Helpful Auto Technology Vs. Fluff

OK, just so there is no misunderstanding here let me make a point up front. My automotive experience started in the days of crank-down windows and manually adjusted mirrors. Cars I routinely drove might have had A/C (likely didn’t work), and if domestic, power steering and power brakes. Really not much else. My trucks? Scratch the A/C off the list; it would have had three pedals, a wheel, a turn signal stalk, a shift lever and two knobs (lights and wipers). If it was real upscale, it might have had an AM radio and floor mats too!

No, I’m not an antique of a human being. My transportation pursuits didn’t start in the primordial ooze of the auto industry. But it did start with whatever equipment I could afford at that time, so as a young driver I was pretty much relegated to 8-12 year old vehicles; vehicles that predated the more recent bells and whistles of that time.

By then power windows, power mirrors, power seats and AM/FM cassettes were often ordered on most American cars. But cash-strapped as I was I didn’t have access to these indulgences. Quite frankly I didn’t really desire them. I had no perception of a need they could satisfy, so the options didn’t mean anything to me.

Memory lane? Sort of, but with a point. As has usually been the case in my career my current issued work vehicle is newer than the wheels I drive personally. This time around the org managed to produce a lower mile Chevy that worked just fine, a little sedan that had been turned in by another department. Air, tilt, cruise AM/FM/CD; things that are now common on the most basic of cars.

Winter is finally sagging into the lower Midwest, and with its coming, frost on the windshield and frozen puddles in the street are commonplace. Just the other day I happened to be in-route to another location before the sun had peeked over the hill to do any of its fine work stirring up molecules and building heat. At some point in that drive I went across an ice-patch, and in this case it was on a mild hill, so the tires slipped a little. No surprises - saw it coming.

The car apparently didn’t assume that I could distinguish what had happened though. An amber warning light lit up on the dash, flashed and soon after a message scrolls across the instrument cluster proclaiming “slick pavement”. Hmmmm. Really? I had assumed the slight engine-flair and tug on the steering wheel was due to a mechanical failure or maybe a low tire… It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with it being 25 degrees out and the fact I was crossing a shiny spot on the pavement at that time.

Maybe I shouldn’t chide whoever engineered this thing. Maybe there are really people out there who don’t understand what freezing temperatures, shiny pavement, a flaring engine and a tug at the wheel means. But If these people are driving around here this winter, they need to do us all a favor; either move to Arizona or go home immediately and put their cars in the garage. They can bring them back out in April when they will endanger us all less.

After I parked the work car that evening I jumped into my low mile 18 year old beater VW Golf and threaded my way home. It’s ugly, but the price was right, it runs well and doesn’t have any rust. I only drive 7or so miles to work, so it meets my needs. Did I mention it has manual crank-down windows and manual mirrors. Oh, and it does have a power sunroof. I appreciated that feature this last summer because the A/C doesn’t work.     

© 2015 D.W. Williams 

Diesel anyone?

The recent corporate stumble by Volkswagen into the abyss of bad press gives me pause. As you have probably heard through 100 other sources (so I won’t belabor the point other than mention it as background), Volkswagen was caught in a type of software hijinks, programming turbo-diesel engine management software in such a way that it switched into a more eco-friendly mode when it recognized the load cycle to be typical of an EPA treadmill. IE: It put the engine on its best behavior when the feds were watching.

So what concerns me about this whole deal? VW has had a long history of marketing diesels successfully. In Europe the diesel has really become the main viable option to hyper-tiny engines in family sedans as they will typically do more work on less fuel than gasoline engine. VW has been hammering away at that market consistently since the 1970’s. They know their stuff on diesel engines.  

Volkswagen announced that it would pursue electric vehicle technologies after the firestorm let down a little. Huh? You see, Volkswagen AG has access to the best and the brightest in automotive engineering. Owning such marques and Audi, Porsche, Bugatti, Ducati and Lamborghini. These are sharp guys, and they can’t make a diesel run clean without particulate filters and urea injection? Uhmmmm, what I end up saying to myself is “Self, if Volkswagen can’t make a diesel perform up to current emission standards without these exhaust after-treatment devices, it can’t be done”.

These mentioned devices are effective, but also big, bulky and heavy, and key to Volkswagens whole (falsified) market ploy was the ability to run clean without them. All these technologies can be and are used on trucks (big and small) but they require real-estate that passenger cars don’t have, suck a lot of power and generate a lot of heat. Not stuff you want to engineer around if you are designing for the economy or performance car market segments.

So in effect what I believe we’ve just seen is the death of the diesel in domestic automobiles. This is a shame on many levels. It is a long-lived technology almost as old as the internal combustion engine itself. As the fuel is a light oil, it burns longer and hotter than lighter distillates (gasoline) allowing more push to be harnessed every time the piston goes down the bore on a power stroke. Small engines/big torque and high economy. And this is exactly why this technology still excels in trucks and off-road equipment – for now.

I wonder how long before we legislate diesels out of existence there too?

   

© 2015 D.W. Williams 

Auto Technology

The local paper ran a story yesterday on some data that was gathered by JD Power regarding technology in cars; what technology we are using and how we use it. JD Power stated, go figure, that we are often paying for technology in cars that we don’t use; citing that at least 20% of purchasers use less than ½ of the technology features available in the vehicle.

JD Power also drew a conclusion out of this study, that the technology features that are most used in cars are those that must be built into the cars for them to operate. Makes sense: you wouldn’t expect your smart-phone to be your backup sensor or adaptive cruise control. But on the other hand who of us hasn’t used our smartphones for maps or directions? The study also noted that if a purchaser wasn’t given a walk-through of the features by the delivering dealer, they were much less likely to use them. Presumably either unable or unwilling to take the time to learn how to use them.

In this same article manufacturers quipped that they have been giving consumers what they wanted. Really? Having been in automotive product focus groups before I’ve seen how the scripts run…. “Would you prefer your ham sandwich be topped with mayo or mustard”? Hold the train. When did I say I wanted a ham sandwich in the first place? These groups seem formed to document reassuring feedback on narrow topics rather than truly probe consumer desires.

From all the info in this study I draw my own conclusion, which is: as a consumer, once you have a technology available to you which meets your needs, you won’t really go out of your way looking for another solution. While necessity may no longer be the mother of invention, it remains the mother of adoption

However if you are in automotive product engineering, marketing or “Infotainment” development, that is not a pill you can readily swallow. You are in a position where you have to come up with newer, better and more all the time. Company profits and your job depend on this. And if you come up with something which gathers dust rather than market interest, it seems you have the choice of either scrapping the idea or figuring out a way to sell the consumer on it. I am afraid marketing departments spend much of their time on the second approach.

And there you have it. Consumers want transportation and safety, but a manufacturer’s principal concern is profits. You’ll get your safety, but the more doodads they can load a product down with the more they can sell it for. So you’ll get your hands-free blue tooth phone interface, but you are going to get it with a myriad of other bells and whistles that you will never use. 

   

© 2015 D.W. Williams 

The New Job

At some point in our careers each of us takes on a new job, either by choice or compulsion.  In my own case it had been 18 years since I had experienced the rapid-fire revelations that result from being thrust into a new situation with new rules, new expectations and new people. It is really the new people part of that equation which causes most established professionals the most retrospection.

By the time you are 25+ years into your career, assuming you transition into another position in the same industry, you really do know what you are doing. Oh, there are indeed small nuances that change, and sometimes with big ramifications, but by and large you’ve been around the block enough times to weed through the processes and differentiate the crucial from the impertinent.

Not so much with people.

People are dynamic, with fluid needs and a litany of concerns to either address or outright avoid. The problem is that it isn’t always apparent what you are dealing with until the crank gets turned to the “POP - goes the weasel” part of the tune, and by then it’s out of the box; good, bad or ugly, you are dealing with it now.

Inadvertent damage-control aside, a new job is also refreshing. Probably because as the players change, the tensions change too. In fact, based on some decompression I went through (Don’t come up to fast, you’ll get the bends!) I can honestly say that I didn’t really know what type of preoccupations wrestled for my attention until they weren’t there anymore. Like bass on crankbait, the thoughts came.

Once I cut-bait it was kind of refreshing. It took some time sure. I guess that is reasonable since about 2 decades had passed. But maybe, just maybe, if I remain determined about my own direction, controlling what I can and disregarding the rest…..

Ask me in another 20 years.  

© 2015 D.W. Williams 

Heavy Truck Mileage

The NY Times published an article on 5/30/15 explaining how the EPA was installing a new heavy-truck chassis dynamometer in their Ann Arbor, MI lab. What is unique about this installation is the purpose it serves. Earlier this decade the executive branch tasked the EPA and DOE with implementing new economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles, as well as revising the existing emissions standards. So the purpose for the installation is principally to monitor manufacturer’s compliance with these new EPA/DOE heavy-truck economy standards. The EPA believes that by 2027 big-trucks should be getting 9 MPG. These vehicles currently get 5-6 MPG in the real world, so these projections don’t seem that far out of line.

The administration’s announcement back then also touted that the improved fuel economy would save the transportation industry money, and therefore save the consumer money at the counter. Much like corporate press releases claiming savings through reductions in force, these announcements are best viewed with suspicion. Often these same corporations are somehow stunned to find out that the people terminated actually did something more than just draw a paycheck, and the hard savings aren’t so clear. In this case when you start considering the collateral impact of these proposed economy regulations you end up doing some serious head-scratching about the feasibility of achieving these figures at all, and certainly the forecast savings this regulation will provide.

Walk with me for a while as I prattle and consider what these figures represent.

The ideal situation for a trucker is to be able to roll down the road with the rig weighing right at 80K lbs (standard interstate maximum weight). Maximizing their payload gives them the most cargo to spread their operating costs over, so they can transport our stuff more competitively. Putting a quick pencil to it, at that 80K lb. weight a truck getting 9 MPG would be burning around .0027 gallons of fuel to move each ton of weight 1 mile. That’s right, 27/10,000ths of a gallon of diesel. In comparison, your current 6000 lb. pickup truck that gets (if you’re lucky) 20 MPG is burning .016 gallons per ton/mile, or about 6X as much fuel per ton/mile as this proposed standard for heavy trucks. Thought of other ways, your average family sedan would have to get over 170 MPG to achieve this same efficiency, or your current 2000 lb. economy-car 340 MPG.

Eyebrows raised yet? Mine are.

I’m not a physicist, but to me it seems impractical to expect a traditional driveline of any type, regardless of how much it is modified, to achieve that much more efficiency in a mere 12 years. While there have been many advancements in the state of the art, the last 15 years have only netted us maybe 1-2 MPG improvement in big-bore diesel fuel mileage. In order to achieve these figures in that short of a time manufacturers will probably have to abandon conventional drivelines altogether.

To get this done I have visions of diesel-over-electric tractors (think locomotive) with large banks of rapid discharge NiMH batteries under the trailer load-floor to power the traction motors. I also see them carrying solar panels across the full length of the 53’ trailer van body roof and oh yes, carrying regenerative braking to assist in recharging the whole thing.

A fleet line-haul tractor costs $85-105K on today’s market (give or take). I'd guess a competitive new-technology tractor will cost $225-250K in today’s money. But we aren’t done there, we have a specialized trailer to buy too.  Battery and solar panel state of art are always improving, but at the electrical capacities needed I’m thinking $70-90K to cover these costs. So in the end we may achieve our 3MPG savings, but we’ve managed to spend an additional $220K per truck replacement to do it. The article estimated a $12-14K tractor price increase.

In addition to this cap-cost increase, the whole shooting-match will weigh much more because of the batteries. Figure maybe 6-8000 lbs more. This will reduce the trucker’s payload by that same amount and make his unit costs and customer costs that much higher, reducing his profitability… Sign me up now!

A lot of folks have analyzed the impact (maybe) and surely have thought about at least some of these things. But from where I sit we are suggesting that the transportation industry comply with an impractical standard. If it can be achieved at all it could cost so much that it will force smaller operators out of business, reduce market competition and cause larger carriers to rely on federal subsidies or credits to make the whole thing feasible. Squeeze all you want, a turnip only holds so much blood. 

Hello… (thump, thump, thump). Is this mic on???

  

© 2015 D.W. Williams

Smart(?) Phones

There was an article in the local paper today that again broached the topic of our communications devices and their usage while we are driving. We have all read these articles occasionally, but every now and again one brings up facets of the topic with galvanizing statistics.  My epiphanal gasp this round centered on a State Farm statistic that indicated 41% of drivers between 18 and 29 years old read social media posts while operating their vehicle. 

41%! (Pause for dramatic effect...)

So what this tells us is that approaching 1/2 of the people of that age group are not only operating a vehicle while distracted, but operating them on public streets with their eyes not even on the road for a good portion of their tour of duty. Think of that... Let it soak in.

Now, people who make up that statistical segment, I ask you.  Who among you would cut a board on a table-saw while looking in another direction? Or maybe shave (guys) or apply makeup (girls) without using a mirror? Better yet, who reading this article would be OK undergoing an emergency appendectomy under the hand of a surgeon who is distracted with the final four series playing on a TV in the corner?

Not the same thing you say? You're right. A misguided automobile has the capability of killing multiple people at a time. The surgeon can only kill one.

I really haven't talked to one of my peers in fleet management who hasn't, at some time, dealt with the tangible repercussions (sheet-metal, flesh or finance) of one of their operators taking eyes off of the road for just a moment. These are seasoned drivers in company-vehicles on company business. These are people who themselves have at some point been impacted by the unwelcome side of chance and are more apt to take reasonable precaution to avoid it.

So the take away is this. No one can anticipate every aspect of their drive-time; how the actions of others can require you to make a split-second decision. There are variables that you can't possibly know of when you pull out of the drive in the morning. So we owe it our best effort to try to not be one of those variables ourselves.

Life is short, and it can get shorter quickly with inattention. Think of that when you slip the iPhone into your hip-pocket on the way out the door tomorrow.

© 2015 D.W. Williams 

Electric Rail Vs the Automobile

For all appearances Kansas City has been busy trying to compete for visibility with other major metropolitan areas around the US. The area has a lot to offer; very low consumer pricing, lack of overcrowding and availability/affordability of homes and land to build them on. Home to my family for over 20 years, we’ve seen a lot of proposed infrastructure projects come and go on the evening news; solid hits, near misses and abysmal failures. I tip my hat to those behind these plans, even if they failed. At least they had a vision and they pursued it.

The part of Kansas City South living that most appeals to us is the lack of crowding, room to stretch your legs and quick access to all cool things that the city offers. These factors are why we chose city dwelling rather than living in the 'burbs in the first place and all are key to the Kansas City feel. But that feel developed over decades and has come with its own problems.  Because of sprawl, this city wrestles with tepid economic growth and anything resembling silver-bullet traffic solutions.

Like so many other metropolitan areas before us, residents here had come to view urban dwelling as taboo. Fueled by financial upward mobility and racial tensions (yes Martha, the “R” word), post WWII Kansas City had chosen to switch rather than fight, and started stretching city boundaries far and wide. Modern starter families periodically make a stab at urban dwelling, but due to a troubled public school system once those starter families have kids of school age they sound the dive alarm and run deep/run silent. When they surface again it is often in the calmer waters of Johnson County Kansas or Cass, Platte or Clay counties in Missouri. 

As a result the Kansas City of today is a staunch commuter community. The community's workforce and employer base are so geographically spread that there really hasn't been a practical way to displace personal transportation with mass transit systems. In fact Kansas City, once the proud owner of a well-developed electric streetcar system, abandoned them in the 1950's. Ridership was down, so they went to buses to facilitate adaptive routing.

Modern light rail had been knocked around here for about the last 15 years, off and on. But most commuter families are 2-income households, and by definition this limits their available free time. Shopping and other errands have to be fit into their schedule when they can, and often the only time people have available is during the commute home at night. Try negotiating a light-rail system with 6 bags of groceries, your prescriptions from CVS and a stop at the post office to send Aunty May her birthday present. Simply put, it ain't happenin'.

But the latest light rail proposal did gain support at the voting booths and construction is happening as I type. The local politicians are considering this a "starter line", running from our lower midtown area thru downtown and into the riverfront City Market. Not incidental to the continuing saga is the ongoing refurbishment of the downtown loop. Everywhere you look old warehouses are growing 700 sq/ft living spaces, apartment buildings are being built, entertainment venues are springing up and even grocery stores are being put in.

Following national trend most downtown dwellers are younger, single and as a result don't have many household logistical issues. In this environment light rail makes wonderful sense. If you only had 2-3 minutes of walking to a rail stop and need to go out for simple sundries, to get to the gym or have an occasional meal out, why would you break out the car?  In effect we have pulled 1910 out of the archives, blown the dust off of it and put it back into the playbook.

While current future plans are to stretch the lines further towards the 'burbs, just maybe this limited deployment was best for this time... it serves a need. Having driven through the construction area a few times though, it occurs to me that the rail vs automobile concept may well be a preamble to some of the interesting collisions we are apt to read about in days to come.

© 2015 D.W. Williams