Slashdot Mirror

It's really quite simple: 1. Control. 2. Fear.

Automakers are used to being completely in control of how their products are designed, sold and repaired. Look at what data is available from cars. The emissions and diagnostic data that any garage can read out (OBD-II) is essentially what's mandated by the California Air Resources Board. Newer model years incorporate more and more features to prevent hacking into engine controllers... well, into any embedded controllers in the car.

Look at the business practices of the car companies and you'll see how control is valued over nearly everything else. The Vetronix link in one of the replies is typical. Look at how Vetronix has an exclusive contract and how customers are locked into proprietary cables and software.

Fear also runs rampant in the industry. You want 20 MPG SUVs? The cost is $500 or so, but cost has little to do with why they aren't sold. The higher-ups will do almost anything to avoid upsetting the fabulous cash flow they control. That's why the pace of technological innovation in autos is so slow. There's also a lawsuit mentality in the industry. The perception they might be sued drives their actions far more than any actual lawsuits.

These two reasons, control and fear, are why any crash data recording standard would have to be imposed from outside the industry. They're also why both Bill Gates and Linux geeks are dreaming when they spin the fantasy of "open" car electronics.

On the posted topic: too many Slashdotters didn't RTFA. The NY Times article talks about recording the last few seconds before a crash. That's maybe a few hundred data points. It's not a voice recording or a demerit mark every time you break the speed limit or stand on the brakes.

There are 2 good reasons why the crash recorder would be part of the airbag module. First, the data is already used by the module. Second, the airbags have to deploy even if the car electrical system is hosed, so their power supplies have a "hold-up" time of tens of milliseconds. That's enough time to fire two-stage airbags with the battery disconnected. That's also enough time to write crash data to EEPROM.

Would the kind of recorder in the article make cars more expensive? No. Any cost increase would be in the software engineering before the first car was built, not in the manufacturing cost.

Are there good reasons to have them? Yes, but not what's in the article. One reason flying is a couple of orders of magnitude safer than driving is because the FAA is a lot more concerned with finding the causes of aircraft accidents than with assigning blame. If an agency like NHTSA or an industry group like SAE were to use crash data to improve safety, then the technology makes sense. But don't hold your breath - that kind of activity won't happen until after 2004 at best.

People (more specifically Americans -- only americans buy these things of course), wake up! These things are dreadfully slow and dynamically atrocious for no real gain in efficiency. You don't have to be a mechanical engineer who specializes in high efficiency energy sources [like me :)] to be able to realize this before dropping that 23k or whatever to buy one of these things -- just look at the specs.

So you are an american (I know you aren't european b/c europeans know about fuel-efficient cars and they laugh at hybrids). This means you probably dont care that hatchbacks (like the vw golf) are more versatile/practical (and more rigid, lighter, shorter despite more room, etc.) than sedans. So let's compare a Toyota Prius to a Jetta TDI.

The Prius gets 43/41 mpg (city/hw) (hw is lower because no regeneration).
The Jetta TDI gets 42/49. Many find that hybrids dont actually get nearly the mileage the manufacturers claim.

Okay so the jetta gets better gas mileage than the prius, but that must means the prius is faster, right?

The Prius does 0-60 in 14.1 sec.
The Jetta TDI does 0-60 in 11.0 sec.

But aren't diesels loud, smelly and dirty? 20 years ago they were. Now they have a silky purr, awesome throttle response (TDI stands for turbocharged w/ direct injection), far higher reliability than gas engines, and basically particulate free exhaust.

Well is there anything good at all about hybrids then? Maybe one day the regenerative braking will be able to offset the tradeoffs of having tons of batteries on board, but with current technology, hybrids are plain dumb.

This is all aside from the fundamental issues with trying to get linear behavior across a wide range of power input/output demands out of a system which constantly has to switch electric motor and ic engine + mechanical drivetrain subsystems -- ugly dynamics.

In fact, modern diesels are really starting to make gas engines look bad in terms of real-world performance. At normal rpms (say 1000 - 4000) diesels produce tremendously more torque than their peak output gasoline engine equivalents (in addition to twice the efficiency). This means that, around town at High tech diesels are taking over in europe but dont expect americans to get it. The never have. The only thing americans get is peak hp figures. That's why japanese cars sell so well here (no-torque engines that rev high due to displacement restrictions designed to shield markets from foreign cars) whereas they dont sell worth a damn in europe.

Small engines aren't more efficient -- they are less efficient b/c they have to rev higher for given output and revving higher incurs exponentiated thermal and volumetric efficiency losses. The only reason the same car with smaller engine tends to get better mpg is that its engine cant produce as much power in normal driving range. Larger engine with imposed output limitation would get better mpg.

So, dont fall for this hybrid crap. These manufacturers are going for the halo effect at your expense. I hate those giant 10mpg turd SUV always blocking sight, squeeling around turns, flipping, and ramming cars at roof height with incompatible bumpers as much as anyone, but we have to react intelligently. Just hang on as daimler-chrysler, bmw, audi, et al start trickling the new diesels over. You are going to be amazed.

Did I mention the TDI has zero CO emmissions?

GM was working on a hydrogen "blanket" (sopped in a hydrogen gel I think). The blanket lies under the rear seat and generates electricity through an electro-chemical reaction. It doesn't look bad either.

Nope, sound of Harley is not patented. Harley-Davidson tried to register the sound as a trademark in 1994. In 2000, they withdrew the application after much opposition. There's an interesting analysis of the registrability here, which also mentions successful trademarks on color and scent.

• Honda CR-V: 22/26 mpg, 3287 lbs.
• Toyota RAV4: 23/27 mpg, 2943 lbs.
• Ford Escape (I4, MT): 22/25 mpg, 3238 lbs.
• Ford Escape (V6): 18/23 mpg, 3458 lbs.
• Subaru Impreza wagon: 22/27 mpg, 3100 lbs.

• Nissan XTerra SE: 15/18 mpg, 4229 lbs.
• GMC Envoy XLT: 15/21 mpg, 4600 lbs.
• GMC Yukon Denali: 12/15 mpg, 5609 lbs.
• Dodge Durango SLT: 13/18 mpg, 4629 lbs.
• Ford Excursion: ~12 mpg (mixed)*, 7190 lbs.

"Unionized GM assemblers make $21.02 per hour, Ford assemblers $21.03 and DaimlerChrysler assemblers $21.01."

This from: http://www.auto.com/industry/qgm17.htm

I don't see the point in giving away PCs to people with these salaries. Especially considering the percentage of these people in two income households. (Check the census)

Now if Ford really wanted to do some good for the world, they'd give computers to their foreign workers and leave the Americans to buy their own.

Okay. Where to begin. Hmmm...

First thing, is the Volare and Aspen were made from 1976 to 1980 as replacements for the compact, efficient and highly reliable Plymouth Valiant. They were not gas guzzlers, even when equipped with the optional 360 CID (5.9L) V8.

Now, they weren't as good on gas as today's cars, but technology has progressed. The Valiant, with its base engine, the legendary Chrysler Slant-6, was routinely capable of 20-25MPG; the Volare/Aspent, because of emissions controls, got a little bit less gas mileage than that. For their day, good gas mileage. And for their size, good gas mileage.

The cars that were really bad on gas were things like the big-block powered Cordoba/Mirada personal luxury cars, the New Yorkers, etc. of that era. That's because of the sheer size of the car (which was what people wanted at the time, and apparently again want) and the fact that they had three-speed transmissions with a final output drive ratio of 1:1. At the time, overdrive automatic transmissions were just starting to come out. So, yeah, they were gas pigs.

Rear wheel drive does not itself mean bad gas mileage. However, it does mean marginally more weight. And because the entire drivetrain is not assembled as a single unit like in a front-wheel-drive car, it does mean more time and labor going down the assembly line.

However, for the consumer, rear wheel drive is generally a good thing, though most consumers erroneously believe that the opposite is true.

In a front wheel drive car, everything - steering, suspension, engine, transmission, driveaxles, etc. are crammed into a small engine bay. That means that if you have to replace a starter motor, you might have to spend three hours taking out the front axles before you can get at it. It also means that in a collision, everything mechanical is probably screwed, and therefore the car is a write-off.

Finally, rear wheel drive handles better. Why? Well, if you lose traction on one of your front wheels, you lose the ability to steer. (Ever tried to steer with your front wheels locked up?)

With front wheel drive, how your car will handle on a snowy road depends on how much traction you have, where the wheels are pointed, and how hard you have your foot on the gas. Unpredictably, one or the other wheel can lose traction - when that happens, you lose steering in that wheel. And because there are so many variables for the driver to consider, it's tough to manage.

On the other hand, with rear wheel drive, there's less weight on the driving wheels. Put a bag of kitty litter in your trunk to prevent getting stuck. But the best part is that when you lose traction, your RWD car will fishtail predictably. Let off the gas, it straightens out. If you need to make a right turn, point the wheels a little to the right and punch the gas. With some practice, you can use this tendency to your advantage and control it completely.

(Do your practice in a snowy parking lot so that you don't hurt anyone else, until you've got the technique down.)

I grew up in Ottawa, Canada. It snows a lot there. And now that I live in Toronto, I can spot my fellow Snowbelters - they're the ones who *don't* slow down to take corners, they just fishtail sideways into them, and then accurately pull the car straight. I can take a corner faster in snow than I can on dry pavement.

The same thing occurs on wet or dry pavement, and you can use it to your advantage if you know how. It's a lot more useful than silly little front wheel drive parking brake donuts.

Why do you think it is that most police forces buy rear wheel drive cars?