Slashdot Mirror

I used to ride a bike to school in a suburb of Phoenix. Occasionally drivers would yell or throw stuff at me as they passed.

Later, I delivered pizza in another suburb. I stopped putting on the car topper because people would yell and honk at me. So you see, Phoenix drivers are intolerant of anything on their road that falls outside the norm.

Phoenix is also one of the road rage capitals of the USA. So it isn't just Waymo.

E.g., http://www.theautochannel.com/...

You're saying this is "so far from one of the nicest looking cars ever"?

I take most reviews with a grain or more of salt after Consumer Reports tried to show that the Suziki Samuri 4x4 was unsafe.

Anyone remember those units they mounted to prevent the vehicle from rolling over followed by the manuevers to cause it to roll up onto them? Those levers were over eight feet long and weighed a 100 pounds/45Kg each (200#/90Kg a side). Tell me that thing wont roll at 20 mph with the center of gravity raised that much. Hell put em on a comparable Jeep CJ 5/7 of the time (80's) and see what in hell happens. That's when Consumer Reports lost my trust. Now if they'd done it as an educational effort and compared several models of 4x4, I'd still be willing to trust them somewhat but they shot themselves in the foot with the full out biased against a Japanese company that had been producing a 4x4 for the same length of time as the Jeep.

Fast Turtle - Posting AC due to mods

I think you're misremembering the lawsuit. Suzuki's biggest complaint wasn't with the rollover protection outriggers, but their claim was that CU porposely tried to make the Samarai roll over by putting it through multiple runs and using multiple drivers until they found one that could make it roll over.

CU, of course, denied that this was the case.

Suzuki sued them for $60M, but in the end, they ended up settling out of court (after Suzuki lost several court challenges) with no exchange of money, and CU promising: "CU and Suzuki agree not to refer to the Samurai testing or rating or their litigation in any advertising, promotional or fundraising materials. CU agrees to remove from CU's website entitled consumersrighttoknow.org those portions that refer to their litigation and Suzuki. Suzuki agrees to remove its website entitled suzukivcu.com."

So it's not quite as simple as saying "the outriggers did it". And, as a high riding, narrow wheelbase vehicle (like the Jeep), the Samarai *did* have a propensity to roll over "Over the years, over 200 Suzuki Samurai rollover lawsuits have been settled and Suzuki's own expert witnesses testified the automaker was aware of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries involving Suzuki Samurai rollovers.". That doesn't mean it was less save than other cars in its class, but that also doesn't mean that it had no rollover danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Samurai_v_Consumers_Union
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press001969.html
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/suzuki-and-consumers-union-agree-on-dismissal-of-lawsuit/index.htm

Our car brands are non sellers abroad. Talk of GM and Asians will laugh at you. That's where the market is at the moment.

Hate to get in the way of a good rant, but that's not true. GM is the top-selling car brand in China.

You're being sarcastic, but this used to be true. Rapid changes in China's internal economic policy have created a growing "middle class" whose buying habits are much like those of American consumers. That includes a new interest in automobiles, as status symbols and otherwise, resulting in China becoming the largest car market in the world. That's right: China now buys more cars than anybody, and that wasn't true just a few years ago. 33 years ago there were only about a million cars in all of China. There are now four million cars on the streets of Beijing alone, and the Chinese bought 13.6 million cars in 2009. Americans only bought 10.4 million.

Would like to know where you got your numbers because if you had done a little more digging into U.S. sales you would have seen that most would conclude the current state of the U.S. economy is too blame. I did find the 10.4 million for 2009, but also found a 16.7 million for 2006, 3.1 million more than China in 2009. That info combined with the fact that the numbers for 2008 was 13.2 million and 2007 was 16.1 million you start see why I and many others might conclude that the Chinese economy is almost caught up to the where the U.S. economy was (and hopefully will be again..... hopefully)

If I had a login to motorintelligence.com like the forbes article above me I could probably give you an even more comprehensive picture, but this is all google could dig up for me in a few mins

People with an Audi A8 are most likely to be driven around by a driver, while sitting in the back with their laptop

No they aren't. It's a $76,000 (base price) car. I drive a $77,000 (base price; $95,000 as built) car, bought as second owner for $35,000, and I sure as hell couldn't afford someone to drive me around. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/03/22/185936.html

For a car with a driver, you should be looking at the Rolls Royce Phantom or similar. Those start around $380,000.

1. The cars are designed for the original buyer. The target market for the cars is the initial ($95k) owner; the used-car buyer doesn't really figure into design decisions much.

2. The A8L version is specifically targeted at the chauffeured car market; hence the extra-large backseat.

3. The regular base A8 could go either way; it's big and luxurious enough to be a chauffeured car for members of the I-don't-want-to-drive crowd. (Who aren't tall enough to need the bigger backseat of the L.) No, it's not flashy enough for the want-to-be-royalty crowd, but there are many wealthy folks that would rather avoid the kind of attention that Bentley/Rolls/Maybach type vehicles tend to attract.

People with an Audi A8 are most likely to be driven around by a driver, while sitting in the back with their laptop

No they aren't. It's a $76,000 (base price) car. I drive a $77,000 (base price; $95,000 as built) car, bought as second owner for $35,000, and I sure as hell couldn't afford someone to drive me around. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/03/22/185936.html

For a car with a driver, you should be looking at the Rolls Royce Phantom or similar. Those start around $380,000.

"sometimes I will read them over again just to make sure there are no mistakes."

And sometimes I try to get my facts straight, like that Toyota and Volvo does not offer Night Vision at all (only on concepts), and Mercedes and BMW just started offering it in 2006, but Cadillac offered Night Vision 10 years ago on the 2000 DTS :
"on the DTS, and options include a better-than-average navigation system and the "Night Vision" system, which features the first civilian use of infrared thermal-imaging technology to allow the driver to better see pedestrians and animals along the road at night.... A DTS with Night Vision has been my transportation for the past week. It has been an interesting week, with more night driving than usual.... Night Vision really does work."

If the author can't bother to get their facts straight I can't be bothered to read their article. Author completely left out the Cadillac which is plain wrong considering they were one of the first to offer it and it showed up in many popular reviews. Instead, they gave all the credit to German and Asian manufactures for introducing systems either many years later or offering concept cars with night vision

Yup, the cause of unintended acceleration is unintended pressing of the accelerator.

+1
This is what ruined Audi in the 80s. 60 Minutes had some ambulance chasers do a story for them, and they couldn't reproduce the problem so they had to modify the accelerator to get the problem on camera (of course there was no notice about it being a reenactment). Source: Manufacturing the Audi Scare

In the 90s a few people in Jeep SUVs pressed the accelerator instead of the brake when taking the car out of "park". Jeeps were recalled to require pressing the brake in order to put the car in gear, and a lot of other carmakers subsequently implemented this change. Source: Chrysler Corporation to Offer Free 'Brake-Park' Shift Interlock Retrofit On Older Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee Vehicles

Yes, that IS what happened -> http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/02/25/005398.html and it was pretty seedy. He actually demonstrated to each of the companies his technology, they stopped responding to his calls, they released cars with HIS functionality. He had a years long battle to win compensation as a result. I may be wrong but I believe that Ford in particular thought themselves too big for the little guy to take down and tried to steamroll him. This came out in the proceedings if memory serves.
.
This is but ONE example that sprung to mind immediately. Simply getting "credit" for being first isn't good enough IMO. Of course it is possible for two different people to be completely disconnected and have the same idea. However the chances of this are becoming pretty slim. Simply giving the first guy a footnote if the second guy makes billions is pathetic and unfair. I do not see properly compensating the first person to slow progress at all, in fact I think just the opposite. If people are fairly compensated for innovative ideas then perhaps ideas will be shared more readily. If you didn't have to fear someone stealing the idea, as the wiper story demonstrates, then perhaps you will be more likely to be open about it. Suppose all of the money and time Robert spent fighting was put back into developing new ideas - what might he have created?
.
I've just remembered - they made a movie about his story! I haven't seen it but it ought to prove enlightening to you and perhaps interesting. Adding it to my NetFlix now :-) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/

Sounds to me like their patent summary consists of slapping a computer onto an idea that's been around for over a century.

This is Nissan's 12 year old press release:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19971229/press008845.html

...when I see the local Chevy dealer advertising a HyWire for sale.

The HyWire? What, you don't remember the HyWire? It's the car they were showing all over in 2001. It's the reason they weren't developing a hybrid car... because hybrids were lame. They were going to leave them to stodgy old companies like Toyota, while they leapfrogged Toyota with hydrogen fuel-cell cars, which were the future of the company. In 2002 GM's head of R&D said "We are driving to have compelling and affordable fuel cell vehicles on the road by the end of the decade."

Then, of course, it was the Chevy Volt, which Bob Lutz said was the most important car GM had ever produced, yet decided was not important enough to stick around to see through completion.

I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever see a Volt--the shipping date keeps slipping and the estimated list price keeps going up, from $48,000 last I heard. The price of two Honda Insights. But nobody will notice because by then GM will have the auto journalism world agog with some other exciting new concept car which will be ready in just a few years.

Do you have a source on that $100 number?

The $100 number came from a report I saw a while back but you don't have to take my word for it. You can safely disagree with the number because it depends on how you do the accounting. (disclosure - I'm a certified accountant as well as an industrial engineer) Any profit number for a particular vehicle will be an estimate since the auto companies don't break this stuff out enough to really know for sure. The largest number I've seen for profits per Prius is $1100/vehicle which I regard as optimistic because the R&D costs have been huge. Toyota admitted that the Prius lost money for the first 3-5 years after it was introduced which makes sense. Estimates vary on the profitability of the Prius but due to the added expense of the new technology it is widely considered to be at best marginally profitable and might even be losing money though I doubt it.

I tend to think Toyota is at least making a modest profit on the Prius (or was until recently) depending on how you do the accounting. I think if they were to fully apply all the costs of R&D to the Prius it probably is a breakeven proposition at best but Toyota is probably not fully allocating the R&D costs for hybrid technology. That's not unusual BTW - there are good reasons not to fully allocate costs. The Prius is a technology test bed and a great marketing tool for Toyota so there are benefits even if the vehicle itself isn't terribly profitable.

But they offer nothing. No cash back. No Hawiian trips. No 0% financing. The market demand for them is strong enough that when every other segment for them is dropping, the Prius continues to sell. Seems like a pretty strong indication of consumer demand to me ;)

The Toyota Prius was the 10th best selling vehicle by volume in the US from Jan-April of 2008. Nice sales figures but hardly indicative of overwhelming demand for hybrids. You will note that the Prius is the only hybrid vehicle on the list.

But bankruptcy will let carmakers drop their pension obligations, meaning those workers will have worked for less up front, getting robbed of the labor they sold just to get screwed once they can't take that labor back or threaten to withhold more of it.

Less up front? The last time I saw stats the unionized autoworkers made almost double that of the non-unionized. I'm sorry if they never saved any money like the rest of us need to. It looks like they used to pay almost double, but finally scaled back because they were sinking the company.

The government doesn't need to loan anyone any money. We have processes for companies failing. The gov. really just needs to get out of the way and let the bubble finish popping. Instead they are extending the pain by attempting to prop up something that can't be stopped. Easy liquidity provided by the gov. is what got us here. More easy liquidity is not what we need.

Actually, to further muddy the waters, BMW, GM, Toyota, and Honda developed a 'top-tier' gasoline standard that at least Shell met in 2004. The list of retailers has grown.

More interesting to me than the top-tier concept (marketing at its best, driving a product feature) is the list of 'retailers'. QuikTrip, Turkey Hill, not refiners or perto companies, but convenience store chains. I use Quiktrip a lot because I like their business philosophy. Now I like their gas a little better.

And no surprise that a 1995 EPA standard resulted in less detergent in gas, in general. If the gummint sets a standard, most will barely meet it, and claim 'hey, we're meeting the standard'. Even if the standard isn't as good as the prevailing industry standard before... Nice.

Not as absurd as you might think, as you can use aluminum alloy to produce hydrogen...

And if that doesn't float your boat you can always use aluminum to enhance your rocket fuel...

Iron isn't quite as sexy, apparently it can help to enhance diesel fuel...

It has actually amazed me that, with the price of diesel being what it is today (and probably will be in the future), that there hasn't been a big push for hybrid garbage trucks. I watch the trucks come by, pick up my trash, rev up the engine, move 50 feet down the road to my neighbor, pick up their trash, etc., etc. With each iteration, they convert diesel (inefficiently) into kinetic energy, then turn it into heat when braking. So much energy wasted just moving things in small increments. Between each increment is a brief period of just sitting still while the trash is collected - during which the truck is idling. It is the very worst of city stop-and-go driving; it just begs for efficiency improvements. If you could incorporate and electric motor into the powertrain, you could do regenerative braking and assisted acceleration.

I know you'd need a really big electric motor and a really big storage bank (batteries, supercapacitors, whatever), and all that adds to the cost of the truck. On the other hand, it could double the fuel economy (not too hard - we're talking about the worst city driving, not highway mileage). That would be tens of dollars saved per day per truck - thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per year.

[When I got done writing this, I searched around to see if such a vehicle exists. As it turns out, this comment is well timed. Volvo will be producing hybrid heavy trucks (including garbage trucks) starting in 2009.]

Circa 1900, Ferry Porsche developed what has been regarded as the world's first hybrid car. See: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/11/09/070253.html. The issues with Diesel are the glow plugs have to be used in colder weather starts when the combustion chamber cools for a longer period (requires more energy) and the torque required to turn over the engine (due to the high compression ratios used in diesel engines) is greater. This eats more electricity form the battery in conditions where lots of starts, stops are done.

The Mercedes-Benz SL500 has electronic only braking system: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2002/02/28/036447.html
Although it does have a backup hydrolic system in case of electrical falure, I would be willing to be it won't always be kept in working order by people not bothering to bring their car in for service.

Wrong. Those vehicles cost substantially more to manufacture, and at least some of that cost is pushed onto the buyer at the dealership, with the rest being eaten by the manufacturers who have a marketing need to appear greener than the next guy.

Of course they cost more to manufacture. The point is that, when gas hits $3.00/gallon, money saved on gas fully offsets that extra cost. If gas prices go higher than that (an inevitable situation), buying a hybrid makes economic as well as ecologic sense.

That difference is passed along to purchasers of their other products.

Shred of evidence, please.

And of course, you're ignoring the really ugly reality of the toxicity in the production and disposal of the batteries.

Toyota claims that the Prius' NiMH batteries are fully recyclable, and offers a $200 bounty for anyone who brings them a set. (details)

Further, the people that buy these often do so because of some tax benefit they get for doing so. Which, again, is just them pushing that tax burden off onto other people, most of whom can't afford the hybrid penalty in the price of a vehicle.

If you think that tax collection in the U.S. disproportionately affects the poor, I strongly suggest you write your congresscritter. I fully support incentives for fuel efficient technologies. It's a useful intervention in the market (unlike the subsidies granted to SUVs).

Why should I have to link people who support the leftier side of Gore's base with people like Chavez when they're doing it FOR me

I don't care if you link any particular Democrat with Chavez (since the Left is generally less hostile to him than the Right). I think where you lost me was when you started running around screaming "CHAVEZ! SOCIALISM! DEMONIC! GONNA KILL US ALL! AAAAAAAHHHH!" and then drove the point home by slicing your wrists open. It was a remarkable spectacle, to be sure, but hardly a substitute for actual informed criticism of Chavez or his policies. I think his decision to nationalize the oil industry was wise, his land reforms are laudable, and his outright hostility towards America... well, maybe one of these days *he'll* try to stage a coup to overthrow *our* government, just so we can know how it feels.

Well, which is it? Reducing emissions, or reducing costs that you're most worried about?

Given that energy efficient technologies would do both, I'm not sure I understand the question.

You can't seriously be saying that serious person who seriously advocates a serious reduction in hydrocarbon fuel use wouldn't understand the serious repercussions of thinking that the tiny flow of juice that will come from even seriously improved windmills deployed by the tens of thousands (at over $1m each) would even slow the rate at which we're falling behind in keeping up with demand and distribution. Seriously.

Amateur! Do you really believe that all I was trying to do in that sentence was use the word "seriously" as many times as possible? God knows, had that been my intent, I would be ashamed to only manage three. No, the sublimity of the humor stems from the triply nested subjects, each scorning the other. By forcing me to explain this comedic tour-de-force, you have simultaneously tarnished the joke and demonstrated your unworthiness as a recipient of my efforts.

I won't try so hard this time. Instead, I will simply point once again to the plummeting costs of solar, wind, and geothermal energy as evidence that nuclear energy is unnecessary, remind you of the long-term waste and security issues presented by nuclear power, and raise yet again the question of what sort of quality w

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/02/25/0053 98.html

That's the guy who came up with intermittent windshield wipers. The specifics of which, I have issue with, but the basic principal is sound.

I'm an inventor who comes up with a great idea. I patent it, then I shop it to companies who would likely use it to gain an advantage. The company can examine the novel idea in detail and the inventor is protected from wholesale theft and place a value on the idea. If the inventor and business agree on some terms, then both parties benefit.

The process is hampered by human organization mantras like "not invented here." At this point in time, the whole patent process is completely out of control so any semblance to the original notions are a long way gone.

"Yeah, for whatever company holds the patents."

Nice to know schools are teaching something.

"Using this same logic, wouldn't it help everyone a whole lot more if whatever technologies that are patented were allowed to be used by anyone?"

No

"I hate patents."

To borrow a famous slashphrase. Those who can, don't. Those who can't do.

That other /. article from today is right... there really is a delay in TV media getting to the Aussies after being released in the US...

Quick search and I found this article from two years ago. Go down to the third paragraph. I have been reading auto magazines off and on for the past six years and Toyota has been trying to address what they believe is an 'image problem' for at least that long.

This could be a good starting point (an article listing some pioneers in inventions, and some of their fates).

Also, this article is a synopsis of Robert Kearns' battle with Ford over his IP/patent rights for the invention of the intermittent windshield wiper.

Here's a link of an example, over 2 million miles with a valve replacement when they stopped selling leaded gas

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/08/26/2136 34.html

Been done in a few places already:

Kaneda's bike. Here too

Also, plastic bumpers are plastic on purpose too: that's how they withstand a 5 mph impact with zero damage. Imagine somebody accidentally backing into a fire hydrant or something. With a 5 mph-rated bumper it's no big deal, but if they had a chrome bumper they'd be paying $1000 or so to replace it.

Really?

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2002/03/13/0371 50.html
http://www.roadandtravel.com/crashratings/0908rear bumpercrashratings.html

Also, keep in mind that front to back collisions are the most common, so even if there are issues with side impact, common bumper heights and working bumpers would be nice. It cost me almost $3,000 to fix my $7,000 car after a 3mph collision. No, I don't believe in paying the extra thousands of dollars for insurance when its cheaper to do otherwise.

"Stop buying vehicles that are wasteful."

Something that could easily be accomplished. A Jetta TDI wagon rated at 36/47mpg has comparable cargo capacity (34 cu ft) to many midsize SUVs that are rated at 15/20mpg.

"Maybe investigate how to make 18-wheelers get 5mpg more than they do now."

Interestingly it is WalMart that is pushing the hardest for this.

Wal-Mart Seeks to Double Truck Fuel Economy by 2015
"Wal-Mart has set a goal of doubling the fuel efficiency of its new heavy-duty trucks from 6.5 to 13 miles per gallon by 2015, thereby keeping some 26 billion pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air between now and 2020.

Beginning with the its 2007 model-year trucks, the company will begin introducing models with improved aerodynamics, transmission and tires, as well as an auxiliary power unit in every truck in its fleet.

Some of the changes include:

* Trailer Side Skirts. Wind skirts under the trailer significantly reduce wind resistance and reduces airflow around the trailer. This is a big fuel economy benefit.

* Super Single Tires. Wal-Mart combined the two wheels normally seen on a rear axle into a single wheel that is not quite as wide as the sum of two wheels. This gives a smoother ride and better fuel economy from the reduced surface area and improved tire wall stiffness.

* Aerodynamic tractor package. Making the tractor more aerodynamic radically reduces the fuel required to operate the truck, as approximately two-thirds of all gallons burnt today by trucks can be attributed to overcoming aerodynamic resistance.

* Tag Axle. Reduced weight means increased efficiency. This type of rear axle reduces the weight of one rear axle as it eliminates internal axle drive train.

* Auxiliary Power Unit. This APU eliminates the use of the tractor's main engine for keeping our drivers warm or cool at night. Instead, this very small diesel engine does the job at optimum efficiency. This saves a substantial amount of fuel.

The company has estimated it will save some $52 million per year in fuel costs."

More info: http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigat e.do?catg=447

There has never been a single hydrogen powered car sold commercially anywhere in the world.

Considering that Saab is owned by GM and Volvo is owned by Ford, I don't think the "Swedish" automobile industry is as important as you think.

There have been a few fuel cell cars on the road in Vancouver, BC for a few months already.

Until it makes economic sense to purchase one, people won't.

I'm purchasing one in a few weeks (civic). I'm a person. And I'm not alone...89,000 americans have also taken the plunge.

While I realize it doesn't make economic sense (it will take me about 4 years to save enough on gas given how much I drive), I'm doing it because I'm an idealist: if I vote with my dollars that alternative vehicles are what I want, I hope that Honda will invest more R&D dollars in the technology (either hybrid or fuel cell) to make something even better down the road...

Especially when the hybrid version gets only ~6mpg more in city driving, and 1 mpg worse in highway, where I do half to three-quarters my driving.

I've been driving my friend's '04 civic hybrid a lot lately, since she has two of them :). I get 46-47 mpg city (13mpg better than the best non-hybrid civic) and 49mpg highway (11mpg better). My numbers are from my real-world driving versus EPA on the other car, where'd you get the "1 mpg worse in highway" figure from?

From what I recall, the Toyota Prius gets even better gas mileage than the civic (with the invention of CVT, standard shift is my guilty pleasure, I guess), and I know the Insight gets above 60mpg in real-world driving.

has currently unknown failure rate and repair costs is too much for a 'neat toy'.

The Honda Insight has been out since 2000, so the tech is 5 years old (technically 6 in "car years", since the 2000 model was introduced around this time of year in 1999). I haven't seen or heard about any problems with the motors (gas or electric), just a few recalls on the headlights and airbags and things that are typical with any car. I've got a friend with a 2000 Insight, she hasn't had anything odd go wrong in her 160,000 miles (a set of CV joints that cost $200 more total to replace has been the only major repair so far). Another pal has two civic hybrids, one from '03 (50k), one from '04(30k), and neither has had any issues. I think the "when something goes wrong" issue is kind of a moot point.

Peace,
Reid

Interesting

For all you saps who bought into the hype. I don't believe they factored in the cost of replacing your drive system after 6 years, or the fact that your car will technologically obsolete in 3. (and don't even *try* to tell me my H1 is gonna obsolete in 20 years)

Yeah, times are changing.
Skoda is the second most satisfying car brand in the UK (after Lexus) according to the Customer Satisfaction Report.
And they are not so cheap anymore as they used to be...

The 2005 BMW 760i has a 'Start' button you must press (along with a transponder you insert into a slot) to start and stop the car. So does the Lexus Gs 430 as do some Mercedes and Toyotas.

Your answer shows your inablility to think things through before posting. Had the question been stated "how will you protect us from our fear of rising malpractice insurance premiums?" you might have a point. Even if "insurance premiums can rise to the point where (a) practice is insolvent" that's equally about pricing and collections for services as much as it is expenses.

From a randome Google result
National health care expenditures were an estimated $1.67 trillion in 2003.
Believing that jury awards for damages could comprise more than a trifling percentage of this number shows your gullibility for eating up tort-reform proponents' fearmongering.

There is a conceptually similar system in use today in Atlanta. The system consists of a number of RF readers stationed around the city. These readers are compatible with the Georgia 400 Tollway's "Cruise Card" transponders, used for electronic toll collection. The system reads the transponders in vehicles and uses the data to determine overall traffic speed. Obviously, not everyone in the city has these transponders, but enough vehicles carry them to generate plenty of useful data.

I believe Houston has a similar system in place, since the Sam Houston Tollway uses the same equipment.

People will predictably shout about privacy issues, but it is illegal for this information to be used to enforce speed limits, and the information is not permanently recorded anywhere.

You can read a bit more about this setup at the transponder manufacturer's site among other places.

Looks like some people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have their heads screwed on straight. They're offering grant money to those who buy alternative-fuel vehicles. The story was actually posted today on theautochannel.com.

The computer industry may be at the same historic cusp that faced the automobile industry in 1931 when, for the first time, General Motors surpassed Ford in sales. Ford had built it empire upon the Model T - a utilitarian car for the masses. However, through the 1920's, Ford had saturated much of the untapped demand from first-time auto buyers. By the early 1930's, most new car purchases were to people who already owned cars and were looking for something new and exciting. In the late 20's, GM had captured the imagination of the public when Lawrence Fisher, head of the Cadillac division under GM president Alfred P. Sloan Jr., hired Harley Earl to design the 1928 LaSalle. His daring designs were exceptionally well received and soon he was designing all of the GM car lines. The "model year" was born and, with it, "planned obsolescence". Ford never regained the sales lead and the auto industry has never been the same - and has never forsaken the paramount need for style.

This is a very similar situation to that faced by the computer industry today. Much of the pent-up demand for computers has been exhausted and second- and third-time computer buyers are looking for something new and captivating. In a marketplace where most computers are sufficient for the needs for most users, the only distinguishing features are ease-of-use/consistency/dependability and, gasp, style. Some may argue, but it has been widely noted that Apple provides superior ease-of-use and consistency, if not dependability, by controlling the whole widget. And few would argue that Apple is the company most aggressively testing the style envelope in the PC industry.

The marketplace for the utilitarian PCs may be drawing to a close. Although I am sure users yearn for the greater reliability JonKatz describes, I doubt they will find it from the "truly successful" companies he describes. And in an age where many new computer buyers think in terms of "hot rods" rather than "toasters", style may indeed be king. Hold onto your hats, the age of the computer "model years" may be just around the corner - and Apple may well be leading the pack.

(for more automobile history, see http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/industry.orig/ history/, esp. chapter 6)

You can say that, but you would be more accurate if you said that Ford doesn't know how to inflate Firestone tires to the specified PSI. This page gives a little information on that.

--