Challenge Statement:

Create a purely conceptual, novel lightweight vehicle using advanced materials and innovative structural solutions while maintaining or exceeding current vehicle safety standards.


In the last 40 years, the average fuel economy of light duty vehicles has nearly doubled from 13 miles per gallon (mpg) to 24 mpg; however the curb weight of the vehicle has been nearly stagnant at around 4000lbs [1]. While there are a number of methods to improve vehicle fuel economy, it is estimated that for every 10% weight reduction, a 5-8% fuel economy improvement is possible [2], [3]. How much better fuel economy can be realized by comprehensively redesigning the vehicle from ground up to be lightweight while maintaining current vehicle safety? 


Vehicle lightweighting can significantly increase fuel economy and reduce U.S. energy consumption. A 4% reduction in the energy consumption from the U.S. transportation sector is equivalent to 1% of the total energy use in the U.S. [4]. That is a lot of useful energy!

Consequently, it can also reduce CO2 emissions by about 77 million metric tons. That’s the equivalent of taking 16 million vehicles off the road!


$150,000 in cash prizes. Top prize is $60,000.

Expanding the idea of vehicle efficiency:

Vehicle fuel efficiency has several aspects to it, and can be improved in a number of ways, including:

  1. Improving prime-mover (e.g. internal combustion engine) and drive-train efficiency
  2. Reducing rolling resistance
  3. Improving vehicle drag and aerodynamics
  4. Reducing energy consumption of auxiliary loads
  5. Reducing energy required through reduction of inertia

While all of these elements are important, the underlying theme of vehicle efficiency can almost always be tied back to vehicle mass as shown in the figure above. By lowering the curb weight, the energy required to move the vehicle is lowered due to a reduction in inertia and the vehicle rolling resistance. The result is improved fuel economy.

Participants are challenged to impact this scenario by focusing on a completely novel redesign of the vehicle that directly targets the issue of vehicle mass. Participants are encouraged to address (but not limited to) innovative material technologies, novel structural designs and novel energy absorbing materials. Entrants can also propose unique methods of manufacturing, which unlock the potential of contemporary or even classic construction materials that already enable vehicle lightweighting. The only restriction is that solutions must be compatible with existing roadway infrastructure. 

Occupant Safety:

One of the most important aspects of this challenge is how a given solution addresses the question of occupant safety. Entries will have to justify that their given solution either matches the level of safety of existing vehicles, or exceeds it. In addressing safety, entries should consider certain scenarios as defined in the Guidelines section. While there are no specific criteria required for the defense of these items, entrants should address these issues to the best of their abilities and resources. Active accident avoidance is not in consideration for this challenge.


Requirements are elements of an entry that MUST be included in the submission. If an entry does not address each of these points satisfactorily, that entry will be disqualified.

This challenge requires entries to address:

  • Mass reduction in a sedan configuration passenger car accommodating 5 occupants
  • Current vehicle safety standards

The challenge also requires the entries to be compatible with existing roadway infrastructure, i.e. No in-road chargers, in-road rail systems, etc.


Guidelines are conceptual directions that should lead the solutions provided. Judging will specifically be considering these elements in addition to requirements and the overarching mission statement. While these may include items that do not need to be specifically met, they express attributes that will serve to highlight the truly exceptional entries.

  • Consider frontal and side impact scenarios.
  • Explore innovative structures and materials or even methods of manufacturing, which enable the use of contemporary or classic construction materials for vehicle lightweighting
  • Always remember that the impact of your solution is fundamentally related to adoption. Look to address the adoption of your idea on multiple levels:
    • While specific cost metrics are not expected, consider costs of materials, tooling and manufacturing processes.
    • Be aware of aesthetic hurdles of your entry and consider providing direction to address those issues.
    • Consider environmental impact.


  • Any 2D or 3D assets created around the concept solution
  • Relevant materials list referencing all the key materials that contribute to the success of the concept
  • Supporting Technology and Components list, including references validating the performance assumptions of those elements where necessary
  • A written explanation or defense of the concept including (not to exceed seven pages):
    • Impacts on curb weight and occupant safety
    • A description of the manufacturing processes required to support your solution
    • A critique on the potential issues with the concept - what are the potential challenges and enabling technologies for the solution?
    • Identification and justification of the component to be considered for the Innovative Component and/or Safety Component award(s)
  • A completed self evaluation card that can be downloaded with the ignition kit.


A panel of expert judges will evaluate your submission based on the following criteria:

  • Curb Weight Reduction
  • Safety
  • Novelty/Innovation
  • Supporting Evidence

Areas not of interest:

  • Materials with harmful environmental properties
  • Safety based on active accident avoidance
  • Improvements in powertrain efficiency except those enabled by lightweighting
  • Aerodynamic solutions


[2]Ricardo Inc., 2008. Impact of vehicle weight reduction on fuel economy for various vehicle architectures. Report prepared for the Aluminum Association, Inc.

[3]Cheah L., Heywood J., 2011. Meeting U.S. passenger vehicle fuel economy standards in 2016 and beyond. Energy Policy 39, 454-466.