HRC lead times fell for the week ending January 13 to 3.5 from 3.6 last week.
CRC Lead times came in at 6 weeks – up from 5.6 in the week prior, while HDG was flat with last week at 5.8 weeks.
Sources: The Steel Index, Steel Business Briefing
HRC = Hot Rolled Coil CRC = Cold Rolled Coil HDG = Hot Dipped GalvanizedHRC lead times rose for the week ending December 30 to 3.4 from the 5-week low of 3.1 last week.
CRC lead times also rose – coming in at 6.0 weeks from last week’s 8-week low of 5.7. HDG lead times came in flat at 6.0 weeks.
Sources: The Steel Index, Steel Business Briefing
HRC = Hot Rolled Coil CRC = Cold Rolled Coil HDG = Hot Dipped GalvanizedHRC lead times dropped for the week ending December 16 to 4.2 from 3.7 last week.
HDG and CRC lead times also rose – with HDG coming in at 6.4 weeks from a 5-week low of 5.9 in the week prior and CRC rising to 5.8 from a 6-week low of 6.4.
Sources: The Steel Index, Steel Business Briefing
HRC = Hot Rolled Coil CRC = Cold Rolled Coil HDG = Hot Dipped GalvanizedHRC lead times dropped for the week ending December 9 to 3.7 from the three-month high of 3.9 last week.
HDG and CRC lead times also fell – with HDG coming in at a 5-week low of 5.9 weeks from 6.6 in the week prior and CRC falling to a 6-week low of 5.6 from 6.0 in the week prior.
Sources: The Steel Index, Steel Business Briefing
HRC = Hot Rolled Coil CRC = Cold Rolled Coil HDG = Hot Dipped GalvanizedHRC lead times for the week ending November 25 rose to 3.5 from last week’s 3.0.
CRC lead times also rose – coming in at an 11-week high of 6.4 weeks from 6.1 in the week prior. HDG lead times posted the lone decrease, falling to 6.3 from last week’s 3-month high of 6.5.
Sources: The Steel Index, Steel Business Briefing
HRC = Hot Rolled Coil CRC = Cold Rolled Coil HDG = Hot Dipped GalvanizedAt CRU’s 6th annual North American Steel Conference held in Chicago last week, panelists debated the long-time question of materials use in coming generations of automobiles.
On the side of Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), Dr. PK Rastogi – Global Automotive Marketing Manager at ArcelorMittal said that it’s possible to build a car that can attain 54.5 mpg using AHHS while shifting to aluminum aluminum achieves only marginal improvement on this figure at higher cost.
Following this up was Curt Horvath – Technical Fellow of Materials and Corrosion Engineering at GM who said that he doesn’t see the auto industry moving away from steel due to the investments it has made in steel processing.
Ron Krupitzer – VP Automotive Applications at the American Iron & Steel Institute pointed out that when it comes to the total life-cycle carbon footprint of a vehicle made from AHSS vs. one made from aluminum, magnesium and carbon fiber – the vehicle made from AHSS had the smaller carbon footprint.
Umesh Gandhi – a scientist at the Toyota Research Institute of North America – said that much of the weight-savings AHSS can yield has been achieved already and that the next lowest hanging fruit is going to come in the form of glass fiber materials.
Alcoa’s Director of Automotive Sheet, Randall Scheps argued that aluminum is now 343 pounds of weight in the average car and that compared to engine modifications fuel efficiency gains are easier to achieve by switching to aluminum. He went on to say that the product they offer works with existing auto presses and that in 8 years he foresees 10 times the demand for rolled aluminum products.
Our Conclusion? In the 1970s at the time of the first gas crisis in the United States, the aluminum industry first stepped up to offer CAFE-compliant auto bodies to Detroit. In the 40+ years since that time, aluminum’s inroads have been meager as steel has stayed ahead of the curve with lightweighting, improved formability, longer-lifespan and dramatically improved recycling. We suspect that Detroit will stick with the tried-and-true.
