ADVANTAGE NICHE VEHICLE PROGRAMME
Forthcoming Events
June 25th - NVN Workshop (Venue TBC)
July - NVN Event - Ricardo (Leamington)
Sept 9th-10th – Low Carbon Vehicle 2009 (Millbrook)
October – NVN Event - Modec (Coventry)
November - NVN Event - Coventry University
ADVANTAGE NICHE VEHICLE PROGRAMME
MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
WORKSHOP
25th June 2009
Venue TBC
Guest Speaker MEP Malcolm Harbour
ADVANTAGE NICHE VEHICLE PROGRAMME
List of Potential Presenters:
1. Malcolm Harbour MEP – European Policy / Pre-procurement
2. Charles Morgan - Federal Market Requirements
3. Vehicle Certification Agency -Conformity of Production
4. Jez Coates, Zolfe –Design & Construction for Type Approval
5. Paul Faithfull, Westfield – European Small Series Approval
6. Paul Keeling, UKTI – Finding New Export Markets
7. Mike Lowe, DfT – Legislation Update
COVENTRY UNIVERSITY SUPPORT
• James Watkins (1st Year B Eng) supporting the
development of the NVN Supplier Directory –
Summer 2009.
• Mike Dickison recently appointed Principal
Lecturer – but main purpose will be to support
R&D within the niche industry.
• Gary Wood continuing to support collaborative
R&D projects as required.
• Mike Blundell will continue to develop the
University’s strategic capability to support the
niche vehicle industry.
DESIGN GUIDE/AGENDA
Aerodynamics
Electric and Hybrid Technologies
Polymer Body Panels
Lightweight Chassis Technologies
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Advantage Niche Vehicle Research and
Development Programme
Presented by Mike Dickison
Coventry University
7th May 2009
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Contents of Presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Test Vehicles
Programme Objectives
MIRA Test Facility
Test Procedure
Test Results and Key Recommendations
Discussion of Results
Drag Comparisons – Niche Vs. Volume
Conclusions
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Commercial Vehicles
Modec Box Van
Modec Drop Side
Microcab
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Convertible and Open Sports Cars
AMS Murtaya
GTM Spyder
Trident Iceni
RAW Fulcrum
Westfield 7
Gardner Douglas
GDT70
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Coupes
Morgan Aeromax
Morgan Lifecar
Zolfe GTC-4
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Objective
• Assess the aerodynamic performance
of 12 niche vehicles
• Compare the vehicles with mass
produced competitors
• Assess the effect of aerodynamic
modifications
• Provide recommendations for further
development
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Test Facility
• MIRA Full Scale Wind Tunnel
• Max. wind speed 80 mph
• Suitable for cars and commercial
vehicles up to 4000 kg
• Drag, side, lift, yaw pitch and roll
force measurement
• 3 methods for flow visualisation
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Test Procedure
2 hour test duration covering:• Baseline assessment of drag, front,
rear, lift and side forces through a
±30° yaw angle sweep
• Investigation of changes when
cooling ducts are blanked off
Continued…
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Test Procedure
• Flow visualisation using a smoke
wand to show areas of good flow
and turbulence
• Experimental modifications,
adding aerodynamic devices: e.g.
spoilers and splitters, changing
roof configuration and modifying
cooling ducts
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Test Results and Design Recommendations
Vehicle
CD (base)
Front
Lift
Coeff
Modec Box
Van
0.47
0.2
Rear
Lift
Coeff
-0.21
Key Recommendations
Evaluate methods for reducing front lift
Refine the door mirror design and cooling apertures to reduce
drag
Optimise the under-tray design
Modec Drop
Side
0.52
0.373
-0.251
Adopt the experimental panel fitted between the roof and
pickup frame to substantially reduce drag
Develop a roof spoiler to further reduce drag
Refine the door mirror design and cooling apertures to reduce
drag
Morgan
Aeromax
Morgan
Lifecar
Optimise cooling ducts to reduce drag and reduce front lift
0.47
0.153
0.243
Develop a rear spoiler and diffuser to reduce rear lift
Re-evaluate when vehicle design is fully representative
0.38
0.132
0.347
Develop rear end aerodynamic design to reduce rear lift
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Test Results and Design Recommendations
Vehicle
CD
(base)
Front
Lift
Coeff
Rear
Lift
Coeff
Key Recommendations
Optimise cooling aperture to minimise drag
Microcab
0.35
-0.104
0.09
Develop rear end spoiler to reduce rear lift
Develop cooling aperture to reduce drag
Revise front end aerodynamics to eliminate lift
RAW Fulcrum
0.57
0.073 -0.116
Establish the benefit of sealing the centre tunnel and adoption
of an aero screen
Develop design of rear spoiler to provide down force whilst
minimising increase in drag
Gardner
Douglas GD
T70
Optimise front dive planes / splitter to reduce drag for versions
without a rear spoiler
0.48
-0.02
-0.038
Develop a modified front dive plane / splitter to balance down
force when rear spoiler is fitted
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Test Results and Design Recommendations
Vehicle
CD
(base)
Front
Lift
Coeff
Rear
Lift
Coeff
Key Recommendations
Revise cooling apertures and ducting path to reduce drag
Trident Iceni
0.46
0.143
0.24
Modify front end shape, incorporating a front spoiler to reduce
lift
Develop a rear boot spoiler to reduce rear lift
Optimise roof shape to reduce drag
AMS
Murtaya
0.45
0.114
0.014
Westfield 7
0.64
0.266
0.032
Develop front bodywork design to reduce front lift
GTM Spyder
0.4
-0.071
0.214
Develop a rear spoiler to reduce both rear lift and drag
0.43
-0.099
0.14
Optimise size and location of rear spoiler to reduce rear lift
Develop under-floor and incorporate a rear diffuser to increase
down force
Zolfe
GTC-4
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Discussion of Results
• The majority of niche vehicles need
development to attain the levels of
aerodynamic efficiency as massproduced vehicles
• Aerodynamic lift and front to rear
balance is a general issue for some of
the vehicles tested
• Further wind tunnel development will
enable the drag vs. down-force
compromise to be optimised
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Drag Comparisons – Niche Vs. Volume
Commercial Vehicles
Manufacturer
Vehicle
Vehicle Type
CD (base)
CD (best)
Microcab
Microcab
Urban Taxi/Run-around
0.35
0.34
Modec
Box Van
Urban Utility Vehicle
0.47
0.44
Dodge
Ram (1997 MY)
Large Pickup Truck
0.48
-
Modec
Drop Side
Urban Utility Vehicle
0.52
0.48
Hummer
H2 (2003 MY)
Military 4X4
0.57
-
-
-
Typical Large Truck
0.60
-
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Drag Comparisons – Niche Vs. Volume
Convertible and Open Sports Cars
Manufacturer
Vehicle
Vehicle Type
CD
(base)
CD
(best)
Lotus
Elise S2 (2003
MY)
Convertible Sports Car (Mid Engine)
0.29
-
BMW
Z4 (2009 MY)
Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine, Steel
Roof)
0.34
-
Mazda
MX5 (1989 MY)
Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine)
0.38
-
GTM
Spyder
Convertible Sports Car (Mid Engine)
0.40
0.40
AMS
Murtaya
Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine)
0.45
0.42
Trident
Iceni
Convertible Diesel Sports Car (Front Engine)
0.46
0.41
Gardner
Douglas
GD T70
Open Sports Car (Mid Engine)
0.48
0.48
RAW
Fulcrum
Open Sports Car (Front Engine)
0.57
0.51
Westfield
7
Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine)
0.64
0.64
Caterham
7
Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine)
0.70
-
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Drag Comparisons – Niche Vs. Volume
Coupes
Manufacturer
Vehicle
Vehicle Type
CD (base) CD (best)
Porsche
911 (997 2004 MY)
Sports Coupe (Rear Engine)
0.28
-
Lotus
Elite (1958 MY)
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.29
-
Audi
TT (2007 MY)
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.30
-
Porsche 911
911 (996 1997 MY)
Sports Coupe (Rear Engine)
0.30
-
BMW
Z4 M Coupe (2006 MY)
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.35
-
Aston Martin DB9 Coupe (2009 MY)
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.35
-
Audi
TT (1998 MY)
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.35
-
Morgan
Lifecar
Sports Coupe Concept Car (Hybrid/Electric)
0.38
0.32
Zolfe
GTC-4
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.43
0.40
Morgan
Aeromax
Sports Coupe (Front Engine)
0.47
0.47
Aerodynamic Benchmarking
and Comparative Study
Conclusions
• The objective measurements have
provided a guide for aerodynamic
modifications
• All the vehicles tested would
benefit from further development
in the wind tunnel, to verify that
design modifications are effective
and to enable further optimisation
Questions?
NVN Design Guide
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
Technologies
Presenter
Dr. Paul Faithfull
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Guide Overview
• Scope
– Main : Pure electric to hybrid electric vehicles
– Secondary : Mechanical hybrids
• Structure
–
–
–
–
–
–
Technology Overview
Architectures
Components
Case Studies
Technology Matrix
Supplier Index
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Overview (1)
• Architectures
– How the system components are arranged, pure EV,
series, parallel, combined.
• Degree of Hybridisation
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Overview (2)
• Business Case
+ Customer : Better fuel economy/Lower CO2
+ Business : Government incentives, new markets
+ Technology : Powertrain efficiency, regenerative
braking, increased performance
– Costs of components
– Technology immaturity
– Component availability
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Architectures (1)
• Pure Electric
+ Simple
+ No tailpipe emissions
+ Low noise
–
–
–
–
–
Low noise
Battery costs
Range
Recharge time
Size of battery
e.g. Modec Electric Van
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Architectures (2)
• Series Hybrid
+ No mechanical link
+ Easier to package
+ Electric only mode
–
–
–
–
Generator
Component size
No limp home ability
Cost compared to parallel
Losses from energy conversions
e.g. Morgan LIFEcar
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Architectures (3)
• Parallel Hybrid
+
+
+
+
System efficiency
Limp home capability
Can be lower cost
Can downsize engine
– Control can be complex
– Added weight
Arrangements :
Pre/Post transmission
Through the Road
e.g. Honda Civic IMA
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Architectures (4)
• Combined Hybrid
+ Optimal point operation
+ Charging flexibility
+ Electric only mode
– Cost
– Weight
– Complexity
e.g. Toyota Prius
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Components: Energy Storage
• Battery
• Battery management
• Low energy density
(petrol = 8000 Wh/kg)
• Different voltages
• Super Capacitor
• High current capability, low specific energy
• 3V cell – series combination : 1/Ct = (1/C1)+(1/C2)…
• Flywheel
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Components: Energy Conversion
• Motors
• Different types :
• Brushed DC, Brushless DC, AC Induction, AC Synchronous
• Location
• Hub motors
• Inboard
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Components: Energy Generation
• Fuel Cell
•
•
•
•
•
Expensive (~£5000 / kW)
Require battery buffer as cannot meet dynamic load
Require hydrogen infrastructure
Zero tailpipe emissions
Currently prohibited on road without VSO
(hydrogen)
• 2 types – PEM and SOFC. PEM dominant
• Genset
• Still need to meet EU tailpipe legislation
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
Components: Other
•
•
•
•
DC/DC Conversion
Fuses and Circuit Breakers
Charger
Ancillary Components (12V System)
Mechanical Hybrids
• Flywheel Hybrid
• Hydraulic Hybrid
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
CASE STUDIES : Technology Matrix
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
CASE STUDIES : Summary of Lessons
PROJECT LESSONS
• Design and development takes longer than
anticipated
• Partners may come from different industries in
projects in this field with different cultures, domain
languages and agendas
• Be wary of big bang approach
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
CASE STUDIES : Summary of Lessons
TECHNOLOGY LESSONS
• It is possible to tune hybrid systems in the same
way that engines are tuned
• Fuel economy/CO2 savings can be attained
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
CASE STUDIES : Summary of Lessons
PRODUCT/MARKET LESSONS
• At low volumes high price premiums exist on
technology
• Entry to market timing is critical and mass market is
not proven to exist
• Entry to market timing is critical and mass market is
not proven to exist, but operational trials is
showing user acceptance (EV)
Questions?
Polymer Body Panel Technologies
Contents
• 1. Materials Overview- Introduction
• 2. Case Studies:
• Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP)
• Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM)
• Epoxy E-Glass Pre-impregnated Material
• Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC)
• Twintex®
• Carbon Fibre Pre-Preg
• Alternative Materials
• Resins
• Reinforcement Fibres
• 3. Conclusion and Benefits to Niche companies
Polymer Body Panel Technologies
Materials Overview
• The purpose of this section of the design guide is to: – Assist in the selection of plastic and composite (Polymer) materials for
body panel and vehicle construction
– Compare the Polymer Materials performance against aluminium, and
create a matrix of both the technical and commercial properties.
– Illustrate certain vehicle body features with alternative material choices
•
The study focuses onto those specific areas perceived to be
technically and commercially most important to niche vehicle
manufacturers.
•
The guide provides specific case studies to practically demonstrate
the process e.g. body panels, bumpers, trim items.
Polymer Body Panel Technologies
Material Case Studies
• Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP)
• Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM)
• Epoxy E-Glass Pre-impregnated Material
• Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC)
• Twintex®
• Carbon Fibre Pre-Preg
• Alternative Materials• Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS),
• Bayer Long Fibre Injection (LFI),
• GLARE – Laminated Composite Material,
• Polycarbonate (PC),
• Resins - Vinylester, Epoxy
• Reinforcement Fibres - E-glass, S-glass, Aramid (Kevlar)
Polymer Body Panel Technologies
Summary - Conclusions and Benefits to Niche Vehicle companies
•
•
•
•
•
Technical Polymer material properties matrix established
- Data properties provided – specific key attributes
Commercial matrix established.
- Business case information level
The benefits and risks of using polymer parts for Body panels have
been explored and evaluated
Guidelines created for comparing costs/times for Niche Vehicle
Manufacturing evaluation
Future programme required to demonstrate Production growth
potential.
Questions?
LIGHTWEIGHT CHASSIS TECHNOLOGIES
Key Objectives:
• Benchmark the chassis currently available by selecting a spread of
five key niche vehicles, produced for different market sectors and
customer profiles.
• Chassis case study analysed on the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
Technical Description
Homologation Requirements
Physical Testing (Efficiency Index)
Commercial Analysis
• Share process and techniques currently available for chassis
construction beyond the case study analysis.
• Technical and Commercial Route Map
Case Study Contributors
Morgan – Aero 8
Stadco – Ford GT
Westfield: HLV
Raw Striker
Zolfe – GTC4
Case Study Data
• Technical, Homologation, Commercial. via Questionnaire
• Physical Testing via Mira testing facility
» Testing Boundaries and conditions utilises the 4 damper
turrets/main mounting apply the load to output torsional
stiffness.
» Torsional stiffness, weight and plan of chassis figures were used
to develop Chassis Efficiency Index
Case Study Output: Chassis Efficiency Index
500
Cabrio
Coupe
BIW Weight (kg)
400
300
Monocoque
Chassis
Linear (Monocoque)
GT
200
Morgan
EWVTA
IVA & ESS
Raw
100
Westfield
Zolfe
0
0
0.2
0.4
Efficiency
0.6
0.8
Efficiency per Full Product Cost
£10,000
Test Vehicles
Expon. (Test Vehicles)
EWVTA
£8,000
Expected Trend
line
Expected
TrendLine
EWVTA
£6,000
£4,000
£2,000
£0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Materials and Processes Overview
Manipulation
Process
Joining
Technologies
Sheet Steel
Folded
MIG Weld
Steel Tube (main)
Laser Cut
TIG/MIG Weld,
Braze
Aluminium Sheet
(sub)
Cut
Rivet / Bond
3
High Strength Steel
Folded
MIG Weld
High Strength and
reduced wall section
4
High Strength Steel
Tube
Laser Cut
TIG/MIG Weld,
Braze
High Strength and
reduced wall section
5
Stainless Steel
Sheet
Folded
TIG Weld
Very low corrosion
No Paint required
6
Stainless Steel Tube
Laser Cut
TIG Weld
Very low corrosion
No Paint required
High Cost
More Brittle
and Spring
than Steel
Aluminium Sheet
(main)
Folded
TIG Weld
Structural Bond
Aluminium
Fabrication (sub)
Cropped/Cut
Rivet / Bond
Low cost
Lightweight
Good Recyclable
Low corrosion
No Paint required
(when anodised /
coated)
Higher Cost
than sheet
steel. Thicker
wall thickness
required for
same strength
in steel.
Low cost per unit
Lightweight
Good Recyclable
Low corrosion
No Paint required
(when anodised /
coated)
Higher Cost
than steel tube.
Material
1
2
7
8
Aluminium Extrusion
Laser Cut
TIG Weld
Rivet
Structural Bond
Strength
Very low Cost
High Recyclable
High Stiffness
Cheap Repair
Low Cost
Medium Recyclable
Medium Stiffness
Cheap Repair
Weakness
Heavy
Corrosion
(medium-high)
Requires
Painting
Medium
Weight
Corrosion
(medium-high)
Higher Cost
than Steel
Corrosion
(medium-high)
Higher Cost
than Steel
Corrosion
(medium-high)
High Cost
More Brittle
and Spring
than Steel
Capital
Invest
Unit Cost
Technical and Commercial Route Map (1 of 2)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Process Overview
Who is your customer?
Identify the importance of the chassis in your
vehicle. I.E;
what are your key vehicle
attributes?
What is the homologation band and market of
your vehicle?
What is the most economic & technically
efficient way of producing the chassis?
Business Case comparisons.
Technical and Commercial Route Map (2of2)
Technology and Process V's Unit Costs
Steel Tube Fabricated
Steel Folded & Fabricated
Stainless Steel Folded & Fabricated
Aluminium Extrusion & Fabricated
Aluminium Folded and Fabricated
Aluminium Forming, Cast & Fabricated
Carbon/Kevlar Composites
x £'s
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Technology and Process V's Design and Development Costs
Steel Tube Fabricated
Steel Folded & Fabricated
Stainless Steel Folded & Fabricated
Aluminium Extrusion & Fabricated
Aluminium Folded and Fabricated
Aluminium Forming, Cast & Fabricated
Carbon/Kevlar Composites
0
50
100
150
200
250
x £'000
Technology and Process V's Capital Investment
Steel Tube Fabricated
Steel Folded & Fabricated
Stainless Steel Folded & Fabricated
Aluminium Extrusion & Fabricated
Aluminium Folded and Fabricated
Aluminium Forming, Cast & Fabricated
Carbon/Kevlar Composites
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
x £'000
Questions?
All our presentation material from each NVN
event, programme information, a DVD on the
Low Carbon Vehicle event at Millbrook plus
news and details on forthcoming events can
be found on the programme’s website
members area.
All NVN members can access this area with a
login, if you require one please email
nvn@cenex.co.uk
www.cenex.co.uk/nvn
Thank You