The small car is increasingly under threat, as more and more staples of the European 'A-segment' look set to go un-replaced when production of the current generation ends. There are several reasons why this could be.
One the one hand, cabin refinement, dashboard gizmos and safety ratings have long been important selling points of mainstream cars and, as a result of this ultra-competitive industry's players constantly one-upping each other, this has trained us all to naturally expect small cars to feel like big cars... while still being as cheap as small cars. The consequence is that profit margins have been minuscule for years and years now. As safety standards have risen and technological integration has become more comprehensive (including crash-predicting safety systems, of course), so this problem has only got worse for anyone trying to make a business out of creating affordable personal transportation.
On the other hand, the EV revolution, accelerated to potentially counterproductive pace by governments trying to assert their green creds, has then added the gigantic cost of developing and installing a battery the size and weight of a motorcycle into the space where the engine and gearbox used to go (and/or in the floor). Granted, battery prices have been steadily dropping, but without any great step-change in energy density they are still somewhat size and cost inefficient for the time being – and still don't have price parity with combustion cars. Witness for instance how the battery-only version of the Peugeot 208 (the e-208) sits at the top, not the middle or bottom, of its model range.
I could also take this opportunity to vent my spleen for the umpteenth time about the crossover fad, which is arguably just as wasteful as fitting a bigger engine to everything. All that extra material and extra footprint on the road over the hatchbacks within to the detriment of cost, drag, weight (and thus environmental efficiency) and driver enjoyment... for the sake of people's misplaced insecurity around image and perceived safety – concerns that aren't real, in other words, yet allow CUVs to continue steamrolling over the more logical body styles. Many car manufacturers are fine with this now, though, as it gives them more wiggle room to bolt a huge battery onto a new model's underbelly and style-out the chunkier proportions.
Whatever the balance is or the true causes are, it ultimately means that a given city dweller or worker travelling in their own car takes up more space in ever more congested streets, while more of those in less privileged positions could be at growing risk of being priced and emissions-regulated off the road (which currently means cramming into public transport during a pandemic), whether they desire independence of mobility or not.
So, how to proceed?
Well, the consumer can always consider a two-wheeled option, so long as they are prepared for being exposed to both the elements and the somewhat larger vehicles around them in cities such as buses, delivery trucks, premium taxi vans and angry morons in SUVs (oh, and if their bike is without self-propulsion, the enforced exercise as well). That's not to say you shouldn't consider one, but as logical and space-saving as bikes can be, cities would have to overhaul their streets to be tangibly cleaner and safer for them before they're preferable for everyone – including those who live too far away from work to ever cycle there without a useful(ly scheduled) train link en route.
As for car manufacturers looking for ways to cater to those who can't cycle and/or won't trust public transport, there is also the option of really cutting costs by going 'sub-car'. The teensy electric Renault Twizy and Citroën Ami (above), for example, are classified as heavy quadricycles instead of cars, thus meaning different regulations and standards are applied to them. For a lot of people this is a great choice, especially if user cost is brought down yet further through a car-sharing or subscription scheme, as these machines are hardly larger than a motorbike but put a solid roof over your head while even offering some luggage space and a passenger seat.
Alas, for these to truly catch on would take a huge promo push from multiple major brands, as the current perception of 'sub-car' is, erm, sub-par. That pesky, pointlessly important problem of image creeps in again as a quadricycle will just tell the snobs to assume you can't afford a "real" car. Never mind that Nico Rosberg gets around Monaco in a Twizy...
In the meantime, there is a tantalisingly underutilised project by the genius design-engineer Gordon Murray and his team in Surrey: the 'iStream' car. Over a decade ago, project T.25 appeared. It's smaller, cheaper to build, significantly lighter and more efficient than a Smart ForTwo while also boasting seating For Three, thanks to a central forward driving position. It wasn't just a pie-in-the-sky animation, either; the T.25 and electric T.27 proved their worth in proper crash tests and efficiency rallies alike. The car was only half the story too, as the iStream process incorporated a compact, low-energy factory design that is claimed to steeply reduce lead time and set-up cost while employing sustainable materials.
Annoyingly, though, because Gordon Murray Design wasn't in a position to produce the car itself, it had to pitch the concept to other companies, be they toe-dipping start-ups and outsiders, or what are ultimately proud, risk-averse, traditionalist car manufacturers... who didn't want it. Yamaha briefly pursued entering the car market but ultimately backtracked and bottled it. The only public taker for a full iStream production car so far has been the gang trying to revive TVR and... well, in the four years since they debuted the TVR Griffith pre-production prototype, all they've managed to do is whinge about bureaucracy, slap some number plates on said car and promise a bunch of other new stuff that hasn't happened either. So, er, they might never get around to proving Murray's manufacturing concept at all. Blast.
What else could be done, then, if manufacturers can't be bothered to reinvent the car factory or make quadricyles cooler? Perhaps the answer can be found in Japan. The 'kei-jidosha' regulations were introduced after the second world war to get Japanese industry back on its feet and people back on the move. A co-operative effort between car companies and national government led to a new class of vehicle that had to fit inside a prescribed rectangle of outer dimensions while equally limited on engine capacity and power output.
These low-cost kei cars and trucks were then made attractive to the public through tax breaks and other financial incentives, which has ensured they remain popular in ever more congested cities and tiny rural villages alike, as Japan's motor industry has matured and grown seismically over the ensuing 70-odd years. Having said that, recent reductions in those tax benefits might hint that the authorities are hoping to discourage people from adding too many more of them to the street furniture of places like Tokyo, one of the world's busiest cities.
So, what might we take from all these thoughts? The car industry can't keep treating the entry-level models as just "a big car, but small" anymore. They're saying for themselves that it won't be feasible for much longer as regulations tighten and production costs rise. There needs to be a shift in methods, perhaps allied to a shift in public perception of what the littlest cars ought to be about at their core.
Personally, I want kei cars to go global. Maybe copy/paste Japan's setup, or maybe work on a variation thereupon with the same sort of collaborative effort between western manufacturers and governments. It's not just about whether you want cars in the centre of London or not; have you ever been to an old village in the countryside, with roads that were established before cars were even invented threading between historic buildings that mustn't be moved? People there also benefit noticeably from a right-sized and more affordable car, perhaps even more so on the cost side given the relative lack of public transport alternatives outside of larger towns and cities. Consider also those trying to buy their first car, and the peace of mind their parents would have if it was a new-gen car with all the latest safety gear instead of a 15-year-old Corsa. Or a scooter...
Taxing cars by weight would also be a great idea on several levels, but then the mass of the batteries car manufacturers are being cajoled into incorporating into their product strategy would make them vehemently disagree with that.
I also really wish someone would take on the iStream platform to give people a viable and attractive middle ground between current A-segment cars and tiny quadricycles – perhaps even in tandem with kei-style regulations and discounts. In fact I'm mystified that nobody seems to be publicly exploring that middle ground. Is the concept too good to be true? And how so?
 |
| [source] |
Alternatively, there is one more revolutionary option on the horizon: ban private cars from cities altogether, create dedicated cycle roads, and replace taxis with Level 5 autonomous pods geo-fenced to stay in city limits on dedicated roads and lanes that are more easily interpreted by The Mighty Algorithm. It seems to be what the industry wants, and when it's painted as public convenience the public will learn to want it too. At that point, perhaps the small car as we know it becomes obsolete and its extinction a moot point. In urban areas, at least.
But we're not there yet, and until that changes, the steady erasure of exactly the sort of car the world needs to keep alive in the face of its challenges feels like an unnecessary and counterproductive backwards step in preparing the automobile for the bold new future. When was the last time you saw a concept study for improving personal mobility and the world around us that resembled a 2.5-tonne SUV?
Comments
Post a Comment