THE ROLE OF THE

4
4.1 IntroductIon
Design Concerns
and Imperatives
In Chapter 1 we discussed the four competitive imperatives that the design chemist
must consider as a vehicle is developed: performance, mass, cost, and environmental
considerations. All four must be considered as a vehicle is developed.
Of all the aspects of vehicle production, including design, development, and manufacturing,
the greatest opportunity to affect these imperatives is in the design phase of
vehicle development. During the past 15 years, consumers have leaned toward larger
utility vehicles while there has been a simultaneous demand to reduce emissions and
save gas. During this latest crisis, automakers have been working to develop advanced
technologies to address the important concerns around environmental issues and
energy. As we are tasked to make improvements in performance, mass, and cost, we
must complete this task up front in the design phase. Fortunately, we have tools such as
finite element analysis and other predictive software to optimize designs before they are
manufactured.
4.2 HIstory oF automotIve desIgn
The history of automobile design in the United States was affected to a great extent
by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., president of General Motors in the 1920s. Sloan implemented
annual model year design changes in order to convince car owners that they needed
to purchase new vehicles each year. This was due in part to the fact that the automobile
market had become saturated in 1924. With this “dynamic obsolescence” strategy,
the face of design was changed. The process of design and redesign is expensive
and this marketing strategy could not be matched by many of the smaller car manufacturers.
Ford Motor Company sought to keep vehicles simple while maintaining
design integrity. This philosophy was later adopted by Ferdinand Porsche.
Another effect of GM’s strategy was to draw design away from aerodynamic
concepts that produce a single shape, such as a Porsche 911. Adopting the Ford or
Porsche strategy would have been contrary to the new GM direction and affected
sales of the new vehicle styles. Body-on-frame design was implemented versus flexible
monocoque designs in order to enable more frequent changeovers. The strategy
did pay off when, in 1931, GM outsold Ford in vehicle sales [1]. Styling was
forever changed and the union of engineering and design has been difficult ever
since. Cosmetic changes take place every few years on a particular vehicle platform.
45