I can only speak for myself, but I want a car with spirit and soul. I want a car that when I park it I always turn and look back at it one last time before I go.

I want a car that stirs passion in my soul. I want to be connected to the road and a car that reinforces that it is not the destination, but the journey that matters.

I want a car that begs me to drive it and drive it hard and hot and in return rewards me when I drive it right and threatens to bite me when I drive it wrong.

I want a car that I hate to turn off the ignition, even after 14 hours of driving. I want a car that you put away hot and wet.

I want a car that I can drive everyday, but at the same time isn't practical. I want a car that doesn't have cup holders, GPS, electronic throttle, or a 600 watt stereo. I want a car that feels like my favorite jeans when I slip into it.

I want a car that isn't something for everyone, but everything to someone!

I want a car that evokes all my physical senses. I want a car the purrs when it is trolling along and growls and screams when driven in anger.

I want a car with a heritage. I want a car built by people who are impassioned by the work they do. I want a car where the builders often daydream about who might own this car and add a personal touch to their job just to say "this is from me to you." I want a car that when it rolls of the line every craftsmen that had a hand in its creation watches it leave as if it were their child leaving home for the first time.

I want a car that never lets me forget what it was like to be a child with a head full of dreams and wonder.

The car you describe sounds an awfully lot like the 340 HP 1963 Corvette roadster I once owned back in the sixties. The problem, of course, is these are now quite rare and very expensive, so, todays designers need to come up with something that generates that same feeling at an affordable price. Not likely but possible.

Then you need a '72 Chrysler New Yorker. The Road Warrior custom edition made by ZoL inc.

You are poetry in motion, anonymous hero! Thank you for what you have shared here.

The lives we lead are a confluence of the cranial and the visceral. From my own experience, I am most content when I know and feel what I am doing is worthwhile; that is also true for the creature comforts I enjoy. I very much appreciate what you have shared because I appreciate those who can articulate the visceral, the emotional, the subjective matters that add texture and meaning to all facets of our lives.

That said, I'm going to continue to espouse the quantitative as much as possible in my entries for several reasons: 1.) I believe it appeals more to the engineers (a more cranial audience?), 2.) it is easier for the mathematically-challenged to avoid quantitative discussions and 3.) these topics deserve more objective assessments as a means to truly understanding both the issues that need attention and the opportunities we all seek.

Well said! I loved my TR-4 (Triumph, 1964) but reliablility sucked. I've owned a couple of the A2 series VW GTi-16valve cars, and found them far more reliable. Plus, they will out-drag, outrun (top end), out-corner, and out-brake the TR-4. They'll also carry four passengers and run on unleaded regular while getting 33-34 mpg when driven hard, and the knock sensor will advance timing if I give them Premium. Imagine: an American-market car that was never even offered with automatic - while most American manufacturers were building nothing else! No, it doesn't have the brute torque of the wonderful '63 'Vette (and I had opportunity to ride in one [split-window StingRay] in the mid-60's, driven hard by its professional mechanic owner - too bad Arkus-Duntov didn't like radial tires, because it could have been even better).

The only thing you missed in the litany: I want a car, that when I've done a maneuver (such as a descending 270 degree ramp turn onto a road at well over double the posted speed) will cause reactions around me ranging from, "How the hell did he DO that?" to, "I know WHAT he did; how the hell did he GET BY with doing that?" [And it's even better when they catch up on the straight portion and realize that the driver is a gray-bearded old man in what appears to be an ordinary econo-box.]

There's a local dual-lane ramp I love; in 17 years of daily passage, I have seen EXACTLY ONE car going faster than I (unless traffic set the speeds): a visibly modified Subaru WRX. Wow!

You took the words out of my mouth. All I can say is I am lucky to have such a vehicle.

1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder Convertible 2.0L Turbo Manual 5 speed.

97,000 miles trouble free bought it new and it had 150 WHP it needed a little better weight to HP ratio so raised it to 260 WHP and it still gets 20-22 combined and 30-31 highway. love technology.

Oh, if you haven't figured it out. It's not about users' needs. It's about users' wants!

Care to distinguish between current wants and needs in the automotive market?

It is not necessarily easy to discern the difference and it is often where fundamental errors germinate (re: Iacocca's thoughts on safety discussed by Blink). Also, current wants often become future needs as technologies are developed (i.e. - 20 years ago I wanted a portable phone; now I need a cell phone.)

That's easy. In its purist sense a customer only needs a vehicle to transport him from point A to point B efficiently. However, Bob wants that F-250 Dually 4-wheel-drive truck. It may be much more than he will need. Chances are it will never see more than the shoulder of the road, but he wants it, nevertheless. Look at how many 4-wheel-drive vehicles are registered in Florida.

Sit down and have a long candid talk with a few car salesmen sometime. Ask them what people want versus what they need. Buying cars for most people is an emotional experience not an exercise in practicality. Oh, you make a decision based on what you want, and then rationalize it how it fits what you need.

The minivan is a good example. On the surface it looks like the revolution was all about how practical this vehicle was for the American family. To some extent it was, however, there were millions and millions of potential customers begging to get away from the stigma of station wagons.

Now dads and moms are trying to get away from the stigma of the minivan and jumping into SUVs.

So, my point is you are wasting time (and loosing sales) if you design and build cars based on what people need. You need to be able to correctly spot what is trendy in today's market and quickly adapt to it. Better yet, predict what will be trendy and when often enough so as to pay for your misjudgments and still turn a healthy profit.

It's really psychology that is the engine of the automotive empire. Technology is just an instrument or more accurately a garnish that is used toward that end.

AnonH,

I appreciate what you have shared here and agree that the purchase of a car is heavily predicated on emotion. I have first hand experience with the shift from station wagons to minivans to SUV's for all the reasons you mention, too!

I acknowledged earlier in this blog that there are visceral elements that heavily impact our judgement. But, there comes a time when it is worthwhile to detach emotionally from a subject and conduct a more objective assessment. And, who better to do that than the engineering community, and in particular, the CR4 Community?

There are far greater minds than mine when it comes to the qualitative attributes of selling a car and that's fine with me. But, I do not believe those folks can hold a candle to what we engineers know about the quantitative value and performance of automotive products. And, I believe that what we can contribute to the dialog has not received appropriate attention by the automotive manufacturers or even by ourselves.

It's just too easy to get swept away by the emotional content. I remember well that I did just that when the car salesman said, "Matt, just take it for a ride; feel the power in that V6, how people see you." I bought the car, overpaid for it and, even more, have regretted the poorly designed transmission that could not match the power of that V6 ever since.

I have a close relative who is a doctor with three adult children. And, once when I was having a series of medical issues with my own children I asked him how doctors deal with their patients' tragic situations. He replied that it is important to properly detach the emotional aspect of the situation with the pragmatic, with what he can bring of value to resolve the situation. When he said that it was very difficult for him to deal with his own children when they were ill because it was just too hard to let go of the emotion, I understood.

I believe that we engineers are uniquely qualified (dare I say, "called") to detach from the emotional content of the automotive market and address the substantive matters of the day. And, I believe it is extremely important to all, not just devotees of GM and Ford in North America but to the world community at large.

I would agree if you were selling cars to engineers! Unfortunately, the number of quantitative auto buyers is vastly dwarfed by the emotional buyers.

Very inciteful. Re: transition from station wagon to minivan to SUV. It seems the station wagon may be getting cool again (if it ever was). With rap artists buying customised DUB edition Dodge Magnums, countless Subaru wagons driven by outdoorsy environmentally conscious lesbians, and the iconic wagon in 'that 70's show'.

There are more NEEDS than just transport from point A to point B. If you have ever lived or driven much in FL, especially if you have to pull a load off road, you realize the NEED for power, torque and probably 4WD. I live in FL, have an F-250 w/ 4WD and it goes many more places than just the side of the road.

As to discussing anything with a car salesman, I'd rather talk to a lamp post. All they are interested in is making the sale at their price. I agree that many people buy cars based on emotional feelings. However, most car/truck buyers with a brain buy based on need, practicality and maybe a little desire to purcase something pleasing to their eye.

Have you ever driven a minivan? How many do you see with dents and dings in the rear and sides? They have terrible field of view and are a pain to park (safely). Part of the move to SUV's was out of the desire to get away from the dangers (Minivans have a terrible crash record/performance.) and hazzards of the minivan.

Relative to your point of design and prediction, good luck. You better have a multifacited chrystal ball to cover ALL of the various market seqments (e.g. farmer/utility segment, family, single person, young/old, etc., etc.).

Touché, BN. Similar comments have been made about the NY/NJ crowd who head north on weekends to the 'mountains' and feel that justifies the 'need' to have a four wheel drive (4WD) vehicle seven days of the week for grocery shopping, soccer practice, etc. I find such commen ary more amusing than enlightening.

Your comment about the Darwinian evolution from the station wagon to the minivan to the SUV is intriguing. Of course, dinosaurs reached a point of diminishing returns in their evolution; I won't speculate on that analogy.

Most of all, THANK YOU! YOU are the first writer to start outlining market segments. Anyone else with knowledge of this market care to continue to develop these segments? Will someone please provide us with a spreadsheet showing various market segments, the automotive products developed to serve that market, information about the performance characteristics, price, quantity sold and production facilities for these products?

I know the information is in the public domain somewhere.

Just to answer the electrical gadgetry question. Personnelly I think too much reliance is being placed on electrics. I want a car that is reliable, efficient and obviously looks good, I don't want a car full of electric controlling everything, that can easily go wrong.

I drive a 1991 MX5 (Miata) with a soft top. The hood (roof) is manually put down and put up in about 15 seconds. The BMW Z3 has an electric hood (roof) that takes slightly longer to put down, but would be the same as the MX5 if it was done by hand - so why have an electricly operated hood for no extra benifit, that can fail, where as a manually operated hood will only fail when the driver fails.

It's the same with elecric windows, central locking etc, they are all nice to have but usually expensive if the electrics fail. The new Renault Megan is having loads of problems due to too much reliance on electrics, and I personnally wouldn't touch one with a barge pole!

Use electrics to inprove efficiency, only if it is warranted, but other than that keep it simple - how often have you taken the latest car to the garage with a miss-fire, and all the mechanic can say is 'it's something electrical, but we don't know what!'

Interesting point that you raise about the strengths and weaknesses of electrical gadgetry. I can tell you that I know people who will only buy cars that have power windows, door locks, mirrors and more. They are marvelous when they work but can be double the trouble when the malfunction.

Still, one of the perspectives I have about the market is that GM, via technology gained from its past ownership of electronics firms, has focused on such "gadgets" as means of bringing value to its customers. And, it may be that their leadership position starting with On-Star could give them a sustainable competitive advantage for many years.

Is that the wager they have made to thwart the competition from Honda, Toyota and others? If so, are they succeeding? They have certainly invested heavily to commercialize the technology and are now investing heavily in advertising and promotional campaigns.

Whether the market will perceive the value, however, is another matter entirely. Time will tell.

"The automotive companies try to cluster these user preferences in a meaningful way (what they define as a market segment)"

Is this segmentation / clustering published anywhere? I would love to see what the car companies think we want! Then perhaps we can see where they are going astray.

Good question and good point, Cato! Can anyone help us out here?

While the car companies prepare strategic plans based on their understanding of customer clusters and market segments, those documents are not likely to be shared publicly in great detail. I know that Investment Banks in New York and elsewhere pay very healthy salaries to analysts who spend their entire lives assessing market segments and customer clusters. Those documents are available but distribution is often limited to clients and prospective clients.

It seems to me, given the brainpower and knowledge comprised throughout the engineering community and, in particular, within the CR4 community, that we could prepare our own assessment of needs and wants. The, rather than letting them know where they have gone astray, they will know where we want them to go.

Is there a way for us to pull this information together for public discussion?

The other point which strikes me whenever I visit a car show room (if I can stay awake) is how much of a compromise the cars have become. They are often on common platforms, with common engines, common switch gear, etc. And yet even for one model, there are tens or maybe hundreds of customer segments, each of which will want something different. For example the young rip in the Fiesta Sport is essentially sitting in the same chunk of metal and plastic as the old guy in the Fiesta 1.1L.

I understand a popular word these days is "mass customization" to try to address this (ie: surface decoration of a common structure). But even this is destined for failure if the carmakers don't actually know what makes customers tick. Hopefully someone out there will restore my faith and post some good info on what carmakers think is important to us

Cato,

One approach bandied about by the pundits is that with globalization and flexible manufacturing came the opportunity to produce whatever car the consumer wanted - presto chango - mass customization. Alas, we ended up with the mix of common foundations topped with an unwieldy array of options, as you pointed out.

When Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas all introduced their wide body aircraft (747, L-1011 and DC-10, respectively), Lockheed was pinched and chose to provide customized interiors, cockpit controls and more all in the name of giving the customers what they wanted. Sounds like a great idea and, from what my pilot friends told me, the L-1011 was a beautiful aircraft to fly. But, customization can become a trap where costs balloon and, ultimately, the program is not sustainable in a competitive environment.

Is there a lesson there for the automotive firms? I say there is.

Choose your battles (i.e. market segments) very carefully.

First of all, the three US manifacturing companies need to take a lesson from the Asians. If their cars are as good as they say then they need to put their warranties where they should be rather than rhetoric. Hyundai's 10 year/100,000 mile warrantee gained them a lot of ground in a short time.

Secondly, given the current cost of fuels and future availability/cost, more emphasis should be placed on economy of operation while being mindful of performance, capacity, comfort, etc. The European manufacturers have done a pretty good job. Why have the US based companies such as Ford and GM not come out with a small turbo diesel that delivers plenty of torque and economy?

Lastly, from the early success of SUV's, new generation trucks (e.g. crew caps, versatle bed arrangements, comfort/design, etc.), car/truck buyers want style, function and comfort while keeping an underlying focus on "It must to be fuel efficient!". Unfortunately with current available models, this last requirement has been like our political selection opportunities. We've had to settle for the lesser of available 'evils'.

All good points, basicneeds.

10yr/100K Warranties now might be more of a need than a want; that is to say, something we have wanted but now that Hyundai offers it for their products it will now become an expectation from all automotive manufacturers. Iacocca's Chrysler did that with the 7yr/70K program.

As for the shifting emphasis to economy of operation and other performance attributes you mention, those characteristics are clearly important to all automotive firms. However, given longstanding local market conditions, the European manufacturers have a better appreciation for emphasizing the features you mention.

Diesels will likely have their day, again, in North America but past experiences did not bode well (for a variety of reasons) and, at this point, it's not particularly easy to purchase diesel fuel. In some places, it is not possible to even buy a diesel car!

As for fuel efficiency, I do not believe any of the manufacturers are going to caught as flat-footed on that issue as they were during the OPEC oil shock of the 1970's; still, there seems to be some blind spots in the industry as far as fuel economy is concerned.

Thanks for the response.

I think our US BIG Three rely too much on MARKET interpretation. It's a bit like the movie about baseball, IF THEY BUILD IT, THE MARKET WILL COME!

If one of these guys would have the gumption (I did not want to use what I realy thought.) to build a car, SUV or truck with all of the RIGHT components (e.g. economy, performance and flexibility, etc.) the buyers would beat down their doors.

While I agree about the diesel availability to some degree as I own and operate an F-250 Powerstroke for my farming needs, it is plentiful (Although expensive due to Wall Street driven activities.) and could be made more economic an available if we, as a country, would spend the bucks on renewable resources as opposed to trying to fight wars that noone can win, we'd ALL be better off.

Ditto, BN,

I can't speak for the automotive manufacturers' design methodology or market interpretation. I just know that something is causing a share shift that has caused great financial duress for several companies, for their employees and for the general economy (mind you, I'm not just talking about in the United States).

And, yes, I agree that investing in renewable resources is a far better option than expenditures on munitions and, worse, using them. But, even with the money that has been spent on renewable resources, I still have not seen a worthy gameplan.

If you know what the RIGHT components are, please share them with us.

Great blog and questions!

My opinion is that the greatest pain encountered with driving is not with the vehicles. It is police, and insurance companies. Can you do anything about that? In my opinion it has long been possible to automate vehicles, and virtually eliminate accidents. This is entirely within the realm of current engineering to solve! I believe that there are significant political energies opposing the development of these technologies, because they would definitely signal the end of the evil money grabbing empire of police and insurance!

Of course, no auto maker is going to venture into this market, due to the political pressure to conform to 'consensus' auto-making.

chris

Thank you for your kind remarks to all who have participated in this blog. I hope the discussion will continue; I would like to think that collectively we will provide support and value to the automotive engineering community!

You raise an interesting point about the influence of police and insurance companies. While they are not directly involved in the automotive industry, they are what is called an "external influence" on the marketplace that can be as significant as any influence of customers or suppliers. (I'll write more about this subject in the future, but you may wish to read about Michael Porter and his seminal book, Competitive Strategy.)

Before jumping ahead, however, I still would like for someone or those of us in this forum to form a picture of the current automotive marketplace, including: they key suppliers, their products, performance characteristics, target audience and more.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not involved in the auto industry" because they certainly are. Together they dictate what is 'roadworthy' and also influence what emissions are permissible, and what sound levels are permissible.

They have a strong influence on the safety of vehicles on the road, (seatbelts, airbags, visibility, etc) as well as on the auto repair industry, which all feeds back to the primary auto makers. The insurance companies have a huge influence on drivers, their training, age, vision, etc.

Police dictate road speeds, and this in turn dictates design characteristics such as optimal cruising speeds of the vehicles, optimal stopping distances, etc.

Why is it that the auto industry does not EVER attempt to change these 'external' or ''environmental' factors? If the maximum speed limit in a state or province is dictated, then why can cars go faster? Why not have them physically limited? Add a passing state, which allows up to 20mph faster, and be done with all that policing of speed.

Install radio beacons in the school zones, and recievers in the cars, and it will act like a star wars interdiction field, limiting the speed of all vehicles in that zone, period. no more dead children. no bloated police budgets or ticket quotas. Why continue on building a police and insurance state of existence? rant rant rant... :)

Sorry to carry on like this, but there is sooo much that could be done. My point is that they do influence design criteria of all of our current products on the road directly, and therefore, are part of the auto industry.

WHOA, Trigger!!!

Please quote me correctly as I said that they (police and insurance companies) are not "DIRECTLY" involved in the automotive industry. Yes, they are VERY MUCH involved and their influence is immense as you so clearly state.

My point in sharing the reference to Michael Porter's work is to suggest that the impact of 'external factors' is ALWAYS evident in competitive markets. Despite some bottlenecks these influences might create, they serve the common good.

I very much like your thinking about how the automotive firms can use the perspective and impact of these firms to benefit. While some of your ideas may be costly, I believe that they will see many become reality in time. Front impact airbags and, now, side impact air bags are testimony to your cause. And, we are still in the infancy of employing electronic systems for command and control features.

And, just my two cent notion, but I have a hunch that GM is farther down that road than any of their competitors.

You are right, I read too quickly... sorry. I am impressed with your congenial and diplomatic guidance of these blogs. good work, and inspiring stuff!

Chris

Part of the stigma that dogs the US industry goes back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s when the US automakers literally drove the market. Automakers told you what you wanted to drive and there was little competition to say otherwise.

In the late 70s all that started to change when Japan aimed its industry guns squarely at the US market. What caught the US automakers off guard was the ability for the Japanese to listen and improve on their products in rapid succession. The US automaker mindset was still stuck in the paradigm for the last three decades and failed to get traction in the market place, which was shifting rapidly due to the gas shortages and Japanese manufactures eager to listen to what people wanted.

Aggravating the situation for the big three was the spin time for the US automaker to turn a design from concept to creation. It would take nearly 10 years to remake their line! Their processes were archaic and outdated. A further complication was that the new lines needed to be wrung out. There were all kinds of teething pains to get to where they could be competitive. All the while the Japanese were gaining solid momentum. The 1980s also saw a renaissance for the European car. This was in part due to the US economy and social style and the Euro automakers took full advantage of the growing market for upscale cars. Meanwhile, Japan kept refining their skills and the started penetrating the upscale market with precision by the end of that decade. All the big three could do is wave banners about buying American.

By now the big three automakers had regained composure and had the technology and innovation to begin competing with the foreign autos, but it was too little, too late. US automakers suffered (although somewhat unfairly) the reputation of being both out of touch and low quality (due to the hiatus of their rebirth). None of which was entirely true, but the damage was done and it has been a long and slow loosing battle for the big three since.

Finally, the burden imposed by unions has caught up at a time when the US automakers really need a financial break (not brake). There are many other factors and they get somewhat complicated to explain here. However, the US industry got passed on the economic highway 25 years ago and they are plagued by an image that makes recovery nearly impossible. It has been said that one oops can erase a dozen at-a-boys.

Interesting historical perspective. While your perspective is somewhat similar to mine, do other readers have a similar perspective? We have readers throughout the world who may have a very different perspective on what has shaped the automotive industry that we see today.

And, we also have many engineers who are aware of industry history but who are focused on current activities, current un-met needs, and future opportunities. Knowing where we have been, where we are, does that impact how we move forward?

Once we have a snapshot of the current industry situation, then we might have a better chance of knowing what the options are.

You wrote: "To start, I would like to learn what others believe are key market needs, such as: safety, power, capacity, fuel efficiency, warranty, low maintenance, etc."

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS:

Safety:

• More this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Power:

• More this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Capacity:

• More this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Fuel Efficiency:

• More this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Warranty:

• More this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Low Maintentance:

• More this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Price:

• Lower this year, and even less next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Appearance:

• More options this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

Customization:

• More beauty this year, and more next, for the next 10 years. Record and publish measurements each year, along with stated goals.

"Comparison is the ultimate form of intelligence in this universe.(not Heaven) If not, how would we know?" chrisg288

"Improvement is the only reasonable goal of management." Philip B. Crosby

As far as Anonymous Hero's statement about "recovery nearly impossible", I think that it is difficult to move up to the second floor of a building without steps. Comparison and goals provide those steps, if an organization is committed and courageous enough to follow through. Wartime accomplishments thoroughly outshine all other areas when it comes to getting the job done, when it needs to be done, no excuses! Just do what it takes. It can be done. massive committment, from the top levels to the bottom. The big 3 have performed such miracles before, when needed. It's a matter of whether or not they want it bad enough, in my opinion. There is always a way to accomplish one's goals, and someone who knows how. Remember, Edison turned down Tesla with his AC system, and Westinghouse didn't. big mistake. Commitment and goals brings changes to one's mindset to be open to the ideas required to bring a goal to fruition.

Awesome input!

Please give me some time over the weekend (east coast, USA) to ponder and PLEASE, hearing from others to add to this discussion will be of GREAT value.

Much more to follow.......

Millmatt,

I think that the real problem is not technical, but political and marketing paradigms within the stakeholders tend to take over. For 50 years, the razor industry used a standard razor blade, and holders were designed to take that standard blade. When I started shaving, I bought a trac2 and was able to interchange handles to fit the blades, and basically upgrade my razor. Over the years, razor technology has advanced, but now, every new razor design has to have its own attachement technology, even when a perfectly valid attachment solution that came with the trac2 is still valid.

This is where marketing has taken over, and to the detriment of the customer, as far as I'm concerned. Each manufacturer figures that it will make more money making proprietary blades and handles. Where is the public outcry for a universal attachment, which will allow any blade to go with any handle?

As this relates to the auto industry, many years ago, a car was built around a set of rails, and the components were bolted to this frame. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see this as having a 'modular' approach to car building. Can you now put an engine from one manufacturer into a model built by another? don't think so.

The opportunity for modular vehicle construction has never been larger. If I can assemble a vehicle from modular components, in my backyard, over the weekend, and still end up with a cool vehicle, .... I would be happy. We do it with most computers.. based on the IBM model as a standard... It is certainly not impossible to do with vehicles. The frame and attachment technology is what is critical.

If a company were to ignore all the previous marketing and political paradigms and pressures, and venture out, building a completely modular technology, and encouraging other manufacturers to 'add-on', and all the while keeping costs low through not 're-inventing' every year, (at least not the whole vehicle) and maximizing mass production technology.

This set of technologies would be quickly adopted by the public worldwide, as it would address all manner of transportation issues, and meet all needs, and still make money. The company who took the lead in this could stay on top of the pyramid, through innovation, and a focussing on the new paradigm, and providing then, what the customer wants.

I can see several different 'frame' sizes, modular in themselves, each addressing a different load class. and from there, engines, control environments, wheels, fenders, signal/light systems can be added simply by bolting on, and plugging in. Shipping vehicles just add a cube of whatever size they want. Passenger seating is the same.

Rollbars, airbags, window/walls and roofs just connect together... It would take some engineering, but if you design for really longterm, you can dominate the market. Automakers think they must build in an expiry date for their vehicles, but with this paradigm, they wouldn't because the marketing paradigm shifts onto 'components', which really is a further growth of Henry Ford's "Replaceable Parts" concept.

Additionally, the economic interactions between the millions of owners, looking to upgrade, and exchange would be huge, really huge. can you see it? it already is, but it could be so much more.... and fun too. and think of the different vehicles that one would see out there.. and think of the customization industry..

There is so much more that could be said to this LEGO style of manufacturing. I think it answers so much. but it is a completely different paradigm.

chris.

Chris I love the concept and would add a few more points

The public probably would not in general be able to assemble or update the cars themselves so a whole new industry of secondary asemblers could spring up, each offering competitive rates to build up your car and capitalizing on the leverage of a large customer base.

The question this begs is: what's left for the carmakers to do? Engineer and test the cars, and take care of the marketing. One could say this plays to their competitive strength - it's certainly not in manufacturing anymore...

Another point you raise in longevity - I am amazed by the contstant ranting and raving about green issues, and yet our cars end up on the scrap heap far too soon, wasting precious resources (I don't believe more than a tiny percent are truly recycled into anything useful, despite the EC legislation I understand exists on this). Yes the car makers want to sell us more new cars, but perhaps it's time legislation is introduced which forces cars to be roadworthy (including emissions) for 25 years. This would fit nicely with your modular updating approach, where the basic car remains and the body work (recyclable of course!) is replaced to stay in vogue.

I think that there is a fair bit of expensive advanced technology required to mold and vulcanize tires, and to create engines, car computers, etc, etc, and these can continue to evolve. I'm just saying that advanced technology can be bolted on as well as more fundamental stuff, if enough thought is put into it. additionally, the potential to evolve vehicles, as you say, instead of wasting a whole vehicle, is much 'greener', and I do see a significant vector here too. The whole thing does.

I have at least one good idea for self-assembled vehicles. I'll see if I can come up with some images.

Chris

Chris,

One of CR4's active contributors, rollinshultz, wrote about the opportunity of modular design, planned obsolescence and implications for the automotive marketplace, too. His article (and replies from others) can be found at: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/2710.

GE's Automotive presentation at past SAE shows centered on modular designs that brought benefits to repairs and to recyclability. They showed how the dashboard, fluid reservoirs and other components could all be injection molded and assembled into a 'kit' that could be 'inserted' in the assembly process. At the end of the car's life, the kit could be removed from the metal frame/engine and the plastics recycled. It was very clever but seems not to have made it past the concept stage.

At the same show, I saw a vehicle on display that was designed and built by Magna Corporation. Magna is a major supplier of components and assemblies to the industry. Although I am not an industry insider, I was told that the (then) Big 3 gave Magna an ultimatum not to ever consider bringing that or any other finished product to market or they would lose their primary business. Whether true or not, it is the kind of story that speaks to how difficult it is to manage relationships when the stakes are so huge. Building modular cars (as was the case in the personal computer hardware market) changes those relationships and allows for competition (that, so far, Microsoft has been able to avoid). It's a tough sell for all sorts of business reasons.

But, Michael Dell and others were able to bring modular designs to the PC market. Magna COULD bring modular cars to the automotive market, albeit at much risk. I bet GE could, too; would they dare?

Aside from modular designs, one of the interesting discussions about using fuel cells as the power plant for cars centers on the interchangability of the fuel cell stack and components. Were a Ballard or other non-automotive supplier be the primary source for the power plant, would that change the complexion of the industry? I think the implications of that shift would be enormous and might be the best way to bring about the advent of modular designs espoused by many here.

Chris,

What you have shared here is a wonderful summary of the themes that have been discussed in this blog (mostly) and in many other forums, too. You've concisely reflected back to the community that which the community has raised as relevant to this discussion. Bravo!

Does anyone disagree with what Chris has provided? Probably, as this matter of perspectives is not an exact science! But, it is a good foundation for an objective look at the automotive market, what is right with it and what is wrong with it....and THAT was how I started this whole discussion.

It seems to me that if we look at the issues on a more objective or rational basis, we'll see many of our misgivings are subjective or emotional. And, yes, we will find that there really are some shortcoming (major shortcomings!) but the list will be small enough that we can agree what will be required to mitigate those shortcoming.

Believe it or not, it's NOT rocket science.

Of course, there is no magic bullet and there is no one correct answer. That is why there is so much competition and that competition is as much the energy that drives our economy as new technologies and fashion trends. And, that competition and variations in needs/wants from one person to the next gives rise to the importance of market segments. Afterall, the identity of Soccer Mom's and Metrosexuals as groups may be constructs of the past 20 years (more or less) but the distinction between the transportation needs of a family (and all that entails in terms of schedules, numbers, weight, economics) and a single professional male (and all that entails in terms of schedules, economics, destinations) are very different. As such, it behooves the automotive companies to provide products with very different features.

I could write quite a bit more on this matter but fear it will be too academic. I think you all get the basic idea. But, what would be intriguing is to get input from everyone (and friends, relatives, Romans and countrypersons, too!). Were I to get a sufficient quantit of information (via email) I could share a compilation of the information that could lead to a very valuable discussion.

Anyone care to share their perspective on the importance of these requirements: Safety, Power, Capacity, Fuel Efficiency, Warranty, Maintenance, Appearance? Customization? If you had 100 points total to apply to these requirements in order of importance (i.e. - 40 to Safety, 30 to Capacity, 30 to Maintenance) and could then grade your car (on a scale of 1 to 10) for each requirement, we could build quite a valuable storehouse of information that I would share with all for further discussion.

I think that effort would be very valuable to all.

I think I get the tread of Chris' idea and agree that there should be a way to build a vehicles that can evolve while still in use and avoid the waste of valuble resources with associated costs.

The automotive industry has made significant strides in developing body and chasis components that last. E-coat technolgy and understanding and knowledge of allows and elastomeric compounds has made components last longer and be more durable in harsh environments. We now need an adaptive drive train.

Much the same way as the after market computer chip has aided the diesel power and fuel economy in trucks, why can't modifyable ejector systems, computer control logic, etc. work to the end users', environment and global societies advantage ? If anyone recalls one of the Star Wars episodes where Hans Solo and Chewie were piloting an out dated but modified & highly functional star craft, this is the sort of idea that I think is in Chris' mind.

Millmatt,

I think that all those factors are equally important to the designer, and vary according to each customer's preferences, and subsequently, these are the variations in vehicles that drive the market. I don't think you can formulate them. I think they are a spectrum of technologies and methodologies, and it is difficult to know what each vehicular application will require as well as each customer's perception of each category.

With a modular system, it might be possible for a dealership (or aftermarket customizer) to design you a vehicle, based on a personal interview evaluation of each customer's preferences, similar to the way we now 'load' our vehicles.

chris

Going back to some of the original threads about customer preferences, do you think a self build car (or updateable car) is something the car makers have explored and abandoned due to lack of public interest?

I am thinking of the Smart car, which was originally advertised as offering different body panels according to your moods or the seasons. It never caught on to any great degree.

This all comes back to knowing what the general public actually want. I think we here are in danger of falling into the same trap as the car enthusiasts who work for the car makers: we want to build what WE want to build.

Great point, Cato!!! It can be difficult to separate YOUR ideas and interests from the ideas and interests of those you are trying to serve. And, I'll go so far as to say, that ability to distinguish personal wishes from the greater good is what differentiates competent technicians from successful engineers.

It can be difficult to separate YOUR ideas and interests from the ideas and interests of those you are trying to serve. And, I'll go so far as to say, that ability to distinguish personal wishes from the greater good is what differentiates competent technicians from successful engineers.

Too bad that it doesn't weed out those incompetent to make the distinction in fields like politics or religion . . . where self-interest tends to dominate every other consideration. And I carefully DIDN'T say "enlightened self-interest." It hasn't weeded out nearly enough CEO's and other managers of large businesses, either, in recent years.

Oh Ron, It's not a perfect world.

Still, the choice I try to make is to serve our common purposes. And, even at that, I've made plenty of my own mistakes.

There's not much to be gained with a general statement concerning the failings of others. Let's focus on what we can do to make it a better world for all.