APPENDIX B
Letters from PNGV

May 13, 1997

Mr. Trevor O. Jones

Chairman

Standing Committee to Review the Research of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20413

Dear Mr. Jones:

Your third report on the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has been reviewed by both government and industry representatives. We commend the Peer Review Committee for its thorough and comprehensive evaluation and reporting of our program. Your technical expertise and assessments are helpful as we move forward.

We are presently evaluating the opportunities highlighted by each of your recommendations. We look forward to reviewing with you our progress in the program during the 1997 review session, including actions in response to your recommendations.

There is one overriding issue that warrants comment. Your approach in this and earlier reports regarding funding, budgets, and schedule is of concern. Apparently, the Committee's vision of PNGV is one of an engineering project leading to a specific product. In contrast, both the government and industry consider the Partnership a "best efforts" undertaking towards stretch goals. First and foremost, this is a research, development and technology transfer program. This is not to imply the stated goals are considered negotiable. The government is engaged in supporting long-range, high-risk research; industry evaluates technologies to determine how appropriate they might be for the marketplace.

We are operating in an environment of commitment to change and the advancement of relevant technologies. The recent PNGV announcements by the car companies to develop experimental vehicles is evidence of their commitment to the spirit of the Partnership. As you know, none of these experimental vehicles were previously scheduled on PNGV roadmaps or plans. These are indications of a receptivity to "leap frogging" an advanced or higher level of technology. In so doing, the OEMs are significantly increasing the likelihood that the broader goals of PNGV will be realized.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 105
APPENDIX B Letters from PNGV May 13, 1997 Mr. Trevor O. Jones Chairman Standing Committee to Review the Research of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20413 Dear Mr. Jones: Your third report on the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has been reviewed by both government and industry representatives. We commend the Peer Review Committee for its thorough and comprehensive evaluation and reporting of our program. Your technical expertise and assessments are helpful as we move forward. We are presently evaluating the opportunities highlighted by each of your recommendations. We look forward to reviewing with you our progress in the program during the 1997 review session, including actions in response to your recommendations. There is one overriding issue that warrants comment. Your approach in this and earlier reports regarding funding, budgets, and schedule is of concern. Apparently, the Committee's vision of PNGV is one of an engineering project leading to a specific product. In contrast, both the government and industry consider the Partnership a "best efforts" undertaking towards stretch goals. First and foremost, this is a research, development and technology transfer program. This is not to imply the stated goals are considered negotiable. The government is engaged in supporting long-range, high-risk research; industry evaluates technologies to determine how appropriate they might be for the marketplace. We are operating in an environment of commitment to change and the advancement of relevant technologies. The recent PNGV announcements by the car companies to develop experimental vehicles is evidence of their commitment to the spirit of the Partnership. As you know, none of these experimental vehicles were previously scheduled on PNGV roadmaps or plans. These are indications of a receptivity to "leap frogging" an advanced or higher level of technology. In so doing, the OEMs are significantly increasing the likelihood that the broader goals of PNGV will be realized.

OCR for page 105
The Partnership is well aware that more funding would increase the likelihood of achieving our goals. It is incontrovertible that we are having difficulties arranging additional government funding, even in high priority areas. However, several options being pursued may satisfy program needs within the level funding environment we are constrained to operate in. We strongly feel that the Peer Review expertise should be focused on the technical issues in the future rather than the funding issues. Once again, we appreciate the hard work and technical insights, recommendations, and assessments the Peer Review team has given us. We look forward to your continued involvement with the Partnership. Sincerily, Enclosure cy: Dr. J. Gibbons, Director Office of Science & Technology Policy John McTague Vice President, Technical Affairs Ford Motor Company Thomas Gale Executive Vice President Chrysler Corporation Arvin Mueller Vice President and Group Executive NAO Vehicle Development and Technical Operations General Motors Corporation Members, Operational Steering Group DoC DoE DoD DoT EPA NSF NASA

OCR for page 105
Mr. Trevor Jones Chairman, National Research Council Advisory Group Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room HA-270 Washington, DC 20418 Dear Mr. Jones: I have reviewed the third report of the National Research Council's (NRC) Standing Committee to Review the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). While the report was issued in the spring of 1997, it reflects NRC's review of the program in late summer and early fall of 1996, prior to the Fiscal Year 1997 budget approval by Congress. Accordingly, the report does not reflect the Department of Transportation's (DOT) PNGV budget or activities that have been undertaken since the beginning of Fiscal Year 1997 (October 1, 1996). The Research and Special Programs Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are in the process of contracting for the fourth NRC report on the PNGV program. I would like to take this opportunity to update you on DOT's PNGV program so that it can be considered in that report. As I indicated in my March 25, 1996, letter to you, NHTSA requested $5 million for PNGV in its Fiscal Year 1997 request to Congress. The House Appropriations Committee approved $2.5 million of this request, with the following report language: Partnership for a new generation of vehicles (PNGV). — The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for PNGV, which is $2,500,000 less than requested. Automobile manufacturers, in conjunction with the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Interior, are developing technologies for a new generation of vehicles that may be three times more fuel efficient than current vehicles. NHTSA's participation in this activity is important to address critical safety issues; however, this cannot be done until the most promising technologies that will go into the PNGV are chosen. However, according to a recent National Academy of Sciences study, systems analysis for PNGV has been delayed by 12–18 months. The study also concludes that PNGV does not currently have the necessary systems analysis tools to adequately support technology selection,

OCR for page 105
which is scheduled for 1997. Because of concerns raised by the National Academy of Sciences, the Committee has not fully funded NHTSA's PNGV request. Instead, the Committee has provided sufficient funds to allow NHTSA to begin acquiring the necessary computer equipment to develop advanced computer models that evaluate the crashworthiness of conceptual designs and their safety compatibility with contemporary vehicles. The committee deferred funding for infrastructure analysis because the department has not made a convincing case for conducting this work without knowing which technologies will be contained in the prototype vehicle. I am pleased to report that, with this Fiscal Year 1997 funding, NHTSA has purchased the computer hardware and software necessary to support the massively parallel processing capability for safety analysis of PNGV designs using finite element models. In addition, NHTSA has funded the development of finite element models for each of the three PNGV baseline vehicles and for other vehicles representing the fleet. For the Fiscal Year 1998 budget, NHTSA has requested $2.5 million to continue to develop the advanced computer models to evaluate the crashworthiness of conceptual designs. NHTSA will also begin preliminary construction of an analytical model of the U.S. traffic environment including vehicles, crash modes, and frequencies. Chapter 6 of your third PNGV report also addresses the importance of infrastructure analysis in the PNGV program. To assist in the evaluation and selection of new technologies for the future vehicles, DOT agrees that PNGV needs to study the potential economic and infrastructure impacts of next-generation vehicles and fuels. As a result, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has initiated a study, supported by the Volpe National Transportation System Center, to assess the impacts resulting from changes in: (1) vehicle construction and materials, (2) power trains, and (3) fuels. The study is being closely coordinated with the Department of Energy's Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories as well as with USCAR. Lastly, the Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office has begun discussions with automakers concerning their research in intelligent vehicle technologies (e.g., crash warning and avoidance) which will have an impact on future vehicle design, operations, and safety. I look forward to the inclusion of all of the ongoing DOT safety and infrastructure activities in the fourth NRC review. Sincerely,

OCR for page 105
November 15, 1995 TO: Allan Murray Ford - (313) 594-7303 SUBJECT: Peer Review Question on gasoline SIE Thermal Efficiency It is highly unlikely that gasoline SIE (homogenous charge) thermal efficiencies will ever meet the PNGV goal 3 target of 40% (cycle averaged). Current and past efforts aimed at direct injection (stratified charge) SIE have demonstrated significant increases in thermal efficiency over homogenous charge counterparts, however, will likely fall short of this target. Severe emissions and durability challenges have hampered implementation of this approach. The open-chamber Diesel remains as the most likely candidate to meet the aforementioned target (current status has peek efficiencies in the 40% range with cycle averaged efficiencies somewhat lower). Well-known emissions, cost and power density challenges persist.