A Rationalization of [Automotive] Belief

Part 3: Compromise sans the promise

2009-07-03T22:04:00.000-07:00

- [zips up trousers] I wonder sometimes, what is the nature of the Green Revolution?

- [shakes twice, also zips up trousers] How do you mean?

- Well, people love big SUVs, right? They love the ride height, the utility of its size, the safety of its proportions... juvenile and misguided though these ideas are, the fact is the image of a full-size, American urban assault vehicle is seductive enough to spend $60-80 grand on a vehicle that, image aside, would only be worth a quarter of that.

- True...

- But in the summer of 2008 when oil prices skyrocketed, light truck sales halved. Our Green Revolution had begun. But, again, what is the nature of this revolution? What are we changing?

- Well, that's simple. We are relieving our dependence on foreign oil and cutting emissions.

- That's the idea, yes. The world was jolted by the instability of oil prices, and we are scared of the idea of climate change. We want our cars cleaner and preferably independent of OPEC. Indeed, we are willing to drive a Prius to save the planet (for now). Do you know what that is a gesture of?

- Misguided celebrity PR?

- Yes, but also of compromise. You see, the Green Revolution, as far as the automotive industry is concerned, defines this current period in time where the average consumer is unsatisfied with what is the industry norm. When once a mammoth SUV was the only necessary personal mobility solution, that honour now goes to the Prius. Compromise.

- Ah, I see what you mean.

- All around us, we are witnessing compromise. Americans -- yes, real Americans -- are starting to walk distances greater than twenty yards when before they'd have driven. Office workers are adopting spandex and skid lids and biking to work. Many people are even subjecting themselves to that most horrible of transportation solutions, public transit. The Green Revolution will not last forever because compromise is not a lifestyle in the west.

- I've considered this thought myself. I feel as though people are accepting compromise -- smaller proportions, less powerful engines, and ugl-err, improved aerodynamics -- because they are desperate for change. It is as though they are making a gesture to the automakers that suggests they, the consumers, are willing to compromise with the faith that the automaker will devise a good solution to the current environmental problem. "Yes, I will buy a Prius, but only because I have no other option. This is [definitely] not an ideal solution, and it is not long term. You are the key players of the automotive industry; when I'm done with this Prius, sell me a product that meets all of my environmental demands."

- Effectively, the consumers are entrusting the automakers with the task of devising and properly marketing the right solution to our environmental woes. So far, the automakers are selling us hybrids that never get the mileage they claim and electric cars that are worse in every conceivable way. I would hazard a guess our trust is misplaced, and, by your logic, we are compromising on what we want for no particularly good reason.

- It does feel that way, doesn't it? The Escalade Hybrid we were urinating on a moment ago is evidence people are getting tired of compromising. Nobody purchases an Escalade in the spirit of the Green Revolution, after all.

- It's true. But in my mind, the compromise is a gamble and the trust is misplaced.

- Oh? How so?

- Your idea is we are compromising to give the automakers time to find an ideal solution to our demands, and trusting they will choose the right solution. However, the reality is, automakers will not invest in the ideal solution if they feel it is not profitable. While the gesture of a compromise is necessary to redefine the industry standard, you argue the trust is placed on the automaker. I believe the de facto location of this trust is the force by which the automakers are subject to -- the markets.

- Go on.

- The compromise is a gamble. There is no guarantee the Green Revolution will last long enough to see an ideal solution come about. It is likely we will continue to wade in a melancholy sea of off-coloured hybrids and limited-run e-vehicles until we all stop caring like we did in the 1980s. Moreover, if an ideal solution is found, and our Green Wishes have been realized, unless that solution is profitable, it will not be sold. Automakers cannot operate without profit (except GM), and by that logic, the consumer is placing their trust in the markets, that they will make the right solution a profitable one.

- That is an absurd amount of uncertainty.

- Well, technology is an absurdly fickle thing. Even if the markets decide the right solution is a profitable one, even if it is adopted by some of the big players in the industry, there is no guarantee it will become the industry standard.

- What you say concerns me... frightfully.

- That is the audacity of green.

Part 2: Sod off, lousy faux-green charlatans

2009-02-15T20:15:00.000-08:00

-Excuse me while I urinate on this vehicle.

-Beg your pardon?

-I am going to urinate on this vehicle, so mind where you stand.

-Sir, I don't think --

-It deserves it.

-It really wouldn't be appropriate of you to --

-*unzips* Mighty fine shoes you've got on. Are those eco-friendly, too?

-Why are you so persistent? This vehicle has done nothing to warrant such treatment.

-It has decals suggesting it is an eco-friendly vehicle.

-Being green is a good thing. With global climate change -- Hey! Watch out!

-Sorry, I was aiming for the wheel arches. I need to lean back to get enough height.

-You can at least agree it is noble of GM to make the effort.

-I would not urinate on a noble effort; therefore, this mustn't be one.

-It gets the same mileage in the city as a Toyota Camry; for its size, that is a feat.

-Economy ratings of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles are horribly optimistic because economy tests are performed during ideal weather conditions on a closed course with a warm car. When you consider the engine needs to warm up (and remain warm at all times) and is charged with the responsibility of keeping the batteries charged, you can expect the engine to be running significantly more often in reality than the economy run figures suggest.

- Ah, but this model has a regenerative braking system that converts kinetic energy back into electricity during braking.

- Regenerative brakes only operate during the first modicum of brake application; the rest is handled by the four-wheel discs. This is especially relevant in high performance electric vehicles (the one now sporting my name in cursive is not an example of this) because energy recovery via regenerative braking is simply non-existent during periods of enthusiastic driving.

- Why not urinate on the standard gasoline model, then? Conceivably you would consider it worse than this one.

- The standard gasoline model has the same 6.0L V8 as this (sans the electric motor); however, the standard model, with its seven seats (rearmost two an ergonomic disaster) and two tonne curb weight, makes no illusions about what it is -- a city-dwelling chrome clad pseudo-offroader for the arrogant, tasteless, useless and usually oblivious driver more concerned with cell phone bills than gasoline bills.

- Granted....

- This version, now smelling less "new car" and more "eau de toilette," is a symbol of that arrogance. It is slathered in green-and-chrome "hybrid" badges; I have seen block-letter "hybrid" decals on some examples running the length of the door sills. And this is understandable because full-size luxury SUV drivers are concerned about one thing only: Image. Some will contest this fact, but know, dear floor rep, they are mistaken. Image is their only concern. And the term "hybrid" does as much for the image of a vehicle as the word "Burgundy" does for wine. Yes, it tastes like the sole of a Nike sneaker that had just extinguished a hobo's cigarette, but that must be a good thing. Likewise, yes, it is a vehicle of completely unreasonable proportions, and yes it is the anti-Christ of the eco-activist community, but oh! It's a hybrid. Wonderful purchase, it's so glamourous.

- And you are concerned people are overstating the green-merits of hybrid vehicles?

- Hybrids pollute more, and get worse fuel mileage than, conventional diesel cars.

- Why not make a diesel-electric hybrid?

- Diesels are more expensive to build (relative to similarly sized gasoline engines) and are usually turbocharged, further adding to the price; if you tack on the cost of a hybrid system (~$5k, at the very least), you can reasonably expect no reasonable person to pay the unreasonable premium for said hybrid variant.

- Why are hybrids so popular, then?

- Hybrids allow automakers to promote an eco-conscious image and tout their green credentials without having to invest unreasonable sums of money in developing entirely new drive trains. While clean diesel technology is vastly superior to hybrid technology in every quantifiable way, the stigma of fossil fuel-powered cars means automakers simply cannot garner the same green authority by only developing diesel systems. The logic is simple: The less time a car is running, the greener it is; hybrids can run without the engine, therefore it is a green car. And the automakers are making no effort to dispel this fallacy. I'm just about done here.

- I can't believe you're still going.

- I've got about half left. I need to find a plug-in electric car without railings around it. *zips up*

- Surely electric cars are green, even I can tell you why. While the energy they use needs to be produced somewhere, i.e. power plants, the energy that powers the grid is produced with twice the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. That's like halving the fuel consumption.

- That is absolutely true, which is why electric cars will make a decent "transition" technology.

- How do you mean?

- The automotive world can only have one energy standard because cars must be suitable for trips of every magnitude -- long distances and routine short commutes. *unzips* Electric cars are only suitable for the latter, and as much as we love the idea of zipping around via little electric motors, battery technology is unreasonable as a means of practical energy storage. Thus, between gasoline and its successor, we can expect the plug-in electric vehicle (EV) to act as an intermediate while we sort out the specifics of a far superior technology. It will never become the industry standard, I can assure you.

- Given the amount of resources being put into the R&D of battery technology, we are bound to see significant gains made in EV range and charging characteristics. Wouldn't this give plug-in EVs the chance of becoming the industry standard?

- See, the major concern is for regions where electricity is a scarce, unreliable, or expensive commodity. Developing nations are under significant pressure to become clean, industrialized countries. If developed nations adopt an alternative like plug-in electric technology for our automotive needs, we run the risk of leaving the third world in a conundrum -- making the choice between mobilizing their population or focusing on incredibly expensive, difficult infrastructure development. Moreover, there is no real reason to expect battery technology to improve dramatically in the next short while -- we only wish it would.

- I see. So hybrid technology and plug-in EV technology are both dead ends. Their green credentials are wildly overstated, and are nowhere near what one can consider a reasonable alternative to the good stuff. Now I understand why you so deeply resent the leaf decals sported by the hybrids dotting the venues of this auto show. Simply put, the automotive world is as environmentally conscious as a badger is kind spirited. It is the fallacy of green. Here, let me join you. *unzips* (Check it out -- rain-sensing windscreen wipers!)

Part 1: The Audacity of Green

2009-02-08T20:43:00.000-08:00

How much energy does the human race use in a single day? After our introduction of concrete to soil, how many BTUs are used in building our cities on the resulting cement-aggregate hegemony? How many joules are used when we subject the ocean floor to our insatiable gluttony? How many watts are in the chickens science undergrads force across crosswalks for irony sake?

I am no statistician, but if you asked me, humans probably use, for human-related purposes and activities, somewhere in the region of a million billion billion watts of energy every day. (And for the life of me, I do not know if that is even a large enough number to be considered hyperbole.)

But how much energy do we use to scuttle about the landscape in our little metal cocoons?

This is a question that genuinely does not matter, though you would never guess if you watch a Discovery Channel programme on sustainable energy, or tune into the news as they discuss oil prices or review the gimmicks and green theme of some large auto show.

I have it in my mind people want the news to frighten them so they can accuse the media of being fear mongers, in turn reassuring themselves there is nothing to fear. But deep down we are still afraid, largely because of our ignorance. Because people are concerned the wells will dry up one day; they will gurgle and spurt and spit up sand and with a shrug of our shoulders we will usher in chaos as society implodes. We turn to our charlatan savior technologies in desperation, and they make believe a healthy financial investment will solve all our problems -- life will return to the Albertan oil sands, and glaciers will stop receding if we all drive a communal Prius and prefer Ontario bananas to the Icelandic variety.

Our environmental situation is fickle for the simple fact that, despite the wealth of research and brainpower we are applying to the problem, we do not know any concrete details. We are convinced lowering CO2 levels is paramount, but, tell me, have we surpassed a critical threshold of CO2? Can our negative impact even be undone? If not, should we expect another ice age, or more drought, or possibly an explosion in the instances of lingua villosa? (Look it up.)

One thing is for certain, though: No matter how hard we try to manipulate nature, we will only ever end up worse off. The human race simply does not have the ingenuity and prerequisite understanding necessary to control the biosphere. Therefore, these questions about our environment are important not for practical reasons, but to coordinate ourselves. Right now, we are adopting a very logical strategy: Sustainability and co-habitation with nature. It is a very straight-forward plan. If we erase ourselves from the spotlight, how can we be blamed? We want to melt into the forest green background of the landscape and hope Gaia does not hold a grudge.

While the automotive industry's ills are largely related to this global green initiative, its problems are well-defined and the science is tight. Unfortunately, given that the automotive industry is largely transparent and highly competitive, technologies compete for global standing in a more-or-less free market-esque system. The unfortunate aspect is, ultimately, the consumer has the final say in the success of an alternative technology. And the consumer, for all intents and purposes, is notoriously stupid. I should mention, I detest the manipulation of public opinion this system encourages among the different camps, because it seduces individuals into backing an inferior technology due to their own lack of initiative to understand the issues. They end up being a part of the problem.

I hope to dispel some of the unwarranted enthusiasm for certain "green" alternatives by considering benefits, drawbacks, and how society would have to compromise should said technology become the industry standard.

Electric Cars and the Secret Neoliberal Energy Agenda

2009-01-19T20:54:00.000-08:00

Society quantifies human greed in the convenient form of money; the larger your stack of money, the better a person you are. It is this greed that drives our economies and, at least indirectly, fuels nationalism, induces war (civil war being a very common result), and reserves our clear conscience when foreigners are slaughtered, usually by their neighbours, while they sleep in their homes. (Supposing, of course, their murderer grants them the decency of dying in a manner where they can be recognized after death -- usually only the case when the weapons used were not the hand-me-downs of a certain western country's inflated military budget.) At least, that is the truth as consistently demonstrated by the application of neoliberal fiscal policy over the past two decades in third-world nations.

These policies, which saturate the Washington-based international debt restructuring organizations, the IMF and World Bank, are popularly criticized. Opponents argue restructuring plans founded in neoliberal fiscal policy are inherently beneficial not to the indebted countries but rather to the multinational corporations whose financial investment in said countries is guaranteed to yield a return by the debt restructuring organizations. When a country finds itself in a desperate financial situation and is loaned $XX billion, through political bullying (and sometimes military intervention), the IMF and World Bank impose conditions the country must fulfil to receive all the money promised to them. (The money is paid in installments as conditions are satisfied.) This money, of course, comes from multinational corporations, run by the capitalist elite, who are promised by the World Bank a return on their investment in a short amount of time -- typically about five years.

Restructuring a country's financial system is an arduous, complex task -- one that cannot be done in five years by bureaucrats who have never set foot in the indebted country. So, naturally, these bureaucrats cum businessmen cheat. Not wanting to compromise a positive relationship with investors, these organizations imposed (using future loans as leverage) restructuring policies on third world countries under the pretense of "liberalizing trade" and "opening untapped markets". Naturally, when countries saw through the obvious facade and deception and refused certain load conditions, it was not uncommon for the IMF to circumvent national sovereignty to get their way. US-sponsored political coups are not uncommon, either.

Huge profits can be made by privatizing national industry, selling high-demand natural resources (at reduced costs, of course, to "jump start" the failing economy), and relieving the country of parasitic social welfare expenses. Never mind about investing in necessary infrastructure like proper sewage and water treatment, reliable electricity production and distribution, and roads.

I began writing this article with the intention of ironically parodying today's socio-economic conspiracy theorists (that clog up the interblag's series of tubes with outrageous, ill-informed theories denouncing the flawed capitalist system and central banking) by outlandishly accusing the neoliberal capitalist elite of intentionally backing electric cars in a cunning plan to render the future of transportation in the third world ruthlessly expensive, in a plot to further cripple impoverished economies so we may plunder their natural wealth.

The following italicized paragraphs are of the original parody. (I do not want the former of this article to become devalued in the reader's mind by the following, which is meant to be a humourous portrayal of how ludicrous some popular beliefs can be.)

(Like all conspiracy theories, this is read in a voice of absolute conviction.)

Electric cars are yet another example of the capitalist elite conspiring to undermine the well-being of developing countries in a plot to further plunder scarce natural resources. By concealing this agenda under the "global initiative" of "going green," these capitalist dogs are manipulating our news media to convince us the only reasonable alternative to Big Oil is Big Electron. Working together with the U.S. government, American taxpayers are subsidizing the research grants and tax breaks given to the companies owned by these privileged elite. Effectively, the American population is paying these supposedly free-market, capitalist corporations to develop a technology that will become the bane of developing countries for generations to come -- meanwhile, the exorbitant salaries of these privileged elite are paid with taxpayer's dollars.

To the west, Big Electron is the key to a "greener tomorrow"; however, little attention is paid to developing nations, where transportation infrastructure is essential for any chance of economic prosperity. If these capitalist elites get their way, developed nations will run on volts. The decrease in demand for oil will cause gasoline prices to rise considerably in the next couple decades, severely impacting less robust economies for whom electrical locomotion is not an option. Electric-powered vehicles with long range batteries and rapid recharging characteristics are a reasonable alternative for people living in developed nations, where the availability of electricity is taken for granted. Unfortunately, for most of the third world, the availability of sufficiently cheap electricity is uncommon -- less common still is a reliable supply of cheap electricity. Gasoline makes such a successful energy medium for the simple fact it is very portable and does not lose its energy potential even if stored for months at a time, such as when transported over large distances. (Conversely, electricity is not portable and is not cost-effective to transport over large distances.) High gas prices and no alternatives can cripple a developing nation's transportation infrastructure. Consequently, industries fail because product cannot be shipped in a cost-effective manner, and, no surprise, the economy quickly collapses.

Because tomorrow's alternative energy source is ultimately the decision of today's (western) capitalist consumer, it is in the interest of the capitalist elite to promote electric vehicles. The nature of technology is convergent -- the introduction of economy-priced electric cars will render conventional automobiles obsolete, effectively "locking-in" electric locomotion and Big Electron as the industry standard. If these privileged elite are able to convince westerners to invest in electric vehicles by exercising their influence on the mainstream media and manipulating politics, they will be in prime position to, in the near future, plunder the natural wealth of the resulting economically devastated nations.

It is a cunning plan, this. Disguising such a diabolical plot in such humble ambitions -- plotting the ruination of third-world economies through the momentum of the global "green revolution." And consider the reality of this situation: already the U.S. government is investing in the development of advanced batteries and charging systems; already the U.S. news media are touting the benefits of going electric. Even GM are being forced by the U.S. government, as part of their bailout conditions, to restructure and heavily invest in electric automotive propulsion systems! Already we are seeing a trend towards the warm, inviting phantom concealing the true nature of Big Electron. These capitalist pigs want electric-powered automobiles to become the standard. It will cause gasoline prices to skyrocket, devastating transportation infrastructure in the third world. The resulting economic conditions will force debt restructuring organizations into these ruined nations. As part of the inevitable loan conditions, these restructuring organizations will invite the plundering of natural resources. The rich will become richer, and the poor will become poorer. All in the name of greed.

(Stop using the voice of absolute conviction.)

Hm, I don't think I went far enough with this parody; it has not reached that threshold of irony. See, now, while I feel this "neoliberal electric car hidden agenda" theory of mine is completely absurd, if I were to cite sources and conjure up some numbers, it would exist within the realm of credibility. To be truly outrageous, I should accuse the capitalist elite of propagating the decline of the automotive industry through the manipulation of oil stock speculation. The only trouble with that is, given the nature of conspiracy theorists, as my theory becomes less credible, it only becomes more believable (by them). This exercise, therefore, while quite a bit of fun, is ultimately futile.

I should be clear: I conjured up this conspiracy theory mainly to poke fun at conspiracy theorists and people who believe them. The article was meant to be somewhat compelling while remaining entirely false for irony sake. Eh, I'll try again later.

To sum up this blog entry, I quote the great Clarksonius (c.400 BC),

"Every single one of the 247 billion facts on the Internet is wrong."

A Jaguar Named Désiré

2008-12-30T22:50:00.000-08:00

Steel shell and rotten sills and rotted bushings, drive belt squeal
Leather-upholstered everything is; exquisite, gentlemanly feel
Smoke turned white from broken seals, worn out rings bellowing blue
Gaining speed and quite surprised, because she is tracking true,

Though built to a price, everything is nice, and really quite a deal.

The whine subsides, the ride sublime, the left bank running lean.

'Course seats in the back are a death trap. (At least everything is clean.)
The distributor cap is cracked to crap, sparking near the cowl
Down la rue, the analogue clock drowning out the V12 howl.

You'd never guess it's worth more as scrap with that body so pristine.

Did you know oil spots are breeding grounds for rainbows?
On your drive you should expect puddles of love to grow.
But the parts inside will drift apart like lovers' rich emotion
Accusing each other of heartlessly, mechanically going through the motions.

They will crack and seize, shatter and bleed, and then you'll need a tow.

The windows are of lethal plate

To exacerbate unlucky fate
Should fatigue give way
To structural dismay,
That quintessential British trait.

But Jesus is a fashion guru and kindly looks upon
All those stylish Jaguar drivers whose luck had been undone
And sits them there upon His right with divine and holy fervour
To hear what brought their undoing, and forever do they murmur,
"Of everything that made life wonderful, God, that car was one."

*applause* Little lines of loony limericks are très fun.

Catagenesis

2008-11-17T22:55:00.000-08:00

In my most recent article, Evolution, I introduced the idea that the automotive world is a construct of human organization and does not adhere to the laws of natural order. Car culture, I argued, exists as a sort of reflection of human organization, and, therefore, is impervious to the demands of evolution. This argument is important because it suggests the automotive world, as diverse and extensive as any human culture, exists outside the natural realm (but does not transcend it), and is instead a product of human creation. Founded in metal but forged from a collective appreciation for the machine, our petrol-fuelled reality is, I believe, a sort of technological narcissism.

Ultimately, however, car culture is a complex system. Complexity is a trait the automotive world shares with countless other systems -- everything from political systems to ocean currents. Such systems are as mysterious as they are elusive; a person can experience a dozen examples in a single day and not appreciate the elegance of a single one. And, indeed, they are wonderfully elegant. (As such, my hand is forced to write about it.)

Now, let me draw the connection between my argument on evolution (as applied to car culture) and its relevance to this article. Yes, car culture is impervious to evolution, largely because the culture is firmly rooted in a sort of technological conservatism. In nature (and all complex natural systems), there is no omnipotent lobbyist throwing their weight behind a particular species; in the automotive world, however, the fundamental "given" is internal combustion. As a result, any threat made to internal combustion reveals a vulnerability in the armor.

Complex systems that exist within the automotive realm -- namely, the automakers -- are experiencing a massive shift in the status quo. Precipitated by unpredictable oil prices and a global economic slowdown, we are cascading down a slippery slope of change. A fickle property of complex systems is how they adapt to change. This brings me neatly to the concept of catagenesis. When a complex system is subjected to change, it is not always able to adapt smoothly; instead, it undergoes a three-stage process referred to as catagenesis: breakdown, reorganization, and renewal. Coined by University of Toronto professor Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon in his book The Upside of Down, catagenesis suggests a possible positive outcome for automakers facing serious economic peril. With certain US-based automakers on the verge of financial collapse, this theory, detailing a natural cycle of complex systems, offers a glimmer of hope to automotive enthusiasts. Homer-Dixon suggests the breakdown of a complex system can lead to positive results, like the Great Depression granting FDR the opportunity to reform capitalism and introduce social security. "[It] can ... shatter the forces standing in the way of change and the deeply entrenched and too-comfortable mindsets that keep people from seeing exciting possibilities for renewal."

What, then, of our fragile automotive world? No doubt we are on the precipice of change; oil prices and green ideals are placing our beloved internal combustion engine under the guillotine. Alternatives are being explored with an almost desperate zeal, eager to relieve our oil dependencies, exposing weaknesses in the foundation of our automotive reality. And anything that threatens the petrol engine threatens the integrity of car culture. But change has been due for a long while; instead of adopting a new technology gradually, we fought recklessly for the blatantly inferior one we happen to be comfortable with. Now, as change imposes itself on our comfortable petrol bubble, we are fearing a bursting of our little Utopian atmosphere.

Rather poetically, the design of the modern piston engine suggests its own inevitable future. For years we have worked to squeeze every ounce of efficiency from internal combustion, rendering the piston engine a machine of extraordinary complexity; the trouble is, a technology (or any such entity, for that matter) can only become so complicated before the slightest wind of change threatens it. So, this grim prophecy of catagenesis is not only a derivative of current events, but also, quite beautifully, evident in the design of the modern piston engine.

Today, the evidence suggests the automotive world is on the brink of a catagenic reorganization. The complex systems that exist within the culture -- the automotive manufacturers -- and the geometrically increasing complexity of the fundamental "given" -- internal combustion -- are prophetic of change. As we pass into the uncertain future, it is anybody's guess what technology we will see threaten to replace the piston engine -- safe to say, should car culture indeed be susceptible to the natural cycles that govern complexity, we can look forward to a major shift in the tectonic plates of the automotive world.

Post script: As an aficionado of powerful ideas and design, I believe it is never too early to start influencing the future, so *crosses fingers* let's go hydrogen! The design I have featured in this article is an open-top track car whose aesthetics I steadily improved over the past year or so. It fits with the theme of "evolution," like the 1960's retro sports car I featured in my last article. I personally love the progress made between start and finish.

Evolution

2008-11-14T22:32:00.001-08:00

The Darwinian concept of evolution is both a powerful idea and wonderfully elegant in its simplicity. Anyone who has recklessly subjected themselves to reading my weblog posts would know I, therefore, love the idea of evolution. It is incredibly diverse in its applications and is an important part of the foundation of our western secular belief system. Therefore, it is only natural I draw upon my limited knowledge of the principle in an effort to suggest its significance in the automotive world.

However, the automotive world does not operate on the same principles as our natural one; evolution does not take its course. But that is no surprise, and here is why: The automotive world is a reality conceived by human beings; therefore, it is organized and operates in a similar fashion to people. Evolution is evident in certain aspects of these human-invented realities, no doubt, because, as I said, it is fundamental to our own understanding of the universe. Unlike reality, though, evolution is not a dominating force in our little faux realities -- the automotive world is no exception. The reason for this is simple: Evolution is not favourable in western society. People can grow as attached to a technology as they can to a culture or religion. While in the wild a technology better suited to a task would defeat a ruthlessly inefficient one, in human reality, the ruthlessly inefficient one is simply made marginally less inefficient over time to render alternatives less attractive. And because people are freaks of nature, we tolerate the marginally less efficient technology until doing so threatens our survival.

Case in point: The internal combustion engine is an archaic technology, long past its prime; the reason it has prevailed this long is rooted in human organization. For starters, the technology has become so widespread and momentous in human society that the task of replacing it would be incomprehensibly difficult. In addition, people will never abandon a proven technology with known risks/problems for a less well-known alternative -- even if said alternative is shown to be safer, greener, simpler, etc. When it comes to technology, people are violently xenophobic, which many would argue is wise. (I argue it is not relevant to this article, so I am going to move on.) As a result, while the basic operating principles of the internal combustion engine are fundamentally the same as they were a century ago, modern examples have become monstrously complicated in an effort to prolong the inevitable replacement of the technology. In nature, any creature this specially adapted to its habitat would go the way of the hallucigenia or the anomalocaris. (Thanks, Wikipedia.)

Indeed, the internal combustion engine itself has "evolved" considerably over the past century; however, being the keystone of the automotive world, it defies the natural laws of evolution. Therein lies the problem: internal combustion is the fundamental assumption in the automotive world; it is omnipresent and it is everlasting. While nature works in cycles and networks, our faux realities operate with assumptions and givens. Yes, the internal combustion engine has adapted; it is more well-suited to its task than ever; it is more efficient than ever. Is this not evolution? Fundamentally, I would argue it is not. Yes, the final product is borne of competition and demand, and yes, the non-superfluous design is dictated by its necessary role. However, because of the relationship between human society and technology, I am forced to conclude that we as a species conscientiously interrupt the beautiful progress of evolution and render it an aberration in the guise of evolution by our technological xenophobia and reluctance to change; true evolution would have no such qualms.

Is this bad, that our invented worlds do not operate in the same way reality does? Not at all -- in fact, I would be frightened if they did. Do not be deceived into believing one's way of thinking is ever a true reflection of reality -- humans are exceptional; everything we create is a reflection of our own image. As such, we must be careful not to confuse that with reality. Cars are not evolving, they are stagnating. (And the evolution of design is a fallacy; art, after all, does not exist in linear time and is not only appreciated in the present.) But that works for us gearheads. We like our little world.

Post Script: The featured sequence illustrates my point: while a car design might change, it certainly does not evolve. As a side note, I am especially pleased with this design and the steady progress it has made since its incarnation back in July -- I consider it my most beautifully proportioned design to date. In the future, I intend to write an article discussing the thought behind its shape, because it feels as though over the past few decades the automotive industry has slowly abandoned beautiful design. While the idea of beauty is highly subjective, I plan on investigating why sports cars from the 1960s are so much more evocative than their modern counterparts. Moreover, I am planning on expanding on the role of car culture in society -- similar to what I discussed in this article. Stay tooned!

Mechanodiversity

2008-11-03T23:00:00.000-08:00

In my October article, Elegance and Our Diminishing Mechanodiversity, I suggested the automotive world is moving away from elegant mechanical design in favour of highly efficient, highly reliable electronic systems. In the article, I briefly introduced the idea of mechanodiversity. If one if familiar with the idea of biodiversity, the concept of mechanodiversity is similar. Stated simply, it is the extent (or degree) of manipulation of mechanical systems to perform a particular task. Within the automotive world, the introduction of electronics has resulted in gradually fewer mechanical control systems; what was once controlled by springs and hydraulics are now operated by computers with actuators.

Mechanodiversity is essential to elegant automotive design, I argued. Computers are inherently mundane in terms of elegance; they are all causal relationships and constantly balancing equations. While I would never argue computers to be completely lacking in elegance, in terms of automotive design, they lack the tactile substance of beautifully designed mechanical systems. This I demonstrated through two (of many possible) applicable examples.

Our diminishing automotive mechanodiversity is unfortunate in a number of ways. In addition to the superficial design of an automobile (i.e. exterior, interior), I also find great appeal in the non-superfluous parts, such as the design of the drive train or other important control systems. As automobile manufacturers continue this trend of replacing mechanical systems with computerized ones, non-superfluous systems become significantly less appealing in their design. While arguably more efficient and capable as a result, these systems are indeed less beautiful.

More relevant to "normal" people, of course, is how diminishing mechanodiversity affects the driving experience. And, safe to say, they only make it better. Anti-locking brakes save thousands of lives every year; the same can be claimed for stability control systems. Traction control makes our Canadian winters survivable and our green-light launches more controlled. Electronic all-wheel-drive systems with active yaw control and front/rear torque transferring make driving fast incredibly manageable. Ultimately, it is safe to say computer systems greatly benefit the driving experience; however, at what cost? As the old cliche goes, driving is a relationship perfected between man and machine; computer assistance dilutes the real beauty of that relationship. Everyone knows it; unfortunately, in the present day, we increasingly accept it as normal. Car reviews discuss when the ABS kicks in; when the traction control stops the slide; when torque is automatically transferred to the rear outside tire for optimum power through the corner. How can you establish that necessary relationship through an electronic buffer? By extension, which would you prefer, PC-buffered cyber sex or the stickier reality-based variety? Truth is, in the former, you have no idea what she (or he) is like on the other side of that buffer. There are no such secrets in reality.

I have absolute respect for vehicles that exercise the laws of physics in an effort to cover the most ground in the least amount of time. For that purpose, mechanodiversity is not a factor. However, to people like me who place so much emphasis on design, there is no replacement for beautiful engineering. Our diminishing mechanodiversity is something rather unfortunate. (In a future article I will suggest why, while unfortunate, it is also necessary.) Clever engineering is significantly under appreciated in the present automotive world; maybe that is likely to change? While there is no reason for this lack of appreciation to change, I am still hopeful it will.

Cars of yesteryear possess a level of mechanodiversity unseen in modern automobiles, and they are made only more beautiful by what many would consider their shortcomings. What is to be said about the precision monotony of the flawless automobile? As I've concluded before, I will stick to my seized valves and broken springs, for what beautiful shortcomings they are, indeed!

Quickie Post: I Win.

2008-11-01T18:54:00.000-07:00

I went to the 2006 International Autoshow in Toronto.

I like going to the show twice; once at my convenience to poke around all the cars I severely dislike, and again to enjoy the cars I don't dislike.

While wandering around Cadillac turf, poking around an Escalade EXT (or whatever it was), I hurriedly jotted down a list of unacceptable details about the truck in my little notebook. One of the floor reps asked if I was a journalist of some kind. I gave her the truth, that I just -really- disliked this particular vehicle, and that started a bit of a debate.

Two more floor reps and a product specialist joined the quarrel and added their own arguments in favour of the chrome leviathan. While their insight into such matters is incredibly limited (floor reps are usually hired actors or models who don't know the first thing about cars), one fellow did offer an argument that wasn't blitheringly stupid and that I couldn't refute on the spot. He said, bluntly, if it is what the market wants, it is up to the capitalist company to provide. While I've since developed a moral rebuttal to his point, at the time the argument was poignant.

Now, about two and a half years later, I am happy to report the markets have spoken, and the full-size SUV market is in tatters.

I win. =) Eat it.

I think I've got all this SUV-bashing out of my system now. =)

XKCD

2008-10-30T17:46:00.000-07:00

Some say under his suit he has the proportions of a stick man.
And that he is ripe for parody.
All we know is, he is clobbering an Escalade with the severed leg of a goat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present... His Stigness.

Because stick figures performing great feats of strength rock.

I'll get back to the old routine after I get this SUV bashing out of my system.

Quickie Post: Riding High and Stumbling

2008-10-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

Tuesday October 28, 2008.

Anti-SUV community rejoice! GM has cancelled all future full-size SUVs. While the details of this development can be found on any reliable automotive news website, let me add my own tasteful, well-developed opinion of this situation.

*ahem* Suck it, Escalard and friends. That's what you get for being stupid. =)

White Ninja, wrap this post up.

Awesome.

Elegance and Our Diminishing Mechanodiversity

2008-10-23T20:04:00.000-07:00

The works of early 20th century physicist Theodore Kaluza share a very seductive quality with the lovely 21st century movie star Nicole Kidman. The same quality has haute couture bursting at the seams. Mother nature would not be the same without it, and, most troubling, the automotive world seems to be growing away from it.

Elegance. On the surface, remaining deceptively simple; in reality, ruthlessly complex. Elegance is an emergent property of human invention and understanding; without it, we would have no concept of beauty, and would likely still dwell in trees.

At the risk of understating the importance of this quality, I would like to describe elegance as perhaps the single most important quality for the purpose of motivating and propagating our species, and that anyone who fails to recognize the beauty of elegance is likely to suffer a horribly disappointing life.

Now, I describe elegance as an emergent property. By this I mean it is a property the conscious human mind imbues on something; in this case, a mathematical equation, or a mechanical process, or an outfit. We are pattern-seeking creatures, and sometimes we are able to find simple ways of understanding complicated things. The seductiveness of elegance in design is realized when the perceived simplicity of a complex process deceives us, essentially disguising said process's complexity. While we recognize the complex nature of the process, we are in awe at how beautifully appropriate (and simple) the design of the process is. For instance, while the task of producing the spark in an engine's spark plug or activating clutches in an automatic transmission seems mundane, by looking at exactly how we went about accomplishing these tasks before the introduction of electronic control systems, one can uncover incredible elegance in the design.

This article is sparked by the intense lack of design elegance in computer-controlled automotive systems. Where hydraulic pressure or mechanical energy was once manipulated to create a desired effect, computers now use sensors and actuators to accomplish the same goals. While I, like many of you, would never sacrifice improved fuel economy or reliability for the sake of design, I am less than thrilled by present-day automotive engineering. Akin to the risk we run today of ruining biodiversity through our agricultural scheming, present day automobiles are experiencing a severe loss in "mechanodiversity," and, therefore, mechanical elegance, through our extensive use of inelegant computer controls. Where once we had beautiful mechanical bits, we now have binary and bytes.

To narrow my argument, I am focusing on essential automotive subsystems -- things like the ignition system, automatic transmissions, the cooling system, fuel delivery, etc; heated seats and satellite navigation are not important. In this article, I consider ignition systems (the beautiful design of distributors versus the less-than-elegant modern variant, distributorless ignition systems) and automatic transmission control systems (the wonderfully elegant hydraulically-operated system versus today's painfully boring computer-controlled variety).

Case 1: DIS vs Points & Condenser
Before the introduction of distributorless ignition systems, we had three (now obsolete) methods of generating a spark in a spark plug. The earliest of these systems is called "points and condenser." The most beautifully designed component of this system is the distributor. The purpose of the distributor is to open and close a circuit that generates then collapses an electromagnetic field. The collapsing field induces a voltage in a secondary circuit that in turn generates the spark in the spark plug. What is beautiful about this system is how the design uses the engine's mechanical parts to manipulate an electrical current towards a very specific end -- i.e. generating a spark. Moreover, since spark timing was crucial to an engine's performance, how the design of the distributor evolved to accommodate variable spark timing is even more remarkable: The plate on which this open/close switch was mounted was allowed to pivot. By affixing weights and specially calibrated springs to this plate, as engine speed went up, spark timing would be retarded, allowing the engine to operate in a much larger RPM range. How wonderful a design! Using centripetal force and mechanical energy, the distributor was able to induce a spark-producing voltage in a very effective, very beautiful way. Now this same task is done by a single coil pack per engine cylinder and a transistor of some kind. As elegant as a kick in the crotch.

Case 2: Electronically- vs Hydraulically-controlled Automatic Transmissions
Electronically controlled automatic transmission systems use actuators to put hydraulic pressure on clutch packs that control the assemblies that produce each sequential gear ratio. These actuators are operated by computer signals that consider important factors like engine load and throttle pedal position. Hydraulically-controlled systems do not have the luxury of an electronic brain; these systems have to manipulate hydraulic pressure. A device called a governor valve is mechanically connected to the output shaft of the transmission. It uses weights and springs -- centripetal force -- to control the pressure in the primary hydraulic circuit. (Très elegant!) As a result, the amount of pressure in the system is directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle; this is the pressure that shifts the gears. There is an opposing pressure, however, called throttle pressure, which works to delay an up-shift in gears; it is indicative of the diver's intent and engine load. If the driver has his/her foot on the floor (or is ascending a steep incline), this opposing pressure can delay an up-shift until near the red-line of the engine. Shifting of gears occurs when governor pressure overcomes throttle pressure. Essentially, using mechanical valves (and, in some cases, using engine vacuum to control the throttle pressure valve), hydraulically-operated transmissions manipulate two separate hydraulic circuits to control the shifting of gears depending on the intent of the driver and the load the vehicle is under. There is no denying this is a wonderfully elegant system; a significantly more beautiful design than its electronic variant.

The common argument is, these non-electronic systems were replaced with computer-controlled systems because computers are infinitely more precise and reliable, and, as a result, better. I would concede computers have revolutionized automobiles, but, from an engineering perspective, the design appeal of cars has eroded away. Because of their fundamental simplicity and intense lack of elegance, I do not consider computer systems better than beautifully designed mechanical ones. Moreover, computers have diluted the mechanical charm of automobiles.

While noticeable improvements have been made in areas like fuel economy and performance, these improved numbers simply do not fill the ever-present gaping void that is the loss of elegant automotive design.

I am not asking to unite the universe in a single equation here. In the automotive world, as culturally diverse and complex as our own, there exist design enthusiasts like myself who mourn this reality. Computers have streamlined automotive engineering, leaving only superficial components -- bodywork, interior -- as the jurisdiction of the designer. This "design for design sake" irrefutably lacks substance. I will explore this issue in a future article, for now concluding modern automobiles are vastly inferior to yesterday's "lesser" cars, and that, while most readers will not care about this decreasing mechanodiversity, it is in reality a huge loss -- for me, for you, and for every automotive enthusiast out there. How can you love a machine that is fundamentally so unspectacular? Give me seized valves and broken springs, and I'll show you adoration bordering on obsession.

It Is Low Tide for Riding High

2008-08-21T21:32:00.000-07:00

The GM plant in Oshawa has shut down.
Ford is repeatedly delaying the launch of the new F-150.
Plastic moulding factories in the GTA specializing on truck interior parts are closing up shop.
Dealerships struggle to give large SUVs away.
Jeep is a dismal failure in both initial quality and customer satisfaction.
Hummer is the Antichrist of the automotive world and on the verge of going defunct.

And I smile.

Civilian light trucks -- pickups and SUVs -- are vehicles I have never understood the vast popularity of. They are dangerous, expensive, and polluting. In crashes with passenger cars, they have been shown to be especially lethal. The appeal of these vehicles is juvenile and selfish. Luckily, the market for light tucks is in a bad way, and I would like to share my thoughts and feelings on this most exciting turn of events.

I have never liked SUVs. They are unreasonably large, largely unnecessary, and unnecessarily ugly. The people who drive them suffer similar character faults. However, I want to make this distinction early: An individual who owns a large SUV is not necessarily the same individual that drives said SUV. Driving a large, robust vehicle alters an individual's common sense.

Suddenly tailgating is not unreasonable, because traffic ahead is visible for ten miles.

Speeding is okay because of traction control and full-time all-wheel-drive and ABS as standard. (ESP is extra.)

There is at least six feet of steel between the driver and any outside obstacle.

The dominating height breeds a false sense of superiority and, as a result, is conducive to impatience.

The poor driving habits of SUV drivers are therefore understandable, but by no means excusable. It has yet to catch on, but controlling such an immense vehicle requires additional responsibility.

Poor driving aside, my dislike of SUVs starts with the incarnation of these vile creations. Light trucks have never been safe, regardless of the air of security one feels when buckled up (or not) inside of one. They are too tall and, therefore, handle very poorly. They are too tall and, therefore, tend to roll over. They are too tall, and, in an impact, strike very high on properly sized passenger cars (referred to as "incompatibility"), often tearing through soft metal panels, impacting and killing its occupants.

US domestic manufacturers saw SUVs as a cash cow. Everybody wanted them, and they had successfully lobbied congress into allowing them to be sold as "light trucks," thus avoiding any expensive "car" safety and emissions standards. When the aforementioned "incompatibility" issue was discovered, those with the interests of the Big Three in mind successfully persuaded government officials to ignore such studies.

Where is the responsibility? How many people have died for what was essentially a get-rich-quick scheme by US domestic auto manufacturers? How were elected government officials so comfortable with selling out the safety of the voters?

It is disgusting.

This is the history of the SUV -- capitalist corporations throwing their weight around congress to better make a dollar at the cost of the safety of the customer. Light trucks are a product of greed and selfishness -- traits embodied by SUVs themselves, coincidentally enough -- and I for one am glad to see our streets less cluttered by them.

[Popular arguments for owning a light truck]

Compensating for Penis Size: I do not care about the penis compensating factor of a car. It is a rubbish argument.

Utility: I do not believe every owner of a pickup or SUV needs one so regularly that renting one when needed outweighs the cost of owning one. If it were true, you would see fewer spic-and-span pickup beds and more wear on the (usually inaccessible) third row of seats in large SUVs. Moreover, if owners could not cope without light trucks, the market for these vehicles wouldn't have suffered such a crippling blow from rising gas prices.

Too Tall: The argument has been made tall people need large vehicles. This is also true of the morbidly obese. Also a stupid argument, but nowhere as stupid as the penis-compensating one.

Market Demand: If the people demand SUVs, the competitive manufacturer must supply. That is fundamental of a capitalist economy, true, but why are the manufacturers allowed to undermine the safety of their product (and, therefore, customers) for the sake of cost? Shouldn't the people be allowed a say in such matters, or at least be properly informed? This argument really riles me up for the short-sightedness of it.

Although I know the market for these vehicles will eventually recover, I am glad for the time being to see the light truck market debilitated by the cost of oil. There is so much more I would like to express regarding SUVs -- why they are so dangerous to society, why their appeal is juvenile, etc. -- but, alas, sometimes there is simply too much to say. And I shan't bore you any further with my ranting.

The Ghost in the Machine Lacks Soul

2008-07-03T20:16:00.000-07:00

Complex systems are a phenomenon all their own. Some are evolving as you read this, others have been around since the beginning of the universe. They are everywhere -- wind and water cycles, nutrient cycles, the stock market, the postal service --, and many of these systems we either control vehemently or fail to understand altogether. Some are robust while others are fragile. By definition, a complex systems is impossible to understand in its entirety, and for this reason, it is oft a system evolves not in the best interests of its creator -- us.

Driving is an activity of monotony and, on occasion, novelty. It is a complicated system most people subject themselves to, but never (it seems) bother perfecting their skills for. The standard issue driving experience includes one part isolation, one part tediousness, one part vengeful malice, and one generous portion of your life. You work to pay for your car, your gas, your insurance, your maintenance, your toll roads. You pay for the convenience, and you pay for the freedom.

But what are you buying your way into? A fundamentally flawed system. Society is supposed to ease the burden of everyone through cooperation and good governance. By working together and designing a system ergonomically, it is not outside the realm of possibility we create a system fundamentally aimed at easing the stressful nature of a task, like driving.

Unfortunately, the complex system of traffic infrastructure and personal vehicle ownership is one that has evolved over a solid century and did not have a moniker of ergonomic understanding to benefit from. If our idea of personal mobility was suggested to an ergonomist who had never suffered a drive on our roads, said scientist would immediately identify some significant shortcomings:

Isolation. Personal mobility allows an individual to be alone; it allows one to brood away in private at 100 km/h with no chance of intervention from others. In traffic, isolation allows irritation to evolve into anger, and anger into rage. In solitude, there is no external influence to quell rising emotions, and in a system as high-strung as rush hour traffic, the stress that results ruins days and healths alike.

Poor Communication. Traffic disputes are often solved with a short, sharp stomp on the go-pedal and a fly-by gesture. You can't say "sorry, but I'm not familiar with this road" with your signal lights. High-beams cannot apologize for you. Using the tools at your disposal -- which is limited to your turn signals, 4-ways, high beams, brake lights, and horn -- communicating anything more complicated than "go faster" is difficult at best. ( The oncoming traffic high beam flash "Warning -- speed trap ahead" is a good one to recognize, though.) Because of this lack of communication, the immediate assumption after being cut-off or undertaken is, "What an ass! Learn to drive." Whether or not this is the case is irrelevant; the fact that we immediate jump to such conclusions instead of giving the benefit of the doubt indicates there is something terribly wrong with this system. We are expected to pay attention 100% of the time and foresee every single obstacle, and we are expected to follow every rule of the road to the letter. In a system where the intentions of others default to being a dick, or an idiot, a lack of communication between motorists is a breeding ground for hostility.

Us Versus Them. There is no cooperation on the roads. It is easy to ignore the person trying to get into your lane, because, after all, you have the right of way. "Christian motoring" is a tongue-in-cheek expression that describes an individual who, from the goodness of his/her heart, allows another person ahead of them, despite the heavy traffic. Why can't we have the opposite mentality? Why not a term for the bastard that blocks the parking lot driveway on a red light instead of allowing that car to merge with stationary traffic? I'm not advocating being stupid -- like yielding right-of-way to right-turning traffic on your left turn advanced green -- but a bit of generosity will not go amiss. More importantly, it will greatly reduce the impact of the aforementioned shortcomings of the system.

There are ways around these problems, of course -- riding the bus, walking, cycling. These alternatives also offer their own advantages.

Taking public transit affords you uninterrupted time to read and be productive. With today's mobile technology, there is almost no reason for not being able to make the best of down time on public transit. The biggest shortcoming, of course, is the amount of extra time it takes to commute -- but is that necessarily the case? If you consider the productive hours you gain when you'd otherwise be commuting, how much have you lost?

Walking is an alternative entire books have been written on. It is incredibly slow, but being outside is healthy, and if we all did it more often, we would notice our communities grow towards being... well, communities.

In some cases, cycling can be equally as fast as driving, and in other cases, equally as time consuming as taking public transit. The benefit to cycling is, of course, the exercise. It is not a perfect alternative, but it is easier to communicate with others while on a bicycle (ex. hand signals, gestures), and anyone who has ever ridden with a group knows there is a great deal of cooperation and camaraderie. As a car enthusiast, I am supposed to dislike cyclists, but from everything considered in this article, a bike is easily the better way to get around.

I hope a bit of enlightenment as to the nature of the problem gives everyone something to think about.

An Argument for [Un]reliability

2008-06-25T07:27:00.000-07:00

Living in a suburb a stone's throw from Toronto, a car serves very little practical purpose to someone of my age. My bicycle, bus pass, and shoe'd feet provide all the mobility I need; however, this is not the case for many millions of my fellow Canadians. To them, an automobile is their only means of escaping the familiarity of cookie-cutter suburbs with their pathetic parkettes and equally pathetic public transit services.

[Enter from stage left] The practical purchases for my fellow young adults: the bland Toyota Corolla and the unfortunately ever-popular Honda Civic. Like a plague of locust, these two ecoboxes exist in every climate, plodding along in the left lane at 80, and undertaking us with ground a-glow at 180, respectively.

In reality, I do not mind either of these vehicles. The Corolla is a brilliant car and more reliable than a comic superhero's butler. Likewise, you can run your Civic on sand instead of engine oil and VTech will still kick in (, yo). However, the former is incredibly bland, and the latter is the poster-child of a youth automotive culture I understand the appeal of, but want nothing to do with.

The point is this: these vehicles are bulletproof. Unwavering reliability is more important to today's youth than big, comfortable vehicles were to our parents' generation. The name of the game is economy, and he/she who can travel the furthest for the least cost wins.

But competition reeks of stress.

I am privileged enough to live in a comfortable suburb without having to suffer the shortcomings of a disastrously underfunded public transit system; moreover, I am perfectly capable of commuting by bicycle or by foot anywhere one would otherwise need a car. That said, I am in a position where I can achieve so much more automotive satisfaction than my Corolla- and Civic-driving counterparts. And the reason for this is because I can afford an unreliable car.

[Enter from stage right] The Jaguar XJS. Built by communists, designed by economists, strangled by cheap components, but loved by all, the XJS is my ideal first vehicle. As old as I am it may be, and likely as costly to run as it is cheap to buy, at ~$15k ($19-24k for the V12), it is a price I am willing to pay for a car of such refined nature, handsome mature styling, and leather-clad comfort.

My reasoning is very simple. If you buy a Corolla or Civic, you are not purchasing a luxury vehicle. The styling is not handsome, and only grows uglier as it matures. Leather is, for the most part, out of the question. But you will have your bulletproof reliability, and that is the nub of the problem. The one time your Honda steps out of line, the entire reason for purchasing it evaporates. The one time your Toyota refuses to start on a cold, winter morning, you begin to think the time is right to replace it. The stress the uber-reliable car is bound to cause its economy-minded motorist will ruin any possibility of developing a relationship; the car remains a product of convenience. Even if it is the owner's first car, and it still has that stale cigarette smoke stench of specialness saturating its cloth interior, the stress of an unreliable reliable car will trump any degree of attachment.

Owning an XJS, on the other hand, you expect it to break down. If it manages to get you from A to B, it is a staggering achievement; and if it gets you home again, you shall reward it by fixing that leaking/squeaking/squealing something-or-other, and the love will flow out of its many orifices. (That's not an oil stain on my garage floor; it is a love puddle.) Moreover, no ecobox driver will ever experience the level of ride comfort possessed by the XJS. As noted by car enthusiasts and automotive journalists alike, this Jag only becomes more attractive as it ages. So to sum up, the XJS is a beautiful, comfortable, classic 2+2 GT that is relatively exclusive, relatively inexpensive, and almost guaranteed to steal one's heart.

Unfortunately, the option of owning such an unreasonable vehicle is not open to everyone, and, seeing as how this is an incredibly odd thing to say, I know my opinions are very abstract in nature. But, clearly there is more to cars than their mechanical bits and bottom line. After all, a thriving culture exists around them, complete with feuding sects and limited-production idols! If you believe a car is just a car, and that I am imbuing it with fallacious meaning, by all means ignore what I am saying. But if you understand wholeheartedly the relationship between owner and automobile, the appeal of an idiot-built gem, then understand my basis for believing that owning any reliable Japanese product is incredibly tedious. Imagine having your Camry start making strange noises -- an annoying rattle; a strange knock; a creak. The moment you hear that first whine or squeal, the entire purpose of purchasing a Toyota or Honda disappears. What then?

Buy a car with substance in mind; when the egg cracks, economy is not what matters. The gooey nougat of individual taste trumps all mechanical shortcomings. The XJS is my dearest, most radical example of this ethos; hugely unreliable though it may be, its character and charm far outweigh its many reliability issues.

Car XIV

2008-06-18T12:31:00.000-07:00

Car XIV (internal designation Car 14) is a grand tourer.
It is long, low, and its wide rear wheels are powered by a mid-mounted twin-turbo V8 power plant.
The full aluminum space frame is clad in a combination of carbon fiber and aluminum panels.
With 20" forged alloy wheels front & rear, wrapped in low-profile tires, the XIV feels as at home on the track as it is on the road.

And yet, the Car XIV will never be a success. Although I am incredibly fond of the design, I am not naive enough to believe any Canadian-designed no-name car would be able to compete in this global supercar market. The reason for this is very simple.

Supercars are a very precise recipe. They need to possess a sense of theater and deliver in all quantifiable areas of performance. The engine must be in the middle, and it does not matter so much if that doesn't leave any room for a driver. To thrash around a race track in a supercar must be a very engaging experience. And most importantly, the car must be Italian.

The last detail is the controversial bit. I am not suffering some sort of national pride; after all, no part of me is Italian, and I do not place favour for Italians over any other nationality. The truth is, the supercar is as much a part of the Italian way of life as their cuisine and fashion design. As a nation, they live supercars in a way no other country can claim to. Italy gave birth to the supercar, after all, and the resemblance between the vehicle class and the nation's culture is striking. Thoroughbred Italian supercars will never lose their appeal because the Italian culture is so deeply embedded in their genes. Italian culture is so appropriate for the art. Loud, artistic, and absolutely obsessed with style and speed, Italy is a nation devout to the supercar. With a legacy of world-renown supercar manufacturers, Italy is synonymous with automotive finesse at its most appealing.

Of course, exceptions exist.

Audi recently released the R8, and it is, in all quantifiable measures, just as good as its competition. According to my recipe, it shouldn't be the resounding success it is; however, this is where the exception lies. The R8 is a very attractive, eye-catching automobile -- despite its somewhat subdued styling. More than that, it is exceptional in one substantial way: it has pulled off that incredible feat of being both a track-ready supercar and a comfortable daily driver. Sitting in the roomy cabin of the R8, you experience the Bavarian leather-clad interior; you are not intimidated by the controls; you are delighted by the insubstantial aura of the R8's German engineering.

A similar story is told for the Koenigsegg CCX -- it is an intoxicating Swedish blend of unparalleled lunacy and absurd amounts of speed.

The Spyker C8 may be Dutch, but it is a beautifully crafted all-aluminum pile of magnificence.

Have you heard the Porsche Carrera GT's V10 howl?

The Ascari A10 is fully hardcore.

Car XIV, therefore, will never succeed on its own. That is because it is not exceptional in any meaningful way. Although it may very well be a brilliant car in design and performance, without being Italian, it does not stand to compete in today's global supercar market.

That said, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Pagani, Maserati, if you are at all interested in adding another GT to your model lineup, just ask. Car XIV is available.

An Addendum

2008-06-18T11:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I discussed the dominion of ideas and laid out my argument for hydrogen technology.

Moreover, I denounced alternatives like hybrid technology and ethanol (and, really, all other alternative hydrocarbon-based fuels) because of the fear they may become mainstream technologies. This fear is not unfounded; if these pseudo-green technologies do become locked-in, because they are but a small environmental improvement over conventional gasoline (but not necessarily diesel), there is a good chance the automobile industry will once again become very adverse to change. Competitive markets, like the automotive industry, are hugely conservative and, as industries go, carry a lot of momentum, making it excruciatingly hard for them to adopt new technologies.

The truth of the matter is, despite being better than the current technology, we mustn't allow the green revolution to lock-in an inferior technology, like hybrids or ethanol.

I condemn idealistic thinking, but some would argue I am somewhat an idealist myself. My opinions are open to reason -- it is not like I am calling to boycott hybrid technology or ethanol. I am merely trying to warn the public of the dangers of investing heavily in these technologies strictly because they are simpler and/or easily applicable.

My trust in the power of ideas, too, is not unfounded.

Ethanol has been a key player in the green revolution. But how many ethanol gas stations are there? How many vehicles are there capable of running on 100% ethanol (not just E85)? Clearly, there is no momentum behind this idea. Moreover, if we are going to lock-in a technology, why not one that produces zero greenhouse gas emissions?

Toyota and Honda have been producing hybrid vehicles since 1997 and 1999, respectively. But I'm told they still take a loss on every unit they produce (with the exception of the Prius) because consumers are not willing to pay the large premium hybrid drive costs over a conventional petrol. And in Europe, half the cars are diesel -- which any gasoline-hybrid owner can vouch will get significantly better fuel economy. How can this be the future? The only momentum behind this idea is a direct result of Toyota's brute-force marketing strategies -- the "red flare" I refer to in yesterday's article. The idea on its own carries no strength. And again, why not strive for a technology that produces zero greenhouse gas emissions? Why not a technology that fully relieves our dependency on foreign oil?

Hydrogen technology is an idea that has fully captured the public imagination. Hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars are silent, efficient, and produce zero greenhouse gas emissions. When we develop suitable storage and transportation methods, it will be as convenient as gasoline and as kind to the environment as the Prius only claims to be.

Clearly, I have a great deal of enthusiasm for hydrogen technology. And that zeal is only made stronger by my belief in powerful ideas.

Red Flares - Leave a Path Clear for Hydrogen

2008-06-17T20:35:00.000-07:00

The fifties were an optimistic time in the scientific community. In the US, research into nuclear energy was being pursued almost without regard to cost, and the prospect of "unleashing the power of the atom" captured the minds of a generation. Science fiction writers wrote volumes on future civilizations that have the power to manufacture stars and control weather. Now understand the magnitude of determination possessed by the administrators of the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) , who, history has shown, were even more zealous about atomic energy than these over-the-top science fiction writers. In two decades, nuclear reactor power output grew one hundred-fold. Government-funded projects explored the possibility of nuclear-powered automobiles and airplanes. But how could you blame their fervour? Imagine filling your car once a decade with a pellet of plutonium-239! Pundits predicted by the end of the century society would transform into a utopia on Earth -- complete with blue skies 24/7 and wealths of leisure. All made possible by that seemingly limitless supply of energy, the domesticated atom.

Here in the 21st century, with our marginally better understanding of the universe, we would equate these sorts of predictions to the ramblings of old fools. But why didn't they? Did they not recognize the magnitude of the scientific hurdles? Is it that today we pay more attention to reason and are more conservative in technological matters? Did they not have old fools' ramblings to compare with?

The answer is, not exactly; those aren't fair questions. Without a doubt, they knew it would be difficult to develop the technology. They were certainly conscious of the complexity of the task. However, there was enough momentum behind the idea (from the AEC, the scientific community, and multinational conglomerates like General Electric and Westinghouse) to press on, despite the number of overwhelming failures that would've led to the demise of any other (less exciting) technology.

In short, the history of atomic energy is a brilliant example of the power of ideas. The appeal of limitless energy was enough to unite an entire nation towards a common goal. Consider the impact the nuclear bomb must have had on the world after its Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrations. Seemingly out of nowhere came this soul-numbingly powerful weapon. Picture being alive in August 1945 and witnessing the power of the atomic bomb, having only ever experienced conventional warfare, and then imagine being told the same technology has the potential of being as beneficial as it is destructive. What you are left with is a generation full of victims to an overwhelmingly powerful idea.

Ideas of this caliber can be described as one would describe an avalanche: unyielding, unpredictable. Powerful ideas can appear from nowhere, and are the only man-made inventions capable of rivaling Mother Nature in magnitude.

But what of our generation? Undeniably, the defining event of our lifetime is our worsening environmental situation. We don't have big explosions to jolt us in one direction or the next, and thus far it's been an über-green free-for-all in the automotive world. We've been barraged with alternative fuels like LPG, ethanol, cooking oil, bits of blended up badgers, you name it. But don't despair -- the situation is only chaotic when viewed through the wrong lens.

Let me use two examples: ethanol and hybrid technology.

Ethanol is the most readily available of the alternative fuels. There are plenty of arguments for and against ethanol. The list of pros and cons go on and nobody could possibly care less. The only real benefit to ethanol (besides its strictly economic appeal to US auto manufacturers) is its ability to cheaply and easily wane us off our dependency on foreign oil. Its "green" qualities are not worth mentioning because, in reality, nothing is achieved environmentally. Carbon dioxide is still produced, as with any hydrocarbon-fueled engine.

Hybrid technology provides an even weaker case for its "green" credentials. With a list of pros and cons and conditions I can't be bothered to recite in this article (1. Because it is very technical; and 2. Because the list is as long as my leg), the only real benefit it has over conventional petrol is that it uses discernibly less fuel to operate. And?

Now, technology is a very fickle thing. Idealists will tell you this mishmash of alternatives will eventually determine the best all-rounder; the invisible hand of the market will see to that. Like all market fundamentalism, this belief is utter nonsense. With the future of the winning strategy resting in the hands of consumers, enormous effort has been put into marketing these two alternatives. Placing the illusion of hybrid/ethanol superiority into the public consciousness is paramount to the auto manufacturers who are now relying financially on one technology or the other.

This is the red flare: Marketing.

The fact that these auto manufacturers pour so much money into marketing their ideas says in bold letters, "this is a somewhat practical solution, but not a powerful idea." Marketing in the battle of green alternatives is a double-edged sword; while it is important to market a winning idea, it is a clear identifier that the idea has not captured the imaginations of consumers. As I've said, technology is fickle. These companies are trying to imbue their green strategies, their ideas, with momentum. They are brute-forcing their "green" alternatives to the front lines of the battle of green supremacy, and such a strategy is unacceptable.

What's the problem with that, you are probably asking. To answer your question, quite a bit. As a society, we have a habit of "locking in" inferior technologies for one reason or another. When this happens, it takes huge amounts of effort to change. Consider the momentum of ideas: a stampeding herd of bison is not easily swayed. The automotive industry is similar: highly competitive and, therefore, extremely conservative. It is not often that a company is willing to reinvent the wheel for the betterment of mankind or the environment. At this moment, however, auto manufacturers are doing exactly that, and we, as consumers, are responsible for persuading them towards the correct ends. For the sake of our environment, we cannot allow ethanol, hybrid technology, or any of these other useless alternatives distract us from locking in the best possible alternative, the most powerful idea that the scientific community has to offer, hydrogen fuel cells.

Hydrogen is our generation's atom. The scientific hurdles are piled high, and I'm certain science fiction writers have already dreamed up civilizations of humans living in complete harmony with nature, all made possible by hydrogen. But ask anyone well versed in alternative fuels, and they will agree it is the best, albeit least viable, alternative. They will likely get into the details of the technology -- the drawbacks, breakthroughs, processes, and where on Howstuffworks.com to find cool flash diagrams. Hydrogen-fueled cars whose only byproduct is pure water! It does sound like something out of science fiction. (Electric Vehicles, EVs, are a similarly attractive option, except for people that live vast distances from reliable power supplies.) Hydrogen is the green alternative we must keep at the forefront of our minds at all times; the environment cannot afford to defer the development of this technology.

I believe in the power of ideas. The truth is, hybrid technology and ethanol (et. al), regardless of the good intention behind them, are both losing strategies; they are both compromises. These technologies are weak ideas; they will never hold the imaginations of the public in the same way hydrogen does. If we allow them to become mainstream, if we allow them to permeate the public consciousness, there is a high likelihood the resulting "technological lock-in" will waylay the development of hydrogen fuel cells, which is completely unacceptable.

The green revolution is upon us. As consumers, we must make a choice. Hydrogen fuel cells have captured imaginations like no other alternative has. Hydrogen has pulled off the same trick as nuclear fission; it has taken the public by the scruff of our imagination and clearly shown us it is what we want. It is everything we want. And we as a society must do everything in our power to get what we want. That's how we do things in the west. Hydrogen is a plausible alternative to burning hydrocarbons; it produces no greenhouse gases; indeed, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles produce zero emissions full-stop, with the small exception, of course, of pure water. Clean water, clean air, and personal mobility -- it would have been a paradox a generation ago. Today, however, we can make it a reality.

Infinite Monkey Theorem

2008-06-16T10:44:00.000-07:00

(This is just a brief note on my automotive design hobby.)
If a monkey is belted to a chair in front of a computer for an infinite amount of time, by jiggling the mouse, hitting random keys, and refraining from throwing its feces at the screen, in time it will almost surely pirate a 3d graphics program and design an award-winning automobile.

I have the good fortune of not being a monkey, but the misfortune of being mortal. As such, I make the best of my time conjuring up clever-looking cars using the tools I'm privy to. Unfortunately, with ambitions not leaning towards conventional design, this automotive design hobby of mine has not as of yet determined my path in life. If I believed I had the imagination and skill to make it in the world of design, I might have considered design school, but, alas, that is not the case. I am, however, looking forward to a bright future in automotive engineering, and working towards that end is where my time has been thoroughly spent.

Of course, having no formal education in design does render me akin to that metaphorical monkey pounding away at a typewriter (or throwing feces at a laptop), in that my automotive designs are often pathetic messes of geometry. Moreover, I don't have the patience to sit through tutorials and, therefore, default to learning by trial and error. That said, you'll understand the pride and satisfaction I feel when I do manage a design that isn't beyond the abilities of Photoshop to set right! I am not a terribly creative person; you are not likely to catch me loitering in front of art galleries or wearing funny hats. Nevertheless, I continue to manipulate virtual geometry in an attempt to demonstrate to the automotive community, through the powerful medium of pictures, my own interpretations of automotive beauty.

I have a great deal of passion for automobiles, I want to make clear. And beauty is paramount. By sharing here everything I have to offer, I hope to somehow influence someone somewhere to create something marvelous.

As I have said, I am not very creative. For instance, the car design featured in this post is called Car XIII. Its "internal designation" is Car13. It is the thirteenth car model I have rendered pictures for. Honestly, a monkey has a larger capacity for creativity.

2008 Peugeot Design Competition - "Imagine a Peugeot for the Megapolis of Tomorrow."

2008-06-15T13:43:00.000-07:00

What an exciting challenge! Hosted by the French automotive manufacturer Peugeot, this annual design competition attracts designers, amateurs, and students from across the globe. Designs are submitted via the Peugeot website upon completion. My entry is called the Peugeot Phalanx.

For 2008, entrants were asked to design a Peugeot that can function capably in a future megapolis. The accepted definition of a megapolis is, "a long chain of roughly continuous metropolitan areas." However, as cities become more spatially efficient (via new high-rise construction techniques) and more densely populated, the term "megapolis" could easily evolve to mean something more along the lines of (comically), "a city as tall as it is wide, where every cubic meter of space is exhausted to its full potential." Such a city, I think, would place serious environmental and ergonomic demands on the personal automobiles still privileged with long, lined, empty strips of tarmac (roads) in an increasingly claustrophobic vicinity.

Ergo, I designed a car that satisfies the strict demands of the latterly defined megapolis, utilizing to full effect some key elements I thought would epitomize a city of such intense dimensions. These key elements include: the creation and allowance of light into the passenger compartment, comprehensive controls with technology-bred simplicity, and the utilization of advanced composite materials for the benefit of mechanical simplicity and economic feasibility. Named the Peugeot Phalanx, this automotive design is more than an evolution of the common automobile; it is a full-on reinvention of the term.

Environment & Ergonomics

The megapolis of tomorrow will be the epitome of human organization and cohabitation. With millions of people living within walking-distance of each other, personal automobiles are destined to change radically. The Phalanx, for example, is an electric vehicle (EV) controlled entirely by drive-by-wire. Creating zero-emissions will be a basic requirement for any vehicle operating in such tight spatial conditions. Batteries are stored in the two compartments flanking the rear wheel well, allowing battery replacement (by a lease system reminiscent of then-obsolete gas/petrol stations) or conventional A/C outlet charging (in one's condominium's underground car park).

The ultimate goal of the Phalanx is to radically change our perception of the automobile. Cars will have to be less expensive to manufacture, simpler to operate, and more convenient to maintain. In a megapolis, the majority of commuting will be accomplished by public transit. Roads will still exist, of course, and people will still own cars, but mainly as a matter of convenience -- not necessity. People will drive less and, therefore, require a car that is more intuitive to drive. As mentioned, the controls of the Phalanx are entirely drive-by-wire. This allows for limitless adjustment of control sensitivity to optimize the driving experience to the individual driver. Every car control is ergonomically engineered to be simple and comprehensive; the car should be as natural to drive as it is natural to walk.

Simplifying automotive manufacturing is also within the scope of this project. Although composite materials (i.e. carbon fiber) are currently almost exclusively used in high-performance automobiles, through improved materials engineering and automotive manufacturing processes, the general market will eventually benefit from the safety and environmental advantages inherent with these high strength, low weight materials. For instance, it is possible to decrease the size of automotive assembly plants because of the significantly fewer parts required to build composite vehicles like the Phalanx. With fewer parts and smaller plants, production costs can fall dramatically.

Design

The real beauty of this project is its design element. Any automotive enthusiast is conscious of, if not knowing of, the supranatural appeal of particular automobiles. This highly individualistic quality is the emergent property we, as conscious beings, imbue on automobiles that make them more than the sum of their mechanical parts. Oftentimes referred to as a car's "x-factor" or "soul," this is the most important quality of any automobile/concept, because it catches people's imaginations and gives birth to the sort of zealotry any good revolution needs. The Phalanx delivers in this department with its radical composite-beam front suspension technology and leaf-emulating glass doors.

Anyone who has ever studied architecture or has so much as thought on the intricacies of an urban jungle appreciate to its full extent our (human beings) relationship with light. We tile our skyscrapers in glass to allow a transparent barrier between a hospitable, climate-controlled environment and that seemingly infinite source of energy we call the sun. We outfit our cars with sunroofs (or no roof at all) to better connect with the sunlit outside from our creatively environmentally managed interiors. We see houses with tall bay windows as luxurious and consider a cathedral's stained glass windows divine. Prison cells have notoriously small windows, if any at all. We are a society obsessed with light, and on that front the radical Phalanx delivers. The composite monocoque passenger compartment is entirely encased in glass with minimal intrusion from structural members that obscure outward visibility. Moreover, the hubless wheels (front and rear) allow light through their interiors with Aluminum representations of the Peugeot lion united to the inner race of the front wheels. Lastly, the Phalanx is clad in LEMs (light emitting membranes). The two sections of overhead glass are haloed in LEMs, as well as the two composite beams that, together, act as the vehicle's front independent suspension.

The design elements of the composite/glass Phalanx required clever engineering solutions to make it mechanically feasible. As mentioned, the design goal was to emphasize our relationship with light. The wheels, therefore, are hubless, leaving large, vacant middle-sections ideal for silhouetting designs (in this case, the Peugeot Lion). The choice of using long, composite members for the front suspension was threefold: 1. They look awesome; 2. The occupant's view out of the vehicle mustn't be obstructed by suspension components (the composite beams run in parallel with the monocoque's two overhead members); and 3. By using the inherent energy absorbing qualities of carbon fiber, the number of suspension components was significantly reduced, making the vehicle's overall design simpler.

I hope you enjoy the Peugeot Phalanx renderings, and, more importantly, I hope I've given you something automobile-relevant to consider.