Rivian is developing its own steer-by-wire system without a physical steering wheel connection.
A program manager will oversee development, supplier relations, and quality control processes.
Steer-by-wire offers packaging advantages, variable steering ratios, and proven reliability in aviation.
Automakers are always working on new innovations, updates to products, and ways to improve their cars. What they rarely do is reinvent the wheel, so to speak. That’s almost what Rivian is trying to do right now. Put more directly, it’s trying to reinvent how its customers connect their steering wheel to their front wheels.
Most new cars on sale today, except for a few models like the Tesla Cybertruck, Nio ET9, and overseas Lexus RZ, retain a physical connection between the steering wheel and front wheels. Tesla’s setup uses three sensors to interpret the driver’s inputs and instruct the front tires to match them. When it works, it earns plenty of praise, but when it doesn’t, it attracts just as much criticism. Rivian is now working on its own version.
A Glimpse Into Rivian’s Plans
Spotted by the folks over at Rivian Forums, the automaker recently posted an interesting job listing to its website. It’s for a Senior Staff Technical Program Manager. That program is for a steering actuator system. Essentially, it’s the brain behind a steer-by-wire system, and Rivian openly mentions that in the listing. “You’ll have full cradle-to-grave ownership of the SBW subsystem,” it says.
Essentially, whoever Rivian hires is going to be the head honcho in this endeavor. The company says they’ll oversee supplier relationships, risk management, coordinate with other teams, handle problem-solving, and quality assurance, among other duties. They’ll even have to report on progress to shareholders, so we could hear from them on earnings calls in the future.
Why Steer-by-Wire Appeals to Automakers
In some ways, it makes sense that Rivian and other automakers look into steer-by-wire more. It has the potential to reduce engineering challenges related to packaging. On the flip side, it also provides the benefit of variable steering ratios. As mentioned, the Cybertruck already shows us how this would work.
The steering wheel doesn’t have to turn over and over to get a full sweep from left to right. Instead, the Tesla reads input from the driver and then provides steering angle changes based on speed.
When it works, people seem genuinely impressed by it, and to Tesla’s credit, we have yet to see a failure leading to an accident. Notably, the technology was already mature way before Elon Musk’s company adopted it. Commercial airplanes all use a steer-by-wire system, and it’s notoriously reliable.
It’s unclear when we’ll see this technology go live in a production Rivian, but expect it to take at least a year or two. When it does arrive, we expect it’ll be in several models as the listing calls it “a critical technology that will define the future of our vehicles.”
Ford opened a 250,000 sq-ft EV development center in Long Beach, California.
The new team will develop a low-cost electric midsize truck by 2027.
A former Tesla engineer leads the 350-person EV skunkworks team at Ford.
Ford has opened the doors to a new Electric Vehicle Development Center in Long Beach, California, signaling a focus on its next chapter in electric mobility. The new campus is dedicated to developing low-cost EVs, including an affordable midsize electric truck that’s expected to launch by 2027.
The 250,000-square-foot Long Beach facility features a range of resources to support the design and testing of new models. It includes a digital visualization room, an outdoor courtyard for hands-on design reviews, a milling and fabrication shop, and fully equipped EV testing labs.
Jolanta Coffey, Director of Ford’s Global New Model Launch and Americas PD Operations, shared on LinkedIn that the Long Beach team is working closely with counterparts in Dearborn to bring Ford’s first low-cost EV platform to life. “Excited to have been here for the official opening and to see so many of the team in person,” she wrote.
Speaking with Long Beach Post News, Coffey confirmed that a midsize electric truck is in the pipeline, aiming for a 2027 release. While technical specs haven’t been disclosed, the upcoming model is expected to fall in the same size category as the Ford Ranger. The goal, she added, is to “define a new era for electric vehicles.”
Ford
The low-cost EV program, previously known internally as the Skunkworks Team, is being led by Alan Clarke, Ford’s Director of Advanced EV Development. Clarke brings EV experience from his previous role at Tesla, where he served as Director of New Programs Engineering. His team currently includes 350 employees, with plans to add 100 more in the near future.
As part of a broader reshuffle, Ford will be closing its design studio in Irvine this November. Employees from that location have been offered the option to relocate to either Long Beach or Dearborn, Michigan.
In a recent blog post, Ann Diep, a senior technical program manager at Ford, described the new Long Beach facility as an “open collaborative space.” She noted that more details on Ford’s future strategy and manufacturing plans will be shared on August 11, emphasizing that the company is prioritizing “simplicity, efficiency, and the desire to spark excitement” in its development process.
This new campus also marks a return to Long Beach for Ford, which operated an assembly plant in the city from 1930 until 1958. That earlier facility built vehicles like the Ford Model A, along with several Lincoln and Mercury models.
Volkswagen Design spokesperson Stepan Rehak has revealed an electric sports car concept.
The model was sketched in 2017 as a possible addition to the ID. family of EVs.
The car drew inspiration from the SP2 and would have rode on the MEB platform.
Audi is gearing up to preview the TT successor at the Munich Motor Show, but Volkswagen was working on an electric sports car concept of their own years ago. It drew inspiration from the 1970’s SP2 and would have been a member of the ID. family.
Quietly revealed by Volkswagen’s Stepan Rehak as part of a Blast from the Past series, the sketch was created in 2017 and features a retro-futuristic design that “pays tribute to Giugiaro’s iconic style: clean surfaces, strong proportions, and bold graphics.” It was envisioned to ride on the MEB platform and would have undoubtedly been an eye-catching addition to the lineup.
While Rehak didn’t say much about the car, it features an SP2-inspired front end with a small Volkswagen emblem that is flanked by slender headlights. The model also sports angular bodywork, which is contrasted by circular wheel arches.
Other notable highlights include aerodynamically optimized wheels and a sporty greenhouse. They’re accompanied by flush-mounted door handles, minimalist mirrors, and a wraparound rear light bar.
The SP2 isn’t widely known, but the sports car was created by Volkswagen do Brasil and launched in 1972. It featured a 1.7-liter four-cylinder engine that reportedly developed 64 hp (48 kW / 65 PS) and 89 lb-ft (121 Nm) of torque. It was paired to a four-speed manual, which allegedly resulted in a 0-62 mph (0-100 km/h) time of 15 seconds flat.
Tesla is considering a smaller pickup aimed at international markets for wider global appeal.
The idea is gaining traction as Cybertruck sales underperform and utility demand grows.
The company’s VP says design teams are exploring concepts for carrying both people and cargo/
The Tesla Cybertruck can be called a lot of things, but a smashing sales success isn’t one of them. In fact, even Ford’s F-150 Lightning outsold it in the first half of the year. Despite that, the automaker might not be done with truck models.
Over the weekend, Lars Moravy, the company’s VP of Engineering, shared that a smaller truck could be on the table. That could open the door to bringing the Cybertruck’s distinctive design to a broader, global market.
At a Tesla owners and investors event in California, Moravy responded to a question about the idea of a smaller, more compact truck, saying, “We always talked about making a smaller pickup.” Specifically, the automaker knows that the Cybertruck, in its current form, is simply too big for some markets.
A Truck That Fits More Markets
Building a smaller truck wouldn’t just help expand Tesla’s footprint in the pickup segment. It could also meet needs the current lineup doesn’t quite address.
“I think in the future, as more and more of the robotaxi comes into the world, we look at those options and we think about, OK, that kind of service is useful not just for people, but also for goods,” said Moravy, according to Business Insider. This could be a signal that Tesla is looking to expand into the medium-truck or even small van segment.
Speaking specifically about the former, Moravy elaborated further, saying, “We’ve definitely been churning in the design studio about what we might do to serve that need for sure.”
Right now, Tesla doesn’t have anything that really fits into the category of ‘delivery vehicle.’ In fact, many of its remote service vehicles are small gas-powered vans. No doubt, it would prefer to service customer vehicles with one of its own.
Practicality could prove a big selling point, too. The Cybertruck isn’t selling the way Tesla hoped it would. Early adopters picked it up, but sales have stalled out. Plenty of folks see it as a lifestyle vehicle more than a tried-and-true pickup in the conventional sense. Perhaps a mid-size truck would be a way to crack back into the practicality market, the same way the Model Y did so where the Model X couldn’t.
Elon Musk says that we can expect a Model Y of sorts in the brand’s new ‘affordable car.’
Some fans are disappointed, while others express concern about Tesla’s business strategy.
If released this year, the new model could become a very compelling product offering.
Elon Musk may have let the cat out of the bag on Wednesday when he mentioned the Model Y during Tesla’s Q2 earnings call. When asked about the company’s next vehicle, his response led many to believe it could end up being little more than a stripped-down Model Y. Whether that turns out to be the case or not, there’s reason to think the timing might actually work in Tesla’s favor.
Tesla just had an incredibly rough first half of the year. It reported the steepest decline in quarterly revenue (12%) it’s seen in over a decade. That comes despite the recently updated Model Y, the brand’s most popular car. As a result, the stock is down over $30 as of this writing.
The company promised that it has high hopes for the future, and one is a new ‘affordable model.’ Set to go into volume production later this year, Tesla is apparently already building it in low numbers. Amid questions at the end of yesterday’s earnings call, someone asked what the new model would look like.
Hints at the Next Model
Elon Musk cut off another executive who was hesitating to answer the question by saying either “It looks like a Model Y,” or “It’s just a Model Y.” The audio from the video just isn’t crisp enough to be certain. That said, it gives us enough information to come up with some additional conclusions. For one thing, don’t expect some jarring, abrasive, futuristic design like a shrunken Cybertruck.
Whatever this turns out to be, it’s likely to look like, if not actually be, a Model Y with significantly fewer features. Tesla could cut back on battery capacity, remove elements like the rear-seat screen, reduce the number of cameras, and scale down on sound-deadening materials. It might also modify the battery chemistry or swap in different motors to lower production costs. Reusing existing Model Y tooling would almost certainly help keep expenses in check as well.
That said, not everyone is stoked about the possibility of a de-contented Model Y. Some called it out for just being disappointing as a new model. Others are worried it’ll be a massive problem for Tesla as a business. “Model S, Model X, CT are all failing, Model 3 was cannibalized by Model Y being such a success. And now the Model Y lite will crush the Model Y sales with lower margin.”
A Well-Timed Launch?
That may or may not be true, but fans of the brand still have reason to hope for good things. Tesla could still come out on top of this entire situation. Whether the cheaper vehicle coming looks exactly like the current Model Y or a scaled-down version, it sounds like it’s coming at the right time. Federal tax credits are about to go away, at least for the next few years, it seems.
That’ll make selling electric vehicles harder for just about every brand. If Tesla can launch this new ‘affordable model’ just as other brands are now having to sell their cars without the tax credit, it could help Tesla dig out of the hole it’s in.
That would be extremely disappointing. If it’s just another trim… why not release it a long time ago? Doesn’t make any sense. A cheaper made Model Y that’s a free thousand dollars cheaper is not going to move the needle. We need a CyberCab with pedals and steering wheel
GM unveiled a new Corvette concept featuring a hypercar stance and EV power.
The study was created by GM’s Pasadena Advanced Design studio in California.
It uses a T-shaped prismatic battery pack to improve airflow and enable low seating.
Even with the next-generation C9 Corvette likely deep in development ahead of its rumored 2029 debut, General Motors is already looking beyond. The company just offered a look even further down the line, imagining what a C10 could look like if it were drawn up today.
Their newly opened Advanced Design studio in Pasadena, California, pulled the cover off a striking new Corvette concept, one that leans hard into hypercar territory while rethinking the future of America’s most famous sports car.
Purists might want to look away, since this vision drops the V8 in favor of an all-electric powertrain. That choice appears to contradict recent comments from Corvette’s chief engineer, who suggested the sports car isn’t going fully electric any time soon. Then again, he did describe a fully electric Corvette as still firmly in the realm of “science fiction” which, in fairness, is what this concept is, even if it could loosely influence the eventual design of the real C10.
This is the second of three Corvette design studies scheduled to be revealed in 2025. It follows an earlier concept from GM’s European design team in the UK. According to GM, this project isn’t tied to production plans. Instead, the intent was to give designers full creative freedom to “reimagine what the Corvette could be.”
While GM stopped short of directly naming it the C10 in their release, the “C10” badge displayed on the front fender leaves little room for interpretation.
More than a Sports Car
Rather than resembling a Porsche 911 rival, the SoCal Corvette appears to have more in common with future hypercars from Koenigsegg or Rimac. It features aggressive mid-engine proportions, with bodywork that functions as part of the car’s aerodynamic system – similar to the Aston Martin Valkyrie.
The bumper intakes have hints of the C8 Corvette, combined with an F1-style carbon fiber front wing and ultra-slim LED headlights. The profile is mostly hollow, directing air to the massive rear diffuser. The rear end includes an active aero spoiler and air brake, design elements more commonly seen on high-performance exotics like Bugatti.
One of the standout features is the removable, front-hinged single-piece canopy. It lifts off to reveal a track-focused two-seat cabin. Inside, the cockpit includes a slim digital instrument cluster, an augmented-reality head-up display, and an additional screen mounted on a yoke-style steering wheel.
Sorry Folks, The Future’s Electric
Underneath, the Corvette concept is based on a carbon fiber tub and envisioned with a fully electric powertrain. GM notes the use of a T-shaped prismatic battery pack, which allows for low seating and improved airflow around and through the chassis. These choices point to performance priorities while also emphasizing aerodynamic efficiency
Back to the one-off Corvette hypercar, it measures 182.5 inches (4,669mm) long, 86 inches (2,184mm) wide, and only 41.4 inches (1,051 mm) tall, with a wheelbase of 109 inches (2,767mm). Compared to the current C8, it’s slightly longer and wider, with a much lower roofline. Its dramatic stance is accentuated by the futuristic alloy wheels measuring 21 inches at the front and 22 inches at the rear.
Global Vision, SoCal Lens
Brian Smith, design director, GM Advanced Design Pasadena explained the philosophy behind the project:
“Southern California has been at the heart of automotive and design culture for a century, and GM has had a deep design presence here for nearly 40 years. We wanted to ensure that this concept was developed through that SoCal lens, but with a global and futuristic outlook. Duality of purpose is the basis of this concept’s design strategy. The defining design aspect is the single-piece, front-hinged canopy than enables the entire upper shell to be removed, transforming the concept from an agile, slick sports car to a lightweight, open-air track car.”
We’re looking forward to the next Corvette concept that will be the work of a different design team, offering another perspective on the brand’s future. In addition to the Pasadena studio, GM also operates design centers in Detroit, Los Angeles, Leamington (UK), Shanghai, and Seoul, bringing a unique cultural influence to the table.
Renderings reimagine Audi and BMW models without controversial split headlight setups.
Digital artist Nikita Chuyko streamlined DRL designs for more traditional front-end styling.
Online feedback was mixed, highlighting public fatigue with overstyled front-end treatments.
In the ever-shifting world of automotive design, headlights have become a surprising focal point. Once a simple necessity, they’ve evolved into complex design statements that now split opinion as much as they split the light.
Over the past few years, Audi and BMW have embraced the split headlight trend across several models. While some buyers welcome the distinctive look, others find themselves wishing for a return to simpler forms. Digital artist Nikita Chuyko has taken on this design debate, reimagining these vehicles with a more unified lighting approach, and the results offer an intriguing visual twist.
Starting with Audi, Chuyko, who shares his work under the name Kelsonik, applied his edits to the new Q3, the Q6 e-tron, and the A6 e-tron. His styling take removes the upper headlight elements, where the daytime running lights (DRLs) typically sit. Instead, he relocates slimmer DRLs into the lower light clusters that house the main beams. The effect is subtle but significant, offering a more streamlined and arguably cohesive look.
Design Disruption and Visual Gaps
Getting used to the redesign takes a moment. Our eyes are conditioned to find a car’s identity in its grille and headlights, which makes the absence of the upper lighting noticeable right away. With the DRLs now sitting low in the bumper intakes and a wide space left under the hood’s shut line, the front end feels a bit unfamiliar. On electric Audis, where the grille is already body-colored and less defined, the overall impression can feel even more ambiguous.
Kelsonik’s reworked illustrations appeared on his Instagram account and in Russian publication Kolesa. Reactions were mixed. One commenter pointed out that the new setup highlights the car’s “cheeks” instead of the traditional “eyes,” while another simply pleaded with automakers to return headlights to their “normal” position.
BMW Gets the Same Treatment
Last year, the same publication shared renderings of BMW models with a similar approach. Nikita removed the DRLs from the BMW 7-Series sedan, the X7 SUV, and the XM SUV, leaving the rest of their exterior design largely unchanged.
Of the three, the luxury sedan arguably showcases the concept most effectively, as it appears more refined with unified headlight units. Still, the overall design would feel more balanced if the lights were positioned slightly higher and the kidney grille scaled down. That’s exactly the direction Chuyko took in a more recent rendering of a fictional BMW M7.
BMW is already steering toward a new design direction with its upcoming Neue Klasse models. This future-forward lineup is expected to move away from split headlights altogether. Instead, it will likely feature a sleeker, shark-nose aesthetic that nods to the brand’s heritage while offering a more unified and appealing face.
The BMW Ethos is a digital concept created by independent designer Sebastiano Ciarcia.
The supercar draws inspiration from the Nazca C2, BMW i8, and original M1 models.
It is designed with an FCEV powertrain offering strong performance and zero emissions.
BMW M has confirmed that it’s developing a new halo supercar, one that could revive the spirit of the M1 from the late 1970s. Though the company hasn’t released any official details yet, the news has already sparked creative interpretations. Among them is a striking digital study by independent designer Sebastiano Ciarcia, who has envisioned his own version of a next-generation BMW exotic. He calls it the Ethos.
This digital concept channels the same energy as the striking Nazca C2 prototype from the early 1990s, originally penned by Italdesign. There are also clear influences from the BMW i8 and the Vision M Next concept from 2019, both of which serve as recent milestones in BMW’s design evolution.
A Study in Surface and Stance
The BMW Ethos has a dramatic, low-slung stance with a wide footprint. A glass canopy covers the cabin, while partially exposed rear wheels recall the look of vintage Italian exotics. Up front, Ciarcia reimagines BMW’s signature kidney grille with a cleaner, body-colored design and a small, offset BMW badge. According to the designer, the grille pays tribute to BMW classics from the 1950s, like the 503 and 507.
Another highlight is the LED headlights which are integrated within the front intakes, slightly reminiscent of Peugeot‘s 9X8 Le Mans Hypercar. The sculpted fenders are protruding from the rest of the bodywork, contributing to the athletic profile. Ciarcia describes the surfacing as “a contrast of soft and hard volumes”.
Around back, the Ethos features a slim, full-width LED light bar, an active spoiler, and an aggressive diffuser to tie it all together.
Illustrations Sebastiano Ciarcia
Designed With Future Powertrains in Mind
Although the concept doesn’t display any obvious signs of an internal combustion engine, it isn’t imagined as fully electric either. Instead, Ciarcia envisions a hydrogen fuel-cell setup that could deliver performance on par with a modern hypercar, an approach that leaves the door open for alternative propulsion technologies.
To help bring the design to life, the Ethos has been rendered in a Champagne finish and placed in a setting that feels perfectly suited: the Concorso d’Eleganza Villa d’Este on Lake Como in Italy. It’s the same venue that BMW introduced the limited-production Speedtop shooting brake this year, following the Skytop from 2024 and 2023’s Z4-based Touring Coupe.
When it comes to potential rivals for the Ethos, the designer points to a wide range of high-performance supercars and hypercars, including the Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, Aston Martin Valhalla, and Ferrari F80. Perhaps the closest match, though, would be the rumored all-electric supercar from Mercedes-AMG, previewed in 2023 by the Vision One-Eleven concept.
Ciarcia is an Italian automotive designer currently based in Gothenburg, Sweden. A graduate of IAAD, he has worked with several major automakers, including Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Rimac, and Volvo. CarScoops readers might recognize his name from a few years back, when he unveiled an impressive mid-engined reinterpretation of the Lancia Delta.
For more of his work, you can follow Sebastiano Ciarcia on Instagram.
Mercedes will replace the EQS with both EV and ICE versions of the next S-Class.
According to the brand’s design chief, the EQS was launched 10 years too early.
In 2024, the carmaker tried to improve the sedan’s looks with a refreshed front grille.
The Mercedes-Benz EQS was supposed to be a solid alternative to the Tesla Model S, having launched at a time when premium brands were doing everything they could to establish themselves in the EV market. However, its styling, defined by the ultra-aerodynamic “jelly bean” design, has long faced criticism, which has, in part, hindered the sales Mercedes had hoped for. Now, the automaker has admitted it missed the mark with the EQS.
Mercedes-Benz’s design chief, Gorden Wagener, recently admitted that the EQS might have been “probably 10 years too early” and acknowledged that the vehicle wasn’t marketed in the best way. While many view the EQS as an all-electric version of the S-Class, Mercedes insists that was never the intent. The EQS wasn’t meant to be a chauffeur-driven luxury sedan like its flagship counterpart, and its design reflects that difference.
“It’s a very, very progressive car and, of course, it was not originally designed as a chauffeur limousine,” Wagener explained to Autocar. “That was not the intention. Many people in this class expect a long hood [bonnet] and status from a chauffeur car, and the EQS is different there. It’s a completely different car. Maybe we should have marketed it differently, more like a futuristic CLS, S-Class Coupé or something like that.”
Efforts to Address the Design
In an attempt to make the EQS more traditional, Mercedes-Benz gave the car a subtle facelift last year, which included a redesigned grille. However, the egg-shaped design of the electric sedan remained unchanged.
As a result, Mercedes-Benz has decided there will be no second generation of the EQS. Instead, the company is planning to merge the S-Class and EQS into one model line that will offer both internal combustion engine and electric powertrains, similar to what BMW has done with the 7-Series and the i7.
This new combined model line may not arrive until 2030, meaning the EQS could remain in production for several more years. In the meantime, Mercedes-Benz will continue to update the EQS, with another comprehensive refresh expected as soon as next year. However, don’t expect major design changes, as the focus will likely be on refining the car’s features rather than overhauling its aesthetic.
Tesla appears to be developing a six-seat version of the new Model Y Juniper.
This variant could be sold alongside the five and seven-seat versions of the EV.
Rumors also suggest it might feature an extended wheelbase and captain’s chairs.
The Model Y has been Tesla’s biggest seller, and up until last year, it held the crown as the best-selling vehicle overall. It’s a versatile, practical, fast, and modern crossover. The latest iteration, which launched recently, brings updated styling and interior refinements. Now, there’s talk that Tesla may be pushing the Model Y even further with a trio of seating configurations and potentially two wheelbase options.
The latest scoop comes from Green, a hacker and code sleuth (@GreenTheOnly), who’s made a name for himself digging through Tesla’s software to uncover upcoming features. This time, he found something interesting in Tesla’s software version 2025.14. According to Green, the firmware specifically mentions a six-seat Model Y. This is a big deal, especially since, until now, Tesla has only offered the five-seat version.
A seven-seater is coming for sure. We learned that earlier this month, thanks to an email Tesla sent to customers mentioning it. We’ve already seen a version of the seven-seater in the pre-facelift Model Y, where a third row with two retractable seats was available, good for maybe a couple of third graders at best.
The six-seater, however, is a different story. The brand has never sold a six-seat Model Y, so this is all-new for the range. What’s particularly interesting is that while earlier rumors suggested it might be a China-exclusive, the Tesla code hints at it being a global model. Looks like this one’s not just for the Great Wall crowd after all.
That said, we expect it to use a 2+2+2 layout, likely with captain’s chairs in the middle row. The Model X has been available in the past with five, six, or seven seats. In that case, the six-seater was the most expensive of the trio, and that’ll likely be the case here with the Model Y as well. In theory, it should offer the best blend of interior cabin space and ease of ingress and egress.
The much rumored about 6-seater Model Y made an appearance in the firmware. Unlikely to be China-only as some of the speculations said.
Some weird "slow down to save energy, people typically drive this much slower here to save %%" nav suggestions.
No doubt, stretching the wheelbase of the Model Y would make it even more enticing. It would repeat the same trick used by countless automakers like BMW, Range Rover, and even Chevrolet. A long car provides more cabin space, something so many clamor for in today’s automotive market. That said, the appearance of a six-seat Model Y makes a long-wheelbase version even more appealing.
The entire point of offering a six-seater, rather than seven, is that the third row gets more space. Doubling down on that design objective could very well mean a longer wheelbase. Not A Tesla App also points out that rumors are swirling in China about just such a car. Dubbed the E80 there, it could reportedly add 5.9 inches of total wheelbase length. That’s enough to provide more comfort for the second and third row at the same time.
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
