November_December_2021_AMP_Digital

A D V A N C E D M A T E R I A L S & P R O C E S S E S | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 2 1 2 2 new generation of e-vehicles. In the cur- rent hyper competitive automotive en- vironment, upper management must be convinced that the program team leading any aluminum-intensive solu- tion has the capacity to deliver the suc- cessful execution of a winning cost/ profit equation. For aluminum ABS, it means hav- ing body engineers who understand it, working in close collaboration with tooling engineers capable of deliver- ing an entire program worth of stamp- ing tools on time and on budget. Absent such a conviction, aluminum-intensive programs always fail to materialize. JLR and Ford benefited from decades of development, supported by a vi- sionary management team that valued both product and manufacturing ex- pertise. Retirees from both companies were then able to provide Nio that ex- pertise. But the competition between powertrain and body structure solu- tions is relentless, and it is taking place as aluminum ABS faces an increasing- ly fractured R&D environment. Recent developments might now favor power- train solutions. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHALLENGES The electrification of the light ve- hicle market has brought challenges and opportunities for aluminum ABS. For EVs, weight savings allow reduc- tions in battery size, and given the high cost of batteries, meaningful cost op- portunities exist for lightweighting. At the same time, the cost of batteries has fallen steadily and is now only 10% of what it was 10 years ago. Meanwhile, power density has tripled, leading to further weight reduction. Program management teams, aware of growing affordability concerns, are increasingly betting on batteries—prompted by en- gineering and tooling teams unwilling to take a chance on an unfamiliar alu- minum ABS body solution. Further, the electrification ef- fort has meant refocusing resourc- es away from body engineering and especially from its related activities, such as stamping processing and tool- ing engineering. Years of downward cost pressures have prompted an ero- sion of capabilities from both the car- makers and their tooling suppliers. For startups, the situation is even worse, because they mostly outsource body engineering to a supply base unaccus- tomed to leading the development of a whole project. These body engineer- ing enterprises have only minimal in- house support for stamping feasibility and processing. Therefore, toolmakers increasingly find themselves responsi- ble for the totality of the stamping and tooling engineering effort, from feasi- bility to tool delivery. They do this un- der contract to organizations with only little limited oversight capability, and under increasingly stringent cost and timing pressures. The most damaging aspect of this situation is that there is no meaningful feedback loop linking product engineer- ing, stamping engineering, toolmaking, and stamping production. The current environment actually operates under a negative feedback loop: Inexperienced engineers working with poor feasibility support create part designs that cause tool timing and cost overruns. Late tool- ing delays the launch of production, and suboptimal tools never achieve ac- ceptable quality and productivity tar- gets, leading to sustained reservations about aluminum ABS body solutions. FINAL THOUGHTS Finally, it is worth remembering that the drive toward aluminum ABS body structures was designed to re- place steel ABS and take advantage of an existing and very expensive indus- trial infrastructure. Most start-ups do not have any such legacy infrastructure, affording them the opportunity to ex- plore alternatives such as large struc- tural castings. In conclusion, the story of alumi- num ABS is not over and its future is far from clear. The next chapter may be in the hands of the sheet stamping and tooling industry, as it has been for the past 20 years. However, technologies such as high-strength extrusions and large die castings may offer alterna- tive paths forward to reduce part count and assembly cost. Undoubtedly the experiences and lessons learned from the latest generation of aluminum-in- tensive vehicles will be useful as the in- dustry moves forward. ~AM&P For more information: Laurent Chap- puis, president, Light Metal Consultants LLC, 8600 Church Rd., Grosse Ile, MI 48138, lbchappuis@icloud.com . Contributors Barbara Hyde – Alcoa-Tennessee automotive product metallurgist and operations lead for customer connection, Alumax (1988-98), ATC (2000-2004), Alcoa-TN (2004-2018), Novelis GTRC (2018-present) Carolyn Kidwell – metallurgist, Arconic- Tennessee hot line until 2017 Ryan White – plant metallurgist, Arconic-Tennessee Johnny Kincaid – ingot/can recycling manager, Arconic, Alcoa-Tennessee, retired 2017 Tim Knight – Ford supplier technical assistance Donna Sagonowsky – Ford supplier technical assistance manager for aluminum ABS (retired 2015) Mark White – executive director, Alumobility, JLR, retired 2016