Why CAFE changes could lead to larger cars, not smaller ones
12-13-11, 08:48 PM
#1
Why CAFE changes could lead to larger cars, not smaller ones
Why CAFE changes could lead to larger cars, not smaller ones
A study by the University of Michigan shows that auto manufacturers could meet tougher fuel economy standards simply by increasing the size of the vehicles they sell. A "footprint-based" formula for calculating mileage targets was adopted when Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were revised in 2007. Researchers now think this could lead to bigger vehicles on the road rather than increases in fuel economy for our nation's fleet.
"It's cheaper to make large vehicles, and meeting fuel-economy standards costs [manufacturers] money in implementing and looking at what consumers will purchase," one of the researchers told Automotive News.
The study simulated changes that auto manufacturers could make to 473 different vehicles in order to meet the new regulations. The model allowed for changing the size of vehicles, as well as adding fuel-saving technology, wile balancing acceleration and performance with fuel economy. Pricing was also taken into account. The researchers think that the size of light trucks is likely to grow, even more than the increases they forecast for cars, with the changes coming about as soon as 2014.
"This study illustrates that there may be a substantial financial incentive to produce larger vehicles, and that it can undermine the goals of the policy," said the lead researcher, who wants the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise its formula.
CAFE standards create profit incentive for larger vehicles
Published on Dec 07, 2011
Written by Nicole Casal Moore
ANN ARBOR, Mich.-The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards create a financial incentive for auto companies to make bigger vehicles that are allowed to meet lower targets, according to a new University of Michigan study.
Over their lifetimes, these larger vehicles would generate between three and ten 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power plants' worth of excess carbon emissions. A 1,000-megawatt plant could provide power for more than half a million people.
"This study illustrates that there may be a substantial financial incentive to produce larger vehicles, and that it can undermine the goals of the policy," said Kate Whitefoot, who conducted the research as a U-M design science doctoral student and is now a senior program officer at the National Academy of Engineering.
"The results show that the policy can be adjusted to reduce these unintended incentives by making it harder to lower the fuel economy targets by producing larger vehicles."
The study is published online in Energy Policy.
The loophole is the formula for setting mile-per-gallon targets. The standards, which actually depend on the sizes of vehicles automakers produce, are expected to require that firms boost average fuel economy to 35.5 mpg by 2016 and 54.5 mpg by 2025. Those oft-cited numbers are averages. In reality, each car company must meet a different standard each year determined by the literal "footprints" of the vehicles it makes. A vehicle's footprint is its track width times its wheelbase.
According to the study, the sales-weighted average vehicle size in 2014 could increase by 1 to 16 square feet, undermining fuel economy improvements between 1 and 4 mpg. That means the industry as a whole would not achieve that year's fuel economy goal.
"We know it's a broad range, but we looked at a large range of possible consumer preferences for vehicle attributes and the answer is probably somewhere in the middle," said Steven Skerlos, an associate professor in the U-M Department of Mechanical Engineering.
"Will cars get bigger? Very possibly. Will that lead to more pollution? Yes. And there wasn't an emphasis in the rulemaking process that this could happen."
The impetus for the footprint-based formula back in 2006 was to prevent an influx of smaller vehicles, though not necessarily to do the opposite. Critics worried that the previous one-size-fits-all standard unfairly and perhaps dangerously rewarded production of slimmer, lighter vehicles that could put the domestic industry at a disadvantage and drivers at greater risk. The researchers believe the correction overshot its target.
They found that light trucks would grow even more than cars, which could yet lead to traffic safety concerns. They call on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise the formula.
This study was more than just an economic analysis. Whitefoot built a first-of-its-kind model that considered supply and demand but also incorporated engineering tradeoffs that carmakers consider as well as a wide range of possible consumer preferences.
They conducted simulations with 473 different vehicles. In the simulations, auto firms could adjust the size of their vehicles, add fuel-saving technologies, balance acceleration performance with fuel economy, and adjust vehicle prices. The result, Skerlos says, is an exciting new framework where economists, environmentalists, engineers and policymakers can work together.
"Sustainability is about tradeoffs," Skerlos said. "On the one hand, there's a concern about vehicle size largely driven by safety and the effect on domestic automakers. The adjustment to the CAFE standard tries to achieve high fuel economy while not compromising vehicle size, and the idea here is these things intersect and you have an equivalent of three to 10 coal-fired power plants hidden in that tradeoff."
The research is funded by the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute and the National Science Foundation. The paper is titled "Design Incentives to Increase Vehicle Size Created from the U.S. Footprint-Based Fuel Economy Standards."
Published on Dec 07, 2011
Written by Nicole Casal Moore
ANN ARBOR, Mich.-The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards create a financial incentive for auto companies to make bigger vehicles that are allowed to meet lower targets, according to a new University of Michigan study.
Over their lifetimes, these larger vehicles would generate between three and ten 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power plants' worth of excess carbon emissions. A 1,000-megawatt plant could provide power for more than half a million people.
"This study illustrates that there may be a substantial financial incentive to produce larger vehicles, and that it can undermine the goals of the policy," said Kate Whitefoot, who conducted the research as a U-M design science doctoral student and is now a senior program officer at the National Academy of Engineering.
"The results show that the policy can be adjusted to reduce these unintended incentives by making it harder to lower the fuel economy targets by producing larger vehicles."
The study is published online in Energy Policy.
The loophole is the formula for setting mile-per-gallon targets. The standards, which actually depend on the sizes of vehicles automakers produce, are expected to require that firms boost average fuel economy to 35.5 mpg by 2016 and 54.5 mpg by 2025. Those oft-cited numbers are averages. In reality, each car company must meet a different standard each year determined by the literal "footprints" of the vehicles it makes. A vehicle's footprint is its track width times its wheelbase.
According to the study, the sales-weighted average vehicle size in 2014 could increase by 1 to 16 square feet, undermining fuel economy improvements between 1 and 4 mpg. That means the industry as a whole would not achieve that year's fuel economy goal.
"We know it's a broad range, but we looked at a large range of possible consumer preferences for vehicle attributes and the answer is probably somewhere in the middle," said Steven Skerlos, an associate professor in the U-M Department of Mechanical Engineering.
"Will cars get bigger? Very possibly. Will that lead to more pollution? Yes. And there wasn't an emphasis in the rulemaking process that this could happen."
The impetus for the footprint-based formula back in 2006 was to prevent an influx of smaller vehicles, though not necessarily to do the opposite. Critics worried that the previous one-size-fits-all standard unfairly and perhaps dangerously rewarded production of slimmer, lighter vehicles that could put the domestic industry at a disadvantage and drivers at greater risk. The researchers believe the correction overshot its target.
They found that light trucks would grow even more than cars, which could yet lead to traffic safety concerns. They call on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise the formula.
This study was more than just an economic analysis. Whitefoot built a first-of-its-kind model that considered supply and demand but also incorporated engineering tradeoffs that carmakers consider as well as a wide range of possible consumer preferences.
They conducted simulations with 473 different vehicles. In the simulations, auto firms could adjust the size of their vehicles, add fuel-saving technologies, balance acceleration performance with fuel economy, and adjust vehicle prices. The result, Skerlos says, is an exciting new framework where economists, environmentalists, engineers and policymakers can work together.
"Sustainability is about tradeoffs," Skerlos said. "On the one hand, there's a concern about vehicle size largely driven by safety and the effect on domestic automakers. The adjustment to the CAFE standard tries to achieve high fuel economy while not compromising vehicle size, and the idea here is these things intersect and you have an equivalent of three to 10 coal-fired power plants hidden in that tradeoff."
The research is funded by the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute and the National Science Foundation. The paper is titled "Design Incentives to Increase Vehicle Size Created from the U.S. Footprint-Based Fuel Economy Standards."
12-13-11, 09:10 PM
#2
Former Sponsor
It continues to be distrubing as an auto enthusiast to see the car labeled as the enemy. The car isn't the problem;how about the way communities were built aka sprawl making people dependent on cars.
Sad
Sad
12-14-11, 05:22 AM
#4
Lexus Champion
A mix of interesting and intellectual debates as well as some idiotic and retarded arguments as well.
Mixed bag.
12-14-11, 08:04 AM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
i think he's been the single biggest negative effect on the world economy. maybe him inventing the internet offsets it though. 
what do you foresee?
It really sucks too, Lots of us young guys probably wont get to experience half the cars they have dreamed of.
12-14-11, 08:41 AM
#6
Boardroom Thug
Every time I see a pro small car \ anti SUV post I already know they don’t own much land, own a home, have many toys and likely don’t have kids although they may. Exceptions for all sure, but all of those are easier with Trucks \ SUV’s…..
Last edited by J.P.; 12-14-11 at 08:46 AM.
12-14-11, 08:54 AM
#7
Out of Warranty
The whole idea of defeating CAFE standards by upsizing new vehicles out of the "automobile" range gave us the popularity of the truck-based SUV. While my old IH Travelall never got a second glance, when I traded for a new '82 bright red, 3/4-ton 4WD Suburban, I couldn't have gotten more attention driving a McLaren with my hair on fire. I didn't know it at the time, but I was a trendsetter. Within three years, EVERYBODY was driving one. I bought mine to tow a large, heavy boat - but most everyone else just wanted the rugged image.
In the 70's and 80's before CAFE standards, our domestic manufacturers strangled engine performance in pursuit of improving emissions that was almost impossible with carbureted engines. Performance became a joke as huge vehicles like the Olds 98 were being pushed around with engines that could only deliver 150 horsepower, thanks to their severe de-tuning. Even the '80 Corvette was only available in California with a 305 CID engine making about 170 real hp. By purchasing a truck, you might not get blazing performance, but you could at least duck the emissions standards that were throttling the output of automotive engines.
Trucks, because they were thought to be commercial vehicles, somehow escaped the emission standards for cars. There was probably a large lobby and a lot of money involved in this ruling, but it fostered a reexamination of trucks as what had previously been "family transportation".
It appears, unless provisions are made in the rules, a large number of folks will escape the new frugality requirements by buying something that consumes fossil fuel at an incredible rate. How is that helping?
In the 70's and 80's before CAFE standards, our domestic manufacturers strangled engine performance in pursuit of improving emissions that was almost impossible with carbureted engines. Performance became a joke as huge vehicles like the Olds 98 were being pushed around with engines that could only deliver 150 horsepower, thanks to their severe de-tuning. Even the '80 Corvette was only available in California with a 305 CID engine making about 170 real hp. By purchasing a truck, you might not get blazing performance, but you could at least duck the emissions standards that were throttling the output of automotive engines.
Trucks, because they were thought to be commercial vehicles, somehow escaped the emission standards for cars. There was probably a large lobby and a lot of money involved in this ruling, but it fostered a reexamination of trucks as what had previously been "family transportation".
It appears, unless provisions are made in the rules, a large number of folks will escape the new frugality requirements by buying something that consumes fossil fuel at an incredible rate. How is that helping?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hoovey689
Car Chat
25
11-26-13 11:33 PM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
2
02-16-13 09:49 AM
