Trailer of the future

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Transport Canada (TC) is seeking to design the most efficient class 8 heavy-duty truck dry-box van trailer for highway use in Canada and the US utilizing next-generation aerodynamic technologies.

Challenge sponsor:
Transport Canada (TC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
August 8, 2024

Closing date:
September 19, 2024, 14:00 Eastern Time

Log in to view your submissions

Here are a few things you need to know before you get started on your application to this challenge:

  1. This challenge is only open to receive proposals for Phase 1 (Proof of Feasibility) of our Challenge Stream. Proposed solutions that fall within technology readiness levels (TRL) 1-4 can be submitted to this challenge
  2. We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
  3. Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document

Challenge
 

Problem statement

The transportation sector is Canada's 2nd largest emitter of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions contributing 22% of total Canadian emissions. Emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs) represent 27% of total transportation GHG emissions. While adoption of contemporary energy-saving technologies for trailers has led to efficiency gains, a new generation of aerodynamic innovations, such as active flow controls systems and trailer geometry morphing, present a significant untapped opportunity for additional energy efficiency improvements. Efficiency gains in aerodynamic drag are particularly relevant in Canada's cold climates, where aerodynamic drag can increase by up to 20% due to the increased density of cold air – resulting in up to 10% greater fuel consumption.

There is an opportunity for the Canadian trailer manufacturing industry to develop an innovative trailer using next generation aerodynamic technologies that would reduce aerodynamic drag (change in coefficient of aerodynamic drag compared to a conventional trailer equipped with common aerodynamic technologies). This new trailer design would contribute to improving the range and energy performance of both conventional class-8 diesel and zero emission trucks, while helping achieve Canada's GHG reduction targets of 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050, as outlined in the Emissions Reduction Plan.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  1. Exceed the aerodynamic performance of a baseline trailer having an EPA 9% Elite aerodynamic package or a CARB Bin V performance (DCDA >= 1.0 m2) using next generation aerodynamic technologies (e.g., On-Board Aerodynamic sensing, Trailer Geometry Morphing, Active flow control systems, etc.)
  2. Be capable of meeting applicable Canadian and US vehicle standards and regulationsFootnote 1
  3. Be compatible with Canadian and US class 8 truck configurations
  4. Be adaptable to Canadian cold-climate and terrain

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  1. Minimize payload and volumetric penalties
  2. Emphasize passively managed systems that optimize performance
  3. Have easy access to systems that require regular maintenance
  4. Present estimated fuel-saving / range extension potential of the designed trailer, its estimated build cost, and return on investment time based on operational savings

Methodology

Note : This section addresses the procedures that will be used to determine if the proposed solution meets Essential Outcome #1

Phase 1 Methodology:
  • 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1037.532 Using computational fluid dynamics to calculate drag area (CdA) for Phase 2 of the GHG emission standards; or
  • 40 CFR § 1037.530 Wind-tunnel procedures for calculating drag area (CdA) for Phase 2 of the GHG emission standards.
Phase 2 Methodology:
  • 40 CFR § 1037.530 Wind-tunnel procedures for calculating drag area (CdA) for Phase 2 of the GHG emission standards.
Additional testing methodology details

For the purposes of the ISC Challenge, instead of a "standard tractor" as defined in the CFR test procedure, a tractor model representative of an EPA SmartWay Designated Tractor must be used that includes: Aerodynamically integrated high-roof fairing or cab compartment; Aerodynamic mirrors; Aerodynamic bumper; Tractor side extending fairings (also called tractor gap reducers); and Fuel tank fairings (also called chassis fairings).

Background and context

With the increasing cost of fuel starting in the early 2000s, fleets began adopting fuel-savings technology on their tractors and trailers. The adoption rate of these conventional aerodynamic technologies has increased significantly in the past 10 years, and this has led to fuel-savings for operators.

Trailer technologies are constantly evolving, and with the arrival of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in the medium and heavy-duty trucking space, increased aerodynamic features for trailers and other range-enhancing technologies will be increasingly important to accelerate adoption. Some of these technologies, including battery & electric vehicle technologies, tire technologies, and new materials are commercially available and being tested and adopted by fleet operators.

The proposed challenge is interested in the potential of pre-commercial, next generation aerodynamic technologies for trailers to reduce aerodynamic drag and improve the range and energy performance of conventional diesel ICE and zero emission trucks. These next-generation trailer aerodynamic devices and designs include on-board aerodynamic sensing, active flow control systems and trailer geometry morphing.

This challenge is aligned with Government of Canada priorities, including the Emissions Reduction Plan, Canada's Action Plan for Clean On-Road Transportation, and could contribute to helping achieve MHZEV sales targets.

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $150,000.00 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 1 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 6 months
  • Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 3

Phase 2

Note: Only eligible businesses that have successfully completed Phase 1 will be considered for Phase 2.

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $500,000.00 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 12 months
  • Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 1

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel is anticipated in Phase 1.

Kick-off meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Any progress review meetings will be conducted by telephone or videoconference.

Final review meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Eligibility
 

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

  • for profit
  • incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
  • 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employeesFootnote **
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote **
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote **
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote **

Evaluation criteria
Phase 1

The Applicant (offeror) must complete the Challenge Stream Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion. The Applicant (offeror) may not add information to their submission at a later time.

Part 1: Phase 1 - Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all Mandatory Criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all Mandatory Criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

Describe the proposed innovation and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential Outcomes in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Question 1 a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass

The proposed innovation is within the scope for the challenge, and clearly addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the Challenge.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.

or

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the challenge.

or

The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

or

There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet all Essential Outcomes.

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
  1. Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
  2. Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

This section should include:

  • A description of the method of research
  • The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution
  • Data proving the solution's feasibility
  • Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g. activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory testing, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.)
  • The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title
Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 1 to 4 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 4 (inclusive) including:

  1. There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
  2. The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  3. The solution is demonstrated at TRL 5 or higher.
  4. Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  5. The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.
Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

  1. An inventionFootnote *, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  2. Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
  3. An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.
Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:

The proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:
  • The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation
    or
  • The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).
Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, the proposal must include the following information:

  • Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
  • How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.
Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)
0 points/Fail:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
  • The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
  • The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.
5 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.
12 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.
20 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; or
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces.

Part 2: Phase 1 - Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 65 of 130 possible total points (50%) to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants (offerors) will receive 10 points.

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
  4. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the development of the proof of feasibility and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 1 Project Risks

Identify potential project risks to the development of the proof of feasibility and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

  • Human Resources
  • Financial
  • Project Management
  • Intellectual Property
  • Supply chain issues

Note: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 6: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a Proof of feasibility Phase 1 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.

  • Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
  • Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
  2. Information is feasible for the Phase 1 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points
Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan.10 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points
Question 8: Inclusivity

A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.

Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that are in place or would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  2. A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
  3. If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion. A registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity. 20 points
Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

A good financial control in R&D refers to effective management and oversight of financial resources allocated to R&D activities, with the goal of maximising the return on investment and ensuring funds are used efficiently and effectively.

For example, this section could include (but not limited to):

  • Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
  • Regular monitoring
  • Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
  • Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
  • Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures
Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 1. 0 points
  2. Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 1. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 1. 10 points
Question 10: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate an overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

  • key tasks
  • estimated cost for materials
  • human resources
  • project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed project plan may be requested if selected for consideration to participate in Phase 2.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has contemplated an overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates an overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however it is vague and/or contains gaps. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a defined overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 10 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@ised-isde.gc.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

A glossary is also available.

 Report a problem
Date modified: