如果你的工作与汽车制造战略有关，那你很有可能知道Jay Baron。作为美国密西根州安娜堡市汽车研究中心（CAR）的总裁兼CEO，Baron博士带领着多支团队对众多前沿技术问题展开研究。即使只和他进行一番简短的对话，也能感受到他对工厂、先进工艺和材料的巨大热情。如果让他谈谈轻量化这个话题，那他打开的话匣子就关不上了。以下是2016年7月Baron博士的访谈内容。

SAE：汽车合规成本要上升到什么水平，才能让新研发的轻量化技术应用到生产之中？

Baron:在汽车行业里，新技术的发展是很缓慢的。车身结构的趋势仍是尽可能保持钢材料的使用。毫无疑问，成本最低的策略是直接加入高强度钢材，而后才是逐步提高铝和复合材料的比例。采用铝材制造发动机盖和行李厢盖已经流行了一段时间。我们最新的调查结果表明，铝材料的下一个应用部位是车门板，而且将会普及到所有级别的车型。将将钢材换成铝材还算容易，因为可以使用同样的模具，并且就算出了问题，也还有备用解决方案。但从钢材换成复合材料就截然不同了，因为没有备用方案了。

SAE：听说最近的工程师在为车辆减重的时候是以盎司来计算的，这是真的吗？

Baron:是真的。我们以盎司来计算减重量是因为这样成本比较低。如果你想直接打出全垒打，也就是说全部换成铝材，那么每辆车的成本就将增加几百甚至上千美元。除了成本之外，还增加了技术的复杂度，并会带来新的NVH问题。汽车行业是逐步引进新技术的。也就是说，尽管新技术已经研发出来了，但每次推出新产品的时候只能使用其中的一部分。我们的工程师只有那么多，而且每种新技术都需要一定的研发时间，并伴随着一定程度的风险。一种新材料的验证可能耗费数十年之久，比如“第三代钢材”的说法，我已经听了25年了！

缓解新车的“重量蠕变”效应是一大难题，而且该问题还与排放和安全标准有关。

汽车公司很担心全新的正面偏置碰撞标准可能会导致车身重量必须增加。你认为汽车公司是围绕着燃油经济性目标来设计车辆系统的吗？除了燃油经济性外，他们还需要考虑碰撞要求。这也是他们推行五星评级标准的原因。我们的团队正在研究如何为车辆的碰撞测试数据进行“评分”，因为碰撞性能会随着车身重量的增加而提升。我很期待获得研究成果。

SAE：您对中期审查有何看法？您认为法规机构是否会放弃原本的2025年目标？

Baron:我的看法是这样的。首先，没有人会反对“绿色环保”技术。汽车行业在这方面的名声并不算太好。许多公司都已命令研发团队努力达成54.5mpg的油耗目标，还有许多车企的CEO承诺他们一定会做到。他们不会背弃这个承诺，但可能会对那些无法通过CAFE来衡量的技术申请特殊优惠条件。但我不认为OEM会改变原有计划。

SAE：您对达成54.5mpg燃耗目标所需的消费者方面的成本有何看法？

Baron:无论用什么方法，汽车行业都将努力达到法规的要求，轻量化势在必行。尽管大家认为大规模生产后成本会降低，但我估计成本将依然会非常高昂。拿价格不变的铝原料举例，法规机构估计每辆车所需铝材的价格为1800美元左右。但那只是成本，不是售价。我们团队常用的计算方法是在成本基础上再加50%，也就是说售价是1800美元的1.5倍——2800美元。这个数据是根据2010车型年计算的，和法规机构的估值相差很多，因为法规机构的数据显然不会太高。汽车制造商的估价可要高得多了。

如果我要买的车价格一下从4000美元升至5000美元，那么我的购买行为肯定会发生改变，同时会发生改变的还有整个汽车行业。

Driving the CAR toward 54.5 mpg

Chances are good that if you’re involved with automotive manufacturing strategy, you know Jay Baron. As President and CEO of the Center for Automotive Research(CAR) in Ann Arbor, Dr. Baron and his research teams are engaged with technology issues across a broad front, but even a brief conversation with him reveals his deep passion for plants, advanced processes and materials. Get him talking about Lightweighting and he won’t stop. The following exchange was taken from our July 2016 interview.

At what point does the rising cost of vehicle compliance allow the over-the-horizon lightweighting technologies to enter production?

The industry is inching forward on new technologies. In the body structure the trend is to stay primarily with steel as long as possible. Clearly the lowest-cost strategy is to add high-strength steels then slowly introduce more aluminum and composites. Aluminum hoods and decklids have been popular for some time. Our latest survey says the next frontier is moving to aluminum doors. They’re coming on strong across the fleet. Going from steel to aluminum can be a fairly easy change; you can often use the same dies. It can offer a backup if there are issues. But going from steel to composite is different—no backup.

Engineers now say ‘every ounce counts’ in reducing vehicle mass. True?

That’s correct. We’re trying to remove weight by the ounce because it’s cheaper by the ounce. If you go for the ‘home runs’ that means going all-aluminum, which costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars more per vehicle. On top of that you have launch complexities and concerns about increased NVH, too. This industry introduces new technology incrementally. Even though there’s new technology on the shelf, the industry can only absorb so much introduction at any one launch. We only have so many engineers and every new technology has a certain development time and level of risk associated with it. The qualification for a new material can be decades long—I’ve been hearing about 3rd Generation steels for 25 years!

Mitigating “mass creep” from new vehicle to vehicle is a challenge, and some of it is related to emissions and safety compliance.

One company was concerned about the new frontal-offset crash standards adding weight. You think auto companies have gamed the system around fuel economy? They’ve also gamed the system around meeting crash requirements. That’s why they push 5-star ratings. Our team is looking at ‘scoring’ the crash test data of a car, over time. Because as cars have gotten heavier their crashworthiness has improved. I’m interested in seeing what we find.

What’s your bet on the Mid-term Review? Do you expect the regulators to retreat from the original 2025 plan?

Here’s what I think will happen. First, nobody looks good fighting ‘green’ technologies. Our industry doesn’t have the best reputation on this front. They’ve already got a lot of R&D sunk into achieving 54.5 mpg. And you have CEOs who have said they promise to make this work. They’re not going back on that promise. They may try to negotiate special credits for technologies not measured through the CAFE process but I don’t see the OEMs trying to change the regulations.

And your thoughts on the projected cost to the consumer for meeting 54.5-mpg?

The industry will meet the regulations one way or the other. We will lightweight these cars. However, I think the cost is going to greater than everyone says it will be even with mass production. The price of raw aluminum is the price, for example—that’s not going to change. The regulators estimated the cost hit per unit was roughly $1800—and that’s cost, not selling price. The rule of thumb our team always uses to add overhead burden is to add 50%. So 1.5 times 1800 is $2800 added to the selling price. That’s based off 2010 model year and off the regulators’ estimate, which clearly is not going to be on the high side. The automakers’ estimate is going to be much higher than that.

If all of a sudden the car I want to buy is $4000 to $5000 more, that’s going to change what I do. And it’s going to change the industry.