Pity the Poor Bugatti Driver!

One of the greatest frustrations facing developers of more efficient vehicles is the necessary evil of meeting safety regulations.  To state the obvious, cars are not iPods or T-shirts or PCs, not just because they cost a lot more, but because they can and do kill people.  In the USA, some 45,000 people a year.  In its ongoing battle against this carnage, the lead US government authority is the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), which implements vehicle safety rules through the FMVSS system (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).  For those with lots of free time, you can browse the standards on the NHTSA website (FMVSS Overview).  These incredibly elaborate rules cover everything from windshields to seat belts to crumple zones to airbags and more.  Estimates of the cost of their implementation abound, but a good working figure is $2,000/car... for a manufacturer cranking out a few million cars a year.  For smaller firms, such as those the X Prize would try to encourage, the per-car amount is much higher, because of the inability to amortize huge investments such as test tracks and supercomputers across massive volumes.  There are ways around some of this burden, with the most tried-and-true method being to retrofit an existing vehicle with a nifty new powertrain: it's a lot cheaper to put a methanol powerplant into a Honda chassis (for example) than to develop a whole new car.  In any case, the X Prize staff is working hard to set prize rules that take this challenge into account.  One trade-off to determine is that of safety versus public acceptance: if the competition produces incredibly green cars that are also incredibly unsafe, no one gains; but if every car must meet every FMVSS, does the added cost block out many of the most innovative entrepreneurs? 

All this came to light again recently in a humurous way, as covered in the Financial Times (FT - subscription required).  The VW subsidiary Bugatti, makers of the world's most expensive ultra-car, the Veyron, said:

"Bugatti could be driven out of business if the supercar manufacturer is forced to comply with new US airbag rules which come into force next month, the French subsidiary of Volkswagen has told safety regulators.  Bugatti told the NHTSA in a letter last month that it would face "substantial economic hardship" from the new rules, which would require it to redesign its only model, the 1,001 horsepower €1m ($1.28m) Veyron. The cost would push up the price of the car 10 per cent and have a "catastrophic" effect on sales, it said."

One might wonder what kind of "economic hardship" the producer of a million-dollar car might face (can't Veyron buyers just sell one of their five or six condo's in Monaco to scrape up the extra quarter-million?), but the point is made in any case: it costs a lot to meet safety standards, especially as they continue to evolve.

Comments

[Jim B]

I am surprised that the topic of world terrorism is not discussed on your website. Second only to the environment in my view, terrorism is a strong factor in my personal desire to use less oil. Funding of most recent worldwide terror events (not the least of which is 911) can be directly linked to oil profits. I am disturbed by the notion that each time I fill my car with gasoline, I am potentially contributing money to terrorists. This fact motivied my recent purchase of a hybrid car, and is why I excitedly watch the Xprize

[Ken Fry]

Gosh -- I am going to cross the Veyron off my list of cars I am want to buy. That 10 percent increase is just too much. I'm going to buy a VW Jetta instead.

Given that Bugatti is part of VW and will not have to independently develop new technology, their estimate is hard to swallow.

But here is the real reason I'm commenting:
Although it might be nice to entertain the notion of letting competitors slide a little on safety standards, it can't happen if the cars are to be anything more than a demo of what might have been: if a car doesn't meet the standards, it can't be sold. If it can't be sold, it certainly can't win the prize.

[Carl T. Guichard]

I can feel the pain of Bugatti. Standards are no longer standard. The standards of ten years ago were just fine, until someone decided that we needed to adopt the newest technology in order to save another 100 or so lives that year, and so on, and so on. It is getting harder every year to be ready for what potentially may change in the next two years.

There needs to be achievable standards for the competition's sake, but they don't have to be to the latest and greatest standard, not if we want to push the technology. The GM's of the world have been begging us engineers to find something that can replace current safety glass at half the weight and cost, so lets see what the world's best can come-up with.

Otherwise, I garantee you I can take that super light weight and aerodynamic Bugatti and sqweek 100 miles per gallon out of it with a simple drivetrain swap, sell half a million to get the cost down to $25,000 but that's not what we want to see.

[James Cogburn]

I would think Bugatti would be happy to make the car just that much more safe for future clients. 1/4 of a million is chump change to the various owners of the car.

Regardless automotive safety standards are always evolving, as should the companies that produce the vehicles.