A recent article in Business Line reports that there was 26% growth in the domestic sales of road transport vehicles (passenger vehicle, commercial vehicle, two wheelers and three wheelers put together), during the year 2009-10. India is reported to be the second fastest growing country next to China in this sector.

Composites, although found to be good in these vehicles, could not register a similar growth trend in India. Globally, composites are in use in buses, trucks and light commercial vehicles (LCV). In a limited way, India also uses composites in commercial vehicles, but the consumption per vehicle is very much less than that in other countries. Though the growth in heavy vehicles was not good last year, LCV have done better. In spite of this, no new applications worth mentioning have been introduced in LCV. One familiar explanation is that composites are expensive compared to steel. With the increase in steel price, it is not a valid explanation.

According to me, there could be three reasons for this sluggish growth. The main reason is of course the lack of initiative and farsightedness of the composites industry and their associations. They expect that the auto industry must take the initiative to convert steel parts to composite parts. It is certainly good if auto industry come forward to develop the products. However, when the auto industry is comfortable with what they make in steel why should they take the risk of introducing a new material. It is the responsibility of the composites industry to demonstrate that their composites are better than steel for many parts and are good for weight saving. Many composite products in electrical industry were developed by the initiative of the composites industry itself and it has helped to have rapid growth in that sector replacing ceramic insulators.

The second reason is the reluctance of the composites industry to go for mechanized production methods like RTM, Vacuum assisted RTM, vacuum infusion and compression moulding of SMC. The industries that have developed these methods are doing well in the market.

The third factor is the pricing policy of many auto industries who take the initial cost of the component as their purchasing factor rather than the life cycle costing. Composites in many auto parts may show marginally higher costs, but the low maintenance cost and fuel savings make composites more economical on the long run.

A few months ago, in this journal, I wrote that the composites industry must take part in the user industry's exhibitions. However, without any new products to exhibit, there is no meaning in such participations.

I believe that the industry associations and professional bodies like FRP Institute must bring the raw material suppliers, composites manufacturers and auto industries together and create a development model for bringing out new products.

Yours sincerely,

   
Dr. N.G. NAIR
Honorary Editor