Theme
Bare Necessity Car 
We knew from our research that people wanted an extremely efficient vehicle that was also low-cost and green. But what was really eye-opening to me was that people seemed to desire extreme efficiency even if it meant making small sacrifices/trade-offs. The idea of a back-to-basics, bare-necessity approach to designing a vehicle made sense.
So I had two questions:
How can we design an optimally efficient vehicle? I mean really, what does that even mean?
And…
What are people willing to trade off for efficiency’s sake?
One answer would come in the form of our first “big idea”: Design a car with the lowest cost per mile of any four-seater on the road!
So if people are willing to make some trade-offs for efficiency, maybe then the first trade-off would need to be size. It would need be a very small car – having said that, it would need to be really flexible in terms of space.
The question of making trade-offs is difficult. “Bare necessity” in vehicle terms has a unique meaning to different people. The idea of offering people only what they need and nothing more became an important focus. Ok, but it can’t feel cheap or limiting, it has to be flawlessly executed. As designers, we had to think in terms of designing in the ability to eliminate non-critical features, based on unique customer needs. We were calling this the “Basic Plus Approach.” This approach would help us deal with the conundrum of one man’s crap being another man’s essential.
Beyond the basic plus approach and functional flexibility we needed to design a vehicle that was simple with minimal parts and sustainable materials. That’s what we began to explore.
What is Bare Necessity to you? What is essential in your vehicle?
502 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
.jpg){kind=avatar}
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 11:06 am juanbarnett said:
I sympathize with designers today. 20 years ago the Geo Metro got over 40 mpg and today, because of mandated safety features and consumer demanded luxury items; weight seems to be the largest hurdle, more so than the power train for developers to overcome.
I’ve preached for years that the average American will only pay lip service to being green, but a small percentage will make personal sacrifices such as giving up luxury options, performance, or space all in the name of the environment. Also, very few are willing to spend more based solely on a vehicle’s green properties ($40,000 Volt should be a perfect experiment).
General Motors needs to slowly fall back into the shadows as a car producing company. If Lutz was smart he would transition GM into a corporate management and R&D organization. General Motors would be responsible for pushing out new technology and the overall management of the smaller arms.
Allow the nameplates; Buick, Cadillac and Chevrolet take center stage to shed the GM mold that over the years has attached to them.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm rbt said:
I bought a 2001 Suzuki Swift. It’s identical to the GEO Metro, was manufactured and sold in the US a year or two longer than the Metro. It is, by my admittedly idiosyncratic standards, the highest mileage car that I could buy without making unacceptable compromises – it has two airbags, it has an air conditioner, it’s only 9 years old, it was relatively cheap. The austerities that I am willing to put up with – hand crank windows, no radio, no remote hatch release, not a luxurious ride at highway speeds.
I get 55 MPG on the highway. There’s enough room for me to carry luggage and groceries.
I am perfectly ready to buy a well designed, solid, cheap, no-frills vehicle from Detroit.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm Richard Holmes said:
I rented Aveos a few years ago and found I was getting about 50 mpg. The only things I really missed were electric windows and door locks. It did have auto and air.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 9:56 pm JonCleghorn said:
A bare necessity car is:
1. One that can get you where you need to go safely while keeping your dignity.
(E.g. my feet are not wet and my hair is not messy and it has a body on it for safety). Note that i am not saying how “cool” i will look in it as that is beyond my “basic necessity.”
2. One that can carry what i need to carry because my job or my social function requires.
(Tools for a job, coworkers, groceries, supplies). Note that i am not saying what my “playtime” activities require as those would be beyond the needs of “bare necessities.”
3. One that can get me there affordably
(If i need it for long distances it needs to get good mileage. if i need it for short distances then mileage does not matter so much)
Outside the core 3 items the vehicle must have, the biggest problem is that you try to determine what the public wants 2-5 years in advance and are then shocked when they don’t buy your car because someone else brings out a car that offers something better. To remedy this build the “basic necessity” of a car and ship it to a dealer and then “certify” subsidiary companies to create options that would then be installed at the dealer.
By example, way back when in the 50s and 60s dealers used to install crate motors, etc… to a customer’s particular “basic necessity”. A modern version of this would be installing at a dealer a particular type of top, type of cup holder, iPod connection, wheel option, seat material, additional safety devices, body enhancements, etc…. This works in a business sense as people are willing to pay more if they get an option they want as opposed to an option you dictate that they don’t want.
In summary, the big company (GM) in turn only supplies the “common” basic necessity that all customers need (windows, body, frame, drivetrain, electrical harness, etc….). The GM licensed “option” suppliers provide the uniqueness that are installed at the dealers that answer my particular “basic necessity.” These smaller suppliers can then in turn respond to trends much faster than the corporate model keeping the cars more timely and more desirable. Some people would option for the “bare” car from GM and others would add options to create their own unique “bare necessity.”
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm Marcus said:
Rob Kleinbaum said today, “Of chief concern is that people who actively ignored the research on the importance of fuel economy and believe in their hearts that [global warming] is a ‘crock’ are still in senior positions and spread throughout.” The article I read went on…Kleinbaum testified before a hearing of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the agencies’ joint proposals to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and tighten fuel-economy standards. “The net result is a deep concern that while they will say the right words, they will still under invest in fuel-efficient vehicles.”
Here are my comments and they are directly related to economy of fuel use and design and production. His chief concern is that some people do not think like he does. Global warming may indeed be a crock. We hear more about global warning because that is what is being promoted. All well-informed scientists who work in the field do not agree. Have you ever heard both sides of the science of global warming issues laid out without bias in a single article or program. I haven’t. They either say nothing or ridicule the other side. For a fellow like Klienbaum to suggest that this is a chief concern underscores the petty mentality of those to whom we have give great responsibility. Here’s another guy with an agenda. Great.
Now what about the idea that GM was in the money making business. This may come as a shock to many folks who believe the workers strive for the state. Corporations exist to make money. If making fuel efficient and Green Cars made money for GM they would have made them. If we, as a public, thought it was in our personal best interests to buy green cars we would ask for them. It isn’t any more complicated than that. If government wants to get corporations to make green cars, it must provide a path that makes the companies money while doing so…more than another use of the same money. For some reason there are a huge number of people who believe that GM should have made green cars and didn’t because they were against the whole ECO concept. What foolishness! Corporations don’t have any agenda that isn’t efficient at getting more revenue in the doo and less expenditures out the door. It’s Econ 101. Take the course again. Klienbaum must believe that demonizing and ridiculing these people is productive. Where are his comments about how the corporation can MAKE MONEY? Where are his ideas about going Green AND making it more profitable than not going Green? Only criticism?
Better design makes sense. Things that make good sense and provide something to the customer that is both appealing and competitive will be purchased when those kinds of transportation dollars are released from our wallets. If you don’t think people vote with their wallets, remember that an awful lot of people purchased Japanese vehicles when they found dependability and fuel economy when they wanted it most. The US automakers couldn’t deliver. They weren’t as nimble and it took longer to make the necessary changes to try to catch up. GM FORD and CHRYSLER were all huge automakers and that made it difficult for them to be responsive to quick changes in the market place. The union contracts tied these giants to the ground like the Lilliputians tied Gulliver. The Japanese had no ties that bound them They came into the marketplace using factories that made products by robots – something unheard of in America. No robot was supposed to take any job from any human – according to the unions. This shortsightedness caused inferior parts to be made while more perfect parts were being made by the Japanese robots. That is why it took so long to catch up to the quality issue. All this added cost to the final product. We lost competitiveness and quality at the same time.
I’m old enough to have witnessed the evolution of the auto industry and the revolution caused by the Japanese in this market. Today, with the government involved in the auto business, I am again witnessing a sea change in society. Is anyone outraged? Is anyone afraid of government getting involved in setting executive pay? Is anyone ready for the future? I sort of feel like a Jew in the streets of Warsaw just as the oppression begins in the middle of the last century. Doesn’t anyone else feel violated? I’m very scared.
to this comment On October 29, 2009 at 7:14 am Number 3 said:
Outstanding summary. Explained in the simplest terms. Unfortunately, no seems to be able to comprehend this simple concept.
to this comment On December 3, 2009 at 3:36 am Gary P. said:
Responding to Marcus’ comments with a few thought starters.
1. You propose that no one wants to buy more efficient cars/trucks. Where then have the people gone, from when GM had 50% of the US market share, to now with about 18% ? Sure they have not all bought small, foreign econoboxes, but many HAVE bought Hondas, Toyotas, etc. that offered better efficiency than many GM vehicles that were available at the time of those sales.
2. People who only love muscle cars or “old style” Detroit performance cars are a very small niche market nowadays. Yes they are still in abundance at GM, Ford, etc. and they have had plenty of influence over the years, and this has not saved us those sales.
3. I believe the lion’s share of the market these days is people who want practical, fuel efficient, functional transportation. That does not have to mean boring. Many great vehicles are available out there that offer multiple functionalities and are also well executed and fun to drive.
4. It would be neat for me personally to know more about what market research really says people say they want in cars. I used to think cars were becoming commodities, where people only needed the bare basics to get around, to work, school etc. but I no longer do. I believe they need that practicality, but also really identify with the FUN they can get from a vehicle. For me and many others, that means what toys and things you can carry.
My last 3 cars were bought based on what I needed them to do when our family goes on vacation! And I bet that’s not unusual, part of the reason we sold so many SUVs and pickups.
5. That said, the “basic car/ basic truck” concept, that can then be customized for our recreational needs, seems like an excellent concept, as long as the ‘add ons’ are well thought out and designed.
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 4:04 pm hammershipdown said:
There is a great point here – Chevy, Cadillac, Buick – These are the brands and they need to be more isolated from the GM name. GM should focus on the bigger picture, the new technology, the next step and let the Brands stand on their own. However, when it comes to a barebones car, i think price is the place to start.
Scrap everything else and build me a $5000 car, make it a prototype and show me whatcha got?!?!?! All the design, technology, wave of the future stuff is great and intrigues me, but I’ll spend 40,000 on a Volt – What the USA needs is something it can afford. It’s time to consider building what VW did with the bug – something that is the price of a motorcycle. Hell, build me a scooter for under $1000 and I’ll buy it.
It’s easy to look at today’s standards and try to mvoe forward, but what is often forgot is that the average salary in today’s economic climate is less than it was 15 years ago, un-employment is way up and yet, there is simply no one in the Transporation Industry even considering that pricing should follow suit. If average Americans are making a little over 30,000 (I’m guess-timating) – build them a car they can afford.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 11:59 am Vettes said:
I think a car’s design or function should really be driven by the customer buying the car, rather than what is “perceived” via studies or focus groups. I think something this radical should start from the vehicle ordering process. Allow the customer at the dealership to order the space saving features, eco friendly options, extra “gotta have it” options. This drives the cars being built to order rather than being pushed by dealerships. That said, I think we sould design a single bare necessity architecture and provide allowences to spec the car you want or need. I need a cargo hauling car, I need a sportier car, I need a roomy wagon car. These options could be incorporated into body style packages and the car is built accordingly. I am the type of customer that does not like to settle for what is on the dealership lot if I know what I want and they do not have it.
So – what would make a car a bare essentail to me? Simple, do away with carpets and nice chrome trim. Give me an all weather intertior. Soft, confortable, low maintenance, and easy to keep clean. I hate having to detail the interior after a rain or snow storm. Heated and cooled seats would be more efficient than using a HVAC system to heat or cool the air surrounding me. A good manual transmission would be fine too. A configurable dash would be nice. Allow me to decide where I want to have my cup holder(s), my iPod, or my nav system. To make this a success, think the vehicle should be along the lines of a Wrangler (soft top) without the need for off roading prowess. Get back to the basics. Cloth top (bikini), utilitarian interior, flexible, and fun.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm Therese Tant said:
In response to Vettes reply…A built to order set-up would be ideal. A universal architecture engineered/desiged to evolve/morph. Ooo, even better the potential of a vehicle that evlolves as your life does. Frame/main componentry stays the same but features and body panels can be swapped-out, a vehicle that you can face-lift yourself or have done instead of trading it in for younger, more trendy model. If the frame is executed to be extremely durable it’s longevity is inherently more sustainable.
Do you think a car like this fits an unmet need? Would people want to keep the guts and replace the pretty bits?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:37 am Paul Stoller said:
I think such a modular setup would be great. Keep the core platform as effecient as possible. And I must agree with many others on here that carpet can go, an all weather interior would be great.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:49 am gtjeff said:
Therese,
GM has already built a vehicle that would meet many of your objectives, the Fiero. Most of the body panels bolt on and off, plenty of kit car companies have used the Fiero space frame to build Ferrari look alikes. The frame is extemely durable. Saturn used the spaceframe technology and there was mention of the ability to change the look of the panels on a yearly basis, since plastic panales had a very low tooling cost compared to traditonal dies, but it was never done. The fastback Fiero GT is one of GM’s most sylish designs even today, so I would convert over a base fiero instead.
There is no reason you could not use a Saturn style space frame and go production with something like this in the Wilmington plant and build them with plastic panels instead of the expensive, low volume hydroformed panel machinery in place their today. GM could even sell the frame to kit car companies, I believe they turned down offers while the Fiero was built.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 6:10 pm chiefpontiac said:
Therese, Nissan had a car, whether they sold any or not, that could come with interchangable rear sections to change from coupe to sedan to station wagon to pickup. Even if it is as simplistic as the Smart as produced in Europe where drivers individualize their rides with interchangable panels.
I do agree that the basic premise of the Fiero could be extended to use in a single chassis car that can in a few minutes or owner wrenching can become something entirely different.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:13 pm Wade Bryant said:
Great feedback. –
The “Basic Plus” approach was one of our main objectives for Bare Necessity Car. You buy what you need and nothing more, then the car can be up-contened or down-contented as your needs change. The people we spoke with liked the idea of a simple peoples-car, but everyone’s “bare necessities” are unique.
Thanks for sharing your’s.
Wade – GM Design
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:37 pm juanbarnett said:
Sounds a bit like the shuffleboard car concept. What ever came of that?
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 5:21 pm Brian said:
You will lose 1/2 of your market if the vehicle has a ragtop. Consider those of us who live in colder regions or urban areas with crime issues.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 9:25 pm JonCleghorn said:
How about a removable hardtop, a fixed hardtop, and a folding hardtop option to go with the ragtop option? The big company could provide the basic car and local entities could supply the particular top required on demand.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:32 pm HotCarNut said:
Interesting idea. The problem all cars like this face is weight. It doesn’t just come from luxuries, but from government mandated safety features and a structure that has to be able to survive a collision with a Chevy Suburban. The lighter the vehicle, the more efficient. However, the lighter the vehicle, the greater the disparity in force and therefore energy absorption in a crash with another vehicle. You hit a MINI Cooper, you’ll be OK. You hit that Suburban (especially north of about 35 mph) and you just became a pancake.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:43 pm Bruno Kussler said:
GM is trying to recreate something that already existed before. If the company wants to build a “Bare Necessity Car”, you guys should look for a few cars from the past as inspiration, specially classic European cars, cars like and specially the Citroen 2CV, VW Beetle, Fiat Topolino (the original one from 1936-1955) and the original Fiat Panda (1980-2003), Fiat 126, the Russian Zaporozhets, and the German’s Trabant.
A “modern 2CV” with a high efficiency 3 cylinders diesel engine and using structures like the Niess Eliptical Ring and a lightweight composite materials, as recyclable thermoplastic, for the body the car could be very light, safe and reliable for everyday use, and would be probably cheaper to produce and to maintain that a expensive electric hybrid car and achieve a better MPG rates on everyday use.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:57 pm Stephen said:
AMEN.
Four passenger small car–maybe two regular doors, a hatch, and maybe add a sliding door for rear seat access on the right only. Maximum utility in minimum space. Size? Aim for 150-155 inch overall length (size of a Fit or Fiesta hatch.)
Two powertrain options–a high-efficiency DI gas engine and a torquey turbodiesel. Maybe a single bodystyle somewhere between a Kia Soul and a Mini Clubman. Manual transmission standard, CVT optional. Lots of easy owner personalization, a la Scion, but very few factory options. Simple primary colors would emphasize the simple, purposeful nature of the car.
Don’t think of it as a Smart. Think of it as a completely new idea, with some ideas in common with the Cube, the Fit, the Fiesta, and the Soul, but a completely new thing.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm jeremykhn said:
There is one thing that I add to that.What about adding wing doors. Yeah it sounds whako and sounds like I’m not even think of the Bare Necessities, but, it would allow for the passengers to get into the back easier. It would also give the car a very exotic feeling.
If there is one thing I know, its that a car has to meet the customer’s needs, and it has to be a home run for the automaker as well.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 9:28 pm JonCleghorn said:
Following on that VW Beetle theme it could have exposed steel with options to cover them in more safety centric coverings if the customer wanted it. This guy wants steel, that guy wants leather and padding. Again, local suppliers, subcontractors could supply the options and the big company could supply the basic structure.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:37 pm Stephen Lange said:
In response to Juan’s reply – The difficulty with the so called “green car” is an interesting example of a Catch-22. People desiring a vehicle that meshes with their “green” view neglect the unfortunate fact that the carbon footprint required to create the car grossly outweighs any benefit that the green technology in the new car has.
The Catch-22 is that even though they think they are helping the green movement by buying a green car, they would be better served just buying another used car and avoiding adding the carbon footprint that a new car has with it.
In regards to the “Bare Necessity” Car, I would agree that size is an obvious issue. Herein is again a problem, reduction of size for taller individuals or persons with children rule out a lot of cars because the back seat and legroom is a basic requirement.
The two don’t have to be at odds if designers would think more spatially. Here is a simple example. Take two four foot rectangular boxes and put them end to end so the total size is 8 feet and put them into another box to represent the interior of the car. At a minimum the outer box of the car needs to be 8 feet. Car manufacturers have a tendency to cut off space from the back rectangle.
However, if we take those two boxes and slide the one halfway under the other, we maintain our 4 feet in each box while decreasing the length needed to accommodate. By shifting legroom under the drivers seat the car could be made smaller at the expense of having the back seat passengers sitting at a lower level than the driver.
If that isn’t desirable, switch it around and have the driver box lower than the rear passengers.
Just my thoughts.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:01 pm juanbarnett said:
The Catch-22 is that even though they think they are helping the green movement by buying a green car, they would be better served just buying another used car and avoiding adding the carbon footprint that a new car has with it.” Stephen
So I would assume you don’t think the cash-for-clunkers will benefit the green movement? (joking) Why don’t people just drive less often? That has minimal cost and can be done right away! Here in the DC area I know people who commute more than 2 hrs each way so they can have their McMansions in the middle of rural VA. Blows my mind.
Many writers continue to point out car like the Hondas (HX DX) and Geo Metro – both of which got fantastic fuel economy. I personally drive a 427 Corvette C6 and get 28 mpg on the highway – I drive Sat and Sun. I bet my carbon footprint is less than someone who drives 7 days a week in a 30+MPG car.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 9:36 am Dave Clark said:
In response to Stephen’s comment, “People desiring a vehicle that meshes with their “green” view neglect the unfortunate fact that the carbon footprint required to create the car grossly outweighs any benefit that the green technology in the new car has.”
After a quick Google search, this seems to be a controversial topic. Here is information from the first reputable source that I found, UC-Berkeley. From this graph (although I am no expert and have not exhaustively reasearched the topic), contribution of fuel to overall emissions looks eight times greater than manufacturing emissions.
graph:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/39408/1/ERWtra_06_09
original article:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/39408
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm Therese Tant said:
Steve this is really great input! When it comes to designing with efficiency in mind the layout and seating positions are critical, out-of the-box approaches like this can make design break-throughs happen. Thanks again for your thoughts.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:52 am vettes said:
The other idea that some manufacturers are experimenting with regards to seat occupancy and placement is positioning the rear seat(s) inboard and closer together and slightly in between the driver and passenger seats. Look at the Toyota iQ 2+1 arrangement. Or even the Maclaren F1 seating arrangement. Point it, think outside the box and mix up the seats. Do the rear seats have to sit parallel to the vehicle’s profile? Why not turn the rear seats slightly inward so that they are facing slightly outward. Kinda like the 50’s Plymouth’s that had seats that “turn to meet you”.
Also, why can’t we start reducing the girth of the front seats? Can’t we make them thinner and lighter? Things like this would increase interior space and drive the diversity of the car and get back to the bare essentails roots. Personally, I would be fine with front (and ever rear) seats that are made of canvas stretched over an aluminum or plastic seat frame. How about seats that can be removed when not in use? Think of a racing bicycle with “quick release” wheels. Same concept with the seat mounts. Allow me to quickly remove the seats when not in use. Reduces weight, allows for better fuel economy, and larger cargo capacity. Better yet, how about creating a “stow-n-go” passenger seat so that no matter what, you can always take a passenger in a pinch.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:57 am Therese Tant said:
In response to Vettes…..!
I agree, we actually explored some amazing seats during this project [not shown here] u r so right about pushing seat technology and functionality in terms of making good use of a compact space. Seats have turned into a bit of a design challenge in terms of baking-in safety and comfort, but there is definitely some unexplored territory there. Ur point about having elements when u need them but potentially making them disappear when u don’t was a thought that had inspired a few really innovative solutions early in the project.
Balancing safety and innovation is still key, we have some ideas, it’s an area of hi-potential.
Thanks for ur input!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:21 am ondigo said:
An alternative for the rear passenger seats is to have them face backwards. (Remember the seats in the back of station wagons back in the 70s?). That way, the passengers’ legspace becomes storage space when not used by people.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm cgramer said:
Having rear passenger seats face backwards wouldn’t be good for those with motion sickness, such as my wife. Interesting concept, though!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:55 pm jeremykhn said:
What if the seats had the ability to be able to locked one direction and then be locked in another direction. This would allow campers or those who like watching for cops when their mom is going 110 down a two lane highway, to have the ability to be able to choose the way they sit.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:02 pm Carchitect said:
For me the Bare Necessity car would be the first entry level car a caring passionate company would offer to the world. It would be the starter car for many or a fun utilitarian car for those who say this is just what I need in terms of utility, economy, safety and fun. I keep thinking every company needs a world car of certain small size. This car would have simple, strong, organic, buy dynamic design. It would seem so inevitable and non forced that it would slowly evolve over the years and looks just as good ten years later. This would get the production profit up as well. I still think cool and fun when I look a a VW new Beetle or a Mini. The Fiat 500 is going to be that kind of car as well. Just think how eco it is to have cars that do not have to be redesigned every three years. This longevity is important for the small car since profits are low.
I envision a small family of variants such as the three door hatch coup. A stretched five door version as well. Think Mini / Crossman / SUV or Polo / Golf and their variants. You really only need to create three variations to have it all covered.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:40 pm Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on what a Bare Necessity vehicle would be to you! It sounds good to me!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:13 pm Carchitect said:
Glad you thought it informative. I like the idea of the three cars having a good balance of uniqueness for each but a family resemblance among the group. Not sure it should be as strong as the Mini family but that would be ok. I am on an EV2 beng today think that is what GM needs after the Volt Jolt. Maybe you can pitch it to them! Have you noticed I don’t like the serious heavy Volt design. Not friendly and lightness of being it does not portray.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:40 pm Marc Beauregard said:
I’ve personally advocated this for years. My comments over at Autoblog on this:
“Good. Reverse the clock on weight, price and the over-abundance of features. Not only on small cars but on mid-sized coupes and sedans too. They all need serious diets. This benefits both economy AND performance.
Besides, a lot of the features that come in cars are already with us in the form of smart phones. Communication? Check. Entertainment? Check. Navigation? Check. The ability to monitor speed, distance and other parameters? Check? The flexibility to add more features without adding weight? Check. All that’s missing is a standard to communicate with the cars mechanical functions and sensors. There, you just lost a healthy chunk of weight in components, wiring, displays, and other related parts.”
Adding a bit more:
One of the compromises that needs to be looked at is the structural one. Are people willing to trade off some quantity of safety and overall strength/rigidity to achieve the above goals of reducing mass and cost and increasing efficiency? Can technology help re-balance things? (20lbs of airbags vs 60-80lbs of metal?)
The idea above from Vettes about letting the consumer dictate the level of inconvenience or savings is one I’ve thought about too. Having worked in the industry for years, I know this is not simple problem to solve as it gets into what amounts to a variable type of structure. Add all the different levels of interior parts/features to that and you have a huge increase in parts proliferation at the plant. Not a good idea from a parts cost standpoint. But.. It would allow huge advantages in mass customization which many people could find appealing, provided the design/styling was sufficiently enticing.
As for that design: My feeling is that there are two ways to do this car. You can make it conventional and hide the efficiencies in a car with mass market appeal or you can take a larger risk, both aesthetically and technically by doing something far more radical. Part of that radicalness should come in the form of letting the design communicate it’s efficiency and material use very clearly, so that the consumer immediately gets why it looks like it does. The trick is to make such a car attractive enough to the people who desire it’s attributes. Is that consumer as forward thinking as the design? Figure that out in early focus groups, then stop asking and just do it. I think too much feedback is as bad as not enough.
Finally… Keep the marketing people away from this. They’ll just want to clutter it up.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm Therese Tant said:
In response to Marc….Thanks Marc, your input is fantastic. While exploring the aesthetic of the car we grappled with the two approaches that you spoke about. I personally love the idea of taking larger risk aestheticaly and technically and allowing the vehicle ‘be what it is’. I was a bit concerned about overstyling something thats meant to be the epitome simplicity. I agree that the key is simple AND attractive. Do you think that letting it ‘be what it is’ aesthetically could ALSO have mass market appeal?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:27 pm Msterbeau said:
Therese,
You know I’ve been in your position before. It can be tough to tell what people will accept or not. There’s some pretty harsh comments on both Autoblog and Jalopnik about the more radical design. But some of the critism is justified, in part because the design may not be communicating efficiency properly. By that, I mean in a visual language that people understand as “efficiency”. Obviously that can be a bit of a minefield because people perceive differently. I think you guys are right to take risks and welcome failure rather then taking the safe path. That’s the way to innovation and breakthrough products.
I have no doubts that simple can also be attractive. Look at the original Mini Cooper and VW Beetle. Simple, friendly designs that people loved. Your challenge is to do it in a new aesthetic. Yeah… no big deal…
I think what car makers need to do is not only pursue this at the basic car level, but in other more mass market products as well. Apply the same principles to a mid-sized sedan or crossover too. People who have to carry 4 passengers and their stuff want efficiency too.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:41 pm benjamin said:
yes! definitely, i think people are reevaluating priorities these days. simple and efficient are in. ostentatious is out. design for efficiency. let it “be what it is” and it will still have mass market appeal.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:04 pm JonCleghorn said:
Taking risks aesthetically is not the way to go for this particular design challenge. If it is to be a basic needs car then nothing could be further from that ideal than putting your own “stamp” on its design. It has to appeal to as large of an audience as possible. The core must be generic. Only the add-ons can be specific.
to this comment On October 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm Wade Bryant said:
Yes, that’s been a popular take on the design direction Simple with unique add-ons.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for joining us Marc!
I’ve found the biggest challenge is balancing vehicle simplicity with aesthetic simplicity. The fewer parts you put on the car, the more stuff gets exposed (and appears complicated).
I remember you and I worked on a similar idea in 1999. I need to dig some of your sketches out of the archieve files
Thanks for the support on this project.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:36 pm Msterbeau said:
No thanks needed. Just build the damn thing.
I think it’s worth reiterating that light weight and simplicity benefit both fuel economy/cost AND performance. The Tesla roadster is appealing because it not only doesn’t use gas, but because it has a huge element of fun to it. The downside for that particular path is cost. You could do a small turbo-diesel with this to keep mass down (Vs. a hybrid drivetrain) and it would still be fun. You don’t necessarily have to sell this strictly as an eco-appliance.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 1:36 pm DM3 said:
The smart phone idea is a good one and will work in any vehicle, not just this one. It might be worth it for GM to try working with some of the phone makers to see if a standard ap can be made. They’ve already agreed on mini USB’s for charging and data transfer. So it should just be a software issue.
As for the other accessories, why can’t GM work with the aftermarket? GM has sent a lot of cars to SEMA over the years, so why not come up with a car that can have aftermarket items swapped in? That way, GM doesn’t actually have to provide all of the bells and whistles. Rather they make it very easy for customers to swap out standard items for various upgrades as they choose. This would make it fairly easy for an owner to make their car truly theirs.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:53 pm Andrew said:
Finally, a car company is embracing simplicity over superfluous technology. Give me a lightweight Fit sized car with a small engine (doesn’t even have to be diesel), three pedals, clever storage and seats that fold flat. Give it a low coefficient of drag and stop/start technology, no heavy hybrid systems or pie-in-the-sky technology. Oh, and make it fun to drive. A lot of car companies think things like unnecessary plastic cladding, mp3 storage, bluetooth etc make cars ‘fun,’ but the drivers among us prefer excellent handling and the fun of testing a car’s limits even at legal speeds. Just remember…if GM doesn’t do it, someone else will.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 11:52 pm garyhr said:
i believe in global warming and greed of men to manipulate gas prices ; to me a ev on the side of the car is badge of honor 40+miles per charge = a work car ; to movies and shopping car
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 7:40 pm bobfoster said:
With respect to those who just want a stylish hot rod, if the car isn’t at least partly electric I won’t even consider it.
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 9:46 pm fakexloser said:
Hey Gary {: ya you right, I want to see some electric cars, but I love my v8 corvette (: I still think there is room for V8 if driven on nights out and just for fun time (:
I have been looking at alot of conversions of cars and they don’t look bad, I’d buy one right now but we both know where we work /: cant do it at this time, at least my kia soul gets 30 MPG (: anyways I see ya at work tomorrow..
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 9:51 pm fakexloser said:
check out these truck and car conversions on this site. let me know what ya think!!
http://www.austinev.org/evtradinpost/index.php?method=showhtmllist&list=classifiedscategory&rollid=13&fromfromlist=classifiedscategory&fromfrommethod=showhtmllist&clearoff=1
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:15 pm Tim H said:
Excellent points! Totally agree, way to go GM!!!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:16 pm Mike W. said:
I like the idea of being able to “upgrade” the interior with plug in modules. Buy the basic module cheap (affordable). Ask for add-ons for gifts or buy them as you go (cupholders, MP3 players, carpet, etc).
Bench seats to allow cramped seating for extra friends if needed – upcoming generations are social. Big trunks/storage not needed – golf is not “in” so no need for golf bag storage areas. If we are eco-responsible, we’re not carrying big suitcases – we travel light.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:24 am Tom327Cat said:
I do like with the idea of plug in modules. For instance, you buy the car with manual locks and windows, but later on you want power. You buy a new armrest module that has the motor and solenoid built in. Removing the old armrest (using only a screwdriver) reveals a set of electrical contacts and the linkage to the door lock. You then remove the window crank and place the new armrest over those areas and reattach the fasteners. The old parts get sold on ebay (if in good condition) or recycled (if not).
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 10:59 am Greg said:
Taking this concept further.
We now have phones that have GPS, Maps, music, videos, pictures all stored, we pay for these services.
why not offer a standar radio with screen that uses the other devices for data and extended features.
Iphone, Android, Blackberry etc… that can be extended to the vehicles radio screen.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:37 pm benjamin said:
what i want:
as few parts as possible
room for 4 passengers with as much cargo space as possible (not necessarily at the same time)
0-60 in a reasonable amount of time (doesn’t need to be quick) and ability to go up hills
as efficient as possible, especially weight and drag
ideally a range extended, serial hybrid with at least 20 miles all electric range (with as small an ICE engine as possible)
i would be OK with 3 wheels for decreased rolling resistance and weight
lightweight seats
hatchback
2 doors
renewable materials, especially interior
what i don’t need/want:
electric windows
carpet (please no carpet!)
cruise control
electric mirrors
satellite radio
electric assisted steering
electric locks
sun roof
off-gassing plastic interior
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm Therese Tant said:
Benjamin, this is really helpful – ur list of specifics. It’s an iffy proposition to expect that everyone has the same preferences. These days cultural is shifting so rapidly but it does seem that there are quite a few people out there like you that don’t need all of the bells n whistles. I found it interesting that you don’t want carpet!! But do you need something to deaden sound? Something more durable and dirt-proof that carpet?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm Blake2454 said:
I agree with paritally agree with Benjamin. While I like having carpet in my car, I dont think its really needed. My moms boyfriend has a Ford F-150 and he doesn’t have carpet in it at all. While I thought it was weird and ugly at first I now actually think it should be an option (atleast for trucks). Not to sure how it would look in a car. A person who has a truck typically has it for a reason, for hauling and what not. My dad is an electrician and I have been to my fair share of work sites, in and out of work trucks etc. Most of the construction guys have dirt clumps all over inside of their truck and also the interior isn’t even something you would want to touch. I think that a carpetless floor would be logical for work trucks.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:59 am vettes said:
Yes, use rubber mating. Use cork floors. Use balsa wood like on the C5 Corvettes. Any material could be used because ultimately the sound deadener is NOT the carpet but the insulation and plastisol expandiable foam below the carpet. Besides, if we are striving for bare essential, do we really NEED Buick quiet tuning?
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 12:34 am scutter60156 said:
As far as the carpet, my first car was a 1970 Chevy Nova. Straight-six, 3-speed manual trans, rubber floors. A stripper. I didn’t mind one bit. I think carpet is a waste in a vehicle. Just something that after a while looks bad due to the Chicago winters I drive in. Bring back the rubber floors. We have them installed on purpose in our company Service vans.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:27 pm Jack H. said:
I’m no expert (heck, I’m Canadian), but this is my take on this idea:
My vision of the ideal “Bare Essentials” car would center around three core values:
Simplicity:
-The car must be mechanically simple enough to survive anything like my dad’s old farm truck did. I’d rather get 30 miles per gallon and be able to fix it, than 230 and need sixteen MIT grads to check the oil and a H.A.L. 9000 unit to remind me how I’m driving wrong. That would make repair costs more reasonable, promoting long-term ownership (see second bullet). Also, I love the option-down concept. Power windows are great until they break.
PS: Four cylinders, manual transmission and hey, how about rear-wheel-drive? Seriously, FWD sucks; the laws of physics say so.
Reliability:
-The car should be tough as nails, something GM is already not bad at. I believe that a reasonably efficient car owned for 15+ years is far better for the environment than a super-green hyper-hybrid that is toast before the decade’s out.
Character:
Frankly? The Prius is ugly. So are the Insight and the Smart Car. A car without soul is a bus with less seats. The car MUST have SOUL. It should be something the owner looks forward to with a little grin as the workday draws to a close. In this regard I give kudos to GM for serious effort. Cavalier did not do that. Impala hasn’t since before I was born. Aztek was… something else.
There’s a reason the Beetle lasted 65 years while no one remembers the Citation. If GM wants the lead, they need to TAKE the lead with an attractive(!), practical, dependable car that workaday people and single parents and university students can afford.
Now’s the perfect chance. Don’t screw it up, you won’t get another one.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:15 pm JonCleghorn said:
Dense molded rubber or foam filled blow-molded plastic for carpet alternative (i.e. think children’s yard toys). Design could incorporate 3D shapes/Logos/How to directions (e.g. cup holders, etc…) right into it saving further cost.
Would be great if there was easy to access drains in flooring that could be removed so floor could be washed with hose/bucket/brush. Seats would be designed with gaps in between padded surfaces so mold can’t grow and so they also could be washed down and air dried.
Used as alternative to doors panels the blow molded plastic option could have symbols molded into it that indicate things like which way the window crank turns to roll the window down to help remove needs for additional labels and printing.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm juanbarnett said:
this reminds me of what I want in a cell phone. If a phone the size of a candy bar can make calls, play games, film videos, check email, take photos, make calls, play music, give me directions and whatever else phones can do today – then why can’t a super simple slim phone be made that makes calls and text messages w/ a battery life of days and is super thin?
There is beauty in simplicity.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:43 pm Msterbeau said:
Not to get too far off topic, but there’s likely some components (Size of the antennae come to mind) that just can’t get much smaller. The other factor is likely ergonomics. Until voice commands are more reliable over a broad range of environments, buttons will be necessary. Button size then becomes a large determining factor, as well as screen size.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:19 pm JonCleghorn said:
Yes, actually antennas can get much smaller. They have recently made them with carbon nanotubes that work better than standard antennas and are so thin and small they can’t be seen with the naked eye. Solutions are out there for the “things that can’t get smaller.”
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm kevzter said:
I like the idea of a simple car and in this day an age, why are you still offering expensive sound and nav systems in the car. More than likely, they will be obsolete before the car enters production! Instead, create a clever solution that allows the user to integrate their personal electronics into the vehicle. Create a area on the dash, for example, where the user can plug in their third party GPS, SmartPhone, etc. Make it flexible enough to allow for different types of connectors (USB, FIreWire, iPod/IPhone) and create an API that allows these devices to interact with the cars systems. Look at the iPhone App phenomena, if you create an open API and some simple tools, you will be amazed what third party developers will create! Create a electrical bus in the vehicle that allows other GM supplied and third party components to be easily plugged in. The possibilities are endless!
Light weight should also be a priority. I agree that bloat is rampant in the industry. Spend some R&D time investigating how to make an extruded aluminum space frame like Lotus and Aston Martin use and make it cheap to manufacture. Be creative with your materials. Create a light but strong honeycomb out of recycled plastics and use it for structural elements of the vehicle. I’m sure GM probably already has some of this technology sitting on a shelf somewhere. Do an inventory of past research projects and dust some of them off! The 5 step stamping method used to make the front fender of my CTS shows what GM can do when they think out of the box.
I know GM has the ability to completely re-define the automobile as we know it. NOW is the time to do just that!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:52 pm Msterbeau said:
See my idea a few posts up. Same thing except I think it should go a lot further then you mention. (Using a smartphone etc in the car.). There should be no worry about wired interfaces. Bluetooth or some similar tech can do this wirelessly. All you need is the software interface protocol to be standardized to enable communication between the car and your device. These devices are already fairly powerful computers all by themselves (Particularly iPhone) with a host of sensors. Why not take advantage of that and use it to get rid of redundant components in the car? It could easily be your key fob too.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:56 pm kevzter said:
I agree that going wireless would be nice but what about charging? The nice thing about a physical interface is that it can be used to charge the device while it is being used. Some of these devices (iPhone 3G), do not have very good battery life. Also, I think the Bluetooth protocol is too limiting to provide much more than hands free functionality. 802.11 (WiFi) would be a better choice…
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm JonCleghorn said:
Intel, MIT, etc… have shown this past year the ability to send electricity wirelessly just like Nikola Tesla patented 100 years ago. Magnetic resonance allows it to happen efficiently. This month there is a company advertising an add on for electronic devices that allows them to recharge simply by setting on the surface of their special charging unit without the need for cables.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:50 am Eric said:
I couldn’t agree more. Automotive electronics cannot keep pace with innovation happening with mobile devices. My current vehicle has an overly complicated stereo system, with many features I’ll never use, but doesn’t have a simple auxiliary input so I can play music from my MP3 player. If auto designers would think of their entertainment/info systems as peripherals (speakers, display, source of car data), they would extend the vehicle’s usefulness while greatly simplifying the design.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:44 pm edvard said:
I’ve been thinking about basic no-frills car ideas for years. To me, making a car that is economical and cheap means simplifying the drive train to a level that is not only less costly to maintain, but cheaper and easier to repair. Given that such a car would be small, its conceivable to use something as basic as a lawn mower engine. Most riding mower engines are lightweight, air cooled, and extremely simple. I used to work on small engines for a living. Mower engines have huge displacement for their size because they have to drive sets of mower blades. In addition, mower engines can withstand huge amounts of abuse. Many I got in to repair were neglected yet still ran fine. So what you get is a fuel efficient, powerful engine in a small package made of parts that are cheap to buy and easy to replace.
Secondly, a centrifugal clutch could be coupled to the engine. This would mean ridding the car of a transmission or trans axle. That would also mean less space and less weight. I actually have personal experience doing this because I race riding mowers as a hobby. Our mowers are more like small cars with disk brakes, beefed up steering, and so on. I run a 12 HP air cooled engine with a large heavy duty centrifugal clutch at 45-50MPH. I’ve used this setup for 2 years. So far the clutch has little wear. Even so, the replacement pads for the clutch are only a few dollars and take 10 minutes to replace, much like replacing brake pads. Additionally, the brakes could be simple hydraulic units. The bottom line is that the drive train would be bare-bones simple and repairable by every weekend mechanic.
Otherwise, no need for AC, a nice stereo, or leather or any of that other stuff. This sounds sort of nuts, but there were car companies in the past such as the King Midget car company which made tiny cars in the 50’s-70’s which ran on 5HP lawn mower engines. I’m one of those people who would gladly buy such a car but I doubt one could be made that meets all the safety requirements. Hence perhaps I might just have to build my own.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm Michael S said:
I’m loving that hatchback! It’s the most interesting piece of GM news to come out of today. It has a fairly distinct shape, even if it does look like a FIAT 500 and Corsa that spent some time together, and I think it could be the iconic small car that Chevy needs.
I like the “bare necessities” idea, though GM could not have been more reluctant in making it sound sexy. “Making trade-offs” sounds so… defeatist. But seriously, a well-engineered, well-designed minimalist car can actually meet the needs of many people who are unsatisfied by the unnecessarily complex, overweight modern car. Some people don’t want to spend such a large percentage of their income on transportation, even well before this economic period. A cleverly designed small car can also have a democratizing effect, especially on youth who want to travel around the country cheaply.
There’s a difference between building a car cheaply and designing a car to be cheap. Think original Mini, Citroen 2CV, Beetle, the VW up! concept, even the Ariel Atom, Lotus Elise, and Model T, not the Aveo or Accent. Cost and efficiency are real challenges for engineers and designers, so this will be a project far more difficult than garnishing a vehicle with an excess of chrome and electronics and diamonds. There needs to be real innovation and investment and a radical rethink of the modern car.
My only concern is that in this concept, I’m not seeing much in the way of clever engineering. I suppose the one-piece glass hatch can save money on stamping costs, while also improving visibility and style. But apart from that, this could very well be just another B-segment hatch on an existing GM platform. (With that said, it would be a very stylish one… something I would consider buying). But where’s the out of the box thinking? A true “bare necessity” car can’t be constrained by the existing suppliers and materials and architectures of conventional cars. How about a revolutionary structure, an exoskeleton, perhaps? What are some ideas to truly use as few parts as possible?
Ideally for me, such a vehicle would be fun to drive, with a tiny turbo engine powered by cellulosic biofuel, a manual transmission, probably manual steering, and added lightness. It would be cheap to buy, cheap to run, cheap to insure, easy to mend, and beyond that, good looking.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:53 pm Wade Bryant said:
Of course the Bare Necessity name was just an internal name for the vehicle idea, but as we were doing our initial research the idea of Bare Necessity really struck a chord with the people we spoke with. At one point in the project we too were afraid the Bare Necessity name might sound too extreme for most car-buyers. We were calling it Eco Efficiency at one point.
The idea of a “people’s car” came up a lot too.
I agree that we need to keep pushing the creativity of these concepts. There are some innovative ideas baked into this concept that we haven’t discussed on this site, but I think the smart creativity should be evident in the design. We need to keep pushing ourselves.
Great discussion!
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:28 pm JonCleghorn said:
I am also seeing a problem with the basic sketches/models shown so far on this site. Low profile tires are not “basic”. Rounded ass ends on cars don’t promote high mileage. Interior dashes that are too deep (2 ft deep injection molds) and seem to have no purpose also exemplify this.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm juanbarnett said:
“create an API that allows these devices to interact with the cars systems” – fantastic idea!
The automobile for some, is their home away from home (on wheels of course).
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm John S said:
I’m really loving these designs, specifically the two-toned version of the car. Fantastic! I like the idea of bare necessities but there’s a fine line between this and the perception of cheap. These designs are leaps and bounds over any small car GM has on the road. I also think back to the upcoming Chevy Beat. When I heard news the Beat was going to be produced I was fairly excited. However, after seeing the production model I must say the front is hideously exaggerated and doesn’t flow well with the rest of the body. As for the interior, I think the color scheme is vomit inducing. But back to these cars…
The good thing about these automobiles is their probable appeal to younger buyers – win them over while they’re young and they’re likely to stay. As a 22 yo college student I Love these designs! With that said, most people, despite age, appreciate energetic design in their vehicles. So, to help you guys out, here is what I want in a vehicle:
WHAT I WANT/NEED:
Safety (of course)
Power windows, locks, mirrors
AC
Cruise control
MP3 integration
Compass (I have a GMC truck with this and couldn’t do without it)
Head and leg room (I’d love a small car but at 6′2 I have a hell of a time fitting into one)
Armrests (I can’t stand cars without them!!!)
Utility
Energy (give me a car that’s fun to drive)
Comfort/Ergonomics (this reminds me of the H3 – the steering wheel is centered to the left of your body!)
WHAT I DON’T NEED:
Carpet
Power seats
Power tilting steering wheel
Navigation
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm Therese Tant said:
Ur point about the fine line between bare necessity and the perception of cheap is well taken. It’s a challenge, it would need to be carefully executed, no one should ever feel like they’re missing anything. I’m so happy to see you and a few others clearly outlining what u need/don’t need. It’s really interesting for us, thanks so much!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm Brett said:
I’m glad to learn that GM is bringing back the idea of a bare-necessities vehicle, and I hope it will be electric or at least a plug-in hybrid. I think plug-in capability is essential, unless you have something else up your sleeve for ultra-high efficiency.
Last time I shopped for a car, I looked at new cars but I was disappointed that nobody made a low-end hybrid. I ended up buying a used Geo Metro because it was smaller and more efficient than any inexpensive new car. The Metro convertible is a bare-necessities kind of vehicle, and it works very well for me, even with two seats and limited storage. Smaller is better for me, since I am very uncomfortable driving a large vehicle.
Despite my preference for a bare-bones approach, I’ll admit that I would pay extra for built-in GPS.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm Z06 505 said:
While I’ve definitely read some great ideas here, I think GM needs to be really careful. What one may think they can do without and what one can actually live without are often two very different things. Granted, everyone’s different, but will anyone in the Southern States really go without air conditioning? Does anyone really want manual steering? When’s the last time anyone drove a car without power steering or brakes? Once someone has tasted or experienced simple conveniences like A/C, power steering, brakes, windows and doors it will be very hard to go back. So for me, those would have to be your absolute basics or necessities if you will. Case in point: my mother. A couple of years ago she decided to go back to basics, no power windows, doors or trunk. While at first she thought it liberating, soon after she found it very inconvenient and quite frankly, frustrating. The car was gone as soon as she could afford another. I’m not sure that’s the feeling or impression the new GM wants to give or leave with it’s customers.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm Wade Bryant said:
This is exactly what we need to understand better. We would like this car to be available with AND upgradeable to all the features some people feel they need, BUT we don’t want to force options on anyone.
I think everyone has their own threshold for sacrifice. Your point about what you think you can give up vs. what you can really live without is an EXCELLLENT point! Re-selling the car too, makes the concept of add-on accessories even more important.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:35 pm JonCleghorn said:
I agree. And options have to be handled through the “licensed” partners so that the burden and pressure to sell those options does not go through GM. People are already highly customizing Escalades, etc… at dealerships. Let the dealerships continue this but help them to take it to the next level by giving them a car with less on it and therefore more areas they can customize.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:51 pm Frederick Schmeisser said:
I hardly ever drive more than 20 miles in any given day. The bare necessities for me would just be comfort. Such as weather control for the seasons. I would not need any more then that as I only drive to shop and go to appointments and visit family nearby. The Volt is far too expensive and personally think a Mercedes of Electric cars is not a great start out vehicle, I’d sooner use that kind of money to buy a home.
I was around in 1969 when Germany launched the Volkwagen Beelte [Bug] and they sold millions because they planned a mass production, bare necessity vehicle that was very affordable. Along this concept is what I look from a Well-to-do auto manfacturer. There is a lot of companies looking into just that. Nissan has mentioned they plan to have in 2010-2011 this very concept [Around $5k-15k]. I am hoping American Auto Manufacturers will not have the blanket over their heads yet again.
I would even take a Volt without the Extended range, as I have staed above I drive no more than 20 miles per day if even that. there is nothing wrong with having luxury electric car, but to leave out the bulk of Americans that cannot afford those prices, it seems silly to not grab the market when you have the ability.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 2:05 pm lordatheling said:
I would like to add some information for other new technology on the forefront. Solar Plastics, by Konarca Tech LLC, http://www.konarca.com and for another recharge option; http://www.lutec.com.au these new technologies show much promise for going all Electric and at the same time save on recharging. I think for the meantime ERV’s are fantastic. But lets not be so arrogant to neglect what is at hand now and for the future. In the end it will take a combined effort to achieve the best results.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm msheekhah said:
While I can live without power steering, ABS, cruise control, I don’t want to.
Music is important in a commute… it helps keep you sane… MP3/iPod interoperability is good.
power locks power windows… fail with time, willing to give up.
need air bags
AC a Must in texas
and make it easier for larger people to get into smaller cars lol.
that will help.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm kussler said:
Things that I personally think about a Bare necessity car could have.
1 – Instead of using metal panels, use panels made of thermoplastic polymer resins (like the Pet Plastics bottles) and Kevlar. Good resistance, rust free and a lot lighter than usual.
2 – Use of recycled aluminum, carbon fiber and composite materials as space frame for the car. Again, rust free and lighter than usual.
3 – Replace usual hydraulic and other “analog” input systems using Drive-by-wire systems instead. The API idea suggested by the user kevzter is also a great idea.
4 – Create a standard interchangeable systems that allow “hardware modules” been replaced on-the-fly (hot swap) using the APIs for communication. If the owner wants satellite radio, cruise control you can add it plug in the module on the standard rack system, and also to remove it any time he wants to.
5 – Use as basis the GM’s skateboard chassis with a low displacement clean diesel engine as generator for the Electric Car in-wheel motor (like the Siemens eCorner system) until fuel cell systems be fully developed for general use.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:35 pm MikeDWhite said:
First of Bravo GM for putting this out here. This concept has been too long in coming from an American automaker.
What are the “Bare Necessities” for me? If it doesn’t play a direct role in getting you from point A to point B, it probably shouldn’t be there.
My big question is, why does it have to be tiny? My ideal “Bare Necessities” car from history is the 1960 Ford Falcon. It was a fairly large car (at least by today’s standards) with conventional packaging. Making the car “normal” size, maybe the size of a Cobalt, would give you an advantage in terms of aerodynamics, passenger space, and crash worthiness. What would have to come out, of course, would be all the things that quell the engine noise and smooth the ride. Those trade-offs would be acceptable in a car used mainly for commuting. I assume the owner of this type of car would also have a bigger car or rent one for long trips.
Try to make manufacturing easier and cheaper by recycling as many exiting parts from other models as possible. make it a four door, but make the doors “reversible” so that the left side rear door could also serve as the right side front door and vice versa.
There’s one area where you should really strive to innovate and that is climate control. AC is helpful in keeping the driver alert and clear-headed on hot days, however it is very resource-intensive. See if you can come up with a ventilation system that provides most of the cooling benefits of AC but with only a fraction of the energy use. Take a holistic approach and see how the design of the car can be optimized for cooling, maybe taking ideas from the building industry.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:02 pm Wade Bryant said:
Your size discussion is a good one for us to follow up on. When we first posed the idea of Bare Necessity we didn’t have any particualr size in mind. People just liked the concept of a minimalistic car. We know there are many people that could give up creature conforts but not over-compromise on vehicle size.
We had some interesting discussions around parts re-use too. Are you implying sharing parts from other current production cars or from scrapped cars? It would be cool to incorporate parts from the “cash-for-clunkers” trade-ins, instead of scrapping every part.
I think you’re on to something.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:52 pm MikeDWhite said:
I was referring to using parts that are already in production for other vehicles (like you did for the Solstice) however, sourcing parts from scrap vehicles would also be great. In fact, for any given part, you could switch between newly produced parts and “refurbished” pieces as supply allowed.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:43 pm JonCleghorn said:
Using used items or even refurbished items runs into warranty issues and therefore potential lawsuits. Avoid it if at all possible. Simply make the new component cheaper to produce, and more reliable. Use industry standards whenever possible so that you are not making something custom that you, in turn, become the only supplier of.
The Catch 22 is that companies want to build reliable vehicles but they also want to sell parts. You can’t have both. Build a reliable, easy to repair vehicle and you won’t have such a huge overhead of spare parts to deal with. Huge overheads of spare parts always leads to the corporate structure trying to force them down the dealership’s throats to get them off the books by the end of the fiscal year.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 9:32 pm Thomas Maloney said:
I would look at the Mazda 2 or the VW Up! for some ideas of a basic car. I like what I see but the side window beltline cut out is bass ackwards and needs to be like the Mazda 2. The car needs to have fewer parts than a conventional car referencing Gordon Murray’s City Car. The car needs to be made of Boron steel like the Fiesta or Mazda 2 and weight savings needs to a major goal. I would work with suppliers to combine parts, eliminate machining and fastners. I would look at Fiat’s Multi Jet and Multi Air technology and perhaps make the engine a small Diesel. The transmission needs to be a DSG like the upcoming Fiesta transmission. The car cannot be cheaped out and needs to be basic, but have quality like the 60s era VW Beetle. GM cheaps out their small cars too much, think VW! I would go with painted steel wheels, Macpherson struts in the front with a torsion beam axle in the rear like the Opel Corsa. The car needs to have a simple logical interior like the new VW Polo. I hate the Toyota Yaris interior with the center dash. Crank em windows and frameless windows are fine if the seals are good quality. Simplify parts and assemblies as much as possible, make the car easy to manufacture. Eliminate options and manufacturing becomes much easier. Have a few basic colors. Get suppliers and manufacturing involved upfront. Do not award business on a low bid, award on quality and delivery.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 9:41 pm Thomas Maloney said:
You know one platform that I think you may want to look at to under pin this car is your own Opel Corsa platform which gets good reviews in Top Gear and Car Magazine. I would not make it smaller than the Corsa. It needs to have the dynamics of the Corsa.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 11:06 pm Stephen said:
You want some inspiration? Look at the original (1980?) Fiat Panda. Look at the 2CV, the original 1959 Mini, the original Beetle.
But here’s what I have to have:
0-60 under 10 seconds with a manual transmission
40+ mpg
A/C
good, sporty handling
versatile space utilization
ABS
good crash protection
reliability
Right now I drive a Honda Fit, but I also considered a Kia Soul and a Nissan Cube. Something like that, with some imagination invested, and a real-world selling price of about $15-16k would be about right. The cheaper the car, the more innovative the presentation would need to be in order to capture the audience’s imagination.
I wouldn’t be comfortable cutting all the way down to the level of a Tata Nano or a GEM.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:59 am Steve Austin said:
I am willing to pay a premium to get a car that has the most elusive feature of all, “lightness”. Followed by “good handling”. As it happens my first feature request makes the second one much easier. My dream car
2000 pounds
RWD
1.5L 100hp
seats 4
manual steering (remember, the car is light, so its not hard to turn the wheel unassisted)
manual window cranks (save weight)
5 speed manual transmission (no need for six on a car with an engine this small)
manual door locks (save weight)
AM/FM Radio with 2 speakers (save weight, people can aftermarket a good stereo if they want one)
Air bags (keep these because they save lives)
14″ rims (save weight, makes tires cheaper to buy)
4 wheel disc brakes (keep these because they stop faster than drum brakes and will help save lives)
Options:
AC (because you don’t need the AC in some parts of the country)
I’d guess it should get about 40mpg based on low weight, and small engine. It would be more fun than most “sports” cars because it would be light, have quick steering, and decent acceleration (because remember, its lightweight).
If you want an example, check out the 1984 corolla gt-s. It was 2200 pounds, 120hp, rwd, had 4 seats, and basically meets my standards. I figure since I’m proposing a smaller engine (1.5 instead of 1.6), and also because we have 25 years more experience building cars you should be able to build the same package and get it to be safer and still meet the 2000 pound weight.
Call me crazy, but I just know if you produce a small engine RWD car thats fun to drive, people will buy it. I bet before Mazda miata came out, people said that it wouldn’t sell, but look at it now. The most popular sports car ever.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:22 am Cam said:
I agree with Mark’s comment about the size of the car, it shouldn’t necessarily be a sub-compact sized car, for many people a bare necessity automobile may need to be a bit bigger to fit their needs. On the other hand, as a college student, i think the concept of a minimalistic vehicle could be a great product for college students. A lot of us need a car that can be practical and affordable. Having a car that you can make to your own specifications is a great concept, this would really allow students on a budget to practically make their own car and build it to their needs. Maybe you could even throw in a variation of efficient drivetrains and powerplants that would allow people to choose whether or not they could have a car with a more “sporty” feel to it..I think a bare necessity car should be able to be fun, if a consumer wants that option. In my opinion this would add character and uniqueness to it, i don’t think this car should be forced to be an ordinary point A to point B kind of car if the customer doesn’t want it to be.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:43 am Julie said:
Just a thought, when I am driving and the weather is the least bit warm, I would rather have the windows open. The only way to get away with no air conditioning is to bring back the small window that served as a deflector in the 60’s. That is the only thing that saves the driver/passenger from getting blown away, and the hair in their face! There have been lots of nice days that I have to use a/c just because of that. I have longed for the small window many times! Really, if you are designing a car for the average American, you have to find a way to keep the storage space and the passenger room. The soundness of the vehicle will go a long way in making it feel like it is worth any amount of money, and the seat choice as far as comfort and style is another deal breaker for me. Give the customer a comfortable seat that looks good to the eye, and a place to put groceries or something from the hardware, you will have a top seller. Too many times I go vehicle shopping at GM dealers and turn away after looking at the ugly seats. The only problem is, I buy GM. So leather becomes my only option. The fabric choices someone is making are horrendous. Get an interior designer involved this time PLEASE!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 7:49 am Derek Heath said:
I’ve been more and more interested in a ‘back to basics’, utilitarian transport for the masses, since I heard about the Tata Nano.
If we are serious about reducing the impact that cars make on the planet, then we have to shed weight and fripperies, and get back to cars like the original Mini, Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV and Beetle. The original Fiat Panda and Citroen AX were probably the last mainstream cars to fulfil this ethos.
What don’t I need?
I don’t need power windows all round but one on the passenger side is handy when travelling one-up.
If the car is lightweight, I don’t need power steering.
I don’t need central locking.
I certainly don’t need electric mirrors.
I don’t need ABS, but I understand this soon to be a legal requirement.
I don’t need air-con, if I have a sunroof.
I *do* need some kind of ICE, with a minimum of AM, FM and an iPod connector.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:17 am Carrie Crawley said:
Great feedback, thanks!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 7:54 am Paul Hudak said:
Make it as simple as an old VW bug. Manual crank windows, a simple radio, rubber floor. As for style, try doing something interesting with the a-pillars e.g vertical, or s-shaped (like an old Impala). Bring back the small vent windows on the front doors–they are cool and great for ventilation.
Also, the car does not need to have the fit and finish of a BMW–just make it reliable and inexpensive.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:17 am SMP said:
My first new car was a Chevy Z-24 in 1990. I owned it for 3 months, and it was in the shop for 6 weeks out of that time. It was junk. Looking back on that car, it was underpowered overweight beast ( and not the good kind ). Since then I have ran away from GM. Over the past 5 years I have walked onto my GM lots, feeling the need to give GM another chance. But Looking at these cars, they are overpriced, JUNK.
GM, this bare bones car idea is yet another BAD idea. Face it, the people on this website are going to be GM fanboys. But you also need critical people. Cars are an advancement of technology. 10 years ago you never saw a Navigation in a Nissan or Hyundai. Nor could you find ABS or ESP. These are EXPECTED. GM still uses 4 speed transmission, while even a Kia has 6 speed transmissions.
GM, you are the biggest joke, after Chrysler. Your cars are poorly built, and that is a fact. I drove a 2009 $60K CTS and it interior panels coming loose. So all this talk about quality is a huge lie. And yes I know you can’t judge a auto maker by one car. Infact, you can. Walking on a GM lot of any type, you see broken down dealerships, overpriced, under featured junk.
Your cars, should have everything the competition has, 6 speeds, A/C, NAV, power everything, ABS, 6 airbags, ESP, 35 MPG, Leather seating, iPod connection, SAT radio, powerful 10+ speaker radios…THESE ARE the basics..If every other car maker from Honda to Toyota can make these cars for under $18K then GM can… Not make falling apart junk with a 3/36 warranty….it disgusts me when I think of how GM made the US auto industry a laughing joke.
WE should be the leader in innovation, in price, in efficiency, but GM you will NEVER figure that out…
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:40 am Wade Bryant said:
The goal of this site is to get input from everyone, in fact we’ve been contemplating ways to bring in people that are not normally inclined to seek information about GM cars.
So far, I’ve seen constructive feedback from plenty of GM and non-GM drivers.
As the LAB progresses, we’ll try to feature a variety of new vehicle ideas. Maybe one of them will be something that is more in tune with what you’d like.
For now, I can only address comments that apply to the topics we’re blogging about.
I’m glad you made the effort to check out the site. We’re a changing company (check out the new Chevy Malibu for an example of a VERY COMPETITIVE car)
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:49 pm JonCleghorn said:
If you are only “competitive” you are only a part of the “flowing water”. You need to be the “wave” to rebuild GM. People don’t flock to the ocean to see the water. They go to see the waves.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:46 am George Yeager said:
Kudos for the new direction, but it has really taken far too long. I do not buy cars that don’t get 40 mpg, and I have not done so since 2000. In our family we now have a 2005 VW Passat Diesel wagon, a 2000 Honda Insight (original), and a 2008 smart 451. All three achieve or exceed our 40 mpg requirement using quite different but current technology approaches. There may be something to learn by looking at each of these cars and seeing what sort of a mash-up one could create. How about a lightweight 1500 cc turbo-Diesel powered 5-door (hatchback) sedan with great aerodynamics and a plastic exterior (Saturn was on the right track before the bean-counters got it). Use a high-efficiency paddle-shifted 6 speed manual transmission having an automatic shift program capability. Keep it simple and spartan, but make it quiet and comfortable.
Where do I send my check?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:06 am vettes said:
If GM was REALLY smart and business saavy, we would partner with Apple or some other manufacturer of smart phones and use these devices as the main media for controling a lot of vehicle functions (HVAC, MP3 player, nav, tach, other GUIs). Alow a win-win partnership by integrating a smart phone to take over a lot of the class 2 bus traffic needed by the ECM, PCM, TCMs of our modern day cars. And please, do we really need Onstar in the Bare Essentail car? Nope, drop it, the extra wiring, battery, and larger mirror.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 7:07 pm David Wiggins said:
If you team up w/ a mobile device mfg and put something like an iphone in the car, then you’re MOSTLY there with an onstar like service. the only thing that the device needs to be able to know that it currently wouldn’t know is if there has been a crash. I read in a BMW rag that GM recently started using the BMW crash severity algorithm (BMW makes it available for free as a service to the public) , and when OnStar calls in a wreck to first responders, they can also tell them what sort of wreck to expect so they have the right gear on hand to save your life. i think the extra wiring to get the data from the accelerometers into the device that’s calling for help is useful. i’m fully aware that an iphone (specifically) has a 3 axis accelerometer in it already, but my guess is that all the airbag sensors and whatnot provide a more complete picture of how bad a crash was.
on the issue of wiring weight though – no reason that the sensor net needs a bunch of heavy cable connecting it all together. optical fiber is really lightweight, as are the electronics needed to make a device a node on the network. every thing that needs to talk to the central computer can have 6 “wires” connecting it – 2 power wires and then 2 sets of optical in/out. you can connect all the devices as a daisy chain and you cut way down on the optical fiber needed to get the whole thing plumbed, and then run the network at a data rate that’s fast enough to get the job done. you could even carry data like “turn on the brake lights” on the bus – save yourself the copper wire that goes from the brake pedal switch to the relay to the wire that goes back to the lights. instead, there’d be appropriate inputs up at the control cluster that could tell that the brake pedal was being pressed, and the computer would put a message on the bus – “hey, if you’re a tail light module, turn on your brake lights”
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm kevzter said:
I like the idea of having a network in the car, it simplifies a lot of things and would also probably save weight and cost. Instead of tying yourself to one vender (like Apple), however, the API’s to access and control all these components should be open so any device can access them (as I stated in an earlier post). You would then be able to download an iPhone App, for example, that would allow you to define custom macros to control your car. If there was also 802.11 (secured of course) in the car, you could do things like remotely roll down all the windows to cool the car off before you reach it. This is just an example but think of the possibilities! Developers could literally write new features for the car!
Of course this could also be dangerous so there would need to be restricted access to some things like shutting off the engine whist in motion!
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:55 pm JonCleghorn said:
OnStar is not “mostly” there. OnStar is a application for your car. The iPhone is an application for your life. The iPhone has 10,000+ applications and is growly rapidly because it is open source (to some degree) and therefore accessible to you and me for our own particular needs. Any average Joe can create an application and make it available.
If, alternatively, OnStar opened up part of itself and could interface with an iPhone through a special SDK that people could write applications for then you have the potential to create unique applications that merge the two technologies and therefore make the uniqueness of the application tied to your vehicles. Why reject Apple when you could incorporate them and work with them? Use their sales and follower base to boost your own. Going away from that is bad business and makes no sense.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:14 am Jesse Taylor said:
That green and black car is brilliant.
I wish you guys would make cars EXACTLY like that.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:24 am Vettes4show said:
Can the someone from the design team please clarify that the concept of Bare Necessity vehicle does not mean (or should it mean) what Tata has come out with the Nano. A minimalistic vehicle with a very low $2500 price point. I recognize that the Nano is not certified to be sold in Europe or the States, but the CONCEPT of a cheap “people’s car” idea has been started by Tata. What GM needs to do is not play chase with this company, but rather, redirect our OWN meaning of a “people’s car” with minimal necessities. I like the idea of being able to upgrade the body of the vehicle as it suits my needs. We came out with this idea with the Hy-wire concept. A rolling “skateboard” for a powertrain, with a body that can be dropped on the vehicle. It that proves to costly, then let us try what Nissan did back in the 80’s with the Pulsar NX.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:52 am Wade Bryant said:
We have discovered that Bare Necessity means different things to different people. These vehicles were built around the idea of ECO Bare Necessity and to your point needed to be major-market compliant (safety standards, etc.)
The ECO part is important. The customers we are targeting are willing to make sacrifices for efficiency’s sake. This could mean giving up some creature comforts, but not to the point of annoyance. It might also mean spending more money on advanced engines or on eco-responsible materials.
The Bare Necessity idea is flexible. What should it be? What would you want?
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 10:59 pm JonCleghorn said:
The “ECO” part should not be a mandate of design. There are plenty of people willing that are willing to plunk down hard cash (which you need to survice) and they don’t give a hoot about ECO oriented vehicles. Do you want to sell cars or don’t you?
By locking onto “ECO” it sounds suspiciously like you want people as buyers that are willing to pay a little extra to get less overall. i.e. we can’t build a car that’s efficient without it also costing more.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:01 am Grayson said:
As you can see from reading the comments “Bare Necessities” for everyone is different. Being able to add modules of equipment to suit each persons individual needs is a bare necessity. What ever you do consider serviceability. For example: My Saturn Aura/Chevy Malibu is one of the finest cars I have owned in 40 years of buying new cars. But try changing the front turn signal bulb. Form follows function in design. To achieve a design that is “Green”, attractive, efficient and has mass appeal is a very tall order. But, please entertain a focus group of service personnel along with consumers. In the next few years it will be increasingly important to have a vehicle that is not only green but user friendly. A person should be able to change a burnt out lamp without having to dismantle their vehicle.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:11 am Jared F said:
I love the idea of a minimilistic car, but I think that the issue of compromise will not work in america. Americans as a whole want more out of everything. I dont feel that the average person is willing to give up the things they have gotten used too such as power windows, locks, steering, brakes.
When is the last time you tried to drive thru rush hour in any major metropolitan area in car with manual brakes, steering, and no stereo? That would be an exausting experience to say the least.
We have to keep in mind that the majority of people who contribute to a blog such as this are NOT the average american. For the most part I would assume we are all “car people” or else we wouldnt be spending our free time on here. We understand more about cars then the average american, and I would HOPE drive a little better. The average driver does not drive their car… they simple get in and direct it. This is why all these safety features have become government mandate.
The mention of a using API’s to integrate a phone into a car to replace things such as GPS, mp3 storage etc is fantastic, but would take years to accomplish. The battles that would need to be fought with the major cellphone makers and carriers would likely take years, and much compromise. I think the idea of modular accessories is much more viable in both the short and long term.
What I would consider the bare necessities for the general populus:
Power locks/windows/mirrors
Power steering/brakes (brakes with ABS, no speed sensing electronic assists..)
Sound deadening. (the car doesnt need to be silent, but most non-car people dont like exaust drone or engine noise)
Stereo
Room for four people OR two + cargo
AC
headroom
Enough power to merge onto a highway on a short entrance ramp without risking myself of the poor guy i merge in front of. (My hope is this would be achieved with a lower vehicle curb weight).
Things I PERSONALLY would like to see:
Simplicity:
Simple helps save GM costs which can be passed on to the consumer. I understand that the Goodwrench guys need to work too, but simple maintenence such as oil changes, belt changes and brake pads shouldnt require an ASE certification and pulling the engine. Simplifying access to the normal maintenence parts of a motor would help both the shade tree mechanic and the standard consumer. A vehicle that is easier to work on benifits everyone. The guy that likes to do his own maintenence can with less fustration, and people who take their car to the shop end up paying for fewer man hours per job. Power locks, windows etc break… but if the window motor could be replaced easily (IE – not RIVITED in) it wouldnt be such a problem or an expense to repair.
Sustainability:
This goes in part with the modular theme, part with the simplicity, and has the benefits of marketing towards the “green” folks. Recycled plastics and metals can be used for interior and exterior. Accessory modules bought for one car can be swapable into another. Not only does this save consumers money, but creates less waste when disposing of the car.
I think the idea that was mentioned of being able to reuse parts from existing production cars would be cool, but should also be foward thinking… meaning provide adapters/docks so that those old accessories can be used in the new modular design, but can be easily phased out as the supply of older parts dwindles.
Also, im sure this had been looked into, but I would like to see the engineers come up with some way to reuse some of that energy being wasted during travel.. for example, someone commuting at 40mph is creating “wind” as they drive. There must be some viable way to harness some of this energy to use in recharging the battery. Same goes for solar power on a car that sits in a parking lot for 8 hours a day.. I know neither of these could be a primary charging source for hybrid or electric vehicles, and are currently probably too cost restrictive for a “back to basics” vehicle.. but would be something that I would like to see implemented in the future.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:59 am Wade Bryant said:
I’ve noticed quite a few suggestions for “easy-maintenance” features on Bare Necessity (here, on the Bare Necessity Truck blog and on outside forums discussing these concepts)
As you mentioned, this site might be attracting a disproportionate number of auto enthusiasts who don’t mind doing their own maintenence and service.
I wonder if this is a growing trend or an idea that appeals to the “Eco-Smart” customer.
Thanks for the comments.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:27 pm GARRETT said:
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Sure changing your own oil is fine, but a new car should not need more maintenance than that. Even a five year old car shouldnt need more than that!
If someone likes to do those things then they can come help me with my POS Ram thats only a 2004, or just buy themselves an old Camaro.
Sure fixing your car should be kept easy enough for the average do it yourselfer, but cars fall apart too damn easily as is, and require u to take them to the dealership. I know it might make you more money short term, but thats why no one likes GM long term.
And stop putting those damn plastic covers over the engine. Theyre worthless! That will save you a few bucks.
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 11:02 pm JonCleghorn said:
“Easy maintenance” refers to people that don’t want to get ripped off by dealerships to repair things that are simply replacing a single part (or should be simply replacing a single part).
Case in point, some cars require the whole engine transmission assembly to be dropped from the bottom of the car for basic maintenance. That is not “easy” to any degree. I, you, we shouldn’t have to replace a component to change another component. Each should be accessible in its own right.
to this comment On November 26, 2009 at 1:00 am Dan Frederiksen said:
nah people want a vehicle that requires no maintenance at all. not one they can work on themselves.
a fixed gear ultralight battery electric could do that. like a little less ugly aptera but weigh less. that’s right less. much less. and the wheels shall be thin like 2 inches or less and they shall be the airless kind with plastic blades and they shall well under 10lbs. your thinking is still dreadfully conventional. your idea of innovative is to copy the small european cars.. how do they select you guys? the most mundane and unoriginal minds?
it’s like you’ve never heard of the Loremo or the Aptera or the VW 1L or even the GM ultralite.
WAKE UP!!!!!!
this is what you should be thinking http://www.zev.dk
and I have a design in mind that’s even far more radical than that, that would blow the mind of the world. your imagination is limited to what you see on the street… 10 years ago
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:51 am Michael said:
Interesting conversation, GM really needed some fresh thinking. This interaction ought to be communicated more to the public, it helps GM to rejuvenate its weakened image.
There is clear evidence that demand for simple, discretionary products is on the rise (e.g. see “Understanding the Post-Recession Consumer” by Flatters and Willmot, Harvard Business Review, Aug 2009) and I also know that this trend has been picked up by a number of automotive manufacturers years ago, so GM is not alone. But GM is interpreting this trend more radically than others and herein lies both the risk and opportunity. That makes it particularly important for GM to understand customer attitudes regarding the Bare Necessity Car. Bare necessities vary fundamentally even if individual customers preferences did not exist, simply on the grounds of the environment in which the vehicle is driven. Urban needs are fundamentally different to rural needs, and both categories can be broken down in further subcategories of needs. For instance, average-sized cities still allow medium and some larger vehicles, while a metropolis would largely restrict demand to small vehicles. What this shows is that bare necessities need to be segmented in order to identify their respective definitions (plural!) of bare necessity. Otherwise you will end up receiving feedback that may be very creative, but of little true value because they conflict one another. Any business decision build on this would not reflect the true customer demand.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for the positive feedback! I am familiar with the Harvard Business Review article on the Post Recession Consumer and agree with your commentary. Keep checking back to see the other proposals we post down the road.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:21 am Carchitect said:
I feel that the Bare Necessity car would be an an alternative to the Volt. The EFlex system has a lot of potential but is very complicated and expensive. They put that into a body that is chunky looking and does not create an eco image of uniqueness like the Prius or Leaf. The early adopters are going to be people who want this type of car to have a bit of a quirkiness to it. Some would say they are odd. The Volt is just a sporty smaller Malibu with a heave GM corporate image.
The real Bare Care would be an EV2. GM has plenty of experience and now with Lithium it would work. A pure EV is much simpler in design than either hybrid or eflex. This EV2 combined with The Labs fresh design would be a marketing boon to GM. It would show they can do EV, Hybrid, and EFlex.
To me the EV2 would resurrect the personal passion that the candlelight vigil holding original owners had. It is the perfect embodiment of Bare and having something so unique and actually having to be ‘mindful’ in a zen way of charging your baby, keeping tabs on where charging stations are allowing them to proliferate. It would be a happy sacrifice for many. Many would know that their power was coming from coal, nuclear, or alt energy. It would give the owners the opportunity to install solar pv panels, or buy carbon offsets for the ‘american’ coal they use.
I call it the Mindful Zen Eco EV2 lifestyle car complete with iPhone app!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:31 am Ｍａｔｅｏ said:
Change the website name from gmblogs becuase it looks too much like gamble.
Very beautiful designs. I hope something positive comes of all of this.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for the positive feedback! Wow, I never noticed the word play…I’ll let communications tackle that one.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:34 am mdwychoff said:
A truly bare-necessity car MUST also be ‘bureaucrat-free’!
Get the government regulators and bureaucrats as far away from auto/truck manufacturing and commerce as possible!
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE what they want to buy in the WORLD marketplace! Consumers should be allowed to purchase ANY EXISTING vehicle that meet their needs FROM ANYWHERE, free of additional government red-tape and regulation.
1. Get trial lawyers out of the picture. Limit every manufacturers liability for any vehicle defect to $1.00.
2. GIVE every buyer FREEDOM OF CHOICE from the WORLD transportation marketplace, available at their fingertips on the internet.
A ‘32 Model A highboy roadster, a 2007 Freightliner with a sleeper, a Duesenberg Model J, a Vespa scooter, a Ferrari Enzo, a Suburban, a Cadillac SRX, a Dodge Ram 4×4, an electric-powered skateboard, a Hummer H2, a rickshaw, and a rusty 1961 Chevy Biscayne wagon all still exist in the marketplace PRECISELY BECAUSE there was and still IS a buyer… SOMEWHERE.
GM and the other US vehicle manufacturers have suffered for decades from a curious national myopia better known as the ‘Not-Invented-Here’ syndrome.
US auto manufacturers have long had the misconception that THEY ALONE MUST OFFER EVERY CONCEIVABLE TYPE OF VEHICLE FOR EVERY CONCEIVABLE BUYER.
It just ain’t so!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:46 am PhilR said:
please replace my previous post with this one!
Easy maintenance (do it yourself maintenance), extra long durability like the A/C that is still working in my cars that are over 34 years old… (and no need to recycle the car!) and low cost of operation are OK for me. But I don’t mind if a vehicle uses a bit more energy if it’s fun to drive and fun to own!
And yes, I do have a green car! Guess which one?!
http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/2/web/770000-770999/770691_68_full.jpg
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm Wade Bryant said:
I like both green cars in your photo. I grew up riding in a ‘73 LeSabre Custom 455
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21681081@N06/3814741819/
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:40 pm Phil Racicot said:
I forgot to tell that the ‘06 Smart had it’s A/C system serviced twice because of leaks and while my ‘75 Electra’s A/C system is still charged with it’s original refrigerant and blowing cold…
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:12 pm Steve said:
All the answers to your questions are in automotive history books.
The Mini now is a success because it is clever and efficient enough with well-proportioned looks. Makes a profit and makes customers happy even if it has low quality scores. The original Mini was much the same, with even more cleverness.
The Crosley failed because it wasn’t supported with good marketing, it had frumpy looks, and it didn’t meet minimum standards of usefulness, while costing nearly as much as a full-size car. It’s worth a look at it, though, just to learn about small cars.
The Corvair was a success before it was a failure. It sold based on its cleverness, while the Ford Falcom out-sold it with the most conventional car ever built.
Citroen’s 2CV was never a hit in the US, but it lasted longer than any other small car because of its cleverness and well proportioned styling. Same goes for the original VW, even though both were marginal in serviceability for the high-speed world of the US.
The Chevy/Geo Metro was a remarkably good car, but it had not marketing support and it didn’t look clever or imaginative. It awoke no fantasy in the owner. It was sold as an alternative to used cars, while not mentioning it was the highest mileage car available in the country. Of course if gas were more than $5 a gallon in this country, the Metro would still be a hit.
The Aveo is just not good enough at anything. And it works too hard to look like a small Impala.
The new Ford Fiesta is a good idea. Just make a better looking, better working car with some unique utility features. Let me attach toys to the outside and inside. Make the seats comfortable but different looking, even though they should be cheap. How about modern fabrics on a 2CV-type seat?
Make sure the controls work like a Honda. Responsive, positive, simple and reliable.
Maybe you should just take a Honda Fit and figure out how to make it look better, drive better and cost less.
Yes, that is too much to ask.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm ondigo said:
Must haves:
Ease of entry/exit. A small, light car need not translate into a low-slung car. One thing I like about the Smart cars is the ease of entry/exit. It is easier to get into than my Neon.
Breathable seats. To reduce weight, make the seats like an Aeron chair but with stronger frames. The driver seat can be slightly larger than the passenger seats, if that helps reduce the overall width of the vehicle. Just make sure that mesh can be easily replaced if it gets ripped.
Air conditioning. There’s just too much of the country that swelters for this not to be a standard feature. But I will note that for about a year, I regularly drove a ‘65 Galaxie and the ventilation system on that was **awesome**. Revisit the passive ventilation designs from that era and the A/C might not need be quite so burly as currently built.
Plug-in hybrid. I cringe at the time spent idling, knowing that if I had a PIH I wouldn’t be polluting. Or look into licensing the compressed air engine that Motor Development International is developing.
USB ports. I should be able to analyze the car’s status and performance on my own PC using software that GM should provide when I buy the car.
Decent highway speed capability. For all that I do the majority of my driving in the city, there is always the need to get on the highways several times a week. I need the car to be able to hit 75-80 mph and sustain that for several minutes.
Rear cargo space. The Smart ForTwo, for all its positives, has too little cargo space. Earlier, I suggested having the rear passenger seats facing backward. That maximizes the use of their space as cargo area when there are no people in the seats. Or have inward-facing, foldable “jump seats”.
Electric side mirrors. I know this adds weight, complexity and cost. But the additional safety is worth it.
Open architecture. The electronics and software should be designed to be changeable/extensible. Owners should be able to plug-n-play additional electronics and features, just as we are able to swap out car stereos now. This principle should be applied to as much of the car as possible.
Bluetooth. Skip the built-in stereo. Just let us pair our phones with the car’s speakers and play music that way.
Multiple power ports (or cigarette lighters, as we knew them in the Dark Ages).
Automatic transmission. (If that is even an issue in an electric motor car.)
Some other ideas:
Instead of the floor being shaped like a pan that traps dirt, come up with some other shape that makes it easy to sweep out. This can help reduce the need for carpeting which in turn reduces weight, cost, and manufacturing footprint.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:14 pm Constituionalist said:
I created this account so that I felt like I had an avenue to shout at the GM windmills.
Just read about the possible new cross-over Cadillac and the ‘plug-in’ Buick. Eh…so what.
When is GM going to take the innovation and coolness they put into their expensive vehicles and transfer that to what I’d refer to as a ‘high-end’ compact car? Just because it’s a compact car doesn’t mean it cannot have good leather seating, materials that don’t feel like they came off of my children’s play-skool set, or fall apart under a strong wind.
The Vibe is a genuinely good car, oh wait, GM decided to phase it out along with the other ‘boring’ Pontiacs in favor of….hmmm, yeah that’s right, nothing. Oh wait, I forgot there is the Cruze coming…next year!
While Toyota updates the Corolla, Honda the civic, Ford the Focus…we’re yet again waiting for GM to play catch-up. Why is it that GM is always two-years behind the curve?
Great, the Volt’s gas mileage has head’s spinning…too bad most of us will never be able to afford to purchase one or replace the battery when it dies.
By then Chrysler will have re-badged half a dozen Fiat’s under their nameplate and you’ll have another company to fall behind.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:27 pm Jason Drews said:
Good venting Constitutionalist!
Do you think a vehicle matching your liking for the Vibe is a plausible direction for a “Bare Necessity” vehicle?
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 11:08 pm JonCleghorn said:
The Volt’s mileage is known farce. It is based on a EPA standard that does not exist for hybrid cars.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
The Vibe is an excellent vehicle, but it’s a rebadged Toyota. They won’t make any more because GM pulled out of the joint-venture facility where they were assembled.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:14 pm Thomas said:
My prior job was as a traveling computer consultant. I got to work in both North American and Europe. There were parts of Europe where the Toyota Yaris was a medium/large car. Many of the cars were too small for my likes, but, even though small, many had really “nifty” designs.
While I’d never see myself buying a Smart For Two, the Smart For Four and the Smart Sport Coup fall into the realm of possibility. A number of Peugots and Leons were nifty. Most of the nifty, small cars in Europe simply aren’t available in the States. I like smallish cars: I just don’t want them to look like uninspired toys.
And, just because I might buy a small a highly-efficient car doesn’t necessarily mean I’m looking for a *cheap* – looking or feeling – car. The beauty of Europe is the unbelievable choice of diesel-based vehicles. I can get a car that’s reasonably priced *and* has decent get up and go *and* is more efficient than similar-performing gasoline-based cars. It’s the lack of such vehicles in the U.S. is depressing, really. About my only choicese in the U.S. are VWs. I’d really like more than just the VWs. BMW sells a 3-Series diesel, but neither the 1-series nor the Mini Cooper are available with a diesel option in the U.S.. Ford makes some decent diesels for Europe, too – again, not available in the U.S. GM, before they got rid of them, had a number of diesels in Europe through their Opel division. While they borrowed the Opel SUV design for the recent Saturn VUEs, they never bothered to bring other small and/or diesel-powered versions over to the US under other GM brands. It’s really a shame.
As to the vehicle pictured above: “meh”. I don’t care for something that looks like a small mini-van or small PT Cruiser. I especially don’t care for a car that looks like it was assembled from different cars found at a junkyard (get rid of the mismatched colors for the body panels: I *hated* the Ford Ka’s that used this type of color scheme). It looks like crap. I mean, if I wanted to buy a vehicle that looked like a running shoe, I’d buy one of the various “crotch-rocket” motorcycles.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:15 pm Tom said:
What a true “economy” car would be to me.
I think one concept that the auto industry has gotten away from is simplicity. Cars are filled with gadgets and this seems to take the place of true automotive engineering. With GM calling for a return to simplicity, please allow me to advance my idea behind that great blank slate in Americain automotive culture, the base model economy car.
First you must realize that we will take this car and make it our own, we neither need or want the car industry to to provide a glossy finished product, just basic transportation, that we will add to as we see fit. However, craftsmanship must remain as high as for a top end product.
My wish list:
The basics
For less than 10K total purchase price I imagine a car of about 1.3l displacement and less than one ton curb weight. It should be a two door hatchback, with large doors. The rear bench seat should be completely removable. With the rear seat removed and the front seats positioned for maximum leg room, you should still be able to get a bicycle inside (with the front wheel detached). A ten gallon fuel tank is the minimum acceptable size, bonus points (in the form of greater curb weight) for a fifteen or twenty gallon tank. After all, most of these vehicles will be driven by someone who occasionally gets paid to do some driving with a tank of gas. Every gallon of that gas should be able to take that car at least 45 miles down the highway.
The engine:
Would be a front mounted transverse straight 4 with overhead cam and multiport electronic fuel injection. It should be designed with owner maintenance in mind. The fluids, filters belts and battery should be replaceable without tools. I will make an exception for the timing belt, but it should not take a specialized tool to replace, either.
The body:
I don’t imagine this this vehicle coming in any color other than white (dealers can sell vinyl graphic packages, and for heavens sake make it easy to mask off and paint ourselves). Do not add any kind of trim to the exterior. Front and rear turn signals should have simple, inexpensive to replace covers. LED lighting should be everywhere but the headlights, which should be halogen. There should be no single use fasteners on the vehicle, phillips head screws or hex head bolts should be used wherever possible.
The blower for the climate control should be easily accessible, on the engine side of the firewall. The environmental controls should be: fan speed, temp, recirculate air, defrost.
I know GM likes to lock the doors as you put the car into drive, but is that really necessary? How about door handles that children cant reach when buckled in? Power door locks always seemed like a convenient way of locking yourself out of your car. I prefer a door you have to lock from the outside, with the key.
Don’t put a radio in the car, it is a waste of your time, just make sure we have space to mount our own, with space to mount speakers in the doors as well. Leave a few spaces in the fuse panel to use with aftermarket electronics, lights, etc.
You can leave the carpet off the floor, If you need to deaden sound there, then add a full belly pan with insulation, and gain some aerodynamics.
Roll it out on 145/70R14 wheels with black steel rims and center hub caps (Because, as we all know that means base model) Disk front and drum rear brakes will do and I suppose I will have to accept power brakes to gain ABS.
What you can leave out:
Chrome has no place on this car, chromed plastic is an abomination. “Color keyed” floor mats are right out.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:00 pm Therese Tant said:
Tom, this is sooo good. Ur comments are both pragmatic & innovative. I can’t be specific but one thought in particular is something that i have explored with my current team and am so excited and passionate about. Fingers crossed, hope it builds momentum!!!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:43 pm GARRETT said:
I agree with a lot of this except with the white paint and no radio. A car with little to nothing would be nice, but I HAVE to have music so that I can escape the fact that Im driving the cheapest car on the road.
Also, no black plastic trim. If its so cheap the trim has to be black plastic, than save yourself even more money and dont add any tim.
thanks,
GARRETT
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 11:46 pm JonCleghorn said:
I agree, no “single use” fasteners. Also:
- Metal door handles
- Arm rests that don’t split from heat and wear.
- Dashes that don’t warp in the sun.
- Seats that don’t have nooks and crannies for stuff to fall in and never get out.
- Maintenance without tools or with basic common tools (not ones that strip out over time like phillips heads and blade head fasteners).
- Inexpensive run-flat tires.
- Seals/trim that aren’t covered with materials that wear off. All should be “virgin” or “native” finishes (no coating on top of them for final appearance).
- Seats are stain proof, washable. Don’t fade, or break down in the sun.
- In engine compartments complicated/highly detailed mechanical items (that will never likely be accessed) should be hidden out of the way to make the general area easy to clean and inspect. NOTE: do not hide them with additional plastic panels that would otherwise not exist.
- Rear view mirrors should be attached to the roof or dash and not the windshield.
- Foot pedals should not have rubber covers (they should be heavy molded items or metal with grip surfaces)
- Composite headlight covers must breathe to remove vapor and should not fade in the sun (i.e. glass or something like it)
- 5 or 6 speed automatic.
- Boots around shifters should be able to collect crud in them.
- Bulbs should be changeable without removing lens covers.
- Cup holders should be movable. i.e. multitude of holes located in interior in combination with cup holders that incorporate a post that can be plugged into holes.
- Glove boxes that stay organized when transitioning from closed to open.
- Gauges that are simply and not overly graphic or garishly colored.
- Wipers blades that stay out of the sun when not being used so they are always in good shape when you need them
- Wiper nozzles that are rubber tipped like shower heads so they can be easily unclogged with a simply flick of the finger
- Windows that don’t by default automatically lower to the bottom.
- Seat belts with connections further from the base of the seat and big buttons for release.
- Non-flush buttons to fold seats down
- vent wing windows as standard and AC as an option
- Non-hidden releases for cover panels like in the center console
- Those aftermarket covers over the side windows that allow them to opened for venting without rain coming in
- Easy to understand and foolproof to operate cruise controls (if they are an option)
- Water/moisture proof interior that can dry itself through it own ventilation system
- Solar sunroof and side windows that open themselves slightly on hot days
- Wire embedded windows that defrost with electricity instead of using warm air
- High mileage (multi fuel preferred, hybrid preferred, diesel as option)
- Aerodynamics focused on high mileage while trying to prevent a goofy look
- Low rolling resistance tires
- “lifetime” lubricants that never need to be changed
- smart filters and other “servicables” that are changed based on your particular driving style and not predefined amounts of miles or months.
- All parts should be able to be cleaned easily (even underneath the car and in the engine compartment)
- Tires rated for higher than 80 mph
- fiber optics embedded in the wiring harness that lead to each light. They provide feedback in the dash that a light is lit/working. A simple diagram of the car is on the dash and each light is represented by the end of the corresponding fiber. When the lamp is lit the fiber is lit as it soaks up the light near the bulb.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm Andrew said:
In any car there has to be some defining characteristic to set it apart from the rest. In order to design an efficent vehicle that sells, there needs to be that characteristic. A Prius sells because it is economical, a Corvette sells because it is quick. The great thing in making an efficent vehicle is that they can be combined, look at Lotus as an example. Lets face it, a Prius is not that great a car to drive, so what an efficent vehicle really needs is to be as light as possible. Now as a bare essentials car this should be easier, but then cost is a factor. It’s bare essentials, so it should be cheap, meaning expensive composites are out of the question. No carbon fiber. But looking at individual parts, how can we save weight? Do we need a CD player when most people shopping this car will have iPods? How much will that save, in both weight and cost? Can we use a manual transmission to avoid the losses associated with an automatic? Probably not, people are too lazy to shift themselves, but an automated manual, like the now expanding Dual Clutch gearboxes, is probably a good bet. Of course the engines have to be modern, with DI and Turbocharging to increase efficency. Really, a successful, efficent, car needs to have advanced fuel saving technology, and the new technology needs to replace the old, not run in addition to it. Redundancies are what kill cars, in cost and weight. An economy car needs to be light but practical, but it cannot be boreing any more. Econoboxes will not last as more companies put more design and effort into small cars, but carrying over a larger car’s styling doesn’t work, the result is an over-styled mess. They need a simple design (less Spark and more Fiesta), modern technology, and perhaps most important, long lasting quality.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:41 pm jwreed said:
My entire issue with US built economy cars is that the US manufacturers seem to equate economy with cheap. So people pay thousands more for Toyotas, Hondas, etc. then they would for an Aveo. Frankly, I think that I would see the MINI as a target for this type of car without the incredible expense, premium gas, etc.
When it comes to “options”, I would love to see a car that is easy to upgrade. Other then AC (which is a necessity in Arizona) that needs to be built in to work, things like power windows, power doors, remote entry could easily have the hooks built in and you just need to add the modules. I recently replaced a power lock actuator on my Mazda. It was incredibly difficult because I had to rip my door apart and work in a tiny space. I saw no reason it couldn’t have been as simple as removing a cover, unplugging the actuator, plugging in and inserting a new one and replacing the cover. The control and the switch could be simple plugins. Remote entry could also be a simple plug in.
The same is true with sound and nav systems. Make it easy to choose standard form factor equipment and make it easy to install with simple kits. Too much of the hassle comes from the manufacturers trying to make their solution “unique” (lock the customer in). My good old VW beetle from the 60’s had an incredible amount of aftermarket goodies to choose from.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:32 pm cgramer said:
For me, a “bare essentials” car would need the following:
- Great driving position and cockpit layout. If you feel comfortable and confident driving the car, the rest is secondary.
- Seat 4 tallish (6′0″-6′2″?) adults comfortably, 5 if they’re small (2 in front, 3 in back). Legroom in back is very important.
- Air conditioning (if you could design a really good ventilation system so that the A/C wouldn’t be needed as often, that would be nice).
- Good visibility, particularly to the rear and in the usual “blind spots.”
- Decent acceleration/passing power. I don’t mind if the car can’t go faster than 80-85, as long as it gets there relatively quickly.
- A non-jarring ride, but also not a floaty boat-like ride.
- Attractive shape/silhouette.
- Minimize plastic cladding and chrome trim.
- Good mileage: ~25-30 city, 30-35 highway.
- Low emissions. Zero emissions even better, but I’ll settle for Civic-like SULEV status.
- Armrests, front and rear (folds into seat in rear).
- An audio system that focuses on good sound, not an overabundance of features, and allows for iPod/iPhone or other MP3 player input. Single-disc CD is fine, preferably with MP3/WMA.
- ABS with power-assisted brakes.
- Power-assisted steering, but not the old “one-finger steering” kind that removes all road feel.
What I don’t need:
- 10 cupholders. Two in front, two in back. Good enough.
- HomeLink garage door opener/etc. on my rear view mirror.
- Satellite radio.
- Fake wood trim (or real wood trim, for that matter).
- Power seats.
- Power door locks.
- Power windows.
- Heated/cooled seats/steering wheel/windshield washer nozzles.
- Built-in navigation — it’s much cheaper to buy (and easier to update) an aftermarket GPS unit.
- Rear-seat DVD entertainment systems.
- A sunroof/moonroof.
- Reclining rear seats.
This is all just off the top of my head. I’ll try to think about it more carefully and re-post.
I’m really psyched that GM is doing this.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm Therese Tant said:
I think that ur psyched that GM is doing the site…right? i am. The vehicles are still “concepts”, but hopefully the excitement generated here will push some of these ideas the distance. Putting advanced ideas in front of the general public is radical for an automotive company, believe me, I think it’s the most radical thing that I’ve seen in a great while and sweet sign of things to come at GM.
Relative to ‘what u need’ – what about the general size of the vehicle, even if it fits ur interior legroom requirements, is there a limit to the reduced exterior size in terms of perceived safety?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:33 pm slerch666 said:
Bare necessity for a car?
4 wheels, an engine, drive train and a seat. If you want basic plus you more add seats. If you basic plus plus you add some coverage from the elements like cars today.
Things people can do without:
Radio/CD Player/Stereo
Power Seats
Power Windows
Sat Nav
Large Cars
AC (many Europeans do without)
SUVs
Things people can’t do without:
Cover from the elements
Safety
Some storage capacity (no one wants to go to the grocery store and ride home with bags in their laps)
For me personally, however, bare necessity dictates I have speakers and a stereo system capable of at least playing CDs. If GM wishes to sell a bare bones car, which will appeal to first time car buyers, such as teens or college grads who aren’t yet making a living via a career, having the hipster/trendy items, such as iPod integration, will be a must. I can see many “kids” avoiding a car because it’s not deemed “cool.”
You also need to avoid making the car ugly or generic looking. Perfect example of what not to do is the Chevy Spark. I recently rode in one whilst in Romania (4 door model… which is stretching the definition of a 4 door vehicle). It was ugly, poorly constructed, felt and looked cheap and was so generic that many confused it with the European Dawoo Martiz vehicle which everyone in the country looks down on (but many buy given it is dirt cheap).
Another problem with the Spark in Romania is the car was completely ill equipped for the terrain. Romanian roads are notoriously poor (the Romanian technology for reducing the amount of potholes by 50% is to turn 2 potholes into 1 big pothole) and the Chevy Spark was a poor choice to sell in that country under any condition. This type of idiocy needs to be avoided in the US.
When I saw the Spark was coming to America my jaw dropped, given just how poor the car was and felt.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:50 pm DPentecost said:
Other folks have made good comments regarding “bare necessities” and the nature of green in a car. I just want to register my first impression of the design – the look.
To me, it has a pitbull face – trying to be tough and suggest high performance while walking the new green line. Hard to get past that first impression. I think most buyers in this space want attractive and/or cute, not this kind of passive aggressive styling.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:46 pm Jason Drews said:
Good input! Are there any vehicles that come to mind that you think exude “attractive/cute”?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:15 pm DPentecost said:
Thanks for your response – the first two that come to mind are the Smart and the Mini-Cooper. I think there is also room for “quirky” in there. I did notice walking around today that the “snubnose” look is very popular in car design. It just doesn’t do anything for me.
But if I am right and “pit-bull” is not the pet of the green (and growing) market, then what is? A cat? I’m serious here. Cars are extensions of ourselves, clearly, as are our pets.
All that said, this forum is a step in the right direction. And you are beginning to put a human face on the auto industry.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm tmp00 said:
Okay, here’s my two cents (first post)
Someone mentioned the idea of a modern-day 2CV, and I like the basic concept. My idea of a green version would be:
turbo-diesel 3 cyclinder or diesel-hybrid. Manual transmission standard, auto optional.
Aluminum space-frame construction with recyclable plastic body panels (color could be through-panel). The panels could be switched out for color or styling refreshes.
LED lighting all around.
Choice of fabric or fixed plastic roof (a la smart fortwo, but without the removable roof rails that compromise structure)
Very basic interior: Speedo, Tach, Temp and gas gauge only. No cruise control, no Nav system. Basic A/C and heater controls. Power windows and door locks only.
AM/FM radio with iPod/ phone connectivity (talk to Apple about interface?)
Plug-and-play user replaceable speakers (customer can upgrade speakers with aftermarket- GM would need to work with suppliers to make an interface somewhat like USB for connection)
Manually adjustable seats: front seats aluminum framed with integral seat belts and structural fabric inserts (akin to Herman Miller Mirra chairs) for light weight and thermal comfort. Seats and belts are anchored to a structural aluminum cross beam running from b-pillar to console about 8 inches above floor, leaving space for rear seat passenger’s feet. Slightly ethereal look of front seats give rear seat passengers the illusion of more space than they actually have. Rear seat is conventional foam with fabric fascia matching color of front seats, rear seats sit higher than front (gas tank under rear seats?),. Floor uses rubber matting instead of carpeting. Where leather or wood would be used as accents on a luxury interior, woven bamboo, rubber and expressed aluminum structure is used here.
Trunk injection molded plastic with removable drain plug for easy cleaning. Rear seat folds down and seals with rubber gasket against trunk.
Host importantly the price HAS to be under $9-10k. Bare bones can be stylish, but it can’t be expensive. samrt is flailing because there are just too many cars out there that give you 50% more car for the same amount of money even if they only deliver 75% of the adorable factor
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:36 pm Therese Tant said:
R u a designer? Just curious..:)
Really great simple solutions, i dig it.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 11:59 pm JonCleghorn said:
Car should be targeted to be built for 6k and sold for 8k. If you don’t set a challenge for yourself (lower than the competition) then you are simply bringing out a different flavor of ice cream that is already on the market.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 2:32 am SportsCarFan said:
I like the concept you paint. Although rubber flooring should be styled like a shop floor. I would love to see some sort of flexible holder with built-in connections for a portable Nav and iPhone/iPod. Factory Nav and radios get obsolete so fast.
I have a question: does the plastic panels last as well as metal? I have seen old Fiero’s that look pretty decent.
I have an RX-8 and the suicide doors for the rear passengers work pretty well. Also the rear passenger space is pretty decent – -the keys are head room and ability to slide feet under the front seat.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:00 am JonCleghorn said:
Flooring is 1 place to make great design. Large canvas to mold shapes/patterns. Still, when it is done, it should be functional and easy to clean.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 8:51 am Therese Tant said:
Quite a few of your thoughts have me wondering if there are some cairvoyant skills at work here. Many things just make good sense, LEDs, simplified entertainment, upgradeable sound. Seats to me seem the largest challenge, as I had written in a previous post – balancing safety and low mass is key while retaining a reasonable amount of comfort. I suppose that the customer could decide if they need a plush hi-comfort seat [some peops need that] and opt for the seat design of their choice in each position [have a couple opts]. Curious about why u mentioned the rear seats being conventional foam/fabric seats? Most of the time we leave the less plush elements for the passengers in back.
I like the input about rubber floor matting – we gotten so much feedback about losing the carpet in cars, interesting, seems logical. It also seems that quite a few people would love to have a soft top option. How about fuel economy, what would it have to be?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:59 am tmp00 said:
I left the rear seats as conventional for a couple of reasons:
A) cost. Those structural fabric seats are going to be pricier. Most people like me use the rear seats not very often.
B) asthetics. The rear seats are up against a bulkhead (and hide the trunk pass-through. The semi-see through look of the front would be odd in the back.
Fuel economy should be good of course. But while it’s important, I don’t think of it as the raison d’etre of this concept. General affordability is more important and being recyclable is. I’d rather see a $9k car that gets 28 in the city than a $15k car that gets 32
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 5:49 pm kevzter said:
I like the idea for both the seats and the rubber matting. Another cool alternative would be to use a woven microfiber material. I love the Chilewich rug I have in my kitchen. If it get’s dirty, I just take it outside and hose it off. It’s probably more durable than rubber and would add much more visual impact.
For the seat, I’d like to see something like the Aeron chair I have in my office. Make it with a strong aluminum frame and it would be just as strong and safe as a conventional seat.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:05 am JonCleghorn said:
Seating should never be bargain basement due to needs for low mass, etc… It is the one thing you are in contact with the most. It puts the most stress on your body. At the same time, it should not be overpadded, garish, excessive.
Imagine if you will a very stripped down car with a very comfortable riding environment, a very safe feeling, and decent mileage. That sounds very basic needs to me.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm Hogwallop said:
I applaud this forum and the more open mindset. If some of my tax/bailout cash went towards this effort, it will be money well spent, if you actually listen.
I also like adopting Cradle2Cradle design aspects, wherever possible. For example: design the wiring harness so that the entire thing can be removed easily, with one pull.
But I don’t think you should sacrifice beauty for eco-cred. Biomimicry should be studied and incorporated where possible.
I also feel that you shouldn’t sacrifice fun for practicality. I don’t really see too many people talk about this and Green vehicles.
If I could buy an affordable, tandem-seat, fully enclosed cockpit, tilting, 3-wheeled, EV that can do 0-60 in, say, 3.5 seconds, today, I would gladly trade in my C6 Vette. Heresy, I know. But fast fun is why I have a Vette and a motorcycle, not a Prius. Full torque at launch is where I’m at. And my parking garage actually HAS photovoltaic solar panels that I could plug into. Today! There is no chicken vs. egg. I’ve got the egg. I’d love to take advantage of them ASAP. But I demand a higher fun quotient.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:33 pm getalifeagain said:
I don’t like small cars. Far too unsafe for the size.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:39 pm Billfred said:
The necessities of a car that I would realistically consider in South Carolina:
-Automatic
-Air conditioning (I’m in South Carolina. No AC these days means no sale.)
-12V outlet, as it’s the de facto standard.
-Power locks/windows/mirrors at least available. (If you do manual mirrors, put the stalks to adjust them inside the cabin. We who face weather extremes thank you.)
-A hole for the radio on the lot, which I can fill (or not fill) with my choice of unit from the parts counter before taking delivery. Fleet-tastic AM/FM? Sure. One of those newfangled units with the USB port and XM? Great. Nav? Why not? Leave out the radio and enjoy the extra cubby? Hey, if the Savana can do it…
-A solid feel in general. Doesn’t have to be a Buick, but you can beat the Aveo. (I think my ‘09 Vibe is a nice target.)
-Wagon or hatch body style, for the added functionality. (Seems like you’ve got this already.)
-If there are back seats, I’d love to be able to pull them out back-row-of-a-Tahoe-style for times where the extra cargo space is desirable. (College students will thank you when they move out of dorms. Make that rear footwell fit a copy paper box (because that’s what college kids can get for free from work or offices) and it’s on.) Speaking of seat backs, the hard plastic approach of the Vibe is great. Even if it means adding extra parts, keep it for the durability.
-Start-stop would seem nice for the city driver, but keep us Southerners in mind–if we lose air conditioning while the engine is off, we almost certainly will leave it running.
-Mileage has to beat the pants off of what’s already on the road. If a Malibu can get 33 on the highway today, anything less than mid- to upper-30s when this car arrives would be disappointing. What you use out of the GM arsenal to accomplish this is up to you.
-No cheap wheel covers. Even the five-spoke steelies under the covers on a base G6 wouldn’t look that bad with a coat of paint, but wheel covers like the old 1SV G6 had don’t fly.
Keep it awesome.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:52 pm PhilR said:
Accessories that I like: climate control, towing package, cruise control, delay wipers, limited slip rear axle, power locks and trunk opener (better with a remote!), power windows, mirrors (heated ones are great too!), heated backglass, power antenna and door courtesy/warning lights (as a kid, I was impressed by the last two features even if they are almost useless!). Another great thing is a decent stereo with Bluetooth and USB port.
The things I don’t want: DVD players (I never watch TV at home, even less likely to happen in a car!) integrated navigation untis, sunroofs (I have one in my daily driver and I never use it), sagging cloth headliners, rack and pinion steering (recirculating ball units are better anyway), transverse engines and FWD drivetrains…
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:02 am egulfer said:
This is my first time on this site, and my first suggestion is the display of blogs. With all this information on one page, I think it’ll be better to divide the blogs into sub-groups, thus abetting the readers when it comes to reading the blogs that are similar to their ideas. Now, lets talk about green car design. I perceive ample advantage and disadvantage in some of the blogs I’ve read thus far. Having a totally personalize car will take car dealerships out of the equation of buying a car, as a result; a lot of people will loose their jobs because of this. I’m not against personalization of car, I’m totally in favor of it.
First suggestion:
Why not re-invent car dealerships. where owners will come in and their will be a simulator room where the buyers can wear goggles that will insert them into a virtual world as a result be able to see and possibly feel what the car they want to order will feel like. Based on their experience in the virtual world, they’ll be able to make alteration to the preexisting design to conform to their personal and physical needs.After the buyer derives his or her final design, paper work will be done detailing cost and length of time it’ll take to manufacture the car. After the car has been manufactured, the owner will come in and pick up their car or truck or whatever, and go for a joy ride.
Second Suggestion:
(changing the looks of your car)
My suggestion is as follow: make a detail animation that can be downloaded into your laptop or your Iphone that’s going to make it easier for the owner to take of the preexisting skin and replace it with a new one. Make an online user oriented design studio where designers and inventors like my self can design a body for what ever model I have. The design will be sent to GM and they’ll feed it into their machine, and the body will be made with the connection points and shipped to my location. (It’s like rapid prototyping)
Third suggestion:
(this is an idea for an invention I’ll work on before the end of my senior year; it’ll make the car more electrically independent)
Most of the time of the day our car is out on the street just waiting to be driven. some time while the car is waiting, it might be raining, windy or sunny. So, Why not have a system that deploys a flexible solar panel or a or when its windy a wind system which is what I’m going to work on in my senior year to generate electricity to recharge the cars battery.
I’ll come in with more ideas next time but for now I need to go back to Autodesk Inventor to finish my design of multi-source electric generator.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:27 am Wade Bryant said:
I’m really into the rapid-prototyping custom parts idea. We have some great RP capability at GM and have seen a military RP machine that makes metal parts for tanks, etc.
How would you want to alter a car? Any particular parts of the car you think might be better suited to this approach?
Very fun and expressive idea!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 2:05 pm egulfer said:
Reply: Wade Bryant
How would you want to alter a car? Any particular parts of the car you think might be better suited to this approach?
I would love to alter a car to become as energy independent as possible.
I would love to have a car that’s like a computer and the Apps inside the computer (you can use a computer for five years, but to get new model for an application all you have to do is uninstall the old app and install the new app without having to buy a new computer) Picture the computer as the car, and the application as the parts that confluence to make the car. In other words, I want a car increasingly perform better as the year passes by without having to buy a new one. One of the possibly many ways to accomplish this is not to focus on changing the car as a whole but to try and perfect the parts that congregate to make the car, and to make the car parts in such a way that it can easily be install (like a computer app) and uninstall to be replace by an updated part (like a computer app). So what this does is it eliminates the need to buying a new car every two years; so instead of buying a new car, you only by new body, new wheels, … and new chairs. This will save people money and overall, help lower the amount of energy (which are generated by gas diesel engines) dispense on crushing clunkers.
****I never new that they had rapid prototyping for metal parts; that’s so cool!!!! Being my schools FIRST robotics team designer, I can now have our metal parts made through rapid prototyping.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:16 am JonCleghorn said:
I would not pursue rapid prototyping. Too costly and time intensive. We are here to make a profit, right?
But something similar might be to have people design whatever and submit it to you openly which you would then cleanup and post and people would critique and vote on. This process would continue over and over until a consensus choice is made. After all, if you can’t create it in the virtual world and please the customer then why would you think you could pull it off in the real world?
These submitted designs do not have to be a whole car, it could be a cup holder, etc….
All designs should be in the open. Nothing worse than getting in too closed of a review group and then being stuck with the result. i.e. Pontiac Aztek
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:10 am JonCleghorn said:
The active and main conversation needs to be on the front page. Also statistics should be posted of what people are saying/voting for and then people should be able to input on those statistics.
Too many blogs loose focus with subtopics and categorized areas.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:22 am PhilR said:
Less is more is makes great architecture but I think it’s hard to apply succesfully to a car. The car that I hate the most are the Citroen 2CV. Its everything I don’t want in a car… I’d rather walk than drive or even seat in one of these!
One thing I noticed in many cars today is the common use of LCD or VFD gauges instead of analog gauges and mechanical odometers. I understand it’s now cheaper to install these but they bother me.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:35 am ToddA said:
A LOT of good comments, Nice idea GM.
Bare-Necessity-Car: A concept that starts with a structure. A structure that can accommodate a variety of styles. A structure that’s recyclable in that you the manufacture on trade in day for me are willing to set a minimum trade in value, a price paid strictly for the structure of the car to come back to you for refurbishment. So the catch is to make a frame pan similar to DeLorean’s supercar of the 80’s but make it inexpensive. Or rather pull out the features from the car to make the entire car affordable with the aluminum alloy frame. Thus hitting two goals in one. An extremely safe car where the plastic panels are recycled in a traditional way and the chassis is recycled in a re-use way. Obviously there will be proponents to the idea of buying a 6-30 year old frame but if you give it a 2 life cycle rate and give ME the customer a minimum trade of $xxxx in 4-6 years regardless of mileage so long as the frame is still reusable I think you hit your mark on cost per mile reduction, Eco-Friendly and Bare Necessity.
Interior: Go back to Bug. One large dash (with cut out pods, Driver side for gauge and wheel and the passenger for glovebox and airbag – Makes right hand drive eaiser to produce) with no center stack. A small center console that’s JUST on the floor, wraps around the stick offers two cupholders and finishes the space between the seats.
Seats: Aluiminum frame (partially exposed). I’m thinking One piece racing seat style BUT the off-road design with built in suspension ala fabric mesh. Pad only the areas of support leave the rest open mesh… Call it breathable seat design.
Features: A speed, tach, and idiot lights. ABS, 6 bags, and of course now Stability control but sum it all up in one computer for simplicity. One computer system that can run any engine, safety, etc for every car. A radio with ipod jack – NO CD PLAYER. 2 speakers, one front and one back with a pair of angled tweeters for stereo perception and imaging – this works. That’s it.
Build a basic 2 door, 2 seat truck and 2 door 2 seat CUV (City Utility Vehicle) from this and you also have small biz commercial market.
Engine: Well you do engines very well. Let the engineers loose on the little guys.
One last thing. Make it fun. Fun to own, fun to drive. Otherwise your remaking the Neon.
That’s it for me. I’m already doing what your goal is. Traded in the 4 door luxury utility vehicle for a small 4 door sports sedan from your old pals Suzuki. I forgot how much fun these smaller high revving vehicles are.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:54 am James said:
When driven sanely, our 2002 LeSabre with the 3800, 4-speed auto would get over 30mpg on the highway. A nice large car that got great mileage. The LaCross is smaller, the mileage is worse and while a little quicker, who cares the 3800 had more torque and felt more responsive.
Just to be sure I double checked, 27mpg average from the LeSabre (over its life) and 22 mpg so far for the 3.6 LaCrosse. When cost per mile is calculated, based on today’s $2.65/gallon price of fuel, the old LeSabre is around $0.10/mile. Going to 54 mpg would only save me about $75 per month.
I’ve seen too many fatals because of small cars. The laws of physics cannot be changed, instead of an ultra small car, how about a family sized car that can combine a reasonable level of safety, comfort, room, and fuel economy.
So, for a small car what is best?
turbo-diesel hybrid electric with a 3-mode hybrid system.
1) Electric only from on-board battery that can be charged form 110v home outlet.
2) Diesel-electric where the diesel engine runs at maximum efficiency while turning a generator that provides current to charge the battery pack and drive the electric motor/generator.
3) Diesel direct drive via a CVT system to keep the diesel engine at max efficiency.
4-seats, room for 4 adults, at least 6′ in height.
Capacity for 1000 lbs of people and cargo.
Fold flat rear seats, flip down console, fold flat passenger front seat.
A/C, power windows, locks, AM/FM/CD/MP3, sunroof should be standard.
Driver, passenger, rear seat, curtain and door air bags standard. Make it as safe as possible.
How you driven the new Jetta TDI? I don’t have one, but if my lifestyle were different I’d buy one tomorrow.
I would much rather have a turbo diesel large car than a small ultra econo-box. Perhaps the best bare necessity car would be one that is usefull to the largest number of people.
sorry if I am a wet blanket, but small cars almost always necessitate another, larger vehicle. Yet I know plenty of families with 1 large car or small SUV.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 2:01 am chizzy218 said:
I am a fan of simple and clean design and I think a vehicle like this could rock. It will all be about execution. I have had the opportunity to live in other countries where small cars are a necessity, and I am a firm believer that small does not have to equal bland. Some cars/concepts that I believe accomplish this are:
1 Mini Cooper
2 VW Up and Up Blue
3 Fiat 500
4 Toyota IQ
These cars are simple and fun and are well put together. Good packaging. The only thing I am not crazy about is the retro design in the interior(Mini, 500) I am a fan of the clean futuristic minimalism of the Up concept. I would like a fresh open cabin that is bright and airy to makes you feel like you are in a larger vehicle. As far as frills I think Ipod connectivity and am/fm is all you need for audio, drop the CD player. Manual window and locks. Soy derived foam for the seats and fabric made of Hemp or bamboo,I like my bamboo towels. Strong and renewable.
Thanks for creating this site. I feel that you actually care about what the consumers actually have to say .
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 4:03 am Michael said:
What I want:
Energy efficient and clean power source. Plug-in hybrid, hybrid, or fuel cell (assuming availability of fueling infrastructure). No ethanol. Seriously – that takes more energy to make than we get out of it.
1) Very aerodynamic, efficient, lightweight 1 seater vehicle. Perhaps with a carbon fiber fairing and structure for rigidity. Why 1 person? The vast majority of trips taken by the vast majority of drivers have only one person in the car. That means that you are using a huge amount of energy to move a big, heavy steel object to surround people who aren’t there. Why waste the energy? If people start driving small, lightweight vehicles, you can also reduce the amount of crash protection needed, because you won’t be likely to hit something big and heavy. Aptera’s prototypes are awesome. You can car share larger vehicles when you really need one. Or have a 1 seater for daily commuting and a larger vehicle for trips with your family.
2) No chrome. Ever.
3) Please don’t make it look like a truck.
4) Option to remove all badging and logos. I seriously find the Chevy logo unattractive, for example. A truely clean design won’t have badging on it. Take a look at Apple’s products. Everyone knows they are made by Apple. They are instantly recognizable. But most have logos that are very small and blend in.
5) Minimize and hide grills. They aren’t attractive either.
6) No straight edges, boxes, or sharp angles. I want something smooth and flowing and beautiful. Again, think Apple.
7) No retro. I don’t want a car that looks like something from out of the 50s or 60s or 70s, etc. I want to drive something futuristic and amazing, not something my grandparents drove.
9) Flush LED headlights. You can make them any shape. Take advantage of it.
10) Supportive, ergonomic, adjustable seats, steering wheel, etc. I’d consider a force feedback joystick too (fly by wire would save lots of weight. Airbus uses it. Why can’t cars?)
11) Safe!
12) I should be able to configure a car to my exact specifications and set of desired options online, pay for it, and send the request to the factory via the web. Factory makes my car. Car is delivered. You don’t waste any resources producing a car that will sit on a lot for months until someone wants it. I get exactly what I want. My choice of paint color, features, options, etc. The market will tell you *precisely* what to build. You won’t have to provide incentives, because each car will be customized for each customer. No dealer need be involved. Dealer experiences are miserable. Set up a GM showroom where I can try out any car before I buy in a no pressure environment, and check out various options. (See Toyota’s shop in London.) Once I test drive them, I can custom order the car I want.
13) Upgradable through (well tested) software. Provide an API to various auto systems so that 3rd parties can provide a better GPS system or some other better system without changing the car’s hardware. Works beautifully for the iPhone and computers. Why not for cars?
14) Car diagnostics available in the car, and on my computer via WiFi or flash drive. Why should I pay a mechanic hundreds of dollars to read a diagnosis when I can get it myself off the car and find the best shop?
15) Power over USB. This costs you a few dollars at most per car, and provides an interface for your iPhone, iPod, GPS, and many other devices, and keeps them charged. Why are we plugging devices into cigarette lighters using huge adaptors? That’s so 1980. This also makes it easier to keep the car’s functionality up to date.
16) Work with Apple. Seriously. Johnathan Ive does some truly amazing work.
17) Fly me out to your tech center and get my feedback on your designs.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm JohnnyEscalade said:
In response to Michael’s vehicle wish list, specifically #14…
“14) Car diagnostics available in the car, and on my computer via WiFi or flash drive. Why should I pay a mechanic hundreds of dollars to read a diagnosis when I can get it myself off the car and find the best shop?”
Hey Michael, did you know that any GM vehicle with an OnStar system can provide you with Remote Diagnostics while driving the vehicle by pressing the Blue Button, and asking the OnStar agent why the check engine light is on? The OnStar system also sends me an email every month showing the vehicle’s current mileage, estimated oil life, tire pressure in all 4 tires, and the status of major systems like the engine, transmission, ABS, airbags, etc. And, if the car detects an issue with any system, or if it knows you’re due for an oil change or tire rotation, you can have the vehicle send a notification to your selling dealership, or any GM dealer of choice. It’s pretty slick.
Most likely the full diagnostic detail that you’re looking for will never be provided to the end consumer. The biggest issue would be high-tech hackers/hot-rodders could potentially change the vehicle performance by altering fuel/spark/transmission programming. The Feds would be upset because you could cause an emissions problem, and the car company would be upset because you might cause damage that they can’t fix under warranty.
We’ve all been through a bad dealer experience, but there is always a better one waiting to be given a chance to earn your business.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 10:26 pm Michael said:
In response to JohnnyEscalade’s comment on getting diagnostics from OnStar, what you were describing sounded good until you said that information about problems would be sent to the *dealer*. That doesn’t do me any good. The dealer has no incentive to give me that information (especially not for free), and can just use it as an incentive to get me to come to their particular shop. Modern cars can often tell you exactly what is wrong with them. I, as the owner of the car, should be able to get that information from the car (not from the dealer), and use it to find the shop (might be a dealer, might not be) who will give me the best price and the best service. As for your suggestion that people could use that to modify their cars – that’s done now without that information being offered to the owner already! If a car company *really* wanted to prevent that sort of modification, there are ways to do it. But as a consumer, I have a right to know what is wrong with my car, and that sort of information would be a selling point for me! Think about it. My maintenance costs would be lower, so my total cost of ownership would go down. Long term reliability and maintenance costs are a big selling point!
As for check engine lights – wouldn’t information on what is actually *wrong* with your car be much more useful? Car: Check engine. Driver: Ok. (Checks engine.) Yup. Still there! Now what?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:48 pm kevzter said:
Ah Apple… Yes, Jonathan and his team to great work but they do not compromise. Take the v1 iPhone case, for example. The designers came up with a sexy shape but the production engineers said it was too expensive. They proposed some modifications to the design that would make it less expensive to manufacture but no-go. They ended up having to use an outrageously expensive process that involved multiple stampings and hydro-forming. Apple can get away with this because of the massive volume and the fact that it’s all done in China. I don’t think GM can afford Apple Design at this point. Still, it would be cool to have “Designed by Apple in Cupertino” embossed on the dash…
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 4:54 am Bob l'eponge said:
Bonjour,
Sympa ce petit concept car, si ce n’est qu’il faudrait l’accommoder avec une moteur hybride et lui donner un style un peu plus sportif de sorte à ce que la clientèle plus jeune se l’approprie…
Pour ce qui est des couleurs, la partie vitrée jaune et la carrosserie noire, c’est de mauvais goût… Essayez du bleu et du gris pour changer,
Bob l’éponge
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 4:59 am Alive said:
This car looks really nice.
But if you really want to make it useful – the ground clearance should be at least 200 mm.
Small and useful car is not for racing, it’s for using it everywhere.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 8:59 am GaryC said:
In 1986 I sought out a bare bones car for my wife and found one in a new 1986 Chevy Sprint, an import from Suzuki.
Talk about bare-bones.
It was a two-door hatch with a manual transmission and a tire shredding 48 hp 1.0l 3-cylinder engine. To enhance its bare-bones image it had manual door locks, roll-down windows, manual mirrors, manual seat adjustment and an AM/FM radio. We paid somewhere around $5,000 for this car and if memory serves my correctly, it got about 50 mpg.
I have nothing bad to say about this vehicle. It had air conditioning that would keep meat cold, was about the best car I’ve ever driven in the snow (skinny 155/70-13 tires and 1,500 pounds helps) and we drove it for over 100,000 miles before trading it in. The ride could be punishing at times and it was noisy, but other then routine maintenance, it didn’t cost us a dime.
We really enjoyed that Sprint and still hold it in high regard. It it was bare-bones, by any measure.
Unfortunately, with the regulations of the 21st century, that car would need an additional 300-500 of safety gear and reinforcements, necessitating a more powerful engine (not necessarily larger) which in turn would make the car less efficient and less a value.
Weight is the enemy. Even entry-level cars weigh some 2,500 pounds. Reducing weight is the key to developing efficient bare-bones vehicles.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:32 am pyxl8r said:
As a designer as concerned about function as form, I find that just about everything GM’s produced in the past 20 years has lacked imagination or innovation, completely failing to entice me to buy a car from them. Why do all of the wonderful concept cars get sooo watered down by the time they reach the production stage? Who exactly is in charge of sucking out all the excitement? I know there are safety and cost issues involved that tame these wild designs, but if GM continues “business as usual. ” even the vehicles shown on this site will end up plain… and boring… and unsold.
My ideal Bare Necessity vehicle? Take a look back at GM’s own “Lean Machine” concept from the ’80s. Then take a good hard look at the new Aptera. Now combine the best features of both into an inexpensive, safe, high-mileage SINGLE-person vehicle (think enclosed 3-wheeled motorcycle) that isn’t intended to REPLACE the family car, but is used as an alternative to it for those quick trips to the store, or as a daily commuter vehicle. People buy motorcycles for similar purposes, but they are less practical for your average driver because of separate licensing, weather (rain), and safety issues.
Certainly a vehicle such as this, mass-produced by GM, with high-mileage (and a unique fun factor) would be quite successful in these economic (and eco-conscious) times. I, for one, would love to own such a car as long as GM could keep the price below $10K. By popularizing this NEW vehicle category (call it “personal eco transport”… the PET project?) GM can create a new sustainable future for the company!
I signed onto this site in the hopes that, in the company’s most desperate hour, GM might actually wake up and produce some great new vehicles, and this site offers a glimmer of hope that that change might actually come! To help out (from the perspective of an educated consumer), I hope to offer some occasional insights and out-of-the-box” thinking here. It could be a wonderful forum for fresh ideas!
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:30 am JonCleghorn said:
When i interned at GM as an auto designer i got to work with the man that designed the “Lean Machine”. He and i were pigeon holed in the basement to work on designs that would never see the light of day (stuff for Disney, and PPG glass, etc…). i was brought in because of my innovative ideas after having worked on an electric car for my school competition but unfortunately no one in corporate paid attention to me the whole time of my internship. I mattered so much they even let me take my designs home with me at the end of my internship.
There is talent there but unfortunately there is also too much “group think” and penny pinching in the wrong areas. There is an also general inability to see raw yet rough true talent over flash and kissing up. I hope them the best and i hope they can successfully wade through the content of this site and decide to step outside the box. If they think they can simply soak up ideas here and then retreat to a room and make a car they will be shocked when their failure results. I hope they have the guts to step outside the “closed” door policy of design that is so often practiced and that this is not simply a blog for 1 studio and 1 small group of people at GM. This, at a minimum, needs to be going on in all of their designs studios.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:10 am gm_larocque said:
I am not a big fan of MPG myself but I think it is very important for a car manufacturer to be. For me the look of a car is what makes me buy it (example BMW mini cooper), options are also very important (audio, big moonroof, leather, wheels, etc) and fun to drive. It does’nt have to be very powerful to be fun to drive, just well balanced with a good suspension, brakes and tires. Power everything and to much security comes after for me. The look is really what comes first, GM really need to focus on the look like they did with the Cadillac line-up, the camaro, the LaCrosse (2010 of course) and the new Equinox. I would really dont want to see myself in a Grand Prix 2008, a Malibu 2007 or a Cobalt 2010 (OK maybe the SS but still) even if its the top of the line model. Please GM make cars with style. Put some compartements everywhere too, I think people like it (like in the Yaris), functionnality and new technologies are fun.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:30 am Pikesan said:
It’s entertaining to talk about all these “green cars” and it’s funny to hear the government telling car makers they need to build green cars and more fuel efficient cars. Why aren’t they asking to build more cars that people want to buy?
When gas prices in the US are similar to Europe, American consumers might make the lifestyle changes needed to fit a green car (or truck) but until then, we’ll keep buying the cars we like! That’s what we do!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:57 am Therese Tant said:
Good point, I suppose that’s what thelab is really meant for. We want to better understand what people really want, and when it changes [because it always does] see it immediately. A bit of being aware of cultural shifting needs to be gut, but speaking directly to people like this is so liberating for us and the last two days have been amazingly eye-opening. Certainly some feedback was expected, but there are so many interesting nuggets of information here. I’m loving it. Thanks for ur input.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm pzpgnp said:
Bare necessities in a car:
I assume this is a commuter car to get to and from work and primarily use it near home
1. Reliable powertrain. 4 Cylinder or small turbo diesel engine is OK.
2. Enough power to safely enter the expressway
3. Front and side air bags (Due to crash performance of a small car)
4. Good visibility out of the windows, windshield & back window. The car should sit relatively high.
5. Good leg and head room for driver and passenger. Rear seat not needed. Make a rear seat optional, use extra space when no rear seat is selected for groceries or golf clubs etc.
6. Reasonable ride and handling
7. No squeaks or rattles
8. Reasonably quiet
9. Good fuel economy
10. Low cost
11. Room in the back for groceries or golf clubs etc.
12. Power windows
13. Power door locks
14. Comfortable seats
15. Good stereo
16. Remote key fob
17. A convenient place for a woman’s purse if she is driving and has a passenger.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:24 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for giving this site a chance. I think that GM skeptics with critical yet constructive feedback are our best allies in these times. Thanks again.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm esc said:
This is a great idea and there are many good ideas. I think the lab should listen, but listen with advisement and avoid focus groups. Really great design comes from observation of people and needs (Apple as an example).
Getting weight and complexity down seem great. I’m wondering how heavy cars really need to be to meet safety requirements – what can be done given more flexible power train layouts (if electric or some form of serial hybrid) as an example?
Unusual seating layouts are interesting and perhaps a way to accommodate people who are outside of the 5%female 95%male range. A friend is a 6′7 woman with a 40″ inseam. Her height is past the 99.99% male range and her inseam is further out. As you might imagine vehicle choices are limited to large sedans or full sized pickups. (she can squeeze into the passenger seat of my TT, but physically can’t get behind the wheel – so much for German sized seating). She may be an extreme example, but if the layout was very flexible perhaps folks like her could drive the type of vehicle they would like to drive.
Does a very simple design adapt itself more towards personalization? I suspect so and that might be very attractive. Don’t add complexity, but keep it simple enough that modules can be swapped in and out.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:23 pm Wade Bryant said:
thoughtful comments…
We do need to figure our how to use this site and it’s contributor’s advice, as it’s diverse by nature.
I think the best way for us to design is to get as much information from as many sources as possible, then work from our accumulated knowledge. Since we’ve already done several other forms of research on the two Bare Necessity vehicles, it’ll be interesting to see how the input compares.
RE: weight and vehicle safety –
weight IS driven by safety, but not just from regulation, from customer demands too. Nobody wants to build a car that’s not near the top of it’s class in safety, so we all design to the extreme, which is in excess of the regulated minimal requirements. What’s the right approach here? If I’m willing to ride a bike on public roads for efficiencies’ sake, should I be more accepting of a three-star crash rating?? If so, can a company afford to cater to such a “risk-taking” market at the expense of their “5-star image”?
What should we do?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 7:17 pm Therese Tant said:
Sorry Wade -I’m sure ur looking for customer input, but this one makes me crazy……Agh!.. a difficult puzzle. There’s no doubt though that this is where marketing/sales need to play a critical role. The benefits by opting for a less than ideal safety rating would need to be clearly spelled out via it’s marketing strategy. The benefits would have to be amazing [fuel economy, price -probably would be]. Otherwise people would just dismiss the vehicle altogether.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 8:37 am Wade Bryant said:
I agree. I’m frustrated with how big and heavy cars have become. The legal system plays a role too.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 10:24 am gtjeff said:
Wade,
Regarding the issue of vehicle safety, you can have a safe, light weight vehicle, at a low cost. Perfect example would be the 2007 Saturn Ion, Starting cost of around 12k when new. Car had a spaceframe chassis construction with plastic panels and a five star crash rating. I believe every one of GM space frame cars that was crash tested obtained a 5 star crash rating including the small in size Fiero (the very first production spaceframe car in ever built – 1984), the Corvette wasnt even built on a spaceframe until 1997 (C5). Corvette isnt crash tested by the government, most of the expensive sports cars are not.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm Wade Bryant said:
You’re right that we can do 5-star cars that are not too heavy or expensive, but neither the Fiero nor the ION were light cars in my book. They DO illustrate how you can do safe cars that are decent, but if we want to get incredible fuel efficiency it would be nice to get lighter.
Compare the weight of the ION to that of a Chevy Citation that had more room inside. Or compare the Fiero to the Fiat X1-9.
Most cars today are at least 500-600 pounds heavier than their 1980’s counterparts and the trend’s been upward.
If safety is paramount, then we might just have to deal with this.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 4:51 pm Carchitect said:
Wayne – hopefully there is some new construction materials or new type of space frame that could be produced affordably. Maybe the bosses will let you in on it. I think it is a beautiful idea to start with the structure first in innovation. I keep thinking of how strong the egg is because of shape and skin – not that we want our cars looking like eggs.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm GARRETT said:
Wade sorry but I respectfully disagree with you blaming the legal system. Ya all car have to be heavier now then they were in the 80s, but almost all GM cars are heavier than their competition.
If they can do it then why cant GM.
Especially the Tata Nano, and yes I know its not approved for the US yet, but its only a matter of time.
thanks,
GARRETT
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:28 pm Ron said:
Bare necessity for me: Air conditioning, appropriate legroom (the glove compartment can always be trimmed – it’s really useless in most cars), responsive handling, acceleration, braking. For most city applications I’d argue that a trunk isnt necessary. Visibility is also crucial. I’ve found with new GMs, visibility has been sacrificed for style (for example, Camaro and CTS rear and side visibilty). If you’re going to make a small car, give it big windows, lots of legroom and a colourful interior (rather than just black or grey – see Mazda 3’s interior for what I mean). Last thing: the car must look cool.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:19 am Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks Ron! We appreciate the specifics.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm Jerry said:
Old school: GM introduces a new flavor called “Rocky Road” In the first clinic someone says they don’t like the nuts, so the nuts come out. In the second clinic someone says the don’t like the marshmallows, so they come out. In the third clinic someone says they don’t like chocolate, so it comes out. In the final clinic someone says’ It’s just vanilla”. We say, no it’s not, it’s decontented rocky road, build it, and then wonder why nobody wants it.
The New school I’d like to see: Based on a lot of the feedback in the previous posts, could we make the worlds most incredible vanilla, and call it that. Have some really great modular add ons to personalize your car. We’ve seen success in everything from computers to ice cream shops embrace this concept with success. Then figure a way to market that sets the product apart from the competition. Even though it’s also a personal computer, the way the MAC vs. PC thing has set them apart was brilliant.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:34 pm Wade Bryant said:
great approach! Therese had a sketch early on in this project that had a fairly straitforward design with striking add-ons.
..seems like a simple idea that would appeal to everyone.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm mallard ducks said:
“Bare necessities means different things to different people”
Of course. Where you’re from, where you are, geo, education, gender, income, occupation, age, political leanings, environmental leaning, etc. etc. etc.
In certain places, certain people/demo/market will consider something like a Smart/Mini/new 500 etc. a bare necessities car.
In certain places, certain people/demo/market will consider a Renault Logan/Tata Nano etc. a bare necessities car.
Bare necessity for some markets could be that the car simply starts, stays running, and gets you to and from where you’re going without breaking down.
Looking at base level equipment on the least expensive cars sold in the US market ought to tell us something about what – as proven by the market – is a bare minimum level of equipment/features acceptable here. Even better, how these cars are equipped as delivered…
The base Hyundai Accent for example, comes with continuously variable valve timing, dual front airbags, tire pressure monitoring, intermittent wipers, 6-way adjustable driver’s seat, a split fold-down rear seat, 4 speakers, AM/FM/CD/MP3 player, tinted glass, tach… No traction control, ABS, air conditioning, power windows or locks, but hey that’s a lot of stuff for what’s the rock bottom cheapest car in the US.
I mean this is what’s regarded as “the most basic, cheapest car you can get” and it’s still a fully modern design, fully capable of safe highway merging/passing/cruising, gets good gas mileage, is reliable, is durable, looks decent on the inside and outside and except for those who need aid conditioning it’s decently equipped.
Now if we look at something like a Mini, Smart or Volvo C30, the “bare necessity” level of equipment ratchets up a “few” notches, and the car is no longer basic, cheap but decent transportation – in our market it’s an aspirational/emotional buy in some sort of way.
So number one task: “Who is GM going to build this car for?” Trying to hit both markets with the same car will only result in disaster.
Personally, and my personal take on this wouldn’t work for the US market, “bare necessities” would mean something like the original Toyota Tercel.
What I mean is a conventional car that is inexpensive to purchase, inexpensive to maintain, inexpensive to run, easy to drive (good torque, gentle throttle take-up, easily modulated brakes, good sightlines especially!! why are so many modern cars designed with such high beltlines and poor visibility!!), reliable, durable, that’s more mechanical than electrical (i.e. basic, reliable engine management system that stays in spec and has a simple harness), all maintenance items (filters, belts, plugs, sensors, ground points, injectors, throttle body, thermostat, water pump, gaskets, etc.) are easily accesible and replaceable with standard tools, gets good mileage, and so on.
Above all this would be a simple cheap, reliable and durable car. A car that people would refer to as “unbreakable” “the most reliable car I’ve ever owned” “it’s not fancy but it just won’t die”
What would a car with that sort of reputation do for GM?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:58 pm JohnnyEscalade said:
Like many others have already stated, we’ve been down this path already…look at the Geo/Chevy Metro.
It seems like the current safety and/or emissions regulations dictates much of the required content which adds weight to today’s vehicles. And, heaven forbid you make a car that doesn’t earn 5 stars from NHTSA or IIHS. To do that you have to fortify the thing with a minimum of 6 airbags and lots of highstrength steel (all adding weight).
My wife has a co-worker that passed on buying the new 2010 Equinox or 2009 Traverse because it doesn’t meet some crazy rating related to the number of child seats it holds, or how easy it is to tether these seats. I’m sure meeting this odd requirement adds weight as well.
A while back Larry Burns (from GM) spoke about the “connected” vehicle, meaning connected to the other vehicles on the road, the road itself, and all the other objects that might get onto the roadway. By using things like GPS, Bluetooth, active braking, and various other sensors, we can have cars that just don’t crash.
If the cars don’t crash, they won’t need as much saftey equipment or heavy structures. Back to the future with a retro Metro.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm ZHDesign said:
I love the idea of this car. I find this fascinating…I would definitely consider a Chevy Eco. This is something a lot a people would be able to afford if priced under $10,000. I think that GM really needs to focus on it’s smaller vehicles more, and give that outstanding value to a car. While the car is “bare necessities” it can also be quite generous in MPG, styling, and tech. Make the car entertaining, green, but also make the car affordable, and cool looking.
In my opinion, a Car that gets close to 50 mpg and costs 9K would be perfect. As for design, I like the white proposal shown first in the video above.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 5:42 pm Luke Crowley said:
I agree with Michael’s comments from earlier today – why does a ‘bare necessities’ car have to have four seats?
My ‘vision’ of a basic commuter car is a small, lightweight, highly aerodynamic, battery-electric single-seater.
Some of the features of such a vehicle would be as follows:
1. Aluminium monocoque/carbonfibre shell
2. Shape optimized for aerodynamic efficiency – wedge? teardrop?
3. Simple DC electric powertrain – lithium-ion battery pack and DC motor – possibly include regen using same motor?
4. Roof-mounted solar panel for a bit of extra juice
5. Highly customisable interior – wooden floor/rubber mats/carpeting; optional leather seat with heating/cooling, full electric adjustment, massage function; different options for entertainment and nav systems; HUD?
The one point that I would disagree strongly with Michael about is the issue of logos. I’m all for clean design as with the latest Apple products, but do include a prominent Chevy bow tie/Holden lion/Opel blitz/Vauxhall griffon, etc.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 7:56 pm MidLifeG8 said:
Yikes. If this is what the car world is coming to GM, Ford and all the other manufactures might as well give up in all of the racing venues. The old adage Race on Sunday buy on Monday still works. How many Monte Carlos have GM sold because they raced them in Nascar?
If all the cars are going to only go 100 mpg and will only go 40 mph and seats 2 what happens when you have a family of 5 and would like to go on a family vacation to see relatives on the other side of the country. Airlines and trains are not feasible options for some people. It the family car that needs to be able to handle this. Heated / Cooling seats won’t keep a infant / toddler comfortable.
Ok now what about the safety issues by putting micro cars on the freeway with large Kenworth style trucks. I can see the fatality rate increase beyond belief.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:45 pm Wade Bryant said:
This isn’t our Monte Carlo replacement
I enjoyed your perspective on this (many other people have reacted the same way)
When we did earlier research some people thought this would be a good ONLY car for them. Quite a few others saw it a great second vehicle for shorter trips around the town.
I’ll bet a lot of NASCAR fans would tow this behind their RV on the way to the infield parties.
We aren’t fixed on a particular size of car.
Would the idea of Bare Necessity work for you on a larger vehicle?
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:39 am JonCleghorn said:
There are alot of old Cadillac’s being run around by people with little money that would consider those cars “bare necessities”. They got their options but they got them in a way that was affordable to them.
Why can’t i buy a basic car and then buy options when i can afford them to make it more functional and comfortable/economical? Why can’t those options be done through licensed manufacturers that build to a certain quality spec?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm wildcat said:
Bare necessity to me would be safety, comfort, and capability. Small but could withstand the impact of larger vehicles. Roomy enough for people larger than myself (me: 5′9″, 185). Able to be a reflection of me in some manner, perhaps choice of (minimal) options.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:28 am appleanimator said:
A bare necessities car is transportation that is safe, flexible, efficient, comfortable, reliable, and affordable.
To do all of this, the vehicle must be well-engineered to utilize its components in a harmonious fashion.
A good older example is the Citeron 2CV, which through clever engineering was for its time advanced, innovative, utilitarian and practical transportation. A newer example would be the upcoming Nano from Tada motors.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:40 am jsbella said:
What’s essential in my Cobalt LS?
Everything, and nothing. I have absolutely “bare bones” by today’s standards. Full-plastic dash and doors. Manual locks, manual windows, manual seat adjustments, minimal stereo. But I LOVE my Cobalt.
Everything in my car I would consider essential. You can’t get any lower than manual windows…
But everything in my car is subject to sacrifice in the name of efficiency.
I could do without a 4-speaker stereo system. Shrink it to 2 fitted right on the dash so you get as much clarity from them as possible.
You could shrink the Cargo capacity in HALF. I’ve never used more than a quarter of it, anyways.
Put me lower to the ground and shorten the roofline.
Reduce overall passenger legroom by a few inches in both front and rear, it’s quite roomy.
Suppose you did this for HVAC, though…eliminate any rolling windows at ALL. Install easy-to-break, U/V reflective glass to reduce interior heating, and remove the safety argument that would be raised. Install an efficient active climate control system. This would eliminate weight, and complexity of the doors, allowing them to be skinnier, thus maximizing interior space in your small car. The HVAC system would automatically adjust A/C, heat, and outside air to regulate temperature and humidity inside the vehicle to preset levels by the owner.
Due to the windows, this vehicle is clearly not cut-out for drive-thrus. But we’re talking about sacrifices, yes?
-Joe
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 1:07 am Mark Matthews said:
Here’s my thoughts/ideas for this car.
I would say for a “bare necessities” it would offer the following standard (no particular order): AM/FM/CD player & 2 speakers, small very fuel efficient 3 cylinder gas engine (think GEO), 4-5 speed manual transmission, split fold down rear seats to allow for more cargo/groceries. Maybe a rear 1/2 door to allow easier access for rear seat passengers, it could be just on one side (passenger). Manual locks, windows & maybe even some of the old type of “floor vents” like there used to be on cars from the 60’s. You know, the ones down by the front kick panels I remember those from my old ‘66 Impala, they were great to cool off the car fairly quickly. Standard gauges, I don’t see the need for LCD’s unless they’re cheaper. Just a basic cloth interior with comfortable seats, not La-Z-Boy comfy, but not like sitting on a park bench. Disc brakes in the front at least & probably ABS also, since you’ll probably be attracting younger people with this car & they’re used to having ABS.
Safety is a factor, given the small size, but I have no knowledge on how best to achieve this goal. That would be up to the designers/engineers. Obviously airbags would be needed, but as far as the body/frame, etc I have no suggestions.
As for options, if possible a diesel engine that would be compatable to run on vegetable oil also, air conditioning, stereo upgrade & the usual bells & whistles that people want. I wouldn’t go overboard on options, as people can always find aftermarket suppliers for a lot of things.
I sincerely hope you guys have a lot of success with the Volt & the new batteries for them. Ideally for a “bare necessities” car another option would be a full EV. I would think that a car this size/weight wouldn’t need much in the way of a motor to get around & still get up to highway speeds. The new batteries would help with keeping the weight down & wouldn’t need as many batteries with such a small car. Although the batteries would probably increase the up front cost, the consumer would get that back but not having to buy gas. I have no idea what this would take or the cost, but I would guess that a range of at least 75-100 miles would be in the ballpark & still remain a reasonable cost to people.
I looked it up & the original MSRP for the 1997 GEO Metro (basic 2dr hatchback) was $8,580. I would guess a similarly optioned very basic car could be purchased for approx. $10,000 in todays market.
Regardless of what you come up with I think this car should be fun to drive & get great gas mileage, hopefully an EV option as well.
I recently read about Ford having a new Fiesta in Europe that’s a diesel that gets 63mpg city & 73mpg hwy. It was reported that Ford wouldn’t sell them here because “people didn’t like diesels”. In my opinion they completely missed the boat on this one. I could be wrong, but I think that if you sell it as a nice sporty car that’s fun to drive & gets 60+ mpg in the city, people will buy it.
I hope my ideas, comments, suggestions can help you in some small way. This is a great idea to open this site & to hear from regular people. Thanks for letting us share our thoughts.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:46 am JonCleghorn said:
No 3 cylinder. Too weak when you add a load to the car.
No manual tranny. Manuals are for Europe.
No floor vents. They kick up dirt for you to breathe and get on your clothes. Air has to blow down and not across floor.
Not cloth, not vinyl interior. Something new. Vented Neoprene?
Half door is too much mfg cost and not enough utility.
Not enough diesel stations. People get confused and put in wrong fuel destroying car.
Ford did miss the boat on the Fiesta. People will buy it just not as many people as would buy gas. When you are hurting for sales selling something is better than selling nothing.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 6:18 am The lab, il nuovo microsito GM sul design | Virtual Car said:
[...] “made in USA”. I prototipi di stile sono denominati Bare Necessity Truck e Bare Necessity car e partono da un principio di base: realizzare un Truck e un’automobile secondo principi [...]
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 8:10 pm egulfer said:
I would love to alter a car to become as energy independent as possible.
I would love to have a car that’s like a computer and the Apps inside the computer (you can use a computer for five years, but to get new model for an application all you have to do is uninstall the old app and install the new app without having to buy a new computer) Picture the computer as the car, and the application as the parts that confluence to make the car. In other words, I want a car increasingly perform better as the year passes by without having to buy a new one. One of the possibly many ways to accomplish this is not to focus on changing the car as a whole but to try and perfect the parts that congregate to make the car, and to make the car parts in such a way that it can easily be install (like a computer app) and uninstall to be replace by an updated part (like a computer app). So what this does is it eliminates the need to buying a new car every two years; so instead of buying a new car, you only by new body, new wheels, … and new chairs. This will save people money and overall, help lower the amount of energy (which are generated by gas diesel engines) dispense on crushing clunkers.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 6:34 pm Therese Tant said:
I like how your referencing computers here. There have been similar posts a bit later in the blog – the idea of certain core elements built to be super-durable and to endure, while the rest of the vehicle can be updated, replaced, and evolve as your life and needs do. Ultimately this could be the future of all cars. It’s idealistic but seemingly plausible. Thanks
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 10:54 pm Maxx05 said:
Well, I think a car – basic or not – should not look like a French car design study like I’m seeing here on this site. Make a car look like a car – classic. Chevy had the right idea with the Chevette’s and Vega’s in the 70s, and even the X-Cars in the early 80s in engineering principle, but really failed in execution (defined as engineering for manufacture, durability, and quality).
Cars don’t have to look ridiculous to be eco-friendly, or bare-essential. A Volt body shell would be a good start, de-content a lot of the technical extras, back it up with a very efficient gas engine (how does Honda eek out so much gas mileage from their I-4s despite the “weight” added by “mandated safety equipment”?). Start there, and you have good beginnings.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 10:02 am mdwychoff said:
Most of us on this blog have an entirely US-centric or first-world view.
In many cultures around the world, a car is not a ‘necessity’ at all, so a ‘bare-necessities’ car or truck is absolute folly. For people without gas or electricity, a car or truck is useless! Can you ‘feed’ your electric car like you can feed your donkey or llama? Will it ever provide milk and meat to feed your family like a cow or goat?
It’s time to start thinking entirely outside the box of ‘car/truck’ concepts (even ‘bare necessities’ vehicles) and find solutions for everyone, not just rich first-world-ers!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 8:38 am Wade Bryant said:
Yes, we know we are targeting the more-established vehicle markets with these concepts.
I like your idea about “feeding” the car. You can make your own biodiesel fuel at home.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 10:11 am Tim O'Donnell said:
Seems like for a bare necessities car a lot of the surface area customer’s typically expect isn’t necessary i.e. certain sections of the hood, area behind the wheels etc etc. Also why not design the package and dictate the clearances and then do a surface wrap to help the “bare necessity” be more legitimate. I would think every surface on a bare necessity car should be a justifiable surface but if the only reason the fenders clear the wheel envelope by more than 25mm is styling then I personally would consider re-evaluating it. I like the expandable storage space on the truck. The small car is uninspiring, the form language is dull and expected. I think the fact that the car looks like it would be assembled in the same manner as every other car speaks alot to the weaknesses of the designers and their management. How can someone claim to love and understand automobiles if you have never disassembled and reassembled one yourself with your own two hands. And how you expect to propose a new idea separate from the current vehicle line up if you don’t currently understand how those vehicles are made.
I would absolutely love if GM came out with a bare necessities vehicle, and not just an Aveo with a better drive train and more wind tunnel time. The fact of the matter is that the inability for the design department to truly understand the mechanics of the vehicle will become a crutch when streamlining the process. Yes i understand you are dictating usage scenario’s and the demographic that will be using it which ultimately inspires your surfacing. The problem comes when applying this knowledge to a form.
blah blah blah. i got off track.
basically everything your saying is good. the execution is poor, but it hasn’t been fully executed.
try breaking the alias model apart into the basic surface by removing all the fillets. explode the surfaces and then start noting on image the pro’s and con’s of each surface. sounds hard right? it is!! lol. but it will make for an amazing design and woul dbe well worth the time in the long run. haste makes waste.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 11:08 am Wade Bryant said:
This blog site has drawn in an amazingly high percentage of diesel-acceptors. All the other surveys I’ve seen say that few people want them in the US.
A new trend? A technically-savy audience here?
I’ve never owned a diesel, but after renting a BMW 3 series diesel in France I’ve been craving one myself. It’s fun driving with low-rev torque.
If you love diesels, write your congressman. Our laws don’t favor them here and things are only getting bleaker in terms of regulatory constraints on them.
Is diesel OK for ECO? Only biodiesel? Are clean diesels OK for the Eco movement? (you’d be manufacturing extra parts, carrying extra weight) Are you willing to pay the extra money for clean diesels?
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 3:18 am ZHDesign said:
I think we should start moving as far away from fossil fuels as we can, but a diesel would be ok with me if it got wow…63 mpg? I really think it would be a wise move to put more into hybrid / electric though. The Nissan Leaf claims of mpg…worry me somewhat…I really want to see GM leapfrog the foreign automakers on this.
I’ll be sure to write my congressman about the diesels. I think a lot of people would bite if they got good gas mileage. (Like Mark mentioned, the 63 mpg European Ford Fiesta, people would love a car of that size and mpg!)
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 7:10 am elji said:
I see a bare necessity car as a combination of decontentment, of making the car more personnal, with a return to proven things in efficiency. All of course without forgetting fun to drive.
The decontentment is that I don’t need a radio to go from point A to point B. But it’s impossible these days to buy a car without a radio. A navigation system is not more useful as 95% of my driving time is on roads I already know too well. I mean efficiency here, because every car will soon have a 2 kW alternator with several kilometers of wire. We want to reduce weight, don’t we?
Making the car more personnal means to forget everything that makes a car multi-user friendly. Like power mirrors and seats. Nobody else but me drives my car. I’ve set the seat when I bought it, and I haven’t changed it since.
I see efficiency in a 67 Mustang that doesn’t need air conditionning on the highway, because it has small vent windows that give you all the fresh air you want. It’s so easy to make a highway effective ventilation system that doesn’t take power from the engine, but car manufacturers have forgotten it.
The fun to drive would come from the uniqueness of the platform, I shall add its quirkyness. The Citroen 2CV or the VW Beetle were great cars because they were different from all the others. I still love to hear the flapping sound of an old VW. All cars with inline fours sound the same. I would do an 1.8 liter inline 3, maybe with a big cam to have a lumpy idle, and a tuned exhaust to make it sound unique. With a twin-clutch transmission like VW’s DSG. No hybrid stuff, too heavy and expensive.
And to compensate for the lack of equipement, make it a convertible. Open cars are always fun and special. We have the Dacia Logan in Europe, and it’s selling well, beacuse it’s cheap and reliable. But it’s a boring car to look at, and to drive. It would be a convertible, with a engine giving a special sound, enthusiasts would look at it.
That would sum up my ideas: to make a back-to-basics car to appeal to bargain-shoppers is only the beginning, what matters is to make the cars appealing to car enthusiasts.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 9:07 am FlameSkyeFox said:
I think that all car companies need to lay off having so many different model configurations, and not necessarily the features inside of them. For instance, it is cheaper to build 100 cars that all have the exact same features than it is to build 100 different cars with different features. Just taking a quick look at the Chevy website, there is 4 different versions of the Cobalt Coupe and 4 different versions of the Cobalt Sedan. 8 versions of essentially the same car. Wouldn’t you be able to offer the car for cheaper if you had 4 versions (2 Coupe and 2 Sedan) where it was only determined by engine (LT vs SS)?
As for weight and efficiency’s sake, again, you could probably keep most of the features without much of a weight increase. I would like to know, for instance what attributes the ~600lb weight increase between the Chevy Cobalt and the Chevy Malibu. The dimensions are only slightly different (2.4 inches width increase and 11.5 inches length increase) and the engines are both 4-cylinders with a .2L displacement difference.
As for features you can change for all of your cars, not just to use in the Bare Necessity Car, make the seats thinner and lighter so that you don’t sacrifice comfort for efficiency. They don’t have to be the most comfortable seats in the world, just as long as you are comfortable for 2-3 hours at a time. Also, consider using a simulated surround sound system at the dashboard (such as the “sound bar” home theaters) rather than having to use 5-7 speakers dispersed throughout the car. In addition, make the dashboard smaller and thinner, more akin to ’70s muscle cars, and remove the storage bins from the dash (possibly making them a “bolt on” option available at dealers). You could even consider getting rid of the entire center console and moving the shifter up on the dash more like the Pontiac Vibe. Also, digital dashboards should allow you to remove a lot of dashboard bulk yet maintain all of the same information display as the analog ones currently in use.
Also, don’t be afraid to look at other vehicles and find out what they are doing. The Kia Forte EX comes with a ton of options and is wider (by 2 inches) and has a larger wheelbase (by 1 inch) but is slightly shorter overall (by 2 inches) yet weighs 80-100lbs less with a smaller engine (2.0L vs 2.2L) with comparable power (156hp/144ftlb vs 155hp/150ftlb) and gets better gas mileage when equipped with an automatic trans (25/34 vs 24/33). Also, it has standard ABS, 4-wheel disc brakes, ESC, and TCS. The price is also cheaper than the Cobalt’s. GM needs to work on things like this. Why is this Kia an overall better car than the Chevy? You guys should find out what the best car is for a price and class (probably sub-compact or compact), buy one, and literally rip it apart to find out what they are doing better than you. Before you embark on an ambitious project such as this, you need to find the most efficient ways of doing something.
One last note: you need to be able to go from concept to product a lot faster than you are currently moving. The best example would be the Chevy Camaro. It took from sometime in 2005 when the new Camaro was announced until mid-2009 to release the Camaro. This gave both Dodge and Ford a chance to respond with their own vehicles and/or changes to compete better with the Camaro. I understand there is a lot of work to do between concept and product, but you need to find ways to shorten the process in order to compete in this current marketplace.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 4:25 pm Hrackham said:
I love the idea of a car that takes a minimalist approach. A car should be enjoyed for the thrill of just driving it, I do think, however, that their should adaptability in its design to allow customizations before its purchased as well as making aftermarket additions as painless as possible. This would give a base to work with while not alienating people who want lots of features.
Also, I would love to see an alternative to plastic come up in eco-friendly designs. With much of the talk of oil and fossil fuels becoming outdated and unsustainable, plastic should be phased out as well, since its a by-product of fossil fuels.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 7:06 pm Therese Tant said:
Ah – an alternative to plastic, I agree! There are several sustainable alternatives emerging. I think that the only obstacle will be finding some that can pass durability/stability tests, like UV.
As I mentioned before here on the LAB… my favorite part of this project was learning about so many new materials out there. Our team worked with advanced environmental material engineers to create a green material metric to gauge the sustainability of materials that we were considering. This metric measures every aspect of the material including how it is to be used. There are so many suppliers now touting green material but many of them aren’t as environmentally responsible as you’d hope. I am so happy to have this tool now – as a designer it helps me make educated decisions about material application.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 5:41 pm GARRETT said:
You have actually designed two chevy grills that I love. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, find cars to put these on. I love both of them. My only suggestion is that the grill on the white car could be a tad smaller. Cant believe I would actually say that. I was getting soooo sick and tired of the crap grill yall have been stuck with for a while now, like on the Volt or the Cobalt. Ive always been a GM man, and for once you have designed two small cars that I would not have to lie to myself about and say I thought were ok.
These look great!
Im pretty sure yall’d never build the two tone car, even though I’d actually go out of my way to buy it, but the white one looks like something that could hit the road. If it does I beg you to not water it down from concept to production. I would only ask for small changes like what happened with the Camaro. If yall were to adapt it a little I would also ask that you make it more masculine.
Again, I cant stress enough that I love these grill, especially the LED bow ties. I know the LEDs would probably be the last thing to make it into production, but its the little things like that which make me want these cars. I just hope that someone from GM actually reads this stuff and take it into consideration.
Don’t know if you could tell from all my yalls, but Im not some uber modern city kid. Im from the Texas suburbs, so I hope Ive helped to diversify the opinions on this blog.
USE THESE GRILLS!
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 9:37 pm gtjeff said:
Wade,
The Fiero was more than decent in 1988 form, try outstanding. The 1984 cars were light, 2400 pounds. Somewhere in GM’s collection of cars is an aluminum space frame Fiero. It was built around 1986, a full twenty years before the Zo6 came to market in 2006 with an aluminum space frame. One of these Fiero’s with a v8 was raced at Milford against the Corvette of the time and blew the doors off the vette. Word has it, soon after, that Fiero was crushed. I believe the EV1 alum chassis came from the Fiero design. That EV1 chassis was much lighter than its steel counterpart.
You could go aluminum chassis, but price would be prohibitive. Opel Speedster and (I believe Honda Insight) are two examples of low cost alum chassis vehicles. The other issue with aluminum is that if one of these cars needs a frame repair, 99% of your dealerships couldnt repair it unless they had a seperate bay and tools set up for only alum repairs (due to contamination issues with steel).
The Fiat X1-9 is 14.3 inches shorter in length than my 88 Fiero GT, so it should be lighter. Just like my 88GT is 400 pounds lighter than the modern Corvette, the Vette is almost one foot longer than a 88GT.
Wade, have you seen the electric Corvair now on display at the Heritage Center, it was very impressive!
Quote from Wade:
You’re right that we can do 5-star cars that are not too heavy or expensive, but neither the Fiero nor the ION were light cars in my book. They DO illustrate how you can do safe cars that are decent, but if we want to get incredible fuel efficiency it would be nice to get lighter.
Compare the weight of the ION to that of a Chevy Citation that had more room inside. Or compare the Fiero to the Fiat X1-9.
Most cars today are at least 500-600 pounds heavier than their 1980’s counterparts and the trend’s been upward.
If safety is paramount, then we might just have to deal with this.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 5:31 am Justin said:
I’m from Singapore, and both the Lab and the Bare Necessities Car show how GM is keen to start on a clean slate, but one thing GM has to realise is that it is a Global car company, and I’m afraid designing an “Eco-chic” car for the North American market may not give GM the economies of scale that would make the Bare Necessities car affordable enough.
GM should develop a basic car (similar to the Tata Nano) for an emerging market like India or China or even Latin America, and spec it up for the US market. I think the Beat, Traxx and Groove, which were developed in Asia was a great start, and the Chevrolet Agile from Brazil (which looks like it’ll be the next Aveo5) is also promising.
GM should also reach back into its rich history of innovative designs – the EV1 and Fiero were great examples for cars that were engineered with materials that were so far ahead of its time the market wasn’t ready for them. GM doesn’t need to re-invent the wheel, it just needs to design cars for the real world rather than just the US market.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm gtjeff said:
Justin,
Your are right about EV1 and Fiero being innovative. I know of a contract engineer who used to work for GM that has a modified 88 Fiero GT with 400hp. His car pulled 1.17g on the skid pad, the new ZR1 Vette is pulling 1.05g in stock form. Many of the people inside GM have seen the car. I was told about 7-8 years ago that the Fiero space frame was still state of the art then, of course it would have needed airbags. In the 1980’s, it scored 5 star crash ratings, only Volvo had a safer car on the market at the time.
One of GM’s problems in the past, cancel anything that could be an internal threat to the Corvette. The Fiero GT and Buick Grand National are perfect examples of this. GM could have three great cars that appeal to different markets instead of just the Vette.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:57 am JonCleghorn said:
The Pontiac GTO and Trans Am were also great examples along with the Ram Air series of engines and the prototype overhead cam engines Pontiac was creating in the 60s. A threat to the Vette was death for anybody.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 6:44 am TogetherinParis said:
Hi,
GM is completely incompetent at efficiency. You have no aerodynamic cars and you have never made one, even as a concept that I know of. Look at http://www.aerocivic.com, and at http://www.ecomodder.com. Just bending sheet metal increases top speed, mpg, and performance! Yet you cannot bring yourselves to build one, even in jest.
1. COVER THE WHEEL WELLS UP AND MAKE THEM AERODYNAMIC. OPEN WHEEL WELLS PRODUCE DRAG.
2. PUT A BELLY PAN ON EVERY VEHICLE. IT’S A FLAT PIECE OF ALUMINUM.
3. PUT A BOAT TAIL ON THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE TO MAKE IT AERODYNAMIC.
4. USE LED HEADLIGHTS, LED RUNNING LIGHTS, LED STOP LIGHTS, LED TURN SIGNAL LIGHTS AND LED COURTESY LIGHTS.
Aerodynamic is not a ’style’. If you guys had built only aerodynamic cars for the last ten years, we wouldn’t need foreign oil in America. Of course, none of you know what I’m talking about. But perhaps one or two might look it up on wikipaedia or check the world book.
You could probably double the mileage of the VOLT if you would just cover the wheel wells.
My vehicle, a Dutch Quest velomobile is 9 feet long, has three wheels all enclosed, has a 500 watt power plant and gets 2000 mpg. Surely, if I can build my own from commonly available parts, you guys can do it on purpose.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:16 pm gtjeff said:
Quote from:TogetherinParis
“You have no aerodynamic cars and you have never made one”
Take a look at point 14 on the page below, ev1 .19cd, has the LOWEST cd of any production vehicle
http://www.greencar.com/articles/20-truths-gm-ev1-electric-car.php
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 12:59 am JonCleghorn said:
I am not sure if pulling all the cars back that were leased and having them crushed constitutes a “production” car.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 6:51 am TogetherinParis said:
My Elation Quest (see http://www.velomobiel.nl for the body and running gear, http://www.elationebikes.com.au for 500 watt motor) electric car only goes 30 miles on a charge. It weighs less than 50 lbs.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:07 pm Ocean56 said:
You guys used to build vehicles that were basic transportation with minimal power accessories, AND they got good fuel mileage.
What goes around comes around. And frnakly, I’ll bet the bean counters will kill this one off if it ever comes close to poduction.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 1:55 pm GARRETT said:
How come Rolls-Royce is the only company that still sells cars with suicide doors? I think this is a great design feature that can help differentiate your cars from others. Are they really that expensive that only an ultra luxury car manufacturer can afford them?
If Cadillac built a modern version of the old Lincoln Continental convertible with suicide doors in the rear there would be no stopping the New GM.
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm Fire Jose said:
CONSUMERS DEMAND THE SMALL EFFICIENT DIESELS AVAILABLE IN ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES. Note to lab guy: Bring smalll efficient diesels.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 8:42 am Therese Tant said:
We heard this quite a bit here, the US market does want them now more than ever. Feedback in both the car & truck blog reflect an obvious desire clean diesels & your feedback here gives us more leverage. Thanks.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm dipity123 said:
If that vehicle is priced at $7k count me in for a sale. Other wise I have no other motive to buy such a stupid looking vehicle.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 8:46 am Therese Tant said:
Other than the look of the sketches, what beyond the price being below $7k would have you considering this? If nothing, what is it about the idea that you don’t like? Or even better try to describe how you’d rather it look. Your input can be really helpful. Thanks!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 9:26 pm Lifelongresearch said:
I have purchased bare bones cars but they should have the “cute” or “iconic” quality instead of simply being cheap. Let me explain. The Mini is cute and iconic, same with the VW Beetle, Generation 2 Prius, or even the Citroën 2CV. Most American small bare bones cars lack this factor. Therefore, they are not memorable or desirable from people where price is not a factor. I was at the Lane Motor Museum in Nashville and saw a modern day Fiat 500. My reaction was WOW that will sell here as the New Beetle, PT Cruiser, or Mini. GM needs to design that sort of car that is an instant hit. Being merely nice as the Cobalt will not gain a wide following. The car needs to evoke emotion that people will write songs and forms clubs around the brand. The Corvette is a prime example and this can be done with good design with a bare bones car.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm Therese Tant said:
I agree, if you’re trading-off anything at all, it certainly can’t be personality. A lil’ car with personality that’s scrappy and loyal becomes meaningful to people, like a little puppy-dog, that you always want around. It would be wonderful for such a simple car to also be iconic and the only way to reach iconic is via unique character.
Without personality will never stir emotion in it’s owner, it’s only an appliance – boo!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:07 pm Stefan said:
This is cool, but so limited. Why not create a mix-and-match website with components and features that people could use to “build” their own prototype? You could track which components/ features are used most/ least often, and what price point most people design to. It may not tell you anything, but it could tell you a whole lot. You could also include a running tab sidebar, so as a user designs, he or she can see the estimated cost. Then, when the user is done, they could submit the design, and people logging in could vote on which they liked the best. Voila– free market research.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 8:58 am Wade Bryant said:
We’re discussing this very idea right now. We need to capture all this information in a useful way.
Thanks – STAY TUNED!
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 2:26 am TerryB. said:
Suggestion for a survey. Take a current popular car, like the Malibu, or one that’s no longer made that had more body options; sedan, coupe, wagon, ragtop. You already have a ‘build your own’ section on the company web site. Problem is, options are only offered by ‘package’. Swipe some code and redo to start with the bare car, allow a 32-bit slider selection to pick colors. Break out ever available accessory/option individually, and throw in a few more speculative goodies like European engines that aren’t available here, stuff from the design shop that isn’t in production, etc. Link to The Lab so the people here can ‘build’ a custom car that would most suit their lifestyle. Link the results to each registered user so as the project progresses here, a car can be ‘rebuilt’ to incorporate changes that you’ve come up with for the available features. Graph the results real time here so all of us can see (and probably argue about) what the most desired configuration, styles, etc would be.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:01 am JonCleghorn said:
Unfortunately the people that play with that website mixing and matching options are not likely to be the people who are putting down cash to buy a vehicle.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:32 pm Mark Matthews said:
Has anybody seen the new Chevy Spark? I really like what I’ve seen & read about this car so far (4 door version), although I think a “basic” version of this car could be a good option similar to that you’re working on here. It wouldn’t have to be quite as nice, interior wise as what was shown at the show. Just get it down to basics, great gas mileage & fun to drive.
As for diesel engine’s I believe that there’s a market for them here, both for the “clean diesel” & also if there was a diesel that could run on diesel & vegetable oil as an alternative fuel. There’s plenty of kits available to add to existing diesel cars such as VW, Mercedes, etc. to have a 2nd tank for VO. I live in the midwest, but would definitely use the VO option if I could to increase mileage & it’s good for the environment also. Not to mention, you can get waste vegatable oil for free if you don’t mind asking & doing a little work filtering it.
Just a couple more thoughts.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:23 am Freeman said:
Make the vehicle very very affordable, target the car towards lower class and lower middle class people. Use the Apple shuffle as a stepping stone to the design of the vehicle. The apple shuffle is simple and easy to use, all it does is play music and thats what it should do. GM should design the car with these mandatory things:
1-radio
2-AC
3-bluetooth, should not be too expensive to incorporate as a in car bluetooth adapter can be brought for 50 dollars on ebay.
4-mp3-most cars include this now adays.
5-electric windows, mirrors and locks.
6-remote
7-make it very fuel efficient and dependable.
8-side airbags should be an option.
9-Do we really need interior carpeting?
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 2:08 am autofreak said:
i think people woud be willing to give up certain luxury features but not all car like the 1st gen honda insight have given up all features for fuel economy
dot give up all but some
dont go hatch go family sedan
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 9:42 am car mike said:
this concept seems perfect for Europe or California. How well will it play in Kansas? Here is my question to the design team – why do you find it your mission to make one car for everyone? The one thing that is great about this country is choice. I want, and can have, something different. This concept has killed GM in the past – why is the same car available in all dealerships – Chevy Equinox, GMC Terrain, Cadillac SRX? What is the point? Each brand should appeal to a different demographic and have different vehicles. This isnt rocket science – it is the history of GM that somehow got lost over the years. If you are really serious about getting back to basics – then lets see some brand specific designs for every segment of the population. With 2 kids involved in sports and hauling them all around the state, this car is NOT for me as a consumer – so Please show me something that is!
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 6:13 pm Therese Tant said:
Car Mike -I agree each brand needs to make a clear statement, one vehicle with multiple badges does not lead to strong brand equity.
These two vehicle proposals [BN small car & BN truck] are proposals that grew from one project- the eco project, this is not meant to be a proposal to embody all new GM vehicles. This small car proposal was targeting people who are looking for a super-efficient small car, customers who do not need bells n whistles, in fact they don’t want them. They’re people who carry rear passengers occasionally, not daily. They are people who want above everything fuel efficiency.
Clearly this may not be your car, but stay tuned. This is just the first of many projects to be shown here at the LAB, we’d love your feedback on future projects as well. Thanks again!
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:06 am JonCleghorn said:
Unfortunately I could see this already leading to a niche car. The market has been defined for it by corporate and a budget has been assigned. Once that budget does not prove fruitful then the plug is pulled and like Saturn the uniqueness is sucked from the brand. The philosophy behind it, this website, needs to drive all car and truck designs and not simply 1 market.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 9:44 am ed said:
Back in 1996,
. . . Saturn was the best “Bare Necessity Car” I have ever owned.
. . . My wife like it back then, so much, that she bought one also.
Currently:
. . . both cars still get . . . 35MPG City, . . . 40 MPG Highway,
. . . are simple to repair, maintain and we paid CASH for them.
That’s right, we both drive the same cars today, and couldn’t be happier.
Ironically:
. . . Whenever I go to a dealer to look at the latest cars,
. . . they try to sell me SUV’s with Automatic transmissions, Air, electric windows, power steering, and
. . . 7 year financing.
. . . Even the Saturn dealers, can’t get me a “Bare Necessity Car,” better than what we’ve got.
I’m too big . . . to squeeze into a SMALL car,
. . . confused . . . by cars pretending to be truck, or trucks pretending to be cars ? and
. . . tired off people trying to sell me, things I don’t want.
I like Tata’s “Frugal Engineering” of their Ace pickup,
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/tata-Ace-electric2-490.jpg
. . . with the roomy cap-over, and
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/tata-Ace-electric-490.jpg
. . . the “Better Place” idea of using renewable energy.
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/better-place-battery-swap-station_1.jpg
. . . (NOT having to worry about buying, charging, swapping, or disposing of batteries)
Affordable Electric Pickup. Why would I ever want to buy anything else?
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 10:01 am Paul Moscarella said:
Since weight affects efficiency and safety affects weight then perhaps looking at the areas where safety components can be lightened might help. The screws, plastic, and wiring of any vehicle’s safety systems must add weight. If their mass could be trimmed, that would be a start. With Onstar now available on all GM vehicles is a spare tire & jack really necessary anymore? Too many people risk their lives when changing a tire along side a road. Do trunks require carpeting? Can floor-mats be made of lighter material? Do the engines require all that plastic shrouding? Can mufflers & catalytic converters be made out of lighter material & still last? How about all of the nuts and bolts used on a car? I’m certain that if they were all weighed they’d add up to 20 pounds or more. Can some be replaced with lightweight aluminum (recycled of course). How about the fluid reservoirs? Oil capacity? Steering pumps? Can a liter of fluid (or more) be eliminated?
Paul Moscarella
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:38 pm Wade Bryant said:
Smart suggestions (I think every one of them is valid). Electrical wiring has become amazingly complex (expensive and heavy). We’d have to live with fewer electronic conveniences.
Most of your other ideas would save cost and weight but would make the car louder for passengers.
Is this OK ? (I don’t see why not)
The spare tire is a relic for on-road vehicles. I’ve been stranded by dead batteries way more often than by flat tires and I’ve never been compelled to carry around an extra battery. Jumper cables and fix-a-flat are suitable emergency backups if you are concerned about breakdowns.
Great post.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:11 am JonCleghorn said:
People’s lives are hectic enough without the sound of a droning motor or road beating them up during their commute. The little extra weight used in sound deadening or noise canceling electronics is well worth it.
Aerodynamics, tall final gearing, and rolling resistance will get you better mileage than losing a few pounds for sound deadener.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:09 am JonCleghorn said:
Many people live away from convenient OnStar personnel and timely service. The analogy is similar to 3G coverage by AT&T and 3G coverage by Verizon.
By contrast, a spare tire being available in a storm when no one will come to help you or can come to help you is a godsend. OnStar is not a basic need. A basic need has to be applicable to all people.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:12 pm DanO said:
This thread really sparks my interest because I am in the market for this kind of vehicle. My current problem is I cannot find an affordable new car that offers me dignity. I’m not sure why most small (synonymous with affordable?) cars today have to look cheap or feminine or just something that isn’t generally desirable by the average guy. Although I cant pinpoint the characteristics I’m talking about, think Metro vs Malibu. (The Cobalt looks like a blown up matchbox car, which is supposed to appeal to my generation, and that’s fine – but I can’t take the thing seriously). I do not want my car to be described as “cute.”
So lets say the Malibu – shrink it? (like the BMW 1 series – a successful shrink).
Or, offer an affordable larger car, its always nice to be able to transport four adults without making anybody feel ashamed, or use a car for a camping trip instead of an SUV.
Specifically, I wonder what interior decorations are necessary, there is already metal surrounding you, wherever possible, just don’t add anything except paint or a bolt on cover (recessed screws). I’m picturing a brushed aluminum all over the interior (just for image purposes), which would be sleek, utilitarian, futuristic, and not as ugly or cold as simply removing the door panel. Wherever metal is not possible, it cannot feel or look flimsy, crisp action in a door handle (among other things easily looked over) can have the effect of reinforcing that its not junk, its just inexpensive. The base engine should put me to 60 in no more than 15 seconds, with a top speed of no less than 90, and the top engine… why not offer a big one? (without having to add other expensive options!)
I think the bare necessities people want are power steering and brakes, like others have said an AM/FM radio with an aux input (1/8th inch jack?) and maybe a spot to hold/charge a cd player or ipod (I don’t mean to insult you, but don’t read ‘cigarette lighter + ashtray’). I personally would like to see a manual transmission and no A/C. Other than that, have fun tearing things out and saving weight/money.
I also think the car should be ridiculously durable/reliable (and look the part). I would sacrifice money and fuel efficiency for reliability. But you know that already, so I suggest this: direct communication with the marketing/sales guys, because I have had to research to find out how well GM cars are designed now, as opposed to watching an Acura commercial for example.
I also really like that $7k idea too. Just try and keep me in mind when you are making the shape of it
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:14 pm pyro409 said:
what ever happened to low profile vehicles. Wind drag matter, and frontal square feet is a killer. I have not bought a GM since the fiero. they just keep getting taller.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:09 pm Wade Bryant said:
Great point. EVERY manufacturers’ cars have gotten MUCH taller over the past decade. Visibility, ease of entry/exit have been the main reasons.
Chime in if your’re ready to ride low again.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:13 am JonCleghorn said:
Adjustable ride height through dealer adjustable torsion springs would satisfy both markets.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm atesch said:
I drive about 50 miles a day to work. I would love to say I could drive a no frills economy box to work but I’m too passionate about cars and driving them so the bare necessity to me is design, comfort, performance and quality. The passion for cars is something the auto industry has fueled for 80+ years with GM inventing the model of planned obsolescence & wanting the next new model.
All of the attributes I mentioned are things that I think can be accomplished in a sustainable, eco-firendly model.
I still think the GM skateboard concept was a brilliant idea. Sustainable with interchangeable bodies that you could update the design of your vehichle and maintain the original chassis. Getting a new car w/o having to buy a new car.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm Ezequiel said:
I realized something watching the video about the bare necessity project. It is very interesting to have the alternative of a car that provides only what the buyers needs. But why don’t make a product that is able to be adaptable to each buyer, something like the iphone. Make a car and centralized most of the things in an screen and let people personalized most of the settings. Why have a temp and a/c controls when most of the people just set it once or twice a month. you can get rid of cd player and just have something that can upload music from mp3 or flash drive, and provide the possibility to access Pandora music or stuff like that. If a phone that costs 300 bucks can do it why not a can in the 10k range? You have to get rid of useless parts that the regular buyer does not use.
Regarding the bare necessity car, it’s a great idea but with GM’s mentality it will be another crappy aveo. Cheap and no one will buy it.
I would love to see a GM in the market that i would buy
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:54 pm conecrusher said:
Bare neccessity reminds me of the Lotus Elise- purpose built for the enthusiast- optimized around lightness and performance, nothing else. for this reason it is loved by enthusiasts, and hated by about everyone else. The average driver would not buy the car because it is difficult to ingress/egress, the seats are paper thin, and there is no carpeting or sound insulation.
But, god almighty, does it deliver in terms of track performance.
Moral of the story here is that “Bare Neccessity” must have a theme- economy, performance, or something else, so that the designers and the ultimate customers all have “direct line of sight” to the goal of the vehicle.
The more coherently you obey the concept of bare neccessity, the smaller the target customer base will be, but that’s what you gotta do if you are true to the concept, as the Lotus Elise is.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm Alright said:
I’m so glad you are taking advice from the outside. My biggest beef is that all those great concept car designs are never brought to production. The same old cars are being produced with just slighly different looks. That’s not good enough. You need to break away from the crowd like Apple does with their clean advanced designs in PCs. This new car looks so cool, and you really don’t have to give up perks like power windows and power door looks. You need to go super hi-tech; touch-screen control panels, glass that filters glare, solar panels that charge the battery, displays that are integrated into the lower windshield. Most important, MAKE A GOOD LOOKING CAR. Stop recycling the old designs. You are certainly getting there with the Eco car, but there needs some real out there design. Wouldn’t that be cool if people stood on line like they do at the Apple store when a new product is released from GM!
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 1:04 pm Kenz300 said:
Look at the Chevy Vega, the Cobalt and the Cimmoron… if any of the people that had a hand in their production are still around them show them the door.
Build a quality vehicle inside and out and it will sell. Compare yourself to the best seller in your class. Good enough is not good enough. GM will not survive if it tries to push lesser quality down to the consumer. You do not have 50 % market share any more. Consumers have other places to go and they have been going there for the last 30 years as GM market share continues to drop.
Built the best……. compete with the best …. Do not accept parts from suppliers that are not the same or better quality than what they give to Toyota, Lexus or BMW. Put your vehicle side by side and let people compare before you start manufacturing them. It would be interesting to see the comments in a side by side comparison with top competitors models before your model goes into production.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm chrismaag said:
Just build it. Stop jerking around with fakey Night Rider steering wheels. Build the thing and sell it. Have you seen what Nissan, Toyota and Kia are rolling out this year? The Nissan Cube is “Bare Necessity” (OK, sans ripple in roof interior panel). They’re kicking GM’s butt and eating your market share because you keep all these good ideas in the design lab and instead keep cranking out piece-of-crap Cobalts. American consumers are smarter and more adventurous than you think. Trust them.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm Kenz300 said:
The Cobalt is a good example of a cheap LOOKING car that hurts the brand. All vehicles need to have a quality look and feel no matter what the price.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 5:54 pm Therese Tant said:
Honestly, I believe that the feedback from all of you here at the LAB will help propel more adventurous projects in our post-bankruptcy/pro-risktaking culture. The LAB itself is something I would have never thought could happen pre-bankruptcy. Your feedback is valuable, and there are more ideas to come – stay tuned for new projects streaming through the LAB. We’re looking forward to your feedback on those as well. Thanks again!
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm SChen said:
Of the five approaches, I probably fall into the Bare Necessity one. As a non-gearhead parent here’s my list:
NEEDS:
Built-in fold-down child booster seat. Low-end Chrysler van benches have these; why can’t they be in sedans or smaller cars? For young families this is a major space saver. Similarly, it would be nice to have a built-in mount/base for rear-facing infant seats.
Easy access to rear seats. Buckling a kid in a booster in the back of a two-door is a major pain. Whether four doors, sliding doors, clamshell, flip-wing — whatever allows wide access to the rear is the main thing.
Flexible seat/cargo configurations. So far the Honda Fit magic seat and Chrysler van Stow & Go seating are the closest thing, but I wish they were less chunky (and heavy) and available on the front passenger seat.
Decent potential cargo space. Again, with a kid comes a trunkload of equipment from strollers, diaper bag, toys, icepack/coolers, etc. Plus trying to bring home all that baby furniture from the store can be a challenge for which lousy-mileage vans or SUVs are the only current option.
Tinted windows. Sun in fussy kids’ eyes make driving miserable.
WORTH CONSIDERING
Swivelable, rear-facing seating. For safety, I would prefer to have the kids rear-facing as long as possible long past infant seat days. The cherry on top would be to have the front passenger seat be able face the rear for when one parent has to deal with the crying baby during a long ride.
Baby bassinet/rear-facing infant seat. Some passenger planes have wall-mounted bassinets in the first row. In a car this could be a snap-in module and/or could be converted into a utility box/compartment for those without kids.
Passive energy collectors. Solar panels are one possibility, but what about the cabin heat that builds up on hot days? Instead of using energy to expel it via AC, is there some way to convert that heat energy? Maybe a solar-powered heat exchanger? What about wind drag or exhaust pressure?
Radiant climate control. As another commenter suggested instead of heated/cooled air, heated/cooled seating. Flooring heat or ceiling cooling systems another possiblity?
NOT NEEDED
Power windows
Power doors
10 million cupholders
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:24 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for joining in! We need to balance the mix of input to the lab. There are a lot more parents in the world than gearheads, so this kind of input is great!
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 6:11 pm The last “People’s Car” : Michael Banovsky said:
[...] Motors is doing just that, by exploring what they call a “Bare Necessity Car” and “Bare Necessity Truck” for world markets, and soliciting feedback from consumers on exactly what they’d need in a [...]
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 6:55 pm John said:
This has been in the back of my mind for months now and to see that GM is all over this is very encouraging.
A “bare necessities” automobile makes sense on so many levels that it’s hard to start as to where to praise this effort.
Two that immediately come to mind:
1) This is clearly the first step in introducing the first time youth consumer to the world of GM and a solid foundation for the beginning of a “cradle to rocking chair” relationship.
2) There will always be a market for the cost conscious, cost effective buyers who view the automobile as a tool and nothing more. Winning the hearts and minds of these valuable customers has been a too long neglected issue.
A question: has there been any discussion to creating a “build your dream car” website that would allow the public the opportunity to show what options are important to them? Obviously these choices could be tracked and analyzed to get some potentially highly-rewarding feedback.
Keep up the excellent work.
The importance of R&D can never be overstated.
Now I have to go check and see if Kena Kai offers baseball caps.
John
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm Wade Bryant said:
This “vehicle-configurator” site is on the internet.
http://www.myproductadvisor.com/mpa/base/home.do
It kind of chokes when your requirements don’t align with currently-available products
Try it out and tell us if a selector tool like this would be useful.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm ed said:
The “vehicle-configurator” is interesting,
but I don’t think it will reveal peoples”BARE NECESSITY”
. . . as much as the fact that, most people in the USA today,
. . . do NOT know the difference between a “Want” and a “Need!”
. . . “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs” doesn’t include “cup-holders!”
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:18 am JonCleghorn said:
Yes, very useful. I selected to find a car less than 8k in price and it returned results starting at 9.9k. Alas, people creates sites like this and then they don’t actually have anyone use them due to the lack of satisfactory results that are returned.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:00 am Zino said:
I currently drive a 1984 Mercedes 300CD, a diesel coupe. I paid $4000 for this car, have put about $1500 into it (to replace worn axles and larger wheels to fit contemporary tires). I get 33 mpg, it’s safe and very comfortable. I can fix most of the car myself since it’s analog in nature and easy to work on.
I’d like to see something that’s more rational-looking than the blobby shape in the photo here. I don’t need or want something “challenging” from an automobile. I prefer to think of my car as a tool rather than some kind of personal statement.
So, for example, how about something more like a wagon, or even approaching the shape of a VW Golf or a Mini Cooper. These shapes hold a lot, have small exterior dimensions, and are fun to drive. Oblongs and ovals simply don’t accept the kind of cargo that I need to haul, like dogs and suitcases or the odd TV set.
If we’re talking about simple commuting, then a Fiat Cinquicento is close to ideal. Room for two plus a couple of kids in back and their lunch bags and backpacks for school. Period.
Frankly, I’m feeling a lot of “designer ego” in the BNC example on this page.
Thanks for generously opening yourselves up for feedback and criticism. I’m hopeful that GM will get its mojo back!
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:21 am Zino said:
One other note… and nothing new from the automotive perspective but it’s been lost recently in the U.S.:
I remember when the, for example, basic Chevrolet had variants available on the same platform. A convertible, a wagon, a 2-door sedan, a 2-door coupe, a 4-door sedan, a 4-door coupe. Not only that, but there were dozens of trim, transmission and engine options.
Now, you offer the single available Impala body style, and the only options are color and adding things like Bluetooth and leather.
I don’t know that you guys need to reinvent the wheel, here. It’s not like there’s only some solution from the Jetsons. If you could, again like my old Mercedes diesel, offer variants. Even my car was available in the 70s and 80s as a wagon, a 2-door coupe, and a 4-door sedan. Gas or diesel, leather or MB Tex seating, manual or automatic, turbo or natural aspiration.
There’s your flexibility, and you’ve got it all on one platform. You may not need user-changeable roof/cargo options. Just allow flexibility in the showroom should be plenty. And developing one platform with all these options has GOT to be cheaper than developing one-off vehicles that accomplish the same thing in isolation.
Cheers!
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm Don said:
Keep the weight down. Rubber flooring if it weighs less than carpet (probably not). Manual windows if they weigh less (probably not). Optional back seat. Minimum safety equipment. Plastic body panels. 13″ aluminum wheels. 7″ round halogen headlights. You’ve had 25 years to figure out how to make a secure, leakproof vent window. That or an underdash vent door (like the Sixties) would eliminate the need for AC in many cases. Make the heater optional. Make everything optional for that matter, let us choose.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm Wade Bryant said:
That’s the idea. We’re just not sure how far people will be willing to go as they give up some creature comforts.
I’m surprised that the Tata Nano’s relatively-pricey “luxury package” is making up a fairly large percentage of the purchases.
I guess that’s key. Start with ultra-basic and allow upgrades.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:48 pm Kenz300 said:
Simple and efficient does not mean cheap looking….. Consumers want a quality vehicle with quality components.
If you bring out another Cadillac Cimmoron — (spelling is intentional) that is another loser. Anything that is brought out needs to have the look and feel of quality. If it comes out and LOOKS cheap it will not compete with our Japanese and Korean friends.
You CAN build a small and inexpensive car that is eco friendly but also has stylish qualities.
Get someone from Apple to come over and talk about how they brainstorm design ideas. Maybe GM could pick up some good ideas from them. A quality product will sell. A reincarnated vega will not.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 12:50 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks, I have to say if there is anything that is crystal clear from this blog it is the fact that no one wants a cheap looking car – the idea of BNC definitely has many apprehensive for that reason alone. You are so right, simple + stylish = : ) The execution of the design is key and it needs to look and feel like its been carefully cultivated. The Apple reference is a great one, it’s a perfect example or simplicity and style.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm Rafael Henrique da Silva Santos said:
Hi, this is my first post, please sorry about my terrible enlish. Anyway…
I’m just sitting here reading all those good coments: Plausibles, well suported statemens and stuff… This space defnetelly worths reading.
Now, I really feel like something still’s missing in here: Is this place a space for discussing Design for Sustainable Development or is it not?
We are talking about future. But guys, there will be no future at all unless we start thiking about solving problems right now.
I really think the “Green Truck” and the “bare necessity car” concepts Terrific. But it still’s not helping much if the way we look at cars continue the same.
The automobile, is no longer an Object, that time is long behind, cars now means lot more than just that, it represents the very selfish nature of our society, your car tells your position, your status, some times your job, your military power, (the humvees, icos of US military supremacy). Even the “eco” models, they stands for something else that just an object to take you to many places. People use cars as symbol.
Now that is the core of our problem. We are trying to solve problems by looking at the wrong perspective, we should try to do that all the way backwards. Maybe we should try changing people’s mind instead…
In other words, as designers we have this power, the very same way apple changed people’s mind about the way they used to listen to music by launching ipod, or the way nintendo Wii blew our minds off with a whole new idea of playing video game, we should try that with cars.
Maybe the way I’ve put things seems confusing but, well I guess you see my point.
In my humble opinion, Eco cars, still the very same cars we know, and so, in the end we are at the same point where we started.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:46 am Wade Bryant said:
This is a great perspecitive and I’m glad you commented.
The Bare Necessity idea prompted many eco/green enthusiasts to refer to this as a “people’s car”. They embraced the idea that cars shouldn’t be a personal image/status statement and rather should be an effective tool that embraces the community.
I think that this portion of society has always existed, is on the rise, but has rarely been catered to in terms of automotive products. A big opportunity??
Could a Bare Necccessity Car or Truck awaken this cultural trend?
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 3:24 pm Monty said:
I just didn’t have time to read the entire thread, but there’s enough good ideas and enough engineering talent at GM to make something good happen on an idea like this. What you need is Henry Ford’s original idea, that a car could be everything to everybody you sold it to.
I would start with thinking modular – the frame could be built separately and then body parts added as ordered. It could be a mini-truck or a tall wagon just by changing the parts.
I would also look at this being a build-on-order only as opposed to having hundreds of thousands of unwanted models clogging dealers’ lots. Have every sale be a customer spec’ed car, with options as ordered by the end user, not the dealer or somebody at the RenCen.
Personally, I don’t need power windows or carpeting, but that’s my preference. Everybody else has their own idea as to what constitutes a bare bones car. Create a system wherein a customer can take the basic structure, and add what they feel is neccessary for their personal vehicle.
As I mentioned, I don’t need carpet, but I would like the option of many more colours and unique patterns for upholstery and trim as well as exterior colours and trim. If I have to wait six to eight weeks for it, so be it.
I would love the idea of flexible seating – being able to remove or replace seats and/or containers within the seating area, and being able to re-configure the interior space as needed. Not everybody needs 4 seats all the time, but it’s nice to have the option.
What about a flexible storage area – as in it’s a mini pick-up that can be converted into a panel van or a mini camper-van by re-configuring exterior panels and interior containers?
By making it modular and adaptable, it would also make it upgrade-able for the future. Maybe if the frame and drivetrain is built bullet-proof, the vehicle could be modernized as updated OEM and customizer parts become available.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for your encouragement, there certainly are many great comments here on the blog. Your thoughts on modularity are great considering everyone’s unique needs. As I had mentioned in an early thread – I can’t help but think that eventually with online vehicle ordering becoming mainstream as software systems organize automotive plants efficiently the future of cars could be this premise of people customizing their componentry just as they would the color and materials similar to the way you order a computer or work with a home-decorator. Certainly dealers are still needed to allow the customers to touch and experience and test-drive before a purchase, but I believe that people are going to continue to push for more flexible purchasing options. It would be great too if the vehicle could evolve with you. Your thoughts about the frame and drivetrain being bulletproof and the rest of the vehicle customizable are spot on.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:35 am JonCleghorn said:
If your distribution chain is WalMart then that might be feasible. You can’t really customize a computer online to any great degree. Adding ram, or a larger hard drive is comparable to getting different wheels on a car. Its an option that has existed for a long time. Again, not very customizable. Home decorating is not done online. Buying furniture, yes. Home design, no.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm 6speed said:
I can tell you that the Bare Necessities Car already exists — The Tata Nano. Now, would anybody in this country buy one? Very few, most likely. We’re talking about a car with a hatchback design, yet no functioning hatchback (you put your things in from the side door). One wiper. No fuel filler door (you open the hood for access to fill it up). No radio, power anything, etc. The list goes on.
Chevrolet sells the next closest thing to a BNC, the base Aveo. Devoid of power windows/locks, air conditioning, and it doesn’t sell very well. Same goes for the Yaris, the base Versa, and on. Sales of those vehicles may have spiked when gas prices did, but the fact that their sales tanked with gas prices returning to reality tells you what people really bought them for. It was a knee-jerk reaction to fuel prices.
While it’s noble to say you don’t need power windows/locks, A/C, Navi, etc…the fact of the matter is that most American consumers consider those things necessities today. The vocal minority can rant all day about how they aren’t necessities, but in reality, very few choose to live without them. When Silverado launched, one of the biggest requests from the customers was a Work Truck package which offered power windows and locks. The Aveos and Cobalts equipped with crank windows are usually the slowest turning ones.
Myself included, most people today will not consider a car without “essentials” such as power windows & locks, A/C, or ABS. I understand that most of the weight issues today come from safety regulations (crash tests, side-impact beams, roofs that have to withstand the weight of 20 elephants, etc). So build a vehicle that has what MOST people want today (as listed above) but with things such as lighter weight wheels/tires, lightweight seat frames (as you use in the Tahoe/Yukon hybrids). A basic car doesn’t necessarily need a center console/armrest, power seats, or tons of sound insulation. The key is that the BNC is targeted at people who don’t expect a ton of extras or a vault-quiet interior. I believe keys to weight-savings lie in the interiors, without forcing people to give up creature comforts. Lightweight carpeting, or vinyl (hose-out) materials for the floors. Basic cars don’t need acoustical glass, either.
Think about mechanical weight savings. I used to have a ‘92 Honda Civic hatchback. The car did not have power steering, but you honestly couldn’t tell because the light weight of the car itself meant the steering didn’t require boost. I think one thing that’s been lost in recent years is the art of weight reduction.
One last note on exterior design as well. I respect automobile designers but ponder this point: Most designers seem to project an image of ultra-creativity and individuality. Yet when it comes to designs, most manufacturers always seem to follow each others’ leads. For example, the recent phenomenon of gratuitous side vents. I don’t know where this trend came from, but it seems EVERY design department (GM, Ford, Mazda, BMW, etc) insist on tacking this “design” element on their cars (usually the front fender). As a designer, can you tell me why this is? Most look pointless and tacky, kind of like “we HAVE to find someplace to put this, since everybody else does”…it HAS to add weight to the car as well. See, this is what I mean. Designers need to live up to the ultra-hip and original image they like to portray, yet in many cases simply churn out “me-too” designs.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:06 pm Wade Bryant said:
This is a great post.
I’ve responded to similar suggestions from other commenters, so I’ll just say WELL SAID.
My favorite part of your post-
you totally called us out on those front fender “air-extractor” vents!!!! (you touched on a personal pet peeve)
They’ve been bugging me for the past several years. Nothing particulary wrong with them, but I’m embarassed by our industries’ tendency to blatently copy what everyone else is doing. I predict history will mock these vents like they do tail fins from the ’50’s, vinyl roofs from the ’60s, opera windows from the ’70s, body cladding from the ’80s , etc..
I pray we haven’t put them on any Bare Necessities sketches!
Love it..
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:52 am JonCleghorn said:
Interestingly enough it was not the most creative or best designed vehicles in design school that everyone talked about. It was the ones that looked most like the iconic classics. It is very hard for designers and corporate to understand that people really do want a 1969 Camaro and not a 2010 Camaro. They simply want their 69 Camaro with a quite ride, good mileage, etc… that the new car offers. Those items I just mentioned are their “basic needs.”
The iconic look is just that. People buy the classic Yankees hat even though newer versions have been done. People want classic Mickey Mouse and not the virtual Mickey of tomorrowland.
More examples:
The new Challenger is actually better than original Challenger design but the original Challenger is the classic. Many people buy that vehicle because it makes them instantly a part of an old and respected club.
With each “classic” the buyer automatically also gets all the good connotations that come with that icon’s time. They are a freebie with the purchase of the iconic item. Like a sneaker, or an old milk bottle there are good memories that come along with the classic item for free.
It always amazes me that people throw that away when creating a new product. They disconnect themselves from the past instead of embracing it and using it to help sales. Coca Cola is one company that embraces the past just like Levis. They understand. When will car makers understand? When will Nissan build the 240Z again but with the “basic needs” people expect today?
When I purchase a Mini i can automatically hang out with the Mini crowd. When i purchase a Harley the same is true. Why waste time trying to create the next big “icon of the future” when you can use so many existing great old ones that have an established passionate following?
to this comment On October 18, 2009 at 11:42 am JonCleghorn said:
Wouldn’t it be great it someone brought out all the greatest of the classic cars again.? 59 Cadillac, 69 Camaro, 63 Corvette, 55 T-Bird, Suicide door Lincoln Continental, etc… but with with modern engineering added to them to get the quiet ride, good mileage, and reliability that we all need?
You would have instant demand, history, cult status, respect, quality, mileage, etc….
If they even tried to make as much of the parts bolts on in the same way as the old parts then the aftermarket could easily have parts readily available for them and customization could take place at a rapid rate.
If, on the other hand, you are simply looking for a BN car then i would suggest looking at the car that has sold more qty than any other car in history and that had gone through as few changes during that time as possible. I believe that would fall unto the original VW Beetle.
One thing you may have to consider which i don’t think i have seen discussed so far is the use of an air-cooled engine. It drastically simplifies the construction and therefore reduces the cost to manufacture and maintain.
By a plastic model kit of an old VW and see how few parts there are to assemble it! That should give you a starter as to how simple your cart should be to assemble in the factory and how simply it should be to tear apart for service.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm RD said:
Most of the suggestions on this thread aren’t practical from a manufacturing standpoint. Modular construction sounds great but you can’t “mix & match” stuff indiscriminately. For example, if you want to exchange power windows for manual crank windows at a later date, provisions for the power windows would have to wired at the factory. The provisions (terminations, wire, grommets/conduit, fuse box, etc.) would add complexity, cost and weight to the car.
Some of the posts have indicated they couldn’t live without power windows, power door locks, automatic transmission, power brakes, power steering, power seats, 6 air bags, electronics, carpet, etc. It seems the only thing they were willing to live without was a sunroof. Of course they are entitled to their preferences but it seems they have defeated the whole idea of a “basic car”. It sounds as though they want a luxury car so why don’t they simply buy one of the luxury cars already on the market?
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:14 pm Wade Bryant said:
We’d have to be real smart with the module approach. Simple plug-in options drive complexity as you mentioned.
You’re right, the features people are willing to live without is all over the map. The only universal sacrifice seems to be carpet.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:24 pm Jaybird248 said:
One feature not to leave out… electric windows. In the era of seat belts, there’s nothing as uncomfortable as entering a superheated interior on a summer day and then having to reach all the way across to open the passenger side window to initially vent the heat until the A/C kicks in.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:16 pm Wade Bryant said:
Who says the A/Cs gonna kick in???
just kidding
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 3:02 am pascal said:
Je suis l’actu auto de France et de très près.
J’entends beaucoup d’annonces concernant des voitures plus respectueuses de l’environnement.
Mais du haut de mon clavier je ne vois toujours rien venir. et encore moins sur la route.
Votre modèle semble être la bonne taille, notamment pour l’Europe.
Je suis pour l’ hybride oui mais surtout sans gasoil.
Bon courage, continuez.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm Therese Tant said:
Merci. Il y a certainement beaucoup de nouveaux trains de pouvoir qui essaient d’être mieux pour l’environnement. Le Volt de Chasse essaie en allant le combustible électrique. Pourtant, il n’y a toujours aucun véhicule inoffensif pour l’environnement holistically – fait du matériel durable, avec lifecyle extrêmement efficace. Nous espérons faire ces pas suivants.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 9:42 am Kenz300 said:
Inspired design — quality components – stylish interior and exterior — and a reasonable price. These are the qualities needed in every GM car. Build no vegas or pontiac aztec’s. Quality, quality, quality — interior, exterior, drive train components, service, delivery and sales. GM needs to prove it can design, build, sell and deliver a best in class vehicle. Why are there so few GM vehicles in the top 10 sales of Cash for clunkers? Look at what people are buying and compare. There is a reason they are not buying GM.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm Wade Bryant said:
Quality is the price of entry, THE top focus within our company.
If your concern is that we’d not focus on quality with Bare Necessity vehicles, don’t worry. We are keenly aware of its importance on all our new products.
With regard to our concept, do you think there are any unique attributes around quality we need to contend with?
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:37 pm Kenz300 said:
My concern is that bare necessities will be an excuse to produce a less than quality vehicle. The Chevy Vega was a stripped down small car. If you plan to recreate that then you miss the point. Consumers will pay for an efficient, quality vehicle but it still needs to have quality components in styling, interior design and fuel efficiency. Every auto maker is designing a small efficient car. What will make someone want this over offerings from Toyota, Nissan, Kia, Smart, Scion, VW, Ford, ? …………..If you can answer that question in your design meetings than you may have a winner. Best in class should be the goal…..
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:55 am JonCleghorn said:
They were buying 1 GM car during Cash for Clunkers. It was the Pontiac Vibe which is just a rebodied Toyota made in Fremont, California. That goes to show how much styling matters. GM style = no sale. Japanese quality = sale.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm Carchitect said:
I think GM should offer one car to compete with the Smart and Scion IQ which is coming. Maybe GM could make it a bit larger than these models and offer the same mpg. This would be the BNC for US and the rest of the world sold in all markets. It could be offered with or without AC and power windows. The lab could design something lovable. To me the design would set it apart. It would be a city car for families or the first car for the college or high school student. This is so basic to have a car in all segments. The Aveo almost already fits this but it’s poor design is not great and fresh but looks skimpy. This can be said of the Yaris as well. Although, the IQ is smaller it is so much cooler than the Yaris Hatch. I would never buy a Yaris or Aveo but would buy an IQ.
GM needs to focus on the image and look that make people want to buy cars. I would like to see the Lab’s version of the IQ, Up, and Smart. Does such a car need to look like a complicated athletic shoe of the 90’s? Have all sorts of disparate parts and colors. I think simplicity is seen as more cool these days possibly relating to eco, retro, and counter culture. Look at the retro shoes sold by UO…
I think a car with good proportions and some minimalism causes it to endure longer which is good for the environment and relates to a BNC concept. If the design does not change often like the Beetle then maybe people will pay a little more.
I really think the Labs need to concentrate on designing the weight saving aspects for the BNC, material wise. Maybe partner with Herman Miller of the Aeron chair fame for the seats. I think BASF has a plastic coated with glass which is lighter than usual auto glass. What about all the alt materials Ford is experimenting with ie: plastic wood, basalt fiber etc. Don’t let the Lab just be about trendy fashion design … I am sure other studios can do cool stuff. GM currently does not lead in alt material or at least in the press and blogs.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm Therese Tant said:
Certainly the UP, IQ and the Smart all have unique character. I believe that there is still room for a small car designed with simplicity in mind and the ability to stir emotions.
Your material input is really great. I am completely inspired by materials. I think that my favorite part of this project was learning about so many new materials out there. Our team worked with advanced environmental material engineers to create a green material metric to gauge the sustainability of materials that we were considering. This metric measures every aspect of the material including how it is to be used. There are so many suppliers now touting green material but many of them aren’t as environmentally responsible as you’d hope. I am so happy to have this tool now – as a designer it helps me make educated decisions about material application.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm Carchitect said:
Yea! Just do your version of the IQ and Up. Add a Polo, Fiat 500 sized hatch and then a Golf Plus hatch. I think the key will be keeping the bright positive friendly simple look of these cars. Please don’t do retro. The fiat 500 is approaching it too closely. The Mini Cooper is really modern although it alludes to the original. I don’t like the smart with too many colors and plastic panels – not really modern and simple sculpture like the Up and IQ.
Did I imagine I say this new glass coated lexan from BASF a couple of years ago. What a great weight savings and molding ability it would give.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:58 am JonCleghorn said:
If you want to be truly informed about materials go the local wrecking yard and research how well they hold up. Then use that as a basis for choosing materials.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:34 pm David DeLuca said:
I enjoyed reading this blog, and I commend GM for thinking in new directions. However, I’m a little concerned about the “bare necessity” line of this discussion.
When was the last time you walked into a dealership and asked to see the “stripped” car? Even college students and young people can appreciate comfortable seats, a nice sound system, and stability control. Who wants their friends to point to their new car and say, “oh, you bought the stripper with the vinyl seats and AM radio.” I think, at its core, a vehicle is an aspirational item. I, as an owner, want my friends to admire my choice in vehicles, and I myself want to admire the vehicle for its unique aspects, and I want to continue to be glad I bought it.
The idea of making everything an “option” has some appeal, but this would mean increased costs of production. The fact that something is an “option” makes it more expensive across the entire production run. If you think back a few years, GM went to the Honda philosophy of having only a few main trim-levels that have everything that various customers want. Also, if everything were an a la carte option, it would be nearly impossible for a walk-in buyer to choose from stock. Are dealers willing to go to a 100% by-order sales model? What other manufacturers of popular-market cars have been successful with that?
I think we’re getting our concepts mixed-up in this blog. “Efficient and utilitarian” are great concepts. “Cheap and stripped” aren’t so great. Think back to those VW ads of the 60s – they talked a lot about the quality of the vehicle, even though it cost only a few thousand dollars. I’d like to see this new GM car be admired for its quality, too, regardless of how much trim it has.
Maybe GM should start with the idea of what should go “into” this car, not be stripped “out of” it. What do people want in basic transportation? I believe the idea of a small, light, easy-to-repair, reliable, high-utility, fun car is a good one. But I know that I couldn’t recommend a car to someone unless it had ABS with 4-wheel discs, stability, and 6 airbags. Personally, I couldn’t buy a car without a/c. And at a time when even the lowliest Kia has power windows and locks, this GM car will need to compete with similar equipment.
Overall, the vehicle should be “interesting.” It can’t look like everything else on the road. It needs to deliver more than the buyer bargained for, something extra, something about its design that delights the owner for years.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 11:49 am Therese Tant said:
Your concern is valid, while exploring this project the most challenging part as a designer was balancing simplicity and the car’s ability to evoke emotion. You are so right, who wants a vehicle that feels cheap, stripped or like it’s missing something? It is key that simplicity, character and hi-quality execution would have to come hand n hand. The feedback from this sight seems to be consistent in terms of people NOT ever wanting to trade-off elements related to safety and many things related to comfort. Thanks for your comments.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:04 am JonCleghorn said:
Give me a classic 69 Camaro with:
A comfortable, quite ride
No leaks
Decent performance (i.e. doesn’t have to be able to SMOKE the tires)
Great mileage. 30+ on HWY, 20s in CITY
AC.
Power Steering
Things that don’t fall off, break, or otherwise squeek
Easily maintainable/cleanable
—Beyond that i could care less what it has.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 4:12 pm Jaybird248 said:
One thing you should not do is promote the concept as “bare necessities”.
That’s fine internally, but nobody out there wants to be tagged with the badge of poverty that implies. Sure, there have been such cars in the past, e.g. the VW Beetle, but their market positioning was “smart”, not lacking. It was reverse psychology applied to auto marketing–and it worked. These days, green can be added to smart, as the two are co-existent.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 5:04 pm Wade Bryant said:
I think you’re right, and this name was not originally intended to go public. We create internal names to inspire ourselves.
That being said, never say “nobody” when you try to predict the market.
When we tested the idea of “Bare Necessity” before we even designed the vehicles, the name struck a real chord with the green-trendsetters we spoke with.
I think many of them would have been proud to be seen in a Bare Necessity product.
There was another comment that discussed the cultural shift that would be required by many people before a less-is-more approach to cars was widely embraced.
There are quite a few people with “postmodern” attitudes that don’t care how others perceive their wealth, and more still who are proud to be prudent.
I’m curious how others feel about the “image” of less-is-more.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 6:00 pm Kenz300 said:
My concern is that bare necessities will be an excuse to produce a less than quality vehicle. The Chevy Vega was a stripped down small car. If you plan to recreate that then you miss the point. Consumers will pay for an efficient, quality vehicle but it still needs to have quality components in styling, interior design and fuel efficiency. Every auto maker is designing a small efficient car. What will make someone want this over offerings from Toyota, Nissan, Kia, Smart, Scion, VW, Ford, ? …………..If you can answer that question in your design meetings than you may have a winner. Best in class should be the goal….
Your question was “I’m curious how others feel about the “image” of less-is-more.” If less is a reincarnated Vega than the image will be poor. It all depends on the end result of the product. If you build a quality vehicle the “image” will be fine. If you build more of what has been done in the past your “image will suffer. Think Aztec, Vega, Cimmoron, Cobalt, Aveo, Need I say more.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 8:03 pm Mark Matthews said:
Personally, I don’t care what others think about what I drive. I’d love to be able to tell people “See my car, I’m getting 50 miles to the gallon!”, especially if they were criticizing my cars looks, size, etc. I realize that some will never change & view their car as some type of “status symbol”, but I’ve had some very crappy looking cars over the years that were very dependable & I enjoyed driving them. It doesn’t matter to me, I want high gas mileage & something fun to drive.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:08 pm Michael said:
Wade: I suppose that depends on what you mean by “less”, and what you mean by “more”.
Lots of cars try to be “more” by adding large grills, chrome, flashy elements, etc. To me, those are turnoffs. On the other hand, if a car looks like a refrigerator (Chevy Impala), it’s also a turnoff. There can be tremendous beauty and aspirational value in a design that is simple but shaped in an exciting way. (Aptera and the Honda Insight come to mind.) Apple’s designs do exactly this – very simple but beautiful and functional shapes that over the years have become increasingly refined and push the limits of technological design. The huge tail lights with bulbous things coming out of them like we’re seeing on the upcoming Cruze and the BMW 7 series are the opposite of what I want. Same with the whole plethora of cars with the circular cutouts in headlights. It’s just 100 variations on the same shape that everyone probably picked up from the same design school in Pasadena but that was never attractive in the first place!
One huge problem that GM has had is that its designs have never (in my lifetime, anyway) been aspirational. At one of the major auto shows a few years ago, I stopped by the GM area, and it was deserted. There just wasn’t anything there that would excite people. Nothing that they aspired to. At the Aston Martin booth, there was a long line. I don’t think the DB9 is a particularly extraordinary car (although it is very very fast). But it’s beautiful. People wish their cars could look like that, even though they can’t afford the car. If GM is to succeed, it needs to make aspirational cars in *every* segment that it competes in. That means that if I wanted a bare bones car, it should be the most beautiful, most exciting bare bones car out there!
Here’s how you save GM. You make a small car. (Just one.) It is the best small car on the market. It has styling that you’d expect from a much more expensive car (not expensive, not fancy, but not something that looks boring that they only buy because they have no money for anything else.) You spend the money you save on multiple small car models on giving this car the best interior, the best exterior, the best seats, features, fuel economy, reliability, and safety. Repeat for a medium car, a large car, a sports car, etc. Apple did this. It saved the company and redefined their markets. Apple now owns 25% of the smartphone market, with essentially one model (with slight color and memory variations to address different price points). Their competitors made a smartphone for everyone, but did nothing well. Apple now owns 90% of the US laptop market for laptops > $1000. They have exactly one design in three sizes (plus one older model below $1000). It is the best laptop on the market. Everyone aspires to it. They use the best materials, create the best software, and provide the best experience. Not everyone buys it, especially at the low end, but they’ve captured the most profitable part of the market. Do this, and you can charge a premium for every model. People will lust after your cars. They will forget the past, and line up to buy.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 11:28 am Therese Tant said:
Michael you have such clarity of thought. It does seem to be a simple doesn’t it? I think that the recent loss of brands that we’ve experienced will actually be helpful in many ways. I’m hoping that our future is a more condensed line-up with teams able to focus on perfecting these vehicles. I do believe that we’ve fallen victim to having far too many vehicles in the queue, this hurts brand equity, and quality.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:06 am JonCleghorn said:
I don’t think Green Trendsetters should be the target of this design. They are only a small fraction of the “bare necessities” group and they will often pay more (option up) which is counter to the bare needs goal.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm lbauer.11@hotmail.com said:
The bare necessities? I guess it’s confusing to think about what we really NEED in a car, not just what we want. First and foremost, and kind of obvious, is fuel effieciency. If you have a vehicle that gets the best fuel economy in its class, people are going to look at it differently. They’re going to find reasons to buy it, and they’ll try to overlook a few minor flaws. Secondly, it needs to look great inside and out. I don’t care what size the car is, it can still look great. I think the new Chevy Aveo and Pontiac Vibe look amazing, and they are both small cars. Find a style that works on small cars, and one that fits customer demand. And lastly, the car has to be able to move. I hear so many “lawnmower engine” jokes about new small cars; people need a car that can accelerate quickly when they need it.
The image of less-is-more?
I don’t know. Haha. When I think of cars I want to drive, I want them to draw positive attention, but maybe that’s possible with less. Especially as more and more people try to save money by going green and help the planet.
I guess it would have to depend on what the current style is. I would have to say that right now, more is more, but maybe by the time the product line is launched, society will have changed its thinking??
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 11:10 am Therese Tant said:
Thanks for your thoughts…your comment “When I think of cars I want to drive, I want them to draw positive attention, but maybe that’s possible with less” is really so interesting. Certainly in the US typically ‘more is more’, but there are absolutely signs of a shift and for many there is a desire for positive attention in the way of being seen as intelligent and rational. These people do their homework, they research and take pride in knowing that their purchases are well thought-out. If a vehicle like this was truly the most fuel efficient 4-seater AND it looked great and felt great to drive maybe these customers would get that positive attention and be doing so with less.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:13 am JonCleghorn said:
The A and B class Mercedes in Europe are cars that have instant appeal because even though they are small they tied their look to the larger classic Mercedes cars.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 1:40 am keelerpd said:
Time to make things optional again;
- PW
- PS
- Cruise
- Sunroof
- A/C
When I was a kind, these were all line items. Now, you have a couple of options that “consist” of groups of options. At least look at the list and make some more available. I look at a new Cobalt and it is 22K. That is crazy, I have a Saturn which I now have 220K miles on it and it still gets 34 MPG. I can’t justify a $400 / month pymt. I like the idea of “options”.
Just my .02
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 10:56 am Therese Tant said:
Thanks for your input. Starting with key components and letting people add what they want instead of forcing options on them just makes sense. This allows for an extremely inexpensive baseline vehicle as well. There’s even the possibility that the baseline vehicle is lighter and more fuel efficient with less secondary elements. Eventually with online vehicle ordering becoming mainstream as software systems organize automotive plants efficiently the future of cars could be this premise of people customizing their componentry just as they would the color and materials similar to the way you order a computer or work with a home-decorator. Certainly dealers are still needed to allow the customers to touch and experience and test-drive before a purchase, but I believe that people are going to continue to push for more flexible purchasing options.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:15 am JonCleghorn said:
It is interesting that I am seeing the same comments by some GM personnel repeated multiple times verbatim in here. Has the conversation already become that stale and is this what we can expect of the inventiveness and the listening to the public that is to come?
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 6:31 am danny said:
When is GM going to learn…..
85% of car buying decisions are based on raw emotion first, and then defaults to practicality. If the brains basic (it’s got to have these features, minimum!) is met, then the emotions that were first present will be allowed to proceed and overwhelm the buyer, or “convince us that what we want is also what we need”.
Firstly, and quickly, this car is a failure by that criterion. It looks like everything else Japanese, so emotionally it has no real tangible advantage, even if it were to be a nice car! Secondly, those who would drive a car so small and UNSAFE are a very small group of the total buying public. The Cobalt is a very successful car because it is small and efficient, but if it were any bit smaller, it would have been a flop. It still doesn’t sell anywhere near the numbers of the corrolla. Again : same size + same design as Japanese = decent car that sells good, But not as desireable as Japanese car to general public.
Please…..take a lesson from the current mustang/camaro. These are cars that everyone (very nearly) would say that they like, and would own if financial/ (minimum requirements–e.g. mileage/insurance/seating) match up at their own minimum requirements. So it gets a “Gold star” for emotions. All camaros have to do then is meet the bare requirements of the buyer, but one thing is for sure. Some people can be pushed over the edge by looks, but none will be pushed over by saying to themselves “well, it doesn’t meet my minimum needs, but at least it is ugly”!
As for this whole, cost per mile thing……IF the volt takes off, why would you then want this, or would there even be a need for it in the lineup. It can’t be lower cost/mile than the Volt, disregarding purchase price of course. Wouldn’t it make more sense to get the Volt’s cost of ownership/price down to a more affordable configuration? Not many know this, but the internal combustion engine that we use now, in Any car, wastes most of the energy from fuel, >60% as heat loss. So, we waste 60 and use 40 in a good car engine. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and redesign the internal engine, or replace it with something more efficient in the first place? I’ve read a lot of really good comments here, but no one said anything about why gas mileage is so close between small cars and large cars, in general, w/regard to gas engines. My impala gets 24mpg combined, driving hard, while my 08 cobalt gets 30mpg combined, 28-29 if I drive it as hard as i do the impala. But the Impala is Sooooo much more fun, and bigger, and more comfortable and convenient, and SAFER! We should all realize that the trend has been for cars to get bigger lately. Honda and Toyota are doing the same. People are realizing that its not worth the extra 1K in gas each year for so many trade-offs. Saving 500-1K in gas might cost you your life in an accident w/a Tahoe.
To me, this concept is a waste of money and time for GM, which has little of either to waste right now. This car tries to appeal to the Value Equation side of us, but unless it can do so Astoundingly better than everyone else, then it will have trouble capturing that small group of potentials who would even consider it.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 6:46 am danny said:
You know, AND THIS IS A REALLY GREAT IDEA……. (which i’m full of, lol.)
Why isn’t GM getting into the BOOMING ATV/Side x Side game? Sales are so strong in that market, even now. If you don’t believe me just price some, and just try and find a real sale on them, Honda, Yamaha, Polaris, whatever! These things cost 10K- 13K new! I couldn’t belive the demand for these things. If anywhere a “Bare Bones” reliable 4×4 and very small to boot were needed, it would be in the outdoor market. I know I’d rather have a very tiny off-road Vehicle than an off road Lawn mower w/a cab, especially for that money!
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 12:05 pm Wade Bryant said:
That idea HAS occurred to me. I too am astounded at the price these things sell for considering their simplicity. Another interesting thing is that some states are allowing them to be driven on public roads if you outfit them properly. If they got decent fuel economy, there would be a case for driving them on the streets.
They sure look fun.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm KevinC said:
The relentless addition of content is bound to slow at some point….i think it will come sooner rather then later. It’s time for a vehicle like this. There are a lot of redundancy’s in today’s cars that, although aesthetically pleasing, ultimately don’t do anyone any good.
door panels to cover the door? just added weight. redesign the doors such that an entire door panel isn’t needed.
carpeting? forget it. targeted floor mats and spray on applications are fine.
the trunk lid of my car has it’s own panel to cover the steel! sure it looks nice..but it’s heavy. and costs money.
plastic engine covers? sure they may cut some noise…but couldn’t the hood serve that function?
The trick for GM will be to strategically De-content without looking cheap. Cheap…affordable…value…those are all words that mean the same thing but bring up vastly different images in peoples mind. convince people that less is more…that’s the challenge.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 9:26 pm Therese Tant said:
It is a challenge to create a simple vehicle that does not look like it’s missing something, including character. The design exploration portion of this project was far from simple, it didn’t come as easily to the designers as other projects that were being worked concurrently. Bare Necessity is far from a styling exercise, there needs to be some thoughtful problem solving.
We all have unique needs and wants in our vehicles. So much content in my truck goes unused, honestly. I do believe that we [Americans] tend to over-buy, or buy for what we may someday need, not what we likely will use. Less is more for certain people would just never be a consideration. For those who like the idea of living more simply…yes, perhaps.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:18 am JonCleghorn said:
“Design exploration “was” far from simple”. Is the design exploration stage already over?
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 4:03 pm CurrentVolvoformerGMowner said:
This is feel good junk- sorry to write this as my first entry on the Lab. The ideas not the LAB site…
Thanks by the way for putting this up site up. However. I am rooting for GM but enough right now to invest $ 40,000 in your experiment- not yet anyway.
I am not a car junkie but I like cars (I have a restored 1967 1600 Datsun Coupe) but being married with twins I can tell you (depending on how you size me I am either a “late boomer or a early buster”) that buying a car is a family decision- my wife, me and my ten year old twins. My fear is that this will idea about a Bare Necessity Car (BN car) will end with some hideous Azetec- or whatever that peice of junk was that GM tried to foist on the market. I am sure the Axtec was an engineering marvel- but the customer (that would be me) said “what a peice of junk you have got to be kidding me!”)
Forget this simple idea of a BN care
Sure you will get press from the fringe- but otherwise unless there is something EXCEPTIONALLY compelling (like the VOLT??? & its all electric partial electric forget the gas concept) forget everything you have written.
So I ask myself (self) why is my family driving a Volvo V-70 Wagon and A Volvo S-80? I know from the data that I could get equal safety with a Suburu Forester for about 20% less. I also know that I could get the same safety from a (I think) Toyota Camery at about the same or less (may 5-10% less).
Why did we spend ~ $ 68k in 1999/2006 on Volvos…. because Volvo has incredible service at the Dealership (and unless you change the GM dealer experience that you are dead meet forget the car it will not matter)- Volvo is attractive (and well built- great and simple design with sleek look) w/super fit and finish , & they have brain washed my wife about safety (her brother survived a head on and the state police said it was the VOLVO that saved him)- and it (the car) says to others that my wife & her family ARE smart enough to buy a Volvo and that that she values safety over costs. What a compelling value statement.
So what is it GM is trying to be? Cheap like a KIA? Incredibly reliable and cost effective like a Toyota? Independent and American built & “we don’t need your stinking handouts” like Ford? (now that is pretty compelling)
You better get the WHAT GM stands for right first…and WHAT message a GM car sends about its owner to others right before you go chasing after the BN car. Perhaps the BN car is right…but that is putting the car before the horse.
What do you want the car to be and the brand to be? What message does the brand send about the owner to others? What is the compelling message (safety, built American, eco friendly)?
So far you I am hearing a bunch of engineers speak about all of the brilliant ideas (which are of themselves GREAT)…but if my family was simply buying a car based on engineering and costs- why would’nt I go out and buy a Hyundai???
Well if I were Fritz or Bob I would kill this thing before GM spends $ 3-4 Billion on another Aztec. Engineering is one thing- something we want to purchase is another.
Please understand that I write this because I want GM to suceed…
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 6:47 pm Therese Tant said:
Thank you for taking the time to give us so much input.
I first want to clarify one thing about this Bare Necessity idea- these two vehicle proposals [BN small car & BN truck] are proposals that grew from one project- the eco project, this is not meant to be a proposal to embody all new GM vehicles. This small car proposal was targeting people who are looking for a super-efficient small car, customers who do not need bells n whistles, in fact they don’t want them. They’re people who carry rear passengers occasionally, not daily. They are people who want above everything fuel efficiency. Clearly this may not be your car, but stay tuned. This is just the first of many projects to be shown here at the LAB, we’d love your feedback on future projects as well.
You are truly right to ask – what does GM stand for?
With bankruptcy comes many questions, it’s a new company. This question will be answered, but I can’t answer it. I do know that the post-bankruptcy GM would like to push each of it’s brands to the forefront – meaning that Cadillac, Chevy, Buick and GMC stand for unique things and target unique customers. Thanks again!
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 9:25 am CurrentVolvoformerGMowner said:
Therese
Thanks for the replay…I appreciate it very much. I grew up with GM and to paraphrase Ronald Regan “I did not leave GM…GM left me”…so I am rooting for you and your team to pull this off.
Thanks again for the change to interact with GM via the blog-
Howard
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 10:27 am MZ said:
For me the overall point is where are the designers once the engineers get a hold of the project? The Camaro is the first stunning/out there vehicle that GM has brought out in years. There must have been a whole lot of design going on when you introduced the PT Crui..err I mean HHR. Then there was the SSR which is probably the ugliest thing I have ever seen with the coolest roof in the world.
People in Detroit have been making vehicles that people buy out of necessity and not because they want it.
I got into an Equinox to get out of my aging Grand Cherokee and have regretted it ever since.
The idea of the BN car is a really good one, but the design and car are not going to be able to capitalize off of the business of a larger current vehicle in the GM line up.
The Sentra is a dumbed down Maxima, the Corolla plays off of the Camry. Where are the vehicles and designs you can build off of?
You don’t introduce your lowest price vehicle to market first then play up into new segments because people will think of the small version when looking at the big. Look at Acura; they introduce the MDX SUV, then play off of that styling into the TL, then off of that into the TSX.
You guys are working in reverse….
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 9:27 pm Michael said:
I know this might be anathema, but I wonder if GM might benefit from changing the names of its remaining brands, and possibly of GM itself. I realize that the current brands have substantial brand equity, with billions of dollars of cumulative advertising behind them over the years, and I’m sure that this is probably painful for many at GM (or its fans) to hear. But the current brands do not present a positive image to many buyers, and do not lend themselves well to a simplified and well differentiated lineup. Nor are the names particularly poetic or aspirational. Here’s what I think of when I hear the current brands:
Chevy: stodgy, cheap, poor reliability, uniformity, bland, ugly logo, boxy
Buick: My grandparents’ car. (Well, I don’t think mine drove Buicks, but you get what I mean.) I remember seeing a bunch of 70 year olds checking one out at the DC auto show, and one talking about how it was a good, solid car.
GMC: Surprisingly neutral. I think trucks. Maybe you should keep this one.
Cadillac: Also reminds me of grandparents. I know it’s a luxury brand, but it’s not what I think of when I think of a luxury car. I think of Lexus, Audi, and sometimes a few others. (Note that Toyota rebranded with Lexus and Scion to create a new brand image for it’s aspirational and low end cars.) Cadillac is more like a Chevy with some luxury signifiers tacked on.
Note that these brands don’t signify segments by characteristics such as performance, efficiency, handling, etc. particularly well. If I had to have four brands, here’s how I would break it down:
1) GMC: Trucks. All of your trucks. If it’s a truck, it belongs here, because it’s a truck. Trucks have innovative designs with excellent fuel economy and safety. They are also designed to protect *other* cars in crashes.
2) Performance luxury: This brand precisely targets BMW and Lexus, but does it better. Cars are safe, fuel efficient, handle brilliantly, have excellent aerodynamics, firm, supportive seats, and integrate well with the buyer’s electronics (in ways that do not present a safety challenge.) As mentioned in my previous posting, you have two or three models in this brand – a small car, a medium car, and a large car. (See BMW 3/5/7 series). They are all the best on the market. Everyone aspires to them (even the small car – see Mercedes A-class, BMW 1,3 series).
3) Small, efficient brand: Think Fiat, Honda Civic, Corolla, Prius, Aptera, possibly Tesla. This brand has one or two cars, possibly with the same body but distinguished by drive system (gas, hybrid, electric, hydrogen (when possible)). The car breaks down like this:
-Ultra efficient car – Like Aptera – extremely efficient, zero emissions, carbon fiber fairing, world’s best aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, drive system and energy storage low to the ground underneath the car to improve handling, extremely safe, supportive seats. May eventually offer a choice of drive systems. Electric for short range commuters, esp. those in cities. Hybrid or plug-in hybrid for those who who need greater range.
4) Midsize brand: Two cars, one about the size of a Camry, one somewhat smaller. (Note: there’s no really big car here. Spend a month in Europe and you’ll see the Camry is *enormous*! Outstanding handling, safety, fuel efficiency, and aerodynamics. Firm, supportive seats. Beautiful styling that everyone aspires to. Not as luxurious as the luxury brand, but note that that brand had a small and midsize car too (perhaps off the same platform.)
Now if you really want to be daring, reduce it to 3 brands:
1) GMC, as described above, but with customization as offered in #3 below.
2) Ultra-efficient, as described above, possibly with customization as described below.
3) Luxury/standard brand. It makes 3 bodies: small, medium, large. Buyer can customize them with their choice of features (luxurious or not, as they desire). Excellent efficiency, safety, handling, quality, and aerodynamics are standard. (The current idea that you have to get a huge car to get a luxurious one is silly.) You customize it with a choice of interior materials, colors (any color), trim, seats, instruments, electronics, tires, exterior body panels, etc. If someone wants a bare bones car, they can get that! If they want super luxurious, they can get that too! In the same body! Effects on cost, safety, and fuel efficiency are shown on the website as you choose different features. A 3D model of the resulting car is presented so the buyer can see exactly what it will look like. Everyone gets exactly the car they want. Want some luxury features and some basic ones at the same time? You can get that! You don’t have to guess at how to target different markets, because the market targets itself for you through customization. You keep no excess inventory. You manufacture cars just in time. No dealers needed. Market options through something like the Apple Store (with small, medium, and large test cars.)
Do this, and you will not just save GM, you will own the market.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm Therese Tant said:
Changing the name of the brands might be a full-on hard sell in terms logistics of some of those things you’d mentioned – brand equity, money invested, etc. However, your prodigious strategy for revamping brands is compelling. It is honestly difficult to read your take on our brands, but this is the stuff that we need to hear – an unedited, outside view. I was most surprised by your perception of Cadillac “Also reminds me of grandparents”…ouch, that hurts. I thought that our Cadillac lineup would at least get props – CTS, Converj? No? Awe : (
Thank you so much for being so passionate and giving so much input. There is no doubt that with the new GM will also come an evolution of all of our brands, some more than others. We will soon see.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm Carchitect said:
I definitely see Buick as still a car for older people who really want a Lexus because of it’s reliability, pretty good design and image. If they have plenty of money they might not be swayed by Buick since that uncool image is still there. It does not matter that they are a cheaper alternative to Lexus for some. Then there will be others who find Buick offers a lot of value for the money and feel better buying american. They are not so concerned about image. I have noticed almost every Enclave buyer is older. If they really want it to be not seen as a compromise purchase then lots of things need to change in the design. They are amazing for a GM car but just not any better than the imports.
Now my image of Caddy is much better in fact. If they could smooth out the lines a little but have tension creases like BMW it would be dramatic enough and with good driving dynamics stand on it’s own. That is once they have a full lineup with the 3 series size car.
Buick is just a lost cause in the long run. I mean the Hyundai Genesis is much more exciting for about the same price as a LaCrosse. The image burden might actually be less for the once cheap Hyundai over stodgy Buick. We know all this out there but GM is always drinking it’s own coolaid. Unfortunately, it takes so long for the to develop a car that it won’t be any time soon that they can amp up the designs.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:32 am JonCleghorn said:
Your brand image is not simply what’s on the showroom floor. It is also the cars you have been selling for years. And in California where cars last forever it is the cars you have made the entire life of your company. To the consumer’s mind you cannot say we are a world class remade Cadillac brand based on that. Unfortunately, this is what the consumer will remember. If everyone had amnesia then you might be high on the quality/design list. It is high on the pimpin list and on the pimpin wannabe list because they have the money to dump it if problems emerge but it is not and will likely never be a brand as respected as Mercedes.
The GM brands are damaged and will only rise to a certain status. Period. Saturn on the other hand was a fresh start and established a quality and engineering reputation that exceeded the other brands in a very short time. GM should have learned from that but instead GM shelved Saturn’s uniqueness and simply turned them into rebadged Opels thereby damaging a beautiful “made in America” brand.
If you create this new BN car it has to be a new brand. Otherwise it is just a cheap Chevy.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 11:09 pm Vlad said:
Let me offer my two cents regarding the “bare necessities” message. Looks like the Lab is aspiring to create a design GM can tell a great story about, a story along the lines of a “paradigm shift” (a story which could dovetail nicely with the story of the Volt). With the concept of “basic necessity” you are trying to get across the message of “frugality” and “eco-friendliness”. Yet, as the posts on this blog suggest, “basic necessity” means vastly different things to different people, which is why my suggestion is: why not to expand this message to a broader one of a “people-friendly” car? Have you noticed how many posters here brought up Apple as a design icon? So, what is so special about Apple’s design philosophy? Mainly, I think, it is a particular design language, user-friendliness, and a high degree of user-customization. I my view, the “people-friendly” message for this vehicle will make it easier to integrate many of the design ideas posted on this blog (see more on this below).
The other reason I am suggesting to make the message of your vehicle broader than just the “basic necessity” is this: as you surely understand, with the price point being a major consideration for such a vehicle and, likely, its significant production cost due to safety and quality considerations, optional equipment, etc., this project won’t be successful without achieving some significant sales volumes. This is why it escapes me why you seem to be targeting this project just for the “developed world” markets. GM has a significant market share and undamaged goodwill in China, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, etc. … These days you simply can’t afford to design a car without keeping in mind consumers in those countries. I suspect that the “bare necessities” message in those markets, particularly coming from a “foreign” manufacturer, may have a negative connotation (and there may be plenty of local competition for that trophy), while the “people-friendly” message is more likely to be received with a more positive disposition.
Personally, I am a big fan of the idea of creating a car with a spaceframe structure and readily customizable exterior and interior. I understand that the implementation of this idea will require a major shift in the manufacturing process and sourcing. But here again may lie an upside: such a change is another “paradigm shift”, a chance for GM to lead the automobile industry to where the electronics industry is now, i.e. the industry comprised of firms of two distinct varieties: design developers/owners and contract manufacturers. Sooner rather than later some car company will be the first to get there, why wouldn’t GM want to be that company?
Coming back to how, in my view, the “people-friendly” message can be communicated in the design. There are many great posts here on this topic already, and much of what I put below is just a summary of ideas already expressed here that I happen to like. Nonetheless, here it goes:
1) Style: I support the idea that the styling should be such that this car would be instantly identifiable and distinct. As much as I appreciate classic cars, I think that the styling has to be forward looking, not retro. If the platform allows for easily interchangeable body panels, a number of appearance variants can be created going forward.
2) Size: Personally, I think you should design a car that is in a compact/midsize category rather than a subcompact or smaller. Most target buyers (both in a developed and developing worlds) would want a decent size vehicle that they could put in, at least on occasion, their kids or 2-3 adult passengers, as well as the vehicle that can be used for cargo hauling duty (hence, a foldable rear bench or a split rear seat would be called for).
3) Perception of safely: a small vehicle usually suffers from the perception of being unsafe. But what if some parts of the “crush envelope”, like a roll cage, are made visible to communicate how safe the car is? Again, designing a vehicle that is of a comfortable size should go a long way in boosting the message of safety.
4) Perception of high quality: the car has to have a quality look and feel in everything a driver/passenger sees and touches.
5) Fun to drive: A must, which can be achieved by a reasonably good dynamics and handling. I guess, this car’s buyers will be willing to tolerate the noise level somewhat above the average giving you the room to reduce the weight of the noise-cancellation materials.
6) Easy maintenance: this trait makes the car “friendly” to enthusiasts and those consumers who service their cars at independent mechanics
7) Eco-friendliness: I love the ideas already posted here about efficient use of the engine heat and outside air to minimize the load on HVAC system. Also, the spaceframe and customizable interior/exterior layout should allow to use eco-friendly materials (e.g., recycled plastic, aluminum, wood) in some trim variants.
9) Drivetrain: If the objective is to sell this vehicle as broadly as possible, these days it is a must to build-in a flexibility for a wide variety of engine/transmission combinations. These combinations should be relatively inexpensive, by which means that a purely electric vehicle may not be an option, at least in the first iteration of this platform, but a small gasoline engine, flex fuel engine, hybrid, and diesel probably should all be on the table. Perhaps it would be smart to have a FWD with AWD as an option. The choice of transmissions should be auto and manual.
But I got carried away… I hope you are still awake… Thanks for keeping up with my rant… Keep up the good work and shoot for a new automotive icon on this one. Anything less will be a waste of your (and our) time.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 8:24 am Wade Bryant said:
Those are great ideas. The “people friendly” message is compelling and does stay true to the general principals we had in mind.
I’m going to re-read your commnents to soak them in better.
Thanks.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:38 am JonCleghorn said:
I think you just described the original Saturn cars.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 11:27 pm John McKell said:
I really like the idea of a small car with fuel efficiency. We had a Sprint, a Suzuki Swift, and a Geo Metro. They were wonderful cars. Great mileage, great nimble agility. Despite the size, we still felt safe — even with several accidents. Then Geo (and Metro) went away. I drove a Saturn SL (my kids call it an “I give up car”: No style, plain vanilla, but safe and fairly good mileage. Nothing like the Sprint though!). I now drive a SmartCar. It’s safe with airbags all over the place. Mileage is respectable, though still not as good as the Sprint. The Aveo just doesn’t work for me. I don’t want any more vehicle than I need. I want high gas mileage. I want to see a decent sized diesel-electric. I want a four (five in a pinch) seater. I like the concepts (except for the very large hood/engine on the one concept!) Coupes, hatchbacks, they are all good. A trunk is so traditional, but not so great when it comes to moving stuff around.
I REALLY want to see this (or something like this) make it to the market! I would much rather have an american car, but american car companies don’t make the car I want.
—John McKell
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for commenting. I think you are our target customer for Bare Necessity Car. I love the “I give up” car moniker!
I owned two Swifts in the past and they were both the best MPG cars I’ve owned and they were the “big” 1.3Ls.
I’d like to know more about how important your car’s image is to you. From a plain vanilla SL to a Smart car is quite a shift in terms of expressiveness.
Tell us more!
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 7:11 pm SierraGS said:
GM has quite a few interesting small vehicles offered in Europe by Opel and Wuling in China and to get some real world feedback GM should have a ride and drive event in California and other major urban cities to expose potential buyers to the fact that small cars do not have to be boring and you can find what buyers really like on current cars that can be used on new designs and what they don’t so you can avoid disappointing them.
The Matiz, Agila, Corsa, Combo Tour, Meriva, Tigra and upcoming Spark and Wuling minivans are good examples and as the designer of the Agila in the following clip shows, a small car can be stylish and retain good utility.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1163797/opel_agila/
If you actually do something like a ride and drive be sure to include small engine versions and some diesels to gauge how buyers feel about them in real world driving situations.
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm Stan Basch said:
All GM cars need good feel and fit, then you can do the cool looks . If GM thinks that simple thing people will come back to buy.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 12:25 am jcrew1047 said:
As a male living in Canada I need space to carry a hockey bag and hockey sticks in the winter and golf clubs in the summer. Most other items besides these are smaller. I would easily sacrifice the rear seat space to accomodate these items, but the sticks could be an issue based on length, around 5ft. Feel free to eliminate the weight of a CD player and only allow MP3 connectivity as well as having only 2 speakers. These speakers need to be of high quality if you go this route. Save space and weight, but keep the sound quality up much like you are doing on the Volt sound system. Other features like A/C and keyless entry/start should be standard as well as it being front wheel drive. No need for a sunroof, but power front windows is a must as well. Fog lights look pretty, but not needed. Stop/Start fuel cutoff should also be standard. Diesel would be cool, but not required.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 3:20 am Dtroyt said:
There are many views that all have curious possibilities and points. The one point that I see very little of, though, is the safety of the vehicle. I certainly encourage the development of “greener” cars and trucks, but I refuse to trade-off the well-being and safety of myself or my family for fuel economy. Crash-test results are noticeably improved over the years, but, and please correct me if I am wrong, they only document the results of a similar sized/weight vehicle incidents. They do not demonstrate the result of, for example, a Silverado and a G6 crash. I think we all know the answer to that.
I encourage the focus and would purchase the fundamentally “simple” car to gain in efficiency, but I simply will not sacrifice crashworthiness to acheive that objective. Modular-izing a vehicle’s add-on’s as mentioned previously is a grand idea, but safety systems and other advanced systems to help AVOID crashes should be retained as a top priority for any manufacturer creating vehicles of tomorrow. And that manufacturer will earn my business.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 4:54 pm Wade Bryant said:
Safety is an issue we’d like to contend with here. There was some dialog on it last week in this blog.
I’m no safety expert, so I can’t provide the information you seek about crash tests.
I’ve often wondered how people make decisions around vehicle safety. Do people only judge star ratings? Do they demand 5 stars all the time? Do they want the heaviest vehicle they can afford?
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 12:55 am Dtroyt said:
Safety for me is the number one factor when chosing a vehicle and many of my friends share the same opinion. I, personally, will all but eliminate vehicles from my shopping list that do not perform well in frontal, side and offset testing, probably 4 stars minimum. I also look at belt-line, meaning the height of the vehicle. If I am looking the bumper of, say, a Silverado in the eye when seated in the vehicle looking out side windows or, more importaint yet, can see the bumper of a common car or truck when looking out the windshield, I know that I will not fare well in a frontal crash, soley given the differential in height. “Crumple zones” are rendered ineffective if the impact is not on the bumper and side-impact beams are also ineffective if the impact zone is above the beam.
I do not soley consider weight as a key factor in crash performance and in fact, in testing I have seen, lighter vehicles tend to “bounce” off larger vehicles actually reducing the severity of the crash for both vehicles, presuming the structure of the lighter vehicle holds up. While mass does play an obvious role in the outcome, it is so importaint that a manufacturer design for impact points and how the energy is distributed around the passenger cabin… and then get marketing to communicate that to the customer… Think old SAAB ads where the cars were stacked on top of the roof to demonstrate the structural strength of the vehicle; for those of us who value safety above any other factor, that is the type of design engineering we want to see.
Along with those criteria, I will eliminate a vehicle that does not have a minimum of front and side air bags, stability system (like the Stabilitrak in my Chevy) as well. I am still convinced to this day that I was able to walk away (very slowly, might I add) from a side impact at over 50 MPH because those bags did their job.
So to summarize the answers to your questions: A 5-Star crash test rating gets a vehicle noticed and on the shopping list, a taller “belt-line” height and added safety features keeps it on the list. Mass is an added bonus, but is then balanced against economy (since one DIRECTLY impacts the other), performance and styling. Hey, it is tough being a consumer! As it has to be being a designer for us picky consumers!
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 12:01 am TerryB. said:
I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the commercial of Volvos being dropped from cranes to land on their front bumpers, and stacked seven high, etc. For a generation, those commercials established the opinions that the Volvo was a safe, solid car.
I have to look at crash testing and stars as a compromise between the car makers, the insurance labs, and the advertisers. They just don’t have that visceral grab. It isn’t real world.
You are going to need something similar if you are going to stress safety; an image everyone can easily understand and relate to. Personally, I like my C2500, having had two different hit from behind and drive away while the other car was totaled. When picking out cars for my daughters, I had a size/weight threshold that I didn’t let them go below. Tiny city cars are a good idea for people that only do low speeds in the city, but a lot of us live out here in flyover country and have to contend with full-size vehicles at highway speeds on a daily basis. But we still want our cost per mile to be as cheap as possible. Tube chassis cage and recycled plastic body panels?
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:42 am JonCleghorn said:
People seek the highest numbers of stars. Weight is irrelevant unless they have had bad experiences with small cars.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 11:05 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for providing your safety “specs”. That is a great list of factors you are considering. I doubt most consumers are as safety-savvy as you are.
On this project the safety discussion has particular relevance as we try to balance size and weight with safety.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm chiefpontiac said:
The Mini is a 4-star vehicle, which, considering its size is probably pretty good. GM needs to take some hard looks at packaging, and how especially teh Japanes pack more room into smaller space. Take, for example a car larger than we are talking here but illustrates my point. The 2010 Subaru Legacy has grown in size from previous version, yet is still smaller outside than Chevy Malibu – yet in that smaller exterior they have somehow found a way to carve out an interior that is larger than a Malibu, according to each respective vehicle’s listed dimensions.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 7:50 pm Galen388 said:
oops , Ii accidentally posted this in the eco comments , sorry I meant to put it here:
I dont think many people seem to get the “Bare Necessity” part…as in the minimum i need in a car. If i want a showy flashy ride .. well you have those; camaro , vette, etc or a solid ride you have those too Equinox , CTS etc.
The minimum i need to consider a “Bare Necessity” is:
Get my from point A to point B comfortably not necessarily over stylish you have that already…
Get better than avg MPG. ( if i wanted average i can any number of less expensive cars)
Not look or handle like a brick on wheels.
Not cost 40K$ or above.
Hopefully be interesting enough to draw interest from others when i drive it or recharge/refuel whatever it.
Not cost more than the downpayment for my house ( this is my bare needs car , for small trips to work , store etc).
A bare needs car is one that well, customers go buy from a used car lot , thats the true competition here. Lets face it a geewhiz technological wonder such as a death star on wheels isnt going to be inexpensive or even a bare needs car, it’s going to be the main car in the household and you have alot of that already to choose from with GM. Stay attached to the “bare” part in the description. Its ok to put wow stuff in it , but too much wow stuff and you just have another sedan ( after making it bigger to hold all this junk , like the volt concept was coupe – real thing a sedan) to contend against in an already overloaded sedan market.
Anyways thats my two cents.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 11:10 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for re-posting. There has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion on how much style to infuse into this concept. I like the idea that the vehicle can be delivered in a very basic guise, but then outfit to personal tastes. I think this would work as long as the base model isn’t compromised.
I think a good question to ask is whether or not this approach would put-off the person just seeking basic transportation. Would they car be viewed as a trendy car and not a practical car?
My instinct tells me that even if we offered a super-efficient bare bones car, it would end up being customized in the aftermarket.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:47 am JonCleghorn said:
It would be great if GM helped to create that customized aftermarket. GM uses it design skills to create add ons for the cars that they then license for others to make regionally. GM works with the aftermarket to improve/polish the aftermarket’s designs too. Why not? After all it all goes to helping to sell more vehicles. The truth is that there is not alot of talent in the aftermarket. There is alot of interest and money to spend but not alot of talent to execute it.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 10:08 pm Maryehoffmann said:
I know very little about the engineering of cars. So my opinions are purely emotional and visual. I agree that the sub compact cars will not attract a broad spectrum of consumers. I really want to buy a “green” car, a more fuel efficient car, but I want to feel safe. I’ve never been in a compact car that I have felt safe in.
Since “texting” is a growing problem, I am very conscious about the “other guy” crashing into me. I want to feel like I won’t go over the side rails when the guy next to me veers into my lane. A mid-sized car with some reinforcements would attract my attention. How about a motion sensor that sounds an alert when a car gets within 2 feet of your vehicle when in motion? Just a random thought since I think about this allot while driving.
Although small cars are attractive, cute, sexy, etc., when I think about driving every day….I want a car that is higher off the ground (so I can see – I’m short) and doesn’t feel like it will disintegrate if it’s hit. Room for GPS is a safety issue for me too. 5 years ago I would not have even considered it, but now, because I do have to drive to unknown places allot, I consider it a safety feature as well as a navigational device. It gives me peace of mind. An automatic door lock makes me feel safe too.
I can do without many comforts but an automatic transmission is a must for me. I’ll take out seats if not in use, give up CD players, extra trays, pockets, compartments, leather, armrests, but at least give me a radio.
I am not as concerned about the outside look of the car, although I do like a nice looking vehicle. I agree that retro is NOT the way to go. We are moving forward; therefore the marketing and look of the car should reflect our future, not the past. Sleek, simple lines reflect a “back to the basics” marketing tactic, while looking sophisticated and forward thinking. My mood right now is, the less fussy my belongings look, the less space they occupy, the better I feel.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 11:15 am Wade Bryant said:
Great responses! The proximity-alert idea would be easy to do (an extra-cost upgrade on this car).
It sounds like you are in tune with the Bare Necessity approach.
The concept of reducing excess stuff = feeling good is a very important concept that we need to remember.
Is the back to basics ideal a recent goal, or one you’ve always had?
Excellent information.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 8:47 am fredyc said:
The most basic car I understand is Tata Nano. The 2500$ price is amazing. It has no features for that price, but is a 4 seater. It ends up 5,000$ with all western features required. Smart is a successful 2 seater sold expensively and used around town.
Saying about an electric 2 seater, with a basic configuration and lots of optionals though.
If the price of Volt’s battery is ~ 10,000 and the cost to build the small 2 seater car is at most 4,000 – no engine, no transmission, the overall cost would be 14,000. The thing is Volt has a 7,500$ tax break and the tax break depends on the battery.
So, the small electric car using Volt’s battery would end-up costing 6,500$. A battery on wheels.
Can assume the range will also be greater than 40 miles. Due to weight and the fact that the depletion of battery can go below the 30% limit for Volt.
Saying that a price like this – 7-8000$ would determine lots of people to consider it as a commuter car.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 9:07 am chiefpontiac said:
Sustainable vehicle production combined with “green” certainly implies use of recycled materials in the mix, such as body panels from water bottles. Yet, conversion of waste into resource is not always cost effective – consider the difference in price between plastic deck boards to traditional treated lumber. What might be more eco-friendly in the long run would be to re-invent the Soy-based plastic car pioneered by the original Henry Ford. Plastics from plants might be a better return on investment.
Speaking of body panels, as conceptually they appear in the video full one-piece or large panel tech may be great for initial manufacture but will be a financial and logistical nightmare for repair down teh road. Envision having to replace 60% of eth body due to crumpled fender – not so hot. Make it in small enough pieces for easy repair – and consider also teh ease of repair to the actual panels themselves. The original Endura bumpers are a nightmare to refinish. Fiero and Saturn panels are much better, although the owner-repairable bolt -on feature of Fiero panels outshines bond-on repairs that can only be accomplished at a dealer’s facility.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 9:29 pm Therese Tant said:
Good input, the exterior body would need to be super- efficient in terms of repair/replacement as well.
Bio-based plastic…there are quite a few new options out there, soy-based, potato-based and even better non-food sourced – they just need to be weighed in terms of sustainability, cost and durability.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 2:50 am JonCleghorn said:
How about making body panels like Legos that can pop off during an accident (when they are absorbing energy) and then can be simply reattached after the accident?
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 11:58 am Kenz300 said:
Quality interior components, quality exterior components, style – (Think Apple), value – competitive price point,
fuel efficiency —– This will equal best in class.
Compare yourself to the best. What small cars have the best interior? What are the best sellers? For too long GM has brought out NEW vehicles that are not best in class. Do not just look at this vehicle in isolation. Bring in the best selling small vehicles and put it them next to your design. Compare down to the smallest detail.
Every model change that Toyota and Lexus bring out is a step up from its previous model. Your suppliers need to be part of the change to higher style, quality and performance.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 1:19 pm Gary said:
My bare necessities vehicle.
Seats 2.
Has hauling capacity (doesn’t have to be a pickup, but the ability to carry not just grocery bags, but some stuff from the garden center or other bulkier items is good) For a rough idea, think Subaru Baja or even the El Camino. Covered or uncovered, or possible with a removeable cover.
Auto transmission
Power windows & locks
Radio/MP3 player with decent speakers (no, not a high end system, but a step above generic is nice)
Delayed Wipers
Comfortable seats that accomodate tall people (i.e. sufficient leg room without hitting the steering wheel… which probably means adjustable seats and steering wheel. NOT power adjustable, but adjustable… think MINI Cooper here)
Defrosters
Airbags
A/C
Cruise Control
That’s about it. I DO NOT NEED auto lights, auto mirrors, power mirrors, (if hatchback/suv style) auto lift gate, auto closing doors (mini van style), super bright lights (xenon), dvd, tv, navigation, fuel guzzling powerful engine, power folding mirrors, compass, temperature, multi zone climate control, backup camera, sunroof, leather, products that off-gas for months or years, CD player.
Basically a comfortable car with a few conviences is sufficient. If I were desigining this I would (and I hate to say this) use the Hummer approach that the army uses. A basic frame with 2 seats. Then you can tack on rear modules to suit your need. More seats and some enclosed storage. More seats and some exposed storage. Lots more seats, no storage. No seats, lots of exposed storage. No seats, lots of enclosed storage. No seats, no storage. Now a buyer with the base vehicle can add on whatever section makes sense for them. And the base vehicle would include common sense items… power windows, power brakes, air bags, anti-lock brakes… all stuff that would be considered standard on any car. Most of the rest is just gimicks or enterntainment for the other occupants. Since it’s mostly me or sometimes my wife and I in the car, that stuff is all wasted extra expense that we will neve use.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 9:19 am Urs Haltinner said:
Love the idea of “Cost of Ownership” from cradle to cradle–nice thinking as it gets us away from cost to purchase–I suspect the emerging consumer behavior will move into this direction. Other than letting me feel good about my environmental impact what does it do differently than how cars have always served their owners? By that I mean–it just cannot be another ecobox–everybody is playing at that game and look what we have–the Smart and its wannabe Toyota Nissan, and Honda–and heaven forbid The TATA NANO. Let’s also remember we live in a country where life and safety always seam to be a point of litigation–a society that takes little responsibility for its actions, and where the result of a car accident is expected to feel like a chiropractic adjustment regardless of the drivers error (20 airbags and and structural mass to protect and cushion).
This is a Chevy–that means it needs to deliver like the American it exemplifies (there is a lot to be proud of relative what it means to be American–lets not lose that market advantage). What would happen if we think outside of it being a car but rather as a compelling option to serve a consumer want and need–while doing it differently, uniquely, and better. By this I mean everything (drive, protect, entertain, inform, project the owners desired image, maintain, repair, etc.).
Right now it projects the eco image (nice–but so does every other transportation idea). What is really the game changing difference? Just a thought
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 9:08 pm Therese Tant said:
Yep, “green” is swiftly becoming pedestrian, even before it’s been actualized in the automobile industry. I hope that people don’t cool to the idea before it truly comes to fruition.
What is the game changing difference? I like that. It needs to have a short list of hi-impact, unique offerings/benefits that you can’t get anywhere else. I personally think that there are several ways that software could be a huge game-changer here.
Good point about safety too, most people seem to agree that safety is the price of entry on such a small vehicle.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 11:43 am Trevor Heath said:
Many have already mentioned the Metro / Swift
To me it is one of the most significant cars of the last 25 years.
Not just because of fuel efficiency but also because of reliability/longevity/styling
One can also actually work on the thing too, everything is accessible and, can be seen when the hood is opened.
AND I can push it into and out of the garage by myself without starting it when the lawn mower or my motorcycle are required…..
In the next couple of years we will be in the market for a new car. What we buy will be influenced by our experience with our 1992 Metro XFI
It will be of Metro size
60 mpg min highway
A/C (that does not sap engine power Solar?
GPS (one of the greatest fuel saving devices yet devised by man)
That’s about it really…..
TH
PS Chief Pontiac I’ve driven one of those 600 cc FIAT Multipla you show the photo of. That was our family car when we were kids. Mom – Dad and four kids, three rows of seats, 60 mph and probably 50 mpg (can’t remember)
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 8:22 pm Therese Tant said:
Thanks for your input Trevor….I do like the Metro’s overly simplified design, it’s almost a cartoon of a “car”. You’d mentioned liking it’s styling – is that why?
Do you want your vehicle to be capable of running on pure electric or is fantastic fuel economy enough?
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm Michael said:
Some illustrated examples:
Here is a design that I would feel passionate about. This is a rendering of the supposed upcoming Prius coupe. But it illustrates some of the design principles I’ve been talking about:
http://www.allcarselectric.com/image/100227330_prius-coupe-rendering
Note the minimized (although still larger than I would like) and not highlighted grill. Lack of chrome. Steeply raked windshield that flows cleanly into the hood. Low nose. Like the Prius, the roof and nose integrate into a clean airfoil shape. Excellent aerodynamics. Taught lines. Even the headlights flow beautifully into both the roof and nose, and the side crease flows cleanly into the bumper. Seals around window edges are blacked out. Minimal visible badging (although knowing Toyota, they will spoil the design with a giant badge on the side that says “hybrid” on it.) I might play with eliminating the visible wheel arches in order to smooth out the design (and airflow!) But it’s definitely a beautiful design.
You can see similar design principles, but with a much greater focus on aerodynamics, on the Aptera here:
http://www.aptera.com/look.php
Now why do I think of Cadillacs as a grandparent car (sorry, Therese
)? Let’s look at some:
http://www.autoclub.com.au/uploaded_images/cadillac-cts-2008-787751.jpg
http://www.2008-cadillac-cts.com/2008-cadillac-cts-pictures.html
This is the CTS from the front. Huge grill. Lots of chrome. Harsh, straight edges everywhere. Every design feature stands out and doesn’t appear to integrate with the rest of the design. Funny chrome thing stuck onto the side for no apparent reason. (Fake air vents?) Headlights are trapezoidal. The car itself is really a trapezoid stuck onto the top of a rectangular box. 1950’s era Cadillac V shape visible as a design theme throughout the car, including in the grill, bumper, rear bumper, and center tail light. Tall, rectangular tail lights on the sides. The use of design themes from the 1960s. Here’s a 1962 Cadillac:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1960-1969-cadillac-2.jpg
Note the large grill, trapezoidal roof stuck on a rectangular box. (Fortunately, the tail fins have not survived.)
Same on a 1963 Cadillac:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1960-1969-cadillac-3.jpg
…and a 1965 model:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1960-1969-cadillac-5.jpg
Here’s a very similar, huge, egg crate grill on a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1960-1969-cadillac-8.jpg
Even more so on a 1969:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1960-1969-cadillac-11.jpg
1970:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1970-1979-cadillac-2.jpg
1975:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1970-1979-cadillac-6.jpg
1976:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1970-1979-cadillac-9.jpg
1979: (It’s now 1979 and the design really hasn’t changed much…)
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1970-1979-cadillac-11.jpg
1982:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1980-1989-cadillac-5.jpg
1985: It’s gotten boxier, but is really a rebadged Chevy at this point:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1980-1989-cadillac-9.jpg
1988:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1980-1989-cadillac-17.jpg
1992 Seville: Looks very much like the CTS:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1990-1999-cadillac-6.jpg
1993 Cadillac Eldorado Touring Coupe. Roof and trunk are VERY similar to the CTS:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1990-1999-cadillac-9.jpg
1994: really, the same thing:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1990-1999-cadillac-13.jpg
2003 CTS: Finally, *some* change with Art and Science (blacked out grill), but still the same theme:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/2000-2008-cadillac-11.jpg
So when I say Cadillac has grandparent styling, you can clearly see the same design themes in the majority of Cadillacs dating back all the way to the 1950s and 1960s. Straight edges. Trapezoid on rectangular box. The “V”. Tall, rectangular tail lights. They all come straight from cars from 50-60 years ago, and they really haven’t changed much in all that time!
Now going back to:
http://www.2008-cadillac-cts.com/2008-cadillac-cts-pictures.html
if we look at the photos of the interior of the CTS, we see lots of V’s, trapezoids (harsh angles all over the place!), dense clusters of buttons far below eye level with no differentiation that resemble the face of an early 1980s VCR (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vcr1.jpg). Can you distinguish them with your eyes closed? No? Then you probably can’t do it while driving at 70 mph and watching the road either. Lots of chrome all over the place. Little tiny displays down by your leg. (Can you read a display without taking your eyes off the road for more than half a second? If not, it’s in the wrong place. Putting them by your knee is really not a good idea!) And why is there something covering the main center display? If it’s down, you can’t see the display (not very useful). If it’s up, it breaks up the flow of the dash and may obscure part of your view if you are shorter. Plus, you have to move it to see the display. Why not just have the display integrated into the flow of the dash? Also, as a shorter driver, I often find that I can’t reach all the buttons on a Cadillac’s center console without reaching and leaning out of the driver’s seat. Perhaps ergonomics needs a rethink too…
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm jm8067 said:
The white car in the video here looks disjointed. The A & C pillars look like they came from different cars entirely. That said, the back end of this car is attractive. I like the “fastback” look of the hatch, and the rims are quite striking. I would like to see the design themes from the rear of this car transposed to the front.
Regarding the questions you pose –
A good base on a car, in my opinion, would be: A/C (with SIMPLE controls), Power locks and windows, Auto lights (that might be pushing it, but what a nice feature!), a Compass
Basic design should be iconic and easy to identify from any angle (think Mini Coopers, most Porsches, most Benzes).
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 4:57 pm Pharmb124 said:
Very nice site!
to this comment On August 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm Carchitect said:
This is an interesting post about the original Mini and it is a model of a Bare Necessity car.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/bring-back-the-mini.php?dcitc=th_rss
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 12:15 am SFJOMAN said:
Just make the Tata Nano. You can’t get any more basic or cheap then that.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 9:39 am Mark Wisnewski said:
What is Bare Necessity to you?
What is essential in your vehicle?
My wife, who is what I consider a regular customer, outlined what a ‘Sandra Car’ (her idea of a bare vehicle) would be, it is this: ~$4-6K out of the box, manual windows- up/down lever operated not a crank with gears, no-A/C, 3-4 wheels (does not really matter), 4 seats and able to carry groceries (4-6 paper bags), > 45mpg, one color option, plastic body (no dents), one interior color/cloth option, AM/FM radio (one option), no airbags (adds complication and cost)
That’s it!
Simple as that.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 2:44 pm davidp said:
Great topic!
Since it’s minimal, I’d like to see design be concentrated and efforts redoubled on the basic components, such as door handles, and door striker catches. We all deal with those constantly, yet they look wanting, you know? When I look at the latch mechanism on a 50’s Mercedes Ponton sedan (cone within a cone!), I have to pause.
I fiddled with the concept of bare necessity few months ago, when I modified my vehicle, to see where it would lead. Precedents for me were 1) Pompidou Center by Renzo Piano and 2) Chapel of St. Ignatius in Seattle by Steven Holl. …on an Ikea budget. All possible plastic was removed. All the foam in the seats were removed. In it’s place:
- Natural canvas and foam cushions from the lounge chairs series at Ikea.
- Carpet tiles from flor (recycled from tires, I think), also used to cover the stripped headrests (in wool carpet).
- Vellum headliner supported by neodymium magnets (unfortunately that was a fail).
- Cotton rugs as side panels. In places where bare metal would likely meet flesh, there were a series of square, leather faced magnets. Moveable, comfortable, minimal.
- It was to have silk covering the frames of the the stripped sun visors, but I used synthetic fabric.
It had no stereo, replaced by an ipod and stowable speakers. Since it had no more insulation of any sort, I couldn’t hear anything anyway. Would an electric motor solve this? …probably not road noise, though.
Aesthetically, ugh, no wonder I’m not a car designer. Safety-wise, my family was worried for me. But it was a good exercise, none-the-less. I liked the bright natural interior I created. It made me smile the way no other car would make me smile. After learning about the Pacific Gyre with that zone of plastic bits, I had to do something.
What I wanted to look into:
- Leather seats, like the tough leather material used for horse saddles. If it worked for the cowboys… I strongly felt that natural materials were working better for my safety and comfort than plastic. I may be wrong on this, but I got the feeling that leather knew when to give, when to break, when to absorb, when to wick, etc. The same could probably be said for unprocessed bamboo. I’d love to see a thin honeycomb aluminum shell/frame faced with tough leather and ventilated with a few holes.
- Instead of the tangle of windshield wiper tubing (all the way from the rear!), just a manual lever operating a pump.
- Removable crank flashlight as courtesy light, and that’s all.
- In the hot sunny regions, it makes no sense to have side windows slanted up so extremely (is that fashion?). Vertical would be nice. Even slanted facing downwards (oh, come on, you’ve seen it in Car Styling, and that Torino design group).
– Air conditioning based on that amonia process where it get’s heated in a fire and as it cools, it releases coolth …seen in the TED talk from that person who wants to use it to improve sanitary conditions in the third world before going commercial with it. Wow. Imagine hooking that up to a hot engine, extremely logical.
- Do away with paint. Hey, let’s get beyond paint!
- Do away with fender panels. Aren’t wheel skirts enough? If fenders are needed for security, relocate the components. If it’s needed for aero, can’t something like trim tabs work?
- Make it a convertible. Then it can be fun, and should add to its flexibility.
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm Wade Bryant said:
Are you our new “bookend” customer for Bare Necessity?
It sounds like you are willing to reduce the car down to extreme levels. So you actually made these modifications to your car?? What kind of car?
Do you think you could live with a car that is this basic or was this just an experiment?
I’m very intrigued/curious.
Thanks for the fascinating ideas.
to this comment On February 15, 2010 at 2:16 pm davidp said:
I stripped an 80’s Toyota Van (the space ship/toaster-looking vehicle) of practically all of its interior plastic (google north pacific gyre) to see what better materials I could use in it: canvas lounge cushions, cotton, carpet tiles; experimented with bamboo, and even bread (think: twinkies vs. airbags: twinkies last longer)! The van was the most architectonic space to work with. I loved the look of sanded exposed seat metal seat tubes under white canvas cushions, but it just didn’t feel safe (comfortable parked, not safe moving). Plus, it was just too big and clumsy, even given its really tiny wheelbase and turning radius. So I sent it to the junkyard (it wouldn’t have passed smog). It was a good experiment, and I look at plastic luxury interiors now and think, “Uh-uh, not where it’s at.” I know, I know, outside the box scares a lot of people. Boo.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 6:01 pm green groen said:
The color en all accessories can be standard so the car would be cheaper.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 6:20 pm Matt Glowacki said:
I posted some thoughts over on the BNT page but here’s my general idea of a BN/Green concept.
This is not so much of a de-content of the vehicle, but efficiently make use of the existing content to serve multiple uses. If you think about it, most cars wear out from the outside in and we end up scrapping a car when there are still many useable pieces. Why not reuse or make better use of the lifespan for some of these items that aren’t worn out?
- In Dash radios. Typically weigh a few pounds, take up several cubic inches of space, used maybe an hour a day, and is probably a 100 to 200 dollar option from the factory. Instead give me an 1/8” stereo input jack with a small amplifier and USB port. My mp3 player is in my pocket ($40) at all times anyway and has an onboard fm radio with a fraction of the size and weight. No need for Nav system either. I have a keychain Bluetooth gps receiver ($30) and navigation software on my Treo phone that I carry at all times. I could plug the phone’s hands free jack into the stereo input jack for true turn by turn navigation through the sound system. Better yet… Partner with a MP3/electronics manufacture to develop a small removable MP3 player/FM radio (Apple/San Disk, etc) that can be cleanly docked into this vehicle. Add an inexpensive GPS keychain receiver and some basic Nav software to the MP3/FM player and you’ve given the customer a multi use feature that they can use outside of the car.
- Seats. Maybe design light weight transportable seats that I can adapt to a camp stool/lawn chair when at the kids ball game or tailgating. BTW is an onboard blender out of the question (just kidding!).
- Lighting. Give me a detachable headlight or dome light that I can attach a small battery pack to use for a spotlight/flashlight in emergency situations.
- Air Conditioning. Make a small stand alone AC/fan unit. Pull it out of the car and plug it into a 12V DC transformer at home (or battery pack when remote). No sense cooling the whole house if I just need localized comfort in my easy chair.
- Sunroof/Rear Glass. Make it an opaque photovoltaic cell to support some of the non essential electrical demands.
- Aerodynamics. I wont even pretend to be a fluid dynamics person but I think there are some opportunities to use the high and low pressure areas on the body’s exterior to push/pull air through the cabin in lieu of a traditional HVAC blower.
to this comment On September 2, 2009 at 9:38 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for taking the time to think through and post your ideas. All of them are smart and creative. I particularly like the idea of a portable A/C unit. It would be great if it ws swappable from vehicle-to-vehicle.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 3:13 am JonCleghorn said:
You can’t be serious? Portable from car to car?
to this comment On September 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm fredyc said:
Mid-size\compact bare necessity car.
Small cars are perceived as less safe – the biggest drawback.
Small cheap cars are less safe but are at the bottom of prestige list too.
Midsize bare necessity car may work in US. Between compact and mid-size.
Some notes about a bare necessity cars:
– compact\midsize size. Size makes a cheap car get perceived better.
– not make it look aggressive, but simple and eventually cute. The aggressive yet cheap Aveo 3 doors is at the top of my hate list.
Impala’s design is one of favourites. Impala is too big.
– Don’t make the cuts by using low quality materials, but through other means like simplicity:
Simple sheet metal components. Like 2004 Malibu’s, but more simple than that and without any “I’m so cool and cheap” factor.
Or a huge piece of plastic as the dashboard, without many parts like in a CTS. But relatively quality touch\visual
plastics. As presented in the video it seems.
– People would feel safer in a bigger car with less safety features than in a small car with less safety features.
– ABS, 4-5 stars front crash tests , good side crash results , airbags for driver and right side passenger.
– Leaf springs back suspension.
– power windows front.
– 4 cil. simple engine, slow car that is.
– recyclable materials. Insist on the recycling element more than mileage. Clean factory, solar panels.
– Difficult to sell a cheap\simple car as a Chevy. An identical replica of a 4 seats DeLorean? Not a luxury re-Mini,
a replica of DeLorean with the simple rectangular but attractive sheet metal.
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 2:35 pm Jerry said:
If we build the car by committee to satisfy everyone that has posted, it looks like we need something the size of a battleship to accomodate everyones “needs”, and get 100+ mpg and cost $2500. I would say if the cars primary purpose it transportation, that each time I take something off the shelf to put in to the car I should ask some simple questions. Will it make get me there any faster, any safer, any cheaper any more reliably. If the answer is no, its probably not a necessity. Everything else is simply a comfort or convenience item. Figure out how to make it a priceable, plug-inable add on and let me choose what I “need”.
to this comment On September 4, 2009 at 8:09 pm ed said:
http://www.gizmag.com/gordon-murray-t25-city-car-interior/12721/
to this comment On September 5, 2009 at 8:57 am johnastro said:
Therese,
I like the idea of a bare necessity car. I’ve had various cars in my life including 2 VW bugs and I now drive a Honda Civic. My requirements now would be:
Automatic
Air Conditioning
CD or MP3 player
Don’t need:
Power windows
Power locks
Carpet
But I think the idea of having a car where you add a lot of options is good. Even the old VWs eventually got to offering convertibles and automatic transmission. I’d like to see GM offer every type of propulsion: gas, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric. How about fly-by-wire: replace the steering wheel with some sort of joy stick or aircraft wheel, no mechanical linkage. Another idea: how about a flat 4 cylinder engine such as the VW, which I remember from a Mechanics class was the only perfectly balanced engine. I used to drive stick, but got tired of changing gears. In the old days you had 3 or 4 speeds, now they are all 5 or 6 speeds; you spend all your time shifting. I like the idea of ordering a car online as you do a computer: that would help GM know what people want and reduce inventory. The car could still be delivered to a dealer so the dealer still has a role.
to this comment On September 6, 2009 at 12:01 am Stanley Shih said:
This is an interesting concept because it seems to be a reaction to EVERY other car on the market right now.
In short, it should be a K-car for the 2010s.
Every car model sold in the US market today (including ‘econoboxes’) are really much better than they have to be. This is simply a result of competition among automakers and the refinement of consumer tastes, but I do believe that there is a sizable niche for a bare-bones new car if the price is right.
Mechanically, the car should be non-performance oriented and minimally refined (for cost-savings), but be safe and have bulletproof reliability (for it to not be a joke).
Exterior design should be a slave to reliability and functionality (easy for GM to assemble consistently, safe, etc.) and should be minimally styled. The result should stand out from the crowd simply because everything else on the market is really more styled and looks better than it has to. For example, a return to the old-school halogen headlamps (the ones with the diffractors on the lenses) would be a hard-core retro statement and would be a welcome relief from all the over-jeweled (and overly expensive) headlamp assemblies that have proliferated since ca. 2000.
Interior design. Should be dictated by cost and be minimally styled. To avoid being a joke, the durability and reliability of the switchgear and internal components should be a priority. But forget the haptics; The AC and radio worked fine in 80’s cars even if nothing was damped or clicked a certain way. Again, the result would be quite unintentionally unique and probably wouldn’t be bad. (IMO, the worst car interiors on the market today are the ones that are obviously cheap, but styled and over-designed in a vain attempt to disguise their cheapness.)
A return to the ACDelco HVAC switchgear from the 1980s (you know the ones with the horizontal sliders) would be an interesting consideration and could be nostalgic for a few million Americans. You can skip those 1980s GM hazard lamp flasher controls under the steering column, though. =)
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm ed said:
Last week, the news was that GM would compete against Tata Nano.
Todays news, “We’re not really interested in going for that specific segment. We’re interested in going with something that’s broader,” said Johan Willems, spokesman for GM’s international division.
http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=107217
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 3:41 pm Michael said:
I don’t know if current GM cars still have this, but it has been in every GM car I’ve been in since I was a little kid. I can tell that I’m in a GM car with my eyes closed. All I have to do is open the door and listen to the door chime. Unfortunately, the chime is not particularly pleasant sounding, and does not exude quality. It does, however, immediately evoke memories of 1980s GM cars in my mind. So here’s something very inexpensive that you can do to improve every car you have in a hurry. Create a better door chime sound.
(I rather like the ones on Hondas – a fast series of beeps. I think something similar is used on a variety of other makes as well.)
Another sound that can be improved on tremendously is the clicking turn signal sound. I don’t know if that sound is required by law or not (I’ve never been in a car that didn’t have it). But hearing the same sound over and over again drives me nuts. Besides, I know the turn signal is on – I turned it on, and I can see the flashing arrow flashing. So if the sound isn’t required, please eliminate it. If it is required, it would be great to be able to select our own sound to play, and to be able to make it as quiet as possible.
On some current GM design themes:
-The circular tail light theme, as seen on the Impala and Malibu really needs to go. Rather than blending into the overall design of the car, these tail lights stick out like something that was never really part of the car. They don’t echo the car’s overall shape, nor do they integrate into it.
-The bent neon light theme that appears on the Volt, and seems likely to show up in future GM designs: I do like the thin line, however the weird chunks on the bottom around the trunk lid opening where the lights suddenly go up and then down really detract. If those were straight, so that they smoothly integrated into the rest of the tail light, they would look really nice. But the weird chunk just doesn’t blend in well at all, and because it crossed the lid gap, it makes it look cheap too, because there’s a weird gap in the middle of the light. I guess the change in the effect is from futuristic and high tech to the sort of neon sign that you would see in a bar to advertise beer. It’s the little things like this that matter…
-The chrome strip that surrounds the Volt logo on the side and proceeds down the window frame also detracts (along with the Volt logo itself, and the black area behind the logo). It breaks up what would be a nice, clean design, and sticks something on it that looks completely out of place. Why is it there?!
-Although it doesn’t solve all of these issues, the Open Ampera is a much cleaner design with much nicer styling. It’s often the case that GM and Ford make a European version of the same car that looks *much* nicer than the American version. Please consider using your European designs here…
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 12:32 am TerryB. said:
With all the other ‘basic’ cars cited here, I’m surprised nobody has brought up the Nash Metropolitan. Quirky styling, but everybody knew what they were. Cheap, reasonable reliability for the time, stone simple, including the 1.2L engine. Manual everything. Spare tire in the ‘Continental kit’ part of the impact absorbing rear structure.
Came as a 2-seat coupe or convertible, I’ve seen pictures of them modified into mini-pickups and station wagons. With a bigger Chevy (Son of) Stovebolt 4 and a 4-speed, they were lots of fun to drive if you beefed up the mushy springs and put on decent rubber.
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 10:45 am CarDesign said:
Proposal A is a far better design than proposal B. B looks like a distorted version of the 2009 Scion xB.
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 1:33 pm Kenz300 said:
Every auto manufacturer is bringing out a small, high mileage vehicle. What will make this one stand out?
Rather than looking at a blank canvas and designing a vehicle from scratch why not bring in the top 5 best selling small cars from around the world and vow to make a vehicle that is better in every way. Look over every aspect and see how you compare. Style, value, reliability, performance, economy, interior, exterior, electronics, safety …… put your design next to the best and ask why would someone want to buy your design over the competition. If you can not answer that……….. change it until you can.
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 10:41 pm GARRETT said:
I haven’t commented in a while, and am not willing to read all the new post, so sorry if this has already been stated.
This is not a bear necessity at all, but something I feel you can benefit from. I applaud your effort on the Volts info center, but still think its kinda crappy. I love the fact that it looks Apple esq, but an Apple design from four years ago?
Why don’t yall actually get Apple to design an info center for you. Everybody who owns an Apple knows how user friendly they are; not to mention how popular they are. Maybe they could even get their app store to connect to the car. That is if it didn’t interfere with On-star too much, and Im sure you could find a way to work together instead of against.
Or maybe make the whole car an “Apple Edition”, similar to what Ford does with Eddie Bauer and Harley.
Also, more exterior LEDs.
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm Helmsmn2 said:
In the video, two concepts are shown: a white model and a two-tone green/grey one. I think the white one is very stylish, and my first preception of any car is the strongest; if it’s ugly, I don’t want it. Trade-offs begin with that first look. It’s not easy to trade appearance for efficiency, especially if there are stylish alternatives. That goes for other components as well. For instance, I may be willing to give up air conditioning, but the car must have good airflow in return. I believe that efficiency itself is not enough of a value to sacrifice all the modern automotive creature comforts and conveniences; there must be a tangible return that adds value to the driving experience.
What is efficiency? It’s subjective. I know that items can be compared and one can be proven to be more efficient than another, but in the end, you have to prove it to the customer without numbers. They must FEEL that they are getting a better value. This can be done, and GM can do it.
Total cost per mile includes the purchase price. Refine your manufacturing processes. This is a relatively small call. Set some targets to hit, like find a way to produce the chassis with only 30 stampings to reduce weight and shorten the build process. Build in alternatives to things like air conditioning, like bringing back wing windows and floor vents. I know that modern technology could make them viable options again.
Trade-offs may not be the right approach anyway. If you build and market a car that costs less than the competition, is attractive inside and out, comfortable and fun to drive, and gets great mileage – giving up power windows and leather seats won’t matter so much.
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm ed said:
Auto firms see India as small-car export factory
. . . as they try to cut costs and move to compact, fuel-efficient vehicles.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/quickiearticleshow/4972953.cms
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm Dimitri Douaire said:
“Design a car with the lowest cost per mile of any four-seater on the road”.
I think that starting point is the right one. I don’t think a response to this question needs to be as extreme as a Tata Nano for instance but the Toyota iQ, sold in parts of Europe since last fall is probably the benchmark to beat in this category.
Even if this model is likely going to cannibalize sales from the Yaris and Aygo models sold in the same countries (with minimal price difference) I would welcome such a minimalist city car in North America. Not sure if safety feature requirements would allow this car to be imported as is but that would be a very good starting point.
When I think of that, I personally think of a 4-seater Chevy, about 3,25m long and weighing 2200lbs maximum. It could have a 3L 1.0l engine producing 60-70hp and could be available for $8,499. If people also consider how much they’d save on fuel and insurance.
Because Japanese and S. Korean car makers do not dare to offer such a product in North America, I think that’s one area where New GM could take the lead. I personally see this segment as far more promising over the next ten year than the plug-in hybrid market segment from a corporate profitability point of view.
In my opinion, there is a greater likelihood to see a 20-year old college student trade-in his scooter for something like that than a Volt not to mention that it would be a great way for GM to significantly reduce its average customer age.
to this comment On September 15, 2009 at 11:38 am Input on "Basic" said:
Lots of interesting ideas are posted here. I like the ones which speak to simple and modular, but when I think of basic I think about a Mini or a VW Beetle. These say simple, no bells or whistles, cheap but also FUN to drive. If I don’t plan on driving a lot who cares if the vehicle is good on gas. If I do and I am not going to have luxury or a lot of convenience items I at least want it to be a fun experience. So build in that “feel” which says simple but fun and peppy, and forget the rest!
to this comment On September 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm Kenz300 said:
I hope BARE NECESSITY does not mean a reincarnated Chevy Vega or even the Aveo. You can do better.
Small, economical, value driven does not have to mean cheap looking or performing.
Every auto manufacturer is bringing out a small economical car — make yours the best.
Compare yourself to the best in class. I see this blank canvas approach and I wonder if it should not be the top 5 best sellers in class as the starting point. If your product is not better in every way then you have not succeeded because all your competitors are working on their next generation vehicle of their best seller. They will make it better. Lexus and Toyota improve with every generation of a vehicle. GM needs to do the same.
Continuous improvement in every detail — No detail is too small to worry about.
Every automaker is coming out with near zero or zero emissions high mileage vehicles — electric – hybrid – e85 – will your vehicle compete?
to this comment On September 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm AngelB said:
This is silly the Tesla is a better car than any other electric or Hybrid on the market but cost’s a lot of money because they are taking advantage of the fact that GM and every other company are afraid of taking money away from oil barons, they should get a big pair of nads and just a build a better vehicle and not expect to make 100 billion right away. Settle for a competitive market share for now and let the 100 billion dollar mark come to you. The more you chase the money the farther away it will seem to be. Make a great car and don’t skimp for god’s sake. Parts are cheap and you guys already have the manufacturing plants so all it will be is a minimal cost and stop caring about what the oil gods and the government have to say. If you build it they will come is a very true statement. People want to buy from an American company look how fast Saturn made it to main stream. I own a BMW but would go back to GM in a heartbeat if you guys didn’t make such a crappy product. Again stop chasing the profit margin people, that will happen on its own. I don’t feel a bit sorry for the company but would like to see it get back on it’s feet and it will once it stops being greedy. A good profit will happen once you get the nads to put out a hydro car or a car that is comparable to the Tesla. This is very possible if you stop worrying about the oil gods!!!!!!! Its time to take the car age into the future and forget about, O what are my other rich friends going to think of me if I take there oil money away blah blah blah. Boohoohoo You guys have great concepts, make them real and make them now or you will lose a great car company.
to this comment On September 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm Wade Bryant said:
I know your feelings are shared by many people. We’re doing our best to develop efficient vehicles. We’ve already made great strides in our products from a quality perpective. You need to re-evaluate your perception of our products by test driving one of our recent new models. Were always pushing forward to stay in front of the competition.
Your impression that we and other car companies are worried about the oil industry’s profits are silly. The reason most cars run on petroleum is because of its amazing energy density and low cost. We have spent a lot of time trying to come up with non-fossil-fuel power solutions (electric/hydrogen) and have many E-85 vehicles on the road today. The amazing electric Chevy Volt is just around the corner at a reasonable price compared with the Tesla you reference.
I think we’re on track to address your concerns. The purpose of the LAB is to help us understand what your needs are and to tune our ideas.
Any feedback on Bare necessity Car? Should it be all-electric??
to this comment On September 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm ed said:
Any feedback on Bare necessity Car? Should it be all-electric??
YES!
“Value for Money” . . . the new rule of measure . . . for comparing vehicles?
. . . That includes the “Hundreds of MPG/KWH” of Non-polluting miles an electric provides.
. . . make the battery swappable/lease and range, replacement, recycling, up-front cost, etc. go away!
. . . Then how would the Electric “Bare Necessity Car” . . . measure up? (on “Value for Money”)
http://images.zigwheels.com/alfresco/INDT/SpecialFeatures/Nano11_20090323_images/Tata-Nano-Comparo.jpg
to this comment On September 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm ed said:
Here’s how Tata’s Nano Bookings breaks down.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12313&p=83543#p83543
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 10:47 am ed said:
The Tata Nano: World’s Cheapest (Electric) Car?
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/19/stories/2009091951930100.htm
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:46 pm Jack H. said:
Building the “Bare Essentials” concept in 4 steps:
1. Throw out the concept drawings.
2. Buy a classic Beetle. Have your lead designers drive it for one month.
3. Figure out why it sold so successfully for 65 years.
4. Build the most entertaining, attractive, practical, safe car you possibly can with that spirit intact.
The decision should not be “electric or not?”, it should be “what’s the best possible solution for this car?”
We don’t actually care either way so long as it’s the best.
to this comment On September 20, 2009 at 3:15 pm Pharmc743 said:
Very nice site!
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 5:24 am Michael said:
Wade: Unfortunately, E85 is a net negative from an environmental perspective, and from an energy perspective. In the US, E85 is made from ethanol, which is made from 85% fuel ethanol, which is made from corn. The corn is grown with taxpayer funded subsidies, so the price is artificially kept low. If E85 were not made from a subsidized product, it would be substantially more expensive than gasoline. It also has a lower energy density than gasoline. But it’s better for the environment, right? Nope. Refining ethanol from corn takes more energy than we save by using it when you take into account the entire production cycle for the fuel. This isn’t true in places like Brazil, where they refine ethanol from sugar cane, which has an extremely high energy density. But using E85 in the US just increases pollution, wastes energy, and increases the price of food because much of our food is made using corn based products. (Yay, high fructose corn syrup!) E85 also has the nice effect for GM of being able to claim to be putting alternative fuel vehicles on the road while not manufacturing vehicles with real high efficiency and low emissions power sources. I’d be really happy if GM dumped E85 and started putting serious effort into real hybrid and fuel cell technologies. (Start working on the hydrogen distribution problem now, please.)
As for the Volt…the use of plugable hybrid technology is a great idea! The problem is that you’ve created a car that is priced *way* above the real market for it. $40,000 puts it in the middle of luxury car territory. Luxury car buyers are much less likely to be concerned with fuel efficiency from a personal finance standpoint, although they might be interested from an environmental standpoint. A lower end buyer can’t afford the car – and even if they would break even after 6-10 years, most people don’t hold onto their cars long enough for it to make a difference. You need to lower your price by about $15,000 – $20,000. That would put your car into Prius territory (filled with lots of buyers). If you can’t do it with the Volt itself, design a lower end platform with great aerodynamics and the battery packs on the bottom of the car (for lower cg). Do what you have to do to get the price to $18,000 – $25,000. Now you are truly competing with the Prius and Insight with a car with superior fuel efficiency.
The question of an all electric vehicle for a bare necessity car is very interesting. If you define “bare necessity” as a vehicle used for local commuting (40 miles or less round trip per day), an electric is a great choice – but you need to have the charging infrastructure in place to support it (more so with greater ranges). Most people’s commutes fit into that range. If you provide a longer distance alternative for occasional long commutes (say, convenient rentals such as ZipCar and Flexicar), a short distance commuter becomes feasible. Why not offer a long distance service like ZipCar, but for people who need occasional long distance transport? Place them at nodes near the interstates in major cities. Someone could drive their short distance electric to the rental node, switch to a long distance car, then switch back with a ZipCar electric when they hit their destination city. In Europe, you only need people to be able to get to their local train station, because they can take the train almost anywhere.
You might also consider getting involved in the design and construction of the new rail infrastructure being partially funded by the stimulus. Local and long range rail within and between cities would expand your market for shorter range electrics, because people wouldn’t need long range in their cars. That would really free up your design possibilities, and let you expand into rail as a new market. Surely an auto factory can make train sets too…
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm Wade Bryant said:
Yes – I’m not going to try to debate the +/- of E85 here since I’m not an expert. The possibilities for non-petroleum-based liqiud fuels deserve consideration though, since there is a lot of ongoing research with progress on non-corn-based fuels.
We fully understand the position the Volt will hold in its first generation. The great thing about the Volt is its amazingly low cost/mile when driven on electricity, coupled with a long-range driving system that doesn’t require infrastructure changes. It will be a compelling option in the very near term.
The purpose of Bare Necessity Car was to look at low-cost options, so your concerns are being considered.
We have been discussing some of the other transportation ideas you brought up too.
We just got out of the train business a few years ago after decades of rail innovation and success.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 11:14 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
With respect to options-just follow Henry Ford’s mantra: “Build a lot of them and build them all the same ” (not sure he ever really said that).
The principle remains: decide which are the absolute necessity features (AC, AT, PSPB, etc) then make them all the same. The only “options” should be the color, and the color list should be very short.
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm peteMT said:
I keep seeing images of Dodge Darts and K-cars in my head. There are some great ideas posted here.
A BN vehicle, to me, would have all the federally mandated safety features and be top rated in all safety tests.
It would be highly durable, dead reliable, and easily repairable. Utility would probably displace ’style for the sake of style’. This isn’t a vehicle that people buy on emotional impulse – this is a car for people who need a car but can’t afford a $20-$30k sedan. Pricing could range from $8-$14k. This would attract younger people, those who need a second commuter car, and those who can’t afford to pay more. It would have to have some clear advantage over used vehicles in the same price range – perhaps warranty, style, mpg’s, and the ability to customize with factory upgrades and parts.
Being small and lightweight, power steering and brakes might be optional – but not sure how this would work with ABS or Stabilitrak. Many features which are standard today would be optional, such as power windows, mirrors, heated seats, larger wheels and tires, automatic headlamps, and carpeting.
Basic cars are no longer basic, as they were in the 1950’s and 1960’s. So, you have to de-content. But, the vehicle should be somewhat modular in design and easily upgradable and customizable.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:58 am redshift said:
I’d always though of the Fiat Panda MultiEco as a good example of a bare necessity car…it would be a nice benchmark to use for GMs new project.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 7:39 am Rosa Howell said:
Cars should be designed on the basic necessity level,but should also be designed on a safety point of view. As with power windows should have a manual window crank inside the car in the event the car should be surmerged in water . That give the person a way out of the vehicle, if all power is lost.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm fredyc said:
Bare electric car, not heavily optimized. To keep the price low. Using Volt’s battery.
Not optimized, no extreme aerodynamics. The security features should be there though. Cheap sheet metal and assembly. No expensive interior.
Simple but relatively good quality plastics. Regular tires, no navigation, regular headlamps. Use of GM parts bin.
Other like a single electric motor driving the front wheels. 40 – 60 miles range should be enough in order to be
affordable. Something like Sacrificing 10 miles range out of a 60 miles maximum for the sake of a lower price may be fit. Guess it’s obvious quick-charge would be a great feature if possible.
About the size of a subcompact (Beetle, Mini, Aveo 3 doors), 4 seats. Possibly many would not feel safe travelling in a Smart sized car on the highway.
And the tax deduction on Volt’s battery (7500$) could make it quite – affordable – this is the main “if” actually.
If the battery is 10,000$ and the cost to build the car is say 4000$ and the tax rebate is 7500$, the car
end-up costing around 10,000$.
Since the risk of complete battery discharge while travelling remains, a road assistance service would be adequate.
Make a phone call and have a truck transport the car to owner’s home at no charge eventually. Would
not be pleasant but better than nothing.
A problem with a short(er) electric range vehicle may appear if the owner’s needs change. If he changes workplace, or home, or any other reason that may cause the 40, 50, 60 range not to be enough, an advantageous trade-in option negotiated when buying the BN car would be fit or an amount of cash back, allowing him to change the electric car with a regular one, or upgrade to a longer-range battery, if the market somehow does not offer a convenient trade-in option.
Long term renting\try-it may work.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 4:02 pm Wade Bryant said:
I like your ideas. Using the tax credit for EVs would make-or-break your plan.
The pure- EV issue of being stranded was discussed in an online article I read last week. In research testing they found that most EV drivers were keenly aware of, and concerned by the range limit of their vehicle and almost always returned home with excess battery charge, afraid to push it to the max (or afraid they’d have to push it home).
I’m not sure if the promise of a pick-up service would be enough, but it’s a possible way to increase people’s confidence in driving EVs.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:41 am fredyc said:
Hi. Thanks. Without the EV battery incentive, the car would cost too much, yes. Limited range and high price would not work.
Continued looking at the option with the tax break (if) and I’ll add some notes.
I’ll relate to my habit of taking care and looking after newly bought gadgets like phones or other. It lasts a week.
So, the same could happen with electric cars. After missing the 40nth time in 1.5 years the after work bowling game or mall shopping because of limited range, the owner could get pissed off. A fix could be the availability of
recharging. If an 1 hour recharging could provide another 10 miles of range, this would allow for detours from
regular commuting. 1 or 2 hours recharging while shopping or watching movie would be fine, I guess. And as a
personal note, I think I’d enjoy having to plug-in the car at the mall. Everybody enjoys small snobbish habits.
2 h recharge, while at an event. So, the availability of recharging would be important. But having multi-level
parking lots provide recharging outlets for electric cars seems like a “no-brainer”.
Continuing, this may not work for young people with more unpredictable habits. But for older people this could
work better. Bare necessity, simple would also fit older people.
Well, a regular bare necessity car could actually prove better suited for older people. The image would not be
such an important issue, allowing for simpler design interior, exterior, less gadgets and less dynamics demands. Also, they would appreciate interior space\size more than younger people, which would like more gadgets, comfort features, hence departing from the bare necessity notion. These would be contradictions. I actually think this point is valid, not just “philosophy”.
Actually attracting young people to GM by offering them exciting cars may work better. A bare necessity car may be a risk. Beetle and VW Mini-bus were successful but assume they were relatively in line technologically with those times’ offerings.
Relatively smaller but perceived as sophisticated electric cars could get small cars in fashion, which would also be a win scenario long term.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 11:36 am ed said:
Methods to eliminate EV Problems/anxiety:
Cost of buying a new Battery . . . None, Swap the battery, customer doesn’t own it
1) Initial cost of car (Not including battery) . . . less than the same car would cost with a gasoline engine
. . . There are a huge number of parts and fluids, no longer needed to repair and maintain.
2) Initial cost of battery . . . Customer doesn’t own the battery, company owns the battery
. . . battery cost is prorated with the electricity cost over the life of the battery.
3) Charging places . . . Customer has one at work and one at home.
4) Cost of Charging battery . . . less than the cost of gas for the same milage
. . . company buys renewable energy, generating carbon credits
5) Range anxiety . . . battery power is low, software limits speed and shifts into “Economy mode”
. . . also reports nearest battery stations to swap batteries and/or charging spots.
6) Car repair and Maintenance . . . much simpler, very few parts compared to a gas car (Less recalls)
7) Battery repair and Maintenance . . . None, Swap the battery, customer doesn’t own it
9) Cost of recycling Battery . . . None, Swap the battery, customer doesn’t own it
10) Car is too slow . . . electric cars are currently beating gas cars in races
11) Battery anxiety (After buying battery a new type battery came on the market that is twice as good)
. . . None, Swap the battery, customer doesn’t own it
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 9:15 pm MGAman said:
The car is already out there and has been for a few years. It is called the smart For Two. It is all most folks need for basic transport. I own one, I know. Now start there and make something better, but watch out. I will bet you can’t make it as inexpensive.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 10:42 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
The 2-seater “Bare Necessity Car” could also be something very different- like, for example, a car similar to an MGB or a Solstice, or a van der Brink Carver. If I only needed to drive to work or pick upa few groceries, the Carver would be great fun, but to qualify as “Bare Necessity” it’s still got to be priced well under $15K.
The biggest competition to the “Bare Necessity” vehicle, car or truck, will be a 5-10 year old, or older, Silverado or Buick sedan. Keep in mind, less than 1 vehicle in 20, in the US, is a new vehicle, and in these times, people are keeping their vehicles longer.
I’d like to find a Morris Minor.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:08 am Aidan Caldwell said:
When you talk about bare essentials, I reflect back on a car company during it’s rise, because it’s the rise that brings them to where they are, sustaining is where they are now, just riding that wave.
Two companies that did the small car very well were Honda and Toyota in the late 80’s early 90’s. They produced small, nimble, affordable reliable cars that had good features and solid design. Double wishbone suspensions, perky motors, lightweight chassis, and a smattering of other goodies.
My wish list? A/T always optional, but 5 speed is great to save weight and cost. A/C should just be included, its probably cheaper as for development and manufacturing costs to just have it included in all models across the board than to offer it as an option. Packaging the seats to do a myriad of tricks is always nice, but ultimately if the rear seats can be removed easily, it would allow for the most space possible.
Power windows and door locks are nice, but don’t really save much time or effort when it really comes down to it. If its cheaper and lighter to do without, then do without…that’s my opinion, and will contract a lot of opposition, I’m sure.
I’d really like to see some more sustainable, natural fibers make their way into interiors, such as bamboo. At the end of the day, this person is going to want to get into their car because they are proud of it, and a lot of that has to do with the exterior and interior designs. So if you can look at the car, and say yeah, I’m proud to get in and out of that car, then it will likely be successful. Imagine yourself stepping out of the car, walking into a grocery store, how many times do you look back at it.. once? twice? .. none? I think that’s a good measure of successful exterior design.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:26 am ed said:
YES ! ! !
There’s hope for
. . . customers getting a “Bare Necessity” car
. . . employee’s getting back to work,
. . . shareholders and tax payers getting there money back
. . . clean, silent, non-polluting vehicles in our cities and
. . . hopefully (don’t get greedy) at a reasonable price.
“Development of small electric vehicles is a growth area
. . . around the global automotive industry and
. . . we are excited that this cooperation with REVA in India
. . . will accelerate GM’s progress to meet
. . . the emerging needs in many parts of the world.
—Nick Reilly, President of GM International Operations”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12410&p=83941#p83941
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 12:51 pm BobS said:
I appreciate GM taking the initiative to open up the process a bit to get some input from potential customers. I also give a big high five to Wade and Therese for being so involved and replying to specific posts.
This is a very interesting read, even though I’m not convinced it’s really valuable feedback. GM is running a business. Most of the people aren’t looking at the idea from the angle of profitability and the incredible challenges a manufacturer faces at having to balance cost and satisfying customers.
I mean, half the people insist power windows are a waste, the other half say they are a necessity. Half say AC is silly, half say they can’t live without it. People are making laundry lists of wants, but GM has to know that making a car without the basics that people expect from a car will burden them with a much applauded, respected niche experimental product that will create a feeling of “Kudos, GM! What a great idea. I’m not going to buy one, but I’m sure it’s a good fit for someone…”
The biggest and best thing you can take from these hundreds of replies is that the ‘Bare Necessity’ vehicle is something different for every person. I’d advise embracing simplicity and a modular nature for your vehicle so that everyone can make the choice for themselves what level of comfort and functionality they want.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 6:05 pm fredyc said:
Commenting on the bare necessity EV and bare necessity gas engine car. After all, think a bare necessity subcompact EV would cater to both young and old, while a bare necessity compact-midsize regular car could be targeted to older people.
to this comment On September 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm TerryB. said:
Although probably too short-ranged for those of us that live in flyover country, Honda has a concept take on bare necessities EV style:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/09/tokyo-preview-honda-ev-n-concept.html
What about something similar in a ‘mini-Volt’, with a smaller battery pack and little two-cylinder APU to keep it charged for extended days away from the home plug-in, when only occasional short runs at 55mph are part of your lifestyle? Stretch it for a 2+2, wagon, or mini-pickup.
to this comment On October 3, 2009 at 11:30 am ed said:
I agree with you 100%!
“Honda has a concept take on bare necessities EV style:”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12538&p=84578#p84578
to this comment On October 1, 2009 at 10:10 am Tacky said:
I do not believe there is much of a market for a bare necesities car here in the USA. I think that a study of what actually sells, will show that when we have made cars available with no AC, manual windows, etc, they really do not sell very well. A study of sales of Aveo’s and Cobalts should prove me right ot wrong on this point. At this time we have the Aveo, which is probably as basic as most people would accept, and most of these sell with AC and power windows. It may be better, at least for the US market, to make a car with AC, power windows and locks in all vehicles and eliminate the expense of building in different versions. I would like a manual transmission, but there appears to be little demand for manual transmissions in the US except for the auto enthusist crowd. My personal car is a Honda Fit, and it was difficult to locate one with a manual transmission, this leads me to believe, even for a basic sort of car, in this country, an automatic is necessary. A CVT transmission, as used in the Nissan Versa, might be a good choice, as this allows a wide range of gear ratios at low cost. I believe it is necessary at this time to use a small gasoline engine. I believe a limited range electric would be too expensive, and have limited appeal, and a hybrid or diesel would also cost too much. If the weight can be kept low enough, a 3 or 4 cylinder of not more than 100 hp should be adequate to keep 0-60 around 10 seconds. A hatchback body is almost a necessity to get reasonable utility out of a smaller package. 4 doors are nice, but 2 large doors could be adequate. Power windows and locks are very desirable on a 4 door, but if the car is narow enough for the driver to reach the other door, manual windows and locks could be OK on a 2 door. A look at the seats in an old Renault LeCar will show an inexpensive parallogram linkage that allows the whole front seat to flip forward for rear seat access, combined with lightweight tubular framed, mesh seats this can give decent access to the rear with minimal expense. Several people have mentioned removable rear seats, this might be OK, if they are really lightweight but it is a lot more convient if the rear seat can fold to give a flat load floor. The young mom with 2 little kids does not want to be hauling the rear seat in and out. Instead of supplying a radio, I would suggest installing speakers and wiring them to a DIN or double DIN sized hole inthe dash, radios could sold as an accessory by the dealer, or purchased in the aftermarket.
to this comment On October 3, 2009 at 11:25 pm fredyc said:
About the limited range bare EV. The start being the Volt only electric range 40-50 miles. To make it sell:
– longer range battery option (up to 100 miles)
– 90 days cash back.
– longer range battery upgrade option
– last option. Trade in the car at a “Best Resale Depreciation Percentage” on the market.
Battery replace or recharging at every gas station not scalable. Parking lots would be needed at gas stations. Replacing battery would be an even more costly option to implement. And anyway electric cars are not to replace gas cars, just intermediate step to hydrogen, no?
However, recharging availability at important sports, shopping, entertainment, culture or office buildings locations – parking lots that is, could work.
Also, promoting and selling EVs may be better targeted to a few large polluted cities to begin with. Having recharge availability in parking lots everywhere is also not scalable. So, have recharge availability and tax breaks (environment tax breaks) in a single city like Los Angeles or several polluted cities. (…Went a little wild on this comment)
to this comment On October 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm kevinthenerd said:
I like the words they were saying, but those cars are God-awful ugly. Designers have no concept of what a car needs to look like in order to achieve the goals they have in mind. They’re not engineers. (Not every engineer is without a sense of aesthetic, so you can dump that theory too.) The most efficient shape to cut through the air is the teardrop shape, and the next best thing is the Kamm-back design. (See the Honda Insight and Accelerated Composites Aptera.) What’s with the crack down the back? It’s reminiscent of an ***hole. If those are supposed to be halves of a clamshell hatch, what’s with the 1/2″ gap? (Compare to the panel gaps of BMW, Infiniti, and Lexus.) I hate the Nissan Cube, but if I wanted one, I’d buy it from Nissan. A GM copy-cat is worthless. If you want to make a bare-bones car, look at the Dodge Razor Concept. Better yet, fill in the market niche abandoned by the Pontiac Fiero and Toyota MR2.
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 2:58 pm johnastro said:
A comment on cars I have owned (all figures are approximate):
69 VW bug: weight (?), 40 hp, 4 speed stick, 35 mpg
79 VW Rabbit: weight 1800 lbs, 75 hp, 4 speed stick, no AC, 35 mpg
04 Honda Civic, weight 3400 lbs, 120 (?)hp, 4 speed Auto, AC, 35 mpg
Do we see a trend here? The gas mileage hasn’t gone up, but then again, it hasn’t gone down even with increased weight, power, and features. So clearly we need to get back to reducing weight in vehicles in order to getter better gas mileage. This can be done by making vehicles smaller, like the Honda Fit, or by using lighter materials.
to this comment On October 9, 2009 at 7:29 pm Earnhard3 said:
Although a 4 seater seems necessary, most cars in ” rush hour traffic” AM or PM contain 1 maybe 2 people. I see a need for a small ” personal commuter vehicle” or a “personal urban vehicle” a car that is built for 1 or 2 people, light, very fuel efficient and cost effective to be a secondary or possibly the 3rd vehicle for a family. Imagine a jet fighter ( without wings ), with motorcycle type wheels, a safety cage and a small engine ( electric or ICE ) similar to a motorcycle, capable of 100+ MPG or 100+ mile to the charge. This would be a vehicle that would be cheap to maintain and could be a fun vehicle for the weekends. A real basic vehicle, without trying to be everything to everybody. Cost effective enough, to be rented out by the hour, at mass transit hubs ( train or bus stations and airports ). A great vehicle for business people and commuters, who need the flexibility, to make multiple stops well on a day visit to a city.
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 1:26 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I’ve been involved with the Open Source Cabin Scooter project for a couple of years. Our approach is a little different- we begin with the very basic purpose of designing a vehicle intended to drive a single person (or a single person with space for a passenger sometimes) to and from work in a comfortable manner; this requires, we believe, a vehicle with an enclosed or enclosable cabin, yet as light and as aerodynamic as possible for best efficiency.
The least amount of aerodynamic drag would be made by a vehicle with the least amount of frontal area; this could be an enclosed single-track vehicle (STV), such as a motorcycle; such a class of vehicle exists, known as “Dalniks,” and was developed in Eastern Europe, mostly post-WW2. The best-known and most successful such vehicles, presently, are the Peraves Eco and Monotrace, both of which use outriggers to support the vehicle upright when at rest. They’re both very expensive, and require great skill to drive.
Another interesting “Dalnik”- style vehicle is the 1956 NSU/Baum “Hammock” racer, which has, I believe, about the lowest vehicle cd ever, at about 0.11. Because of its low drag, it was able to set a speed record near 200 mph with a small under-250cc engine.
Given the practical limitations of the STV configuration, the consensus in our discussion group is that a simple, highly fuel-efficient single or 2-seat vehicle should have at least 3 wheels. For stability during braking in a turn, it’s felt that the 2F1R (2 front wheels, 1 rear wheel) configuration, aka “tadpole,” “Y-trike” or “reverse trike” would be more desirable than the traditional 1F2R (1 front, wheel, 2 rear wheels), aka “delta” tricycle arrangement, although the 1F2R configuration does still have its followers.
Designing it to be a motorcycle has a number of advantages over designing it to be a “car.”
For minimizing the frontal area and aerodynamic efficiency, it’s believed that the tandem seating arrangement would be ideal. The best-known examples of this are the 1950s Messerschmitt “Kabinrollers,” the KR 175 and KR 200, as well as the 4-wheel FMR (company that took over Messerschmitt production) TG 500 (aka “Messerschmitt Tiger,” although it was not branded Messerschmitt, not was it officially known as the “Tiger”).
At present, the OSCS project has defined the finished concepts as tandem 2-seat 2F1R designs, with hopes of producing a rear-engine RWD “glider” kit that would be finished by bolting in a donor motorcycle (minus front fork); and a turnkey, production vehicle with front engine and FWD; target retail price to be under US$10,000.
The OSCS is the extremely minimalist, “only what you need” approach to a “green” commuter vehicle, sized and designed for how most of us use our vehicles 95% of the time: one person, sometimes two, carrying a few bags of groceries, or a lunchbox and a toolbox, laptop, or briefcase.
If your “green” minimalist vehicle has to be a 4-wheel, 4-seater “car” (with up to 75% of the seating capacity unused, 95% of the time), it isn’t necessary to re-invent the car, just tweak some already-good ideas: make it a front-engine, FWD 2-door hatchback with a rear seat that folds flat. Make it mostly from off-the-shelf parts, make it aerodynamic (tweak it in a wind tunnel for lowest possible cd), and keep in mind you’re basically re-inventing the 1970 Honda Civic.
Next year at this time we can discuss reinventing the Citroen DS…
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
To speed up development time and reduce development cost, try reskinning/rebadging or “platform sharing” some of the “Kei” cars made by your Japanese partners, or rebadge/import the Tata Nano…
Most of the technical problems have already been solved, it would seem to be just a matter of restyling to suit American tastes, and bringing the finished vehicle into compliance with US safety and emissions standards.
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm ed said:
Mitsubishi Motors has been inundated
. . . with requests from UK Police Forces
. . . to trial the i MiEV.
With a range of 100 miles and a top speed of 81mph,
. . . it is the ideal vehicle for urban policing.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12718&p=85605#p85605
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 4:02 am Chapman said:
Ask BMW owners (older ones, not younger ones) what car is still held in very high regard for them, and it’s the 1970’s 2002’s. Simple, light weight, ergonomic (for their time) and FUN to drive … some would use the word ‘Telepathic’.
I don’t think there is a need to reinvent the wheel. It’s like pop music, it’s all been done before, it’s just a matter of re-packaging it.
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Exactly so, no need to re-invent the wheel, all that’s needed is already off-the-shelf available. If you want to actually sell the “bare necessities car,” price it to match the competition- which is probably a 5-year-old Buick.
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 10:03 am ed said:
“Bare Necessity” type car, ramps up production by 20% and
. . . has no problem finding customers.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12718&p=85760#p85760
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 1:30 am JonCleghorn said:
Why don’t we go to the individual parts subcontractors and work with them to create the best parts possible. Get the feedback from the service centers as to what is going wrong with existing parts to use that as well. In fact bring those service personnel in to help make a better part. Then we can bring those revised parts into the studio to see what kind of a car can be made from them? Throw it into virtual space and let the public work with you on the web to create a solid basic core of a vehicle. Through the subcontractor chain certify people to make options to sell locally for the basic cores. Have dealers install those options so that everyone gets a solid, reliable, basic needs car which is custom for them. The subcontractors keep employed, the service centers and dealers keep employed, GM keeps employed, quality goes up for you and for your certified networks. Create a car no one wants to get rid of or a car that can be periodically upgraded to like-new status for a reasonable cost throughout the life of the vehicle.
Shape the car from the parts (iPod connectivity, etc….) instead of dictating the parts by the car.
to this comment On October 18, 2009 at 11:31 am JonCleghorn said:
PS: the more common the part used (i.e. the more plentiful it is in the aftermarket) the cheaper it will be to replace during maintenance for the life of the vehicle. Restoring a very common engine can be much cheaper than restoring one that is not common.
to this comment On October 19, 2009 at 12:23 pm Kenz300 said:
As the economy comes out of it’s near collapse into a depression and begins to expand where will fuel prices go?
WIll an increase in the price of fuel take such a bite out of consumers wallets that the family budget will be stretched beyond what they can handle?
WIll GM be ready will the fuel efficient flex fuel vehicles that will help to reduce the cost of fuel to consumers? For too long GM has fought fuel efficiency standards and now you find yourself playing catch up. GM should have picked up a larger portion of the Cash for Clunkers sales. Too bad you did not have more fuel efficient cars to offer to consumers.
Will GM start selling small flex fuel vehicles? It seems like other than the HHR flex is only offered on trucks and SUV’s
When the price of oil begins to creep up it would be nice to have a choice at the pump.
All GM vehicles should be flex fuel, electric, cng or hydrogen capable.
Commit 100% to future fuels.
to this comment On October 19, 2009 at 7:42 pm Kenz300 said:
Nissan rushes to put electric car charging stations across Tennessee
By G. Chambers Williams III • THE TENNESSEAN • October 11, 2009
Read Comments(14) • Recommend(1) • Print • ShareThis
With the rollout of Nissan’s first electric vehicles just over a year away in Tennessee, the race is on to figure out how to set up a network of charging stations swiftly enough to get ready.
It won’t be easy.
Thousands of chargers will be needed to satisfy Nissan’s ambitious plans to sell thousands of the clean-running cars in the first year as it strives to be the first automaker in the world to successfully mass market an all-electric vehicle.
Unlike the popular hybrids on the market today, Nissan’s new Leaf, a five-passenger compact hatchback, won’t have an internal-combustion engine onboard to back up the electric power. When the battery runs down, the car stops and drivers walk.
Getting the charging infrastructure in place may be a herculean task, said Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America Inc., but the automaker vows to be ready when the first cars come to market in December 2010.
Phoenix-based ECOtality Inc. has partnered with Nissan to set up the charging systems in consumers’ homes, as well as to create public networks in Nashville, Chattanooga and Knoxville and on the interstate highways between those cities.
Charging stations also will be set up in Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington, all of which are included in the first phase of Nissan’s rollout of the Leaf.
ECOtality has a $100 million loan from the U.S. Energy Department to help pay for the system, which will consist of “two layers of infrastructure,” said Colin Read, the firm’s vice president for corporate development.
Read said the first 1,000 buyers in Tennessee will get free home chargers installed, which could run up to about $1,500 each for the equipment and installation combined. Without that help, the biggest expense for some Leaf buyers might be getting their home garage wired for the 240-volt chargers, which themselves could cost about $500 each.
to this comment On October 20, 2009 at 1:08 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
After some serious thought, I realized that the “bare necessity car” could also be the “bare necessity truck:”
I usually drive by myself- let’s say 75-80% of the time, so I seldom need even the second (passenger side front) seat. Actually, that seat could fold up out of the way most of the time.
I rarely have more than one passenger- so let’s say I need the second row of (back) seats 5% of the time. Even rarer would I need to haul more than 3 passengers, but it might be nict to have a 3rd row f seats (that fold flush with the floor most of the time).
More often than hauling people I’m using the car as a grocery-getter, so I need room for 4-6 bags of groceries, less than 10% of the time. Actually, they could take the space usually reserved for the right-front passenger seat.
About as often as I need the second row of seats, I need to haul something bigger than 6 bags of groceries.
What I really need is a 2-seater that can haul a refrigerator or 4′X8′ sheets of material, as needed, but that can be expanded to haul more than 2 people: A minivan (or “crossover”) with seats that fold flat into the floor, with a removable roof and rear windows (converts to pickup truck mode), to haul the tall stuff.
Or, at minimum, a 4 seat sedan with a removable trunk lid a and rear bench seat that folds flat, so I can haul the big stuff.
Actually, they made cars like this back in the ’40s and ’50s.
to this comment On October 21, 2009 at 12:06 am Kenz300 said:
Toyota Motor Corp. has unveiled a more expensive and bigger hybrid-only model than its hit Prius, underlining the Japanese automaker’s ambitions to make green technology more widespread.
to this comment On October 21, 2009 at 4:36 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
In fact,I’ve been attempting to define the parameters for the “bare necessity car” for over 40 years. The actual definition has changed over time: at one time it was a Datsun 510 2-door sedan, at another time it was a 1970 Honda Civic 2-door hatchback, presently it’s a 1995 Pontiac Trans Sport I bought a couple years ago for $1,000 cash (it’s “bare necessity” because if I had to have only one vehicle, this would be it- it does 95% of what I need).
My comments of 3+ years ago:
On May 20, 2006 at 2:41 pm Beaugrand®™© said:
Let me suggest some new vehicle concepts-
First, for the rear-wheel-drive “performance” enthusiast- mount the engine behind the rear axle, to put the weight where it will enhance traction during acceleration; make the engine largely from aluminum, to save weight and allow for better cooling; make it a “boxer,” horizontally opposed 4- or 6-cylinder, for a lower CG and to make more interior room; make it air-cooled, for simplicity and reliability; make it available in 2-door, 4-door, wagon, van, and pickup versions: call it anything you like except “Corvair.”
Revive the ancient “Iron Duke” cast-iron 4 cylinder engine, convert it to Miller-cycle for fuel efficiency, install it in a rear-wheel-drive platform the size of the Malibu, make it in convertible and coupe 2-door, 4-door sedan, 2-and-4-door wagon, and “El Camino-ish” pickup versions, call it anything but “Vega” or “Astra.”
Revive the Chevette. Give it SUV styling, if you like. Call it anything but “Chevette,” and don’t bother making a Pontiac version. I’d like a blue one.
On all sedans, give us a simple locking trunk lid mechanism to hold trunk lids upright (or make trunk lids easily removable) so we can carry large, bulky things like lawn mowers, television sets, or washing machines.
Or, take any (or all) 4-door sedan(s) from your lineup, give it(them) a pickup-style bed where the trunk is (a la Subaru Baja), offer a lockable tonneau cover as an option.
I’m still looking for a passenger-carrying minivan that easily converts into a pickup truck.
to this comment On October 21, 2009 at 7:51 pm Heather Hernandez said:
As a college student, when I think basic, I think Honda Civic.
Young adults “need” radios and enough space to lugg all our books, a hefty backpack, lab gear for chemistry, and always room to ‘live’ in our cars while on campus. Who hasn’t had a load of laundry in their car and even, on a few occasions, had to change in their cars in between the job and class?
Besides those ‘essentials’, we also ‘need’ style and a decently savvy look for those social group-study sessions.
And when not on the job or in school, what student doesn’t rely on a fuel efficient and dependable car for those last minute trips in which you pack your friends into car and hit the road?
As a pretty spoiled generation, we’re not used to having to do without power locks, windows and some ventilation… and as with the Honda civic, we expect it all at a comparable price.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 9:43 pm ed said:
Which is the most
. . . “extremely efficient vehicle that is also green and
. . . low-cost” (Purchase, Finance & Fuel costs over a lifetime of 15 years)
http://projectgetready.com/js/tco.html
A) GM’s “Bare Necessity” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzNzP_CbF2I
or
B) Honda EV-N http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRW1N_XF–w&feature=related
or
C) Tata Nano http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNclXNPD2IE
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 9:34 am Wade Bryant said:
Aero idea…would you be up for a dimpled car?
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/mythbusters-golf-ball-like-dimpling-mpg/
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 11:43 am ed said:
Dimpling a 26MPG car for 3MPG savings is laughable.
. . . My 1996 Saturn gets 35MPG City, 40MPG Highway.
. . . it’s especially laughable when,
. . . GM is already claiming several hundred MPG for it’s electric cars.
Get serious . . . “Basic Necessity” cars and trucks are built for the poor and
. . . business people who treat vehicles as “Investments,” that they expect to pay off.
GM’s Bob Lutz, in this video claims, that the above listed people,
. . . are very important to GM’s Future,
. . . but there’s just not many of them in the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGA8s8PeDLA
I disagree, and unless you get serious
. . . about creating “Basic Necessity” vehicles for sale in the USA,
. . . which are the “MOST”
. . . “extremely efficient vehicle that is also green and
. . . low-cost” (Purchase, Finance & Fuel costs over a lifetime of 15 years)
. . . then the Electric Tata Nano’s, Renault, Nissen, Honda EV-N, BYD, etc
. . . are going to “Squeeze” you.
Lead . . . Follow . . . or get out of the way (bankruptcy)
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 12:13 pm TerryB. said:
“If its stupid, but it works, it isn’t stupid.”
The question is, where is dimpling actually needed to add to fuel efficiency, and where does slick sheet metal do the best job?
I bet it is something like leaving the tailgate up on an empty pickup bed to increase MPG. You build up a pocket of higher pressure air in the empty bed that way, which directs airflow over the tail of the truck rather than sticking it down on the empty bed. Just dimple the spoiler, or the roof, or the trunk lid, or the whole thing? A little wind tunnel testing with a test mule would certainly show what worked best. Big dimples, little dimples, etc… ?
OTOH: What happens in cold climates when flattish dimples fill with ice and snow? Rain?
to this comment On October 28, 2009 at 9:12 am Wade Bryant said:
I’m certain that there is much more to study before dompling an entire exterior. I tried this about 15 years ago on the roof of an electric vehicle I designed for CARB/DARPA (pre-GM days). We only tried it on the trailing surfaces of the roof and it showed a modest Cd improvement.
The Mythbusters experiment is interesting because a 3MPG improvement is HUGE. If dimples had to cover the entire body surface for a 10% fuel economy improvement would you be willing to drive a dimpled car??
to this comment On October 28, 2009 at 8:06 pm fredyc said:
It seems to me that dimpling is too unaesthetic to work for a car. Many compromises are made for the sake of aesthetics, appeal in general, including aerodynamics. Could dimpling work for semis. Semis do a lot more highway travelling than cars and aesthetics are not that important.
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 11:54 am ed said:
Duke Energy committed to to buy 10,000 electric vehicles
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12807&p=86980#p86980
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm ed said:
A long-long-long while ago, someone said,
. . . that there was no longer a need of a patent office,
. . . because everything that could be invented,
. . . had all ready been invented and
. . . the only things that change,
. . . are minor modifications or improvements.
That would be like saying that
. . . everything has all ready been designed and
. . . the only things that change,
. . . are minor modifications or improvements.
Is this design,
. . . the MOST EXTREME “Bare Necessary” vehicle
. . . in the world?
http://www.thedesignblog.org/entry/feel-ing-the-thrill-of-sledging-on-the-road/
to this comment On October 26, 2009 at 1:05 pm Kenz300 said:
Today the price of oil is $80 per barrel. If the price of oil goes up to $147 per barrel will GM have the fuel efficient vehicles that customers want to buy? (flex small and midsize vehicles, electric, CNG, and hybrid)
If not, what happens to GM’s market share and recovery from bankruptcy?
If the price of oil shoots up it will dramatically change buying habits. Will GM be able to survive under this scenario?
GM should be planning for the possibility. It could happen.
China and India are fast growing markets taking more and more oil to support their economies.
Oil as a commodity will continue to get more and more expensive as demand grows.
As the economy comes out of it’s near depression oil demand will increase around the world.
Will GM be ready with fuel efficient small and mid size flex fuel vehicles ?
Will GM have small hybrid vehicles to compete with Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and Honda?
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 1:28 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
As the “Bare Necessity Car” has been defined, it seems a 40+ mpg, sub-2,000 lb, manual transmission FWD 2-door hatchback with a fold-down rear seat would fill the bill for most of us (what comes to mind are the original Honda Civic, the VW Rabbit, the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon, etc, but NOT the Ford Pinto or Chevy Vega, and especially not the AMC Gremlin). If I can squeeze my 6′3″ 250 lb body in with 3 of my similar-size friends, and still use the freeway on-ramp without getting run over, it’ll be a winner (this may require a Miller cycle engine or a turbo). I think we’re going to be seeing a lot more turbos in the near future, most probably not in “performance” cars.
Bare Necessity Car should have flawless aerodynamics- maybe wind tunnel testing costs a few dollars, but when it comes to screwing the parts together, a body with a lower CD shouldn’t cost much more to make than one with horrible aero. Light weight and aerodynamics will be the Bare Necessity Car’s best friends.
“Bare Necessity” (I prefer the term “Right-Sizing) needs to be a marketing concept adopted by top management and applied to the entire range of products, not just a purpose-designed vehicle. There should be “Bare Necessity” (or “Right-Sized”) models for each brand, designated by a green “Eco Friendly” badge.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid that 5 years down the road the purpose-designed “Bare Necessity Car” will be offered in “Sport,” “Rally Sport” and “Luxury Sport” versions at twice the original’s price, and the original, standard version will be on the chopping block.
Keep in mind, I can still buy a “beater” car with a few years of life left for $500 or less, despite the “Cash for Clunkers” government giveaway to Toyota. The used car market represents nearly as much in dollars as the new car industry, and it isn’t going away. For the price of a new Chevy Aveo or Kia Rio I can buy a lot of gas for a $500 “beater” vehicle, and the taxes and insurance are much, much cheaper.
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm kenZ300 said:
Toyota is developing a solar charging station for electric cars and plug-in hybrids. WIll GM have anything to compete? It also has a battery charger for mounting inside an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid to recharge the storage batteries.
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm ed said:
OR Is this design,
. . . the MOST EXTREME “Bare Necessary” vehicle
. . . in the world?
http://www.thedesignblog.org/entry/spherical-concept-vehicle-a-street-legal-reality-of-2020/
to this comment On October 28, 2009 at 5:27 pm ed said:
Here’s something you don’t see every day.
An affordable electric car?
http://www.axonautomotive.com/press.html
to this comment On October 29, 2009 at 12:43 pm ed said:
Or is Fisker the biggest challenge GM has had in decades.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12918#p87781
to this comment On November 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm Kenz300 said:
Toyota Motor Corp. has unveiled a more expensive and bigger hybrid-only model than its hit Prius, underlining the Japanese automaker’s ambitions to make green technology more widespread.
What is GM building to compete with Toyota’s future products. Something to think about.
Toyota’s market share has been increasing for 20 years. GM’s market share has been decreasing for 20 years. hhhmmmmmmmm
Maybe this Green technology thing has legs.
to this comment On November 6, 2009 at 7:10 pm ed said:
Gordon Murray Design and Zytek Automotive
. . . Announce Plans for Electric City Car Program
The T.27 will be the world’s most efficient electric car
. . . iStream®, a new manufacturing process,
. . . will cut the start-up costs for an assembly line by around 80%.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13020&p=88579#p88579
to this comment On November 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
More thoughts about the Bare Necessity Car:
While I despise “badge engineering,” I have no problem with “platform sharing-” by related models within a brand. Excessive badge engineering and platform sharing, in my opinion, led to “Old GM’s” fall from industry leader to today’s remnant.
On the other hand, the “Bare Necessity Car” platform could be used with the “Bare Necessity Truck,” and eventually the “Bare Necessity Van” or the “Bare Necessity CUV.”
My suggestions:
Lose the stylish wheels and ultra-low profile tires.
Mount 155/80R-13s instead- those are truly “Bare Necessity Tires.”
A little overhang, especially in the rear, could add interior room and cargo space without adding a lot of weight. I realize the short overhang is stylish, but it isn’t as efficient.
Make sure it’s either a true fastback or add a Kamm tail.
Big grilles aren’t as aerodynamic, and aren’t more efficient. The nose needs to be as smooth and rounded as possible. In fact, for efficiency, the overall shape and specific styling elements need to improve aerodynamics, not lessen them.
Above all else, “Bare Necessity” needs to be every bit as efficient as possible.
to this comment On November 10, 2009 at 10:50 am Wade Bryant said:
The possibility of sharing with Bare Necessity truck exists, but so far most of the people who are captivated by the truck want a “real truck” with more capability then the BN Car platform would provide.
What BN vehicle would YOU want and how would you configure it? We can figure out the “how-to’s” after we find out which vehicles we need to build.
to this comment On November 15, 2009 at 1:28 am ed said:
“real truck” with more capability then the BN Car platform would provide.
. . . Doesn’t GM already make trucks like that?
. . . Why aren’t those people buying them?
. . . Is it “Real” to not put your money where your mouth is?
Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Renault and Nissan,
. . . is already putting $1.5 billion into building
. . . nine different types of cars.
Now that’s “Real!”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105#p89181
Bajaj Auto expects to launch its small car
. . . in the next four years in partnership with
. . . Renault and Nissan.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13105#p89267
to this comment On November 15, 2009 at 1:53 am ed said:
“What BN vehicle would YOU want and how would you configure it?”
What I want is my Avatar, a mini-truck, configure it as a electric “GM Skateboard” with
. . . different bodies and functions.
http://openprtspecs.blogspot.com/2009/09/dualmode-and-modular-design.html
Make it affordable, inexpensive to operate and need little or no maintenance.
Make you money on all the miles that people drive.
You can figure out the “how-to’s” now that you’ve found out which vehicles you need to build.
I’m pretty sure, that there is no one building anything like it in the USA,
. . . because if there was, I would have already bought one.
. . . But they are being built and used in other countries.
to this comment On November 10, 2009 at 7:02 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Starting with the basics: assuming I have to do with one vehicle, the basic mission of any such vehicle is to haul my 250+ lb butt to work and back on a daily basis, and to run life’s essential errands, like grocery shopping and dentist appointments and the like. A lot of these runs can be done on my vintage ‘78 Vespa, but I’d have to use something else for driving in the snow and rain; something with an enclosed cabin, at minimum. Having an enclosed cabin means it has to have 3 wheels, at least, and I have something that almost fills the bill for that purpose- a 1981 HMV Freeway, a single-seat, 3-wheel “car” that’s legally considered to be a motorcycle.
The Freeway has a lot of drawbacks, because it was designed and manufactured on a budget smaller than GM’s executives spend on lunch: handling is adequate, acceleration mediocre, there is no reverse gear. I think GM’s engineering staff could whip up something similar, and better, in a few weeks.
The Freeway also lacks adequate space for hauling much in the way of groceries, and it lacks a passenger seat.
So my “Tier 1″ BN vehicle would be something similar in concept to the Freeway, with a passenger seat in tandem, and a trunk. I call it a “Cabin Scooter,” something more than a motorscooter or motorcycle, less than a “car.”
“Tier 2″ would be a “side by side” 2-seater, a little roomier, a little more trunk space, most likely FWD. I think a good historic example would be the 1989-94 Mercury Capri.
“Tier 3″ would be a FWD 2-door 4-seater, probably a hatchback or Kammback 2-door. Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon 2-door hatchbacks are a good example. So is the “Ultralite” GM concept.
“Tier 4″ would be a FWD 4-door. I’m thinking something a little bigger than a Cavalier/Cobalt/Cruze, smaller than my ‘92 Century, maybe something “X-body” (Citation etc) size.
Maybe, for efficiency, it should look like this:
http://aerocivic.com/
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 2:38 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Here’s another approach to an idea that’s already been mentioned- the “build your own” interactive tool.
But don’t stop with the traditional choices of “option packages” and color and interior choices; open up the entire (virtual) GM parts bin, toss in some items yet to be available (Miller cycle, variable valve timing, variable
displacement [e.g., shutting off cylinders when not needed]), have choices for body types and shapes, from the classics of yesterday to futuristic low cdA aerodynamic shapes- or free-form,”do it yourself” body shapes (my idea of a fuel-efficient, high mpg 2-seater BN Car would look more like a Ferrari 246 Dino than a Cruze).
And then make it a contest, have participants enter their “dream car,” winner gets an all-expenses-paid trip to the Design Center to see the winning concept fashioned in fiberglass, meet with GM leaders like Bob Lutz, maybe have the Grand Tour… send them home with a brand-new GM product of their choice?
to this comment On November 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm Kyle said:
I like Charles Lefrancs 09 Exterior Ideation BEST! It’s awesome.
to this comment On November 20, 2009 at 10:58 am ed said:
Nano cars made by Tata Motors have been described
. . . by company Director, Jamshed J. Irani
. . . as having huge potential.
Irani stressed on the fact that
. . . foreign car manufacturers were still years away
. . . from making a car similar to the Nano.
http://living.oneindia.in/automobiles/auto-news/2009/tata-nano-201109.html
to this comment On November 23, 2009 at 11:49 am ed said:
Another Idea for a “Basic” vehicle.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13299
to this comment On November 24, 2009 at 4:15 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
According to the late Paul MacCready (designed the Impact and the EV-1, with a little assist from GM), what cars do, mostly, is heat up brakes and stir up air.
A “Bare Necessity” car should be very “cutting edge” efficient, stirring up air as little as possible (that is, having a slippery aerodynamic shape with the lowest possible CdA), and heating up brakes as little as possible (as lightweight as possible).
Take the EV-1 shape (make it the size of the Citroen SM so it has room for a back seat) and power it with an efficient little IC engine and drivetrain. Make it FWD and I’d like one in beige, please.
to this comment On November 24, 2009 at 11:17 pm Mark Matthews said:
I recently purchased an old 1981 Mercedes Benz 240D 4 cylinder diesel with 207,000 miles on it, it has a manual 4 speed transmission. For anyone that has ever driven one of these, you know it’s no speed demon on the road. Given the fact that the 4 cyl. engine only produces 65 hp & the car itself weighs over 3000 lbs., you’re not going to be blowing anyone’s doors off. It goes from zero to 60 in about 20+ seconds.
The car rides very nicely, has room for 5 comfortably & has a good sized trunk. It’s a very solid, heavy car that I feel very safe driving around with my family in it. Air bags would be nice, but weren’t available in 1981.
My point is this, if an almost 30 year old car with over 200,000 miles on it, that’s as heavy/solid as this car is can average 28-29 mpg in city driving, with all the improvements we’ve made in technology/engines, etc. in the last 30 years, why aren’t the car companies producing cars that get 50+ mpg?
BTW – My purchase price for the car? $1500.00
to this comment On December 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm Wade Bryant said:
It can be done. It’s easy to see how upcoming hybrids will get 50 MPG. It’s a matter of balancing the tradeoffs. vehicle size, performance, cost, etc..
to this comment On December 6, 2009 at 2:24 am Mark Matthews said:
Thanks for the reply Wade,
I hope it didn’t sound like I was getting on to you guys, as I know that you’re trying very hard to please a lot of people with varying interests/ideas, etc. The main thing for me with this car is that it’s a very solid & I believe a safe car, it rides/drives very well & also gets very good gas (diesel) mileage. I think these are the most important factors for a majority of people.
Just my personal thoughts, but if you & the other designers, etc. have never driven one of these, I would ask that you find someone who has one to let you take it out for a drive & see what feeling you get from it. I think you’d be pleasantly suprised. Just my 2 cents worth
to this comment On November 27, 2009 at 12:07 am ed said:
Tata Nano, the worlds cheapest car,
. . . is being bought by India’s youngsters,
. . . who companies feel will also want to buy
. . . Customization for their Tata Nano.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13299#p90699
to this comment On December 1, 2009 at 11:00 pm ed said:
Japan’s “Bare Necessity Car”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380#p91180
to this comment On December 3, 2009 at 12:11 pm ed said:
Should the “Basic Necessity Car” have seating for 3 persons?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380&start=15
to this comment On December 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm fredyc said:
Electric Cabs. There’s talk about battery replacement stations.
Seems to me they are not that viable for regular drivers. Require staff, space, too many needed to assure coverage for drivers even in a limited area. Also, one may not like to have his battery replaced with an older one.
However, it may work for electric cabs. There would be needed only several large battery replacing stations in a city.
Electric cabs may be used daily by some for commuting to work in smaller cities (less or equal 300K ppl) with less urban sprawling. More so in the context of encouraging flexible working hours and incentives for electric cabs.
to this comment On December 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Electric cabs sound fine, except for the range. I have had to drive a taxi from time to time so I could put food on the table; I had to log over 250 miles a day on the days I wanted to make money (12-hours shifts, average speed around 20 mph, you don’t make money sitting still). A vehicle with a 40-mile range wouldn’t cut it as a taxi, unless the depleted battery pack could be swapped (very quickly) every couple hours.
Hybrids might work as a taxi, the biggest fuel savings would come from not idling the engine.
to this comment On December 24, 2009 at 10:05 am fredyc said:
Hi. Hybrid cars also use gas. The mileage of a hybrid car is a great improvement over a regular car, but would
still use enough fuel and pollute on 200 miles\day use. An electric cab would not pollute at all.
I wasn’t referring to Volt’s 40 mileage range necessarily. In order to last longer for the owner who buys the car,
the battery operates between 30% and 80%. For eg. the same battery operating between 0 and 100 pct would allow for a range around 80 miles. So, an electric cab could have 80-100 miles range. In the context of battery replacement stations, it would work fine. When the battery would be close to be depleted it could head to the replacement stations available on say a 5 miles range.
to this comment On December 5, 2009 at 8:25 am ed said:
1) If you want to sell cars,
. . . low-priced goods would create stronger demand,
. . . than high-end products.
True or False?
. . . If your answer is “False” re-read step 1.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380&start=15#p91633
to this comment On December 6, 2009 at 11:46 pm ed said:
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT)
. . . analysis of tata motors
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380&start=15#p91749
to this comment On December 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm ed said:
Days after acquiring majority stake in Porsche,
. . . Volkswagen has announced the purchase of
. . . 19.9% of Suzuki for US$2.5 billion.
the Japanese manufacturer invests
. . . up to half of the sum received into buying VW shares.
This cross buying arrangement sounds similar to the Renault-Nissan Alliance.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13493#p92059
to this comment On December 11, 2009 at 12:03 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
“Bare Necessity” seems also to imply “low cost-per-mile,” and a big contribution to economic operation might be a USB port connected to the car’s CPU so the diagnostics data could be downloaded into a PC, analyzed by (open source?) software so the owner can see what maintenance and repairs are actually needed- rather than what the dealer wants to sell them.
to this comment On December 14, 2009 at 3:40 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
This prunes the “Bare Necessity” commuter car concept to the core: http://www.microcar.org/carspecs/hmvfreeway.jpg
// single seat, 3 wheels, 60 mph, 70-80 mpg.
Made in Minnesota between 1979 and 1982, 700 built. A few are still on the road, but repair/maintenance parts are getting hard to find. GM will never build anything like it, but Honda might be persuaded to.
Another approach to Bare Necessity is this: http://tevami.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/carver-one-vehicle-470×352.jpg
The van den Brink Carver, 2 seats tandem, automatic tilting 3-wheeler; sell it under $15K as “Bare Necessity,” or over $30 as “Small Premium.” I’d buy the “Bare Necessity” version tomorrow.
GM had a significant lead in tilting vehicles in the ’80s but didn’t follow through. Seems vaguely familiar- “EV-1″ comes to mind…
to this comment On December 16, 2009 at 2:01 pm whamama said:
I like the idea a lot. Growing up oversees, I know the world has been waiting for this. Please keep the consider the following:
Safety. As a parent, I would jump on this for my college student kid, but the one thing I have to have is safety. It has to rate very high on the crash tests.
Keep it nice and simple (design) please. Don’t go overboard with the look. It might turn a lot of people off if it looks too futuristic/green…
Fits a car seat, if young parents are within your scope.
Large trunk for grocery bags.
Very good vision. A lot of city driving accidents are because people don’t see aother cars from their blind spot.
Again I am sure this is going to do very well in some communities in the US and it’s going to make a killing in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Far East, and most highly populated regions with lower incomes or greated environment concious areas.
to this comment On December 19, 2009 at 10:26 am Dan Frederiksen said:
Solectria sunrise is how you should do it
or GM precept. or GM ultralite
it’s all been done before, you just don’t want to do it right.
fiber glass ultra low weight, ultra aerodynamic, plugin hybrid electric drive with a tiny simple ICE gen. 1 or 2 cylinders. no bigger than 500cc
lose the center column so the seats can be closer together, the car narrower and drag less.
the bare necessity is extreme energy efficiency.
to this comment On December 24, 2009 at 1:41 pm ed said:
Apple’s BARE NECESSITY CAR
http://www.thedesignblog.org/entry/iphone-controlled-apple-car-how-much-does-apple-appreciate/
to this comment On December 30, 2009 at 12:18 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I think a successful “bare necessity” design, whether “bare necessity car” or “bare necessity truck,” should be customizable- via aftermarket, preferably, or dealer-supplied accessories, much like the custom motorcycle market.
What’s needed is a basic, simple, reliable, attractive design that meets the minimum criteria: in the case of the “Bare Necessity Car,” I think that would be a FWD 2-door, 2 or 4-seat hatchback; for my personal needs, the rear seat needs to fold flat- what comes to mind is something the size and approximate shape of the late ’70s-vintage Dodge Omni/ Plymouth Horizon twins, but with overall better aerodynamics.
Keep the curb weight under 2000 lbs and you won’t need more than about 80 hp for reasonably spirited performance, certainly possible with a conventional 1300cc OHC 4 cylinder engine, or a 1000cc Miller Cycle engine. I think 40 mpg highway is a realistic expectation, with 50 mpg or better very possible.
I think safety is a necessity, so features like ABS and traction control are very desirable, as are power assisted steering and brakes; these need to be standard equipment, or optional at a reasonable price, as does automatic transmission. For some, especially in warmer climates, air conditioning may also be a “necessity.”
to this comment On December 30, 2009 at 2:43 amAndrew Scott Kinomoto said:
It would be a tremendous statement to the global auto industry to produce a car with this ideology. The introduction of a “Bare Necessity” vehicle would pay homage to the roots of the American auto industry and how it was sparked by Henry Ford’s practical and affordable Model T. I would love to see an American vehicle of such historical significance take to the roads of 21st Century America.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 10:10 am Wade Bryant said:
Yes, I feel the same way. As the industry has “matured” our cars and trucks have all gravitated toward the higher-contented end of the spectrum. I can’t help but think there are some people who just want a simple and smart way to get around.
to this comment On January 5, 2010 at 2:42 pm ed said:
Mr. Tata said that the American version will have a bigger engine and
. . . would undergo additional crash tests
. . . in order to answer the apprehensions about its safety.
An electric version for the developed markets
. . . is also said to be in the works.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13776#p94538
to this comment On January 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm Amy said:
In today’s market the essentials have change. Everyone is highly concerened about saftey so passenger and driver’s side airbags would be a must. I would also include air conditioning for several reasons with the biggest being resale value. Finally would be a basic radio which means only radio and not CD player or USB/ aux port for my IPOD. If I really need to use my IPOD I can go buy a FM Transmitter.
to this comment On January 6, 2010 at 2:16 pm ed said:
Tata Technologies will
. . . display the Tata Nano
. . . on January 14,
. . . at the Detroit Science Center,
. . . “Better Innovation” event.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13776#p94636
to this comment On January 8, 2010 at 11:10 am Wade Bryant said:
Ed, thanks for the continuing research of topics and events.
We’re aware of the Tata Nano event at the Science Center and have some people attending.
to this comment On January 9, 2010 at 11:53 pm ed said:
Tata Nano, was to replace families on 2 wheelers, that were being killed in accidents.
Tata Magic Iris, Will You Eat Up Rickshaws? Tuk-Tuks? that pollute the air.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13776&start=15#p94967
Some Companies “Care” only about Profits,
. . . some are”Caring Companies” that make a little Profit.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13810#p94970
to this comment On January 11, 2010 at 9:32 am ed said:
Things that make you go . . . Hmmm!
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13854#p95113
to this comment On January 10, 2010 at 4:09 am ed said:
DOE announces $16.9 million for “Think”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13776&start=15#p95045
to this comment On January 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm fredyc said:
Ed, at the link provided, it is presented ‘Chevrolet debuts India’s first four-door all-electric vehicle’. It looks like a battery was fitted in last generation Chevy Spark which sold around the world. So, that would be a very cheap electric car. Sure a contemporary design would be better fitted in developed markets, but outside the battery the car must be very cheap.
to this comment On January 11, 2010 at 10:29 pm ed said:
Chevrolet and Reva have been working together
. . . on an all-electric small car for the Indian market, and
. . . their first effort is being displayed at the New Delhi Auto Expo
. . . in the form of an all-electric variant of Chevrolet Spark.
Dubbed the e-Spark,
. . . the vehicle will be India’s first four-door electric vehicle.
“Click” on the picture, and
. . . it will show you more information.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13776&start=15#p94881
to this comment On January 12, 2010 at 11:23 pm fredyc said:
The price is estimated at INR 7 Lakh .. or 15,000$. GM was supposed to develop EVs in India in a partnership with a company called Reva. The intent was to develop electric cars for India’s market and what’s important a range of 80 miles. This must be the first result. So, this would be a pretty simple car, older design, 4 seats, relatively small with few interior amenities, but electrically driven with a range of 80 miles and costing 15,000$.
It something like this would be sold in developed markets, would have a more modern design and a battery incentive.
Something like this: simple contemporary design, relatively small (about the dimensions of Beetle) but 4 seats for adults, having few interior amenities, electrically driven with a range of 80 miles and costing around 10,000$. ?This is the question?
to this comment On January 10, 2010 at 11:32 pm ed said:
Segway style e-car design
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13860
to this comment On January 12, 2010 at 1:53 am Frank Lee said:
LMAO at putting kids in charge of this project! Every generation thinks they’ve discovered something brand new that the world has never seen before… when THEY first develop awareness of it. Reality is they are simply re-discovering the old. I only made it part-way into the blog before I couldn’t take it- all this re-inventing the wheel- any more. And the same old tired misconceptions and outright errors keep coming up to the forefront as well.
Come on, put a geezer that’s been around the block in charge to stop spinning the wheels and get this thing on the right track. At a minimum, since you lack experience (esp. life experience) get acquainted with history. Oh, and that geezer can’t be an executive from the “traditional” mold- those guys have made so much money for so long that they exist in an alternate reality and no longer have a clue about what is important to the common man, otherwise known as their customer. In part that means value and serviceability. Make sure that the guys charged with developing this thing at a minimum are competent enough to change their own oil.
Examples? Thinking about a basic car in terms of “entry level” = big mistake. You know what? I’m an experienced motorist who’s been driving longer than you designers have been alive (actually I was a designer too) and even though I can afford to buy a loaded luxury boat, I DON’T WANT ONE. This vehicle must be developed as a desireable END PRODUCT, not just a POS that’s a stepping stone to something “better” i.e. bigger and more expensive and by extension, more competent.
Closely related to that is targeting said “entry level POS” at students/young people. Most anyone that has only X amount to spend is going to look at more options available to them than just buying new. If a good used car offers more everything for the same dollar, where do you think that dollar is going to be spent?
Marketing is so often wrong. I recall the buzz about the upcoming retro New Beetle targeting/attracting the young generation. Right. The young generation didn’t have lots of MONEY so the New Beetles all got snapped up by geezers! Plus, it was the oldsters that had the fond memories of the Old Beetles… THAT is who the retro thing really resonated with.
And these debates, furrowed brows, and hand-wringing about “Oh, should it have power steering, interfaces for electronics, blah blah blah…” I realize that today’s city kids have probably never driven anything without a/c, power steering, a/t, etc., and they’ve never gone anywhere without having a phone or some sort of **** plugged in to their heads, but it wasn’t THAT long ago when all that junk was the exception, not the norm. The goal of this thing is SIMPLICITY, so make it SIMPLE! DAH! K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple, Stupid! Give me a modern day version of any of these beloved icons: Model T, Original Bug, Mini, Fiat 500, etc. Think about the qualities they had that made them iconic! I’d sum it up as HONESTY. They were developed and refined to serve a PURPOSE and that purpose was not the fashion of the moment, nor was it planned obsolescence. Notice how New Beetle didn’t make my list? VW has forgotten what value is! VW parts and service = disgraceful. Premium prices for mid-level product.
The most recent N. American car that probably comes closest to being a good example of bare-necessity is the Metro. Enough interior room, not cramped yet not excessive? Check. Light enough to negate the “need” for power steering and power brakes? Check. Not burdened with a/c, power windows, power seats, power door locks, power mirrors, power antenna, blah blah blah? Check. Competently handles the utilitarian chores it was made for? Check. Give me a new Metro 2-door with a nice 3-banger or maybe even a twin, and a manual transmission, no radio, no a/c, no junk that isn’t directly related to making that thing go. My vehicle does not need 13 computers in it to go from A to B. Maybe give it a 3rd door on one side so 6′4″ galoots like myself can more easily get in/out of the back seat. Have a diesel option. Have a turbo so it can burn E85 well too. Put 4-wheel drum brakes on it, or at least learn how to make calipers that don’t drag and corrode.
Back in the day Metro was never given a chance. Promotional support was ZERO, ZIP, NADA. Way to go, genius marketing execs. Fuel prices were down and everybody was focused on keeping up with the Joneses, mortgaging their future to have the biggest, baddest, mostest of it all, and being willfully ignorant of the reality of the finite nature of our resources. Plop the Metro into today’s somewhat leaner, somewhat more grounded market with no changes whatsoever, and I’d wager it would succeed better than it ever did back in the day.
But don’t restyle it every couple years; make the tooling and interchangeability with other models last and last and LAST. Did GM completely forget what made GM great from the ’50s through the ’80s??? Part of it was parts interchangeability; for example headlights, bearings, brake parts, alternators, batteries, even transmissions and engines to a large degree… many bits were UNIVERSAL and as such could be gotten anywhere, even the local Kmart, for a song. The headlight for a ‘75 Nova was the exact same headlight as for a ‘55 Bel Air- it didn’t have to change every 3 years because they did it right the first time! It wasn’t junk! In fact I still prefer sealed-beams to composite; they don’t yellow and craze, the light is always good, they were cheap and readily available, and the composites never did deliver on their promise to be “lighter, cheaper, more aero”.
Oh, and skip the doofus cartoons, I’m not impressed at all. This basic vehicle does not need 20″ wheels and 320mm wide 45 series tires; seriously, it is not going to be that fast and yes the interior space is better utilized for occupants and stuff than wheelwells. :rolleyes:
to this comment On January 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm ed said:
CNBC Video “America Meets the Nano”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13854#p95360
Michelin
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13854#p95319
11 Practical Reasons to Buy an Electric Car
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13854#p95305
to this comment On January 14, 2010 at 11:23 pm ed said:
Did you know: The Tata Nano has no glove compartment.
. . . Instead there are wells for storage in the dash in front of the steering wheel and the passenger seat.
The 2-cylinder-engine sits in a back compartment.
A spare tire sits in a front trunk, and
The jack sits snug under the passenger seat.
to this comment On January 16, 2010 at 11:55 am ed said:
What is more important “Appearance’s” or ‘Money?”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13854&start=15#p95720
to this comment On January 18, 2010 at 10:30 am ed said:
Tata Motors:
. . . Sees Profits Surge
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13960#p95938
. . . Corporations give Nano’s to employees as incentives.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13960#p95939
. . . Auto critics recognise new generation Tata Motors Cars
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13960#p95943
to this comment On January 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm ed said:
What Women Want?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13960&p=96248#p96248
to this comment On January 26, 2010 at 8:15 pm ed said:
First Glimpse of Russian Electric Car Concept
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14052#p97038
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 5:16 pm Brian said:
Ok, here’s the thing that bothers me, for the last 15 years I’ve suggested the idea of a basic no-frills no option car to GM and other makers, and due to your “consumer panels” the idea has been shot down as “that’s not what people want”.
Incomes in the US if you haven’t noticed, are falling. People are having a hard time making ends meet, and new cars are a luxury, or they are ugly. Companies like KIA (Soul), Scion (Xb) and Nissan (Cube) have brought basic cars to market that have a lot of room, get great mileage and cost under 15k.
GM, like all other companies has been guilty of constantly trying to move up market, where there is more money. However this means that “down market” is being ignored. Want to deliver what people need? You do that in the Aveo. However because someone cannot afford a 30k car, does not mean they should have to suffer with something that is the enthusiasts equivalent to a 30 pound tumor hanging off your lip. How about a small platform that can be built in FWD, AWD or RWD configuration (with the engineers you have, you can do it, if not call me), and build good looking small cars with good interior room, and low on options. Kind of like GEO, with good looking cars.
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm Brian said:
Ed, seriously, Tata is not where GM should look for inspiration. The Tata is manufactured where labor is much lower than it is in the US, Canada or Mexico where GM’s North American products are made. Also, I highly doubt the Tata micro car would win over many US buyers who have become used to high quality durable vehicles.
And who is to say it has to be a decision between style and cost? Does a nice design cost more to manufacture?
GM does not need a five thousand dollar car. GM needs a good looking economical series of cars between under 14k. The best thing is, the same vehicles if good looking, can be optioned up with power accessories and bigger engines. Imagine a 2 door 2+2 car with an S-TEC II 1.2L i4 and manual trans and RWD through a shared rear axle with a small SUV. Steel 16 inch wheels (same as found on the Cobalt LS) with center caps and rings. Without power windows/ seats/ mirrors etc, a very basic coupe with plastic body panels and a lightweight platform could return 40 mpg or better. Then, an SS version could be built with the same engine as the Cobalt SS and sports suspension. However I’d still make the performance version as light as possible. Now imagine a small RWD 4 door in the similar fashion. A small 4 door and 2 door SUV with optional AWD and turbo diesel power, with aggressive stance and off-road style tires. If GM went further with the three small car concepts they launched a short time back, developing one into a small on-off road SUV on the cheap, they’d have a hit.
In short, US consumers are in need of cheap transportation, but we’re picky and don’t want just whatever is cheapest.
And to my friends at GM, I am still available whenever you are ready to hire me.
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 8:59 pm Brian said:
Last comment on this subject, I love it, except one “small” detail.
Small cars are not practical for everyone. I’m 6 ft 3, my wife is 6 ft 1, my son is 3.5 years old and he is wearing size 6 clothes. While I don’t need a huge SUV, making the bare essential car too small will cut people like me out of being a customer. And the worst thing is, when I go out in public, I see a LOT of people who are much taller (and rounder) than I.
to this comment On February 3, 2010 at 7:23 am ed said:
World’s cheapest car’s 10-15% price hike, is still the World’s cheapest car!
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14147#p97999
to this comment On February 3, 2010 at 7:40 am ed said:
Maruti Cervo to compete with Tata Nano.
Cervo which is a five-door hatchback model
. . . has a spacious passenger cabin.
. . . It comes equipped with a 0.7L, 660cc petrol engine
. . . capable of producing maximum power of 60bhp.
. . . The phenomenal fuel efficiency is one of the USPs of this car.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14147#p98001
to this comment On February 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm ed said:
Think out of the Box “Basic”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14238#p98536
to this comment On February 17, 2010 at 2:10 am davidp said:
In Car Styling #48 (October 1984), then Audi designer Stefan Stark did a rendering seminar article on the design thought process. The theme was a small one/two seater. His concepts blew my mind… and showed the Art Center ethos of giving what was asked for, and then giving a few more ideas that blew their socks off.
to this comment On February 21, 2010 at 10:01 pmBrian Colvin said:
You ask,
“What are people willing to trade off for efficiency’s sake?”
Power windows, locks, mirrors, seats. Premium Sound system (or make a premium system with 3 speakers). Traction control (offer it with AWD for those concerned about traction). Heated mirrors, etc. A lot, actually.
There is a lot of excess on vehicles these days that I would easily do without. I used to have a 1981 4 cylinder vehicle I bought with 30,000 miles, I drove it until it was stolen 80k miles later. It was one of the best cars I ever owned. Make it simple, make it light. Make most of the repairs easy enough for the average person (we also like to save money by doing things ourselves). Things like a special key to access the oil filter or special tools to do what should be easy jobs, are ridiculous.
to this comment On February 28, 2010 at 1:38 am Brian said:
It sounds suspiciously like we’re reliving the 1970’s here – GM’s cars are too big, too inefficient, and too low quality – and with gas prices up, they’re trying to fight off a slew of really quality, efficient imports. I think the answer is exactly the same as it was 30+ yrs ago. Provide more quality, more efficiency, and a very competitive price point. I drive a Toyota Camry these days because I’m convinced it will make it past 1/4 million miles if I take good care of it – and while it’s not as fun to drive as my last car, it’s not unpleasant either. When I walk onto a GM lot today, most of what I see are odd designs that will look utterly dated in 3 years, that have poor fuel economy, chintzy-looking interiors, hellishly inconsistent build quality, and unreliable powertrains with a future of expensive repair bills. Just as bad, they’re either boring or unpleasant to drive and if you don’t want to buy a $50K truck, the dealers want nothing to do with you. I’m happy to buy a small car and I’d love to buy American again… IF you can build a quality one. Think BMW 1-series minus the leather seats – it’s FUN to drive (I’d buy one, but I’m not interested in paying a premium to try and make the neighbors notice). I’ll give up the top-end speed if you can retain the handling, and maybe add the fuel economy of a VW Golf TDI?
In other words, I care about: quality of both the design and the build, total reliability, and efficiency. I don’t care about flashiness (I’m not your target market for a Vette, although I acknowledge it’s pretty), but it has to be fun to drive – I won’t spend an hour a day in something completely awful. I prefer to buy American, but I’m not blindly brand-loyal, and I’ll walk back onto a GM lot the day I don’t think I’m paying more money for less. I’m happy to drive a diesel, and manual transmissions are great. FWD or RWD makes very little difference to me. I think the only “amenities” I’d insist on are cruise control (long drives are painful without), some form of radio (doesn’t have to be 10 speakers but it makes sitting in traffic a little better) and A/C (115 degree summer days are pretty rough without). I hope you guys can come up with something good – the concept of the project is great and it’s wonderful to see GM going in a positive direction!
to this comment On March 4, 2010 at 3:08 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Seats for 4 full-size adults; a not too small, practical 2-door with hatchback styling, FWD (because it’s cheaper to make than RWD)- the tough part would be to keep it from looking like an AMC Pacer…
to this comment On June 30, 2010 at 3:29 pmWilliam H Lanteigne said:
I had the 2-door Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon twins in mind (the general layout and metrics, not the angular styling) when I wrote that, and I think it’s still relevant. Fill the options list with comfort and/or utility features (optional engines/alt fuel sources- gas v diesel v CNG or LPG, gauges, Miller-cycle or turbo-compounding, overload springs, etc, maybe a towing package for a small trailer), and the consumer will let you know what “Bare Necessity” means. Make the options “modular” so they can be added easily at the dealer or on the assembly line: I like the “back seat delete” option.