Feasibility Discussion on Modular Vehicles

I recall around 1958 or so, see a billboard along the Charles River in Boston.

It showed the outline of the VW "Bus," and had the simple wording,

"THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE!"

This is very similar to a concept a friend of mine and I toyed with many years ago- the idea originating with the "kit car" concept- essentially a fiberglas body that one would mount to one's chasis of choice (most common was the Volksvagen bug chasis, but the Chevy Corvair was also popular). Ever seen a Shelby Cobra body mounted on a Volkswagen chasis? Our idea was to have interchangeable bodies- today, I need a pickup, so I mount the pickup body. Yesterday I needed the van, so I mounted the van body. Tonight, I have a hot date- do I want the sports sedan, or the luxury sedan?

Actually, many manufacturers utilize the same basic chasis for a number of models- there is even some of this going on across traditional brand lines.

But, reality strikes. Your typical car manufacturer would rather sell you multiple vehicles rather than multiple purpose vehicles...

I suspect that, except for a relatively small market segment, this do-it-yourself vehicle would be of limited appeal. On the other hand, with the significant turmoil in the US auto industry, now just might be an opportune tiime to explore other marketing concepts...

Hi Charles,

Thank you for your insight. I agree that this way of doing business has evolved in the car industry, and the typical manufacturer would prefer... to have it all their own way.

I am hoping to develop this as a competing business model, because it makes sense for the consumer. I don't think it is limited at all to being a 'do-it-yourself' marketplace.. just that that capability is inherent. I believe there would still be lots of opportunity for dealerships, just as there are lots of opportunities for computer resellers and specialist shops, even though computers are modular.

which brings me around to a favourite point of mine.. there are many industries that function on the foundation of modularity, and it is no hindrance at all to the manufacturers, and totally beneficial to the consumer. Computers are just one prime example. If you are putting electricity into your home, your components are tested and safety rated for compliance, and that makes it safer and better for the customer. There is still lots of opportunity for professionals and consulltants, resellers, trades, and even unions.

"On the other hand, with the significant turmoil in the US auto industry, now just might be an opportune tiime to explore other marketing concepts..."

I really strongly agree with this.

Chris

Reminds a bit of the Big 3 philosophy, from Henry to ... well, the Japanese invasion.

Could you explain that please?

Hi Kyzine,

good points about the monocoque.. but I still don't see it as limiting anything...

I'm saying.. the frame is where to start... by specifying the volumes, and connections. I don't see this preventing a monocoque style frame? thats just another option for the customer to make. Perhaps there could be a monocoque style frame, but still have a lighter 'skin' type body that can be mounted over top of it.

as far as interfaces.. imho, certain areas will be parametric and adjustable, and certain areas will be fixed. That is really what I want to know about first. What MUST be a fixed parameter in specifying a vehicle?

Chris

"Perhaps there could be a monocoque style frame, but still have a lighter 'skin' type body that can be mounted over top of it."

Well you're not quite understanding monocoque structural mass thinking but:

Fair enough; start with a "roll cage/chassis" then mount 'skin'? like racing cars and dragsters? Lotus Elsie & maybe 7?

link

But then; "please include every conceivable mount and adjustments"?

2 door, 4 door, 1/2 doors, 5 door, gull door, slide door, sports, cabriolet, waggon.......body styles

Big ask! - jus' sayin'

Really great links there, and of course you are right about the body styles.

I think that this is handled in the 'frame style' of structure because they could be extensible to accept the larger pasenger compartments. it is more challenging with the monocoque method, but not impossible. I think we just specify what the parameters are to start, like military specifying a new aircraft, and let the manufacturers (genii) figure out how to solve the problems of construction and integration, and have a competition for the successful solutions. (it is a free market after all)

GA (love Lotus)

Chris

Chris, what Kyzine is sooo true that it comes down to what do you want todo, 1) Is this an exercise in design or 2) do you really want to design something that is financially feasible for production and sales, cause this has been done before by big car companies. Because the modular concept is a limiting factor to design.

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

I don't see modularity as limiting to design. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see stressed-skin as limiting... Certainly it is easy to see the benefits of it, and that streamlining is inherent, but modularity has so much more to offer in terms of design, function, and economics.

I want to explore the feasibility of modular vehicles as the basis for a competing business model for vehicle components manufacture. Once the foundation principles and guiding specifications are in place, then I believe it would only take one manufacturer to fabricate the initial frame/roll cage, and others (existing components mfgs) would be able to design a new component to fit. (they already have a component for each product line presumably)

so if you are an alternator mfg,or wheel, or brake, or dashboard, etc, this is just another product in your lineup... competing of course.

What is so limiting about modular? I see it as enabling...

Chris

"planned obsolescence isn't so easy when a person can swap parts easily"

CRAZY TRUE!

Here is a sample website regarding mazda RX7 upgrading, and I think the approach and backgroud information is great. These are the lines I'm thinking along, that one would have for a modular vehicle, but that the range of selection would be wider.

http://www.fd3s.net/table_of_contents.html

Chris

Here is a website (database) of comparative automotive data - apparently global.

Here are some links to previous threads that mention the subject of modular vehicle design.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/385/Automotive-Opportunities

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/12504/Re-Automotive-Opportunities

and another

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/2710/Outdated-engineering-Outdated-Designs

and one that is just a good background.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/358/Automotive-Share-Shift-Assessment

Chris

Oh, My Friends!

We are all so far apart physically.

I resigned from APIX, which I had put a lot of time and effort into.

Did you all know that Troy New York is Ilium in the works of Kurt Vonnegut?

(My wife has been called a walking dictionary, I married her partly because she had my library.)

I hate to travel much anymore.

One of my main talents is as a driver. I'll never forget as long as I have memory cresting a long downhill run in a Plymouth Belvedere in 6 inches of snow on the Pennslyvannia Turnpike. -no snow tires.

Looking down the long hill I thought, "No stopping now, no brakes now, this is skiing."

Many times poor.

A convention in Troy of CR4 was past batted around.

Only thing I know really is, that it is good to help your friends.

Chris -- This is interesting. I don't know where to start except from a pretty basic level.

Some thoughts here......

1. Lets look back for a minute. We've had glimpses of standardization of a sort in past examples of highly successful long lived product families of the larger manufacturers. The Ford Model T, the VW Beetle, the Ford flathead V-8's, Chevrolet small block V-8's, Toyota 4 cylinder trucks, Renault 2CV's come to mind. I'm sure there are others. Some common threads here are standard chassis that would accommodate a wide variety of bodies, wide mechanical interchangeability of major subassemblies as well as small electrical subassemblies, standardization of mechanical fasteners and bolt patterns. These features bred a lot of creative aftermarket modifications and products. this wouldn't have happened if automotive design technology was in a high state of change as it is today.

2. Now look forward. Future designs are not well defined due to uncertainty over what will be the successful technologies to meet energy efficiency needs. Another wild card factor has to do with safety issues and future imperatives in that area. Environmental issues are a subset of that.

3. Fundamental requirements of an automobile are to efficiently and safely move humans and other cargo from one place to another. Humans also add a set of mental and emotional requirements to the basic functions as well as a bias for cost efficiency.

4. The result of 3. is the propulsion hardware and related controls evolve as a system that has a unique physical shape. This requires somewhat unique packaging structure or "frame". A single cost efficient frame design that will accommodate the current candidates for the dominant propulsion technology of the future will be a significant challenge.

5. A vehicle must be designed to accommodate its cargo, people, animals or inanimate "stuff". Since the cargo has mass and volume the design must take into account how many people and how much stuff is to be transported and in the case of people how happy they will be during and after the trip.

6. If we choose to look back at some of the examples I cited in 1. we tend to see a single common frame designed around the needs of the drive train and a passenger compartment for a driver (and controls), from one to 4 passengers and a cargo space with volume equivalent to that required for one or two adults and perhaps 500 pounds of weight. We also see an evolution of increased requirements for passenger comfort, safety and favorable travel experience. It is reasonable to expect that this evolution was substantially influenced by improving standards of living in nations that manufacture automobiles.

7. Big question: can we realistically expect the evolution in 6. to continue unabated?

8. Other big design questions revolve around how to do the frame or interconnecting "body platform" to accommodate whichever of a number of fundamentally different energy conversion and/or storage technologies we end up with. Also to be accommodated is one or more different passenger/cargo compartments. A third accommodation is the mixture of cargo and propulsion methods needed to efficiently accomplish transport missions that could vary between a trip to a nearby store to a lengthy vacation for a family group.

Food for thought here...... Ed Weldon

Hi Ed,

#1, I think you are totally right. There is a car museum not too far from me.. and has about 20 Model T fords, customized every which way.... because they (the owners) could.

#2, I think this is core... to really make those 10 league strides, we have to have the ability to start from first principles... but there are a lot of technologies that are mature, and therefore, a modular approach will allow the good to be retained, and let the market (customers) determine direction, options, and environmental response.

#3, I think that the more engaging the process is of choosing your vehicle components, the greater Joy you will have in owning it. Also knowing that you can upgrade and modify at will contributes to the overall awesomeness... I think the 60's musclecar business gives a good indication of how much owners enjoy tinkering and upgrading... it is a huge market.

#4, yes, but the overall volumes per class can be specified, especially the mounting can be determined. I have a graphics card in my computer that is a huge fat thing with its own fan, and takes two spaces, but it still fits in the PCI express cardedge slot.

#5, I agree.. but for specification purposes, I think we have to give overall volumetric limits for each load class. (see image) For example, having a maximum 96" stance is critical, so thats a start.

#6, the internal volumes are already specified for passenger vehicles... I think that powerplant manufactures will have to work together with body desginers to resolve issues...

#7, yes, the safety, ride, comfort, and a thousand other things have evolved in the last 120 years of development... we will keep the best of those developments.

I think we can fairly stipulate frame requirements for road-based vehicles. (basically a north american standard, of mostly paved roads)

Chris

PS. This image does not include bumper space, or any other body components. It is intended to show the fundamental critical volumes for specification purposes.

Yes, the money would be nice, but I'm of the opinion that when the ideas are big enough, they will take on a life of their own... which is why I wanted to explore the feasiblity in greater detail, and either see it grow, or shrink.

great insights. GA.

Chris

JT,

you get very high marks for the market awareness. I agree, if it shouldn't be done, then that's okay. at least we know.. but I wanted to go through this exercise to give some flesh to the bones so to speak. I'm not alone in thinking of this obviously, and there is a lot of expertise available here. I wish to have a more complete conception of the methodology and markets before throwing in the towel...

so I will continue on with this process I've started.

Chris

GA Chris. While I respect what JT says I feel it is not germane to this discussion. His advice is fine for someone trying to develop a business plan. That's not the purpose here.

If we all thought the way he advocates in his response I'd be out in the barn feeding my horses. Instead we're engaging in what is essentially a brainstorming session of creative thinkers who are , as you say, trying to "put some flesh to the bones" of a radical concept in automotive design without knowing exactly where it will take us.

The law of unintended consequences is hanging around us. But this time the consequences may be beneficial rather than detrimental. We don't know where this is going. It's a corner of automotive technology that is way off the mainstream.

I to have thought about a "modular vehicle". But my thoughts are far different than Chris's. So I will say little of them except that they are taylored to my specific needs, which are not well in sync with the general marketplace. So I will say little of them until such time as they are appropriate to the discussion at hand.

Ed Weldon

Ed you are saving me a lot of typing -

My feeling remains that "modular" is just the wrong term - it makes folk think 'plug together' - and such ''interfaces" cost 'extra bucks' and give 'extra limits'

Chris - this can be a worthwhile exploration - but not as a 'plug together'.

For example if 'plug in' a longer passenger compartment - the Ackerman correction changes - meaning 'front module' is now 'non standard'

Add in the 23 -30 other BOM changes - and why bother?

Chris - carry on - but appreciate this word is going to get you a lot of negativity.

Kyzine -- Modular systems I've had experience with are generally in the class of "some assembly required". The larger the physical size the more assembly work involved. In this case we're dealing with at least 3 components each weighing between 500 and 1000 pounds. Two have to wheels each the other has no wheels. You'll need serious assembly platforms and some forklift capability to put the major pieces together.

Then there is the process of obtaining final wheel alignment and the special equipment required. Correct Ackerman can be obtained with interchanging relatively simple parts in the wheel suspension if the parts are designed for interchangeability. Doable but not likely in the average do-it-yourself mechanic's garage. (OK, some brainiac out there could likely figure out a self calibration scheme especially if there are active suspension components)

I think where we are going with this is that a specialized repair shop facility would be used to change out any of the three basic modules in Chris's concept. This would not exactly be a frequent occurrence like taking the hard top off your old T-bird. More like trading in your extended cab module for a 4 door back seat module when you get pregnant. Or trading the trunk module for one with a towing setup for a period of trailer towing. Or switching the engine module to take advantage of new propulsion technology. Or upgrading the passenger module from something cheap and spartan to one that is lavish in creature comforts.

There would certainly be a cost premium for such a system. All the connection points will add cost, weight, volume and complexity. But at the same time good design based on the idea of easy upgrading and changing of interchangeable parts can bring economies and potentially longer life cycles.

Such a vehicle as this will not appeal to the majority. Styling will likely be unconventional, if not by this year's standards then the standards of some future year only partway through the lifespan of the vehicle. At best it would attract a niche market that turns into a bit of a "cult" following. The key would be the reduction of fixed costs in both development and manufacturing so that the product could be competitive in price even with initial lower production volumes. This in turn depends on the use of established technologies in the vehicle design. Stuff we know works. So this is a revolutionary system concept built on decidedly non-revolutionary components.

IMHO the very key to this is a concept I call "open source engineering". All drawings and specifications for the "system" are open and available to anyone. I am inspired in this suggestion by the growing success of Linux and Mozilla Firefox. Interface specs would become international standards subject to the same methodical change process as other standards.

Who cares about negativity of the majority? We have a legion of folks before us, some with household names, who faced the same sort of attitudes. Besides, no one is asking for any investment dollars here.

Count me in with Chris. ......Ed Weldon

Ed,

As for mechanical connections, there is a keyhole twist-lock used to pick up shipping containers that I think has a lot of promise for quick-connect... just needs a bit of engineering to make it lock completely, and not unlock unintentionally.

but probably each zone will have its own... I will hopefully get a chance to make some more images tomorrow... for now, I've just been able to refine yesterday's image. I find it really interesting to think about modular connections... every time you close your car door, hood or trunk, you are putting a body component into place really... and it locks and is reliable, so why is it so different to think of all the body parts being the same? works for me... and why can't we have sliding bolts that make connection after the door closes? We really have a lot of room for some creative engineering.

Kyzine.. thanks for the deep thinking. I will try to think of a different word. One thing I like about CR4 is the notion that our words will stand for some time... we don't know how long. It is important for readers to get a solid sense of reality from these discussions for them to be worthwhile, and I think you definitely communicate that.

Ed, I really appreciate your positive spin on this.. but I know that you are just as realistic as Kyzine. I hope you all will use this thread as a repository going forward to add ideas as they occur... that was why I created the structure. (and I hoped that cr4 would see some value in possibly giving those types of tools for organizing knowledge)

and yes, I think there is a market for local shops to modify vehicles.. I think that will help our economies a great deal, creating value locally that customers want. makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Those people who learned mechanics in their driveway, or changed engines under a tree will get to feel like they did in the old days, and the new kids will learn too.

Chris

A very nice succinct but comprehensive visual Conceptualization, Representation and Presentation Chris.

Ed, come-on this is a disscussion, what are your ideas.

I still like the idea of a 3 wheeler with the 2 front wheels driving (front wheel drive), the whole front end is a swap out power module, all electricals go there (the crossbar on a capital "T"), with the verticle part as the passenger compartment, that is also a breakway from the power module in a severe accident.

I did a google search in the image section for 'modular car' and turned up a few interesting links. please forgive the mess.

http://www.psfk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/colim-caravan-concept3.jpg
http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/modular_car.jpg
http://trigmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/automoblox.jpg
http://blog.michellekaufmann.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ikea_car_kit.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3536/3221132120_36cfc279e4_o.jpg
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/268741_e9SbaOs8vsFm1o2y3yuSTNwwf.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cardesignfetish.com/2009/08/07/sketch-prn-dave-owsens-modular-car&usg=__5THdXGQ2AEdQdOd5LIvrQMnAvx4=&h=453&w=700&sz=84&hl=en&start=56&tbnid=TrDmqxLNo8gYHM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmodular%2Bcar%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D42
http://paultan.org/2006/12/24/2007-peugeot-design-contest-peugeot-venom/
http://www.citroenet.org.uk/prototypes/pluriel/pluriel-01.html
http://content.edgar-online.com/edgar_conv_img/2007/02/14/0001104659-07-010850_G41662DG03I006.JPG
http://www.rqriley.com/images_xr3/xr3_012908_3.jpg

You always have that mind of yours doing warp speed don't you?

The latest concept that I saw in the modular design was a GM floor-plan that utilized a strong substructure to house the batteries and electric wheel motors. This left a flat floor-plan to hang any body design onto. Passenger car, station wagon, van or pickup. I do not know what has happened to this idea in the last 3 years.

Modular design chassis. Look into the WW2 military trucks, and possibly earlier military designs. On just the 2.5 ton trucks, there were many companies all building to the same set of specifications. As an example, one grease seal design was used on front and rear axles, transmissions and transfer cases. To maintain interchangeability, most parts were over designed for the needed expectations of the part. And that is what may have spelled the doom of modular designed vehicles. If I wish to proguce a single chassis that would work under a passenger car, a van, a pick up and a station wagon, I will have to be sure it is up to the loads imposed on it when loaded to it's full capacity as a pick-up truck. This will result in a over-engineered chassis when used in a passenger car. That extra engineering will result in a passenger car that will be at a cost disadvantage when compared to a passenger car chassis that is ust barely sufficient to function in it's expected passenger car form.

The major car companies are already adopting mor modular chassis. The first examples of this that I can recall are the GM A bodies used in 1968 on. The two door cars had shorter wheel bases than the four door cars. There were also some wheel base changes at Chrysler during the sixties on the compact models. If I recall, the Dodges got longer wheel bases than the Plymouths. GM further explored this in 1969 with the Grang Prix. That used a longer version of the A body chassis. This evolved into the A and G bodies and chassis. This trend has been further expanded lately as there are chassis that are available as RWD, and FWD and sold under different cars altogether. I believe the current GM Zeta platform is used under Saabs, Chevrolet, Camaros, and Malibus, and some others. Chrysler did this also on the 300, Charger and Magnum chassis also, but not changing drive axle location.

I do believe there is some chassis sharing umong the lighter SUV vehicles and cars of some manufacturers, and they are swapping FWD, RWD, and AWD around as well.

So while the modular concept does have some value to it, I believe the market for this may be limited. Tha statment "Form follows function" will dominate the automotive market some time to come.

Keep those thoughts a comming though. Have a great day.

A good selection Chris. (I am always in awe of variation ingenuity)

Thank you for the GA, much appreciated. Don't get me wrong; I think your
modular idea could be great, in the right application. (e.g land-rover.)

For the time (after the war) it was a bolt-on, (wings, etc) that one could mod.
yourself, (initially even came without doors!) a vehicle, that found many niches.
Vets, farmers, shoots, military, etc. That is, this sort of thing can be done.
(it was instigated by the US jeep of course!) But....

We need to accept the world has moved on.... a lot! Society is different.
(Some of my ideas have floundered simply due to me not seeing this fact.)

Today, it's throw away. Your likely customer does not want to bolt-on,
mend, fix, mod, - mostly perhaps because they cannot do it anyway!
Admittedly there are a few DIY'ers, engineers, etc who like to play - but,
they are in a seriously small minority today. How many kids at your local school
have a meccano set? And how many have a W11, playstation, etc, ? (a gun?)

Now, if you can make your modular kit into a throw away, i.e. disposable, then
it may have a market. Use this seating compartment and, when the ash trays
are full, the floor littered with beer cans, dump it! (exchange for another one.)

Thrash the engine, use it as a bumper car, dump it. (replacement exchange)
The world needs to undergo serious deficits before this attitude will change.

Where are we? A small cheap disposable modular vehicle, capable of negligible
servicing. Plug-in exchange units, from jack-the-lad retail supplies. K/Wal mart?
Forget the frills, they will throw it away anyway. We only need the units, cheap.
I'll leave the technicalities to real engineers; like you lot!

ps..I don't think alignment to be a problem if they fit (snap) together properly.

jt.

Anyone want to buy my old bike? ...
There's a guy up the road offering me a modular car. (cheap)

http://ddl.stanford.edu/modular

research vehicle.

modular and modular (nice sponsors though)

www.flickr.com/photos/tobes49/2240094000/

Dear Blink,

I agree with what you say... but I think I have a solution... I will post again within a couple of days.. then we will see what you think...

thank you for the very thoughtful and informative post.

GA

Chris

You address a number of factors that are significant deterrents to generic components that can and are used in several different models.

I'm not sure if I am referring to the same example as you used, but GM did have one design study whereby they produced a generic electric 'pancake' platform that was only about a 11 inches thick onto which a VERY wide range of vehicle could be manufactured to fit on top of it.

Boeing aircraft in the greater Seattle are is a good example of responding to market realities in order to stay competitive. With all due respect to auto manufacturers, which are highly integrated and advanced these days, they are 'tinker toys. in comparison to jumbo jets. Also because they are air transportation vehicles as opposed to ground ones, (power to) weight (ratio) IS a VERY significant factor in them. Automobiles typically have an approximate safety factor of 100 to 1 built into them. Because of the airborne requirements, aircraft are usually in the 1.5~2 /1 range. So how did Boeing significantly reduce the cost of new models and designs? As has been done many times in the past, though rarely in very recent times, they didn't start over completely from scratch on everything. They had door opening, closing, sealing and secured mechanisms and technologies that worked just fine so they 'didn't reinvent the wheel' on every component and used existing ones that they could wherever possible. Auto manufacturers have finally started to take this approach again, as it was in the beginning, amongst other reasons to reduce inventory costs for dealerships.

One also finds such designs in the electronics industries, though more at the low to medium volume levels than huge ones: They have one very well designed and integrated circuit board that can be populated differently as needed. In other cases the by building one model that is for the 'top of the line' and has all of the features of these integrated into the electronic control boards and lower priced models just don't utilize all of the features in them. Though at first glance this may seem like a more costly approach, a close cost benefit ratio analysis shows that by significantly increasing the volume and production run into only one model instead of 5 or 10 different ones, the decreased manufacturing costs outweighs the additional cost of the unused components, most of which are very low cost these days.

Here is a design very similar to the Trexa

http://www.ridek.com/RidekModularCar.pdf
http://www.ridek.com/
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/7d322b63#/7d322b63/122

poke around a bit.. it gets interesting.

Chris

Why not?

Francois Knorreck Preseting The Snaefell Hybrid Car

Why?

It's like cocaine: for people with too much money!

But without the sense to keep their noses out of places they don't belong.

Depends on how you look at "who is allowed to innovate" Doug.

I see interesting possibilities and directions in "ride or drive" in this concept.

A pity their minds were closed to that.

Yep,

Obviously someone was interested and someone had the money so it's there choice.

Chris-

Here is a link to a Wired article about an "OpenSource" automobile concept that I thought might mesh with this concept:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/

you gotta love and respect free market innovation! GA

3,000 - 3,300 lbs - Um......but good engine choice - if it is this;

BMW Twin-Turbo 3.0L Diesel Updated

What about the smaller BMW Diesel engine?

MINI Cooper D Sets New Zealand Fuel Economy Record Of 3.5 l/100km ...

Seats 4 adults, go's nearly like the clappers (petrol Cooper = clappers)

http://www.mini.com.au/scripts/main.asp?PageID=29393&LEVEL=2

Design by Open source flash mob ?

cool stuff

I'll bang one of my favorite drums, which I get to add a few new beats to...

The ever increasing cost of logistics will encourage regional manufacturing. The reduced price of advanced machine tools & automated assembly equipment, Will further encourage this potential trend...

A little regulatory & tax help, in the form of consumption & value added taxes as opposed to income or capitol gains taxes is in order.

some basic inventor marketing information, by a custom auto maker.

Chris the pre-stressing by rods, I thought interesting.

But first thing to mind is you're stressing the passenger module, so perhaps needing greater strength to assure impact resistance.

Then I thought "but the rods can have a nut at the interface to maintain a design stress in the passenger module, should front or rear lose stress via a collision"

The advent of a cable solution leaves me pondering how one would achieve that.

I think it would be "un-helpful" if the cars dismantled when hit.

Signed; the Devils Advocate.

you are subtle... "Un-helpful"

I can see what you are driving at. (I'm bad for puns)

So, to state the 'ideal' behaviour of the frame, that would be to absorb/deflect as much energy as possible, so as to 1) protect the passengers as much as possible, and 2) to minimize the damage to the vehicle as much as possible.

I think the monocoque system you presented earlier is effective in dealing with impact forces because it deflects energy circumferentially around the skin of the car. Upon a further increase in the invading force, it tends to buckle locallly, absorbing energy locally, and the net effect is to help protect the passengers and minimize overall structure damage to the point of impact.(depending on magnitude of force of course)

as my thinking evolves with this 'tensioned frame' idea, I think that it can utilize the best of rigid frame and monocoque, if the interface between components is properly understood and properly engineered.

If the components are modular, but are also stressed-skin components, then what is the best way to connect the components so that the surface tension (skin) forces are successfully transmitted circumferentially, or transmitted to some other energy absorbing mechanism that also protects passengers and equipment?

With current technologies, the doors of a typical vehicle are an example of a stressed-skin component, which mounts to the frame, but is also capable of acting on concert with the rest of the monocoque shell, and transmitting forces to the frame, and having a crushable portion, and protecting the passengers (subframe and side airbags)

So I don't know yet, and I guess with out some reality and testing of physical products, it can't be known. I think the average person (like me) has in the span of 50 years developed an intuitive understanding of impact forces and crush. I've been in a car accident or two. I've played hockey. I've fallen 13 feet onto my back. I've worked in demolition (sledgehammer type)... I've smashed things...welded frames, bent sheet metal etc... but it is just accumulated notions and intuition at this point. I'm not a physics/math wiz.

I'm not saying the tensioned frame is 'it'.. but is just an idea to explore.. one I haven't seen before. I think that each technological idea will eventually find its rightful place in the technological spectrum, but not necessarily is that the initially expected place, if you follow what I mean.

I/we will have to develop the framing idea a bit more, and then mentally break it, and improve the design in an iterative fashion. Unfortunately, my brain has been sucked into the black hole of shipping containers lately

I will get more time later in the week hopefully.

Chris

Hi Chris et al,

I haven't read this whole thread, but just reading this particular posting of yours after posting mine and have some comments on it in particular and branching off a little as well.

Pre-Stressed components can add significantly to strengths and as noted designing the 'survival cell' for passengers versus 'crushable energy absorbing' sections are certainly relevant. I think that like myself you are a hands on, self taught studious sort like me as opposed to being a trained engineer. When asked what I would take if I went back to university I quite surprised the person when I answered that I would get my MBA as I/we can hire engineers required to do the type of proper analysis and design when needed. What I need to know or find someone else or other's to partner with is someone that can and will do the business side of it including getting it off the ground: literally in my case and make these real. I have some very revolutionary ideas: both literally, figuratively as well as being a pun. Stronach & Co is partnering with our Federal government NOW to build the next generation' transportation vehicles. I have numerous significant solutions and am contemplating the creation of a global consortium starting from here with a multi faceted forum such as you have. I to have some VERY futuristic but realistic ideas on (mass) transportation as well. Virtually all of my designs are possible with current technologies. Like yourself I am considering starting a multifaceted thread on here and it would be beneficial for us to collaborate, as it would be with many others over a very wide range of aspects. If you want to get an inkling and the jist of it, please check out the thread I started which while focused on one specific things, also has numerous references to many other things within it. For me it is a little premature as I need to get some patents first. But. . .

Low volumes, handmade vehicles with monocoque construction has no fiscal reality as they are numerous VERY highly complex pieces, structures and very accurate interlocking assemblies that all require numerous detailed and expenxsive (stamping) molds and high speed presses to achieve them and make them the strong yet relatively light monocoque 'skin stressed' structures that they are. Most passenger vehicles now including light (mini) trucks have no 'entire' frame to speak of anymore, which I think you are likely aware of. They have complex subframes that are either bolted and/or welded to the rest of the monocoque assemblies. 'Pop riveting a metal skin to a frame doesn't make it a monocoque construction which IS considerably stronger than the monocoque method mentioned that virtually all passenger vehicles are now. FYI: Decades ago I worked in a shop that made high end custom motorhomes and that is how we made the superstructure as opposed to (2" 2" or 2" x 4") 'skin stressed' Styrofoam walls as most of them were and likely still are. Any way you look at it, in either case rolling one wouldn't make much of a difference. Just like hitting a heavily loaded semi trailer doing 70 MPH head on at in a personal vehicle doing the same speed regardless of what type of vehicle it was. Physics is physics. When your number is up, it's time to move on. Frankly in such a scenario, I'd likely consider it lucky to move on after such an event than to survive it and live out the rest of my days with the consequences of such a 'spectacular 'encounter!''

Though doors do add some strength to the overall vehicle, you are not correct in saying that they have frames that then have sheet metal (pre-stressed) skins attached to them. There is no frame in them persay. They are completely monocoque construction and add very little strength to the overall frame and superstructure. The door posts add significantly more 'triangulation' through the roof structure than the doors do by far. Though the doors do add a little 'side impact' protection which is being addressed more of late. In a role over, the doors would add to the resistance to 'crushaiblity, but I'd be surprised if the added 20%. Still that 20% might make a VERY significant difference in the outcome of such a violent crash.

Don't let 'negative feedback' or 'reality checks' discourage you Chris, they are just as important if not more important in figuring out what DOES work by knowing what won't and thus perhaps make the difference between success and failure. One of the great things about this venue is the VERY considerable and wide ranging knowledge and experience of a very wide ranging number of fields at hat are about real solutions of real world problems, products, designs, technologies and even sciences. I haven't been back here for quite some time, but I believe it was here where I put up the postings: 'Do Black Holes (which may actually turn out to be 'black stars') create 'new universes'?' (< 8) It was quite interesting. Though it would have been more appropriate on a science forum than an Engineering one.

Experience comes before Expertise EVEN in the Dictionary!

I acknowledge you for this broad vision and comprehensive range of aspects that you are addressing and exploring. It does much to develop and evolve the concepts through the sharing of information including correcting erroneous ideas which IS very important as well. Brain storming and 'thought experiments. You/I/we are starting something here that may, and I hope does, turn into some things that very substantial, important and make a significant contribution to our world which is in VERY deep trouble.

Keep on keeping on Chris. This is an excellent and potentially very important thing you have started here and hopefully the seeds that we are all planting and sewing here will thrive and flourish (at a very substantial rate).

PS: I'm a couple of hundred K north of you 'neighbor.'

[p]Remember the VolksWagen 'Thing' (that was its name: seriously!)? It was supposed to be a multipurpose, end user 'reconfigurable vehicle'. It looked like it was made in the 1910's (with apologies to Henry Ford) and was a total and dismal flop and failure. The name didn't help it, but it would of taken a lot more than just a different name to of made it be a winner[/p]

Hi Chris et al,

Firstly I quite consciously did not classify this posting as being 'off topic' because it addresses our world's most pressing and what needs to be our highest priority if we are going to have any hope of all that all but the lowest forms of life in the food chain to survive due to humanities activities on our lil mote in the vast cosmos in the VERY near future. The Genie is out of the bottle and Pandora is out of her box and there is no way to put them back. If our global society is not going to be reduced to very small numbers of 'primitive' tribal life (if at all) in the very near future; if engineers aren't on board and very firmly behind this and addressing these issues and making them priorities in engineering we have no hope at all.

It took up until the late 1950s to produce enough refrigerators for every one that wanted one and could afford it had one: a 'need' driven economy. Manufacturers were then concerned that they would be out of business and built in obsolesce became part of the equation. Mind you building a car that lasts 100 years isn't very realistic if it costs $5 M to buy one. Also, if anything of our current 'advanced, technical' societies survive the Apocalypse that we are now well into, it would be 'obsolete' and there will almost surely be better, more efficient and ecologically friendly models available long before such a vehicle died. Thus a balance needs to struck, but we do NEED to put sustainability and minimal ecological damage at the top of our priority list now.

I believe it was in the early 1980s that the wise, enlightened king of the small nation of Bhutan in Asia with genuine concern of the welfare of his people as opposed to building ever greater power for himself and retaining it (at any cost) that most 'leaders' have, changed this measuring stick of the success, health and welfare of Bhutan from GNP to GNH: Gross National Happiness.'

As we are finding out: 'Quantity' does not make for 'Quality' of life, in fact it becoming quite apparent that just the opposite is true. I can sight many examples on this but will refrain from doing so unless someone wants to further this discussion. If so I suggest that we start a thread in 'Ecologically sustainable Engineering'. Consider this: WHO (World Health Organization) has extrapolated data that by 2020 globally the second most common cause of death will be depression, I assume from suicide, that is only surpassed by cancer! BOTH of these are but two of the all to numerous and all encompassing negative results of humanities activities. A form of 'population' control' that is a sad and sorry but very telling statistic about our current situation and (global) societies and which humanity is responsible for creating.

Hi Rayacox et al,

I think it is highly unlikely as there will be less 'all encompassing' options of starting with a blank page and a clean slate. The latter being my 'first computer' LoL (< 8)

There was many a time that I wished that the engineers that designed the vehicle had to work on it and do repairs and maintenance as if they had to, they wouldn't have designed the things the way they did. Mind you such a complex product that is use and abused in very diverse environments for a very wide range of needs, applications and purposes is by need are a (hopefully) best set of balanced compromises and requirements of the multiple aspects of it. In some large Japanese manufacturing assembly lines, the president and /or the top administrator of that plant spends two hours a week manning the various stations of the assembly line. I remember a documentary that compared two similar sized auto manufacturing plant in the US and Japan in the 1980s. The US plant took about 142 hours to complete a vehicle, the Japanese produced a better, lower cost vehicle with superior quality control in HALF the time! In the US plant approximately 3,000 ~ 4,000 employee suggestions for improvements had been integrated into production. How many do you think were implemented in the Japanese plant? Over 100,000 (~120,000 I believe)! Most people that do a task for some time find (significant) subtle better ways to do the job, often unique to each individual. Most have numerous ideas on 'how to do it better, easier and faster: 'It takes a smart man to be lazy' (< 8) Several decades ago an electronics manufacturing plant of about 25,000 employees in Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands etc regions hired an Anthroposophical at (*http://www.rudolphsteinerweb.com) management consulting group. Their conclusions and recommendations? Get rid of the traditional boring, mind numbing ,dehumanizing 'assembly line' that stifles human creativity, ingenuity, interest and enthusiasm which results in less attention or concern for the results produced and expensive employee absenteeism and turnover. They recommended the following approach which quite surprisingly implemented: The management told all of the employees that they were doing away with the traditional assembly line and in its place that all of the plant workers, including the professionals, form small teams of employees, typically about ½ a dozen, that they got along with and worked well with that all wanted to work together as a small cells. Then each such team decides what they wanted to work on and produce. The management was there to provide them with the resources that they needed and that when ran into something that they couldn't resolve by themselves or in collaboration with other such groups. Thus rather than the management being a hierarchical 'top down' power and authority structure; they became a central communications and co- ordination hub for facilitating needed resources such the materials, methods and technologies that they teams needed to produce their products (better). The results? It overcame many of the inherent disadvantages if the traditional assembly lines as noted above and made better products more cost effectively and significantly reduced absenteeism and employee turnover. /p]

I'm reminded of the one page hand drawn cartoon of wry humor that has been around for some time now of many different versions of the same (combat) aircraft if it was either designed exclusively by, or a much higher priority was given to each division of the engineering. A very succinct, effective and informative illustration of this challenge and the importance and need for it.

Remember the VolksWagen 'Thing' (that was its name: seriously!)? It was supposed to be a multipurpose, end user 'reconfigurable vehicle'. It looked like it was made in the 1910's (with apologies to Henry Ford) and was a total and dismal flop and failure. The name didn't help it, but it would of taken a lot more than just a different name to of made it be a winner

* HTML HELP! I make no claims to being an HTML expert by a long shot, but I've tried about 50 different permutations combinations in two different browsers to get web links in my postings but no go )< 8( I can't be THAT bad at it. I've reached my frustration and time threshold limits with them. If anyone has any insights or idea of what I may be doing wrong in formatting them and correcting them so that I can utilize them properly and effectively: PLEASE enlighten me!

copy address from address bar on the web page you would like to link to

highlight any word here in the compose box

left click on the 5th icon [looks like a globe with 3 links of chain]

paste the address you copied earlier

left click submit

on the 2nd line of this message you will find that the word "here" is an active link to a list of the 1st 1000 prime numbers

Thanks Garth, With instructions like that even I might be able to accomplish it.

I've just established some communications with ChrisG on creating or integrating my 'Grand Plan' to be included with his and start coaxing, forcing, and grinding it towards the 'launching pad'. As I've said, it's premature for me, but.....

I might remark to those using "You are subtle..."Un-helpfull" as a title - that it is taken entirely out of context - not what Chris was saying - or what I was doing.

Secondly; I did not 'piss on anyone's parade', I simply suggested a rethink on cables 'though out' as a methodology."Nut" termination was equally applicable to cable, as is diameter change in rods, section to section - it is said to invoke THOUGHT.

So in that context I view this 'flow on interpretation' and resulting verbosity as 'smart-arse tossers wanking' for self engrossment.

On the bright side - those who have written under the title - have lived up to the title.

I suggest you respect Chris's structure and desist from messing with the 'section' assigned titles.

This is not BBT!

<end rant - but don't push it - angry Kyzine is to be avoided>

Hi Kyzine,

My apologies to you as I never read either your comments nor the response with this title and I should of changed it to reflect my postings when I responded to the one with this subject line that wasn't the topic that I was replying to at all. I have no idea at all what either of them were in reference to.

I don't agree with you at all though about always using the same category listings for all postings and I think that your argument and objections actually support my reasoning and the importance of the purpose of utilizing different subject headings.

When there get to be hundreds or thousands of postings in each blog they are completely meaningless and one will have absolutely no idea what they are addressing without going through them all which we both know won't happen and will render them ineffective and basically useless which would be a real shame and wasteful.

The category that they are in is already known and there needs to be further distinctions made in the subjects of the postings so that one can find the relevant items that they need to or are interested in which make them more useful, accessible and a much better and significant reference resource as it builds.

How useful would a large library be with only general topics in one area being listed and no cataloguing at all?

Regards,

DougRH

I stand behind my reasons as being valid, legitimate and that summarizing the topic in the subject line will make this large and constantly growing and very likely long lived will make it more effective, especially as time goes on and the volume and diversity increases.

I notice that you didn't follow your own suggestions and mandate in this posting.

But I have no interest in, nor will I get into an ego confrontation with you over it.

Likewise my apology to you for just utilizing the original heading that obviously struck a nerve with you still stands as I had no idea what it was so have no opinion on it one way or the other. But changing it would have been the right thing to do so that it wasn't directed as a negative towards you because it wasn't my intention in any way shape or form.

We're both entitled to our opinions and perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

If you feel that strictly using the broad category links for all of your postings, by all means do so.

I don't categorize this posting as being off topic either as it is a relevant point in the ongoing usefulness and effectiveness of this large growing collection of wide ranging subjects and comprehensive topics.

This classification system idea was an experiment; Nothing less, nothing more. Don't take it too seriously. CR4 doesn't provide thread OP's with management tools, and I just wondered if it would work. If it did work for us, would it work well enough to prompt a technical change in the tools provided? so the experiment is to answer a question; How can we organize our extensive vehicle knowledge?

I think that the discussion you are having here is a good one, because of the inherent integration in vehicle design. What I'm saying is that the confusion comes with the territory. Modular Vehicles to me, should be a whole new way of thinking, and the information classification is a discipline that comes with it... It is not easy to accomplish because we are all so ingrained in tradition.

It isn't easy to think about engines without thinking about transmissions, fuel systems, and electrical..etc. Where do you draw the lines between them?

Maybe it isn't possible? I think I am as guilty as anyone else.

Chris

as I mentioned in my PM to you of a couple of weeks ago

I would have posted:

secondary thread drive train

secondary thread legal issues

secondary thread frame

secondary thread safety

secondary thread accessories

main thread feasibility of modular...

the main thread would be posted last so it could contain links to all the other threads

then quick back to the secondary thread & make the 1st reply a link to the main thread.

of course you could have more sub threads.

The 1st thread should be as short as possible, long 1st posts make replying cumbersome & time consuming. easy to have the audience lose interest

much easier if you had a blog here, which offer the editorial tools you require...

hey the whole thing is here & in process, go with what we got

"much easier if you had a blog here, which offer the editorial tools you require..."

I didn't know that. do you mean CR4 blogs give those tools?... maybe they will convert for us, and can become a blog.

Chris

Hi Chris et al,

As I pointed out, posting the actual topic in the subject line as opposed to just using the numerous categories that you have created for this would most definitely help greatly. Otherwise it will, and already is cumbersome and ineffective on the various topics and threads that you have created as the majority of them just have the categories of the subject of postings the subject heading.

Would the organizational, accessibility, effectiveness and advantages of a blog over the current venue be?

Quite the 'monster' you have created here Chris. But all of the topics need to be addressed your modular vehicle is going to be 'worked out' to the point where we all eventual get to the point of finding the 'best solution.' Of course there is not going to be just one definitive design as even a modular vehicles would likely require at least several options. As I posted before most of the large auto manufacturing have a couple of 'base platforms' that they then modify and create numerous designs from the same essentially full functional platform. I think that as we work through this, this will likely be part of the 'solutionS.'

I don't think is very realistic for you to be the only one that replies to ALL of the postings. I suggest that your spread the tasks of replying to the things that you want to see by the subject heading and many others here DO respond with entries. I have yet to find a posting that no one responds to so you don't NEED to reply to ever posting in this broad and comprehensive system. Your 'catalogue' is filling up at a very good rate with lots of people responding and we are all building a good base by 'cross pollination and are all contributing to this and all of us are learning new things and a lot of it spawns excellent 'brain storming.

It's not reasonable for one person to handle the entire thing, so don't take the responsibility of running it all by yourself as there are lots of other's here that are already mantling this.

Of course if you want to do it as a full time job, we have to figure out some way that you can get paid for doing this. If CR4 has the capacity to post adds, having them sprinkled throughout the topics then that would create revenue for you. This is the way many successful websites make money off of them.

As a blog you can edit or remove any entries or posts. You can set the date & time that new entries will appear

I've heard from a couple of sources that say WordPress is an excelent FREE Blog app.

I wouldn't want to, but I'm wondering about how others feel about moving this to another site that we could charge for advertising on ?

I'm inclined to host it in CR4 if they would permit it. Its just that I am not that fond of seeing advertising on web pages... so it would be better for me to stay here with friends and a known system.

Chris

Good idea Doug - you should go for it.

You may have to start afresh, as shifting content of CR4 contributors may be difficult legally.

But, Chris, if editing titles can be done - you can re-title the 10 "unhelpful" titles to a new content relevant category & add it to the OP list

As such a heading doesn't exactly communicate "unbiased professional input", perhaps see if Admin will do it for you - 'sooner rather than later'.

Hi Chris and Kyzine,

I'm in agreement with you about staying here and not having ads. Just trying to figure out how to generate some income to actually start doing some of these things and carry them out and make them into more than just ideas. I doubt if you/we/others here have come to a clear sense of just what to start constructing yet as far as an effective modular vehicle yet; but I believe that like myself, Chris has some things that he is working on that he is ready to proceed with them, as I'm sure many others here do as well. Both in Chris's broad 'Modular Vehicle' topic and on CR4 in general.

Also I was pointing out to Chris that maintaining this, which is a significant task, doesn't have to all fall onto Chris's' shoulders as many other here are already participating in it to the degree that they are also involved with ensuring it's continuance.

I did put in a question/request to admin about converting this to a blog... will wait and see what they say.

At this point I am not too worried about money, and I have some time, and I believe this discussion is important, so I will try to stay focused enough to run the blog. (not technically ADD.. but some days... )

I do have more design ideas to work through. I truly appreciate your continuing interest.

Chris

Hi Kyzine,

I just discovered something when I went to make a positing in the Body & Windows section. I thought that each topic that Chris started with had it's own distinct and separate section for postings on each separate topic. Having discovered that (sadly) this is NOT the case, his index of topics is a very different matter indeed. Thus I see and understand you wanting to keep and include the topic in the subject line and the importance of it.

So for the posting I was referring to, I started the subject off with 'Body & Windows' followed by an indication of what I was posting in the subject field.

Hi Chris,

As I said 'Word Press' is free and I've heard nothing but how good it is for these sorts of things which is what it was designed for. If the WebMasters for CR4 don't have anything in place to accomodate our needs, perhaps you can suggest it to them and they can look into it.

Chris, I hope you are well. How does this fit in your plan?

If there are people in the vehicle, this structure needs to be the strongest part to protect the occupants. So the passenger tub is pre tensioned with the cables. THEN, the front and rear sections are added to the passenger tub. These sections would also be attached to the passenger tub with additional pretensioned cables. These front and rear add on sections would change as needed to accommodate different applications. FWD, electric, Hybrid, whatever. In an accident, it would be reasonable for these sub sections to deform, to absorb energy in order to slow the vehicle down in a controlled way. Thus softening the human impact to the interior of the car.

If the tensioning cables on the front or rear subsections are not as tight as when they were built, it means that section needs to be repaired, or replaced. If the passenger compartment cables are still properly tensioned, that section would not need to be repaired. The cables would allow an easy way to determine the continued crash-worthiness of the modular frame after an accident.

Current designs are one piece, and damage can occur anywhere, and detecting where the damage is can be difficult to determine.

Comments anyone?

Bob,

I am well... working on another aspect... But seriously, if I post something on the web, it is public domain. not 'my plan'. I'm really hoping for this to be a group thing.. so this is just as much your plan...

"additional pretensioned cables." That's great.. your intelligence is showing again... quick hide it.

I like this thinking, but don't think we should commit to cables over chains or rods just yet... there may be applications for each, or combinations.

but definitely, if the vehicle is in an accident, the entire structure will have to be evaluated and rebuilt, replacing damaged components and testing their integrity.

Chris

I've picked up a bit on the inclusion of cables and while the benefit of things being in tension as opposed to compression IS quite significant and relevant. But frankly there inherent flexibility and stretching makes them a very poor suspension location method. While I can see the possibility of utilizing them in some aspects of a vehicle, I would be VERY reluctant to ride in a vehicle with such a suspension design in anything over a walking pace. Have you considered the not insignificant effects of temperature variations and the expansion and contraction of them resulting from this?

Though there is the advantage of the flexibility of various different applications (pun intended). the 200% 'secure' terminating devices just aren't there. Likewise there inherent advantage of being made up of numerous small metal wires that are much more easily individually being damaged and cut causing there performance to drop off and deteriorate is NOT insignificant. Unlike most components on vehicles, 'front to back' solid suspension positioning rods ARE very simple and cost effective solutions to manufacture.

They would not necessarily be lighter either.

To the best of my knowledge they have never been used on any ground racing or high performance vehicles for such suspension and steering components with good reason. This IS indicative of the inherent limitations and significant danger that would be added by utilizing flexible steel cables over solid rods.

There is a VERY good reason why heating to straighten bent major suspension and/or steering components &/or welding them is illegal.

As I said in another posting: Assuming that you survived it, how much longer did you continue to drive your vehicles after complete brakes or steering failure?

Nuff said.

I agree that the post-tensioned cables are a bad idea. In a crash the tension in the cables may contribute to the collapse of the structure. For a modular frame, square tubing would be the best. The square tubing can better resist the torsion, compression, and other nonpredicable stresses that occur in a collision. Also, when assembling the car, if a frame part gets in the way, it would be much easier to cut and refit a structural tubing than a post-tensioned member.

Insofar as mass producing the frames, it would be easy to build jigs to hold the pieces in place for welding. They would be adjusted as required to make up for welding distortions. It's done in steel shop fabrication all the time. When a fabricator gets an order for a lot of the same item, he looks at building a jig for fabricating these items.

"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." -- Walt Disney

As to the specifics of the cross section of solid suspension locating members, while a pipe with the same WEIGHT as a solid bar is stronger and more resistant to bending, this also results in it having a larger OD (Outside Diameter). In spite of what appears to be a significantly sizable open and empty volume behind a wheel and a tire, out of necessity the suspension members in question are usually located in such places (on the frame) that are quite limited and one has to remember that the wheel IS traveling up and down as well as turning and as such has significant amounts of travel which likewise causes these suspension links to move with them. Out of necessity they have to attach to very solid and strong points on the frame and thus are in very close proximity to the frame. Often they have to go through holes in the frame or are located such that they will be jarred up against the frame and can cause (dangerous) damage to either the rod or more likely the mounting brackets and the attached cups for the large rubber bushings through which the suspension rods are attached. If you have ever had to replacing ball and CV joints etc in (front) suspensions that requires detaching the suspension from the lower radius member but leaves it attached to both the steering and the springs and upper radius members/McPherson struts and the front to back locating rods in question, you will have found out that most of the time these locating struts will not have enough play to allow you to readily and easily separate and exchange the necessary components. One has to somehow utilize SIGNIFICANT force to achieve this SAFELY. An illustration of the necessity of the smallest possible cross section that will properly do the job. This rules out hollow rods.

The point that you make about such solid suspension rods helping to soak up dangerous energy in a crash is excellent insight and an important factor that you correctly conclude flexible cables would not do. However unlike a round rod which has no bias and variance in the forces required to distort and bend it in any direction. This cannot be said hollow or even solid lengths of a square or a rectangular cross section. As noted above, there is precious little room to realistically accommodate the larger outside dimensions that would be required of a hollow material which would undoubtedly cause more interference problems. Another factor to consider is that a single round rod can readily be utilized both with threaded ends for the chassis mount that allows it to pivot so that the necessary up and down movement with the other end usually being flattened and with a bit of curve in it with mounting holes that are forged onto the round rod. Separate pieces to facilitate mounting the rod would of necessity have to be mated, affixed and joined to one or both ends of hollow tubing: square or round. With the very significant and often violent forces that these rods are subjected to over the life of the vehicle, the probability of failure of these joints would be considerable with likely catastrophic results.

Excepting perhaps for the use of composites that the cost/benefit would quickly reject for consumer vehicles; the existing design of solid round high quality, tough spring steel rods is likely the best solution regardless of the type of vehicle or the manufacturing methods and quality of vehicles produced.

FYI: All out race cars use no such numerous rubber suspension &/or subframe mounting bushings anywhere for much tighter control of suspension geometry and thus more consistent and better. All such joints are 'steel on steel' or in some cases 'steel and a very rigid synthetic plastic' These also make for a much rougher ride as there is no rubber to soak up and cushion every little bump, hole etc which is thus transferred to the drive in a way that consumer vehicles are not. This is further amplified by the VERY stiff suspensions with very limited travel of modern day race cars to keep the bottom of the chassis in constant close proximity to the road to take advantage of ground effects which are quite significant. Most open wheel race cars could drive upside down on 'the ceiling' at 100 MpH due to the down force they create.

One of the first parts that are replaced by people wanting to produce better performance of there road vehicle is to replace either one or both of the rubber bushing were these rods are mounted to the chassis with synthetic ball and socket joints that do not allow the tires to move fore and aft the way the rubber bushings do to have better and more consistent and accurate handling and control.

I understand the ideals behind and the advantages of 'modular', but I'm not sure how much reality it can really have in any practicality for cars. As others here have pointed out, it really has to be approached as a 'UniBody' (Hmmm, heard that term somewhere before) 'wholistic' approach and as an integrated entity. While this is fertile ground that is bringing a lot of good things forward, exchanges of ideas and concepts, and engenders brainstorming and creativity; I'm not sure that there is any reality of a truly 'modular' mass to medium and even likely quite small scale except perhaps in some very narrow and minimal vertical specialty markets and vehicles. Some that are very useful and necessary and some that are just frivolous.

I think what has much more reality is an approach of cost and resources effectiveness is to approach it from a stand point of maximum interchange ability and cross utilization of as many comments as possible are used in as many different vehicles as possible.

Do we really NEED hundreds of different designs and shapes of inside door handles to make a vehicle work?

Alas in today's 'desire based' consumer economics one has to 'keep up with the Jones' if u want to stay in business.

Otherwise there's nada!

Or is there?

Would the north American and some of the European auto makers be on the rocks financially if they trimmed 1/3 ~ ½ off of their unnecessary R&D, re-tooling, production and inventory every year just to change things that don't NEED changing every year just to make it look different and does nothing whatsoever to improve the efficiency. I know for a fact that I can easily increase the efficiency of even today's modern high tech, multi-sensored, computer controlled Otto based vehicle efficiency by 15% ~ 20% quite easily. I'm hedging my margin considerably and being quite conservative.

The auto makers could as well if they focused on similar things rather than squandering money and resources of all types needlessly changing things that don't need to be changed and focused on necessities real significant efficiency improvements of technology of which there are many possibilities available today.

That's 1/5 less the pollution right there without even taking the reduced manufacturing and assembly into account.

Reduced raw resources and their associated expenses and environmental costs.

Likewise similar reductions of resources and environmental damage that it takes to provide the 1/4 ~ ½ of the fuel that is needlessly wasted.

It's crunch time! BIG time!

The period that the dinosaurs along with 90% of the rest of the life on our home planet died of took place over a period of 250,000 years. Scientists tell us that this was such a drastic and rapid rate that it was revolution and not evolution.

So what is it when humanity has caused and is causing extinctions at an ever increasing rate that make those 250,000 years look like the 'Garden of Eden' in comparison? Regardless if you take it from 10,000 ago with the advent of agriculture that gave us the ability to stay in one place and build up significantly more substantial civilizations or just a couple of mere centuries ago with the industrial revolution.

We have very badly poisoned our entire planet and bankrupt the ecosystem.

We have overpopulated it and continue to do so at an ever increasing rate.

If it was any other species other than ourselves, we would all very readily admit and be rightly concerned about the 'infestation and blight' of humanity of biblical proportions.

WHO: the World Health Organization has extrapolated date and by 2020 the second leading cause of death which will only be surpassed by cancer (theirs a surprise!) will be depression. I'm going out on a limb here in speculating that it will be due to the massive suicidal rate. This is less than a decade away. Harsh!

All of this in the midst of our 'wealthy and prosperous' nations, for about 25% of it currently anyway. Obviously Quantity is no substitute for Quality. In most of these so called 'wealthy' nations one does not have to dig very deep below the surface and peel the scabs off to see the rot that is pandemic from the collapse of culture, depersonalization and loss of a sense of 'community' that we need as social beings.

When old age pensions were established in north America, which such wealthy countries could and should provide such social safety nets; only 4% of the population were 'senior citizens' eligible for such pensions and security in there elder years after a life time of toil. Very soon it will be 50%! Along with the naked truth that this is completely unrealistic and impossible, how will the income generating working population that is supposed to pay for all this, which is expected of them, react?

What will they do?

What would and will YOU do if you fall into that demographic group?

What will we do as a society?

Our societies will continue to implode into chaos at an ever increasing rate.

Virtually ALL of the nations of the world are completely bankrupt and getting further and further into debt at an ever increasing rate.

As many of us are only too well aware of, or have it to look forward to: an individual or a family unit (of which there are very few left in many nations of the world in comparison to what they were and that sustained us for hundreds of thousands of years) in our consumer societies with ready credit available (now the banks largest sources of income by design) it is possible to 'run in the red' for a while. But at some point it becomes unsustainable and collapses completely.

As it is now on a macro scale as well. The wealthy economic 'backbone nations' of the world are in debt that is completely out of control and impossible to service. The very economic algorithms that they are based upon and operate on are erroneous and flawed to start with. Like many of us they have managed to plug the holes in the dikes and shore it up for a while but at some point in time it completely collapses. It just has. It has peaked and it will not and cannot every come back to the 'good old days of economic prosperity,'

My father brought about public health care for all in the province I was born and reside in. He was and remains a professional engineer. I recently saw another posting here by someone that wished that they would turn the resolution of the health care crisis in the US over to professional Engineers to handle it and del with as matter of factly as they are required to do in all things that they undertake because they are primarily dealing with the laws of physics with which there is no 'credit department' to hedge on. My father informed the ruling government of the day that in the next year health care costs would rise 25% ~ 35% and so it did.

I grew up in a settlement that was the first in the province to have fluoridated water and not dump our raw sewage into the drinking water of people for thousands of miles downstream from us because of a professional Engineer.

He created the first ministry of the Environment in all of Canada which is now a sales department for our natural resources.

Then he resigned from the ruling party because of their irresponsible governance including fiscally and sat as a member of the opposition.

Canada's health care system is every bit as bankrupt as the United States of America's are.

The only difference is that unlike the US, virtually all Canadians still have health care coverage: so far. But not for much longer.

We have boxed ourselves in and painted ourselves into the corner and most of us are just turning a blind eye to these matters and are in denial about them as we animals of 'human qualities' have the ability to do so.

Democracy seems to be the best form of governance that we have evolved to so far. But by it very nature and design, especially in this era of total transparency of modern instantaneous mass communications, they must 'win a popularity contest' quite often or they are gone. Which makes it very difficult to carry out and achieve any (very) necessary medium term timing, let alone long term. Most now are resorting to denial and focusing only on doing what will bring about the best and most immediate approval, and are almost all utilizing a modus operandi of 'Not on MY watch!'

For these are indeed 'VERY interesting times,' an ancient Oriental curse; and time is very much of the essence and there is very little 'time' left to us now. If we are to have any chance at all of at least some of us surviving and once more rather than only the very lowest, basic and simplest life forms of the food chain surviving, if any at all survive.

For those of you that stayed with me through this and were able to see this through to the end I thank you for your attention and our indulgence.

For those of you that came part way but could not see it through to this point yet, I pose a question: if not now, When? If not you, then who?

As with all living creature, survival of the species is even stronger and more powerful and imperative than the individual. Even for humans that have the ability that other animals do not and unlike almost all other animals 'choose' to not follow these primal encoded imperatives that we also carry. I do not wish to rain on any bodies parade and 'bring you down.' But I have to do what I must do. Dharma must be served. As PackRat would say: 'I'm just sayin.. . .' (< 8)

Before I make my final summation, I will communicate an 'editorial cartoon that I have had in my mind for quite some time now. Perhaps there is an artist amongst you that this will resonate with and it will move you to draw it and then it can be passed along, hopefully it will even become 'viral'.

Someone in a white lab coat wearing reading glasses is writing on a clip board. They are standing in front of a window that is in place on the top half of the wall. There are all sorts of technological and scientific around them, all in operations, making various sounds, light flashing.

Next frame: someone else similarly attired is standing beside the first one and asks the question: "Well, how are the primates doing?" The first one looks over the top of their reading glass and looks the other one in the eye and says: "It not the monkeys man."

They both lean over to the window and looking out of it, they see the beautiful blue aquamarine jewel of our home Gaia glistening bathed in Sols radiant energy that gives us life and light against the cold, hard, empty and complete darkness of black empty space.

But over it there are dirty dark clouds scattered around the atmosphere, there instrument show that some of the atmosphere had been destroyed and is still being destroyed. Dirty caustic rains falling on the planet destroying the life it rains down upon rather than bringing it the elixir of life that it needs. In large over exaggerated sized drawings there are numerous ecological patches of dead and dying creatures of all manners,: oil spills, toxic waste leaking everywhere, likewise with deadly radioactive materials foolishly and out of ignorance not being taken care of as such things that are distorting, debilitating, disastrous and deadly to ALL types of life. Everywhere there is pestilence. People starving, debilitated, poverty and disease and dying. All ages, no matter the colors of them or location for this does not shield any. And everywhere there are people killing others, individually, in small groups and en mass with huge quantities of them being destroyed. Deadly rockets carrying almost unfathomably powerful weapons flying to everywhere in no discernable pattern landing elsewhere, unleash all manner of massive devastations, destruction and death. Large groups moving about in large motive crafts of all types, and for unknown and inexplicable reason some of them just suddenly exploding for no reasons that the scientists can determine, likewise with all of the other killing death and annihilation. They have observed, studied and watched over this for almost unimaginable periods of time and cannot understand or fathom why they kill destroy each other that are the same as themselves for no discernable reason.

Finally the first one can watch no more and turns and turns away from the window, leaning heavily upon it. Breathing raggedly, heavily and unevenly, tremors running through the body, streams of liquid pouring down the face. Finally the second one turns away as well, letting out a large sigh, turns to face the other one, putting a hand upon the other one. I know, We thought they could and would do it. But we knew that this might happen as it has so many times before. You know how dangerous sentience and risky freedom is, to be freed from being ruled by instinct alone and have the ability to chose, and to make the wrong choices. I know that you had become very attached to them and cared deeply for them, but it's not your fault. You, we did everything that we could do without interfering as you know it must be. Perhaps some of the other species that have a much tighter group consciousness, society and interdependence. More of a group or hive behavior and mentality. We have been bringing together all of the data, were thinking that perhaps some of the insects species have a better chance of 'waking up' and surviving it without destroying everything. WE did get seeds from almost all of the plant life. Perhaps in the very distant future our botanist will return once more and replant it again. That will be others concerns though.

You'll have plenty of time to relax and recover on the long journey home have time to practice and participate in the arts that you love so much. Your family, our people, it will be so good to see them and be with them again. You've done your duty steadfastly and admirably at the cost of great personal sacrifice and difficulties and it won't be forgotten and what you do is very important. You won't have to take another field assignment unless you want to. But that is a long ways away now and you needn't worry about it for quite some time. After your extended leave that you need and deserve, you will be in a better position to choose. You're being put up for a commendation. You're an inspiration to many that admire our work. Perhaps you will consider guiding and teaching others to carry on your difficult but important and necessary work.

Many of us have seen the Steven Spielberg movie 'ET', but for those that didn't read the book, there is a very important aspect revealed in the first chapter of the book that puts it on a completely different footing, viewpoint and importance that is not brought forth in the movie. In the book 'ET" is an entire species of intergalactic Botanists whose sole orientation, purpose, reason and mission in life; and one that they have been carrying out for many hundreds of thousands of years, IS to preserve as much basic DNA and preserve as many of the types of plant life that they can from our planet and as well as other similar planets. Returning every couple of thousands of years to update their inventory. They are doing it for just the purpose I have presented and is unfolding at very rapid pace: the Apocalypse that is unfolding on our only home at a thereto unprecedented rate and destroying and extinguishing all manners of life on our world, very rapidly disrupting the food chain which is now collapsing.

Two summers ago a rust, mold or fungus swept through Africa and into the middle east. it attacks the stalk of wheat plants and destroys 90% of all such crops. The following summer it spread into Europe, Russia, India and Asia. All attempts to prevent it have thus far been completely ineffective. This coming summer it will spread and overtake almost all wheat bearing land on those continents.

It will also begin the same process in the Americas: both north and south. Within the very short span of five years, almost all of the wheat crops on our entire planet will be destroyed. When I told my eldest son about this and said that in the very near future, a loaf of bread will probably cost $25 IF one can find one to buy at all. When he replied in incredulously that he couldn't fathom or believe it my response was: "you are probably correct, it will be $500 a loaf'. You may confirm this for yourself and find out more details about it on line as The Scientifics American's magazine website. For those of you that invest in the Futures and commodities markets.. . . .

As Carl Sagan stated: 'It is very likely that approximately 1/3 to 2/3 of the species that achieve sentience and self awareness and unlock the secrets of nature don't survive it. Either from poisoning their entire eco systems we have done, or annihilate each other with incredibly power weapons of all manners of mass destruction which we are now constantly on the brink of, or both'.

Consider this: As of about a decade ago, the American Chemical Society had a catalogue of over one MILLION man made compounds that had never existed in nature before that are now at large in the environment and have permeated all aspects of life.

Less than 1% of them have been tested for safety. ONE PERCENT!

Of the 1% of the ones that have been tested were tested in very tightly controlled and limited environments and in isolation with a very limited number of other substances. Once out in the environment at large they are now interacting with millions of these substances in billions of combinations.

Life is inherently a almost inconceivably complex 'battle ground' of germ and chemical 'warfare' in and of itself' Let alone with the million and more of artificial created ones that are now disrupting, poisoning, distorting and destroying all life processes on our only home.

I do not wish to make enemies of chemists and single them out and attack them. We are all participating in it and there are innumerable other disruptive factors at play as well.

Our existence on a geological and cosmological scale is so brief that we will net even been included in and such 'Time Line' of events. If we merit mention at all, and if anyone else is even ever aware of our existence and we are noted in any such documentation it will very likely be as an example of what a dismal failure we were and a how NOT to do it!

If we have an epitaph at all it will be: 'Better living through Modern Chemistry!'

So…. What are we to do?

What CAN we do?

Those of us here that are on this particular path and journey and endeavor must do a number of things. We must be Doctors, Engineers, Educators and help to spread the Knowledge, Reality and Consciousness of the situation and to act upon it and enroll others in doing likewise, regardless of what field they are in.

1 - Doctor's: First we must follow the first and primary edict of a physician to 'Do NO HARM!

2 – Engineers: We must strive dispassionately and selflessly to study, learn, evolve and facilitate absolutely maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of all transportation with as little resources, impact and damage to our mortally wounded home and environment as is possible.

3- Educators, Facilitators and Atavists: There are numerous aspects to this, most of which will be readily apparent. Though there are many that are now aware of this and the consciousness has risen sharply in a relatively short period of time and continues to rise at a steady rate. We must not let those who say: 'we don't have definitive proof of it yet! The 'models' are incomplete and we don't fully understand it. While the latter are true, there is so much hard scientific data showing that this catastrophe has arisen and befallen us and that we have do not have the luxury of time to do nothing but 'study it' for the next 50 or 100 year until we 'fully know and understand it completely. Firstly it is changing so rapidly and we are already playing 'catch up' and will be scrambling to do so as the rate of the annihilation of life on our home ever accelerates. If we delay even a couple of years without acting, we will literally 'be no more' in a VERY short period of time!

What is the most important thing in these roles is to raise the consciousness and avarice of as many of we can in all walks and endeavors of life. This seems like a meaningless thing in the face of such al encompassing catastrophic annihilation and destruction off all life on our planet. Nothing could be further from the truth: It is ONLY by creating the awareness of what has befallen us that can and will bring about an overwhelming force set in motion that nothing can stand against it and deflect, deter or prevent it. ONLY when the need global awareness is raised to a level of being an all encompassing unstoppable force with the scale of power of motion and momentum that nothing can withstand it and that many millions of acts both great and small that put together can and will create the undeniable political will and bring about the needed action because there can be no other inaction that we will tolerate. We must become fearless Spiritual 'White' (Green?) Warriors for our mortally wounded Mother Earth: Gaia. We must stand fast and hold fast and rally around her and protect and nourish Her as She has for us for millions of years! As she has given us Life an sustained us, now we must do the same for Her and our home and become the care givers and nourishers: the protectors of Life and the spreaders of knowledge and wisdom and the fearless, right and correct multitude of actions on all levels as is needed

I'm sorry I gave up reading about 1/3 of the way through. Nothing personal, but the only thing I saw about modular vehicles was contradictory to the spirit of the thread, and frankly incorrect. In my opinion there is absolutely no reason unibody construction can not be the basis of an interchangeable components design. (modular) The rest of the text was umm... how can I put this... off topic.

and imho, those 'scientists' are wrong. The change that wiped out the dinosaurs was massive impact with moon sized planetoids, and it was massive tsunamis and nuclear winter that lasted longer and took care of what didn't die immediately. The Evidence of this is all around us. Our moon got massively splattered with debris. The asteroid belt is what remains of the rest of Gaia (Tiamat) where our orbit used to be, and the water found on the moon, mars, neptune, etc, used to be here. Evidence of a catastrohic.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Not an unexpected reaction Chris,

We can debate the theory of the dinosaurs but frankly I'd rather not.

As to the Primary focus of "Automotive Eco Engineering and Construction.

Is it 'immediately' relevant to modular car construction?

No. But then you aren't building one immediately either.

But it IS our largest immediate primary concern that if not addressed and acted upon like: 20 years ago, will render all the rest of this a moot point in the VERY near future if not acted upon on a massive scale like, 10 years ago.

Like yourself I'm not inexperienced in these matters as opposed to just some theoretical notions

As to the modularity, like everyone else, just calling it as I see it.

I'm not the only one that has pointed out some valid limitations and problems with the approach.

It's par for the course and goes along with all things such as this, especially with the broad format and wide/open participation.

There's bound to be differing points of view and ideas.

That's the purpose of the whole thing.

I guess it depends if you want to come up with the best solution,

or stick to yours at all costs, which I know is not the case.

When I was designing my engine, which started out looking for a rotary valve for a 4 stroke with the vales/train being the most highly stressed and thus one of the most limiting part of a 4 stroke with 100 Gs being normal in a plain Jane mass market engine.

I basically went through every design for all possible such valve configurations and worked through virtually the entire history of heat engines. Obviously utilizing my experience (this started about ~38 years ago) and some research, but mostly through my ability to discern and understand the factors and forces involved and carry out correct 'though experiments'': the starting point and basis for most engineering.

Time after time I would follow a 'branch' to the point where I had figured out all the pluses, and more importantly the negatives and especially the limitations that where insurmountable.

I did things like this time after time coming to the correct conclusion and often would subsequently find out that a sizable corporations with significant resources had spent 20 years on R&D only to come the same blind alley and have to write it off.

So does my viewpoint and analysis have any credibility?

That's for you to decide, just like everything else and everyone else in these.

So that's addressing the 'directly 'on topic' aspect of it.

The lengthy addressing of eco engineering?

It's up to you if you if it has any validity for you as to auto economics and feasibility or not.

A nice aspect of this forum is that everyone can vote on stuff.

You can leave it and see if it creates flack and pull it,

or just go ahead and pull it Chris.

It's your gig and you need to do what you feel to be right for you.

I'm quite sincere in this.

I'm not an ego maniac or completely out to lunch with my head in either the clouds or a 'very dark place' and recognize that it can be readily objected to and why. I guess it's a case of if you want to include such indirect but fundamental factors in this or not. Feasibility and sustainability are certainly relevant factors. But the posting in question doesn't directly address your project in an immediate concrete sense.

When I was first on here years ago, after I'd been on a while, I posted a topic about the possibility of black holes being the birth place of 'new universes'.

Hardly an engineering topic as I wasn't' involved or contemplating building a probe to find out.

It belonged in a science forum rather than an Engineering forum. But it did spark some interesting and lively discussions and exchanges of ideas, thoughts and theories. At one point I even eMailed Steven Hawking to ask him to weigh in on it.

I wasn't standing at the door forcing people in at gun point. Twas voluntary.

But your shingle doesn't say 'Engineering Macro Eco Economics'

Just do what you need to do to make it right for yourself Chris.

We both already know that there is going to be flack from others about it as well.

I guess it's a matter of which is more important: that someone will similar awareness and concerns, perhaps just awakening or otherwise, and it moves them to do something positive in these matters.

Do what you know to be right. No hard feelings or grudges on my part either way.

I appreciate that you are handling it the way that you are:

forthright with honesty and integrity.

Which was more uncomfortable and harder to do than just having it pulled and 'ignoring the issue' and just leaving it hanging out there in the way left uncomfortably unspoken and unsaid.

So, Gud on ya Mate! (< 8)

Regards,

Doug

Hi Doug, I didn't vote you off-topic for the reasons you outlined. It may be of value. As far as saving the world, and our collision course with destiny, I agree. but I also have to think positive, and believe the 'Universe is unfolding as it should' (spock) and that as the temperature rises in our frog pond, we will get off our butts and build some interplanetary spaceships for real. It takes imagination and openmindedness to foresee the future, and I'm not about to criticize you for that. I'm just giving you a gentle nudge...

Chris

HI Chris, Stus et al,

Not sure what imho means?

In regards to the dinosaurs and 90% of the life dying off during the same period, there are lots of theories as to why.

I never stated anything about why though, only the 'what' and we both know that whatever the cause, that it did happen and the time frame are fairly conclusive.

I was making the comparison to put it into perspective which IS very important as it shows the reality of our current situation and the needs for drastic, large scale effect solutions and applications, including the topics involved and covered here.

Likewise I'm hooked up on quite a wide range of aspects. I have the ability to focus on the details, but also tend to have much more of a broad, macro multifaceted viewpoint than most as well.

Like you, life has taught me that there is a wisdom in life and that things happen as they need to. Often things that happen to us that seem to be calamitous at the time and thus we have understandable reactions to them, but when looked back upon I and hopefully others such as yourself often see that it was for the best and taught and led us in a direction that was more productive and often quite important.

As difficult that it is from my experience in the 'school of life, which is what it really is for us with 'human' qualities; we tend to learn much more from the 'negative things that impact us and the 'good times' are basically grace, and bonuses.

As humans with the options of 'free will' we have more opportunities to take a hand in the direction we go by the choice we make. Then we have to live by them and go through the consequences.

I did present quite a number of things at the end after pointing out the things that made the 'why' and 'when' very urgent as they are and what we can and really must do in our circumstances.

It was quiet an ordeal for me to write all that, but such things are part of my destiny and are as the 'fates' decree.

It's unfortunate the when I got to the end of it that arduous and difficult task for me that I forgot to put close it off with one very succinct statement and 'sound bite' that summarises and encapsulate the whole thing and is a modification of one of Ford's marketing and sales slogan and approach that really needs to be at the foundation of our current activates such that:

"Sustainability is Job One!'

Like many others here, I likewise have the realization that the total 'modular' approach to the construction of different vehicle doesn't seem to be very realistic or applicable.

What does seem to be the right approach to it, as both you and Stu address in subsequent postings as well as numerous others here have made the observation and have come to the same conclusion that what can work and would be an important, desirable and very feasible is the standardisation and modularity of various vehicle components, both large major ones extending on down to the plethora of many medium and smaller minor components required to construct a realistic modern transportation unit is to have those standardised and assembling (cost) effective and optimized vehicles that one has a 'shopping list' DataBase of requirements and then goes through and finds the ones needed and checks them off, gathering them all up and start assembling the desired configuration out off them.

I believe that this is a very realistic option and possibility that can bring about significant and important changes in the way vehicles of all sorts of different sizes and shapes for different purposes.

There have been quite a number of postings here about the need to standardize interfaces which I like wise believe is key and vital to the success of the approach that we are all working on here. If we work it through to the point where we have at least the base outline in place and well documented with which to build this on, creating an ISO International Standards Organization) standard would be very effective and can bring about significant, wise ranging and broad backbone to achieving this goal and provides an inherent effective global standard that will bring about significant and vital improvements to auto design and construction.

FYI: my plans include bringing mass market transportation into existence that includes utilizing the 3^rd dimension into for large scale personal (urban) transportation that will impact this immensely. I strongly believe that the gains made by achieving this will be very significant including drastically reducing the resources required for transportation infrastructure.

But I don't see the reality having the modular supper structures as presented here and producing and assembling those effectively by reverting back tubular 'bird cage' construction methods. As many others here including myself have pointed out, except for a very limited number of vehicles, starting with tubular construction method has long since been surpassed by other macro approaches that results in a more cost effective and stronger, lighter and more rigid platform that also increase passenger safety that is suited to and fulfilling the requirements for broad, large scale application most effectively and efficiently. This addresses cost vs benefits and suitability of the super structure as the key starting point.

To this end, as has been brought forth and discussed by many here the most effective structures are 'skin stressed' constructions including Monocoque methods that with current technologies available ARE possible on various scales.

I believe that my 'origami' / 'cookie cutter' construction methods as posted here, and which can also include skin stressed and monocoque construction methods to very effectively provide a wide range super structures that are very rigid and have an excellent strength and rigidity to weight ratio. It can do a very effective job of fulfilling the requirements of the highly flexible designs that can readily be adapted to effectively cover a very wide range of applications quite readily and easily.

My apologies on this composition posting as I know it is not the best structured and is repetitive in places; but I am nowhere near being recovered from my marathon CR4 postings here very recently. I made numerous submissions prior to composing the long, wide ranging one on the reasons and need for significant rapid action and some suggestions on how to facilitate them.

These compositions are not easy for me and are quite difficult, arduous tasks that takes a lot out of me.

Hi Doug,

I hear and acknowledge your point of view on sustainability of modular vehicles. we will have to agree to disagree. I for one think that they are more sustainable than the multinational corporation system we have now. I think that a modular system allows for a much more diversified array of components, with subsequent diversification of ownership of producing organizations, and much less adherence to status quo and party line so to speak. That was one reason I chose to present the Hawk body.. there are no rules and no one to say NO to you. That makes the system closer to nature, and therefore, more sustainable. What is sustainability? In my definition, more infrastructure with greater resilience to recover from market forces, and providing the greatest value to customers; "amplifying the power of choice" (my motto)

Also I am an big enthusiast also of roadable vehicles and the highway in the sky (3rd dimension). I've submitted my design to the roadable times database. Please note the number of 'modular' designs already submitted. Again, I find no reason that roadables can not be part of the modular family.

On another note, I've thrown other modular ideas into cr4. Here, Here, and Here.

Chris

Hi Chris et al,

I'm in full agreement with you about the fact that there can be and should be a set of standardized components from the major ones right down the finer details that could readily available for use by a wide broad base and a wide range of organizations of all sizes and types. Though obviously it is going to evolve and change. But every new design most defiantly doesn't have to start with a totally 'Clean Sheet' of drawing paper, or an empty database for the CAD system and absolutely every item of which there are already innumerable modules available of and create every new item for a different vehicle.

How many times DO we have to reinvent the wheel in order to make something better?

I just don't think that for a modular overall superstructure has much viability. However like yourself I AM very much in favor of such a thing but doubt that is realistic without compromising the results significantly.

If you go back through your thread there are numerous entries by numerous different people that are basically saying the same thing and talking about and working on achieving it, including ME Chris!

We are seeing a flurry of smaller decentralized organizations and even individuals etc that is very similar to what happened in north America in the first ¼ of the last century when 25,000! 'automobile companies' came into existence with most of them disappearing within the same time frame.

Reagrds to all,

Doug

This whole set of exchanges shows why for organizational sanity, multiple Threads is the way to go. also every new thread increases the visibility of the entire set of threads, since there would be a link back to the original thread. Not as clean as having your own blog, but something to think about, this is the way masu started out before his blog.

Let the various fibers become threads in their own right

In My Humble Opinion = IMHO

On a slightly more global scale modularity could mean all cars with a gross weight of whatever should have a proscribed width.

all disc brake pads for say 250mm discs, would share a common method of attachment & dimension, though the materials could vary

Shock absorber attachment styles limited, strokes standardized, damping curves would still vary. A bigger vehicle might have multiple units per wheel...

integrated smart roadways, could allow strings of cars to be magnetically coupled to increase the areo dynamic efficiency the cars at the front of the "train" would be the ones traveling the furthest. The smart road would be powered by cheap printed integrated circuit/solar cells mounted on top of the guard rails, functioning similar to a local area wifi computer network.

all themes I wouldn't mind seeing in the mix

magnetic car trains... WOOHOO!! love it!

I'm conversing with CR4admin tomorrow (monday) about converting this to a blog. and to create sub-topics including all we've discussed, from materials to entrainment to roadables, etc.

on that note of roadable aircraft (flyable cars?) and your statement ("On a slightly more global scale modularity could mean all cars with a gross weight of whatever should have a proscribed width.") I think a simple and corresponding specification would be to define lift to weight (glide ratio) and/or power to weight ratios, plus stability factors.

Chris

great stuff. GA

think about the roll over issues with SUV's a set of standards about width to height of the center of gravity would seem to be needed.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get on the freeway & basically take a nap for a few 100 km's. The implications for reducing the labor costs for long haul truckin...

smart power grids & roads are the future [assuming there is one]

I expect you'll have more than just this going on your blog

I'm sure you'll be much more active than most of the blogs on the index

Hi guys,

My design for mass market (personal / urban) transportation includes an Auto-Gyro mechanism both for increased efficiency and safety, including a glide ration. It will be capable of flight without the Auto-Gyro though for complete vertical takeoff and landing in an urban environment. As with most rotary winged aircraft, they are limited by their forward speed. There is a guy or a small outfit in the US that has been working on optimizing the specifics of Auto-Gyro blades and has bypassed all other rotary winged aircraft by a considerable margin. I 'm fairly certain he has bypassed the 300 MPH mark and even gotten as high as 350 mph.

Likewise for safety it will include another invention established and being installed and utilized on personal light aircraft. It is a rocket fired parachute that does not rely on ANY other systems in order to be deployed. The last time I say anything about it was quite a few years ago and it was utilizing the traditional round parachute. If he hasn't developed it further, I will extend the design to utilize the 'flying mattress design that most individuals utilize know what is really a flying wing with a good glide ration and perhaps more importantly is capable of being steered significantly more than the round chutes ca.

I also have a workable and safe plan for safely utilizing very large quantities of these personal aircraft over an urban center at all at the same time.

I've already dumped my 'Composites for Cars' thread as being unworkable and as going to separate it into numerous topics and sub threads including vehicles utilizing the 3^rd dimensions as well.

I understand that you want to keep autonomous control over your creation Chris, but I'm hoping that we can work in conjunction and have significant 'cross pollination and participations.

Regards to all,

DougRH

Doug. Are you a flyer?

To do as you suggest, impose rigid air space controlls, is precisely what happens now. Right now we have a degree of flexibility< as there is quite a lot of air space mixed into the traffic 'soup', so to speak.

But ramp up the air traffic and the space controlls have to be tightened more, ultimately to where it'll be as rigid as driving on the roads. So we might as well drive on the roads, it's way cheaper. And, its far easier to impose space controls when only two dimensions have to be calculated. The 'magnetic' coupling and decoupling of road vehicles, as suggested in this blog has great idea potential. It'll need specially constructed roads tho', so here comes the expense. Taxes. Roads.

One thing I don't want to do is stifle your creativity. Keep going.

Dreams are what built the world.

Stu.

Stuey,

is it raining or something? You been on the site a couple of years, hardly hear from you

now, boom your everywhere I am, it seems [are you following me]

welcome

kidding aside

the trains of cars coupled magnetically, is more software than anything.

on the main roads here in the US [imagine the same down your way] there are plenty of reflective lines & bumps to locate off of.

the coupling & uncoupling would be tricky, more so if the car leaving were in the middle of the line. The automatic parking & adaptive cruise controls, becoming common, are nearly good enought to to this stuff today...

since you would be relying on the combined computer power of a network, the longer the train the safer it would be

imagine a gridlocked freeway being able to move at 100kph...

I been refining the concept during late night bench engineering [bullshine] sessions over a bunch of years, interesting to see more & more of the technology appear over the years.

ya! that would be like a 'group cruise control'. great idea. very beneficial in cities.

but for highways, don't you think an 'actual' link will help... 10 or more cars could get pulled by a Semi truck (no trailer)

Chris

collaborative all wheel drive.

what kind of power plant let you loaf along at full speed and only consume a couple of kw?

we tossed around slingshot accelerators [air craft carriers] on the on ramp or merging lanes. This would allow a 10-20kw pluggin electric power plant for tooling around town & such.

drive on flatbed railcars with containerized housing for long haul cross country trips, would be another modular kind of transportation solution. a runabout with a range of 200kms for getting to the the que. Rail & ocean have made huge leaps with the coming of the information age, goods travel at an incredible pace, these days. The problem with public transportation is no one wants to give up their personal space. could this type of solution bridge the gap?

Ya! again... for the train thing.. why not have a train that is all flatbed, and you drive-on and drive-off (like on-ramp and off-ramp on highway) and then you can travel cross country and get off where you like..

... and you can sleep and dine in the converted container.

That is exactly it.

I think on most railroads you could park the cars under elevated containers making it a drive through proposition... or the opposite cars on top for better weight distribution. Either way I regulaily see containers double stacked on trains.

Train cars make pretty good housing too...

the discussion where this came up for me started out with motorcycles, for personal transportation at the destination.

Here you can take your bicycle on the bus or amtrack...

you can presently load your car on a train in NYC & have it transported to florida.

I wouldn't be surprised to find similar programs going from Toronto to Vancouver

this particular line of thinking is more limited by the organizational stuff than the practical realities. The infrastructure additions needed are minimal.

You can pay to have your vehicle shipped by train anytime you want to.

I saw one program on a water bound specialty shipping company that primarily had (very) large, autonomous powered barges. They had been primarily in the Mediterranean and Europe. There revenues dropped off considerably because of a downturn in the economy. To fend of bankruptcy they needed to find other sources of income and did some brain storming on it. There ships were large enough to travel long distances in open waters and came up with the idea of transporting large pleasure water crafts of all types, including sail boats, for people that wanted to go to other parts of the world a long ways away. In most cases thousands of miles. As well as being much less stressful and boring for the owners, it was significantly cheaper, safer and reduced the wear and tear on their boats considerably. As with most things, if the facilities are there, larger volumes brings the price down.