It's too early to tell which lighter-weight materials will become dominant in carmaking as tough...

This news story has 13 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

davidingeorgia Comments (2713)
 
"The Energy Department says reducing a car’s weight by only 10% can improve fuel economy 6%-8%; technologies showing promise in lightening vehicles are supported by $8M in tax dollars that the agency has doled out to the likes of GM, F and CAT."

There. Fixed it for you.
12 Oct 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like

Tony Petroski Comments (6373)
 
"It's too early to tell which lighter-weight materials will become dominant in carmaking as tough new federal fuel-efficiency rules take hold..."

I'm betting on cardboard. PKG? IP?
12 Oct 2012, 12:16 PM Reply Like

Tdot Comments (1688)
 
What do you expect for a measly $8M? That will just about pay for a couple of concept demonstration prototypes.

Long in (IP). just kidding.
12 Oct 2012, 12:50 PM Reply Like

TwistTie Comments (2521)
 
Read the "It's too early to tell link" above.

Buy Alcoa.

That's all.
12 Oct 2012, 12:18 PM Reply Like

123andy Comments (41)
 
I don't understand why DoE is funding GM, F, Chrysler to do this. Under the Clinton administration the DoE paid over $2 Billion to get car makers to develop and use light weight materials, and funded the National Labs to partner with OEMs. They developed and demonstrated diesel hybrids for each brand which Detroit never built, they developed light weight strong materials of which one made it to market as a component for running board for trucks. With the high fuel standards set and car makers committed to meet the market place is where this should be done and stop borrowing more money to give them help.
12 Oct 2012, 12:50 PM Reply Like

Tdot Comments (1688)
 
It is a matetr of unfunded mandates. The Gov't sets up standards and regulations on fuel economy and such, the Automakers complain through Lobbyists about the costs, and Congress provides funding. Done.
12 Oct 2012, 01:15 PM Reply Like

EdwinJ44 Comments (59)
 
I'm still in favor of GLW in creating lighter weight materials for the auto industry...Plass-asstic!
12 Oct 2012, 01:04 PM Reply Like

Tdot Comments (1688)
 
Didn't GM's Saturn try that? How'd that work out?
13 Oct 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like

shooshoo Comments (3)
 
We're from the government and we saved your industry.
12 Oct 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like

bibol11 Comments (20)
 
Lighter cars mean more deaths on the highway and in town. Now one minor wreck costs thousands of dollars. I remember a friend totaled his Toyota went he hit a big Oldsmobile. The American car very minor damage in the hundreds
12 Oct 2012, 06:48 PM Reply Like

Raymondjram Comments (25)
 
It depends what you consider more important: surviving an occasional accident or surviving the increasing gas prices. You can buy the safest vehicle in the world (such as a Hummer H1) but how much can you pay to actually use it? My 1995 Buick Regal survived an impact by a Ford Econoline Van , but it gets only 20 MPG. My next American vehicle will be lighter and get a better MPG since I want to save on gas. By now most of the imports on the road are lighter than the Americans (and Ford is selling a smaller van), so I know that I can survive the next accident.
12 Oct 2012, 07:37 PM Reply Like

EdwinJ44 Comments (59)
 
Every time this subject comes up (lighter vehicles) the safety issue follows. Rightfully so. I also think that the cars can be built lighter and stronger with plastic. Not plastic that crumbles or shatters like glass, but with resilient plastic that will hold it's shape and encapsulate and protect it's passengers.
12 Oct 2012, 07:08 PM Reply Like

wmalvarez Comment (1)
 

and ... how does this relate to CAT?
13 Oct 2012, 02:01 AM Reply Like