Henry Ford and the Plastic Car -- a contribution from Leland Merling

Hi folks -- Leland wrote this paper for my HST 344 "The Automobile and American Life" class. Excellent work!

Henry Ford and the Plastic Car

“Considerable interest has been aroused [in Detroit] about reports of experiments conducted by the Ford Motor Company with plastic materials for automobile bodies” reads a New York Times article in 1940 (Callahan). What an exciting time at Ford with this potential major change in its manufacturing process. With these new cars, any color could be chosen for the body, the plastics would be see-through, and safety would be higher than ever before, or so proclaimed the media. The predictions of the new car on the market would turn out to be empty promises, and the project would eventually be scrapped post-WW2. Why is this car made of soybeans, hemp, and other crops so important then? Henry Ford with his “plastic car,” while ultimately failing, provides key insights to the past, present, and future of the automobile industry, as well as its use of agricultural products in production.

Henry Ford’s ties with agriculture begins with his birth to a relatively prosperous farmer named William Ford in Dearborn Michigan in 1863. His childhood was filled with both farm life duties as well as mechanical devices such as watches and steam engines (“Soybean Car”, 2016). From this childhood sprouted the lifelong familiarity with and love for agriculture which Ford would later incorporate into his automobile empire. Furthermore, his ingenuity and innovation with mechanical devices and tools would couple perfectly with his market foresight in helping him pave the way for his Model T. James Flink, automobile historian, captures the historical magnitude of Ford’s impact in using the opening of Ford’s Highland Park plant in 1910 as a stage marker in defining America’s automobile consciousness. With its opening, Flink argues, America’s attitudinal and institutional adjustments to the automobile came to full fruition (1972, p. 452). There was no going back; the automobile would be here to stay. The question was, how would it evolve? Ford’s creative mind would not stop with just his singular innovative success, though, and he would later aspire to invent a car made from agricultural products – a plastic car.

The widespread use of automobiles, as begun in the 1910s by Ford, was both harmful and beneficial to farmers. While allowing them the freedom to bring their own goods to market, it also ultimately killed the small family farm through the need for expensive machinery and fertilizers to compete with large agriculture (Flink, 1972, pp. 456, 457, & 466). By the 1930s, however, Ford’s production of the automobile was still friendly to agriculture, and Ford had plenty of investments in the industry. In 1931, Ford bought over 3000 acres of Michigan farm land, for the use of the crops as raw materials. This land usage was increased in 1932 when Ford was planting a variety of crops in over 12,000 acres of purchased land (Shurtleff, 2011, p. 27). This seems to mark the beginning of Ford’s investments into agriculture for relatively heavy use in automobile production. In 1933, the production of the Ford Eight, for example, used phenolic molded parts in ignition systems, horn buttons, hand throttle parts, and other parts of the car (Shurtleff, 2011, p. 33). In 1935, “from the fields, Ford [would] use 69 million lb of cotton, 500,000 bushels of corn, 2.4 million lb of linseed oil, [and] 2.5 million gallons of molasses from sugar cane” (Shurtleff, 2011, p. 47). These materials were used for a variety of applications, but most prominent among them was plastic molding, as would be necessary for creating plastic panels. It was then no paradigm shift for Ford when he wanted to utilize these same materials, but on a larger scale, for a plastic-body automobile in the early 1940s. Innovative, yes, but on the whole not outlandish or fundamentally unviable.

            Leading up to the 1940s were a few years of growth for the plastics industry. “Somewhere between 1935 and 1940 the infant U.S. plastics industry turned a key corner. During those 5 years production nearly doubled, and the number of plastics increased from 5 to 10.” (Shurtleff, 2011, p. 105). Good news for Ford and his use of plastics in automobiles; however, with the coming of the early 40s also came World War 2. This was a bit of a blessing in disguise for the plastic car, in that the scarcity of metal forged another motivation for using plastics in place of metal in automobiles. “The latest step is timely,” William Callahan mentions about Ford’s foray into plastics in his 1941 New York Times article, “since there has been some question as to whether or not demands for steel for defense purposes and to fill foreign war orders would not deplete the supply and cause a curtailment in steel for automobiles” (Callahan, 1940). However, this motivational boost for plastics would turn out to be sour, for on February 22, 1942, the production of automobiles ceased as the American industry focused its attention on total war against the axis powers (Heitmann, 2009, p. 119). No more automobiles meant no more plastics research for automobiles either, as attention was turned to the production of war-time machinery and weaponry. As it would later prove, the plastic car project would not be picked up again after the war, and so Ford would die in 1947 without his project ever reaching production.

What was this plastic car of Ford’s, foretold to be “lighter, safer, and less expensive,” and which, in production of 1,000,000 cars, would consume 170,000 tons of agricultural products? (“Plastic Ford Lighter,” 1941; “The Plastic Car,” 1941). The design was structured on a patented tubular steel chassis, which would serve as the base for the plastic molded body (Ford, 1942). The plastic panels, as demonstrated by Ford famously bouncing an axe off of them, would be comprised of refined farm products. The fiber panel tested by Ford, in fact, “[weighed] about one-half the steel panel, of the same pattern. It [was] composed of 70 per cent fiber and 30 per cent soy resin binder. The fibrous element [was] compounded of 50 per cent southern flash pine fiber; 30 per cent field cereal straw; 10 per cent cotton; and 10 per cent hemp.” (Shurtleff, 2011, p. 107). A car built of such a material would be durable indeed, and would incorporate the agricultural products promised.

Ford’s vision of a production model plastic car fell short, however, leaving historians and enthusiasts wondering why more “soybean” cars were not built. According the Ford Museum, the reasons were mainly the aforementioned outbreak of World War 2 and its suspension of auto production, as well as post-war recovery efforts leading to the project falling through the cracks. But, is there more to the story? Was the plastic car actually viable, or just an engineering nightmare? Was Henry Ford nearing the end of his era, leaving his enthusiasm for agriculture unpassed to his successors? New York Times author and SAE member Herbert Chase gave insight to the former, as he was skeptical of the feasibility of plastics even in March 1941. He claimed “there is little experience with really large moldings and what there is leads to serious doubts. . . We know how to make steel bodies which are low in cost and quite satisfactory for our purpose. . . Why shift to something so problematical as a plastic body, especially as it is likely to cost more?” Indeed, without a metal shortage post-WW2, the economics of using plastic no longer worked out for Ford. Additionally, the economics of raw materials would hardly be the only obstacle, as public acceptance, conversion of manufacturing equipment, and a plethora of testing and design details would need to be worked out as well. Taken together, the capital costs, lack of interest besides Ford, and manufacturing issues with a brand new material took down the plastic car. In the end, there were no real savings to be gotten from using plastic for the automobile.

Does the plastic car have a foreseeable future in the auto industry today? It might have a shot with advancing technology; however, the same issues apply today as in the 40s, with manufacturing capital costs, public acceptance, and working out design and material details. Additionally, the cars would need to meet today’s higher standards for safety. For example, while durable, stiff plastic panels are unsafe for crashes, as crumple zones are necessary to reduce the impact force on passengers. These factors reveal an underlying answer: the plastic car will not be seen in the world of today. All hope for agricultural use in the auto industry is not lost, though. Bioplastics and biofuels are edging their way into industry, with innovations in polyethylene production as an example. One company, Braskem, has found a way to produce “green polyethylene” – sourced from sugarcane – that could serve as an alternative to petroleum-based polyethylene. “The major application [of polyethylene] will be in the automotive industry, where the bioplastic will be used in injection and blow molding” (Phillips, 2008). Although not exactly a complete plastic car, the use of agriculture-based plastics is a step toward Ford’s vision for agricultural use for manufacturing. “And though the technology is still new and the number of plants small, some companies are also using catalysts or microwaves to convert the polymers into gasoline or diesel,” giving another application, in recycling, for green plastics (Phillips, 2008). Although as Ford once stated “There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years,” using food crops as a fuel source may not be the best use of the nutrition with world hunger rampant (El-Mansi, 2011, p. 226). Instead of using food crops for fuel, using sugarcane as a source (as with Braskem), and even recycling the plastics for fuel would provide strength in diversifying fuel sources for power-hungry Americans. With these emerging technologies, perhaps Ford’s relationship attempts with agriculture and the auto industry may end in marriage after all.

The Henry Ford plastic car may not have been a success, but it certainly serves as a historical example of how scarcity and constraints are amazing drivers of innovation. As American automobile manufacturers drudged their feet throughout the second half of the 20^th century with regard to innovation, Henry Ford stood up to the emerging status quo of laziness with his plastics research. And as an important driver, the expected shortage of metal due to WW2 pushed him to explore new possibilities. Imagine the results from what the automobile industry could have done with the everyday car given the right constraints and encouragement. Perhaps today’s emissions and safety issues would be somewhat alleviated. No matter the perspective, Henry Ford should be lauded for his efforts in researching and improving the automobile, as he has provided key insights into the past, present, and future of the automobile industry, and its potential marriage to agriculture, despite his cars’ failure due to WW2, capital costs, and public apprehension.

References

Callahan, W.O. (1940, December 15). To Make Car of Plastic. The New York Times.

Chase, H. (1941, March 30). Plastic Car Is Studied: Molded Body Panels Under Intensive Research By Henry Ford. The New York Times.

El-Mansi, E.M.T., Bryce, C.F.A., Dahhou, B., Sanchez, S., Demain, A.L., and Allman, A.R. (2011). Fermentation microbiology and biotechnology (3^rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

F.L.S. (1941, February 2). Plastic Car in Making: Colorful, Paintless Body May Replace Steel for Defense. The New York Times.

Flink, J.J. (1972). Three Stages of American Automobile Consciousness. American Quarterly, 24: 4, 451-473.

Ford, H. and G.E.T. (1942). U.S. Patent Number 2269452. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Heitmann, J.A. (2009). The Automobile and American Life. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.

Phillips, A.L. (2008, March-April). American Scientist, 96: 2, 109.

“Plastic Ford Lighter.” (1941, February 2). The New York Times.

“Soybean Car” (2016). The Henry Ford. Retrieved from: https://www.thehenryford.org
/collections-and-research/digital-resources/popular-topics/soy-bean-car/

Shurtleff, W., and Aoyagi, A. (2011). Henry Ford and his Researchers – History of Their Work with Soybeans, Soyfoods and Chemurgy (1928-2011): Extensively Annotated Bibliography and Sourcebook. Lafayette, CA: Soyinfo Center.

“The Plastic Car.” (1941, August 17). The New York Times.

THE PERILS OF STREET RACING, December 10, 2016

A street-racing vehicle crashed into an apartment patio in Anaheim on Saturday, Dec. 10, 2016.

Two people died after their vehicle that was street racing crashed into an Anaheim apartment patio and burst into flames early Saturday morning.

The crash was reported just before 2 a.m., said Sgt. Daron Wyatt of the Anaheim Police Department

Two vehicles were street racing on Ball Road when one of the vehicles lost control, sheared a light pole, jumped a curb and collided into at least five parked cars, Wyatt said. It rolled over a couple of times before it crashed into the patio and burst into flames.

Two people inside of the vehicle died at the scene, and a third person was taken to the hospital in critical condition, Wyatt said. It is unknown if the third person was ejected from the vehicle or if he escaped the vehicle

A family at the apartment was displaced after the crash and fire destroyed the patio and damaged the rear of the unit.

The second vehicle that was street racing -- described by witnesses as a red sports car or a Mustang or Camaro -- fled from the scene, Wyatt said. Anyone with information should call Crime Stoppers at 855-TIP-OCCS or submit through www.occrimestoppers.org.

Source: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Fatal-Street-Racing-Crash-OC-Anaheim-405751235.html#ixzz4SSEWcssH

Follow us: @NBCLA on Twitter | NBCLA on Facebook

A concise History of the Automobile in America, 1893-2016

1908 New York-to-Paris automobile race: [Two men holding U.S. flag behind automobile]

An apt but worn-out cliché concerning the early history of the automobile is that “the automobile was European by birth, American by adoption.” Indeed, the visionary idea of the automobile – in the words of James Flink, “the combination of a light, sprung, wheeled vehicle; a compact, efficient power unit; and hard surfaced roads” gradually became a reality during the last half of the nineteenth century, primarily in Europe and to a lesser degree in America. After the idea and pioneering artifact came the commonly-used term automobile. Key to its adoption in America was its acceptance by New York City’s high society. A French term first used in America in 1895 and fully adopted in the U.S. by 1899, other words were proposed and debated during this time – horseless carriage, motocycle, motor vehicle, automation, mocle, autom, polycycle. Members of high society in New York City owned the first cars, and this Gilded Age aristocracy influenced the newly published editorial writers of the magazines The Automobile and The Automobile Magazine to endorse automobile as a universally accepted term. In sum, while the beginnings of the automobile are often attributed to a group of visionary tinkerers, engineers, inventors, and mechanical geniuses, the upper classes were the consumers of this product, and they cast a lasting imprint on its place in culture in ways perhaps more complex than just the choice of a term.

            From its origins, the automobile in the U.S. was intimately connected to notions   of status, class and freedom. The history of the motor vehicle can be divided into three periods, beginning with the Pioneer Brass Era that ended around 1908. During this time the automobile was largely a plaything of the rich. Concurrently, the internal combustion engine rose to preeminence at the expense of steam and electric technologies.  

A Second phase began with the introduction of the Ford Model T in 1908 and the genesis of mass production. The Model T dominated the years between 1910 and the early 1920s along with the increasing efficiencies associated with mass production. However, with an easy entry into the business during this time, there were literally hundreds of manufacturers assembling motor vehicles. Most Americans, particularly those living on farms where the rugged Model T broke the bonds of rural isolation, now embraced the automobile at the expense of the horse.

This period of acceptance gave way to the car’s widespread diffusion during the prosperity decade of the 1920s, when steel-bodied closed vehicles became preferred by city dwellers. General Motors gradually introduced more flexible production methods and with easy credit one in six Americans owned a car by 1929. The process of diffusion resulted in a major reordering of social, cultural, and economic institutions in America. The vast majority of auto brands of the early 1920s fell by the wayside by the late 1930s, as Ford, General Motors, and the Chrysler Corporation came to control over 90% of the American market by WWII.

The Golden Age of the automobile in America spanned the years from World War I to the late 1960s. However, by the 1930s the automobile industry was no longer technologically dynamic; minor engineering refinements of power train and chassis components supplemented annual design changes that ultimately led to longer, lower, and often larger and less efficient machines.

 Foreign imports were insignificant until the late tailfins and chrome era of 1950s. Beginning with late 1960s however imports played a critical role in the domestic economy. Concurrently, the automobile was seen no longer a source of economic growth and progressive social change in America. Rather, many Americans now viewed the car as a source of social and environmental problems. The widespread “love affair” was challenged by concerns over safety, air pollution, and energy shortages.

The federal government, taking on a new role as a legislator, defined this last period in the history of the automobile in America.  Washington administrators regulated an industry once largely autonomous. The 1966 Vehicle National Traffic and Motor Safety Act proved seminal. Beginning in 1968, this Act mandated that seatbelts, padded visors and dashboards, safety doors and hinges, impact absorbing steering columns, dual braking systems, and standard bumper height be installed in all new autos sold in the U.S. As in the case of safety, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution and Control Act was passed and enacted in the mid-1960s.  This act set limits in terms of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, and was amended in 1971 to include evaporated gasoline. Additionally, the Federal Clean Air Act (1970) and emissions stipulations further reduced allowable pollutants with the newly created Environmental Protection Agency as the enforcer.

Along with the government now influencing design, the 1973 and 1979 energy crises played critical roles in the decline of the American automobile industry and the concurrent rise of intense foreign competition. Beginning in the early 1980s ,with Honda coming to Ohio, Japanese manufacturers responded to voluntary import restrictions by “transplanting” assembly facilities to the United States. The Germans followed with assembly plants located in South Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee. But until 2008-09  the Ford Motor Company and General Motors remained profitable by making light pickup trucks and initiating operations in China.

The Great Recession of 2008-09, however, shook the American industry to its foundations. General Motors and Chrysler sought and received government assistance to prevent bankruptcy and restructuring. Currently the industry is in rebound and on the brink of revolutionary change. Technologically, electric vehicles and autonomous cars are at the industry’s cutting edge.  The impetus for those changes came not from Detroit but from California, where entrepreneur Elon Musk has led the rise of a dynamic Tesla Motors.  Whether this alternative is fully realized or not is anyone’s guess, but given concerns over energy and climate change, the future appears to be hopeful.

Automobile and American Life HST 344 Final Exam Study Sheet

Hi folks -- how well could you do in answering these identification and significance questions?

HST 344

Final Exam Study Sheet

Fall, 2016

I Identification and Significance.  I will pick 14 of the following and you must answer 10 (10 points each).  Your answers MUST be concise, and no longer than 4 well-structured sentences each, or one blue book page. Longer answers will simply be disregarded!!! To maximize your grade your answers should include selective detail as well as explanatory short and long-term significance, when appropriate.

1.     Reconsidering the Corvair

2.     The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case

3.     Vin Diesel and “The Fast and Furious” Franchise

4.     The GM EV-1

5.     Elon Musk and the Tesla

6.     NUMMI and the Development of Lean in the U.S.

7.     The Filming of “Bullit”

8.     The Oil Crisis as a Signal Event in Post-WWII America

9.     MITI and the Japanese Automobile Industry

10. The Chevrolet Vega and the Lordstown, Ohio, Assembly Plant

11. Béla Barényi and Automobile Safety

12. 1950s Automobile Dealer Abuses and the 1958 Automotive Disclosure Act

13. Cadillac during the 1950s and 1960s

14. The Muscle Car of the 1960s

15.  CAFÉ Standards Beginning in 1975

16.  The 2008-9 Economic Crisis and the Automobile Industry

17. The Truth about Self-Driving Cars