What an amazing story. Too often, the best material innovations cost far too much and therefore never see the light of day. It seems hard to believe, but most automakers fight for pennies -- because by the time they build a million of one part, those pennies add up. It's startling to see a part that weighs 30% less at equal cost. Dave, any idea how many pounds are saved here?
@Charles: Actually, it weighs 50% less at an equal cost, compared to a welded steel part. The 30% figure is in comparison to an aluminum die casting, but the die casting is more expensive.
Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say the amount of weight saved, just the percentage reduction. The big deal, which I should have mentioned in the article, is that this is unsprung weight. Reductions in unsprung weight mean better ride quality in addition to better fuel economy.
By the way, if you want to know what the part looks like, it's part 16 in this diagram.
It's unfortunate that Suzuki made the decision to stop selling cars in the U.S., because the Kizashi is a pretty neat car. However, the authors indicated that this technology may find its way into Suzuki's ATVs and other vehicles.
I wonder what the business implications of this are. Are any aspects of this technology patentable? Could Suzuki be seeing some licensing revenue on the horizon? With the 54.5-mpg mandate coming, I'm sure a lot of automakers would be interested.
@Charles: Yes, there is a Japanese patent (2010-254255) that covers this invention.
Interestingly enough, there is a U.S. patent (7,850,182), assigned to Hyundai, that covers something pretty similar, except that the extrusion has a double wall, and is formed in a different way. Hyundai presented their work at the SAE World Congress. I'm not sure whether this is currently being used on any Hyundai vehicles or not.
Hyundai had a lot of problems with corrosion on steel control arms a few years ago, so their interest in aluminum control arms is understandable. (Of course, aluminum is not immune to corrosion, either, as the Suzuki engineers found out!)
I agree that this is a good story. To me it is surprising that most articles focus on weight reduction. While I agree that weight hurts mileage, aerodynamics play a much bigger role in efficiency (even at low speeds).
Another MAJOR area of improvement would be updating the infrastructure. I know research is being done in this area, but it feels slow coming. Countries like Belarus already have digital signs posted on the roads instead of speed limits showing the speed you should be traveling to avoid stopping at a red light. Rest of the world has roundabouts instead of 4 way stops which allows traffic to flow without stopping.
As a bicyclist, I am constantly reminded how much energy it takes to ride in constant start-stop traffic and it makes me try to coast as much as possible to avoid stopping. Or how much more effort it takes to ride upright vs tucked position even at 10 or 15mph.
From the automakers point of view, I don't know if aerodynamics or weight reduction is more important to the future of fuel efficiency, VadimR, but I can assure you that automakers are working furiously on both. I can barely get through a conversation with auto engineers these days without multiple references to CFD studies.
"fuel economy has been a major concern of automakers. Reducing vehicle weight is one way to improve fuel efficiency."
Dave, there is no doubt that mileage of automobiles is a major concern, especially when crude oil prices are rising day by day. For these automobile companies has to tune the engine performance for a better mileage either by reducing the curb weight or increasing the engine performance.
I keep a vehicle until it is ready to go to the scrap yard. The down side of this is now we have a rubber bushing that will age and fail, that requires the replacement of an entire control arm $$$. This proabaly will be a OEM only part, in 10 years not available. Over the life of the vehicle the fuel saved will not cover the cost of the repair.
@ragtoplvr: That's a good point. The crimping method used to lock the bushing in place would make it difficult to replace just the bushing; it would be hard to get it out, and you'd need a special tool to install a new one. (Assuming you can even get just the bushing by itself, rather than the entire lower control arm assembly). This part was clearly designed for manufacturing, not for service.
You're definitely right about OEM pricing, too. The MSRP for the lower control arm assembly is $357, although you can buy it online for under $300. For comparison, you can get a (non-OEM) rear lower control arm for a Ford Focus for around $35 - $50 online. And given that Suzuki isn't selling cars in the U.S. anymore, you'll be lucky to find one at any price ten years from now.
The very expensive control arm replacement may not be needed. Removing the failed bushing could be done by squeezing it moore, after pushing out the failed rubber portion. Then squeeze until it will pass through the hole in the arm. IT should be possible to crimp the replacement enough to hold it in place , even if the job is not as pretty as the original. Of course a replacemnt bushing could also have threads and a retainer nut, because it would still be a lot cheaper than a new assembly. But probably they won't license anybody to make repair parts.
Excellent Article Dave. To me, the most important aspect to this article is--Suzuki management gave the design team the necessary TIME, software and resources to get this project accomplished. ( I have to assume that's the case.) I would love to know the time frame involved and if they did use CFD when working the problem. Again, great post.
Suzuki is one off those companies which can set new trends in a new way. When i ride on suzuki it make me feel reliablity and trust . Suzuki motorcycle accessories are also have the same condidtion. Your article is quiet good. i rec it while i am thinking that new motorcycles are stuck but now i acn say wait and watch.
Altair has released an update of its HyperWorks computer-aided engineering simulation suite that includes new features focusing on four key areas of product design: performance optimization, lightweight design, lead-time reduction, and new technologies.
At IMTS last week, Stratasys introduced two new multi-materials PolyJet 3D printers, plus a new UV-resistant material for its FDM production 3D printers. They can be used in making jigs and fixtures, as well as prototypes and small runs of production parts.
In a line of ultra-futuristic projects, DARPA is developing a brain microchip that will help heal the bodies and minds of soldiers. A final product is far off, but preliminary chips are already being tested.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.