1.

Driver-in-the-loop ADAS testing

Ansible Motions technical liaison, Phil Morse, believes that ADAS evaluation presents a
fascinating challenge for verification and test engineers

The increasing adoption of advanced driver assistance systems presents a fascinating challenge for
verification and testing engineers. Perhaps more so than any other aspect of a vehicle, this is where
the actions of a machine and a human driver become entwined. And it means human beings are a
vital part of the test and verification process for vehicles with ADAS.

Ironically, the sheer scope of this technology often means that human input is intentionally reduced
in the early stages of verification. If one considers all the possible scenarios that might be presented
to a collision avoidance system, for instance, its easy enough to conclude that it can lead to hundreds
of thousands of combinations that would require scrutiny. Consequently, off-line simulation tools are
required to slug through the intense number crunching that is needed to generate all the objective
maps and response surfaces required to predict complex behaviors in the early development stages.
While this is efficient and productive, purely objective feedback cannot inform vehicle designers about
how evaluation drivers might respond to implementations.

So, as soon as objective predictions can be whittled down into a more manageable subset of scenarios
it makes good sense to bring human drivers into the test program. After all, people will ultimately
decide the success or failure of vehicle features and functions in the marketplace. For example, the
point where functions such as ESC or AEB should intervene is highly subjective. These tend to occur
in highly dynamic situations, where its vital to get representative inputs from a real driver to guard
against behavior conflicts.

Driver-in-the-loop (DIL) testing can bring human interaction forward dramatically in a vehicle projects
timescale and can dramatically increase the frequency of driver contact with imagined systems as they
are being tuned and developed. Most importantly, this means that potential issues can be identified
early on, when they are less costly to address, at a time when physical prototypes might not even be
available. Even when prototype vehicles are available they can often be in short supply, and potentially
appropriated to other areas for other tests, so a DIL simulation program helps to manage the workload.
Of course, there are a number of other benefits to DIL testing. Chief among these is safety: drivers
are free to charge headlong toward oncoming traffic or infrastructure scenarios with no more than
pixels put at risk. In fact, one might argue that DIL simulation has the edge over real-world testing in
many cases because every detail of the sensor inputs and scene can be scripted and repeated at will,
and new what if? scenarios are only a keystroke or two away. Things like grip levels and
environmental conditions can be modified almost instantaneously or kept absolutely identical across
a series of tests.

And, ironically, virtual test driving even offers some advantages in terms of realism when compared
with real-world proving ground tests. Real radar signatures, for instance, can be presented to a real
sensor (via HiL) and a real driver in a DIL lab, rather than relying on an inflatable obstacle or a
cardboard cut-out representation.

Ultimately, though, the value of DIL lab testing hinges on being able to elicit realistic responses and
behaviors from human drivers, and thats not as easy as one might think. Experienced test drivers,
who have finely-tuned senses for what real cars feel like in various conditions, are extremely sensitive
when their expectations are violated. Such drivers will simply not accept DIL simulators as vehicle
development tools if the feedback provided to them is inaccurate. From a DIL simulation perspective
it is mission critical to deliver the correct motion cues, correct levels of graphical latency, correct tactile
and auditory stimulation, and so on. Engineering DIL simulators is another topic altogether.

As technologies continue to emerge and converge, the task of verifying and testing ADAS systems will
invariably become more complex for car makers. Vehicle onboard systems that were previously on the
emerging technology list such as ESC and ABS are now mandatory in most markets. That is just
the tip of the iceberg.

Lane departure warning systems and AEB are now legal requirements on all new heavy goods vehicles
registered in Europe. It is thought that this is likely to extend to passenger cars and light commercials
before too long (where ADAS systems already contribute to the much-publicized Euro NCAP safety
ratings). Meanwhile, in the USA, the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the IIHS
(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and most of the nations OEMs have announced an informal
agreement to make AEB standard by 2022.

All this means that auto makers will be tackling a lot more testing and development work in order to
deploy these (and other) ADAS systems. It wont stop there either. Partial autonomy is already
creeping into the car industry and this, perhaps ironically again since driverless cars do not require
drivers per se is another area where DIL simulators are helping the cause. With regard to the all-
important handovers to and from human drivers and autonomous running modes, DIL simulators are
proving to be the go-to tool. If we were to sneak a peek behind the auto industrys R&D curtain, what
might we surmise? Well, one thing is for certain its certainly a busy time.

Phil Morse is technical liaison at Ansible Motion

 2. Autonomous road vehicles: a challenge for robust control
Standard robust control for braking, traction or steering dynamics could turn out not to be
robust enough for path tracking in autonomous vehicles. As we work towards the
introduction of autonomous vehicles, a few important questions still need to be answered
by robust control experts
Simone Formentin, Politecnico di Milano

Above: A Toyota Prius modified to operate as a Google driverless car, navigating a test
course. Image: Steve Jurvetson

The idea of autonomous cars has been around since the 1920s, but the first prototypes of truly
autonomous (albeit limited in performance) road vehicles appeared only in the 1980s.

Since then, several companies, such as Mercedes, Nissan and Tesla, as well as many universities
and research centers all over the world, have pursued the dream of self-driving cars.

More recently, a few ad hoc competitions and the increasing interest of some big tech companies
have rapidly accelerated research in this area and helped the development of advanced sensors and
algorithms. As an example, consider that Google maintains (and publishes) monthly reports
including the experimental tests and the most recent advances on its driverless car project.

The reasons why such technology is not yet on the market are many and varied. From a
scientific point of view, autonomous road vehicles pose two major challenges:

A communication challenge how to interact with the surrounding environment, taking all safety,
technological and legal constraints into account

A vehicle dynamics challenge the car must be able to follow a prescribed trajectory in any road
conditions
Above: A Google self-driving car being road tested in Mountain View, California.
Image: Grendelkhan

On the one hand, the interaction with the environment mainly concerns sensing and self-adaptating
to time-varying conditions and information exchange with other vehicles to optimize some utility
functions (the so-called 'internet of vehicles' (IoV)). These issues undoubtedly represent novel
problems for the scientific community and have been extensively researched over the past few
years.

On the other hand, control of vehicle dynamics may seem a less innovative challenge, since
electronic devices such as ESP and ABS are already ubiquitous in cars. Within this framework, robust
control namely the science of designing feedback controllers by taking a measure of uncertainty
into account has played a central role. However, by taking a deeper look at the problem, it
becomes evident that the main vehicle dynamics issues for autonomous cars are more complex than
those concerning human-driven cars and the standard approaches may no longer be effective.

Path planning and tracking is a widely studied topic in robotics, aerospace and other mechatronics
applications, but it is certainly novel for road vehicles. In fact, in existing cars, even the most
cutting-edge technology devices are dedicated to adjusting vehicle speed or acceleration in order to
increase safety and performance, whereas the trajectory tracking task is always left fully to the
driver (except for few examples, like automatic parking systems).

Nonetheless, most vehicle dynamics problems arise from the fact that the highly non-linear road-
tire characteristics are unknown and unmeasurable with the existing (cost-affordable) sensors.
Therefore, keeping the driver inside an outer control loop (path tracking) represents a great
advantage in that she/he can manually handle the vehicle in critical conditions (at least to a certain
extent) and make the overall system robust to road and tire changes. This is obviously not the case
with autonomous vehicles.

Hence, it seems that standard robust control for braking, traction or steering dynamics could turn
out not to be robust enough for path tracking in autonomous vehicles, because one can no longer
rely upon the intrinsic level of robustness provided by the driver feedback loop. In city and highway
driving, this fact may not represent a problem, because the sideslip angles characterizing the
majority of maneuvers are low and easily controllable. However, in the remaining cases (e.g. during
sudden maneuvers for obstacle avoidance), a good robust controller for path tracking, exploiting the
most recent developments in the field, could really be decisive in savinghuman lives in road
accidents.

It can be concluded that a few important questions still need to be answered by robust control
experts, including:

Can we provide a sufficient level of robustness with respect to all road and tire conditions, without
decreasing performance to much?

Are we able to replicate the response of an expert driver to a sudden change of external
conditions?

How can we best exploit the information coming from the additional sensors usually not available
on-board (e.g. cameras, sonars, etc)? There are also many other questions.

IEEE experts estimate that up to 75% of all vehicles will be autonomous by 2040. This scenario will
be accompanied by significant cost savings associated with human lives, time and energy. As control
scientists and engineers, it really seems we can play a leading role in working towards this important
social and economic leap.

Simone Formentin, PhD, is an assistant professor at the department of

electronics, information and bioengineering at Politecnico di Milano, Italy
 3. Protecting automotive innovation
Matthew Luby from CPA Global explores the subject of automotive innovation and
considers the importance of establishing intellectual property when developing new
technologies
Matthew Luby, director of analytics, Asia at CPA Global

The automotive industry is a significant force in driving global innovation and technological leadership.
Since 1999 the number of patents awarded in the manufacturing industry has increased by 3%; the
number of patents awarded to the auto industry has increased by 10% in the same timeframe. In less
than two centuries, humanity has developed technology to replace horse-drawn carriages with
sophisticated vehicles that can respond to voice commands or be controlled entirely by an on-board
computer. What role has intellectual property (IP) played in driving innovation in the automotive
industry and what will the industry do next?

A 21st century car often represents the most refined technology a consumer owns, and automakers
are continuously trying to implement the latest technology in vehicles. Automakers are ranked among
the worlds most innovative companies, developing technologies such as adaptive cruise control,
automatic braking and telematics control systems, among many others.

Auto companies register an increasing number of patents each year to protect these innovative
technologies, employing a highly skilled workforce to design and build their products. In the 1800s
when automotive innovation was born technology was in its infancy, but the role of patents was
already clear.

Racing round the Benz

Identifying the inventor of the very first automobile is challenging, as there were a number off early
innovators who developed manned vehicles with varying characteristics. In 1807, Franois Isaac de
Rivaz designed the first car powered by an internal combustion engine fuelled by hydrogen. However,
it was not until 1886 that the first petrol-powered automobile was invented by Karl Benz. The first
stationary gasoline engine ran for the first time on New Years Eve 1879. A year earlier Benz had
applied to patent his vehicle powered by a gas engine in the USA. This patent number 37435 is
largely considered the birth certificate of the automobile.

American inventor George B. Selden filed a similar patent on May 8, 1879. His application included an
automobile engine and its use in a four-wheeled car. At the time his vision was technologically out of
reach, so Selden regularly made minor amendments to his patent application, resulting in a delay of
16 years before it was officially granted in 1895. However, after such a lengthy legal process, Selden
did not have the resources to do anything with the patent and thus sold it in 1899 to financier William
Whitney.

Driving out the competition

Owning a valuable IP portfolio can lead to conflict in any industry, and William Whitney quickly
attempted to stake his claim on the automotive space by threatening competitors. After purchasing
Seldens patent for the production of a safe, simple and cheap road locomotive light in weight, easy
to control, and possessed of sufficient power to overcome any ordinary inclination, Whitneys lawyers
began sending letters to American carmakers.

The letter began: Our clients inform us that you are manufacturing and advertising for sale, vehicles
which embody the invention of the Selden patent We notify you of this infringement, and request
that you desist from the same and make suitable compensation to the owner thereof.

Henry Ford was the only automaker to fight the lawsuit. He won.

Some 110 years later, IP threats and patent trolling continue to be an issue for automakers. The
number of lawsuits filed against automakers by patent trolls rose from 17 in 2009 to 107 in 2014.
These lawsuits often produce six and seven-figure settlements, representing a serious flaw in the
automotive industry and how it currently manages the volume of technological innovation. If these
threats do not subside, automakers may become fearful of innovating in a sector highly populated
with IP.
High-tech highway
The automotive industry is fast becoming more about technology than engines or tires. Car
manufacturers are now integrating high-tech innovations from other industries: wi-fi, mobile
technology, audio, security, connectivity, voice command, video, GPS and many more.

Technological improvements in computers, smartphones, wireless communications and the cloud have
converged to advance safety for connected consumers. According to ABI Research, the percentage of
new vehicles with factory-installed telematics is likely to increase from 10% in 2010 to 62% in 2016.

Car-to-car information sharing and communication is another developing area of technology. Vehicles
will soon be able to notify cars that are miles away from approaching congestion, preparing drivers to
slow down. Smart intersections and motorways will allow signs and traffic lights to communicate
with vehicles, with sensors to report when a vehicle fails to stop at a red light.

Auto companies are also starting to use nanotechnology and nanomaterials to improve the
performance of new cars. Nanocomposites can be used in bumpers to make vehicles up to 60% lighter,
but twice as resistant to denting and scratching.

The cross-pollination of technology and automotive sectors is driven by consumer needs, but raises
concerns about IP ownership for automakers. The technologies found in modern cars were not invented
by the automotive industry, which means automakers do not own the original IP. Indeed one European
automaker has been at the receiving end of 119 lawsuits for technology implementations.

Navigating a futuristic automotive industry

There is further potential for industry disruption at the hands of autonomous vehicle technology.
However, leading automakers not technology companies are in the best position to progress with
new innovations and designs.

Prolific automakers like Tesla are dominating the self-driving patent landscape, but a number of more
specialized technology and research institutions also have a healthy portfolio of related patents. For
example, LG, Samsung, Google, and Amazon have all contributed significant IP.

Self-driving cars have been poised to dominate the automotive industry for some time, but as testing
continues and more companies join the competitive race, other innovations are accelerating into the
limelight. Toyota recently filed a patent for a stackable wing for an aerocar, there is a focus on
vehicle self-diagnosis, and there is interest in reconfigurable body panels and even active health
monitoring for drivers.

The automotive industry is a fluid and rapidly developing space for companies that produce a
revolutionary new invention, or create an innovative new product design and there is a need to
protect these ideas.

By defending IP through patents and trademarks, IP owners create the legal underpinning necessary
to safeguard ideas and prosecute portfolios. Self-driving technology and the continuous innovation
being displayed in the automotive industry will act as a catalyst for further automotive development
and strategic partnerships that will generate breakthrough technologies. In an environment of constant
innovation, it is important for automotive companies to ensure the right resources, IP information and
strategic partners are in place.

Matthew Luby is director of analytics, Asia at CPA Global, a a technology

company which develops software that can help businesses protect and
manage their key IP assets
 4. The story behind Volvo's 140 series
Let's celebrate the 50th anniversary of Volvos first million seller, the 140 series. Even in
1966, dynamicists at the car maker were busy developing chassis that were highly
resilient to twisting, high-tech dual-circuit braking systems, and were embracing the idea
of sharing chassis components. However, a manhunt for cop killers threatened to ruin the
media launch in Gothenburg

On 17 August 1966, the Volvo 144 was presented in the middle of an ongoing manhunt. With this
new model series, Volvo could develop into a considerably bigger car maker. In eight years, no
fewer than 1.25 million cars were produced creating Volvos first million seller.

Almost 400 journalists were at the Lorensberg function rooms in central Gothenburg on 17 August
1966. The new Volvo 144 was to be presented, unveiled by raising a dividing wall behind which
three pre-series models of the new Swedish car were waiting. Rumors about Volvos new model had
been circulating for several years, and what the press now finally got to see was an austere and
modern vehicle. Parallel to the unveiling in Gothenburg, the new model was also revealed in Oslo,
Copenhagen and Helsinki.

The cars used at the press show in Gothenburg had been lifted into the premises the evening before
by crane, hidden in large wooden crates. Naturally, the entire procedure was supposed to be as
discreet as possible, but this proved difficult since a major manhunt was underway to catch two
people who had killed a police officer. A nationwide alert had been issued and, as the wooden crates
were being lifted into the function rooms, the police received a tip-off that both fugitives may have
been in the audience at the adjacent cinema, which had to be evacuated.

Above: Management decided that the 144 should have the same wheelbase as the Amazon.
However, while different chassis versions were devised when needed for the Amazon, they were
planned from the outset for the 140 series

Back in June 1960, Volvos management with CEO Gunnar Engellau at the helm made the final
decision on the basic directive for the new car. The P660, as the project was designated, was to be
larger than the Amazon, but of the same weight and price class. It was to fulfil strict safety
requirements and comfortably carry four or five people. Moreover, the car was to have the same
wheelbase as its predecessors, the PV 544 and the Amazon. Unlike when the Amazon was
developed, several different chassis versions were planned from the start.

With the 140 series, Volvo introduced a naming scheme in which the first digit designated the model
series, the second digit the number of cylinders and the third digit the number of doors.
Volvo 142
Mass production of the 144 started two days after the presentation, on 19 August 1966. In 1967,
the two-door 142 was launched, and in 1968 production of the 145 estate began. A closely related
model was the 164, which was launched as the 1969 model. It shared many chassis components
with the 140 series, but had a 10cm-longer wheelbase and a longer front to fit the straight-six B30
engine. Yet another chassis version was launched in 1970; this was the spacious load-carrying Volvo
145 Express, on which the roof was raised from the B pillar back.

Below: The two-door 142 model promised safety and a taste of the Swedish lifestyle

Chief designer Jan Wilsgaard was also the man behind the Amazons elegant lines and, despite the
differences, likenesses can be seen between the models. There was a strong desire for a grille
design reminiscent of the Amazons. The shoulder that widened the doors below the side windows
was also similar to that on the Amazon, although on the 144 this feature was even more
pronounced. Like the Amazon, the 142 and the 144 had vertical tail-lights.

The 140 series was well-suited to the ideals of the 1960s, giving precedence to function. It had a
spacious interior and large windows. Scandinavian design, with its clean and simple lines, is a
popular approach today, and the 140 series is a prime example of its expression.

Above: The 145's fantastic load capacity made it a hit

The 140 series entailed several important advances in both passive and active safety. The chassis
was extremely resilient to twisting and was fitted with crumple zones and a protective roll cage. The
brake system was advanced, with disc brakes both front and rear, together with a dual-circuit
system with twin hydraulic circuits at the front. This provided a three-way partitioning of the circuits,
so that if one circuit failed then both front brakes and one rear brake would still function. Whats
more, there were reducing valves to prevent the wheels locking during heavy braking, a solution
first employed by Volvo. A split steering column and a dashboard with a collision-protected frame
were other safety features. Later, the 140 series was also fitted with headrests, retractable seatbelts
and seatbelt reminders as standard.
Above: Three-way partitioning of the hydraulic brake circuits added to the safety of the 140 range

The Volvo 140 series had a conventional design with a front-mounted engine and rear-wheel drive.
Initially, the series employed the tried and tested 1.8-liter four-cylinder B18 engine from the
Amazon, producing 75hp DIN or 96hp DIN with twin carburettors. The 1969 model had the 2.0-
liter B20 engine, producing 82hp and 100hp DIN, respectively. As of the 1971 model, there were
also versions with electronically controlled fuel injection, producing 120hp DIN.

When production of the 142, the 144 and the 145 came to an end in the summer of 1974,
1,251,371 cars had rolled off the production line. The model series became the companys first
million seller and helped further Volvos position as an international player. The legacy of the 140
series is, however, greater than this, stretching all the way to 1993. Its replacement, the Volvo 240,
borrowed much from the 140 series chassis and went on to become Volvos most mass-produced
model, with 2.8 million cars in 19 years.

Below: Volvo's Torslanda plant thrived due to the success of the 140 series
 5. Torque vectoring for good, clean fun
Horiba MIRA has been experimenting with the addition of a yaw motion control device, to
inject a greater sense of driving fun to EVs and HVs
Rob Capaldi, Horiba MIRA

Above: Horiba MIRA evaluated the latest dynamic control technologies in various Jaguar XF models,
including this 2.2L diesel parallel hybrid with a unique torque vectoring system on the RWD chassis

With the increasing demand for fuel efficiency and lower emissions, hybrid vehicles (HVs) and
electric vehicles (EVs) are already growing in popularity. However, to enable these vehicles to have
a wider appeal, it is necessary to provide additional enhancements to differentiate from the
competition, rather than having to rely solely on the advantages of reduced emissions.

The first generation of HVs and EVs have adopted the same architecture as conventional fuel-driven
vehicles, with one single central motor that transfers power through a standard driveline. However,
the application of twin electric motors provides the opportunity for enhancing the handling
performance of HVs and EVs. As a result, engineers at Horiba Mira have been working on a piece of
technology that aims to exploit this opportunity.

Since 2008, Horiba MIRA has been developing a yaw motion control device, named Electric Dynamic
Control (eDC), which uses twin electric motor torque vectoring. The first version of the eDC system
was installed on Horiba MIRAs H4V demonstrator.

In its original guise, our eDC device was applied to a front-wheel-drive koda Fabia that had been
modified to include twin electric motors on the rear wheels, explains Tim Pulford, lead engineer,
chassis engineering, Horiba MIRA. H4V was originally developed as a powertrain demonstrator
featuring an on-demand four-wheel-drive mode, as well as a full EV option.

We retained the front-wheel-drive engine and gearbox; however, the engine was reconfigured to
deliver more torque over a narrower speed range, while engaging the gears through a Horiba Mira
controlled automated manual transmission (AMT). Acceleration and braking were supported using
the high-torque rear-wheel motors and, while the engine was running, an integrated generator
charged the advanced batteries.

The projects results were positive, with multiple areas providing greater improvements than were
aimed for. This included a 40% reduction in CO2 during the EC drive cycle, producing only 104g of
CO2 per kilometer, and fuel economy was in excess of 64mpg, compared with the standard 42.2mpg
in the baseline vehicle.

With the emissions results of the H4V project proving successful, it was considered an ideal
platform on which to trial the eDC system. With the appropriate HV architecture already in place, all
that was necessary was to add an inertial measurement unit, a steering wheel angle sensor, and to
implement the eDC control system onto the vehicle.
Initial trials of the eDC system on the H4V demonstrator also
proved successful, with the ability to mitigate understeer and to improve agility and yaw damping
during avoidance maneuvers. However, there was still more work to be done on refining the
performance of the eDC system.

Horiba MIRA therefore embarked on the next phase of the project, known as eDC2, to develop a
more optimized package. The critical objective of eDC2 was to enhance the dynamic performance of
an entry-level conventional fuel vehicle using hybrid technology, while the design, manufacture and
integration of the system was to be as close to production level as feasible.

The engineering team chose a Jaguar XF 2.2 diesel as the base vehicle and initially benchmarked it
against a performance version of the same model.

Above: The electronic dynamic control (eDC) unit in a subframe

The concept of the eDC2 is a torque vectoring system and, similarly to H4V, it also uses two in-
board electrical motors to provide dynamic control, increased performance, and the option to
increase efficiency. However, this time the motors are installed in series with the IC powertrain on
the rear driveshafts.

The two motors are independently controlled and can be commanded in opposing-phase to generate
a yaw moment, which controls the vehicles yaw motion to achieve a target value. They can also be
commanded in-phase to provide driveability features such as zero-emissions driving, increased
acceleration and regenerative braking.

The use of the electric motors to control the yaw moment of the vehicle is unique to this project and
is covered by patent number EP20110729646.

Above: The eDC unit is compact and therefore suitable for a wide range of vehicle applications

To develop eDC2, Horiba MIRA's Vehicle Engineering Product Group leveraged the expertise of its
controls and electronics, simulation, vehicle dynamics, design and prototype build teams. By
harnessing the expertise of each of these teams, Horiba Mira was able to develop the eDC2 system
entirely in-house.

The design team created the electronic differential (e-diff) assembly, which mounts the twin motors
between the conventional driveshafts and the differential unit. Clutches are used to engage the
motors, enabling the eDC2 control system to deliver the required torque from the motors to the rear
wheels. The team then packaged the e-diff and twin motors into a bespoke rear subframe.
Concurrently, the controls and electronics department was responsible for the development of the
control system and the bespoke battery.

Finally, the prototype build department manufactured and assembled the e-diff and subframe
assemblies and produced a number of bespoke solutions to house the required electrical control
hardware and integrate it into the vehicle.

Above: The eDC in situ in a test vehicle

The vehicle dynamics team managed the targets for the project, which were based on the
benchmark results of the performance XF, and took responsibility for ensuring these targets were
met. During this phase, a full suite of tests was completed on Horiba MIRAs latest kinematics and
compliance test rig.

The simulation team used VI-CarRealTime software to provide a real-time vehicle simulation
environment for the eDC2 vehicle based on the base vehicles benchmark data. This software was
used to determine the suspension characteristics required to cope with the additional mass of the
battery and motors, and to simulate the dynamic behavior of the vehicle when the eDC2 control
system is active. Through co-simulation with Simulink, VI-CarRealTime was also used to develop the
features of the control system.

Pulford reflects on eDC2s ability: One of the great features of the eDC2 system is that the
dynamics of the vehicle can be enhanced without the need for additional energy consumption or the
need to increase battery capacity. This is because the wheel with a negative torque demand
regenerates the power required by the wheel with the positive torque demand. Therefore, during
system interventions, the battery needs only to provide the small amount of power lost due to the
regeneration efficiency.

When driving at the limits of handling and approaching understeer, the front tires of the vehicle are
deeply saturated and will not respond to further steering inputs. With eDC active, the understeer
gradient is reduced by increasing the rear slip-angles in a controlled manner, delaying the onset of
front tire saturation.

Through a dash-mounted human-machine interface (HMI), the driver is currently able to select two
modes: eDC, which supplements the IC powertrain with the eDC function; and Sport, which provides
a performance boost by using the twin motors to add drive torque in parallel with the IC powertrain
with eDC active. Ultimately, there will also be an EV-only mode, which will provide electric-only drive
with or without eDC2 active.

In eDC mode, the lateral dynamics of the vehicle are significantly improved, with the understeer
mitigation, increased agility and better yaw damping providing a more rewarding driving experience.
In Sport mode, performance can be boosted by adding 50kW (circa 67bhp) to the overall
powertrain, reducing the time taken to accelerate from 0-60mph by about three seconds.
In addition to the improved vehicle dynamics performance, Horiba MIRA has been able to reduce the
vehicles CO2 rating through hybridization and the regenerative braking and control strategies of
eDC2, potentially achieving less than 50g per km of CO2. Until technologies improve to enable better
packaging and vehicle control, eDC2 provides a useful example for vehicle manufacturers to learn
from and adapt to their own hybrid powertrains.

John Miles's view:

Asked his opinion on this setup, VDI technical editor John Miles says, Horiba Mira has
developed an interesting system. Apart
from significantly improving fuel efficiency and performance when needed, the dual
electric motors permit individual rear wheel torque management leading to
controllable yaw behavior/damping at all speeds. Better steering feel may also result.
 6. Underneath the 2016 Ford Focus RS
Take a closer look at the 2016 Car of the Year in the Vehicle Dynamics International
Awards. The exhilarating new-generation Ford Focus RS is the first car built under the
One Ford program
John O'Brien

Ford has been on a roll lately, introducing several high-performance models to much applause. The
restructuring of its performance divisions around the globe also means that engineers from all
corners of the world now have input into Fords new car development programs.

The first performance model to be unveiled from this One Ford program is the Focus RS, which
marks a significant departure from previous RS models, by adopting an all-wheel-drive (AWD)
layout, rather than front-wheel drive.

When I got this job, two and half years ago, I began with discussions and meetings about what the
Focus RS should be, explains Tyrone Johnson, vehicle and engineering manager at Ford
Performance, a new division that brings together the old Team RS, Ford SVT, and Ford Racing
operations. Originally, it was set in the Ford cycle program as a FWD program. After a couple of
months of discussions, convincing arguments, and late night presentations to Raj Nair [Fords group
vice president and CTO], we managed to convince everyone that AWD was the way to go.

The AWD system selected for use in the Focus RS is an evolution of GKN Drivelines Twinster
system, as found in the Range Rover Evoque. The first prototype that we built, we took one of
GKNs prototype systems, installed it in our car, and that is the thing that convinced us we needed
to go AWD, continues Johnson. But, we soon failed that part as it just wasnt strong enough. We
were asking a lot of things from this part that Land Rover simply wasnt at the time, in terms of
torque transfer.
 Left: The revised AWD system implemented in
the Focus RS allows up to 70% of torque to be
distributed to the rear wheels, with up to 100%
of that figure being diverted to either of the rear
wheels, depending on circumstance.

Its a very simple system, explains Johnson.

The rear drive unit is not a differential in the
traditional sense, because it simply has a drive
shaft coming in, and through the use of a worm
gear, it transfers the torque right or left. But
between that transfer, there is a clutch pack on
both sides, and that clutch pack decides
whether the torque is transferred or not.

Modifications to the car, made in order to accept

the AWD platform, were surprisingly limited,
thanks to the bloodline of the chassis. The car
is on the C1 platform, which is what is under the
Kuga, C-Max, etc, states Johnson. It was
created 15 years ago when Volvo and Mazda
were both part of the Ford Group. It was the
platform for the Mazda 3, and the Volvo S40
and V50, which were all created in Cologne.
Volvo insisted that the platform had AWD
capability at that time, although there was no
interest from Ford for an AWD application, but
that has really benefitted us now.

The rear subframe on this car is something we created for Volvo too, back when we were together,
he adds. We never used it, but Volvo did on some applications. We took that as it slotted right into
the C1 platform, and we made some modifications to it so it will accept the RSs anti-roll bar and the
GKN system. Fundamentally it allowed us to start at a point that wasnt absolute zero.

Theres a certain beauty in that, as a new subframe would cost in the region of US$6-7m worth of
investment, he continues. We didnt have that money, and we had to look at other solutions.

Left: The Twinster rear drive unit (RDU) has

been modified by Ford for application in the RS,
allowing the car to be drifted

The cars steering system is also a marked

departure over previous models, in that this is
the first RS to gain fully electric power steering.
The previous generation was electrohydraulic,
explains Johnson. The RS system does differ
from the standard cars EPAS, as that has a
variable assist. For the RS, weve removed that
variability as we felt it detracts from the car. We
have a linear rack on the car now.

Ford worked with Michelin to develop a choice of

high-performance 235/35R 19 tires. As a result, the car will be offered with Pilot Super Sport tires as
standard, with the option of Pilot Sport Cup 2s for owners who have track time in mind. These tire
choices are wrapped around 19in lightweight, forged alloy wheels.

Behind the lightweight wheels is an all-new brake system by Brembo. In comparison with the
previous generation car, the ventilated front brake discs are marginally bigger in diameter, now
measuring 13.78in, up from 13.23in. These discs are specified in combination with aluminum four-
piston calipers.

With track use being identified as a distinct possibility for many potential RS owners, Ford has
ensured that the brake system is properly cooled. Two jet tunnel stylized ducts in the front bumper
direct cool air on to the brakes. This effect is enhanced through the use of dedicated airflow guides
mounted to the lower suspension arms.

The front suspension setup for the car is largely new. Because weve had to install the power
transfer unit, the front suspension location has changed, and so we had to make a new knuckle to
get the steering curve we wanted, states Johnson. Weve also fitted new, shorter steering link
arms.

As with the previous RS, this third-generation cars dampers are supplied by Tenneco. Unlike
previous versions, however, the new car makes use of Tennecos dual-mode dampers, offering a
dedicated track setting. Ford states that the system is marginally more comfortable than the
previous car, while the sport mode is significantly harder.

When it came to benchmarking cars for the Focus RS, Ford turned its attention to two cars that
helped redefine what a fast car should be. We looked at the Subaru Impreza and Mitsubishi Evo,
says Johnson. We also looked at the modern versions of those ex-rally type cars, such as the Golf R
and the Mercedes-Benz A45 AMG.

Johnson believes that the next RS entertains more than its modern counterparts, which he feels fall
a bit flat in terms of dynamic ability. We bought a Mercedes-Benz A45 AMG, he concludes. As
when it was being announced we all thought Hmm 360bhp, thatll be the thing to have But, its
boring. Very boring. The engines good, but thats about it.
 7. Archive: Gordon Murray Interview
Following the announcement that the defunct TVR brand is to be revived, and utilize
Gordon Murray's iStream manufacturing technique, we delve through the archive to find
our 2011 interview with the iconic designer, as he explains the process
Adam Gavine

They say you should never meet your heroes. People cite rudeness or arrogance as unexpected traits
in their idols, but meeting Gordon Murray is disappointing for another reason. Expecting to meet a
mad eccentric, I was instead met by an affable, modest, motoring enthusiast. He wasnt even wearing
one of his famed floral shirts, and he made me a coffee.
Many people, had they created the McLaren F1, would be insufferable, but mention this milestone car
to Murray and he simply says, The F1 wasnt anything particularly trick it was just Formula 1
technology applied to a road car. Six weeks to make a monocoque who cares? 74,000 for the
monocoque who cares? It wasnt particularly clever, it just happened to be the worlds first carbon
fiber road car, thats why it got a lot of attention.
Thats not to say he doesnt love his McLaren F1, but youre far
more likely to see him driving a far more modest car. Ive always
liked small cars, and Ive always been an advocate of light weight.
Personally I have always driven small, light cars. My everyday car
has been a Smart ever since they came out. I started with a 4-2,
and for the past eight years Ive had a Roadster. Thats what I
like, and thats all I need really.
However, mention the future of motoring, and you see the genius
within Professor Murray. In 1998 he had the idea that a factory
could separate the vehicle assembly process, with the powertrain,
wiring harness, brakes, suspension and other components fitted directly to the chassis, and pre-
painted body panels fixed to the chassis in the final stage. This process, known as iStream, could be
the biggest advance in volume car manufacturing since the Model T Ford assembly line, according to
Murray, and require factories only 20% the size of typical facilities.
He offered the idea to McLaren in the early 2000s, but was told that the companys focus would remain
on low-volume sports cars. Undeterred, he set out on his own in 2004, taking a team of 22 engineers
with him and setting up an office 10 miles away in the next town. With backing from MDV-Mohr
Davidow Ventures, he received funding to kit out his workshop, coincidentally sited next to an old
McLaren site, with all the equipment needed to create running prototypes of the T25 in-house. T25 is
designed to illustrate to potential iStream licensees what his methods can achieve, but remember, the
car is just an iStream sales tool, unless a customer wishes to buy that particular design.
We suffer enormously from being misunderstood as the
people who are going to manufacture the T25 city car,
complains Murray. This is quite natural as people like to talk
about cars, but they dont like to talk about manufacturing
systems. We wanted to build one running prototype of a
vehicle of our choice to demonstrate iStream. It just so
happened that for years and years Ive had this concept of
a little car that would suit UK and European roads and their
congestion problems. The car is just a physical entity to
show people. It doesnt matter what your background is, you
cant sell an idea just by talking to people.
iStream is a product of F1 thinking, substituting the expensive, intensive process of stamping steel
with a cheap, simple, composite technology. Murray was a pioneer in using hand-layed pre-preg
carbon fiber in F1 back in 1978, but at the time it was an aircraft technology and was, hugely
expensive and amazingly time consuming.
Composites were not much simpler to work with when the F1 was launched in 1992. However, when
Mercedes-Benz specified a production run of 700 SLRs per year, a new way of infusing resins and pre-
forms and putting them in molds was devised, reducing monocoque components to seven, and cycle
times for a monocoque and body shell to a couple of days. Fast-forward to today, and McLaren is
pressing single-piece carbon fiber tubs for the MP4-12C in a matter of hours a technology Murray
worked on prior to his departure. The technologies involved in iStream however, are a whole new
world.
 The three things that stop you using
composites in high volumes are material costs
(you cant use carbon fiber as its ludicrously
expensive compared to steel or even
aluminum); the process time; and the fact
that attaching point loads to a composite
structure is incredibly complicated, says,
Murray. When youre hand making a few
sports cars and have lots of time, it is easy to
place load spreaders or inserts in a composite
that you just CNC drill afterwards. There
might be 40 such point loads in a monocoque
to pick up suspension, engine mountings, etc.
If youre trying to make something in two
minutes you can forget carbon for material
costs, you can forget normal composites for
process time, and you can certainly forget trying to spread point loads into that composite. What
iStream effectively does is to solve those three things for high volumes.
We have a really simplistic low carbon, steel tube frame that picks up the point loads. We have
developed a new material which is not carbon, but is an F1-type composite where we can modify the
matrix volume, the glass fiber content volume, the skin thickness, the core thickness and we can co-
press inclusions like an F1 car, so we can have uni-directional fibers for crash loads. We have the same
sophisticated program used to design F1 and Le Mans monocoques, but were using really low-cost
materials that weve nicked from other industries around the world.
We just put it together in a different way, which gives us iStream, says Murray. Thats what weve
patented and thats what were selling. So for the first time youve got a composite monocoque that
you can make in two minutes for a very low tooling cost and a very low industrial cycle time, which is
very light, and increases the safety levels of small cars. So were doing two things at once. Normally,
to save weight, car companies spend money were saving money to go light weight. And normally
to increase safety you spend money, but were increasing
safety levels with less weight.
There has been a lot of interest in the process, with over 50
companies from over 20 countries approaching Murray in
the last 12 months. Intriguingly, only 12 of those companies
have been automotive OEMs. The others have been
companies looking for a low-capital door into car making,
with no need for existing infrastructure. Murray says they
will need just 10% of the investment the average OEM
would require to make a new car. This means they, dont
put themselves against the might of Toyota, VW or Ford, as
theyre not competing. No one in their right mind would try
to make a stamped steel car where these companies are
players.
Murray is actively working with three companies at present, including a US$50 billion retail outfit that
sells electric bicycles and scooters in its stores, and wants to move into EVs. With nothing suitable on
the market, it sees in iStream a cost-effective way to make its own cars.
Moving up a level, two countries have approached Murray, looking to manufacture their own small,
lightweight vehicles for their domestic markets, with low investment and infrastructure, to help reduce
congestion and pollution in their cities. Enquiries have ranged from single-seat rental cars, all the way
up to buses. There is also some interest from potential customers in using the T25 design, but Murray
is not precious about it.
When its sold it could be a Ford, a Renault, a Peugeot, a Virgin, a Sony a Dyson we dont care he
says. If you want to change the styling, we dont care. If you want to change the motor or gearbox,
we dont care. Our mission in life is to sell licenses. If somebody comes along and says we love the
cost saving, the energy saving, the weight saving and the safety, but we want a six-seater limousine
I think theyd be stupid to be honest, but they can have one.
 One thing you can be sure of is that once an iStream
licence is bought, a customer can have their design in
production as soon as their factory is ready. This is
another element where Murrays F1 background shows
vehicle development is carried out in parallel rather than
series. The requirements of the program are decided, and
then proving grounds and test facilities are triple or even
quadruple booked in order to save time and money.
On certain days at a circuit or facility we can do things
four-times quicker than an OEM because we do more than
one bit of testing. If were testing the durability of a car
as a whole, we also test vehicle dynamics, aerodynamics
and internal airflow and so on during the cycle, and we
write our development programs with that in mind, says
Murray.
The result is a fully comprehensive 24-month test program at as
little as a quarter of the cost of a typical OEM test program.
The program is written in an amazing amount of detail and is then
optimized and re-optimized. We dont skip anything we just
maximize the booked time at a particular facility. These principles
come from F1 it teaches you to get the most out of the time you
have available, and we just carried that over, which is why we can
be cost-effective.
The design process can be equally fuss-free, again due to Murrays
background.
We carried over the concept we used to design McLaren cars. We
have a full-size 6m drawing board and we use full-size printouts. We
gather round that board every week and have arguments about
problems and real estate. If someone wants to move a battery,
instead of moving it independently, they have to do it publicly. This
saves so much time.
For example, the F1 was probably the last car in the world to be designed on paper, and we only had
one design clash with a production element. With the SLR we started 100% on CAD and ended up
with a clash detection department fixing hundreds of clashes.
Weve gone back to the future here. We use CATIA V5 and all our inputs and outputs are in CAD, but
the design of the car is fixed full size, and we dont have clashes. One of the reasons the T25 has been
brought to prototype so quickly is that we werent re-doing stuff. So much of design work in modern
cars is rehashing stuff.
With Murrays love of F1
techniques you might
imagine he misses it.
However, you would be
wrong.
Not at all. Not in any way,
shape or form. I did it for 20
years and that was enough.
F1 then was open to
innovation on a scale that
was satisfying. There is still a
massive amount of innovation, but its all in the details. Its
all in tiny aero improvements, etc, and I really wouldnt find that satisfying.
No, for Murray there are two main projects on the horizon once he has a few iStream licensees under
his belt. The first will certainly please followers of his work.
I definitely have one supercar left in me, and the team wants to do it too, he says. It wont be
anything like the cars you see at the moment the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Aston Martins, Porsches,
Bugattis or the McLaren MP4-12C it will hold all the values the F1 had, but it will be in a completely
different direction which ignores horsepower and top speed. As the F1 was a swansong for the 20th
century, Id like to do something for the 21st century.
Some buyers convince themselves they need the big numbers, and they wont choose our supercar,
but more people see beyond that, as they did with the F1. We didnt sell the F1 on top speed. We
didnt even do a top speed run until we stopped selling the cars because I didnt want to it was never
part of the agenda. I like to think most people bought the F1 because it was the pinnacle of engineering
at the time, using modern materials, and was also a pure, pure drivers car and didnt pretend to be
anything else.
A lot of supercars now try to be all sorts of things. They try to be well-engineered, with all the latest
trick suspension and electronics. They try to be track day cars, and they try to be status symbols and
that goes with a lot of baggage size, complexity and weight. I dont want to do any of that rubbish,
I really dont. I just want to do a pure, pure supercar again, like the F1 was. And I think there are
enough people out there to move in a different direction again. Id like the next supercar to point the
same direction change the F1 did in 1992.
The second project takes Murray back to his current passion
Were already working on iStream 2 and 3. iStream 2 will be ready in four years, and iStream 3 is a
long-term project that is 8-10 years away. Weve even had people from other industries, such as
architects and train companies looking at iStream. We dont have to be automotive, but right now
people are looking for weight saving, increased safety, and multiniche vehicles with different
powertrains at lower volumes. This is a perfect picking ground for us.
 8. Case Study: Volvo and MSC Software
MSC Software explains how Volvo used a new co-simulation capability to include
geometrically and materially nonlinear structural behavior in multibody dynamics
simulation
MSC Software

Overview
A vehicle might be subjected to misuse, peak load or strength events such as driving over a curb or
skidding against a curb a few times during its life. These durability load cases play a major role in the
product development process since they potentially drive the design for several components. At Volvo,
the driving over a curb and skid against a curb strength events are classified into two categories,
Level 1 and 2. Level 1 represents extreme customer usage and the requirement is that all functions
remain intact with no visible or noticeable deformation of any component of the vehicle. Level 2 covers
customer misuse and a certain amount of damage is accepted with a safe failure mode. Structural
deformations are acceptable but there should be no separation or breakage. For level 2 it is desirable
that a predetermined inexpensively replaceable component deforms and protects neighboring
components, a design principle known as chain of failure.
Challenge
The capability to perform peak load simulation with a high level of confidence is of great importance
to setting the design loads for components and studying vehicle behavior in these events. Volvo uses
Adams multibody dynamics software to simulate Level 1 load cases for driving over a curb and skidding
against a curb. The components of interest are modeled as linear flexible bodies in Adams. This allows
for linear material response for flexible bodies so this method is only valid up to small plastic strains
which is a good fit for Level 1 load cases.

Physical testing of skid against a curb load case

On the other hand, Level 2 load cases involve plasticity and buckling of flexible bodies for which there
has not been a way in Adams to simulate with sufficient levels of accuracy up to now. The skid against
a curb load case is verified with physical testing with a known mass hitting the vehicle at a specified
velocity and impact angle. These tests require prototype hardware that is expensive to build and only
available later in the product development cycle. We wanted the capability to simulate Level 2 load
cases in order to be able to evaluate design of suspension components earlier in the development
cycle without having to build hardware for each design alternative, explains Anders Wirje, technical
expert CAE Durability at Volvo Car Corporation.
Solution/Validation Skid against a curb load case
MSC recently introduced the Adams-Marc co-simulation capability that makes it possible for the first
time to include geometrically and materially nonlinear structural behavior in multibody dynamics
simulation. Any Adams model and any Marc model can be used in co-simulation with this tool. Post
processing is done separately, Adams results in Adams and Marc results in the Marc postprocessor, or
using Computational Engineering Internationals (CEI Inc.) EnSight post-processor which can import
both Adams and Marc results.
When setting up the co-simulation model for the skid against curb load case, the Marc model contains
the lower control arm and bushings connecting the LCA to the subframe whereas the rest of the half-
vehicle model are included in the Adams/Car model. Due to the extreme nature of a peak load event,
component modeling is absolutely critical to simulation accuracy. All components have to be described
within their full range of excitation. Key components and behavior to model include:
 Contacts between curb and tire and between curb and rim
Elastomers, i.e. bushings
Camber stiffness of the suspension
Flexibility and plasticity/buckling of structural components

Adams runs a dynamics analysis while Marc runs a quasi-static analysis which means that mass and
inertia of the component is not accounted for. It would also be possible to run a transient analysis in
Marc that would take mass effects into account. Adams leads the co-simulation and then feeds its
results to Marc. Marc interpolates the Adams results to catch up and passes the results to Adams
which extrapolates them in taking the next step. The simulated event has a duration of 0.7 seconds
in clock time. The communication interval is 5e-4 seconds in clock time. The total simulation time was
a very reasonable 40 minutes on a Dell laptop with 16 Gigabytes of RAM and a 2.7 GHz CPU.

Results of Adams-
Marc co-simulation of
Level 1 skid against
curb event show no
buckling or plasticity

Results of Adams-
Marc co-simulation of
Level 2 skid against
curb event shows
buckling and plastic
deformation,
matching physical
testing results
 Close-up view of Adams-Marc co-
simulation of Level 2 skid against curb
event
Strain mapped onto lower control arm in
Level 2 skid against curb event

Lateral force on front bushing based on linear elastic simulation (blue trace) and fully non-linear
Marc component (red trace)
The Adams Marc co-simulation of the Volvo S80 front suspension accurately predicted the behavior
of a Level 2 skid against a curb load case. The low velocity impact (Level 1) and high velocity impact
(Level 2) cases showed the same behavior as the physical tests.
Results
The ability to accurately simulate Level 2 load cases will make it possible to substantially improve the
product development process. From the early stages of the development process, we will be able to
evaluate the performance of alternative designs in terms of their performance under Level 2 loads,
Wirje said. The ability to quickly and easily look at alternatives at a time when we are not locked into
any particular approach should make it possible to meet performance requirements with a lighter
suspension that can improve the fuel economy of the vehicle. At the same, we should be able to reduce
the cost and time involved in suspension development by performing product development more
accurately from the beginning so fewer prototype verification cycles are required. Of course, full
physical verification will be performed at the end of the project.
 9. Balancing vehicle performance with sustainability and efficiency
Chris Needes, global market manager, Saint-Gobain, explains how the innovative
materials company is helping OEMs hit performance targets
Chris Needes, Saint Gobain

The automotive
market has
undergone a
revolution in recent
years. The recession
and subsequent
economic hardships
seriously affected car
manufacturers, but
now the market is
beginning to recover,
with European and US
vehicle sales predicted
to grow for the first
time in seven years.
However, most of the
global growth seen in
recent years has
come from BRIC
nations and other
emerging markets.
Their buoyant
economies and fast-
growing consumer markets have led to a surge in demand for luxury passenger vehicles.
Additionally, consumer buying behaviour as it relates to automobiles has changed in recent years,
with new concerns about financial constraints and carbon emissions affecting the market globally
and locally. More and more, consumers worldwide are selecting vehicles based on safety
requirements. Many of these features have been key to purchasing decisions for several years in
Europe and Japan, but now there is a growing demand for safety in emerging markets, such as
China.
In this climate, manufacturers are redoubling their search for inventive and cost-effective ways to
balance consumer and regulatory demands for performance and sustainability in order to thrive in a
very competitive market. Often it is the small parts that make a big difference in automobile
performance, providing ideal solutions for improved driving experience and efficiency.
Global market trends
Sustainability has been a buzz word in the automotive industry for several years. For example, in
the EU, increasingly stringent regulations on car emissions have been introduced by the European
Commission over the past decade and new legislation restricting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
has come into force in 2012, forcing manufacturers to place a greater focus on their environmental
credentials, particularly regarding fuel efficiency. To reduce fuel consumption and emissions for
environmental reasons, consumers are opting for smaller, lighter cars and vehicles with diesel or
hybrid engines.
Cost-effectiveness for both consumers and manufacturers is another major trend. Economic
conditions in the US, including rising oil prices and a decline in living standards, are leading
consumers to follow their European counterparts in abandoning fuel-reliant cars, such as sports
utility vehicles (SUVs) in favour of smaller, more fuel-efficient models. In fact, a recent survey
shows that US automotive sales are predicted to top 16 million in 2014 as the industry continues to
be driven by small, lightweight vehicles that use less fuel and cost less to run.
Manufacturers, in a bid to drive down costs both for themselves and their customers, are focusing
more than ever on achieving production efficiencies, using methods such as Just-In-Time production
(JIT) and platform sharing across several models. With JIT production, the focus is on having global
suppliers that can provide consistent parts anywhere in the world.
Platform sharing, where major design and component features are shared across several vehicles,
allows car companies to reduce costs by sharing car parts and production lines globally. It also
allows companies to reduce the number of suppliers and number of plants required, as the same
models can be built with the same components anywhere in the world. This new method of
manufacture enables car producers to respond more robustly to unforeseen events that may have a
negative effect on supply, such as the earthquake in Japan in March 2011and again, working with
global suppliers is crucial.
Other significant trends in the automotive industry are performance and safety. For example, in the
BRIC nations, the heart of the worldwide growth in car sales, increasingly affluent consumers are
beginning to demand vehicles that offer the same performance and incorporate the same safety and
anti-theft features found in cars in developed markets. Cars that offer a reduction in Noise,
Vibration, and Harshness (NVH), and incorporate features such as increased deformable space
between the bonnet and the engine to protect pedestrians from injury in the event of a collision, or a
collapsible wheel column to act as a shock absorber should the driver strike the wheel during a
crash, are fast becoming a fixture in car dealerships in these emerging markets.
In order to balance all of these seemingly disparate consumer requirements, manufacturers are
searching for solutions that are lightweight to reduce CO2 emissions while meeting cost-
effectiveness and performance standards. As well as developing electric and hybrid engines to meet
demands for fuel efficiency, manufacturers are using lighter materials in large components, such as
replacing steel with high-strength aluminium or magnesium in convertible roof frames, and are
replacing even the smallest components with lightweight, high-quality alternatives, for example
replacing rolling-element bearings with lighter composite bearings with the a polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) liner, offers consistent controlled friction values and excellent dampening properties to
decrease vibration inside the vehicle. With these components and materials it is now possible to
achieve the same performance values, such as safety, comfort and reduced NVH, while enhancing
the smart design of the car through reduced weight, space and thus fuel consumption.
Improving automotive efficiency
In working to improve fuel efficiency, manufacturers must be careful to not jeopardise performance
or safety and also consider the cost implications for the manufacturing process. Key to achieving this
objective is the use of the ideal components for each application.
In looking at the exterior of a vehicle, manufacturers have started to evaluate the use of magnesium
in place of steel in convertible car roof frames. However, using traditional steel-backed bearings in
the pivots of a magnesium roof frame may leave the frame at risk of galvanic corrosion, where the
more active metal corrodes preferentially to the more noble metal when immersed in an electrolyte,
such as rain water. To prevent this, composite bearings backed with a metal of similar galvanic
potential must be used. These lightweight, high-strength component alternatives not only extend the
life of the roof, they also further reduce weight.
Additionally, reducing the weight of car doors is a
focus, with aluminium door hinges increasingly used.
However, aluminium is more susceptible to thermal
expansion than traditional steel, which can affect the
performance of the hinge. To circumvent this
problem, steel-backed composite bearings have been
developed with a larger outer diameter, creating a
stronger press fit to compensate for the expansion of
the housing. Improved tolerance compensation
achieved through the tailored PTFE liner and material
structure ensures consistently perfect fit between
mating parts. In addition, aluminium-backed
composite bearings can also be used to achieve the
same thermal expansion levels as the aluminium
housing.
Aluminium-backed composite bearings with the PTFE
liner are corrosion- and wear resistant contributing to the long, maintenance-free life of the door
hinge and enhancing quality perception of the car.
Manufacturers have also discovered new ways to reduce weight while offering the same performance
values in the car interior. To achieve this, manufacturers are now using ultra-high strength steels
instead of traditional materials in seat frames, which have enabled them to develop thinner, and
therefore lighter, components that are able to bear the same loads as heavier designs. This has had
an impact on the design of seat adjustors. The weight reduction in the seat frame has led to an
increase in load on the adjustment pivots and on the bearing. To combat this, manufacturers have
turned to higher quality composite bearings, which combine a thin design with a robust internal
structure, to enable the component to withstand the extra loads created by a slimmer frame design.
Thus, the use of innovative composite bearings allows car manufacturers to enhance the smart
design of their vehicles with the use of fewer, lighter and smaller components.
We can also look at chassis design for examples of reducing weight in a cost-effective manner while
improving safety and performance. Electric power steering systems have been adopted over the past
decade to replace traditional hydraulic systems. These motors have traditionally been large and
heavy to ensure high performance under high loads. However, more and more manufacturers are
developing new smaller electric motors to help them meet weight reduction targets. To maintain the
same comfortable, smooth steering experience offered by earlier larger motors, high-performing
composite bearings with consistently low friction values are now being used at the interface between
the motor and the rackshaft, enabling the smaller
motors to turn the shaft as easily as larger
models, while giving improved steering response
and driver handling.
Thanks to advances in technology, powertrain
components have been developed that support
consumer weight requirements while offering
improved NVH reduction, particularly with regard
to the dual mass flywheel. The dual mass
flywheel dampens torsional vibrations from the
engine to prevent them reaching the gearbox,
resulting in a more comfortable driving
experience for the motorist, even at low
Revolutions per Minute (rpm). The trend towards
downsizing engine components, such as
reducing the number of cylinders, can actually
increase the intensity of torsional vibrations. In order to combat this, manufacturers are now using
composite bearings in the dual mass flywheel. The low friction values offered by the engineered
components with the PTFE liner have led to NVH reduction compared with previous models and
therefore contributed to noise-free mechanism performance. This in turn has enabled the
development of smaller engines that reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions without sacrificing
comfort for the driver.
Moving forward
The market trends of recent years are clear and look set to continue well into the future. Rising oil
prices and more stringent legislation regarding CO2 emissions are driving weight reduction and other
energy saving innovations in the automotive industry. The demand globally is for high-quality
vehicles that are affordable yet meet performance and safety demands. With innovative
components, manufacturers can respond to these global trends without compromising on quality or
cost.
What's new? Kia Sorento
Thoroughly revised for its third generation, the Kia Sorentos body-on-frame origins are
now but a distant memory
John O'Brien

Kias march upmarket continues

unabated, and its range topping
Sorento SUV is the perfect example of
the brand's intentions. The first-
generation Sorento, with its body-on-
frame underpinnings, is far removed
from the stylized, quality led 2015
model.
Whilst the car carries over design
features from the previous model, such
as the shape of the glasshouse and d-
pillar, the third-generation Sorento is an
all-new body shell. The previous
generation model had 28% high-tensile
steel in the construction of its body,
whilst in the new body that figure rises
to 53%. The liberal application of high-
tensile steel in the chassis legs, A-, B-, C-, and D-pillars as well as transmission tunnel and
floor (below) has seen the
Sorentos baseline torsional rigidity
figure improve by 14%.
One area, in which Kia has worked
hard on with the Sorento, is in the
suppression of external noise. NVH
is a key contributing factor in
perceived quality, and Kia has
made extensive use of noise-
suppressing material throughout
the Sorento.
The Korean OEM has also paid close
attention to the aerodynamics of
the new Sorento, with the third-gen
yielded a significantly lower drag
coefficient of just 0.33. Airflow over
the body has also been improved, thanks to a new rear spoiler design, and the reprofiling of the
Sorentos tail lamp clusters. In addition to this, the underside has gained an aerodynamic undertray,
a claimed 250% larger than the previous Sorento's.
The result of this, and other detailed noise suppression measures, is a reduction in noise inside the
cabin of three per cent at idle and up to six per cent when the car is in motion.
Kia states that its engineers have also worked to ensure the new model delivers 'more of a luxury-
car ride, and more engaging and precise on-road handling'.
 This has been achieved through a
revised rear-suspension set-up,
which mounts the rear dampers
vertically (above). In previous
generations, the rear dampers were
mounted at an angle of 23. The
revised damper angle is in
conjunction with longer lower arms
on the Sorento.
The new model makes use of Magna
Powertrains Dynamax electronic
all-wheel-drive system, which was
first seen in Kias compact SUV, the
Sportage. Like most modern AWD
systems, it has been designed to
deliver 100% of engine torque to the
front wheels, but can redistributed
up to a maximum of 60:40. For off-
road driving, owners can manually
lock the system at a 50:50 torque split, for speeds of up to 25mph.
Kia has Dynamax with its Advanced Traction Cornering Control (ATCC). Compared with all-wheel-
drive systems that control wheelspin by braking the spinning wheel, or electronically reign-in engine
torque, ATCC automatically and instantaneously transfers torque to those wheels which still have
grip, before the ESC system can intervene.
The 2015 Sorento is Kia's first SUV to feature rack-mounted Motor Driven Power Steering (R-MDPS).
Previously, the electric motor module that controlled the steering was mounted mid-way up the
steering column. With R-MDPS it is mounted directly to the steering rack.

10.