A couple years ago, Gordon Murray introduced his T25, a tiny little car that takes up no more space than a motorcycle sidecar rig, gets really high mileage and looks like fun. What I didn’t notice when I wrote about it back then, perhaps it wasn’t refined yet, was his iStream production process, a method of producing cars that deserves some attention.
The iStream process builds the chassis out of a very strong, lightweight composite material. Then he attaches the body panels made out of recycled plastic bottles. This two step process, is far quicker and simpler than the current process used by manufacturers.
Three steps — stamping the steel frame, welding the body together and rustproofing — are eliminated. A manufacturer could build an iStream plant to make 100,000 cars annually for 85 percent less capital than a conventional one, Murray says. Since an iStream factory would be two-thirds smaller, it would consume about 60 percent less energy.
He says the process has been so simplified that retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. or electronics giants such as Apple Inc. could use it to jump into carmaking.
Murray has a lot of car design and building experience, he’s no backyard dreamer, the spectacular McLaren F1 is his work, so his ideas are worth a serious look, especially when he has already produced cars using the method he’s trying to get car companies to adopt.
The reason I bring this up, beyond the simple fact that the technology is pretty neat, is the same reason I’ve shown you some of the other projects recently appearing on The Kneeslider, it’s indicative of, for lack of a better term, where the action is. It’s thinking beyond the same old manufacturing processes and minor design changes the motorcycle industry seems to be mired in.
If some young engineer or designer was thinking about getting into an industry moving into the future, the motorcycle industry might lose out to something like this. When we see things like the BOXX or the Lit Motors gyro car, it’s obvious someone is pushing beyond what everyone else is doing. Rather than critiquing them as a poor substitute for the Harley or Honda in your garage, it might make more sense to think about how innovative thinking could transform the industry we know so well and the products we’re used to, how doing things differently might re-energize the business for the next 100 years.
Link: Bloomberg
Link: Gordon Murray Design
GuitarSlinger says
Simple fact is if more Manufactures were listening to Gordon Murray instead of wasting time and money on all their overly complex , overweight and pretentious garbage … the Automotive Industry … as well as the Environment … City Congestion wouldn’t be in half the mess its in today .
Gordon Murray is the Real Deal Genius . Not like the plethora of Pretentious Wanna Be’s the Automotive/Motorcycling Industries are currently riddled with
Oh yes folks . In spite of despising E/V’s and Hybrids ( because they create more problems than they solve in their current form ) I am concerned with the Environment .
Tinkerer says
Manufacturers build what people buy, and people buy what manufacturers build. It’s that easy -and at the same time, that difficult to untangle. You can’t force the manufacturers to build things people won’t want, and you can’t force people to want things.
GuitarSlinger says
Manufactures build what THEY want to sell you , based on the amount of projected profit involved and NOT on what the Public either wants or needs . Don’t believe me either ? Spend a little time in a major manufactures Board Room during a future planning discussion .
Your ( Mr/Ms General Public ) needs and wants never even enter into the conversation
Like to challenge that statement ? I’ve several relatives in the banking/investment World ( CH ) who’d gladly set you straight
Jon says
@GuitarSlinger, perhaps instead of saying ‘this is how it is and if you think differently, then you’re wrong’ there is another way to describe the dynamic between companies and consumers.
I’m not a company executive. I’m a part-time consumer. Here’s an example that might challenge you’re statements:
Why do cars have side windows? As far as I’m aware, they’re not government mandated (convertibles make do just fine without them). If convertibles can be driven without side windows, then consumers clearly don’t need them. I believe that consumers want them and that is why manufacturers produce cars with side windows. Would a company executive ask his staff ‘do consumers want side windows?’? Probably not, he would phrase it differently — ‘will we make more money selling cars with side windows or cars without side windows?’. While this question does not directly ask for the consumers’ wants and needs, I would say the consumers’ wants definitely play a part in the conversation.
Tinkerer says
My dear friend, if that statement -“Manufactures build what THEY want to sell you”- was true, then there wouldn’t be historical flops like the Edsel, the 8-track, the Betamax, Sega Dreamcast, the whole Saturn Motors, etc.
Another example: GM has manufacturing facilities in Korea, Argentina and Brazil -among other places- that roll out very nice cars for very competitive prices, but you won’t see a nice argentinian Chevrolet Corsa -very fuel efficient, compact, affordable and reliable- in a US Chevrolet showroom. It sells great in South America, but I doubt the US costumer would want one.
mattg says
Looking at the traffic outside and seems to me that manufactures build what people want; jacked up diesel F350s with exhaust stacks and 500hp sedans are hardly efficient transportation modules maximized for production effiiency. It’s entirely possible these people are fashion victims
WillyP says
GuitarSlinger, where is the profit in building something nobody wants? Manufacturers spend millions on research into finding out what will sell and what won’t. Are there companies that don’t do this kind of research, sure, there are some. Either the product is a no brainer, there is no historical precedent, or the owner of the company just doesn’t care and wants to build it anyway.
Now, having said that, there is some compromise between what the research says the consumer wants, and what the bean counters say can be built. And one of the targets set by research is price. But, by and large, the manufacturers build what they can sell, and selling the public on something it doesn’t want is far more expensive than the research needed to build the right product.
Racetrack Style says
@Tinkerer – “..and you can’t force people to want things.”
Many times people don’t know they want something until they see it. A compelling design is successful in the market because it is “forceful” in getting someone to spend their money.
This article is as much about changing the way things are produced as it is about creating compelling designs through creative thought that challenges the status quo.
Tinkerer says
That doesn’t go against the “you can’t force people to want things”: many compelling design exercises flop horribly when faced with the real market. For example, I don’t see many Lumina APVs driving around, despite their unusual design and body materials.
“Compelling design” and “bold idea” don’t always meet with success.
Jon says
Very true — sometimes compelling designs result in a sale; on other occasions (such as in the case of the Lumina APV), a compelling design makes one want to vomit.
Racetrack Style says
I didn’t think I implied every compelling design is a success in the market. If my comment was interpreted that way, then the original point was/is… a compelling design can make many people want it, which counters this comment by Tinkerer, “..you can’t force people to want things.”
How many want the Panigale or Motus but will never buy one for numerous and varied reasons, inclusive or not of financial reasons?
B50 Jim says
First off, the T25 looks like a nifty little vehicle; a great city car and commuter for those who want a roof over their heads and protection from the elements. And it’s English, which makes points with me. Squeeze in a motor from a Triumph Rocket 3 and you’ll have a real fun machine.
But the discussion here is about manufacturing processes that look outside the usual boundaries. It makes good sense to find more-efficient means of making things, be they city cars like the T25 or entire buildings made from pre-manufactured modules and trucked to the site. Reduce labor costs along the stream and you reduce overall costs — in the late 1950s and early 60s Honda was faced with a large labor force having relatively few skills. Looking at motorcycles from other manufacturers, he noted their construction relied on many skilled operations such as tube bending and welding, by craftsmen, to construct frames. Honda shifted the “skill” component to a few tool-and-die makers to produce dies for stamping frame components that could be assembled and welded by unskilled workers with specific training. Hondas rolled off the production lines by the tens of thousands at low prices and began a motorcycle empire.
How about using plastic composites for motorcycle components other than bodywork? Race bikes use carbon fiber extensively but it’s labor-intensive and pricey, but less-exotic composites could be laid into molds for frame backbones, swing arms, etc. and pop out accurate components quickly and easily. Engines manufactured using CAM methods are more reliable and inexpensive than those made by older methods. We’ve been using cast wheels since the 1980s, eliminating labor-intensive lacing of spoked wheels.
However, more interesting is Murray’s assertion that manufacturing processes can be simplified so much that major retailers like Wal-Mart could manufacture their own products like the T25. That would be another shift in economics; Wal-Mart already dictates severe downward pressure on prices from their suppliers by sheer volume purchases. Imagine the effect on manufacturers if the mega retailers started making their own stock. They could effectively dump inexpensive products on the market, forcing manufacturers to follow suit or cease operations. Big-box retailers like The Home Depot already have drastically altered the home-improvement landscape, and if they started making their own products at cheaper prices they could effectively corner the market on a range of goods.
We’re a long way from the local stores and small businesses I remember from childhood. In some ways the world has improved with big-box retailers, but in many ways we’ve lost a great deal, mainly by consolidating economic power in fewer hands, which in turn reduces our options for controlling our own economic lives. Ironically, having so much choice in products places more limits on our personal economic choices.
Tin Man 2 says
The complex designs used today are brought on by Government regulations, Do you people really want to ride around in a Tatra with all its safety issues?? Metal stamping is Fast, Cheap and Strong, thats why its popular. Yes, the manufacturers Do Know what they are doing, Despite the Internet Armchair Engineers opinions.
GuitarSlinger says
Actually if you read up a little on Gordon Murray’s design and manufacturing principals you’ll find that not only do his designs etc Meet all Government regulations for Safety etc … but in fact Exceed them .
And no … the major manufactures DO NOt know what they’re doing anymore … having lost that ability some 30 years ago . But hey ! Don’t believe me ! Read Bob Lutz’s ” Bean Counters vs Car Guys ” Or better yet , Spend a few hours talking to an actual Automotive Engineer . You’ll be shocked at how little the majors do actually know or care about when it comes to design and manufacturing these days . Its ALL about the almighty $$$. Being a genuine Engineer for one of the majors being tantamount to Slow Intellectual Suicide these days .
Like one simple , short example ?
Li Batteries ;
Everybody in the Scientific/ Engineering/Computer Smart Phone Hardware sectors has from day one warned that in fact Li Batteries are supremely unsuitable/unstable for Automotive / Motorcycle usage …… including Steve Jobs in conversations with Elon Musk .
But …. look around ! Has anybody listened ? Looking at all the E/V’s and Hybrids on the road and drawing board using Li’s… I’d say not
Racetrack Style says
I’m not supporting or detracting from the following link because I don’t know enough about the topic. Perhaps this is a developing breakthrough that will get past the reasons that many thought made Li batteries a bad choice.
http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Battery.html
Rob says
Seems like a very tidy solution. Dam those cells are close to AA size, it’s a pity they can’t get them to 1.5v. Physics they tell me. No Li rechargeable coming for my camera in the near future. I was told it was due to fire risk if people popped them into a NiMh charger but it’s more to do with chemical composition (apparently). Now if only manufacturers could produce consumer goods that could handle the higher voltage of Li cells we would be cooking…
carboncanyon says
GuitarSlinger,
I work for a mfg, and I’m frustrated with a lot of the behind the scenes BS. But, your take on the situation is so simplistic it’s naive.
The mfg’s can’t just take Gordon’s ideas and retool entire plants with a snap of the fingers. It takes years to be properly documented and tested for legal reasons. They can’t take his word that it passes regulation. What if Gordon was wrong? Who takes the fall? Hint: it’s not Gordon.
For your Li example: is Steve Jobs a battery engineer? What does he know about building cars? Steve was brilliant in a lot of ways, but why should Elon take his advice on batteries for an electric car? I’m not saying Steve was right or wrong; I’m asking why you think Elon should take Steve’s advice over his own engineering team. Just because he’s Steve Jobs?
You talk big, but I’m calling you out on your actual experience. Have you actually worked as an engineer for an OEM? You talk about relatives in the investment world, etc. but that’s all second hand. Do you really know what you’re talking about from first hand experience?
Paul Crowe - "The Kneeslider" says
Government regulates technology after the fact and technology can change. Airplanes used to be wood airframes covered by fabric, then primarily metal construction then all sorts of materials were used. Bert Rutan revolutionized aircraft designs and materials with the foam composite structure popularized by his VariEze along with the canard design now used by some of the majors.
Tim says
Great. Because I want a car made by Walmart… I’m sure it will be very well made, reliable, and not at all cheap junk.
Also I’m not sure how safe driving around in a plastic bottle is. Seems to me it would be either too brittle and crack into bits, or simply crumple like, well, a plastic water bottle.
The recycling part is nice, and being eco-friendly is always good. But if the product is a rolling death trap… bad.
Thure says
Plastic bottles are chinzy because they are designed to be disposable. The plastic material they are made from, is incredibly strong. I’ve pressurized a coke bottle to 120 psi, it barely distorted.
Engineered for strength I’m sure those plastic materials could easily surpass steel, on cost, strength and long term durability.
john says
high density polyethylene…4600 PSI tensile strength, 5lbs/ft^3
structural steel…………………..50,000PSI yield striength, 490lbs/ft^3
strength to weight ratios:
HDPE: 4600/5=920
structural steel: 50,000/490=1020
It is very difficult to beat steel. Metals have a wide range of “grades” and tensile strengths. But if you take an average of all grades you will find that almost all structural metals have approximately the same strength to weight ratios. Magnesium is the only exception I can think of. Magnesium has a very impressive strength to weight ratio but it is flammable and that is no good. Aluminum, titanium, and steel are all about the same strength to weight ratio when comparing “average” structural grade alloys. The obvious downside to steel is corrosion. the downside to titanium is cost. The downside to polymers is that they decompose(become crumbly or brittle) when subjected to sunlight or salt and the material properties change greatly with temperature changes.
Nicolas says
yet most if not all of the current cars bumpers are made of … plastic. Lots of fenders and other body parts, too.
Tin Man 2 says
Wrong, Bumper covers may be plastic but the real bumper backing up the plastic face is steel or alloy. I,m sure its possible to make a strong plastic bumper, but its not cost effective, what with the cost of petrolium products used in the making of plastics.
FREEMAN says
Not all bumpers are metal. For example, the actual front and rear bumpers of a Mazda RX-7 is plastic.
Nicolas says
Maybe on your 78 caprice deluxe it’s made of metal, but not true on most modern cars. Bumpers are made of injected plastic, backed with some sort of plastic foam to absorb energy. (I happened to participate in the making of bumpers for small scale and largely unknown car companies like VW, porsche, Audi, … 😉 )
Bryan S. says
Only auto I can think of that has plastic panels is the old saturn line. I own one and can tell you that the bumpers are also plastic, but they are only there to absorb the smallest of hits. The steel frame of the chassis in the engine compartment is designed to take the brunt of a hard impact and distort to displace the wrath of Newton.
Plastic car panels are harder to rebuild, or fix. Steel on the other hand can be hammered to shape and recoated. Thats the other part of the ecological bit… re-use. How about we start making machines again that can be re-used, primarily by people who cannot afford to go out and get a $300+ payment on a car?
Nicolas says
Once again, plastic being a surface cover and steel taking care of the structural work is more and more getting a myth. Plastics are now used in compression/deformation zones, and not only to take “small” hits.
check this one out : http://www.plasticomnium.com/en/inside-pastic-omnium/automotive-division/a-360d-offering.html
But bottom line, right, what does Gordon Murray know about building cars, anyways … 😉
Tin Man 2 says
The consumer rules the market, Manufacturers build things that sell, not to satisfy the Vocal Minority. Where and How you spend your Money makes a difference.
john says
Smart fortwo meets a Messerschmitt bubblecar
Bill says
Paint it white
call it iStream
and…
oh it’s already called ‘i’-something so…
it will sell
:giggle:
paolo says
mr kneesliders opening comments are 101% correct, wether gordan murray is correct or not (ans his ideas are awesome) the bigger picture is that technology is tricking down in price and availability so fast that it’s making different less industrialized ways of doing things viable and allowing independant thinkers to do potentially huge things, its great to see a couple extra wheels sneak in here every now and then when they have extra merit
mARK says
I’m not down with the plastic exterior at all, now composite and polymer engines on the other hand at least make me curious.
Scott D says
Composite engines?
Sounds good, untill you need cooling! But all the uncooled parts could be composite. Like the crankcase, camcovers, oilpan.
Carbon fibre doesnt like bearing surfaces… So perhaps a hi strength nylon?
B50 Jim says
paolo is correct. Manufacturing is moving from the factories to the workshops, and with global access to all the information necessary to make just about anything, we’re seeing the beginnings of a worldwide cottage-industry marketplace. There still is, and always will be, plenty of room for factory-based production, but at a time when the average person can purchase the equipment and software capable of manufacturing a range of products at reasonable cost, we will see a blossoming of short-run products that can be personalized or modified at the outset by the customer.
mARK says
At that point government regulations over what can, and can’t be owned will either completely fall apart, or become the excuse for big brother.
OMMAG says
The faster and cheaper any product can be put into the market place the better. It is better for the investors who back the product development. It is better for the manufacturer. It is betterfor the consumer.
1- Because, crap will be rejected by the market place more quickly with less waste of resources on everyone’s part.
2- Good products will be available sooner and become more widely used.
3- New improvements will reach the market sooner.
And … again … whether the bean counters or the geeks like it or not … the market will decide what is good and what is not.
The down side? More products become disposable and will be designed and manufactured with that in mind.
Everything entails consequences ……..
Egeek says
Hmmm….
Ford says they will go for 750lbs ish in weight reduction via composites.
I read about Umeco in a recent Auto Mag and some proprietary manufacturing process that doesn’t rely on pre-preg.
* Which leads me to the question how or what does Sir Gordon know about making the Tub of this car cost effective?
* The whole GM-VW flap eons ago with “Carlo’s” was supposed to be over a chassis breakthrough (aluminum extrusions I read).
* To get away from welding, coating and paint, it could be done w/ anodized aluminum and advanced rivets, but…
* That must be old school vs. where they are will carbon-fiber, or we wouldn’t be talking about this…
So the question begs, is their a Carbon Chassis Revolution about to occur and we don’t know all the pieces, players, materials or processes? Yet…..
Wave says
Wow, 4.5 million pounds of the British Government’s money went into that design and it’s probably not even going to be built! The website says that the total funding was 9 million quid. That’s a lot of change for a design exercise. I hope someone builds it.
Paul says
Gordon Murray can promote his iStream Manufacturing processes as much as he wants, but at the end of the day, he won’t sell the T25 if it isnt:
1) Priced Similarly to Motorcycles (because it has motorcycle utility)
2) Exempt from Vehicle Safety Standards
Jar says
Gordan is upset because no one (or very few) want an under powered commuter car that’ll pancake as soon as a Ford Excursion knocks out an exhaust belch in its general direction.
Gordan failed in execution. Perhaps he’s learned that building to a budget, targeting an actual retail price point that doesn’t top $20k, while navigating multiple regulations across multiple countries is a lot harder than building one off uber cars.
His thought – a small, light weight, cost effective vehicle achieved through production means that may be unconventional – has much merit, in my opinion. However, when you leave out the “fun” and the “safe” when you actually pursue the animal, you reduce the potential consumer audience vastly – which is where ol’ Gordo boned this one.
I’m inclined to go with B50 Jim from above regarding a small but powerful powertrain, keep Gordan’s thought on a lightweight composite type chassis, but his plastic panel thought had better be snapping into/gluing down on/or otherwise be bonded to what would amount to a well executed roll cage that can take a serious hit. Perhaps something of Rolex Cup car ilk….simplified and mass produced with compromise in weight and construction technique, but not in safety. Lazer cutting is cost effective, as is tube bending and forming – welding gets spendy, but new adhesives could replace welds – eliminating HAZ complications (and unfortunately the skill and those have master the process that makes manual welding costly). Make it a 3 seater – central driver with room behind for 2 full size adults or three kids, throw in a conventional sequential transmission, make it rear engine, and you’ve got an instant motorcycle-powered world market car that is cost effective to produce, likely profitable to retail, easy to work on (take the motor and trans out bike style), fun (anyone else remember the Smartuki or the Suzuki GSX-R4?), safe, cost effective to operate, and functional enough to let dad drop the kids at school before taking the winding road to work.
Of course the above scenario is predicated on at least having a major player as a parts bin source – preferably someone doing bikes and cars well, to part share your way to a cost effective Bill of Material. Even if Gordan is close to right at “less than 85%” of capitol expense – 15% of a sh*tload is still quite a sh*tload.
To me, there is no question that such a vehicle could exist. Should it exist would be arguable.
Make it track worthy, reasonably practical, look good, able to take a hit – and cost around $20k….and I think a guy could make a go of it.
I’d be happy to help.
Miles says
Who said this is underpowered? The top selling mini around where I live is the Yaris, and I know a guy working in town commuting in one who claims it is plenty peppy, and has a speeding ticket.
If 106hp and 2200 lbs is fine and sporty, what is wrong with 60hp and 1200lbs? Don’t forget that it has much reduced drag, so it is probably quicker on the top end.
I would love it if these cars were about. The poor Smart car is squashed by an iQ for many reasons, 3 passenger, cheaper to purchase and repair, quicker, sold by giant Toyota, not elitist (In the USA) Benz
I can only hope Toyota and/or VW knock off his seating arrangement and weight (as much as possible, maybe 1600lbs), so we can see these mainstream, even if it has to be standard 1.0L car engines and steel bodies.
Wave says
I agree, this car would be very quick off the line and around town. I think the problem that most performance-minded people would have with this is the way it looks. It’s very tall and narrow, but performance cars have always traditionally been low and wide, for handling reasons. So, regardless of how well this car may handle, it doesn’t look traditionally sporty, which will put some people off initially. I bet it would be fun to drive though. I’d buy one for the right price.
The only problem is that, in order to sell in big volumes, it would have to be significantly cheaper than the current smallest cars. Given that you can get a sub-light sized car like a Suzuki Alto for about $12,000 (Australian), this would need to be priced around the $8,000 mark brand new if it was going to be a volume seller. Otherwise, people are going to see ‘more metal for their dollar’ elsewhere. After all, nobody is struggling to park an Alto, or worrying about it’s fuel consumption (50mpg). One point to note though, is that $8,000 is the same price we pay for a mid-sized commuter bike like a Suzuki GS500F, or a Honda NC700SA. Could this micro-car be built for the same price as a commuter bike? Yes, if it was done in big enough volume. I’d like to see it happen.
Wave says
As far as weight goes, there are already some fairly light conventional steel-bodied hatchbacks. They may not be available in the USA though.
Suzuki Alto – 50kW, 880kg, 4.7l/100km, (67hp, 1940lb, 50mpg)
VW up! – 56kW, 929kg, 4.7l/100km, (75hp, 2050lb, 50mpg)
Toyota iQ – 72kW, 860kg, 4.3l/100km, (97hp, 1896lb, 55mpg)
smart fortwo – 53kW, 730kg, 4.7l/100km, (71hp, 1609lb, 50mpg)
Note that these are all based on EU testing cycle, NOT the US EPA cycle. The smart car gets 50mpg (US) in the EU cycle and 36mpg in the EPA cycle. The Suzuki Alto is half the price of the smart, gets the same mileage but it’s a five-door hatch with room for four adults and luggage.
Is anyone really looking at these cars and thinking that they’re too big or use too much fuel? There’s certainly stiff competition in the ultra-light sector.
Miles says
There are commercials on TV for the iQ, only a couple years after I saw it on Top Gear UK.
I think the iQ is top of my list, of course it is FWD and front engine, and the driver isn’t in the middle.
Not that FWD is a deal breaker, but I can get a Diesel VW Rabbit for less than $2000 and it will swallow an 8ft house ladder whole with the hatch shut. (PS Rabbits weigh around 2,000lbs and you can get a 1.9 TDi motor with 100hp and 200+ lb ft of torque, while still getting 55mpg)
I would prefer a sporty car with a commanding view of the road, sports cars usually have terrible sight lines and are uncomfortable to get in. Not that I wouldn’t or haven’t driven them daily, but sitting up high in the middle doesn’t seem to hurt the CG or weight balance as much as sitting on one side does.
Bryan says
Google the Chrysler CCV
todd says
By the time the CCV went to production with a few changes they called it the PT Cruiser.
-todd
todd says
This is how I’d do it:
http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cheapest-electric-car.jpg
-todd
Josh says
What’s for sale vs what people want and vice versa:
You can’t look at one (demand or supply) without looking at the other. Manufacturers will always look at the largest common denominator when designing their products; profit projections are directly linked to the number of units sold. Therefore, they look at trends in buying behavior from the consumer.
Meanwhile, the consumer has to pick from whatevee the manufacturers are offering. They will pick whatever best suits their needs, but if they want something radically different, they’re just plain out of luck.
Another contributing factor is the fact that it takes a long time to develop a car. From first sketches to first production model will take several years. 2 to 4 years is pretty average.
All those things combined make the industry somewhat of a slow lumbering beast.. If the demand fo small, fuel efficient cars spike, the manufacturers will eventually follow suit. Just don’t expect it to happen overnight..
Paulinator says
Ever notice how rapidly automakers will short-cycle the development process to implement kitschy little styling cues like shark fins and LED brows to ensure that their supplies will find consumer demand?