Plastics Need a Backbone in Autos

I think it is two major items: Cost and consumer demand.

Cost means that plastic must drive down manufacturing and/or material costs (raise profitability). You also need to factor in NRE (non-reoccurring engineering costs).

Consumer demand means that there is a viable and emerging market that requires the technology (plastic) to meet the demand. In this case, plastic has to offer an advantage to the customer that is tangible and meaningful to fill the customer needs and wants. If plastic improves the cost of ownership to the customer, then it becomes an interesting item. If plastics allow for a visually pleasing design, that may help drive sales. Performance increase would be another customer want (fuel consumption, power, usability, safety, etc.).

The bottom line is that plastic has to give the manufacture an advantage in the market that will drive sales and profitability up. If that can be demonstrated as a good business case, then it will happen.

I do think that more plastic components (read made from recyclable plastics!) have a definite future in the automotive world moreso than the conventional metals of the past. The reason that steel, its alloys, and other metals are still used is I guess, a "comfort level" thing as its performance is predictable, provided it is not damaged and does not incur corrosion. But modern and future plastics/composites allow the exploration and application of a new chapter of automotive construction.

We know that the performance characteristics of many plastics are affected not only by exposure to natural elements, but by other environmental elements as well as the passage of time. At this end we must be able to predict the performance of the plastics as these influences are applied and determine within a safe estimate when the integrity is no longer sufficient.

I am no expert in the chemistry of plastic formulations, but I am aware that tremendous progress has been made there. I will present a reasoning that is perhaps, with a uniquely "North American" perspective. I am about to beat a herd of dead horses with my next statements.

People want "safer" automobiles, and have some understanding of the basic laws of physics prove that when an object of higher mass collides with an object of lower mass that the object of lower mass will incur the most displacement. Of course a vehicle can be made safer merely by applying certain features in its design.

In the decades past, the relative sizes of North American automobiles varied greatly from the infamous "Detroit Two-Tonners" of the day to the relatively inexpensive and much smaller imported automobiles. Most people wanted fuel efficiency but were unwilling to sacrifice their perception of the improved safety afforded by a larger automobile for the efficiency of the smaller automobile.

Now, many years have passed yet the mindset remains true to the past as far as consumers are concerned. Very natural, I might add. These days different automobile classes are much closer to each other as far as physical exterior dimensions and weight, so the arguments of the past do not have the scientific significance of magnitude they once enjoyed.

But in absence of government mandates, the automotive industry will not make significant design/material changes that render improvements in fuel efficiency or safety. As consumers we desire and force these improvements, yet for the most part are unwilling (or unable) to pay for them. The automotive industry is like any other business-it will try to make what it can sell to us.

So in the end; the answer to your question? Either government mandates (always effective even if sometimes misguided or incomplete) or consumer preference demonstrated by the market. I vote for the first.

Regards,

Ing. Robert Forbus

One thing that keeps Detroit locked to steel is all the tooling and knowledge is already there and functioning. The thought of abandoning existing tooling and retooling and retraining probably has a cost that leaves a bad taste in the CFOs mouths.

"when an object of higher mass collides with an object of lower mass that the object of lower mass will incur the most displacement."

True, but then again if a bowling ball hits a pool ball, the pool ball does very little displacement, but goes flying off in the opposite direction. I can say that I still don't want to be in the pool ball! ;-)

Unfortunately, the perception of the large, heavy, vehicle's safety is a bit of a myth. SUVs and trucks have a higher kill rate than cars due to a number of issues, but I digress.

"Either government mandates (always effective even if sometimes misguided or incomplete) or consumer preference demonstrated by the market. I vote for the first."

I have to cringe anytime the government steps in to save us. Particularly in this instance. I think that the compelling reasons to embrace new technology lies in their benefit to the consumer eye. If the consumer perceives a benefit they will buy it.

It is much better if the market is driven by the consumers, that way they get what they want.

I do agree that consumers, rather than an often misguided government agenda should be the driving force behind further improvements to automobiles. I also agree that light trucks and SUV's have inherent dangers of their own, and you cannot convince me that either is safer in a crash when compared to a well-designed albeit smaller automobile.

I also agree that the myth about sheer mass alone = improved protection is but a myth. Yet many of our automotive purchasing decisions are still guided by this myth for many of we consumers do not examine the data. The automakers of Detroit will continue to promote the market for heavy vehicles as long as possible; as long as people desire to purchase larger automobiles and trucks.

Gasoline topping $3.00/gallon obviously had some short-term shock effect but not much long-term effect on the American consumer. What will it take to get the point across about the need to conserve fuel; i.e. does it need to reach a cost level of $7.50/gallon before pain is felt and mindsets change?

Much good discussion,

Ing. Robert Forbus

Trucks and SUV sales are still slightly better than 50% of all consumer vehicles. So people are still voting with their wallets.

However, there may be a change coming as people start to question the amount of cash it takes each month to drive that kind of vehicle. It just takes time, I guess.

One thing that keeps Detroit locked to steel is all the tooling and knowledge is already there and functioning. The thought of abandoning existing tooling and retooling and retraining probably has a cost that leaves a bad taste in the CFOs mouths.

There was a man by the name of Preston Tucker that experience the wrath of the Big Three due to the cost of retooling fom his innovations

The repairability of steel is a factor. Structural plastic parts are virtually irrepairable. Ever tried welding glass filled nylon ?

Del

In a fender bender, they'll replace steel instead of repairing it. its cheaper.

outer body such as skin. but structural ???. yes that may be repaired.

did the world miss something here?

dear old henry made auto parts from soybean based plastic.

if you do a little digging you just might find the connection between the reseaerch at mcgill university during the '30's that later appered along a silimalr line produced by some prewar german companies which provided the baterry powered electric tools the german soldiers carried into "battle pacified zones".follow the trail back to the advent of the radar housings used in the liberators and other bombers especially the r.a..f. you might find the radar systems were housed in high impact plastic, seems odd that it appears to have the same chemical compositions as were found in the early auto makers assembly line finishing partrs components.there is a whole s.l. of info about how much research the auto manufacturing industries of the world (one in particular will remain nameless) have put into using plastic and plastic composites in athe production of thier products`it will be available by a g,o,y,a,p. for it. ( sparky) i am being as delicate as i can on this one.

'da ber