Slashdot Mirror

Actually, automakers are well aware of the importance of cupholders.

http://wardsauto.com/news-amp-...
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c...

Dr. Bose did a lot of groundbreaking research back in the day. And, yes, nobody wastes $100M in audio research the way Bose does.

The problem is that none of that is reflected (heh heh) very well by their product line. You can't prove anything from a one-off sample in their office. The real key to home audio isn't cost no object performance; it's bang for the buck in real-world production. And it's there that Bose's products are sketchy, and the way they sue anyone who measures that fact should set off a warning light. All the money going into R&D is part of the problem--that's overhead that doesn't fund itself unless it's turned into product innovation. And it didn't in this particular case; the most fundamental patent in this lawsuit set is one Bose purchased , not developed. Not exactly a high point in Bose R&D history.

I'd like to discuss the lack of innovation in Bose audio products in objective terms, but their very deep flaws prevent that from even being possible. They don't use the standard measurements for speakers everyone else in the industry does. Their theater products ignore the THX specifications everyone else adopted. That pattern is everywhere at Bose. You can either believe in the ancient Bose mythology of not measuring speakers, or you can agree that the concrete numbers every other audio researcher in the world uses are important. Read some papers by Dr. Floyd Toole if you want to find out about reflected sound from someone in the speaker manufacturing R&D business who moved past the 60's.

Dr. Bose was a smart dude, but smarter than every other researcher put together? That's a very special breed of arrogance. I'll take the side of scientific consensus, thank you.

So the tax has been in place for 48 years but only recently caused manufacturers to drop these product lines....?

That doesn't actually make sense. Here is something that does;

Light trucks are now tallied as cars in the fleet average for the purposes of CAFE fuel economy regulation. Manufacturers can't make historical quantities of these vehicles because they hurt they average too much, so they've reduced production. Naturally, prices climb due to lack of supply.

Light trunks are low margin products for budget conscience buyers, so as prices climb buyers vanish, some heading to used car lots. Manufacturers can see the writing on the wall for light trunks and they're pulling out.

"Because of the new CAFE guidelines, the most fuel-efficient segment for pickup trucks, the small ones, aren’t going to be available in the U.S. market."
— John Krafcik, president and chief executive officer of Hyundai Motor America

Yeah, the problem is getting people to actually buy the high-mileage cars. Here's U.S. car and light truck sales data since 1931. Light trucks are a separate category under CAFE, and don't have to get as high MPG. Consequently they can be built bigger (relatively) and with more powerful engines. From 1931 to the 1970s (when CAFE was first implemented), light truck sales represented about 15%-20% of passenger vehicle sales. Since CAFE was implemented, light truck sales have climbed to over 50%. People in general want the big, powerful "cars" and don't care if they get crappy mileage. Forcing the manufacturers to improve mileage isn't going to change that. It makes me think CAFE is partially based on the conspiracy theory that automakers could make 100 MPG cars, but are all in cahoots with oil companies to keep mileage low. That simply isn't the case - consumers are the ones favoring low mileage cars because of the advantages they offer: extra space, extra safety, more power. If you want to encourage increased average vehicle mileage, this supply-side market manipulation just doesn't work that well. It needs to be done via demand-side market manipulation. Jack up fuel taxes to make gasoline more expensive. Then people will start to favor fuel economy more over size, safety, and power.

If you can show me a hybrid van/sport utility that can hold 7+ people for around 25k then I'm sure the rest of the world will upgrade. Because right now the cost I would save in gas versus paying more for a Hybrid won't break even until I hit 100k miles. That's a pretty fair look into the future.

Yeah, the problem is getting people to actually buy the high-mileage cars. Here's U.S. car and light truck sales data since 1931. Light trucks are a separate category under CAFE, and don't have to get as high MPG. Consequently they can be built bigger (relatively) and with more powerful engines. From 1931 to the 1970s (when CAFE was first implemented), light truck sales represented about 15%-20% of passenger vehicle sales. Since CAFE was implemented, light truck sales have climbed to over 50%.

People in general want the big, powerful "cars" and don't care if they get crappy mileage. Forcing the manufacturers to improve mileage isn't going to change that. It makes me think CAFE is partially based on the conspiracy theory that automakers could make 100 MPG cars, but are all in cahoots with oil companies to keep mileage low. That simply isn't the case - consumers are the ones favoring low mileage cars because of the advantages they offer: extra space, extra safety, more power.

If you want to encourage increased average vehicle mileage, this supply-side market manipulation just doesn't work that well. It needs to be done via demand-side market manipulation. Jack up fuel taxes to make gasoline more expensive. Then people will start to favor fuel economy more over size, safety, and power.

I ask because the increase in CAFE standards has been mirrored by an increase in truck sales vs. car sales (light trucks fall under a lower CAFE requirement, so can be built bigger, or rather, be built as big as cars of yesteryear). If you do a few calcs on the spreadsheet, you see the percentage of truck sales holds fairly steady from 1930-1970 at 15%-20%.

Then right around the time when CAFE was implemented (1975) truck sales start picking up, to where they now comprise about half or more of all personal vehicle sales. It's possible this shift in vehicle buying habits (I'm guessing due to CAFE causing cars to become smaller/lighter, though it's certainly debatable) could completely offset any benefit to CAFE. All the historical stats I find seem to list average MPG for cars, not average MPG for cars + trucks.

Year - trucks as % of all vehicle sales
2010 - 52.13%
2009 - 49.05%
2008 - 49.83%
2007 - 54.06%
2006 - 54.47%
2005 - 56.09%
2004 - 56.74%
2003 - 55.47%
2002 - 53.08%
2001 - 52.20%
2000 - 50.72%
1999 - 50.40%
1998 - 49.37%
1997 - 46.98%
1996 - 45.14%
1995 - 42.97%
1994 - 41.66%
1993 - 40.01%
1992 - 37.39%
1991 - 34.78%
1981 - 21.24%
1971 - 16.99%
1961 - 13.64%
1951 - 17.71%
1941 - 19.34%
1931 - 14.70%

Got any evidence to back that up? I looked into some numbers during the CAFE debate. While it's just a correlation, it really does seem like people switched because the cars got smaller / less substantial in response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, and to meet stricter CAFE standards (which began in 1978).

Here's the breakdown of car sales vs. truck sales. You can see that from the 1930s to 1972, the percentage of trucks sold is pretty consistent between 13%-20%. Then in 1973 (Arab Oil Embargo) it starts taking off, to where it's over 50% trucks today. It's rather confounding because it's the opposite of what you'd expect if all other factors remained the same. Gas prices go up, and people should buy more fuel-efficient cars to save money. But instead what happened is people started preferentially buying trucks instead of cars. The data better seems to fit the hypothesis that people want bigger cars, not that they're buying SUVs to compensate for penis size. (The trend pre-dates the SUV craze of the 1990s, though it peaked just before the 2007 financial crisis. I assume penis size hasn't changed appreciably in the last 40 years.)

Year - trucks as % of all vehicle sales - CAFE standard for cars
1931 - 14.70%
1941 - 19.34%
1951 - 17.71%
1961 - 13.64%
1971 - 16.99%

1972 - 19.38%
1973 - 21.60% - Arab oil embargo
1974 - 23.29%
1975 - 23.32%
1976 - 23.93%
1977 - 24.73%
1978 - 26.64% - 18.0 MPG
1979 - 24.59% - 19.0
1980 - 21.80% - 20.0
1981 - 21.24% - 22.0
1982 - 24.50% - 24.0
1983 - 25.70% - 26.0
1984 - 28.72% - 27.0
1985 - 30.18% - 27.5
1986 - 30.13% - 26.0
1987 - 32.92% - 26.0
1988 - 33.21% - 26.0
1989 - 34.13% - 26.5
1990 - 34.25% - 27.5
1991 - 34.78% - 27.5
1992 - 37.39% - 27.5
1993 - 40.01% - 27.5
1994 - 41.66% - 27.5
1995 - 42.97% - 27.5
1996 - 45.14% - 27.5
1997 - 46.98% - 27.5
1998 - 49.37% - 27.5
1999 - 50.40% - 27.5
2000 - 50.72% - 27.5
2001 - 52.20% - 27.5
2002 - 53.08% - 27.5
2003 - 55.47% - 27.5
2004 - 56.74% - 27.5
2005 - 56.09% - 27.5
2006 - 54.47% - 27.5
2007 - 54.06% - 27.5
2008 - 49.83% - 27.5
2009 - 49.05% - 27.5
2010 - 52.13% - 27.5
2011 - 53.30% - 30.2

"no real benefit other than being able to run for short distances at low speeds on the battery"

Low speeds, huh? I wish I'd known that when I was blasting down the highway earlier this evening in my Volt, purely electric. Top speed: 101 MPH*

Please mod parent down, just more of the usual misinformed opinio-crap. And if you have mod points, please look for other garbage posts like this and mod them down too. Wish I had some mod points today.

In the meantime, chew on this: http://wardsauto.com/commentary/why-innovation-dying-america

* I didn't go that fast, I stayed down at a safe speed. 101 MPH is the published top speed of the Volt, regardless of which mode it's in.

Hamsters work, if you have enough of them, and if you are not addicted to speed.

Imagine the look of a 10,000 Hamster roadster! That would be impressive!

I wonder how many miles per ton of seed you would get? You could probably fertilize the entire neighborhood before you even got all the way down the block!

On a completely different topic, there is a group that is trying to get permission to build a Thorium powered sports car. It gets supposedly around 150,000 KMPKG (Km/Kg of fuel), and only needs a modest particle accelerator. They are projecting a cost of around $5,000.00 for the 200 KW power plant when it reaches mass production. Just add an electric vehicle. The thing is not much more radioactive than a standard university Nuclear Howitzer (a source of Alpha particles for experiments, not a weapon). It is steel encased, with a lead shield. Weighs around a Ton, only a little heavier than an old V8 twin four barrel muscle car engine (think Mach II Mustang). It should be able to go into immediate production, right after they get NRC approval. There is supposed to be almost no radioactive by-products. So write your Congresscritter.

See more about this at any of the following:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/19/us-company-developing-radioactive-steam-powered-car-engine/
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/
http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/inventor-working-on-thorium-po.html

Or, you could just let Google do the walking.

I love the line that "The car will wear out before you need to refuel." I think Yugo tried that a some years ago, but it didn't work out too well for them.

I have also seen a wind powered car that can go over 70 MPH in a good stiff breeze. It was on the road in Michigan in the mid 1970's. It was cool. It looked like a three wheeled glider with no wings or elevators, and a big eight foot tall arch where the wings should be. It did best in a crosswind, which that part of Michigan always has, so your dreams can still live.

See, all of these are possible. Except for a people carrying Hamstermobile, all of these are being worked on, or have already been done. And, I have seen concept hamtermobiles, though they could only carry a couple of ounces of cargo/riders, as they only used a single hamster.

The Hamster concept still needs scaling up.

No, not a joke.

http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/

Bit more exotic: there was the proposal to use magnesium as a storage medium for hydrogen. Also some process for using nanoparticle shavings of boron or the like. Dumping rusty nails into your tank would be that much more cool, of course.

But white trash people in the south need new cars!!!!!

Really? So white trash people are traveling to New York City in order to buy cars in the cash for clunkers deal? No. Apparently most of them are traveling all the way to California since that's where the largest number of cash for clunkers sales transactions are. (According to that article "In California, which tops the list of states in terms of clunker transactions, most dealerships appear to be sticking with the program")

Those white trash people in the south must have more money on them than I thought. The "recession" must not be hurting them at all.

Since the dawn of the Automobile Revolution, automobile marques have been proactive in their approach to appeal to certain segments of society. By targeting these groups, automakers would find a much higher loyalty rate in an increasingly unloyal industry. Even today this tradition continues, with companies such as Toyota appealing to the youth market with its Scion brand, BMW and Mercedes appealing to the affluent market, Buick appealing to the understated senior market, and Subaru and Volvo appealing to the aging hippy market. One demographic spoken for by a large multinational automaker that often raises a bit of controversy, however, is the gay and lesbian market. It is within these confines that Honda finds its must staunch loyalists.

The connection stems much further than their not-so-subtle "H" logo. Since the inception of Honda by founder Kilimanjaro Honda in Tokyo, Japan in 1948, Honda has had a long line of successful industry firsts. Honda's first products imported to the United States were motorcycles capable of producing almost twice as much horsepower as their American brethren. Sold out of a small shop in San Francisco, their demographic was clear. From day one, Honda coined the term "Crotch Rocket" to target the gay and lesbian community. It wasn't long before Honda had made its first inroads in gaining market share in the vital west coast community.

While commercially successful, Honda didn't wish to fight a one-front war against Christians. In 1962, Honda started producing the HX100, their first entry into the area of gas powered lawn mowers. This allowed residents to show off their sexual preference to neighbors when not commuting. The new market, however, was something Honda was not experienced in, and proved to be initially unsuccessful. Honda faced several lawsuits alleging their lawnmowers oxidized almost instantly when mowing over damp grass.

It wasn't before long that founder Honda realized that the next battle would have to be fought in the ever-expanding industry of automobiles. In 1972, Honda began offering the United States its first car, the Honda Civic. While industry brass wanted to call it the "Civic Lesson," for the lesson it was trying to teach regarding the homosexual agenda, "Lesson" was eventually dropped from the title before release. Honda's experience in the lawn equipment market proved beneficial in their foray into automobiles, as the first generation of Civic Lessons were powered by their 49cc lawnmower engines producing a then-respectable 20 horsepower.

The response from the homosexual community was very positive, and sales of Civic Lessons matched other popular rivals in the west coast market from Toyota and AMC. Initial figures had pinned sales at achieving a 53% homosexual rate of buyers of Civic Lessons, a figure that has yet to be beat. The Civic Lesson proved to be a remarkable car for the homosexual market, as these families did not have any children and thus did not need room for a back seat. Honda foresaw new potential, however, with gay and lesbian

Untrue. PM (particulate matter) emissions from diesels is still a major problem.

"In an 18-month study of a fleet of Peugeot 607 taxicabs, the agency found that the cars had as little particulate in the exhaust as a gasoline engine, yet they produce 20% less carbon dioxide.

"For the 607 taxis using the filters, the level of emissions was far below the limits fixed by the Euro 3 norms, and the filters continued to perform to 80,000 km (50,000 miles), when they need to be renewed," Ademe says. "The diesel motor with particle filter is thus equivalent to a gasoline engine in terms of particulate emission."

Peugeot has fitted the filters to the 2L and 2.2L common rail diesels in its 607 since it was launched in 1999 and has since fitted the filters with those engines in the 406, 307 and 807. By 2005, PSA plans to have the filter in all its diesel-powered cars, and it has been awarded a number of environmental prizes in Europe.

European particulate emissions regulations for 2008 will be 0.025 g/km -- and with the filter, the PSA engines emit 0.001 g/km, says a spokeswoman."

Many of the foreign cars are actually assembled in America:
http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_toyota_announces_ new/

The first article is on point... it says average cars' brakes have 3-5 times more horsepower than their engines.

Here is an article which specifically talks about the Audi problems...

Most car experts and magazines such as Car and Driver supported Audi's position, knowing full well that working brakes can always overpower the engine, even at full throttle. But major media outlets chose to ignore basic facts and instead gave front-page treatment to theories about sunspots causing cars to run wild.

Electronic Supercharger? Sounds like something the rice-boys cooked up. An Electronic Supercharger(currently available) can only push 1.5PSI over regular, not enough to make a significant difference.

Just how would the supercharger allow the engine to run off hydrogen anyways?

I didn't say electronic, I said electric, though it will be both electronic (electrically controlled) and electric (electrically driven.)

I refer you to a Ford page on Hydrogen Internal Combustion which was the first link in a google search on "hydrogen supercharger gasoline"; hydrogen and supercharger for obvious reasons, gasoline because we're talking about gasoline engines. Ford is also using high compression pistons, but with the use of an electric supercharger, this should not be necessary, only a good idea. A set of high compression pistons for a 4 cylinder car costs approximately $500 (for forged pistons) plus another $100 in rings, so it's not all that expensive, but investing in the labor is pretty significant. Ford is also using coil on plug, which is also not necessary, but certainly makes the ECU program a lot simpler.

I direct you to the following paragraph:

Designing a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen fuel has typically resulted in significantly lower power output--until now. Ford researchers have shown that with supercharging, the hydrogen ICE can deliver the same power as its gasoline counterpart and still provide near-zero-emissions performance and high fuel economy. The centrifugal-type supercharger provides nearly 15 pounds per square inch (psi) of boost on demand.

Ford is using the same engine in which they ordinarily burn gasoline, but with higher compression and different fuel injectors.

As far as an "electronic supercharger" (if I put an electronic boost gauge in my turbo system, that's effectively an electronic supercharger, a meaningless term if I've ever seen one - again, you want the word electric or perhaps the phrase electrically driven) goes, the ones sold on ebay won't even provide 1.5PSI over regular. They can't compress air. They're just fans. However there are real live electric superchargers such as one from Visteon spoken of here.

Note that on some cars, the so-called electric superchargers such as e-Ram may improve power by improving the dispersion of fuel into the fuel-air mix by creating a vortex effect in the intake and thus in the combustion chamber, but they could also worsen it through the same effect, in the case of vehicles with a tuned intake. Most intakes are built for price and not performance, which is why intake porting alone can produce several horsepower, but on those which are designed for power, the e-Ram will likely decrease performance.

Also, the simple installation of an actual supercharger on a car without a MAP, or Mass Air Pressure sensor, will cause the car to run lean, thus likely leading to detonation. Most cars which do not use "speed density" methods for deciding how much air is entering (at such and such speed, so much air) use a MAF or Mass Air Flow sensor which determines airflow based on either the deflection of a reed or the difference in temperature of a hot wire not in the airflow, and one which is. Since denser air will carry away more heat, this system will work to a certain degree for supercharged systems, but in many cases they're not up to the task. I believe some modern Mustangs use pressure sensors.

$example="You don't see Fords engineers going "but building a car is really complex, cut us some slack."

$void=slashdot_bs_test( $example );

function slashdot_bs_test ( $example ) {

if ( $example == "bs" ) {

$void=Fading Optimism - Engineers vent over cost pressures, 'whipsawing'

return $void;
}
}

Just did a quick search myself and came up with this

So it it looks like you're correct, they have a 20% stake in Fuji, similar to their holdings of Daewoo stock (not Daihatsu, it's late, and they're both Korean, give me a break :)). Suzuki and Isuzu are also in the same boat - GM has a stake in them, but not outright ownership, as with Saab. (My current car, a 99 Metro, for example, is just a rebadged Suzuki Swift).

But it looks like unlike with their other holdings, GM hasn't directly applied that relationship to any of their own models yet. Really, the Subaru AWD system is about all GM stands to gain... which makes me wonder if GM is planning on releasing an AWD car (none of this SUV car) in the near future.

And I agree, boxer engines are awesome - especially from a power to displacement perspective. The WRX (let alone the STi) was often compared to the Porsche 911 in terms of HP/L - the WRX ran a 113.5:1 ratio, while the 911 ran at 117:1. I don't think it's coincidence that they're both boxers. If you want further insanity, the new STi's ratio is an even 120:1. :)