advantage niche vehicle programme · advantage niche vehicle programme ... ukti –finding new ......

ADVANTAGE NICHE VEHICLE PROGRAMME

Forthcoming Events

June 25th - NVN Workshop (Venue TBC)

July - NVN Event - Ricardo (Leamington)

Sept 9th-10th – Low Carbon Vehicle 2009 (Millbrook)

October – NVN Event - Modec (Coventry)

November - NVN Event - Coventry University


MARKET OPPORTUNITIES

WORKSHOP

25th June 2009

Venue TBC

Guest Speaker MEP Malcolm Harbour


List of Potential Presenters:

1. Malcolm Harbour MEP – European Policy / Pre-procurement

2. Charles Morgan - Federal Market Requirements

3. Vehicle Certification Agency -Conformity of Production

4. Jez Coates, Zolfe –Design & Construction for Type Approval

5. Paul Faithfull, Westfield – European Small Series Approval

6. Paul Keeling, UKTI – Finding New Export Markets

7. Mike Lowe, DfT – Legislation Update

COVENTRY UNIVERSITY SUPPORT

• James Watkins (1st Year B Eng) supporting the

development of the NVN Supplier Directory –

Summer 2009.

• Mike Dickison recently appointed Principal

Lecturer – but main purpose will be to support

R&D within the niche industry.

• Gary Wood continuing to support collaborative

R&D projects as required.

• Mike Blundell will continue to develop the

University’s strategic capability to support the

niche vehicle industry.

DESIGN GUIDE/AGENDA

Aerodynamics

Electric and Hybrid Technologies

Polymer Body Panels

Lightweight Chassis Technologies

Aerodynamic Benchmarking and Comparative Study

Advantage Niche Vehicle Research and Development Programme

Presented by Mike Dickison

Coventry University

7th May 2009


Contents of Presentation

• Test Vehicles

• Programme Objectives

• MIRA Test Facility

• Test Procedure

• Test Results and Key Recommendations

• Discussion of Results

• Drag Comparisons – Niche Vs. Volume

• Conclusions


Commercial Vehicles

Modec Drop SideModec Box Van

Microcab


Convertible and Open Sports Cars

RAW Fulcrum

AMS MurtayaGTM Spyder

Westfield 7

Trident Iceni Gardner Douglas GDT70


Coupes

Morgan Aeromax Morgan Lifecar

Zolfe GTC-4


Objective

• Assess the aerodynamic performance of 12 niche vehicles

• Compare the vehicles with mass produced competitors

• Assess the effect of aerodynamic modifications

• Provide recommendations for further development


Test Facility

• MIRA Full Scale Wind Tunnel

• Max. wind speed 80 mph

• Suitable for cars and commercial vehicles up to 4000 kg

• Drag, side, lift, yaw pitch and roll force measurement

• 3 methods for flow visualisation


Test Procedure

2 hour test duration covering:-

• Baseline assessment of drag, front, rear, lift and side forces through a ±30° yaw angle sweep

• Investigation of changes when cooling ducts are blanked off

Continued…


Test Procedure

• Flow visualisation using a smoke wand to show areas of good flow and turbulence

• Experimental modifications, adding aerodynamic devices: e.g. spoilers and splitters, changing roof configuration and modifying cooling ducts


Test Results and Design Recommendations

Vehicle CD (base)

Front

Lift

Coeff

Rear

Lift

Coeff

Key Recommendations

Modec Box

Van0.47 0.2 -0.21

Evaluate methods for reducing front lift

Refine the door mirror design and cooling apertures to reduce

drag

Modec Drop

Side0.52 0.373 -0.251

Optimise the under-tray design

Adopt the experimental panel fitted between the roof and

pickup frame to substantially reduce drag

Develop a roof spoiler to further reduce drag

Refine the door mirror design and cooling apertures to reduce

drag

Morgan

Aeromax0.47 0.153 0.243

Optimise cooling ducts to reduce drag and reduce front lift

Develop a rear spoiler and diffuser to reduce rear lift

Morgan

Lifecar0.38 0.132 0.347

Re-evaluate when vehicle design is fully representative

Develop rear end aerodynamic design to reduce rear lift



VehicleCD

(base)

Front

Lift

Coeff

Rear

Lift

Coeff

Key Recommendations

Microcab 0.35 -0.104 0.09

Optimise cooling aperture to minimise drag

Develop rear end spoiler to reduce rear lift

RAW Fulcrum 0.57 0.073 -0.116

Develop cooling aperture to reduce drag

Revise front end aerodynamics to eliminate lift

Establish the benefit of sealing the centre tunnel and adoption

of an aero screen

Develop design of rear spoiler to provide down force whilst

minimising increase in drag

Gardner

Douglas GD

T70

0.48 -0.02 -0.038

Optimise front dive planes / splitter to reduce drag for versions

without a rear spoiler

Develop a modified front dive plane / splitter to balance down

force when rear spoiler is fitted



VehicleCD

(base)

Front

Lift

Coeff

Rear

Lift

Coeff

Key Recommendations

Trident Iceni 0.46 0.143 0.24

Revise cooling apertures and ducting path to reduce drag

Modify front end shape, incorporating a front spoiler to reduce

lift

Develop a rear boot spoiler to reduce rear lift

AMS

Murtaya0.45 0.114 0.014

Optimise roof shape to reduce drag

Develop under-floor and incorporate a rear diffuser to increase

down force

Westfield 7 0.64 0.266 0.032 Develop front bodywork design to reduce front lift

GTM Spyder 0.4 -0.071 0.214 Develop a rear spoiler to reduce both rear lift and drag

Zolfe0.43 -0.099 0.14 Optimise size and location of rear spoiler to reduce rear lift

GTC-4


Discussion of Results

• The majority of niche vehicles need development to attain the levels of aerodynamic efficiency as mass-produced vehicles

• Aerodynamic lift and front to rear balance is a general issue for some of the vehicles tested

• Further wind tunnel development will enable the drag vs. down-force compromise to be optimised


Drag Comparisons – Niche Vs. Volume

Commercial Vehicles

Manufacturer Vehicle Vehicle Type CD (base) CD (best)

Microcab Microcab Urban Taxi/Run-around 0.35 0.34

Modec Box Van Urban Utility Vehicle 0.47 0.44

Dodge Ram (1997 MY) Large Pickup Truck 0.48 -

Modec Drop Side Urban Utility Vehicle 0.52 0.48

Hummer H2 (2003 MY) Military 4X4 0.57 -

- - Typical Large Truck 0.60 -



Convertible and Open Sports Cars

Manufacturer Vehicle Vehicle TypeCD

(base)

CD

(best)

LotusElise S2 (2003

MY)Convertible Sports Car (Mid Engine) 0.29 -

BMW Z4 (2009 MY)Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine, Steel

Roof)0.34 -

Mazda MX5 (1989 MY) Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine) 0.38 -

GTM Spyder Convertible Sports Car (Mid Engine) 0.40 0.40

AMS Murtaya Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine) 0.45 0.42

Trident Iceni Convertible Diesel Sports Car (Front Engine) 0.46 0.41

Gardner

DouglasGD T70 Open Sports Car (Mid Engine) 0.48 0.48

RAW Fulcrum Open Sports Car (Front Engine) 0.57 0.51

Westfield 7 Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine) 0.64 0.64

Caterham 7 Convertible Sports Car (Front Engine) 0.70 -



Coupes

Manufacturer Vehicle Vehicle Type CD (base) CD (best)

Porsche 911 (997 2004 MY) Sports Coupe (Rear Engine) 0.28 -

Lotus Elite (1958 MY) Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.29 -

Audi TT (2007 MY) Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.30 -

Porsche 911 911 (996 1997 MY) Sports Coupe (Rear Engine) 0.30 -

BMW Z4 M Coupe (2006 MY) Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.35 -

Aston Martin DB9 Coupe (2009 MY) Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.35 -

Audi TT (1998 MY) Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.35 -

Morgan Lifecar Sports Coupe Concept Car (Hybrid/Electric) 0.38 0.32

Zolfe GTC-4 Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.43 0.40

Morgan Aeromax Sports Coupe (Front Engine) 0.47 0.47


Conclusions

• The objective measurements have provided a guide for aerodynamic modifications

• All the vehicles tested would benefit from further development in the wind tunnel, to verify that design modifications are effective and to enable further optimisation

Questions?

NVN Design Guide

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies

Presenter

Dr. Paul Faithfull

E L E C T R I C A N D H Y B R I D V E H I C L E T E C H N O L O G I E S

Guide Overview

• Scope– Main : Pure electric to hybrid electric vehicles

– Secondary : Mechanical hybrids

• Structure– Technology Overview

– Architectures

– Components

– Case Studies

– Technology Matrix

– Supplier Index


Technology Overview (1)

• Architectures– How the system components are arranged, pure EV,

series, parallel, combined.

• Degree of Hybridisation


Technology Overview (2)

• Business Case+ Customer : Better fuel economy/Lower CO2

+ Business : Government incentives, new markets

+ Technology : Powertrain efficiency, regenerative braking, increased performance

– Costs of components

– Technology immaturity

– Component availability


Architectures (1)

• Pure Electric+ Simple

+ No tailpipe emissions

+ Low noise

– Low noise

– Battery costs

– Range

– Recharge time

– Size of battery

e.g. Modec Electric Van


Architectures (2)

• Series Hybrid+ No mechanical link

+ Easier to package

+ Electric only mode

– Component size

– No limp home ability

– Cost compared to parallel

– Losses from energy conversions

Generator

e.g. Morgan LIFEcar


Architectures (3)

• Parallel Hybrid+ System efficiency

+ Limp home capability

+ Can be lower cost

+ Can downsize engine

– Control can be complex

– Added weight

Arrangements : Pre/Post transmission

Through the Roade.g. Honda Civic IMA


Architectures (4)

• Combined Hybrid+ Optimal point operation

+ Charging flexibility

+ Electric only mode

– Cost

– Weight

– Complexity

e.g. Toyota Prius


Components: Energy Storage

• Battery• Battery management

• Low energy density

(petrol = 8000 Wh/kg)

• Different voltages

• Super Capacitor• High current capability, low specific energy

• 3V cell – series combination : 1/Ct = (1/C1)+(1/C2)…

• Flywheel


Components: Energy Conversion

• Motors• Different types :

• Brushed DC, Brushless DC, AC Induction, AC Synchronous

• Location• Hub motors

• Inboard


Components: Energy Generation

• Fuel Cell• Expensive (~£5000 / kW)

• Require battery buffer as cannot meet dynamic load

• Require hydrogen infrastructure

• Zero tailpipe emissions

• Currently prohibited on road without VSO (hydrogen)

• 2 types – PEM and SOFC. PEM dominant

• Genset• Still need to meet EU tailpipe legislation


Components: Other

• DC/DC Conversion

• Fuses and Circuit Breakers

• Charger

• Ancillary Components (12V System)

• Flywheel Hybrid

• Hydraulic Hybrid

Mechanical Hybrids


CASE STUDIES : Technology Matrix


CASE STUDIES : Summary of Lessons

PROJECT LESSONS

• Design and development takes longer than anticipated

• Partners may come from different industries in projects in this field with different cultures, domain languages and agendas

• Be wary of big bang approach



TECHNOLOGY LESSONS

• It is possible to tune hybrid systems in the same way that engines are tuned

• Fuel economy/CO2 savings can be attained



PRODUCT/MARKET LESSONS

• At low volumes high price premiums exist on technology

• Entry to market timing is critical and mass market is not proven to exist

• Entry to market timing is critical and mass market is not proven to exist, but operational trials is showing user acceptance (EV)

Questions?

Polymer Body Panel Technologies

Contents

• 1. Materials Overview- Introduction

• 2. Case Studies:

• Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP)

• Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM)

• Epoxy E-Glass Pre-impregnated Material

• Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC)

• Twintex®

• Carbon Fibre Pre-Preg

• Alternative Materials

• Resins

• Reinforcement Fibres

• 3. Conclusion and Benefits to Niche companies


Materials Overview

• The purpose of this section of the design guide is to: -

– Assist in the selection of plastic and composite (Polymer) materials for body panel and vehicle construction

– Compare the Polymer Materials performance against aluminium, and create a matrix of both the technical and commercial properties.

– Illustrate certain vehicle body features with alternative material choices

• The study focuses onto those specific areas perceived to be technically and commercially most important to niche vehicle manufacturers.

• The guide provides specific case studies to practically demonstrate the process e.g. body panels, bumpers, trim items.

Material Case Studies

• Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP)

• Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM)

• Epoxy E-Glass Pre-impregnated Material

• Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC)

• Twintex®

• Carbon Fibre Pre-Preg

• Alternative Materials-

• Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS),

• Bayer Long Fibre Injection (LFI),

• GLARE – Laminated Composite Material,

• Polycarbonate (PC),

• Resins - Vinylester, Epoxy

• Reinforcement Fibres - E-glass, S-glass, Aramid (Kevlar)



Summary - Conclusions and Benefits to Niche Vehicle companies

• Technical Polymer material properties matrix established

- Data properties provided – specific key attributes

• Commercial matrix established.

- Business case information level

• The benefits and risks of using polymer parts for Body panels have been explored and evaluated

• Guidelines created for comparing costs/times for Niche Vehicle Manufacturing evaluation

• Future programme required to demonstrate Production growth potential.

Questions?

LIGHTWEIGHT CHASSIS TECHNOLOGIES

Key Objectives:

• Benchmark the chassis currently available by selecting a spread offive key niche vehicles, produced for different market sectors andcustomer profiles.

• Chassis case study analysed on the following criteria:

• Technical Description

• Homologation Requirements

• Physical Testing (Efficiency Index)

• Commercial Analysis

• Share process and techniques currently available for chassisconstruction beyond the case study analysis.

• Technical and Commercial Route Map

Case Study Contributors

Raw Striker

Zolfe – GTC4

Westfield: HLV

Morgan – Aero 8

Stadco – Ford GT

Case Study Data• Technical, Homologation, Commercial. via Questionnaire

• Physical Testing via Mira testing facility

» Testing Boundaries and conditions utilises the 4 damperturrets/main mounting apply the load to output torsionalstiffness.

» Torsional stiffness, weight and plan of chassis figures were usedto develop Chassis Efficiency Index

Case Study Output: Chassis Efficiency Index

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Efficiency

BIW

Weig

ht

(kg)

Monocoque

Chassis

Linear (Monocoque)

Cabrio Coupe

EWVTA

IVA & ESS

GT

Zolfe

Morgan

Raw

Westfield

Efficiency per Full Product Cost

£0

£2,000

£4,000

£6,000

£8,000

£10,000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Test Vehicles

Expon. (Test Vehicles )

Expected TrendLine

EWVTA

EWVTA

Expected Trend line

Materials and Processes Overview

Material

Manipulation

Process

Joining

Technologies Strength Weakness

Capital

Invest Unit Cost

1 Sheet Steel Folded MIG Weld

Very low Cost

High Recyclable

High Stiffness

Cheap Repair

Heavy

Corrosion

(medium-high)

Requires

Painting

Steel Tube (main) Laser CutTIG/MIG Weld,

Braze

Aluminium Sheet

(sub)Cut Rivet / Bond

3 High Strength Steel Folded MIG WeldHigh Strength and

reduced wall section

Higher Cost

than Steel

Corrosion

(medium-high)

4High Strength Steel

TubeLaser Cut

TIG/MIG Weld,

Braze

High Strength and

reduced wall section

Higher Cost

than Steel

Corrosion

(medium-high)

5Stainless Steel

SheetFolded TIG Weld

Very low corrosion

No Paint required

High Cost

More Brittle

and Spring

than Steel

6 Stainless Steel Tube Laser Cut TIG Weld Very low corrosion

No Paint required

High Cost

More Brittle

and Spring

than Steel

Aluminium Sheet

(main)Folded

TIG Weld

Structural Bond

Aluminium

Fabrication (sub)Cropped/Cut Rivet / Bond

Low cost per unit

Lightweight

Good Recyclable

Low corrosion

No Paint required

(when anodised /

coated)

Aluminium Extrusion 8 Laser Cut

TIG Weld

Rivet

Structural Bond

Higher Cost

than steel tube.

7

Low cost

Lightweight

Good Recyclable

Low corrosion

No Paint required

(when anodised /

coated)

Higher Cost

than sheet

steel. Thicker

wall thickness

required for

same strength

in steel.

2

Low Cost

Medium Recyclable

Medium Stiffness

Cheap Repair

Medium

Weight

Corrosion

(medium-high)

Technical and Commercial Route Map (1 of 2)

Process Overview

1. Who is your customer?

2. Identify the importance of the chassis in yourvehicle. I.E; what are your key vehicleattributes?

3. What is the homologation band and market ofyour vehicle?

4. What is the most economic & technicallyefficient way of producing the chassis?

Business Case comparisons.

Technical and Commercial Route Map (2of2)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000x £'s

Technology and Process V's Unit Costs

0 50 100 150 200 250 x £'000

Technology and Process V's Design and Development Costs

Steel Tube Fabricated

Steel Folded & Fabricated

Stainless Steel Folded & Fabricated

Aluminium Extrusion & Fabricated

Aluminium Folded and Fabricated

Aluminium Forming, Cast & Fabricated

Carbon/Kevlar Composites

Steel Tube Fabricated







0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200x £'000

Technology and Process V's Capital Investment Steel Tube Fabricated







Questions?

www.cenex.co.uk/nvn

All our presentation material from each NVN

event, programme information, a DVD on the

Low Carbon Vehicle event at Millbrook plus

news and details on forthcoming events can

be found on the programme’s website

members area.

All NVN members can access this area with a

login, if you require one please email

[email protected]

http://www.cenex.co.uk/nvn

mailto:[email protected]

Thank You

advantage niche vehicle programme · advantage niche vehicle programme ... ukti –finding new ......

Documents