FIAT boss says *1 million* cars on a shared platform with GM would be 'minimum' for profit... yikes!

No wonder the car industry is on the nose. FIAT boss Marchionne said 1 million units a year built on a shared vehicle platform is the minimal scale required to be profitable. In other words the current platform sharing (for the uninitiated that means much of the structure if not the running gear is common between brands) is unprofitable, despite FIAT's recent turnaround. So to get to that required volume requires doing another deal with GM to share platforms in Europe, and then to bring the FIAT-Chrysler deal into the arrangement as well.

I do wonder how sustainable it is to manufacture 1,000,000 units of such an elaborately transformed good every year in order to simply turn a minimum profit. That's just one platform, remember, generating just a few models across a small number of brands. Now platform sharing is good, it's far better than each of the models being designed from scratch - but I think it's best not to think too hard about such numbers, too. When you think about all of the brands, and all of the models, and all of the resources consumed to make it happen... I just want to ride my bike instead.

While Aussie car makers stand still, Europe goes electric... #EV #Audi

It's an Audi, or an Audi on a VW platform (nothing new there). Most importantly it's an electric vehicle, and a prestige one at that... and it's real, and it's small. It's a 2+1, would you believe! And whilst it's offered with a range of motors, it's the electric one that'll steal the show. Whilst VW itself is banking on squeezing the last drops out of small, turbo-charged diesel and petrol motors, it obviously has a Plan B, too. If the US car makers (and their Aussie offshoots) don't wake up and smell the roses soon they'll miss the boat, let alone the mixed metaphor, completely.

A variety of engines will be offered, although the star of the show will be an electric powerplant. It incorporates lightweight lithium-polymer batteries and a punchy electric motor driving the front wheels. So the small, agile car will be ideal for city motoring, delivering 0-60mph in around 10 seconds. And with a full charge providing enough energy to travel up to 100 miles helped by regenerative braking, the plug-in machine will have real all-round ability.

Cars that still sell, despite the fear and loathing: Hyundai, Kia, Subaru...Jeep? #cars #marketing

I can't verify this statement for accuracy, but here it is, from Forbes mag: A handful of car models, such as the Jeep Wrangler and the Smart, are maintaining their sales despite the general auto collapse. But the only full-sized companies that are holding their own are Korea's Hyundai and Kia, and Subaru. I think he's looking at the US market, but let's look more widely at why these brands are successful.

First up, the Smart makes sense in these difficult times, although I do wonder which model is holding up best. I suspect it's the tiny, cultish FourTwo. It's both an economical, sensible city car and a niche hit. Just search YouTube for the whacky variations and mods you'll find for that diminutive sub-compact. Because it's a bit - or a lot - different, it stands out in the market - whilst garnering some respect via owner Daimler. And it doesn't hurt that it has green cred attached to it, either. If you drive one of these cars you are definitely making a statement, like it or not. Although it's had a rocky road at times, it's now doing exactly what the brand was created to do. It could be a car for the times.

Of course the Jeep Wrangler is another cult hit in a niche market, albeit a very different one to the Smart. Indeed it's almost exactly the opposite in every aspect, with street cred based on roots going back 65 years or so to the original general purpose vehicle. It thus couples a spared-back historical military style (think 'MASH') with a go-anywhere, thumb-your-nose-at-climate-change sort of "freedom" feel. Again, it makes a clear statement about you and your beliefs, or so we may think. Whilst it may not be the most economical car in the world it has a style and a practicality about it that has led to a self-perpetuating following.

On the other hand Hyundai and (Hyundai-owned) Kia are upstart Korean mass producers of a range of increasingly well-built but clone-like cars with little innovation in style, packaging or performance. Like the Smart brand they were created as a product line, rather than evolving out of the bicycle or horse-driven coachbuilding industries, car racing or from post-world-war reconstruction like many 'traditional' European (and Japanese) brands. As such, being late to the party as it were, they have leveraged the manufacturing lessons (and technical input) of companies like Ford and Mitsubishi and designers like Giugiaro to create a line of carefully targeted, inoffensively-styled lower-cost cars. They have also got a sizable local market to fall back on (something the Aussie car makers can only dream of). Whilst they lack the street cred of more traditional brands, their lower unit cost of production has meant that they can sell harder to gain market share, at times burdening each individual vehicle sale with thousands of dollars worth of advertising. To the company's credit they have continually reinvested in quality, style and dynamics, largely closing the gap on the class leaders whilst maintaining their cost advantage. So they have achieved market visibility, acceptance and a lower price point against their competitors. No wonder they are holding their own - surely they are now 'stealing' market share from Toyota, GM and the like.

Which brings me to Subaru, famously the 'ugly duckling' of Japan's auto industry. Subaru does have a legacy (US-market pun intended!) to draw upon, having evolved out of Fuji Heavy Industry's history of aircraft and motor scooter production. In many ways the company has paralleled the traditional car makers with their deep technological and evolutionary roots whilst keeping themselves firmly rooted in the "but strangely different" category. They have also indulged in some 'cred-creation' via motor sports, especially rallying. However their main claim to differentiation has been their strangely awkward approach to exterior car design and their dogged determination to hang on to horizontally-opposed 'boxer' style engines. Coupled with the more recent leveraging of their rallying heritage via a marketing-lead commitment to all-wheel-drive, Subaru has ended up making a name for themselves across a range of seemingly opposing niches. For example their WRX model achieved notoriety both as a world-class rally winner and the car of choice for Australian bank robbers; whilst their Outback model leveraged quirky styling, solid reliability and a bit of Aussie bushbashing charm. (Australia being both a key test market and the source of Paul Hogan, an advertising hit for Subaru in the US.) And as the Forbes article states, it helps sales in snowy or slippery climes if you offer traction built-in. In all, a strange brew.

There is a common theme to all of these brands. Firstly, none are the market leaders, although each may have a model in the top 3 in a segment, somewhere - so they are the underdogs in a way. (People like underdogs, generally, as long as they deliver.) Secondly, they successfully occupy - perhaps dominate - one or more sizable niches. But can they maintain these positions during challenging times? Indeed it will be interesting to see how the car market evolves over the coming months and years, given the spectacular changes afoot. This is a time of financial drama coupled with a game-changing conversion to alternative fuels. Whilst we may get another 50 years out of petrol, we will see increasing opportunities for new players to come in and undermine both the current oil-based fuel refiners and the current vehicle manufacturers. Hybrids and electric cars are just the start. Deep pockets will be needed to fund this shift.

Likely as not we will see struggling companies like Ford, Chrysler and GM partly consumed by - or partnered with - competitors like FIAT, Toyota and VW. And we will doubtless see the rise of Indian and Chinese manufacturers, playing a similar game as the Korean makers have done, leveraging huge local markets first before staking global claims. Whilst the big fish like VW and Toyota will probably maintain their overall positions, the niche players will be joined by companies on the way down, looking to hang on - somewhere, anywhere - and newcomers on the way up. Will trendy quirkiness be enough for Subaru and Smart? Will the up-to-now agile and lower-cost Korean makers cement their current Top 5 position and move up, or will upstarts like India's Tata consume the ground underneath their metaphorical feet?

Why just blame 200kmh+ "hoons" for speeding? #cars #language #society

The old-world media love to beat this stuff up:

Last year three of the highest speeds recorded on Queensland roads occurred on the M1, including two at Stapylton of 243km/h and 237km/h and one at Helensvale, of 235km/h.

Let me guess, they were probably young males in one of (a) turbocharged grey market Nissan Skylines; (b) another brand of after-market hotted up Japanese car or (c) high-end US-style V8 sedans (what some of us imagine to be "Aussie" cars, simply because we build or assemble some part of them here). But they could just have easily have been white-shoed cardigan wearers in their Maseratis, Ferraris or Astons. Except they aren't as news-worthy, unless of course they are a "celebrity" or a politician responsible for road safety.

Of course it goes without saying that the police are "exasperated". And naturally it's downplayed as just lucky that there have been "no fatal crashes on the motorway so far this year.

We can all draw the pictures in our minds, of these criminally insane law-breakers tearing around at stupidly excessive speed, but truth be told every motorist exceeds the posted speed limit at some point in their driving lives. Perhaps not by these speeds, but certainly by non-trivial amounts. Perhaps you choose to do it, I don't know. But whereas here in this article we are looking at just 3 incidences of clearly deliberate and excessive speeding on one motorway, the majority of otherwise law-abiding "speeders" are equally deliberately going 10, 20 or 30 kilometres an hour over the limit, usually on potholed suburban streets littered with intersections, driveways, cyclists and pedestrians to boot. Now whilst we can easily say that "if they crash (at these extreme speeds), they'll likely die - police" we can also quite justifiably say that far more people are taking equally life-threatening risks on a daily basis. Sometimes they do it deliberately, sometimes by carelessness or ignorance. But tell me, why focus on the extreme "hoons" when the greater risk is all around us?

Why indeed do we make, sell or modify road-registerable cars that can easily double the speed limit? And why do we spend so much money replacing narrow, curvy roads with straighter, safer and faster multi-lane motorways? If we seriously wanted to reduce speeding we'd govern cars and restrict traffic flow (ok, we do that now - they are called traffic jams). Fact is, humans like to get places faster, not slower, and they enjoy some degree of personal risk-taking; indeed some of our community simply enjoy living closer to the edge.

None of which is particularly helpful in reducing death or injury on our roads, or saving us from our wasteful, unsustainable selves. But it does give us something to read in the press.

The twisted language of the motor-journo: safety is optional #car #language

I've just about done this to death, but here's another example of language twisted to suit a purpose. In this example a "journalist" has decided that "safety" is a bolt-on thing, an option; a box that when ticked, renders you "safe":

Sadly, though, safety is still an option on the most basic Mazda3.

Now no-one believes that, surely, but then again... words have power. Standard car - unsafe. With fresh bright new safety options fitted, safe. What a magical world we live in.

What the journo means is that additional passive safety features that may prove usefully protective in a range of crash situations are an optional extra, at additional cost. In the journo's view it should not be by choice, rather we should be compelled to have the maximum array of explosive air bags around us at all times. Heaven help bike riders, then. They just lose skin.

Now I do agree cars should be rendered as 'safe' as possible, including by the wearing of helmets and multi-point harnesses. But that's (sadly) not an option - and is often illegal (don't ask why). Cars should also be agile, smaller, and less powerful; and I also think that we (as drivers) should remain focused, aware and law-abiding on the roads, but that's apparently less useful than a set of explosive devices.

I'll do my best to avoid writing about this for a while.

Bigger heavier cars are safer - part 2 #cars #safety

The media loves to digest press releases and spit them back at us, with varying levels of additional balancing research added to counter the spin that the originator intended. Yesterday was the NYT, today it's Forbes mag: "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car." Well, that's the insurance organisation's spin on it, anyway.

And of course it's correct - the bigger the crush zone, the less force we experience in a prang. But it's not the only way to be "concerned about safety". For example we could simply drive smarter, take fewer risks and obey the road rules more religiously. Sure, accidents happen, but force being mass times acceleration means we could lop off some of that mass, which ironically could mean a smaller car, or ease off on acceleration. But the car industry thrives on acceleration - and emotion. The rational rarely gets a look in when it comes to cars, because "faster" and "more powerful" is portrayed as better. When we couple that with passive safety equipment and a host of gadgets to distract us we get fatter, heavier, bigger and more wasteful cars. And then one person will drive that 5-seater car to work. It's not rational.

Historically, we made some sort of decision in the 1970s to ditch some proportion of fuel economy in favour of cleaner air, and that indeed made some sense, at least if you don't consider driving less a valid option. We also dumped weight reduction for passive safety devices like airbags, which also made sense, at least if we don't consider helmets and harnesses acceptable alternatives. But life isn't black and white and our choices - or those made for us - have shaped the cars and the carbon pollution we face today. The net result of safety and clean air regulations has been heavier cars with poorer fuel consumption, with bigger, more powerful engines to make up for the extra flab. And more carbon released at every step, from manufacture to the actual driving. Were these the right choices, in the right proportions? Well who knows?

Just to illustrate what we have concocted with these legislated changes, I have a 1982 Alfa Romeo GTV coupe in the garage that weighs 1100kg and is propelled by a twin cam, carburetted 2litre four cylinder motor. That engine (in local Aussie spec) provides 175Nm of torque and 90kW of power (or 12.2 kg per W). For some odd reason we thought such specs not only sufficient but also quite sporty back in 1982. It was also quite expensive, relatively, which helped keep that sort of power out of inexperienced hands. Whereas today with cheap gas and cheaper cars we can get Subaru Impreza Turbo 4WD machines of 195kW/343Nm for much less money. And they weigh a mammoth 1425kg. Despite the weight gain (which has seen the WRX grow from a more reasonable 1200kg when released in the early '90s) we have here a car with a power to weight ratio of just 7.5kg per W. So it's waaaaay faster than a 1980's 4 cylinder Alfa, or a 6 cylinder one for that matter! We could call that progress.

The Alfa was about $15,000 (Aussie dollars) new, which is roughly equivalent to $43k today. The much more potent (but arguably safer and cleaner, if you want to justify these things) WRX is just $39,990 RRP. It could be considered safer, in the passive sense that the forces of any collision will be dispersed away from the humans on board; and it has improved active mechanical and electronic aids to assist in avoiding an accident in the first place. In theory, at least. Balanced against that is the extra weight, meaning more force to disperse, and extra power, meaning both increased acceleration (and thus force) and a greater potential for accessing the additional force. Now that sounds like a lot of fun, but is it safer?

The WRX example is played out in the sedan car market, too. Heavier, faster, more powerful - and bigger - cars - for less money, all wrapped in a purported "safety" blanket. To me it seems a contradiction of terms to have 'heavier, faster and more powerful' yet 'safer' cars, but you can make a case for anything if you want to sell cars, can't you?

And of course it's all about freedom of choice, isn't it?

If small cars are unsafe - what about bicycles? #cars #safety

An insurance "institute" crashes big cars into small ones and declares: ...that while driving smaller and lighter cars saves fuel, “downsizing and down-weighting is also associated with an increase in deaths on the highway”. Yet they don't actually nominate how many extra deaths will result, presumably because the crash scenarios are quite rare and the increase statistically difficult to pin down. Or maybe they are just scared to say.

Perhaps they also realise that big cars use more resources to start with - in manufacture alone - and that combined with their fat-car petrol consumption they will drive us to our destruction anyway. Dead is dead, no matter how we get there.

Now everyone has an axe to grind, and it's hard to know the truth. You could be forgiven for thinking that an insurance-funded body may actually want to see fewer crashes, and lesser-value claims. However the insurance companies may also just want to instil some fear and trepidation, in hope of raising premiums on smaller cars. Who can tell? In this instance they nominate small cars as the "compromise", suggesting that people are trading some measure of "safety" for better fuel consumption. Perhaps they should have turned it around and suggested that people who buy larger, thirstier cars are compromising the safety of smaller vehicles and their passengers? So why are small cars seen as the compromise?

Ahh, fact is, there is no absolute "truth". There are no guarantees, nothing is truly "safe" and all is relative. If a big car hits a truck, they are in the same position as the small car. And if a small car hits a bike rider, well you can see where that will lead. So should we ban bikes and small cars and run out of gas a whole lot quicker? I don't think so.

So if we accept that they are disadvantaged in size, why not propose a new deal for small cars? Or for bike riders, for that matter? Currently we only get the vehicle safety features we are offered - crumple zones and amazing exploding bags - rather than the roll cages, helmets and harnesses that would make cars truly safer. Indeed, car manufacturers compromise our safety by offering only complex, heavy and sub-optimal passive safety devices that are least likely to reduce car sales. And we are complicit in this by accepting these compromised solutions. Most likely because we don't want to have helmet hair after a drive to the shops. But in many places (including Australia) bike riders are compelled to wear helmets. It could be time to even up the score.

Chasing a niche market even if it kills us: BMW's M-series 4WDs

I think even Porsche realised that releasing ever-less-logical and humungous 4WDs was eroding the traditional brand values... or at least dampening sports car sales. Which is to say that 911 owners in general were put off by fat trucks with Porsche badges. It's brand dilution, spreading a good thing too far. Perhaps it works overall, by creating a better model spread and lowering the risk profile. Perhaps it gets people in the door and welds them to the brand. Perhaps there are existing owners who hanker after something nice to tow the boat. Maybe. Whatever Porsche may be thinking, and hopefully they are thinking of downsizing, BMW are still at it - diluting the brand.

Check this out: a potent truck, large beyond belief, chasing an ever-smaller niche:

BMW’s renowned M division has finally succumbed to 10 years of temptation by creating its first high-performance versions of the company’s luxury
off-roaders.

By gosh it's quick for a fat truck:

Both the X5 M and X6 M are propelled by the same twin-turbocharged 4.4-litre V8 with 408kW of power and 680Nm of torque – the most powerful BMW production engine currently available. That’s enough poke for the 4WDs to sprint from 0-100km/h in a claimed 4.7 seconds – a tenth quicker than the current segment benchmark for acceleration, the 404kW twin-turbo V8 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S.

But why do it? Is the world crying out for this?

It's meant to be a "hero" car, one that creates a halo effect around the brand. But to me it's taking an unnecessarily large car with rarely-used 4WD abilities and making it go faster, whilst drinking more fuel of course. Maybe it will make them more money but it surely won't be making them any friends with the green set, or even the average guy who just wants a planet to live on into the future.

'Undersized' car boom in Germany? We can only hope #autos #language

Apparently there's a bonus on offer in Germany to junk your old car and update to a new one - and it's favouring small cars over larger ones. (We can only hope this is a continuing downsizing trend, not a flash in the pan. German cars may be well engineered but tend to the porky rather than trim side).

Interesting use of the language here: A sharp fall in demand from overseas is compounding premium carmakers' problem as makers of undersized vehicles rejoice.. Apparently small cars are 'undersized', rather than right-sized or appropriate. Does that mean that large cars are by definition over-sized?

EVs 'no better than current polluters' yet 'far better' - confused? #environment

The journos - if that's what they are - at Fairfax's Drive.com continue to pollute the Internet with their confusion. The headline reads Plug-in cars no better for the environment and they go on to explain that in Victoria, where 85 per cent of electricity comes from power stations burning more highly polluting brown coal, the figures show an electric vehicle will produce the equivalent of about 130 grams of carbon dioxide a kilometre - about the same as small-engined petrol hatchback. No problem, except that they then completely and utterly expose their own headline as misleading.

How do they do this? By turning the story on its head: But recharge the same electric car in Tasmania, where almost all the electricity is generated using more environmentally friendly hydroelectric power plants, and the equivalent carbon dioxide output falls to about 13 grams. This is far better than any car on our roads today - including petrol-electric hybrids - and lower even than the next wave of ultra-efficient vehicles slated for Australia.

Bizarre. Why write a headline like that - except to get people to read it I guess. And of course its all true - if utterly self-evident. Of course hydro-power is going to be cleaner than brown - or even black coal. Same with wind or solar powered grids. It's a no-brainer. Or is it?

They could have engaged their brains further and mentioned that hydro-power floods an entire valley, wiping out (in Tasmania's case) substantial forest ecosystems and replacing it with cold, 'dead' water. Apart from the environmental vandalism, there has to be a carbon cost to building a dam in the first place. Now it could be that hydro in the right place makes great sense, but we need to do a comparison with the carbon cost of building an equivalent scale of solar cell or wind farms, or building tidal generators. Such a comparison would include actual carbon emitted in construction and maintenance, the expected replacement life-cycle (ie when do we need to build another one?) and the extra cost of building the connection to the grid (which could be a very long wire indeed). And then do a comparo with current black and brown coal (or even nuclear power) power plants.

Until we do that analysis we are just making stuff up and generating misleading statements.

Electric cars - laudable but not 'carbon free' #environment #autos

Electric cars are certainly quieter, potentially more reliable and more durable than what we have now. And they make a lot of sense as a driving experience with their seamless instant-on torque delivery, but that doesn't mean that they are "perfect" or "green" or even better than anything else in every situation. They are an option, and a worthy one, if you really need to propel yourself and a tonne or so of metal and plastic around. I also know that the car-fan media is obsessed with "fuel" to the exclusion of all else. But really, this goes a bit too far:While Tesla’s electric cars grab headlines across the globe, a company in the NSW country town of Armidale is quietly developing its own contribution to carbon-free motoring.

Exactly how "carbon-free" is any electric car? Was it manufactured without burning fossil fuels? (Certainly not in this case - I can see plenty of coal-fired furnaces at work here.) Was it shipped around post-manufacture without emitting carbon? (Unlikely.) Were the raw materials mined or made without a single atom of carbon getting lost along the way? (Hmmm.)

What they (the media outlet) mean is that it's not a petrol car, it's electric. I think we gathered that anyway. Like the uncritical Top Gear fascination with hydrogen, it stumbles on a key point: it takes energy to make, store and move energy. Whilst making electric or hydrogen-powered cars may lead to a cleaner atmosphere in our cities, and whilst driving such cars may eventually be sustainable in some narrow sense, they still have to be made and distributed, and the energy to move it must come from somewhere as well. There's no free ride here folks.

Pro-car body says congestion tax 'a failure'... oh really?

In a nutshell Sydney's congestion tax isn't perfect - it doesn't target all vehicles that enter the CBD, and the effect - after admittedly a fairly short period of use - has been restricted. But it has had a small effect, and it has brought to local prominence the possibility of using variable charges to influence traffic congestion. Given the inelastic nature of the car-use demand curve, and the relatively modest impost involved, you could say it's actually been quite a success. But the opposition pollies, the lobbyists and the tabloid press - and even the broadsheets are tabloids nowadays - are howling about an(other) abysmal failure by the State government. But the complainants all have vested interests, don't they?

Now this is a world-wide issue, but I'm looking at Sydney as my example for the moment. The basic problem here is that we are at the cusp of a major change in attitude to transport planning and energy use, and it hurts. There are many lobby groups fighting these changes, trying to get the best deal they can for their special interest; and then there are the forces of change themselves that are making a nonsense of the lobbyists and their self-interest. History tells us that a compromise will be made, but that it will be a short-term one, followed by either radical change that will better our society long-term, or a succession of similarly poor compromises until we arrive incrementally at the same radical solution. Occasionally change doesn't happen fast or deep enough and the society perishes.

How's that for an overview? Could that actually happen? Well (mostly for reasons of land degradation, vulcanism and war) it's happened to big cities, nations and cultures in the past, so it can happen again. It sounds grim, but let's look at Sydney's planning, or perhaps non-planning as an example of a big city that has grown immensely over the last 200-odd years. For the last 70 years or so developed countries like Australia have chosen to vastly expand their road infrastructure, mostly at the expense of mass transport systems. Older, more established cities (especially in Europe) have mostly resisted, but all have had to face the challenge of the car. In many cases funds have been diverted from rail and tram building, mostly to road construction. Now this has largely been a popular move, at least up to now, and one based on 2 basic tenets: (1) that individualism is good and should be encouraged, even if that means encouraging the adoption of personal, individualised mechanised transport and (2) that fuel is cheap. Societies basically invested in the motor car by subsidising the road building and even the car-makers themselves. (And with each bail-out, import duty imposition, 'innovation funding' or tax concession to car manufacture or use we dig ourselves deeper.)

Well if we didn't wake up with the fuel shock of 1973 we started certainly doubting our basic premises in 2008. (Not that it's stopping us yet.)

Not every culture so worships individualism, indeed there's a sliding scale at work here. But Australia is a new-ish country, built along British lines but with an Irish urge to thumb the nose at authority. So we have the knack of falling into line like the British - or perhaps especially the English - whilst doing our utmost to pour scorn on our elected officials. So when Britain largely dumped trams and adopted buses, so did Australia - mostly. Melbourne resisted, at least a bit more than most Aussie cities. But Sydney had absorbed the English and Irish influences as well as a love for the USA and its individualistic 'freedoms'; thus the NSW capital not only adopted the bus but the car as well; and in so doing threw away its extensive - 2nd only to London in scope and size - tram infrastructure. Literally burning the carriages and burying the tracks under tar. All achieved by 1961, a brilliant result for the car and petroleum lobbyists in particular.

Now that was a radical change, but coming out of WW2, anything individualistic and "free" was looked at as "good". It felt good. It looked prosperous, fresh and new. Out with the old, in with the new!

But now, in 2009, let's face some facts. Sydney's inner-city road network was largely designed for horses, carts and pedestrians. For at least 150 years we didn't make wide boulevards, build garages or parking lots, indeed we didn't even pave main roads. But since then we have gone car-crazy, seemingly relegating the walking shoe, the bicycle and the horse to both the sporting pages and the lunatic fringe. And somehow convinced ourselves that fumes, noise and ferocity are acceptable prices to pay. It's OK to have cars and trucks travelling at 40, 50 or even 60 kilometres an hour just inches from pedestrians and cyclists. It's OK - even good- that we don't have to walk to the shops anymore. It's been so successful a deal - or brainwash - that we have closed down our corner stores and congregated our shops in huge malls that are largely out of walking range anyway. We have made the car a planning instrument in our daily lives.

And it's been a seductive sales pitch. Cars are comfortable and convenient and can reflect our moods. We are in control and can go where we please. Cars are a valued extension of ourselves, our prosperity and our personalities. But now we are tiring of the sheer sheetmetal involved - Aussie cars in particular are too big, too thirsty. We don't have big families like we once did and we fear that petrol will rise in price. Cars are becoming a dead weight around our necks. We fear also that we are doing something wrong to the planet by turning all of these fossil fuels loose in the atmosphere. Some of us fear calamity and are looking to change our habits.

Which brings me to the lobbyists that are fighting hard for "us". Groups such as the grandly-named National Roads and Motorists Association (of which I am a long-standing member), or NRMA for short. Although they claim to represent road users they do little or nothing to support bicyclists sharing those roads, or even cyclists having their own infrastructure. Although they claim to represent motorists they remain fixed on the old belief that car use should be subsidised by all (even the cyclists and pedestrians), to better grow the network of roads and encourage even more congestion. They say that they are against congestion but then again they don't want to pay for any decongestion: : PREMIER Nathan Rees' city congestion tax is a spectacular failure with a study revealing thousands of drivers now clogging alternative suburban routes to get to work to avoid the $4 toll.

Now logical analysis tells us that the CBD congestion tax will not be 'perfect' until we are charging it to all road-users who enter the CBD. That will be a technological and road-designing solution that I suspect will come to pass, but will cause even more political pain - something the NSW politicians in particular (on either side) do not want right now. However what we have now targets 2 congested roads - a bridge and a tunnel - and is effective. It has raised the cost of travelling along those arteries and put the minds of the motorists to work on solving the equation - is driving to work still worth it? In a year or so we will have the data and can assess its overall effectiveness at shifting congestion, either by time-shifting the road traffic or by moving people onto public mass transit. Tentatively it is doing both, yet the NRMA thinks not - although it states the opposite in its own analysis. Logically, if a small charge increase in peak hour drives some change, albeit a small one, a larger charge will drive more change. Whilst car use may be a fairly inelastic thing, a hefty enough charge will have an impact. Now that will drive more motorists to change their habits - and thus will reduce congestion. But the NRMA appears to want the opposite - no charge, and by logical extension, more congestion.

Go figure. Do we wind back road charges and build even more roads, or start asking a fair price from road users for public infrastructure?

What gets missed in carbon calculations - almost everything

It gets missed over and over again. The media is promoting some excellent ideas for a new carbon-reduced economy (here's another swag of great ideas) but it almost always involves simply replacing one existing form of engine or power-supply for another, with any pay-off well down the line. Yes, it's great to swap out petrol engines for electric, but the electricity still comes from somewhere.  Yes, reducing fuel use per kilometre is a great idea but what if it just means we drive further? Yes, solar cells are fabulous but how do they get onto your roof? Do they just materialise there, or are they trucked there? Do the workers drive to your site to fit them? How were the solar cells made - did it involve energy, and how much carbon was released? How long do we have to use the solar cells before we have neutralised the carbon released in their sales, marketing, manufacture, fitting and maintenance? We can ask the same about almost anything - including hybrid cars - and I can guarantee it won't be a pretty calculation.

I'm fairly certain (yes, this is an opinion only) that most of those who claim 'carbon-neutrality' haven't added it all up. In every case I've seen so far they look only at neutralising the variables, like fuel and power. When you add in everything else - the infrastructure, the elaborately manufactured goods, the services that supply, fit and maintain these goods - we can see an overwhelming problem. We are just fiddling with the edges and not attacking the central issue: our expectations are set sky-high and seemingly no-one is prepared to face that reality. We simply buy, use and discard too much stuff. And how do we propose to fix this? Well currently we propose to buy, use and discard even more - but slightly "better" or "greener" - stuff. Can someone explain how this helps?   

 

Ramifications - GM flogs SAAB, SAAB ditches Aussie-built engines #economics

Everything is connected in this globalised world. The cash-strapped and sinking fast General Motors Corp. has been knocked back by the Swedish government, so far, and is looking for financial support elsewhere - probably by flogging SAAB to the highest bidder. Now that's all very sad for SAAB but it appears likely that for various reasons, including fuel efficiency and the understandable urge to downsize, SAAB has ditched the GM-sourced and Aussie-built V6 engine (that also sits inside most Holden Commodores). There's a big dent in the Aussie engine export program (maybe they should have stuck with exporting 4-cylinder motors after all?).

This follows FIAT-owned Alfa Romeo, another Holden engine customer and former GM-playmate, recently ditching - or at least down-playing - the same V6 (well, the block, anyway - they use their own head) in favour of a new, high-tech and hyper-efficient 4-cylinder. FIAT and Alfa are planning to introduce what looks uncannily like an electro-hydraulic version of a desmodromic valvetrain that will get at least 2-litre performance out of 1.4 litre petrol engines without the extra weight and complexity of a hybrid powertrain.

Holden's had better get working on those 4-cyclinder motors, the sands are shifting fast.

Cars, gasoline, transport and the future #futurism #cars

It's easy to say that the car market is changing - there are some obvious forces at play. Most clearly we see the pending collapse of the US-owned auto-makers, GM, Ford and Chrysler. In truth it's been a long-time coming and, indeed, it hasn't happened yet. They may be rescued, for example. FIAT may indeed buy Chrysler, or some other deal may arise. GM may cut/sell-off enough arms and legs that it can scrape by, as could Ford. And various governments around the world may stump up more direct cash or indirect subsidies to keep these dinosaurs and their local offshoots alive.

But there's more afoot here - even Toyota reports bad times in the car trade. So let's dig deeper. What is happening here and what can we expect in the future?

• Fuel prices have demonstrated greater volatility, scaring the market out of larger, heavier, faster or potentially riskier purchases
• Awareness has risen in the marketplace, of peak oil and climate change especially, dampening enthusiasm for cars in general and larger, thirstier cars especially
• Global financial collapse has threatened the ongoing provision of capital for the makers and dampened the desire and available cash flow of the consumer
• The rise of developing nations and their car makers has shifted the global focus towards low-impact, affordable cars

It's the last point that really grabs my thoughts right now. In some ways it answers, at least partially, some of the other points, too. By shifting production to smaller, less complex vehicles we not only meet the demand for personal transportation and open up economic possibilities for people in developing countries, we provide renewed competition for established makers in the developed world. It shakes things up and creates hope for greater innovation in addressing both alternative fuel sources and climate change. The fact that lower-cost cars use fewer resources will be an important change in an industry that has arguably become fat, lazy and complacent on a long-term diet of cheap oil. However the downside to opening up new markets is that any growth in manufacturing will increase pressure on our available resources and potentially lead to additional pollution, be it carbon or other wastes. It will also put pressure on public transport to offer effective competition, or to decline, as it has in much of the developed world.

The negatives are obvious, but we also have some positive forces at work here, including a push towards smaller cars with less impact overall, and more flexibility in fuel options. So what have we got in terms of lower-impact, lower-cost cars in the pipeline? The Indian Tata Nano is an obvious one, and from the same locale is the petrol/LPG Suzuki-Maruti 800. We also have the Romanian Renault, the Dacia Logan; the Fiat 178 project's offshoot, produced in several countries - the Palio, with an electric version mooted; and offerings from Russia's Lada. Plus there's Renault-Nissan working with Bajaj on a Tata Nano competitor, and further developments in China.

The flavour here is small, efficient cars with flexible powertrains. Some with the backing of existing large auto-makers such as Renault, FIAT and Suzuki, others based on what has been learnt from previous licensing deals and/or the production of so-called "legacy" or obsolete cars.

Paramount in meeting the developing world's demand for cars is low cost. The consumer will expect - and probably can only afford - a low purchase price with equally low running costs. That means manufacturers will need to scale up volume whilst driving down costs. Margins will be small. There's little room here for complacent "old school" car makers. Yes, they can continue to feast on the wealthy nations and their taste for over-large, over-insulated and overweight vehicles, but not joining in and competing will see these lower-cost makers taking more and more market-share over time. Eventually the penny will drop.

What can we expect to see over the next 10-15 years? There are no guarantees, but there is clearly an emerging market for smaller cars with flexible engine and fuel options, and it's an opportunity that will be addressed by the companies most eager to adapt. Lower-cost cars will gain traction and spread, with exports likely from countries such as China, India and Brazil, to name but 3. A second wave may come from other Asian and South American countries with African production ramping up as well. As these producers gain share existing small-car makers such as Hyundai and Suzuki will join in, as will the more agile of the "old school" makers such as VW, FIAT and Toyota. However many of these companies, and certainly the less flexible makers such as GM and Ford, will find it tough to adapt to this ultra-low-cost environment and will look to premium brands for salvation. Whether there will be enough room on that shrinking island remains to be seen.

We also cannot discount other disruptive entrants into the market. As cars are forced into a better balance with public transport and electric cars gain momentum there is an opportunity also for companies outside of the car-making game to come into play. Whilst hydrogen and fuel cells are largely discounted as power sources in the immediate future, they too may well gain ground as new possibilities emerge. And the very concept of personal transport could be threatened by new forms of flexible, lower-cost public transport. Both heavy and light rail solutions may continue to decline and be replaced by loosely-coupled personal transport modules that forsake some of their "freedom" for a degree of shared infrastructure and scheduling. Combined with electronic control of roadways (using GPS and RFIDs, for example) personal cars of the future may offer a new form of "train" that services wider areas by road rather than inflexible fixed rail. Whilst it may be difficult to imagine the current car owner giving up some of their current freedom to move at will, the sheer volume of cars on the roads and the likelihood of traffic gridlock will compel governments to consider a transition of some sort.

Chinese stimulus package trades bikes for cars #auto #bicycles

Economic stimulus packages are all the rage right now - imagine what could have been achieved with a similar global effort on global warming, instead of the lukewarm drip-fed effort we have seen so far? Anyway, the financial collapse threatens economies, and thus jobs, which would be of immediate harm to most incumbent governments... so what hurts most gets most attention.

In China's case the stimulus package includes support for car makers, effectively tying the consolidation of the industry to an economic imperative - to drive local growth by swapping bicycles and the like for locally-made cars. Now this is great for the car makers, consolidation will save costs and make for increased efficiencies, driving down per-unit cost and ultimately, once the fall-out has settled, adding jobs - but only if growth can be sustained and exceed where we are now. To do that means exporting more - many more - of those cars. Given that right now is not the right time to be exporting cars, they had better have a compelling sales pitch - and that means low-cost, as in really cheap. Hopefully they will be reliable, serviceable and efficient. Otherwise I'll stick with my bicycle.

Just nit-pickin'

I just read this: The cars that result are packed with sole destroying usability

OK, he (Rod Halligan, whoever he is) meant "soul destroying", but I have a vision now of this poor guy with rotted feet, blaming car designers for it all. I think the article itself is just hilarious, that an apparent "car-guy" can be so detached from reality as to think that the collapse in car sales is because of "boring" cars. As though only building exciting cars will fix everything. Hmmm.

He also writes of "Gordon Ghekos", a weird sort of gherkin crossed with a lizard, I guess. Stumbling forward the poor guy managed to write "Mulally though through this whole mess is gaining my respect with his management without hand outs and therefore keeping independence from the Car Tzar." Whatever that means. Sad, really.

Hyundai derivative, Ford and VW original... yeah, riiight

From the increasingly annoying drive.com.au... And as compression ignition sales grow, it's no surprise that aggressive Korean manufacturer Hyundai is leading the assault. The evidence is the i30 CRDi, a stylish (albeit derivative) small car that is well equipped, space-efficient and part of a model line-up selling well in Australia's most popular segment.

It's great that smaller, less thirsty cars are in the spotlight, but why slap Hyundai around just because? Somehow the almost-identically styled and packaged Focus and Golf are not instantly labelled "derivative", even though they are clearly derived both from previous models in their own stables, and also generally in the marketplace. They all have hatches, drive the front wheels, are similar boxes with subtle curves. None of them actually add anything new that we haven't seen before. So exactly what is drive.com.au getting at? That Hyundai's somehow not "worthy" enough is how I read it.

This is typical motor-noter weariness and laziness but please, please get over it.

Porky GM Commodore admits fat problem

Yes, well, we all knew it. They have a weight problem at GM. They make fat cars. So rather than get creative, they are doing things they shoulda/coulda done 10 or 15 years ago!

Holden is looking at removing the spare tyre from the Commodore and instead fitting controversial run-flat tyres as part of a broader plan to improve fuel efficiency by more than 20 per cent and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Oh please. And the proposed use of aluminium will reduce carbon emissions, too, eh? Frankly we need to stop reporting this rubblish. The real story lies with smaller, lower-footprint cars, not sustaining the unsustainable beasts.

The sort of populism that sells the wrong message

We have a global crisis or 2 on our hands: (1) soaring fuel cost driven by demand and a supply that has peaked; (2) a food price crisis arising from (1) and (3) global warming, probably caused by human activity. Now I'm all for allowing market forces to play out - but there are people being hurt here. We don't need online 'journalists' attempting to sell over-powered, overly-large sedans, especially by playing the 'nationalism' card. It's OK, people of Australia, you are still Australian, or an American for that matter, if you down-size to a smaller, more efficient car. It's OK, it can still be 'sporty'.

Indeed it's OK to ride a bike or catch public transport, or walk. There's a place for over-powered 'sporty' cars, there are enthusiasts aplenty who will pay the bucks required. But it's not somehow quintessentially Australian to drive a fat, fuel guzzling sedan.

What this article demonstrates is the inherent bias in the established media, that lags reality by about a decade: Biffing through a sunburned summer landscape in a big, boofy Australian muscle car is to feel like a native son; a bloke's bloke. The jaundiced might view HSV's Clubsport R8 as quintessentially 'Strayan as seafood at Christmas, inviting a mate along on your honeymoon, or claiming a catch off an Indian batsman's pad. A bit retrograde. A boganmobile. It's not well written, indeed the article is a contradiction in and of itself. But if I were to have a stab at deciphering it, what the writer is really doing here is 'having a go' at what some may call the 'cafe-latte' or 'chardonnay' set and aligning with what they see as a 'populist' view. In that sense the article asserts that it's better to be a 'bogan' and drive a fuel guzzler than to be elitist and down-size. Read the whole article if you want, but it's a tedious repetition of that old line - bigger is better. Oh is it, really?

Sums it up really

It really does: "Do a little experiment for me if you will. The next time you're driving to/from work on any major road or freeway in any metro area, especially in the 'smile' section of America (down the east coast, across the south, and up the west coast), start looking around and see if you can go a minute, one whole minute, without seeing a BMW. I'm betting you won't be able to, as they're absolutely everywhere. In the blink of an eye, they went from being fairly rare, usually driven by enthusiasts with a bit of money, to ubiquitous, driven by everybody with a bit of credit."

I too remember when BMWs were understated sporting prestige saloons that hankered after what Alfa Romeo had: history and cachet. They built sweet, practical and fuel-efficient cars with lusty engines and plenty of oversteer. They buried old 4-cylinder blocks to "mature" them, digging them up later, strapping on a big turbo and letting F1 drivers like Nelson Piquet loose. And then they suddenly started to make underpowered cars, lots of 'em, just to sell more. And luxo-barges because they wanted to be like Daimler-Benz. And then they tapped into a little of their past glories to make coupes, although ugly ones. Finally they joined the herd and made unfortunate if brilliantly devised fat 4WDs. And thus they became, like Subaru Impreza WRXs, as common as muck. Like it seemed anyone could buy one, and they did.

It's called marketing, coupled with strategy, coupled with consumers with too much credit and a longing for materialism over all. Good on BMW for mining this happy vein of wealth, but they lost my respect long ago. So it goes.

Just a sad story I stumbled over

But it's so sad, arbitrary and unnecessary; and possibly typical of young people, especially young men, and our rich Western lives today. I'm so sad that the accident happened at all, for the family involved and the man who died. But also for the other victims: the other drivers, and young passengers, and for the young woman who basically watched her boyfriend kill himself.

Boys have always been boys, sure. They are typically - on average - more reckless, more willing to take (or not see) risks than women of similar age. But that's not all, is it? Today we also live in a cashed-up Western society, where young men can afford not just a cheap second hand motorbike but a powerful one, or a powerful car for that matter. 30 years ago 'performance' cars were rare and took an effort to purchase. Now, with easy credit and good jobs, coupled with cheaper manufactured goods, performance cars are not just easily obtainable but have performance way beyond what we once thought of as 'fast'. Not that it is the deciding factor - the sheer recklessness of speed surely takes that prize, and can happen with an underpowered vehicle as well. Overtaking cars that are stopped or slowing - surely a clue that something was up - was a clear mistake.

I'm sure no words can repair this damage, or the damage done daily by the ready availability of fast machines and a failure to educate young riders and drivers sufficiently in the skills they need to survive. Indeed in our mad Western frenzy to achieve materialist 'heaven', even suggesting that we may have taken the wrong road, by selling cars and bikes that do not fit the roads and traffic conditions of today, will draw cries of hate and loathing. And calls to gag those "killjoys" who dare suggest that we should draw breath and reappraise what really matters in life.

Fuel efficiency 'no better than 1960s'

Well yes and no. Car engines are more efficient, but people keep buying the wrong cars! Let me put it few other ways. Rather than buy smaller, lighter cars, wealthier car-buyers these days tend to buy bigger, heavier cars. So any gain in engine efficiency is lost in weight gained. They (the modern affluent consumers) also tend to buy 4WDs when they don't 'need' them, adding further weight and complexity plus transmission losses. When they want a 'faster' or more powerful car they tend to go up in cylinder numbers or sheer capacity, neither or which improves fuel efficiency. Sigh. So the numbers get all skewed.

Which renders this article 'predictable' but - alas - it needs to be said nonetheless: While engine efficiency has increased since 1963, car size and extra features - air-conditioning, power steering and windows, safety and entertainment systems - mean petrol consumption per 100 kilometres has not budged. Freeways had also reduced fuel efficiency, Dr Mees said. "If you drive at 110kmh you use more fuel than if you drive at 70kmh."

Good golly - someone else sees doom for fat Aussie cars

It's not just me after all. The Truth About Cars has written just about the same words as mine, just better: The ultimate moral to the troubled narrative of Australian car production: if you aren't competitive, you will die. In the absence of real leadership from either the industry (choosing to adapt) or the government (forcing their hand by killing off tariffs), Australia's car industry will continue to wither on the vine. Half measures and failures of nerve do not deter the wheels of change. It's a fact that America's troubled industry players would do well to note.

Of course Steve Bracks is going to want to keep the jobs and investment dollars in his state, at any cost (especially if the cost is borne by Canberra). He's not going to let go of what his state has got, even when it's plain that we are just fooling ourselves about our so-called competitive niche as a maker of large cars.

Cars, cars cars and rubbish

OK, this car-of-the-year malarky is the "rubbish" bit. Nevertheless I have to say I agree in spirit with the choice of a diesel Hyundai i30. It seems to be a reasonable choice, particulate emissions concerns aside. Even better would be to re-use what we have, but if you must buy a new car then buy a small, decent one with the minimum enviromental footprint for the job.

One quibble. They went on to say this: Set aside your prejudices then, take your hands from the childrens' eyes...the i30 CRDi is not only stylish and excellent value, it is a grand drive. Pretend it's not Korean and you will love it.

I guess they (news.com.au) are saying that they are prejudiced against Korean cars, or that they think the readers are... I don't quite dig why we have to pretend anything - it's good, it's the winner, it's a done deal. Does where it came from matter? Are they making a political comment about South Korea, or the rapprochement with the north? Why did they write it?

I think they wrote it because of their personal prejudices... of course that makes it more remarkable that they selected a Korean-built car in the first place!

A modern take on the Bambino

FIAT had to do it eventually. It's a modern take on the 500. In a word - bellisimo! Now, how about an Abarth version?

I wish I could believe the Tesla will work...

I really do. It's a 4 y.o. start up auto company that makes just one product: a swoopy sports car. It's fast. It's lowslung. It looks the business. It costs a reasonable $US100K. And it runs on electricity. I just want to believe in it, I really do.

I just wonder what happens when you get stranded for the first time. When the batteries start to lose their zip. Do you pull over and run an extension lead over to a friendly local 220V public power point and wait for 3 hours? Or plug into a more common 110V socket and wait 7 hours, happily? What happens when you forget to charge up overnight (maybe the car emails you a reminder?). Do you go 'oh well' and walk? Hmmm. It's not like a gasoline car, is it, where you just go to a petrol station and refuel in a couple of minutes...

The other thing is, who makes the electricity, and how? Do we really save anything, when we are in effect burning coal to run the car? I'd like to see the sums...

Cars cars cars cars

Goddamn road improvement programs. When I'm cruising the highways wanting to get somewhere I want fast, smooth safe roads, uncongested with few or no distractions like intersections or stop-dead, turn-hard corners. A "freeway" for example. Other times I want to have fun and some twists and turns mean uncongested, safe but twisty, testing roads are what I want. But really, does it matter what I want? Why not just slow down, drive carefully and concentrate on getting there safely, in one piece.

But life's not like that. We come from all directions on what we want from our roads. The first premise in most "road improvement" arguments is that we need wider roads and less congestion, coupled with fewer obstacles for people to hit; of course this encourages cars (or drivers, rather) to go faster, which is not necessarily so good - going slower in cities may be safer and create a more pleasant community environment for example.

Now someone has suggested developing an intelligent - and safer - roadway, and sure that's laudable; but I'd be concerned about the huge energy expense in replacing or adapting current road infrastructure with an active road system. As we need to think sustainably across the whole planet is this complexity justifiable? What is saved or created here?

Such rapid transit automation ideas as the "smart road" may be more applicable to mass transit systems, rather than personal ones. In terms of embedded intelligence in our personal transport (if we assume this is actually sustainable) could we not continue to integrate such things as GPS, motion and avoidance detection within our cars and provide a higher degree of automation and governance of the car itself? I'm thinking that the car would sense it's in a suburban street and reduce emissions, reduce sound impact and reduce its speed and acceleration potential to match the local environment. It could then sense when the vehicle is on a less restricted highway, for example, and provide greater performance whilst still automatically adjusting to traffic density. You could embed RFIDs or use some other wireless method to indicate changing road types whilst retaining a measure of human control. Coupled with GPS you'd cover most road possibilities (including poor roads in developing nations) without enormous expense. Mind you we still have to determine if sophisticated personal transport is actually compatible with our environmental, social and health needs. Where and when do we get our exercise when we are zooming around in our smart cars on smart roads? Do we need smart bicycles instead?

In terms of innovating and developing product then we could look at technologies that will sustainably support future development, both in personal transport and rapid mass transit - in all countries of the world. So systems of control and governance of energy expenditure, and systems that adapt the vehicle to the environment in which its travelling would be saleable commodities. Reducing infrastructure cost and "footprint" at the same time would be an important goal. Simpler is better.

I would agree that people have varying degrees of emotional attachment with their cars, but cars have only been around for a little more than 100 years and only in widespread use for maybe 60 years. People used to use mass transit, bicycles and their legs quite happily until fairly recently after all. In some countries they (cars) are still not 'essential' items. On the other hand clothes have a more pervasive practical necessity about them that goes back thousands of years.

It won't be an easy transition for many people but maybe cars and the massive infrastructure they require are just not sustainable in the longer term? It's a question that has to be asked. The energy and associated climate "crunch" is our opportunity to rethink our personal transport solution. Let's not forget also that cars (and roads) consume energy in their manufacture, maintenance and distribution as well - it's not just a "fuel" issue, it's a total 'it's been fun but can we afford this' question. Maybe the answer is very different from our perception of a "car".

The charter of the Pedestrian Council of Australia

For the record, I thoroughly and utterly support the charter of the Pedestrian Council of Australia. I love cars, especially Italian sports cars starting with the letter A, but the damage being done by our over-indulgence in motorised transport is plainly ridiculous. We are destroying our society and our planet whilst somehow managing to justify subsidising the destruction at the same time. Where's the sense?

Conspicuous consumption and all that

Brilliant article by Stephen Lacey on conspicuous consumption, waste and excess in an Aussie context. Why big cars? Why big homes? Because we can. Simple. It makes no rational sense, but it happens.