• About Me
• Contact

Rethinking The Automobile

Posted by Chris Berry on June 26, 2008 in Energy and Environmental Issues

In the 35 years since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, we as a nation have had ample opportunity to adjust to the reality of a world where efficient use of our natural resources is no longer optional, but instead of taking advantage of this opportunity, we have done virtually nothing. In addition to making no progress toward energy independence, we have also allowed ourselves to be caught entirely off guard by the rapidly increasing global demand for non-energy resources. While we could have used the last three decades to prepare and adjust to this new reality, we now find ourselves facing a major economic crisis for which there is no short-term solution.

The incredible economic growth taking place in India and China means that not only will competition drive up global energy costs, but that demand for all natural resources and commodities will only continue to increase. Standards of living in these countries are rising rapidly, and their burgeoning new middle classes will drive dramatic increases in demand for food, housing, consumer goods, and untold millions of additional automobiles. Not only will we be competing against these newly affluent consumers for the fuel to power our cars, but for the raw materials required to build them.

The automobile hasn’t really changed very much in the 122 years since the first practical car was invented. We’ve made remarkable advancements in performance, emissions control, and safety, but the basic concept of a large four wheeled vehicle, constructed primarily of steel, and powered by an internal combustion engine remains the same. The reason that the basic concept hasn’t changed is that it met our needs for a very long time, and the companies that design and produce automobiles have substantial investments in manufacturing capabilities that lock them in to this basic formula.

What we need to realize is that the factors that made the concept successful are changing, and in order to adapt to these changes, we must rethink the automobile from the ground up. We must also realize that the main source of innovation will not be the automakers themselves. Just as we cannot expect the oil companies to jeopardize their primary business by developing alternative energy sources, we cannot expect an entirely new concept in automobile design to come from companies with a vested interest in the status quo. While certain auto makers such as Toyota and Honda are known for being innovators within the industry, even their most dramatic concepts tend to fit the conventional mold. The fact is that true innovations are most likely to come from outside sources.

American consumers have clung to their oversized vehicles partly as a lifestyle preference, and partly as a result of an arms race mentality. It only takes a small number of 7700 pound Ford Excursions on the road to make every other driver fear for their own safety. As long as gasoline remained cheap, the most obvious defense was to arm yourself with an equally absurd vehicle. With this kind of predictable consumer behavior, it’s easy to understand how we’ve reached a point where half of the U.S. passenger fleet consists of pickups and SUVs.

We have also tended to purchase vehicles based more on our occasional needs than our actual daily driving habits. Seventy-seven percent of American commuters drive to work alone. Even though most of us do the majority of our driving without passengers, we select vehicles that allow us to pack up all of our earthly possessions for a once a year trip to Disney World. For most families, it would make far more sense to own at least one very small commuter vehicle, and to rent a larger car or van for those occasional long trips.

Automobile manufacturers responded to the demand for increasingly large and powerful vehicles by giving consumers exactly what they wanted. We can’t blame them for responding to market conditions, but given the incredibly long development cycles required to put a new vehicle into production, their approach has obviously been very shortsighted. American drivers in the market for new fuel efficient vehicles will find them to be in short supply for the next several years as automakers scramble to realign their manufacturing capabilities.

In the face of a looming crisis, and with manufactures and consumers clearly unwilling to moderate their own behavior, our government had the opportunity to step in and impose some degree of restraint. This could have taken the form of additional taxes on gasoline, taxes on vehicles by size or engine displacement, or mandated increases in fuel efficiency. Congress did pass the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy act in 1975, but failed to require meaningful improvements over time since then. The standards were not revised at all from 1984 until 2007. The newly imposed requirement for average fleet efficiency of 35.5 mpg by 2020 represents a marginal improvement at best, and will not require the automakers to stretch the technological envelope. Marginal improvements of this nature will not be sufficient to offset projected increases in our demand for energy.

It appears that we have finally reached a tipping point in consumer behavior with gasoline at $4.00 per gallon. People are driving fewer miles, and sales of new trucks and SUVs have plummeted. Previous spikes in gas prices have led to short-lived changes in consumer behavior, but the question remains as to whether this change will be permanent. Even in the event that gas prices do fall below $3.00 in the future, we cannot afford to revert to our previous unsustainable habits.

While market forces are likely to play a significant role in reshaping our attitudes, it is time for our government to take the lead if we are to reach the efficiency levels required to make our standard of living sustainable. This means we must take steps that go far beyond mandating marginal improvements in fuel economy, and redefine the basic parameters of the automobile.

First and foremost, our cars must become substantially lighter. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about gasoline, electric, or hydrogen powered vehicles, lighter cars require less energy to operate and to produce. Many drivers believe that lighter vehicles are inherently unsafe, but this is only partially true. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies, vehicle weight offers no safety advantage or disadvantage in single-vehicle crashes. The real danger comes from collisions between vehicles of dramatically different weights.

Ordinarily I am against any government imposed restrictions on consumer choices, but I believe the time has come that we must be willing to live with a limitation on the size and weight of our vehicles. If we can restrict smoking in public places, we can certainly restrict vehicles that represent a threat to our safety. As long as we allow 3 and 4 ton behemoths on our public roadways for personal transportation, we will endanger the lives of those who choose to drive lighter and more efficient vehicles. Obviously there are substantial costs involved when such restrictions are imposed, both to vehicle owners and manufacturers. These costs are unavoidable, but they can be phased in over time to soften the impact.

The first step would be to prohibit the sale and manufacture of the very largest vehicles immediately. We’re at an opportune moment for this restriction to take place, since sales of these vehicles have already declined to historic lows. Over a period of 15 to 20 years, limitations on maximum vehicle weight could be phased in gradually, with an ultimate goal of reducing the average weight by half or better. Since nearly 70% of the weight of a modern passenger car comes from steel, these reductions are can be achieved through the use of aluminum and lightweight composite materials without requiring any major technological advancements.

We will always have a need for large commercial vehicles on our public roadways, and these heavy trucks will represent a particular danger to very light passenger cars. In order to alleviate this problem, we must study ways to separate commercial and non-commercial traffic wherever possible. The easiest way to accomplish this is by designing cars that are narrower and use smaller lanes. By doing this, the majority of our public roads could be reconfigured to add additional lanes without an actual increase in the width of the paved surface. We must reexamine the basic layout of our vehicles and consider moving away from the standard two abreast seating configuration. Making this change would also serve to dramatically reduce traffic congestion on our roads since we could increase the number of lanes available simply by painting new stripes.

If our government is to succeed in bringing about significant changes in fuel efficiency, the agencies involved must begin to cooperate rather than enacting contradictory policies. One of the reasons that our vehicles are heavier today than 20 years ago is that we continue to insist on ever increasing safety standards, without regard to their cost or consequences. The NHTSA is currently proposing new standards that would require vehicles to withstand a crushing force equal to 2.5 times their own weight, as opposed to the current standard of 1.5 times. The only way to accomplish this goal is by adding weight to the vehicle structure, thus reducing efficiency. By their own admission, this change would result in a reduction of as few as 13 fatalities per year. For the sake of comparison, California officials predict that 300 fatalities will be prevented annually in their state by simply by banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. Safety is certainly a worthwhile objective, but we would be much better served by getting oversized vehicles off the road than by sacrificing efficiency for statistically insignificant changes in the fatality rate. Faced with a new global reality, governments and government agencies must figure out a way to work together on a prioritized set of objectives that balance the needs for fuel efficiency and passenger safety.

Print this Article
Return Home