I spent the morning at US Consulate, getting my visa sorted out, but the eyes of the automotive world this week are on a different area of Paris with the biennial Mondial de l’Automobile show at the Porte de Versailles exhibition centre. This is one of the biggest car shows in the world and in 2010 attracted an impressive 1.2 million visitors.
This year’s show has seen the launches of some cars that are likely to be remembered, notably the McLaren P1, the latest sports car from the Woking firm. This will cost a cool $1.3 million and only 500 of them will be built. It is the first McLaren to be launched at a major automobile show, previous cars having been presented more discreetly. There was much praise as well for the Jaguar F-type, which has been unveiled by the Indian-owned firm. For supercar lovers there was also a new version of the Bugatti Veyron and a Bentley Contintental GT3 racing car.
However, it is fair to say that the mood in Paris is anything by optimistic for the mainstream automobile companies. New car sales in Europe are at a 17-year low and even some of the big premium brands are beginning to feel the heat, while the big mainstream companies such as Renault, Peugeot and Fiat are struggling. The French brands in particular are not in a happy place. Last year France produced 2.2 million cars, compared to 3.5 million back in 2005. The workforce is 30 percent smaller than it was 10 years ago.
The one trend that everyone seems to agree on is that the focus of the industry has switched away from producing electric vehicles and has moved towards cost-effective, real-world, fuel-saving cars. Aside from Renault’s Zoe and a Mercedes SLS AMG EV concept car there was little of interest in the electric car sphere with even Lexus looking at more efficient conventional machinery. Volkswagen had a new Golf capable of impressive economy; engines are getting smaller and efficiency is getting better.
The Renault-Nissan Alliance and Daimler announced that they are to further extend their collaboration with two new projects, focussed on a new four-cylinder engine family that is being developed by both companies, which will target low emissions and much better fuel economy. There is also a new transmission project and continued research into fuel cell vehicles.
The drive towards better hybrids continues with even Ferrari planning one in the months ahead. The Italian supercar manufacturer said that it will have a composite chassis for its forthcoming hybrid car. All of which fits in nicely with the planned new F1 rules in 2014.
I have always been adamant that electric cars were never the solution to the future of the automobile as battery technology is simply too primitive and, even with huge rates of progress is unlikely to overcome its fundamental flaws (charge time and hysteresis) any time soon. A car which can go 300 miles on a single charge on brand new batteries sounds great until you want to go 350 miles and have to plan in a 4 or 5 hour charging stop. Alternatively, we’ll see how many miles the car can do in a year or so after a few thousand recharges…
Hybrids are a compromise which partially solve the problems but only by using the batteries less and so reducing the hysteresis (not removing it though, in fact, the continual “top-up” style of charging can make it worse). The problem with hybrids is that for many journeys they aren’t beneficial. In a Prius, I would be on batteries for about 10% of my daily commute, hardly a huge benefit that.
Now, fuel cells have more potential. Filling a tank with Liquid hydrogen would take no longer than filling a tank with petrol and the range should be comparable. Safe transport and handling of the Hydrogen is probably the primary difficulty. There are possibilities here with other fuels (alcohols for example) and also mechanisms to store the hydrogen by absorbing it in a kind of kitty-litter so removing the need for a heavy, dangerous pressurised fuel tank. Perhaps this is where F1 should be heading to advance low pressure, efficient Hydrogen storage solutions?
I hate to burst your bubble, but a “fuel cell” vehicle IS an electric vehicle. You can’t ditch hydrogen for some other fuel (alcohol) and have a fuel cell vehicle. The hydrogen and oxygen interact and create electricity with the “exhaust” being water.
So when you say “electric vehicles were never the solution” and then say “fuel cells have more potential” you are in fact contradicting yourself.
To clarify Gavyn’s comment, I think what he meant when he said “electric cars were never the solution to the future of the automobile” is that battery powered electric vehicles are not the solution, to which he alluded to in the rest of the post.
I am beginning to think the same. In which case I agree completely.
Thank you Michael, that’s exactly what I meant, emphasis on the battery part. Look out or the pendants will get you!
If we’re in the mood for correcting people then, you absolutely can have a fuel cell that uses alcohol (methanol) as opposed to hydrogen. A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical energy contained in a fuel (any fuel) into electricity by reacting it with an oxidising agent. Hydrogen is simply the most common but not the only.
I stand completely corrected. My apologies, Gavyn!
Great idea re: low pressure efficient hydropgen storage solutions and F1.
Problem once again is R&D costs when over 50% of F1 revenue goes to traders and speculators.
If the FIA can make them come up with new what may yet be ‘silly little engines’ (I suspect a lot of us anoraks are going to miss the existing exhaust note terribly) than why not go further and move onto the hydrogen angle as soon as practicable.
Of course, being somewhat of a conspiracy theorist ‘big oil’ (and the governments who benefit from the tax revenue) is not going to give in or contribute to meaningful radical progress any time soon – and the current snails pace of fuel cell progress will continue and, instead, they will focus on the drive to make existing engines more efficient (which is a good idea on its own, if you’re seeking to rely on oil stocks – but is surely also a recognition that their customers are being priced out of the market on the basis of existing engines with fuel at £7 pounds a gallon or thereabouts here in the UK)
I believe that you have not been updated to the latest state of battery technology. In recent years laboratories / universities have identified what the real reasons are why batteries have to charge this long and within 5 years there will be commercial products available where you don’t have to wait that long before the battery is charged. (The main reasons are the materials where the anode and kathode are made off, change the anode to for instance carbon nanotubes and the charge time is reduced from hours to minutes. And that is just in the lab, imagine what could happen if companies start to invest money in this.)
Compare this to the fuel cell technology and I predict that the battery technology will improve faster then compared to the time it takes to implement the infrastructure changes needed to run an hydrogen fuel cell economy.
But no matter which of the 2 is chosen it will still take at least a couple of years before either technology is ready to be used by car companies for all purpose cars.
I am simply reporting about the show. I’m all for new technology – and F1 developing it!
Three car teams and a dual championship. Two ‘conventional’ F1 cars and the third is to use a clean, efficient or green technology for power, surely the car manufacturers would like that ?
I agree about batteries vs. fuel cells. Hydrogen seems great until you consider rebuilding every petrol station on the planet. For the foreseeable future, I’m betting on tiny optimized turbo-diesels in a Chevy Volt-like architecture.
Batteries are on the verge of becoming truly amazing (although I’m still amazed that flashlights work, let alone everything else).
Not to mention the near impossibility of using these vehicles in sub zero weather…
I visit a town quite a few times per year that is 700kms north of Toronto. Think about that drive for a moment in the dead of winter: For one thing, it would take me weeks having to charge numerous times (even if we had the infrastructure in place) to get there and the enemy of all batteries is very low temps. You have to run a heater at -32C as well as use the energy output for propulsion. Your range on a charge (if the battery isn’t frozen!) is based in yards…
I have a friend in Kingman Arizona who laughs at electric cars. He said you can do one of two things with them in the summer; sit in the air-conditioned interior of these cars idling (in an electric kinda way) in the dealers lot or drive in 108 degree F heat without air-conditioning – but not both.
Perhaps electric cars have a perfect environment where between summer and winter the temperature doesn’t vary more then 10C but in most environments it isn’t practical.
We even have difficulty with diesel powered cars here in a really bad winter. They have to be plugged in at night (not so green mode) and if you find yourself parking over night at a motel that doesn’t have electric outlets for your block heater you have to keep the car running all night (way NOT green!) or risk having fuel in the tank that has the consistency of slush in the morning in anything below 0C.
Fuel cells still employ a battery so cold can and does kill the battery no matter the insulation. The burning of Hydrogen and Natural Gas in cars has been an on going experiment for several years here in Canada and is no closer to being the ‘solution’ to replacing gasoline as both have drawbacks as far as packaging and use issues. We can’t park these vehicles under ground or inside garages at home (outlawed) for example.
A KERS like system would be an interesting experiment if it did not employ a storage system that was affected by low temperatures.
Hybrid’s have a place in that it does give better flexibility for different environments and that seems like a good research path in my view but at the end of the day, you can’t beat good old gasoline engines when your duck hunting in November and it’s -5C and your using the heated seats every once in awhile to stay warm.
Cheers.
Presumably the Mclaren “P1″ is a hint to Bernie that it may well be preceded by the letters “L” and “M”. at some point in the future. Ferrari have already been customer entrants but only in the GT class. 2014 could change all that.
The Jag F Type pics I have seen were not at all inspiring, but full marks to Mr Tata from continuing the line; now a few miles up the road from Brown’s Lane Allesley where the E Type was built. The journey between the two plants never out of sight of a speed camera.
The light bulb in my closet does not care where it gets its electricty from. It could come from nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, coal, or just about any other means of power generation. The only thing that matters: it runs on of electricity. The fuel will always be constant.
This is why electric vehicles are not only the future… but they are practically future proof. The only variable that will change is the means in which the electricity is generated. If a better battery comes out with more power and better range, you can ditch your outdated power source and bring in the new. If you decide you would rather use a fuel cell, then you can wire in a fuel cell.
Of course, last year… I did replace all my incandescent bulbs with low energy compact fluorescent bulbs… and you could use even less energy by going with LED lights. So in that sense… the light bulb itself did change. I would imagine the electric motor could also become “more efficient” in the future as well. But it will STILL be powered by electricity.
The point is, petro-chemicals have a finite supply. Electricity does not.
I meant to add:
At the current moment… I think the internal combustion engine has a future… for awhile. There is not a very efficient solution to the electric vehicle yet. Range is limited on each charge and batteries are not where they need to be int terms of storage/longevity and range.
Until we can find a more efficient storage solution, and a better means of generation… internal combustion is the way to go. Especially since we are STILL improving the concept and improving fuel economy.
BUT… things like Formula E and Hybrid vehicles must continue to be developed to create the new technologies that will drive the electric vehicle concept forward to what it needs to be.
Another dirty little secret people don’t get told is that CFL “eco” bulbs are designed to be left switched on. They degrade rapidly with being cycled, don;t come to full power for a while, and their “efficiency” is measured at only a couple of points in their spectral output which are delivering peaks of light that our brains find pretty depressing. The slow start of the bulbs I know all too well, can’t use them around my mum, because she’s at risk of stumbling until she’s waited up (she won’t ever be that patient, and LEDs permanently on but drawing not a lot have saved the safety day) and this morning, after a all night tete a tete, my partner and I walked past a McDonald’s and got suckered into some of their breakfast. Sat under the friendly glare of a otherwise quite pleasantly designed large pendant, we both started feeling dizzy. Looked up, yup CFL lamps barely higher than our heads.
Anyway, just joining in the chorus that we are being utterly BS’d by the vendors, the so called statistics or performance calculations, and somehow they have the governmental and lobbyists and media in cahoots for too much of this. Since when did governments throw hundreds of millions of bucks to privateers make explosive batteries . . ahem, I mean Fisker electric super cars. This “stimulus” money literally is dangerous . .
Gavyn
I used to think that fuel cells were the future too, but now I reckon it will be graphene batteries/super-capacitors. F1 is a driving force in battery technology, as is LMS. Graphene provides both weight reduction and massive charge density with almost zero resistance.
We can only hope that the silent Todt resists Bernie and keeps the 2014 rules intact, else many advances will be lost along with unspeakable millions in development costs. The teams must surely sue if the 2014 engine/ERS regs are dropped.
Hopefuly. It’s just Bernie thinking of $$’s as that is all his life revolves around. The sooner the day arrives when Bernie gives up, the better.
Just installed some new solid state drives in a machine, and they have super capacitors in them. Supermicro are putting those in power supplies.Totally beats the heck out of whopping bulky lead acid “uninterruptable” power supplies which need regular checking and maintenance. It’s not at the level of having hours of backup from tons of the old kit, and may not replace redundant generators for a while, or ever, but this is revelatory stuff for our small space and budgets. Point being, there’s a lot of market for super capacitors out there, so they should get a boost.
One other company caught my eye, Bloom Energy. Came across them because they are used as backup to the grid for datacenters. I have no knowledge whether they are offering truly viable tech, but I doubt people running the energy budgets of Apple or Google sized server farms are being stupid to deploy these. They work off natural or bio gas, and well, we have a lot of distribution for natural gas here in blighty. We also have the highest rates of mortality of the elderly due to insufficient heating, which truly shocked me when I read that. If true, I don’t recall my source, but it’s a sorry state when I immediately find that believable, my we’ve done something awful to our energy markets, or that and something rotten to our pensioners.
Yeah I’m one of them (pensioner) and am thinking of buying a heat pump, which they say has a 300% efficiency. I have yet to mention the law of conservation of energy to them. Currently on heating oil at £0.59/Lit
Agree, more efficient petrol-diesel and Hydrogen will be the future. Electric cars are not practical, it was just a marketing ploy to soften the “greens” aggressive attitude toward the car.
Try that with a modern e-car. Also they are more expensive, ugly and only some actors (not players or sports guys) buy them just as a WOW factor, but they have tens of cars anyway. Like the new P1
To make them work first they will have to create a network of “Fast charging stations”, both which are non existing, they are semi-OK as a second car but as a primary means of transportation it fails terrible. Wells Fargo was more efficient back then than the actual e-cars, they changed their horses at x amount of miles so the carriage could keep on going
I think that the development plan for mainstream autos is you need to have a distinct leap in efficiency. Maybe the LMP diesels can get that kind of leap, whilst not culling performance. (I hate to drive cars with no oomph, especially in traffic, response times really help, there’s no reason now to have a huge V8 to get quick torque and move swiftly, but every reason not to have several hundred quid of petrol in the tank – my old MB V8 eat 60 quid a turn, British petrol prices in 1993) .
– I badly want one of the Peugeot LMP derived saloons they exhibited but did not mass produce, about two years ago. Very nice looking too. Tiny engines, tons of torque, high revs, and almost everything fixed in terms of capability.
That McL P1 looks really mean, and I like the design. A lot. But about when I was born, FIAT 500s would be custom kitted with V8s and armour plating because flash motors attracted pseudo fascist activists, kidnapping and violence toward the rich, or just whoever was considered well off. I’m not rich, yet I have been subject to that kind of attitude. Real shock to the system. The VW Phaeton, a really serious fast car in some of the models, seems to have been resurrected in their line-up, asfter a absense. They brought in new diesel models, also. That would not be done so long ago with a top end saloon. I think that’s because it is still nice looking, but so unassuming, a Passat with a super high end machine under the quiet styling.
I sense there’s a rush, in the super luxury game, to capture what is the last of the buyers who don’t care for how much impression they make of their wealth. (I also think that the internet has led to a whole other level of aspirational window shopping. The way dress codes have fallen in my lifetime, well, I’d never have been allowed into Harrods one time without being very smart. Long hair got me “go away” hints from their staff, one time, even though I was suited and booted very formally, otherwise. That has all gone, but you can peruse ludicrous luxury items as if it were pornography, now, and be quite influenced by such things, I believe) Arguments have been made that super priced watches have boosted Richemont, a big luxury group, because their timepieces are thought to be a conduit object for laundered funds to get money out of China, via Macau in particular.
I first thought the deluxe ad market would be falling off a cliff a few years back, but it seems to be propped up still by who wishes to posses easily transported highly valuable baubles if they have a sudden reason to make a move to avoid social or other unrest. Some people speculate the not slacking sales of silly priced jewellery is fed by people who are in the graft in places like China. China’s a real watchword for who dabbles in business or the shares of such companies. I think that won’t work too well if there is a real collapse in society and the economy, instead maybe even trying to sell some ridiculous watch might single you out and make you unsafe.
So what’s going on? F1 is not the best candidate to argue it’s all eco and common man stuff. You can argue with adequate data, that a F1 car is more “eco” than a Chevy Volt or Fisker or Tesla, but you can’t shake off the natural elitism, not by any means, I reckon with ticket prices at the highs they are. So something in between might be done. My record is scratched now on the uncounted playing, but I think diesels are one tech that could make the races more interesting, as well as better connect F1 to what normal people might drive. In fact, although not quite achieved yet, I think top diesel tech is headed to the consumer faster than anything F1 plays with. I just reckon you could align public sentiment with F1 better if you get of your perch that whatever F1 does is by default the pinnacle, and let the teams strive to really make it the top again. I think it’s really gotten so far removed from the “I might have one of those, one day” sensation. Just make some concrete link back to some tech a normal custom,r might have one day, even allowing that’s a while in the future. 1.6L Turbos are conceivable in that direction, as are Disels, and hybrids also, though I don’t know enough how close the links are. (for anyone not in the UK, the increasingly annoying road tax and insurance bands punish big displacements enough I am still sticking with pretty old and smaller autos. I’d jump all over real new tech, though.)
I agree with the fuel cells point, though no chemist – physicist, I know hardly more than I was exposed to at prep school, maybe there’s a bit of a problem as to what is receiving subsidies. Example of that is Toyota surging in shipments because lately the Japanese government wanted to subsidise hybrids to reduce imported oil, because they are shuttering their aged and never but on a skimpy budget, GE made reactors.
I just want F1 to crack on, fast as it can without breaking the piggy bank. You think that the management would take more pride in being direct and clear sounding as to technical regs. But keeping all of this under a screen of smokes and mirrors just doesn’t send the right signals. I want to hear a resounding “yeah, we’re totally going for it” when it comes to innovation. Kids have grown up now with computer games, where laws of physics are warped and you can buy and trade further distortions of realistic capabilities (or they just hack the game engines to better beat their on-line rivals) . . it’s a difficult thing to overcome, if your future audience think you are being lame, or, worse, just don’t know what you are building. One can but hope the penny will drop . .
Only yesterday made the decision not to buy a highly efficient new diesel car, but settled for a petrol one with 30% less mpg. Why? DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) only works if you do about 50miles per journey (to heat the DPF to working temp) otherwise it clogs and is £1500 to replace. Most of our journeys are shopping in Boston, which is 13 miles away. This problem affects all modern diesels. Forthcoming legislation will make removing the DPF illegal. (apparently) Electric would be ok but for the cost.
It’s really sad how the European car industry has been diminished in recent years, if not decades .
The only real players left seem to be VW, BMW and Merc, the Fiat empire and Renault limping along, British and Italian marks long sold out .
I’d love to see a proper Brit car or Alfa again, but a Tata Jag , Malayan Lotus and Caterham ? A Chrysler Alfa, or worse an Indian Tata Jaguar , who will ever desire that ?
The car I most desire is a Renault. Striking limo / saloon with their winning LMP engine in it. Looked almost corporate but very business like if you think being a car you’d like to drive. I think Renault could easily pull ahead again if they were bolder. But all the wonderful names we can remember, that’s something that saddens me in any real business. (and in banking, consolidation has far from helped anything) but we’re stuck a bit with platforms and the sheer cost of safety rules (hey, those matter in London, some estimates are that areas like mine have 30% uninsured and not passed their test, and have language difficulties reading signs!) .
But yeah, the naming game could be more fun, and the styling game, and maybe there is a market for Facel Vegas and now you can replicate so much with 3d scanning, but I have no idea if it could be made economic. Look at the silliness that was the Maybach reintroduction. At least ought to have had some nicer styling to it.
Or maybe the prices for very low number productions would get it too close to basically being easier, if you have the budget, to get a classic. I think the Lambo Miura is a design that really ought to be brought back to life. They’ve gotten a bit crazy, good crazy, with their angle sets lately, be nice to see gentle curves again like that. (you could argue Mazda’s MX series was influenced, at least in my early 20s, my more image conscious ates would go for those if they could, definitely a car to meet your girl with.)
Things is, maybe what you call out for will be possible. I think a lot of companies “store up” classical designs, just like my Uncle once joked that after 30 years his wardrobe of three piece business suits had come back in again. Well, I bet they do time to time have a good look at what can be re used.
The consolidation may be – in other industries also – a effect of the strange interest rates, where really big companies can borrow at next to nothing, so if you’re already big, you can gobble up smaller fry.
Definitely bring back variety, though. Older memories, the kind who might feel their nostalgia disturbed by new use of a name, are far less the demographic that matters. I’d just want it to be shook up because city streets look so much duller! (could we even need that better aesthetic to counter the anti car lobby on artistic grounds, man that might confuse the liberal arts students!?
)
‘(hey, those matter in London, some estimates are that areas like mine have 30% uninsured and not passed their test, and have language difficulties reading signs!)’:
I can believe that ! Some of the driving I see on the A40/M40 to work and back everyday, is truly shocking.
I don’t think that’s new info, either. Could it have gotten worse? Does it put enough back into the economy by means of those “police, camera, action!” programmes that saturate the airwaves?
Living at a intersection, until they installed lights (it’s blind from three corners!) I could tell what day it was by how many crunches I heard from collisions. Every flaming week you’d have a pile up, and I don’t think that’s exaggerating, just averaging. Something made everyone speed up the moment they couldn’t see their route, like dodging a train at a cross roads, really it was nuts. Inner city London roads scare me. But it’s not long since burning vehicles were a frequent sight in the rougher back streets about here . .
Only improvement, if you can call it that, is they set up a scheme for the NHS to sue the uninsured for recovery of costs. But I’ve never heard reported any “success” stories from that.
Another thing that bugs me, which is what was called the Volvo Effect casually: people drive less well when they think they’re in a safer car. The thing is, the mass effect of advertising new car safety might be having a general influence, including on those who are not driving modern spec cars which are more survivable in a accident. (My brother was a transport researcher, so my source is not much better than dinner conversations over the years, but these effects are broadly studied in many other fields)
That said, I don’t envy you the A/M40 one bit – I am forever heartened I can take a tube or bus or taxi if I need to around here. Too many accidents happen when people are tired and have no options to driving. (sure public transport sucks rocks also, but good to have the option)
When I was at primary school, they regularly drilled us as to road safety. Every term, full sessions on highway code. In a sleepy retirement town on the coast, no less, hardly like London. Do they do that any more? One wonders . . tangentially, I think I’ll look up what exactly the FIA safety campaigns are doing. But you can appreciate why there’s not be much media coverage of that, given the ad budgets of the big auto makers.
Fear not JoJ, the Alpine is to live again, courtesy of Tony Fernandez who will step down as Caterham F1 boss shortly.
I am shocked you will be allowed in Joe – you must be on SOME watch list !
Joe, surely this is why the new engine rules are so important to F1. When you and I were growing up we were surrounded by images saying, to quote Clarkson, power is good. V8s V12s and straight or V sixes were as much to hormonal teenage boys as Farrah Fawcett-Majors or that Athena poster of the blond tennis player scratching her backside. Nowadays the zeitgeist is different. Green is good. The automobile is increasingly a white good where it’s ability to perform reliably and cheaply is more important than it’s ability to entertain. I’ve fallen for this myself. Whereas years ago I’d eagerly buy Car magazine every month, the few times a year I buy a car magazine it’s one that features older more charismatic vehicles.
If F1 has any chance of surviving in the future it need to show a relevance to the world it lives in. That, I believe, means freeing up the regulations to allow the innovative thinkers within F1 to come up with genuinely new ideas. Not micro aerodynamic tweaks. Base it on energy consumption. How you generate that energy is down to you.
Could not agree more.
Easy to agree on this. Except for the “green” stuff. But am afraid that “freeing up the regulations” is exactly the contrary to what FIA has been doing for decades.
I also agree. But how do the small team afford them?
I’m sorry to spoil the party chaps – NASCAR enjoys superior attendances/fan base, bearing in mind that it’s a purely domestic series. No ‘green stuff’ there. I’m all for innovation but has to be carefully handled – no chance with BE in place.
Joe, you have said in the past that your car is for getting from A to B but many fans love love both sides ie racing and road cars equally. An interesting debate.
I’m not entirely sure about that. You may have lost interest in the car as a means of enjoyment as well as transport, but not everyone else has. I, for example am considering a new (second hand) car after which I’ve lusted since being a student – despite the £1000+ per year insurance and top rate ‘road tax’. Plenty of young blokes round here spend loads pimping and fettling their Saxos and Corsas, and slightly older guys take obvious pride in their Golf Gtis and Civic Type-Rs and the like. When you get into it, there is still very much a car culture which is divergent from ‘the mainstream’ out there, in much the same way as there has always been – look at websites like Pistonheads etc. to see the diversity of people who have a passion for their car and cars generally. The fact that the ultimate mainstream companies like Toyota and VW bring out products like the great GT86 and new Golf GTi is evidence that this is a viable market also. Just as I believe Joe’s statements to the effect of “young people don’t like F1″ isn’t entirely true, so I don’t believe “young people don’t like cars”. I work with young people every day (interestingly , young women – ahem) and I assure you they are in the main as interested in the same things that I was when I was their age – albeit they enact that interest in different ways.
Having said that, yes, the mainstream is all about efficiency and a ‘white goods’ approach to motoring. But branding still matters – hence why people who might ‘only’ afford a Kia or a Hyundai (great cars) still aspire to a Golf or a BMW 1. Certainly F1 and motorsports generally has to make gestures to integrate with the mainstream, but they can also be used by manufacturers to display something positive – rather than, lets be frank, miserly – about their products. I agree with the new rules and look forward to them (hey, if the engines are quieter, I’ll be able to hear the wife moaning about the terrible noise F1 makes on TV…!) but I do think some of the proponents of them are taking slightly the wrong tack. Yes, F1 can show efficiency and reliability and so on, but it can also show excitement, technical innovation and passion. Someone like Honda needs to come back into it and blow the doors off with some super fuel-efficient awesomely powerful engine just like the old days – and relight their own fire at the same time, to get back to making the exciting, high-performance but also affordable and efficient products they used to.
Nice post. Agree entirely.
‘and slightly older guys take obvious pride in their Golf Gtis and Civic Type-Rs and the like.’
You’ve just described me perfectly ! 33, Golf GTi, that is mildly modified.. maybe that makes me middle aged ?! Eeek.
You’re as young as the (woman) you feel etc.
That new mk 7 Golf GTi is stunning. Buy one, or put it towards a house deposit.. that’s the big issue !
“How you generate that energy is down to you.”
by burning the old regs?
nice comment!
hi joe – have a look at gordon murrays latest creation.
I already have.
If somebody was gonna give you a car for use in Real Life, what kind would you want?
I want to watch Joe being the star in a reasonably priced car on Top Gear! Clarkson, start your anti eco motors now
The most interesting thing about it is the manufacturing process he uses.
I was at the Thursday press day myself (not actually press myself, but my colleague’s tech consultancy seems to count due to the large volume of YouTube content it produces). I was actually struck that there was much more in the way of electric powertrain than I expected. Pretty much every small manufacturer there was presenting something that was either fully electric or hybrid (including fuel cells). Do they know something the big manufacturers don’t, or is it easier to develop electric powertrains from scratch than conventional? I suspect the latter.
I was also impressed how the ranges of these vehicles has substantially increased in the last year or two, now getting up to 200-400km range, plus some very impressive charge times (80% charge in 30 mins in a Zoe with specialist kit). With some of the developments I’ve seen from MIT recently, it seems that the point when electric cars become practical is rapidly approaching.
Oh and as for the earlier question about the naming of the McLaren P1, the impression from Ron Dennis and his colleague at the press conference was that it primarily means “1st place”.
Those batteries are still really heavy for what they do, from what I read. Heavy as a big V8 lump. If they were comparatively light, for endurance / performance, there could be already a fairly decent sized market. I could easily cope with those ranges for city driving, discounted for start/stop and avoiding the lunatics that make it so the only guy I trust to drive me is a mate who honestly should have had a career in rallying.
But here’s a prime example of the hassle it could be: my building, 14 floors, pretty overcrowded, could even be 300 residents (that’s illegal density, and a big worry for me) but say you car pool with two others, that’s 100 vehicles. You need three phase supply, to get these motors charges up, and that’s more than the next half a dozen sub stations can supply.
Bob my biz partner’s wearing thin joke is I’m going to get busted because I have lots of lighting, either for viewing press proofs, or since my mom has been my responsibility, to make sure as heck she can see her way about. I have very high grade commercial power distribution, but I missed on grabbing the last 3 phase circuit in the building (forms to fill, there’s commercial space her as well, who got priority, even though I have more need). I so have issues with the eco “efficiency” scam, especially as I get older, my eyesight is I think already suffering from Presbyopia, and my lighting needs are, as just mentioned driven by work and safety.
Those are needs, not whimsical self indulgence. At our office, we’re having real issues “stealing” enough power supply to light a space properly. Slap bang in the heart of a financial center, there’s absolute scarcity of this electric stuff.
Please don’t add electric car charging points to that. Without huge disruption, far more than the Cross Rail dig is causing, you’d just brown out the Square Mile. I hope they are using those tunnels to bring new supply in from the less dense east and west extremities. But it’s ironic, because for cost cutting short sightedness, London Underground Limited gave up its diesel backup generators. That strained the grid a unspoken lot, and remains a cause of maybe a good half of the delays. They have to regulate trains to avert too sharp power drains. Now get this super capacitor thing going, and they would be able to power up more locos at the same time. Things is, from my A level electronics – well before that as well – I know how uncool it is to blow any capacitor. The normal ones degrade quickly, also, my just about to be replaced old faithful workstation is drawing more load (so more fans blowing) because the PSU caps are out of tolerance. I’m very chuffed at the beastie thing’s endurance, though. 7 years and it’s still as good as many current boxes. (boring reason is it was one of the fastest clocked standard chips of its time, and many applications naturally love just clock speed). Anyhow, I don;t think you’ll be able to maintain a office for high text biz very soon, unless you have a clue about all of this. It’s no longer a “transparent” utility. How long until every household has to get smart, and not a “smart” meter . .
Those diesels and hybrid diesels could not come fast enough, I reckon. I’m going to try to test drive some of what’s out there. I think you need drastic measures in London, and you need to push the business towards the higher end. By that I mean that you may need to tax out of the game people on a budget, because if you allow not stupid levels of incentive (not subsidy, but things like exemption from congestion charge) and push the buying public towards the higher end motor cars (which also have running cost benefits, so not in the long term being so expensive) you push the scale efficiency of manufacturing the high end stuff now. I think there’s no way to make immediately producible tech meed the price range average commuters will afford. So, just don’t! Force anyone who wants private transport to pay for the current high end kit – and all this new kit is simply expensive – then you get the costs down for those drive technologies. Okay, I would be upset my preference for little inexpensive petrol cars would be “unfairly” penalised. But I feel I am penalised not being unable to buy the new new stuff that makes sense to me, because it’s at such low volume, too often it is at the higher end of luxury cars. This may be artificial market rigging, but it’s way better than throwing billions in our taxes to experimental private projects. I could be biased – I’ve always tried to afford the best built tools I could, but the funny thing is they always have lasted, and paid back. I dare to say my idea would not be forcing people off the road, or making them buy more expensive motors, but rather twisting their arms to save them long term costs.
I don’t feel this is pie in the sky nonsense, just tricky to get the programme Goldilocks right for dinner and bed. I think the hidden costs of a policy move to eco energy supplies are still being lied about, from bio diesel causing high grain prices (this year, drought has exacerbated that, and there’s been a worrying trend of declining waterfall across the bread basket / flyover states) to any manner of fudging the cost of solar (again tax subsidy so householder “make” a profit by selling any surplus to the grid) and ad nauseam. As a individual, I would rather be told to bite the bullet if I want to drive, even if that makes me angry at the cost, provided there is a strong selling point on the longer term efficiencies *as they affect me, and not some nebulous government deficit balance*!! In other words, although quite a harsh policy, it at least pots control back in the hands of the individual. I’m reaching out that that could be sold, and you’d need some far more determined ad campaign – truly I think any advertising talk of efficiency and or eco friendliness is half hearted, at best. But I think it’s possible to sell a solution that is at the same time a intervention as it is reinforcement of the individual values I like to imagine are still part of a capitalist and democratic ideal. Yes, I would pay for a brand spanking new expensive saloon, if it had the best tech deliverable, considering the longevity of motor cars is stabilising to a couple of decades again. If the price was still a bit rich, people might actually car pool, even. You just need to sort out the regs and rates for multiple homed insurance (the post/zip code pricing is a unpleasant hurdle for everyone, anyhow) and to be honest, the trending 20 somethings have a increasing aversion to reliance on combustion engine private transport anyhow. I think you have to do something generally to avert a big slow down in auto sales, because far fewer urbanites with good jobs see a car as a status symbol, or even of practical use. I think we need a kind of NetJets for efficient quality saloons, efficient that they can carry people plus their stuff so not talking midget motors, and that we need to do so before government either loose all their credibility, or default to draconian diktat, or the manufacturers get caught in the middle.
Okay, I’ve not worked out a solution to any of this, but I am trying to point out a gap in the market which I think is very real, and might just be acceptable if exacerbated and tweaked to both force and fulfil demand. People don’t always know what they want, and to much advertising is about confusing them they want something that is of no long term value. Forgive me I am biased by not being frightened by more expensive purchases, but also I have often bought cars to share with mates, and when so many midget little runners are 15 to 20 grand with delivery mileage, tell me I get a proper break on other taxes, a much bigger car would not put me off at all. If you could push demand to push volume sales and push the technology down to more modest cars, well, that’s just the same way the computer industry has managed to grow so fast. Early adopters do well also, at least if you use the computing speed you just purchased. It would be cool to make that model work for our private tin chariots, as well.
In the end, I doubt car companies will be ruined, either. At some point the entire fleet must be replaced. You just need to do that at a sweet spot for all concerns. There’s way to much junk on the road by far, endangering lives, polluting, the awfulness of which I bet encourages people to not insure (why, if you have a rust bucket, goes some perverted logic) and getting a bit serious about retiring the rust buckets has other benefits than pumping up industry. I am not usually in favour of creating work, to inflate economies, but every car I ever had to deal with that was on its last legs was a creator of wasteful, in the end worthless, work. We could I think really get some positivity from a big deliberate change to auto policies at all levels, and neither end up broke nor resentful.
Sadly, I am just thinking, very roughly indeed, and offering up some off the cuff conjecture. Intuitively, I think what I say might work, but in reality I expect I’d be torn to shreds by people with real data. Real data no doubt created by vested interest groups, to promulgate the status quo and the idea they are already doing their very best. Nah, when I am training to get fit, there is always a better time or goal. Just it remains human nature to cover your job by saying “we already looked into that / did that / will never work / we got studied the numbers / do you know how many jobs are at risk”.
Anyhow, anyone else in East London who would car pool a really efficient upmarket modern saloon? Sorry I ended up on a long post, again, just this is all new thinking to me, or very recent, and i worry that if we loose a positive connexion to the automobile as a *classy* mode of day to day transport – which I really think is not inconceivable as a near term outcome – what will F1 do, when the sympathy or desire for or plain lack of experience of fine motors is vanished?
Joe, do you know how the McLaren cars are selling? Are they making money?
Good question you pose. Being a bit For Queen and Country, I’m still so chuffed there’s such a manufacturer, I’d not thought to ask . . Anyone?
I’m also surprised, impressed very much, by how fast they got a new model out. But there’s a little accountant devil whispering in my ear, asking whether they are sinking R&D costs somehow on a accelerated amortisation. My much missed biz partner and I often wondered how to sink costs fast on projects, and unless I’ve forgotten everything, the thing is to prove that the sales lifetime is short. I guess if you are making super cars for a very elite, therefore if not faddish but “must one up the Super Jones next door”, you’d have a plausible argument to write off development and take the tax deduction quickly. The opposite end of that spectrum is buying something like a printing press, that has a life of decades – that’s still useful as almost throughout it’s life (there’s not half bad money to be made trading them, if a recession crunches, so I am told) but for wonderfully high end short run motors, maybe lots of tooling (including non physical tooling, like effort spent on building up CAD CAM programmes) that has a unusually short half life. I mostly think that principle of writing off costs and getting tax deductibles is fair, but it does presume a few things and aggressive tax write – offs are a fast track to generating profits. Sometimes that kind of cost is better described as gaining goodwill or IP intangibles, than sunk costs. Oh, how lovely a game is accounting . . which reminds me rather sadly, I will have to reacquaint myself with the GAAP* soon enough, ugh, spare me please, I was just getting to feel like flesh and blood for a moment there!
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Practice_(UK)
Just stumbled across some show reports. Peugeot showing off their LMP thing again in a proto two seater called Onyx. Looks terrible (blatant bling) compared with the rather company style but beautifully detailed proto limo I saw last year, but they are being consistent. This diesel tech might be imminent. It;s funny, Peugeot is thought of as a fairly button down outfit. Yet here they are with some insane tech, and it’s not being hidden away. Yes, I want a silly powerful car that sips fuel! (Okay the silly powerful modifier not strictly necessary, just make sure it has some welly please.)
But Big Oil will be pissed off, and that’s why I fantasised you could push the market up to premium cars, with some fairly interventionist manipulation, because if some stories like “super car efficient as Prius” [sic] have any truth, imagine what’ll happen when you don’t need 500HP – would a little runabout and 0.6 Liters be nice? I mean governments want their tax, okay?!
I hope this is not going to be a case of not rocking the fiscal boat. Must remember to pick oil trader guy’s brains for what would happen if we needed that much more (less? I mean would the new tech diminish existing diesel demand?) diesel than regular gasoline. That must have some production / supply chain constraints. Would we be mothballing vastly expensive refineries? Jobs? Considering messing with oil supply has all sorts of effects, we use byproducts for everything from plastic bottles to Alcantara faux leather car seats (and sofas, that stuff rocks for practicality) tweaking one end might have very strange knock on effects. I probably have something wrong in my thinking – well I hope I do, because I’m no expert – but these intricate connexions are pretty interesting to look into. What I mean is, will Real Life intervene in frustrating ways? Think I’ll file that under questions that if I knew the answer to, I’d not say much because I’d be minting it somewhere.
Oh, well, found this, whilst distracted, a hour or so after I typed the above:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/california-gas-stations-begin-to-shut-on-record-high-spot-prices.html
Onyx is a design study. No one thinks it will ever get built.