Auto Manifesto

The Next Big Thing Is About 1.4 Liters

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:18:00 +0000

Future engines are getting downsized for cost and environmental reasons. But due to increasing efficiency, there shouldn’t be much if any reduction in performance. Why do with 5 what you can do with 3? Classic engineering progress.

According to this month’s AEI (Automotive Engineering International), Nissan, Chrysler, VW, GM and a number of other automakers will be releasing engines in the 1.4 liter range. These will supplant current engines in the 2.4 liter range, and will feature a variety of efficiency enhancing features such as Direct Injection and turbocharging.

Coupled with more efficient CVT or dual clutch transmissions, or with just more speeds these powertrains will find their way into vehicles expected to return over 40 mpg, in an effort to raise each manufacturer’s fleet average fuel economy above the nominal 2016 CAFE target of 35.5 mpg.

Toyota Problems Compounded By Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:16:00 +0000

Let me be perfectly clear. Toyota’s product issues with unintended acceleration are serious safety issues and I’m not downplaying their significance.

However, it is obvious that there is a political undercurrent to the whole debacle that is being amplified by the media that is clouding the true extent of the problems and resulting in even more irrational behavior than normal (panic).

People are losing thousands of dollars trading in their Toyotas. It reminds me of the results of the spike in fuels in 2008, which drove prices of fuel efficient small cars up (e.g. $8k for a mid-90’s Geo Metro).

Here are a few key points to think about.

Toyota overtook GM in 2008 to become the sales leader in the US market.
Toyota does not have a union workforce in its North American plants.
GM is mostly unionized.
The Democratic party has the support of the UAW (United Auto Workers).
The US Federal government is now the largest shareholder of General Motors (the UAW also holds a significant stake).
The US government is controlled by a Democratic administration.

I’m not going to mince words. Every major automaker has recalls, some more serious than others. But the propaganda machine has blown Toyota’s issues all out of proportion.

A Pedestrian Is Struck - How Did this Happen?

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:09:00 +0000

Yesterday morning I had tea with a lady whom I had stopped to help about 6 weeks ago after she was struck by a car while walking across a busy highway. It was remarkable in that she was not seriously injured.

I had been riding my bike to work one drizzly morning when out of the corner of my eye I saw an umbrella on the ground and heard crying. There was a commotion. I stopped. put my bike down and ran over to the scene. People were standing about, a few on the phone to 9-1-1.

A lady was laying on her stomach in the crosswalk in the middle of 3 lanes of traffic, sobbing. I did hear her telling someone her neighbor's address, presumably an emergency contact. Others were tending to her so I helped direct traffic before the police arrived. Route 50 is a major artery in Northern Virginia, and traffic backed up instantly. I could see it was easily half a mile.

Police were very quick, arriving in a matter of about 2-3 minutes after the phone call. Fire and rescue were just another minute or two. Since I did not witness the actual incident, I did not need to stay and give a report.

About a week later I stopped by the lady's neighbor's house to inquire about her condition. I found she had, almost miraculously, been discharged from the hospital the day of the accident, and did not have any broken bones.

Thinking back about the incident, what happened was that she was struck by a left-turning car while crossing the street (see diagram). Since the car had been stopped, it was a low speed incident.

I started wondering about pedestrian airbags. Will they work? I don't know. Perhaps not in this instance, where the pedestrian ends up on the ground in front of the vehicle and not on the hood.

But the actual cause of the accident itself, I think, is because of a number of factors. First, the intersection is a bit tricky. It's a four way with access roads that run parallel to Route 50. On top of that, there are no turn arrows on the cross street, and it's questionable if the "walk" sign was working correctly.

Lastly, I have a theory that newer vehicles have poorer turning visibility due to much thicker A-pillars - a necessity for passing today's roof-crush standards, and to store airbags on some vehicles (the one that struck her was a new crossover SUV). Combine that with the possibility of distracted driving and you have all the ingredients for an accident.

Is it any wonder that we have about 40,000 fatalities and millions of highway injuries each year?

How Dangerous Is Texting While Driving?

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:48:00 +0000

Back in October the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) released a study in which 200 commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, aka truck drivers, covered 3 million miles, and found that drivers are 23.2 times as likely to be involved in a "safety critical" event while texting than if not.

The report found that texting drivers took their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds before such an event took place, and thus traveled the length of a football field, including the endzones, without looking at the road (at 55 mph that's 371 feet).

While we all know texting while driving is obviously a hazard, this puts some concrete numbers to just exactly how bad it is.

Here's the link from FMCSA (PDF).

Drivecam System

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:54:00 +0000

Had a meeting yesterday with some folks from Drivecam which was pretty interesting. They provide tools for monitoring and assessing driving risk, primarily for commercial vehicles.

These include a data trace (e.g. lateral, longitudinal and vertical acceleration), video of the road as well as of the driver and audio. The system continually records but only retains data for 12 second periods in most cases, when certain thresholds are exceeded (e.g. hard braking event) or the driver initiates recording. These periods include 8 seconds prior to the trigger point and 4 seconds after, similar to the methodology used in SAE J2728 (Heavy Vehicle Event Data Recorder recommended practice) currently underdevelopment.

It is essentially a closed loop feedback tool to quantify driver behavior and performance, which is then used with coaching to reduce a fleet's overall risk.

It's similar in some ways to data acquisition tools originally used in motorsport but on the other end of the spectrum: To minimize risk rather than maximize speed.

The future direction is especially interesting as there are opportunities to layer data (see augmented reality) across multiple sources to further enhance and expand the system's capabilities, which would in turn improve road safety.

Stating the Obvious (Someone Has To Do It)

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:47:00 +0000

This is sort of funny. The statement is obvious but to their credit they would be remiss if they did not make it.

On December 2, 2009 NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) published a notice in the Federal Register (page 63181) about ejection mitigation containing this little gem:

According to agency data, occupants have a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not ejected from their vehicles.

Higher Fuel Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Auto execs pushed for higher fuel taxes (and with good reason) at Reutuers Auto Summit in Detroit. Mike Jackson (AutoNation), Tim Leuliette (Dura Automotive) and Jerry York are on record as suggesting that a steady increase in the fuel taxes would reduce U.S. fuel consumption and provide the stability needed by the industry to plan for the longer term.

I totally agree.

[Source: Automotive News - requires subscription]

Standardizing EV Components

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:10:00 +0000

Denso is pushing for it. When systems and components are more standardized for EVs the costs associated with developing vehicles will fall, allowing more models from both established manufacturers and new players to enter the market. Consequently, we'll see huge growth in the number and types of vehicles available.

[Source: AutoBlogGreen]

Road Train Project

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:03:00 +0000

Project Sartre is another step toward driverless cars. This stuff can't come soon enough to help improve road safety and get bad drivers off the road.

[Source: AutoBlogGreen]

Stating The Obvious

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:58:00 +0000

Actually, it's important that this angle is examined more carefully. Judging by the number of prototypes unveiled that look like a Pontiac Aztek on a bad day, it's quite obvious that it has never occurred to many startups and EV-wannabes that design is make-or-break.

This is true of all cars but especially so with EVs because of the current (no pun intended) sacrifices that buyers have to make compared with gas-powered cars due to technical limitations. Design is critical.

The early adopters are going to be people who are passionate about cars and electric power. Tesla nailed the style side of it compared with all other EV entries to-date - and it's still anybody's guess if they'll succeed in the long-term (I hope they do).

There's no place in the world for ugly electric cars.

[Source: AutoBlogGreen]

No Volt, No Pass?

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:04:00 +0000

GM needs the Volt for CAFE purposes. Supposedly the Chevy Volt will receive an EPA rating of 230 MPG. This is all based on funny math and creative accounting. But if we take it at face value and apply it toward GM's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) average something dramatic happens.

Assuming total GM production of 3 million vehicles and that its existing CAFE average is 27.5 mpg, look at the tables below and see how various Volt production volumes can impact GM's overall average. If GM could produce 100,000 Chevy Volts that are rated at 230 MPG the rest of the 2.9 million vehicles would only need to average 29 MPG to meet CAFE of 35.5 MPG. Between engine downsizing, lighter vehicles, lower drag designs and increasing consumer preference for more efficient vehicles it should be an attainable target.

Contrast that with the second table and you can see that even if GM starts producing an efficient small car that gets 50 MPG and sells in really large numbers that it still wouldn't take the average anywhere near 35.5 MPG required in 2016. In fact the other 2.5 million vehicles GM would produce would need to average nearly 33 MPG.

Despite the fact that the 230 MPG figure would be a total fabrication, I predict this will become a political exercise that promotes CAFE and perhaps a cap-and-trade program as the keys to solving our transportation greenhouse gas problems, which would be a shame because the technology is absolutely vital to the eventual transition to electric vehicles. It should be appreciated for what it is. Let's hope it doesn't fall victim to a political hijacking.

Redox Batteries

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:44:00 +0000

Here's an interesting concept. "Refueling" a battery by circulating the electrolyte out of a depleted battery for off-board recharging, and filling up with a fresh charge. This enables the charging process to take place without the presence of the battery the whole time.

More from The Kneeslider, Wikipedia.

Driverless Neighborhood Vehicles

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:40:00 +0000

No one has gotten the styling right but, as I've said before, the concept of driverless cars in certain areas or neighborhoods is bound to happen.

Saturn Door Replacement

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:11:00 +0000

Last week I had a mishap involving an electric vehicle and a friend's car, resulting in me punching a hole in the rear door of said car ('93 Saturn sedan). Luckily no one was hurt.

To fix the damage we went to a junkyard and pulled an identical door from a salvage car to replace it. Since early Saturns had mostly plastic body panels (doors, fenders, trunk lid, bumpers etc) bolted to steel frames the whole panel swap should've taken about 20 minutes.

However, once we removed the panel we found the door beams had been bent, and the window could not retract fully. Since the interior color of the salvage door was different and the wiring harness was cut at the junkyard, we had to change the frame and interior panel, while keeping the original wiring.

Because of the steeper learning curve it took us a good 4 or 5 hours (and we weren't in any particular hurry). The design of the door was very interesting and quite clever in its simplicity. This was all before side airbags so it was just a matter of removing the exterior panel, then the interior panel to get to the wiring. Once that was removed five bolts was all it took to remove the door. If it didn't have power windows or locks the entire door change would probably take half the time.

Both the original and replacement doors had no corrosion and all the fasteners worked as expected, even the plastic wiring clips. The door hinges had some play which allowed for adjustment and fitting. We also made two paper shims and bolted them under the bottom hinge to help angle the top edge of the door closer to the car.

The only surprise was that we found the interior switch assemblies were slightly different (the salvage door was from a '92 model). See picture below. "A" fit both doors while "B" did not due to a difference in tab spacing. That was a head-scratcher.

I've been a firm believer in non-metallic body panels for a long time (fiberglass, carbon fiber, various plastics) and this really confirmed the benefits. Simple to replace, impervious to minor door dings and stone chips, easy to match the paint, and easy repair access. Steel doors can only be accessed from inside, not both sides because they're welded assemblies.

Of course there could be a number of disadvantages as well such as cost, crashworthiness and weight. While the panel itself didn't seem heavier than steel, it's unclear how the overall weight of the door assembly compares to similar vehicles from that era. Still, composites are definitely worthy of consideration.

Once the new door was installed, everything worked as expected: Power window, power lock and of course opening/closing/latching.

This repair required nothing more than basic hand tools. If it was just the body panel all that would be needed is a screwdriver with a Torx bit. Total cost was under $140 for the replacement door and the color matched just fine. Youtube was helpful too (see http://www.youtube.com/user/saturncrzy). The last thing is now to do the pinstriping.

Electric Kart Demo

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:31:00 +0000

Recently I had a chance to demonstrate my electric kart at a street festival called Clarendon Day. So I called up a few friends who brought an eclectic group of vehicles out for display. We set up a small course using cones and the response from passersby was very positive. Click here for pictures.

EV Battery Selection

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:46:00 +0000

Let's select batteries for a hypothetical car. This car is a conversion of your basic commuter. Let's say we want a minimum range of 60 miles for regular driving.

Key battery information needed from manufacturers is voltage (V), maximum amperage (A), amp hours (Ah), weight or mass (kg), and physical dimensions of each cell (l x w x h).

First what is the peak power target? For example, 50 horsepower (hp), 100 hp or 200 hp? Peak power is a lot more than the nominal power needed. A car may be capable of producing 100 hp but it only needs to use say 15 hp to cruise at 60 mph.

However, if it only had 15 hp it would not be able to go up hills at that speed or accelerate very well at all. So we need to know the maximum power that should be available at some point during its operation. Let's go with 60 hp for now. At this
point I'm switching to metric. One kilowatt (kW) equals 1.34 hp. So 60 hp is roughly 45 kW.

One more thing. We're going to go with a 96V system here. Voltage times current is wattage. And of course a kW is 1,000 W. So a 45 kW system at 96V will require about 470 Amps (45,000 W / 96 V).

By the way, peak power determines top speed while torque determines acceleration. That's a topic for another post but suffice it to say that we need enough torque to get to our top speed and enough power to maintain our desired speed.

Then comes how much energy the batteries need to provide, and how much such batteries weigh?. Energy is power times time.

Will the batteries provide enough power for the time (distance) needed? These are often quoted in terms of kilowatt hours (kWh).

The way to determine how much energy is needed is to estimate or model the expected vehicle drive cycle. This is exactly why it's impossible to give an exact figure for energy or fuel consumption unless very specific conditions are provided, why we
are all well aware of the line "your actual mileage may vary". The way to validate this is with actual vehicle testing.

In the above graph, the two hatched areas are roughly equivalent and illustrate why operating at full power reduces running time (and thus distance traveled) - even though speeds are higher because aero drag is much, much greater. How far a given amount of energy will drive a vehicle simply depends on how it's used.

For this example, let's assume the peak power needed is 60 hp, and our average power output is 30 hp (22.5 kW) for each 60 mile trip, which takes 1.5 hours. Thus the nominal amount of energy needed is 22.5 kw x 1.5 = 33.75 kWh.

But just because the batteries may hold an adequate amount of kWh it does not mean that's all that's needed. Primarily this is because:

1. Battery depth of discharge (DoD) should not approach 100% because that will dramatically reduce battery life (number of cycles it can be charged and discharged)

2. It leaves us with zero margin for error.

3. Does not factor in any inefficiencies (or regeneration for that matter) in the system, whether electrical or mechanical.

If for example we only want to discharge up to a maximum of 70% (30% charge remaining) to extend battery life then we need to divide the kWh by the target percent discharge. So we actually need a battery pack with 48 kWh (33.75 kWh divided by 70%).

One lithium ion battery manufacturer makes cells that have a nominal voltage of 3.2V, provides 90 Ah of energy, and weigh 3.2 kg each. So to spec our pack we need to remember that batteries in parallel add current, while batteries in series add voltage.

To reach close to 48 kWh we need 30 cells in series to get to 96V. Then we need 5 in parallel for each of those 30 cells to reach 450 Ah (we won't make the 48 kWh target). That means 3.2 V x 90 Ah x 30 x 5 = 43.2 kWh.

So 150 of these cells at 3.2 kg each means the battery pack, sans wiring and other hardware will weigh 480 kg (1,058 lbs).

Pretty hefty considering less than 3 gallons of gasoline weighing about 23 lbs would power the IC equivalent (20 mpg).

It's not a favorable comparison but we have to start somewhere on this path to vehicle electrification. And there are a lot of other variables to consider which I'll get into later.

CAFE: Who Are We Kidding? (Part 3)

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:44:00 +0000

There are many more issues with this regulation, but I'll leave you with these:

We were particularly encouraged that Reformed CAFE will confer no compliance advantage if vehicle makers choose to downsize some of their fleet as a CAFE compliance strategy...

Another fallacy. The agency says larger, heavier vehicles are safer vehicles (for passengers). They say lighter vehicles are more efficient. So the fuel economy regulation is now based on vehicle footprint. This is even more of an unnecessary attempt at classifying vehicles (see Part 2).

...requiring improvements in fuel economy necessarily has the effect of requiring reductions in tailpipe emissions of CO2 emissions.

This one line of thinking probably has more to do with why CAFE was initiated in the first place and demonstrates that the whole program is based on a flawed assumption.

They missed the global view, focusing on the proportional relationship between CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. Did it not occur to legislators (the agency shouldn't take all the blame - they're doing what they were directed to do) that improving fuel economy encourages people to drive more thus NOT reducing the amount of fuel used, even if fuel economy was improved?

The answer is yes because the rulemaking goes on to further contradict itself.

... the rebound effect from higher fuel economy will increase emissions of these pollutants. Thus, the net effect of stricter CAFE standards on emissions of each pollutant depends on the relative magnitudes of its reduced emissions in fuel refining and distribution, and increase in its emissions from vehicle use.

In other words, CAFE will work if people don't drive much more. But when fuel cost goes down vehicle miles go up. Hmmm....

The 2002 Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report cited in the rulemaking states:

While raising CAFE standards under the existing structure would reduce fuel consumption, doing so under alternative structures 'could accomplish the same end at lower cost, provide more flexibility to manufacturers, or address inequities arising from the present' structure.

Here is a report written at the behest of Congress and acknowledged by NHTSA that CAFE is not the best way to go about improving fuel economy and efficiency. So what does the government collectively do? More of the same.

What they should do is tax the fuel and cancel this complicated and ineffective program. Stop trying to make a pig fly.

CAFE: Who Are We Kidding? (Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:38:00 +0000

More thoughts about CAFE:

Limits to five the number of model years for which standards can be established in a single rulemaking.

This virtually guarantees the prevention of long term planning. The agency itself admits that its estimates are based on projected production figures by the manufacturers. Yet future regulations are constantly in the air since each rulemaking is limited to a 5 year horizon.

This is akin to looking 5 feet ahead of the car while driving. You will make constant steering inputs without looking further up the road, resulting in actions that matter little in the long run.

Distinguishing between passenger cars and light trucks is unnecessary. Why classify different types of vehicles that are intended for private use? All this has accomplished is to shift consumers from large cars to larger SUVs.

The agency could not set out the exact level of CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model year under the passenger car or light truck standards since the levels would depend on information that would not be available until the end of each of the model years, i.e., the final actual production figures for each of those years. The agency could, however, project what the industry-wide level of average fuel economy would be for passenger and light trucks if each manufacturer produced its expected mix of automobiles and just met its obligations under the proposed "optimized" standards for each model year.

Manufacturers' compliance with the regulations depend on actual production levels and targets.

Compliance with this regulation is entirely dependent on whether a manufacturer can accurately meet its production projections (or buy compliance credits from those that do). But they are at the mercy of market demand. How much faith can we put in these projections when the industry has traditionally been cyclical (see 2009 sales)? These projections are hit or miss.

This also throws into question any cost/benefit estimate on the agency's part.

CAFE: Who Are We Kidding? (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:19:00 +0000

It's taken a while but here's my summary of the CAFE standards for 2011.

Any rational person with a modicum of understanding of this industry, after reading several sections of this rulemaking will come to the conclusion that the U.S. government is wholly incapable of effectively regulating fuel efficiency.

The rule is complicated, unnecessary and ineffective. Instead of the government playing automotive engineer, it should establish a fuel price floor which would enable the market to address these issues faster, better and cheaper.

The end goals are to reduce oil consumption, for both national security and environmental reasons, and to improve highway safety. It's not the government's place to dictate technically specific solutions.

As I've said many times before, people (the market) will respond to higher fuel prices. Just look at what happened in 2008 when fuel prices rose dramatically. People drove less (and slower), and roads were safer for it as well.

I'm not saying tax fuel so the price is at peak 2008 levels, but implement a long-term plan to steadily increase the minimum fuel price. It's an understandably difficult political proposition. Don't call it a tax. Position it as an innovation incentive and then use the proceeds for that purpose.

People will choose more appropriate vehicles for their needs. More efficient vehicles are driven more, public transport is needed. Consumers are then directly involved with reducing fuel use. The market knows best.

The CAFE standard is based upon a number of significantly false and unknown assumptions. For instance:

1. All vehicles are driven the same amount. This is implied because the regulation only looks at fuel economy (mpg) instead of fuel consumption (gallons).

2. Manufacturers can accurately predict market demand and what the sales mix of models will be.

3. Consumers will save money. Unlikely when you consider fuel economy hasn't really improved (though cars do have a lot more power now) but the manufacturers have had to spend BILLIONS (by NHTSA's own estimate) on CAFE compliance.

4. The regulation is enforceable. Technically this is correct, but it heavily depends on assumption #2.

5. Provides stability. No can do with a 5 year planning horizon (see Part 2).

6. Mergers and alliances will not affect CAFE levels. This may be the most complicated aspect of it all (and rife with loopholes).

Full NHTSA document: [Text, PDF]

Effectiveness of Anti-Lock Brakes

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:03:00 +0000

NHTSA published a reqeust for comments in yesterday's Federal Register about a Technical Report on The Long-Term Effect of ABS in Passenger Cars and LTVs (based on 1995 to 2007 data), some good some not really... Here are the basic findings:

1. "ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements."

2. Fatal run-off-road crashes of pass cars increased 9%.

3. Fatal collisions with pedestrians decreased 13%

4. Collisions with other vehicles on wet roads decreased 12%.

5. "ABS is quite effective on nonfatal crashes, reducing the overall crash-involvement rate by 6% in passenger cars."

Here's the link: text, PDF

The Nuclear Option

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:34:00 +0000

With all the activity surrounding electric vehicles, the power grid and alternative power sources, it's high time more attention was paid to the potential of nuclear energy.

Some people have visceral reactions to the concept, but if we dig deeper we see that (surprise!) it's not as simple as public perception would have us believe. There are various types of nuclear power and what is already in use is perhaps not the best for our needs.

One interesting type I've come across is called the Integral Fast Reactor. This program was begun in 1984 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in Illinois. Unfortunately it was canceled in 1994 by Congress before it was completed [This reads like background to a sci-fi movie].

According to this article, the crux of the concept is that it is much more efficient than light water reactors that are now widely used. As such the process would produce a fraction of the nuclear waste of today's reactors, the waste would have a shorter lifespan (400 years vs 10,000 years) and it could use nuclear waste we already have.

This is the ultimate recycling process. Use nuclear waste that we already have. The figures presented are staggering in terms of the amount of energy, the timeframes and perhaps the costs. But what's a possible solution to an energy crisis worth? This is an alternative that's worth revisiting.

Sources: Wikipedia,
Steve Kirsch

230 MPG or Whatever

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:24:00 +0000

Rumor has it that the Chevy Volt will get a 230 mile per gallon rating from the EPA. I'm calling BS on this one.

Without other energy input there is no way a Chevy Volt will be able to go 230 miles on one gallon of gasoline. I've gone into detail about this before here.

These types of claims are damaging to the nascent EV and hybrid vehicle industry. There's already too much hype and vaporware out there, the last thing that's needed is for a major company and the government to exacerbate the situation.

This is a prime example of regulations lagging technology. A clear way of defining energy efficiency for vehicles that don't run exclusively on liquid fuel has not been established by EPA. There's also the specter of government ownership in the company (GM) leading to self-serving circumstances.

Cash For Clunkers

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:10:00 +0000

No question this was good to get the interest going and boost consumer spending. But that's not all .

Pulling tomorrow's sales forward, which may be disruptive to the auto supply chain by ramping up production, and then having another slow down when the program ends is something that wasn't anticipated. That and the red tape SNAFUs over rushing this through NHTSA without having answered all the questions made the regulation was a pain for the industry.

For example, it should've been defined at the outset whether the rebate to the dealers was subject to income tax or not. The administration of the program was lacking.

Also the $4,500 max rebate was too generous, as evidenced by the massive response. It would've been wiser to have a lower amount and extend the duration of the program.

The bottom line is that it was a good idea, could've been executed better, and may have been overdone.

Intellidrive Workshop

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:58:00 +0000

Yesterday I attended the Joint Military/Civilian Workshop on Intellidrive (U.S. DOT program). Intellidrive is intended to reduce vehicle crashes by providing an open communication platform for wireless communication between vehicles and infrastructure elements (V2V and V2I). The vision is to offer 360 degree awareness as well as multi-modal information (buses, trains, etc).

Just a few random notes I picked up along the way:

Congestion is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $78 billion per year.

Twenty-seven percent of police-reported vehicular accidents are intersection collisions.

Using historical traffic data to project future traffice is about 80% accurate (way better odds than the stock market).

Intelligent vehicles that have the capability to communicate with infrastructure and each other would be analogous to data probes. An example given was if most vehicles in a given area started using their windshield wipers, that data could provide a real-time weather report.

One of the presenters, Dr. Luca Delgrossi of Mercedes-Benz, stated that safety is the priority when it comes to intelligent vehicles because the requirements are much more demanding compared to those for providing mobility and convenience functions. If the safety portion is achieved, the other uses will also become available.

More accurate map data would help reduce intersection collisions. So-called regular GPS can predict what road a vehicle is traveling on. More sophisticated GPS would enable pinpointing which lane a vehicle is in.

The difference in lifecycles between cars and cell phones is a huge challenge to bring them together. What's needed are flexible computing platforms in vehicles that can be upgraded to keep pace with changes in communication technology.

Improvements to vehicles by themselves are mostly controlled by the manufacturer. Improvements to the networks of vehicles is dependent on collaboration between multiple stakeholders and manufacturers, which makes the challenge far more complex. It's a classic chicken-and-egg problem.

Schumacher Returns to F1

noreply@blogger.com (Davewin) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:37:00 +0000

Incredible news. Seven-time F1 World Champion Michael Schumacher is going to step in to sub for Felipe Massa at Ferrari. The legend is back. The competition will probably be much closer now since he's a little older and no doubt somewhat rusty, and the car is not as dominant.

However, he does have almost a month to prepare and there is no doubt this will be a huge boost to F1 ratings world wide. When Willi Weber, his manager, was quoted as saying he was certain Schumacher would not come back it was probably negotiating posture as well as to reduce the expectations that are certainly high.

F1 2009 may go down as the most memorable season yet.