NEOL’s expert interviews: Andrew Lewis

Driving innovation for a cleaner, more efficient future, Dr. Andrew Lewis, Principal Engineer and Project Lead at IAAPS, joined NEOL for an interview following the successful collaborative testing of our lubricants at IAAPS’s state-of-the-art Research & Innovation lab. IAAPS, a leading centre for advanced propulsion research based at the Bristol & Bath Science Park, is a commercial subsidiary of the University of Bath, supporting advancements across the majority of transport sectors including automotive, aerospace, heavy-duty and marine.

Dr. Lewis discusses how IAAPS unites leading businesses, innovators, and development specialists to foster the skills and technologies needed for the next generation of efficient, clean vehicle propulsion systems.

Throughout the conversation, Dr. Lewis shares the institute’s approach to tackling challenges related to fuel efficiency, hydrogen adoption, and the role of sustainable and alternative fuels. Join us as we explore how IAAPS is shaping the future of propulsion and energy solutions.

Q: Hi Dr. Lewis! Can you start by telling us how IAAPS came to be? What are the central goals driving its work in the transport and energy sectors?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: IAAPS originated as a university centre over 40 years ago, focusing on automotive propulsion technologies. Over time, it evolved into the Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems, broadening its scope to clean, efficient, and zero-emission technologies across transportation sectors, including aerospace and marine.

Our goal is to merge academic expertise with industrial focus to drive innovation, decarbonise transportation and improve efficiency. IAAPS Limited operates as a subsidiary of the University of Bath, ensuring shared goals and allowing us to conduct advanced research while addressing real-world industry challenges.

Q: Dr. Lewis, what’s your journey with IAAPS, and how has your vision influenced its work?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: I completed by undergraduate degree at the University of Bath 16 years ago, and joined the automotive centre within the mechanical engineering department, at the time this was made up of a handful of academics and a few researchers. Since then, it has grown to an Institute including over 50 academics across faculties, 30 PhD students, and a dedicated team of 30 IAAPS engineers and technicians. So, it’s gone from being less than 20 people in total to now, if you include the entire institute, over 100 employees.

What keeps me engaged is the diversity of projects and the overarching goal of improving efficiency – whether it’s optimising passenger cars or high-performance vehicles. The constant pursuit of getting the best out of available resources aligns with my passion for meaningful, impactful engineering.

Q: What specific expertise, resources, or technologies does IAAPS bring to the table that makes it a leader in this transition?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: One standout aspect of IAAPS is our inquisitive approach. The team doesn’t just execute projects but dives deep into understanding and shaping solutions. From conducting preliminary research to proposing tailored plans, our genuine curiosity enhances collaboration. This level of involvement sets us apart as partners rather than mere service providers.

Our state-of-the-art facility reflects a blend of old and new priorities. While decarbonisation and climate change are critical, efficiency remains essential. Both disruptive technologies with long-term potential and incremental advancements that deliver immediate results are necessary. For example, technologies like NEOL’s innovative lubricants which we tested can yield tangible benefits without requiring massive infrastructure changes.

Q: Hydrogen is a hot topic in the transportation sector. What’s your take on its future?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: I believe in ‘the right technology for the right application’. Hydrogen fuel cells and internal combustion engines have potential, but their adoption depends on infrastructure readiness and cost. For instance, I can’t see long haul, heavy-duty trucks and long-haul aerospace all becoming electrified. They might have an electrification element, but they’re not going to be fully electric.

The focus of IAAPS has evolved significantly in the past five years. When construction began in 2020, hydrogen was not a strategic focus and there were no facilities dedicated to it. Now, it has become a huge driver of growth and we have significantly invested in our hydrogen infrastructure, including a tank and electrolyser, and adapted multiple facilities to support hydrogen fuel cell and internal combustion engine development.

The rapid changes over just five years make it difficult to predict what the future will hold; however constant adaptability is crucial as we navigate uncertainties and explore new solutions. I see the role for alternative liquid fuels as a more immediately implementable solution compared to widespread electrification.

Q: What were your initial thoughts on testing NEOL’s innovative fluid, and how did the results align with expectations?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: I was intrigued but cautious. We’ve seen various technologies come through over the years, so skepticism is natural. Initially, we anticipated a modest 1-2% improvement in fuel efficiency, but the results far exceeded that. Seeing substantial benefits on fuel consumption from just changing a fluid was impressive.

Partnering with IAAPS provided NEOL with the controlled environment needed to eliminate variables, such as undulations in the road and landscape, and gather pure data. This was critical in demonstrating the fluid’s rejuvenation effect on engine health, something that’s hard to capture in field trials.

Q: Can you discuss the challenges innovators face in getting new technologies adopted by the industry?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: Challenges in getting new technologies adopted include the high costs and risks associated with the extensive validation required by large automotive companies to adopt new fluids or components. This creates significant barriers for smaller, innovative companies to overcome.

Q: From your experience, what percentage of innovations make it past the lab stage?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: My perspective might be skewed due to my work with government-funded projects, which typically involve OEMs or Tier 1 suppliers from the outset. This built-in collaboration increases the likelihood of success. However, I’ve also seen technologies fail because the industry moved faster than the innovation’s development.

When OEMs are directly involved, the success rate is relatively high. But for independent innovations without OEM backing, the barriers are much harder to overcome.

Q: From your experience working with OEMs and different technology suppliers, do you think OEM engineering teams and lubricant manufacturers collaborate effectively?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: There is some interaction, but it tends to be limited. Even within OEM teams, you’ll find silos because each group focuses on achieving its specific targets. Powertrain components often involve trade-offs, and coordination between teams can be challenging, let alone between an OEM and a lubricant supplier.

The validation and development process required for changing a fluid is quite extensive and risky for OEMs. Transitioning from one fluid to another requires rigorous validation –durability tests, multiple samples, and testing across a range of duty cycles. OEMs typically don’t want to bear these costs and responsibilities; they expect the supplier to handle it. This complexity, cost, and time investment make OEMs hesitant to adopt changes unless absolutely necessary.

Q: Have you seen other innovative technologies struggle because of these barriers?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: Yes, absolutely. In some cases, the innovation shows clear benefits, but the validation hurdles prevent it from gaining traction. Sometimes, by the time the technology is fully proven, the industry has moved on.

For example, during the trend of engine downsizing, there was a lot of development around advanced turbochargers and superchargers. But as electrification gained momentum, the need for these components diminished, leaving some clever technologies obsolete. This isn’t limited to fluids – it’s a challenge faced by many mechanical innovations.

Q: There seems to be a growing sentiment – especially in media and financial circles – that internal combustion engines (ICEs) are outdated, polluting, and unsuitable for the future. What’s your take on this?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: Personally, I think that alternative or sustainable fuels for ICEs could be a viable path forward. If we had a drop-in fuel that used existing infrastructure and combined carbon capture, it could immediately reduce emissions without requiring everyone to replace their current vehicles.

Yes, there are tailpipe emissions, but combining sustainable fuels with hybrid technologies could mitigate emissions in sensitive areas like city centres. It seems like a more practical solution compared to the high costs and infrastructure challenges of electrification.

This approach is gaining traction in areas like motorsport, where Formula 1 and other championships are adopting sustainable fuels. Aviation and marine industries are also exploring alternatives like bio-methanol and sustainable aviation fuels. The energy density of liquid fuels makes them particularly attractive for applications like heavy-duty vehicles, marine, and aerospace, where electrification struggles to compete.

Q: Are there any specific projects or trends IAAPS is currently working on that standout?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: Much of our focus now is on aerospace and hydrogen. We’re expanding our facilities to test larger systems – moving from supporting 1 MW motors to 2–3 MW, which is essential for aerospace, marine, rail, and heavy-duty applications. These sectors are harder to decarbonise and require innovative solutions.

We’re also investing in virtual and digital engineering. By embedding physical hardware into virtual environments, what we call hardware-in-the-loop testing, we can simulate a variety of scenarios without the need for expensive physical setups. This approach allows us to optimise our resources while accelerating development timelines.

Q: Do you have any final thoughts on a balanced approach to sustainability and technology?

Dr. Andrew Lewis: I must emphasise the importance of a technology-agnostic approach, focusing on achieving goals with the least resource usage and impact on the environment, rather than just pushing a ‘one size fits all’ single solution.

Similar to NEOL, IAAPS sees the potential of lubricants and alternative liquid fuels as a fast, realistic and cost-effective pathway to reducing the environmental impact of transportation and ultimately its decarbonisation in parallel to purely battery electric solutions.