960243 Making the PNGV Super Car a Reality with Carbon Fiber: Pragmatic Goal or Pipe Dream? ‘Jeff R. Dielfenbach, Paul D. Palmer, and Anthony E. Mascarin Abstract The Partnership for a New Generation of Veticles — (PNGV), —a_—_—callaborative government.industry R&D program, has laid out tated a plan for a “Supercar” with the following specifications: a fuel economy of £0 miles per gallon (2.9 Iters/100 km), size ‘comparable to a midsize. four door sedan, ‘equivalent function in other performance areas, ‘and cost commensurate with that of todays ‘automobile. Together, the performance and cost goals are formidable to say the least. The PNGV projects that a 50% mass savings in the "body-inwhits" (BIW) is a necessary contribution to meet the 80 mpg goal. The two most ikely meteriais systems to meet the mass reduction goal are aluminum ‘and carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites, neither of which are inexpensive ‘relative to today’s stee! unibody. This paper examines the febrication and assembly cost of a midsize, four door sedan ‘manufactured from one of thee materials sysiems: a stamped steel unibody; an extruded, cast, and stamped aluminum spaceframe: and a moided carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite monocoque. The composite monocoque is examined in detail to understand the impact on cost of curent and projected carbon fiber content, price and process cycle time. IBIS Asscciate, Inc, is 2 Wolesioy, Massactusots based marae const im "oper" utes ‘development to organizations focused on the techroloies land oconemce of Fadklanal and sdvanced matorla and processes. ‘The conclusions roporad torein are thote of IBIS ‘Asecclates aleno, ard do not oprosant the PNOV er any of 2s constituent meméers. Introduction and Scope ‘The Partnership for a New Generaton of Vehicles (PNGV) is a collaborative research and development progam between the US. Government and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), the latter made up of Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. The PNGV lists both near-term and longterm goals for improving the automobile. The near-term perspective focuses on manufacturing improvements. The “sounc-bite" allure of the longer-term quest for a “Superca” overshadows the more practical nearterm plan. Criteria for this Supercar include the following. + The PNGV Supercar © Fuel economy = 80 miles per gallon (29 lters/100 km) © Size comparable to midsizo, four deor sedan ‘2.9, Chrysler Concorde Ford Taurus = Chevrolet Lumina © Equivalent ‘other performance ‘29. acceleration = range hanaling = crashwonhiness ® Cost Commensurate with today's automobile Together, the performance goals present a formidable but not insurmountable technological challenge. Adding tho cost ment ‘complicates the matter signifcanty. The PNGV Projects that a 50% mass savings in the “body-in-wtite" (BIN) is a necessary contibution to meet the 80 mpg goal. The two most likely materiale eysteme to moot tho macs roduction ‘goal are aluminum and carbon fiber reinforced Poymer composites, neither of whici ere inexponsive relative to today’s stamped steel unibody.This paper examines the fabrication and ascombly cost of a mid-sizo, four door sedan manufactured from one of three materials systems. + Cave study materials systems: Stamped steel unibody © Extuded, cast, and stamped aluminum spacetrarne - 40% mass savings relative to the steo! unibody = Molied carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite monocoque 50% mass savirgs The composite monocoque is examined in detail to understand the impact on cost of current and Projected carbon fiber content, price and process cycle time. The paper continues with 2 ‘desciption of the methodology employed, a case study definition, an analysis of the resulting comparison, and a set of final conclusions. Methodology To understand manutacturing cost, IBIS employs an approach called Technical Cost Modeling, The technique [1,23] is an extension of ‘conventional process modeling, with particular ‘emphasis on capturing the cost implications of material and process variables and changing ‘economic scenarios. The goal of Technical Cost Modeling is to ‘understand the costs of a product and how these costs are likely to change with changes to the product and process. Specifically, this includes the breaking down and ranking of cost into its ‘consttuent elements as listed below. + Cost elements = Materials and eney © Direct, maintenance, and overhead labor Equipment, tooling, and building ‘Once these costs aro established, sensitivity analysis can be performed to understand the impact of changes to hey parameters. + Typical sensitivity parameters ‘Annual production volrme Process yield Throughput Raw material price Todling cost 220 Technical Cost Modeling as originally developed by IBIS Associates is best applied to products with relatively small number of parts, on the ‘order of ten or so at most. To model a vehicle structure with as mary as 200 parts o” more, ew approach was needed; to address this, IBIS introduced the concept of “part classes" to Technical Cost Modeling. ‘The underlying assumption of “part class" cost modeling is that parts can be grouped and represented by an average or typical part. For a steel uribody, part classes might include the following: large flat rectangular ("argo"), medium contoured high aspect ratio (‘medium’), and so on. In each category, then, an “average” partis defined based on the range of parameters for ich part in the class: surface area, thickness, mass, material scrap, preducton rate, and tool cost. Thus, a ‘design’ for a vehicle might include the folowing. + Representative vehicle “design” © 7 large parts: = Area: 12,000 q om, thickness: 0.75 mm = Mass: 7.4 kg © 50 medhum parts ‘Aroa: 6,000 £q om, thickross: 0.90 mm Mass: 8.5 kg = 195 smal parts = Area: 400 89 cm, thickness: 070 mm, * Mass: 0.2 kg For each of these representative parts, inputs are ‘also made for matorial prise, process type (stamping, molding, etc), labor requirement, machine cost, floor ‘space required, and power ‘consumption. Together, each part class yields a piece cost that |S representative of the class. Obviously. the more classes that are used (and therefore, the fewer parts per class), the higher the accuracy of the output. In short, Technical Cost Modeling provides an understanding not only of current costs, but also of how these costs might differ in the fave of future technological or economic developments.Case Study Definition ‘One of the most important inputs to a cost analysis is annual production volume. For the three vehicles cited by the PNGY, these volumes jin 1994 ranged from 111,000 for the Chevrolet Lumina (down from 225,000 in 1993), 210,000 for tha Chrysler Concorde, Dodge Intrapid, ‘and Eagle Vison family, and 491,000 for the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable group [4]. Given these numbers, a baseline annual volume of £250,000 is used in the analysis. Vehicle Designs Model List 1 outines the three case study vehicles to be examined: steel unibody (St Un), aluminum spacetrame (Al Spa), and two variations on the composite monocoque: glass fiber reinforced thermoset (GF/TSet) and carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CF/TPles). All but the latior aro based on the 1982 IBIS BIW study (5). The unibody and spacetame are presented for cost comparison purposes; the analysis here wil concentrate on the monocoque. ‘Sioa! Unoody ‘Streator stampings: Panel stanpings 7 oo Material(s): Shoot metat ‘Assorbly typo: Spot Weldog 2 8 ° ‘Sinctura starpings. Sinetura extrusions: ‘Sructral castings ‘Structure subtotal Pane stampings Material(s Sheot, extrusion bit, casing rgot 7 2% 0 Campontte Monocoque GF/TSet ‘Stuctur! melange Sincural coos. Suet riatores: ‘Structure subtotal Panel modings: Material(s} Gass reltoross inylestor resin, ‘Assonbily, Adtesive bonang ‘Composite Monocoque CF/TPIas ‘Stucual meicings: ‘Sinetural cores: Structural rintors: ‘Structure stot: anol melangs Material(s} Carbon ther reintoroad themapleato wala, ‘Assenbly. Adhesive bonding Lame Medum ‘Alum Spicer a Assonbly. MIG Weldng/Achesive Bonding "Note: Underbody and rot tubs have Class Anish forfenders, rot, quarters, Sri 174 TOTAL: 0 7 20 ° n 2 10 7 83 Tor: 3 w 4“ ‘6 19 “7 7 3) 99 TOTAL: sa 3% a TOTAL: Model List 1 arThe composite monocoque covered in the 1982 BIW study consists of seven major mokdingsunderbody, roof, rear floor pan, cowlldash, radiator suppot, and two Bpillars~that are subsequently adhesive bonded during assembly. These moldings were resin transfer molded from a dass _reinforoad thermoset resin system. Additionally, foam cores wore incomporated in a number of locatiors. The composite monocoque addressed here is significantly diferent: carbon fiber replaces glass, and thermoplastic replaces thermoset The former of these is done for mass reduction. the latter for cycle time reducion. The CF/TPlas design is generated using the GF/TSet version fas a starting point; this generation is discussed below beginning win the makeup of the GF/TSet monocoque. + TSet monocoque Vinylester resin: 1.15 g/em?, $2.50%9 Glass Noor (ES miture): 2.54 gon? $9.68%9 Resin percent by mass: 50% Resin percent by volume: 69% Combined density: 1.58 gion? © Wall thicknesses (without cores): 2753.0 mm To conver thie “design’ to the CF/TPlas caso in a “top-down approach, the _ following assumptions are made. It is important to note that they are not intended to be rigorously calculated, but rather to reflect an approximation of a gonerie carbon fiber reinforced design. + TSet to CF/TPias conversion © A thermoplastic resin is employed Same mass and densi as themoset = Carbon fiber reduces reinforce volume by 33% ® Volume reducton yields 18% thickness drop * Resinfoer volume ratio's maintained Combined with the change in density, the following CF/TPlas vehicle is derved. + CF/TPlas monocoque ‘Thermoplastic resin: 1.15 gion’, $2.50'g Carbon teer: 1.80 gem? $22.00%9 sin percent by mass: 59% sin porcet by volume: 6% Combined density: 1.35 g/cm? Wall thicknesses (without cores): 225-25 rm OF these, the most critical assumption is the fiber volume reduction percentage. Sensitivity analysis will be performed on this atribule to understand its impact on cost. First. it is instructive to understand in a bit more detail the implications of using carbon fiber. Carbon Fiber (On a weight basis, carbon fiber is one o! the strongest and sttfest of engineering materials. A product of the cold war, its use is no longer dominated by aerospace applications; industrial Products, governed Solely by cost attectiveness, are_now driving the industry. The aerospace deciine has masked the increase of these applications, and the industry eppeare poised for solid growth from the current annual consumption of about 9 M kg (20 M Ibs). There are two basic types of carbon fiber: PAN and pitch. The designation indicates. the precursor material. PAN. relers to polyecrylonitrie, a polymer fiver with textile industry origins. The PAN precursor fiber is ‘carbonized at high temperature in controlled ‘environments, with a mass yield of about 50%. Pitch fiber is made by spinning purifed petroleum or coal tar pitch, followed by a similar ‘carbonizing. PAN-besed fiber is more widely used, accounting for at least 80% of consumption. Pitch fibers tend to be stitfer but more brite, although there ere a tremendous amount of product performance veriations within each category. The cost of carbon fiber depends upon its performance, quality, and form. Most carbon fiber used is standard grade PAN-based fiber, which typicaly has a tensile strength of about 3800 MPa (550 ksi) and a 220 GPa (32 milion Psi) modulus There is a strong relationship between the number of filaments in a fiber bundle (tow count) and cost; the higher the tow count, the lower fhe cost. For example, tows of 12,000 filament, standard grade fiber cost around $29/kg ($137): 6K tow (6,000 filament) bundles can cost almost 50% more. The higher stifness or strength fibers also cost much more, starting at about $88/kg ($40/Ib) for high tow counts and ‘going five to ten tmes higher for PAN fibers and over $2,200/kq ($1,000/1b) pound for specialty grades "of pitch’ fibers. In__addition, aerospace-certfied quality grading can add 50% to the price.Prodicting the future price of carbon fiber is a challenge, and the subject of much debate. Some studies, extrapolating on twenty years of Price reductions, predict that single-digit dollar er pound fiber is only @ few years away. However, there are song indications that the bottom of the price reduction trend is here now. The cost of carbon fiber depends upon the cost of its staring raw materials and the cost ot its processing. The PAN precursor fiber has fluctuated in cost between $3.30 to $4.40/Kg {61.50 to $2.00/b) for a number of yoars. Toxtilo uses consume at least ten times the amount of the carbon fiber industry, and this cost-driven industry has probably reduced the cost to its limit. Factoring in the weight loss in ‘carbonization, the cost of raw materia alone becomes $6.60 to $2.0ig ($9.00 to $4.00). predictions of $11.00/Kg_($5.00/b) fiber teave vory te room for prot" processing costs. Carbon fiber production is slow, capital intensive, ‘and technically challenging. Processing coats, are therefore dominated by throughput considerations. The easiest way to increase throughput is by processing higher tow count bundles, thus the strong relationship between lowor cost and increased tow count. Howover, downstream processing, such @s_ weaving, braiding, or lament winding, becomes much ‘more dificult for tows of more than 12,000 ends. This places limits on the benefits of increasing tow count. While some companies already process over 300,000 fiter ends at a time {milion end tows have been demonstrated), splitting the tow after processing so that its easier to handle is diffcult; dividing a processed tow ton times appears to be the economic limit. Pitch fiber is manufactured similarly to PAN fer, with all of the same considerations, although pitch is regarded as harder to spin, and the resultant fiber harder to handle. Pitch itsolf is only pennies a kilogram, but the processing to refine and purify it such that it makes good fber has a very low yield, is complicated, time consuming, and capital intensive. This has caused pitch based fibers to be more expensive than PAN to date, Manufacturing scale benelts are achieved as fxed costs are amortzsd over producton volume. All of the major manutacturers produce 2 millon or more klograrrs per year although ‘smaller manufacturers can compete while producing well under a million. This is a strong Euggustin that scale” efcencies can be achieved at these volumes. A similar conclusion has also been reached via cost modeling [6]. In the past few years, manufacturing capacity has greaty exceeded demand, prompting several companies t exit the business due to Uunprofitability. The remaining manuiacturers have been at broakoven at bost for years, suggesting that the recent pricing is near the true cost of manufacturing and distribution. This capacityldemand gap narrowed _ significantly throughout 1994 and 1995. Despite the announcements by soveral companios of additonal millions of kilograms of capacity, domand is growing at a rate that will keep supply ‘and demand in rough equilbrium for some tme. Selling fiber at or below profitable cost, therefore, is not a likely near-term avent. As of this writing, ‘companies are getting premiums over list pricing 10 accelerate the current 4 to 6 month delivery period for new orders. With doubt cast on future manufacturing cost ‘savings, the question of technical breakthroughs ‘ariges. | Whilo this is certainly possblo, the ‘amount of research conducted in this area by ‘many companies, countries, and universities over long period of time suggests that itis unlikely. Moreover, it is possible that significant technical advances would not be implemented if thoy requie the development of new materials databases or design allowables that have taken decades to develop. With all of these considerations, it appears that the law of diminishing retums has already become firmly established as the dominant ‘consideration in the future oost of carbon fer; there's just not that much room left. Volumes ‘are strong enough now that most manufacturers have already achieved scale efficiencies, and years of overcapacity and resulting intense ‘competition has likely wrung out most operational efficiencies. The consolidation of the industry, the emergence of dominant olayers, and the capital intensity makes bold price-cutting moves or new entrants unlikely. Thirty years of intense esearch casis doubt on the chance of anytechnical breakthroughs that will sigrificanty altor ‘current practice. ‘Those seriously considering using carbon fiber in their products for its tremendous engineering ‘properties should rot rely upon lower future fber ‘costs in order for them to be commercially viable. What thoy should expect, however, is ‘compatition to produce better quality, properties, ‘service, and delivery. Results and Analysis, The sections that follow present manuiacturing costs for fxed and varying scenarios for the four case study designs. ‘Manufacturing Gost Breakdown ‘Manufacturing costs are examined two ways. “+ Manufacturing cost breakdowns Cost versus element and component © Cost versus body-in-whie mass Cost versus element and component Figure 1 shows manufacturing cost at 250,000 vehicles per year for the four casa study vehicles: steel unbody, aluminum spacetrame, giassthermoset composite monocoque (GF/TSed), and carbon _fberthermoplastic. composite monocoque (CF/TP). These costs are broken down two ways: by element (material, labor, equipment, tooling, and other), and by component (structure fabricaton, panel fabrication, and assembly). Before discussing the implications of Figure 1. it 'S important to raise the issue of technical Viabilty. The stoe! unibody is a proven design with costs that are well understood. The other designs are speculative In nature. A version of the Al Spa case is beng manufactured by Audi for a low volume luxury vehicle. The composite dosigns have boon tried only as concept vahiclos or extremely low volume production cars. Until viable high volume processes for each are ‘confirmed in practice, these cost projections will temain works in progress. Two distinct groupings emerge: a lower cost level consisting of the St Uri and Al Spa designs, and a higher cost level for the GF/TSet and CF/TPlas cases. The clear problems for the composite vehides are cycle ‘ime (especially for the GF/TSet case) and material cost (he CF/TPlas ase). in effect, the introduction of the CF/TPlas desion trades off labor cost (due to production rate) for material cost. From a component Perspective, the added cost is in fabrication, again primary the result of cycle time and material cost. Manufacturing Cost Breakdown by Element, Component Alternative Body-in-White Material Systems at 250k Vehides/Year ‘Source: 181s Associates, Wetesiey MA 300 ‘Element F siwol. ‘Carbon fbr price: Material 322009 (810 00) Later E Carton fa volume eee (vs dss): 50% mm eupment |B seo Teaing | g Dower 4 $1.00 (Component | f= mm srucuse | Pane! | 0 DAsemtiy stun ors sur Gro | Asoo crrimas Age cera ‘reakown by Element ‘reakcown by Component | l Figure 1 230Cost versus body-in-white mass The cost increases resulting from the composite monocoques is not without a performance gain. however. Figure 2 shows manufacturing cost for tho four designs plotted against body-in-white ‘mass, again for 250,000 vehicles per year. The “best” case is represented by the lower left ‘comer of the graph: the "worst by the upper Tight. Therefore, any case below (lower cost) and to the left’ (lowor mass) will always. be preferred over one above and to the right, assuming that both cases ae technically viable. Conversely, the preference of a case above (higher cost) and to the left (ower mass) of another wil depend upon how greatly mass savings are valued. ‘The Al Spa case is always preferred over the St Uni and GF/TSet cases. The choice between the Al Spa and CF/TPies desians depends upon the value of mass savings. This value would need fo bo on the erdor of $67.76/kg ($30.80), far above the $220-$8.80/Kg ($1.00-$4.00/0) ‘commonly accepted as an aulomotve industry rule of thumb. Discounting the somewhat ‘speculative Al Spa case, however, the mass savings of the CF/TPlas design can bo "purchased" for $7.88/kg ($3.58/) relative to the ‘St Uni vohicle, and $3.57%kg (61.62/b) compared wih the GF/TSet design. As a comparison point, the value of mass savings for the GF/TSet case Needs to be $10.86/Kg ($4.24/b) relative to the ‘StUni case to be preferred. To conclude the “static’ cost analysis, then, it can be shown that a transition to a carbon fiber based composite monocoque would come with a cost premium of about $1,000 over and above the steel unibody. in real terms, this “panally* may not be overly burdensome given the primary stucture mass savings that will in turn lead to reductons in the mass of secondary elements such as the powertrain. Together, these kinds of reductons have a considerable impact on reduced fuel cost, dependence, and environmental impact. Rather than sett or this $1,000 premium, howover, the intorooted usor can apply Technical Cost Modeling sensitviy analyss to understand where future cost reductions in the stil speculative composte monocoque might Sensitvty Analysis Sensivity analysis is te varlaion of one or ‘more critical inputs to examine their effect on an output variable. © 100 Souroe: IBIS Associates, Wellesley MA ‘Anal volume: 250,000 vais por year ‘Carbon fbr price: $22.00 ($10.00") ‘Carbon fbr voume (vs. ges) 67% Manufacturing Cost versus Body-in-White Mass Alternative Body-in-White Material Systems at 250k Vehicies/Year . ora . . Hoe gtba = 2 ‘20 350To focus the drection of technology development, the following sensitvty analyses are performed. + Sonehivity anaiyece © Cost versus annual production ® Cost versus carbon fber voume and price + Cost verus assembly cycle time Cost versus annual production Before examining the specific cost-volume results, itis instructive to consider the general behavior of this type of sensitvty analysis. At low volumes, fixed investment costs dominate the total because there are relatively few parts over which to spread the investment. As a fesut, low investnent parts tend to cost less than high investment parts, often regardless of other factors such as material price and Production rata. At higher volumes, material price tends to dominate as the investment cost is sproad ovor a large number of parts. Thus, low material price pars tend to cost less than high material cost parts, again regardless of other factors. All else being equal, slower production rates tend to reduce the difference between costs for a part at low and high volumes. This occurs because of the increased frequency with which new investments must be made to keep up with the target production volume, [ Manufacturing Cost versus Annual Production Volume Figure 3 shows how manufacturing cost varies with annual production volume. It is assumed that fabrication equipment is non-dedicated (hat 's, excess equipment capacity is not paid for by the designs under consideration) and that tooing and assembly equipment are dedicated. Therefore, the drop in cost as volume increases 's a function of the spreading of tooling and assombly equipment over larger numbers of pars. For volumes below 50,000 unts per year, the ‘wo composite monocoques have manufacturing costs lower than that for the St Uni case (the crossover for the Al Spa design is lower, at 30,000 units per yeas). To put the 50,000 units per year crossover in perspective, 16 US models fell bolow this level in 1993, for a total of about 470,000 vehicles [4]. To supply the requred amount of carbon fiber (143 ky x 41% fiber x 470,000), the existing industry capacity of 10M kg (22 M lbs) would need to expand by a factor of three! Altomative Body-in-White Material Systems 4,000 sso F (Soh) 2 8 T | samo 2,000 $1,500 T T Manufactsing Cost $1010 F carson tor pen: $22 000 ($10.00) E. Garon ter vue (ve: as 50% . m9 0 mw wm ‘Source: IBIS Assoriates, Welosiey MA 20 300 360 0 40 | ‘Annual Production Volume (000 vehi) |Cost versus carbon fiber volume and price Figure 4 shows how cost varies for the CF/TPlas ‘case as a function of changing fiber volume reduction and fiber price. The fiber volume reduction is expressed as a percent of the volume of fiber defined for the GF/TSet case. The baseline assumpiion for this reduction is 33%. The lowest line is the cost for the steel unibody; the remaining lines show varying cost {or diferent carbon fiber costs. Without making other changes, the only way to {get cost for the CF/TPlas case to approach that of the St Uni design is at an unrealistic carbon fiber volume at 20% of glass, and with an equally unrealistic price of $2.20/Kg ($1.00/b). A more realistic lower bound is on the order of $16.50/kg ($7-50/b) with a fiber volume of 50%. For this New reference point. Figura 4 shows a cost of about $2,200, which is stil high relative to the $1,500 steel unibody. The sestion that follows addresses an additional approach to cost reduction through increasing the assemby rate. Cost versus assembly cycie time Figure 5 shows the impact of reducing assembly gycle time from 1,800 seconds (30 minutes) to 300 (5 minutes). Given the portion of cost that is assembly as shown in Figure 1, it is not surprising that the effect is weak. However, a reduction on this order, which might come from an alternative bonding approach. does get the Cost to within $500 or so of the St Uni case. An assembly cyde timo of 600 seconde (10 minutos) 's plotted as the “new* reference point. Conclusions This paper examines the impact of a number of changes to a composite monocoque vehicle design and manufacturing cost. While it is impossible to anticipate exacty where the new design might be positoned, an estimale can be made. + Low cost, low mass composite BIW © Inputs = Garbon fiber replaces glass, Price: $16.50 ($7506) Volure (vs. glass): 50% ‘Thermoplastic replaces thermoset Fab oycle times drop 80% Assy cycle times drop 67% = Ouputs ~ Cost: $1,861, 120% of steel unibocy Mass: 149 kg, 47% of steal unibody Value of mass savings: $268k ($1.22) Given a production volume of 250,000 vehicles per year, this vehicle might be competitive with the steel unbody if is mass savings is valued | Cost versus Fiber % of Glass Volume and Fiber Price (Carbon Fiber/ Thermoplastic Composite Monocoque and Stee! Unibody gf 8 8 — CF/T Plas: $22.0009 ($10.0070) CFMTPias: $16.50g ($7:50") (CF/TPlas Flber Volume Reduction Relatve to GITSet Source: [BIS Assodales, Welesley MA [x eee ¥% seo SS — CF/TPias: $5.501hg (2.507%) 5 aS jah Samaaasay wae Fe E smmsamasmamn tenets son * ee ee a | | | — Cr/P: $2 2089($1 008) |hhigh enough. At annual volumes at and below 75,000, the comparison begins to favor the ‘composite monocoque on a pure cost basis. AS previously shown, vehicles with volumes at or below this level account for a substantial total ‘production count. Beyond the changes outlined above, where can cost be removed? Of the $1,931 figure, almost 80% is in materials, with enother 20% in labor. Of the materials total, over 80% is in the carbon fiber isl at $16.50/kg (750M). Cleay, there snot much more to give outside of these two areas, and these will be dificut to reduce beyond the assumptions outlined here. As a final challenge, the PNGV itself, early a stong proponent of composites, has since backed off, as reported in a July 1995 Plastics News article ‘entitled, “Plastics won't star in €0-mpg Supercar Mm. In conclusion, the challenges facing the ‘composites industy in their quest to develop a Practical vehicle along the lines of that envisioned by the PNGV are formidable. Moreover, the other materials industries are not standing ‘stil. The American iron and Steel Industry (AIS!) is well along in its efforts to dovolop an Ulta Light Stoo! Auto Body (ULSAB). ‘The Aluminum Association (AA) and its individual members have also been active on a number of programs, the most notable of which is the Auct 8 aluminum spaceframe. If anything, the composites industry has beon the least cohesive of the joint programs to further materials development, with the automaker-led Automotive Composites Consortium (ACC) on one hand and a number of material supplier led ctforts on the other. This situation presents. a Very real opportunity for the industry, through the formation of a comprehensive collaboration that would include: thermoplastic and thermoset resin. suppliers; glass, carbon, and other fiber suppliers: and molders of” composite products. “Umbrellaed” under The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI), in a fashion similar to tho AISI-Big Three Auto/Stee! Partnership, such a group could work with the ACG or other appropriate entity to make lage automotive structural ‘composites a realty. Cost versus Assembly Cycle Time | Carbon FiberThermoplastic Composite Monocoque end Stee! Unibody ‘aan [Carbon fer pric: $16.50 (7-506) Carbon vous (vs. las): 20% om 0 Om ‘Assembly Cycle Tine (seconds) ‘Sourve: BIS Associates, Wellesley MA ee — crm Suri 001.280 1440 ez 1600 1.90 210 | Figure 5References [1] Barbara Poggial, Production Cost Modeling: ‘A. Spreadsheet Methodology, PhD. Thesis, Massachusetts institite of Technology. Cambridge MA, 1985. [2] John V. Busch, Technical Cost Modeling of Plastics Fabrication Processes, Ph.0. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, 1987. (3) Jeff R. Dietfenbach, “Technical Cost Modeling: A Cost Simulation Too! for Material and Process Selection,” international Forum on Design for Manufacture and Assembly, Boothroyd and Dewhurst, Inc. Wakefield Ril, 1992. [4] Automotive News, 1994 Market Data Book, Grain Communications, Detroit MI. (5) Jeff R. Diefenbach and Anthony €. Mascarin, “Body-in-White Material Systems: A Lifecycle Cost Comparison, Jounal of Metals, Warrendale PA, Volume 45, Number 6, June 1993, pp. 16-19. [6] IBIS Associates, various consulting programs, 17) Plastics Nows, “Plastics won't star in 80-mpg ‘Supercar,” July 17, 1995, Crain Communications, ‘Chicago iL. Blographies Jeff Dietfenbach is a Program Director at IBIS Associates (Wellasiey MA), a business. development consulting specializing in the technologies and economics of traditional and advanced materials and processes. A graduate of the MIT Meteria! Science & Engineering and Technology and Policy Programs, Mr. Dieffenbach hes specialized in the economics of automotive manufacturing, electronic materials, and rocysling tochnologios. His work has included comprehensive assessments of product lifecycle costs spanning the stages from manufacture to disposal. Paul Palmer eamed 2 Master of Management degres with concentrations in Finance and Marketing from Nortiwestern's Kellogg School of Management. He earned an undergraduate degree in Asronautics and Astronautics from MT. Pror to joining IBIS, Mr. Paimer worked for Textron at their Corporate Headquarters and with their Specialty Materials Division. Highlights of his tenure at Textron include evaluation of Potenial business acquistions, —_maikt development for advanced compost materials and strategic panning. Anthony Mascarin is 2 graduate of the Management of Technology program in the engineering school at Vanderbit University. As a Project Manager at IBIS, Mr. Mascarin has focused on the analysis of innovative polymer. polymer composite, and metal forming Processes. He has worked extensively on applying these analyses to focus new technology evelopment and to target markets for new business ventures.