Michel Kieffer wrote:This document emphasizes that the economy resulting from the replacement of a steel part by an aluminum part (there are of course other possibilities of lightening) leads to a fuel saving of 63 to 95% *, and over the entire life of the vehicle, including gray energy.
It is useful to specify that the energy consumption of our cars on the mixed city road cycle (European cycle ECE15-OA) originates from two causes (and no more): mass and aerodynamics. Mass and aerodynamics respectively account for 70% and 30% of the consumption of our cars. See the course material "
energy useful for moving a car"
http://www.hkw-aero.fr/pdf/energie_utile_voiture.pdf .
To sum up, lighten and profile our vehicles is the first order action to reduce the consumption of our vehicles. It remains to understand the reasons for this major oversight!
Michel
No, the use of aluminum does NOT result in such fuel economy because at equal strength, the weight saving is by far not that important (~ 30% in reality), as the use proves. massive aluminum on the Audi A8 which makes it lose "only" 200kg (for the record, the Aston Martins have always been made in aluminum (bodywork on a steel frame). Note that the aluminum does not straighten out , any deformation leads to the replacement of the deformed part = insurance costs explode because repair costs are exorbitant ...
NEW aluminum requires much more energy than steel ... there is only recycling that aluminum requires a little less (t) of lower fusion ...
The mass of a vehicle has a significant influence only when accelerating or uphill, level maintains speed on the flat, for an identical aerodynamics, the difference is small (a single man has a lot of trouble launching a railway car from the stop, but has no difficulty in maintaining the movement once started).
Lightening is the most difficult solution because it involves the use of expensive materials, if one goes through a reduction in volume, a reduction in comfort, ease of use and utility function (loading).
To make a light car is very difficult (safety standards), it is enough to see the extremely long development of the Loremo, which makes more than 500kg, more than 2L / 100 in its most economical version (it is precisely on this model that Loremo stumbles for lack of modern engines available) and has only a very small useful volume which is impractical in everyday life, just a sore machine ... The first model to be marketed (if they have not sunk before ...) will probably be the one with 60hp petrol engine (probably a Smart engine).
Before the war and just after, when there were very few state controls, there was a whole bunch of light "cyclecars" with 3 or 4 wheels and even 2 (single-track), it consumed little but it did not roll. fast (most often ~ 60km / h) and passenger protection was roughly equivalent to that of a cyclist ...