Automotive Data   Links to sources:

 

 

Introduction

The car has been in existence now for over a century.  From it’s “Horseless Carriage” days, to its now mass-produced, high-tech state, improvements have always been made in order to offer the consumer better, faster, and more comfortable travelling over large distances.  However, it has only been in the last thirty years that safety has become a prevailing issue.  Initially a ridiculed idea, the automotive industry took little heed, and instead focused on what was considered important in the production of cars; power, luxury, and size.  Only research done by independent organizations soon revealed that cars were in fact mobile “death-traps.  Today, the safety of the occupants inside the vehicle is of major importance, with the development of new systems and materials everyday.  However, two new issues have been raised.  Whilst the occupants are deemed well protected according to the tests done by NCAP on most modern cars, the safety of the road crossing pedestrian seems to have been neglected.  Also, there’s a growing concern over what to do with vehicles in regard to; recycling, safely disposing of, or re-using the materials present.  The End-of-Life-Vehicles directive is urging that the design, development, manufacture, and eventually the return of cars be a “greener” activity. Unfortunately these three issues of car safety, pedestrian safety, and the recycling of cars all slightly conflict with each other.

 

Design

The New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP) encourages manufacturers to make their cars safer.  Having a car that is given five stars boosts sales, and gives the manufacturer an incentive to continue to improve upon this safety record.  This they can do by re-engineering or improving the design of the panels and the chassis of their car.  That way, the energy from the impact is better soaked up by the “crumple zones” or directed away from the interior area.  The less intrusion there is to that space, the less of a chance there is of the occupants being injured.  This is a good thing when hit by another car.  However, a pedestrian will fare less well against this.  The European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) has performed tests on 41 modern cars, and found that none of the cars passed the tests in pedestrian safety.  Two things have to be considered however.  First, the cars did not need to pass these tests, and even though the limit had been lowered, not enough development or research has been performed on the tests.  NCAP and EEVC both agree that pedestrian safety has been neglected.  Second, it was found that cars that were made after the nineties were “safer” for pedestrians than cars that were made before the nineties, because the trend in design had led to a smoother, more rounded leading edge.  Amidst this, The End-of-Life-Vehicles Directive is calling for less complex designs that are easier to take apart.  Because safety has become a leading focus in design, especially in the interior,  little thought has been made as to how to properly and safely remove safety devices (i.e. airbags) after they have been used.  In general, cars have become more integrated, making separation of individual parts difficult and expensive. 

 

 Materials

As mentioned earlier, because car manufacturers are striving now to improve their safety record, further research and development goes into finding materials that have the qualities they need for good driving conditions, yet still be able to perform well during impacts.  Harder steel may be used for the areas around the interior space, and softer and/or thinner steel could be used for the “crumple zones” Aluminium could be used, lessening the moment of inertia.   Having said that, ferrous metals are being used less and less in the car with the advance of plastics and polymers than can do the same job, if not better.  This is good for pedestrian impact, since that means the areas that the pedestrians are likely to hit in the event of an accident can be replaced by “softer” materials.  The bumper as it stands today is quite soft; however this can be extended to the bonnet and the A-pillars (the EEVC tests do not cover those two areas, yet).  And this in regards to the ELV is where the problem lies.  Recycling of plastics is difficult since there are so many different types.  Also, glues are more and more used where screws, welds and rivets used to be.  Trying to remove this glue, along with the many other lubricants that are used in the car is today quite difficult to do properly with few official removal sites.  Some of this can be re-used, but four hundred and eighty thousand tonnes end up as waste, due to lack of acceptable waste management, which according to the ELV directive should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. 

 

Recycling

The proper recycling of cars is going to involve large sums of money from the manufacturers and the governments involved.  The ELV directive reiterates many times that the “Member States” should enforce and encourage manufacturers to have the cars returned to them, at no cost to the owner.  Having been returned to the manufacturer, or a dismantling centre that has the proper facilities the vehicle will be taken apart.  Manufacturers that release cars in the future will have to consider the dismantling and re-use, or recovery of parts.  The recycling of tyres has become a problem, because there is no real efficient way of doing it.  However, it has been tested as an alternative energy and it has been shown that it produces more energy than coal (326J per tonne).  The most feasible application, that is now actually being used already, is to incorporate into asphalt, creating rubberised asphalt.  This has the effect of producing a quiet surface.  How much this may affect NCAP frontal and side impact protection one is not sure, but this will certainly limit the type of materials being used in future cars. This may compromise the safety of the car, as the manufacturer will have to simplify the designs. In turn, this could affect pedestrian safety, as new (probably vastly more complex) materials and devices could save lives.

 

 

NCAP Impacts

NCAP are constantly trying to develop more tests that will emulate real-life situations.  Pedestrian safety is yet to become a legal requirement; however front and side impact tests are becoming more and more complex, with new added factors and newer even more accurate impact test measuring dummies.  Recently there has been a reassessment of how the dummy hits the airbag, and if that was an unstable hit or not. Since the knee, the femur, and the pelvis can be almost in any of an infinite amount of positions, larger areas need to be considered.  What is being investigated at the moment is the neck.  Not much is known since the technology to measure it properly during impact has not been made yet.  With manufacturers trying to create a car that is safe, new restraining devices, airbags etc, probably will be made.  There have been investigations into systems that activate when a pedestrian is hit by a car, such as bonnet devices that unlatch in a way so as to become a “softer” surface.  However, this has come to very little.  Having said that, the manufacturers will only do what is really needed, and since pedestrian safety is yet to become an official part of NCAP, very little will be done.  This of course makes it more expensive to take apart when the vehicle reaches its End-of-Life. 

 

 Conclusion

There are three different issues here that can create problems for the manufacturer.  The manufacturer wants to create a car that is safe for the occupants.  Safety is a selling point today, and to be awarded five stars for safety is a coveted award, but if the ELV is made a legal requirement, the manufacturer may not be able to have the materials to make its cars as safe.  Of course alternatives probably exist however the next problem is pedestrian safety, which is affected by the previous two.  Front and side impact testing may create a safe interior, and if the right materials are used, the impact may be “safer” for the pedestrian too, due to more give from the materials being used.  The only problem then becomes the A-pillars and the region where windscreen meets bonnet.  Both areas are part of or nearby the interior space, which in front and side impact tests need to be stronger in order to retain the same shape and lessen the intrusion caused by impact.  Given a choice, one can only presume that the manufacturers would choose the cheapest option, which in this case would be to keep making the interior safer for the occupants.  As it stands today, the End-of-Life Directive, and The Pedestrian safety proposal (maybe to become an integral part of the ever-growing-in-complexity NCAP) have not been made definite.  If both are made official, it will make a huge impact on the way cars will be in the future.