different 

manufacturing areas – a sub-assembly area, underbody line, and framing line. In total, 

there are 19 different sub-assembly stations, 14 underbody stations, and 11 framing line 

assembly stations. Table 4.5.6.1.a below lists all of the assembly stations, their individual 

functions, and the parts involved. A number of idle stations are included to allow for 

additional production capacity without major retooling.

Table 4.5.6.1.a: Assembly stations, functions, and parts

Station 

Name

Assembly Function Parts Involved

SA05 Front and rear bumper assembly Front and rear bumper brackets, mounting plates, beam

SA10 Front frame rail assemblies Frame rail mounting plates, rails, brackets, transitions, rocker extrusions

SA15 L, R pillar sub-assemblies A-pillar upper and lower, inner reinforcements; B-pillar upper and lower, 

inner and outers; roof rail, C-pillar striker reinforcement

SA20 Rear end assembly L, R shock towers and reinforcements

SA25 X-member sub-assemblies X-member extrusions, brackets, and reinforcements

SA30 Complete floor X-member assembly X-member sub-assemblies, crossbraces, reinforcements

SA35 Rear end panel and compartment Xmember assemblyRear inner and outer panels, X-member extrusion and brackets

SA40 Side rail assemblies Rail and rocker extrusions, brackets, transitions, 

SA45 L, R rear wheelhouse assemblies D-pillar inners, quarter panel inners, liftgate reinforcements, wheelhouse 

inners

SA50 Dash sub-assembly Dash panel, reinforcements

SA55 Dash assembly Dash sub-assembly, dash reinforcement, cowl panel support

SA60 Rear seat assembly Rear seat risers, floor reinforcements, floor panel

SA65 L, R front wheelhouse assemblies Front wheelhouse panels, shotguns, shock towers

SA70-10 L, R roof, B-pillar bodyside inner 

assemblies

Front and rear roof side inners, upper and lower B-pillar inners

SA70-20 L, R A-pillar outer assemblies L, R A-pillar upper and lower outers, shotgun outers

SA70-30 L, R C-pillar bodyside inner assemblies L, R roof side rail sub-assembly, C-pillar outer upper

SA75 L, R A-pillar inner sub-assemblies L, R A-pillar upper and lower inners, A-pillar sub-assemblies

SA80 L, R bodyside outer assembly L, R rear quarter panel, tail lamp closeout, bodyside outer, bodyside 

outer frame rail, flange

SA85 L, R inner B-Pillar assembly L, R B-pillar sub-assembly, upper and lower inner reinforcements
181

UB100 Initial underbody assembly Floor crossmember, rear end, rear end panel, side rail assemblies

UB110 Initial underbody assembly Floor crossmember, rear end, rear end panel, side rail assemblies

UB120 Rear wheelhouse and dash buildup Previous underobdy build, dash assembly, dash transmission 

reinforcements, rear wheelhouse assemblies

UB130 Idle

UB140 Weld respotting Previous underbody build

UB150 Rear seat and A-pillar buildup Previous underbody build, rear seat assembly, A-pillar assemblies

UB160 Idle

UB170 Front wheelhouse buildup Previous underbody build, front wheelhouse assemblies

UB180 Central flooring Previous underbody build, center floor panels

UB190 Rear wheelhouse lining and rear rear 

flooring

Previous underbody build, rear wheelhouse outers, rear floor panel

UB200 Weld respotting Previous underbody build

UB210 Stud application Previous underbody build

UB220 Camera inspection Previous underbody build

UB230 Elevator to framing Previous underbody build

FR100 Idle

FR110 Bodyside outer buildup Underbody build, L,R bodyside inner assemblies

FR120 Weld respotting Previoius framing build

FR130 Stud application Previoius framing build

FR140 Bodyside inner buildup Previous framing buid, L, R bodyside outer assemblies

FR150 Roof and cowl buildup Previous framing build, cowl upper panel, roof panel, shotgun closeouts

FR160 Weld respotting Previous framing build

FR170 Camera inspection Previous framing build

FR180 Bumper buildup Previous framing build, front end module, front and rear bumper 

assemblies

FR190 Surface finishing/reworking Previous framing build

FR200 Idle, electric motorized system

Five different conveyors are needed to transport the BIWs around the assembly plant. One 

conveyor system is used for the sub-assembly area where the parts are loaded onto it by 

humans or robots. The sub-assembly area is divided into sections so the parts need to be 

moved between stations. A second conveyor is needed for the underbody line, which is 

continuous so parts only need to be loaded once. The third conveyor is used for crossplant transport between the underbody and framing lines. The underbodies are loaded 

onto skids, which are then transported across the plant onto the framing line conveyor on 

the skid. Once the BIWs are complete, the skids are returned to the cross transport 

conveyor.

The total manufacturing cycle time is 191 seconds after a 15-percent inefficiency factor is 

considered as shown in Table 4.5.6.1.b. These inefficiencies stem from the equipment 

(five percent), downtime due to organizational problems (five percent), and system 

downtime (five percent).
182

Table 4.5.6.1.b: Cycle time calculations

Item Value Formula

A Vehicles/year 60,000

B Working days/year (365-104-11) 250

C Vehicles/day 240 A/B

D Shifts 2

E Hours/shifts 8

F Break/shift 0.5

G Uptime/day (seconds/working day) 54,000 7.5 hrs/shift *2 shifts/day *3600 s/hr

H Gross cycle time (seconds) 225 G/C

I Inefficiency factor 15%

J Net Cycle Time 191 H*(1-I)

4.5.6.2 Labor

The Phase 2 HD vehicle plant will require a total of 47 workers per shift. Of these 47 

workers, 24 will be directly employed by the plant to operate the assembly line. The 

remaining 23 will be indirect and consist of 12 logistics workers, 10 maintenance workers, 

and one coordinate measuring machine operator. Table 4.5.6.2.a below shows the 

estimated labor costs for the plant.

Table 4.5.6.2.a: Phase 2 HD BIW estimated labor costs

Assembly Workers

Number 24

Wage $22

Cost per shift $4,224

Benefits (40% of wages) $1,690

Total cost per shift $5,914

Annual cost $2,956,800

Maintenance Workers

Number 11

Wage $35

Cost per shift $3,080

Benefits (40% of wages) $1,232

Total cost per shift $4,312

Annual cost $2,156,000

Logistics Workers

Number 12

Wage $18

Cost per shift $1,728

Benefits (60% of wages) $1,037

Total cost per shift $2,765

Annual cost $1,382,400

Total labor cost per shift $12,990

Annual labor cost $6,495,200

Labor cost per vehicle $108
183

4.5.6.3 Investment and Manufacturing Costs

Constructing a new plant to tool and manufacture the Phase 2 HD BIW is considerably 

less expensive than building a new plant and due to the materials and manufacturing 

techniques used, should last longer than a typical plant. Table 4.5.6.3.a below highlights 

the costs for the tooling necessary to produce the BIW, which is around $28.1 million 

compared to the $70 million estimated by Intellicosting for the Toyota Venza tooling.

Table 4.5.6.3.a: Phase 2 HD BIW tooling cost

Part Number Part Name Process Tool Type Tool 

Cost

Tool 

Count

Inspection 

Cost

Fixture 

Count

Front End

7305-2400-001 Small crossmember 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $104,559 1 $1,500 1

7305-2400-002 Large crossmember 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $114,797 1 $1,700 1

Bodyside Outer Assembly

7306-2300-185 Left, outer bodyside 

panel

Stamping Transfer dies $77,900 1

Rough blank (through) $78,788 1

Draw (toggle) $221,338 1

Trim and developed trim $179,543 1

Trim and developed trim $170,360 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$221,641 1

Cam finish form, finish trim, 

flange, and restrike

$323,575 1

End of arm tooling $20,000

7306-2300-186 Right, outer bodyside 

panel

Stamping Transfer dies $77,900 1

Rough blank (through) $78,788 1

Draw (toggle) $221,338 1

Trim and developed trim $179,543 1

Trim and developed trim $170,360 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$221,641 1

Cam finish form, finish trim, 

flange, and restrike

$323,575 1

End of arm tooling $20,000

7306-2300-187 Lower, left rear 

quarter closeout panel

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$11,500 1

7306-2300-188 Lower, right rear 

quarter closeout panel

Form (double attached) $48,094 1 $11,500 1

Trim and developed trim $54,449 1

Finish form and flange 

(double pad)

$64,348 1

Finish trim and separate $42,106 1

Flange and restrike (double 

pad and double unattached)

$62,632 1

Common Shoe $19,984
184

7306-2300-189 Left flange to body Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$195,951 1 $18,000 1

7306-2300-190 Right flange to body $18,000 1

7306-2300-191 Left tail lamp closeout 

panel

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$80,703 1

7306-2300-192 Right tail lamp 

closeout panel

7306-2300-XXX Left, upper rear 

closeout panel

Stamping Progressive blank die (2 out, 

1 left and 1 right)

$92,887 1 $3,500 1

7306-2300-XXX Right, upper rear 

closeout panel

Form and flange (double pad) $43,265 1 $3,500 1

Restrike and cam flange $36,986 1

Common shoe $10,378

Roof

7306-2200-109 Roof panel Stamping Lines with robotic transfer $77,500 1

Draw $173,807 1

Trim and developed trim $198,072 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$208,060 1

End of arm tooling $9,000

7306-2100-101 Front header (bow 1) Stamping Coil fed transfer die $14,800 1

Cutoff and draw $57,820 1

Trim $64,302 1

Finish form and flange $65,305 1

Finish trim $60,365 1

Restrike $64,736 1

Master shoes $47,361

End of arm tooling $12,500

7306-2100-103 Center header (bow 2) Stamping Complete progressive die $127,928 1 $6,500 1

7307-2100-104 Rear header (bow 3) Stamping Transfer dies $27,500 1

Draw $52,969 1

Form $51,038 1

Form $51,038 1

Trim and pierce $70,184 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$55,997 1

Common shoes $40,773

End of arm tooling $15,000

7306-2000-215 Left, rear roof side rail 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $19,400 1

7306-2000-216 Right, rear roof side 

rail inner

Draw (double attached) $77,254 1 $19,400 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$101,937 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$115,242 1

Finish trim and separate $70,324 1

Common shoes $59,758

End of arm tooling $12,800

7306-2000-171 Left, front roof side rail 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $20,500 1
185

7306-2000-172 Right, front roof side 

rail inner

Rough developed blank $75,651 1 $20,500 1

Form (double attached) $86,347 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$114,175 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$129,433 1

Finish trim and separate $97,949 1

Master shoes $40,671

End of arm tooling $16,000

7305-1900-159 Left shotgun closeout Stamping Complete progressive die $37,190 1 $600 1

7305-1900-160 Right shotgun 

closeout

$600 1

D-pillar Assembly

7307-2110-179 Left liftgate 

reinforcement

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$6,800 1

7307-2120-180 Right liftgate 

reinforcement

Form (double attached) $52,567 1 $6,800 1

Trim and developed trim $64,216 1

Trim and developed trim $63,082 1

Finish form and flange 

(double pad)

$73,414 1

Restrike and separate $69,770 1

Common shoe $27,234

7307-2110-105 Left D-pillar inner Stamping Transfer dies $18,900 1

7307-2120-106 Right D-pillar inner Rough blank $56,788 1 $18,900 1

Draw (double attached) $81,398 1

Redraw $82,579 1

Trim and developed trim $91,616 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

separate

$85,274 1

Finish form and restrike 

(double unattached)

$93,307 1

Master shoes $62,202

End of arm tooling

7307-2110-177 Left quarter panel 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $6,200

7307-2120-178 Right quarter panel 

inner

Draw (double attached) $72,014 1 $6,200

Trim and developed trim $73,368 1

Trim and developed trim $69,069 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$75,455 1

Cam trim, trim, and separate $81,170 1

Master shoes $49,982

End of arm tooling $10,500

A-pillar Assembly

7305-1930-169 Left shotgun outer 

panel

Stamping Transfer dies $22,500 1

7305-1940-170 Right shotgun outer 

panel

Rough blank die (2 out, 1 left 

and 1 right)

$127,161 1 $22,500 1

Form $77,416 1

Finish form and flange $112,533 1

Trim $124,796 1

Flange and restrike $74,492 1
186

Master shoes $45,023

End of arm tooling $14,400

7305-1930-187 Left, lower A-pillar 

outer

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $16,000 1

7305-1940-188 Right, lower A-pillar 

outer

Blank (flip/flop left/right) $102,114 1 $16,000 1

Form (double unattached) $115,352 1

Trim and developed trim $105,079 1

Trim and developed trim $118,609 1

Finish form and flange $80,009 1

Restrike $131,158 1

End of arm tooling $7,500

7305-1930-171 Left, A-pillar, upper 

hinge reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $13,902 1 $350 1

7305-1940-184 Right, A-pillar, upper 

hinge reinforcement

$350 1

7305-1930-173 Left, A-pillar, lower 

hinge reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $13,596 1 $350 1

7305-1940-186 Right, A-pillar, lower 

hinge reinforcement

$350 1

7305-1500-227 Left, lower, A-pillar 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $54,462 1 $900 1

7305-1500-228 Right, lower, A-pillar 

reinforcement

7305-1400-153 Left, lower A-pillar 

inner

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$4,400 1

7305-1400-154 Right, lower A-pillar 

inner

Draw $55,162 1 $4,400 1

Restrike $58,268 1

Trim and partial separate $51,334 1

Cam trim, trim, and separate $66,797 1

Common shoe $18,367

7305-1300-155 Left, upper A-pillar 

inner

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$28,000 1

7305-1300-156 Right, upper A-pillar 

inner

Progressive developed blank 

(double attached)

$139,832 1 $28,000 1

Form and flange $67,679 1

Flange and restrike (double 

pad)

$68,126 1

Extrude and separate $55,145 1

Common shoe $16,962

Door Aperture Assembly

7306-1910-189 Left, A-pillar outer 

upper

Stamping Transfer dies $19,500 1

7306-1920-190 Right, A-pillar outer 

upper

Draw (double attached) $105,668 1 $19,500 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$128,641 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$135,645 1

Finish trim and separate $97,420 1

Master shoes $40,392

End of arm tooling $12,000
187

7306-1910-191 Left, roof side rail 

outer

Stamping Transfer dies $16,000 1

7306-1920-192 Right, roof side rail 

outer

Draw (double attached) $79,668 1 $16,000 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$105,077 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$105,767 1

Finish trim and separate $89,247 1

Master shoes $41,042

End of arm tooling $16,000

7306-1910-193 Left, C-pillar striker 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$34,332 1 $650 1

7306-1920-194 Right, C-pillar striker 

reinforcement

$650 1

7306-1910-195 Left C-pillar outer Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $39,000 1

7306-1920-196 Right C-pillar outer Rough blank (double 

attached)

$93,644 1 $39,000 1

Draw (double attached) $151,092 1

Trim and developed trim $167,760 1

Trim and developed trim $165,870 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$205,755 1

Separate and cam set 

flanges

$144,189 1

End of arm tooling $15,000

7306-1913-001 Left, lower B-pillar 

outer

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $32,500 1

7306-1924-002 Right, lower B-pillar 

outer

Rough blank (flip/flop 

left/right)

$101,111 1 $32,500 1

Draw (double unattached) $149,138 1

Redraw $152,991 1

Trim and pierce $174,868 1

Trim and pierce $167,712 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$179,334 1

End of arm tooling $15,000

7306-1913-003 Left, upper B-pillar 

outer

Stamping Transfer dies $5,900 1

7306-1924-004 Right, upper B-pillar 

outer

Draw (double attached) $46,469 1 $5,900

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$50,711 1

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$48,596 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$55,535 1

Cam trim, trim, and separate $75,051 1

Master shoes $29,621

End of arm tooling $12,000

7306-1913-005 Left, upper, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$72,875 1 $1,250 1

7306-1924-006 Right, upper, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

$1,250 1

7306-1913-007 Left, middle, B-pillar 

inner reinforcment

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$32,508 1 $600 1
188

7306-1924-008 Right, middle, B-pillar 

inner reinforcment

$600 1

7306-1913-009 Left, lower, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$81,191 1 $950 1

7306-1924-010 Right, lower, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

$950 1

7306-1915-011 Left, lower B-pillar 

inner

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $15,500 1

7306-1926-012 Right, lower B-pillar 

inner

Rough blank (flip/flop 

left/right)

$891,730 1 $15,500 1

Draw (double unattached) $85,677 1

Trim and pierce $119,560 1

Trim and pierce $119,560 1

Finish form, extrude, and 

restrike (double pad)

$99,233 1

End of arm tooling $16,000

7306-1915-001 Left/right B-pillar 

beltline reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $16,934 1 $500 1

7306-1915-013 Left, upper B-pillar 

inner

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$97,237 1 $3,300 1

7306-1926-014 Right, upper B-pillar 

inner

$3,300 1

Dash and Cowl Structure

7305-1800-145 Upper cowl panel Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $141,000 1 $23,400 1

Trim die $60,561 1

7305-1700-147 Cowl panel support Stamping Transfer dies $18,500 1

Draw $74,731 1

Trim and developed trim $92,078 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

cam trim

$112,671 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$95,243 1

Common shoes $20,631

End of arm tooling $10,000

7305-1600-149 Dash panel 

reinforcement

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $216,000 1 $31,600 1

Trim die $132,513 1

7307-1600-183 Left, rear wheelhouse 

outer panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $250,000 1 $43,800 1

Trim die $142,164 1

7307-1600-184 Right, rear 

wheelhouse outer 

panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $240,000 1 $41,400 1

Trim die $138,966 1

7307-1600-213 Left, rear closeout 

panel

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$192,307 1 $9,600 1

7307-1600-214 Right, rear closeout 

panel

$9,600 1

7305-1500-157 Left, shotgun panel Stamping Transfer dies $28,500 1
189

inner

7305-1500-158 Right, shotgun panel 

inner

Rough blank die (2 out, 1 left 

and 1 right)

$133,440 1 $28,500 1

Form $87,170 1

Finish form and flange $117,563 1

Trim $132,094 1

Flange and restrike $77,572 1

Master shoes $48,895

End of arm tooling $14,400

7305-1500-197 Left, upper A-pillar 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$137,042 1 $2,250 1

7305-1500-198 Right, upper A-pillar 

reinforcement

$2,250 1

7305-1530-221 Left, dash 

transmission 

reinforcement

Stamping Line dies (hand transfer) $21,500 1

7305-1530-222 Right, dash 

transmission 

reinforcement

Draw (double unattached) $93,191 1 $21,500 1

Second draw $96,656 1

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$88,494 1

Developed trim and cam 

developed trim

$87,500 1

Form and flange $88,188 1

Form and flange $82,126 1

Finish trim, pierce, and cam 

pierce

$93,594 1

Cam flange and restrike $81,087 1

7305-1530-223 Left, dash 

transmission insert

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$62,424 1 $950 1

7305-1520-224 Right, dash 

transmission insert

$950 1

7305-1400-143 Upper dash panel Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $206,000 1 $52,700 1

Trim die $129,768 1

7305-1400-144 Left lower dash panel Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $317,000 1 $36,000 1

7305-1400-145 Righ lower dash panel Trim die $230,467 1 $36,000 1

Rear End

7307-1510-111 Rear end outer panel Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $43,500 1

Draw $74,912 1

Trim and developed trim $81,087 1

Trim and developed trim $81,016 1

Finish form and flange $83,914 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$85,112 1

Finish trim and pierce $82,672 1

End of arm tooling $18,000

7307-1510-117 Rear end inner panel Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $39,500 1

Draw $84,640 1

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$92,852 1
190

Redraw $80,037 1

Developed trim $89,698 1

Developed trim and pierce $91,062 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$95,070 1

End of arm tooling $18,000

7307-1400-119 Rear compartment 

crossmember

Extrude Extrusion tooling $49,416 2 $12,000 1

Trim jig $3,115 1

7307-1410-120 Extrusion hangar 

bracket

Extrude Extrusion tooling $49,986 2 $1,250 1

Trim jig $2,041 1

7307-1400-163 Left, rear wheelhouse 

inner panel

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $38,500 1

7307-1400-164 Right, rear 

wheelhouse inner 

panel

Draw (double attached) $146,206 1 $38,500 1

Trim and developed trim $163,555 1

Trim and developed trim $163,555 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$238,243 1

Finish trim and separate $117,380 1

End of arm tooling $15,000

7307-1500-167 Left, rear shock tower 

reinforcement

Stamping Line dies on common shoes 

(hand transfer)

$3,100 1

7307-1500-168 Right, rear shock 

tower reinforcement

Draw (double attached) $38,164 1 $3,100 1

Trim and rough trim $44,667 1

Developed trim $39,082 1

Cam developed trim $56,093 1

Finish form and flange $42,219 1

Aerial cam flange $64,149 1

Separate and restrike $42,620 1

Common shoes $28,685

7305-1300-165 Left, rear shock tower Die cast Casting mold $126,000 1 $26,000 1

Trim die $75,977 1

7305-1300-166 Right, rear shock 

tower

Die cast Casting mold $132,000 1 $26,000 1

Trim die $75,977 1

Front Wheelhouse

7305-1310-151 Left front shock tower Die cast Casting mold $119,000 1 $27,500 1

Trim die $79,812 1

7305-1320-152 Right front shock 

tower

Die cast Casting mold $125,000 1 $27,500 1

Trim die $79,812 1

7305-1310-161 Left front wheelhouse 

panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $141,000 1 $21,900 1

Trim die $80,095 1

7305-1320-162 Right front Cast Casting mold $148,000 1 $21,900 1
191

wheelhouse panel magnesium

Trim die $80,095 1

Rear Seat

7306-1200-113 Rear seat floor panel Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $33,800 1

Draw $93,535 1

Trim $114,717 1

Finish form and restrike $77,468 1

End of arm tooling $9,000

7306-1200-111 Rear seatbelt 

anchorage plate

Stamping Complete progressive die $26,206 1 $650 1

7307-1200-217 Left, rear, outer frame 

rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $192,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $116,537 1

7307-1200-218 Right, rear, outer 

frame rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $199,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $116,537 1

7306-1110-101 Center rear seat riser Stamping Complete progressive die $216,500 1 $29,800 1

7306-1110-103 Left, rear seat floor 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $58,424 1 $2,600 1

7306-1000-175 Left rear seat riser Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $21,500 1

7306-1000-176 Right rear seat riser Rough blank (flip/flop 

left/right)

$53,598 1 $21,500 1

Form (double unattached) $61,333 1

Trim and developed trim $80,561 1

Trim and developed trim $80,561 1

Finish form and flange $97,654 1

Restrike $91,442 1

End of arm tooling $16,000

Frame Rails

7307-1000-139 Right/left rear frame 

rail

Extrude Extrusion tooling $46,850 2 $8,600 1

Trim jig $2,918 1

7307-1000-138 Right/left rear frame 

rail mounting plate

Stamping Complete progressive die $36,086 1 $650 1

7307-1020-135 Left front frame rail Extrude Extrusion tooling $46,850 2 $6,500 1

7307-1020-136 Right front frame rail Trim jig $2,506 1

7307-1020-223 Left frame rail 

mounting plate

Stamping Complete progressive die $43,803 1 $850 1

7307-1020-224 Right frame rail 

mounting plate

7307-1011-001 Left/right front rail 

mounting

Stamping Complete progressive die $43,627 1 $1,450 1

7307-1011-003 Left/right front rail 

mounting cover

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out)

$59,154 1 $1,250 1
192

7305-0900-137 Left, front, inner frame 

rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $184,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $113,428 1

7305-0900-138 Right, front, inner 

frame rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $190,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $113,428 1

7307-0900-141 Left, rear, inner frame 

rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $195,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $117,447 1

7307-0900-142 Right, rear, inner 

frame rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $201,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $117,447 1

7306-0810-123 Left rocker sill 

extrusion

Extrude Extrusion tooling $51,412 2 $31,750 1

7306-0810-124 Right rocker sill 

extrusion

Trim jig $3,655 1

7305-1200-209 Left front frame rail 

outer transition

Die cast Casting mold $179,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $111,602 1

7305-1200-210 Right front frame rail 

outer transition

Die cast Casting mold $185,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $111,602 1

Floor

7306-0830-124 Left/right, small outer 

floor extrusion

Extrude Extrusion tooling $53,122 2 $1,500 1

7306-0840-010 Left/right, large outer 

floor extrusion

Trim jig $2,363 1 $1,600 1

7306-0830-125 Left/right, small floor 

crossmember

Extrude Extrusion tooling $46,280 2 $15,900 1

Trim jig $3,115 1

7306-0830-126 Left/right, small inner 

floor extrusion

Extrude Extrusion tooling $53,122 2 $1,600 1

7306-0840-012 Left/right, large inner 

floor extrusion

Trim jig $2,041 1 $1,750 1

7306-0840-011 Left/right, large floor 

crossmember

Extrude Extrusion tooling $47,134 2 $17,300 1

Trim jig $3,331 1

7306-0850-000 Left/right, fore/aft floor 

extrusions

Extrude Extrusion tooling $44,854 2 $17,600 1

Trim jig $3,223 1

7306-0860-000 Center tunnel bracket Stamping Complete progressive die $25,733 1 $650 1

Totals $ 26,017,503.00 253 $ 2,102,900.00 121

Annual (amortized over 3 years) $9,373,468

Per BIW (amortized over 3 years) $156

Annual (amortized over 5 years) $5,624,081
193

Per BIW (amortized over 5 years) $94

In addition to estimating tooling cost, Intellicosting estimated the total piece cost for the 

Phase 2 HD BIW at $1930 – an increase of $723 compared to the Toyota Venza estimate 

as shown in Tables 4.5.6.3.b below.

Table 4.5.6.3.b: Toyota Venza and Phase 2 HD BIW piece costs

Category Venza

Phase 2 

HD

Material $907.94 $1,282.05 

Variable $67.34 $157.05 

Fixed $52.59 $160.04 

Direct $23.04 $59.13 

Profit $83.02 $147.22 

SG&A $52.55 $100.04 

Freight $20.84 $25.01 

Total $1,207.32 $1,930.54 

A summary of the total manufacturing costs per year can be found in Table 4.5.6.3.c below 

– they are broken down by year as the capital costs are amortized over five and seven 

years while capital maintenance costs are per annum based on the suggested 

amortization schedule from EBZ. Year eight represents the full amortization of capital 

expenditures and is only the annual maintenance cost. Eight years does however, exceed 

the typical vehicle life cycle. The reason for EBZ’s augmented amortization schedule is 

that the CMM isn’t dependent on a vehicle lifecycle like the manufacturing equipment is 

and can simply be reprogrammed for the next vehicle body produced at the plant. The 

plant must be retooled to produce a different vehicle. A more detailed analysis can be 

found in section 10.4 of Appendix A. Interest was taken into account here to provide cost 

parity with the Toyota Venza. This is the only area in which interest was taken into account 

simply to provide a direct cost comparison. Normally, interest and depreciation would be 

taken into account in determining model line costs, but only the BIW cost comparison is of 

interest in this report. A full financial workup – including depreciation, dispersion of funds 

across vehicle model lines, and varying interest levels available to automakers – is beyond 

the scope of this study.

Table 4.5.6.3.c: Phase 2 HD BIW manufacturing costs

Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Capital Costs (mils) $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $1.09 $1.09 $0.74 

Labor $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50

Utilities $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94

Interest $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 

Freight $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 

SG&A (mils) $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $0.74 $0.74 $0.71 

Annual Total $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $15.28 $15.28 $14.91 

BIW Total $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $255 $255 $248 
194

Table 4.5.6.3.d below shows the total cost to produce each BIW including manufacturing 

costs, piece costs, and tooling costs. The costs are broken out by the number of years of 

tooling amortization and per year due to the amortization schedules.

Table 4.5.6.3.d: BIW cost based on recommended amortization schedule with tooling

Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Piece cost $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $1,930

Manufacturing cost $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $255 $255 $248

Tooling Costs Amortized Over 3 Years

Annual tooling cost (mils) $9.37 $9.37 $9.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Tooling cost per BIW $156 $156 $156 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total BIW Cost $2,517 $2,517 $2,517 $2,357 $2,357 $2,184 $2,184 $2,177

Tooling Costs Amortized Over 5 Years

Annual tooling cost (mils) $5.62 $5.62 $5.62 $5.62 $5.62 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Tooling cost per BIW $94 $94 $94 $94 $94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total BIW Cost $2,455 $2,455 $2,455 $2,455 $2,455 $2,184 $2,184 $2,177

In addition to conducting an analysis based on EBZ’s recommended amortization 

schedule, all vehicle assembly costs were amortized over straight three and five year 

periods. In Table 4.5.6.3.d above, only the tooling costs were amortized over the three and 

five year periods. These results are shown in Table 4.5.6.3.e below. The net effect was a 

constant BIW cost over the three and five year periods with small cost increases in both 

instances – the greatest difference is less than $500.

Table 4.5.6.3.e: Straight 3- and 5-year amortization schedule

Category 3 Year Amortization 5 Year Amortization

Piece cost $1,930 $1,930

Capital costs per BIW $301 $186 

Labor per BIW $108 $108 

Tooling cost per BIW $156 $94

Utilities per BIW $49 $49 

Interest per BIW $42 $42 

Freight per BIW $25 $25 

SG&A per BIW $24 $24 

BIW Total $2,634 $2,457

Table 4.5.6.3.f below details the cost breakdown within the actual body structure –

underbody, dash panel, front structure, bodysides, etc. The piece cost for each section is 

shown along with the assembly, tooling, paint, and NVH costs.
195

Table 4.5.6.3.f: Assembly cost breakdown by body section

System or 

Subsystem

Baseline Venza Phase 2 Incremental Cost

Baseline 

Mass (kg)

Estimated 

Cost

Phase 2 

Mass (kg)

Material 

Cost

Build 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Incremental 

Cost

Percentage 

Increase/Decrease

Body structure 382.5 241.8

- Underbody & floor 113.65 $170 92.7 $133 $107 $274 $104 61%

- Dash panel 16.97 $81 11.9 $111 $27 $157 $77 94%

- Front structure 32.45 $124 17.1 $45 $18 $71 -$53 -43%

- Left bodyside 79.5 $224 33.3 $339 $30 $424 $200 89%

- Right bodyside 79.5 $224 33.2 $338 $30 $422 $198 89%

- Roof 27.83 $74 16.9 $85 $5 $103 $29 40%

- Internal structure 20.6 $310 24.6 $211 $95 $350 $40 13%

NVH 8 $110 8 - - $110 $0 0%

Paint 4 $540 4 - - $540 $0 0%

Assembly - $612 - - - $432 -$180 -29%

Tooling - $389 - - - $156 -$233 -60%

Total 382.5 $2,858 241.8 $1,261 $312 $3,040 $182 6%

A sensitivity analysis comparing a number of production volumes can be found in Table 

4.5.6.3.g below. A further production volume analysis can be found in Appendix A, section 

7.1.1.

Table 4.5.6.3.g: Manufacturing sensitivity analysis

Production Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

60k

Capital costs (mils) $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $1.09 $1.09 $0.74 

Labor (mils) $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 

Utilities (mils) $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 

Interest (mils) $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 

Freight (mils) $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 

SG&A (mils) $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $0.74 $0.74 $0.71 

Annual Total (mils) $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $15.28 $15.28 $14.91 

BIW Total $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $255 $255 $248 

100k

Capital costs (mils) $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $1.09 $1.09 $0.74

Labor (mils) $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74

Utilities (mils) $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12

Interest (mils) $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 

Freight (mils) $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50

SG&A (mils) $1.81 $1.81 $1.81 $1.81 $1.81 $1.12 $1.12 $1.09

Annual Total (mils) $32.71 $32.71 $32.71 $32.71 $32.71 $22.09 $22.09 $21.72

BIW Total $327 $327 $327 $327 $327 $221 $221 $217

Cost Decrease 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 13% 13% 12%
196

4.5.7. Cost Discussion

This discussion covers the cost evaluation methods used for both the Phase 1 and Phase 

2 studies. Phase 1 only covered a basic analysis while Phase 2 went into far greater detail 

including full tooling and assembly analyses. The basics of the Phase 1 study are provided 

before delving into the Phase 2 study and some of the cost saving technology behind the 

Phase 2 HD BIW itself.

4.5.7.1 Phase 1 Cost Study

The Lotus Phase 1 study projected potential cost savings in a number of areas outside the 

body structure to partially offset the more expensive low-mass body structure. These nonBIW system cost reductions occurred because a substantial amount of mass was 

eliminated by using less material, parts integration allowing fewer components overall, 

and, in some cases, less expensive materials.

The cost weighting factors used for the cost analyses are the values published in the 

Phase 1 report; this chart is shown in Figure 4.5.7.1.a below.

Estimated Vehicle System Costs

Body

18%

Closures/Fenders

10%

Bumper System

Thermal2%

1%

Electrical

7%

Interior

22%

Lighting

1%

Suspension/Chassis

13%

Glazing

3%

Misc.

0%

Powertrain

23%

Figure 4.5.7.1.a: Estimated Vehicle System Costs
197

Table 4.5.7.1.a summarizes the Phase 1 study total vehicle cost; the body structure piece 

cost was estimated at 135 percent, or 35-percent higher than the baseline Venza BIW 

estimated piece cost. The average cost for non-body systems was estimated at 96

percent. The estimated weighted cost for the Phase 1 total vehicle, less powertrain, was 

103 percent.

Table 4.5.7.1.a: Phase 1 HD Estimated Vehicle Cost Increase

Cost 

factor

Cost Weighting 

factor

Weighted Cost 

factor

Body 135.0% 18.0% 24.3%

Non-Body 96.0% 82.0% 78.7%

Totals 100.0% 103.0%

Cost Differential 3.0%

The cost differentials for the various components and systems in the Phase 1 design can 

be converted into overall vehicle costs based on an average approximation of the indirect 

costs incurred by automakers and included in the selling price of a vehicle, such as the 

Toyota Venza. The 2009 Toyota Venza had a base invoice price of $23,500. Dividing this 

cost by Toyota’s cost-to-price markup factor yields an estimated direct manufacturing cost 

to produce the Venza. Generally, estimating automobile industry direct costs from retail 

prices is done with a retail price equivalent (RPE) factor to account for the cost of 

production overhead, warranty, research and development, administrative, marketing, 

dealers, etc. Industry averages for this RPE factor typically range from 1.45-1.50 and a 

peer-reviewed study prepared for U.S. EPA indicates that Toyota’s RPE is 1.48 (Rogozhin 

et al, 2009). As a result, the direct manufacturing cost for the 2009 Toyota Venza is 

estimated to be $15,878 (i.e. $23,500 divided by 1.48).

The system costs for the 2009 Venza are estimated in Table 4.5.7.1.b; these values are 

based on the Estimated Vehicle System Costs shown in Figure 4.5.7.1.a and the 

estimated diirect manufacturing cost derived above.

Also in the table are the resulting Phase 1 HD design’s estimated incremental costs based 

primarily on the 35-percent increase for the body structure cost (estimated at $1,000) and 

the cost decreases in closures, fenders, electrical, interior, suspension, and chassis 

components (savings of over $600). The BIW estimated cost is based on a 35 percent cost 

increase for piece cost, tooling, assembly, paint, and NVH materials. Detailed tooling and 

assembly cost analyses were beyond the scope of the Phase1 project.

The net result of the Phase 1 HD vehicle was a $342 vehicle cost increase; the powertrain 

cost is not included in this number. 

Table 4.5.7.1.b: Estimated direct manufacturing costs of the Toyota Venza baseline and 

Phase 1 High Development vehicle design

Area/System Baseline 2009 Toyota Venza Lotus Phase 1 High Development Vehicle
198

Mass (kg) Cost (%) Cost ($) Mass (kg) Mass 

reduction 

(kg)

Cost 

factor

Cost ($) Incremental 

cost ($)

Body 382.5 18 2858 221.1 161.4 135% 3858 1000

Closures/Fenders 143.02 10 1588 84 59 76% 1207 -381

Bumpers 17.95 2 318 16 2 103% 327 9

Thermal 9.25 1 159 9.3 0 100% 159 0

Electrical 23.6 7 1111 15 8.6 96% 1067 -44

Interior 250.6 22 3493 152.8 97.8 96% 3354 -139

Lighting 9.9 1 159 9.9 0 100% 159 0

Suspension/Chassis 378.9 13 2064 217 161.9 95% 1961 -103

Glazing 43.71 3 476 43.7 0 100% 476 0

Miscellaneous 30.1 0 0 22.9 7.2 99% 0 0

Powertrain 410.16 23 3652 356.2 54 - - -

Total (excl. 

powertrain)

1290 - 12,226 792 498 103% 12,568 342

Total (incl. 

powertrain)

1700 - 15,878 1148 - - - -

4.5.7.2 Phase 2 Cost Study

The following BIW cost discussion presents the comparison of the baseline, Phase 1, and 

Phase 2 BIWs including a comparison of the piece cost and the costs based on the 

detailed manufacturing report done as part of the Phase 2 study.

Assembled body costs for the Venza BIW are not public information, thus the costs for the 

2009 Toyota Venza BIW were estimated using the methodology above (taken from the 

Phase 1 report). The full assembled body is estimated at 18 percent of the RPE value, 

giving a body cost of $2858. This value is an estimate as the cost will vary by OEM and by 

platform as well as by the country the body is assembled in, the country of origin for the 

body parts and commodity price fluctuations for the materials.

Intellicosting valued the Venza piece cost at $1,207, leaving $1,651 for the assembly, 

paint, tooling, and NVH costs. Paint and body NVH costs were determined through 

industry research and are estimated at $540 while body specific NVH materials were 

estimated at $39. Tooling costs per BIW were determined by amortizing the $70 million 

tooling cost (estimated by Intellicosting) over three years of production at 60,000 units 

annually. This brings the tooling cost per BIW to $389. The remaining $683 is the 

estimated assembly cost.

Intellicosting also developed detailed piece costs for the Phase 2 HD BIW, which were 

$1930.54. This gives a 160-percent piece-cost increase relative to the 2009 Toyota Venza 

BIW ($1930.54/$1207.32). Paint and NVH materials were estimated at $540 and $39 for 

the Phase 2 HD BIW as well. Tooling cost and assembly cost for the Phase 2 BIW are 

both substantially lower than for the Venza at $156 and $432 respectively due to the 

significantly decrease parts count (166 for the Phase 2 HD versus 419 for the Venza).
199

The part-by-part cost analysis for both bodies is included in Section 7.3, Appendix C.

Table 4.5.7.2.a below details the costs associated with producing a complete BIW for the 

baseline Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 bodies.

Table 4.5.7.2.a: Assembled BIW analysis

Category Venza Phase 1 Phase 2 Actual

Piece cost $1,207 $1,629 $1,930

Relative piece cost 100% 135% 160%

Assembly $683 $922 $432

Paint $540 $729 $540

Tooling $389 $525 $156

NVH $39 $53 $39

Total $2,858 $3,858 $3,098

Difference relative to Venza $0 $1,000 $239

Table 4.5.7.2.b below breaks down the cost further with just the assembly, paint, tooling, 

and NVH cost analysis. These costs are approximately $484 less for the Phase 2 HD 

design than for the baseline Venza. The cost increase for the Phase 2 BIW relative to the 

Venza is 108% ($3,098/$2,858).

Table 4.5.7.2.b: Assembly, paint, tooling, and NVH cost analysis

Category Venza Phase 1 (135% SF) Phase 2 Actual

Assembly $683 $922 $432

Paint $540 $729 $540

Tooling $389 $525 $156

NVH $39 $53 $39

Total $1,651 $2,228 $1,167

Difference relative to Venza $0 $578 -$484

Table 4.5.7..2.c below shows the piece cost for the baseline Venza, Phase 1, and Phase 2 

vehicles and the assembly, paint, tooling, and NVH costs in sub-categories. The Phase 2 

piece costs are $723 more than the Venza primarily because of the more advanced 

materials used. This cost increase is partially offset by the $484 savings in assembly and 

tooling. The total BIW cost increase is $239, or 8 percent higher than the Venza cost.

Table 4.5.7.2.c: Piece, assembly, tooling, paint, and NVH sub-category costs

Category Venza Phase 1 Phase 2

Piece cost $1,207 $1,629 $1,930

Difference to Venza $0 $422 $723

Assembly, Tooling, Paint, NVH $1,651 $2,228 $1,167

Difference to Venza $0 $578 -$484

Total difference 0 $1,000 $239

The assembly and tooling cost savings relative to the Venza help offset the 160-percent 

piece cost increase. See section 4.4.12.3 “Investment and Manufacturing Costs” and 
200

Section 10 of Appendix A for a detailed breakdown. The assembly and tooling costs used 

in this section are based on EBZ’s suggested amortization schedule unless otherwise 

noted.

The complete, assembled body for Phase 1 is more expensive than the developed Phase 

2 body because a single scaling factor was used. The relative Phase 1 BIW piece cost was 

estimated to be 135-percent more than the baseline Venza; this value was used as a 

scaling factor to estimate the costs of assembly, paint, tooling, and NVH materials.

The actual manufacturing and tooling costs are significantly lower than the scaled Phase 1 

costs and are also lower than the estimated assembly and tooling costs for the baseline 

Venza. This is due primarily to the reduced part count. These reduced costs helped offset 

the 160-percent piece cost increase. Paint and NVH materials were left unchanged from 

the Venza cost, which were estimated through industry research. The estimated Phase 2 

assembled and painted body costs are $239 greater than the estimated assembled Venza 

body costs.

To compare a variety of possible amortization schedules, an analysis with both the three 

and five year straight amortization (tooling and manufacturing) schedules was also done. 

This analysis is shown in Table 4.5.7.2.d below. 

Table 4.5.7.2.d: Amortization schedule comparison

Category EBZ 

Recommended

3 Year 

Amortization

5 Year 

Amortization

Piece cost $1,930 $1,930 $1,930

Capital costs per BIW $184 $301 $186 

Labor per BIW $108 $108 $108 

Tooling cost per BIW $156 $156 $94

Utilities per BIW $49 $49 $49 

Interest per BIW $42 $42 $42 

Freight per BIW $25 $25 $25 

SG&A per BIW $24 $24 $24 

BIW Total $2,518 $2,635 $2,458 

The results show a slight increase in BIW cost when amortized over three years ($117 

more) and a slight decrease over five years ($60 less). This is a straight amortization 

schedule; these costs would be constant over the specified time period instead of 

decreasing as with the EBZ recommended amortization schedule. None of the three 

amortization schedules is depreciated.

An analysis was done to determine the cost impact of the Phase 2 BIW on the total vehicle 

costs. The summary of findings is based on the Phase 1 analysis (for non-body 

components) and the Phase 2 analysis (for the body structure). Table 4.5.7.2.e below lists 

the values calculated for this analysis.

Table 4.5.7.2.e: Phase 2 Estimated Vehicle Cost Increase

Cost factor Cost Weighting factor Weighted Cost factor
201

Complete body 108% 18% 19.4%

Non-body 95% 82% 77.9%

Totals 100% 97.3%

Cost Differential -2.7%

The resultant full vehicle (less powertrain) is estimated to cost 2.7% less than the baseline 

Venza based on a 5% cost savings from non-body components and an eight-percent 

increase from the body structure.

Table 4.5.7.2.f below shows the cost breakdown for the various body and non-body 

systems of the Venza and Phase 2 HD designs. As shown in the table, the estimated 

incremental cost of the body is $239 (108 percent) higher than the baseline Venza. 

Including the cost savings from the closures, fenders, electrical, interior, suspension, and 

chassis components (estimated savings of over $600), the net result of the full Phase 2 HD 

vehicle is actually an estimated $419 decrease in total vehicle cost. Note: the Phase 1 

report has details on these topics, including derivation of the estimated cost factors.

Table 4.5.7.2.f: Estimated direct manufacturing costs of the Toyota Venza baseline and 

Phase 2 HD vehicle designs

Area/System Baseline 2009 Toyota 

Venza

Lotus Phase 2 High Development Vehicle

Mass 

(kg)

Cost 

(%)

Cost 

($)

Mass 

(kg)

Mass 

reduction 

(kg)

Total 

system cost 

factor

Cost 

($)

Incremental 

cost ($)

Body 382.5 18% 2858 241.8 140.7 108% 3097 239

Closures/Fenders 143 10% 1588 84 59 76% 1207 -381

Bumpers 17.95 2% 318 2 2 103% 327 9

Thermal 9.25 1% 159 9.3 0 100% 159 0

Electrical 23.6 7% 1111 15 8.6 96% 1067 -44

Interior 250.6 22% 3493 153 97.8 96% 3354 -139

Lighting 9.9 1% 159 9.9 0 100% 159 0

Suspension/Chassis 378.9 13% 2064 217 161.9 95% 1961 -103

Glazing 43.71 3% 476 43.7 0 100% 476 0

Miscellaneous 30.1 0% 0 22.9 7.2 99% 0 0

Powertrain 410.2 23% 3652 356 54 - - -

Total (excl. powertrain) 1290 - 12,226 817 527 96.6% 

(wt’d cost 

factor)

11,807 -419

Total (incl. powertrain) 1700 - 15,878 1163 - - - -

Another analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of the vehicle cost (less 

powertrain) to the percent contribution of the body to the vehicle cost makeup. The cost 

weighting factor was varied from 16 percent to 20 in two-percent (2%) increments to 

account for the vehicle body constituting a larger or smaller percentage of the total vehicle 

cost. For this sensitivity analysis, all other factors were the same as in Table 4.5.7.2.c. 

Table 4.5.7.2.g below shows very little variation (less than 0.6%) based on the body 

contribution to the full vehicle. This is because both the body and non-body components 
202

are estimated to be very close to the cost of the actual Venza systems. The non-body 

incremental cost factor is 95.0%, i.e., the average cost reduction for all non-body systems, 

less powertrain, is 5.0%. This number differs from the total non-powertrain number of 

96.6% because it does not include the weighted BIW incremental cost factor.

Table 4.5.7.2.g: Phase 2 full vehicle sensitivity study

Incremental 

Cost Factor

Low Cost Central Estimate High Cost

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Body 108.0% 16.0% 17.3% 18.0% 19.4% 20.0% 21.6%

Non-body 95.0% 84.0% 79.8% 82.0% 77.9% 80.0% 76.0%

Totals - 100.0% 97.1% 100.0% 97.4% 100.0% 97.6%

Cost differential for total 

vehicle

- - -2.9% - -2.6% - -2.4%

Incremental vehicle cost - - -$460 - -$419 - -$378

The non-body cost factors in Tables 4.5.7.2.f and 4.5.7.2.g are based on estimates 

generated in the Phase 1 report. The numbers were a result of near 40% mass reductions 

while using similar, or in some cases, reduced cost materials for many of the components. 

A total vehicle, less powertrain, cost reduction of 3.4% is required to achieve a total vehicle 

savings, less powertrain, of $419 for a body costing 8% more than the all steel baseline 

body. 

The low mass body requires a new assembly plant to build it. The details of the assembly 

plant are included in the Appendix. It was assumed that an existing facility was updated 

with the required Phase 2 BIW hardware, i.e., there was no cost included for constructing a 

new building. Amortizing the cost of the new assembly plant into the BIW cost over a three 

year period increases the BIW cost factor by 10% over the non-amortized body cost, from 

108% to 118%.

Combining Tables 4.5.7.2.a and Table 4.5.7.2.d yields a final amortized BIW cost. These 

costs are shown in Table 4.5.7.2.h.

Table 4.5.7.2.h: Fully Amortized Body in White Cost

Category EBZ 

Recommended

3 Year 

Amortization

5 Year 

Amortization

Piece cost $1,930 $1,930 $1,930

Capital costs per BIW $184 $301 $186 

Labor per BIW $108 $108 $108 

Tooling cost per BIW $156 $156 $94

Utilities per BIW $49 $49 $49 

Interest per BIW $42 $42 $42 

Freight per BIW $25 $25 $25 

SG&A per BIW $24 $24 $24 

BIW Assembly Labor $432 $432 $432
203

Paint $540 $540 $540

NVH $39 $39 $39

BIW Total $3,529 $3,646 $3,469 

% Cost Relative to Non 

Amortized Phase 2 BIW Phase 2

114% 118% 112%

The cost for the BIW amortized over a three year period was substituted for the nonamortized BIW cost factor and the incremental vehicle costs were recalculated. Table 

4.5.7.2.i below lists the total vehicle costs using the three year amortized BIW cost. The 

Nominal Estimate is $133 less than the baseline vehicle.

Table 4.5.7.2.i: Phase 2 full vehicle sensitivity study

Incremental 

Cost Factor

Low Cost Nominal Estimate High Cost

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Body 118.0% 16.0% 18.9% 18.0% 21.2% 20.0% 23.6%

Non-body 95.0% 84.0% 79.8% 82.0% 77.9% 80.0% 76.0%

Totals - 100.0% 98.7% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 99.6%

Cost differential for total 

vehicle

- - -1.3% - -0.8% - -0.4%

Incremental vehicle cost - - -$206 - -$133 - -$60

A final cost analysis was done to determine the effect that having no cost reduction benefit 

for the mass reduced non-BIW systems, i.e., the non-body cost factor went from 95.0% to 

100.0%. Table 4.5.7.2.j below lists the total vehicle costs using the three year amortized 

BIW cost and cost parity for all non-body systems less powertrain. The Nominal Estimate 

is $514 more expensive than the baseline vehicle.

Table 4.5.7.2.j: Phase 2 full vehicle sensitivity study – Non-BIW Cost parity

Incremental 

Cost Factor

Low Cost Nominal Estimate High Cost

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Cost 

Portion

Weighted 

Cost Factor

Body 118.0% 16.0% 18.9% 18.0% 21.2% 20.0% 23.6%

Non-body 100.0% 84.0% 84.0% 82.0% 82.0% 80.0% 80.0%

Totals - 100.0% 102.9% 100.0% 103.2% 100.0% 103.6%

Cost differential for total 

vehicle

- - -1.7% - -1.2% - -0.7%

Incremental vehicle cost - - $457 - $514 - $572
204

4.5.7.3 Closures Piece Costs

CARB and EPA authorized a study in which Lotus would develop fully engineered closure systems. 

The piece and tooling costs are listed in Table 4.5.7.3 below.

Table 4.5.7.3: Closure piece and tooling costs

Part Number Part Name Material Tooling Cost Piece Cost

 Closures $15,957,268 $1,144.48

Liftgate

7308-2610-001 Liftgate inner Magnesium - AM60 384,000 67.44

7308-2610-002 Liftgate outer Aluminum - 6063-T4 1,478,763 52.20

7308-2610-003 Panel - Spoiler PPO+PA Noryl GTX 316,000 5.71

7308-2610-004 Liftgate bracket – gas strut anchor - inner Aluminum - 6063-T4 65,667 0.78

7308-2610-005 Bracket – hinge upper Aluminum - 6063-T4 63,433 1.28

7308-2610-005 Bracket – liftgate hinge base + studs & pins Aluminum - 6063-T4 60,737 2.77

Sub-total 2,368,600 130.18

 Door Front – LH

7308-2710-001 Panel - Door outer - LH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1,338,772 51.90

7308-2810-002 Panel - Door inner - LH Magnesium - AM60 231,500 42.26

7308-2810-003 Beam – Reinf’t Front Door HSS-950 179,054 5.36

7308-2810-004 Bracket- Frt. Dr. Hinge support HSS-950 153,292 2.73

7308-2810-005 Beam – Reinf.-Frt. Dr. outer HSS-950 147,578 4.96

7308-2810-006 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 43,012 2.31

7308-2810-007 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 88,188 19.67

7308-2810-008 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 88,188 19.67

7308-2810-009 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 44,293 3.16

7308-2810-010 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 88,188 19.67

7308-2810-011 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 88,188 19.67

7308-2810-012 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 44,293 3.16

7308-2810-013 Striker – Front Door latch reinf’t HSS - 950 71,084 0.90

73082810-014 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 191,000 5.08

Sub-total 2,796,630 200.50

 Door Front – RH

7308-2710-001 Panel - Door outer - RH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1,338,772 51.90

7308-2810-002 Panel - Door inner - RH Magnesium - AM60 231,500 42.26

7308-2810-003 Beam – Reinf’t Front Door HSS-950 179,054 5.36

7308-2810-004 Bracket- Frt. Dr. Hinge support HSS-950 153,292 2.73

7308-2810-005 Beam – Reinf.-Frt. Dr. outer HSS-950 147,578 4.96

7308-2810-006 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate + wear pin LCS 0 2.31

7308-2810-007 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 0 19.67

7308-2810-008 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 0 19.67

7308-2810-009 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 0 3.16

7308-2810-010 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 0 19.67

7308-2810-011 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 0 19.67

7308-2810-012 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 0 3.16

7308-2810-013 Striker – Front Door latch reinf’t HSS - 950 71,084 0.90

73082810-014 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 177,000 5.08
205

Sub-total 2,298,280 200.50

 Door Rear - LH

7308-2910-001 Panel - Door rear outer - LH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1,171,834 45.43

7308-2910-002 Panel - Door rear inner - LH Magnesium AM60 231,500 42.26

7308-2910-003 Beam – Reinf’t Rear Door HSS - 950 186,220 5.36

7308-2910-004 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 0 2.31

7308-2910-005 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-006 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-007 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 0 3.16

7308-2910-008 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-009 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-010 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 0 3.16

7308-2910-011 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 175,000 3.91

7308-2910-012 Striker – latch reinf’t Aluminum 6061 T4 167,009 8.91

7308-2910-013 Bracket – rr dr hinge support Aluminum 6063 T4 75,353 6.15

7308-2910-014 Reinf’t – rr dr outer Aluminum 6063 T4 87,020 6.05

7308-2910-015 Reinf’t – rr dr inner Aluminum 6063 T4 172,463 6.05

Sub-total 2,266,399 211.43

 Door Rear - RH 

7308-2910-001 Panel - Door rear outer - LH Aluminum - 6063-T4 1,171,834 45.43

7308-2910-002 Panel - Door rear inner - LH Magnesium AM60 231,500 42.26

7308-2910-003 Beam – Reinf’t Rear Door HSS - 950 186,220 5.36

7308-2910-004 Striker Asm.-Striker Plate LCS 0 2.31

7308-2910-005 Hinge Asm. – Door upper LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-006 Hinge plate – outer - upper LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-007 Hinge plate – inner - upper LCS 0 3.16

7308-2910-008 Hinge Asm. – Door lower LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-009 Hinge plate – outer - lower LCS 0 19.67

7308-2910-010 Hinge plate – inner - lower LCS 0 3.16

7308-2910-011 Panel – Insert Frt Door PPO - Unfilled 161,000 3.91

7308-2910-012 Striker – latch reinf’t Aluminum 6061 T4 0 8.91

7308-2910-013 Bracket – rr dr hinge support Aluminum 6063 T4 75,353 6.15

7308-2910-014 Reinf’t – rr dr outer Aluminum 6063 T4 87,020 6.05

7308-2910-015 Reinf’t – rr dr inner Aluminum 6063 T4 172,463 6.05

Sub-total 2,085,390 211.43

 Front Fender Outer - LH

7308-3110-001 Panel - Front Fender Outer - LH Aluminum - 6063 - T4 1,184,952 32.42

Sub-total 1,184,952 32.42

Front Fender Outer - RH

7308-3210-001 Panel - Front Fender Outer - LH Aluminum - 6063 - T4 1,184,952 32.42

Sub-total 1,184,952 32.42

Hood

7308-3310-001 Panel - Hood outer Aluminum - 6063 - T4 809,306 43.83

7308-3310-002 Panel - Hood inner Aluminum - 6063 - T4 962,759 81.77

Sub-total 1,772,065 125.60
206

4.5.7.4 Phase 2 HD BIW Technology

These analyses show that a holistic, total vehicle approach to weight reduction can 

minimize potential cost increases for utilizing a significantly lighter multi-material body 

structure as the vehicle basis. Additionally, a holistic approach needs to be taken to 

maximize the mass decompounding effect.

The Phase 2 BIW mass target was a maximum of 267.8 kg; this target was based on a 

total vehicle mass 30% lighter than the baseline Toyota Venza. This resulted in a 

maximum allowable BIW mass of 267.8 kg (382.5 x 0.70).

The total vehicle target was 1699.7 kg x 0.70, or 1189.8 kg. The Phase 1 High 

Development system masses were used for all areas but the BIW. 

Due to changes necessary for crash and structural performance, the Phase 2 BIW mass is 

greater than the projected Phase 1 mass. A 42.2-percent mass reduction was estimated in 

the Phase 1 report while the Phase 2 mass reduction is 37.8 percent. The Phase 2 BIW 

mass of 241.8 kg (see BOM in Table 4.4.12.a for the mass summary) is 25.9 kg less than 

the Phase 2 mass requirement.

The fully assembled BIW costs for the baseline Venza, the Phase 1 HD BIW and the 

Phase 2 BIW are listed in Table 4.5.7.c. The Phase 2 project included detailed studies for 

tooling and assembly costs as well as BIW piece cost analyses for both the baseline 

Venza and the Phase 2 body. Independent experts in each field were utilized to analyze 

these areas. 

The Phase 2 HD complete body (assembled, painted with NVH material added) is 108% 

more expensive than the baseline Venza BIW vs. the projected 135% cost from the Phase 

1 report. This reduction is a direct result of lowering the parts count by 250 – Phase 2 BIW: 

169 parts; 2009 Venza: 419 parts. Sixty (60) percent of the baseline parts have been 

eliminated through component integration and design changes. There are fewer tools 

required to make the body parts, the BIW assembly line is less complex and there are 

fewer assembly operations required to join the parts. This contributes to reduced BIW 

costs. 

The joining process also contributed to lower costs. Friction spot joining for the aluminum 

components requires less energy than RSW (resistance spot welding) and is a less costly 

joining process. Kawasaki Robotics estimates a RSW is five times the cost of a friction 

spot joint. Even though the amount saved per weld is relatively small on an absolute basis, 

the total savings can be significant depending on the number of welds. As an example, the 

2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee body has over 5,400 spot welds (http://www.jaxcjdr.com/2011-

jeep-grand-cherokee.htm). 
207

A friction spot joint can utilize a smaller flange than RSW due to the reduced diameter of 

the flow drill relative to a welding head. This means that a significant material can be 

removed by reducing the flange width. A typical flange width is 25 to 30 mm for the RSW 

process. A 20 mm flange was used for the low mass body panels.

Additionally, the continuous beads of structural adhesive assist in creating a stiffer body 

structure by bonding 100 percent of the panel surfaces together. This increases the body 

stiffness with little mass penalty; the mass of the structural adhesive for the Phase 2 BIW 

is 1.4 kg. 

Friction spot joining occurs in the plastic region of the material and does not change the 

material properties. Structural adhesives do not degrade the parent material properties. 

Resistance spot welds affect the parent material properties because the material changes 

phase during the welding process. The combination of the 80% reduced FSJ vs. RSW cost 

and the increased body stiffness achieved by using continuous adhesive bonding rather 

than by adding material to the structure helps to lower BIW assembly costs.
208

4.5.8. Application of Results to Other Vehicle Classes

Task 4 of Lotus Engineering Inc.’s contract with the California Air Resources Board 

stipulated that Lotus investigate the application of the study results to other vehicle classes 

using the concepts in the above study. This section presents the data for scalability broken 

down into the eight previously defined vehicle systems: body-in-white, closures and 

fenders, interior, chassis and suspension, front and rear bumpers, thermal (HVAC), 

glazing, and electrical and lighting. Powertrain was not included in Phase 2 of this report, 

but can be scaled as well.

The vehicles discussed in this section are the standard micro car/A-segment, mini car/Bsegment, small car/C-segment, midsize car/D-segment, and large car/E-segment 

passenger cars; small, midsize, and fullsize SUVs; minivans; and compact and fullsize 

pickup trucks.

4.5.8.1. Body-in-White

A variety of materials and methods were investigated as part of the Phase 2 D vehicle 

body-in-white development. These materials and construction methods – primarily the use 

of modularization and the expanded use of lightweight materials – are all applicable 

outside of the specified Toyota Venza CUV-class vehicle. This section discusses the 

materials and manufacturing techniques used in engineering the Phase 2 HD vehicle. 

4.5.8.1.1. Modularization

Modularization is the process of integrating a variety of components into a larger subsystem, or module. The Phase 2 BIW reduced the part count from the baseline Toyota 

Venza’s 419 individual parts to 169 parts. Modularization can be applied across a wide 

variety of vehicle classes to lighten the vehicle, decrease vehicle parts count, and improve 

production efficiency thereby decreasing production costs.

The scalability of this concept is already being applied to low-volume, niche vehicles, as 

mentioned in the Phase 1 report. Bentley’s 2011 Mulsanne uses a single stamping for the 

A- and C-pillars, roof, and rear-quarter panels. The Lotus Evora also uses a modular 

structure, with three different aluminum sub-sections for the chassis – front, passenger 

cell, and rear. A modular design has no adverse effects on vehicular safety; structural 

analyses will drive the design to the appropriate level of function required for the model.

This simplification technique can be applied to every vehicle class from heavy-duty, fullsize pickup trucks to micro cars for effective weight loss. 

4.5.8.1.2. Materials
209

Lotus also utilized advanced, lightweight materials in designing the Phase 2 HD vehicle. 

These materials, like modularization, can be scaled to nearly any vehicle class. A number 

of lightweight materials are being utilized throughout the automotive industry already, 

including high strength steels, aluminum, magnesium and composite materials. These 

materials were used in the Phase 2 body structure.

Lightweight material selection needs to be based on vehicle requirements such as 

durability cycle and cargo and towing capacity. For example, body-on-frame, full-size 

pickup trucks and some SUVs are required to tow extremely heavy loads and haul 

thousands of pounds of cargo. Due to the structural requirements associated with these 

conditions, materials such as aluminum cannot be used to replace the steel used to 

construct the frame. Aluminum can be used for components such as body panels and door 

reinforcements, which are removed from the structural backbone of the vehicle and used 

for aesthetics or crash structure.

4.5.8.1.3. Aluminum Extrusions and Stampings

Lightweight metals such as aluminum are being used in BIWs from large luxury cars such 

as the Jaguar XJ to sports cars such as the Lotus Evora, which shows the variability in 

design. Jaguar’s use of an aluminum body structure allowed the British firm to reduce the 

curb weight of its flagship XJ large sedan around 200 kilograms (440 pounds) compared to 

other large luxury vehicles4. Other examples of the scalability of aluminum extrusions 

include Audi’s Space Frame architecture, which is scaled and utilized in everything from 

the small A4 to the large A8. Aston Martin also uses the scalability of aluminum in its DB9 

and Rapide sports cars, which are based on its VH (vertical horizontal, named for the 

ability to lengthen and shorten it in both dimensions) architecture. Evidence of the 

scalability of aluminum stampings can be found in the Bentley Mulsanne’s roof, fenders, 

and a great number of aluminum hoods such as that on the Ford Mustang. Engineers 

should be cautious when producing stampings as large as those on the Mulsanne as it is 

possible to generate a significant amount of waste thereby increasing production cost.

As mentioned in the materials section, aluminum cannot be used for some structural 

components of heavier duty vehicles such as full-size pickup trucks. Aluminum extrusions 

aren’t suitable for use in pickup truck frames due to the vast differences in stiffness as 

shown by the Young’s Moduli in section 4.2.2. The Young’s Modulus for steel is greater the 

210,000 MPa and is 70,000 MPa for aluminum, showing steel’s greater resistance to 

bending under load.

4.5.8.1.4. Magnesium Castings

The magnesium castings used in the Phase 2 HD vehicle can be scaled as well and have 

been used in high-end vehicles such as BMWs, Chevrolet Corvettes, and Dodge Vipers. 

BMW uses magnesium in its engine blocks for weight reduction, the Corvette Z06’s front 

cradle is made from cast magnesium which is 35-percent lighter than the previous cast 
210

aluminum structure4, and the Viper’s dash module is cast from magnesium which reduced 

mass by 68 percent compared to the previous steel casting. The Phase 2 BIW utilizes 

magnesium castings for the front of dash and the rear wheelhouse area.

4.5.8.1.5. High Strength Steel

High strength steels require little modification to put into use on vehicles as the 

manufacturing techniques are nearly identical to those already in place throughout the 

automotive industry. The weight savings comes through the ability to use less material to 

make the same strength part; high strength steels are already beginning to be used 

extensively in production vehicles. As an example, the Mercedes Benz E class uses over 

70% HSS. The Phase 2 body incorporates steel B pillars. Light- and heavy-duty pickup 

trucks incorporate high-strength steel into frames in order to increase the strength of the 

frame while simultaneously reducing weight by using less material than for a comparable 

conventional steel frame.

4.5.8.1.6. Composites

Composite materials are used in the Phase 2 HD floor and rear load floor. Composite 

materials such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic are currently extensively used in 

motorsports and high-end sports cars. Until recently, the materials and manufacturing 

techniques were too expensive for widespread use in the automotive industry. Examples of 

composite usage include entire carbon fiber monocoques in Formula 1 cars, Lamborghini’s 

Sesto Elemento concept made entirely from the composite, the carbon fiber monocoque in 

the production McLaren MP4-12C, Volkswagen XL1 concept, and smaller items such as 

the roof on BMW’s M3 and M6. Carbon fiber suppliers including Plasan, SGL, Toray, and 

Fiberforge are delivering carbon composite components for the automotive industry. BMW 

recently announced its upcoming i3 electric city car’s passenger cell will be made from 

carbon fiber as well – the first truly mass produced passenger cell to be made from carbon.

Carbon fiber is acceptable for use in production vehicles that see relatively small loads, but 

may not be acceptable for use in load-bearing components of heavier-duty vehicles such 

as pickup trucks. Carbon fiber has been shown to withstand high loads on vehicles such 

as Formula 1 cars, but these parts are extremely expensive to produce and do not need to 

meet the durability cycles of production vehicles. The durability of carbon fiber under high 

loads – such as those seen in a pickup truck – is unknown, therefore until further research 

on the material is done, it should only be utilized in lower stress vehicles and on nonstructural elements of heavier-duty vehicles such as body panels.

4.5.8.1.7. Scalability Summary

It is possible to lighten BIW structures of vehicles of all classes using the materials and 

methods described above, but it is unlikely the same weight savings will be achieved in 
211

smaller vehicle classes. This is partially due to simple dimensional constraints such as the 

seats – which must be large enough to hold a 95th-percentile American male – and the 

relationship between the driver, pedals and steering wheel. Other constraints include crash 

protection, which due to the smaller crumple zone, typically requires the use of thicker (and 

thus heavier) steel to make the vehicles safe. Conversely, this may also allow 

manufacturers to realize a greater mass reduction in vehicles larger than the Venza. Table 

4.5.8.1.7.a lists the potential relative mass reductions based on specific density and the

projected curb weight mass savings relative to the baseline Toyota Venza.

All of the vehicles mentioned in this section, with the exception of the concept vehicles, 

meet or exceed federal safety standards and use different ratios of the same materials 

used in the Phase 2 HD vehicle. The wide variety of vehicle classes and sizes mentioned 

using these materials demonstrates that when properly engineered, the materials and 

manufacturing methods can be scaled while maintaining safety. Composites have proven 

to be exceptionally safe in motorsports, with the structures designed and tested to 

withstand the extreme forces of high speed collisions. Aluminum extrusions and castings 

can be selectively used in crumple zones to deform and absorb energy while high strength 

steel can be used in areas that need to remain rigid and intact in the event of an accident.

Vehicle requirements may mean that not all of the lightening methods used to create the 

Phase 2 HD vehicle can be applied to every vehicle, such as larger, BOF pickup trucks 

and SUVs. They require high towing and cargo capacities, necessitating the use of 

heavier-duty materials, such as described in the materials portion of this section. While the 

same multi-material unibody construction can’t be used for vehicles such as the Chevrolet 

Silverado or Suburban – which can tow up to 10,700 and 8500 pounds in half-ton, lightduty specification and the heavy-duty, full-ton Silverado pickup can tow up to 21,700 

pounds when properly equipped – the same methods used for the interior, glazing, HVAC 

system, and electrical system can be applied. The chassis lightening methods cannot be 

fully utilized and the suspension must be built for heavy-duty applications, which means it 

can’t be fully lightened either.

An example of capacity decrease from body-on-frame construction to unibody construction 

is the new Ford Explorer. For 2011, Ford switched the Explorer to unibody construction for 

weight savings purposes, decreasing the BIW mass by 58 kg and decreasing maximum 

towing capacity by 2400 pounds to 5000 pounds. Both the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee 

and 2011 Dodge Durango are unibody vehicles as well and can tow 7400 pounds each, 

but weigh around 5200 pounds each so equipped compared to 4400 pounds for the 

Explorer, demonstrating the necessary, structural, heavy reinforcements to allow the 

greater capacity.

The Toyota Yaris BIW shown in Figure 4.5.8.1.7.a below is an example of a mini car body 

structure, for which the Phase 2 BIW weight reduction does not scale directly. This is due 

to the previously mentioned dimensional constraints, such as those between the B-pillar 

and dashboard, which can only decrease so far in order to maintain a comfortable driving 

position and relationship to the dashboard for safety. This means that the Yaris and Phase 

2 HD vehicle will have a similar amount of material between the driver’s seat and 
212

dashboard. The small crumple zone ahead of the firewall can also be seen in this picture, 

which would have to be reinforced on this size car to maintain crash worthiness and would 

add weight. This BIW weighs 228 kg, which is approximately the same mass as the 

significantly larger Phase 2 HD BIW.

Figure 4.5.8.1.7.a: Toyota Yaris body-in-white structure

The Toyota Corolla BIW pictured in Figure 4.5.8.1.7.b is another example of a small car for 

which the weight savings may not reach the Phase 2 level. The same dimensional 

constraints as with the mini car apply. Reducing the BIW mass is still possible. The Corolla 

BIW weighs 289 kg, which is significantly heavier than the larger Phase 2 HD body.

Figure 4.5.8.1.7.b: Toyota Corolla body-in-white structure
213

The Audi A4 BIW structure pictured below in Figure 4.5.8.1.7.c is an example of a midsize 

car as defined by the EPA. It weighs 306 kg or approximately 25 percent more than the 

Phase 2 HD vehicle. Midsize cars are projected to approach the weight savings of the 

Phase 2 HD vehicle. The crumple zone is larger, which allows for thinner, lighter material 

to absorb the crash energy. An extreme analogy to clarify this point is that if a vehicle had 

a 50-foot long crumple zone, the energy could be absorbed by foam rather than metal. The 

proportion of weight in the BIW between the driver’s seat and dashboard also decreases 

relative to the body weight increase. 

Figure 4.5.8.1.7.c: Audi A4 body-in-white structure

Audi’s A7 BIW structure pictured below in Figure 4.5.8.1.7.d could realize a potential 

weight reduction close to the 40 percent of the Phase 2 HD BIW for the reasons given for 

the A4 BIW. The A7 BIW structure currently weighs 349 kg, over 100 kg more than the 

Phase 2 HD BIW.

Figure 4.5.8.1.7.d: Audi A7 body-in-white-structure
214

Body-in-white data for all of the vehicles listed above, along with the BIW volumes, 

densities, and specific densities are shown in Table 4.5.8.1.7.a below. Length, width, and 

height are given in inches and are used with a shape factor to calculate the BIW volume in 

cubic feet. The shape factor is based on the bodystyle, i.e. sedan, wagon, SUV, etc., and 

is shown in Table 4.5.8.1.7.b. The density is then determined by dividing the BIW mass in 

kg by the BIW volume. Specific density is determined by dividing an example BIW density 

by the Phase 2 HD density, thus the Phase 2 HD BIW specific density is equal to 1.0 and 

unitless.

Table 4.5.8.1.7.a: Body-in-white specific densities

Vehicle Mass (kg) Weight (lbs.) BIW Dimensions

ARB Phase 2 HD BIW 260.8 573.8 Length (in.): 180.04

Width (in.): 75.79

Height (in.): 53.94

Volume (cu. ft.): 374.67

Density (kg/cu. ft.): 0.70

Specific Density (unitless): 1.00

Toyota Yaris BIW 228.0 501.6 Length (in.): 133.07

Width (in.): 66.93

Height (in.): 51.57

Volume (cu. ft.): 232.79

Density (kg/cu. ft.): 0.98

Specific Density (unitless): 1.41

Toyota Corolla BIW 289.0 635.8 Length (in.): 160.71

Width (in.): 49.09

Height (in.): 84.33

Volume (cu. ft.): 315.20

Density (kg/cu. ft.): 0.92

Specific Density (unitless): 1.32

Audi A4 BIW 306.0 673.2 Length (in.): 168.50

Width (in.): 69.69

Height (in.): 48.43

Volume (cu. ft.): 272.52

Density (kg/cu. ft.): 1.12

Specific Density (unitless): 1.61

Audi A7 BIW 349.4 768.7 Length (in.): 174.41

Width (in.): 74.80

Height (in.): 48.03

Volume (cu. ft.): 304.41

Density (kg/cu. ft.): 1.15

Specific Density (unitless): 1.65

Table 4.5.8.1.7.b: Shape factors

Volume = Sedans: ((Wheelbase*Height) + ((Length - Wheelbase)*0.5 *Height))*Width
215

SUVs and Hatchbacks: ((0.33*(Length - Wheelbase)*Height) + (Wheelbase*Height) + (0.67*(Length -

Wheelbase)*0.5*Height))*Width

Trucks: ((Bed Length*0.5*Height) + (0.5*(Length - Bed Length)*Height) + (0.5*(Length -

Bed Length)*0.5*Height))*Width

4.5.8.2. Closures

Lotus Engineering investigated a wide variety of materials to use to construct lightweight 

vehicular closures. Theses closures have already become a focal point for mass reduction 

due to the relative lack of complexity and ease of integration. A number of lightweight 

materials and manufacturing methods are already in use, including the use of a 

magnesium casting for the Lincoln MKT rear hatch. Lotus used low-mass materials to 

lighten vehicular closures and their fixtures, which can be scaled to nearly any vehicle 

class.

For example, the magnesium used in the tailgate can be used in non-structural 

components because the metal is too brittle to withstand crash events. Current 

thermoplastic body panels have limits on how large they should be manufactured due to 

thermal expansion characteristics.

4.5.8.2.1. Injection Molding

Injection molded plastics are currently used in industries ranging from toy making to the 

automotive industry. The wide variety of applications for injection-molded parts can already 

be seen in industry. Lotus applied modularization to a number of door components –

including the structural safety reinforcements and window-glass channel – to allow for 

further weight savings. The scalability of modularization and castings was discussed in the 

previous section.

4.5.8.2.2. Mild Steel Castings

Lotus’ closure designs call for the use of mild steel castings – a material and 

manufacturing technique already in use in vehicles that meet or exceed federal safety 

standards – for the majority of the door hinges. These parts have proven performance in 

vehicle crashworthiness. Thus, scaling the use of mild steel castings and injection molding 

to save weight will have no adverse effect on vehicle safety.

4.5.8.2.3. Scalability Summary

Although closures are already a focal point for mass reduction, further mass reductions are 

possible and unlike the BIW, likely proportionally scalable between vehicle classes. This is 

due to the use of modularization and increased use of lightweight materials in the Phase 2 

HD vehicle while typical closures in every vehicle class are primarily constructed from 
216

heavier mild steel. Closures are also relatively unaffected by safety limitations as the 

majority of the vehicle crash structure is engineered into the BIW. High strength steel side 

door beams have been refined to the point where they are lightweight and effective. 

Closures are dimensionally limited in that they should provide relative ease of access to 

the vehicle, i.e. doors should allow passengers to get into and out of the vehicle relatively 

easily, trunks/tailgates should provide adequate storage access, and the hood should 

provide an adequate opening for maintenance access.

4.5.8.3. Front and Rear Bumpers

Bumpers are engineered to pass federal vehicle safety requirements and simple beams 

with energy absorbing materials and stylized cosmetic fascias are generally adequate to 

pass these tests. Current bumpers are generally constructed from steel extrusions, 

although some are aluminum and magnesium. Lotus chose to use aluminum extrusions for 

the front and rear beams as it reduced vehicle mass and remained within the cost target. 

Aluminum extrusions are easily scalable as previously discussed in the BIW section and 

are already in use on vehicles that meet federal safety requirements, including the 

standard Toyota Venza rear bumper system.

4.5.8.4. Glazing (Windshield, Backlight, Doors, Sunroof, 

Fixed Panels)

Lotus investigated the possibility of using silicate treated polycarbonate when analyzing 

glazing options for the Phase 2 HD vehicle, but concluded the material may not be ready 

for widespread use on vehicle glazing by the 2020 time frame. This represented a 

conservative approach, but utilizing standard vehicle glass ensures the technology is 

readily scalable and that the vehicles will meet or exceed federal safety standards.

4.5.8.5. Interior

The scalability of the Phase 2 HD vehicle interior is based primarily on engineering and 

design concepts as vehicle interiors have different requirements. For example, Venza 

customers don’t have the same interior expectation as either a Mercedes-Benz S-Class 

customer or a Lotus Exige customer. The primary engineering and design techniques used 

– systems integration, and seat, infotainment and instrument panel redesign – can be 

scaled to a variety of vehicles.

4.5.8.5.1. Seats

Different vehicle classes have different seat requirements – compare the racing bucket 

seats in the Lotus Exige to the 16-way power seats in the Mercedes-Benz S-Class – but all 
217

can be lightened through the use of new, lightweight foam and different construction 

techniques such as using a foam suspension rather than metal. Seat scalability is already 

in use today as seats of a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and comfort levels appear in every 

vehicle on the road. Seats can also be carried across to a number of vehicles within a 

manufacturer’s lineup, reducing development costs and providing greater economies of 

scale.

4.5.8.5.2. Electronic Transmission and Parking Brake Controls

Fully electronic transmission and parking brake controls are some of the easiest ways to 

reduce weight in any vehicle and are independent of vehicle size. These technologies are 

being applied to a variety of vehicles. Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, and Jaguar all use fully 

electronic transmission controls. Vehicles as small as GMC’s Granite concept have used 

these technologies. It is important to note that electronic transmission systems work best 

with transmissions engineered for electronic actuation as the mass saved by eliminating 

the mechanical linkage will be added back when a servo-actuator is added. Electronic 

parking brakes eliminate the need for a mechanical linkage as well, and can be integrated 

into an existing touch screen. Audi currently uses electronic parking brakes on vehicles 

such as its S4 sedan. 

4.5.8.5.3. Instrument Panel

Instrument panels (IPs), for the most part, are currently designed using hardware tailored 

to each vehicle. Replacing the standard physical instrument panel with an OLED display 

reduces weight and can be scaled to every vehicle. Displays like this are currently used on 

high-end cars such as the Jaguar XJ, but are beginning to appear in mainstream cars such 

as the Ford Edge.

A similar system could be used to reduce the weight of the infotainment display. A 

transparent OLED (organic LED) touchscreen near the windshield could replace the 

navigation display and be scaled to any vehicle. Radio functions could then be controlled 

via personal music devices such as an iPod touch – as in the Ferrari F430 Scuderia – or 

an iPad. Capacitive touch sensitive buttons as in the Chevrolet Volt help to slightly reduce 

weight and can be scaled to any vehicle as well. This is shown in the emergence of touch 

sensitive consumer goods and the Jaguar XF and XJ, where even the dome lights and 

glovebox are controlled via touch sensitivity.

The engineering and construction technique used to create the IP and dash panel can also 

be scaled to other vehicle classes. The Phase 2 IP would integrate seamlessly into the 

cast magnesium dash panel, with integrated support brackets to insure that it would meet 

federal safety standards. The gauge cluster in front of the driver is primarily supported by 

the collapsible, cast magnesium steering column, which is a primary connection to the 

vehicle. This design approach is scalable to other vehicles.
218

4.5.8.5.4. Center Console

Lotus simplified the number of parts required to create the center console, creating a 

design that can be scaled to virtually all center console designs. This simplistic approach 

means that a lesser number of parts must be redesigned and retooled for manufacturing. 

The composite center console design can easily be scaled as shown by examples of the 

scalability and variability of composite design in the BIW section. The plastic material used 

for the center storage bin can also be scaled up or down as it’s used in a wide variety of 

automotive and non-automotive products. The foam and leather used for the top of the 

armrest can also be scaled up or down as described in the seats section.

4.5.8.5.5. Noise Insulation

Active noise cancellation can be used to replace standard noise insulating materials and 

can be scaled to smaller and larger vehicle classes very easily. Noise cancellation 

eliminates heavy noise insulating materials by utilizing the sound system and microphones 

already built into the vehicle. This technology is currently used on the Chevrolet Equinox 

where General Motors tuned the software to cancel out the harsh engine noise at low 

RPMs to allow the engine to idle lower and achieve a higher fuel economy rating; high-end 

headphones to eliminate ambient noise; and airplanes to reduce wind noise while flying. 

This demonstrates the applicability of this technology to vehicles of all shapes and sizes

and its ability to reduce the amount of heavy noise insulating material necessary by tuning 

it to cancel out wind, road, engine, and other ambient noise.

4.5.8.5.6. Interior Trim

Lotus primarily looked at system integration and elimination in order to reduce the weight 

of the Venza’s interior trim for the Phase 2 HD vehicle. This means that the interior trim 

weight reductions can be scaled to a wide variety of vehicle classes. Carpeting can be 

removed from any vehicle and replaced by a varying size floormat as in the Phase 2 HD 

vehicle and evidenced by vehicles such as the Lotus Exige and Ferrari F430 Scuderia. 

Both have bare aluminum floors with floor mats. A similar technique is used to decorate 

wood and tile floors in houses, where the owner simply lays down a carpet.

Other interior trim, such as sunvisors and pillar panels can be scaled. Both Faurecia, an 

innovative Tier 1 interior supplier, and MuCell are working on new, lighter coverings that 

can be scaled just as easily as the plastics currently used. Door panel mass has also been 

significantly reduced in the Phase 2 HD vehicle by merging the door panel trim with the 

inner door structure; this concept can be applied to any vehicle. Additionally, the physical 

door handle and connections were removed and replaced by lightweight capacitive 

switches molded into the door module itself. This is similar to the door module and 

electronic locking mechanisms already in use in the Aston Martin lineup, Chevrolet 

Corvette, Cadillac CTS Coupe, and Nissan GT-R. These can be used on any size vehicle.
219

4.5.8.5.7. HVA/C Ducting

Lotus looked at a number of options to reduce the mass of the heating, ventilation, and airconditioning systems for the Phase 2 HD vehicle, these systems however, are all very well 

developed and further mass reductions are extremely difficult. Mass reductions of the 

ducting system used to deliver the heated or cooled air to the passenger compartment can 

be achieved using new materials and are scalable though. A MuCell foamed plastic 

technology was incorporated that offered reduced mass and improved thermal 

performance. MuCell says its foamed plastic parts can replace traditional vehicle ducting 

and is readily scalable.

4.5.8.6. Chassis and Suspension

A wide variety of components are included under the chassis and suspension category 

including wheels and tires, brakes, steering, and the suspension system. These 

components have been a focal point of mass reduction in order to reduce unsprung vehicle 

weight and correspondingly increase ride and handling performance.

4.5.8.6.1. Suspension and Steering

The selected suspension and steering components can be scaled to a variety of vehicle 

classes using materials and manufacturing technologies previously discussed. The 

Venza’s standard springs were replaced with high strength steel units, which are used on 

high-end BMWs. Lotus also replaced the Venza’s standard steel upper-spring seat with a 

glass-filled nylon unit, which is used on the Mazda5. Lightweight cast magnesium, which 

was previously discussed in the BIW section, was used for the front sub-frame; a 

magnesium sub-frame is used on the Corvette Z06. A simple and easily scalable hollow 

stabilizer bar – used on a wide variety of performance vehicles for weight savings –

replaced the solid steel unit on the Venza.

The Venza’s cast iron suspension knuckles were replaced with cast aluminum knuckles 

such as those offered on current Chrysler minivans. Lotus used a design similar to that on 

the Alfa Romeo 147 for the rear knuckles and one similar to the Volkswagen Passat’s for 

the front knuckles, both of which are more compact and lighter than the stock Venza’s.

Lotus utilized foam reinforced front, lower-control arms to reduce the weight of the Phase 2 

HD suspension. These are single piece stampings and as such, can be scaled using 

similar techniques to those previously described in the BIW section.

4.5.8.6.2. Braking System

Lotus evaluated a number of braking solutions for use on the Phase 2 HD vehicle including 

the electronic parking brake mentioned earlier. This system eliminates the physical 
220

connection hardware and uses a solenoid actuated integrated parking brake caliper rather 

than a specific parking brake mechanism to reduce weight.

The hybrid powertrain of the Phase 2 HD vehicle necessitated the use of a hydraulic brake 

pump rather than a vacuum driven brake pump. This type of pump is already in use on 

hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape. The brake rotors themselves are 

new dual cast rotors (cast aluminum hub with cast iron outer ring) rather than single piece 

cast iron rotors. Brembo designed the brakes and they are currently available.

Lotus also chose to use Brembo’s fixed aluminum front calipers, which are cast from 

aluminum to save weight over traditional cast iron calipers. The fixed caliper design also 

offers additional weight savings. Brembo already produces this style of caliper in a variety 

of sizes for different vehicle classes. The rear brakes on the Phase 2 HD vehicle use 

floating aluminum calipers, which are already in production.

4.5.8.6.3. Tires and Wheels

The tire and wheel technologies chosen for the Phase 2 HD vehicle are scalable based on 

wheel diameters. Wheels made from a variety of materials – cast steel alloys, cast 

aluminum alloys, and even forged aluminum alloys and forged magnesium7– are currently 

offered in all sizes and styles. The cast aluminum alloy wheels chosen for the Phase 2 HD 

vehicle are currently manufactured in sizes as small as 15 inches as on the Toyota Prius 

up to sizes over 19 inches as on the Audi R8. Tires are also easily scalable as shown by 

the varying widths and side profile heights currently offered by tire manufacturers.

Lotus also eliminated the spare tire due to the availability of light weigh options in 

production now including run-flat tires and tire repair kits. The spare tire can be removed 

and either run-flat tires or a tire repair kit added to replace the spare tire on virtually any 

passenger car or truck.

4.5.8.7. Electrical

The electrical harnesses on the Phase 2 HD vehicle use thinwall, plastic-coated, copperclad aluminum wiring. Copper-clad aluminum wiring is already in production while thinwall 

is currently being evaluated for production use and further weight savings. This technology 

can easily be applied to most vehicles. This is evidenced by the 2011 Toyota Yaris’ use of 

CCA aluminum wiring harness manufactured by Sumitomo Electric Industries.

4.5.8.8. Powertrain

Phase 2 of Lotus’ contract with the CARB did not require the evaluation of vehicle 

powertrains, but they are very scalable. This is evidenced by the wide variety of vehicles 

on the road today with a broad range of powertrain offerings. Vehicles today come with 
221

everything from V-8s coupled to eight-speed automatic transmissions to hybrids and pure 

electric vehicles. Vehicles can be engineered to accept a wide variety of powertrains as 

evidenced by the Chevrolet Volt series hybrid utilizing the Chevrolet Cruze body platform. 

Other OEM’s, such as Toyota, an industry leader in producing hybrid vehicles, use a 

similar strategy for most of their hybrid vehicles, designing mainstream ICE platforms to 

accept larger battery packs, smaller gas tanks, downsized internal combustion engines 

and an electric drive motor. This allows the Phase 2 HD vehicle to be equipped with a 

standard ICE powertrain, a pure electric drive system or a hybrid powertrain. A similar 

vehicle would be Mercedes-Benz’s S-Class, which is offered with powertrain options 

ranging from twin-turbo V-12s to a hybrid-electric setup and a plug-in hybrid concept has 

been developed and shown.
222

4.5.8.9. Competitive Set Study

Lotus compiled data for a wide variety of vehicle classes – micro cars, small cars, midsize 

cars, large cars, small SUVs, midsize SUVS, large SUVs, compact pickup trucks, and 

small pickup trucks – as part of the development of the Phase 2 HD vehicle. This data 

provides the length, front and rear tracks, heights, wheelbases, weights, footprints, and 

specific densities of the major vehicle classes. This information is shown on Table 

4.4.14.9.a below and a full list of vehicles with more detailed information can be found in 

Appendix B. Vehicle classes are listed in both EPA and EU classifications.

Table 4.4.14.9.a: Average vehicle class information

Vehicle Class Example 

Vehicle

Length 

(in.)

Front 

Track 

(in.)

Rear 

Track 

(in.)

Height 

(in.)

Wheelbase 

(in.)

Weight 

(lbs.)

Footprint 

(sq. ft.)

Specific 

Density 

(unitless)

Mini car/

Subcompact

Toyota 

Yaris

161.6 58.0 58.0 59.2 98.5 2550.0 39.69 1.46

Small car/

Compact

Toyota 

Corolla

176.0 59.9 60.0 58.3 103.9 2950.0 43.29 1.52

Midsize car Toyota 

Camry

191.0 61.7 61.6 57.8 109.5 3320.0 46.89 1.63

Large car Toyota 

Avalon

199.4 63.0 62.9 59.1 113.4 3860.0 49.59 1.73

Small SUV Toyota 

Rav4

174.4 61.5 61.6 66.8 103.3 3540.0 44.15 1.52

Midsize SUV/

Crossover

Toyota 

Venza

191.0 63.6 63.6 66.9 111.8 4320.0 49.37 1.61

Fullsize SUV 

(BoF)

Toyota 

Sequoia

202.8 66.7 67.4 74.2 117.7 5560.0 54.77 1.67

Fullsize SUV 

(unibody)

Ford Flex 201.5 66.3 66.3 69.0 118.5 4820.0 54.52 1.56

Minivans Toyota 

Sienna

202.0 66.9 66.8 69.0 119.4 4440.0 55.38 1.45

The specific density in Table 4.5.8.9.a provides a direct comparison to the Phase 2 HD 

vehicle and demonstrates the potential for mass savings across each vehicle class. This is 

due to the definition of specific density, which is shown in Table 4.5.8.9.b below. This 

specific density shows just how much more mass there is per unit volume, giving an idea 

of the potential weight savings as shown in greater detail in section 4.5.8.10. Volumes of 

each vehicle were calculated using a shape factor as described by the equations in Table 

4.5.8.9.b below as well as footprint and basic density calculations.

Table 4.5.8.9.b: Vehicle volume calculations based on shape factors

Definitions

Footprint = Length*0.5*(Front Track + Rear Track)

Volume = Sedans: ((Wheelbase*Height) + ((Length - Wheelbase)*0.5 *Height))*Width

SUVs and Hatchbacks: ((0.33*(Length - Wheelbase)*Height) + (Wheelbase*Height) + (0.67*(Length - Wheelbase)*0.5*Height))*Width

Trucks: ((Bed Length*0.5*Height) + (0.5*(Length - Bed Length)*Height) + (0.5*(Length – Bed 

Length)*0.5*Height))*Width

Density = Weight/Volume

Specific Density = Density/ARB Phase 2 Density
223

4.5.8.10. Summary and Projected Weight Savings

The data presented in this section shows the scalability of the engineering and 

manufacturing techniques implemented to reduce vehicle weight. This section also 

includes– with one exception– an analysis indicating that automakers have been reducing 

vehicle weight, and a review of potential opportunities to further reduce vehicle mass at 

minimal cost. This is shown in the comparison between body-on-frame vehicles and 

unibody vehicles, as all of the body-on-frame vehicles, with the exception of the Honda 

Ridgeline, are heavier, and correspondingly denser than their unibody counterparts. The 

Ridgeline is an outlier as it’s the only unibody pickup truck currently on sale and also offers 

significantly more standard content than unibody compact pickup trucks. Examples of the 

Ridgeline’s added content are the full center console and adjustable front bucket seats; a 

simple bench seat layout (without a console) is standard on all other compact pickup 

trucks. Other, more luxurious features, some of which aren’t available on other compacts 

pickups, add to the weight and density of the Ridgeline. All of the vehicles shown were 

also base vehicles, which are typically two-door pickups while the Ridgeline is only 

available in a four-door version. More unibody, compact pickup trucks need to be available 

in order to further evaluate the use of a unibody structure in compact pickups, but the 

comparison of unibody and body-on-frame large SUVs shows the difference in structure. 

All fullsize pickup trucks currently utilize body-on-frame construction so a comparison 

between unibody and body-on-frame is not possible.

An objective means of measuring the potential weight savings for each vehicle class 

relative to the baseline Venza was created by developing a mathematical relationship 

based on relative specific densities and the mass reduction for the Phase 2 HD model vs. 

the baseline Venza. These values established the baseline figures and were used to 

create the following equation to quantify the potential relative weight savings:

 

Where: PWS = projected weight savings

Specific Density = vehicle density/Phase 2 HD total vehicle density

1.62 = baseline [Venza] specific density

32.4 = Phase 2 HD curb weight reduction as a percentage

Table 4.5.8.10.a below shows the potential weight savings across vehicle classes and also 

indicates that the 32.4-percent total vehicle weight savings will not scale directly across 

vehicle classes, particularly vehicles smaller than the Venza. Any vehicle with a PWS of 

less than 32.4 percent indicates that it has less mass savings potential than the Venza. 

Any vehicle with a PWS of greater than 32.4 percent indicates that it has more mass 

savings potential than the Venza. Smaller vehicles have less potential, e.g., the microcar 

has potential for a 28-percent weight savings. This analysis shows that a significant weight 

savings can be achieved in every vehicle class by applying the methods and materials 

described in this study and in the Phase 1 report.
224

Table 4.5.8.10.a: Projected total vehicle weight savings by vehicle class

Averages:

Density (lbs./ft3): ± Specific Density (unitless): ± Projected Weight Savings

Micro cars: 7.91 0.00 Micro cars: 1.40 0.00 28.01%

Mini Cars: 8.23 0.43 Mini Cars: 1.46 0.08 29.13%

Small Cars: 8.61 0.53 Small Cars: 1.52 0.09 30.48%

Midsize Cars: 9.19 0.24 Midsize Cars: 1.63 0.04 32.54%

Midsize Luxury Cars: 10.17 0.28 Midsize Luxury Cars: 1.80 0.05 36.02%

Large Cars: 9.75 0.38 Large Cars: 1.73 0.07 34.51%

Large Luxury Cars 10.25 0.46 Large Luxury Cars 1.81 0.08 36.29%

Small SUVs: 8.56 0.37 Small SUVs: 1.52 0.07 30.30%

Midsize SUVs: 9.10 0.42 Midsize SUVs: 1.61 0.07 32.23%

Midsize Luxury SUVs: 9.56 0.21 Midsize Luxury SUVs: 1.69 0.04 33.86%

Large BoF SUVs: 9.46 0.18 Large BoF SUVs: 1.67 0.03 33.49%

Large Unibody SUVs: 8.78 0.08 Large Unibody SUVs: 1.56 0.01 31.10%

Small BoF Pickups: 10.03 0.49 Small BoF Pickups: 1.78 0.08 35.53%

Small Uni Pickups: 10.37 0.00 Small Uni Pickups: 1.84 0.00 36.71%

Large Pickups: 9.29 0.35 Large Pickups: 1.64 0.06 32.88%

Minivans: 8.17 0.17 Minivans: 1.45 0.03 28.93%

Based on the above analysis of the various vehicle dimensions and densities in a number 

of vehicle classes, the results of the Phase 2 HD design can be [roughly] scaled to other 

vehicle classes. Table 4.5.8.10.b below gives an estimation of how the mass and cost 

factors scale to other vehicle classes.

Table 4.5.8.10.b: Estimated mass and cost factors for various vehicle classes

Vehicle Class Example 

Vehicle

Original 

Vehicle 

Mass (kg)

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction

Projected 

Reduced 

Vehicle 

Mass (kg)

Original 

Body 

Mass (kg)

Body Mass 

Reduction

Projected 

Reduced 

Body Mass 

(kg)

Vehicle 

Cost 

Factor

Mini car/ 

Subcompact

Toyota 

Yaris

1113.5 29.1% 789.1 228.0 36.9% 143.9 131.5%

Small car/ 

Compact

Toyota 

Corolla

1251.2 30.5% 869.6 289.0 34.6% 189.0 120.7%

Midsize car Ford Fusion 1555.4 32.5% 1049.9 305.0 41.4% 178.7 112.0%

Large car Ford 

Taurus

1803.7 34.5% 1181.4 372.5 41.6% 217.5 102.0%

Small SUV Toyota 

Rav4

1632.7 30.3% 1138.0 310.0 36.3% 197.5 111.9%

Midsize SUV/ 

Crossover

Phase 2 HD 1700.0 32.4% 1150.0 382.5 38.5% 260.8 106.0%

Large pickup 

(BoF)

Ford F-150 2406.4 32.9% 1614.7 275.1 38.0% 170.6 155.5%

Minivans Toyota 

Sienna

2091.0 28.9% 1486.7 428.0 43.0% 244.0 131.1%

This information was compiled using the specific densities compiled in Table 4.5.8.10.a as 

well as the projected weight savings. A separate BIW specific density and projected weight 

savings were also calculated for every example vehicle in Table 4.5.8.10.b using the same 

formulas. This information was then used to project the reduced vehicle and reduced BIW 

mass. The cost factor was determined by converting the known cost of the Phase 2 HD 

vehicle into a $/kg figure and using the following formula:
225

Where: CF = Cost Factor

Reduced Mass = Reduced Vehicle Mass

Cost per kg = Cost per kg for Phase 2 HD vehicle

Vehicle Invoice = Example Vehicle MSRP divided by RPE

4.6.1 Conclusions

This engineering study successfully achieved its objectives of developing and validating 

the safety and crashworthiness of an over 30-percent mass-reduced vehicle through a 

holistic vehicle redesign. Final vehicle design began with a 2009 Toyota Venza crossover 

vehicle and integrated relatively large quantities of advanced materials (e.g. aluminum, 

advanced high-strength steels, magnesium, and composites) and advanced designs and 

bonding techniques to achieve a substantial vehicular mass reduction without degrading 

size, utility, safety, or performance. Overall, vehicle body mass was reduced by 37 percent 

(141 kg), which contributed to a total vehicle mass reduction of 32 percent (527 kg) once 

the other vehicle systems (interior, suspension, closures, chassis, etc.) were optimized in a 

holistic redesign. Additionally, this mass reduction was achieved using a parallel-hybrid 

drivetrain, suggesting that with a simpler non-hybrid drivetrain, vehicle mass could be 

further reduced while maintaining constant performance.

This project uses emerging technologies advanced materials, state-of-the-art 

manufacturing and bonding techniques, and innovative design to develop a low-mass 

vehicle that meets or exceeds modern vehicle demands in terms of functionality, 

crashworthiness, and structural integrity. The study developed a mass-reduced vehicle 

and validated that it achieves best-in-class torsional and bending stiffness and meets U.S. 

federal safety requirements as well as IIHS guidelines. This work indicates it is technically 

feasible to develop a 30-percent lighter crossover vehicle without compromising size, 

utility, or performance and still meet regulatory and consumer safety demands.

The mass-reduced design is found to result in a significant increase in the cost of the 

vehicle. The estimation of the direct manufacturing costs for the low mass vehicle body 

design suggests that the body structure itself would be 37 percent lighter (i.e. 141 kg) at a 

60 percent plus cost (i.e. $723) increase over the baseline vehicle body. When 

considering the comprehensive vehicle redesign including the body and non-body vehicle 

components, this vehicle design achieves a 32-percent mass reduction at a total direct 

incremental manufacturing cost decrease of around $342 per vehicle because significant 

cost savings can be achieved from mass reductions in the interior, suspension, chassis, 

interior, and closures areas. Therefore the study illustrates how a holistic, total vehicle 

approach to system mass and cost reductions can help offset the additional cost of a 37 

percent mass reduced body structure. This study also estimates how these mass 

reductions and costs scale to other vehicle classes, finding that roughly similar mass-
226

reduction and associated costs can be applied to other models ranging from subcompact 

cars to full-sized light trucks.

This study’s findings also indicate that the 30-percent mass-reduced vehicle can be costeffectively mass-produced in the 2020 timeframe with known materials and techniques. It 

is estimated with high confidence that the assembly and tooling costs of the new massreduced body design would have greatly reduced costs due to the substantial reduction in 

parts required, from 419 parts in the baseline Venza, to 169 parts in the low-mass design. 

By factoring in the manufacturability of the materials and designs into the fundamental 

design process, it is expected that, not only will this type of design be production-ready in 

2020, but it also has the potential for wide commercialization in the 2025 timeframe.

4.6.2 Recommendations

A multi-material body structure should be built and tested to evaluate its structural 

characteristics for stiffness and modals (frequency response) using non-destructive testing 

methods.

Additionally, it is recommended that a low mass vehicle be constructed using the Lotus 

designed BIW, be fitted with components duplicating the non-body system masses and 

then be evaluated for FMVSS impact performance by NHTSA.

5. References

1. 2011 NHTSA Workshop on Vehicle Mass-Size-Safety, Ron Medford: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/administration/pdf/presentations_speeches/Medford

_Mass-Safety_Workshop_02252011.pdf)

2. http://www.theicct.org/pubs/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf

3. http://members.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDis

play.cfm&CONTENTID=28272

4. www.toyota.com/venza/specs.html

5. Alcan Press Release 09/06/2002

6. American Foundry Society: http://www.afsinc.org/content/view/206

7. SMW Forged Magnesium Wheels: http://www.smw.com/contents/catalog/id/16
227

6. List of Inventions Reported and Copyrighted Materials 

Produced

There were no inventions or copyrighted materials produced as a result of this contract.
A-1

7. Appendices

7.1. Appendix A: Manufacturing Report

Purpose of Study:

This study provides an overview about the 

characteristics of a Body Shop to build annually 

60,000 bodies of the LWV (Light Weight Vehicle).

Due to the premature stage of the program we will not 

enter into the level of detail as typically done. 

In areas of uncertainty we will make assumptions 

and/or suggestions.

Jeff Wrobel

Supervisor Process & 

Simulation

EBZ Engineering, Inc.

110 South Blvd. W, Suite 

100

Rochester Hills, MI 

48307

(248) 299-0500

March 1, 2011
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-2

1.0 General Assumptions

Plant located in eastern Clallam County, Washington

Two-shift operation

Highly automated production system

Single model, no derivatives

New bonding technology, friction stir bonding (FSB)

Materials: aluminum, magnesium, high strength steel, composites

Only BIW considered in manufacturing study

Cycle time is 191 seconds at 85-percent body shop efficiency

Transportation time is 13 seconds (underbody line, framing line)

Planned SOP: 2020

2.0 Location

A number of factors need to be considered when choosing a location for a factory such as 

climate, labor costs, resources available, and taxes. Considering all these factors, eastern 

Clallam County, Washington was chosen as the site for the Phase 2 HD vehicle factory.

2.1 Climate

Washington State has a stable, moderate climate and Clallam County’s location on the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and west of the Olympic Mountains mean temperatures are even 

more stable year. The Olympic Mountains also shelter eastern Clallam County from the 

rain and storms that occur in Washington state. Total rainfall in the plant’s planned location 

is less than 30-inches per year. Average annual temperatures typically range between 39-

degrees Fahrenheit in winter and 62-degrees Fahrenheit in summer.

2.2 Labor Costs

Washington State is not a right-to-work state and requires forced unionism, but wages are 

however, competitive. Planned worker compensation at the Phase 2 HD plant is wholly 

competitive for Clallam County, where the average hourly rate is $22.50. Planned 

compensation for assembly workers is $22 per hour, $35 per hour for maintenance 

workers, and $18 per hour for logistics workers.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-3

2.3 Available Resources

Resources necessary for a plant include an availability of shipping, cooling water, and 

energy sources. Shipping in Clallam County is widely available as Port Angeles, a major 

port, is located right in the county on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. From Port Angeles, 

highway transportation is widely available and Port Angeles allows for easy gobal sea 

transportation. There are also major rail hubs located along the Hood River, which can be 

accessed from Clallam County via highway transport and gives Clallam County easy 

access to the rest of the contiguous United States.

Clallam County’s proximity to the Strait of Juan de Fuca allows easy access to the 

necessary cooling water for the plant. The water can either be pulled directly from the river 

or collected into a storage bin and recycled in a closed-loop system. If the cooling water is 

not kept within the plant boundaries and is an open-loop system, all of the local, state, and 

federal regulations on safe water release. Examples of this include maintaining a 

temperature within two degrees of the natural water temperature to avoid heat pollution 

and a pH level within 0.5 of 7 (neutral) to avoid acidifying or basifying the water.

Sources of energy generation are key in creating an environmentally friendly 

manufacturing plant for an environmentally friendly vehicle and Washington State offers a 

wide variety of green energy options currently or that could be implemented while building 

the factory. Solar radiation exposure in Washington is great enough such that solar panels 

could be installed to provide power. They could be installed on the large roof area typical 

of automotive assembly plants and thus wouldn’t require any additional land investment. 

The region of Washington chosen for the plant is also relatively windy, meaning wind 

turbines could be installed to generate even more power. Small scale wind turbines could 

be installed on the roof of the plant alongside the solar panels to avoid needing extra land. 

A third form of environmentally friendly power generation available in the chosen region of 

Washington State is hydroelectric power. There are hydroelectric power stations already 

built, supplying nearly 75-percent of the state’s energy according to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration.

2.4 Taxes

Taxes in Washington State are comparably low with numerous tax breaks and incentives 

offered. There is no business income tax in the state and property taxes are a total of 12.5 

percent, including state and local. There are a minimum of six tax incentives offered by 

Washington State to build the plant in Clallam County including a machinery and 

equipment sales and use tax exemption, a rural county business and occupation credit, a 

high unemployment county sales and use tax deferral or waiver, a high technology 

business and occupation tax credit for research and development spending, a high 

technology sales and use tax deferral or waiver, and commute reduction reimbursement if 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-4

the company helps employees pay for their commutes to work. At this early stage it is 

unclear just how much money these tax breaks will save the manufacturing facility and 

more could be sought out, but the tax breaks will pay for 100 percent of the solar and wind 

energy power generators.

3.0 Process & Layout

3.1 Efficiencies

Three main factors drive assembly plant efficiency. These factors are the efficiency of 

workers and technical equipment, downtime in plant operation due to organizational 

problems, and other system related downtimes. Together, these factors account for the 

overall plant efficiency.

3.1.1 Equipment Efficiencies

These inefficiencies are relatively small but are always present and need to be accounted 

for. Workers are assumed to operate at 100% efficiency and technical equipment generally 

has an efficiency factor of 99% or higher. When all equipment efficiencies are combined in 

a complex manufacturing system of up to 20 connected stations, the efficiency factor drops 

to 95%.

3.1.2 Downtime due to Organizational Problems

There are downtimes inherent to any assembly plant. Organizational problems caused by 

logistics, environment, or political (strike) events account for part of these down times. Due 

to the unpredictable nature of these problems, the total reduction in efficiency varies and is 

more difficult to predict. Overall, they can account for a 5 – 90% reduction.

3.1.2 Overall System Related Downtime

Further downtimes occur due to overall system related downtime. Interaction between the 

different zones of the plant creates inefficiencies, which in turn reduces the total efficiency 

factor by an additional 5%.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-5

Factoring in these three main contributions, the total bodyshop efficiency is 85%. This is 

illustrated below in Figure A.1. 

2.1. Total Efficiency

Technical

Downtimes

Organizational

Downtimes

(operators,

logistic, ...)

Overall

System-related

Downtimes

-

-

-

Production

Time

Technical

Availibility

System

Availibility

Total

Efficiency

[%]

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

95%

90%

85%

Figure A.1: Total efficiency

3.2 Assembly Sequence Per Station

The assembly sequence is broken up into 44 different stations on three lines – subassembly (SA), underbody assembly (UB), and framing line (FR). There are 19 subassembly stations, 14 underbody assembly stations, and 11 framing line assembly 

stations. This eases the assembly process, minimizes the area necessary for the final 

assembly line, and allows for sub-assemblies to be built elsewhere and shipped to the final 

assembly location, maximizing usable factory space.

Table 3.2.a below lists every assembly station by name and notes the function and parts 

involved.

Table 3.2.a: Assembly line stations, functions, and parts

Station 

Name

Assembly Function Parts Invovled

SA05 Front and rear bumper assembly Front and rear bumper brackets, mounting plates, beam

SA10 Front frame rail assemblies Frame rail mounting plates, rails, brackets, transitions, rocker extrusions

SA15 L, R pillar sub-assemblies A-pillar upper and lower, inner reinforcements; B-pillar upper and lower, 

inner and outers; roof rail, C-pillar striker reinforcement
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-6

SA20 Rear end assembly L, R shock towers and reinforcements

SA25 X-member sub-assemblies X-member extrusions, brackets, and reinforcements

SA30 Complete floor X-member assembly X-member sub-assemblies, crossbraces, reinforcements

SA35 Rear end panel and compartment Xmember assemblyRear inner and outer panels, X-member extrusion and brackets

SA40 Side rail assemblies Rail and rocker extrusions, brackets, transitions, 

SA45 L, R rear wheelhouse assemblies D-pillar inners, quarter panel inners, liftgate rinforcements, wheelhouse 

inners

SA50 Dash sub-assembly Dash panel, reinforcements

SA55 Dash assembly Dash sub-assembly, dash reinforcement, cowl panel support

SA60 Rear seat assembly Rear seat risers, floor reinforcements, floor panel

SA65 L, R front wheelhouse assemblies Front wheelhouse panels, shotguns, shock towers

SA70-10 L, R roof, B-pillar bodyside inner 

assemblies

Front and rear roof side inners, upper and lower B-pillar inners

SA70-20 L, R A-pillar outer assemblies L, R A-pillar upper and lower outers, shotgun outers

SA70-30 L, R C-pillar bodyside inner assemblies L, R roof side rail sub-assembly, C-pillar outer upper

SA75 L, R A-pillar inner sub-assemblies L, R A-pillar upper and lower inners, A-pillar sub-assemblies

SA80 L, R bodyside outer assembly L, R rear quarter panel, tail lamp closeout, bodyside outer, bodyside 

outer frame rail, flange

SA85 L, R inner B-Pillar assembly L, R B-pillar sub-assembly, upper and lower inner reinforcements

UB100 Initial underbody assembly Floor crossmember, rear end, rear end panel, side rail assemblies

UB110 Initial underbody assembly Floor crossmember, rear end, rear end panel, side rail assemblies

UB120 Rear wheelhouse and dash buildup Previous underobdy build, dash assembly, dash transmission 

reinforcements, rear wheelhouse assemblies

UB130 Idle

UB140 Weld respotting Previous underbody build

UB150 Rear seat and A-pillar buildup Previous underbody build, rear seat assembly, A-pillar assemblies

UB160 Idle

UB170 Front wheelhouse buildup Previous underbody build, front wheelhouse assemblies

UB180 Central flooring Previous underbody build, center floor panels

UB190 Rear wheelhouse lining and rear rear 

flooring

Previous underbody build, rear wheelhouse outers, rear floor panel

UB200 Weld respotting Previous underbody build

UB210 Stud application Previous underbody build

UB220 Camera inspection Previous underbody build

UB230 Elevator to framing Previous underbody build

FR100 Idle

FR110 Bodyside outer buildup Underbody build, L,R bodyside inner assemblies

FR120 Weld respotting Previoius framing build

FR130 Stud application Previoius framing build

FR140 Bodyside inner buildup Previous framing buid, L, R bodyside outer assemblies
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-7

FR150 Roof and cowl buildup Previous framing build, cowl upper panel, roof panel, shotgun closeouts

FR160 Weld respotting Previous framing build

FR170 Camera inspection Previous framing build

FR180 Bumper buildup Previous framing build, front end module, front and rear bumper 

assemblies

FR190 Surface finishing/reworking Previous framing build

FR200 Idle, electric motorized system

3.3 Timing Sheets Per Station

Cycle time was determined using the number of vehicles produced per year; the number of 

working days, shifts, and breaks per shift to determine total plant uptime; which was then 

used to determine a gross cycle time of 225 seconds. With an inefficiency of 15-percent, 

the net cycle time is 191 seconds. Table 3.3.a below shows the cycle time calculation.

Table 3.3.a: Net cycle time calculation

Item Value Formula

A Vehicles/year 60,000

B Working days/year (365-104-11) 250

C Vehicles/day 240 A/B

D Shifts 2

E Hours/shifts 8

F Break/shift 0.5

G Uptime/day (seconds/working day) 54,000 7.5 hrs/shift *2 shifts/day *3600 s/hr

H Gross cycle time (seconds) 225 G/C

I Inefficiency factor 15%

J Net Cycle Time 191 H*(1-I)

Individual station timing sheets are listed below in Tables 3.3.b-3.3.ap. These timing 

sheets show the full assembly time necessary for each station and the timing of each step.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-8

Table 3.3.b: Station SA05 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-9

seconds

Az. sum

Front Bumper Assembly

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator walks to fixture SA05-10 3 0.0 0.9 0.9

2 Operator obtains Front RH Sub Assembly 0.9 1.2 2.1

3 Operator obtains Front LH Sub Assembly 2.1 1.2 3.3

4 Operator walks to chute 4 3.3 1.2 4.5

5 Operator dispose of Front RH Sub Assembly in chute 4.5 1.0 5.5

6 Operator dispose of Front LH Sub Assembly in chute 5.5 1.0 6.5

7 Operator walks to fixture SA05-10 2 6.5 0.6 7.1

8 Operator obtains Rear RH Sub Assembly 7.1 1.2 8.3

9 Operator obtains Rear LH Sub Assembly 8.3 1.2 9.5

10 Operator walks to chute 2 9.5 0.6 10.1

11 Operator dispose of Rear RH Sub Assembly in chute 10.1 1.0 11.1

12 Operator dispose of Rear LH Sub Assembly in chute 11.1 1.0 12.1

13 Operator walks to container 7 12.1 2.1 14.2

14 Operator obtains 1st Front Bumper Mounting Plate 14.2 1.0 15.2

15 Operator obtains 2nd Front Bumper Mounting Plate 15.2 1.0 16.2

16 Operator walks to fixture SA05-10 2 16.2 0.6 16.8

17 Operator loads 1st Front Bumper Mounting Plate 16.8 1.2 18.0

18 Operator loads 2nd Front Bumper Mounting Plate 18.0 1.2 19.2

19 Operator walks to RH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 6 19.2 1.8 21.0

20 Operator obtains RH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 21.0 1.0 22.0

21 Operator walks to LH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 2 22.0 0.6 22.6

22 Operator obtains LH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 22.6 1.0 23.6

23 Operator walks to fixture SA05-10 8 23.6 2.4 26.0

24 Operator loads RH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 26.0 1.2 27.2

25 Operator loads LH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 27.2 1.2 28.4

26 Operator walks to container 4 28.4 1.2 29.6

27 Operator obtains 1st Rear Bumper Mounting Plate 29.6 1.0 30.6

28 Operator obtains 2nd Rear Bumper Mounting Plate 30.6 1.0 31.6

29 Operator walks 4' to fixture SA05-10 4 31.6 1.2 32.8

30 Operator loads 1st Front Bumper Mounting Plate 32.8 1.2 34.0

31 Operator loads 2nd Front Bumper Mounting Plate 34.0 1.2 35.2

32 Operator walks to RH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 6 35.2 1.8 37.0

33 Operator obtains RH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 37.0 1.0 38.0

34 Operator walks to LH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 2 38.0 0.6 38.6

35 Operator obtains LH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 38.6 1.0 39.6

36 Operator walks to fixture SA05-10 8 39.6 2.4 42.0

37 Operator loads RH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 42.0 1.2 43.2

38 Operator loads LH Front Bumper Mounting Bracket 43.2 1.2 44.4

39 Operator walks to palm buttons 7 44.4 2.1 46.5

40 Operator depress palm buttons 46.5 1.0 47.5

41 SA05-10 operator side Safety Door closes 47.5 3.0 50.5

42 SA05-10 robot side Safety Door opens 50.5 3.0 53.5

43 Robot SA05R10 rotates to fixture SA05-10 53.5 1.5 55.0

44 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on RH Front pieces

(58.2, 58.2, 32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 181.5 55.0 16.5 71.5

45 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on LH Front pieces

(58.2, 58.2, 32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 181.5 71.5 16.5 88.0

46 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on RH Rear pieces

(58.2, 58.2, 32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 181.5 88.0 16.5 104.5

47 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on LH Rear pieces

(58.2, 58.2, 32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 181.5 104.5 16.5 121.0

48 Robot SA05R10 rotates to clear SA05-10 121.0 1.5 122.5

49 SA05-10 robot side Safety Door closes 122.5 3.0 125.5

50 SA05-10 operator side Safety Door opens 125.5 3.0 128.5

51 Operator walks to door SA05-20 10 47.5 3.0 50.5

52 Operator waits for door to open 50.5 9.0 59.5

53 Operator walks to fixture SA05-20 4 59.5 1.2 60.7

54 Operator obtains Front Bumper Sub Assembly 60.7 2.4 63.1

55 Operator walks to container 6 63.1 1.8 64.9

56 Operator dispose of Front Bumper Sub Assembly 64.9 1.8 66.7

57 Operator walks to fixture SA05-20 6 66.7 1.8 68.5

58 Operator obtains Rear Bumper Sub Assembly 68.5 2.4 70.9

59 Operator walks to container 6 70.9 1.8 72.7

60 Operator dispose of Rear Bumper Sub Assembly 72.7 1.8 74.5

61 Operator walks to container 6 74.5 1.8 76.3

62 Operator obtains Beam Rear Bumper 76.3 1.5 77.8

63 Operator walks to fixture SA05-20 7 77.8 2.1 79.9

64 Operator loads Beam Rear Bumper 79.9 2.4 82.3

65 Operator walks to container 8 82.3 2.4 84.7

66 Operator obtains Beam Front Bumper 84.7 1.5 86.2

67 Operator walks to fixture SA05-20 8 86.2 2.4 88.6

68 Operator loads Beam Front Bumper 88.6 2.4 91.0

69 Operator walks to chute 2 91.0 0.6 91.6

70 Operator obtains Rear RH Sub Assembly in chute 91.6 1.2 92.8

71 Operator obtains Rear LH Sub Assembly in chute 92.8 1.2 94.0

72 Operator walks to fixture SA05-20 2 94.0 0.6 94.6

73 Operator loads Rear RH Sub Assembly 94.6 1.5 96.1

74 Operator loads Rear LH Sub Assembly 96.1 1.5 97.6

75 Operator walks to chute 2 97.6 0.6 98.2

76 Operator obtains Front RH Sub Assembly in chute 98.2 1.2 99.4

77 Operator obtains Front LH Sub Assembly in chute 99.4 1.2 100.6

78 Operator walks to fixture SA05-20 2 100.6 0.6 101.2

79 Operator loads Front RH Sub Assembly 101.2 1.5 102.7

80 Operator loads Front LH Sub Assembly 102.7 1.5 104.2

81 Operator walks to palm buttons 7 104.2 2.1 106.3

82 Operator depress palm buttons 106.3 1.0 107.3

83 SA05-20 operator side Safety Door closes 107.3 3.0 110.3

84 SA05-20 robot side Safety Door opens 110.3 3.0 113.3

85 Operator walks to safety door for SA05-10 11 113.3 3.3 116.6

86 Robot SA05R10 rotates to clear position at SA05-20 door 122.5 3.8 126.3

87 Robot SA05R10 rotates to fixture SA05-20 126.3 1.5 127.8

88 Robot SA05R10 welds 5 beads on RH Front pieces

(42.7, 41.6, 90.3, 90.2, 41.6) 11mm per second 306.5 127.8 27.9 155.6

89 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on LH Front pieces

(42.7, 41.6, 90.3, 90.2, 41.6) 11mm per second 306.5 155.6 27.9 183.5

90 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on RH Rear pieces

(42.7, 41.6, 90.3, 90.2, 41.6) 11mm per second 306.5 -7.5 27.9 20.3

91 Robot SA05R10 welds 4 beads on LH Rear pieces

(42.7, 41.6, 90.3, 90.2, 41.6) 11mm per second 306.5 20.3 27.9 48.2

92 Robot SA05R10 rotates to clear SA05-20 48.2 1.5 49.7

93 Robot SA05R10 rotates to clear position at SA05-10 door 49.7 3.8 53.5

94 SA05-20 robot side Safety Door closes 53.5 3.0 56.5

95 SA05-20 operator side Safety Door opens 56.5 3.0 59.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0 Walk Summary (linear feet) 154

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 1952

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm) HEM (mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-10

Table 3.3.c: Station SA10 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-11

seconds

Az. sum

Front Rail Assembly

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator walks to fixture SA10-30 4 0.0 1.2 1.2

2 Operator obtains 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly 1.2 1.8 3.0

3 Operator obtains 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly 3.0 1.8 4.8

4 Operator walks to table 4 4.8 1.2 6.0

5 Operator dispose of 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly onto table 6.0 1.5 7.5

6 Operator dispose of 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly onto table 7.5 1.5 9.0

7 Operator walks to container for Flange 2 9.0 0.6 9.6

8 Operator obtains 1st Flange 9.6 1.0 10.6

9 Operator obtains 2nd Flange 10.6 1.0 11.6

10 Operator walks to fixture SA10-30 4 11.6 1.2 12.8

11 Operator loads 1st Flange to fixture 12.8 1.2 14.0

12 Operator loads 2nd Flange to fixture 14.0 1.2 15.2

13 Operator walks to fixture SA10-20 2 15.2 0.6 15.8

14 Operator obtains 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly 15.8 1.2 17.0

15 Operator walks to fixture SA10-30 2 17.0 0.6 17.6

16 Operator loads 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly 17.6 1.8 19.4

17 Operator walks to fixture SA10-20 2 19.4 0.6 20.0

18 Operator obtains 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly 20.0 1.2 21.2

19 Operator walks to fixture SA10-30 2 21.2 0.6 21.8

20 Operator loads 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly 21.8 1.8 23.6

21 Operator walks to container for Front Rail 7 23.6 2.1 25.7

22 Operator obtains 1st Front Rail 25.7 1.2 26.9

23 Operator obtains 2nd Front Rail 26.9 1.2 28.1

24 Operator walks to fixture SA10-20 7 28.1 2.1 30.2

25 Operator loads 1st Front Rail 30.2 1.8 32.0

26 Operator loads 2nd Front Rail 32.0 1.8 33.8

27 Operator walks to fixture SA10-10 2 33.8 0.6 34.4

28 Operator obtains 1st Mount Assembly 34.4 1.2 35.6

29 Operator obtains 2nd Mount Assembly 35.6 1.2 36.8

30 Operator walks to fixture SA10-10 2 36.8 0.6 37.4

31 Operator loads 1st Mount Assembly 37.4 1.5 38.9

32 Operator loads 2nd Mount Assembly 38.9 1.5 40.4

33 Operator walks to container for Front Rail Mount 6 40.4 1.8 42.2

34 Operator obtains 1st Front Rail Mount 42.2 1.2 43.4

35 Operator obtains 2nd Front Rail Mount 43.4 1.2 44.6

36 Operator walks to fixture SA10-10 5 44.6 1.5 46.1

37 Operator loads 1st Front Rail Mount 46.1 1.5 47.6

38 Operator loads 2nd Front Rail Mount 47.6 1.5 49.1

39 Operator walks to container for Front Mount Cover 5 49.1 1.5 50.6

40 Operator obtains 1st Front Mount Cover 50.6 1.0 51.6

41 Operator obtains 2nd Front Mount Cover 51.6 1.0 52.6

42 Operator walks to fixture SA10-10 5 52.6 1.5 54.1

43 Operator loads 1st Front Mount Cover 54.1 1.5 55.6

44 Operator loads 2nd Front Mount Cover 55.6 1.5 57.1

45 Operator walks to container for Front Mount Cover 5 57.1 1.5 58.6

46 Operator obtains 3rd Front Mount Cover 58.6 1.0 59.6

47 Operator obtains 4th Front Mount Cover 59.6 1.0 60.6

48 Operator walks to fixture SA10-10 5 60.6 1.5 62.1

49 Operator loads 3rd Front Mount Cover 62.1 1.5 63.6

50 Operator loads 4th Front Mount Cover 63.6 1.5 65.1

51 Operator walks to palm buttons 7 65.1 2.1 67.2

52 Operator depress palm buttons 67.2 1.0 68.2

53 SA10 operator side Safety Door closes 68.2 3.0 71.2

54 Robot SA10R10 rotates to fixture SA10-30 71.2 1.5 72.7

55 Robot SA10R10 welds 4 beads on 1st Front Rail pieces

(58.2, 58.2, 32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 181.5 72.7 16.5 89.2

56 Robot SA10R10 welds 4 beads on 2nd Front Rail pieces

(58.2, 58.2, 32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 181.5 89.2 16.5 105.7

57 Robot SA10R10 rotates to fixture SA10-20 105.7 1.5 107.2

58 Robot SA10R10 welds 2 beads on 2nd Front Rail pieces

(32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 65.0 107.2 5.9 113.1

59 Robot SA10R10 welds 2 beads on 1st Front Rail pieces

(32.5, 32.5) 11mm per second 65.0 113.1 5.9 119.0

60 Robot SA10R10 rotates to fixture SA10-10 119.0 1.5 120.5

61 Robot SA10R10 welds 4 beads on 1st Front Mount Cover

(90.0, 90.0, 90.0, 90.0) 11mm per second 360.0 120.5 32.7 153.2

62 Robot SA10R10 welds 4 beads on 2nd Front Mount Cover

(90.0, 90.0, 90.0, 90.0) 11mm per second 360.0 153.2 32.7 186.0

63 Robot SA05R10 rotates to clear SA05-20 186.0 1.5 187.5

64 SA10 operator side safety door opens 187.5 3.0 190.5

65 Operator walks to table 1 68.2 0.3 68.5

66 Operator obtains 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly 68.5 1.8 70.3

67 Operator obtains 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly 70.3 1.8 72.1

68 Operator walks to container for 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly 8 72.1 2.4 74.5

69 Operator dispose of 1st Front Rail Sub Assembly to container 74.5 1.8 76.3

70 Operator walks to container for 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly 4 76.3 1.2 77.5

71 Operator dispose of 2nd Front Rail Sub Assembly to container 77.5 1.8 79.3

72 Operator walks to 8 79.3 2.4 81.7

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 99

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 1213

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-12

Table 3.3.d: Station SA15 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-13

seconds

task sum

Self Pierce Rivots ~ Aluminum to High Strength Steel

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 6 0.0 1.8 1.8

2 Operator obtains Reinf. A-Pillar Upper 1.8 1.2 3.0

3 Operator obtains Reinf. A-Pillar Lower 3.0 1.2 4.2

4 Operator walks to container A-Pillar Upper 6 4.2 1.8 6.0

5 Operator dispose of A-Pillar Upper 6.0 1.0 7.0

6 Operator dispose of A-Pillar Lower 7.0 1.0 8.0

7 Operator obtains Upper Hinge Plate 8.0 1.0 9.0

8 Operator obtains Lower Hinge Plate 9.0 1.0 10.0

9 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 6 10.0 1.8 11.8

10 Operator loads Upper Hinge Plate 11.8 1.2 13.0

11 Operator loads Lower Hinge Plate 13.0 1.2 14.2

12 Operator obtains B-Pillar Inner 14.2 2.0 16.2

13 Operator walks to container B-Pillar Inner 6 16.2 1.8 18.0

14 Operator dispose of B-Pillar Inner 18.0 1.8 19.8

15 Operator obtains B-Pillar Upper Inner 19.8 1.5 21.3

16 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 8 21.3 2.4 23.7

17 Operator loads B-Pillar Upper Inner 23.7 1.8 25.5

18 Operator walks to container B-Pillar Inner 8 25.5 2.4 27.9

19 Operator obtains B-Pillar Inner 27.9 1.8 29.7

20 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 8 23.7 2.4 26.1

21 Operator loads B-Pillar Inner 25.5 2.4 27.9

22 Operator obtains B-Pillar Outer 27.9 2.0 29.9

23 Operator walks to container B-Pillar Outer 6 29.9 1.8 31.7

24 Operator dispose of B-Pillar Outer 31.7 1.8 33.5

25 Operator obtains B-Pillar Outer 33.5 1.8 35.3

26 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 6 35.3 1.8 37.1

27 Operator loads B-Pillar Outer 37.1 2.4 39.5

28 Operator obtains C-Pillar Assembly 39.5 2.4 41.9

29 Operator walks to container C-Pillar Assembly 8 41.9 2.4 44.3

30 Operator dispose of C-Pillar Assembly 44.3 2.2 46.5

31 Operator walks to container C-Pillar Latch 2 46.5 0.6 47.1

32 Operator obtains C-Pillar Latch 47.1 1.2 48.3

33 Operator walks to container B-Pillar Upper Outer 2 48.3 0.6 48.9

34 Operator obtains B-Pillar Upper Outer 48.9 1.2 50.1

35 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 8 50.1 2.4 52.5

36 Operator loads C-Pillar Latch 52.5 1.5 54.0

37 Operator loads B-Pillar Upper Outer 54.0 1.8 55.8

38 Operator walks to container C-Pillar 8 55.8 2.4 58.2

39 Operator obtains C-Pillar 58.2 2.4 60.6

40 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 8 60.6 2.4 63.0

41 Operator loads C-Pillar 63.0 3.0 66.0

42 Operator walks to container A-Pillar Upper 6 66.0 1.8 67.8

43 Operator obtains A-Pillar Upper 67.8 1.0 68.8

44 Operator walks to container A-Pillar Lower 2 68.8 0.6 69.4

45 Operator obtains A-Pillar Lower 69.4 1.0 70.4

46 Operator walks to fixture SA15-10 8 70.4 2.4 72.8

47 Operator loads A-Pillar Lower 72.8 1.2 74.0

48 Operator loads A-Pillar Upper 74.0 1.2 75.2

49 Operator walks to palm buttons 5 75.2 1.5 76.7

50 Operator depress palm buttons 76.7 1.0 77.7

51 Fixture rotates 180° 77.7 7.0 84.7

52 Robot SA15R10 rotates from clear 84.7 1.5 86.2

53 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to Upper Hinge Plate

274.4mm @ 200mm per sec. 274.4 86.2 1.4 87.6

54 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to Lower Hinge Plate

274.4mm @ 200mm per sec. 274.4 87.6 1.4 88.9

55 Robot SA15R10 rotates to B-Pillar Inner 88.9 2.0 90.9

56 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to B-Pillar Inner 187.5mm @ 200mm per sec. 187.5 90.9 0.9 91.9

57 Robot SA15R10 rotates to B-Pillar Outer 91.9 1.5 93.4

58 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to B-Pillar Outer 472.0mm @ 200mm per sec. 472.0 93.4 2.4 95.7

59 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to B-Pillar Outer 164.8mm @ 200mm per sec. 164.8 95.7 0.8 96.6

60 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to B-Pillar Outer 192.3mm @ 200mm per sec. 192.3 96.6 1.0 97.5

61 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to B-Pillar Outer 309.6mm @ 200mm per sec. 309.6 97.5 1.5 99.1

62 Robot SA15R10 rotates to C-Pillar Latch 99.1 1.5 100.6

63 Robot SA15R10 apply adhesive to C-Pillar Latch

200.0mm @ 200mm per sec. 200.0 100.6 1.0 101.6

64 Robot SA15R10 rotates to clear 101.6 1.5 103.1

65 Preloader index. Reinf A-Pillar Upper. 103.1 3.0 106.1

66 Preloader index. Reinf A-Pillar Lower 103.1 3.0 106.1

67 Preloader index. B-Pillar Inner Upper 103.1 3.0 106.1

68 Preloader index. B-Pillar Outer Upper 103.1 3.0 106.1

69 Preloader index. Latch Reinf 103.1 4.0 107.1

70 Fixture clamps close 107.1 1.0 108.1

71 Robot SA15R20 rotates from clear 108.1 1.5 109.6

72 Robot SA15R20 apply 4 self piercing rivets to Upper Hinge Plate 4 109.6 12.0 121.6

73 Robot SA15R20 repositions 121.6 1.5 123.1

74 Robot SA15R20 apply 4 self piercing rivets to Lower Hinge Plate 4 123.1 12.0 135.1

75 Robot SA15R20 repositions 135.1 1.5 136.6

76 Robot SA15R20 apply 5 self piercing rivets to B-Pillar Inner 5 136.6 15.0 151.6

77 Robot SA15R20 repositions 151.6 1.5 153.1

78 Robot SA15R20 apply 5 self piercing rivets to B-Pillar Outer 5 153.1 15.0 168.1

79 Robot SA15R20 repositions 168.1 1.5 169.6

80 Robot SA15R20 apply 5 self piercing rivets to C-Pillar 5 169.6 15.0 184.6

81 Robot SA15R20 rotates to clear 184.6 1.5 186.1

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0 Walk Summary (linear feet) 117

Glue Summary (linear mm) 2075

Self Piercing Rivet Summary 23

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) Rivet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-14

Table 3.3.e: Station SA20 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Rear Compartment Crossmember

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator unloads Rear Compartment XMbr Asm to bin 0.0 8.0 8.0

2 Operator loads (3) parts to staging fixture 8.0 18.0 26.0

3 Operator loads XMbr to GEO fixture 26.0 6.0 32.0

4 Operator depress palm button 32.0 1.5 33.5

5 Robot SA20R10 unloads (3) parts from staging fixture 33.5 18.0 51.5

6 Robot SA20R10 applies PED adhesive to (3) parts 2715 51.5 18.6 70.1

7 Robot SA20R10 loads (3) parts to GEO fixture 70.1 18.0 88.1

8 Robot SA20R10 changes Gripper to RivTac Gun 88.1 15.0 103.1

9 Robot SA20R10 Rivtac (28 spots) 28 103.1 56.0 159.1

10 Robot SA20R10 changes Rivtac Gun to Gripper 159.1 15.0 174.1

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 2715

Friction Stir Summary 0

RIVTAC Summary 28

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm) FSJ RIVTAC

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.f: Station SA25 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Crossmember to Tunnel Assembly

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator loads (2) "T" Rails to Station SA25-10 0.0 10.0 10.0

2 Operator loads Extrusion and XMbr to Sta SA25-10 (8 times) 10.0 72.0 82.0

3 Operator depress plam buttons 82.0 1.5 83.5

4 Tool Closes (Sta SA25-10) 83.5 3.0 86.5

4 Operator loads (8) nuts and bolts 83.5 64.0 147.5

5 Operator obtains Nut Runner and Runs (8) Nuts 147.5 23.0 170.5

6 Operator loads (6) parts to Sta SA25-20 170.5 20.0 190.5

7 Robot SA25R20 loads XMbr Sub Asm to Sta SA25-20 0.0 8.0 8.0

8 Robot SA25R20 changes Gripper to Friction Stir Unit 8.0 15.0 23.0

9 Robot SA25R20 FSJ (22 spots) in Sta SA25-20 22 23.0 66.0 89.0

10 Robot SA25R20 FSJ (16 spots) in Sta SA25-10 16 89.0 52.0 141.0

11 Robot SA25R20 changes FSJ to Gripper 141.0 15.0 156.0

12 Robot SA25R20 unloads XMbr Sub Asm 173.0 10.0 183.0

13 Robot SA25R10 Rivtac (16 spots) 16 141.0 32.0 173.0

14 Tool Opens 183.0 2.0 185.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 38

RIVTAC Summary 16

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm) FSJ RIVTAC

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.g: Station SA30 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-15

seconds

Az. sum

Crossmember Sub-Assembly

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Robot UB100R10 loads Xmbr Sub Asm from Sta SA25-20 0.0 8.0 8.0

2 Tool Closes 8.0 3.0 11.0

3 Operators load Brkts (2 each) 11.0 7.0 18.0

4 Operators load bolt and nut (12 each) 18.0 96.0 114.0

5 Operators obtain Nut Runner 114.0 1.5 115.5

6 Operators Run Bolts (12 each) 115.5 36.0 151.5

7 Operator depress palm buttons 151.5 1.5 153.0

8 Tool Opens 153.0 2.0 155.0

9 Operators load (4) XMbr each to Bolt Up table 153.0 16.0 169.0

10 Operators load (4) XMbr Inserts each to XMbr on Bolt Up table 169.0 14.0 183.0

11 Robot UB100R10 unloads XMbr Sub Asm from Sta SA30-10 155.0 8.0 163.0

12 Robot UB100R10 loads XMbr Sub Asm to UB100 163.0 9.0 172.0

13 Robot UB100R10 unloads XMbr Sub Asm from Sta SA25-20 172.0 9.0 181.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.h: Station SA35 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Wheel House Crossmember

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator loads 5 parts 0.0 30.0 30.0

2 Operator depress palm buttons 30.0 1.5 31.5

3 Robot SA35R10 picks 2 parts and applies adhesive 3700 31.5 26.5 58.0

4 Robot SA35R10 loads 2 parts back to SA35 58.0 12.0 70.0

5 Robot SA35R10 stores end effector and picks up Friction Stir 70.0 15.0 85.0

6 Robot SA35R10 friction Stir 30 locations 30 85.0 90.0 175.0

7 Robot SA35R10 stores friction stir and picks up end effector 175.0 15.0 190.0

8 Operator unloads 1 part 175.0 6.0 181.0

9 Operator unloads 1 part 181.0 6.0 187.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 3700

Friction Stir Summary 30

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.i: Station SA40 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-16

seconds

Az. sum

Siderail Asm RH

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator 1 loads Transition Frt Rail Inr and Otr 0.0 16.0 16.0

2 Operator 1 loads Sill Body Side Inr 16.0 8.0 24.0

3 Operator 1 loads Transition RR Rail Inr and Otr 24.0 16.0 40.0

4 Operator 1 loads Frt and Rear Rails 40.0 16.0 56.0

5 Operator 1 press palm buttons 56.0 1.5 57.5

6 Robot SA40R20 applies Adhesive (4530mm) 4530 57.5 25.2 82.7

7 Tool Closes 82.7 8.0 90.7

8 Robots SA40R10 & SA40R30 apply Rivtacs (25 spots each) 25 90.7 75.0 165.7

9 Tool Opens 165.7 5.0 170.7

10 MH robot unloads Siderail sub asm from Station 40 170.7 8.0 178.7

11 MH robot loads Siderail sub asm to Station UB100 178.7 8.0 186.7

Siderail Asm LH

1 Operator 2 loads Transition Frt Rail Inr and Otr 64.0 16.0 80.0

2 Operator 2 loads Sill Body Side Inr 80.0 8.0 88.0

3 Operator 2 loads Transition RR Rail Inr and Otr 88.0 16.0 104.0

4 Operator 2 loads Frt and Rear Rails 104.0 16.0 120.0

5 Operator 2 press palm buttons 120.0 1.5 121.5

6 Robot SA40R20 applies Adhesive (4530mm) 4530 121.5 25.2 146.7

7 Tool Closes 146.7 8.0 154.7

8 Robots SA40R10 & SA40R30 apply Rivtacs (25 spots each) 8 165.7 24.0 189.7

9 Robots SA40R10 & SA40R30 apply Rivtacs (25 spots each) 

(continued) 17 0.0 51.0 51.0

10 Tool Opens 51.0 5.0 56.0

11 MH robot unloads Siderail sub asm from Station 40 56.0 8.0 64.0

12 MH robot loads Siderail sub asm to Station UB 100 64.0 8.0 72.0

13 Operator 2 loads Rr Compt C/M and Panel Rr End 121.5 16.0 137.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 9060

Friction Stir Summary 100

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.j: Station SA45 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Rear Wheelhouse R/L 

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator loads 4 parts 0.0 18.0 18.0

2 Operator depress plam buttons 18.0 1.5 19.5

3 Robot SA45R10 picks 2 parts and applies adhesive 1800 19.5 17.0 36.5

4 Robot SA45R10 loads 2 parts back to SA45-10 36.5 10.0 46.5

5 Robot SA45R10 changes gripper to FSJ 46.5 15.0 61.5

6 Robot SA45R10 FSJ (30) 30 61.5 90.0 151.5

7 Robot SA45R10 change FSJ to gripper 151.5 15.0 166.5

8 Robot SA45R10 unloads SA45-10 166.5 8.0 174.5

9 Robot SA45R10 loads UB-120 conveyor 174.5 8.0 182.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 1800

Friction Stir Summary 30

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.k: Station SA50, SA55 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-17

seconds

task sum

SA55 Dash Assembly

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Robot SA50R10 picks completed assembly from SA55-10 0.0 6.5 6.5

2 Robot SA50R10 loads completed assembly to UB-120 shuttle 6.5 6.5 13.0

3 Operator loads dash reinf and cowl lower to SA55-10 6.5 12.0 18.5

4 Operator depress palm buttons 18.5 1.0 19.5

SA50 Dash Sub Assembly

5 Robot SA50R10 rotates to SA50-10 and picks dash sub asm. 13.0 9.5 22.5

6 Robot SA50R10 ped apply adhesive to dash sub asm. 3600 22.5 18.0 40.5

7 Robot SA50R10 rotates to SA55-10 and loads dash sub asm 40.5 7.5 48.0

8 Operator loads 3 parts (2 dash lowers and dash upper) 19.5 24.0 43.5

9 Operator depress palm buttons 43.5 1.0 44.5

10 Robot SA50R10 picks both dash lower halves from SA50-10 48.0 9.5 57.5

11 Robot SA50R10 ped apply adhesive 1175 57.5 5.9 63.4

12 Robot SA50R10 ped apply adhesive 535 63.4 2.7 66.1

13 Robot SA50R10 loads both dash lower halves to SA50-10 66.1 9.5 75.6

14 SA50-10 fixture clamps, pre loader, dumps and pins extend 75.6 5.0 80.6

SA55 Dash Assembly

15 SA55-10 fixture clamps, pre loader, dumps and pins extend 48.0 2.0 50.0

16 Robot SA50R20 applies 10 self peircing rivets 10 50.0 30.0 80.0

16 Robot SA50R10 tool change end effector for SPR unit 75.6 15.0 90.6

17 Robot SA50R10 rotates to fixture SA55-10 90.6 4.0 94.6

17 Robot SA50R10 applies 24 self peircing rivets 25 94.6 75.0 169.6

18 Robot SA50R10 tool change SPR unit for end effector 169.6 15.0 184.6

18 Robot SA50R10 rotates to clear position at SA55-10 184.6 4.0 188.6

SA50 Dash Sub Assembly

Robot SA50R20 rotates to fixture SA50-10 80.0 3.0 83.0

Robot SA50R20 applies 22 self peircing rivets 22 83.0 66.0 149.0

Robot SA50R20 rotates to fixture SA55-10 149.0 3.0 152.0

SA55 Dash Sub Assembly

Robot SA50R20 applies 11 self peircing rivets 11 152.0 33.0 185.0

Robot SA50R20 rotates to clear position 185.0 2.0 187.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 5310

Friction Stir Summary 0

Self Piercing Rivet Summary 68

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Station Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm) FSJ SPR 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.l: Station SA60 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-18

seconds

Az. sum

Rear Seat Asm

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator loads (3) parts to Stage 1 0.0 15.0 15.0

2 Operator depress palm button 15.0 1.5 16.5

3 Operator loads (3) parts to Stage 2 16.5 15.0 31.5

4 Operator depress palm button 31.5 1.5 33.0

5 Robot SA60R10 unloads (1) part and applies ped adhesive 240 16.5 10.0 26.5

6 Robot SA60R10 loads (1) part to Stage 1 26.5 6.0 32.5

7 Tool Closes 32.5 3.0 35.5

8 Robot SA60R10 changes gripper to FSJ gun 32.5 15.0 47.5

9 Robot SA60R10 FSJ Rear Seat Risers in Stage 1 6 47.5 18.0 65.5

10 Robot SA60R10 FSJ Rear Seat Asm in Stage 2 29 65.5 87.0 152.5

11 Robot SA60R10 changes FSJ gun to Gripper 152.5 15.0 167.5

12 Robot SA60R10 loads Riser Rear Seat to Stage 2 167.5 12.0 179.5

13 Robot SA60R20 unloads (1) part and applies ped adhesive 2475 33.0 20.0 53.0

14 Robot SA60R20 loads (1) part to Stage 2 53.0 6.0 59.0

15 Tool Closes 59.0 3.0 62.0

16 Robot SA60R20 changes gripper to FSJ gun 59.0 15.0 74.0

17 Robot SA60R20 FSJ Rear Seat Asm in Stage2 27 74.0 81.0 155.0

18 Robot SA60R20 changes FSJ gun to Gripper 155.0 15.0 170.0

19 Robot SA60R20 loads Rear Seat Asm to UB150 conveyor 170.0 16.0 186.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 2715

Friction Stir Summary 62

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.m: Station SA65 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Front Wheelhouse Asm R/L

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Opeator loads (2) parts to presentation fixture 0.0 16.0 16.0

2 Operator load (1) part to SA65 16.0 8.0 24.0

3 Operator depress palm button 24.0 1.5 25.5

4 Robot SA65R10 applies adhesive to Frt W/H and loads to SA65 720 25.5 15.6 41.1

5 Robot SA65R10 changes gripper to gripper 41.1 15.0 56.1

6 Robot SA65R10 applies adhesive to Shotgun and loads to SA65 380 56.1 13.9 70.0

7 Tool Closes 70.0 3.0 73.0

8 Robot SA65R10 changes gripper to Rivet gun 70.0 15.0 85.0

9 Robot SA65R10 Rivets (21 Spots) 21 85.0 63.0 148.0

10 Tool Opens 148.0 3.0 151.0

11 Robot changes Rivet gun to gripper 148.0 15.0 163.0

12 Robot loads Frt W/H Asm to presentation fixture 163.0 12.0 175.0

13 Robot SA65R10 change gripper to gripper 175.0 15.0 190.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 1100

Friction Stir Summary 0

Self Piercing Rivet Summary 21

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet) SPR MIG(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.n: Station SA70 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-19

seconds

Az. sum

Body Side Inner

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator Loads 4 parts to SA70-10 0.0 18.0 18.0

2 Operator walks to SA70-20 and loads 2 parts to SA70-20 18.0 15.0 33.0

3 Operator loads 3 parts to SA70-30 33.0 13.5 46.5

4 Operator gets load assist and obtains sub assembly from 

station SA70-10 46.5 15.0 61.5

5 Operator walks to SA70-50 and loads sub assembly 61.5 18.0 79.5

6 Robot SA70-10 picks 2 parts from SA70-10 and

applies ped adhesive (A-Plr Otr Lwr & B-Plr Inr Asm) 18.0 17.0 35.0

7 Robot SA70R10 loads 1 part to SA70-10 and

1 part to SA70-20 35.0 15.0 50.0

8 Robot SA70R10 picks 1 part from station (A-Plr Otr Upr) 50.0 6.0 56.0

9 Robot SA70R10 applies ped adhesive then loads part back 

into station SA70-30 56.0 11.0 67.0

10 Robot SA70R10 drop end effector to storage and pick Friction Stir Unit 67.0 16.0 83.0

11 Robot SA70R10 Friction Stir join 10 locations SA70-10 10 83.0 30.0 113.0

12 Robot SA70R10 Friction Stir join 12 locations SA70-20 12 113.0 36.0 149.0

13 Robot SA70R10 Friction Stir join 6 locations SA70-30 6 149.0 18.0 167.0

14 Robot SA70R10 drop Friction Stir unit and pick up end effector 167.0 16.0 183.0

15 Robot SA70R10 picks sub assembly out of station SA70-20 183.0 7.0 190.0

16 Robot SA70R10 drops sub assembly in station SA70-30 190.0 7.0 197.0

1 Robot SA70R10 drops sub assembly in station SA70-30 NOTE: Repeat sequence from above 0.0 7.0 7.0

2 Robot SA70R20 picks sub assembly from station SA70-30 7.0 6.0 13.0

3 Robot SA70R20 drop sub assembly in station SA70-40 13.0 6.0 19.0

4 Robot SA70R30 pick B-Pillar Outer Asm from SA70-40 19.0 6.0 25.0

5 Robot SA70R30 apply ped adhesive and

load back into SA70-40 200 25.0 8.0 33.0

6 Robot SA70R20 drop end effector to storage and pick Friction Stir Unit 19.0 15.0 34.0

7 Robot SA70R20 Friction Stir 10 locations in station SA70-40 8 34.0 24.0 58.0

8 Robot SA70R30 picks sub assembly from station SA70-50 33.0 7.0 40.0

9 Robot SA70R30 apply ped adhesive and wait for robot SA70R20 to complete friction stir joining 3200 40.0 23.0 63.0

10 Robot SA70R30 load sub assembly into SA70-40 63.0 6.0 69.0

11 Robot SA70R30 drop end effector to storage and pick Weld Gun 69.0 16.0 85.0

12 Robot SA70R20 Friction Stir 25 locations in station SA70-40 30 69.0 90.0 159.0

13 Robot SA70R30 resistance weld 30 locations in SA70-40 32 85.0 80.0 165.0

14 Robot SA70R30 drop Weld Gun and pick up end effector 165.0 16.0 181.0

15 Robot SA70R30 pick assembly from SA70-40 181.0 6.0 187.0

16 Robot SA70R30 ped weld 6 resistance spots 6 0.0 15.0 15.0

17 Robot SA70R30 unload to vision stand NOTE: SA70R30 cycle starts at 19 sec. mark 15.0 7.0 22.0

18 Robot SA70R40 inspects 50 points with camera 22.0 150.0 172.0

19 Robot SA70R50 inspects 50 points with camera 22.0 150.0 172.0

20 Robot SA70R60 unloads panel and drops into container 172.0 14.0 186.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 3400

Friction Stir Summary 66

Spot Weld Summary (linear mm) 38

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

Spot Weld FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.o: Station SA75 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-20

seconds

Az. sum

A-Plr Sub Asm

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator loads (3) parts to Stage 2 0.0 12.0 12.0

2 Operator loads (2) parts to Stage 1 12.0 12.0 24.0

3 Operator unloads Sub Asm from fixture 24.0 6.0 30.0

4 Operator loads (2) parts to fixture 30.0 6.0 36.0

5 Operator depress palm buttons 36.0 1.5 37.5

6 Robot SA75R10 applies ped adhesive to Stage 1 part 520 37.5 14.6 52.1

7 Robot SA75R10 applies ped adhesive to Stage 2 part 165 52.1 12.8 64.9

8 Robot SA75R10 applies ped adhesive to Insert Dash Trans 130 64.9 12.7 77.6

9 Robot SA75R10 change gripper to FSJ gun 77.6 15.0 92.6

10 Robot SA75R10 FSJ in Stage 1 (3 spots R/L) 3 92.6 9.0 101.6

11 Robot SA75R10 FSJ in Stage 2 (15 spots R/L) 15 101.6 45.0 146.6

12 Robot SA75R10 FSJ in Stage 2 (5 spots R/L) 5 146.6 15.0 161.6

13 Robot SA75R10 change FSJ gun to gripper 161.6 15.0 176.6

14 Robot SA75R10 unloads Stage 2 asm to presentation fixture 176.6 12.0 188.6

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 815

Friction Stir Summary 23

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.p: Station SA80 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Body Side Outer / D-Pillar

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Fixture rotates 180°, fixture clamps open\close 0.0 8.0 8.0

2 Operator unloads Body Side Outer with load assist 8.0 18.0 26.0

3 Operator deposit Bodyside Outer into container 26.0 6.0 32.0

4 Operator loads 5 parts to rotate fixture 32.0 60.0 92.0

5 Operator depress palm button 92.0 1.0 93.0

6 Robot SA80R10 unloads Bodyside Outer and moves to ped 

adhesive 8.0 10.0 18.0

7 Robot SA80R10 apply ped adhesive (499.3, 33.1, 63.9, 166.5, 

108.1) 871 18.0 4.4 22.4

8 Robot SA80R10 loads panel back into fixture 22.4 8.0 30.4

9 Fixture dumps, preloaders and clamps index. 30.4 7.0 37.4

10 Robot SA80R20 Braze Outer panel surfaces together 100.0 37.4 6.0 43.4

11 Robot SA80R10 drops end effector to storage and picks up 

friction stir unit 37.4 16.0 53.4

12 Robot SA80R10 rotates through 12 friction stir locations 12 53.4 36.0 89.4

13 Fixture dumps, preloaders and clamps index. 89.4 6.0 95.4

14 Robot SA80R10 drops friction stir to storage and picks up end 

effector 89.4 16.0 105.4

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 871

Friction Stir Summary 12

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

Braze Summary (linear mm) 100

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description Braze(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.q: Station SA85 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-21

seconds

Az. sum

Front Wheelhouse Asm R/L

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Operator loads 4 RH parts 0.0 22.0 22.0

2 Operator loads 4 LH parts 22.0 22.0 44.0

3 Operator depress palm button 44.0 1.0 45.0

4 Fixture clamps extend 45.0 2.0 47.0

5 Robot SA85R10 welds 16 RH spots 16 47.0 48.0 95.0

6 Robot SA85R10 welds 16 LH spots 16 47.0 48.0 95.0

7 Fixture clamps retract 95.0 2.0 97.0

8 Operator unloads RH Asm 95.0 10.0 105.0

9 Operator unloads LH Asm 105.0 10.0 115.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Weld Spot Summary 32

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet) Weld Spots

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.r: Station UB100 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody (Loose Load Station) 

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Robot UB100R10 unloads C/M Sub Asm from Sta 30 0.0 8.0 8.0

3 Robot UB100R10 loads C/M Sub Asm to UB100 8.0 9.0 17.0

4 Robot UB100R10 unloads C/M Sub Asm from Sta 25.2 17.0 9.0 26.0

5 Robot UB100R10 loads C/m Sub Asm to Sta 30 26.0 9.0 35.0

6 Robot UB100R10 changes Gripper to Gripper 35.0 15.0 50.0

7 Robot UB100R10 obtains and loads Side Rail Asm RH 50.0 20.0 70.0

8 Robot UB100R10 obtains and loads Side rail Asm LH 70.0 20.0 90.0

9 Robot UB100R10 changes Gripper to Gripper 90.0 15.0 105.0

10 Operator loads (2) parts 17.0 8.0 25.0

11 Operator depress palm button 25.0 1.5 26.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.s: Station UB110 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Geo Station (Rails and Crossmembers)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Robots UB110R10 and UB110R20 apply adhesive 1325 13.0 20.0 33.0

3 Tool Closes 33.0 10.0 43.0

4 Robots UB110R30 thru UB110R40 FSJ (18 spots R/L) 43.0 54.0 97.0

5 Tool Opens 97.0 5.0 102.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 2650

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.t: Station UB120 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-22

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Geo Station (Dash and UBRR W/H Asm)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 apply PED adhesive to RR W/H Asm 2015 0.0 18.1 18.1

4 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 Load RR W/H Asms to Body 18.1 10.0 28.1

5 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 change gripper to Rivtac Gun 28.1 15.0 43.1

6 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 Rivtac (13 spots R/L) 43.1 26.0 69.1

7 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 change gripper to Rivet Gun 69.1 15.0 84.1

8 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 Rivet (7 spots R/L) 84.1 21.0 105.1

9 Robot UB120R10 and UB120R20 change Rivet Gun to Gripper 105.1 15.0 120.1

10 Robot UB120R30 obtains and applies PED adhesive to Dash Asm 440 18.1 4.2 22.3

9 Robot UB120R30 loads Dash Asm to Body 37.1 8.0 45.1

10 Robot UB120R40 obtains and applies PED adhesive to Dash Reinf's 1800 18.1 11.0 29.1

11 Robot UB120R40 loads Dash Reinfs to Body 29.1 8.0 37.1

12 Tool Closes 45.1 3.0 48.1

13 Robot UB120R30 and UB120R40 change Gripper to Rivtac Gun 45.1 15.0 60.1

14 Robot UB120R30 and UB120R40 Rivtac (28 spots R/L) 60.1 56.0 116.1

15 Robot UB120R30 and UB120R40 change Rivtac Gun to Rivet Gun 116.1 15.0 131.1

16 Robot UB120R30 and UB120R40 Rivet (8 spots R/L) 131.1 24.0 155.1

17 Tool Opens 155.1 3.0 158.1

18 Robot UB120R30 and UB120R40 change Rivet Gun to Gripper 155.1 15.0 170.1

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 4255

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.u: Station UB130 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Idle Station

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.v: Station UB140 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Sub Asm (Respot Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB140R10 (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

4 Robot UB140R20 (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

5 Robot UB140R30 (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

6 Robot UB140R40 (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

7 Tool Opens 121.0 3.0 124.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.w: Station UB150 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-23

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Geo Station (RR Seat and UBA-Plr Asm)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB150R10 obtains and applies Ped adhesive to RR Seat Asm 4530 0.0 30.7 30.7

4 Robot UB150R10 loads RR Seat Asm to Body 30.7 10.0 40.7

5 Robot UB150R10 changes Gripper to FSJ Gun 40.7 15.0 55.7

6 Robot UB150R10 and UB150R10 FSJ (13 spots R/L) 55.7 39.0 94.7

7 Robot UB150R10 changes FSJ Gun to Gripper 94.7 15.0 109.7

8 Robot UB150R30 and UB150R40 obtain and apply ped 

adhesvie to A-plr Asm 580 30.7 4.9 35.6

9 Robot UB150R30 and UB150R40 load A-Plr asms to Body 35.6 8.0 43.6

10 Tool Closes 43.6 3.0 46.6

11 Robot UB150R30 and UB150R40 change Gripper to Rivtac Gun 43.6 15.0 58.6

12 Robot UB150R30 and UB150R40 RivTac (10 spots R/L) 58.6 20.0 78.6

13 Robot UB150R30 and UB150R40 change Rivtac Gun to Gripper 78.6 15.0 93.6

14 Tool Opens 109.7 3.0 112.7

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 5690

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.x: Station UB160 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Sub Asm (Idle Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.y: Station UB170 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Sub Asm (Frt W/H, Pnl Flr Ctr R/L and Pnl RR Closeout R/L Load)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB170R30 and UB170R40 obtain and apply PED 

adhesive to Frt W/H Asm 600 0.0 11.0 11.0

4 Robot UB170R30 and UB170R40 load Frt W/H to Body 16.0 10.0 26.0

5 Robot UB170R30 and UB170R40 change Gripper to Rivtac Gun 26.0 15.0 41.0

6 Robot UB170R30 and UB170R40 RivTac (37 spots R/L) 41.0 74.0 115.0

7 Robot UB170R30 and UB170R40 change Rivtac Gun to Gripper 115.0 15.0 130.0

8 Robot UB170R10 and UB170R20 obtain Pnl RR Closeout 0.0 8.0 8.0

9 Robot UB170R10 and UB170R20 apply Ped Adhesive to Pnl RR Closeout 1100 8.0 8.5 16.5

10 Robot UB170R10 and UB170R20 load Pnl RR Closeout 16.5 8.0 24.5

11 Tool Closes 24.5 3.0 27.5

12 Robot UB170R10 and UB170R20 change Gripper to FSJ Gun 24.5 20.0 44.5

13 Robot UB170R10 and UB170R20 FSJ (12 spots R/L) 44.5 36.0 80.5

14 Tool Opens 80.5 3.0 83.5

15 Robot UB170R10 and UB170R20 change FSJ Gun to Gripper 80.5 15.0 95.5

1 Operators load (2) parts to Presentation fixtures 8.0 16.0 24.0

2 Operators depress palm button 24.0 1.5 25.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 3400

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.z: Station UB180 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-24

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Sub Asm (Pnl Floor Center R/L)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances assembly into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Robot UB180R20 obtains Panel Floor Center R/L 0.0 16.0 16.0

3 Robot UB180R20 applies PED adhesive to Floor Panels 13200 16.0 76.0 92.0

4 Robot UB180R20 loads and holds Panel Floor Center R/L 92.0 10.0 102.0

5 Robot UB180R10 applies Flow Screws (8 places) 102.0 40.0 142.0

6 Robot UB180R20 release Panels 142.0 10.0 152.0

7 Operator loads (2) panels to presentation fixture 16.0 18.0 34.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) ####

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.aa: Station UB190 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Geo Station (RR W/H Otr, Pnl Flr Ctr and Pnl Flr RR)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances assembly into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB190R10 and UB190R20 obtain and apply PED 

adhesive to RR W/H Otr 1530 0.0 15.7 15.7

4 Riobot UB190R10 and UB190R20 load RR W/H Otr to Body 16.0 10.0 26.0

5 Robot UB190R10 and UB190R20 change Gripper to FSJ Gun 26.0 15.0 41.0

6 Robot UB190R10 and UB190R20 FSJ (21 spots R/L) 41.0 63.0 104.0

7 Robot UB190R10 and UB190R20 change FSJ Gun to Gripper 104.0 15.0 119.0

8 Robot UB190R30 obtain Pnl Flr Rear 0.0 8.0 8.0

9 Robot UB190R30 obtain and apply PED adhesive to Pnl Flr Rear 2900 8.0 14.5 22.5

10 Robot UB190R30 loads Pnl Flr Rear to Body 22.5 12.0 34.5

11 Robot UB190R30 changes Gripper to Rivtac Gun 34.5 15.0 49.5

12 Robot UB190R40 obtains Pnl Flr Ctr 0.0 8.0 8.0

13 Robot UB190R40 apply PED adhesive to Pnl Flr Ctr 2650 15.7 13.3 28.9

14 Robot UB190R40 loads Pnl Flr Ctr to Body 34.5 10.0 44.5

15 Tool Closes 44.5 3.0 47.5

15 Robot UB190R40 changes Gripper to Rivtac Gun 44.5 15.0 59.5

16 Robot UB190R30 and UB190R40 Rivtac (22 spots R/L) 59.5 66.0 125.5

17 Robot UB190R30 and UB190R40 changes Rivtac Gun to Gripper 125.5 15.0 140.5

18 Tool Opens 140.5 3.0 143.5

19 Operators load (2) parts to presentation fixtures 8.0 16.0 24.0

20 Operators depress palm buttons 24.0 1.5 25.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 8610

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ab: Station UB200 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Respot Station

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB200R10 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

4 Robot UB200R20 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

5 Robot UB200R30 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

6 Robot UB200R40 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

7 Tool Opens 121.0 3.0 124.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-25

Table 3.3.ac: Station UB210 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Stud Apply Station

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB210R10 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

4 Robot UB210R20 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

5 Robot UB210R30 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

6 Robot UB210R40 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

7 Tool Opens 141.0 3.0 144.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ad: Station UB220 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Vision Station

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot UB220R10 Vision Check (50 locations) 16.0 150.0 166.0

4 Robot UB220R20 Vision Check (50 locations) 16.0 150.0 166.0

5 Tool Opens 166.0 3.0 169.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ae: Station UB230 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Underbody Elevator to EMS

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool closes and carrier rotates 90° 13.0 10.0 23.0

3 Transfer advances asm 23.0 13.0 36.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.af: Station FR100 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Framing (Idle Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ag: Station FR110 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-26

seconds

Az. sum

Framing Geo Station (Bodyside Inr to Underbody)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances assembly to next station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Robots FR110R10 and FR110R20 unload B/S Inr from Rack 0.0 8.0 8.0

3 Robots FR110r10 and FR10R20 apply PED adhesive to B/S 3500 8.0 17.5 25.5

4 Robot FR110R30 obtains Roof Bows 0.0 8.0 8.0

5 Robot FR110R30 loads Roof Bows 13.0 12.0 25.0

6 Robot FR110R30 changes Gripper to FSJ Gun 25.0 15.0 40.0

7 Robots FR110R10 and FR110R20 load B/S Inrs to Framer 25.5 20.0 45.5

8 Tool Closes 45.5 10.0 55.5

9 Robots FR110R30, FR110R40, FR110R70, FR110R80 FSJ 

(25 spots) 55.5 75.0 130.5

10 Robot FR110R50 and FR110R60 Rivtac (25 spots) 55.5 50.0 105.5

11 Tool Opens 130.5 5.0 135.5

12 Robot FR110R30 changes FSJ Gun to Gripper 130.5 15.0 145.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 7000

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ah: Station FR120 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Framing (Respot Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot FR120R10 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

4 Robot FR120R20 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

5 Robot FR120R30 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

6 Robot FR120R40 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

7 Tool Opens 121.0 3.0 124.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ai: Station FR130 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Framing Stud Apply Station

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot FR130R10 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

4 Robot FR130R20 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

5 Robot FR130R30 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

6 Robot FR130R40 Applies Studs (25 Spots) 16.0 125.0 141.0

7 Tool Opens 141.0 3.0 144.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.aj: Station FR140 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-27

seconds

Az. sum

Framing Geo Station (Bodyside Otr to Underbody)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances assembly to next station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Robots FR140R30 and FR140R40 unload B/S Otr from Rack 0.0 8.0 8.0

3 Robots FR140R30 and FR140R40 apply PED adhesive to B/S 2200 8.0 11.0 19.0

4 Robots FR140R30 and FR140R40 load B/S to fixture 19.0 20.0 39.0

5 Fixture clamps, dumps and pins extend 39.0 10.0 49.0

6 Robots FR140R10, FR140R20, FR140R50, FR140R60 friction 

stir 25 locations 25 49.0 75.0 124.0

7 Fixture clamps, dumps and pins retract 124.0 5.0 129.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 4400

Friction Stir Summary 100

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ak: Station FR150 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Roof, Cowl Top and Shotgun Flange Geo

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Robot FR150R30 loads roof panel 13.0 8.0 21.0

3 Fixture clamps, slides and pins extend. 21.0 8.0 29.0

4 Robot FR150R30 rotates and picks Cowl Top and Shotgun Flange 21.0 11.0 32.0

5 Robot FR150R30 rotates through ped adhesive apply (1472, 

1416, 39, 39, 42, 42, 42, 42) 3134 32.0 15.7 47.7

6 Robot FR150R30 rotates and loads Cowl Top and Shotgun Flange 47.7 15.0 62.7

7 Fixture clamps, slides and pins extend. 62.7 5.0 67.7

8 Robot FR150R10 friction stir join 47 locations 47 29.0 141.0 170.0

9 Robot FR150R20 friction stir join 47 locations 47 29.0 141.0 170.0

10 Robot FR150R50 apply 35 self peirce rivets 35 67.7 105.0 172.7

11 Robot FR150R40 apply 35 self peirce rivets 35 67.7 105.0 172.7

12 Fixture clamps, slides and pins retract. 172.7 8.0 180.7

13 Robot FR150R30 rotates and picks Roof Outer Panel 62.7 14.0 76.7

14 Robot FR150R30 rotates through structure ped adhesive apply 

(75, 75, 76.1, 76.1, 57.2, 57.2, 112.3, 112.3, 87.6, 87.6, 163.7, 1975 76.7 9.9 86.5

15 Robot FR150R30 rotates through soft ped adhesive apply 

(1380,1240, 1204,1201,1193,881,879,1767,1759) 11707 86.5 58.5 145.1

16 Robot FR150R30 rotates to clear position for roof load 145.1 5.0 150.1

17 Operator walks with Roof Outer Panel on load assist 0.0 6.0 6.0

18 Operator load Roof Outer Panel to presentation table 6.0 9.0 15.0

19 Operator dispose of assist and walk to Cowl Top Container 15.0 8.0 23.0

20 Operator loads Cowl Top and Shotgun Flange plates to 

presentation fixture 23.0 22.0 45.0

21 Operator depress palm buttons and walk to load assist 45.0 6.0 51.0

22 Operator obtains Roof Outer from container, with assist 51.0 9.0 60.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 16816

Friction Stir Summary 94

Self Pierce Rivets 70

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet) SPR MIG(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.al: Station FR160 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-28

seconds

Az. sum

Framing (Respot Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot FR160R10 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

4 Robot FR160R20 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

5 Robot FR160R30 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

6 Robot FR160R40 Respot (35 Spots) 16.0 105.0 121.0

7 Tool Opens 121.0 3.0 124.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.am: Station FR170 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Framing (Vision Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Tool Closes 13.0 3.0 16.0

3 Robot FR17010 Vision Check (50 locations) 16.0 150.0 166.0

4 Robot FR17020 Vision Check (50 locations) 16.0 150.0 166.0

5 Tool Opens 166.0 3.0 169.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.an: Station FR180 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Framing Bolt Up Station (Frt/RR Bumper and Rad Supt)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances assembly to next station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Operators 1 & 2 load Front Bumper to Manipulator 0.0 6.0 6.0

3 Operators 1 & 2 load Module Front to Manipulator 6.0 6.0 12.0

4 Operators 1 & 2 position manipulator to Body 12.0 6.0 18.0

5 Operators 1 & 2 run bolts to Module Front (4 R/L) 18.0 45.0 63.0

6 Operators 1 & 2 run bolts to Front Bumper (4 R/L) 63.0 45.0 108.0

7 Operators 1 & 2 remove manipulator 108.0 3.5 111.5

8 Operators 1 & 2 walk to rear of body 111.5 6.0 117.5

9 Operators 1 & 2 load Rear Bumper to manipulator 117.5 6.0 123.5

10 Operators 1 & 2 position manipulator to Body 123.5 6.0 129.5

11 Operators 1 & 2 run bolts to Rear Bumper (4 R/L) 129.5 45.0 174.5

12 Operators 1 & 2 remove manipulator 174.5 3.5 178.0

13 Operators 1 & 2 press button 178.0 1.5 179.5

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Walk time [sec]

(feet) Description MIG(mm) start Glue(mm)

HEM 

(mm) FSJ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ao: Station FR190 timing sheet
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-29

seconds

Az. sum

Framing (Surface Finish Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

2 Operators inspect and repair 13.0 150.0 163.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Table 3.3.ap: Station FR200 timing sheet

seconds

Az. sum

Framing (Idle Station)

CYCLE (BELOW) STARTS WITH A COMPLETED CYCLE

1 Transfer advances asm into Station 0.0 13.0 13.0

Station Cycle Time 191.0 191.0

Walk Summary (linear feet) 0

Glue Summary (linear mm) 0

Friction Stir Summary 0

Hem Summary (linear mm) 0

MIG Summary (linear mm) 0

Glue

(mm) Description FSJ Walk(feet)

HEM 

(mm)

MIG

(mm) start

time [sec]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

3.4 Tool Content Per Station

In order to build the Phase 2 HD vehicle, a number of tools are required at each station 

ranging from the basic loose parts to advanced robots. The tools needed at each station 

are listed in Tables 3.4.a-3.4.ao below with a summary of all the necessary tools listed in 

Table 3.4.ap.

Table 3.4.a: Station SA05 tool content

SA05

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 10

Operators 1

MIG Weld (value in millimeters) 1952 976

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

MIG head, feeder, and controller 1

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

4' wide roll up door 4
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-30

4' wide hinged access door 1

60" long by 12" wide sheet metal chute 2

Operator palm buttons 2

Vent hood 2

4-post base 30" x 60" 2

Part present switches 28

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 8

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 8

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Rectangular locating pin w/ adjustment lbocks (inside tube) 4

200mm self-contained indexing slide 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 16

Large weldments for slide mounting 2

Rough locators 32

Table 3.4.b: Station SA10 tool content

SA10

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 14

Operators 1

MIG Weld (value in millimeters) 1213 606.5

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

MIG head, feeder, and controller 1

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

4' wide roll up door 4

4' wide hinged access door 1

60" long by 12" wide sheet metal chute 1

Operator palm buttons 2

Perimeter guard (walls/fences) 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-31

4-post base 30" x 70" 1

4-post base 32" x 32" 22

Part present switches 18

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 6

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

50mm self-contained indexing slide 4

200mm self-contained indexing slide 20

Small weldments for slide mounting 4

Large weldments for slide mounting 38

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 1

Table 3.4.c: Station SA15 tool content

SA15

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 40 20

Operators 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 4150 2075

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 46 23

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

Power and interface panel -- double door 1

4' wide hinged gate 1

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 48" x 60" 4

Part present switches 20
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-32

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 10

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 10

200mm self-contained indexing slide 4

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 14

Large weldments for slide mounting 1

Rough locators 28

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Large capacity rotate table 1

Large frame (mounting to rotate table) 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 4

Table 3.4.d: Station SA20 tool content

SA20

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 7

Operators 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 2715

Rivtac Spots 28

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivtac Unit, feeder, and controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (medium) 1

End effector storage stand 2

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

Operator palm buttons 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-33

4-post base 40" x 80" 2

Part present switches 16

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 30

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Table 3.4.e: Station SA25 tool content

SA25

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 32

Friction Stir Joining 38

Operators 1

Rivtac Spots 16

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 2

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 1

Rivtac Unit, feeder, and controller 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

End effector storage stand 2

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 48" x 60" 1

Part present switches 36
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-34

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 22

Rough locators 36

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Staging Table 1

Nut runner 2

Table 3.4.f: Station SA30 tool content

SA30

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 4

Operators 2

Operator palm buttons 2

4-post base 48" x 60" 1

Part present switches 13

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 14

Rough locators 16

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 8

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 2

Nut runner 2

Table 3.4.g: Station SA35 tool content

SA35

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 5

Friction Stir Joining 30
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-35

Operators SHARE

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 3700

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

End effector storage stand 2

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 40" x 80" 1

Part present switches 8

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 7

Rough locators 12

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Large frame (mounting to rotate table) 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 4

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 1

Table 3.4.h: Station SA40 tool content

SA40

Description Quantity Single 

Hand
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-36

Loose Parts Load 14 7

Operators 2 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 9060 4530

Rivtac Spots 50 25

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivtac Unit, feeder, and controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

Operator palm buttons 1

Part present switches 10

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 4

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 4

50mm self-contained indexing slide 4

200mm self-contained indexing slide

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Small weldments for slide mounting 4

Large weldments for slide mounting

Rough locators 28

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 4

Table 3.4.i: Station SA45 tool content

SA45

Description Quantity Single 

Hand
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-37

Loose Parts Load 8 4

Friction Stir Joining 60 30

Operators 2 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 3600 1800

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

End effector storage stand 2

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 40" x 80" 1

Part present switches 14

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 12

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 8

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 1

Conveyor (W/pins locators and rests) 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 1

Table 3.4.j: Station SA50 tool content
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-38

SA50

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 3

Operators SHARE

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 1710

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 22

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 2

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

End effector storage stand 2

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 40" x 80" 1

Part present switches 6

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 8

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 4

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 1

Table 3.4.k: Station SA55 tool content
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-39

SA55

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 3

Operators SHARE

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 3600

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 46

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 40" x 80" 1

Part present switches 6

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 12

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 6

Table 3.4.l: Station SA60 tool content

SA60

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 6

Friction Stir Joining 62

Operators 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 2715

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 2

Tool Changer (robot side) 2

Tool Changer (tool side) 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-40

END EFFECTORS

End effector (medium) 2

End effector storage stand 4

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 48" x 60" 1

4-post base 40" x 80" 1

Part present switches 18

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 6

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 6

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 15

Rough locators 22

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 2

84" tall vertical lightscreen 2

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 8

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 1

Conveyor (W/pins locators and rests) 1

Table 3.4.m: Station SA65 tool content

SA65

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 6 3

Operators 2 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 2200 1100

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 42 21

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 3

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-41

END EFFECTORS

End effector (small)

End effector (medium) 2

End effector storage stand 3

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 48" x 60" 2

4-post base 30" x 60" 1

Part present switches 10

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 22

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 16

Table 3.4.n: Station SA70 tool content

SA70

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 18 9

Friction Stir Joining 132 66

Operators 2 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 6800 3400

Resistance Weld Spots 76 38

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 12

Tool Changer (robot side) 6

Tool Changer (tool side) 12

JOINING TECHNOLOGY
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-42

FSJ unit with controller 4

Weld Gun, Weld Timer, Water Saver 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 4

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 6

End effector storage stand 12

Power and interface panel -- double door 4

4' wide hinged gate 4

Operator palm buttons 6

4-post base 60" x 120" 6

4-post base 48" x 60" 6

Part present switches 52

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 12

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 12

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 14

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 14

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 72

Rough locators 84

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 8

84" tall vertical lightscreen 10

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 68

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 4

Robot mounted camera inspection equipment, with 

controller

4

Overhead rails with balancer 2

Table 3.4.o: Station SA75 tool content

SA75

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 12 6

Friction Stir Joining 46 23

Operators SHARE 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 1630 815
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-43

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

Tool Changer (robot side) 2

Tool Changer (tool side) 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (medium) 2

End effector storage stand 4

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 30" x 60" 2

Part present switches 10

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 5

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 5

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 5

Rough locators 12

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 8

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 1

Table 3.4.p: Station SA80 tool content

SA80

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 10 5

Friction Stir Joining 24 12

Operators 1 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 1742 871

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-44

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (medium) 1

End effector (large) 1

End effector storage stand 2

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 48" x 60" 2

4-post base 30" x 60" 1

Part present switches 8

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

50mm self-contained indexing slide 2

200mm self-contained indexing slide 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 22

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 16

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 1

Conveyor (W/pins locators and rests) 1

Table 3.4.q: Station SA85 tool content

SA85

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 8 4

Operators 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-45

Resistance Weld Spots 32 16

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Weld Gun, Weld Timer, Water Saver 1

Power and interface panel -- single door 1

4' wide hinged gate 1

Operator palm buttons 1

4-post base 30" x 60" 1

Part present switches 8

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 4

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 4

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 8

Rough locators 16

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 1

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 4

Table 3.4.r: Station UB100 tool content

UB100

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 5

Operators SHARE

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

Robot 7th Axis Slide 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

End effector (large) 2
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-46

Operator palm buttons 1

Part present switches 10

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 16

Large weldments for slide mounting 4

Rough locators 16

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 16

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 2

Table 3.4.s: Station UB110 tool content

UB110

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Friction Stir Joining 36

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 2650

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

Tool Changer (robot side) 2

Tool Changer (tool side) 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 2

FSJ unit with controller 1

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (small)

End effector (medium) 3

End effector (large)

End effector storage stand 4
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-47

Power and interface panel -- double door 1

Part present switches 10

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 5

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 5

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 22

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.t: Station UB120 tool content

UB 120

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 5

Operators 0

Friction Stir Joining 40

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 11300

Rivtac Spots 14

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 60

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

Tool Changer (robot side) 4

Tool Changer (tool side) 8

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 2

FSJ unit with controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS

End effector (medium) 4

End effector storage stand 8

Part present switches 12
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-48

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 26

84" tall vertical lightscreen 1

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 8

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.u: Station UB130 tool content

UB130

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.v: Station UB140 tool content

UB140

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Friction Stir Joining 140 70

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 4

Part present switches 2
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-49

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.w: Station UB150 tool content

UB150

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 3

Operators 0

Friction Stir Joining 52 26

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 5850

Rivtac Spots 44 22

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

Tool Changer (robot side) 2

Tool Changer (tool side) 6

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 2

FSJ unit with controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS

End effector (medium) 3

End effector storage stand 6

Part present switches 8

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 27
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-50

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.x: Station UB160 tool content

UB160

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.y: Station UB170 tool content

UB170

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 6

Operators 0

Friction Stir Joining 76

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 16500

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

Tool Changer (robot side) 4

Tool Changer (tool side) 9

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 2

FSJ unit with controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-51

End effector (small) 2

End effector (medium) 2

End effector storage stand 9

Part present switches 14

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 5

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 5

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 32

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 10

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 4

Table 3.4.z: Station UB180 tool content

UB180

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 2

Operators 0

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 6600

Flow Screw 8

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 1

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

Part present switches 6

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-52

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 20

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 6

Robot mounted screw head driver, with feeder and 

controller

1

Table 3.4.aa: Station UB190 tool content

UB190

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 4

Friction Stir Joining 42

Operators 0

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 9800

Rivtac Spots 44

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

Tool Changer (robot side) 4

Tool Changer (tool side) 8

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 2

Rivtac Unit, feeder, and controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS

End effector (small) 2

End effector (medium) 1

End effector storage stand 8

Part present switches 10
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-53

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 20

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 6

Table 3.4.ab: Station UB200 tool content

UB200

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Friction Stir Joining 140 70

Operators 0

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 4

4-post base 60" x 120" 1

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Table 3.4.ac: Station UB210 tool content

UB210

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Clinch Studs 100
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-54

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

4-post base 60" x 120" 1

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Clinch Stud Head, Feeder and Controller 4

Table 3.4.ad: Station UB220 tool content

UB220

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Camera Inspection Points 100 50

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 2

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Robot mounted camera inspection equipment, with 

controller

2

Table 3.4.ae: Station FR100 tool content

FR100

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Part present switches 2
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-55

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.af: Station FR110 tool content

FR110

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 5

Friction Stir Joining 100 50

Operators 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 7000 3500

Rivtac Spots 50 25

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 8

Tool Changer (robot side) 1

Tool Changer (tool side) 2

Robot 7th Axis Slide 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 4

Rivtac Unit, feeder, and controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 2

End effector storage stand 4

Part present switches 12

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 4

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 4

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-56

200mm self-contained indexing slide 6

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 35

Rough locators 12

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 12

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 6

Table 3.4.ag: Station FR120 tool content

FR120

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Friction Stir Joining 100 50

Operators 0

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 4

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.ah: Station FR130 tool content

FR130

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Clinch Studs 100 50
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-57

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

4-post base 60" x 120" 1

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Clinch Stud Head, Feeder and Controller 4

Table 3.4.ai: Station FR140 tool content

FR140

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 2

Friction Stir Joining 100 50

Operators 0

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 4400 2200

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 6

Robot 7th Axis Slide 2

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 4

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 2

Part present switches 6

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-58

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 2

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 28

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 6

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 6

Table 3.4.aj: Station FR150 tool content

FR150

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 4

Friction Stir Joining 94 47

Operators 1

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 16816

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 70 35

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 5

Robot 7th Axis Slide 1

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 2

FSJ unit with controller 2

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 2

END EFFECTORS

End effector (large) 1

Part present switches 8

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 3

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 35
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-59

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 5

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 2

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 6

Table 3.4.ak: Station FR160 tool content

FR160

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Friction Stir Joining 140 70

Operators 0

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 4

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

FSJ unit with controller 4

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.al: Station FR170 tool content

FR170

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Camera Inspection Points 100 50

ROBOTS

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 2
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-60

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Robot mounted camera inspection equipment, with 

controller

2

Table 3.4.am: Station FR180 tool content

FR180

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Loose Parts Load 3

Operators 2

Operator palm buttons 2

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 12

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Nut runner 4

Load Assist 2

Operator Platform (10' x 20') 2

Overhead rails with balancer 2

Table 3.4.an: Station FR190 tool content

FR190

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 2

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-61

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Operator Platform (10' x 20') 2

Table 3.4.ao: Station FR200 tool content

FR200

Description Quantity Single 

Hand

Operators 0

Part present switches 2

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 1

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 4

Rough locators 6

Large base 70" x 180" 1

Table 3.4.ap: Total station tool content

Total

Description Quantity

Loose Parts Load 239

Friction Stir Joining 1452

Operators 24

Adhesive (value in millimeters) 124538

Clinch Studs 200

Resistance Weld Spots 108

Rivtac Spots 246

Self Piercing Rivet Spot 286

Flow Screw 8

MIG Weld (value in millimeters) 3165

Camera Inspection Points 200

ROBOTS

165 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 82

130 kg robot w/ riser, dress, and controller 21
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-62

Tool Changer (robot side) 34

Tool Changer (tool side) 72

Robot 7th Axis Slide 6

JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Rivet Head, feeder, and controller 14

FSJ unit with controller 47

Rivtac Unit, feeder, and controller 8

MIG head, feeder, and controller 2

Weld Gun, Weld Timer, Water Saver 3

Adhesive Nozzle, Pump, and Heater 30

END EFFECTORS

End effector (small) 4

End effector (medium) 21

End effector (large) 20

End effector storage stand 74

Power and interface panel -- single door 8

Power and interface panel -- double door 6

4' wide roll up door 8

4' wide hinged access door 2

4' wide hinged gate 6

60" long by 12" wide sheet metal chute 3

Operator palm buttons 28

Perimeter guard (walls/fences) 1

Vent hood 2

4-post base 60" x 120" 9

4-post base 48" x 60" 17

4-post base 40" x 80" 7

4-post base 30" x 60" 7

4-post base 30" x 70" 1

4-post base 32" x 32" 22

Part present switches 405

Round 4-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 113

Round 2-way locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 108

Round 4-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 57
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-63

Round 2-way retract locating pin w/ adjustment blocks 57

Rectangular locating pin w/ adjustment lbocks (inside tube) 4

50mm self-contained indexing slide 10

200mm self-contained indexing slide 33

Power clamp units (w/ riser, backup, finger & adjustment) 546

Small weldments for slide mounting 8

Large weldments for slide mounting 45

Rough locators 510

60" wide horizontal lightscreen 20

84" tall vertical lightscreen 25

Large capacity rotate table 1

Large frame (mounting to rotate table) 2

Rest unit (w/ riser, rest blocks and adjustment) 226

Staging Table 1

Frame for adhesive nozzle mount (ped) 17

Conveyor (W/pins locators and rests) 3

Large base 70" x 180" 22

Pivoting dump (w/ mtg bracket, shocks, stops & cylinder 42

Nut runner 8

Load Assist 2

Clinch Stud Head, Feeder and Controller 8

Operator Platform (10' x 20') 4

Robot mounted camera inspection equipment, with controller 8

Overhead rails with balancer 4

Robot mounted screw head driver, with feeder and controller 1

3.5 Conveyor Concept

There are a total of five different conveyors in the factory – one each for the subassemblies, underbody line, the cross transport, framing line, and after the framing line, 

which isn’t included in this study.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-64

3.5.1 Sub-Assemblies

There are two methods of transport on the sub-assembly conveyor line. The parts are 

loaded onto the actual conveyor belt by robots or human operators. Once on the assembly 

line, the parts are handled by robots.

3.5.2 Underbody Line

Like the sub-assembly line, there are two methods of transport on the underbody line. 

Parts are loaded onto the line by robots and transferred by forklifts.

3.5.3 Cross Transport

One primary method of transportation will be used to transport the fully-built underbodies 

to the framing line. The underbodies will be loaded onto pallets and transported on a 

conveyor belt to the framing line (3.5.4 below). These pallets are used on the framing line 

as well. An elevator and overhead return recycle the pallets and are further discussed in 

3.5.4 below.

3.5.4 Framing Line

The underbodies remain on the pallets used in the cross transport process and are moved 

along the framing line by power rollers. A total of 50 pallets are used in the system. Once 

framing is complete, the assembled frames are removed and the pallets are lifted up to an 

overhead return line by an elevator. A second elevator just before the cross transport line 

lowers the pallets back to the cross transport line.

3.5.5 After Framing Line

After the framing line, there is an elevator to raise the fully-built BIWs to an electric 

motorized system for further vehicle buildup. This was not included in the scope of this 

manufacturing study.

3.6 Buffer Concept

In order to help prevent assembly line delays, each of the main lines will be disconnected 

with buffers. A maximum buffer of 10 parts, roughly 32 minutes worth of production, will 

help to prevent any delays. The buffer is designed to be approximately half full on average 

as this allows the worker to fill the buffer up when production after the buffer halts and to 

empty it when production prior to the buffer stops.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-65

3.7 Station Layouts

This section provides a detailed layout of each assembly station at the plant in Figures 

3.7.a-3.7.as with a full plant overview in Figure 3.7.at. All the necessary bins, racks, parts, 

machinery, conveyors, and workers are shown.

Figure 3.7.a: Station SA05 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-66

Figure 3.7.b: Station SA 10 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-67

Figure 3.7.c: Station SA15 layout

Figure 3.7.d: Station SA20 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-68

Figure 3.7.e: Stations SA25, SA30 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-69

Figure 3.7.f: Station SA35 layout

Figure 3.7.g: Station SA40 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-70

Figure 3.7.h: Station SA45, right-side assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-71

Figure 3.7.i: Station SA45, left-side assembly layout

Figure 3.7.j: Stations SA50, SA55 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-72

Figure 3.7.k: Station SA60 layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-73

Figure 3.7.l: Station SA65, right-side assembly layout

Figure 3.7.m: Station SA65, left-side assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-74

Figure 3.7.n: Station SA70, right-side assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-75

Figure 3.7.o: Station SA70, left-side assembly layout

Figure 3.7.p: Station SA75, right-side assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-76

Figure 3.7.q: Station SA75, left-side assembly
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-77

Figure 3.7.r: Station SA80 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.s: Station SA85 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.t: Station UB100 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-78

Figure 3.7.u: Station UB110 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-79

Figure 3.7.v: Station UB120 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.w: Station UB130 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-80

Figure 3.7.x: Station UB140 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-81

Figure 3.7.y: Station UB150 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-82

Figure 3.7.z: Station UB160 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.aa: Station UB170 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-83

Figure 3.7.ab: Station UB180 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-84

Figure 3.7.ac: Station UB190 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.ad: Station UB200 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-85

Figure 3.7.ae: Station UB210 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-86

Figure 3.7.af: Station UB220 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.ag: Station UB230 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.ah: Cross transport
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-87

Figure 3.7.ai: Station FR100 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.aj: Station FR110 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-88

Figure 3.7.ak: Station FR120 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-89

Figure 3.7.al: Station FR130 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.am: Station FR140 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.an: Station FR150 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-90

Figure 3.7.ao: Station FR160 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-91

Figure 3.7.ap: Station FR170 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.aq: Station FR180 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-92

Figure 3.7.ar: Station FR190 assembly layout

Figure 3.7.ar: Station FR200 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-93

Figure 3.7.as: Station FR210 assembly layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-94

Figure 3.7.at: Overall body shop assembly layout

4.0 Facility

The total area required for the body shop is 190,000 ft2, divided up into areas with different 

functions. A room will be allocated in the body shop to house the coordinate-measuring 

machine (CMM). The CMM is a specialized device that measures the geometric 

characteristics of an object and is used to test the dimensions of parts against their design 

intent. Other areas include a break room, locker room and restrooms, maintenance area, 

tool shop for repairs, and a logistic preparation area.

5.0 Labor Requirements

The body shop will require a well-trained work force to operate. This work force is 

categorized into direct and indirect workers. Direct workers handle assembly line tasks and 

other jobs directly linked to manufacturing. The body shop will require 24 direct workers 

per shift.

Indirect workers will also be required. They will perform tasks such as maintenance (10 

workers per shift), logistics work (12 workers per shift), and there will be one CMM 

operator per shift.

A total of 47 workers will be required per shift.

6.0 Logistic Concept

This section will discuss the basic logistics of the plant. These logistics need to be factored 

in to prepare the plant to operate smoothly.

6.1 Main Features

All part bins and racks will be sized according to the size of the parts stored helping to 

ensure parts are stored in the proper location and maximizing usable space. There will be 

enough part bins to store parts for one week of production – approximately 1200 parts. 

This includes a two-day supply in the plant, two days for transportation, and one day at the 

supplier’s plant.

Table 6.1.a below shows the total bins and racks necessary for storage and gives the total 

cost.

Table 6.1.a: Total bins and racks
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-95

Part Number Part Name Length 

(mm)

Width 

(mm)

Height 

(mm)

Rack 

Vol. (m3)

Price/

Rack

Rack/1200 

Units

Price of 

Racks

7305-0900-137 L, inner front frame rail transition 803 223 344 0.062 $360 50 $18,000 

7305-0900-138 R, inner front frame rail transition 803 223 344 0.062 $360 50 $18,000 

7305-1100-220 R, upper dash reinforcement 398 270 382 0.041 $360 33 $11,880 

7305-1100-221 L, upper dash reinforcement 398 270 382 0.041 $360 33 $11,880 

7305-1110-101 Center, rear seat riser 1,423 93 208 0.027 $530 39 $20,670 

7305-1130-145 Cowl panel 1,577 135 327 0.070 $270 57 $15,390 

7305-1130-147 Cowl panel reinforcement 1,578 216 280 0.096 $360 80 $28,800 

7305-1200-209 L, outer front frame rail transition 854 191 309 0.050 $530 71 $37,630 

7305-1200-210 R, outer front frame rail transition 854 191 309 0.050 $530 71 $37,630 

7305-1300-155 L, upper, A-pillar inner panel 551 70 524 0.020 $270 36 $9,720 

7305-1300-156 R, upper, A-pillar inner panel 551 70 524 0.020 $270 36 $9,720 

7305-1300-165 L, rear shock tower 486 302 325 0.048 $360 39 $14,040 

7305-1300-166 R, rear shock tower 486 302 325 0.048 $360 39 $14,040 

7305-1310-151 L, front shock tower 366 278 281 0.029 $270 50 $13,500 

7305-1310-152 R, front shock tower 366 278 281 0.029 $270 50 $13,500 

7305-1310-161 L, front wheelhouse panel 444 255 308 0.035 $530 50 $26,500 

7305-1310-162 R, front wheelhouse panel 444 255 308 0.035 $530 50 $26,500 

7305-1400-153 L, lower A-pillar outer panel 362 187 245 0.017 $270 29 $7,830 

7305-1400-154 R, lower A-pillar outer panel 362 187 245 0.017 $270 29 $7,830 

7305-1500-157 L, shotgun inner panel 885 53 369 0.017 $270 31 $8,370 

7305-1500-158 R, shotgun inner panel 885 53 369 0.017 $270 31 $8,370 

7305-1500-197 L, upper, A-pillar inner 

reinforcement bracket

152 81 144 0.020 $270 3 $810 

7305-1500-198 R, upper, A-pillar inner 

reinforcement bracket

152 81 144 0.020 $270 3 $810 

7305-1500-227 L, lower, A-pillar inner 

reinforcement bracket

143 96 100 0.010 $270 2 $540 

7305-1500-228 R, lower, A-pillar inner 

reinforcement bracket

143 96 100 0.010 $270 2 $540 

7305-1600-149 Dash panel reinforcement 1,464 306 611 0.274 $530 80 $42,400 

7305-1600-183 L, rear outer wheelhouse panel 1,059 350 723 0.268 $530 80 $42,400 

7305-1600-184 R, rear outer wheelhouse panel 1,059 350 723 0.268 $530 80 $42,400 

7305-1900-159 L, shotgun closeout panel 102 3 90 0.000 $50 2 $100 

7305-1900-160 R, shotgun closeout panel 102 3 90 0.000 $50 2 $100 

7305-1930-169 L, shotgun outer panel 866 301 369 0.096 $360 80 $28,800 

7305-1930-170 R, shotgun outer panel 866 301 369 0.096 $360 80 $28,800 

7305-2100-104 Rear roof header 889 99 259 0.023 $530 32 $16,960 

7305-2200-109 Roof panel 2,031 186 1,370 0.517 $660 100 $66,000 

7306-0810-123 L, rocker sill extrusion 1,563 132 178 0.037 $530 11 $5,830 

7306-0820-124 R, rocker sill extrusion 1,563 132 178 0.037 $530 11 $5,830 

7306-0830-124 R, front floor bracket 90 57 53 0.000 $65 8 $522 

7306-0830-124 L, front floor bracket 90 57 53 0.000 $65 8 $522 

7306-0830-124 R, floor bracket 90 57 53 0.000 $65 8 $522 

7306-0830-124 L, floor bracket 90 57 53 0.000 $65 8 $522 

7306-0830-125 L, front floor X-member 603 51 51 0.002 $65 44 $2,873 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-96

7306-0830-125 R, front floor X-member 603 51 51 0.002 $65 44 $2,873 

7306-0830-125 L, rear floor X-member 603 51 51 0.002 $65 44 $2,873 

7306-0830-125 R, rear floor X-member 603 51 51 0.002 $65 44 $2,873 

7306-0830-126 Front floor X-member transition 274 45 100 0.001 $65 34 $2,220 

7306-0830-126 Rear floor X-member transition 274 45 100 0.001 $65 34 $2,220 

7306-0840-010 L, mid floor bracket 200 62 53 0.001 $50 57 $2,850 

7306-0840-010 R, mid floor bracket 200 62 53 0.001 $50 57 $2,850 

7306-0840-011 L, mid floor X-member 602 51 152 0.005 $360 4 $1,440 

7306-0840-011 R, mid floor X-member 602 51 152 0.005 $360 4 $1,440 

7306-0840-012 Mid floor transition X-member 276 146 100 0.004 $360 3 $1,080 

7306-1000-175 L, rear seat riser 768 94 148 0.011 $200 11 $2,200 

7306-1000-176 R, rear seat riser 768 94 148 0.011 $200 11 $2,200 

7306-1110-103 L, rear seat floor reinforcement 350 44 97 0.001 $200 1 $200 

7306-1110-104 R, rear seat floor reinforcement 350 44 97 0.001 $200 1 $200 

7306-1130-143 Dash panel 1,501 587 785 0.692 $660 133 $87,780 

7306-1200-113 Rear seat floor panel 1,396 68 815 0.077 $360 63 $22,680 

7306-1910-189 L, upper, A-pillar outer panel 1,255 60 511 0.039 $200 39 $7,800 

7306-1910-190 R, upper, A-pillar outer panel 1,255 60 511 0.039 $200 39 $7,800 

7306-1910-195 L, C-pillar outer 1,392 163 863 0.196 $530 60 $31,800 

7306-1910-196 R, C-pillar outer 1,392 163 863 0.196 $530 60 $31,800 

7306-1913-001 L, B-pillar quarter panel 1,306 69 197 0.018 $200 18 $3,600 

7306-1920-191 L, roof side rail outer panel 963 129 143 0.018 $200 18 $3,600 

7306-1920-192 R, roof side rail outer panel 963 129 143 0.018 $200 18 $3,600 

7306-1924-002 R, B-pillar quarter panel 1,306 69 197 0.018 $200 18 $3,600 

7306-2000-171 L, roof side rail inner panel 1,203 48 470 0.027 $530 22 $11,660 

7306-2000-172 R, roof side rail inner panel 1,203 48 470 0.027 $360 22 $7,920 

7306-2000-215 L, rear roof side rail inner panel 951 155 186 0.027 $360 22 $7,920 

7306-2000-216 R, rear roof side rail inner panel 951 155 186 0.027 $360 36 $12,960 

7306-2100-101 Front header panel 1,344 179 183 0.044 $530 13 $6,890 

7306-2100-103 Center roof header 1,154 59 162 0.011 $200 11 $2,200 

7306-2300-185 L, body side outer panel 3,289 380 1,340 1.675 $790 240 $189,600 

7306-2300-186 R, body side outer panel 3,289 380 1,340 1.675 $790 240 $189,600 

7306-2300-187 L, rear quarter panel closeout 292 143 247 0.010 $200 10 $2,000 

7306-2300-188 R, rear quarter panel closeout 292 143 247 0.010 $200 10 $2,000 

7306-2300-189 L, outer liftgate flange channel to 

body

610 79 96 0.005 $200 5 $1,000 

7306-2300-190 R, outer liftgate flange channel to 

body

610 79 96 0.005 $200 5 $1,000 

7306-2300-191 L, rear body taillamp closeout 173 97 127 0.002 $270 4 $1,080 

7306-2300-192 R, rear body taillamp closeout 173 97 127 0.002 $270 4 $1,080 

7306-2400-229 L, center floor panel 1,252 710 60 0.053 $530 16 $8,480 

7306-2400-230 R, center floor panel 1,252 710 60 0.053 $530 16 $8,480 

7306-2400-231 Rear X-member component 934 185 155 0.027 $360 22 $7,920 

7307-0900-141 L, rear frame rail inner transition 1,006 182 290 0.053 $530 16 $8,480 

7307-0900-142 R, rear frame rail inner transition 1,006 182 290 0.053 $530 16 $8,480 

7307-1000-139 L, rear frame rail 700 70 129 0.006 $270 11 $2,970 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-97

7307-1000-140 R, rear frame rail 700 70 129 0.006 $270 11 $2,970 

7307-1020-135 L, front frame rail 574 70 133 0.005 $270 9 $2,430 

7307-1020-136 R, front frame rail 574 70 133 0.005 $270 9 $2,430 

7307-1020-223 L, frame rail mounting plate 236 20 134 0.001 $65 17 $1,110 

7307-1020-224 R, frame rail mounting plate 236 20 134 0.001 $65 17 $1,110 

7307-1200-217 L, rear frame rail outer transition 1,006 198 273 0.054 $530 16 $8,480 

7307-1200-218 R, rear frame rail outer transition 1,006 198 273 0.054 $530 16 $8,480 

7307-1400-163 L, rear inner wheelhouse panel 1,378 240 697 0.231 $530 71 $37,630

7307-1400-164 R, rear inner wheelhouse panel 1,378 240 697 0.231 $530 71 $37,630 

7307-1500-111 Rear end outer panel 1,396 290 405 0.164 $530 50 $26,500 

7307-1500-167 L, rear shock tower reinforcement 277 126 262 0.009 $200 9 $1,800 

7307-1500-168 R, rear shock tower reinforcement 277 126 262 0.009 $200 9 $1,800 

7307-1510-117 Rear end panel 1,495 367 398 0.218 $660 41 $27,060 

7307-1600-213 L, rear wheelhouse inner panel 529 20 300 0.003 $200 3 $600 

7307-2110-105 L, D-pillar inner panel 984 89 326 0.028 $360 23 $8,280 

7307-2110-106 R, D-pillar inner panel 984 89 326 0.028 $360 23 $8,280 

7307-2110-177 L, D-pillar quarter panel inner 516 220 331 0.038 $360 31 $11,160 

7307-2110-179 L, liftgate reinforcement panel 653 151 364 0.036 $360 29 $10,440 

7307-2110-180 R, liftgate reinforcement panel 653 151 364 0.036 $360 29 $10,440 

7307-2120-178 R, D-pillar quarter panel inner 516 220 331 0.038 $360 31 $11,160 

L, B-pillar reinforcement 450 73 139 0.005 $200 5 $1,000 

R, B-pillar reinforcement 450 73 139 0.005 $200 5 $1,000 

L, B-pillar upper brace 354 165 224 0.013 $360 11 $3,960 

R, B-pillar upper brace 354 165 224 0.013 $360 11 $3,960 

L, B-pillar braket inner 193 89 129 0.002 $270 4 $1,080 

R, B-pillar braket inner 193 89 129 0.002 $270 4 $1,080 

L, B-pillar inner panel 1,152 130 504 0.076 $530 23 $12,190 

R, B-pillar inner panel 1,152 130 504 0.076 $530 23 $12,190 

Rear floor panel 932 126 714 0.084 $530 25 $13,250 

R, rear wheelhouse inner panel 529 20 300 0.003 $270 6 $1,620 

L, rear shock tower reinforcement 348 129 277 0.012 $200 13 $2,600 

R, rear shock tower reinforcement 348 129 277 0.012 $200 13 $2,600 

7305-2400-209 Front module 1,200 507 250 0.152 $530 46 $24,380 

7305-2410-000 Front bumper 1,630 300 300 0.147 $530 44 $23,320 

7305-2430-000 Rear bumper 1,630 300 300 0.147 $530 44 $23,320 

Sub-Total 3,946 $1,707,720 

Contingency 20% $341,544 

Forklift $200,000 

Other $50,000 

Total $2,299,264 

The preparation area will be located close to the assembly line and will provide a 

connection from the line to the warehouse. Aisles in the plant will be organized and sized 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-98

to fit their function. Main aisles will be 15 feet wide, logistic aisles will be 12 feet wide, and 

maintenance aisles will be 6.5 feet wide. All aisles will be two-way to ensure more efficient 

traffic flow.

Figure 6.1.a below shows the forklifts necessary in the factory.

Figure 6.1.a: Forklift factory scope

Other logistic concepts include shooter technology employed for small parts and forklifts 

used for transportation.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-99

Shooter Technology

Figure 6.1.b: Shoot technology used to transport small parts

6.2 Staff Needed

The staff requirement has been incorporated into the labor requirements section of this 

report (section 5.0). The total number of workers needed for logistics work is 12 forklift 

drivers per shift.

7.0 Quality Concept

7.1 Philosophy

Ensuring quality products isn’t relegated to a sole person, but rather, it’s the responsibility 

of everyone at the plant. Each team member working at the plant is responsible for 

maintaining quality work in order to build the highest quality product. Team members are 

responsible for stopping the assembly line when a defect is noticed and must report the 

defect for quality measurement and analysis.

There will be a quality control team that analyzes the product to determine quality, defines 

methods to improve quality, and trains the factory workers on how to build vehicles that 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-100

meet the defined quality. All of the reported defects will be documented for analysis and 

further quality refinement.

Figure 7.1.a below shows the quality management concept and responsibilities of each 

team member.

6.1. Quality Management Concept

Documentation

• Failure modes

• Root cause analysis

• Downtimes

• Frequency of breakdowns/ 

priorities

• Analysis of Continuous 

Improvement Processes

Machine Operator

• Responsible for quality control of parts from 

specific stations

• Follow working instructions

• Stop production in case of quality defects

Corporate Philosophy

• Define QM

• Uniform measuring methods

• Analysis of quality assurance

Assembly Line Team

• Carry out working instructions

• Team leader = QM foreman

• Problem localization by measuring methods

• Internal communication

• Assign responsibilities

QM Team

• Analysis

• Statistics

• Training ( Job ) 

• Measuring

• Assign priorities

• Transparency of disturbing influences

• Quality controlling of the end product

• Documentation 

Figure 7.1.a: Plant quality management concept

7.2 Quality Assurance Methods

In order to measure and assess product quality, there will be two different quality checks. 

One check will be performed ‘in-line’ as the vehicles are moving down the assembly line 

and the other will be performed ‘off-line’ once the vehicle or part is assembled.

7.2.1 In-Line Quality Check

There will be four in-line vision stations equipped with cameras to provide quality data and 

monitor processes. Each vision station is equipped with two cameras attached to robotic 

arms to increase the visible area. A single camera can track 50 different locations on the 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-101

part at each station, giving the capability to track 100 different locations per station 

simultaneously.

Table 7.2.1.a below gives the names of each station, the location, and the part of the 

vehicle being monitored.

Table 7.2.1.a: Vision quality stations, location, and part monitored

Station 

Name

Location Vehicle Part Monitored

UB-220 End of underbody line Underbody

SA-70L End of left-hand bodyside line Left-hand bodyside

SA-70R End of right-hand bodyside line Right-hand bodyside

FR-170 End of framing line Vehicle frame

7.2.2 Off-Line Quality Check

In order to analyze and improve the manufacturing quality and overall quality of the end 

product, the body shop is equipped with a coordinate-measuring-machine room. The room 

contains three coordinate measuring machines (CMM) – two with one ten-foot robotic arm 

and the third has two, 20-foot arms. The CMMs take measurements along the X, Y, and Z 

axes of the part and are accurate to around one micron, ensuring a high degree of 

accuracy. These extremely accurate measurements are then used to determine the 

precision of the manufacturing process and quality of the parts. A method such as Six 

Sigma can then be used to further refine and improve the precision of the manufacturing 

process.

These off-line quality checks will be performed on one underbody per shift (two inspections 

per day) and on one full BIW per two shifts (one per day).
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-102

8.0 Maintenance Concept

As with any maintenance concept, the idea is to perform preventative maintenance to 

ensure as much uptime as possible in the plant to increase output and avoid costly delays. 

Preventative maintenance also helps to ensure better quality products as it will keep the 

machines and tools in optimum operating condition. Preventative maintenance can also 

help reduce overall maintenance costs as it can help reduce breakdowns and emergency 

maintenance.

Maintenance schedules will initially be determined using historical data to project the 

lifespan, wear rate, and mis-calibration rate of machinery and tools. Based on the historical 

data, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly maintenance schedules will be 

determined. As the plant becomes operational and runs, data will be collected to refine the 

maintenance schedules in a continuous improvement process. The data will be collected 

by examining the machines in person and with the proper analytical tools if necessary. 

This way, damaged areas or areas of faster or slower wear can be determined and the 

maintenance schedules adjust accordingly. Through these examinations, remaining tool 

and machine lifetimes can be determined and planned for financially and with expected 

plant downtime.

Electronic problems will be minimized using diagnostic tools and debugging software to 

find and eliminate problems as they occur.

There will of course be unexpected maintenance necessary when a machine or tool fails 

unexpectedly and these situations will be handled accordingly.

Figure 8.0.a below shows the plant layout and anticipated maintenance personnel 

necessary and the specific areas of the plant they would be responsible for.

Figure 8.0.a: Maintenance personnel and coverage
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-103
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-104

9.0 Environmental Assumptions

In keeping with the environmentally friendly idea behind the lightweight Phase 2 HD 

vehicle, the plant was designed to minimize the impact on the environment. This section 

explains several of the environmentally friendly designs chosen for the plant.

9.1 Solar Panels

Solar panels are a great way for automotive manufacturing plants to produce their own 

energy as the panels can easily be integrated into the plant’s large roof structure. This 

means that the solar panels require no additional land for installation and instead make 

use of a normally vacant space. With the plant’s recommended location in California, the 

solar panels will receive regular exposure to the sunlight for optimum performance, which 

allows for freedom in plant location as it can be more remotely situated due to its in-house 

power supply. Once the initial investment on the solar panels is paid off, they will provide 

nearly free energy as they require little maintenance.

There are however, a number of disadvantages to using solar panels such as the high 

initial investment. Washington State however, will refund the entire cost of purchasing and 

installing solar panels, and with solar renewable energy credits and the possible positive 

impact on the electrical grid (sell energy back to the utility companies), solar panels are 

highly desired. As the solar panels require sun to gather energy, they do not operate at 

night and their performance can be reduced by air pollution and cloud cover which means 

a high-energy battery or capacitor would be required in the event of such situations or the 

plant would pull energy from the grid.

9.2 Wind Turbines

Another clean way of producing power is using wind turbines, which like the solar panels, 

can be installed on the roof of the manufacturing facility, maximizing usable space and 

eliminating the need for extra land. The wind turbines to be installed on the plant’s roof 

however, must be small scale in order for the plant to support them. Eastern Clallam 

County, Washington sees almost constant winds, which will help maximize the use of the 

wind turbines.

Like the solar panels, wind turbines have a few disadvantages. They do not operate with 

no wind (the plant’s location should minimize this) and require a high initial investment. 

This however, will be refunded by the state of Washington through taxes and the possible 

positive energy impact could make them profitable.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-105

9.3 Biomass Power

Rather than disposing of biomass and shipping it to a landfill, employees will be instructed 

to dispose of it in designated receptacles. The contents of these receptacles will then be 

burned for power generation, eliminating some of the waste normally destined for landfills 

and generating power as well.

9.4 Hydroelectric Power

If the plant is built without a generator or power storage system for times of low light, wind, 

and garbage and draws power from the electrical grid, it will most likely be drawn from 

hydroelectric sources. Around 75-percent of the state of Washington’s power is generated 

by hydroelectric dams around the state currently and could increase by the time the plant 

comes online.

9.5 Water Recycle

Rain water normally goes unused and is returned to the ground, but this essentially free 

water can be very useful and help to reduce costs if captured. The plant will utilize a rain 

water recycle where the water is captured on the roof of the plant along with other various 

structures and locations on site and then used for cooling and in toilets. Gray water (used 

sink water, drinking fountains, etc.) is typically sent to a water treatment plant and treated, 

but this water is partially clean and fit for reuse in toilets.

9.6 Lighting

In order to reduce energy consumption at the plant, the lighting will all be LEDs. Using 

LEDs will decrease lighting energy costs and will also decrease maintenance costs as 

high-quality LEDs have a lifespan of over 100,000 hours. These LED lighting fixtures will 

last for over 25 years operating 16 hours per day and 250 days per year.

9.7 Recycling, Reusables, and Returnables

There will be designated recycling and returnable bins for employees and nearly every 

material in the plant will either be recycled or reused to further reduce the amount of waste 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-106

generated. Glass, plastic, metal, and paper recycling bins will be available for employees 

to recycle their own materials.

Materials and components in the plant itself will be reused wherever possible. This 

includes items as large as recycling normally scrap steel and plastic to make other 

components to items as small as saving protective plastic covers on items like air 

conditioning compressors. Covers like those – along with styrofoam protective pieces – will 

be saved and shipped back to suppliers for reuse. After the parts have been reused a 

certain number of times and reached their usable life, they will be recycled.

The pallets used in the manufacturing process will be reused and rebuilt if damaged. If the 

part isn’t salvageable, it will be shredded and turned into mulch.

9.8 Living Roof

The roof of the Phase 2 HD vehicle plant will be a ‘living roof,’ where sedum plants are 

installed on the roof to help insulate the building. The energy-generating solar panels and 

wind turbines will be installed around the sedum plants. In addition to helping insulate the 

plant, the sedum plants will scrub carbon dioxide from the air and emit oxygen, improving 

the atmosphere. These roofs are already in use on plants such as Ford’s Rouge River 

Plant and Rolls-Royce’s Goodwood facility.

9.9 Solvent Recovery

Solvent recovery both saves the environment and saves the plant from dealing with toxic 

waste disposal, which will recover the initial investment over a number of years. This 

system captures and breaks down all paint solvents into basic components, which are then 

reused.

9.10 Plant Surroundings

The Phase 2 HD vehicle plant will be built around the existing natural habitat rather than 

flattening hundreds of acres to build the plant. Some land will have to be cleared to 

construct the factory, but a wildlife conservation area will be built up after the factory is 

constructed to replace any of the habitat displaced and to redevelop previously deforested 

land.
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-107

10.0 Investment/Costs

All of the necessary costs to get the factory up and running, build the BIWs, and operate 

the factory on a daily basis are covered in this section. These costs include capital costs, 

labor costs, utilities, SG&A, interest payments, and freight. The initial BIW cost analysis is 

done assuming production of 60,000 vehicles per year, but a sensitivity analysis was 

conducted based on production of 100,000, 200,000, and 400,000 vehicles per year.

10.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs for the Phase 2 HD BIW plant are broken up into seven main areas – subassembly line, underbody line, framing line, tool shop, transport conveyors, storage bins 

and racks, and the coordinate measuring machine. Tables 10.1.a-10.1.p below detail the 

investment necessary for the assembly lines and tool shop. The investment for bins and 

racks was detailed in section 6.1 and is a total of $2.3 million, transport conveyors cost 

$3.5 million, and the CMM is $2.4 million. All of these investments are amortized over 5 

years except the CMM, which is amortized over 7 years.

Table 10.1.a: Sub-assembly tooling costs

Tooling

Station Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Controller 

Installation

Testing Total

SA05 $18,270 $4,140 $28,200 $64,800 $10,500 $6,000 $131,910

SA10 $16,620 $4,140 $24,000 $50,460 $8,460 $5,400 $109,080

SA15 $30,360 $8,100 $58,500 $86,550 $22,200 $12,000 $217,710

SA20 $23,100 $4,200 $21,000 $33,300 $13,500 $5,700 $100,800

SA25 $33,720 $9,600 $53,000 $87,600 $19,500 $9,000 $212,420

SA30 $21,000 $10,500 $20,000 $38,280 $16,300 $4,200 $110,280

SA35 $24,900 $7,200 $27,000 $60,000 $20,700 $10,500 $150,300

SA40-R $35,100 $5,700 $38,700 $79,140 $25,200 $14,100 $197,940

SA40-L $38,700 $79,140 $25,200 $14,100 $157,140

SA45 $26,400 $5,400 $32,000 $68,400 $14,940 $7,800 $154,940

SA50-55 $42,000 $6,600 $36,000 $102,900 $29,700 $12,900 $230,100

SA60 $37,800 $10,200 $41,000 $115,920 $29,400 $12,600 $246,920

SA65-R $34,300 $6,750 $55,200 $88,500 $19,500 $10,400 $214,650

SA65-L $55,200 $88,500 $19,500 $10,400 $173,600

SA70-R $121,800 $19,800 $190,000 $281,040 $108,000 $68,000 $788,640

SA70-L $190,000 $281,040 $108,000 $68,000 $647,040

SA75-R $22,800 $5,100 $39,200 $75,420 $21,000 $11,500 $175,020

SA75-L $39,200 $75,420 $21,000 $11,500 $147,120

SA80 $27,000 $6,240 $73,000 $136,020 $31,500 $17,100 $290,860

SA85 $16,500 $5,500 $18,500 $44,500 $8,500 $8,000 $101,500

Totals $531,670 $119,170 $1,078,400 $1,936,930 $572,600 $319,200 $4,557,970

Table 10.1.b: Sub-assembly capital tooling costs
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-108

Capital Tooling

Description Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Total

Safety fence, gates, curtains $55,600 $19,800 $281,200 $136,130 $492,730

Robot simulation, programming, dress $197,100 $306,400 $115,500 $42,280 $661,280

System layout and installation drawing $67,200 $67,200

Weld controllers $49,500 $1,080 $50,580

Weld guns $55,500 $2,340 $57,840

E/E changers $629,350 $68,880 $698,230

Tip dresser/torch cleaner $1,800 $17,500 $7,500 $26,800

Air/water headers and valves $229,720 $46,800 $276,520

Electronics and cables for operation $329,000 $502,000 $188,000 $1,019,000

Dispensing equipment $1,200,000 $51,200 $1,251,200

Gravity conveyors $6,600 $900 $7,500

Balconies and overhead structure $0

Transfer system $72,000 $27,000 $99,000

Welding robots (mig/braze) $204,000 $6,300 $210,300

Materials handling robots $1,650,000 $62,700 $1,712,700

Spir units $90,000 $1,200 $91,200

Dispensing robots $80,000 $4,200 $84,200

Tri-axis trunnion units $18,000 $3,500 $21,500

Rivtac system $700,000 $8,400 $708,400

Manipulators/load assists $30,400 $39,400 $32,000 $101,800

FSJ system $1,200,000 $10,800 $1,210,800

DC nut runners B/UP style $112,000 $6,000 $118,000

Vision system $600,000 $20,000 $620,000

System lighting $82,000 $50,700 $132,700

Index tables $16,000 $112,000 $46,000 $174,000

Pedestal welders $60,000 $4,500 $64,500

Total $368,100 $655,200 $8,106,270 $828,410 $9,957,980

Table 10.1.c: Sub-assembly miscellaneous costs

Miscellaneous Costs

Description Cost Remarks

Crating and loading $71,500

Freight $200,000

Training @ EBZ USA One, eight-hour training day included. More time quoted on request

Operation and maintenance 

manuals

$38,500

20-hour test run $36,500

30-piece capability study $550,000 Dependent on product availability. Includes dimensional assemblies 

and weld integrity testing

300-piece test-part buy-off $234,000 Dependent on product availability

12-month warranty Included

Installation $731,000 Complete sytem integration in customer plant using EBZ personnel

Installation supervision $58,000 Supervision only using EBZ personnel

Startup assistance $386,000 Includes two weeks with EBZ personnel, excluding expenses

Design Processing Cycle charts, weld studies, and miscellaneous process activities

Total $2,305,500
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-109

Table 10.1.d: Grand total sub-assembly investment

Total tooling cost $4,557,970

Total capital tooling cost $9,957,980

Total miscellaneous item cost $2,305,500

Grand total $16,821,450

Table 10.1e: Underbody tooling costs

Tooling

Station Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Controller 

Installation

Testing Total

UB100 $14,160 $3,900 $6,500 $58,500 $6,300 $8,700 $98,060

UB110 $54,000 $7,500 $80,500 $123,900 $33,660 $17,100 $316,660

UB120 $76,200 $17,400 $98,400 $196,740 $61,800 $20,160 $470,700

UB130 $4,500 $2,500 $6,500 $17,500 $3,200 $4,400 $38,600

UB140 $27,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $135,250

UB150 $50,290 $11,500 $64,900 $129,400 $41,000 $14,000 $311,090

UB160 $4,500 $2,500 $6,500 $17,500 $3,200 $4,400 $38,600

UB170 $62,100 $14,100 $82,000 $156,000 $50,700 $16,500 $381,400

UB180 $26,400 $4,500 $18,500 $43,080 $18,720 $9,600 $120,800

UB190 $67,800 $14,400 $93,000 $174,000 $52,980 $18,000 $420,180

UB200 $27,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $135,250

UB210 $27,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $135,250

UB220 $18,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $126,250

Totals $458,950 $93,300 $580,800 $1,106,620 $325,560 $162,860 $2,728,090

Table 10.1.f: Underbody capital tooling costs

Capital Tooling

Description Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Total

Safety fence, gates, curtains $52,200 $17,500 $235,000 $105,000 $409,700

Robot simulation, programming, dress $207,900 $323,400 $126,000 $49,680 $706,980

System layout and installation drawing $58,800 $58,800

Weld controllers $0

Weld guns $0

E/E changers $506,550 $55,440 $561,990

Tip dresser/torch cleaner $0

Air/water headers and valves $129,250 $157,000 $286,250

Electronics and cables for operation $166,000 $242,000 $79,200 $487,200

Dispensing equipment $675,000 $28,000 $703,000

Gravity conveyors $0

Balconies and overhead structure $0

Transfer system $31,500 $5,500 $143,000 $206,700 $386,700

Welding robots (mig/braze) $0

Materials handling robots $1,980,000 $75,600 $2,055,600

Spir units $360,000 $4,800 $364,800

Dispensing robots $0

Seventh axis units $81,000 $5,100 $86,100

Rivtac system $400,000 $4,800 $404,800

Manipulators/load assists $0

FSJ system $2,400,000 $21,600 $2,421,600
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-110

DC nut runners B/UP style $0

Vision system $300,000 $10,000 $310,000

System lighting $31,000 $20,000 $51,000

Index tables $0

Pedestal welders $0

Flow screw drive units $35,500 $6,500 $42,000

Stud insertion units $125,000 $16,000 $141,000

Totals $350,400 $512,400 $7,769,300 $845,420 $9,477,520

Table 10.1.g: Underbody miscellaneous costs

Miscellaneous Costs

Description Cost Remarks

Crating and loading $46,800

Freight $78,000

Training @ EBZ USA One, eight-hour training day included. More time quoted on request

Operation and maintenance manuals $25,000

20-hour test run $14,500

30-piece capability study $345,000 Dependent on product availability. Includes dimensional assemblies 

and weld integrity testing

300-piece test-part buy-off $155,000 Dependent on product availability

12-month warranty Included

Installation $485,000 Complete sytem integration in customer plant using EBZ personnel

Installation supervision $45,000 Supervision only using EBZ personnel

Startup assistance $125,000 Includes two weeks with EBZ personnel, excluding expenses

Design Processing Cycle charts, weld studies, and miscellaneous process activities

Total $1,319,300

Table 10.1.h: Grand total underbody investment

Total tooling cost $2,728,090

Total capital tooling cost $9,477,520

Total miscellaneous item cost $1,319,300

Grand total $13,524,910

Table 10.1.i: Framing tooling costs

Tooling

Station Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Controller 

Installation

Testing Total

FR100 $1,800 $1,200 $4,500 $3,200 $2,400 $1,800 $14,900

FR110 $91,140 $20,160 $187,200 $205,000 $84,600 $28,500 $616,600

FR120 $18,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $126,250

FR130 $27,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $135,250

FR140 $59,220 $13,080 $103,000 $139,320 $54,900 $21,000 $390,520

FR150 $43,800 $8,400 $84,000 $132,000 $35,520 $21,600 $325,320

FR160 $18,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $126,250

FR170 $18,000 $3,750 $31,000 $47,500 $13,500 $12,500 $126,250

FR180 $21,000 $10,500 $20,000 $38,280 $16,300 $4,200 $110,280

FR190 $15,600 $2,400 $36,000 $57,600 $8,500 $3,600 $123,700

FR200 $1,800 $1,200 $4,500 $3,200 $2,400 $1,800 $14,900

Totals $315,360 $71,940 $563,200 $768,600 $258,620 $132,500 $2,110,220
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-111

Table 10.1.j: Framing capital tooling costs

Capital Tooling

Description Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Total

Safety fence, gates, curtains $25,200 $8,500 $114,000 $51,000 $198,700

Robot simulation, programming, dress $102,600 $159,600 $115,500 $44,800 $422,500

System layout and installation drawing $46,000 $46,000

Weld controllers $0

Weld guns $0

E/E changers $30,700 $3,360 $34,060

Tip dresser/torch cleaner $0

Air/water headers and valves $86,000 $103,000 $189,000

Electronics and cables for operation $135,000 $198,000 $64,250 $397,250

Dispensing equipment $375,000 $15,500 $390,500

Dispensing equipment - mastic $57,500 $3,200 $60,700

Gravity conveyors $0

Balconies and overhead structure $0

Transfer system $0

Welding robots (mig/braze) $0

Materials handling robots $1,815,000 $69,300 $1,884,300

Spir units $180,000 $2,400 $182,400

Dispensing robots $0

Seventh axis units $405,000 $25,500 $430,500

Rivtac system $200,000 $2,400 $202,400

Manipulators/load assists $21,600 $26,400 $24,000 $72,000

FSJ system $1,800,000 $16,200 $1,816,200

DC nut runners B/UP style $112,000 $6,000 $118,000

Vision system $300,000 $10,000 $310,000

System lighting $29,000 $18,000 $47,000

Inexable dunnage systems $120,000 $10,800 $130,800

Stud insertion units $125,000 $16,000 $141,000

Surface buffers $14,000 $8,000 $22,000

Hi-lite lamps $28,050 $10,890 $38,940

Totals $195,400 $303,100 $6,131,150 $504,600 $7,134,250

Table 10.1.k: Framing miscellaneous costs

Miscellaneous Costs

Description Cost Remarks

Crating and loading $62,000

Freight $102,000

Training @ EBZ USA One, eight-hour training day included. More time quoted on request

Operation and maintenance manuals $33,000

20-hour test run $21,000

30-piece capability study $460,000 Dependent on product availability. Includes dimensional assemblies 

and weld integrity testing

300-piece test-part buy-off $202,000 Dependent on product availability

12-month warranty Included

Installation $626,000 Complete sytem integration in customer plant using EBZ personnel

Installation supervision $59,000 Supervision only using EBZ personnel

Startup assistance $155,000 Includes two weeks with EBZ personnel, excluding expenses

Design Processing Cycle charts, weld studies, and miscellaneous process activities
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-112

Total $1,720,000

Table 10.1.l: Grand total framing investment

Total tooling cost $2,110,220

Total capital tooling cost $7,134,250

Total miscellaneous item cost $1,720,000

Grand total $10,964,470

Table 10.1.m: Tool shop tooling

Tooling

Description Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Controller 

Installation

Testing Total

Perishable tooling quality $53,500 $53,500

Perishable tooling maintenance $115,000 $115,000

Totals $0 $0 $168,500 $0 $0 $0 $168,500

Table 10.1.n: Tool shop capital tooling

Capital Tooling

Description Mechanical 

Costs

Controller 

Costs

Purchased 

Items Cost

Construction 

Labor

Total

CMM DCC 20-foot dual arm $600,000 $600,000

CMM DCC 10-foot single arm $800,000 $800,000

System layout $3,500 $3,500

Miscellaneous quality-check equipment $45,000 $45,000

Boring mill $165,000 $165,000

Vertical bridgeport $40,000 $40,000

Surface grinder $15,000 $15,000

Welders $26,500 $26,500

Saws $15,000 $15,000

Drill/insertion press $15,000 $15,000

Tables $15,000 $15,000

Granite tables $15,000 $15,000

CNC milling center $105,000 $105,000

Miscellaneous $65,000 $65,000

Totals $3,500 $0 $1,921,500 $0 $1,925,000

Table 10.1.o: Tool shop miscellaneous tooling

Miscellaneous Costs

Description Cost Remarks

Crating and loading

Freight $45,000

Training @ EBZ USA One, eight-hour training day included. More time quoted on 

request

Operation and maintenance manuals

20-hour test run

30-piece capability study Dependent on product availability. Includes dimensional 

assemblies and weld integrity testing

300-piece test-part buy-off Dependent on product availability

12-month warranty Included

Installation $280,000 Complete sytem integration in customer plant using EBZ personnel
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-113

Installation supervision $15,000 Supervision only using EBZ personnel

Startup assistance Includes two weeks with EBZ personnel, excluding expenses

Design Processing Cycle charts, weld studies, and miscellaneous process activities

Total $340,000

Table 10.1.p: Grand total tool shop investment

Total tooling cost $168,500

Total capital tooling cost $1,925,000

Total miscellaneous item cost $340,000

Grand total $2,433,500

Table 10.1.q below gives the total capital investment required for the Phase 2 HD BIW 

plant.

Table 10.1.q: Total capital investment

Category Amount 

Sub-assembly $16,821,450

Underbody $13,524,910

Framing $10,964,470

Conveyors $3,548,000

Tool shop $2,433,500

CMM $2,432,500

Bins and racks $2,300,000

Maintenance $743,870

Total $52,768,700

Breaking the capital investment into per annum costs requires looking at the amortization 

schedule. All of the capital costs except the CMM and maintenance costs are amortized 

over five years while the CMM is amortized over seven and maintenance is per year. The 

CMM is amortized over seven years as it’s not dependent on vehicle life cycle and can 

simply recalibrated for a different vehicle body. The plant must be retooled to produce a 

new body.

The amortized costs are shown in Table 10.1.r below per year and BIW. Year eight 

represents the cost of annual maintenance supplies only. Eight years however exceeds 

the typical vehicle life cycle.

Table 10.1.r: Per BIW and year amortized capital costs

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Annual $11,009,836 $11,009,836 $11,009,837 $11,009,837 $11,009,838 $1,091,370 $1,091,370 $743,870

Per BIW $183 $183 $183 $183 $183 $18 $18 $12

In addition to EBZ’s recommended amortization schedule, two others were evaluated –

straight three and five year amortizations. Like the EBZ recommended schedule, neither is 

depreciated. The major change by using a straight depreciation schedule is a constant 

BIW cost over the amortization period. There is also a slight cost increase due to the 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-114

condensed time frame. Both the three and five year amortized capital costs are shown 

below in Table 10.1.s.

Table 10.1.s: Capital costs amortized over three and five years

Capital cost total $52,768,700

3 year amortization annual cost $18,085,480

3 year amortization BIW cost $301

5 year amortization annual cost $11,148,836

5 year amortization BIW cost $186

10.2 Labor Costs

Labor costs for the Phase 2 HD BIW plant include the assembly, maintenance, and 

logistics workers that operate the factory on a daily basis to produce vehicles. These 

workers receive an hourly pay, with a 30-minute lunch break as well as benefits. Table 

10.2.a below details the labor costs for the plant.

Table 10.2.a: Phase 2 HD BIW plant labor costs

Assembly Workers

Number $24

Wage $22

Cost per shift $4,224

Benefits (40% of wages) $1,690

Total cost per shift $5,914

Annual cost $2,956,800

Maintenance Workers

Number $11

Wage $35

Cost per shift $3,080

Benefits (40% of wages) $1,232

Total cost per shift $4,312

Annual cost $2,156,000

Logistics Workers

Number $12

Wage $18

Cost per shift $1,728

Benefits (60% of wages) $1,037

Total cost per shift $2,765

Annual cost $1,382,400

Total labor cost per shift $12,990

Annual labor cost $6,495,200
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-115

10.3 Utilities

Utilities are part of normal plant operation and include various water and electricity 

requirements, both for standard operations such as lighting and toilets as well as 

production equipment. Table 10.3.a below details the utility costs per assembly station.

Table 10.3.a: Utility costs by assembly station

Station High 

Pressure 

Flow Rate 

(dm3/s)

Low 

Pressure 

Flow Rate 

(dm3/s)

Cooling 

Water 

Flow 

Rate 

(dm3/s)

Welding 

Power 

Requirement 

(kW)

Indoor Power 

Requirement 

(kW)

Production 

Equipment 

Power 

Requirement 

(kW)

Inert Gas 

Consumption 

(dm3/s)

SA05 0.00 7.91 0.24 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.68

SA10 0.00 11.16 0.24 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.42

SA15 0.00 15.27 0.48 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00

SA20 11.17 10.52 0.40 0.00 0.00 11.55 0.00

SA25 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00

SA30 11.17 10.36 0.16 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.00

SA35 11.17 2.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 12.10 0.00

SA40 0.00 24.91 0.72 0.00 0.00 23.10 0.00

SA45 11.17 6.90 0.40 0.00 0.00 12.10 0.00

SA50 11.17 5.57 0.64 0.00 0.00 14.30 0.00

SA55 0.00 6.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SA60 22.34 12.59 0.80 0.00 0.00 23.65 0.00

SA65 11.17 8.12 0.40 0.00 0.00 14.30 0.00

SA70-10 22.34 5.29 0.80 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00

SA70-20 22.34 15.11 0.56 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00

SA70-30 22.34 8.13 0.80 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00

SA75 22.34 15.11 0.56 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00

SA80 22.34 8.13 0.80 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00

SA85 22.34 9.25 0.56 0.00 0.00 24.20 0.00

SA sub-total 223.40 183.20 9.44 0.00 0.00 286.00 1.10

SA cost $0.011 $0.009 $0.006 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0.033

UB100 22.34 24.67 0.32 0.00 0.00 5.50 0.00

UB110 44.68 5.67 1.60 0.00 0.00 20.35 0.00

UB120 44.68 24.14 1.60 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00

UB130 0.00 5.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00

UB140 44.68 17.83 1.60 0.00 0.00 32.45 0.00

UB150 0.00 6.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00

UB160 44.68 0.06 1.60 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00

UB170 0.00 4.01 0.96 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00

UB180 0.00 19.09 1.12 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00

UB190 0.00 0.76 1.28 0.00 0.00 10.45 0.00

UB200 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00

UB210 0.00 5.63 0.96 0.00 0.00 48.40 0.00

UB220 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00

UB sub-total 201.06 113.75 13.12 0.00 0.00 229.35 0.00

UB cost $0.010 $0.006 $0.007 $0.000 $0.000 $0.034 $0.000

FR100 0.00 5.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-116

FR110 0.00 43.90 2.56 0.00 0.00 45.10 0.00

FR120 0.00 5.69 1.60 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00

FR130 0.00 17.08 0.48 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00

FR140 0.00 16.70 1.60 0.00 0.00 61.60 0.00

FR150 0.00 16.33 1.28 0.00 0.00 28.05 0.00

FR160 0.00 19.50 1.60 0.00 0.00 48.40 0.00

FR170 0.00 4.55 0.96 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00

FR180 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00

FR190 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00

FR200 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00

FR210 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.55 0.00

FR sub-total 0.00 144.17 10.08 0.00 0.00 304.70 0.00

FR cost $0.000 $0.006 $0.007 $0.000 $0.000 $0.055 $0.000

Transport 

system

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.80 0.00

Transport 

system cost

$0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.009 $0.000

Grand total 424.46 441.12 32.64 0.00 0.00 861.85 1.10

Cost per 

second

$0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.16 $0.03

Cost per hour $75.60 $75.60 $72.00 $0.00 $0.00 $568.80 $118.80

Utility costs per hour $910.80

Utility costs per day $13,662.00

Utility costs per year $3,415,500.00

Utility costs per BIW $56.93

10.4 Investment Summary

This section presents a total overview of the necessary investment for the Phase 2 HD 

BIW plant. The costs are broken down annually and per BIW. Table 10.4.a below lists the 

annual and per BIW in white costs associated with the plant and manufacturing based on 

the first year of production only as capital costs vary per year, shown in Table 10.1.r.

Table 10.4.a: Investment summary per annum and BIW

60k per Year (First Year Only)

Category Type Amount

Capital

Sub-assembly capital tooling $9,957,980

Underbody capital tooling $9,477,520

Framing capital tooling $7,134,250

Sub-assembly tooling $4,557,970

Conveyors $3,548,000

Underbody tooling $2,728,090

Coordinate measuring machine $2,432,500

Miscellaneous sub-assembly $2,305,500

Bins and racks $2,300,000
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-117

Framing tooling $2,110,220

Tool shop capital tooling $1,925,000

Miscellaneous framing $1,720,000

Miscellaneous underbody $1,319,300

Maintenance $743,870

Miscellaneous tool shop $340,000

Tool shop tooling $168,500

Capital sub-total $52,768,700

Amortized annual capital cost $11,009,836

Per BIW $183

Annual Labor

Assembly workers $2,957,000

Maintenance workers $2,156,000

Logistics workers $1,382,500

Annual labor sub-total $6,495,500

Labor per BIW $108

Annual Utilities $2,937,600

Utilities per BIW $49

Annual Interest $2,520,000

Interest per BIW $42

Annual Freight $1,500,000

Freight per BIW $25

Annual SG&A Estimated as 7% of costs less freight and interest $1,431,006

SG&A per BIW $24

Annual Total $25,893,942

Total per BIW $432

Table 10.4.b below shows the costs to produce the parts needed per BIW broken up into 

various sub-categories such as variable, fixed, and direct costs per Intellicosting.

Table 10.4.b: Intellicosting BIW costs

Cost Summary 

Material $1,260.63

Variable $135.63

Fixed $138.62

Direct $37.71

Profit $125.81

SG&A $78.63

Freight $25.01

Total $1,802.01
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-118

10.5 Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted as part of the manufacturing study to determine the 

effect producing more vehicles – 100,000, 200,000, and 400,000 units per year – has on 

BIW cost. Increasing production to 100,000 units per year from 60,000 only requires the 

addition of a third shift with no changes to the plant. Increasing production to 100,000 units 

per year decreases the cost per BIW by 24 percent, around $105. Table 10.5.a below 

details the effect of increasing BIW production by 40,000 units per year.

Table 10.5.a: Cost for producing 100,000 Phase 2 HD BIWs per year

100k per Year (First Year Only)

Category Type Amount

Capital

Sub-assembly capital tooling $9,957,980

Underbody capital tooling $9,477,520

Framing capital tooling $7,134,250

Sub-assembly tooling $4,557,970

Conveyors $3,548,000

Underbody tooling $2,728,090

Coordinate measuring machine $2,432,500

Miscellaneous sub-assembly $2,305,500

Bins and racks $2,300,000

Framing tooling $2,110,220

Tool shop capital tooling $1,925,000

Miscellaneous framing $1,720,000

Miscellaneous underbody $1,319,300

Maintenance $743,870

Miscellaneous tool shop $340,000

Tool shop tooling $168,500

Capital sub-total $52,768,700

Amortized annual capital cost $11,009,836

Per BIW $110

Annual Labor

Assembly workers $4,435,200

Maintenance workers $3,234,000

Logistics workers $2,073,600

Annual labor sub-total $9,742,800

Labor per BIW $97

Annual Utilities $5,123,250

Utilities per BIW $51

Annual Interest $2,520,000

Interest per BIW $25

Annual Freight $2,500,000

Freight per BIW $25
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-119

Annual SG&A Estimated as 7% of costs less freight and interest $1,811,312

SG&A per BIW $18

Annual Total $32,707,198

Total per BIW $327

Cost decrease 24%

Table 10.5.b below compares the annual capital, annual total manufacturing, and per BIW 

manufacturing costs for production of 60,000 and 100,000 BIWs per year. This includes 

the amortized capital costs and affected SG&A costs. Year eight represents only paying 

the annual maintenance capital costs.

Table 10.5.b: Manufacturing cost comparison, 60,000 vs. 100,000 BIWs

Production Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

60k

Capital costs (mils) $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $1.09 $1.09 $0.74

Labor (mils) $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50 $6.50

Utilities (mils) $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94

Interest (mils) $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52

Freight (mils) $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50

SG&A (mils) $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $1.43 $0.74 $0.74 $0.71

Annual Total (mils) $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $25.89 $15.28 $15.28 $14.91

BIW Total $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $255 $255 $248

100k

Capital costs (mils) $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $11.01 $1.09 $1.09 $0.74

Labor (mils) $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74 $9.74

Utilities (mils) $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12

Interest (mils) $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52 $2.52

Freight (mils) $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50

SG&A (mils) $1.81 $1.81 $1.81 $1.81 $1.81 $1.12 $1.12 $1.09

Annual Total (mils) $32.71 $32.71 $32.71 $32.71 $32.71 $22.09 $22.09 $21.72

BIW Total $327 $327 $327 $327 $327 $221 $221 $217

Cost Decrease 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 13% 13% 12%
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-120

10.6 Tooling Costs

There are costs associated with purchasing the tooling to produce the individual parts used 

in the manufacturing process. Table 10.6.a below details these tooling costs, which total 

approximately $28.1 million for the Phase 2 HD BIW. Tooling for a similar Toyota Venza 

BIW costs around $70 million according to Intellicosting.

Table 10.6.a: Phase 2 HD BIW tooling costs

Part Number Part Name Process Tool Type Tool 

Cost

Tool 

Count

Inspection 

Cost

Fixture 

Count

Front End

7305-2400-001 Small crossmember 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $104,559 1 $1,500 1

7305-2400-002 Large crossmember 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $114,797 1 $1,700 1

Bodyside Outer Assembly

7306-2300-185 Left, outer bodyside 

panel

Stamping Transfer dies $77,900 1

Rough blank (through) $78,788 1

Draw (toggle) $221,338 1

Trim and developed trim $179,543 1

Trim and developed trim $170,360 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$221,641 1

Cam finish form, finish trim, 

flange, and restrike

$323,575 1

End of arm tooling $20,000

7306-2300-186 Right, outer bodyside 

panel

Stamping Transfer dies $77,900 1

Rough blank (through) $78,788 1

Draw (toggle) $221,338 1

Trim and developed trim $179,543 1

Trim and developed trim $170,360 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$221,641 1

Cam finish form, finish trim, 

flange, and restrike

$323,575 1

End of arm tooling $20,000

7306-2300-187 Lower, left rear 

quarter closeout panel

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$11,500 1

7306-2300-188 Lower, right rear 

quarter closeout panel

Form (double attached) $48,094 1 $11,500 1

Trim and developed trim $54,449 1

Finish form and flange 

(double pad)

$64,348 1

Finish trim and separate $42,106 1

Flange and restrike (double 

pad and double unattached)

$62,632 1

Common Shoe $19,984
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-121

7306-2300-189 Left flange to body Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$195,951 1 $18,000 1

7306-2300-190 Right flange to body $18,000 1

7306-2300-191 Left tail lamp closeout 

panel

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$80,703 1

7306-2300-192 Right tail lamp 

closeout panel

7306-2300-XXX Left, upper rear 

closeout panel

Stamping Progressive blank die (2 out, 

1 left and 1 right)

$92,887 1 $3,500 1

7306-2300-XXX Right, upper rear 

closeout panel

Form and flange (double pad) $43,265 1 $3,500 1

Restrike and cam flange $36,986 1

Common shoe $10,378

Roof

7306-2200-109 Roof panel Stamping Lines with robotic transfer $77,500 1

Draw $173,807 1

Trim and developed trim $198,072 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$208,060 1

End of arm tooling $9,000

7306-2100-101 Front header (bow 1) Stamping Coil fed transfer die $14,800 1

Cutoff and draw $57,820 1

Trim $64,302 1

Finish form and flange $65,305 1

Finish trim $60,365 1

Restrike $64,736 1

Master shoes $47,361

End of arm tooling $12,500

7306-2100-103 Center header (bow 2) Stamping Complete progressive die $127,928 1 $6,500 1

7307-2100-104 Rear header (bow 3) Stamping Transfer dies $27,500 1

Draw $52,969 1

Form $51,038 1

Form $51,038 1

Trim and pierce $70,184 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$55,997 1

Common shoes $40,773

End of arm tooling $15,000

7306-2000-215 Left, rear roof side rail 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $19,400 1

7306-2000-216 Right, rear roof side 

rail inner

Draw (double attached) $77,254 1 $19,400 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$101,937 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$115,242 1

Finish trim and separate $70,324 1

Common shoes $59,758

End of arm tooling $12,800
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-122

7306-2000-171 Left, front roof side rail 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $20,500 1

7306-2000-172 Right, front roof side 

rail inner

Rough developed blank $75,651 1 $20,500 1

Form (double attached) $86,347 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$114,175 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$129,433 1

Finish trim and separate $97,949 1

Master shoes $40,671

End of arm tooling $16,000

7305-1900-159 Left shotgun closeout Stamping Complete progressive die $37,190 1 $600 1

7305-1900-160 Right shotgun 

closeout

$600 1

D-pillar Assembly

7307-2110-179 Left liftgate 

reinforcement

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$6,800 1

7307-2120-180 Right liftgate 

reinforcement

Form (double attached) $52,567 1 $6,800 1

Trim and developed trim $64,216 1

Trim and developed trim $63,082 1

Finish form and flange 

(double pad)

$73,414 1

Restrike and separate $69,770 1

Common shoe $27,234

7307-2110-105 Left D-pillar inner Stamping Transfer dies $18,900 1

7307-2120-106 Right D-pillar inner Rough blank $56,788 1 $18,900 1

Draw (double attached) $81,398 1

Redraw $82,579 1

Trim and developed trim $91,616 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

separate

$85,274 1

Finish form and restrike 

(double unattached)

$93,307 1

Master shoes $62,202

End of arm tooling

7307-2110-177 Left quarter panel 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $6,200

7307-2120-178 Right quarter panel 

inner

Draw (double attached) $72,014 1 $6,200

Trim and developed trim $73,368 1

Trim and developed trim $69,069 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$75,455 1

Cam trim, trim, and separate $81,170 1

Master shoes $49,982

End of arm tooling $10,500

A-pillar Assembly

7305-1930-169 Left shotgun outer 

panel

Stamping Transfer dies $22,500 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-123

7305-1940-170 Right shotgun outer 

panel

Rough blank die (2 out, 1 left 

and 1 right)

$127,161 1 $22,500 1

Form $77,416 1

Finish form and flange $112,533 1

Trim $124,796 1

Flange and restrike $74,492 1

Master shoes $45,023

End of arm tooling $14,400

7305-1930-187 Left, lower A-pillar 

outer

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $16,000 1

7305-1940-188 Right, lower A-pillar 

outer

Blank (flip/flop left/right) $102,114 1 $16,000 1

Form (double unattached) $115,352 1

Trim and developed trim $105,079 1

Trim and developed trim $118,609 1

Finish form and flange $80,009 1

Restrike $131,158 1

End of arm tooling $7,500

7305-1930-171 Left, A-pillar, upper 

hinge reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $13,902 1 $350 1

7305-1940-184 Right, A-pillar, upper 

hinge reinforcement

$350 1

7305-1930-173 Left, A-pillar, lower 

hinge reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $13,596 1 $350 1

7305-1940-186 Right, A-pillar, lower 

hinge reinforcement

$350 1

7305-1500-227 Left, lower, A-pillar 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $54,462 1 $900 1

7305-1500-228 Right, lower, A-pillar 

reinforcement

7305-1400-153 Left, lower A-pillar 

inner

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$4,400 1

7305-1400-154 Right, lower A-pillar 

inner

Draw $55,162 1 $4,400 1

Restrike $58,268 1

Trim and partial separate $51,334 1

Cam trim, trim, and separate $66,797 1

Common shoe $18,367

7305-1300-155 Left, upper A-pillar 

inner

Stamping Line dies on common shoe 

(hand transfer)

$28,000 1

7305-1300-156 Right, upper A-pillar 

inner

Progressive developed blank 

(double attached)

$139,832 1 $28,000 1

Form and flange $67,679 1

Flange and restrike (double 

pad)

$68,126 1

Extrude and separate $55,145 1

Common shoe $16,962

Door Aperture Assembly

7306-1910-189 Left, A-pillar outer 

upper

Stamping Transfer dies $19,500 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-124

7306-1920-190 Right, A-pillar outer 

upper

Draw (double attached) $105,668 1 $19,500 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$128,641 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$135,645 1

Finish trim and separate $97,420 1

Master shoes $40,392

End of arm tooling $12,000

7306-1910-191 Left, roof side rail 

outer

Stamping Transfer dies $16,000 1

7306-1920-192 Right, roof side rail 

outer

Draw (double attached) $79,668 1 $16,000 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

partial separate

$105,077 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$105,767 1

Finish trim and separate $89,247 1

Master shoes $41,042

End of arm tooling $16,000

7306-1910-193 Left, C-pillar striker 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$34,332 1 $650 1

7306-1920-194 Right, C-pillar striker 

reinforcement

$650 1

7306-1910-195 Left C-pillar outer Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $39,000 1

7306-1920-196 Right C-pillar outer Rough blank (double 

attached)

$93,644 1 $39,000 1

Draw (double attached) $151,092 1

Trim and developed trim $167,760 1

Trim and developed trim $165,870 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$205,755 1

Separate and cam set 

flanges

$144,189 1

End of arm tooling $15,000

7306-1913-001 Left, lower B-pillar 

outer

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $32,500 1

7306-1924-002 Right, lower B-pillar 

outer

Rough blank (flip/flop 

left/right)

$101,111 1 $32,500 1

Draw (double unattached) $149,138 1

Redraw $152,991 1

Trim and pierce $174,868 1

Trim and pierce $167,712 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$179,334 1

End of arm tooling $15,000

7306-1913-003 Left, upper B-pillar 

outer

Stamping Transfer dies $5,900 1

7306-1924-004 Right, upper B-pillar 

outer

Draw (double attached) $46,469 1 $5,900

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$50,711 1

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$48,596 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-125

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$55,535 1

Cam trim, trim, and separate $75,051 1

Master shoes $29,621

End of arm tooling $12,000

7306-1913-005 Left, upper, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$72,875 1 $1,250 1

7306-1924-006 Right, upper, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

$1,250 1

7306-1913-007 Left, middle, B-pillar 

inner reinforcment

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$32,508 1 $600 1

7306-1924-008 Right, middle, B-pillar 

inner reinforcment

$600 1

7306-1913-009 Left, lower, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$81,191 1 $950 1

7306-1924-010 Right, lower, B-pillar 

inner reinforcement

$950 1

7306-1915-011 Left, lower B-pillar 

inner

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $15,500 1

7306-1926-012 Right, lower B-pillar 

inner

Rough blank (flip/flop 

left/right)

$891,730 1 $15,500 1

Draw (double unattached) $85,677 1

Trim and pierce $119,560 1

Trim and pierce $119,560 1

Finish form, extrude, and 

restrike (double pad)

$99,233 1

End of arm tooling $16,000

7306-1915-001 Left/right B-pillar 

beltline reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $16,934 1 $500 1

7306-1915-013 Left, upper B-pillar 

inner

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$97,237 1 $3,300 1

7306-1926-014 Right, upper B-pillar 

inner

$3,300 1

Dash and Cowl Structure

7305-1800-145 Upper cowl panel Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $141,000 1 $23,400 1

Trim die $60,561 1

7305-1700-147 Cowl panel support Stamping Transfer dies $18,500 1

Draw $74,731 1

Trim and developed trim $92,078 1

Trim, developed trim, and 

cam trim

$112,671 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$95,243 1

Common shoes $20,631

End of arm tooling $10,000

7305-1600-149 Dash panel 

reinforcement

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $216,000 1 $31,600 1

Trim die $132,513 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-126

7307-1600-183 Left, rear wheelhouse 

outer panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $250,000 1 $43,800 1

Trim die $142,164 1

7307-1600-184 Right, rear 

wheelhouse outer 

panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $240,000 1 $41,400 1

Trim die $138,966 1

7307-1600-213 Left, rear closeout 

panel

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$192,307 1 $9,600 1

7307-1600-214 Right, rear closeout 

panel

$9,600 1

7305-1500-157 Left, shotgun panel 

inner

Stamping Transfer dies $28,500 1

7305-1500-158 Right, shotgun panel 

inner

Rough blank die (2 out, 1 left 

and 1 right)

$133,440 1 $28,500 1

Form $87,170 1

Finish form and flange $117,563 1

Trim $132,094 1

Flange and restrike $77,572 1

Master shoes $48,895

End of arm tooling $14,400

7305-1500-197 Left, upper A-pillar 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$137,042 1 $2,250 1

7305-1500-198 Right, upper A-pillar 

reinforcement

$2,250 1

7305-1530-221 Left, dash 

transmission 

reinforcement

Stamping Line dies (hand transfer) $21,500 1

7305-1530-222 Right, dash 

transmission 

reinforcement

Draw (double unattached) $93,191 1 $21,500 1

Second draw $96,656 1

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$88,494 1

Developed trim and cam 

developed trim

$87,500 1

Form and flange $88,188 1

Form and flange $82,126 1

Finish trim, pierce, and cam 

pierce

$93,594 1

Cam flange and restrike $81,087 1

7305-1530-223 Left, dash 

transmission insert

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out, 1 left and 1 right)

$62,424 1 $950 1

7305-1520-224 Right, dash 

transmission insert

$950 1

7305-1400-143 Upper dash panel Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $206,000 1 $52,700 1

Trim die $129,768 1

7305-1400-144 Left lower dash panel Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $317,000 1 $36,000 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-127

7305-1400-145 Righ lower dash panel Trim die $230,467 1 $36,000 1

Rear End

7307-1510-111 Rear end outer panel Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $43,500 1

Draw $74,912 1

Trim and developed trim $81,087 1

Trim and developed trim $81,016 1

Finish form and flange $83,914 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike

$85,112 1

Finish trim and pierce $82,672 1

End of arm tooling $18,000

7307-1510-117 Rear end inner panel Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $39,500 1

Draw $84,640 1

Rough trim and developed 

trim

$92,852 1

Redraw $80,037 1

Developed trim $89,698 1

Developed trim and pierce $91,062 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$95,070 1

End of arm tooling $18,000

7307-1400-119 Rear compartment 

crossmember

Extrude Extrusion tooling $49,416 2 $12,000 1

Trim jig $3,115 1

7307-1410-120 Extrusion hangar 

bracket

Extrude Extrusion tooling $49,986 2 $1,250 1

Trim jig $2,041 1

7307-1400-163 Left, rear wheelhouse 

inner panel

Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $38,500 1

7307-1400-164 Right, rear 

wheelhouse inner 

panel

Draw (double attached) $146,206 1 $38,500 1

Trim and developed trim $163,555 1

Trim and developed trim $163,555 1

Finish form, flange, and 

restrike (double pad)

$238,243 1

Finish trim and separate $117,380 1

End of arm tooling $15,000

7307-1500-167 Left, rear shock tower 

reinforcement

Stamping Line dies on common shoes 

(hand transfer)

$3,100 1

7307-1500-168 Right, rear shock 

tower reinforcement

Draw (double attached) $38,164 1 $3,100 1

Trim and rough trim $44,667 1

Developed trim $39,082 1

Cam developed trim $56,093 1

Finish form and flange $42,219 1

Aerial cam flange $64,149 1

Separate and restrike $42,620 1

Common shoes $28,685
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-128

7305-1300-165 Left, rear shock tower Die cast Casting mold $126,000 1 $26,000 1

Trim die $75,977 1

7305-1300-166 Right, rear shock 

tower

Die cast Casting mold $132,000 1 $26,000 1

Trim die $75,977 1

Front Wheelhouse

7305-1310-151 Left front shock tower Die cast Casting mold $119,000 1 $27,500 1

Trim die $79,812 1

7305-1320-152 Right front shock 

tower

Die cast Casting mold $125,000 1 $27,500 1

Trim die $79,812 1

7305-1310-161 Left front wheelhouse 

panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $141,000 1 $21,900 1

Trim die $80,095 1

7305-1320-162 Right front 

wheelhouse panel

Cast 

magnesium

Casting mold $148,000 1 $21,900 1

Trim die $80,095 1

Rear Seat

7306-1200-113 Rear seat floor panel Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $33,800 1

Draw $93,535 1

Trim $114,717 1

Finish form and restrike $77,468 1

End of arm tooling $9,000

7306-1200-111 Rear seatbelt 

anchorage plate

Stamping Complete progressive die $26,206 1 $650 1

7307-1200-217 Left, rear, outer frame 

rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $192,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $116,537 1

7307-1200-218 Right, rear, outer 

frame rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $199,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $116,537 1

7306-1110-101 Center rear seat riser Stamping Complete progressive die $216,500 1 $29,800 1

7306-1110-103 Left, rear seat floor 

reinforcement

Stamping Complete progressive die $58,424 1 $2,600 1

7306-1000-175 Left rear seat riser Stamping Line dies with robotic transfer $21,500 1

7306-1000-176 Right rear seat riser Rough blank (flip/flop 

left/right)

$53,598 1 $21,500 1

Form (double unattached) $61,333 1

Trim and developed trim $80,561 1

Trim and developed trim $80,561 1

Finish form and flange $97,654 1

Restrike $91,442 1

End of arm tooling $16,000
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-129

Frame Rails

7307-1000-139 Right/left rear frame 

rail

Extrude Extrusion tooling $46,850 2 $8,600 1

Trim jig $2,918 1

7307-1000-138 Right/left rear frame 

rail mounting plate

Stamping Complete progressive die $36,086 1 $650 1

7307-1020-135 Left front frame rail Extrude Extrusion tooling $46,850 2 $6,500 1

7307-1020-136 Right front frame rail Trim jig $2,506 1

7307-1020-223 Left frame rail 

mounting plate

Stamping Complete progressive die $43,803 1 $850 1

7307-1020-224 Right frame rail 

mounting plate

7307-1011-001 Left/right front rail 

mounting

Stamping Complete progressive die $43,627 1 $1,450 1

7307-1011-003 Left/right front rail 

mounting cover

Stamping Complete progressive die (2 

out)

$59,154 1 $1,250 1

7305-0900-137 Left, front, inner frame 

rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $184,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $113,428 1

7305-0900-138 Right, front, inner 

frame rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $190,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $113,428 1

7307-0900-141 Left, rear, inner frame 

rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $195,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $117,447 1

7307-0900-142 Right, rear, inner 

frame rail transition

Die cast Casting mold $201,000 1 $28,500 1

Trim die $117,447 1

7306-0810-123 Left rocker sill 

extrusion

Extrude Extrusion tooling $51,412 2 $31,750 1

7306-0810-124 Right rocker sill

extrusion

Trim jig $3,655 1

7305-1200-209 Left front frame rail 

outer transition

Die cast Casting mold $179,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $111,602 1

7305-1200-210 Right front frame rail 

outer transition

Die cast Casting mold $185,000 1 $25,500 1

Trim die $111,602 1

Floor

7306-0830-124 Left/right, small outer 

floor extrusion

Extrude Extrusion tooling $53,122 2 $1,500 1

7306-0840-010 Left/right, large outer 

floor extrusion

Trim jig $2,363 1 $1,600 1
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-130

7306-0830-125 Left/right, small floor 

crossmember

Extrude Extrusion tooling $46,280 2 $15,900 1

Trim jig $3,115 1

7306-0830-126 Left/right, small inner 

floor extrusion

Extrude Extrusion tooling $53,122 2 $1,600 1

7306-0840-012 Left/right, large inner 

floor extrusion

Trim jig $2,041 1 $1,750 1

7306-0840-011 Left/right, large floor 

crossmember

Extrude Extrusion tooling $47,134 2 $17,300 1

Trim jig $3,331 1

7306-0850-000 Left/right, fore/aft floor 

extrusions

Extrude Extrusion tooling $44,854 2 $17,600 1

Trim jig $3,223 1

7306-0860-000 Center tunnel bracket Stamping Complete progressive die $25,733 1 $650 1

Totals $ 26,017,503.00 253 $ 2,102,900.00 121

Annual (amortized over 3 years) $9,373,468

Per BIW (amortized over 3 years) $156

Annual (amortized over 5 years) $5,624,081

Per BIW (amortized over 5 years) $94
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-131

7.1.1Closures Manufacturing Report

A study was done to investigate the impact of higher volumes on the manufacturing cost of the low mass 

multi-material body. The volume was increased from 60,000 units per year to 400,000 units per year. The 

results of this study, including the complete plant layout and financial assessments, are detailed in the 

following sections. The general findings are summarized below.

The per unit cost of amortizing the required new BIW manufacturing facility over a five year time period 

dropped from $176 per unit ($52,768,700 BIW plant cost amortized over 5 years of production @ 60,000 

units/year) to $85 per unit ($171,653,707 for two 200,000 units/year BIW plants amortized over 5 years of 

production @ 400,000 units per year). The labor cost is $116 per unit for the 400,000 units per year volume 

(listed in section 8.1.4.) vs. $108 per unit for the 60,000 units per year volume ($6,495,200 from Table 10.2.a 

divided by 60,000 units per year). The cycle time to build one body in white decreased from 190 seconds 

(60,000 units/year) to 70 seconds (400,000 units/year). The higher labor cost was due to the proportionally 

greater number of employees (> 190/70 cycle time ratio) required to support the increased capacity plant.

The full study can be found below.

Purpose of Study:

This study provides an overview about the characteristics of a Body Shop to build annually 400,000 

units/year of the LWV (Light Weight Vehicle).

Due to the premature stage of the program we will not enter into the level of detail as typically done. 

In areas of uncertainty we will make assumptions and/or suggestions.

The assumption was made that it is advisable to split the 400,000 annual volume into two separate identical 

plants:

Plant A 200,000/yr

Plant B 200,000/yr

In the following we list the advantages of such “fractional” 

split production:

Higher feasibility

o Respond to change in demand by slowing 

down one plant only

Easier model change
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-132

o Rebuild plant A, phase out Plant B no 

interruption

Local advantages

o US West Coast – East Coast

o US – Mexico

o US – China

o US – Europe

o Under one roof (same facility)

Downtime risk reduction

o Strike, power outage, storm

In the following we display results and findings based on:

Plant A = 200,000 units/year

In the summary section, pages XX-YY, we summarize all published 

figures to their volume for:

Plants A&B = 400,000 units/year
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-133

Mike Leslie

October 17, 2011

Supervisor Process & Simulation

EBZ Engineering, Inc.

110 South Blvd. W, Suite 100

Rochester Hills, MI 48307

(248) 299-0500
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

6/21/2012 A-134

A G E N D A

1. General Assumptions

2. Process & Layout

2.1. Efficiencies

2.2. Timing Sheets

2.3. Tool Content

2.4. Conveyor Concept

2.5. Buffer Concept

2.6. Station Layouts

2.7. Body Shop Layout

2.8. Body Shop Layout

3. Facility

4. Labor Requirements

5. Logistic Concept

6. Quality Concept

7. Maintenance Concept

8. Investment/Costs

Attachments

A. Tool Content

Station_Tool_Content_02-28-11.xls

B. Station Layouts

Lotus_ARB_LWV_Station_Layout_02-28-11.ppt

C. System Layout

Lotus_LWV_Layout_02-28-11.dxf

D. 2-Plant Layout
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-135

1. General Assumptions

Two identical Green Field Plants in USA, each producing 200,000 

units/year

2-shift operation, 10 hr/shift

Highly automated production system

Single model, no derivatives

New bonding technology FSB (FRICTION STIR BONDING)

Materials aluminum, magnesium, High Strength Steel, composites

No closures considered in study, BIW only

Cycle time is 70.4 seconds at 85% body shop efficiency

Transportation time is 13 seconds (Underbody Line, Framing Line)

Planned SOP: 2020
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-136

2. Process & Layout

2.1. Efficiencies – 3 main factors drive assembly plant efficiency

2.1.1. Technical equipment generally has an efficiency factor of 

99% or higher 

(a worker is considered 100%)

Combined in a complex manufacturing system of up 

to 20 connected stations, the efficiency factor goes 

down to 95%

2.1.2. Further downtimes occur due to organizational problems 

caused by logistics, environment, or political (strike) events

Total reduction: 5%  90%

2.1.3. Overall system related downtimes (interaction of the 

different zones)

Reduce total efficiency factors by additional 5%

Total bodyshop efficiency: 85%
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-137

2.1. Total Efficiency

Technical

Downtimes

Organizational

Downtimes

(operators,

logistic, ...)

Overall

System-related

Downtimes

-

-

-

Production

Time

Technical

Availibility

System

Availibility

Total

Efficiency

[%]

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

95%

90%

85%

2.2. Timing Sheets Per Station

2.2.1. Cycle Time

Cycle time: 70.4 seconds

2.2.1. Cycle Time Computation

Plants A & B

200K Assemblies Annually – 5 day production

Net Parts per Year

Shifts per day

Hours per shift

Days per Year

Days per week

Efficiency

Hours per Day

Hours per Year

200,000

2

9.5

242

5

85%

19

4598

Enter

Enter

Enter

Enter

Enter

Enter

Calculation

Calculation

Net Parts per Day 826 Calculation
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-138

Net Parts per Week (ref only)

Net Parts per Hours

Net Cycle Time Seconds

4132

43

82.76

Calculation

Calculation

Calculation

Gross Parts per Year

Gross Parts per Hour

Gross Cycle Time Seconds

235,294

51

70.35

Calculation

Calculation

Calculation
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-139

2.3. Tool Content Sheets Per Station

Detailed Tool Content illustrated for each station, see file

02 Process and Layout / 2.4 Tool Content
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-140

2.4. Conveyor Concept

2.4.1. Sub Assemblies

Part loading by operator or robot

Part handling by robot

2.4.2. Under Body Line

Part loading by robot

Transfer by lift-and-carry

2.4.3. Cross Transport

Skid transport on belt conveyor

Skid return overhead

2 elevators

2.4.4. Framing Line

Skid transport on power rollers

Same skids as 2.4.3

Total 110 skids + 2 cross transfers in system

2.4.5. After Framing Line

Elevator to overhead Electric Motorized System

(EMS)

Not included in this study

2.5. Buffer Concept

Main lines disconnected with buffers

Buffer sizes: 10 parts equals 12 min

Buffers half full:

o Fill up buffer when production line after buffer comes to 

a halt

o Discharge buffer when production line in front of buffer

stops
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-141

2.6. Station Layouts

Station Layouts describe:

o Parts loaded

o Workers

o Bins

o Equipment

o Conveyor system

 See file: 02 Process and Layout / 2.6 Station Layouts

2.7. Body Shop Layout

Detailed System Layout

See file: 02 Process and Layout / 2.7 System Layout

2.8. Body Shop Layout

See file: 02 Process and Layout / 2.8 2-Bodyshop Layout

3. Facility

The total space required for body shop (one plant) is 363,282 sq. ft.

This includes:

o CMM Room

o Break room

o Locker/restroom

o Maintenance Area

o Tool shop (repair)

o Logistic preparation area
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-142

4. Labor Requirements

The labor force follows a special revolving shift model:

o Operators work 10 hrs x 4 days = 40 hrs/wk

o Total system operating time:

 5 days x 2 shifts x 10 hrs = 100 hrs/wk

o People needed for each manual workplace:

 100 ÷ 40 = 2.5/wk

The following labor force is required to run the body shop per shift:

o Direct workers: 61

o Indirect workers:

 Maintenance 35

 Logistics 40

5. Logistic Concept
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-143

5.1. Main Features

All bins and racks according to part size

Number of part bins for (1) week production (8260 parts for 2 

plants)

o (2) days supply in plant

o (2) days transportation

o (1) day at supplier’s plant

Shooter technology for small parts

Fork truck transportation

Preparation area close to line to connect assembly line to 

warehouse

Aisle widths:

o Main aisles 15 ft.

o Logistic aisles 12 ft.

o Maintenance aisles 6 1⁄2 ft.

o No one-way traffic

5.2. Staff needed: 40 forklift drivers/shift
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-144

Shooter Technology
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-145

6. Quality Concept

6.1. Philosophy

Keeping up quality is the responsibility of each worker and 

member working in the plant

See Chart (Quality Management Concept)

6.2. (2) Quality Assurance Methods

a. In-line Quality Check

(4) in line vision stations provide quality data:

o Station UB-280 End of Underbody Line

o Station SA-70L End of LH Body Side Line

o Station SA-70R End of RH Body Side Line

o Station FR-260A/B End of Framing Line

Each station is equipped with (2) vision cameras 

attached to robot arms

Each camera can shoot up to 178/3.5 = 50 different 

spots which is 100 per station

b. Off-line Quality Check

A CMM room is attached to the body shop which is 

equipped with (1) 2-arm 20 ft CMM machine and (2) 1-

arm 10 ft CMM machines

We recommend to check (1) underbody per shift and (1) 

full BIW per 2 shifts (one day)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-146

6.1. Quality Management Concept

Documentation

• Failure modes

• Root cause analysis

• Downtimes

• Frequency of breakdowns/ 

priorities

• Analysis of Continuous 

Improvement Processes

Machine Operator

• Responsible for quality control of parts from 

specific stations

• Follow working instructions

• Stop production in case of quality defects

Corporate Philosophy

• Define QM

• Uniform measuring methods

• Analysis of quality assurance

Assembly Line Team

• Carry out working instructions

• Team leader = QM foreman

• Problem localization by measuring methods

• Internal communication

• Assign responsibilities

QM Team

• Analysis

• Statistics

• Training ( Job ) 

• Measuring

• Assign priorities

• Transparency of disturbing influences

• Quality controlling of the end product

• Documentation 
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-147

7. Maintenance Concept

3 Main Goals:

a. High quality product

b. High uptime

c. Reduction maintenance costs

Key element is the preventive maintenance:

 AVOID THE PROBLEM INSTEAD OF FIXING IT
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-148

8. Investment/Costs

8.1. Labor Cost per Shift

Plant A

Plants A&B

8.1.1. Assembly Workers

10 hrs x 61 workers x $22.00 = $ 13,420

Fringe benefits: 40% = $ 5,368

Total labor: $ 18,788 $ 

8.1.2. Maintenance

10 hrs x 35 workers x $35.00 = $ 12,250

Fringe benefits: 40% = $ 4,900

Total maintenance: $ 17,150 $ 

8.1.3. Logistic

10 hrs x 40 workers x $18.00 = $ 7,200

Fringe benefits: 60% = $ 4,320

Total logistic: $ 11,520 $ 

8.1.4. Total Labor Cost per Unit

Total cost per shift: $ 47,458 $ 

÷ 413 units per shift (Plant A)

÷ 826 units per shift (Plants A&B)

Total labor cost per unit: $ 

115.91/unit $ 115.91/unit
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-149

8.2. Capital Equipment Plant A Plant B 

Plants A&B

Amortization (yrs) 

8.2.1. Subassembly Line 5 $ 30,811,000 $28,461,600 

$60,272,560

8.2.2. Underbody Line 5 $ 25,361,400 $23,601,400 

$48,962,800

8.2.3. Framing Line 5 $ 20,389,000 $19,258,100 

$39,647,100

8.2.4. Conveyors 5 $ 6,089,000 $6,089,000 

$12,178,000

8.2.5. Bins & Racks 5 $ 4,028,000 $ 4,028,000 

$ 8,056,000

 

$

1

6

9

,

1

1

6

,

4

6

0

TOTAL

Maintenance w/o Labor 1.5%/yr 

$ 2,536,747

TOTAL (÷ 2,000,000) 

$171,653,707 $85.83

CMM Equipment / Tool Shop 7 $ 5,700,000 $5,700,000 

$11,400,000
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-150

Maintenance w/o Labor 1.5%/yr 

$150,000

TOTAL (÷ 2,800,000) 

$11,550,000 $ 4.13

TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST 

 $ 92.14

8.3. Utility Costs

 $ 186.00

8.4. Cost Summary

$/Unit

Material (estimate) $ 

2,100

Scrap: 1% $ 

210

$ 2,310.00 

Labor

$ 115.91

Capital Equipment

$ 92.14

Utilities

$ 186.00

TOTAL COST

$ 2,704.05
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-151

S,G&A: 7%

$ 189.28

Interest: 5% $46,848,848

$ 135.20

GRAND TOTAL COST PER BIW

$ 3,028.53
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-152

9.2.1. Cost Breakdown: Sub Assembly
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-153

9.2.2. Cost Breakdown: Underbody Line
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-154

9.2.3. Cost Breakdown: Framing Line
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-155

9.2.4. Cost Breakdown: Body Skid and Transportation Systems
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-156

9.2.5. Bins & Rack Computation
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-157
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

A-158
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-1

7.2 Appendix B: Competitive Set Study

Table B.a: Competitive set study
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-2

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 2692.4 106.0 4114.8 162.0 4292.6 169.0 3723.6 146.6 3987.8 157.0 4409.4 173.6 Width 1549.4 61.0 1701.8 67.0 1701.8 67.0 1684.0 66.3 1701.8 67.0 1696.7 66.8

Height 1542.0 60.7 1524.0 60.0 1460.5 57.5 1409.7 55.5 1651.0 65.0 1473.2 58.0 Wheelbase 1879.6 74.0 2489.2 98.0 2540.0 100.0 2466.3 97.1 2529.8 99.6 2489.2 98.0

Front Track 1283.0 50.5 1491.0 58.7 1480.8 58.3 1458.0 57.4 1475.7 58.1 1465.6 57.7

Rear Track 1385.1 54.5 1475.7 58.1 1470.7 57.9 1465.6 57.8 1480.8 58.3 1465.6 57.7

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 2,507,401.4 3886.5 3,692,379.7 5723.2 3,748,379.6 5810.0 3,605,221.8 5593.0 3,739,811.9 5796.7 3,648,121.7 5654.6

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

1.6

Cube

73.05

1.45

8.20

347.22

GOOD

40.35

1.6

67.50

2460.0

7.93

20.3

GOOD

7.79

2537.0

NA I-4

1.38

NA I-4

1.57

8.89

1.40

NA I-4

21.1

GOOD

Fiesta Sedan

39.27

GOOD

80.53

304.48

8.33

1.48

1.8

120

40.26

44.90 75.38

227.17

39.74

327.00

7.91

1.40

MICRO CARS

Four-Two

Smart

26.99

MINI CARS

Fit Yaris Sedan

Honda Toyota Nissan Ford

1.5

2377.0

22.4

Mini

78.63

299.86 276.86

38.84

Cooper

1797.0 2546.0

NA I-4

1.5

GOOD GOOD

2846.0

127 112

70 122

68

25.7

117 106

I-3

103 114

1.0

NA I-4

21.8 23.3

121

106

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4495.8 177.0 4521.2 178.0 4572.0 180.0 4241.8 167.0 4414.5 173.8 4627.9 182.2 4358.6 171.6 4368.8 172.0 Width 1752.6 69.0 1778.0 70.0 1752.6 69.0 1752.6 69.0 1739.9 68.5 1778.0 70.0 1823.7 71.8 1701.8 67.0 Height 1435.1 56.5 1460.5 57.5 1491.0 58.7 1610.4 63.4 1475.7 58.1 1452.9 57.2 1465.6 57.7 1427.5 56.2 Wheelbase 2692.4 106.0 2641.6 104.0 2641.6 104.0 2590.8 102.0 2618.7 103.1 2651.8 104.4 2649.2 104.3 2550.2 100.4

Front Track 1498.6 59.0 1557.0 61.3 1530.0 60.2 1524.0 60.0 1496.1 58.9 1541.8 60.7 1554.5 61.2 1491.0 58.7 Rear Track 1529.1 60.2 1564.6 61.6 1530.0 60.2 1518.9 59.8 1496.1 58.9 1539.2 60.6 1544.3 60.8 1475.7 58.1 mm2

in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,075,862.8 6317.6 4,123,088.5 6390.8 4,041,648.0 6264.6 3,941,798.6 6109.8 3,917,792.2 6072.6 4,085,062.8 6331.9 4,104,701.5 6362.3 3,782,805.3 5863.4

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3) Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

Civic Sedan Forte Sedan

84.81

156

Lancer

Honda Kia Mitsubishi 

Jetta Focus Hatchback

GOOD

24.4

43.97

2.0

44.18

85.56

1.53

8.62

NA I-4

2.0

2751.0

NA I-4

115

2804.0

82.68

1.50

42.43

88.57

345.74

42.17

332.04

8.44

1.60

GOOD (2011) GOOD

162

GOOD

Scion

xB

3109.0

NA I-4

1.50

Impreza Hatchback

Subaru

170

GOOD

158

1.64

3080.0

9.06

2.5

NA H-4

GOOD

2.4

43.50

148

20.8

NA I-4 NA I-4

2.0

9.25

SMALL CARS

160

3133.0

319.23

86.25

332.84

86.53

43.87

322.53

8.46

367.65 357.36

8.17

1.49

8.44

NA I-4 Hybrid, I-4

2721.0

1.45

2.0 1.3

18.3

GOOD

19.7

1.8

140

128 144 146

18.0 19.7 18.4

2920.0

GOOD

Honda

123

27.8

98

80.03

40.72

Insight

Volkswagen Ford

80.02

170 125 146

1.51

8.54

328.43

44.38

2805.0

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4528.8 178.3 4597.4 181.0 4292.6 169.0 4470.4 176.0 4597.4 181.0 4419.6 174.0 4554.2 179.3 Width 1775.5 69.9 1752.6 69.0 1701.8 67.0 1752.6 69.0 1795.8 70.7 1752.6 69.0 1762.8 69.4

Height 1435.1 56.5 1470.7 57.9 1534.2 60.4 1491.0 58.7 1475.7 58.1 1534.2 60.4 1465.6 57.7 Wheelbase 2700.0 106.3 2641.6 104.0 2590.8 102.0 2692.4 106.0 2684.8 105.7 2641.6 104.0 2601.0 102.4

Front Track 1541.8 61.5 1534.2 60.4 1480.8 58.3 1513.8 59.6 1491.0 60.7 1498.6 59.0 1516.4 59.7

Rear Track 1541.8 62.0 1518.9 59.8 1485.9 58.5 1508.8 59.4 1475.7 61.3 1498.6 59.0 1521.5 59.9 mm2

in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,162,836.8 6564.0 4,032,508.1 6250.4 3,843,089.1 5956.8 4,069,024.1 6307.0 3,982,495.3 6447.7 3,958,701.8 6136.0 3,950,650.2 6123.5

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset GOOD

3073.0

Elantra Sedan

2895.0 3170.0 2751.0 3064.0

Versa Prius

GOOD (2010) GOOD GOOD GOOD

148

42.61

Caliber

Mazda 3 Nissan Toyota Chevrolet Dodge

357.57

122 134

22.5

363.10

GOOD

88.87 83.38

Cruze

44.78

1.50

GOOD

375.30

7.46

1.32

2800.0

21.2

NA I-4

1.8

132

128

Toyota

Corolla

42.52

Hyundai

NA I-4

1.8

1.58

148

86.55

SMALL CARS

45.58 43.41 41.37

NA I-4

2.4

8.90

325.23

9.62

329.46

86.73

2.0

343.22

78.63

1.8

1.70 1.42

9.10

1.8

3102.0

1.52 1.61

340.76

43.80

84.33

131

19.6

123

NA I-4 Hybrid, I-4

8.02 8.57

86.41

8.46

NA I-4 NA I-4

22.9 22.5 17.9

138 172

135 127 105 165

21.4

1.8
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-3

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4871.7 191.8 4851.4 191.0 4826.0 190.0 4826.0 190.0 4800.6 189.0 4927.6 194.0 Width 1778.0 70.0 1854.2 73.0 1828.8 72.0 1828.8 72.0 1828.8 72.0 1854.2 73.0

Height 1447.8 57.0 1496.1 58.9 1445.3 56.9 1470.7 57.9 1470.7 57.9 1475.7 58.1 Wheelbase 2844.8 112.0 2768.6 109.0 2717.8 107.0 2794.0 110.0 2768.6 109.0 2794.0 110.0

Front Track 1513.8 59.6 1569.7 61.8 1567.2 61.7 1587.5 62.5 1574.8 62.0 1590.0 62.6

Rear Track 1524.0 60.0 1569.2 61.8 1557.0 61.3 1587.5 62.5 1564.6 61.6 1590.0 62.6

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,321,023.6 6697.6 4,345,207.0 6735.1 4,245,475.4 6580.5 4,435,475.0 6875.0 4,345,926.8 6736.2 4,442,571.8 6886.0

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

Avenger Fusion Accord Sedan

46.78

GOOD

NA I-4

Toyota Honda

46.77 45.70 47.82

2.4

177

161

19.1

Chevrolet Dodge Ford

3384.0

95.00

GOOD

Malibu

3303.0

9.61

2.5 2.4

Camry

1.57 1.70

3314.0

169

167

19.5

9.08

1.61

3386.0

GOOD

9.24

3242.0

9.14 9.19

3309.0

350.74 373.24 352.07 361.88 359.46 373.08

1.64 1.63

GOOD

47.74

94.50

MIDSIZE MODERATE CARS

93.24 96.83 95.00 98.35

46.51

Sonata

NA I-4

160

19.2

8.88

GOOD

1.62

166

Hyundai

175 198

16.7

2.4

169

GOOD

19.2 19.3

184

NA I-4

2.4 2.5

173

NA I-4 NA I-4

172

NA I-4

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4699.0 185.0 4622.8 182.0 4699.0 185.0 4953.0 195.0 4521.2 178.0

Width 1828.8 72.0 1778.0 70.0 1778.0 70.0 1879.6 74.0 1828.8 72.0

Height 1427.5 56.2 1445.3 56.9 1506.2 59.3 1452.9 57.2 1419.9 55.9

Wheelbase 2809.2 110.6 2768.6 109.0 2700.0 106.3 2768.6 109.0 2768.6 109.0

Front Track 1564.6 61.6 1541.8 60.7 1534.2 60.4 1606.0 63.2 1501.1 59.1

Rear Track 1551.9 61.1 1544.3 60.8 1529.1 60.2 1620.0 63.8 1513.8 59.6

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,377,610.6 6785.3 4,272,088.2 6621.8 4,135,404.6 6409.9 4,465,751.8 6921.9 4,173,636.8 6469.2

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

10.36 9.86

GOOD

TL

349.88

89.93 100.21

3695.0 3730.0

3-Series

1.75 1.87 1.77

BMW

44.92

89.00

3307.0 3362.0

92.50

47.12 45.98

3587.0

88.47

MIDSIZE LUXURY/NEAR LUXURY CARS

C-Class

334.24

44.51 48.07

346.10

1.84

211

258

GOOD

17.0

335.37 372.33

HS 250h

Acura

GOOD

3.0

10.06

1.78

NA I-6

200

GOOD GOOD

138 254

10.02

280

2.4 3.5

221

14.5

Turbo I-4

2.0

A4

Audi

3.0

NA V-6 NA V-6

Mercedes Lexus

Hybrid, I-4

230

10.56

228

19.8 13.3 14.6

187
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-4

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 5003.8 197.0 5156.2 203.0 5003.8 197.0 5080.0 200.0 5077.5 199.9

Width 1854.2 73.0 1930.4 76.0 1854.2 73.0 1854.2 73.0 1905.0 75.0

Height 1503.7 59.2 1541.8 60.7 1485.9 58.5 1491.0 58.7 1483.4 58.4

Wheelbase 2844.8 112.0 2867.7 112.9 2819.4 111.0 2819.4 111.0 3053.1 120.2

Front Track 1567.2 61.7 1658.6 65.3 1579.9 62.2 1585.0 62.4 1610.4 63.4

Rear Track 1574.8 62.0 1663.7 65.5 1564.6 61.6 1562.1 61.5 1620.5 63.8

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,469,152.4 6927.2 4,763,642.1 7383.7 4,432,829.8 6870.9 4,436,410.5 6876.5 4,932,067.6 7644.7

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset GOOD

9.76

405.68

48.11 51.28 47.71 47.75 53.09

Buick Ford

21.5

99.87 107.14

Taurus

10.15

1.67

3922.0 4253.0

1.80 1.79

GOOD GOOD GOOD

3585.0 3961.0

NA V-6

3589.0

NA V-6

172

GOOD

LaCrosse

182

NA I-4

Impala

Toyota

386.39 421.68

Avalon

380.59 385.61

99.87

Charger

LARGE FAMILY CARS

2.4

NA V-6

10.09

16.2

3.6

263 268 211 292

3.5 3.5 3.5

NA V-6

1.65 1.73

9.30

104.11

9.43

Chevrolet Dodge

101.39

260

13.4 17.0 13.6

249 248 216

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4904.7 193.1 4876.8 192.0 4978.4 196.0 4953.0 195.0 5181.6 204.0 4876.8 192.0 4843.8 190.7 Width 1859.3 73.2 1854.2 73.0 1879.6 74.0 1854.2 73.0 1930.4 76.0 1854.2 73.0 1821.2 71.7

Height 1463.0 57.6 1419.9 55.9 1475.7 58.1 1501.1 59.1 1564.6 61.6 1470.7 57.9 1424.9 56.1 Wheelbase 2969.3 116.9 2870.2 113.0 2946.4 116.0 2895.6 114.0 2870.2 113.0 2870.2 113.0 2849.9 112.2

Front Track 1600.2 63.0 1569.7 61.8 1620.5 63.8 1574.8 62.0 1648.5 64.9 1600.2 63.0 1534.2 60.4

Rear Track 1628.1 64.1 1597.7 62.9 1635.8 64.4 1574.8 62.0 1653.5 65.1 1618.0 63.7 1539.2 60.6 mm2

in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,792,890.4 7429.0 4,545,507.0 7045.6 4,797,151.7 7435.6 4,559,990.9 7068.0 4,738,700.2 7345.0 4,618,410.1 7158.6 4,379,410.6 6788.1

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

3814.0 3997.0 3845.0 3986.0

I-6

3.0

230

15.9

E-Class

4160.0 3774.0

97.33

429.42 373.02

51.01 49.71

10.12

1.79

49.08

5-Series CTS Genesis M37/M56

48.93 51.64

MKS

98.85

385.74

1.75

3.8

264

10.33

GOOD GOOD

9.69

107.67 94.95

Mercedes Lexus

51.59

98.16 97.33 100.72

Lincoln

NA V-6

11.10 9.91

378.20 360.13 388.14

1.97

GOOD

1.83 1.72

3.7

270

GOOD

274

12.2

GOOD GOOD

1.79

10.08

BMW

223

GOOD

3.0

270 258

270 290 330 273 268

3.5

NA V-6 NA V-6 NA V-7 NA V-6

3.7

Infiniti

NA V-6

3.5

303

GS

47.14

352.54

10.51

1.86

3704.0

14.8 13.3 12.1 15.2 14.1

240

Cadillac Hyundai

LARGE LUXURY CARS
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-5

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4292.6 169.0 4394.2 173.0 4419.6 174.0 4419.6 174.0 4620.3 181.9

Width 1828.8 72.0 1828.8 72.0 1752.6 69.0 1803.4 71.0 1816.1 71.5

Height 1788.2 70.4 1656.1 65.2 1668.8 65.7 1684.0 66.3 1684.0 66.3

Wheelbase 2565.4 101.0 2641.6 104.0 2641.6 104.0 2616.2 103.0 2659.4 104.7

Front Track 1577.3 62.1 1585.0 62.4 1518.9 59.8 1569.7 61.8 1559.6 61.4

Rear Track 1582.4 62.3 1585.0 62.4 1518.9 59.8 1572.3 61.9 1559.6 61.4

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,053,024.2 6282.2 4,186,830.3 6489.6 4,012,379.1 6219.2 4,110,024.0 6370.6 4,147,462.7 6428.6

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

SMALL SUVS

Element

3494.0 3357.0 3415.0 3713.0

158

GOOD GOOD GOOD

Tiguan

44.24

90.32

179

172

20.7

GOOD

200

NA I-4

2.5

428.06

8.67

1.54

3713.0

Jeep

43.19

Tuscon Patriot

Hyundai Volkswagen Toyota

NA I-4

2.4

8.15

428.91

84.50

Honda

1.44

43.63

394.96 409.21

44.64

8.65 9.07

85.79

20.3 21.6 18.6

207

GOOD

1.46

407.19

8.24

45.07

21.0

RAV4

86.50 83.38

166 165

161

2 2.0

1.53 1.61

NA I-4 NA I-4 Turbo I-4

141

2.0

146

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4775.2 188.0 4876.8 192.0 5006.3 197.1 4826.0 190.0 4800.6 189.0 4826.0 190.0 Width 1828.8 72.0 1828.8 72.0 2004.1 78.9 1879.6 74.0 1905.0 75.0 1930.4 76.0

Height 1684.0 66.3 1691.6 66.6 1788.2 70.4 1686.6 66.4 1610.4 63.4 1729.7 68.1 Wheelbase 2844.8 112.0 2895.6 114.0 2860.0 112.6 2743.2 108.0 2768.6 109.0 2921.0 115.0

Front Track 1587.5 62.5 1569.7 61.8 1701.8 67.0 1579.9 62.2 1630.7 64.2 1623.1 63.9

Rear Track 1569.7 61.8 1582.4 62.3 1701.8 67.0 1577.3 62.1 1635.8 64.4 1628.1 64.1

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,490,829.7 6960.8 4,563,668.3 7073.7 4,867,216.1 7544.2 4,330,443.0 6712.2 4,521,732.9 7008.7 4,748,377.6 7360.0

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

MIDSIZE SUV UNIBODY

GOOD GOOD

Journey

49.12

462.16 446.33 493.82

48.67

Dodge Toyota Jeep

GOOD GOOD GOOD

4158.0 4687.0

Tribeca Grand Cherokee

4090.0

51.11

9.49

4292.0

9.33 9.32

283

252

15.9

166

46.61

Venza

Subaru

3.6 2.7 3.6

4189.0

9.16

449.02 460.29

1.59 1.62 1.68

96.00

542.57

97.64

9.00

100.28

NA I-4

94.00

1.65

Equinox

Chevrolet

48.34

98.44

2.4

173

1.65

182

2.4

23.0

256 182 290

182

NA I-4 NA H-6 NA I-4 NA V-6

24.8 22.5

247

16.2

4509.0

NA V-6

3.5

260

16.2

8.31

1.47

Ford

Explorer

52.39

107.99

GOOD

172
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-6

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 4622.8 182.0 4826.0 190.0 4775.2 188.0 4800.6 189.0 4851.4 191.0

Width 1879.6 74.0 1905.0 75.0 1879.6 74.0 1905.0 75.0 1930.4 76.0

Height 1653.5 65.1 1668.8 65.7 1719.6 67.7 1783.1 70.2 1775.5 69.9

Wheelbase 2819.4 111.0 2819.4 111.0 2743.2 108.0 2844.8 112.0 2921.0 115.0

Front Track 1618.0 63.7 1620.5 63.8 1630.7 64.2 1633.2 64.3 1643.4 64.7

Rear Track 1612.9 63.5 1610.4 63.4 1620.5 63.8 1623.1 63.9 1651.0 65.0

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,554,571.5 7059.6 4,554,571.5 7059.6 4,459,345.9 6912.0 4,631,732.7 7179.2 4,811,442.0 7457.8

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

BMW

MIDSIZE LUXURY SUVs

Q5 SRX RX

Volvo

XC90

Audi Cadillac Lexus

3.0

4617.0

98.96 96.61

441.08

93.53

467.35

X5

1.72 1.71

9.70

Turbo I-4

GOOD GOOD

49.03 49.03

4277.0 4513.0

466.33

9.40

98.44 100.81

497.27 508.92

9.28 9.75

1.66

2

211

20.3

1.64

9.68

4392.0

258 236 300

16.5

300

48.00

GOOD

257

49.86 51.79

GOOD

4960.0

17.0 16.0

1.73

NA V-6 NA V-6 NA I-6 Turbo I-6

19.2

223

265 275

GOOD

3.2

240

3.0 3.5

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 5080.0 200.0 5649.0 202.0 5245.1 206.5 5105.4 201.0 5156.2 203.0 5130.8 202.0 Width 1981.2 78.0 2009.1 79.0 2001.5 78.8 1981.2 78.0 1930.4 76.0 2032.0 80.0

Height 1737.4 68.4 1950.7 76.9 1960.9 77.2 1775.5 69.9 1922.8 75.7 1727.2 68.0 Wheelbase 2997.2 118.0 3302.0 116.0 3022.6 119.0 3022.6 119.0 3225.8 127.0 2997.2 118.0

Front Track 1651.0 65.0 1724.7 67.9 1704.3 67.1 1704.3 67.1 1663.7 65.5 1661.2 65.4

Rear Track 1676.4 66.0 1755.1 69.1 1704.3 67.1 1704.3 67.1 1658.6 65.3 1661.2 65.4

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 4,986,441.6 7729.0 5,745,149.8 8905.0 5,151,538.1 7984.9 5,151,538.1 7984.9 5,358,569.9 8305.8 4,978,828.8 7717.2

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset GOOD

Mercedes

5176.0

57.68

591.10

107.14

5847.0

108.33 113.00

532.69

9.66 9.34 9.37

Ford

Q7 Tahoe Expedition

Audi

53.67 55.45

623.78

18.9

Supercharged V-6

3.0

1.71

5148.0

R-Class

3.5

8.76

NA V-6

Chevrolet

1.66

NA V-8

1.55

335

LARGE SUVs - UNIBODY

5.3

320 310

1.65

5684.0

1.57

4857.0

NA V-8

16.9

288 268

GOOD

270 248

18.2

GOOD

258

19.3

8.87

NA V-6

108.88

608.88 547.52

Acadia

61.84

110.82

3.6

55.45

GMC

LARGE SUVs - BODY ON FRAME

Ford

Flex

53.59

112.22

547.34

8.72

1.54

4773.0

NA V-6

3.5

262

5.4

272

295

17.8

GOOD UNTESTED

365

18.9

UNTESTED
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-7

mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 5085.1 200.2 5156.2 203.0 5153.7 202.9 5130.8 202.0

Width 1983.7 78.1 1955.8 77.0 2011.7 79.2 1981.2 78.0

Height 1765.3 69.5 1750.1 68.9 1737.4 68.4 1760.2 69.3

Wheelbase 3030.2 119.3 3073.4 121.0 2999.7 118.1 3022.6 119.0

Front Track 1719.6 67.7 1663.7 65.5 1729.7 68.1 1684.0 66.3

Rear Track 1719.6 67.7 1645.9 64.8 1732.3 68.2 1684.0 66.3

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 5,210,705.7 8076.6 5,085,893.1 7883.2 5,192,579.9 8048.5 5,090,118.9 7889.7

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

8.36

544.90

109.42

248 271

1.48

GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD

4342.0 4456.0 4412.0 4555.0

Kia

Sienna Grand Caravan Odyssey Sedona

543.73 538.91 547.03

23.2

2.7

187

108.58

186

NA I-4

1.41

7.99

56.09 54.79

Honda

NA V-6

8.07

15.7 17.8

108.55

3.5 3.5

283

8.27

250 248

NA V-6 NA V-6

3.6

MINIVANS

1.46 1.43

16.8

260

Toyota Dodge

111.60

54.74 55.89

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 5232.4 206.0 5613.4 221.0 5156.2 203.0 5562.6 219.0 5257.8 207.0 5257.8 207.0 Width 1854.2 73.0 1905.0 75.0 1752.6 69.0 1879.6 74.0 1752.6 69.0 1976.1 77.8

Height 1745.0 68.7 1671.3 65.8 1719.6 67.7 1742.4 68.6 1648.5 64.9 1785.6 70.3 Wheelbase 3200.4 126.0 3581.4 141.0 3200.4 126.0 3327.4 131.0 3200.4 126.0 3098.8 122.0

Front Track 1569.7 61.8 1549.4 61.0 1485.9 58.5 1595.1 62.8 1460.5 57.5 1704.3 67.1

Rear Track 1569.7 61.8 1549.4 61.0 1455.4 57.3 1597.7 62.9 1460.5 57.5 1699.3 66.9

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 5,023,731.9 7786.8 5,549,021.2 8601.0 4,706,700.3 7295.4 5,311,828.1 8233.4 4,674,184.2 7245.0 5,273,537.8 8174.0

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset GOOD GOOD ACCEPTABLE GOOD

429.64 355.68

Ram

Dakota Crew-cab Colorado - Ext.-cab

50.66

Ranger - Ext.Cab

4222.0 3953.0 3541.0 4370.0

GOOD

1.81

10.21

3631.0

Chevrolet

57.18 50.31

190

185

Nissan Toyota Ford

54.08 59.73

Frontier Tacoma

10.17

99.19

1.89 1.66 1.73 1.80

97.27 112.54

10.66 9.37 9.76

396.16 421.96 362.92

104.43 115.10

2.5 2.7

NA I-4 NA I-4

152 159 143 210

27.8 24.9 24.8 20.8

171 180 154

NA I-4

235

2.3 3.7 2.9

NA V-6 NA I-4

GOOD

18.0

250

3.5

NA V-6

4504.0

1.84

111.84

56.76

Ridgeline

Honda

19.6

10.37

UNIBODY

247

434.41

SMALL TRUCKS BODY ON FRAME
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

B-8

mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in

Length 5763.3 226.9 5809.0 228.7 5887.7 231.8 5704.8 224.6 5847.1 230.2

Width 2016.8 79.4 2029.5 79.9 2011.7 79.2 2019.3 79.5 2029.5 79.9

Height 1861.8 73.3 1920.2 75.6 1930.4 76.0 1945.6 76.6 1877.1 73.9

Wheelbase 3568.7 140.5 3700.8 145.7 3670.3 144.5 3550.9 139.8 3644.9 143.5

Front Track 1727.2 68.0 1724.7 67.9 1701.8 67.0 1724.7 67.9 1729.7 68.1

Rear Track 1714.5 67.5 1724.7 67.9 1701.8 67.0 1724.7 67.9 1701.8 67.0

mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2 mm2in2

NHTSA Footprint 6,141,197.4 9518.9 6,382,587.2 9893.0 6,246,116.5 9681.5 6,124,129.7 9492.4 6,253,810.1 9693.4

NHTSA Footprint (ft2)

Shadow (ft2)

Volume (ft3)

Density (lbs./ft3)

Specific Density (unitless)

Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type

Engine Displacement (liters)

Power (horsepower)

Torque (pound-feet)

Power-to-weight-ratio (lb./hp)

IIHS Frontal Offset

1.64

NA V-6

25.1

GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD

22.3 19.4

260

15.9 15.7

235 278 278 385

NA V-8

127.73

66.10 68.70

1.56 1.67

528.44

9.28

512.54 536.67

302 317 195

3.7 4.0 3.7 5.6

210 270

4.3

NA V-6 NA V-6

4904.0

1.62 1.73

NA V-6

4677.0 5250.0 4795.0 4987.0

542.88 530.21

125.11

67.23 65.92

126.90 127.49 124.00

9.13 9.78 8.83 9.41

1500 Tundra F-150 Titan

FULLSIZE TRUCKS

Chevrolet

Silverado

67.32

Ram Toyota Ford Nissan

Figure B.a below shows that the vehicle data collected for this analysis falls within the 

data range collected independently by the IIHS. The data used for this analysis is 

displayed in red while the IIHS’ data is displayed in grey and blue.

Figure B.a: IIHS and Lotus vehicle data, curb weight as a function of shadow
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-1

7.3 Appendix C: 2009 Toyota Venza and Phase 2 HD Piece 

Costs

Table C.a below shows the piece costs of the Toyota Venza per Intellicosting.

Table C.a: Toyota Venza piece costs

Direct ($) Fixed ($) Variable ($) Material ($) Sub Cost ($) SG&A ($) Profit ($) Freight ($) Total Cost ($)

1: BIW - Venza (UniBody)(Phase One) - Welded (No Paint or Sealants)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

2: BIW - Panel - Roof (Item #46)

Material: CRS DQAK

$0.35 $1.13 $1.29 $30.17 $32.94 $1.65 $2.64 $0.68 $37.91

3: BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Rear End Panel Outer Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

4: BIW - BIW - Panel - Rear End, Outer, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

5: BIW - BIW - Panel - Panel - Rear End, Outer (Item #20)

Material: 440

$0.17 $0.66 $0.65 $9.16 $10.63 $0.53 $0.85 $0.21 $12.22

6: BIW - BIW - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Bumper Cover, Lower, Lh (Item #143)

$0.02 $0.04 $0.06 $0.29 $0.42 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.48

7: BIW - BIW - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Bumper Cover, Lower, Rh (Item #143)

$0.02 $0.04 $0.06 $0.29 $0.42 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.48

8: BIW - BIW - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Bumper Cover, Upper, Lh (Item #144)

Material: HR

$0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.19 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

9: BIW - BIW - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Bumper Cover, Upper, Rh (Item #144)

Material: HR

$0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.19 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

10: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-2

11: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Inboard, Lh (Item # 26a)

Material: 270

$0.11 $0.08 $0.22 $1.57 $1.98 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.27

12: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Outboard, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

13: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Outboard, Lh (Item # 26b)

Material: 270

$0.11 $0.08 $0.22 $1.47 $1.88 $0.09 $0.15 $0.03 $2.16

14: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Stud - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.98 $0.98 $0.05 $0.00 $0.00 $1.02

15: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.25 $0.25 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.26

16: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

17: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Inboard, Rh (Item # 26a)

Material: 270

$0.11 $0.08 $0.22 $1.57 $1.98 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.27

18: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Outboard, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

19: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Rear, Outboard, Rh (Item # 26b)

Material: 270

$0.11 $0.08 $0.22 $1.47 $1.88 $0.09 $0.15 $0.03 $2.16

20: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Stud - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.98 $0.98 $0.05 $0.00 $0.00 $1.02

21: BIW - BIW - Panel - Support - Support - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.25 $0.25 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.26

22: BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Roof Bow Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

23: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Front, Assembly
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-3

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

24: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Header, Front, Upper (Item #47)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.09 $0.17 $1.41 $1.75 $0.09 $0.14 $0.03 $2.01

25: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Header, Front, Lower (Item #48)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.10 $0.18 $1.55 $1.91 $0.10 $0.15 $0.04 $2.20

26: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Extension/ Mounting, Header, Front, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

27: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Panel - Extension, Header, Front, Lower, Lh (Item #157)

Material: 270

$0.03 $0.05 $0.07 $0.66 $0.80 $0.04 $0.06 $0.02 $0.92

28: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13 $0.13 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14

29: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Extension/ Mounting, Header, Front, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

30: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Panel - Extension, Header, Front, Lower, Rh (Item #157)

Material: 270

$0.03 $0.05 $0.07 $0.66 $0.80 $0.04 $0.06 $0.02 $0.92

31: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13 $0.13 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14

32: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Bracket - Overhead Console Mounting (Item #171)

Material: HR

$0.08 $0.10 $0.16 $0.57 $0.91 $0.05 $0.07 $0.02 $1.04

33: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Roof, "B" Pillar, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

34: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Bow - Roof, "B" Pillar, Lower (Item #50)

Material: 440

$0.09 $0.12 $0.20 $7.85 $8.26 $0.41 $0.66 $0.18 $9.52

35: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Bow - Roof, "B" Pillar, Upper (Item #51)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.09 $0.17 $2.59 $2.93 $0.15 $0.23 $0.06 $3.38
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-4

36: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Roof, #1 Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

37: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Bow - Roof, #1 (Item #52)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.10 $0.19 $1.20 $1.59 $0.08 $0.13 $0.03 $1.82

38: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13 $0.13 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14

39: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Roof, #2 (Item #53)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.10 $0.19 $0.80 $1.19 $0.06 $0.10 $0.02 $1.36

40: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Roof, #3 (Item #54)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.10 $0.19 $1.77 $2.16 $0.11 $0.17 $0.04 $2.48

41: BIW - BIW - BIW - Bow - Roof, #4 (Item #55)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.10 $0.19 $0.78 $1.16 $0.06 $0.09 $0.02 $1.33

42: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Rear, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

43: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Extension, Header, Center, Lower, Liftgate Opening, Lh (Item #147)

Material: HR

$0.10 $0.37 $0.37 $3.97 $4.81 $0.24 $0.38 $0.09 $5.52

44: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Header, Center, Lower, Liftgate Opening (Item #146)

Material: 270

$0.06 $0.12 $0.15 $1.74 $2.07 $0.10 $0.17 $0.04 $2.38

45: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Extension, Header, Center, Lower, Liftgate Opening, Rh (Item #147)

Material: HR

$0.10 $0.37 $0.37 $3.97 $4.81 $0.24 $0.38 $0.09 $5.52

46: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Header, Rear, Upper, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

47: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Panel - Header, Rear, Upper (Item #49)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.10 $0.19 $2.04 $2.43 $0.12 $0.19 $0.05 $2.79
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-5

48: BIW - BIW - BIW - Header - Panel - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.32 $0.32 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.34

49: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Bodyside Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

50: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

51: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Bodyside, Outer, Lh (Item #27)

Material: HR DQAK

$0.59 $2.20 $2.33 $45.29 $50.41 $2.52 $4.03 $1.03 $58.00

52: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "A" Pillar, Inner, Upper, Lh (Item #28)

Material: 590

$0.09 $0.33 $0.32 $4.76 $5.50 $0.28 $0.44 $0.11 $6.32

53: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - "A" Pillar, Lh (Item #30)

Material: 270 CRS DQ

$0.12 $0.54 $0.51 $20.06 $21.23 $1.06 $1.70 $0.46 $24.45

54: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "B" Pillar, Inner, Lh (Item #31)

Material: 270

$0.13 $0.65 $0.59 $10.17 $11.54 $0.58 $0.92 $0.23 $13.27

55: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - "B" Pillar, Lh (Item #32)

Material: 440

$0.20 $0.38 $0.56 $13.91 $15.06 $0.75 $1.20 $0.32 $17.34

56: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Hinge Mounting, Rear Door, Lh (Item #33)(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

57: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Striker, Front Door, Lh (Item #34)(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

58: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "C" Pillar, Inner, Upper, Lh (Item #35)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.34 $0.33 $1.82 $2.57 $0.13 $0.21 $0.04 $2.95

59: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Striker, Rear Door, Lh (Item #37)(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

60: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Quarter, Upper, Inner, Lh (Item #40)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-6

Material: HR

$0.10 $0.34 $0.34 $3.01 $3.79 $0.19 $0.30 $0.07 $4.35

61: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Inner, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

62: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Inner, Lh (Item #41)

Material: 270

$0.17 $0.46 $0.53 $12.20 $13.36 $0.67 $1.07 $0.28 $15.38

63: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Shock Tower, Upper, Lh (Item #18)

Material: 440

$0.09 $0.09 $0.20 $3.22 $3.60 $0.18 $0.29 $0.07 $4.14

64: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Reinforcement - Shock Tower, Rear, Upper, Lh (Item #44)

Material: 270

$0.04 $0.06 $0.09 $2.33 $2.53 $0.13 $0.20 $0.05 $2.91

65: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Outer, Lh (Item #42)

Material: HR DQAK

$0.23 $0.39 $0.58 $12.80 $14.00 $0.70 $1.12 $0.29 $16.11

66: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Front, Closeout, Lh (Item #43)

Material: HR

$0.04 $0.05 $0.08 $0.44 $0.61 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.70

67: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Roof Rail, Inner, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

68: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Panel - Roof Rail, Inner, Lh (Item #56)

Material: 440

$0.10 $0.36 $0.36 $7.55 $8.38 $0.42 $0.67 $0.17 $9.64

69: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Grab Handle (4 reqd.)(Sm. Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

70: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Nut - Hex, Projection Weld (8 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.60 $0.60 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.63

71: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Nut - Sq., Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.18 $0.18 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.19

72: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Roof Rail, Lh (Item #45)

Material: 440
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-7

$0.11 $0.37 $0.37 $11.58 $12.42 $0.62 $0.99 $0.26 $14.30

73: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Housing - Lamp, Rear, Lh (Item #38)

Material: HR

$0.10 $0.34 $0.34 $1.09 $1.86 $0.09 $0.15 $0.02 $2.13

74: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Closeout, Rear Wheelhouse, Lower, Rear, Lh (Item #138)

Material: HR

$0.03 $0.03 $0.06 $0.19 $0.31 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.36

75: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Bracket - Side Exhaust Hanger (Item #139)

Material: HR

$0.03 $0.05 $0.08 $0.32 $0.49 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.56

76: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Closeout, Sill Outer, Front, Lh (Item #140)

Material: HR

$0.08 $0.05 $0.16 $0.50 $0.80 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.91

77: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Sill, Outer, Lh (Item #141)

Material: 270

$0.12 $0.39 $0.41 $6.59 $7.51 $0.38 $0.60 $0.15 $8.64

78: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Closeout, Sill, Outer, Rear, Lh (Item #142)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.32 $0.30 $3.23 $3.92 $0.20 $0.31 $0.09 $4.52

79: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "D" Pillar, Inner, Upper, Lh (Item #148)

Material: 270

$0.10 $0.37 $0.37 $2.98 $3.82 $0.19 $0.31 $0.07 $4.38

80: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "D" Pillar, Inner, Lower, Lh (Item #149)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.36 $0.34 $2.18 $2.96 $0.15 $0.24 $0.05 $3.40

81: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Bracket - Trim Attach, Rear Compartment, Lh (Item #150)

Material: HR

$0.03 $0.06 $0.07 $0.52 $0.67 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.77

82: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Rear Wheelhouse, Inner, Front, Lh (Item #153)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.16 $0.24 $1.60 $2.10 $0.10 $0.17 $0.04 $2.40

83: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "C" Pillar, Inner, Mid, Lh (Item #154)

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.05 $0.13 $0.77 $1.02 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.17

84: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Transition, "A" Pillar Inner Lower to "A" Pillar Inner Upper, Lh (Item #158)

Material: 270
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-8

$0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.35 $0.46 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.53

85: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Bracket - Reinforcement, "A" Pillar, Lower, Lh (Item #159)

Material: 270

$0.05 $0.09 $0.12 $0.88 $1.13 $0.06 $0.09 $0.02 $1.30

86: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Trough, Outer, Upper, Liftgate, Lh (Item #172)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.16 $0.23 $1.68 $2.17 $0.11 $0.17 $0.04 $2.49

87: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Trough, Outer, Lower, Liftgate, Lh (Item #173)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.13 $0.18 $0.98 $1.36 $0.07 $0.11 $0.02 $1.56

88: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

89: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Bodyside, Outer, Rh (Item #27)

Material: HR DQAK

$0.59 $2.20 $2.33 $45.29 $50.41 $2.52 $4.03 $1.03 $58.00

90: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "A" Pillar, Inner, Upper, Rh (Item #28)

Material: 590

$0.09 $0.33 $0.32 $4.76 $5.50 $0.28 $0.44 $0.11 $6.32

91: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - "A" Pillar, Rh (Item #30)

Material: 270 CRS DQ

$0.12 $0.54 $0.51 $20.06 $21.23 $1.06 $1.70 $0.46 $24.45

92: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "B" Pillar, Inner, Rh (Item #31)

Material: 270

$0.13 $0.65 $0.59 $10.17 $11.54 $0.58 $0.92 $0.23 $13.27

93: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - "B" Pillar, Rh (Item #32)

Material: 440

$0.20 $0.38 $0.56 $13.91 $15.06 $0.75 $1.20 $0.32 $17.34

94: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Hinge Mounting, Rear Door, Rh (Item #33)(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

95: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Striker, Front Door, Rh (Item #34)(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

96: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "C" Pillar, Inner, Upper, Rh (Item #35)

Material: HR
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-9

$0.09 $0.34 $0.33 $1.82 $2.57 $0.13 $0.21 $0.04 $2.95

97: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Striker, Rear Door, Rh (Item #37)(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

98: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Quarter, Upper, Inner, Rh (Item #40)

Material: HR

$0.10 $0.34 $0.34 $3.01 $3.79 $0.19 $0.30 $0.07 $4.35

99: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Inner, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

100: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Inner, Rh (Item #41)

Material: 270

$0.17 $0.46 $0.53 $12.20 $13.36 $0.67 $1.07 $0.28 $15.38

101: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Shock Tower, Upper, Rh (Item #18)

Material: 440

$0.09 $0.09 $0.20 $3.22 $3.60 $0.18 $0.29 $0.07 $4.14

102: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Reinforcement - Shock Tower, Rear, Upper, Rh (Item #44)

Material: 270

$0.04 $0.06 $0.09 $2.33 $2.53 $0.13 $0.20 $0.05 $2.91

103: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Outer, Rh (Item #42)

Material: HR DQAK

$0.23 $0.39 $0.58 $12.80 $14.00 $0.70 $1.12 $0.29 $16.11

104: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Rear Wheelhouse, Front, Closeout, Rh (Item #43)

Material: HR

$0.04 $0.05 $0.08 $0.44 $0.61 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.70

105: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Roof Rail, Inner, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

106: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Panel - Roof Rail, Inner, Rh (Item #56)

Material: 440

$0.10 $0.36 $0.36 $7.55 $8.38 $0.42 $0.67 $0.17 $9.64

107: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Bracket - Mounting, Grab Handle (4 reqd.)(In Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

108: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Nut - Hex, Projection Weld (8 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.60 $0.60 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.63
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-10

109: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Nut - Sq., Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.18 $0.18 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.19

110: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Roof Rail, Rh (Item #45)

Material: 440

$0.11 $0.37 $0.37 $11.58 $12.42 $0.62 $0.99 $0.26 $14.30

111: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Housing - Lamp, Rear, Rh (Item #38)

Material: HR

$0.10 $0.34 $0.34 $1.09 $1.86 $0.09 $0.15 $0.02 $2.13

112: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Closeout, Rear Wheelhouse, Lower, Rear, Rh (Item #138)

Material: HR

$0.03 $0.03 $0.06 $0.19 $0.31 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.36

113: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Closeout, Sill Outer, Front, Rh (Item #140)

Material: HR

$0.08 $0.05 $0.16 $0.50 $0.80 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.91

114: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Sill, Outer, Rh (Item #141)

Material: 270

$0.12 $0.39 $0.41 $6.59 $7.51 $0.38 $0.60 $0.15 $8.64

115: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Closeout, Sill, Outer, Rear, Rh (Item #142)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.32 $0.30 $3.23 $3.92 $0.20 $0.31 $0.09 $4.52

116: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "D" Pillar, Inner, Upper, Rh (Item #148)

Material: 270

$0.10 $0.37 $0.37 $2.98 $3.82 $0.19 $0.31 $0.07 $4.38

117: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "D" Pillar, Inner, Lower, Rh (Item #149)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.36 $0.34 $2.18 $2.96 $0.15 $0.24 $0.05 $3.40

118: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Bracket - Trim Attach, Rear Compartment, Rh (Item #150)

Material: HR

$0.03 $0.06 $0.07 $0.52 $0.67 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.77

119: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Reinforcement - Rear Wheelhouse, Inner, Front, Rh (Item #153)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.16 $0.24 $1.60 $2.10 $0.10 $0.17 $0.04 $2.40

120: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - "C" Pillar, Inner, Mid, Rh (Item #154)

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.05 $0.13 $0.77 $1.02 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.17
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-11

121: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Transition, "A" Pillar Inner Lower to "A" Pillar Inner Upper, Rh (Item #158)

Material: 270

$0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.35 $0.46 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.53

122: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Bracket - Reinforcement, "A" Pillar, Lower, Rh (Item #159)

Material: 270

$0.05 $0.09 $0.12 $0.88 $1.13 $0.06 $0.09 $0.02 $1.30

123: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Trough, Outer, Upper, Liftgate, Rh (Item #172)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.16 $0.23 $1.68 $2.17 $0.11 $0.17 $0.04 $2.49

124: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Bodyside - Panel - Trough, Outer, Lower, Liftgate, Rh (Item #173)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.13 $0.18 $0.98 $1.36 $0.07 $0.11 $0.02 $1.56

125: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru "A" Pillar Lower Closure Inner Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

126: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - "A" Pillar, Inner, Lower, Lh (Item #29)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.37 $0.35 $3.76 $4.57 $0.23 $0.37 $0.09 $5.25

127: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - "A" Pillar, Inner, Lower, Rh (Item #29)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.37 $0.35 $3.76 $4.57 $0.23 $0.37 $0.09 $5.25

128: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Rear End Panel Inner Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

129: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Rear End, Inner, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

130: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Panel - Rear End, Inner (Item #21)

Material: 270

$0.16 $0.65 $0.63 $4.45 $5.90 $0.29 $0.47 $0.10 $6.76

131: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Bracket - Reinforcement, ? (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

132: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Upper Floor Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-12

133: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Reinforcement, Rear Rail, Upper, Lh (Item #145)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.15 $0.20 $2.64 $3.06 $0.15 $0.24 $0.06 $3.52

134: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Reinforcement, Rear Rail, Upper, Rh (Item #145)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.15 $0.20 $2.64 $3.06 $0.15 $0.24 $0.06 $3.52

135: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Extension, Crossmember, Front, Rear Compartment, Lh (Item #151)

Material: 270

$0.06 $0.05 $0.13 $1.72 $1.96 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.25

136: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Extension, Crossmember, Front, Rear Compartment, Rh (Item #151)

Material: 270

$0.06 $0.05 $0.13 $1.72 $1.96 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.25

137: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Reinforcement - Crossmember, Front, Rear Compartment, Lh (Item #152)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.51 $0.60 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.69

138: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Reinforcement - Crossmember, Front, Rear Compartment, Rh (Item #152)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.51 $0.60 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.69

139: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Reinforcement, Rail, Front, Upper, Lh (Item #160)

Material: 270

$0.05 $0.07 $0.10 $2.39 $2.60 $0.13 $0.21 $0.06 $3.00

140: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Extension, Front Seat Front Crossmember to Sill Inner, Lh (Item #161)

Material: 270

$0.03 $0.05 $0.07 $0.85 $0.99 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.14

141: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Extension, Front Seat Front Crossmember to Sill Inner, Rh (Item #161)

Material: 270

$0.03 $0.05 $0.07 $0.85 $0.99 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.14

142: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Reinforcement - Tunnel, at Front Seat Rear Crossmembers (Item #163)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.12 $0.19 $1.58 $1.98 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.27

143: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Extension, Front Floor Pan, Rear (Item #175)

Material: HR

$0.18 $0.65 $0.68 $6.97 $8.48 $0.42 $0.68 $0.16 $9.74

144: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Extension, Reinforcement, Rail, Front, Upper, Front, Lh (Item #176)

Material: 270

$0.05 $0.07 $0.10 $1.09 $1.31 $0.07 $0.10 $0.03 $1.50
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-13

145: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Reinforcement - Tunnel, Center, Upper, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

146: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Tunnel, Center, Upper (2 pc. Laser Welded 

Blank)(Item #7)

Material: 270

$0.24 $0.68 $0.83 $10.63 $12.37 $0.62 $0.99 $0.24 $14.22

147: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Reinforcement - Bracket - Front, Spacer (Sm. Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

148: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Front, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

149: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Front, Lh (Item #8)

Material: 270

$0.10 $0.27 $0.32 $2.88 $3.57 $0.18 $0.29 $0.08 $4.11

150: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Nut - Flgd. Hd. Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.12 $0.12 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13

151: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.18 $0.18 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.19

152: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - ? Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

153: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - ? (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

154: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - Nut - Flgd. Hd. Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

155: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Front, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

156: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Front, Rh (Item #8)

Material: 270

$0.10 $0.27 $0.32 $2.88 $3.57 $0.18 $0.29 $0.08 $4.11
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-14

157: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Nut - Flgd. Hd. Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.12 $0.12 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13

158: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.18 $0.18 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.19

159: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - ? Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

160: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - ? (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

161: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - Nut - Flgd. Hd. Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

162: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Rear, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

163: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Rear, Lh (Item #9)

Material: 590

$0.06 $0.08 $0.13 $4.93 $5.21 $0.26 $0.42 $0.11 $6.00

164: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Nut - Flgd. Hd. Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09 $0.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09

165: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Extension - Front Seat Rear Crossmember to Sill Inner, Lh, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

166: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Extension - Panel - Extension, Front Seat Rear Crossmember to 

Sill Inner, Lh (Item #162)

Material: 590

$0.05 $0.07 $0.11 $1.79 $2.03 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.33

167: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Extension - Nut - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.27 $0.27 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.28

168: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Rear, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-15

169: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Crossmember - Front, Seat, Rear, Rh (Item #9)

Material: 590

$0.06 $0.08 $0.13 $4.93 $5.21 $0.26 $0.42 $0.11 $6.00

170: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Nut - Flgd. Hd. Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09 $0.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09

171: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Extension - Front Seat Rear Crossmember to Sill Inner, Rh, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

172: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Extension - Panel - Extension, Front Seat Rear Crossmember to 

Sill Inner, Rh (Item #162)

Material: 590

$0.05 $0.07 $0.11 $1.79 $2.03 $0.10 $0.16 $0.04 $2.33

173: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Extension - Nut - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.27 $0.27 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.28

174: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Rear, Seat, Center, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

175: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Crossmember - Rear, Seat, Center (Item #10)

Material: 270

$0.15 $0.63 $0.61 $9.92 $11.32 $0.57 $0.91 $0.25 $13.04

176: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - Crossmember, Rear, Seat, Center, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

177: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Crossmember, Rear, Seat, 

Center (Item #174)

Material: 270

$0.19 $1.39 $1.15 $12.27 $15.00 $0.75 $1.20 $0.28 $17.23

178: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Front, Rear Compartment, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

179: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Crossmember - Front, Rear Compartment (Item #16)

Material: 270

$0.15 $0.63 $0.61 $7.23 $8.62 $0.43 $0.69 $0.19 $9.93

180: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Bracket - Nut Mounting (1 Nut) Assembly
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-16

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

181: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Bracket - Bracket - Nut Mounting (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

182: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Bracket - Nut - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

183: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Bracket - Nut Mounting (2 Nut) Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

184: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Bracket - Bracket - Nut Mounting (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

185: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Crossmember - Bracket - Nut - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

186: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Closeout, Rear Compartment, Side, Inner, Lh (Item #17)

Material: HR

$0.20 $0.11 $0.38 $1.23 $1.91 $0.10 $0.15 $0.03 $2.19

187: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Panel - Closeout, Rear Compartment, Side, Inner, Rh (Item #17)

Material: HR

$0.20 $0.11 $0.38 $1.23 $1.91 $0.10 $0.15 $0.03 $2.19

188: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Dash Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

189: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

190: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Panel - Dash (Item #57)

Material: Quiet Steel

$0.33 $0.57 $0.83 $41.04 $42.77 $2.14 $3.42 $0.93 $49.26

191: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash, Upper (Item #58)

Material: CRS

$0.17 $0.70 $0.68 $3.18 $4.73 $0.24 $0.38 $0.07 $5.42

192: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash, Steering Column, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-17

193: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Dash, Steering Column (Item #59)

Material: HR

$0.08 $0.14 $0.22 $1.34 $1.79 $0.09 $0.14 $0.04 $2.06

194: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.20 $0.20 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.21

195: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash, Brake, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

196: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Dash, Brake (Item #61)

Material: CRS

$0.10 $0.05 $0.20 $0.49 $0.84 $0.04 $0.07 $0.01 $0.96

197: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.15 $0.15 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.16

198: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Bracket - Mounting, Wiper Motor (Item #122)

Material: CRS

$0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.31 $0.42 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.48

199: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Bracket - Reinforcement, Wind Shield, Center, Lower (Item #123)

Material: CRS

$0.02 $0.04 $0.06 $0.13 $0.25 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.29

200: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Panel - Mounting, Plenum (Item #124)

Material: CRS

$0.06 $0.07 $0.12 $0.78 $1.03 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.18

201: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Panel - Wind Shield, Lower (Item #125)

Material: CRS

$0.07 $0.16 $0.20 $1.38 $1.81 $0.09 $0.14 $0.04 $2.08

202: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash Panel Tunnel, Lower (Item #164)

Material: 270

$0.14 $0.10 $0.28 $1.49 $2.02 $0.10 $0.16 $0.03 $2.31

203: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash Panel, Center (Item #165)

Material: CRS

$0.14 $0.10 $0.28 $1.48 $2.01 $0.10 $0.16 $0.03 $2.30

204: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash Panel, Upper, Lh (Item #166)

Material: CRS DQ

$0.10 $0.46 $0.43 $3.86 $4.84 $0.24 $0.39 $0.11 $5.58
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-18

205: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash Panel, Wiper Motor (Item #167)

Material: CRS

$0.02 $0.05 $0.07 $0.17 $0.31 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.36

206: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Dash - Reinforcement - Dash Panel, Rh (Item #170)

Material: CRS

$0.14 $0.10 $0.28 $0.82 $1.35 $0.07 $0.11 $0.02 $1.54

207: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Assembly Thru Front Module Weld Station

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

209: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Center (Item #100)

Material: CRS

$0.04 $0.07 $0.10 $0.52 $0.73 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.84

210: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Upper Radiator Support, Inner, Lh (Item #101)

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.07 $0.14 $0.88 $1.15 $0.06 $0.09 $0.02 $1.32

211: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Upper Radiator Support, Inner, Rh (Item #101)

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.07 $0.14 $0.88 $1.15 $0.06 $0.09 $0.02 $1.32

212: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Radiator Support/Headlamp, Inner, Upper, Lh (Item 

#102)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.13 $0.18 $0.44 $0.81 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.93

213: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Radiator Support/Headlamp, Inner, Upper, Rh (Item 

#102)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.13 $0.18 $0.44 $0.81 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.93

214: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Upper Radiator Support, Inner, Front, 

Lower, Lh (Item #103)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.17 $0.25 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.29

215: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Upper Radiator Support, Inner, Front, 

Lower, Rh (Item #103)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.17 $0.25 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.29

216: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Upper Radiator Support, Inner, Front, 

Upper, Lh (Item #104)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.17 $0.26 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.30
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-19

217: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Upper Radiator Support, Inner, Front, 

Upper, Rh (Item #104)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.17 $0.26 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.30

218: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Headlamp, Lower, Lh (Item #105)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.06 $0.12 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.14

219: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Headlamp, Lower, Rh (Item #105)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.06 $0.12 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.14

220: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Front, Inner, Lower, Lh (Item 

#106)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.19 $0.27 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.31

221: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Front, Inner, Lower, Rh (Item 

#106)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.19 $0.27 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.31

222: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Front, Outer, Lower, Lh (Item 

#107)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.21 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

223: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Front, Outer, Lower, Rh (Item 

#107)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.21 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

224: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Front, Inner, Upper, Lh (Item 

#108)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.22 $0.29 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.33

225: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Front, Inner, Upper, Rh (Item 

#108)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.22 $0.29 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.33

226: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Lower, Lh (Item #109)

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.08 $0.13 $0.50 $0.78 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.89

227: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Lower, Rh (Item #109)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-20

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.08 $0.13 $0.50 $0.78 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.89

228: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Outer, Lh (Item #110)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.22 $0.29 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.33

229: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fascia, Outer, Rh (Item #110)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.22 $0.29 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.33

230: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Brace, Front Wheelhouse, Lh (Item #111)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.06 $0.15 $0.91 $1.21 $0.06 $0.10 $0.02 $1.38

231: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Brace, Front Wheelhouse, Rh (Item #111)

Material: 270

$0.08 $0.06 $0.15 $0.91 $1.21 $0.06 $0.10 $0.02 $1.38

232: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Cradle, Front, Outer, Lh (Item #112)

Material: 590

$0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $1.29 $1.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.61

233: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Cradle, Front, Outer, Rh (Item #112)

Material: 590

$0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $1.29 $1.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.61

234: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Cradle, Front, Inner, Lh (Item #113)

Material: 590

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $1.32 $1.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.62

235: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Cradle, Front, Inner, Rh (Item #113)

Material: 590

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $1.32 $1.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.62

236: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Outer, Lh (Item #114)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.05 $0.17 $0.17 $0.49 $0.02 $0.04 $0.00 $0.56

237: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Outer, Rh (Item #114)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.05 $0.17 $0.17 $0.49 $0.02 $0.04 $0.00 $0.56

238: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Battery Tray (Item #115)

Material: HR
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-21

$0.14 $0.10 $0.28 $1.37 $1.90 $0.09 $0.15 $0.03 $2.17

239: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Resevoir, Upper (Item #116)

Material: HR

$0.14 $0.10 $0.28 $1.27 $1.79 $0.09 $0.14 $0.03 $2.05

240: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Resevoir, Lower (Item #117)

Material: HR

$0.11 $0.07 $0.23 $0.84 $1.25 $0.06 $0.10 $0.02 $1.44

241: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Shotgun, Upper/Inner, (To "A" Pillar), Lh (Item #118)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.23 $0.23 $0.97 $1.49 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.72

242: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Shotgun, Upper/Inner, (To "A" Pillar), Rh (Item #118)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.23 $0.23 $0.97 $1.49 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.72

243: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Cowl, Lh (Item #119)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.34 $0.41 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.47

244: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Cowl, Rh (Item #119)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.34 $0.41 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.47

245: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Transition, "A" Pillar to Shotgun, Lh (Item #120)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.21 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

246: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Transition, "A" Pillar to Shotgun, Rh (Item #120)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.21 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

247: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Plenum, Outer, Lh (Item #121)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.05 $0.13 $0.25 $0.50 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.57

248: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Plenum, Outer, Rh (Item #121)

Material: HR

$0.07 $0.05 $0.13 $0.25 $0.50 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.57

249: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Crush Rail, Front, Outer, Lh (Item #177)

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.41 $0.38 $5.19 $6.07 $0.30 $0.49 $0.13 $6.99

250: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Crush Rail, Front, Outer, Rh (Item #177)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-22

Material: 270

$0.09 $0.41 $0.38 $5.19 $6.07 $0.30 $0.49 $0.13 $6.99

251: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Front, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

252: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Front, Lh (Item # 24)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.15 $0.09 $0.29 $2.10 $2.63 $0.13 $0.21 $0.05 $3.02

253: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.17 $0.17 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.17

254: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Nut - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.27 $0.27 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.28

255: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Front, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

256: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Support - Crash, Low Speed, Front, Rh (Item # 

24)

Material: 270

$0.15 $0.09 $0.29 $2.10 $2.63 $0.13 $0.21 $0.05 $3.02

257: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.17 $0.17 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.17

258: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Support - Nut - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.27 $0.27 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.28

259: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shotgun - Outer, Rear, Lh (Item #62)

Material: 270

$0.05 $0.08 $0.11 $1.24 $1.48 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.70

260: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shotgun - Outer, Rear, Rh (Item #62)

Material: 270

$0.05 $0.08 $0.11 $1.24 $1.48 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.70

261: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shotgun - Outer, Lh (Item #63)

Material: 270

$0.10 $0.24 $0.29 $0.97 $1.61 $0.08 $0.13 $0.02 $1.84

262: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shotgun - Outer, Rh (Item #63)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-23

Material: 270

$0.10 $0.24 $0.29 $0.97 $1.61 $0.08 $0.13 $0.02 $1.84

263: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Front, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

264: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Wheel House - Front, Lh (Item #64)

Material: 270 DQ

$0.19 $0.11 $0.36 $2.08 $2.75 $0.14 $0.22 $0.05 $3.15

265: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Nut - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.08 $0.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.08

266: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Front, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

267: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Wheel House - Front, Rh (Item #64)

Material: 270 DQ

$0.19 $0.11 $0.36 $2.08 $2.75 $0.14 $0.22 $0.05 $3.15

268: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Stud - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.54 $0.54 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.57

269: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Wheel House - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.15 $0.15 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.16

270: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shock Tower - Front, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

271: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shock Tower - Shock Tower - Front, Lh (Item #66)

Material: HR

$0.12 $0.43 $0.44 $4.80 $5.79 $0.29 $0.46 $0.11 $6.65

272: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shock Tower - Nut - Projection Weld (5 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.38 $0.38 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.39

273: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shock Tower - Front, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

274: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shock Tower - Shock Tower - Front, Rh (Item #66)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-24

Material: HR

$0.12 $0.43 $0.44 $4.80 $5.79 $0.29 $0.46 $0.11 $6.65

275: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Shock Tower - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.15 $0.15 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.16

276: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Upper, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

277: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Upper, Lh 

(Item #67)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.16 $0.24 $0.84 $1.33 $0.07 $0.11 $0.02 $1.52

278: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.12 $0.12 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13

279: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Upper, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

280: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Headlamp, Upper, Rh 

(Item #67)

Material: HR

$0.09 $0.16 $0.24 $0.76 $1.24 $0.06 $0.10 $0.02 $1.42

281: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Nut - Projection Weld (3 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.18 $0.18 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.19

282: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Front Shock Upper, Lh (Item #68)

Material: 440

$0.09 $0.08 $0.18 $2.54 $2.90 $0.14 $0.23 $0.06 $3.33

283: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Front Shock Upper, Rh (Item #68)

Material: 440

$0.09 $0.08 $0.18 $2.54 $2.90 $0.14 $0.23 $0.06 $3.33

284: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Crush, Front, Inner, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

285: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Rail - Crush, Front, Inner, Lh (Item #69)(3 pc. Laser 

welded blank)

Material: 440
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-25

$0.25 $0.45 $0.72 $10.96 $12.38 $0.62 $0.99 $0.25 $14.24

286: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Reinforcement - ?(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

287: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Nut - Projection Weld (Qty. ?)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

288: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Crush, Front, Inner, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

289: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Rail - Crush, Front, Inner, Rh (Item #69)(3 pc. Laser 

welded blank)

Material: 440

$0.25 $0.45 $0.72 $10.96 $12.38 $0.62 $0.99 $0.25 $14.24

290: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Reinforcement - ?(Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

291: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Nut - Projection Weld (Qty. ?)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

292: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Crush, Front, Outer, Front, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

293: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Rail - Crush, Front, Outer, Front, Lh (Item #70)

Material: HR

$0.03 $0.04 $0.06 $0.72 $0.85 $0.04 $0.07 $0.02 $0.98

294: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Reinforcement - (Sm. Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

295: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Nut - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.07

296: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Crush, Front, Outer, Front, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

297: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Rail - Crush, Front, Outer, Front, Rh (Item #70)

Material: HR
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-26

$0.03 $0.04 $0.06 $0.72 $0.85 $0.04 $0.07 $0.02 $0.98

298: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Reinforcement - (Sm. Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

299: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Rail - Nut - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.07

300: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Upper Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

301: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Upper (Item #71)

Material: HR

$0.08 $0.09 $0.17 $3.50 $3.84 $0.19 $0.31 $0.08 $4.42

302: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.32 $0.32 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.34

303: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.15 $0.15 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.16

304: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Lower, Lh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

305: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Lower, Lh (Item 

#72)

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.23 $0.22 $0.90 $1.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.61

306: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14 $0.14 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14

307: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.12 $0.12 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13

308: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Lower, Rh Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

309: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Lower Radiator Support, Lower, Rh (Item 

#72)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-27

Material: HR

$0.06 $0.23 $0.22 $0.90 $1.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.61

310: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14 $0.14 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14

311: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.12 $0.12 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13

312: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Floor (Base) Structure, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

313: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Rail, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

314: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Rail, Front, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

315: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Member - Rail, Front, Lh (Item #1)

Material: 270

$0.17 $0.36 $0.51 $11.87 $12.91 $0.65 $1.03 $0.27 $14.86

316: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Reinforcement - Rail, Front, Lh, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

317: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Rail, 

Front, Lh (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

318: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Reinforcement - Nut - Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

319: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Rail, Mid, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

320: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Member - Rail, Mid, Lh (Item #128)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.14 $0.17 $3.10 $3.48 $0.17 $0.28 $0.07 $4.01
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-28

321: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.58 $0.58 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.61

322: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Rail, Rear Cap, Lh (Item #129)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.06 $0.04 $0.12 $0.69 $0.91 $0.05 $0.07 $0.02 $1.04

323: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Rail, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

324: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Rail, Front, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

325: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Member - Rail, Front, Rh (Item #1)

Material: 270

$0.17 $0.36 $0.51 $11.87 $12.91 $0.65 $1.03 $0.27 $14.86

326: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Reinforcement - Rail, Front, Rh, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

327: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Reinforcement - Reinforcement - Rail, 

Front, Rh (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

328: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Reinforcement - Nut - Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

329: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Rail, Mid, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

330: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Member - Rail, Mid, Rh (Item #128)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.14 $0.17 $3.10 $3.48 $0.17 $0.28 $0.07 $4.01

331: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.58 $0.58 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.61

332: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Member - Rail, Rear Cap, Rh (Item #129)

Material: 270 DDQ
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-29

$0.06 $0.04 $0.12 $0.69 $0.91 $0.05 $0.07 $0.02 $1.04

333: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Toeboard/Kickup, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

334: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Kickup, Front, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

335: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Member - Kickup, Front, Lh (Item 

#2)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.17 $0.14 $0.35 $3.03 $3.69 $0.18 $0.30 $0.07 $4.24

336: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Bracket - Reinforcement, Kickup, 

Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

337: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Bracket - Bracket -

Reinforcement, Kickup, Lh (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

338: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Toeboard, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

339: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Crossmember - Toeboard, 

Lh (Item #6)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.08 $0.16 $0.23 $2.03 $2.49 $0.12 $0.20 $0.05 $2.86

340: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.20 $0.20 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.21

341: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Toeboard, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

342: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Crossmember - Toeboard, 

Rh (Item #6)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.08 $0.16 $0.23 $2.59 $3.05 $0.15 $0.24 $0.06 $3.50

343: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Stud - Projection Weld (2 

reqd.)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-30

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.40 $0.40 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.42

344: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Kickup, Front, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

345: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Member - Kickup, Front, Rh (Item 

#2)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.17 $0.14 $0.35 $2.27 $2.94 $0.15 $0.23 $0.05 $3.37

346: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Bracket - Reinforcement, Kickup, 

Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

347: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Member - Bracket - Bracket -

Reinforcement, Kickup, Rh (Hidden)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

348: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Sill, Side, Inner, Lh (Item #3)

Material: 270

$0.13 $0.38 $0.42 $6.84 $7.77 $0.39 $0.62 $0.16 $8.94

349: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Sill, Side, Inner, Rh (Item #3)

Material: 270

$0.13 $0.38 $0.42 $6.84 $7.77 $0.39 $0.62 $0.16 $8.94

351: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Extension - Rail to Sill Front, Lh (Item #4)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.12 $0.11 $0.25 $4.63 $5.11 $0.26 $0.41 $0.10 $5.88

352: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - Reinforcement, Tow Hook, Lh, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

353: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - Bracket - Reinforcement, Tow Hook, 

Lh (Sm. Part Batch) 

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

354: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

355: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - ?, Lh (Sm. Part Batch) 

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-31

357: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Extension - Rail to Sill Front, Rh (Item #4)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.12 $0.11 $0.25 $4.63 $5.11 $0.26 $0.41 $0.10 $5.88

358: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - Reinforcement, Tow Hook, Rh, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

359: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - Bracket - Reinforcement, Tow Hook, 

Rh (Sm. Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

360: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - Stud - Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

361: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Bracket - ?, Rh (Sm. Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

362: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Rear Torquebox, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

363: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Crossmember - Rear Torquebox (Item #11)

Material: 270

$0.16 $0.65 $0.62 $6.14 $7.57 $0.38 $0.61 $0.14 $8.69

364: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Nut - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.13 $0.13 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.14

365: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Crossmember - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.31 $0.31 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33

366: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Floor, Front (Item #12)

Material: CRS DQAK

$0.28 $0.60 $0.75 $17.96 $19.59 $0.98 $1.57 $0.41 $22.54

367: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Floor, Mid (Rear Seat), Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

368: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Floor, Mid (Rear Seat) (Item #13)

Material: HRS DQAK
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-32

$0.23 $0.39 $0.56 $10.46 $11.63 $0.58 $0.93 $0.24 $13.38

369: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.31 $0.31 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33

370: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Bracket - Anchor, Seat Belt, Rear, Lh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

371: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Bracket - Bracket - Anchor, Seat Belt, Rear, Lh (Item 

#155)

Material: 270

$0.02 $0.06 $0.07 $0.70 $0.84 $0.04 $0.07 $0.02 $0.97

372: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Bracket - Nut - Square, Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09 $0.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09

373: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Bracket - Anchor, Seat Belt, Rear, Rh, Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

374: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Bracket - Bracket - Anchor, Seat Belt, Rear, Rh (Item 

#156)

Material: 270

$0.02 $0.05 $0.06 $0.41 $0.54 $0.03 $0.04 $0.01 $0.62

375: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Bracket - Nut - Square, Projection Weld

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09 $0.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.09

376: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Reinforcement, Rear Seat Mounting, 

Assembly

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

377: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Panel - Reinforcement, Rear Seat Panel 

(Item #133)

Material: HRS

$0.05 $0.22 $0.23 $3.20 $3.70 $0.19 $0.30 $0.08 $4.26

378: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Nut - Closed End, Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.25 $0.25 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.26

379: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33 $0.33 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.35
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-33

380: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Bracket - Underbody Mounting Stud, 

Assembly (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

381: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Bracket - Bracket - Underbody Mounting 

Stud (Sm.Part Batch)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

382: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Panel - Bracket - Stud - Projection Weld (2 reqd.)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

383: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Extension, Sill, Side, Inner, Front, Lh (Item #168)

Material: 270

$0.03 $0.07 $0.08 $1.28 $1.45 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.67

384: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Extension, Sill, Side, Inner, Front, Rh (Item #168)

Material: 270

$0.03 $0.07 $0.08 $1.28 $1.45 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.67

385: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Sill, Side, Rear, Lh (Item #14)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.28 $0.28 $5.09 $5.72 $0.29 $0.46 $0.12 $6.57

386: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Extension - Sill, Side, Rear, Rh (Item #14)

Material: 270

$0.07 $0.28 $0.28 $5.09 $5.72 $0.29 $0.46 $0.12 $6.57

387: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Rail, Rear, Lh (Item #15)

Material: 270

$0.06 $0.28 $0.26 $3.27 $3.87 $0.19 $0.31 $0.07 $4.45

388: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Rail, Rear, Rh (Item #15)

Material: 270

$0.06 $0.28 $0.26 $3.27 $3.87 $0.19 $0.31 $0.07 $4.45

389: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Floor, Rear Compartment (Trunk) (Item #19)

Material: CRS DQAK

$0.19 $0.32 $0.47 $12.72 $13.69 $0.68 $1.10 $0.29 $15.76

390: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Reinforcement - Tunnel, Front Seat, Front Crossmember 

(Item #126)

Material: 270 DDQ

$0.13 $0.29 $0.38 $4.44 $5.24 $0.26 $0.42 $0.10 $6.03

391: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Panel - Mounting, 4 Wheel Drive Shifter (Item #127)
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-34

Material: CRS DQAK

$0.12 $0.29 $0.37 $5.21 $5.99 $0.30 $0.48 $0.13 $6.89

392: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fuel Tank, Lh (Item #130)

Material: 270

$0.14 $0.08 $0.27 $1.47 $1.96 $0.10 $0.16 $0.03 $2.24

393: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Fuel Tank, Rh (Item #130)

Material: 270

$0.14 $0.08 $0.27 $1.80 $2.29 $0.11 $0.18 $0.04 $2.62

394: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Support, Sill to Front Floor Rear, Lh (Item #131)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.59 $0.68 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.78

395: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Support, Sill to Front Floor Rear, Rh (Item #131)

Material: 270

$0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.59 $0.68 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.78

396: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Jounce, Rear, Lh (Item #132)

Material: 440

$0.05 $0.13 $0.16 $1.79 $2.13 $0.11 $0.17 $0.05 $2.45

397: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Jounce, Rear, Rh (Item #132)

Material: 440

$0.05 $0.13 $0.16 $1.79 $2.13 $0.11 $0.17 $0.05 $2.45

398: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Rail, Rear/Front, Lh (Item #134)

Material: 270

$0.19 $0.32 $0.52 $8.79 $9.83 $0.49 $0.79 $0.20 $11.30

399: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Member - Rail, Rear/Front, Rh (Item #134)

Material: 270

$0.19 $0.32 $0.52 $7.35 $8.39 $0.42 $0.67 $0.17 $9.65

400: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Axel, Front, Lh (Item #135)

Material: 440

$0.01 $0.04 $0.05 $0.85 $0.95 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.10

401: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Axel, Front, Rh (Item #135)

Material: 440

$0.01 $0.04 $0.05 $0.85 $0.95 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.10

402: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Axel, Rear, Lh (Item #136)

Material: 440

$0.01 $0.04 $0.05 $0.58 $0.68 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.78
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-35

403: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Mounting, Rear Axel, Rear, Rh (Item #136)

Material: 440

$0.01 $0.04 $0.05 $0.58 $0.68 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.78

404: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Shield Attach, Lh (Item #137)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.25 $0.32 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.37

405: BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - BIW - Module - Bracket - Shield Attach, Rh (Item #137)

Material: HR

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.21 $0.28 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.32

406: BIW - BIW - Hidden Stampings Batch Pricing (Approx. Qty. 60)

Material: HR (Mix of Mild Stl. & HSLA)

$1.94 $4.28 $5.78 $48.39 $60.40 $3.02 $4.84 $1.24 $69.50

407: BIW - BIW - Small Stampings Batch Pricing (Qty. 15)

Material: HR (Mix of Mild Stl. & HSLA)

$0.45 $0.88 $1.28 $7.74 $10.35 $0.52 $0.83 $0.21 $11.90

Totals

$23.04 $52.59 $67.34 $907.94 $1,050.91 $52.55 $83.02 $20.84 $1,207.32
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-36

Table C.b: Phase 2 HD vehicle piece costs

Part Number Part Name Direct 

Cost

Fixed 

Cost

Variable 

Cost

Material 

Cost

SG&A Profit Freight Total Cost

Complete body - less bumpers and fenders $37.71 $138.62 $135.63 $1,260.63 $78.63 $125.81 $25.01 $1,802.01

Front End

7305-2400-209 Front end module $1.36 $4.55 $5.03 $13.24 $1.21 $1.93 $0.00 $27.32

7305-2400-001 Small crossmember 

reinforcement

$0.03 $0.06 $0.08 $3.49 $0.18 $0.29 $0.08 $4.22

7305-2400-002 Large crossmember 

reinforcement

$0.03 $0.10 $0.11 $4.43 $0.23 $0.37 $0.10 $5.38

Sub-total $1.41 $4.72 $5.22 $21.15 $1.63 $2.60 $0.18 $36.92

Left-side Bodyside Outer Assembly

7306-2300-185 Rear panel $0.32 $1.87 $1.67 $51.88 $2.79 $4.46 $1.18 $64.17

7306-2300-183 Front panel $0.10 $0.10 $0.23 $2.48 $0.15 $0.23 $0.06 $3.36

7306-2300-187 Lower, rear, quarter panel 

closeout

$0.08 $0.14 $0.22 $3.88 $0.22 $0.35 $0.09 $4.97

7306-2300-189 Flange to body panel $0.02 $0.07 $0.08 $4.92 $0.25 $0.41 $0.11 $5.86

7306-2300-191 Tail lamp close out panel $0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.77 $0.04 $0.07 $0.02 $0.98

Sub-total $0.54 $2.20 $2.25 $63.93 $3.45 $5.51 $1.46 $79.33

Right-side Bodyside Outer Assembly

7306-2300-186 Rear panel $0.32 $1.87 $1.67 $51.88 $2.79 $4.46 $1.18 $64.17

7306-2300-184 Front panel $0.10 $0.10 $0.23 $2.48 $0.15 $0.23 $0.06 $3.36

7306-2300-188 Lower, rear, quarter panel 

closeout

$0.08 $0.14 $0.22 $3.88 $0.22 $0.35 $0.09 $4.97

7306-2300-190 Flange to body panel $0.02 $0.07 $0.08 $4.92 $0.25 $0.41 $0.11 $5.86

7306-2300-192 Tail lamp close out panel $0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.77 $0.04 $0.07 $0.02 $0.98

Sub-total $0.54 $2.20 $2.25 $63.93 $3.45 $5.51 $1.46 $79.33

Roof and Header

7306-2200-109 Roof panel $0.25 $0.83 $0.93 $48.12 $2.51 $4.01 $1.09 $57.74

7306-2000-215 Rear roof side rail inner -

left

$0.10 $0.31 $0.35 $9.69 $0.52 $0.84 $0.22 $12.03

7306-2000-171 Front roof side rail inner -

left

$0.10 $0.32 $0.36 $10.39 $0.56 $0.89 $0.24 $12.85

7306-2000-216 Rear roof side rail inner -

right

$0.10 $0.31 $0.35 $9.69 $0.52 $0.84 $0.22 $12.03

7306-2000-172 Front roof side rail inner -

right

$0.10 $0.32 $0.36 $10.39 $0.56 $0.89 $0.24 $12.85

7306-2100-101 Front header $0.09 $0.67 $0.56 $15.41 $0.84 $1.34 $0.37 $19.28

7306-2100-103 Center header $0.05 $0.08 $0.13 $8.33 $0.43 $0.69 $0.19 $9.89

7307-2100-104 Rear header $0.15 $0.60 $0.63 $12.77 $0.71 $1.13 $0.29 $16.29

Sub-total $0.93 $3.45 $3.68 $124.78 $6.64 $10.63 $2.86 $152.97

Left-side D-Pillar Assembly

7307-2110-179 Liftgate reinforcement $0.11 $0.14 $0.27 $8.15 $0.43 $0.69 $0.18 $9.99

7307-2110-105 D-pillar inner $0.15 $0.46 $0.53 $15.02 $0.81 $1.29 $0.34 $18.60

7307-2110-177 Quarter panel inner $0.10 $0.38 $0.40 $11.83 $0.64 $1.02 $0.27 $14.63

Sub-total $0.36 $0.99 $1.20 $35.00 $1.88 $3.00 $0.79 $43.22
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-37

Right-side D-Pillar Assembly

7307-2120-180 Liftgate reinforcement $0.11 $0.14 $0.27 $8.15 $0.43 $0.69 $0.18 $9.99

7307-2120-106 D-pillar inner $0.15 $0.46 $0.53 $15.02 $0.81 $1.29 $0.34 $18.60

7307-2120-178 Quarter panel inner $0.10 $0.38 $0.40 $11.83 $0.64 $1.02 $0.27 $14.63

Sub-total $0.36 $0.99 $1.20 $35.00 $1.88 $3.00 $0.79 $43.22

Shotgun Closeouts

7305-1900-159 Shotgun closeout panel -

left

$0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.38 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.48

7305-1900-160 Shotgun closeout panel -

right

$0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.38 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.48

Sub-total $0.01 $0.03 $0.04 $0.75 $0.04 $0.07 $0.02 $0.96

Lower Left A-Pillar Outer Assembly

7305-1930-169 Shotgun outer panel $0.12 $0.34 $0.41 $7.95 $0.44 $0.71 $0.18 $10.15

7305-1930-187 Lower panel $0.13 $0.36 $0.44 $35.99 $1.85 $2.95 $0.82 $42.54

7305-1930-171 Upper hinge reinforcement $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.20 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.27

7305-1930-173 Lower hinge reinforcement $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.18 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.24

Sub-total $0.27 $0.72 $0.89 $44.32 $2.31 $3.70 $1.01 $53.21

Lower Right A-Pillar Outer Assembly

7305-1940-170 Shotgun outer panel $0.12 $0.34 $0.41 $7.95 $0.44 $0.71 $0.18 $10.15

7305-1940-188 Lower panel $0.13 $0.36 $0.44 $35.99 $1.85 $2.95 $0.82 $42.54

7305-1940-184 Upper hinge reinforcement $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.20 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.27

7305-1940-186 Lower hinge reinforcement $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.18 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.24

Sub-total $0.27 $0.72 $0.89 $44.32 $2.31 $3.70 $1.01 $53.21

Right Door Aperature Assembly

Right B-Pillar Sub-Assembly

7306-1920-190 Upper A-pillar outer panel $0.10 $0.31 $0.35 $12.82 $0.68 $1.09 $0.29 $15.64

7306-1920-192 Outer roof side rail $0.10 $0.31 $0.35 $9.47 $0.51 $0.82 $0.21 $11.77

7306-1920-194 C-pillar striker 

reinforcement

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.39 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.52

7306-1920-196 C-pillar outer $0.17 $0.46 $0.57 $38.20 $1.97 $3.15 $0.87 $45.39

Sub-total $0.38 $1.11 $1.31 $60.87 $3.18 $5.09 $1.38 $73.32

Right B-Pillar Outer Sub-Assembly

7306-1924-002 Lower B-pillar outer $0.15 $0.57 $0.60 $13.87 $0.76 $1.22 $0.32 $17.48

7306-1924-004 Upper B-pillar outer $0.07 $0.28 $0.29 $5.77 $0.32 $0.51 $0.13 $7.38

7306-1924-006 Upper, inner reinforcement $0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.68 $0.04 $0.06 $0.02 $0.91

7306-1924-008 Middle, inner reinforcement $0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.32 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.44

7306-1924-010 Lower, inner reinforcement $0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.79 $0.05 $0.07 $0.02 $1.04

Sub-total $0.27 $0.95 $1.03 $21.43 $1.18 $1.89 $0.49 $27.25

Right B-Pillar Inner Sub-Assembly

7306-1926-012 Lower B-pillar inner $0.14 $0.44 $0.49 $10.40 $0.57 $0.92 $0.24 $13.20

7306-1915-001 Beltline reinforcement plate $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.09 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.13

7306-1926-014 B-pillar, upper, inner $0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $1.73 $0.09 $0.15 $0.04 $2.11

Sub-total $0.16 $0.48 $0.55 $12.22 $0.67 $1.07 $0.28 $15.44

Left Door Aperature Assembly

Left B-Pillar Sub-Assembly

7306-1910-189 Upper A-pillar outer panel $0.10 $0.31 $0.35 $12.82 $0.68 $1.09 $0.29 $15.64

7306-1910-191 Outer roof side rail $0.10 $0.31 $0.35 $9.47 $0.51 $0.82 $0.21 $11.77
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-38

7306-1910-193 C-pillar striker 

reinforcement

$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.39 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.52

7306-1910-195 C-pillar outer $0.17 $0.46 $0.57 $38.20 $1.97 $3.15 $0.87 $45.39

Sub-total $0.38 $1.11 $1.31 $60.87 $3.18 $5.09 $1.38 $73.32

Left B-Pillar Outer Sub-Assembly

7306-1913-001 Lower B-pillar outer $0.15 $0.57 $0.60 $13.87 $0.76 $1.22 $0.32 $17.48

7306-1913-003 Upper B-pillar outer $0.07 $0.28 $0.29 $5.77 $0.32 $0.51 $0.13 $7.38

7306-1913-005 Upper, inner reinforcement $0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.68 $0.04 $0.06 $0.02 $0.91

7306-1913-007 Middle, inner reinforcement $0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.32 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.44

7306-1913-009 Lower, inner reinforcement $0.02 $0.04 $0.05 $0.79 $0.05 $0.07 $0.02 $1.04

Sub-total $0.27 $0.95 $1.03 $21.43 $1.18 $1.89 $0.49 $27.25

Left B-Pillar Inner Sub-Assembly

7306-1915-011 Lower B-pillar inner $0.14 $0.44 $0.49 $10.40 $0.57 $0.92 $0.24 $13.20

7306-1915-001 Beltline reinforcement plate $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.09 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.13

7306-1915-013 B-pillar, upper, inner $0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $1.73 $0.09 $0.15 $0.04 $2.11

Sub-total $0.16 $0.48 $0.55 $12.22 $0.67 $1.07 $0.28 $15.44

Cowl

7305-1800-145 Upper cowl panel $0.47 $2.98 $2.41 $15.34 $1.06 $1.70 $0.00 $23.95

7305-1700-147 Cowl support $0.14 $0.61 $0.61 $15.99 $0.87 $1.39 $0.36 $19.98

Sub-total $0.61 $3.59 $3.02 $31.33 $1.93 $3.08 $0.36 $43.93

Left Dash Transmission Assembly

7305-1530-221 Dash-transmission 

reinforcement

$0.24 $0.22 $0.55 $16.35 $0.87 $1.39 $0.37 $19.98

7305-1530-223 Dash-transmission insert $0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $0.97 $0.05 $0.09 $0.02 $1.24

Sub-total $0.26 $0.25 $0.60 $17.32 $0.92 $1.47 $0.39 $21.23

Right Dash Transmission Assembly

7305-1520-222 Dash-transmission 

reinforcement

$0.24 $0.22 $0.55 $16.35 $0.87 $1.39 $0.37 $19.98

7305-1520-224 Dash-transmission insert $0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $0.97 $0.05 $0.09 $0.02 $1.24

Sub-total $0.26 $0.25 $0.60 $17.32 $0.92 $1.47 $0.39 $21.23

Rear End Panel Assembly

7307-1510-111 Outer panel $0.17 $0.55 $0.63 $18.46 $0.99 $1.58 $0.42 $22.80

7307-1510-117 Inner panel $0.17 $0.55 $0.63 $27.63 $1.45 $2.32 $0.63 $33.37

Sub-total $0.35 $1.09 $1.25 $46.09 $2.44 $3.90 $1.05 $56.17

Rear Crossmember Assembly

7307-1410-119 Rear compartment 

crossmember

$1.18 $4.59 $4.19 $13.30 $1.16 $1.86 $0.55 $26.80

7307-1410-120 Hanger bracket extrusion $0.28 $0.49 $0.72 $0.54 $0.10 $0.16 $0.03 $2.33

Sub-total $1.45 $5.09 $4.92 $13.84 $1.26 $2.02 $0.58 $29.12

Left Front Wheelhouse Assembly

7305-1310-151 Front shock tower $0.50 $2.24 $1.90 $4.93 $0.48 $0.77 $0.00 $10.82

7305-1310-161 Front wheelhouse panel $0.42 $2.41 $1.95 $12.54 $0.87 $1.39 $0.00 $19.58

Sub-total $0.92 $4.65 $3.85 $17.47 $1.34 $2.15 $0.00 $30.39

Right Front Wheelhouse Assembly

7305-1320-152 Front shock tower $0.50 $2.24 $1.90 $4.93 $0.48 $0.77 $0.00 $10.82

7305-1320-162 Front wheelhouse panel $0.42 $2.42 $1.95 $12.54 $0.87 $1.39 $0.00 $19.59
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-39

Sub-total $0.92 $4.66 $3.85 $17.47 $1.35 $2.15 $0.00 $30.40

Rear Seat Pan Assembly

7306-1200-113 Rear seat panel floor $0.17 $0.39 $0.52 $23.52 $1.23 $1.97 $0.53 $28.32

7306-1200-111 Seatbelt anchrage plate -

right and left

$0.01 $0.02 $0.04 $0.54 $0.03 $0.05 $0.01 $0.69

7307-1200-218 Rear frame rail outer 

transition - right

$0.57 $3.56 $2.80 $13.02 $1.00 $1.60 $0.00 $22.54

7307-1200-217 Rear frame rail outer 

transition - left

$0.57 $3.56 $2.80 $13.02 $1.00 $1.60 $0.00 $22.54

Sub-total $1.32 $7.52 $6.16 $50.08 $3.25 $5.21 $0.55 $74.09

Rear Center Seat Riser Assembly

7306-1110-101 Rear center seat riser $0.08 $0.24 $0.28 $9.84 $0.52 $0.84 $0.23 $12.03

7306-1110-103 Rear seat floor 

reinforcement - left

$0.03 $0.06 $0.08 $1.09 $0.06 $0.10 $0.03 $1.44

7306-1000-176 Rear seat riser - right $0.12 $0.26 $0.36 $4.51 $0.26 $0.42 $0.10 $6.03

7306-1000-175 Rear seat riser - left $0.12 $0.26 $0.36 $4.51 $0.26 $0.42 $0.10 $6.03

Sub-total $0.35 $0.81 $1.08 $19.95 $1.11 $1.78 $0.47 $25.54

Rear Frame Rail Assembly

7307-1000-139 Rear frame rail - right and 

left

$1.39 $4.53 $4.45 $12.80 $1.16 $1.85 $0.50 $26.69

7307-1000-138 Rear frame rail mounting 

plate - right and left

$0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $1.79 $0.09 $0.15 $0.04 $2.18

Sub-total $1.41 $4.56 $4.50 $14.59 $1.25 $2.01 $0.54 $28.86

Right Front Frame Rail Assembly

7307-1020-136 Front frame rail $0.62 $2.08 $2.04 $4.72 $0.47 $0.76 $0.20 $10.89

7307-1020-224 Front frame rail mounting 

plate

$0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $1.29 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.60

Sub-total $0.63 $2.11 $2.09 $6.01 $0.54 $0.87 $0.23 $12.49

Right Front Rail Mount Sub-Assembly

7307-1011-001 Front rail mount $0.03 $0.06 $0.09 $0.86 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.20

7307-1011-003 Front rail mount cvr - left 

and right

$0.03 $0.05 $0.08 $1.29 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.66

Sub-total $0.06 $0.11 $0.16 $2.15 $0.12 $0.20 $0.05 $2.85

Left Front Frame Rail Assembly

7307-1010-135 Front frame rail $0.62 $2.08 $2.04 $4.72 $0.47 $0.76 $0.20 $10.89

7307-1010-223 Front frame rail mounting 

plate

$0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $1.29 $0.07 $0.11 $0.03 $1.60

Sub-total $0.63 $2.11 $2.09 $6.01 $0.54 $0.87 $0.23 $12.49

Left Front Rail Mount Sub-Assembly

7307-1011-001 Front rail mount $0.03 $0.06 $0.09 $0.86 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.20

7307-1011-003 Front rail mount cvr - left 

and right

$0.03 $0.05 $0.08 $1.29 $0.07 $0.12 $0.03 $1.66

Sub-total $0.06 $0.11 $0.16 $2.15 $0.12 $0.20 $0.05 $2.85

Transitions

7305-1200-210 Front frame rail outer 

transition - right

$0.51 $2.92 $2.29 $9.44 $0.76 $1.21 $0.00 $17.14

7305-1200-209 Front frame rail outer 

transition - left

$0.51 $2.92 $2.29 $9.44 $0.76 $1.21 $0.00 $17.14

7305-0900-138 Front frame rail inner 

transition - right

$0.51 $2.92 $2.29 $9.34 $0.75 $1.20 $0.00 $17.02
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-40

7305-0900-137 Front frame rail inner 

transition - left

$0.51 $2.92 $2.29 $9.34 $0.75 $1.20 $0.00 $17.02

7307-0900-142 Rear frame rail inner 

transition - right

$0.54 $3.21 $2.51 $10.36 $0.83 $1.33 $0.00 $18.78

7307-0900-141 Rear frame rail inner 

transition - left

$0.54 $3.21 $2.51 $10.36 $0.83 $1.33 $0.00 $18.78

Sub-total $3.11 $18.11 $14.18 $58.29 $4.68 $7.49 $0.00 $105.86

Small Floor Crossmember Assembly

7306-0830-124 Small outer extrusion - right 

and left

$1.01 $1.24 $2.28 $1.94 $0.32 $0.52 $0.09 $7.40

7306-0830-125 Small floor crossmember -

right and left

$4.72 $12.12 $13.41 $14.02 $2.21 $3.54 $0.83 $50.84

7306-0830-126 Small inner extrusion - right 

and left

$1.01 $1.24 $2.28 $1.74 $0.31 $0.50 $0.09 $7.18

Sub-total $6.74 $14.59 $17.98 $17.70 $2.85 $4.56 $1.01 $65.42

Large Floor Crossmember Assembly

7306-0840-010 Large outer extrusion - right 

and left

$0.47 $0.96 $1.25 $1.55 $0.21 $0.34 $0.07 $4.85

7306-0840-011 Large floor crossmember -

right and left

$1.64 $4.58 $4.93 $6.12 $0.86 $1.38 $0.33 $19.83

7306-0840-012 Large inner extrusion - right 

and left

$0.47 $0.96 $1.25 $1.39 $0.20 $0.33 $0.07 $4.67

7306-0850-000 Fore and aft extrusion -

right and left

$1.44 $5.08 $4.77 $5.47 $0.84 $1.34 $0.36 $19.30

7306-0860-000 Center tunnel bracket $0.08 $0.12 $0.20 $1.83 $0.11 $0.18 $0.05 $2.57

Sub-total $4.10 $11.68 $12.41 $16.36 $2.23 $3.56 $0.88 $51.23

Dash Panel

7305-1400-143 Upper dash panel $0.55 $3.98 $3.10 $24.26 $1.59 $2.55 $0.00 $36.04

7305-1400-144 Lower dash panel $0.96 $5.56 $4.57 $33.89 $2.25 $3.60 $0.00 $50.82

7305-1600-149 Dash panel reinforcement $0.50 $3.31 $2.64 $18.42 $1.24 $1.99 $0.00 $28.10

Sub-total $2.01 $12.86 $10.31 $76.57 $5.09 $8.14 $0.00 $114.96

Miscellaneous Panels and Reinforcements

7307-1600-183 Rear wheelhouse outer 

panel - left

$0.46 $2.64 $2.17 $12.70 $0.90 $1.44 $0.00 $20.31

7307-1600-184 Rear wheelhouse outer 

panel - right

$0.44 $2.35 $1.97 $11.38 $0.81 $1.29 $0.00 $18.24

7307-1600-213 Rear closeout panel - left $0.03 $0.08 $0.09 $3.64 $0.19 $0.31 $0.08 $4.42

7307-1600-214 Rear closeout panel - right $0.03 $0.08 $0.09 $3.64 $0.19 $0.31 $0.08 $4.42

7305-1500-157 Shotgun inner panel - left $0.12 $0.34 $0.41 $8.91 $0.49 $0.78 $0.20 $11.25

7305-1500-158 Shotgun inner panel - right $0.12 $0.34 $0.41 $8.91 $0.49 $0.78 $0.20 $11.25

7305-1500-197 A-pillar inner reinforcement 

panel - left

$0.02 $0.07 $0.07 $1.73 $0.09 $0.15 $0.04 $2.17

7305-1500-198 A-pillar inner reinforcement 

panel - right

$0.02 $0.07 $0.07 $1.73 $0.09 $0.15 $0.04 $2.17

7305-1400-154 Lower A-pillar inner - right $0.10 $0.12 $0.24 $4.60 $0.25 $0.40 $0.10 $5.81

7305-1400-153 Lower A-pillar inner - left $0.10 $0.12 $0.24 $4.60 $0.25 $0.40 $0.10 $5.81

7307-1400-164 Rear wheelhouse inner -

right

$0.14 $0.42 $0.49 $35.63 $1.83 $2.93 $0.81 $42.26

7307-1400-163 Rear wheelhouse inner -

left

$0.14 $0.42 $0.48 $35.63 $1.83 $2.93 $0.81 $42.24

7305-1500-228 Lower A-pillar inner 

reinforcement - right

$0.02 $0.05 $0.07 $0.92 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.21

7305-1500-227 Lower A-pillar inner 

reinforcement - left

$0.02 $0.05 $0.07 $0.92 $0.05 $0.08 $0.02 $1.21
LOTUS ARB LWV PROGRAM

C-41

7307-1500-168 Shock tower reinforcement 

- right

$0.12 $0.12 $0.28 $4.44 $0.25 $0.40 $0.10 $5.70

7307-1500-167 Shock tower reinforcement 

- left

$0.12 $0.12 $0.28 $4.44 $0.25 $0.40 $0.10 $5.70

7305-1300-156 Upper A-pillar inner - right $0.10 $0.14 $0.25 $8.14 $0.43 $0.69 $0.18 $9.94

7305-1300-155 Upper A-pillar inner - left $0.10 $0.14 $0.25 $8.14 $0.43 $0.69 $0.18 $9.94

7305-1300-166 Rear shock tower - right $0.53 $2.47 $2.11 $6.53 $0.58 $0.93 $0.00 $13.16

7305-1300-165 Rear shock tower - left $0.53 $2.47 $2.11 $6.53 $0.58 $0.93 $0.00 $13.16

7306-0820-124 Rocker sill extension - right $1.49 $5.39 $5.42 $17.28 $1.48 $2.37 $0.63 $34.05

7306-0810-123 Rocker sill extension - left $1.49 $5.39 $5.42 $17.28 $1.48 $2.37 $0.63 $34.05

Sub-total $6.23 $23.37 $23.01 $207.70 $13.02 $20.83 $4.35 $298.51

Totals $37.71 $138.62 $135.63 $1,260.63 $78.63 $125.81 $25.01 $1,802.01