Cars To Be Assembled Atom By Atom

Roland Piquepaille writes "In a new article, the Detroit News says that the adoption of nanotechnology by car manufacturers will produce safer, lighter and cheaper vehicles. While GM is already using nanocomposite materials for several vans, Ford is developing new nanoengineered catalysts to replace platinum. The newspaper gives other examples, such as auto-adaptive suspension systems, scratch-resistant paints or nanocoated windshields which will not crack. In fact, all parts in a car can be improved by using nanotechnology, according to the article. And if automakers are only going to introduce limited amounts of nanotechnology-related products in the next few years, their usage should be widespread within ten years. More details are available in this overview."

Comments

Warning: Marketroid stuff ahead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course cars are going to be built molecule by molecule, it's just we haven't figured out how to do it yet. Yeah whatever. Keep blowing smoke out of your ass. Even if nano robots could be manufactured by the millions cheaply, why build a vehicle atom by atom when its so much easier to make car parts on a macro scale?

This outlier was disregarded decades ago

[Ars-Fartsica]

Your concerns were outweighed by the need to keep glass from nicely shattering and shredding passengers decades ago. Go look at accident photos prior to the age of safety glass. Not pretty.

The chance of my car being submerged in water is maybe ten million times less likely than the chance a collision will press my face against the windsheild or door glass at a high rate of speed, in which case I definitely do not want to be able to shatter that glass on impact - if I do, if forms a guillotene that take off a body part when I retract.

galvanized iron

[TubeSteak]

For the uninformed, hot dip galvanizing involves putting iron or steel (not aluminum right?) into a zinc and iron (with a touch of aluminum) molten mix. This does wonderful things for your metal, but mainly the process inhibits rust, which would void any rust warranties your dealer wants to sell you.

Re:Yeah, think people.

[Anonymous Coward]

right.

But up until the 70's the automotive industry claimed they never could make more fuel efficient cars, or that it would be too expensive, or whatever - I'm not sure of the specific, but no doubt there is a case where some treehugger thought there was too much polution. And who cared? But then the oil crisis forced the issue and the Japanese got better at it, and the American industry changed. No? Now look at the Prius. ...free passwrod bla bla.

When oil hits $40+ a gallon the automotive industry will make more fuel efficient cars.

When oil hits $200+ a gallon the auto industry will change the fuel type.

etc etc...this is why the parent questions the industry integrety, and why nobody trusts what the tobacco industry says, and why half the people in the country dont trust GW, and...

but hey, who wants to think?

(copy write notice: all spelling errors are the property of me.)

Banking on the new "IN" term

[poofyhairguy82]

This is just a ploy to wrap up investors that are captivated by the word "nanotechnology." In all probability the technology will probably just assure that future "American" cars will break down in exactly six years on the dot instead of the current relative time frame. Seeing as how for the last twenty or so years "American" (made in Mexico) carmakers have only been interested in making cars that will fail in ten or so years. "Planned Obsolesce" has become the mantra to drive the bottom line. "Nanotechnology talk" assures the investment capital need to do it.

Re:what's it good for...

[Anonymous Coward]

George Monbiot
Tuesday June 8, 2004
The Guardian

.....But the age of cheap oil is over. If you doubt this, take a look at the BBC's online report yesterday of a conference run by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.(5)
The reporter spoke to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol. "In public, Mr Birol denied that supply would not be able to meet rising demand ... But after his speech he seemed to change his tune: 'For the time being there is no spare capacity. But we expect demand to increase by the fourth quarter by three million barrels a day. If Saudi does not increase supply by 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year we will face, how can I say this, it will be very difficult. We will have difficult times.'"
The reporter asked him whether such a growth in supply was possible, or simply wishful thinking. "'You are from the press?,'" Birol replied. "'This is not for the press.'" So the BBC asked the other delegates what they thought of the prospects of a 30% increase in Saudi production. "The answers were unambiguous: 'absolutely out of the question,' 'completely impossible,' and '3 million barrels - never, not even 300,000.' One delegate laughed so hard he had to support himself on a table."(6) And this was before they heard that two BBC journalists had been gunned down in Riyadh......

source

Maybe, but you have your facts wrong

[ishmaelflood]

These are not American figures but I doubt they are much different over there. If we sell a car at the dealers for 30k then the factory will have paid about 15k for parts, and about 1k for assembly labor.

Development costs are about 1-2k, averaged over the entire build.

We'd typically invoice the dealer for 21k

He pays car tax and so on, that's about 20% of the sticker price, ie 6k. We also pay for some marketing.

Cars have got somewhat more expensive to build, simply because catalysts, engine management computers and airbags cost a lot, and general spec levels have increased. Your 1980s high volume derivative would not have had a/c, auto, power seats, power glass, CD player, airbags, ABS, as STANDARD. It would have had 14 inch tires, not 16s. It would have had 120 hp, not 200 (not that, that cost much). In the last 13 years the car I work on has increased in weight by 15%, that weight costs money.