400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.

org
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2002-01-2071
Ultra Light Compact Economical Vehicle Concept
Hugh Price
Hatwal Whiting
Bernard Criqui
Renault
Steve Thompson
Land Rover
Reprinted From: Proceedings of the 2002 SAE International Body Engineering Conference
and Automotive & Transportation Technology Conference on CD-ROM
(IBAT2002CD)
International Body Engineering Conference & Exhibition and
Automotive & Transportation Technology Conference
Paris, France
July 911, 2002
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
All SAE papers, standards, and selected
books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database
2002-01-2071
Ultra Light Compact Economical Vehicle Concept
Hugh Price
Hawtal Whiting
Bernard Criqui
Renault
Steve Thompson
Land Rover
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc
ABSTRACT
State of the art demonstrates that weight of
vehicle increases with length of car body.
Integration of powertrain in mid rear underfloor
location enables to shorten car body by more
than 0,5m and to save partially heavy
longitudinal members. Underfloor integration of
power train induces higher stance floor for
more conviviality of passengers visibility.
Safety factors are improved by lowering gravity
centre, better repartition of front / rear masses
during braking, easier management of crash by
straighter and higher front longitudinal
members and free front space.
Space frame architecture simplifies light weight
technologies application by using 2D bended
aluminum profiles. Low investment is ensured
by minimising castings application to
suspension attachments and interlinking
upperbody to underbody. Floor and external
panels are designed for aluminum sheet
stampings.
INTRODUCTION
This study has been carried out in the frame of
a themetic network Low Weight Activities
Float funded by European Commission
.The aim of this approach is to identify weight
savings opportunities by changing architecture
of car based on the hypothesis that weight is
depending on body size, design and materials.
First step is to assume that weight saving is
afforded by change in architecture by keeping
similar interior package as C size class vehicle
i.e. Renault Megane Sedan. Second step is to
consider further weight saving by using weight
saving technology i.e. easy design for light
materials use. Third step will be to make a
global weight savings evaluation taking into
account induced weight savings via
mechanical components such as engine
downsizing and introducing new technologies
available in 2005 year, demonstrating that
maximum weight saved is achieved within
minimum extracost.
MAIN SECTION
SURVEY OF VEHICLE WEIGHT VERSUS
LENGTH A survey of vehicles proves the
hypothesis that the weight of a car increases
with its length (Fig.1) There are some
instances of lighter weights in older vehicles
vehicles due to less equipment, lower
performance and also when powered by rear
engine
Fig.1 Mass of vehicles versus body length
A further survey of interior of smaller vehicle
asseses that there is a proportionality of
interior length and volume compared with
weight (Fig2) This is quite evident that interior
car increases with car length and is to be kept
similar for coherent weight saving approach.
Fig 2 Vehicle weight versus interior
habitacle length
This is to be considered keeping in mind that
the ratio of usefull interior length of vehicle by
the external vehicle length is increasing. Low
weight vehicle requires less powerful engines
for an equivalent index performance.
DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURES - Several
architectures were considered as
rearrangements of the current front power train
used on reference existing car Megane. These
basic architecture are (Fig.3)
Fig.3 Different options of architectures of
car body
1. Transverse front engine with raised flat
floor and roof as Mercedes Class A
2. Rear transverse engine as VW Beatle
3. Mid rear underfloor transverse engine as
Honda Vamos
4. Mid front underfloor engine as Toyota
Previa
5. Engine on roof no example only fuel-gas
tanks
6. Three wheel front or rear engine as Vespa
pick up
These architecture are examinated
1. Raising floor passenger compartment to
allow engine to slide under floor. Modify
suspension system and cant engine over.
Reduction in the length of body with only
raised roof are potential to save weight but
with some handling problems.
2. Placing engine behind rear axle may
increase rear overhang and raises boot
floor to accomodate. More weight on rear
axle better for braking but may pose
problems for bending trajectory stability.
Slight reduction in body length
3. Placing engine ahead of rear axle under
rear seats raises rear seating position and
results in poor engine access with limited
height. Higher floor stance allows straight
front longitudinal and remove engine from
crush space gives good crash
management potential. Important reduction
of body length.
4. Placing engine underfloor under front
seats is quite similar to option 3 but with
disadvantages impinging on the cabin,
requires propshaft transmissions and
induces noise vibration harshness risks.
5. Placing engine on roof strongly reduces
stability by higher gravity centre so only
applicabable for heavy buses of heavy or
gasogene vehicles.
6. Adopting 3 wheel design reduced stability
and is only used for economical multi
purpose motor cycles with low
performance under 500kg in weight.
After a first examination options 5 and 6 may
be rejected because of exterior engine weight
overhang. Option 4 induces front seating which
is too high, more weight from transmission and
NVH risks is not to be adopted. Option 2 may
also be rejected because overlength reduction
potential is too slight. Options 1 and 3 are the
most promising and might be compared by
weight saving inherent to these designs and
their layouts. Main advantages compared to
front drive engine are body compaction
inducing less materials use and better
management of platform by higher floor
stance.(Fig.4)
Fig.4 Comparison of current front drive
engine and mid rear engine body lengthes
INTERIOR PACKAGING - The interior
package of the virtual concept is identical to
the Renault Megane Sedan with the exception
of the boot which is shorter but taller. The floor
is raised 150mm from the Megane position.
The roof is raised the same amount giving
identical headroom. The legroom and seat
spacing are identical also. The boot has a
volume of approximately 0.375 m
3
when taken
to the height of the rear seat back. (Fig.5)
Fig.5 internal package of body
WEIGHT SAVING INHERENT TO
DESIGN - new dimensioning induces some
modifications in weight.
1.Shortening front end : weight reduction is
calculated considering cross sectional area,
considering volume as proportional to lenght
reduction.
Savings = 12kg for 300mm shortening option 1
and 18kg for 450mm shortening option 3.
2.Shortening of rear end : weight reduction is
calculating by cross sectional area considering
volume as proportional to lenght reduction.
Saving = 4kg for 50mm shortening
3.Raising floor including staightening of under
floor cross members : raising floor allows one
to flatten sidewalls for tunnel and heelboard
reduction or disappear. Also crossmember
under floor are straigthened out and have
space for larger section and thinner wall.
Saving = 5kg for 150mm rise in height
4. Raising of roof : The pillars can be extended
with addition of small amount of metal, but lot
of glass will be added. Alternatively the
openings panels can simply be raised from the
waistline depending on glazing styling.
Addition = 11kg for 150mm rise in height
5. Straight front longitudinal : Absence of drive
shafts in mid rear engine means that front
longitudinal can go straight through from front
with compatibility height for front impact barrier
while option 1 requires amount of bend under
floor.
Saving = 2 kg
6.Weight reduction of chassis due to revised
weight distribution : Modern front wheel car are
becoming front heavy. This induces front brake
and minimum wheel sizes. Having mid rear
engine will give front down sizing for brake and
suspension arms. Loaded weight distribution
has been calculated depending on engine
location.
Table 1 Loaden front / rear weights
Loaded Braking 0.8g Front Rear
Front drive engine 990 kg 480 kg
Mid rear engine 800 kg 670 kg
Largest load on front wheel is reduced by
almost 20% with mid rear engined design. An
assumption of 15% reduction of front brakes,
suspension arms and 5 wheels is made. As
front loading is lower the steering gear can be
reduced by deleting power assistance or using
lighter system .
Saving = 15 kg
7.Radiator position : Locating radiator with
engine at the rear reduces room of coolant and
cooling airflow, so may be limited for medium
power. Front location allows better air flown but
requires long hoses full of coolant which may
be improved by using finned aluminum profiles.
Quasi no effect on weight.
8.Exhaust system : Mid rear engine induces
shorter exhaust pipe and muffles which will
induce some weight reduction =2kg.
Design with iteration of whole powertrain with
different options of radiator location is shown
on Fig.6
Fig.6 Iteration of mid rear engine
architecture
Evaluation of weight of different parts of
vehicle is quantified on table 2
Weight
(kg)
Body
Chassis Engine Acces
sories
Total
Front
engine
375 186 140 407 1108
Option
1
361 184 138 405 1088
Mid
engine
354 171 135 400 1060
Table 2 Weight estimation of different
options using current technologies
Mid rear engine placement offer largest weight
savings about 7% of body weight and 5% of
vehicle weight i.e.50kg using current
technologies. By increasing the floor height this
design gives opportunity to develop novel
structures for better impact performance by
increasing underbody stiffness. Additionally it
allows hollow section utilization that will yield
further weight reduction. This architecture will
also affect customer perception for sitting in
higher position for improving visibility and
compacity for improving urban mobility.
ALUMINIUM SPACE FRAME BODY -
Spaceframe concept is modelised with content
of Aluminum partial parts.
1.Finite Element Model (Fig.7) Aluminium as
light material was selected because of
suitability for mass cadence production in
comparison with plastics. Aluminium gives also
opportunity of high flexibility of partial parts e.g.
extruded profiles for hollow sections for frame,
sheet pressings for panels, castings for nodes
and attachments. Consequently space frame
was prefered to monocoque for higher free
simple design and more potential weight
saving due to hollow inertial sections.
The structural integrity of the body indicator is
the performance target = 15000Nm/degree for
torsional stiffness. The aluminium spaceframe
uses a combination of profiles, pressings and
castings to form the structure. A finite element
model allows assessment of the performance
and easy calculation of the mass.
Fig.7 Aluminum spaceframe Finite Element
Model : mass=126kg
The original spaceframe uses straight front
long members as the lack of driveshafts
allowed it. But they were too low for crash
compatibility with other vehicles. So the front
end was raised to 450mm above ground. This
gives a smaller offset than currently done on
conventional front wheel drive design. This
design favors good front crash management
with more stable compression of longitudinal
front member for maximum absorbed energy in
limited length.
2.Profiles content :(Fig.8) Many profiles
components are straight or shaped by roller or
rotary bending. To simplify transformation all
these components have constant cross
section. Profile sections includes wings for
sliding joining using overlap continuous
welding in mind to avoid calibration.
Typical underbody profile sections are
60x100mm with 2.5mm wall thickness for easy
extrusion and bending flexibility in order to
avoid costly hydroforming tooling and press
equipment.
Fig.8 profile content : mass = 80kg
3. Casting content : (Fig.9) The castings are
hollow closed section and will be processed by
sand cores to enable complex shape and easy
fitting for profiles assembling. Because of
higher investment cost castings use is limited
to four suspension attachments to the body
underfloor.
Fig.9 Casting content : mass = 18kg
4.Pressing contents (Fig.10) Pressed parts
are used mainly for flooring, external panels,
roof, wheel housings and reinforcement of
lower B pillar for side impact performance. This
allows to use a slender section at the top of the
B and C pillars which favors further joining with
cantrail.
Fig.10 Pressing content : mass=28kg
5. Miscellaneous parts (Fig.11) In addition to
aluminium profiles, castings and pressings, a
glass windscreen contributes to body stiffness
and a composite front end for front impact
repartition weigthing 4kg. Including these
additions total body weight is 135kg.
Fig.11 exploded view of whole body
PACKAGING UNDERBODY - About the
underbody layout of the car, the powertrain is
arranged lying flat under the rear floor. The
engine and gearbox are assumed to be
conventional apart from some changes to the
arrangement of the manifolds to allow a flatter
installation. The fuel tank is mounted under
middle floor where there is ample space for the
50 or 60 litres capacity. A space-saver spare
wheel is shown in a possible location under the
floor.
Fig.12 Packaging of powertrain lay out
The radiator has been mounted at the front in
order to gain best airflow. It also reduces the
rear bias of the weight distribution a little and
space saving for engine.
INTEGRATION OF MID REAR POWER
TRAIN - Mid rear transversal powertrain
integration allow more space = 900mm
between longitudinal members because of no
steering of rear wheel. This integration is for
addition of a monoshaft electrical starter-
generator-fly wheel appropriate for hybrid
vehicle propulsion and zero emission during
short urban driving.
Fig.13 Dimensioning for mid rear under
floor power train integration
Also underfloor integration saves limited height
between floor and ground of 350mm which is
adapted for placing a 60hp engine powered for
medium performances up to 150km/h top
speed with a 725kg empty vehicle.
PACKAGING REAR SUSPENSION AND MID
MOUNTED ENGINE - Different suspension
systems as trailing arms, multilinks, twist
beam, De Dion were considered. Prefered
suspension system for rear chassis is De Dion
tube which can be made in thin wall aluminum
or fibre composite for lightness. De Dion offers
independant control of longitudinal and lateral
stiffness, good wheel camber, toe in control
and high roll centre, all these factors promoting
trajectory stability.
Fig.14 Packaging of mid engine and rear
suspension
Other advantage is wider repartition of efforts
for underbody attatchments. Additionally
enough space is available for engine
components such as the exhaust system.
PACKAGING FRONT SUSPENSION - Most
widely used system for small cars is
MacPherson Strut Front suspension. The high
chassis and floor results in lower suspension
mountings beeing remote from the main
structure. The steering rack is in front of the
axle line due to the forward driving position and
short front overhang.
Currently helicoidal springs are used for
suspension. But for further minimum weight the
use of a fibre composite transversal spring
would eliminate the need of anti roll bar and
would offer more free space for crash
management to limit intrusion into toe board.
Fig.15 MacPherson Strut suspension
Fig.15 MacPherson Front Suspension
WEIGHT AND COST ESTIMATION WITH
INTEGRATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Accurate masses could be calculated for
concept design of body by Finite Element
Model using dimensioning profile section of
space frame to obtain torsion stiffness. Full
vehicle mass is listed using reference with
Megane Sedan and taking into account
- down sizing induced by lightening body in
white (30% incidence)
- application of light weight mechanical
components (engine, links to ground)
- introduction of new technologies available
in 2005 year (ex : MH battery)
Manufacturing cost of vehicle functions are
estimated in a scenario of mass cadence
production. Aluminum body cost is evaluated
taking into account average cost of Aluminum
panels 4.2
E/
kg, shaped profiles :4.6
E
/kg,casting
9.0
E
/kg, composite 4.3
E
/kg. Aluminum body
assembling cost is evaluated function of run
length 66m welded by laser costing 2.0
E
/m.
Total body manufacturing is calculated <1000
E
to be compared to 750
E
for C class size current
steel body monocoque.
Body with openings weight reduction is 45%.
With this architecture weight save is 35% on
total vehicle. Table 3 shows technical solutions
to be available and to be used in 2005 year :
These solution are based on wide use of
Aluminum for suspension systems, brake
disks, engine crankcase without cast iron liners
using local reinforcement by casting or coating
processes. Hollow sections are more widely
used for transmission.
Magnesium may be used for cold service life
housings and big size integrated structural
parts aiming to reduce further assembly cost.
Further weight savings are induced by
simplification of equipments and new electrical
technologies as Metal Hydride batteries, wire
reduction. This vehicle concept predicts that
maximum weight savings are induced by new
architecture for compaction and integration of
adapted powertrain lay outs. In this scenario
manufacturing overcost of total vehicle might
be less than 10%
Table 3 Main vehicle functions mass evaluation
Function Megane mass
(kg)
ULCEV
mass(kg)
Materials & Technologies
available for 2005
Body 240 135 Al space frame continuous laser joining
closures 88 50 Aluminum tailored blanks panels
glazing 31 24 Front reduced gauge,lateral polycarbonate
front-rear axles 99 50 Aluminum semi-solid forging
brakes 26 15 Aluminum Matrix Composite or hyper Si Al
steering 17 8 No assisted + Mg housing+ steering tube
engine 125 72 60hp + Integral Aluminum crankcase
gearbox transmis. 56 40 Mg housing + tubular shaft gears
wheels tyres 67 46 Small spare wheel + Al stamped sheet rim
seats 59 40 Mg cast frame + natural fibre textile
electrical 25 15 M Li H battery + Al wires + multiplexing
Fluids + paint 85 55 Less fuel, cooling, Al paint no precoat
Trim + equipement 192 175 Downsizing and design for lightness
Total 1110 725 Weight = 65% / overcost <10%
IMAGING OF ULTRA LIGHT COMPACT
ECONOMICAL VEHICLE - Artistic view of
ULCEV is shown riding on road : body style is
close to compact monospace with smooth
surfaces and fluid lines. This body shape
enables low air drag coefficient for minimizing
engine power (Fig.16) Compactness with
extended glazing and openings favors
conviviality of interior habitacle with exterior
citizens during urban driving.
Fig.16 Imaging ULCEV on road
CONCLUSION
Mid rear engine architecture offers maximum
compacity by reducing vehicle length. Using
lightening technologies allow to downsize
engine and consequently easier underfloor
integration of power train.
This architecture is in favor of more convivial
vehicle for better visibility and full floor surface
utilisation. Additionally, active safety is
increased by better weight redistribution during
braking due to centering and lowering of the
powertrain. Passive safety is high due to front
free crush space and higher floor also
improving lateral crash. This scenario will be
facilitated by new available technologies for
further lightening of mechanical components
and electrical accessories.
This concept confirms that maximum weight
saving is incurred with minimum extracost
using simultaneous new design and light
materials approach for optimum manufacturing
processes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors are grateful to European Commission
Key Action "Land Transportation" for funds
enabling the demonstration of light weight
vehicle concept affordability. Automotive
companies thank Hawtal Whiting for his
support in conceptualizing an innovative
prototype which identifies promising technical
solutions implemented for weight savings on
new vehicle models .