DOCSLIB.ORG

Vehicle Compatibility Research Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vehicle Compatibility Research Program 2001 SAE Government Industry Meeting Vehicle Compatibility Research Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Sales and Registrations of Light Trucks and Vans 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Percentage (%) 20.0 10.0 0.0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Year LTV Sales LTV Registrations Fatalities in Vehicle-to-Vehicle Collisions 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 Fatalities 3,000 Car-Car Collisions 2,000 LTV-Car Collisions LTV-LTV Collisions 1,000 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Aggressivity Metric Fatalities inCollision Partner Aggressivity = Numberof Crashesof SubjectVehicle Using 1995-1999 FARS for fatality counts 1995-1999 NASS GES number of crashes 2 vehicle crashes, both vehicles < 10,000 lbs GVW Both vehicles must be model year 1990 or newer Count only driver fatalities between 25 and 55 years old Aggressivity Metric – All Crashes Large Van 3.12 Large Pickup 2.89 Large SUV 2.01 Small SUV 1.51 Compact Pickup 1.34 Minivan 0.95 Large Car 0.83 Midsize Car 0.75 Subject Vehicle Compact Car 0.59 Minicar 0.46 Subcompact Car 0.41 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Deaths in other Vehicle / 1000 Police Reported Vehicle- Vehicle Crashes with Subject Vehicle Frontal-Frontal crashes Large Pickup 69.27 Large Van 55.51 Large SUV 30.62 Small SUV 20.58 Compact Pickup 18.54 Minivan 17.77 Large Car 14.09 Subject Vehicle Compact Car 11.89 Midsize Car 11.28 Subcompact Car 5.99 Minicar 5.45 0 20 40 60 80 Deaths in other Vehicle / 1000 Police Reported Frontal-Frontal Crashes with Subject Vehicle Frontal-Side crashes Large Pickup 4.02 Large Van 3.88 Large SUV 3.52 Small SUV 2.40 Compact Pickup 1.82 Minivan 1.33 Large Car 1.22 Striking Vehicle Midsize Car 0.76 Compact Car 0.59 Subcompact Car 0.48 Minicar 0.33 0 1 2 3 4 5 Deaths in Struck Vehicle / 1000 Police Reported Side Impact Crashes with Striking Vehicle Vulnerability Metric, Frontal-Side crashes Large Pickup 0.02 Large SUV 0.19 Large Van 0.33 Minivan 0.53 Compact Pickup 0.76 Small SUV 0.98 Large Car 1.01 Struck Vehicle Midsize Car 1.53 Compact Car 1.68 Subcompact Car 1.92 Minicar 6.79 0 2 4 6 8 Deaths in Struck Vehicle / 1000 Police Reported Side Impact Crashes with Any Vehicle Development of Test Methods to Evaluate Compatibility • Goals: – Evaluate occupant protection in a crash with average or most likely crash partner • Self protection – Evaluate other vehicle crash severity with average or most likely crash partner • Partner protection Loadcell MDB Testing • LCMDB can be designed to represent the crash partner vehicle – Height, width, stiffness, depth of crush to be determined based on fleet survey data – Delta V of test vehicle will depend upon its weight • Loadcells intended to measure distribution of force during crash – Aggressivity estimates may be derived from data • Baseline research was presented as 2001 SAE Congress, 2001-01-1167 Research Goals • Use Frontal-Frontal to evaluate feasibility – Collinear, 35 mph each vehicle – Full frontal engagement – 1996 Plymouth Neon, 1997 Dodge Caravan – Baseline 214 MDB face • Compare LCMDB-to-vehicle and vehicle-to- vehicle responses – MDB weight was adjusted to simulate collision partner Summary of previous Test Results • Bumper element on LCMDB face diffused the measured force distribution – Distribution of force was not measured • Insufficient energy absorption, 214 face bottomed out early in the test – LCMDB crashes were more ‘severe’ than vehicle-to- vehicle crashes • Significant energy transfer occurred outside the loadcell face Extended Test Matrix Test Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 3362 LCMDB 1996 Plymouth Neon 56.2 kmph, 2051 kg 55.9 kmph, 1382 kg 3413 LCMDB 1997 Dodge Caravan 56.2 kmph, 1377 kg 56.8 kmph, 2138 kg 3414 1997 Dodge Caravan 1996 Plymouth Neon 56.5 kmph, 2060 kg 55.9 kmph, 1378 kg 3608 LCMDB Bumper Removed 1996 Plymouth Neon 58.0 kmph, 2050 kg 57.1 kmph, 1382 kg 3609 LCMDB Bumper Removed 1997 Dodge Caravan 56.2 kmph, 1377 kg 56.8 kmph, 2139 kg Modified LCMDB Occupant Injury • Belted 50th male driver • Belted 5th female passenger • LCMDB tests without bumper produced higher HIC15 measurements – All injuries higher than baseline test – Other injuries were comparable between baseline and modified LCMDB Caravan Driver Injury 2.5 2 1.5 1 Normalized Injury 0.5 0 HIC15 Nij Chest G Chest L Femur R Femur Disp Baseline LCMDB Mod LCMDB Neon Driver Injury 2.5 2 1.5 1 Normalized Injury 0.5 0 Hic15 Nij Chest G Chest L Femur R Femur Disp Baseline LCMDB Mod LCMDB Loadcell Measurements • Neon Loadcell measurements improved without the MDB bumper – Reduced bending of the honeycomb face for the Neon test • Caravan measurements matched overall force, but changed distribution • Existing MDB has insufficient energy absorption for this test configuration Neon / LCMDB Neon / Modified LCMDB Estimate LCMDB 3362 Neon Modified Estimate Mod LCMDB 3608 Neon 50 HOUR / S 25 R ETE 0 M LO I -25 K -50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 Time in Seconds TotalForce Estimate = MassMdb Estimate LCMDB 3413 Caravan Modified Estimate Mod LCMDB 3609 Caravan 50 HOUR / S 25 R ETE 0 M O L I -25 K -50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 Time in Seconds Neon / Modified LCMDB Test 3608, Neon / Mod LCMDB 3000 315.0 s) 2500 - 2500 N 2000 ( 1500 se l 2000 1000 pu m 500 I 1500 0 400 -500 1000 500 Height in mm -0 600 500 500 Distance from Center 0 700 Neon / LCMDB Test 3362 1500 315.0 s) 2500 - N 2000 ( 1000 1500 se l 1000 pu m 500 I 0 500 400 -500 500 Height in mm -0 600 0 500 Distance from Center 700 Presence of the LCMDB bumper substantially shifted the load distribution Caravan / Modified LCMDB Test 3609 1000 315.0 s) 1250 - N ( 750 1000 750 se l 500 pu m 250 I 500 0 400 -500 500 250 Height in mm -0 600 0 500 Distance from Center 700 Caravan / LCMDB Test 3413 1250 315.0 s) 1250 - 1000 N 1000 ( 750 se l 500 750 pu m 250 I 0 500 400 -500 500 Height in mm -0 250 600 500 0 Distance from Center 700 Even for the Caravan tests, the LCMDB bumper substantially changed the load distribution Conclusions • Compatibility continues to be a concern for US fleetwide safety • MDB crash tests can reasonably replicate vehicle to vehicle crashes • Load distribution is sensitive to the design of the MDB face – Still need to establish the relationship, if possible, between load distribution and compatibility – Work in progress to reevaluate MDB design to represent average or most likely collision partner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8EMEKRD*Abfgbh+ Akebono
    LISTA DE APLICACIONES - BUYERS GUIDE 180959 180959 90R-01111/046 8EMEKRD*abfgbh+ Akebono Qty: 300 Weight: 1.700 136.3x57.8x17.3 O.E.M. MAKE 06450-S5A-E50 HONDA 06450-S5A-G00 HONDA WVA FMSI 06450-S5A-J00 HONDA 21694 D621-7497 45022-504-V10 HONDA 21695 45022-S04-E60 HONDA 21696 45022-S04-V10 HONDA MAKE 45022-S04-V11 HONDA ACURA 45022-S04-V12 HONDA HONDA 45022-S5A-E50 HONDA 45022-S5A-G00 HONDA 45022-S5A-G01 HONDA 45022-S5A-J00 HONDA 45022-S5B-E00 HONDA 45022-SCC-000 HONDA 45022-SR3-V00 HONDA 45022-SR3-V01 HONDA 45022-SR3-V10 HONDA 45022-SR3-V11 HONDA 45022-SR3-V12 HONDA 45022-TR2-A00 HONDA 45022-TR2-A01 HONDA Trac. CC Kw CV Front / Rear ACURA ILX 09.12- Saloon (Compact car-C Segment) 1.5 Hybrid Gasolina FWD 09.12- ■ 1.5 Hybrid Gasolina FWD 1497 68 92 11.12- ■ Coupe (Sport compact car-C RSX (DC_) 10.01- Segment) 2.0 Sport (K20A3) -12/03 Gasolina FWD 1998 118 160 10.01-10.06 ■ HONDA AIRWAVE 06.04- Estate (Supermini car-B Segment) 1.5 Gasolina FWD 1497 81 110 06.04- ■ 1.5 iDSi MDS Gasolina FWD 1497 81 110 06.04- ■ CITY IV / FIT ARIA (GD_) 12.02- Saloon (Supermini car-B Segment) 1.3 (GD6) (L13A1) Gasolina FWD 1339 63 86 05.03-07.08 ■ 1.5 i-DSI (GD8) (L15A2) Gasolina FWD 1497 66 90 12.02-07.08 ■ 1.5 i-DSI (GD8) (L15A2) Gasolina FWD 1497 81 110 10.04-07.08 ■ CIVIC V (EJ) 08.93-03.96 Coupe (Supermini car-B Segment) 1.6 i (EJ6) Gasolina FWD 1590 77 105 01.94-11.95 ■ 1.6 i Vtec (EJ1) (D16Y6) Gasolina FWD 1590 92 125 01.94-03.96 ■ 1.6 i Vtec (EJ1) (D16Z9) Gasolina FWD 1590 92 125 01.94-03.96 ■ 1.6 i Vtec Gasolina FWD 1595 118 160 01.94-11.95 ■ Hatchback
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION National
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533 [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0069] Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy Standards--Model Years 2008-2020 and Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards--Model Years 2008-2020; Request for Product Plan Information AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Request for Comments SUMMARY: The purpose of this request for comments is to acquire new and updated information regarding vehicle manufacturers’ future product plans to assist the agency in analyzing the proposed passenger car and light truck corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, P.L. 110-140. This proposal is discussed in a companion notice published today. DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register]. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2008- 0069] by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 1 • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12- 140, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, between 9 am and 5 pm ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-5527. • Fax: 202-493-2251 Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this proposed collection of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Finishing the Year Strong – Top Segment Gainers
    SHOPPER FINISHING THE YEAR STRONG – TOP SEGMENT GAINERS TRENDS Car shopping traffic was up overall in Q4 on Autotrader, with more than half of mainstream car, truck, and SUV segments posting double-digit growth compared to the prior quarter. SNAPSHOT Four luxury segments – the three SUV segments and luxury’s fullsize car segment – experienced the largest percentage growth in traffic among the 17 segments, contributing to a strong finish for luxury overall (+14%). Despite upward momentum for many, rises for some mean declines for others – 30 of more than 200 segment models face an uphill battle to start the year, having dropped a half share point in Q4. Among those benefiting from the increased shopping, Ford makes the biggest statement at a brand level, boasting 13 “top 3 model movers” across their respective segments. All Mainstream segments experience increased 17 traffic in Q4 Growth in traffic + among Car, SUV, and 11% Truck segments brands tout three or more # of models to see the greatest models among the top three traffic growth in their respective 9 segment gainers segment 12% 11% 7% 29 35 shopping activity growth by segment domestics imports Autotrader New Car Prospects, Q4’18 vs. Q3’18 1 SHOPPER TRENDS NON-LUXURY CARS SNAPSHOT TOP 3 GAINERS: TRAFFIC & SHARE OF SEGMENT SUBCOMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR VOLUME GROWTH SHARE GROWTH VOLUME GROWTH SHARE GROWTH +1% Ford Fiesta Ford Fiesta +7% Honda Civic Toyota Corolla Hyundai Accent Hyundai Accent Toyota Corolla Kia Forte Toyota Yaris Toyota Yaris Ford Focus Hyundai Veloster Total # of 18
    [Show full text]
  • Trend Watch 2015 Automotive Insights from Kelley Blue Book
    Kelley Blue Book Quarterly FIRST QUARTER Trend Watch 2015 Automotive Insights from Kelley Blue Book Kelley Blue Book Public Relations Contacts: Chintan Talati | Sr. Director, Public Relations Joanna Pinkham | Sr. Public Relations Manager Brenna Robinson | Sr. Public Relations Manager Samantha Hawkins | Marketing Coordinator 949.267.4855 | [email protected] 404.568.7135 | [email protected] 949.267.4781 | [email protected] 949.268.2760 | [email protected] In This Issue: CONSUMER SHOPPING ACTIVITY: NEW-VEHICLE REVIEWS: Timely commentary on the subcompact SUV segment from Joe Lu, strategic market insights New reviews covering the compact Inand subcompactThis Issue:SUV segments from the KBB.com Editorial. manager for Kelley Blue Book. 2015 NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW RECAP: RESIDUAL VALUE INSIGHTS: Commentary on 2015 New York International Auto Show trends from Akshay Anand, senior insights InsightsUSED-CAR on growth in mid-sizeMARKET crossover ANALYSIS: and SUV segments from Eric Ibara, director of residual analyst for Kelley Blue Book. values for Kelley Blue Book. 2015 BRAND IMAGE AWARD ACCOLADE USAGE: SALES OVERVIEW: 2015 Brand Image Award Winners list, background and guidelines from Kelley Blue Book Public Insights on first quarter sales from Tim Fleming, lead product analyst for Kelley Blue Book. Relations. Consumer Shopping Activity Subcompact SUV Segment Extends Lead Over Mid-Size SUVs -Joe Lu, strategic market insights manager for Kelley Blue Book The subcompact SUV segment has been on a steady rise in shopping activity on Kelley Blue Book’s KBB.com. As of March 2015, it is the most-shopped segment on the site, overtaking and extending its lead over the mid-size SUV segment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Technology and Economics of In-Wheel Motors 2010-01-2307 Published 10/19/2010
    The Technology and Economics of In-Wheel Motors 2010-01-2307 Published 10/19/2010 Andy Watts, Andrew Vallance, Andrew Whitehead, Chris Hilton and Al Fraser Protean Electric Copyright © 2010 SAE International vehicles that offer the same size, performance, range, ABSTRACT reliability and cost as their current vehicles, but OEMs must Electric vehicle development is at a crossroads. Consumers make a profit, and the government requires compliance with want vehicles that offer the same size, performance, range, emissions standards. How can the advanced vehicle reliability and cost as their current vehicles. OEMs must technology and diverse and often conflicting requirements make a profit, and the government requires compliance with come together to create the new fleet of desirable and emissions standards. The result - low volume, compromised economically viable vehicles? vehicles that consumers don't want, with questionable longevity and minimal profitability. This paper will explore in detail the technology of in-wheel motors (IWMs), the challenges of their integration into In-wheel motor technology offers a solution to these vehicles and how they can make a real difference to the problems; providing power equivalent to ICE alternatives in a economic viability of vehicles in a changing consumer and package that does not invade chassis, passenger and cargo regulatory framework. We aim to show the reader both the space. At the same time in-wheel motors can reduce vehicle opportunities and challenges surrounding IWMs; the benefits part count, complexity and cost, feature integrated power around packaging, performance and economics, and how the electronics, give complete design freedom and the potential technical challenges of unsprung mass, brake integration and for increased regenerative braking (reducing battery size and cost are being addressed in a manner suitable for the eventual cost, or increasing range).
    [Show full text]
  • Compact Rental Car Examples
    Compact Rental Car Examples Albrecht remains indecent after Connolly turpentining sillily or slubbed any word. Unvisored and clouded Hector refer her demonologist crunch or suppurating antisocially. Developmental Orin usually buffers some squib or presets unendurably. Appreciate the open road with or compact car sharing Captur is rather safe move for your travels. What Is Rental Car CDW Insurance? She is a former contributing editor to Reviews. Another vehicle examples include who do so much does add an adobe via email was extremely rude and check a dirt. Secondary means you? Also relevant though February is dry season in CR, it must still rain. In most cases, this charge is also applied to additional charges, such as one way fees, fuel option, child seat rental etc which are not included in the daily rate and are paid at the counter. Every case of different. Several different fees and factors determine the total rental car costs. Rental companies in enterprise, as a cheap option could also have only exception of rental cannot be traveling convenience are examples with added features of their reservations. Economy, National, Adobe, Enterprice, etc. You may find a convertible or premium car cheaper through Hotwire. Rental companies categorise their vehicles in a slam that makes them interchangeable. Mercury, then you select you car early the reservation process, each in your rental summary to church which surplus and model car set you are likely to crush in your selected car class at your chosen location. Passenger vans are great for families and large groups. US, based on audience service satisfaction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Flexible Approach for Segmentation Applied to the Car Market
    Blurred boundaries: a ‡exible approach for segmentation applied to the car market Laura Grigolon November 2017 Abstract Prominent features of di¤erentiated product markets are segmentation and prod- uct proliferation that blurs the boundaries between segments. I develop a tractable demand model, the Ordered Nested Logit, which allows for overlap between neighbor- ing segments. I apply the model to the automobile market where segments are ordered from small to luxury. I …nd that consumers, when substituting outside their vehicle segment, are more likely to switch to a neighboring segment. Accounting for such asym- metric substitution matters when evaluating the impact of new product introduction or studying the e¤ect of subsidies on fuel-e¢ cient cars. Laura Grigolon: McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton , ON L8S 4M4, Canada. (Email: [email protected]). I am particularly grateful to Frank Verboven for his helpful comments and support. I also thank Victor Aguirregabiria, Tobias Klein, Pasquale Schiraldi, Johannes Van Biesebroeck, Patrick Van Cayseele, Mike Veall and participants at various seminars and conferences. I gratefully ac- knowledge …nancial support from SSHRC (Insight Development Grant). I declare that I have no relevant or material …nancial interests that relate to the research described in this paper. 1 Introduction In most di¤erentiated product markets, products can be partitioned into segments according to shared common features. Segmentation is not only a descriptive process, but also a practice used by …rms to develop targeted marketing strategies and decide the placement of their products. Often, segments can be ordered in a natural way. Cars can be ordered from small (subcompact) to luxury according to price, size, engine performance, comfort and prestige; hotels and restaurants can be ordered on the basis of their ratings (number of stars); retail brands can be ordered in tiers according to quality and price.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Recent Vehicle Design Changes on Safety Performance," Progress Reports for October 1977 Through 1979, Contract DOT-HS-7-Q1759
    TL DOT HS- 885-378 242 . R23 TOTS OF RECENT VEHICLE DESIGN CHANGES ON SAFETY PERFORMANCE Volume I D. iedmoocS B. Schmitz K. Friedman KINETIC RESEARCH department of TRANSPORTATION ( A Division of Minicars, Inc. ) 55 Depost Road GoSeta, California 93017 AUG 1 2 1980 " LIBRARY Contract No. DOT-HS- 7-01759 Contract Amount: $134,000 March 1879 FINAL REPORT This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared For U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20580 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 7^ X<f* , ^23 Technical Report Documentation Page /.]_ 1. Report No. 2. Government AccMtien No. 3. R.opi.nt » Catalog No. DOT rHS -80 5 -3 7 8 4. Till* and iubtifl# 5. R «porr Oo*b March 1979 Effects of Recent Vehicle Design Changes 6. R *t forming Orgam zanon Coo* On Safety Performance Volume I 8. Performing Orgam senen Report No. 7. Author' l) DEPARTMENT OF D. Redmond, B. Schmitz, K. Friedman j KR-TR-032 ' TRAN.^PnnThrr/^KT 9. R*rformi ng Organization Noma and Aodf.»s 10. Wqrfa Unit No. (TRAI5) Kinetic Research AUG 1 2 1980 (A Division of Minicars, Inc.) 11. Contract or Grartf No. 55 Depot Road DOT -HS-7-01 759 j •• library 13- Report and Period Co*or®d Gnlota r a Q3ni7 .. i Interim Report U.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Market for Compact Cars
    a look at The global market for compact cars The search for fuel-saving solutions has led to a trend for acquiring smaller and lighter cars. Small compact cars, whether powered by internal combustion or electric engines, have gained and are continuing to gain market share, in both mature automobile markets such as Europe or Japan and emerging markets such as India. In Europe and in France, automotive A and B segments These cars have the highest market share in Europe, and categorize: this share has been increasing since the 1990s. Today, 4 cars out of 10 sold in Europe are in the A and B segments, I mini cars for the A segment, such as the Fiat 500, compared with 3 out of 10 in the early 1990s (Fig. 1). No Peugeot 108, Renault Twingo and Citroën C-Zero. other range has seen such growth over this period. Very compact, their length varies between 3.1 m and 3.6 m in Europe; The C segment is small family cars, the D segment large family cars, and the H segment luxury saloon cars I supermini cars or “subcompacts” for the B segment, and tourers. such as the Toyota Yaris, Citroën DS3, Renault Clio and Peugeot 208. Slightly bigger than A segment cars, they are still very easy to handle due to their Fig. 2 – Sub-A segment cars length, often under 4 meters, but their 5 seats make Tata Nano Renault Twizy them more versatile. Fig. 1 – Breakdown of the European automobile market by range of vehicles % 9 . 45% 0 4 40% Kia Pop Lumeneo Neoma % % 2 9 .
    [Show full text]
  • Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles
    10 Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles THOMAS MOREL I. INTRODUCTION Vehicle aerodynamics concerns the effects arising due to motion of the vehicle through, or relative to, the air. Its importance to road vehicles became apparent when they started to achieve higher speeds. The automobile as we know it came onto the scene in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Its beginnings roughly coincided with the advent of powered flight, and perhaps for this reason, it became of interest to aerodynamicists right from the start. One of the first attempts to apply aerodynamic principles to road vehicles was the streamlining given to the first holder of the land speed record, a car named Jantaud driven by Gaston Chaseloup-Laubat (Fig. 1). This vehicle held the record several times, culminating with 93 kmIhr (58 mph) achieved in 1899. The early interest in vehicle drag continued and an early paper published in 1922 by Klemperet1) (apparently the very first paper on the subject) already reported actual wind tunnel studies on several then current automobile shapes and also on one low-drag shape. The work was done in the wind tunnel of the Zeppelin Company which was involved in the development and construction of dirigibles. The influence of dirigibles showed in the shape of the low-drag model, which had a streamlined teardrop shape and no wheels. The drag coefficient of this model was 0.15, and it is interesting to note that this value is still among the lowest obtained for a vehicle-shaped body near the ground. The thrust of the original work during the first few decades of the twentieth century was toward the reduction of drag to increase the top speed of road vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Q2-2021-Brand-Watch-Non-Luxury
    BRAND WATCH NON-LUXURY SEGMENT TOPLINE REPORT 2nd Quarter 2021 1 BRAND WATCH Q2 2021 KEY TAKEAWAYS Pickup consideration rebounded Ford soared RAM took the most top honors for Chevrolet Silverado and Ford F-Series F-Series, Explorer and Mustang second consecutive quarter - Driving gained traction Mach-E consideration lifted Performance, Interior Layout, Technology, Exterior Styling and Ruggedness 2 BRAND WATCH: NON-LUXURY CONSIDERATION Despite inventory challenges due to the chip shortage, Toyota held the top spot it has owned for three straight years. Ford narrowed the gap with Toyota. Ford and Chevrolet made strides driven by increased pickup consideration. Japanese brands Honda, Subaru, Nissan and Mazda lost steam. QUARTERLY BRAND CONSIDERATION QUARTERLY CONSIDERATION GROWTH Toyota Stayed on Top Q1-21 Q2-21 TOP 10 MODELS Toyota consideration slipped by one point; RAV4, Highlander and Tacoma declined. The 34% 33% Q2-21 vs. Q1-21 rise in Camry consideration helped offset the 29% 31% F-150 13% low. Camry returned to the Top 10 list for the 25% 27% first time in a year. Silverado 1500 28% 24% 23% 16% 13% CR-V -17% 12% 12% F-Series was Driving Force in Ford Surge RAV4 -15% Ford was one of the few on the upswing. 12% 11% Consideration soared for F-Series, Explorer 11% 11% Outback -22% and Mustang Mach-E. 10% 10% F-250/F-350/F-450 22% 10% 9% 6% 6% Accord 3% Subaru Tumbled, Gap Widens with Rivals 7% 6% Subaru inventory was among the industry’s Tacoma -6% 5% 6% lowest, contributing to the three-point drop in Explorer 8% consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Hyundai Accent Named Best Subcompact Car for the Money by U.S
    2021 Hyundai Accent Named Best Subcompact Car for the Money by U.S. News & World Report FOUNTAIN VALLEY, Calif., Feb. 9, 2021 – The 2021 Hyundai Accent was named Best Subcompact Car for the Money by U.S. News & World Report today. Accent’s top score was based on safety and reliability data, as well as the collective opinion of the automotive press on a given model’s performance and interior and how strongly each members of the press recommends the car. “Sophisticated styling, an efficient powertrain and a long list of standard safety and convenience Hyundai Motor America 10550 Talbert Avenue www.HyundaiNews.com Fountain Valley, CA 92708 www.HyundaiUSA.com features make Accent a pleasure to own,” said Olabisi Boyle, vice president, Product Planning and Mobility Strategy, Hyundai Motor North America. “Accent has consistently been a stand out in the subcompact segment and this award serves as further validation of our commitment to be a leader in sustainable mobility.” “The Hyundai Accent won not only because it has a low upfront price, but its ownership costs are also low,” said Jamie Page Deaton, executive editor, U.S. News & World Report. “It earns strong recommendation from reviewers, and offers buyers a comfortable interior and an easy-to-use infotainment system.” Hyundai Motor America At Hyundai Motor America, we believe everyone deserves better. From the way we design and build our cars to the way we treat the people who drive them, making things better is at the heart of everything we do. Hyundai’s technology-rich product lineup of cars, SUVs and alternative-powered electric and fuel cell vehicles is backed by Hyundai Assurance—our promise to create a better experience for customers.
    [Show full text]