ricardo-aea - european commissionsujith kollamthodi (ricardo-aea) improving the understanding of the...
TRANSCRIPT
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd
www.ricardo-aea.com
Ricardo-AEA
Brussels, 9th December 2014
Sujith Kollamthodi (Ricardo-AEA)
Improving the understanding of the potential for weight
reduction in cars and vans
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence2 ED59621 9 December 2014
Overview
• Different views are held on the optimal utility parameter
• Previous work has shown that mass and footprint are the most credible options
• However, critics argue that mass disincentivises vehicle weight reduction
• For post-2020/21 time period, important to understand the relative attractiveness of weight
reduction
• Will help inform discussions on the stringency of future CO2 targets and choice of utility
parameter
• Main topics covered by the study
– Analysis of recent EU trends in the mass of cars and vans
– Impacts of weight reduction on manufacturer targets under the current Regulations
– Potential for applying weight reduction measures to light duty vehicles
– Review of key US studies on vehicle weight reduction
– Exploring the impact of footprint versus mass-based utility parameters
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence3 ED59621 9 December 2014
• Long term increase in average sales weighted mass for cars
• For cars. trend is observed across all brands, all segments and for individual models
• However, 2013 EEA monitoring data indicates reduction in average mass (to 2011
levels)
• Data for LCVs is less robust - and there have been shifts in sales between LCV
classes over time
• 2013 data indicates shift in sales towards Class I LCVs, although Class III vehicles still
dominate sales (57% of the total)
Recent trends in vehicle mass
Cars LCVs
1347
1356
13721379
1373
1337
1364
1388
1402
1390
1300
1320
1340
1360
1380
1400
142020
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
Ma
ss (
kg
)
M0
adjustment
1600
1650
1850
1761
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
2009 2010 2012 2013
Ma
ss (
kg
)
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence4 ED59621 9 December 2014
Scenario analysis: impacts of weight reduction on
manufacturer targets under the current Regulations
• For all scenarios, three versions were explored, where “Manufacturer A” (i.e. the one
taking the action to reduce the weight of its cars in most scenarios) was:
– an ‘average’ manufacturer
– a ‘heavier’ manufacturer; and
– a ‘lighter’ manufacturer.
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence5 ED59621 9 December 2014
Original
distance
to target:
38.1 g
Distance to target after mass reduction,
but before M0 adjustment:
34.1 g
Distance to target
after mass reduction
and M0 adjustment:
37.7 g
Direction of
slope move
Mass reduction: 139 kg
Emissions reduction: 8.7 g
Increase in
stringency of
target from
M0 adjustment:
3.7 g
Impacts of mass reduction on manufacturer targets under
the current Regulations
• Where ‘mass’ is the utility parameter, distance to target for any manufacturer will
depend to some extent on the action of its competitors, as a result of potential M0
adjustment
Figure: Representation of results for an ‘average’ manufacturer in Scenario 2
Man A: -10%
Others: +10%
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence6 ED59621 9 December 2014
Impacts of mass reduction on manufacturer targets under
the current Regulations
• Scenarios illustrate that:
– Weight reduction always brings a manufacturer closer to its target – but M0
adjustment may reduce the benefit of cutting mass
– Example from previous slide indicates that 10% reduction in mass would mean that a
manufacturer is only 1% closer to its target after the M0 adjustment
– Using mass as utility parameter increases the cost and risk for first movers
– Mass as utility parameter increases the likelihood that a manufacturer benefits from
reductions in weight made by rival manufacturers
– Mass reduction is more attractive for OEMs that sell heavier vehicles when the
average mass of the market is increasing
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence7 ED59621 9 December 2014
Aim: To assess the impact of footprint versus mass based utility parameters for a
hypothetical 2025 target value under the WLTP
• Existing 2012 EC Car CO2 monitoring database was ‘translated’ to WLTP figures.
• Results were compared to a hypothetical 2025 mass-based target with the target slope
line adjusted using the same ‘equal effort’ approach as has been applied between 2015
and 2020.
• Results were also compared to a footprint based target for 2025 calculated to achieve
the same overall CO2 reduction.
• The effort required by each manufacturer to reach the two alternative target lines was
calculated.
Exploring the impact of footprint versus mass-based utility
parameters
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence8 ED59621 9 December 2014
• Using footprint as the utility parameter:
– Overall effort is identical – but distribution amongst OEM poolings changes
– Total costs for meeting the target are more than 16% lower
– Only one manufacturer would incur higher costs
– Costs for all other manufacturers would be between 8% and 20% lower
Exploring the impact of footprint versus mass-based utility
parameters for passenger carsV
W G
rou
p
To
yo
ta-
Da
iha
tsu
Ta
ta/J
ag
ua
r/L
an
d R
ove
r
Su
zu
ki
Po
ol
Ren
au
lt
Pe
ug
eo
t
Mit
su
bis
hi
Mazd
a
Kia
Hy
un
dai
Ho
nd
a
Gen
era
l M
oto
rs
Fo
rd
Fia
t
Da
imle
r
Cit
roen
BM
W G
rou
p
(All)
Ad
dit
ion
al c
os
t p
er
ve
hic
le (E
uro
s)
Cost Associated with CO2 reduction (Mass system)
Cost Associated with CO2 reduction (Footprint system)
Costs associated with CO2 reduction (mass-based
system)
Costs associated with CO2 reduction (footprint-based
system)
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence9 ED59621 9 December 2014
• Wide range of mass reduction options available or coming to market
• Analysis carried out for this study indicates that costs are lower than previously
anticipated for the EU market
• Based on the analysis carried out in this study, the following new cost estimates have
been developed for mass reduction
Estimated costs for mass reduction
Small cars Medium
cars
Large cars
10% reduction in vehicle mass €30 €40 €50
20% reduction in vehicle mass €200 €250 €300
30% reduction in vehicle mass €740 €925 €1,110
Small
LCVs
Medium
LCVs
Large
LCVs
10% reduction in vehicle mass €40 €45 €85
20% reduction in vehicle mass €410 €475 €810
30% reduction in vehicle mass €2,045 €2,385 €4,430
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence10 ED59621 9 December 2014
• Long term increase in average sales-weighted mass for cars
• Less data available on LCVs and trends are less clear – although available data
indicate mass increased between 2009 and 2012
• For passenger cars, using mass a the utility parameter increases the cost and risk
for first movers and increases the likelihood that a manufacturer benefits from
reductions in weight made by rival manufacturers
• For passenger cars, using footprint as the utility parameter would reduce the total
costs for meeting possible future targets by more than 16%
• Wide range of mass reduction measures available or coming to market
• Costs of applying mass reduction measures are lower than previously anticipated –
although very high percentage reductions in mass may be costly to achieve
• Mass reduction has become a key CO2 reduction strategy for many OEMs and greater
focus on this area expected in future
Summary
© Ricardo-AEA LtdRicardo-AEA in Confidence11 ED59621 9 December 2014
QUESTIONS?
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd
www.ricardo-aea.com
T:
E:
W:
Ricardo-AEA Ltd
Gemini Building,
Fermi Avenue,
Harwell, Didcot,
Oxfordshire,
OX11 0QR
United Kingdom
Sujith Kollamthodi
Practice Director – Sustainable Transport
+44 (0)1235 753526
www.ricardo-aea.com