BMW teamed up with Sipaboards to design an electric paddleboard.
The board includes a built-in 300-watt motor for assisted riding.
It offers up to 3.5 hours of battery-assisted water cruising time.
BMW is in the midst of a dramatic overhaul of its line-up, preparing to launch 40 new or heavily updated models over the next two years. Yet, even with that packed schedule, the Bavarian automaker has found time to collaborate with a Slovenian manufacturer of electric stand-up paddleboards, bringing its Neue Klasse design language to a completely different kind of mobility.
While we suspect only a tiny fraction of BMW owners have even the slightest interest in stand-up paddleboarding, the company probably saw its partnership with SipaBoards as an opportunity to extend its design influence beyond the road.
Known simply as the BMW x Sipaboards, the motorized paddleboard is fitted with a compact 300-watt electric motor and a specially developed propeller. It can reach speeds of up to 4 knots, or roughly 7.5 km/h.
This motor does more than just propel the board forward, which can be particularly useful when paddling into a headwind or against a current. It also inflates the board automatically, sparing riders the usual pre-launch workout.
The board, which measures 3.65 meters in length and 0.82 meters in width, weighs just 14.9 kg (32.8 lbs) with the motor and is capable of carrying two people.
Apparently, BMW Group Designworks used Neue Klasse influences when designing the board. However, this doesn’t mean the board has features like the newly-designed lights or signature kidney grilles. Instead, the Neue Klasse influence appears to be limited to the large X motif across the base of the board.
Each board comes with a lightweight carbon fiber paddle with a Bluetooth remote control built directly into it. This allows the rider to choose between different power levels, light effects, and haptic feedback. A smartphone application has also been developed and includes GPS tracking.
Range and Pricing
Initially, the board will be sold exclusively with a pair of 90 Wh battery modules that offer up to 3.5 hours of riding time. Next year, a version with two 180 Wh batteries will become available, allowing for rides lasting as long as seven hours.
The price for this Neue Klasse-inspired board? €3,990 (about $4,633). After all, it’s still a BMW product, so it’s priced like one, even if it trades the highway for open water.
Mercedes says early EV adopters wanted cars that looked different.
The EQS, EQC, and EQE were styled to stand apart from ICE models.
Future EVs like the C-Class will share styling with combustion models.
For years, many legacy carmakers believed the best way to sell electric vehicles was to make them stand apart from their combustion-powered counterparts. Even today, several brands still cling to that idea. But those days are drawing to a close at Mercedes-Benz, where the next generation of electric and ICE models will share a near-identical look.
The German company explains that early EV buyers wanted their cars to look distinct, which led to designs like the EQS, EQC, and EQE appearing radically different from their combustion equivalents such as the GLC and E-Class.
Lessons From the Jellybean Era
Design chief Gorden Wagener defended the “jellybean” or “egg-shaped” aesthetic earlier this year as “purposeful and very progressive,” though he later conceded that the car “was launched ten years too early” and that the marketing approach hadn’t helped.
Now that early adopters have already made the switch to electric, Mercedes thinks it can turn its attention to mainstream buyers who prefer their EVs to blend in rather than stand out.
“Early adopters wanted to be different,” chief technology officer Markus Schäfer told WhichCar? in Australia. “They wanted to show that they were driving an electric car, and now we’re entering the mainstream and mass adoption, and customers don’t want to show that they’re driving an EV. They want the same shape, no matter the drivetrain.”
Same Looks, Different Platforms
This new approach is most evident in the all-electric GLC. Unveiled in full last month, it serves as a replacement to the slow-selling EQC and looks very similar to the ICE variant. Similarly, the new CLA looks the same, regardless of whether it has a battery pack and an electric motor or a combustion engine.
Although its future EVs will continue this trend and share familiar styling with combustion models, Mercedes-Benz continues to insist on using dedicated EV and ICE platforms, rather than developing a single platform that can be used by all of its models, regardless of powertrain.
“In future, the top hat will be the same. The MB.UX intelligence will be the same, but the platform is different,” Schäfer said. Why are we doing this? Eventually you’re compromising when you try to squeeze different drivetrain types into one platform”.
He went on to explain that accommodating everything from six- and eight-cylinder engines to hybrids can eat into battery space, reducing range.
“Fitting both drivetrains to the same platform ultimately ends up with compromise, and we don’t want to offer compromised cars,” he added
The upcoming C-Class will follow the same approach, built on the MB.EA platform with 800-volt technology and a 94-kWh battery pack for the electric version. Teased earlier this year, it’s expected to launch in 2026 as Mercedes’ answer to BMW’s new i3.
Designer Christopher Giroux revives the iconic Lancia Montecarlo for its 50th anniversary.
The coupe blends Lancia’s modern styling with classic Montecarlo design elements.
Rally version wears Alitalia livery and aero upgrades honoring Italian brand’s WRC past.
Lancia has stepped into a new chapter, though right now its lineup is limited to the Ypsilon subcompact hatchback. A larger Gamma crossover and the long-awaited Delta are on the horizon, but fans of the Italian marque are still waiting for something more spirited with a sharper edge. Picking up on that idea, Christopher Giroux, a senior exterior designer at Ford, used his free time to reimagine the Montecarlo coupe of the 1970s for a modern era.
The Stellantis-owned Italian marque has already flirted with the idea of a sports car through the 2023 Pu+Ra HPE Concept, a Stratos-inspired study that never made it to production. Giroux’s Pu+Ra Montecarlo borrows some of that concept’s signature cues yet carries itself with the realism of a design that could plausibly make the leap to showrooms
A Coupe Reborn
Giroux chose to revive his favorite Lancia on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The original Beta Montecarlo was introduced in 1975 as a mid-engined rear-wheel-drive sports car offered in coupe and targa bodystyles. Its design came from Paolo Martin at Pininfarina, who gave the car its unmistakable proportions and character.
To bring his vision up to date, Giroux combined traditional hand-drawn sketching with digital techniques such as Photoshop, Blender, and AI-assisted tools to bring it to life. The result is a sharp coupe that nods to Lancia’s storied past while looking unmistakably modern. Key references remain intact, including the darkened nose treatment and the signature flying buttresses, which he reimagined here in transparent glass.
Christopher Giroux
The Pu+Ra Montecarlo wears slim T-shaped LEDs on both ends, staying true to Lancia’s modern styling language. It also incorporates circular elements on the hood, roof and rear deck, similar to the company’s own Pu+Ra HPE Concept.
At the front, the pronounced chin, aero blade and sculpted fenders add to the exotic stance of the coupe, while the wraparound greenhouse and the integrated spoiler send strong Stratos vibes. The profile has clean surfacing with a character line originating from the black side gills. At the rear, a thin light strip sits beneath another discreet spoiler, tying the look together.
The Racing Version
The Montecarlo’s history naturally extends to motorsport, as its chassis became the foundation for the legendary Lancia Rally 037, the last rear-wheel drive car to take a WRC crown. In recognition of that heritage, Giroux imagined a rally-ready Pu+Ra Montecarlo finished in the unmistakable Alitalia livery that adorned the Stratos HF.
This competition versions rides on different alloy wheels finished in gold and features a redesigned bodykit. Changes include the aggressive bumper intakes with futuristic LEDs, a discreet splitter, a hood scoop, new side gills, a ducktail spoiler, a more prominent diffuser, and a vented rear deck.
Christopher Giroux
The designer has not specified what would sit beneath the skin, though the car’s proportions and styling cues hint at a battery-electric drivetrain. Even so, early sketches showing twin exhaust outlets and the rally car’s vented rear suggest the possibility of a hybrid arrangement with a mid-mounted combustion engine.
Could It Happen?
As tempting as the idea of a new Lancia sports car may be, the brand first needs to secure strong sales to justify Stellantis’ investment. For now, the odds of seeing an Aurelia, Fulvia, Stratos, Montecarlo, or 037 return remain slim. Even so, projects like this design study show just how convincingly a modern coupe could serve as a halo model, reminding us what makes the marque so captivating in the first place
Skoda designer Richard Svec reimagined the classic 110 R coupe as a futuristic EV.
Concept features clean surfacing, concealed lighting, and a sporty, compact stance.
Unlike the rear-engined original, the concept is powered by an electric powertrain.
Sometimes the best ideas come from looking back before moving forward, and Skoda has been exploring exactly that with a series of digital concepts inspired by its heritage. The latest in the line is a fresh take on the classic 110 R coupe, reimagined with futuristic styling cues and powered by electricity rather than gas.
The original 110 R first appeared in 1970 as the sporty two-door sibling of the 100 sedan. It ran a rear-mounted 1.1-liter engine producing 61 horsepower, paired with a four-speed manual gearbox that sent power to the back wheels. It was a modest setup, yet the car carved out a reputation as an accessible, characterful coupe in Eastern Europe.
A Designer’s Tribute
This new digital vision comes from Richard Svec, who joined Skoda in 2023 after studying in Bratislava and completing an internship at Italdesign in Turin. Svec has an appreciation for the original’s clean proportions and pared-back details, but he avoided going down the retro route. Instead, his aim was to capture the essence of the 110 R through its balance of shapes and volumes rather than through nostalgia alone.
The result is a two-door, two-seat coupe with a low roofline and fastback-style tail. The EV has a compact footprint and a sporty stance. A direct nod to the original comes in the form of its almost melancholic-looking headlights, reinterpreted here with sharp rectangular outlines and retractable body-colored covers. The front end is slightly recessed and adopts the Tech Loop design feature that can also be found in the new Skoda Vision O concept.
Motorsport Cues Revisited
The swollen fenders, large center-lock wheels with integrated aero covers, ribbing on the hood, and roll cage are nods to the motorsport heritage of the classic model. The side intakes are also inspired by the rear-engined 110 R, but here they serve the purpose of cooling the batteries. The rear end looks similar to the front, with concealed taillights and a black ribbon featuring slim LEDs.
Skoda didn’t get into specifics about the fully electric powertrain of the digital concept. However, the most fitting option would be a rear-mounted electric motor, staying true to the layout of the original 110 R. Judging from the current Elroq and Enyaq production SUVs, the motor could generate up to 282 hp (210 kW / 286 PS), which sounds more than enough for such a compact and lightweight car.
As is the case with most of these digital-only studies, the 110 R Coupe is not destined for production. However, it shows that Skoda could offer interesting EVs in the future if its mainstream models generate enough profit to allow niche products.
GM Design shared renderings and photos of five new concepts on Instagram.
The group includes road, racing, utility, adventure, and flying electric vehicles.
Scale models are on display at EPCOT in Florida’s Walt Disney World Resort.
A glimpse into the future of mobility often starts not with what’s on the road, but with what designers dream up behind (usually) locked studio doors. That’s exactly what GM has done, pulling back the curtain on five totally out there concepts that span everything from rugged off-road EVs to airborne transport. Shared through GM Design’s Instagram account, the images reveal a rare look into the company’s creative process.
The machines are not meant for production. Instead, they exist to explore fresh ideas across “road, racing, utility, adventure, and VTOL vehicles.” Without the need for real life prototypes, the design teams leaned on digital renderings and detailed scale models to bring their vision to life.
A Sports Car Without a Windshield
Starting with the P1, it is an open-air sports car with a tub-like body and exposed wheels, calling to mind modern rival of the 1996 Ford Indigo concept. The vehicle has no windshield, featuring a central driving position and two bench seats ahead of a small cargo area. The minimalist design includes slim LEDs on both ends and a pronounced chin.
Moving on to the P2, this low-slung EV is focused on aerodynamic efficiency. The front glass is heavily inclined, leading to a smooth roofline that cuts out on the slightly recessed tail. Despite its length, it only has two upward-opening doors.Decals along the side hint at onboard technology, pointing to an “AI. Pilot” system said to manage driving duties.
Next up is the P3, also known as the Utility Concept. It takes things in a more practical direction. Think of it as a distant descendant of today’s compact hatchbacks and crossovers. Its wheels, capped with aerodynamic covers, sit right at the edges of the monovolume body. The glasshouse is finished in body color, intersected by metallic blades that give it a slightly sci-fi presence.
Off-road Experiment
The P4 changes tone once again, diving headfirst into rugged territory. This electric off-roader uses a capsule-shaped body perched high on oversized tires wrapped in thick tread. Overhangs are practically nonexistent, ground clearance is generous, and details include a heavily raked windshield, full-width LED lighting, roof rails shaped to carry surfboards, and body-colored side glass.
Last but not least, the P5 is a flying vehicle designed for vertical take-offs and landings (VTOL). It looks like an oversized drone with two sets of fans and a flat floor, while the main body adopts similar styling cues to the other concepts.
Overall, the latest group of GM concepts would look more fitting to a video game or a sci-fi movie than the real world. Still, this is the beauty of being able to design something without restrictions.
See Them At Disney
Scale models of all five concepts are displayed at the EPCOT theme park in Florida’s Walt Disney World Resort. General Motors is the official vehicle sponsor of the venue and has recently launched an updated Test Track ride for visitors.
Stellantis supplies second-life EV batteries to power the Avathor One.
The EV was penned by Italdesign, which is part of the VW Group.
Reconfigured modules offer a range of 50 km (31 mph) between charges.
Finding fresh roles for used car batteries is becoming a growing focus in the auto industry, and Stellantis has found a particularly human-centered application. Instead of letting end-of-life EV packs sit idle, the company is repurposing them for mobility solutions outside traditional cars.
One of the most intriguing examples comes through a collaboration with startup Avathor, which has developed a compact EV tailored for wheelchair users and people with reduced mobility. Adding another interesting twist in this story is that the vehicle itself was penned by Italdesign, part of the Volkswagen Group.
This indirect and somewhat unusual collaboration between Stellantis and the VW Group likely stems from the fact that both Avathor and Italdesign are based in Turin. The Italian city is also a key hub for Stellantis, home to the Mirafiori facilities and the company’s main European headquarters.
From Road To Renewal
The process begins with Stellantis brands gathering batteries from retired EVs. These packs make their way to Turin, where SUSTAINera, Stellantis’ circular economy branch, focuses on extending their usefulness and cutting down on waste. A local partner, Intent S.r.l., then disassembles the 15 kWh modules, repackaging them for fresh duties.
For the Avathor One, the modules are reconfigured in 1.4 kWh short-range or 2.8 kWh long-range batteries, offering up to 50 km (31 mph) between charges with a top speed limited to 10 km/h (6 mph).
Avathor / Italdesign
What Is The Avathor One?
The Avathor One was launched earlier this year as the production model derived from the futuristic 2019 WheeM-i concept by Italdesign. It has a rear ramp for wheelchair access, a pull-out bench, and joystick controls.
Measuring just 1,486 mm (58.5 inches) in length, the EV comes fitted with car-like features such as LED headlights, a rearview camera, and collision-avoidance sensors that recognize both obstacles and pedestrians. It can handle gradients of up to 20 percent and climb steps up to 8 cm (3 inches) high.
According to the company, the goal is to launch the Avathor in Italy later this year, followed by Spain in 2026 and other markets in 2027.
Beyond Mobility Aids
Beyond the Avathor project, Stellantis SUSTAINera is also working with utility providers and battery integrators. One notable example is the ENEL X Pioneer system, which stores renewable energy at Rome’s Fiumicino Airport and is projected to cut CO2 emissions by 16,000 tons over ten years.
Of course, Stellantis isn’t the only automaker that is active in the circular economy with second-life batteries. Other brands such as Nissan, Renault, BMW, Kia, Geely, Jaguar, Toyota, Honda, Skoda, and Audi have all been involved in similar projects.
VW CEO Thomas Schäfer says buyers want familiar designs like traditional door handles.
New ID.Cross and ID.Polo concepts bring back classic handles, prioritizing usability.
Company still believes electromobility is the best option for most mainstream buyers.
There are big shifts underway at Volkswagen. The brand is not only preparing a raft of new EVs like the ID. Cross and an all-electric Polo that have been previewed in near production form, but it’s also rethinking design to broaden appeal. That means moving back toward features that feel more familiar to shoppers, including something as simple as returning to traditional door handles instead of the flush pop-out ones so many EV makers favor.
At the IAA Mobility show in Munich, VW boss Thomas Schäfer sat down with Deutsche Welle and touched on several topics, including the slowdown in EV sales across major markets like Europe and the United States. Asked whether VW was making a conscious effort to make its EVs more approachable, Schäfer was quick to emphasize the value of familiarity.
“People expect some sort of familiarity with the vehicle, with the brand, that they are buying into,” he said. “People buy brands so from that point of view, functions have to be easy. You know, like door handles for example. It’s all nice to have these flush door handles but they are terrible to operate, so we definitely have proper door handles on the cars and customers appreciate it. It’s the feedback we’re getting.”
And he’s not alone. As we recently reported, regulators in China are also eyeing flush and retractable handles, considering a ban after safety concerns and accident investigations. Given the size and influence of China’s auto market, such a move could ripple far beyond its borders, pushing other automakers to rethink their approach to what was once a trendy design cue.
While the ID. Every1 concept unveiled earlier this year featured flush door handles, both the ID. Cross and the ID. Polo previewed in Munich use more traditional ones. They may sacrifice some aerodynamic efficiency, but they’re far easier to operate in everyday life.
The Broader EV Transition
In the same interview, Schäfer also discussed VW’s wider transition to electric vehicles. He argued that electromobility is the superior option for buyers but questioned whether demand and infrastructure will grow fast enough for Volkswagen to stop selling ICE-powered models in the European Union by 2035.
“The end result is clear,” he said. “The question is can we make it fast enough for 2035? Is the uptake and the infrastructure growth for charging happening fast enough so that 2035 is a realistic goal? he said. “Whether it’s a couple of years later, it needs to be reviewed.”
Germany’s big automakers used the Munich Motor Show to push new design ideas.
BMW’s iX3 is the first production Neue Klasse car and Mercedes reinvented its grille.
Audi rebooted the TT, while Volkswagen’s ID. family showed a newfound confidence.
The presence of Chinese automakers added some international flavor to this week’s Munich Motor Show, but in reality the event was more about familiar German brands and their new, and in some cases unfamiliar, faces.
All of the big German automakers were on hand with fresh concept cars and production models that showcased new stylistic directions. It feels like we’re at one of those moments where car design is changing across the industry for premium European brands after a period during which the big players have struggled to reinvent themselves and work out how to differentiate EV and combustion cars, or whether to even differentiate them at all. But have the Germans really rediscovered their design mojo?
Photos Stefan Baldauf & Guido ten Brink
Let’s start with BMW and the iX3, arguably the biggest story from the show because it’s about so much more than a new SUV. The iX3 is the first of the Neue Klasse cars and brings a fresh design language that will shape the brand’s entire lineup for the next decade, as well as a crucial new EV platform.
There was some murmuring here at Carscoops that the iX3’s profile deviated too far from Munich’s conventions, but overall this has to be viewed as a massive hit. BMW designs have mostly either been butt ugly or blandly handsome over the last 20 years, but finally here’s a fresh, modern-looking car with real presence, and one that brilliantly manages to riff on the classic face of old-timers without looking like a lazy retro rip-off.
Photos Stefan Baldauf & Guido ten Brink
To our eyes, the iX3’s key rival, the electric Mercedes GLC, is far less successful. The body looks flabby and dull next to the BMW’s and while we’re all for the three-pointed star marque borrowing some classic inspiration to put new energy into its famous grille, the light-up nose on the GLC, which will find its way onto other future models as well, looks like an afterthought here.
Photos Stefan Baldauf & Guido ten Brink
Audi’s Concept C looked far more confident. Previewing an electric TT successor that will share tech with the upcoming Porsche 718 Boxster and Cayman EVs, it takes inspiration from both the TT and Auto Union’s 1930s Type C racers.
We’re reminded of the string of uber-strong Bauhaus-infused concept cars Audi delivered in the late 1990s and early 2000s, many of which made production, as well as Jaguar’s Type 00 concept, though we think Audi did a better job.
Photos Stefan Baldauf & Guido ten Brink
Volkswagen’s ID. Polo and Polo GTI, the near-production versions of the car we previously knew as the ID.2, looked less radical in comparison, but they still represent a shift in the automaker’s design that hearkens back to the solid shapes and surfaces that made some of the brand’s biggest sellers so enduring.
Think about how fresh the Mk4 Golf still looks almost 30 years after we first met it, or the Mk1 does more than 50 years after it debuted. That’s the kind of self-assured, non-faddy style the ID. Polo embraces, but at the same time the ID. Cross showed VW could also have some fun with the same design language.
Photos Stefan Baldauf & Guido ten Brink
And now it’s time for our question of the day: do you think the German automakers have got their design act together, or do some of them need to get back to the drawing board? And in the battle of the grilles, who did it best – BMW, Audi or Mercedes? Leave a comment below and let us know your opinions and the reasoning behind them.
Italdesign designed the EVX as a futuristic two-door coupe crossover concept.
VW is showcasing the car in the virtual realm at Munich’s IAA Mobility Show.
Concept cars often spark the imagination, and the Volkswagen EVX is no exception. With its sharp angles and an aggressive stance, it looks every bit the futuristic coupe crossover. Yet despite its eye-catching form, the odds of it ever making it to production are near to zero. Designed by the specialists at Italdesign, the EVX takes shape as a 2+2 coupe based on the VW Group’s MEB+ platform.
Admittedly, calling the EVX a coupe might be stretching the definition, but in all fairness, it does at least come with two doors, unlike most crossovers that borrow the coupe label while offering little more than a sloping roofline.
It measures 166.5 inches (4,230 mm) long, 71.6 inches (1,820 mm) wide, and strands 58.6 inches (1,490 mm) tall, meaning it’s roughly 4.7 inches (120 mm) longer than a VW T-Cross, 2.3 inches (60 mm) wider, and sits 3.4 inches (87 mm) lower.
Breaking From the Mold
It seems that Italdesign, which is owned by the VW Group, was given a blank sheet when creating the car, not needing to draw on influences from existing VW models. This has allowed it to create a car that looks unlike any other VW Group product and, in the extremely unlikely event that it was ever produced, it would also stand out from all the cookie-cutter crossovers on the market right now. It reminds us a little of the latest-gen Toyota C-HR sold in Europe, but isn’t as quirky.
Found at the front is a blacked-out lower grille and two triangular air intakes housing small LED daytime running lights. There are also a pair of sharp LED headlights that catch the eye, as well as a shapely hood with plenty of curves and creases.
From the side, the concept shows off camera-based mirrors mounted on the A-pillars, two-tone wheels in silver and black, and muscular rear arches. The rear design keeps the drama going with a steeply angled rear window, slim LED taillights, and a blacked-out bumper.
Only in the Digital World?
For now, VW is displaying the EVX virtually at the Munich motor show. Whether such a design could ever make it to production remains uncertain, though it’s fair to say it would shake up the usual crossover formula if it did. So the real question is, if a model like this hit the road, would it turn your head or just feel like another electric crossover trying too hard?
Audi’s Concept C becomes a production sports car by 2027 without the TT name.
Features may include a virtual gearbox and simulated five-cylinder engine sounds.
CEO hints at R8 revival but focus remains on launching the new electric coupe first.
When Audi discontinued the TT, demand for sports cars was very limited and, for a time, no replacement was in sight. However, a successor is finally on its way. The brand’s striking Concept C is “90 percent there” in terms of production planning, according to the four-ring brand’s CEO. Evidently, it’ll roll into showrooms in 2027, along with fake gear shifts and faux five-cylinder noises. Here’s everything we just learned from Audi’s boss.
For those who haven’t being paying attention, the Concept C that made its world premiere this week showcases Audi’s big new design direction. It’s a mix of mostly straight angular lines with a few soft curves here and there. CEO Gernot Döllner said that it’s something in between the TT and the R8, and that’s an apt description of the car from the looks of it.
Beneath the surface, it shares close ties with Porsche’s next 718 EV, a project that is still in development though running behind schedule.
What’s truly interesting, though, is what Top Gear got out of Döllner at the Munich motor show. There, he confirmed that “It’s a fully-functional concept, street legal, you’ll drive it soon.” There’s still one glaring omission, however: a name.
A Car Without a Name
According to Döllner, development moved so quickly that the team didn’t have time to settle on branding.
“It’s not a successor to the TT – it will not have the TT name. We were so fast in developing the concept, we didn’t have time to find a name, so called it Concept C,” Döllner said. “To be honest, it could start with an R or be a name. Sometimes it’s easier to develop a car than find a name for it,” he continued.
Photos Stefan Baldauf & Guido ten Brink
Virtual Gearbox Plans
That’s not the only new detail. The upcoming production car will almost certainly have a virtual gearbox. “We found that a virtual gearbox and sound really add something to driving an electric car. Even on the racetrack, I’m faster with a car with a virtual gearbox,” he told the magazine. “We’re developing it, I think we’ll have one. The company is quite open to finding innovative solutions in this area.”
Those innovations may extend to sound as well. Döllner hinted that Audi could simulate the iconic growl of its five-cylinder turbo engine, a nod to enthusiasts who still mourn its slow fade.
When asked about the lifespan of the engine that lives under the hood of the RS3, Döllner confirmed that it’ll die at some point soon as Audi will not update it for the Euro 7 emission regulations. On the flip side, he did say “maybe it will come back virtually.” We can’t think of a better car for it than whatever the Concept C turns into.
Could The R8 Return?
As for the possibility of a new R8 built on the Lamborghini’s Temerario‘s hybrid V8 twin-turbo platform, surprisingly, that door hasn’t been closed. “Of course there’s room for another car, but we need to go step by step. First of all I have to focus now on our core segments and carry this new design language to series production cars,” Döllner explained.
China is reportedly preparing a ban on fully retractable car door handles starting July 2027.
Regulators cite minimal aerodynamic benefits, high failure rates, and safety hazards in crashes.
Automakers like VW and Audi are already moving toward safer semi-retractable alternatives.
Technology advances at such a rapid pace that sometimes it creates more problems than it solves. China’s regulators are preparing to crack down on what they see as a great example of that: fully retractable door handles. A new set of standards could explicitly prohibit hidden handles on new vehicles. If these become law, it could have ripples across the globe.
The proposed regulation, reported by Mingjing Pro, comes from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. It would ban fully retractable handles while still allowing semi-retractable versions. A key requirement is that all vehicles must include a mechanical backup system so doors can be opened during emergencies.
According to Car News China, the final rules could come out by the end of September. Enforcement wouldn’t start until 2027, so manufacturers would have a little time to get their production in order. Evidently, many automakers already know about this potential change, so they might already be working on a solution.
The Problem With Flush Handles
Flush door handles have been a hallmark of modern EVs, touted not just for their futuristic look but also their aerodynamic gains. Real-world data appears to throw a wrench in that latter point, though.
Engineers say that drag reduction due to flush handles amounts to just 0.005-0.01 Cd, saving about 0.6 kWh per 100 km. That’s a very small amount and even more negligible for those who charge at home. At the same time, adding the motors and mechanisms that make these doors work can add 7-8 kg of weight.
On top of that, we’ve reported on countless examples of door handles like this failing. Frozen motors can leave motorists stranded with no quick way into their car. Crash data indicates that handles can fail more than 30 percent of the time after side impacts. When it comes time for replacement, they’re far more expensive, too.
What Happens If China Bans Them?
If China does move forward with this ban, it could actually affect handles everywhere. Many automakers see the world’s biggest car market as a huge part of their own business plan. Changing their design to conform to such rules would likely mean keeping that same non-flush design in other markets as well.
Again, that wouldn’t stop automakers from using semi-flush handles, but it could stop fully flush ones from popping up in the future.
Master Plan IV video showed scale models of a Cybertruck-inspired SUV in the background.
CyberSUV could offer a three-row interior, advanced tech, and rugged Cybertruck styling.
Tesla hasn’t confirmed plans but may be gauging demand for a full-size electric SUV.
Tesla might have just dropped its strongest hint yet that a Cybertruck-inspired SUV could very well be on the table. In its new “Sustainable Abundance – Master Plan IV” video, clay models of the upcoming Cybercab were featured in the foreground of some frames. The real surprise, though, was in the background, where scale models sat on a shelf. They appear to be three-row Cybertruck-inspired Tesla SUVs.
Elon Musk’s company is typically very secretive about its design process. While we show you leaks from automakers all over the world, it’s rare for Tesla to let something big slip. For example, the Cybertruck and the second-generation Roadster never leaked before their debuts. It’s curious then that it would publish the video below with these models in the background.
From Pickup to Family SUV
A ‘CyberSUV’ has been a point of speculation since the Cybertruck first debuted in 2019. The idea is simple but potentially game-changing. Take the rugged-looking stainless steel wedge aesthetic of the pickup and shape it into a three-row SUV.
It would essentially trade the bed for a more family-friendly interior while keeping the major bones of the Cybertruck itself. The 48-volt system, the steer-by-wire, and adaptive suspension could just carry over.
Such a model would give Tesla something that it has always lacked, a true full-size SUV to rival cars like the Cadillac Escalade IQ, Rivian R1S, and Kia EV9. The Model X is a bit too small and dainty to cover that territory, and the Model Y L is really a different proposition altogether, not to mention it might not end up in America at all. On top of that, rugged off-road vehicles are very popular, but short of the Cybertruck, Tesla doesn’t sell such a car.
That all said, there’s good reason to think the CyberSUV might end up being just a fanciful design study. Teslarati points out the company’s Q4 2024 Shareholder Deck, which explicitly stated that no future vehicles would use a stainless steel exoskeleton like the Cybertruck does.
Of course, if Tesla could find a way to repurpose the vast majority of Cybertruck chassis and structural design, it could allow the brand to better use the production capacity it thought it would need for the truck.
For now, the CyberSUV remains speculative. But if Tesla is truly considering it, the SUV could become the brand’s next breakout hit. It could even signal future design language for the entire lineup.
VW revealed sketches of a new concept set to debut at the Munich auto show.
The design previews a subcompact electric SUV heading to production next year.
This EV will serve as the electric equivalent of the current Volkswagen T-Cross.
Volkswagen’s lineup for the IAA Mobility Show in Munich will include more than just the next-generation T-Roc. Visitors will also get a first conceptual look at an upcoming entry-level electric SUV, previewed in official design sketches that surfaced ahead of schedule.
The images were posted on social media by Andreas Mindt, Volkswagen’s head of design. While the teaser stops short of revealing a name, it describes the model as a “near-production concept car.” Positioned as the zero-emission counterpart to the T-Cross, it will also serve as a smaller sibling to the popular ID.4.
Big presence in a small package
Although it sits in the subcompact SUV class, the sketches give the model a surprisingly imposing presence, helped along by oversized alloy wheels and stretched proportions. It is worth remembering, though, that design drawings often exaggerate these elements, and in this case we are still looking at a concept rather than a finished production car.
The front end sports slim LED headlights and a rugged skid plate on the bumper. The profile features sculpted fenders similar to the ID.Every1 concept, and a wraparound greenhouse. Finally, the rear end sports full-width taillights and a futuristic diffuser with extra LEDs. The latter will likely be toned-down in the final product together with some other details.
The SUV will ride on MEB Entry underpinnings, just like the production versions of the ID.1Every and ID.2All hatchback concepts. Buyers can expect both front- and all-wheel-drive versions, with single- and dual-motor configurations likely in the lineup.
Volkswagen hasn’t confirmed when the production version will arrive, though a debut next year seems plausible. The EV will be produced at the Pamplona facility in Spain, next to the ICE-powered T-Cross and Taigo crossovers that also occupy the B-SUV segment. The same factory will be home of production for the closely-related Skoda Epiq that was shown in concept form last year.
How much will it cost?
With the ID.2all hatchback targeting a €25,000 starting price in Germany (about $27,000), including the country’s 19% Value-Added Tax, this higher-riding SUV is expected to slot slightly above, likely in the €25,000–30,000 range (roughly $27,000 to $32,000).
When it arrives, it will enter a crowded arena of compact electric SUVs, competing with models such as the Kia EV2 and EV3, Toyota Urban Cruiser, Suzuki e-Vitara, Ford Puma Gen-E, Peugeot E-2008, Opel Mokka Electric, Jeep Avenger, Alfa Romeo Junior Elettrica, and Volvo EX30.
On May 6, MIT AgeLab’s Advanced Vehicle Technology (AVT) Consortium, part of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, celebrated 10 years of its global academic-industry collaboration. AVT was founded with the aim of developing new data that contribute to automotive manufacturers, suppliers, and insurers’ real-world understanding of how drivers use and respond to increasingly sophisticated vehicle technologies, such as assistive and automated driving, while accelerating the applied insight needed to advance design and development. The celebration event brought together stakeholders from across the industry for a set of keynote addresses and panel discussions on critical topics significant to the industry and its future, including artificial intelligence, automotive technology, collision repair, consumer behavior, sustainability, vehicle safety policy, and global competitiveness.
Bryan Reimer, founder and co-director of the AVT Consortium, opened the event by remarking that over the decade AVT has collected hundreds of terabytes of data, presented and discussed research with its over 25 member organizations, supported members’ strategic and policy initiatives, published select outcomes, and built AVT into a global influencer with tremendous impact in the automotive industry. He noted that current opportunities and challenges for the industry include distracted driving, a lack of consumer trust and concerns around transparency in assistive and automated driving features, and high consumer expectations for vehicle technology, safety, and affordability. How will industry respond? Major players in attendance weighed in.
In a powerful exchange on vehicle safety regulation, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Mark Rosekind, former chief safety innovation officer of Zoox, former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, challenged industry and government to adopt a more strategic, data-driven, and collaborative approach to safety. They asserted that regulation must evolve alongside innovation, not lag behind it by decades. Appealing to the automakers in attendance, Bozzella cited the success of voluntary commitments on automatic emergency braking as a model for future progress. “That’s a way to do something important and impactful ahead of regulation.” They advocated for shared data platforms, anonymous reporting, and a common regulatory vision that sets safety baselines while allowing room for experimentation. The 40,000 annual road fatalities demand urgency — what’s needed is a move away from tactical fixes and toward a systemic safety strategy. “Safety delayed is safety denied,” Rosekind stated. “Tell me how you’re going to improve safety. Let’s be explicit.”
Drawing inspiration from aviation’s exemplary safety record, Kathy Abbott, chief scientific and technical advisor for the Federal Aviation Administration, pointed to a culture of rigorous regulation, continuous improvement, and cross-sectoral data sharing. Aviation’s model, built on highly trained personnel and strict predictability standards, contrasts sharply with the fragmented approach in the automotive industry. The keynote emphasized that a foundation of safety culture — one that recognizes that technological ability alone isn’t justification for deployment — must guide the auto industry forward. Just as aviation doesn’t equate absence of failure with success, vehicle safety must be measured holistically and proactively.
With assistive and automated driving top of mind in the industry, Pete Bigelow of Automotive News offered a pragmatic diagnosis. With companies like Ford and Volkswagen stepping back from full autonomy projects like Argo AI, the industry is now focused on Level 2 and 3 technologies, which refer to assisted and automated driving, respectively. Tesla, GM, and Mercedes are experimenting with subscription models for driver assistance systems, yet consumer confusion remains high. JD Power reports that many drivers do not grasp the differences between L2 and L2+, or whether these technologies offer safety or convenience features. Safety benefits have yet to manifest in reduced traffic deaths, which have risen by 20 percent since 2020. The recurring challenge: L3 systems demand that human drivers take over during technical difficulties, despite driver disengagement being their primary benefit, potentially worsening outcomes. Bigelow cited a quote from Bryan Reimer as one of the best he’s received in his career: “Level 3 systems are an engineer’s dream and a plaintiff attorney’s next yacht,” highlighting the legal and design complexity of systems that demand handoffs between machine and human.
In terms of the impact of AI on the automotive industry, Mauricio Muñoz, senior research engineer at AI Sweden, underscored that despite AI’s transformative potential, the automotive industry cannot rely on general AI megatrends to solve domain-specific challenges. While landmark achievements like AlphaFold demonstrate AI’s prowess, automotive applications require domain expertise, data sovereignty, and targeted collaboration. Energy constraints, data firewalls, and the high costs of AI infrastructure all pose limitations, making it critical that companies fund purpose-driven research that can reduce costs and improve implementation fidelity. Muñoz warned that while excitement abounds — with some predicting artificial superintelligence by 2028 — real progress demands organizational alignment and a deep understanding of the automotive context, not just computational power.
Turning the focus to consumers, a collision repair panel drawing Richard Billyeald from Thatcham Research, Hami Ebrahimi from Caliber Collision, and Mike Nelson from Nelson Law explored the unintended consequences of vehicle technology advances: spiraling repair costs, labor shortages, and a lack of repairability standards. Panelists warned that even minor repairs for advanced vehicles now require costly and complex sensor recalibrations — compounded by inconsistent manufacturer guidance and no clear consumer alerts when systems are out of calibration. The panel called for greater standardization, consumer education, and repair-friendly design. As insurance premiums climb and more people forgo insurance claims, the lack of coordination between automakers, regulators, and service providers threatens consumer safety and undermines trust. The group warned that until Level 2 systems function reliably and affordably, moving toward Level 3 autonomy is premature and risky.
While the repair panel emphasized today’s urgent challenges, other speakers looked to the future. Honda’s Ryan Harty, for example, highlighted the company’s aggressive push toward sustainability and safety. Honda aims for zero environmental impact and zero traffic fatalities, with plans to be 100 percent electric by 2040 and to lead in energy storage and clean power integration. The company has developed tools to coach young drivers and is investing in charging infrastructure, grid-aware battery usage, and green hydrogen storage. “What consumers buy in the market dictates what the manufacturers make,” Harty noted, underscoring the importance of aligning product strategy with user demand and environmental responsibility. He stressed that manufacturers can only decarbonize as fast as the industry allows, and emphasized the need to shift from cost-based to life-cycle-based product strategies.
Finally, a panel involving Laura Chace of ITS America, Jon Demerly of Qualcomm, Brad Stertz of Audi/VW Group, and Anant Thaker of Aptiv covered the near-, mid-, and long-term future of vehicle technology. Panelists emphasized that consumer expectations, infrastructure investment, and regulatory modernization must evolve together. Despite record bicycle fatality rates and persistent distracted driving, features like school bus detection and stop sign alerts remain underutilized due to skepticism and cost. Panelists stressed that we must design systems for proactive safety rather than reactive response. The slow integration of digital infrastructure — sensors, edge computing, data analytics — stems not only from technical hurdles, but procurement and policy challenges as well.
Reimer concluded the event by urging industry leaders to re-center the consumer in all conversations — from affordability to maintenance and repair. With the rising costs of ownership, growing gaps in trust in technology, and misalignment between innovation and consumer value, the future of mobility depends on rebuilding trust and reshaping industry economics. He called for global collaboration, greater standardization, and transparent innovation that consumers can understand and afford. He highlighted that global competitiveness and public safety both hang in the balance. As Reimer noted, “success will come through partnerships” — between industry, academia, and government — that work toward shared investment, cultural change, and a collective willingness to prioritize the public good.
Across a career’s worth of pioneering product designs, Doug Field’s work has shaped the experience of anyone who’s ever used a MacBook Air, ridden a Segway, or driven a Tesla Model 3.
But his newest project is his most ambitious yet: reinventing the Ford automobile, one of the past century’s most iconic pieces of technology.
As Ford’s chief electric vehicle (EV), digital, and design officer, Field is tasked with leading the development of the company’s electric vehicles, while making new software platforms central to all Ford models.
To bring Ford Motor Co. into that digital and electric future, Field effectively has to lead a fast-moving startup inside the legacy carmaker. “It is incredibly hard, figuring out how to do ‘startups’ within large organizations,” he concedes.
If anyone can pull it off, it’s likely to be Field. Ever since his time in MIT’s Leaders for Global Operations (then known as “Leaders in Manufacturing”) program studying organizational behavior and strategy, Field has been fixated on creating the conditions that foster innovation.
“The natural state of an organization is to make it harder and harder to do those things: to innovate, to have small teams, to go against the grain,” he says. To overcome those forces, Field has become a master practitioner of the art of curating diverse, talented teams and helping them flourish inside of big, complex companies.
“It’s one thing to make a creative environment where you can come up with big ideas,” he says. “It’s another to create an execution-focused environment to crank things out. I became intrigued with, and have been for the rest of my career, this question of how can you have both work together?”
Three decades after his first stint as a development engineer at Ford Motor Co., Field now has a chance to marry the manufacturing muscle of Ford with the bold approach that helped him rethink Apple’s laptops and craft Tesla’s Model 3 sedan. His task is nothing less than rethinking how cars are made and operated, from the bottom up.
“If it’s only creative or execution, you’re not going to change the world,” he says. “If you want to have a huge impact, you need people to change the course you’re on, and you need people to build it.”
A passion for design
From a young age, Field had a fascination with automobiles. “I was definitely into cars and transportation more generally,” he says. “I thought of cars as the place where technology and art and human design came together — cars were where all my interests intersected.”
With a mother who was an artist and musician and an engineer father, Field credits his parents’ influence for his lifelong interest in both the aesthetic and technical elements of product design. “I think that’s why I’m drawn to autos — there’s very much an aesthetic aspect to the product,” he says.
After earning a degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University, Field took a job at Ford in 1987. The big Detroit automakers of that era excelled at mass-producing cars, but weren’t necessarily set up to encourage or reward innovative thinking. Field chafed at the “overstructured and bureaucratic” operational culture he encountered.
The experience was frustrating at times, but also valuable and clarifying. He realized that he “wanted to work with fast-moving, technology-based businesses.”
“My interest in advancing technical problem-solving didn’t have a place in the auto industry” at the time, he says. “I knew I wanted to work with passionate people and create something that didn’t exist, in an environment where talent and innovation were prized, where irreverence was an asset and not a liability. When I read about Silicon Valley, I loved the way they talked about things.”
During that time, Field took two years off to enroll in MIT’s LGO program, where he deepened his technical skills and encountered ideas about manufacturing processes and team-driven innovation that would serve him well in the years ahead.
“Some of core skill sets that I developed there were really, really important,” he says, “in the context of production lines and production processes.” He studied systems engineering and the use of Monte Carlo simulations to model complex manufacturing environments. During his internship with aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, he worked on automated design in computer-aided design (CAD) systems, long before those techniques became standard practice.
Another powerful tool he picked up was the science of probability and statistics, under the tutelage of MIT Professor Alvin Drake in his legendary course 6.041/6.431 (Probabilistic Systems Analysis). Field would go on to apply those insights not only to production processes, but also to characterizing variability in people’s aptitudes, working styles, and talents, in the service of building better, more innovative teams. And studying organizational strategy catalyzed his career-long interest in “ways to look at innovation as an outcome, rather than a random spark of genius.”
“So many things I was lucky to be exposed to at MIT,” Field says, were “all building blocks, pieces of the puzzle, that helped me navigate through difficult situations later on.”
Learning while leading
After leaving Ford in 1993, Field worked at Johnson and Johnson Medical for three years in process development. There, he met Segway inventor Dean Kamen, who was working on a project called the iBOT, a gyroscopic powered wheelchair that could climb stairs.
When Kamen spun off Segway to develop a new personal mobility device using the same technology, Field became his first hire. He spent nearly a decade as the firm’s chief technology officer.
At Segway, Field’s interests in vehicles, technology, innovation, process, and human-centered design all came together.
“When I think about working now on electric cars, it was a real gift,” he says. The problems they tackled prefigured the ones he would grapple with later at Tesla and Ford. “Segway was very much a precursor to a modern EV. Completely software controlled, with higher-voltage batteries, redundant systems, traction control, brushless DC motors — it was basically a miniature Tesla in the year 2000.”
At Segway, Field assembled an “amazing” team of engineers and designers who were as passionate as he was about pushing the envelope. “Segway was the first place I was able to hand-pick every single person I worked with, define the culture, and define the mission.”
As he grew into this leadership role, he became equally engrossed with cracking another puzzle: “How do you prize people who don’t fit in?”
“Such a fundamental part of the fabric of Silicon Valley is the love of embracing talent over a traditional organization’s ways of measuring people,” he says. “If you want to innovate, you need to learn how to manage neurodivergence and a very different set of personalities than the people you find in large corporations.”
Field still keeps the base housing of a Segway in his office, as a reminder of what those kinds of teams — along with obsessive attention to detail — can achieve.
Before joining Apple in 2008, he showed that component, with its clean lines and every minuscule part in its place in one unified package, to his prospective new colleagues. “They were like, “OK, you’re one of us,’” he recalls.
He soon became vice president of hardware development for all Mac computers, leading the teams behind the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro and eventually overseeing more than 2,000 employees. “Making things really simple and really elegant, thinking about the product as an integrated whole, that really took me into Apple.”
The challenge of giving the MacBook Air its signature sleek and light profile is an example.
“The MacBook Air was the first high-volume consumer electronic product built out of a CNC-machined enclosure,” says Field. He worked with industrial design and technology teams to devise a way to make the laptop from one solid piece of aluminum and jettison two-thirds of the parts found in the iMac. “We had material cut away so that every single screw and piece of electronics sat down into it an integrated way. That’s how we got the product so small and slim.”
“When I interviewed with Jony Ive” — Apple’s legendary chief design officer — “he said your ability to zoom out and zoom in was the number one most important ability as a leader at Apple.” That meant zooming out to think about “the entire ethos of this product, and the way it will affect the world” and zooming all the way back in to obsess over, say, the physical shape of the laptop itself and what it feels like in a user’s hands.
“That thread of attention to detail, passion for product, design plus technology rolled directly into what I was doing at Tesla,” he says. When Field joined Tesla in 2013, he was drawn to the way the brash startup upended the approach to making cars. “Tesla was integrating digital technology into cars in a way nobody else was. They said, ‘We’re not a car company in Silicon Valley, we’re a Silicon Valley company and we happen to make cars.’”
Field assembled and led the team that produced the Model 3 sedan, Tesla’s most affordable vehicle, designed to have mass-market appeal.
That experience only reinforced the importance, and power, of zooming in and out as a designer — in a way that encompasses the bigger human resources picture.
“You have to have a broad sense of what you’re trying to accomplish and help people in the organization understand what it means to them,” he says. “You have to go across and understand operations enough to glue all of those (things) together — while still being great at and focused on something very, very deeply. That’s T-shaped leadership.”
He credits his time at LGO with providing the foundation for the “T-shaped leadership” he practices.
“An education like the one I got at MIT allowed me to keep moving that ‘T’, to focus really deep, learn a ton, teach as much as I can, and after something gets more mature, pull out and bed down into other areas where the organization needs to grow or where there’s a crisis.”
The power of marrying scale to a “startup mentality”
In 2018, Field returned to Apple as a vice president for special projects. “I left Tesla after Model 3 and Y started to ramp, as there were people better than me to run high-volume manufacturing,” he says. “I went back to Apple hoping what Tesla had learned would motivate Apple to get into a different market.”
That market was his early love: cars. Field quietly led a project to develop an electric vehicle at Apple for three years.
Then Ford CEO Jim Farley came calling. He persuaded Field to return to Ford in late 2021, partly by demonstrating how much things had changed since his first stint as the carmaker.
“Two things came through loud and clear,” Field says. “One was humility. ‘Our success is not assured.’” That attitude was strikingly different from Field’s early experience in Detroit, encountering managers who were resistant to change. “The other thing was urgency. Jim and Bill Ford said the exact same thing to me: ‘We have four or five years to completely remake this company.’”
“I said, ‘OK, if the top of company really believes that, then the auto industry may be ready for what I hope to offer.’”
So far, Field is energized and encouraged by the appetite for reinvention he’s encountered this time around at Ford.
“If you can combine what Ford does really well with what a Tesla or Rivian can do well, this is something to be reckoned with,” says Field. “Skunk works have become one of the fundamental tools of my career,” he says, using an industry term that describes a project pursued by a small, autonomous group of people within a larger organization.
Ford has been developing a new, lower-cost, software-enabled EV platform — running all of the car’s sensors and components from a central digital operating system — with a “skunk works” team for the past two years. The company plans to build new sedans, SUVs, and small pickups based on this new platform.
With other legacy carmakers like Volvo racing into the electric future and fierce competition from EV leaders Tesla and Rivian, Field and his colleagues have their work cut out for them.
If he succeeds, leveraging his decades of learning and leading from LGO to Silicon Valley, then his latest chapter could transform the way we all drive — and secure a spot for Ford at the front of the electric vehicle pack in the process.
“I’ve been lucky to feel over and over that what I’m doing right now — they are going to write a book about it,” say Field. “This is a big deal, for Ford and the U.S. auto industry, and for American industry, actually.”
“So many things I was lucky to be exposed to at MIT,” Doug Field says, were “all building blocks, pieces of the puzzle, that helped me navigate through difficult situations later on.”
Car design is an iterative and proprietary process. Carmakers can spend several years on the design phase for a car, tweaking 3D forms in simulations before building out the most promising designs for physical testing. The details and specs of these tests, including the aerodynamics of a given car design, are typically not made public. Significant advances in performance, such as in fuel efficiency or electric vehicle range, can therefore be slow and siloed from company to company.
MIT engineers say that the search for better car designs can speed up exponentially with the use of generative artificial intelligence tools that can plow through huge amounts of data in seconds and find connections to generate a novel design. While such AI tools exist, the data they would need to learn from have not been available, at least in any sort of accessible, centralized form.
But now, the engineers have made just such a dataset available to the public for the first time. Dubbed DrivAerNet++, the dataset encompasses more than 8,000 car designs, which the engineers generated based on the most common types of cars in the world today. Each design is represented in 3D form and includes information on the car’s aerodynamics — the way air would flow around a given design, based on simulations of fluid dynamics that the group carried out for each design.
Each of the dataset’s 8,000 designs is available in several representations, such as mesh, point cloud, or a simple list of the design’s parameters and dimensions. As such, the dataset can be used by different AI models that are tuned to process data in a particular modality.
DrivAerNet++ is the largest open-source dataset for car aerodynamics that has been developed to date. The engineers envision it being used as an extensive library of realistic car designs, with detailed aerodynamics data that can be used to quickly train any AI model. These models can then just as quickly generate novel designs that could potentially lead to more fuel-efficient cars and electric vehicles with longer range, in a fraction of the time that it takes the automotive industry today.
“This dataset lays the foundation for the next generation of AI applications in engineering, promoting efficient design processes, cutting R&D costs, and driving advancements toward a more sustainable automotive future,” says Mohamed Elrefaie, a mechanical engineering graduate student at MIT.
Elrefaie and his colleagues will present a paper detailing the new dataset, and AI methods that could be applied to it, at the NeurIPS conference in December. His co-authors are Faez Ahmed, assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, along with Angela Dai, associate professor of computer science at the Technical University of Munich, and Florin Marar of BETA CAE Systems.
Filling the data gap
Ahmed leads the Design Computation and Digital Engineering Lab (DeCoDE) at MIT, where his group explores ways in which AI and machine-learning tools can be used to enhance the design of complex engineering systems and products, including car technology.
“Often when designing a car, the forward process is so expensive that manufacturers can only tweak a car a little bit from one version to the next,” Ahmed says. “But if you have larger datasets where you know the performance of each design, now you can train machine-learning models to iterate fast so you are more likely to get a better design.”
And speed, particularly for advancing car technology, is particularly pressing now.
“This is the best time for accelerating car innovations, as automobiles are one of the largest polluters in the world, and the faster we can shave off that contribution, the more we can help the climate,” Elrefaie says.
In looking at the process of new car design, the researchers found that, while there are AI models that could crank through many car designs to generate optimal designs, the car data that is actually available is limited. Some researchers had previously assembled small datasets of simulated car designs, while car manufacturers rarely release the specs of the actual designs they explore, test, and ultimately manufacture.
The team sought to fill the data gap, particularly with respect to a car’s aerodynamics, which plays a key role in setting the range of an electric vehicle, and the fuel efficiency of an internal combustion engine. The challenge, they realized, was in assembling a dataset of thousands of car designs, each of which is physically accurate in their function and form, without the benefit of physically testing and measuring their performance.
To build a dataset of car designs with physically accurate representations of their aerodynamics, the researchers started with several baseline 3D models that were provided by Audi and BMW in 2014. These models represent three major categories of passenger cars: fastback (sedans with a sloped back end), notchback (sedans or coupes with a slight dip in their rear profile) and estateback (such as station wagons with more blunt, flat backs). The baseline models are thought to bridge the gap between simple designs and more complicated proprietary designs, and have been used by other groups as a starting point for exploring new car designs.
Library of cars
In their new study, the team applied a morphing operation to each of the baseline car models. This operation systematically made a slight change to each of 26 parameters in a given car design, such as its length, underbody features, windshield slope, and wheel tread, which it then labeled as a distinct car design, which was then added to the growing dataset. Meanwhile, the team ran an optimization algorithm to ensure that each new design was indeed distinct, and not a copy of an already-generated design. They then translated each 3D design into different modalities, such that a given design can be represented as a mesh, a point cloud, or a list of dimensions and specs.
The researchers also ran complex, computational fluid dynamics simulations to calculate how air would flow around each generated car design. In the end, this effort produced more than 8,000 distinct, physically accurate 3D car forms, encompassing the most common types of passenger cars on the road today.
To produce this comprehensive dataset, the researchers spent over 3 million CPU hours using the MIT SuperCloud, and generated 39 terabytes of data. (For comparison, it’s estimated that the entire printed collection of the Library of Congress would amount to about 10 terabytes of data.)
The engineers say that researchers can now use the dataset to train a particular AI model. For instance, an AI model could be trained on a part of the dataset to learn car configurations that have certain desirable aerodynamics. Within seconds, the model could then generate a new car design with optimized aerodynamics, based on what it has learned from the dataset’s thousands of physically accurate designs.
The researchers say the dataset could also be used for the inverse goal. For instance, after training an AI model on the dataset, designers could feed the model a specific car design and have it quickly estimate the design’s aerodynamics, which can then be used to compute the car’s potential fuel efficiency or electric range — all without carrying out expensive building and testing of a physical car.
“What this dataset allows you to do is train generative AI models to do things in seconds rather than hours,” Ahmed says. “These models can help lower fuel consumption for internal combustion vehicles and increase the range of electric cars — ultimately paving the way for more sustainable, environmentally friendly vehicles.”
“The dataset is very comprehensive and consists of a diverse set of modalities that are valuable to understand both styling and performance,” says Yanxia Zhang, a senior machine learning research scientist at Toyota Research Institute, who was not involved in the study.
This work was supported, in part, by the German Academic Exchange Service and the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT.
In a new dataset that includes more than 8,000 car designs, MIT engineers simulated the aerodynamics for a given car shape, which they represent in various modalities, including “surface fields.”
As a major contributor to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the transportation sector has immense potential to advance decarbonization. However, a zero-emissions global supply chain requires re-imagining reliance on a heavy-duty trucking industry that emits 810,000 tons of CO2, or 6 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions, and consumes 29 billion gallons of diesel annually in the U.S. alone.
A new study by MIT researchers, presented at the recent American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2024 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, quantifies the impact of a zero-emission truck’s design range on its energy storage requirements and operational revenue. The multivariable model outlined in the paper allows fleet owners and operators to better understand the design choices that impact the economic feasibility of battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell heavy-duty trucks for commercial application, equipping stakeholders to make informed fleet transition decisions.
“The whole issue [of decarbonizing trucking] is like a very big, messy pie. One of the things we can do, from an academic standpoint, is quantify some of those pieces of pie with modeling, based on information and experience we’ve learned from industry stakeholders,” says ZhiYi Liang, PhD student on the renewable hydrogen team at the MIT K. Lisa Yang Global Engineering and Research Center (GEAR) and lead author of the study. Co-authored by Bryony DuPont, visiting scholar at GEAR, and Amos Winter, the Germeshausen Professor in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, the paper elucidates operational and socioeconomic factors that need to be considered in efforts to decarbonize heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs).
Operational and infrastructure challenges
The team’s model shows that a technical challenge lies in the amount of energy that needs to be stored on the truck to meet the range and towing performance needs of commercial trucking applications. Due to the high energy density and low cost of diesel, existing diesel drivetrains remain more competitive than alternative lithium battery-electric vehicle (Li-BEV) and hydrogen fuel-cell-electric vehicle (H2 FCEV) drivetrains. Although Li-BEV drivetrains have the highest energy efficiency of all three, they are limited to short-to-medium range routes (under 500 miles) with low freight capacity, due to the weight and volume of the onboard energy storage needed. In addition, the authors note that existing electric grid infrastructure will need significant upgrades to support large-scale deployment of Li-BEV HDVs.
While the hydrogen-powered drivetrain has a significant weight advantage that enables higher cargo capacity and routes over 750 miles, the current state of hydrogen fuel networks limits economic viability, especially once operational cost and projected revenue are taken into account. Deployment will most likely require government intervention in the form of incentives and subsidies to reduce the price of hydrogen by more than half, as well as continued investment by corporations to ensure a stable supply. Also, as H2-FCEVs are still a relatively new technology, the ongoing design of conformal onboard hydrogen storage systems — one of which is the subject of Liang’s PhD — is crucial to successful adoption into the HDV market.
The current efficiency of diesel systems is a result of technological developments and manufacturing processes established over many decades, a precedent that suggests similar strides can be made with alternative drivetrains. However, interactions with fleet owners, automotive manufacturers, and refueling network providers reveal another major hurdle in the way that each “slice of the pie” is interrelated — issues must be addressed simultaneously because of how they affect each other, from renewable fuel infrastructure to technological readiness and capital cost of new fleets, among other considerations. And first steps into an uncertain future, where no one sector is fully in control of potential outcomes, is inherently risky.
“Besides infrastructure limitations, we only have prototypes [of alternative HDVs] for fleet operator use, so the cost of procuring them is high, which means there isn’t demand for automakers to build manufacturing lines up to a scale that would make them economical to produce,” says Liang, describing just one step of a vicious cycle that is difficult to disrupt, especially for industry stakeholders trying to be competitive in a free market.
Quantifying a path to feasibility
“Folks in the industry know that some kind of energy transition needs to happen, but they may not necessarily know for certain what the most viable path forward is,” says Liang. Although there is no singular avenue to zero emissions, the new model provides a way to further quantify and assess at least one slice of pie to aid decision-making.
Other MIT-led efforts aimed at helping industry stakeholders navigate decarbonization include an interactive mapping tool developed by Danika MacDonell, Impact Fellow at the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC); alongside Florian Allroggen, executive director of MITs Zero Impact Aviation Alliance; and undergraduate researchers Micah Borrero, Helena De Figueiredo Valente, and Brooke Bao. The MCSC’s Geospatial Decision Support Tool supports strategic decision-making for fleet operators by allowing them to visualize regional freight flow densities, costs, emissions, planned and available infrastructure, and relevant regulations and incentives by region.
While current limitations reveal the need for joint problem-solving across sectors, the authors believe that stakeholders are motivated and ready to tackle climate problems together. Once-competing businesses already appear to be embracing a culture shift toward collaboration, with the recent agreement between General Motors and Hyundai to explore “future collaboration across key strategic areas,” including clean energy.
Liang believes that transitioning the transportation sector to zero emissions is just one part of an “energy revolution” that will require all sectors to work together, because “everything is connected. In order for the whole thing to make sense, we need to consider ourselves part of that pie, and the entire system needs to change,” says Liang. “You can’t make a revolution succeed by yourself.”
The authors acknowledge the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium for connecting them with industry members in the HDV ecosystem; and the MIT K. Lisa Yang Global Engineering and Research Center and MIT Morningside Academy for Design for financial support.
A new study by MIT researchers quantifies the impact of a zero-emission truck’s design range on its energy storage requirements and operational revenue.
Login
