Porsche Formula E pilots will have a new model, the 975 RSE, for the coming season. The Porsche Newsroom took a deep dive into the technical development of the Gen4 race car at the Weissach Development Centre

Nico Müller, Formula E factory driver since 2024, has dubbed the new Porsche 975 RSE race car “the Beast.” A maximum of 600kW (816ps), a top speed of 335km/h, and acceleration from 0km/h to 100km/h in 1.8 seconds – these values are enough to put a smile on any race car driver’s face.

Building on the success of the predecessor: The 99X Electric

The name alone, 975 RSE, pays tribute to Porsche Motorsport’s 75th anniversary this year. The groundwork was laid when Pascal Wehrlein clinched the world championship title for drivers in the 2023/2024 season. The Porsche Formula E team went on to win the manufacturers’ and teams’ championships one year later.

The Gen4 race cars represent consistent optimization of the earlier champion vehicles. They’ll enter the 2026/2027 racing season with big wings and plenty of downforce, for a design that’s visually closer to Formula 1, but more importantly will drastically improve grip for faster cornering.

“Formula E has become so fast in just around a decade that we now need aerodynamic downforce,” said Olivier Champenois, technical project leader Formula E at Porsche Motorsport. “But there’s no downforce without drag, which increases energy consumption. To further address this topic, we have two aero packages with different body components: a low-downforce package with less drag for racing and a high-downforce package with more downforce for qualifying, where energy consumption doesn’t matter. We’re talking about up to 150% more downforce than before.”

Visually like Formula 1, internally very different 

The Gen3 Evo 99X Electric powertrain achieves more than 97% efficiency, according to Porsche, compared with less than 55% for the previous generation of Formula 1 race cars. The efficiency is supported by regenerative braking, with energy recovered during deceleration and returned to the battery at rates of up to 700kW, helping the Porsche 975 RSE complete races lasting more than 45 minutes with a usable battery capacity of 51.25kWh.

In fact, the battery contains just around half the energy needed for the race at the starting line, which makes Formula E unique, Porsche says. In other words, it’s the most energy-efficient Formula race car, despite the new aerodynamics, which generate more downforce and are more susceptible to wind than before. “The 975 RSE produces 71% more peak power than its predecessor,” says Champenois.

Durability up, weight and costs down 

Formula E teams operate within energy limits set by the regulations, requiring developers and drivers to maximize efficiency during races. FIA-mandated standardized components also limit the scope for teams to improve performance through in-house development, with the Gen4 regulations retaining common chassis, aerodynamic components, tires and battery systems; as efficiency improves, factors such as weight, durability and cost have become more prominent development priorities.

“Although we’re developing more components in-house, the overall weight of our parts package could not increase by more than 5kg,” says Champenois. “But we were able to make many parts lighter.”

Race car development closely mirrors the development of production sports cars in terms of agility and the myriad demands. However, the cycles in racing are much shorter.

The engineers began with the powertrain of the final iteration of the Gen3 Evo vehicles. Porsche was able to incorporate elements developed in-house: the rear-axle electric motor, the transmission, the differentials, the driveshafts and other powertrain components at the rear axle, and cooling and chassis components at the rear. Not to mention all the operating software. The 975 RSE’s control units contain more than 1.5 million lines of code, broken down into well over a hundred individual modules, each of which fulfills a specific purpose.

A whole new level of recuperation

The software also controls, of course, the energy that the wheel feeds back into the battery when the brakes are applied. That is the key performance factor on the racecourse. Recuperating lots of energy ahead of curves allows you to go full power on the next straight. The 975 RSE’s permanent all-wheel drive supports recuperation power of up to 700kW. In fact, around 50% of the racing energy used by the new Formula E race car comes from recuperation.

The oil-cooled permanent magnet synchronous motor at the rear axle has proven to be a true recuperation marvel and can alone recover energy with power of up to 350kW. An electric motor with water jacket cooling offering the same performance values would have to be around 1.5 times larger.

A closely related version of the 975 RSE’s direct oil-cooling system is also used in the Cayenne Turbo Electric, highlighting technology transfer between Porsche’s racing and production programs. The collaboration also extends to the test benches at the Weissach Development Centre, where components for both road and race cars are evaluated.

From the test lab to reality 

Components undergo testing on the test bench when engineers want to assess their performance and durability before a complete vehicle is available. These components are integrated into the electronic loop, a digitally simulated vehicle environment.

This in-the-loop testing replaces components like control units and therefore enables testing in the lab, even if the physical vehicle exists only in fragments. The scope of this testing has further expanded with the new generation. “The Gen3 was already complex in its own right, but the Gen4 systems are much more so,” confirms Champenois. Due in part to new levels of freedom in calibrating and controlling the axle differentials. After all, every test scenario that can be reproduced on the test bench reduces development costs. The connection to series production is visible here, too.

But the test bench is not reality. Despite state-of-the-art digital tools, it still falls short of reality, which is what makes test-driving indispensable. This is especially true in racing. Nico Müller and Pascal Wehrlein have therefore been testing the 975 RSE on the racecourse since November 2025 – for final calibration of all the systems.

Fans will see the Gen4 car in competition from December 2026, when the Porsche Formula E team is set to field the 975 RSE with drivers Nico Müller and Pascal Wehrlein.

EXPLORE: Inside Stellantis’s new battery technology hub in Canada

The North America Battery Technology Centre in Windsor, Ontario, is a major new hub for Stellantis’s battery development and validation work across the region. Spanning more than 8,600m², the facility supports testing of battery cells, modules and packs for battery-electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, helping validate performance, durability, reliability and safety under both normal and extreme operating conditions.

The center includes 35 walk-in climatic test cells capable of supporting up to 63 simultaneous pack tests, along with 11 reach-in test cells that can support up to 132 simultaneous cell tests. Its equipment can test battery pack charge/discharge capability at up to 1,100kW, and cells at up to 3kW, across extreme environmental conditions ranging from -40°C to 65°C, with high-speed temperature ramp rates.

Construction began in late 2023 and was completed at the end of 2025. The facility is expected to create approximately 55 highly qualified engineering and technical positions and is part of Stellantis’ broader US$2.6bn investment, announced in May 2022, to secure the future of its Canadian operations, expand the Automotive Research and Development Centre and accelerate the company’s transition to electrification.

It also complements Stellantis’s global battery development network, including a sister Battery Technology Center in Turin, Italy. The Windsor and Turin facilities have similar testing equipment and capabilities, enabling Stellantis to share valuable data and learnings to support the company’s global engineering network.

What types of projects will the North America BTC undertake for Stellantis? 

The facility will support non-destructive validation testing of battery cells, modules and packs, as well as root-cause analysis and engineering investigations related to battery performance and quality. Its work will help validate battery systems throughout the development cycle, improve engineering agility, reduce reliance on external testing resources and protect Stellantis’s internal expertise and intellectual property.

How does the BTC build on Stellantis’s relationship with the University of Windsor and other academic partners? 

The Battery Technology Centre builds on the ARDC’s long-standing collaboration with the University of Windsor and other leading Canadian universities, including McMaster University and the University of Waterloo. These partnerships support research into critical industry priorities such as electrification, advanced powertrains and lightweighting. Over the past 30 years, the ARDC has also hosted more than 800 engineering student placements, giving students hands-on industry experience and helping develop the next generation of automotive engineering talent.

How would you describe the current role of the ARDC within Stellantis’s broader R&D ecosystem? 

The ARDC in Windsor plays a critical role in Stellantis’s product development work, contributing to engineering and development for nearly every vehicle launched by our North American brands, as well as several global models. The 93,000m² site is home to approximately 800 employees and includes six road-test simulators, proprietary software development capabilities and a wide range of research and development support facilities that are unique to Stellantis’s North American footprint.

With total research and development investment in Canada now exceeding US$1.4bn, the ARDC remains a key part of Stellantis’s North American engineering footprint. Its work supports vehicle development, strengthens local technical expertise and provides valuable hands-on experience for post-secondary students through co-op placements and advanced research projects that support product development priorities.

Has the ARDC’s focus changed under Stellantis’s new FaSTLAne 2030 strategy?

The ARDC’s work continues to evolve in line with Stellantis’s FaSTLAne 2030 strategic plan, which includes significant growth ambitions through 2030 and expanded market coverage through the launch of 11 all-new vehicles in North America. The Battery Technology Centre is a clear example of that direction, reinforcing Stellantis’s commitment to advancing battery technology and supporting the next generation of electrified vehicles. Our strategy is built around customer choice, affordability and disciplined execution, regardless of technology. As such, the ARDC is equipped with a wide variety of technical capabilities to support the development of a range of products and propulsion systems based on customer demand.

EXPLORE: Are standard heat release combustion models a match for future fuels?

For 2026, Mahindra Automotive North America’s manager of body structures engineering, Prasad Kulkarni, joined the ATTI Awards panel at Automotive Testing Expo Europe bringing his unique insight to the voting process. He has spent 26 years in body-in-white engineering, starting with pencil sketches on drafting boards, evolving through the full digital transformation to today’s AI-augmented workflows. Here he explains what makes for a superior awards contender, his current pain points, the next wave of testing developments, and more.

Please tell us a little about your career background and how it has informed where you are today.

My journey has taken me through the entire validation spectrum: from the early days of physical crash sled tests and hammer-impact NVH evaluations, to today’s complex battery protection testing for EVs and multiphysics occupant safety simulations. I’ve lived in CAE environments where pre-processing, solver and post-processing tools became extensions of my engineering intuition.

At Mahindra Automotive North America, I have two parallel focuses. First, optimizing body structure architecture that accommodates multiple powertrains without compromising crash performance or manufacturing efficiency – a challenging but essential strategy as OEMs navigate the transition era. Second, I focus on something I call ‘front-loaded intelligence,’ shifting the point at which testing informs the designer from the end of the development cycle – when changes are expensive and time is limited – to the very beginning, when a well-placed insight costs almost nothing to act on. That gap between where testing currently sits in the development cycle and where it could sit is what drives most of my thinking today.

What is the biggest hardship in your testing field?

The ‘correlation canyon,’ that’s what I call it. For example, we have incredibly sophisticated software that can simulate structural deformation under impact with reasonable accuracy, and equally sophisticated data acquisition systems that capture thermal runaway propagation in physical tests. But the bridge between them, reconciling why the simulation predicted buckling at one timestamp but the physical test
showed it at another, and – more critically – connecting those mechanical predictions to actual thermal outcomes, is still precarious, still largely manual and still devastatingly slow.

Specifically, we run virtual structural abuse simulations that predict enclosure deformation and intrusion, then execute the physical nail penetration tests. The data exists, both virtual and physical, but extracting meaning requires weeks of manual correlation, filtering noise and chasing down discrepancies. These timing and behavioral gaps represent millions of dollars in design iterations.

The deeper problem is that testing today is fundamentally passive. I specify a test, I run it, I get a pass/fail verdict. What the industry has perfected is data acquisition; what it has not perfected is knowledge extraction. We are data rich but insight poor. Until testing hardware and software are built as a natively correlated ecosystem, where each physical test event automatically updates and refines the simulation model rather than triggering weeks of manual reconciliation, we will keep paying for that canyon in program time and design quality.

What do you think makes a winning awards entry stand out?

In more than two decades in this industry, I’ve seen hundreds of entries showcasing incremental improvements in data acquisition speed or camera resolution. What excites me as a judge is technology
that changes when testing happens in the development cycle, and more importantly, in what direction it looks – testing that faces forward, toward design decisions yet to be made, rather than backward at validation of decisions already frozen.

The standout entries demonstrate three things with real conviction. First, democratization: tools that take complexity out of the specialist’s hands and put predictive capability directly into the designer’s workstation, so structural intelligence is no longer the exclusive domain of CAE teams. Second, closed-loop learning: systems that don’t just collect data and flag failures but automatically feed correlated insights back into simulation models, so every physical test event makes the next virtual prediction more accurate. Third, prescriptive intelligence: systems that don’t just flag failures but generate ranked red to green (R2G) pathways with predicted mass, cost and confidence outcomes.

I also value intellectual honesty above polish. The best submissions openly acknowledge where the technology still has ground to cover. That candor increases credibility with judges who’ve spent time in actual test labs, because we can tell the difference between a field-proven result and an optimized slide deck very quickly. Show me technology that turns testing from a rear-view mirror into a headlight and navigation system combined, and you’ve got my vote.

What developments in testing hardware and software are you most looking forward to seeing over the next couple of years?

I’m watching for the convergence of Gen AI with physics-based testing – what I call ‘predictive co-pilots.’ This space is growing at a pace outstripping almost every other segment in vehicle development technology, and I believe the breakthrough will come from AI systems that don’t just analyze test data but also generate optimized design proposals based on anticipated loading scenarios.

There are two developments I want to see most. The first is intelligent design verification plan (DVP) generators – platforms where I upload my design CAD, specify my vehicle class and target markets, and the system autonomously constructs my entire validation program: which tests, in what sequence, with what acceptance criteria, all optimized for timeline compression and risk mitigation. Not a template pulled from a database, but a bespoke protocol generated by analyzing my specific geometry and architecture.

The second development I’d really like to see is fully realized R2G-enabled testing ecosystems, where testing software doesn’t just return pass/fail but returns a ranked list of design modifications with predicted outcomes. Imagine an output that looks like, Option A: add 1.5mm thickness, mass +1.2kg, pass probability 94%; Option B: change material grade, mass +0.6kg, pass probability 91%; Option C: redesign joint geometry, mass -0.3kg, pass probability 89%.

These two capabilities together could compress DVP cycles from 24 months to 12, fundamentally altering program economics. That is testing as design advisor, not design validator, and it changes everything about how vehicles are developed.

Beyond those two, I’m also keen on multiphysics correlation platforms that unify crash, NVH and durability disciplines automatically, because in the physical world, a battery pack doesn’t care whether it’s experiencing a crash load or a durability load; it just knows it’s under stress. I’m also interested in automated physical-to-virtual calibration using computer vision and digital image correlation: systems that automatically calibrate finite element models from high-speed camera data without human intervention, reducing the correlation cycle from weeks to hours. The through line across all of it: testing must become forward looking and advisory, not backward looking and judgmental.

Do you think testing and validation processes will be a key differentiator for automotive companies over the next decade?

Absolutely – and speaking from the structural engineering perspective, where every platform decision has a direct consequence for safety, weight, cost and time-to-market, testing capability is already the most undervalued competitive variable in vehicle development. When platform architectures converge and powertrain choices narrow across the industry, the company that develops a safer, better-optimized vehicle in less time wins – on cost, timing and product quality simultaneously. The OEMs that recognize testing as a strategic investment rather than a program cost will pull ahead decisively.

In which areas do you see testing having the greatest impact?

Battery safety and structural protection testing: As architectures push toward 800V and higher energy densities, the margin for error in thermal propagation testing vanishes. Prescriptive virtual validation, where AI predicts failure modes across thousands of crash scenarios and can suggest design modifications ensuring compliance while minimizing mass and cost, will separate the leaders from the rest. Virtual validation as a primary evidence source will become increasingly standard, but the winners will be those whose programs deliver an optimization roadmap alongside compliance evidence,
not just a binary approval.

Multiphysics durability and NVH correlation: With EVs, durability isn’t just mechanical anymore; it is thermal-mechanical-vibration coupled. Testing that can accurately predict how a body structure degrades under 15 years of combined road loads, thermal cycling from charging and high-frequency motor vibrations will be critical. The differentiator will be testing technologies that not only compress the DVP timeline but also identify hidden optimization opportunities, spotting that a particular cross-member configuration also improves durability, NVH and crash performance, even though it was only specified for one discipline.

Software-defined structural safety: As vehicles become software defined, the interaction between structural crash performance and active safety systems, pre-tensioning seatbelts, active hood lifters and battery disconnect algorithms becomes hyper-complex.

Testing that can validate the integrated system and co-optimize hardware and software simultaneously: Given this structural response, here’s the optimal restraint firing sequence; and given that sequence, here’s the structural modification that makes it 15% more effective,’ will be the new frontier of occupant protection.

The winners will be those who move testing from the validation phase to the inspiration phase, using predictive technologies to guide and optimize design rather than merely confirm it. That is the future I am working toward as both a judge and a practitioner.

EXPLORE: ATTI Awards panelist interview: Damian Harty

For autonomous platforms built without a steering wheel or traditional foot controls, the mandate for a physical cabin interface disappears. Crucially, however, the physical stopping distances that vehicle dynamics and computer-aided engineering (CAE) teams validate against remain entirely unaltered. For testing departments, the challenge is structural: while the physical targets haven’t moved, the actuation command, data instrumentation and type-approval certification package must be completely reengineered.

Bridging the legacy gap

First issued in 1995, FMVSS No. 135 defines stopping distance as the exact interval between the moment force is applied to the physical brake control, to the point at which the vehicle comes to a complete stop. The historic framework relies on that force originating from a foot-operated control. Although this works seamlessly for driver-operated setups, it introduces severe engineering anomalies for ADS platforms where braking commands manifest as electronic controller area network (CAN) packets routed to a linear actuator.

Furthermore, NHTSA acknowledges that for fully autonomous robotaxis, a physical pedal assembly represents an active cabin safety hazard. An occupant accidentally or intentionally depressing a legacy pedal during automated operations could induce severe systemic conflicts, overriding or corrupting the safety logic of the automated driving system.

Evolving definitions of actuation

The new NPRM restricts traditional foot-pedal and manual parking brake rules strictly to vehicles maintaining physical controls. For purpose-built ADS vehicles, the service and parking brakes must be triggered exclusively by onboard computing architectures, with external remote command signals strictly precluded.

To bridge the engineering gap, the proposal introduces a broader definition of a ‘service brake control.’ For pedal-less designs, this includes any physical or solid-state component that translates an incoming electronic command into mechanical input for the hydraulic or brake-by-wire system. Track testing and laboratory procedures will be modified accordingly: standard pedal-force requirements will be set aside in favor of manufacturer-provided specifications defining baseline control inputs. Additionally, the traditional dashboard warning telltale must be engineered to be clearly visible from any designated seating position inside the cabin.

The physical limits of braking performance remain untouched. A pedal-less robotaxi must continue to demonstrate a cold-effective stopping distance of 70m or less from an initial velocity of 100km/h. Thermal fade requirements remain equally rigid, demanding that at least one of two consecutive hot stops from 100km/h registers at 89m or less. Wheel lockup constraints remain capped at 0.1 seconds above speeds of 15km/h, and manual anti-lock braking system (ABS) override controls remain strictly banned.

The data instrumentation challenge

While the physical performance dimensions of the NPRM are unambiguous, establishing compliant verification procedures introduces serious friction for track-test engineers. Legacy testing protocols rely heavily on a calibrated load cell mounted directly to a physical pedal to measure normalized occupant force. In an ADS vehicle, that physical force is replaced by a decentralized network command, be it a target deceleration rate, a specific torque request sent directly to a brake-by-wire module, or a positional target for a master-cylinder actuator.

Currently, there is no standardized industry consensus identifying which digital bus signal represents the definitive equivalent of a human ‘panic stop’ application. In response, NHTSA has opted to defer to individual OEM specifications. While this approach maintains strict technology neutrality, it shifts a substantial engineering burden onto the regulatory certification package. Homologation teams must clearly define a ‘maximum input’ condition that aggressively stresses the hydraulic lines, document all underlying signal architectures, and satisfy compliance auditors that the chosen software state genuinely simulates a worst-case emergency stop. Consequently, third-party compliance testing facilities will require comprehensive access to proprietary signal dictionaries to inject these explicit commands directly onto the vehicle network bus alongside existing deceleration and wheel-speed data acquisition (DAQ) channels.

The thermodynamic compensation conundrum

This operational paradigm shifts the focus toward brake fade and thermal recovery tests. Traditional testing stresses thermal margins through predictable, repeated manual pedal applications. Conversely, an autonomous vehicle governed by an integrated deceleration controller will dynamically adapt to fading friction coefficients by automatically ramping up its internal line pressure or torque requests to hit its deceleration targets.

This behavior forces a technical impasse that the industry must resolve: should the controller’s active thermal compensation logic be considered a native component of the system under evaluation, or must that closed-loop logic be inhibited during compliance validation to isolate and characterize the raw, underlying hardware? The current NPRM leaves this operational parameter unresolved, creating a vital target for industry feedback.

Strategic action before the deadline

The proposal explicitly sidesteps how passengers might interact with an emergency-stop sequence or how the ADS core should arbitrate such inputs. For the immediate future, any unforeseen passenger-interaction risks will fall under NHTSA’s broad defect enforcement authority, while a comprehensive, dedicated ADS performance standard is drafted for long-term implementation. Ultimately, the revised FMVSS No. 135 framework validates whether an autonomous vehicle is mechanically capable of stopping within a safe physical boundary once a command propagates; it does not evaluate whether the perception stack or path-planning software calculated that command at the appropriate timestamp.

Formal industry comments under docket NHTSA-2026-0728 must be submitted by July 27, 2026. This proposal marks the fifth standard modernized under the AV Framework, yet it represents the absolute first iteration where hardware removal alters real-world physical performance measurements rather than secondary cabin convenience features. For engineering units inside OEMs, Tier 1 system suppliers and testing laboratories, focus must remain on providing highly granular feedback regarding signal documentation baselines, closed-loop compensation parameters during thermal degradation, and standardizing passenger-system interactions. The physical removal of the pedal makes for an easy headline, but the underlying narrative is a complex, line-by-line adaptation of a 1995 protocol to an entirely digital machine.

Sources

• NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Modernization of FMVSS No. 135 To Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles,” Federal Register, 26 June 2026 (Docket NHTSA-2026-0728).
• NHTSA press release, “Trump’s Transportation Department Launches Commonsense Updates to Brake Pedal Requirements for AVs,” 25 June 2026.
• 49 CFR § 571.135, “Standard No. 135; Light vehicle brake systems.”
• Sidley Environmental, Health, and Safety Brief, “NHTSA Proposes Amending Federal Brake Standards for Autonomous Vehicles,” 29 June 2026.

More on safety standards and passive safety testing in this year’s edition of Crash Test Technology International, the sister title to ATTI. Read both magazines online

Kistler reveals why conventional in-cylinder pressure calculation models may not hold up when analyzing zero-carbon fueled engines 

Optimizing engines to efficiently burn zero-carbon fuels is a key task in the current shift toward a more sustainable future. A fundamental measurement requirement in the development of combustion system engines has long been the detailed analysis of combustion pressure data. However, for many, the basis for interpreting the test data still relies on calculation models for carbon-based fuel combustion. Given the chance to conduct their own extensive study at the University of Nottingham, pressure measurement experts from Kistler took a closer look at how these models hold up with these low or zero-carbon fuels. After tests with various ammonia-hydrogen mixtures, the experts were surprised by how significantly even small changes in the fuel-mix affected the derived results. The good news is that these findings might now help engineers optimize their combustion systems more efficiently.

Combustion pressure measurement gives engineers a clear image of what happens inside the engine during operation. To get relevant data, a small piezoelectric sensor is mounted directly in the cylinder head. As air and fuel are compressed and ignited, the rapidly increasing in-cylinder pressure is captured with high fidelity creating a detailed pressure curve for each combustion cycle. Based on this data, engineers know how fast the fuel burns, when exactly peak pressure is reached, how efficiently the energy is released and whether the combustion is stable. These insights are crucial for optimizing any combustion engine. They help with finding optimized combustion phasing to avoid knock or mechanical overload, improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions.

In other words, measuring and analyzing combustion pressure is an indispensable tool for building better and more eco-friendly engines. Yet, researchers and engineers still rely heavily on simplified first-law heat release models, which typically assume fixed polytropic indices. Polytropic indices are thermodynamic parameters which lie at the core of the analysis. They describe how pressure and volume change during gas compression or expansion in the cylinder, providing insights into how much energy is retained or lost during the process.

Questioning the calculation model

The polytropic index commonly used in combustion analysis has been well established and proven in many years of research on engines burning hydrocarbon fuels. Other types of fuels, however, differ significantly in thermodynamic properties, flame speed, ignition characteristics and specific heat ratio. Experts at Kistler, a leading manufacturer of piezoelectric pressure sensors, wanted to explore the sensitivity of this aspect, with respect to zero-carbon fuels – and how much this might influence the results in engine development work. “We wondered whether parameters proven in the research of carbon fuels would hold up when applied to zero-carbon fuel combustion. So, we decided to look into it,” explains Dr David Rogers, head of ICE systems at Kistler, who led the study.

In collaboration with the Powertrain Research Centre at the University of Nottingham, the team decided to make the most of the opportunity to work with the sophisticated test equipment and research engine that the facility has.

The mixture of ammonia (NH₃) and hydrogen is increasingly considered a carbon-free fuel alternative with a high potential for heavy-duty combustion engines as used in marine propulsion applications. Ammonia and hydrogen have combustion characteristics that differ significantly from conventional carbon fuels: while ammonia has a lower burning velocity than gasoline, hydrogen has a higher one and their specific heat ratios are different as well.

The Kistler team wanted to explore whether gasoline-based assumptions are still valid for ammonia-hydrogen blends, or whether they might introduce systematic errors in burn-rate analysis, combustion phasing prediction and ignition delay estimation.

“Ammonia and hydrogen are tricky to store. Also, you need an engine that is able to burn it. Thanks to the university, we had access to both,” reveals Rogers. “We really did not know what to expect and would have been happy if nothing had shown up in our findings. But that was not the case.”

The test approach: Getting to the basis of combustion pressure analysis

The laboratory at the university was equipped with a modern single-cylinder spark-ignition research engine with variable valve timing, direct fuel injection and a dedicated port fuel injection for ammonia and hydrogen. The high-speed in-cylinder pressure data was recorded using a Kistler piezoelectric transducer (Type 6045B), which was flush-mounted in the cylinder head. The connected KiBox2 combustion analysis system from Kistler prepared the data for interpretation. The tests covered both pure ammonia combustion and various ammonia-hydrogen blends (up to 60% hydrogen share).

The measured in-cylinder pressure was used as the main input, converting the pressure curve into an energy release curve, showing how quickly and at what crank angle the fuel’s energy is released during combustion. The research team compared the standard polytropic index based on gasoline combustion with a more detailed method: based on the measured pressure data and the specific fuel blend, the polytropic index was calculated individually for each operating point and each cycle. This enabled the Kistler team to quantify the potential error that is introduced when standard gasoline models are applied to ammonia-hydrogen combustion. Conversely, they were able to quantify the increase in accuracy achieved through fuel-specific, cycle-resolved calculations.

The results: Faced with a large potential for errors

Rogers and his team were stunned by the results. “We found the sheer magnitude of the potential errors surprising,” he says. “For some of the operational points the errors were so significant that they rendered the test results borderline unusable.”

Under pure ammonia operation, the polytropic index deviated in compression by about 4% from the gasoline default value. The experts found out that the discrepancies primarily affected the late combustion phase, while the early burn phase was less sensitive. Also, combustion accelerated and modeling discrepancies decreased as the hydrogen share increased.

“Our findings show that conventional gasoline-based heat release analysis is not universally transferable to zero-carbon fuels,” summarizes Rogers. “For accurate prediction of burn duration and combustion phasing, fuel-specific or cycle-resolved polytropic indices are required.”

How these results help engineers create more sustainable engines

In day-to-day engine research and development, engineers are under a lot of pressure to quickly improve engines. Here, discrepancies in the test results require repeated measurements, making the whole process less efficient. With more accurate calculation models and, consequently, a more accurate analysis, engineering decisions can be made earlier in the development cycle.

“These combustion metrics are commonly used by our customers in their research and development, so of course we are interested in supporting them as best as we can,” Rogers explains of the motivation for their study. “Experimental work like this helps us a lot in doing so. We want the users of our technology to be confident about the quality of their analysis. The ultimate goal is to make the calculation models better and easier to use through our products. Ideally, the data is so precise and the analysis so conclusive that engineers will be able to make informed engine design decisions already during the measurement phase. This way, we can speed up development time significantly and help engineers create better and more efficient engines.”

In the next step, Kistler intends to embed these findings into its measurement technology to ensure seamless user access. The KiBox2 analysis system enables straightforward implementation of cycle-resolved polytropic indices.

Also, the team wants to do more experimental work – with different engine types and zero-carbon fuel mixtures. “This is just a small part of a bigger picture. The goal of our work is also to clear the path for more cooperations with partners from the industry and universities to continue our research,” concludes Rogers.

As hydrogen, methanol and ammonia gain relevance alongside conventional fuels, testing strategies must evolve to address new physical properties, safety risks and performance expectations. This shift is driving demand for modular, application-specific test systems capable of replicating real-world operating conditions with high precision.

A key challenge lies in the behavior of fuel-contact components under varying thermodynamic and media-specific conditions. Differences in viscosity, compressibility and reactivity between liquid and gaseous fuels require adaptable test environments. Modern systems must therefore combine hydraulic, mechanical and electronic testing capabilities within a single platform.

From component testing to system understanding

Advanced test systems now go beyond basic functional checks, enabling detailed analysis of flow rates, pressure behavior, leakage and long-term durability across components including valves, injectors, pressure regulators, rails and pumps. For injection systems, precise measurement of injection quantities and dynamic flow characteristics is critical.

One example is pressure-based measurement for injection analysis. Systems such as the IAV Cross Injection Analyzer determine injection rates from pressure changes in a fuel-filled channel, enabling dynamic, reproducible measurements without moving parts, reducing maintenance needs while supporting high-resolution data acquisition and real-time integration into digital test environments.

Lifetime and endurance testing also play a central role, with components subjected to mechanical and electronic stress scenarios to assess wear behavior and failure mechanisms over time; insights essential for validating designs intended for series production.

Simulating real-world conditions

A defining feature of modern test infrastructure is the ability to simulate realistic and extreme environmental conditions. Temperature-controlled test chambers enable testing across a wide range – from -76°F to +302°F (-60°C to 150°C) – while additional parameters such as humidity and ambient pressure can be adjusted to replicate specific operating environments.

The combination of environmental simulation with functional testing allows engineers to identify critical interactions early in the development process.

Complementing physical testing, feasibility studies and pre-validation in dedicated development labs help refine test procedures for new applications. This is especially important when dealing with emerging fuels, where standardized testing protocols may not yet exist.

Safety engineering as a core design principle

The introduction of alternative fuels adds significant complexity to safety engineering. Substances such as hydrogen, methanol and ammonia can form explosive atmospheres under certain conditions, making comprehensive hazard analysis essential.

As a result, modern test systems incorporate explosion protection concepts aligned with international standards such as ATEX and IECEx, alongside functional safety requirements defined by Performance Level (PL) and Safety Integrity Level (SIL).

Safety considerations extend beyond the test bench itself. Infrastructure factors such as ventilation systems, gas detection and facility layout are equally important. Effective solutions require a holistic approach that integrates test system design with the surrounding environment, often supported by early-stage risk assessments and coordination with local authorities.

Hydrogen testing and electrolyzer development

Hydrogen technologies add further complexity, particularly in electrolyzer development, where the focus shifts from individual components to entire systems, including single cells and stacks.

Testing requires combining electrical and fluid-based measurement techniques, assessing electrical performance, efficiency and degradation alongside flow distribution and thermal management – a convergence sometimes described as the merging of electronic and fuel testing.

Emerging test concepts support multiple electrolyser technologies, including PEM (proton exchange membrane), AEL (alkaline electrolysis) and AEM (anion exchange membrane). Modular architectures allow scaling across power classes and varying instrumentation levels, suiting both research and industrial pre-series validation.

Modularity as a strategic advantage

Given the uncertainty surrounding future fuel pathways, flexibility has become a key requirement. Modular test systems enable manufacturers to adapt to changing technologies without the need for entirely new infrastructure. Different test methods – such as flow measurement, leak testing and endurance testing – can be combined within a single system and expanded as requirements evolve.

This approach not only reduces investment risk but also accelerates development cycles. By enabling parallel testing and rapid reconfiguration, modular platforms support faster iteration and more informed decision-making.

Outlook

As propulsion technologies diversify, testing is becoming increasingly central to bridging innovation and industrialization. Generating reliable, application-specific data under realistic conditions is critical for performance, safety and regulatory compliance.

The trend is moving away from standardized solutions toward specialized, adaptable test environments, with modularity, safety integration and cross-disciplinary testing capabilities emerging as defining features of next-generation validation systems.

In recent news, Nio opens new UK R&D center in Oxfordshire

Naturally, visitors and exhibitors felt that it was beneficial to be able to meet new and old faces, with the exhibition being a unique opportunity to do so. Exhibitors in the AI realm, and those with an AI application on display, noticeably captured visitors’ attention. Read ATTI‘s Day 1 roundup here and our Day 2 roundup here.

The MOVEdot workshop: AI agents in automotive testing, which was run by the company’s co-founder and CTO Bruno Finco, also proved incredibly popular. In a first for the workshop organizers, it was so busy that Finco ran it twice in one afternoon. 

On Day 1, Patrick Stiller, AI lead at tracetronic, presented in the Innovation Showcase – A journey to agentic testing – to a packed audience. Another example of the impact AI is having on the testing community. 

The content truly was the icing on the cake for visitors, with the AI and data-focused presentations in the Innovation Showcase receiving strong audience engagement. The majority of the talks and content streams in the ATTI Awards Forum and Innovation Showcase were well received and standing-room-only. 

With Euro 7 and Euro NCAP 2026 coming into place this year, it was clear to see that developers currently feel they are fighting an uphill battle, with more than ever on their plates. The frameworks were the topic of two panel discussions and raised some important questions. 

ATTI hosted an onstage interview with Emma Deutsch, tech director, Nissan Technical Centre Europe, and Guy Mathot, ADAS and connectivity software validation fleet supervisor at Ford. Richard Schram, Euro NCAP tech director, was unable to join ATTI onstage due to an unforeseen issue. 

Mathot candidly said during the discussion, “The additional amount of testing is a burden. With the extra scenarios and the introduction of extended types of testing, everything has to move faster. With the introduction of the robustness testing there is still a bit of a question mark as to how it’s integrated.”  

He revealed that the OEM has had adapt its tools and methods, invest in additional equipment – faster targets for example – and new tracks for high-speed crossings. 

In addressing the issue, he noted the importance of simulation, which was echoed by Deutsch, who commented, “You’ve got to go down the simulation route because, let’s be honest, if you don’t you’re dead. We’ve had to invest in that and train our engineers. We’ve also had to double down on our marketability team – it’s about getting that balance between what the customer wants and Euro NCAP.” 

“For me, the real value of attending an exhibition is the opportunity to have face-to-face conversations, build meaningful connections and see hands-on demonstrations in person. That level of engagement simply cannot be replicated online”
Vishnu Asvathanarayanan, function owner – system engineer, Valeo Detection Systems

Bugatti-Rimac’s vehicle dynamics controls manager Alessandro Pino appeared alongside the CEO and co-founder of Marple, Matthias Baert, to present A modern lakehouse architecture for automotive testing. Following the talk, he emphasized to ATTI, “We encourage teams to think beyond isolated datasets and adopt a centralized data strategy, using a unified data lake such as Marple DB combined with an exploration and analysis platform like Marple Insight.” 

It was also a welcome and refreshing change to see so many truck developers on the show floor, as well as on the panel discussions. There was even a professional truck driver, Tatiana Sokolova, taking notes in the audience, who was keen to give her input from a driver’s perspective and learn more about how simulation, AI and real-world data can support each other. 

“I came to Vehicle Tech Week to meet people and learn from the presenters and the show floor. It has been exhausting but happy. For me, the real value of attending in person is the spontaneous meetings you did not plan”
Carina Bjornsson, technical expert ADAS test methods, Volvo Cars

Like Deutsch at Nissan, Dr Christof M Weber wanted to highlight the criticality of always taking the customer into account, and to that effect, he arranged a meeting with Sokolova. He was on a panel discussion – Combining virtual environments with real-world testing – alongside Leo May, lead simulation engineer, Nissan Technical Centre Europe; Mikel Martinez, managing director, EPowerLabs; Andreas Richter, engineer program manager at Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles; and moderator Carlos Sebastian Nerini, CEO and co-founder of WOM Testing Technologies.

Nerini said, “The panel was highly successful in my view. It flowed from start to finish, with exactly the kind of high‑level discussion we needed, enriched by meaningful contributions from all panelists. The strong audience presence, concrete examples, and insightful inputs clearly show the relevance of the topic. Even with limited direct questions, the depth of content required time to be processed, which is often a sign of quality discussions. These are the kinds of conversations that start to drive change and raise awareness about the transforming impact of new technologies on established development processes.”

Weber commented, “It’s about making concepts stable and resilient against changes during the project, resilient against variations and different models. Then it becomes clear that you have to do virtual testing when it comes to variance, because a prototype you build once cannot be copied 100,000 times, but you can perform hundreds of calculations.” 

“As a regular visitor, I came to Vehicle Tech Week to network and explore new solutions and technologies. The experience has been organized, slick and full of variety. Meeting vendors in person beats online every time”
Jon Gale, TS – rig and system integration, Jaguar Land Rover

VIP Executive Club

The event also featured the VIP Executive Club, a dedicated space for senior leaders that offered curated peer talks throughout the show. 

“We have had some great sessions and heard some great stories [during the PeerTalks],” said Arun Udamakuyar, systems architect, Jaguar Land Rover. 

Vehicle Tech Week Awards 2026

At the end of Day 2, visitors, exhibitors and other attendees had a chance to relax a little while networking and celebrating. The first Vehicle Tech Week Awards, which encompass the ATTI Awards, the ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle Awards and the Trailblazer Awards, were hailed as a huge success. The ATTI Award winners – Humanetics, DSD, Tracetronic, WeRide, DTS and Santiago Rayes – were absolutely delighted to receive the recognition. Read more about the ATTI Award winners here.

Visitor testimonials

“I came to Vehicle Tech Week to share our experience on a project of global relevance, gain feedback on our technical deployment strategy and explore the latest trends in CAV and AI presented by a broad range of industry players, from OEMs to component suppliers. My experience has been enlightening, useful and cool – literally, the air-conditioning worked well! Face-to-face events continue to be invaluable, offering a true opportunity to build an industry network”
Mircea Gradu, VP vehicle engineering and FISITA board chair, Karma Automotive and FISITA

“We usually interact with many [suppliers] over the phone or on Teams, so being able to meet them all in one place makes a real difference. It is also valuable to see competitors side by side, understand where their services overlap and have more organic conversations than you would in a set meeting. The experience has been informative and has opened up a lot of curiosity, leading to additional questions and follow-up workshops with suppliers back in the UK. Exhibitions are important because they help you step outside your own bubble, gather external opinions and see whether your views align with the wider industry”
Craig Lewis, Jaguar Land Rover

“I’m a vehicle engineer working on vehicle testing for new Ford Otosan projects. I wanted to learn about new systems, new equipment and new test centers from suppliers. The experience has been fun, intense and insightful. Attending an exhibition in person allows for real interaction, hands-on experience and stronger networking compared to online”
Suleyman Esen, senior vehicle NVH engineer, Ford Otosan

Dates for the diary

On offer at Automotive Testing Expo North America 2026 will be another content-packed program with insights from OEMs, academics and suppliers. That will include the Future of Automotive Testing Conference, focusing on the ‘shift-left’ movement, as well as the Innovation Showcase. It will take place at the Suburban Collection Showplace in Novi, Michigan, October 22-25, 2026.

Vehicle Tech Week Europe will return to Messe Stuttgart June 2-3, 2027, and will continue to unite the automotive technology ecosystem across testing, autonomy, interiors and future mobility.

Read more: Find full coverage of Automotive Testing Expo Europe 2026 here

A key heat transfer fluid (HTF) in automotive applications is monoethylene glycol (MEG) mixed with water in varying ratios. At low temperatures this fluid becomes viscous. Peter Huber Kältemaschinenbau’s Unimotive range of temperature control units are specifically designed and built so that this increasing viscosity does not affect either the temperature control or the flow control. Testing encompasses safety evaluations including material flammability tests, stress and load analyses and temperature-dependent assessments. Huber’s temperature control systems, coupled with the accurate flow control of HTF, results in reliable and repeatable results. This not only enhances the overall quality and safety of automotive components but also ensures precise engineering outcomes for manufacturers.

Leading the green way

The automotive sector is a leader in technological innovation and progress. The sector is driving ever-improving efficiencies and implementing green energy solutions. Sustainability and energy conservation have been at the core of engineering design and execution at Huber since the company started in 1968. The company’s dedication to sustainability is reflected in its use of natural refrigerants in all models, with options including refrigeration systems that use CO₂ as a refrigerant with set-points as low as -45°C. Products are fabricated using high-quality, recyclable materials that promote longevity and reduce waste. It is attention to details like this that Huber believes sets it apart and demonstrates the company’s commitment to sustainable manufacturing.

CO₂-based automotive temperature control technology 

Its latest achievement in sustainable innovation, the Unimotive GL (Green Line) series, sets a new benchmark in environmentally friendly refrigeration, according to the company. Operating with CO₂, this series provides a 100% eco-friendly alternative to systems using synthetic refrigerants. Designed specifically for automotive applications, the Unimotive GL series facilitates direct operation with water-glycol solutions, offering an extensive temperature range (in the XT variant) from -45°C to 150°C.

Attaining such an elevated temperature using water/MEG as an HTF is achieved by passively and safely pressurising the HTF circuit. In the event of a power failure, the pressure is safely lowered without the use of active components.

The series supports diverse applications, including temperature simulation tests, material durability evaluations and stress/load testing for functional automotive components. Since its adoption in the refrigeration field in the 19th century, CO₂ has proven to be highly effective. With no ozone depletion potential (ODP = 0) and a minimal global warming potential (GWP = 1), it significantly reduces environmental impact. Additionally, CO₂’s large-scale natural availability eliminates energy-intensive production processes. Its non-flammable, non-toxic and chemically inert properties make it an ideal choice for sustainable engineering solutions.

For the XT variant, with temperatures reaching up to 150°C, the carbon footprint remains minimal across the lifecycle – from production to operation and beyond.

Progress and sustainability

As automotive manufacturers integrate these eco-friendly systems, they contribute to both technological progress and environmental preservation. Huber’s principles of quality, performance, reliability and repeatability are coupled seamlessly with ecological responsibility — which Huber says is a testament to the brand’s enduring legacy and forward-thinking ethos. In summary, Huber’s eco-friendly temperature control technology goes beyond machinery and metrics. It is a catalyst for reshaping the automotive landscape sustainably.

In 2010, Damian Harty was enjoying an especially rewarding time in his career as technical specialist in dynamics at Prodrive, the renowned UK engineering consultancy and motorsport preparation outfit. Having previously been involved in the development of the all-conquering Subaru Imprezas in the World Rally Championship, he had turned his attention to the new (and disappointingly short-lived) Mini Countryman WRC initiative. At that time, Harty wrote an article for Vehicle Dynamics International, ATTI’s former sister title, about the Mini’s development, in which he memorably noted, “There will always be a bigger rock. However much suspension travel there is, it will all get used up. Whatever loads are designed for, they will be exceeded.”

That there will always be a “bigger rock” neatly summarizes much of the difficulty of automotive testing, no matter which part of the vehicle is under consideration. Sixteen years later, during a chat with Harty, ATTI began by asking whether it is now easier than it was before to know where the limit of testing should lie. “I don’t think so, because the challenge is not so much about the vehicle itself, it’s about what the vehicle will encounter,” he replies. “And for as long as you have human drivers and, let’s say, imperfectly calibrated software drivers, it’s still difficult to anticipate the corner cases with which the vehicle will be presented.

“That was what I meant by ‘There will always be a bigger rock.’ So, the requirement to understand where we draw a line in the sand, and then what happens when we inevitably accidentally overshoot that line in the sand, still exists, I think.”

Harty notes that Sir Alec Issigonis, the designer of the original Mini, initially believed that the car’s combination of small size, light weight, front-wheel drive and hydrolastic suspension provided drivers with greater safety margins – but later realized that drivers would fully use up whatever margins you gave them.

“Someone will always go the other side of that line in the sand, so we still need to understand what happens there,” he continues. “We then try to make a value judgment about where we draw the line, such that, if you’re just below it then things emerge undamaged, or if you’re above it, things are damaged in a way that we can predict.

“A further difficulty is that you’re trying to stay inside the herd. If your line is drawn in more or less the same place as everyone else’s, then you’re probably okay. But if it is drawn a lot higher than everyone else’s, your products cost more than they need to; a lot lower than anyone else’s line and you will be on the receiving end of some pretty unpopular sentiment. I think that finding where to draw the line is no easier or more difficult than it ever was.”

A blend of human experience and previous data remains the key to determining how demanding a test should be, according to Harty. “One of the challenges that I understood very clearly in the powersports industry is that as your products improve, people move the line,” he observes. “The speed that people are willing to carry over a certain surface goes up, for example. As you make products better, people’s expectations increase. It’s not a static thing at all.” In short: the test engineer’s work is never done.

Recipe for success

Looking ahead to this year’s ATTI Awards, which will take place at Automotive Testing Expo Europe, Harty notes that test engineers are continuing to marry new techniques with established tools. For the latter, Isaac Newton’s F=ma remains his go-to for a back-to-basics understanding of what is happening to a vehicle, component or subassembly. He also expresses surprise at how little FEA has evolved in the past 30 years, computing power aside. For new methodologies, he highlights automotive software testing as an area where tools are advancing especially rapidly – but cautions that the industry’s understanding of how the product is being used, and therefore where the focus of testing should lie, is still evolving.

“Testing is about trying to find stuff before your customers do,” he explains. “The two areas where that’s most difficult tend to be durability and anything to do with software. The durability challenge is pretty much the same as it has always been. I think that for metallic components, we’re quite well served [with tools and knowledge]. But as soon as you switch to polymers or composites, for example, we’re grasping in the dark as to what they’ll do under repeated loading. That holds us back from using different materials for critical structural applications.

“Meanwhile, the scope for software is evolving all the time,” he continues. “When you put things in the hands of the public, you have the million-monkeys, million-typewriters problem, where they are generating scenarios that you maybe didn’t test for, so all the energy and effort is on the software side. Personally, I’m not so interested in whether the cellphone connectivity works properly or not, because it’s unlikely to be life threatening if you get that wrong. But there is a lot of functional stuff where many systems are interacting and there’s a whole load of corners to poke into. I feel like there is a lot of unmapped territory there that we’re still finding our way into as an industry.”

Harty believes that help in finding such corner cases will be one area in which AI will benefit the testing industry. “One of the things I like about AI is that it’s like talking to someone who isn’t necessarily all that clever but is hugely widely read. For the corner cases, I think it will be easier to poke more deeply into the corners, find and flag an issue, and specifically test for it.”

No two the same

Knowing what to test for will remain an issue for test engineers more generally, he believes, and will continue to be a moving target as customers exploit the margins to which Issigonis referred. Harty has been reminded of this in his recent work with TVS, India’s largest motorcycle manufacturer, rekindling a working relationship that began in the 1990s.

“For me, the biggest misconception about testing is the illusion that we really know what people are going to do with our products,” he confirms. “I think people underestimate how much of an honest best guess is used in all sorts of testing. There’s an erroneous belief in precision that’s misplaced when it comes to putting products out in the wild and understanding what people are going to do with them.

“When I began working with TVS in the 1990s, the engineers talked about how one product, a 50cc moped, was used as a load carrier. I did not understand what they meant: after all, it has a 50cc, two-stroke engine that makes just over one horsepower and can barely do 30mph [50km/h]! But when I came to India, I saw endless examples of multiple sheets of 8 x 4ft [2.4 x 1.2m] plywood, bags of concrete and more, all piled up in incredibly imaginative ways on mopeds with someone walking beside them, using the engine to just walk the load to where they wanted to go. I had no conception that the product could be used like that, but these engineers understood their market. The load case for the pedals was not a human, it was as many sheets of 8×4 ply as you could balance on it – a very different number of kilograms.

“That is an example of the sort of thinking that is quite difficult, especially if you’re coming up with a novel product,” he concludes. “It’s hard to imagine how people might conceive of using your product. That, I think, will continue to keep us interested and amused going forward.

“There is a glorious quote from Douglas Adams in Mostly Harmless: ‘A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.’ He’s saying that whatever you think, there’s no guarantee that’s how everyone else will think. It’s a fascinating idea.”

This article was first published in the June 2026 edition of Automotive Testing Technology International

The results of this year’s Automotive Testing Technology International Awards will be announced at Automotive Testing Expo Europe next week – secure your ticket now!

The ATTI Forum has been curated exclusively for professionals across vehicle development, testing and quality assurance, dedicated solely to discussing next-generation analysis practices and technologies, including hardware and software, that will shape tomorrow’s development landscape.

What themes or trends are you seeing emerge most strongly right now?
Over the past few years, several themes have become major auto news for various reasons. One of those is Euro 7 because it introduces the testing of non-exhaust emissions for the first time (brake and tire emissions), as well as stricter limits on nitrogen oxides and an extended compliance window of 200,000km or 10 years, compared with Euro 6’s 100,000km or five years. As such, we have organized a panel discussion – Euro 7 compliance requirements: Challenges and industry preparedness – with specialists from across the sector to help our audience share strategies and insights.

At one point, it seemed that revelation after revelation was emerging about the vulnerability of vehicles to hacking, alongside data privacy issues linked to the application of AI in vehicles (see our feature on the topic, No free rides, in the June 2025 issue of ATTI). We’ll also be hosting a panel discussion on this and other safety topics – Safe by design, secure by default: Navigating SOTIF, functional safety and cybersecurity in modern automotive testing.

Another key thread is data. Big data has been at the forefront of discussions throughout my 14 years working on ATTI, but there now seems to be a realization that action is needed if the sector is to fully exploit the potential of all the data it has been capturing. Having it is one thing, using it is another – and people seem to be springing into action. It’s a theme throughout the ATTI Awards and Forum, as well as the show itself, and I’m looking forward to learning how developers are tackling the challenge. I am personally looking forward to the presentation from Bugatti Rimac’s vehicle dynamics controls manager, Alessandro Pino, and Marple CEO and co-founder, Matthias Baert – A modern lakehouse architecture for automotive testing. The audience will learn how the two companies have worked together to create a next-gen data architecture, having stored, queried and analyzed 300TB+ of powertrain data from the Tourbillon. 

What topic do you expect attendees to be discussing long after the ATTI Forum ends?
Data and digital twins. I was at another industry event recently and asked various people how they define a digital twin, and whether they would agree with the statement that many digital twins are “static 3D models with a few datapoints layered on top.” These words were written by Dr Ahmed Abada, a senior product manager at BMW Group, in a column he wrote for the March 2026 edition of ATTI. At first, the answer I received was simply, “It depends.” But once I got people talking, we ended up discussing and debating different viewpoints for quite some time.

I’m really looking forward to chatting with Dr Abada and getting his thoughts on digital twin applications, data security and other industry issues, including how regulations affecting exports to the USA are impacting European OEMs. For example, regulations around components, software and hardware, and where automated testing can help.

What are you hoping to learn from the conversations happening here?
Every day I am fed content from external sources about the latest testing innovations and groundbreaking vehicle projects. It’s easy to be fooled into thinking everyone has it sorted, that every vehicle tester is doing their job with their eyes closed. Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt our audience members take everything in their stride. After all, it is the engineer’s job to experiment, learn and develop new solutions. However, I am interested in hearing about the day-to-day challenges engineers are facing in the lab behind closed doors.

For example, it’s all well and good to say that test automation is helpful, but where are facilities struggling to integrate automated testing and AI into digital twin processes so that these technologies are not standalone tools, but part of a broader workflow? And, crucially, how can our exhibitors help visitors meet those niggles head-on?

Hear from Rachel on June 23 at the ATTI Forum, where she will be joined by engineering experts from AVL, Ford, Nissan, Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles and Daimler Truck, among others

Visit the website to register for your free pass to Automotive Testing Expo Europe. The event is part of Vehicle Tech Week and will take place at Messe Stuttgart, Germany, June 22-24, 2026