Comparison of indirect cost multipliers for vehicle manufacturing

Vyas, Anant; Santini, D.J.; Cuenca, R.

doi:10.2172/755848

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cost as a function of weight is based on the assumption that the vast majority of the automobile is constructed from steel 13 and that the assembled vehicle cost can be modeled as a multiple of the yearly price of steel. 14 The multiples used within our model give results that are consistent with a comparative study conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory (Vyas et al 2000). The variable cost of an automobile as a function of weight is assumed to adhere to the following relationship:ĉ weight t = β 3,t x w t (Liu et al 2009).…”

Section: Vehicle Cost Modelsupporting

confidence: 60%

Parametric design adaptation for competitive products

Yassine

2010

J Intell Manuf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Very often product development is seen as a process where designers iterate through several design cycles until they converge upon a design that satisfies all of the necessary requirements-design within a single generation. If one takes the view that products change (i.e. adapt and evolve), a broader view must be adopted to capture the drivers of design adaptation across multiple product generations. This paper offers a new multi-generation conceptual framework of parametric design adaptation for consumer products, called the Artisan-Patron (AP) framework, and a complementary computational model. The AP framework captures the interaction between manufacturers (the Artisan) and consumers (the Patron) by structuring the various relevant information (e.g., consumer taste, government policy, cost of raw materials, etc.). Additionally, based on this framework, a corresponding computational model is developed, which allows engineers to find optimal settings for the design variables in a dynamic multi-generation environment. The utility of the conceptual framework and the computational model is demonstrated by considering the parametric design adaptation of the automobile with respect to two design parameters-engine horsepower and weight-based on historical automotive industry data. List of symbols NTotal number of competitive products (or manufacturers) within a given productFuel economy at 0-60 mph acceleration time sfMeasure of safety which is related to the fatality rate in two-car crashes hpVehicle aggregate horsepower wVehicle weight A Set of critical-to-value attributes (CVA) in a productperformance z a,I Ideal attribute setting where the consumer is unwilling to pay for further improvement z a,C Critical setting for attributes where the consumer is unwilling to purchase the product even if all other attributes are at an ideal setting z a,0 Baseline attribute settings (i.e. for the baseline product) z f e t Estimated average fuel economy (fe) at time t z at t Estimated average acceleration time (at) at time t z s f t Estimated average safety (sf) at time t z C AF E t Sales-weighted (car & truck) adjusted fuel economy standard for the manufacturer's product mix at time t R z A i,t Reward value based on z A i,t 123 542 J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:541-559 R z A i,t Estimate of R z A i,t B Set of decision/design variables in a product design b A single decision variable, b ∈ B x B i,tVector of design or decision variables for product i at time t:t ) Upper (and lower) bounds on design variables of product i at time t x hp t Vehicle aggregate horsepower at time t x w t Vehicle aggregate weight at time t ccost (estimate) for product i at time t c weight t Estimated cost as a function of overall automobile weight at time t (average for all manufacturers) c engine t Estimated cost associated with delivering engine horsepower at time t (average for all manufacturers) c C AF E t Estimated CAFE policy penalty formula at time t (average for all manufacturers) V 0 Baseline value (i.e. at reference point) V i,t Value of product i ...

show abstract

Section: Vehicle Cost Modelsupporting

confidence: 60%

Parametric design adaptation for competitive products

Yassine

2010

J Intell Manuf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This includes vehicle manufacturing, and corporate and production overhead. It excludes distribution costs and manufacturer and dealer profit margins (see Vyas et al, 2000). Where the extra cost of the future N.A.…”

Section: Cost Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…gasoline vehicles calculated using a retail price factor of 1.4, assuming that production costs include vehicle manufacturing, and corporate and production overhead (see Vyas et al, 2000; Fuel and GHG savings benefits are calculated assuming:…”

Section: Cost Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New U.S. Automobiles by 2035

Cheah

Evans²,

Bandivadekar³

et al. 2008

Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation Sector

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis examines the vehicle design and sales mix changes necessary to double the average fuel economy of new U.S. cars and light-trucks by model year 2035. To achieve this factor of two target, three technology options that are available and can be implemented on a large scale are evaluated: (1) channeling future vehicle technical efficiency improvements to reducing fuel consumption rather than improving vehicle performance, (2) increasing the market share of diesel, turbocharged gasoline and hybrid electric gasoline propulsion systems, and (3) reducing vehicle weight and size.The illustrative scenarios demonstrate the challenges of this factor-of-two improvement --major changes in all these three options would need to be implemented before the target is met. Over the next three decades, consumers will have to accept little further improvements in acceleration performance, a large fraction of new light-duty vehicles sold must be propelled by alternative powertrains, and vehicle weight must be reduced by 20-35% from today. The additional cost of achieving this factor-of-two target would be about 20% more than a baseline scenario where fuel consumption does not change from today's values, although these additional costs would be recouped within 4 to 5 years from the resulting fuel savings.Thus, while it is technically feasible to halve the fuel consumption of new vehicles in 2035, aggressive changes are needed and additional costs will be incurred. Results from this study imply that continuing the current trend of ever increasing performance and size will have to be reversed if significantly lower vehicle fuel consumption is to be achieved.

show abstract

“… This fraction is inspired by a technical report on costs in the automobile manufacturing industry (Vyas et al ., ). …”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

To Rebate or Not to Rebate: Fuel Economy StandardsVersusFeebates

Durrmeyer

Samano

2017

The Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compare the welfare effects in equilibrium of two environmental regulations that aim at increasing the new cars fleet's average fuel efficiency: the fuel economy standards and the feebate policies. Maintaining the same environmental benefit and tax revenue, we simulate the implementation of each policy in France and the United States. Standard-type policies have larger negative welfare effects, up to 1.7 times those from the feebate. Effects on manufacturers are heterogeneous: some are better off under the standard regulation. The addition of a market to trade levels of fuel efficiency dominates the simple standard regulation and the feebate. We also consider the attribute-based standard, technological improvements, and the equivalence with fuel taxes as extensions.JEL codes: C51, Q51, L50

show abstract

Comparison of indirect cost multipliers for vehicle manufacturing

Cited by 24 publications

References 2 publications

Parametric design adaptation for competitive products

Parametric design adaptation for competitive products

Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New U.S. Automobiles by 2035

To Rebate or Not to Rebate: Fuel Economy StandardsVersusFeebates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About