A Look Back at 2011
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:47PM
2011 was a very good year for Edison2.
Ron Mathis lectured on the Very Light Car at NASA Langley and the NASA Goddard Space Center. Brad delivered the keynote address at the worldwide launch of Siemens Solid Edge ST4. Oliver was as panelist in the Jefferson Innovation Summit, and spoke to the Society of Allied Weight Engineers and at the Automotive Weight Reduction Conference. The VLC visited the Detroit Auto Show, the DC Auto Show, the Louisville Auto Show and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and was accepted into the permanent collection of the Henry Ford Museum. Edison2 was written about in the New York Times and featured on CNN International.
But it was in the shop, on the track and in the test lab that the Very Light Car really shone in 2011.
Edison2 won the XPrize through extreme platform efficiency and in 2011 we demonstrated how important a light-weight, low aerodynamic drag car can be. We fitted a Smart Car driveline into a VLC, and the 41 mpg (EPA highway) Smart engine tested at 89 mpg as a VLC. It is a fast, fun, very efficient machine. Ron Cerven, who led Li-ion to an X Prize Alternative class victory with an electric 2-seater, joined Edison2 in 2011, and helped create an electric Very Light Car. As expected, an eVLC combines acceptable range (114 miles), short recharge time (<7 hours) and outstanding efficiency (350 MPGe) with a small battery pack (10.5 kWh).
We also began safety testing of the Very Light Car. We ran numerous crash simulations using industry-standard software, and in November conducted our first actual crash test. These all confirm what we know from racing, where it is not uncommon for drivers to walk away from very high-speed crashes: that with the right architecture a very light car can be a safe car.
And we made a lot of progress in 2011 on the design of the next version Very Light Car. This prototype will be a car with bumpers, mirrors, production fit and finish, and more interior space. Wind-tunnel tests at Virginia Tech showed that the next-version shape is even more slippery than the X Prize car, so bumpers etc can be added without sacrificing efficiency.
2011 was a very good year… but 2012 promises to be even better. Stay tuned.
Reader Comments (20)
Thanks so much for the update. Always great to hear what you guys are up to.
Thanks for the year review and update. Can't wait to see the next version. Are ergonomics and ventilation/AC being improved? There were reports of the X-prize cars being very hot inside for your drivers during the competition, and entry/exit looks like it might be difficult for middle age and older drivers. Does the new pop canopy on the eVLC allow easier entry/exit than the gull-wing door design?
I really liked the styling lines of the blue VLC showcased in your new video. It has an aggressive animal like appearance in some video shots.
Was the Smart-VLC a Stock engine and transmission? If so higher top gear ratios could give it even better mpg.
I would like to see the most current highest efficient production deisel engine mated to the VLC platform. There are a lot of new and old highly efficient engines, including 3 cylinder 1.2-ish liter diesel engines etc.
I understand that Edison2 is fuel source neutral, but there aren't headlines like the 350 MpgE you got with the VLCE as the the most efficient electric car compared to the gasoline version. The Xprize car got Around 70 mpg on E85 which is over a hundred MpgE right? That doesn't translate easily to the average person. I would expect a diesel VlC to get around 150 mpg or more making headlines as the most fuel efficient fossil fuel car ever! Those are numbers consumers can compare with their prius's 50 mpg and see how inefficient a prius really is. The E85 numbers are not as impressive when a 1st gen insight gets a comparable number on regular gasoline. Apples and Oranges i know, but do they? Especially when you look at the COST per mile to travel on E85 it doesn't cut it.
People want efficient cars for the environment as well as the Annual fuel cost of the vehicle. Longest range per tank, lowest cost per mile. I want my annual fuel cost to be as low possible, and the money i use to fill up a tank to stretch as far as possible.
MIT economist Christopher Knittel says that major innovations in fuel efficiency have only produced minor gains in gas mileage because automobiles are bigger and more powerful than they were three decades ago, A gas tax, he believes, would create demand for more fuel-efficient cars without as much "rebound", the phenomenon through which greater efficiency leads to potentially greater consumption.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-case-gas-mileage.html
I did some calculations and found the 20 year amortized cost of an eVLC and enough solar panels for a 40 mile charge per day would total less (including interest) than the cost of gasoline alone for an average car driven 40 miles per day for 20 years. Of course gas will likely increase sharply in price over the next 20 years, and that would make the solar powered eVLC look even better by comparison. Sunshine can never be embargoed due to war in the middle east
Yes, and the cost of solar electricity has been halved in roughly the same time frame that gasoline prices have doubled. Solar electricity is now cheaper than the true (unsubsidised) cost of nuclear electricity.
...any possibility of conjecture regarding possible production timeframe? I have no idea if the vlc is 1 yr out or 10.
Edison 2 I'm most proud of you for keeping going. I couldn't be happier that you're still pursuing producing a VLC for every American if they want one. It's always inspiring to see you guys persist, trying out new things that make large and small victories. You know the best art or music, usually, has had an incubation period, so I'm not as worried about how long before the car goes into production, I know when it does it will be absolutely sublime. Just don't make me wait forever, and thanks for the update.
California Orders Automakers to Sell More Non-Polluting Cars
By Alan Ohnsman and James Nash - Jan 27, 2012 4:10 PM ET
California will require automakers to sell millions of “zero-emission” vehicles -- battery- electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen-powered -- setting new standards followed by states from New York to Oregon.
The rules adopted today by the California Air Resources Board mean manufacturers will have to produce about 1.4 million advanced vehicles for sale in that state alone by 2025, more than 40 times the number put on the road from 1996 through 2010, according to a state analysis.
The regulations have implications for the broader automotive market because 10 other states, including New York and New Jersey, plan to adopt the standards. Earlier rulings by the California (STOCA1) board led to the addition of catalytic converters and exhaust-treatment systems as standard equipment on all cars sold in the U.S.
“Today’s vote to adopt the package of clean-cars standards represents a new chapter in California and the nation,” said Mary Nichols, the chairwoman of the board, which has pushed carmakers since the 1970s to sell cleaner vehicles to reduce air pollution. The board’s vote came after two days of hearings in Los Angeles.
Starting in 2018, the requirements that now apply to the six largest carmakers, all from the U.S. and Japan, will widen to the top 12, to include German and Korean companies. Failure to meet the standards could bring fines and, at the extreme, limits on sales in the state.
Other States
Others that will adopt the requirements are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont, said Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. That will at least double the impact of California’s program, to sales of more than 3 million advanced vehicles nationwide, he said.
“We believe that’s a very reasonable total by 2025,” Hwang said.
California accounted for 9.7 percent of U.S. new-vehicle registrations in 2010, according to the National Association of Automotive Dealers. Collectively, the 11 states accounted for 28.5 percent of the 11.4 million new registrations that year, association data show.
Automakers that reduce their overall greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S. will receive credits for four years, beginning in 2017, exempting them from some of the zero-emission vehicle requirements. They must beat their greenhouse-gas targets by a “significant” amount to qualify, Nichols said in a conference call with reporters.
Oil Companies
The new rules also require oil companies to install hydrogen supply pumps at existing gasoline stations to power fuel-cell cars.
Each hydrogen pump may cost between $1 million and $2 million, according to the air board. Companies affected by the new rule include BP Plc, Chevron Corp., Tesoro Corp., ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp.
The requirement may lead to a court fight with the oil companies, said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group whose members include those that would have to comply with the new rules. “We strongly oppose the clean fuels outlet requirement,” Reheis-Boyd told the regulatory board yesterday.
Adoption of California’s new rules comes as the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency match regulations for carbon exhaust and other pollutants. The Obama administration last year announced plans to double so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, the biggest increase in U.S. history.
Fuel Economy
California’s program and efforts to regulate carbon exhaust triggered lawsuits by automakers and dealers in the last decade. To meet the new fuel-efficiency standard, automakers were already planning to boost sales of advanced vehicles, said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry’s biggest trade group.
“Automakers have invested massive sums in new types of powertrains now on sale,” Bergquist said in an interview before today’s vote. “We still do not support mandates, because mandates create a disconnect in the marketplace.”
California’s rules force companies only to offer certain types of vehicles, not for people to buy them, she said. Electric cars may not sell in large numbers if there aren’t enough public charging stations, Bergquist said.
“Once government determines that society should move to diversify powertrains, that triggers a legitimate role, and even an obligation, for government to invest in supporting infrastructure, like making charging stations widely available,” she said.
Combined Sales
Currently, General Motors Co. (GM), Ford Motor Co. (F), Chrysler Group LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. must sell a combined 60,000 plug-in, battery-electric and fuel-cell cars in the state from this model year through 2014.
Ford is introducing a line of electric vehicles such as the 2012 Focus Electric, said Sara Rudy, the Dearborn, Michigan- based automaker’s emissions regulatory manager.
“However, the market acceptance of these vehicles is very uncertain,” she told the Air Resources Board yesterday.
By 2018, the state’s rules will extend to Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co. (005380) and Kia Motors Corp. (000270), Germany’s Daimler AG (DAI), Volkswagen AG (VOW) and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), and Japan’s Mazda Motor Corp. (7261)
To contact the reporters on this story: Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles ataohnsman@bloomberg.net; James Nash in Sacramento at jnash24@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net
We need this car ASAP in europe!
Just paid $8.93/gallon over here (Netherlands)
I am still puzzled about this configuration. A typical, normally aspirated motorcycle or motor scooter engine of 250cc would develop perhaps 18 HP. If the car weighs 1,000 lbs empty then with four passengers let's figure 2,000 lbs gross. Traveling at 68 mph on the interstate would be 100 fps. If the grade is 5% of the travel then we would climb 5 fps. Okay.
2,000 lbs x 5 fps = 10,000 lb fps
10,000 lb fps / 550 lb fps = 18 HP (just to climb the hill)
If memory serves then:
Cd * (0.5 * rho * area * (1.467 * mph )^3 / 550 = HP
rho = 0.002378 slugs/ft
Cd = 0.16
I would imagine you need a minimum of 44" interior width plus about 3" wall thickness so 50". Minimum interior height is probably 30" plus 2" clearance plus 2" ceiling thickness and 3" floor thickness = 37". That is 12.85 square ft. Add one square ft per external wheel and:
area = 14.85
That comes to 5.1 HP to overcome drag. 5 + 18 = 23.1 HP plus about 1 HP for the air conditioner. With a demand of 24 HP I would guess a minimum practical engine size of 30 HP. This estimate seems about right considering that the Volkswagen Beetle with 1,900 lb curb weight had 36 HP with its 1300 cc engine on a 4 speed transmission.
I ran through some acceleration calculations and ended up with a minimum of 28.4 HP to reach 60 mph in 15 seconds at 2,000 lbs. So, 30 HP again seems about right. The switch to the Smart Car engine could also suggest that the original was underpowered.
If I limit the gross weight to 1,100 lbs then it looks like you could accelerate to 60 mph in 15 seconds with just 15.6 HP so I'm wondering if that was the test gross weight.
Now let's look at fuel consumption. You need about 10,000 BTU's per hour to make 1 HP. Gasoline contains about 110,000 BTU's per gallon.
E85 takes 1.39 gallons to equal a gallon of gasoline
So 72 mpg * 1.39 = 100 mpg equivalent
I guess I need to add rolling resistance. I get 3.5 HP for wind resistance at 60 mph and 1.8 HP for rolling resistance. That would be 5.3 HP total. If I figure a 20% loss for transmission and accessories then I get 104 mpg for an 1,100 lb vehicle.
Using the previous estimate of 24 HP and then adding 2 HP for rolling resistance at 68 mph gives 26 HP so again I would guess 30 HP minimum.
Are the test weights and interior dimensions listed anywhere?
http://www.edison2.com/tech-specs/
You are not too far off, Though the VLC is even lighter than you think. You'd have to have four REALLY big people to get to 2,000 lbs.
The smart car version i think was a what if. 89mpg and sport car quality.
Once Edison2 gets produced id like to see them make more models. 1L/100km is possible in in a tandem two seater. Even greater is possible in an enclosed motorcycle.
I found the earlier coast down data and was surprised that my estimates were right on target with the given horsepower numbers. However, some of the data is puzzling. For example, it is claimed that the VLC has a frontal area of 18.3 rather than my lower estimate of 14.85. However, when I run the numbers at 80 mph I get that it takes 10.2 HP just to overcome the aerodynamic drag whereas the listed total HP is only 10.4. So, something doesn't fit. Oddly though at my lower frontal area the numbers match. Strange indeed.
Sure, if you only figure passenger weight then you could get by with 1,000 lbs for the production vehicle (the given statement for production weight) and then add 170 lbs x 4 = 680 lbs + 5 gallons gas x 6 lbs / gallon = 710 lbs. And, that would only be 1,710 lbs. However, then the obvious question would be: what good is a vehicle with no trunk? And, the obvious answer is: it's nearly useless. Even the preferred cross country bike is a bagger.
An enclosed motorcycle has been tried and tried and tried and essentially tried to death; it still isn't practical. Why? Because for a two passenger vehicle three and four wheel configurations with sitting passengers have similar frontal area to passengers straddling a frame. However, the self standing configurations don't have to worry about driving on ice, sleet, packed snow, or rain on fresh asphalt. A two wheel configuration is not practical as primary transportation in most of the country. Still not convinced? Well, then think of it this way. For short haul, the market is already covered with motorcycles and motor scooters. This area is typically under 45 mph where an aerodynamic fairing does almost nothing for gas mileage. However, a fairing adds weight, cost, and complexity and requires environmental controls. Sure, there are people who ride motorcycles cross country but most of these are purists who want to be seen on a bike and aren't about to ride inside an enclosed vehicle. This narrows the market for an enclosed bike down too much to be profitable.
The VLC does revisit the aerodynamic concept of Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion from 1933 and perhaps Moulton Taylor's Aerocar from 1949. To be honest, I don't consider the light weight to be as revolutionary as apparently the designers do. Why? Because I had similar concepts myself. My reasoning wasn't that complicated.
The Volkswagen Beetle had a curb weight of 1,900 lbs but was designed with late 1940's technology. Logically, the same vehicle today could be made lighter. The biggest problem with the Beetle was that it used an air cooled engine which requires a rich fuel mixture to avoid burning the exhaust valves.
Today you can buy a motor scooter with a 250cc water cooled engine that produces 16.6 HP and has a front ABS brake.
Empty weight 320 lbs.
Payload weight 390 lbs.
The biggest downsides to scooters are the high aerodynamic drag at highway speeds and the unstable two wheel configuration. However, put two of these together to make a 4 wheeled vehicle.
33.2 HP
Empty weight 640 lbs
Payload weight 780 lbs.
So we know that without using exotic materials we can make a vehicle between 640 and 1,900 lbs. We can narrow this down some. The VW engine weighed 250 lbs but only produced 36 HP. We should be able to trim off 150 lbs and still produce 40 HP. Likewise, the double scooter vehicle would need side and rollover framing plus a body enclosure. Add 30 lbs for framing plus 50 lbs for enclosure plus another 5 lbs for rear ABS and windshield washer/wipers plus 20 lbs for more HP plus 15 lbs for steering linkage.
640 + 50 + 30 + 20 + 15 + 5 = 760 lbs.
1,900 - 150 = 1,750 lbs.
Add 30 lbs for insulation and to avoid panel vibration. Add 10 lbs for a stiffer floor structure and 5 lbs to strengthen the luggage floor. Add 20 lbs for ventilation and heating and another 20 for air conditioning. We can probably get a 20% reduction in structure weight on the VW by using better structural geometry.
760 + 30 + 20 + 20 + 10 + 5 = 845 lbs.
1,750 - 240 = 1,510.
Add 10 lbs for a better passenger hatch, 5 lbs for a luggage hatch, 10 lbs for entry step, 20 lbs for bumpers, 10 lbs for low speed bump protection and 40 lbs for high speed energy absorption. We can probably get a 10% reduction on the VW by using lighter materials.
845 + 40 + 20 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 930 lbs.
1,510 - 150 = 1,360 lbs.
Finally, with the additional weight we will need to add about 20 lbs for stronger wheels/tires and another 20 lbs for additional suspension strength. Conversely, with the VW we can subtract about 40 and 40 lbs.
930 + 20 + 20 = 970 lbs.
1,360 - 40 - 40 = 1,280 lbs.
We'll need another 30 lbs for larger seats, consoles, interior trim, radios, and interior lights. However, because of all the weight reduction we can probably adjust the overall VW weight down by about 5%.
970 + 30 = 1,000 lbs.
1,280 x 0.95 = 1,216 lbs.
So, even a rough estimate gives a 36% - 47% reduction in empty weight compared to a Volkswagen Beetle. That would save us about 1 HP in rolling resistance and we could probably get another 2 HP for reduction in aerodynamic drag. So, we could save 3 HP. Then we lose 1 for air conditioning. If we have 40 HP then we have 6 HP to spare plus a substantial reduction in weight. Combine this with a five speed transmission and we should have considerably better acceleration.
Unfortunately, in terms of engines there isn't a lot to choose from. Briggs and Stratton makes a water cooled three cylinder engine around 58 cubic inches that develops 34 HP. But it has an all-up weight around 180 lbs. That's heavier than I would prefer but it might be suitable if the flywheel were removed and replaced with a flywheel generator. This could work in a lightweight hybrid design.
Rotax makes a 449 cc water cooled one cylinder engine with 45 HP. This would be fine except the engine mounts would need some vibration correction. You might need tuned mass damping plus mount isolation plus a flexible connection to the transmission to avoid transferring the vibration.
Keep in mind that that Auto-X did not produce a practical design. For example, a lightweight hybrid design would be useless for a 200 mile run because it would only add weight (which is why it was not used on Edison2). However, the same lightweight design with just two drive batteries would cover a great deal of routine driving. In other words, 100 lbs of batteries could easily get you 20 miles and that's all you would need. This could cut your fuel consumption in half. You would need a 100 amp charger but this still fits within a common 15 amp/110 volt wall socket. This is quite practical. And, if you build the generator into the flywheel and the motors into the wheels it doesn't add that much weight. For a pure electric, however, you would need 220 volts and at least a 30 amp plug and often a 50 amp plug.
A lightweight hybrid solves a lot problems. For example, in the winter when the battery output is severely reduced because of the cold, it's not a problem; your motor kicks in and makes up the difference. You can also use a slightly smaller engine because you can supplement with batteries for quick acceleration or when climbing hills. Also, with lightweight hybrid you could use a Stirling engine because you can get moving under battery power while the engine warms up. A Stirling engine would also solve a lot of problems with fuel. It can be used with pretty much any combustible liquid or gas, it doesn't care about octane, and because the fuel doesn't burn in one piston stroke, the emissions are much easier. And, you don't need a muffler.
The configuration I was thinking of used a front hatch with no side doors. Entry was through a gap in the front console and between the front seats to the rear. This meant that the frame could provide side protection and removed the need for rear door locks. The structural tubing doubled as ducting for HVAC and conduit for brake lines and electrical. I simply skipped air bags since these are not practical on a compact car. I used fixed windows in back. The engine was in the rear (like a Volkswagen) with a smaller rear hatch to reach the luggage area. I was thinking of using the same plastic that they use for stadium seats to avoid having to paint the outside. I was also thinking of making the engine modular so that it could be removed to work on it since there wouldn't be room inside the vehicle. And, I was thinking of making the major assemblies with joints so that the car could be shipped in pieces and assembled at a local factory without the necessity of an expensive assembly line or hazardous waste management. This would allow almost any empty commercial space to be turned into a car factory. I'd say this concept is quite different from Edison2.
So, the Smart car isn't so smart. It's heavier than the early Geo Metro's and gets worse mileage carrying fewer people.
When you consider the econo-boxes we were driving in the '70's, which were even carbureted, we haven't advanced much. Just bigger, heavier, and more than neccessary power.
Looks like Toyota is adopting the lightweight and aerodynamic approach.
They just announced a 4 passenger hybrid concept car with a curb weight of 786 kg (1,729 lbs) with an estimated fuel efficiency of 2.1 liters per 100 kilometers ( 112 MPG).
They are planning a hybrid, plug-in hybrid and CNG version.
http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/12/03/0306.html
Wishlist: Is it difficult to fit a solar panel on the top, so, instead of a passive ceiling, we have an energy-generating one? If I drive a gasoline powered VLC, we can use the additional power and a minimum-sized battery to drive the stereo and the AC (more heat = more sun energy = more AC power available = perfect). And, if I drive a eVLC, we can use the additional power to charge the battery (specially when the VLC is parked).
When is the next blog post going up? Its been almost 4 months... :/
Yes, I was wondering the same thing, I check this blog almost daily for updates, would be nice to hear something new and exciting :-)
1,729 lbs is not light; that's essentially 1940's technology weight.
Let's look at the Volkswagen Beetle (94.5" wheelbase) designed with 1940's technology. It had a curb weight of 1,900 lbs. Yes, that is higher but the engine weighed 250 lbs while only developing 36 HP. A modern 40 HP engine would weigh 80-100 lbs. So, let's subtract 150 lbs. We get 1,750 lbs with 70 year old technology. This point is easy to show since the 1948 Morris Minor with a lighter engine weighed only 1,708 lbs. That could easily be trimmed to 1,500 lbs using newer materials like aluminum.
The Tata Nano (86" wheelbase) weighs 1,300 lbs and has 28 HP.
The 1957 Fiat 500 (72.4" wheelbase) weighed only 1,100 lbs but was underpowered with 13-17 HP.
The BMW 600 (60" wheelbase) from 1957 was an extended, four passenger version of the two seat BMW Isetta 300. This four seat car had a curb weight of 1,140 lbs and a 19.5 HP engine.
One thing to note is that American driving styles will require better performance than 15 seconds to 60 with a fully-loaded vehicle - for that matter, I've seen 10 seconds to 60 called "dangerously slow". (Granted, sufficient planning can get a 15 second to 60 vehicle merged onto most freeways safely, but many American drivers don't plan like that.) While I wish the roads were better for slow vehicles, right now, for market acceptance, slow vehicles won't sell I fear.
The Mitsubishi 3B20 could actually be a nice choice for a gasoline model - 52 hp and 42 ft-lbs on regular unleaded, 659 cc displacement. A sport model could use the 3B20T with 65 hp and 70 ft-lbs, or the Smart's 999 cc 3B21 with 68 hp and 68 ft-lbs. However, it looks like the Mitsubishi i (the car that uses the 3B20 and 3B20T) uses a conventional automatic, and the ForTwo uses a rather awful automated manual, so put an actual H-pattern manual shifter and a clutch pedal on the ForTwo transmission, please.
And, using a Smart-based driveline means you can also run the 799 cc diesel Mercedes OM660, if you can get it to meet emissions. Stock, that gives you 54 hp and a rather nice 96 ft-lbs, so you can drive the low-end torque and it'll pull nicely, allowing it to run taller gearing for efficiency.
Hey guys I'm waiting patiently for up dates on what is going on. Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about you, and I look forward to hearing about what's over on your side of the world. Well brehmel, the concept is not new at all that's true. It's the efficacy of the concept that is so pure in purpose. This vehicle as Oliver said is a game changer from the modern convention of heavy 6,000lbs SUV=safe, and the other modern convention that better energy economy=expensive heavy hybrid. Both of those strange aberrations of illogical thinking are what the VLC aims to correct. Plus it's just so cool!, the idea of a race car, built by race car engineers, doing what they do best, which is maximum efficiency. Normal race cars are efficient with time. The VLC is efficient with fuel using the same principles. Don't worry guys, the day, your day, will one day come. Whether because we waited too long before we acted on the problem, or because we were thinking ahead, your day will one day come, and I'm looking forward to that too. If nothing else, let us readers know what we can do to help. We're all here for you and we're all ears.
The question here is how much less than 7 hours will the charging time be? This has been the Achilles heel for electric cars so far. If the manufacturers don't find a way to cut that time down to around an hour or less, then electric cars might have trouble gaining ground in the market.
nissan ny