This is an in-depth feature article that was first
published in the first print issue of Disruptive Magazine, April 2015.
Abstract: Proponents of the automotive industry were among the very first to bring
3D printing technology in-house in the early 1990’s. Here I consider just how
disruptive the technology has been for one of the world’s dominant vertical
industrial sectors.
Introduction
In
the early days of additive technology — the Rapid Prototyping (RP) era — the
tech was often referred to as “paradigm changing.” So much so that the phrase
quickly became overused and, similar to the (much more widespread) “hype” of
today, generated cynicism. However, with almost 25 years of commercial use
behind us, when it comes to the automotive industry we can, today,
say that the paradigm for developing cars has changed irreversibly as a result
of 3D printing technology. Indeed current evidence from automotive companies —
across the board (those that produce the ultimate/racing/super/ordinary cars) —
clearly exemplifies that the way they develop vehicles has been completely
overturned because of 3D printing technologies. And there is further evidence
that the paradigm is beginning to change in how they manufacture vehicles too —
also due to additive manufacturing technologies.
However,
as it has always been, it proves to be limiting — and misguided — to consider
3D printing in isolation, which so many people seem fixated on doing, without
considering the software that enables it, the materials that are being printed
and the post processes that make it consumer acceptable. It has not been about
bringing in a new machine and producing the same components in a different way,
rather the design process has changed too. With simultaneous advances in
computing power and design software the ability to design increasingly complex parts
that can be 3D printed has driven the potential of the hardware. In a similar
way, materials development has come on in leaps and bounds to further allow
superior application development from industrial grade 3D printers. This has
seen the technology evolve from a concept development tool to a much more
fundamental tool right across the automotive development supply chain.
Automotive History & 3D Printing
Without
going into details of 18th century (hydrogen/steam/electricity/liquids)
engine development, the origins of today’s automotive industry dates back to
the early 19th century in Switzerland when Francois Isaac de Rivaz is
commonly recognised as the first person to design and build a vehicle powered
by an internal combustion engine fuelled by gas (hydrogen and oxygen). It
wasn’t until 1885 however, that German engineer, Karl Benz produced the first
vehicle fuelled by petrol, for which he received a patent in 1886. Two years
later, in 1888, he was subsequently credited with establishing the first
“production cars” after his wife, Bertha, successfully completed a
long-distance test drive. Bertha drove from Mannheim to Pforzheim, a distance
of 80 km/50 miles and claimed the ‘horseless carriage’ a triumph. The world,
however, was going to take somewhat longer to convince. [Aside: any ‘lady
driver’ comments should be submitted to me directly: I dare you!]
1889
saw the first company established, in France, with the sole purpose of
producing motor vehicles — Panhard et Levassor. And France it would seem was
the initial hub of activity, with Peugot established two years later, followed
by Renault in 1898 and Fiat in 1899. From the end of the 19th
century automotive development was rapid and exponential in its growth with
many engineers/manufacturers working simultaneously and competing hard for
market share across the globe. The US gained dominance in automotive production
— there is of course the much vaunted story of Henry Ford’s first automated production
line in 1908 — and in Detroit alone, the original home of Ford, there was
during the 20th century, more than 140 automotive manufacturers.
You’d be hard pressed to find that number across the globe today.
Why
the history lesson in an article about 3D printing, you may be wondering? Well,
I was initially researching which brands belonged to which company (best and
most concise resource I found was this for
anyone interested) to understand the shape of the automotive industry today.
But as I investigated I was drawn into the history and found some really
interesting parallels between the automotive industry itself and the 3D
printing industry.
Already
during its own short history, the 3D printing industry has drawn numerous
analogies with other industries both positively and negatively (computers, 2D
printers and the internet most common among the positive; bread makers and
sewing machines on the negative side) but in going back to the beginning of the
automotive industry, I have found some fascinating similitudes that mirror the
tech sector that has changed the way cars are developed forever.
Most
successful vertical industries can probably claim the simultaneous development,
exponential growth and the fierce competition followed by considerable
consolidation. Other analogies that have struck me though are how it took cars
a good 50 years to “hit the mainstream.” And the one that drew a smile, was the
general consensus in the early days of development of motor vehicles, even as
awareness grew and interest was piqued, that most people did not see the point,
or believe anyone would ever use them in high volumes.
What
hindsight does illustrate with motor vehicles was the difference that 50 years
made — both to the advancements of the vehicles themselves, their improved
capabilities and their utilisation.
3D Printing’s First Fan Base Was
Automotive Companies
The
general consensus today is that 3D printing was first “invented” in 1983 when
Chuck Hull printed his first part in his garage with his stereolithography
apparatus (SLA). Of course he played around with it a lot and the patents and
IP took time to protect. 3D Systems was not registered until 1986. Over the last
few years though, the popular history of 3D printing has extended into the
early 80’s, but in commercial reality, it all began at the turn of the decade.
Unsurprisingly
automotive companies were among the very first to buy in, as well as the
Formula 1 racing teams, with their big budgets and their keen eyes for new
advantage-offering technology.
Rover
Came First …
The
first automotive OEM to adopt RP in the UK was Rover (now Jaguar Land Rover
[JLR], and owned by Tata Motors, with headquarters in India). I’ve found a
slight anomaly regarding the year it happened — JLR’s website states 1992, but
Graham Tromans, who was the Project Engineer tasked with getting the new SLA
500 rapid prototyping machine up and running, recalls it was 1990. He also told
me it was the first large frame stereolithography (SLA) platform in the UK (the
third in Europe), and cost in the region of £700k. There was one small frame
machine already installed at a bureau facility. At this point in time, Graham
tells me he was more than impressed with the potential the machine offered over
traditional methodologies for building 1-off cars as proof of concept models.
However, thus began a steep learning curve that went far beyond the practical
logistics of implementing and running the machine. At the time, Rover only had
seats of wire frame and surface CAD software in house, but with RP there was a
need for solid modelling capabilities. As a result Graham underwent a CADDS5 training
course at the University of Warwick. The SLA process also requires that parts were
supported during the build but when Rover invested in the hardware, the
automatic support generation software incurred a hefty additional investment,
which at the time they could not justify. Thus, in those early days, only
generic shapes were used to support the parts and these were created individually
— taking many long, laborious hours — until finally Rover saw the light and
made the investment in the support software.
However,
Graham tells me the time and effort was well rewarded when the first part came
off the machine. You might assume it was a straightforward, simple proof of
concept to cut his teeth. You would be wrong. Rather Rover went for an air
intake manifold for the Rover K Series engine. This was a complicated — and
large — build; 450 mm x 200 mm x 400 mm. It also took days to complete. It was
started on a Tuesday, at around 1 pm Graham recalls, and came up out of the
resin vat completed at 5 am on the following Friday morning. It then had to
have supports removed, and be cleaned for a meeting at 10 am. Rubber gloves
(and the prerequisite kid gloves) were essential. But that first part was a
success and caused jaws to drop. That ability to impress still exists today,
but back then SLA did not score well on durability — after the first few days
(sometimes sooner) parts would fall apart if you so much as looked at them in
the wrong way, and leave them in the sun too long and the only acceptable place
for them would be the bin due to warpage issues.
The
next few years thus saw solid CAD software implemented across the design
disciplines at Rover to facilitate the additive technology, together with
specific software for support. During this time the machine was used exclusively
for concept development, but as expertise developed and experience paid off,
the machine was being under-utilised, thus Rover operated a bureau service that
saw many other companies using the tech and benefitting from Graham’s growing
expertise.
During
the 1990’s developments with materials, specifically with the advent of the
epoxy resins (rather than urethanes), allowed the development of QuickCast and in
1994 this saw the applications for the machine at Rover expand exponentially.
The ability to produce castings quickly together with increasing awareness and
understanding of the capabilities of the process by the engine development
department at Rover, saw Graham’s team receiving more work than they could
handle internally. At around this time the original machine, together with a
second SLA 500 were installed at Rover’s Advanced Technology Centre at Warwick
Manufacturing Group (WMG) to increase R&D into the process and applications
development. [As an aside, it was this move that saw the advent of the Rapid
News newsletter by Lee Styger, David Wimpenny and Graham at WMG.] The next
significant development of the SLA process that was implemented at Rover came
with the introduction of the first solid state laser on the latest hardware
investment — the SLA 350 platform. This, together with epoxy resin materials
for investment casting applications had a dramatic impact on concept
development at Rover.
1996
saw the second process brought in house — SLS, from DTM Corp, which was later
acquired by 3D Systems. Throughout this decade WMG also acquired different
processes, specifically LOM, SolidScape (later acquired by Stratasys) and ZCorp
(later acquired by 3D Systems). It was a decade of development and learning
internally at Rover and the 3D printing industry was already seeing some
consolidation.
Ultimately
though, what Graham’s recollections so vividly demonstrate is not just how far
the technology and its applications have advanced but, as Graham so adamantly
stated to me: “RP [aka 3D printing] did not just disrupt the development
activities at Rover — it changed
everything.” The main benefit was in the development of casting
applications, due to the time and cost savings achieved while producing better
test parts. As a single example, a suspension bracket that would traditionally
take months and cost hundreds of pounds, can now be produced more accurately in
less than a week for a few pounds. When you consider the number of parts
involved in the development and assembly of a car, it is not hard to see how
even the initial capital outlay (plus all the added extras) starts to make
sense in auto land.
Today, JLR’s additive
technology armoury is extensive, indeed it is said to be one of the UK’s
largest installed 3D printing facilities — with four different 3D printing
processes in-house, namely SLA, Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Polyjet and
Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM). The primary application remains functional
prototypes. Today, the company states that it produces in excess of 50,000
components annually. Functionality has improved too, JLR fits many of its
functional prototypes directly onto prototype vehicles for testing all around
the world. One of the more recent applications is the direct production of
custom manufacturing aids on the production line at all of JLR’s UK
manufacturing facilities, of which there are four.
Testimony
from Tata …
It
is interesting to compare Rover’s 3D printing journey with that of JLR’s parent
company — Tata Motors — which invested in industrial 3D printing tech once it
was more established, in 2003. The paradigm shift in vehicle development is
remarkably similar — I say remarkable, because the companies’ timelines only
crossed in 2008 when Tata acquired JLR from Ford. Tata’s motor vehicle history
is relatively short, the company’s first production car only came in 1991,
before that focus was on locomotives and large commercial transport vehicles.
According to Ajay Purohit, Senior Engineer and Technical Chief of Prototyping
activities at Tata Motors since 1992, the company’s 3D printing story started
in 2000 when he and his team “first heard about this revolutionary process for
building parts layer by layer on a machine directly from CAD.” Unable to resist
finding out more, they started with benchmark parts that were fulfilled by
external suppliers. And, though the benefits could be proven and the advantages
had been well documented, it proved difficult to convince senior management that
there was a justifiable ROI on the high costs involved. It was not until the Chairman
of Tata at that time saw the process for himself that budgets were approved.
Thus, Ajay tells me: “our real journey with additive manufacturing started in 2003.”
And
so the Tata story reflects a common theme among many vertical industrial sectors
when it comes to the uptake of 3D printing — it took three years from engineers
first understanding the real benefits of industrial 3D printing to implementing
it with board approval. Such are
the high capital costs and the budgetary restrictions in large companies that
buy-in and conviction of ROI can be lengthy and arduous, but Ajay, for one believes
it was worth the effort and that the disruption it brought to Tata Motors has
been both advantageous and permanent. He says: “It has
changed the way we produce vehicle prototypes both in terms of improved quality
and reduced time. This means that the number of prototype iterations is
increased because our engineers are trying many different concepts that allow
us to improve performance and reduce costs over all. Once the concept is
approved and checked for functionality, every single plastic part design gets
3D printed to check tooling clearance, which means fewer mistakes.”
The
first industrial grade 3D printer brought in-house at Tata was an SLA 7000 from
3D Systems. The first part produced on it, recalls Ajay, was a tray for a front
console. Reminiscent of Graham’s story at Rover, the belief in the prototyping
department was strong, but it took the design department a little longer to
connect the dots. Ajay tells me the reason he remembers the part so clearly is
because at the time, the Body Design Team at Tata Motors was working with CATIA
v4 CAD software and only utilising the surface capabilities. “Traditionally,
the B surface (thickness) was designed by the tool supplier. But because the AM
process requires leak-proof solid geometry, I added the B surface and created
the solid geometry myself.” The positive results were immediate, with many
errors being picked up in the design and a new, fast iteration could be
developed with minimal cost implications.
Yet again, once the awareness
across the entire company was raised (with some internal marketing activities)
the designers soon understood how they could optimize designs. Things
changed fast over the next six months and very quickly the machine was running
24/7.
Tata
has continued to invest in 3D printing technology for its operations, however,
Ajay says there are still some missing links in terms of increased uptake,
these include: “the cost of materials, a need for real materials like injection
thermoplastics for final production parts, design standards/guidelines for AM,
standardization in material and processes and reliability.”
Supercars Benefit Too …
The impact of 3D printing on
standard production road cars has undeniably been dramatic over the last two
decades, but it has been a similar story for supercars too. A great
representative example of this is Lamborghini. This Italian supercar
manufacturer has been utilising 3D printing for well over a decade for
prototyping applications, bringing the tech in-house in 2007. According to
Fabio Serrazanetti of Lamborghini’s car body technical department, the company
initially proved out concepts, but material developments have seen applications
extended.
Serrazanetti and his team
utilize Stratasys’ FDM technology predominantly to produce scale models and
advance functional prototype parts for design verification and form & fit
suitability. These include an array of different exterior parts – from section bumpers,
grills, aesthetic frames and those in the engine bay – to various interior
parts that span door panels, seat covers, steering wheels along with
aerodynamic components such as conveyors and air heaters. The key driver for
this process uptake is that FDM eliminates tooling, which keeps costs down and
allows rapid iteration on new designs without manufacturing constraints.
Another development that has seen the Lamborghini applications broaden is the
improved materials, meaning that parts subjected to high temperatures and high
stresses can now be prototyped for dimensional and mechanical testing.
“We aim to use materials that
mimic the material properties of the final product as far as possible,”
explained Serrazanetti. “For example, we currently use Stratasys’ ULTEM FDM
thermoplastic with the Fortus 400mc to produce high-performance parts for the
grill as they will be subjected to high temperatures from the engine
compartment. We also use production-grade thermoplastic, ABS-M30, as well as
PC-ABS. Indeed, this is perfectly suited to producing certain interior parts as
it also offers excellent feature definition and surface finish, making it
better aesthetically.”
However what Lamborghini has
revealed is that there has also been investigations into using the FDM process
to print end-use parts, specifically for the company’s one-off race car.
3D Printing for a Racing Advantage
Motor
sports — they grab headlines and global audiences and as a result involve lots
and lots of money. There are some headline events that even I watch, involving teams
that represent automotive marques, driving for glory (and sponsorship), with
Formula 1 leading the way. For years the engineering and car development was
shrouded in mystery, however today, there is somewhat more visibility. It seems
many people are just as interested in what goes on behind the scenes as out on
the iconic racing circuits of the world.
Like
the historical 3D printing timelines at Rover, Tata and Lamborghini, the F1
teams primarily bought into rapid prototyping to diminish their development
times. More iterations, more quickly do not, traditionally, have a relevant
cost implication at the development stage for race teams, but if that
translates to even a millisecond on the track, the investment is justifiable.
Pat
Warner, now at Lotus F1 Team, previously Renault F1 Team, has been working with
additive technologies for nearly two decades. His perspective on how far the
technologies have come is enlightening and he told me that the various 3D
printing processes all have a place in the development of a Formula 1 car.
Lotus F1 Team employs plastic 3D printing processes in
house as a matter of course for concept development, functional prototypes and
wind-tunnel models. The time saved is now fundamental to the development
timeline and 3D printers have allowed teams to downsize their machine shops. However,
3D printing is being used for some end-use parts. A small number of components,
proportionally speaking, but non-critical in terms of performance. And this is
testament to where 3D printing processes and the materials are up to — it is
still early days for manufacturing, but it has arrived.
Richard
Brady at Williams F1 reports a similar story, he told me that 3D printing “is
now totally ingrained into the business. So much so that we couldn’t operate
without it.”
In
1996, Williams were the first recipients of the SLA 5000 machine. They brought
the stereolithography process in-house to expedite the development process of
complex parts that required high accuracy, via 3D Systems, and, according to
Richard, the company has worked tirelessly with Williams on applications
development, and supported their growing machine numbers brilliantly. Indeed,
Andy Allshorn was the Sales AND Service engineer that worked on applications
development in the UK in the 1990’s. He told me how the first automotive part
he worked on (with Williams) was a suspension upright that was traditionally
produced via CNC machining and took in excess of 4 weeks at an eye-watering
cost. Andy, thinking outside of the box, produced the suspension upright using
QuickCast materials, which could then be cast in Titanium by a foundry — the
whole process took about a week.
Brady
reports that the applications at Williams have progressed dramatically in
almost two decades. Now producing a much broader portfolio of fully functional complex
parts and assemblies courtesy of a range of industrial 3D printing processes.
This includes the most recent addition of FDM, specifically the Fortus
production platform from Stratasys, to the team’s additive arsenal.
Advanced
current applications where the tech is used as a matter of course is the now well-documented
models for wind tunnel testing of the car, parts for moulding and some end use
parts. However at every stage of part development, Richard stresses that at
Williams they focus on the part first and find the best way to supply that
part, in the fastest way. At this point he cited the widely held perception
that 3D printing can produce anything and is instant: “It’s rapid! Not instant.
You have to step back and not get too immersed in the technology. It is vital
to look at the big picture and thus ensure that the process and the materials
fit the application. That said, we have come a long way.”
Richard
told me that Williams is always assessing 3D printing technology to extend its
application to direct production. Right now there are a limited number of
non-critical plastic components directly produced with 3D printing on the track
cars. Metal 3D printing is also part of this continual assessment. However,
currently Williams F1 outsources its 3D printed metal parts having made a
conscious decision not to invest — yet. According to Richard, the metal processes
are not far enough along to meet their requirements. “We do have a need for it,
but not enough to bring it in-house. Beside that, while the static strength is
what we need it to be, fatigue is the main issue for us.”
This
creeping movement towards more heavy-duty production of parts is similarly reported
by Dan Walmesley of Strakka Racing. When I met with Dan last year he was
extremely optimistic about 3D printed production parts for the Strakka team’s
endurance racing car: He estimated that for the 2014 model, 5% of the car, on
the circuit, was 3D printed, and he believes that within 10 years this
percentage will increase dramatically, to 70%, if you can believe that. What
Dan left me in no doubt of, however, is that: “It is the way forward for us!”
Once again, Dan reiterated
the familiar story that the team originally bought in one of Stratasys’ smaller
FDM machines — a Uprint — for proof of concept applications. It was all about
prototyping — rapidly — to save time in the early stages of product
development. However, as the capabilities of 3D printing made themselves more
apparent this progressed to functional prototyping and wind-tunnel testing. Dan
admitted: “we did not appreciate it beyond this stage in the early days, and we
were surprised to realize its potential for manufacturing.” Thus, when the
realization did hit home, work began in earnest with Stratasys, developing
parts for the car that would be manufactured directly on the high-end Fortus machines.
Where this works for a race
team, but would not necessarily work for production road cars is in the demand
for (very) limited volumes of parts. For Strakka, 3D printed production parts
are specific to their requirements to produce a one of a kind car that gives
them a competitive advantage. To date the results have met many structurally
critical demands, but a current drawback is that the process is unable to be
used for thermally critical components.
Yet again, the Strakka
testimony, and indeed all the testimony from motor sports teams, is that the
progress is phenomenal but there are still many gaps in the capabilities of 3D
printing processes.
3D Printing Automotive Apps That Are Not
About the Cars
One of the less sexy
applications of 3D printing for direct manufacture within the automotive
industry is the production of jigs and fixtures for use on the assembley line.
Two of the key benefits of 3D printing processes, namely customization and
speed (compared with traditional processes) have seen many automotive factories
employing the technology to this end, and saving a pile of money in the
process. On a modern production line specific jigs and fixtures are used to
position and hold components in place and are essential to maintaining an efficient
workflow. 3D printing processes have proved to be invaluable in producing jigs
and fixtures on demand and customized to their function on the assembley line.
BMW Group was among the first auto company to implement this application across
its production lines, and other companies include Porsche, Volvo and Audi.
In a similar vein, last year
BMW Group introduced a pilot programme for its production line workforce, that
went beyond customization to true personalization. At the company’s Munich
vehicle assembly plant a new and innovative ergonomic tool was introduced — a
flexible finger cot, which protects workers’ thumb joints while carrying out
certain assembly activities. Each thumb cot was designed to precisely fit the
thumb of each worker by taking a scan of each individual thumb and 3D printing
the tool. With its extensive in-house 3D printing facilities, the BMW Group produced
all of the orthotic devices in-house.
An Anomaly — There’s Always One
For
a decade or more, luxury motor vehicle company, Bentley Motors, was at the vanguard
of uptake and adoption of 3D printing technologies. The company, based in the
UK but now owned by Volkswagon (along with Audi, Porsche, Skoda, SEAT,
Lamborghini and Ducati) was quick to adopt 3D printing processes for concept
development and functional prototyping and was among the first in the
automotive industry to document its research and results for end use
manufacturing applications of 3D printing as far back as 2008. Indeed, Bentley
invested heavily in the technology with in house Laser Sintering platforms —
plastic and metal — and set up an advanced manufacturing laboratory that was
well utilised across the company.
However,
today the company has abandoned its 3D printing activities altogether. The
platforms have been sold on from the UK facility, and while development of the
Bentley marque is carried out in Germany, with support from 3D printers, there
is no longer any utilisation of it in Crewe, according to my source, who wishes
to remain anonymous.
So why would a company that
experienced massive success with 3D printing, improving design and output, turn
its back on a technology that worked so well? It seems there was a change of
board, which resulted in a new directive!
Essentially this came down to making more cars, and thus, making more
money — just not as effectively.
Sad, but true.
The Future Beckons
In the near term, the future
of the automotive industry looks fairly stable. Hybrid technology is going to
be an important transition for new and existing vehicle manufacturers. Am I
talking about hybrid engine tech or hybrid additive / subtractive tech? Both as
it happens and therein lies another, very interesting parallel between these
two industries.
There are perhaps two,
relatively new, automotive companies that are driving the vision of the future
of the automotive industry — Tesla Motors and Local Motors. Tesla Motors was
founded in 2003 by its inimitable CEO and Chief Product Architect Elon Musk.
Musk’s mission for Tesla is to transition the world to sustainable transport by
developing fully electric cars – a completely new type of car built from the
ground up. However, despite Tesla’s own relatively brief history, the vision is
embedded in an original concept that dates back well over 100 years …. Nikola
Tesla’s vehicle powertrain built around an AC induction motor, first patented
in 1888. It’s another beautiful irony that almost takes us full circle.
However, we don’t really want
to traverse cyclically, a leap forward would be more favourable.
And that is precisely what Local
Motors wants to do for the automotive industry. Founded in 2007 — a year or more before 3D printing hit the
mainstream headlines, and that is important — Local Motors is the company that exists now with the most
far-reaching vision for the future of automotive development and manufacturing.
With the hyped headlines that
have swathed the vision of Local Motors during the last 12-18 months it is easy
to find yourself at one of the two possible extremes of reaction. For a general
consumer “the 3D printed car” is exciting, there’s no getting away from it. For
3D printing industry insiders and particularly those working on Additive
Manufacturing applications, that very same hyped phrase is what can leave one
entirely sceptical. (For me personally it is up there as one of the most
ridiculous phrases ever, along with “the future now!” Ugh!) The Strati (a proof
of concept, co-created car) has a 3D printed body and structure – while
sporting a traditionally developed and manufactured drive train; as well as
‘normal’ (ie NOT 3D printed wheels, tyres and lighting systems). This has been
explained to people at length, over and over again, according to Lee Herge, COO
of Local Motors. He told me that one of the most common questions they get is
“are the tyres 3D printed?” To reiterate, no, they are not. But does that ameliorate those ‘3D
printed car’ headlines? Of course not — because that would not be the future
now would it?
Besides, those two extremes —
dismissing it because it is not ALL 3D printed, and believing the car to be
wholly 3D printed — miss the point entirely. The point being that it is not just
about the production method — it is as much about the entire supply chain and
co-creation. This is the vision at the heart of Local Motors — a vision focused
on establishing micro factories producing local cars relevant to the region
where they are being produced and meeting the needs of that region in the most
effective way. 3D printing, as it has proved many times over the years, is an
enabler in this regard — a key one as it happens, along with the carbon fibre
reinforced ABS material, that is allowing Local Motors to move towards a 2nd
generation four seater, “drive to work” car, Lee told me.
Earlier this year Local
Motors released details of its first two micro-factories, both in the US. Knoxville
is progressing apace, while DC is close behind. Local Motors also currently has
a presence in Europe with plans to move further afield. The vision is global and
it is all in the name — motors created locally.
So, as mentioned, while the
Strati was a proof of concept, and never intended as a production car the next
generation of vehicle from Local Motors is intended to be a global car, with
four seats and retailing in the region of $18-30k, for the consumer. Lee hopes
it will be at the lower end of this range, but it’s still too early to be more
precise. From the Strati concept the plan is to use 3D printing for the
structure and the fenders of second generation car, while, again, the engine /
wheels / lights etc will be “someone else’s”. In terms of classification, Lee
explained to me that the second generation will be determined as a speciality
construction car — this puts it between a kit car and a typical production car.
This requires less regulation but will ultimately adhere to full regulatory NHTSA
safety standards with air bags and crash testing. The aim is to be doing this
in 2016.
What was exciting to hear is
that with 3D printing, more specifically, hybrid additive and subtractive
technologies, Local Motors is proving it can exceed current safety standards on
the structure of its vehicles. The empirical data is yet to be released, but,
for me, they’re making the right noises.
Conclusion
3D printing has considerably
and irrevocably disrupted how cars are designed and developed. Automotive OEMs and their suppliers have
adopted and accepted 3D printing processes as an essential tool that has
improved the product development process in a way that no other technology
could have. That said, it can not now, and likely will not ever exist in
isolation. What is more, it continues to challenge how cars are made in production, but it’s
still very early days in that regard.
A couple of final thoughts to
close out.
First, are fully electric
cars a noble aim or should the best possible hybrid engines be the goal? Talking
to a range of people with far more understanding of the automotive industry
than I over the last couple of months, my idealised comprehension of the virtue
of electric vehicles has been somewhat tarnished. Comparing electric vehicles
with petrol/Diesel vehicles, like for like, on the road, there is an absolute
and undisputed carbon benefit to electric vehicles. What had passed me by is
that if you consider the carbon footprint of both from concept development to
disposal it gets rather more murky — literally! The challenges of manufacturing
(and disposing of) the battery and fuel cell of an electric vehicle, it seems,
is anything but clean.
However, for anyone that
wants to bet against the potential of humans to leverage technological power
over time, I’ll leave you with an ultimate then and now comparison from the
automotive industry that ensures I will continue to never say never:
Website links:
