"Clean Tech: What technology are you, your lab or your workplace developing that will improve how we generate or use energy?"

see more ideas like this.

The Automobile Industry Should Boldly Move Into the 18th Century with Interchangeable Parts.

by al smith | 1:30 pm October 25th, 2010 | 5 Comments »
Tags:

The Automobile Industry Meets the 18th Century

Although the idea of interchangeable parts is often credited to Eli Whitney in the late 18th century, some credit 15th century Gutenberg. Maybe the idea will hit Detroit sometime in the 21st century, but I doubt it

Applying the Personal Computer Industry model to the Automobile Industry

The automobile industry is on the verge of rapidly moving from expensive vehicles powered by inefficient heat engines and complex mechanical transmissions to relatively inexpensive electric cars powered by fuel cells, Atkinson cycle engines, and diesel cycle engines. It may be too late to create a market based upon technical competition instead of advertising “competition,” but maybe not.

There is an opportunity to create an automobile industry based upon a model like the PC model having a standard bus and components having standard electrical and physical interfaces. However, I fear that, if someone outside the automobile industry does not step in, it will continue in its wasteful pattern of the past 50 years, specifically, multiple, incompatible components that perform the same function but providing absolutely no advantage to consumers in exchange for their incompatibility.

Consider how well an industry standard has served the personal computer business. A standard operating system would serve the automobile industry in the same fashion. An industry standard configuration concentrates available capital on solving problems with real economies of scale. It encourages innovation because automobile producers could become car assemblers, buying most of their components and assembling cars, as most computer manufacturers do today – not building multiple sets of infrastructure to produce parts that function in exactly the same way yet are physically incompatible. It allows for lower barriers to market entry because a manufacture can buy components and assemble the product rather than having to invest immense capital to create an entire, new, automobile also having parts incompatible with all the other automobile manufacturers.

If all automobile manufacturers used one mechanical and electrical interface like the PC industry, then a parts manufacturer or inventor could manufacture to one standard, not a multitude of different standards for different automobile manufacturers, thereby saving immense capital investment and also increasing the likelihood that an assembler would accept an innovation as has been the case with personal computers. The assembler companies would be much more receptive to new technologies because they have zero capital invested in current technologies.

Throughout the past century, electric systems and controlling software have replaced mechanical systems. Electronics and software have replaced mechanical components in telephones, watches, tape recorders, record players, ovens, electric power generation (fuel cell), typewriters, etc. The automobile industry is on the verge of its own electric revolution.

The current automotive industry structure is a vestige of a once competitive transportation market. The existing automotive industry is one where each manufacturer creates cars with functionally identical but non-substitutable parts. Many hundreds if not thousands of different and not interchangeable oil filters, fuel filters, starter motors, fuel pumps, transmissions, CV joints, tie rods, etc. operate in precisely the same way but producing no advantage over one another as compensation for their non-interchangeability. It would be a shame if an entire new automobile industry grew into the same wasteful pattern as the old. The automobile industry is stuck in the 17th century in a world of replaceable parts. The automobile industry may never advance to the 18th century and to interchangeable parts.

Vote:
Tell your friends:

5 Responses to “The Automobile Industry Should Boldly Move Into the 18th Century with Interchangeable Parts.”


  1. No offense, but this topic has been in circulation for years. Yes, automobile manufacturing is built on redundancies, but trying to apply a PC model on top of a massive legacy infrastructure (and highly competitive business model) is problematic at best, and impossible at worst.

    And actually, there are myriad examples of cost-saving design in today’s cars and trucks that mostly go unseen. That’s been the continuous improvement/6 sigma/LEAN philosophy for years — re-use parts where the customer won’t see, feel or touch them. Remember, purchasing and owning a car (for most of us) is a visceral, emotional event, and aesthetics matter — a lot. There are millions of dollars spent each design cycle on understanding and satisfying the “customer experience”. I’m not saying for everyone, but for almost everyone. That’s why good car designers are so coveted by the top OEMs — they know how to make cars appealing. It’s unclear to me that PC makers really care about that anymore.

    Anyway, I get it about parts sharing. Really. In fact, take a deeper dive into Tesla and Fisker to see where they got their parts — in some case they really did some Big 3 dumpster-diving, but that’s what they needed to save development costs. And they should be applauded for that effort. It’s just that with global markets with disparate tastes and mobility desires, it will be an enormous challenge to limit choice.


  2. Just “one mechanical and electrical interface”? It’ll never happen.

    Cars share more parts than you might imagine – and not just within a specific manufacturer’s offerings. Take the new Porsche Cayenne Hybrid, for example. It uses Ford’s electric steering pump.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhA8HuwS26I

    Consumables such as oil-, air- and fuel-filters can be shared by many vehicles.


  3. “Take the new Porsche Cayenne Hybrid, for example. It uses Ford’s electric steering pump.”

    Cool! But why stop there?

    And what if everybody started behaving the same way as the automobile manufacturers do?

    What if Sony had their own incompatible power plug?
    What if Toshiba had their own incompatible power plug?

    What if Dell had their own incompatible USB socket?
    What if Fujitsu had their own imcompativle USB socket?

    What if Panasonic had their own incompatible TV remote?

    Oh, I guess they already got that.


  4. No, really, this is serious.

    If China decided they really wanted to harm the United States, they could effectively destroy it without using any weapons.

    All they would need to do is follow the outline provided above.

    They have done it with motorcycles. I assume the only reason they have not moved on to automobiles is that the United States is a big customer.

    “So how is the e-bike industry able to produce such a cheap mobility product? The secret is in its incredibly simple product architecture (i.e. the relationships amongst the components of a product). E-bikes are modular (each component has a self-contained function) and open (interface is standardized across many companies in the industry). The Chinese MC industry’s product architecture is considered “quasi-open” and modular (Ge and Fujimoto 2004), which differs from the closed, “integrated” and traditionally vertical Japanese MC and auto industry. These two traits enabled a large cluster of e-bike assemblers and suppliers to thrive in the Shanghai-Zhejiang-Jiangsu golden triangle, driving up production volume and lowering cost. If MC product architecture is “quasi-open”, I’d say e-bike architecture is “uber”-open!”

    http://www.jonathanweinert.com/shanghai-blogs/2007/8/6/the-future-of-the-chinese-e-bike-industry-lessons-learned-fr.html

    The United States is at their mercy.


  5. It seems that China could literally destroy the United States economically. If the United States were to become a less than significant customer or if China’s environmental state should deteriorate significantly. I fear that China might, at least inadvertently, crush the United States.

    We could pay a huge price for not maintaining a marketplace with technological competition.

    http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1858724&

hi there! care to post a comment?

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our user conduct rules outlined in our terms of service.