So here it is, special midnight blue paint, custom interior, and dark matte plated gold trim. Oh and 20 inch rims.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Pimp My Hyundai
I shouldn't pick on Hyundai, I own one for gawd's sake (actually it's She Who Must Be Obeyed's car, an Azera), but the announcement that Hyundai and Prada collaborated on a 'customized' Genesis sedan strains my ability to bite my tongue.
So here it is, special midnight blue paint, custom interior, and dark matte plated gold trim. Oh and 20 inch rims.
So here it is, special midnight blue paint, custom interior, and dark matte plated gold trim. Oh and 20 inch rims.
Reaction to the Bailouts
It's been interesting to read the reactions to the automakers bailout plan. It seems to be the subject of loathing on both the right and the left.
There has been a lot of criticism on the right of the ousting of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. It would be warranted if the current administration had decided that Ford's CEO should be deposed, especially since Ford hasn't bellied up to the public trough. Not so however in GM's case. GM sought public funding and agreed to provide a viability plan that met the scrutiny of President Obama's automotive task force.
GM put themselves at the mercy of the financier of last resort (you and me actually) and they have to abide by the decisions being made. I suppose if they objected they could give the money back and see if they can make it on their own. But they can't and they obviously couldn't, or they would never have agreed to the public funding. And that is in large part a failure of management. So is it any wonder that a change in management has been requested.
Now onto the other side of the criticism. The unions will not like some of the drastic changes that may occur to work rules. Amongst all the buzz about wages and benefits being the problem with automakers' viability, it is partially the constraints of the contractual work rules that have restrained the productivity of Chrsyler, Ford, and GM. The transplants currently aren't union organized (just wait for 'card check' though ;-) and subsequently they do not suffer the productivity inhibitors of inflexible work rules.
Of some merit, and receiving attention, is the notion that both Chrysler and GM could go through bankruptcy to assist the reorganization efforts. And that probably should have been the tool of choice all along - it would have saved Mr & Ms U.S. Taxpayer a bunch of money (as long as they didn't hold stock or bonds in the aforementioned entities.)
Of no small importance in this whole debacle is the fate of the suppliers. Cars aren't built from whole cloth (like they used to be at Ford's River Rouge plant were raw materials came in one end and left as cars on the other.) Suppliers provide more than just raw materials, they provide entire sub-assemblies in most cases and the work they do goes largely unseen. They employ large numbers of people, not just building widgets but designing and engineering parts/sub-assemblies for the automakers. There is definitely a trickle down effect to the pain of losing a major auto manufacturer.
There has been a lot of criticism on the right of the ousting of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. It would be warranted if the current administration had decided that Ford's CEO should be deposed, especially since Ford hasn't bellied up to the public trough. Not so however in GM's case. GM sought public funding and agreed to provide a viability plan that met the scrutiny of President Obama's automotive task force.
GM put themselves at the mercy of the financier of last resort (you and me actually) and they have to abide by the decisions being made. I suppose if they objected they could give the money back and see if they can make it on their own. But they can't and they obviously couldn't, or they would never have agreed to the public funding. And that is in large part a failure of management. So is it any wonder that a change in management has been requested.
Now onto the other side of the criticism. The unions will not like some of the drastic changes that may occur to work rules. Amongst all the buzz about wages and benefits being the problem with automakers' viability, it is partially the constraints of the contractual work rules that have restrained the productivity of Chrsyler, Ford, and GM. The transplants currently aren't union organized (just wait for 'card check' though ;-) and subsequently they do not suffer the productivity inhibitors of inflexible work rules.
Of some merit, and receiving attention, is the notion that both Chrysler and GM could go through bankruptcy to assist the reorganization efforts. And that probably should have been the tool of choice all along - it would have saved Mr & Ms U.S. Taxpayer a bunch of money (as long as they didn't hold stock or bonds in the aforementioned entities.)
Of no small importance in this whole debacle is the fate of the suppliers. Cars aren't built from whole cloth (like they used to be at Ford's River Rouge plant were raw materials came in one end and left as cars on the other.) Suppliers provide more than just raw materials, they provide entire sub-assemblies in most cases and the work they do goes largely unseen. They employ large numbers of people, not just building widgets but designing and engineering parts/sub-assemblies for the automakers. There is definitely a trickle down effect to the pain of losing a major auto manufacturer.
Batteries
Electric vehicles are not high on my list of things to get excited about - primarily because you have to compromise performance to get any decent range out of the vehicles. You either pinch the electrons available, squeezing them to get the last possible mile, or you squander the electrons and get great performance and only get a block or two away from home. (Anyone who thinks electric cars are inherently slow hasn't seen an electric drag racer - they can be sneaky quick.)
The problem to date (and this is given 100 plus years of battery powered electric cars) has been battery technology.
The Chevy Volt will use Li-Ion batteries, but in their current state they are not all that the engineers desire. Here, however, may be the next big thing in electric vehicles. A Li-Ion battery that is not as reactive as the current designs and retains it's charge capacity longer than current designs.
From the MIT Technology Review: Li-Ion
Maybe they can finally build a decent battery pack for my electric razor. ; -)
The problem to date (and this is given 100 plus years of battery powered electric cars) has been battery technology.
The Chevy Volt will use Li-Ion batteries, but in their current state they are not all that the engineers desire. Here, however, may be the next big thing in electric vehicles. A Li-Ion battery that is not as reactive as the current designs and retains it's charge capacity longer than current designs.
From the MIT Technology Review: Li-Ion
Maybe they can finally build a decent battery pack for my electric razor. ; -)
El Mirage
El Mirage dry lake bed is another Southern California Timing Association site that's been in use seemingly forever.
Ry Cooder is a legendary musician (to some of us - who grew up knowing who John Fahey and Leo Kottke are).
Ry Cooder is featured in a number of New York Times pieces known as "Ry Cooder's American West". Here's the link to his piece on El Mirage. Click the Audio Slide Show (under the Multimedia tag on the left of the page).
For grins here's John Fahey playing 'Red Pony':
And Leo Kottke playing 'Hear the Wind Howl':
Ry Cooder is a legendary musician (to some of us - who grew up knowing who John Fahey and Leo Kottke are).
Ry Cooder is featured in a number of New York Times pieces known as "Ry Cooder's American West". Here's the link to his piece on El Mirage. Click the Audio Slide Show (under the Multimedia tag on the left of the page).
For grins here's John Fahey playing 'Red Pony':
And Leo Kottke playing 'Hear the Wind Howl':
Monday, March 30, 2009
True Confessions
"I wrote the software that turned mortgages into bonds", by Michael Osinski
Some will remember the old grocery store staple, 'True Confessions'. Maybe you gotta be old like me to remember that rag. ;-)
Some will remember the old grocery store staple, 'True Confessions'. Maybe you gotta be old like me to remember that rag. ;-)
Determination of Viability Summary for Chrysler and GM
The Wall Street Journal (among others) posted links to the Determination of Viability Summary for Chrysler and GM. (Link to the summaries here.)
I looked for two words - work rules - and found them in the summaries for both companies as an issue that must be addressed. While they aren't THE critical component of the viability of either company, the absence of those two words would have indicated a bias in my mind.
From my reading of the summaries, I am in general agreement with the government's conclusions. First a word about the structure of the summary documents. It would appear that they built a boilerplate document and changed items as required for the specific company's summary. Given that there are significant overlapping concerns for both companies, that's a minor quibble.
Their assessment of Chrysler's inviability as a standalone company tracks with my thinking. Chrysler does not have the current product or the resources to develop the product (R&D) it needs to be competitive.
GM, on the other hand, has the potential to survive - only if a more realistic reorganization plan is submitted - and one that reduces financial risk to the company and suppliers (sorry bondholders and share owners ; -).
Of note is that bankruptcy proceedings may be required to resolve debt issues with both companies. And if Chrysler can't swing some sort of meaningful accommodation with Fiat, they are as good as history - they will be done as a manufacturer, bankruptcy would be useful only to dissolve Chrysler at that point.
Only one thing caused me to smirk in reading the summaries and that was a reference to Consumer Reports in the Chrysler summary. Personally I'm not that hip on CR as the final arbiter of things automotive. I'm still waiting for their article/expose on rollover testing for adult undergarments. ; -)
I looked for two words - work rules - and found them in the summaries for both companies as an issue that must be addressed. While they aren't THE critical component of the viability of either company, the absence of those two words would have indicated a bias in my mind.
From my reading of the summaries, I am in general agreement with the government's conclusions. First a word about the structure of the summary documents. It would appear that they built a boilerplate document and changed items as required for the specific company's summary. Given that there are significant overlapping concerns for both companies, that's a minor quibble.
Their assessment of Chrysler's inviability as a standalone company tracks with my thinking. Chrysler does not have the current product or the resources to develop the product (R&D) it needs to be competitive.
GM, on the other hand, has the potential to survive - only if a more realistic reorganization plan is submitted - and one that reduces financial risk to the company and suppliers (sorry bondholders and share owners ; -).
Of note is that bankruptcy proceedings may be required to resolve debt issues with both companies. And if Chrysler can't swing some sort of meaningful accommodation with Fiat, they are as good as history - they will be done as a manufacturer, bankruptcy would be useful only to dissolve Chrysler at that point.
Only one thing caused me to smirk in reading the summaries and that was a reference to Consumer Reports in the Chrysler summary. Personally I'm not that hip on CR as the final arbiter of things automotive. I'm still waiting for their article/expose on rollover testing for adult undergarments. ; -)
Bailout: A Bridge (Loan) Too Far
Calculated Risk has a good post up on current thinking regarding the bailouts of GM and Chrysler here.
At some point in the next two weeks, look for short summaries of the history of GM and Chrysler on this blog.
At some point in the next two weeks, look for short summaries of the history of GM and Chrysler on this blog.
Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop
GM CEO, Rick Wagoner, is leaving the company, reportedly at the behest of the Obama administration. I've avoided discussing the bailout of GM and Chrysler, as much because I've not kept abreast of all the twists and turns, and because I'm afraid that I can see no good ahead on the road the bailout is traveling. My worst fear is that we'll be merely creating zombie automakers; companies that aren't really competitive and that will eventually fail while merely sucking more resources down the drain in the interim.
Car companies have been going out of business since the car was invented. The 'Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile' is a three volume set that chronicles thousands of auto manufacturers. That there are now significantly fewer automobile manufacturers is lost on many. There has never been an equilibrium regarding the number of car companies in business. Companies with longer histories and better reputations than Chrysler or GM have folded before (think Packard and Studebaker as examples).
It is disheartening in that we all know people that are deeply and personally impacted by the decisions that will be made, especially if failure is the result. I hope for the best . . .
Car companies have been going out of business since the car was invented. The 'Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile' is a three volume set that chronicles thousands of auto manufacturers. That there are now significantly fewer automobile manufacturers is lost on many. There has never been an equilibrium regarding the number of car companies in business. Companies with longer histories and better reputations than Chrysler or GM have folded before (think Packard and Studebaker as examples).
It is disheartening in that we all know people that are deeply and personally impacted by the decisions that will be made, especially if failure is the result. I hope for the best . . .
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The (Formula 1) World Turned Upside Down
Yes the season opening Grand Prix was held in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and was held 'upside down' (according to those bigots in the northern hemisphere. ; -) But the real reason it was upside down was the results. Neither Ferrari finished the race and reigning F1 champion, Lewis Hamilton, missed the podium when he placed fourth.
Even more amazing was the Brawn team's 1-2 finish. This is the team that Honda discarded. Now running with Mercedes power, the team managed spectacular results despite the staggering odds against them. (And what does that say about Honda power? ;-)
But Brawn may have had a bit of an edge. Grip, the ability to stick to the track, in F1 cars comes from two sources, mechanical grip (tires) and aerodynamic grip (wings/diffusers/barge boards and the like.)
The governing body of F1 instituted a number of significant rules changes this year to reduce aerodynamic grip in the hopes of providing a better on track product (namely passing - which has been rare in F1 races). They gave back a bit of mechanical grip when they returned to running slick tires (unlike the grooved tires they had used in previous seasons).
Mechanical grip is fairly constant regardless of speed but aerodynamic grip is not. Airflow across the surfaces is critical to producing the grip. Reduce the airflow, by following to closely to the car ahead or going to slowly in a corner, and you lose grip. The upshot is that the car does not handle well and more speed is lost whilst attempting to regain control.
Ross Brawn is the principal of Brawn racing and he has a long and successful racing record (think Ferrari F1 during the Schumacher days). They found a 'hole' in the rules that allowed them to gain a bit of an aero advantage over their competitors (and why the rest of the teams, save two others, failed to exploit that hole too is THE big question).
While the rest of teams had some issues with rear grip, both Brawn cars were near perfect (Barrichello's driving during the race was anything but however). It was as if the Brawn cars were in mid-season form at the first race. This is going to be an interesting season.
PS - Well the stewards taketh away - Jarno Trulli, in P3 at the end of the race was penalized 25 seconds after the race and third place was awarded to Hamilton. What's an F1 race without the intervention of the stewards. It's almost as bad as NASCAR. ; -)
Even more amazing was the Brawn team's 1-2 finish. This is the team that Honda discarded. Now running with Mercedes power, the team managed spectacular results despite the staggering odds against them. (And what does that say about Honda power? ;-)
But Brawn may have had a bit of an edge. Grip, the ability to stick to the track, in F1 cars comes from two sources, mechanical grip (tires) and aerodynamic grip (wings/diffusers/barge boards and the like.)
The governing body of F1 instituted a number of significant rules changes this year to reduce aerodynamic grip in the hopes of providing a better on track product (namely passing - which has been rare in F1 races). They gave back a bit of mechanical grip when they returned to running slick tires (unlike the grooved tires they had used in previous seasons).
Mechanical grip is fairly constant regardless of speed but aerodynamic grip is not. Airflow across the surfaces is critical to producing the grip. Reduce the airflow, by following to closely to the car ahead or going to slowly in a corner, and you lose grip. The upshot is that the car does not handle well and more speed is lost whilst attempting to regain control.
Ross Brawn is the principal of Brawn racing and he has a long and successful racing record (think Ferrari F1 during the Schumacher days). They found a 'hole' in the rules that allowed them to gain a bit of an aero advantage over their competitors (and why the rest of the teams, save two others, failed to exploit that hole too is THE big question).
While the rest of teams had some issues with rear grip, both Brawn cars were near perfect (Barrichello's driving during the race was anything but however). It was as if the Brawn cars were in mid-season form at the first race. This is going to be an interesting season.
PS - Well the stewards taketh away - Jarno Trulli, in P3 at the end of the race was penalized 25 seconds after the race and third place was awarded to Hamilton. What's an F1 race without the intervention of the stewards. It's almost as bad as NASCAR. ; -)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
