如果你的工作與汽車制造戰略有關，那你很有可能知道Jay Baron。作為美國密西根州安娜堡市汽車研究中心（CAR）的總裁兼CEO，Baron博士帶領著多支團隊對眾多前沿技術問題展開研究。即使只和他進行一番簡短的對話，也能感受到他對工廠、先進工藝和材料的巨大熱情。如果讓他談談輕量化這個話題，那他打開的話匣子就關不上了。以下是2016年7月Baron博士的訪談內容。
SAE：汽車合規成本要上升到什么水平，才能讓新研發的輕量化技術應用到生產之中？
Baron:在汽車行業里，新技術的發展是很緩慢的。車身結構的趨勢仍是盡可能保持鋼材料的使用。毫無疑問，成本最低的策略是直接加入高強度鋼材，而后才是逐步提高鋁和復合材料的比例。采用鋁材制造發動機蓋和行李廂蓋已經流行了一段時間。我們最新的調查結果表明，鋁材料的下一個應用部位是車門板，而且將會普及到所有級別的車型。將將鋼材換成鋁材還算容易，因為可以使用同樣的模具，并且就算出了問題，也還有備用解決方案。但從鋼材換成復合材料就截然不同了，因為沒有備用方案了。
SAE：聽說最近的工程師在為車輛減重的時候是以盎司來計算的，這是真的嗎？
Baron:是真的。我們以盎司來計算減重量是因為這樣成本比較低。如果你想直接打出全壘打，也就是說全部換成鋁材，那么每輛車的成本就將增加幾百甚至上千美元。除了成本之外，還增加了技術的復雜度，并會帶來新的NVH問題。汽車行業是逐步引進新技術的。也就是說，盡管新技術已經研發出來了，但每次推出新產品的時候只能使用其中的一部分。我們的工程師只有那么多，而且每種新技術都需要一定的研發時間，并伴隨著一定程度的風險。一種新材料的驗證可能耗費數十年之久，比如“第三代鋼材”的說法，我已經聽了25年了！
緩解新車的“重量蠕變”效應是一大難題，而且該問題還與排放和安全標準有關。
汽車公司很擔心全新的正面偏置碰撞標準可能會導致車身重量必須增加。你認為汽車公司是圍繞著燃油經濟性目標來設計車輛系統的嗎？除了燃油經濟性外，他們還需要考慮碰撞要求。這也是他們推行五星評級標準的原因。我們的團隊正在研究如何為車輛的碰撞測試數據進行“評分”，因為碰撞性能會隨著車身重量的增加而提升。我很期待獲得研究成果。
SAE：您對中期審查有何看法？您認為法規機構是否會放棄原本的2025年目標？
Baron:我的看法是這樣的。首先，沒有人會反對“綠色環保”技術。汽車行業在這方面的名聲并不算太好。許多公司都已命令研發團隊努力達成54.5mpg的油耗目標，還有許多車企的CEO承諾他們一定會做到。他們不會背棄這個承諾，但可能會對那些無法通過CAFE來衡量的技術申請特殊優惠條件。但我不認為OEM會改變原有計劃。
SAE：您對達成54.5mpg燃耗目標所需的消費者方面的成本有何看法？
Baron:無論用什么方法，汽車行業都將努力達到法規的要求，輕量化勢在必行。盡管大家認為大規模生產后成本會降低，但我估計成本將依然會非常高昂。拿價格不變的鋁原料舉例，法規機構估計每輛車所需鋁材的價格為1800美元左右。但那只是成本，不是售價。我們團隊常用的計算方法是在成本基礎上再加50%，也就是說售價是1800美元的1.5倍——2800美元。這個數據是根據2010車型年計算的，和法規機構的估值相差很多，因為法規機構的數據顯然不會太高。汽車制造商的估價可要高得多了。
如果我要買的車價格一下從4000美元升至5000美元，那么我的購買行為肯定會發生改變，同時會發生改變的還有整個汽車行業。
作者：Lindsay Brooke
來源：SAE《汽車工程》雜志
翻譯：SAE 中國辦公室
Driving the CAR toward 54.5 mpg
Chances are good that if you’re involved with automotive manufacturing strategy, you know Jay Baron. As President and CEO of the Center for Automotive Research(CAR) in Ann Arbor, Dr. Baron and his research teams are engaged with technology issues across a broad front, but even a brief conversation with him reveals his deep passion for plants, advanced processes and materials. Get him talking about Lightweighting and he won’t stop. The following exchange was taken from our July 2016 interview.
At what point does the rising cost of vehicle compliance allow the over-the-horizon lightweighting technologies to enter production?
The industry is inching forward on new technologies. In the body structure the trend is to stay primarily with steel as long as possible. Clearly the lowest-cost strategy is to add high-strength steels then slowly introduce more aluminum and composites. Aluminum hoods and decklids have been popular for some time. Our latest survey says the next frontier is moving to aluminum doors. They’re coming on strong across the fleet. Going from steel to aluminum can be a fairly easy change; you can often use the same dies. It can offer a backup if there are issues. But going from steel to composite is different—no backup.
Engineers now say ‘every ounce counts’ in reducing vehicle mass. True?
That’s correct. We’re trying to remove weight by the ounce because it’s cheaper by the ounce. If you go for the ‘home runs’ that means going all-aluminum, which costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars more per vehicle. On top of that you have launch complexities and concerns about increased NVH, too. This industry introduces new technology incrementally. Even though there’s new technology on the shelf, the industry can only absorb so much introduction at any one launch. We only have so many engineers and every new technology has a certain development time and level of risk associated with it. The qualification for a new material can be decades long—I’ve been hearing about 3rd Generation steels for 25 years!
Mitigating “mass creep” from new vehicle to vehicle is a challenge, and some of it is related to emissions and safety compliance.
One company was concerned about the new frontal-offset crash standards adding weight. You think auto companies have gamed the system around fuel economy? They’ve also gamed the system around meeting crash requirements. That’s why they push 5-star ratings. Our team is looking at ‘scoring’ the crash test data of a car, over time. Because as cars have gotten heavier their crashworthiness has improved. I’m interested in seeing what we find.
What’s your bet on the Mid-term Review? Do you expect the regulators to retreat from the original 2025 plan?
Here’s what I think will happen. First, nobody looks good fighting ‘green’ technologies. Our industry doesn’t have the best reputation on this front. They’ve already got a lot of R&D sunk into achieving 54.5 mpg. And you have CEOs who have said they promise to make this work. They’re not going back on that promise. They may try to negotiate special credits for technologies not measured through the CAFE process but I don’t see the OEMs trying to change the regulations.
And your thoughts on the projected cost to the consumer for meeting 54.5-mpg?
The industry will meet the regulations one way or the other. We will lightweight these cars. However, I think the cost is going to greater than everyone says it will be even with mass production. The price of raw aluminum is the price, for example—that’s not going to change. The regulators estimated the cost hit per unit was roughly $1800—and that’s cost, not selling price. The rule of thumb our team always uses to add overhead burden is to add 50%. So 1.5 times 1800 is $2800 added to the selling price. That’s based off 2010 model year and off the regulators’ estimate, which clearly is not going to be on the high side. The automakers’ estimate is going to be much higher than that.
If all of a sudden the car I want to buy is $4000 to $5000 more, that’s going to change what I do. And it’s going to change the industry.
Jay Baron博士：“盡管大家認為達成2025年目標所需的成本在實現大規模生產后會降低，但我估計成本將依然非常高昂。