OffLine

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.

Labels: cars, Ford, Hyundai, VW

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.

Labels: carbon, cars, fuel efficiency, GM

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?

Labels: cars, Global warming, nationalism, populism

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.

Labels: BMW, cars

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.

Labels: accidents, cars, life

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."

Labels: cars, fuel efficiency, sustainability

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.

Labels: Australia, cars

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!

Labels: cars, climate change, COTY

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

Labels: cars

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...

Labels: cars, electric, Tesla

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".

Labels: cars, environment, smart roads

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?

Labels: cars, environment, society

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.

Labels: Australia, cars, consumption, excess, houses, waste