There are many hybrid cars in the market now and they all vary in types and performance levels. There are the plug-in type that has less energy recovery capacity compared to the parallel hybrid but offers the advantage of drive on pure electric power for a certain range using the power charged from a socket. The parallel hybrid on the other rely solely on recharging while the car is coasting or during deceleration. Both concepts work based on their intended design but some ideas are quite useless in my opinion.
Lets take the example of the new Nissan Serena S-hybrid. This is by far one of the most pathetic systems in the automotive market. It only offers barely 1 second of battery power boost for the car. The battery is so small that it is hardly even a hybrid. It is aimed at saving fuel but having to shift the car's mass the electric power boost is practically negligible. Even hybrids made in China offer far more battery power than the Serena. With only 1 second worth of electric power it is almost pointless to have it.
Under coasting or constant cruising the electric power will cut in to reduce fuel consumption but the battery capacity is far too small to really make a big difference. Unlike the Prius or other Toyota hybrids most of them are capable of boosting power for at least 10 to 20 seconds which is far more useful and can run on electric power mode for far longer distances. I am shocked that a reputable company like Nissan can even approve the design and manufacture of a car like the Serena. I don't like bashing cars but this model really takes the cake!
The Mercedes E300 diesel hybrid has a small battery pack for its hybrid system but it can still achieve 25km-40km on electric mode and offer good electric power boost when the car needs it. The electric power boost is useful and truly extends the range of the car making it ultra economical to drive.
I am wondering if Nissan tried to do this with the Serena because they wanted to jump on the hybrid bandwagon or they didn't have the budget to go with a bigger battery since the Serena is aimed at the entry level market. Either way it is crazy to offer something that is practically useless and call it a hybrid. Makes no sense and also makes Nissan look bad in my opinion.
Sunday, 27 May 2018
Tuesday, 22 May 2018
revival of TVR
TVR is making a come back. The company is set to restart operations in September 2018 and likely to produce their first car in 2019. The company's directly has changed slightly to comply with strict safety regulations which were absent previously. The earlier models which were produced did not have airbags or ABS or traction control. This meant that the cars were tricky to drive and many owners crashed the cars. The simple formula of big power with a light weight body was a recipe for fun but also a recipe for disaster. In the hands of the unskilled driver the car was a handful to drive in the wet and also tested the skills of skilled drivers.
All this was possible in the past but with increasingly stringent safety requirements from Government bodies in Europe and US, TVR have no choice but to comply if it were to sell any of their cars. TVR has a strong following among previous owners and also fan boys who like the TVR concept of big engine with light weight body. The quality of the cars were questionable in the past and it is hoped that TVR is able to improve on its quality and also durability. The previous build quality meant that the cars had a tendency to break down due to part failures which were a result of inadequate durability tests. TVR did not have a big budget like the big car makers that could spend months to conduct climate / weather testing and durability tests of components used.
TVR is a niche sports car maker that will happily sit between a Lotus and an Aston Martin. The key is the fun factor and how the car makes the driver feel. Improvements in the refinement department would definitely help it open up to a wider range of buyers. Lets hope the new TVR will be able to achieve this.
TVR is an English as you can get when it comes to building cars. It is similar to Caterham, Noble and Ariel or Radical. These niche market car makers are still in demand but building the business case is not as easy since they need sufficient sales to stay afloat and they also need to develop new products to keep the customers coming back to buy their cars. Without the big budget it is a tall order. So far only a few niche market car makers are able to survive but that reason is solely down to exclusivity. Companies like Koenigsegg and Pagani are as exclusive as they come. Each car easily costing US$700,000 onwards allow these companies to have sufficient profits to stay afloat and building only a limited number of cars per year keeps them very exclusive.
TVR's model of being more affordable and less exclusive means that the profit they make from selling each car will be far less than Koenigsegg or Pagani and TVR would require to sell many more cars to survive. TVR has gone under more than once and this is the 3rd time it is starting up again. I hope that they will be able to make a serious come back and be a permanent fixture in the global automotive industry.
All this was possible in the past but with increasingly stringent safety requirements from Government bodies in Europe and US, TVR have no choice but to comply if it were to sell any of their cars. TVR has a strong following among previous owners and also fan boys who like the TVR concept of big engine with light weight body. The quality of the cars were questionable in the past and it is hoped that TVR is able to improve on its quality and also durability. The previous build quality meant that the cars had a tendency to break down due to part failures which were a result of inadequate durability tests. TVR did not have a big budget like the big car makers that could spend months to conduct climate / weather testing and durability tests of components used.
TVR is a niche sports car maker that will happily sit between a Lotus and an Aston Martin. The key is the fun factor and how the car makes the driver feel. Improvements in the refinement department would definitely help it open up to a wider range of buyers. Lets hope the new TVR will be able to achieve this.
TVR is an English as you can get when it comes to building cars. It is similar to Caterham, Noble and Ariel or Radical. These niche market car makers are still in demand but building the business case is not as easy since they need sufficient sales to stay afloat and they also need to develop new products to keep the customers coming back to buy their cars. Without the big budget it is a tall order. So far only a few niche market car makers are able to survive but that reason is solely down to exclusivity. Companies like Koenigsegg and Pagani are as exclusive as they come. Each car easily costing US$700,000 onwards allow these companies to have sufficient profits to stay afloat and building only a limited number of cars per year keeps them very exclusive.
TVR's model of being more affordable and less exclusive means that the profit they make from selling each car will be far less than Koenigsegg or Pagani and TVR would require to sell many more cars to survive. TVR has gone under more than once and this is the 3rd time it is starting up again. I hope that they will be able to make a serious come back and be a permanent fixture in the global automotive industry.
Friday, 18 May 2018
future of Lotus
Lotus is well known for making sports cars but the company have not made any positive impact in the automotive industry. It has not developed any new technology nor has it been a top performer. It has been stuck as a niche market car maker that seems to be unsure of its future. Under the ownership of Proton it has been a vampire so to speak, it has been sucking money out of Proton to stay alive. It's development budget was cut when Proton got into financial trouble.
Now that 49% of Proton has been sold to Geely and Lotus is also under Geely ownership no one knows where it is headed. The company has a decent R&D department capable of developing good chassis. It's engineering side have been previously contracted to help develop chassis for several car makers. Lotus is falling short of it is potential but all of this is down to the lack of funds.
Proton could have turned Lotus into another Porsche when it was cash rich but the corruption within Proton killed everything. Under the previous CEO's helm (Danny Bahar), the company displayed prototypes of luxury sedans and a SUV which could have helped the company improve its cashflow and inject some excitement into the brand. Many loyal Lotus owners would consider buying a Lotus SUV. As proven by Porsche the Cayenne was the biggest cash cow for them. this could have easily been the same for Lotus.
Lotus needs to break away from just building sports cars. It needs a cash cow model which it can benefit from. From there Lotus can grow and potentially emulate Porsche. Under the Geely ownership it is possible since Geely managed to fully turn around Volvo and made it profitable again. With Geely steering the company Lotus will have access to the lucrative China market which it can really grow. The critical issue is that the sales of sports cars is low in china. The most important model will be a SUV or a luxury sedan. The chinese buyers like luxury SUVs and they would be willing to spend to buy a SUV made by Lotus.
Lotus was literally floundering when it was under Proton. It had a dream but it was never meant to be. The name Lotus is well known but it just never grew as one expected it to. It is the same for all other British car makers which ended up in the hands of foreigners. The lucky ones made a good transition and grew like Aston Martin.
Lotus needs to seen on the world stage as a current car company, not one that is forgotten.
Now that 49% of Proton has been sold to Geely and Lotus is also under Geely ownership no one knows where it is headed. The company has a decent R&D department capable of developing good chassis. It's engineering side have been previously contracted to help develop chassis for several car makers. Lotus is falling short of it is potential but all of this is down to the lack of funds.
Proton could have turned Lotus into another Porsche when it was cash rich but the corruption within Proton killed everything. Under the previous CEO's helm (Danny Bahar), the company displayed prototypes of luxury sedans and a SUV which could have helped the company improve its cashflow and inject some excitement into the brand. Many loyal Lotus owners would consider buying a Lotus SUV. As proven by Porsche the Cayenne was the biggest cash cow for them. this could have easily been the same for Lotus.
Lotus needs to break away from just building sports cars. It needs a cash cow model which it can benefit from. From there Lotus can grow and potentially emulate Porsche. Under the Geely ownership it is possible since Geely managed to fully turn around Volvo and made it profitable again. With Geely steering the company Lotus will have access to the lucrative China market which it can really grow. The critical issue is that the sales of sports cars is low in china. The most important model will be a SUV or a luxury sedan. The chinese buyers like luxury SUVs and they would be willing to spend to buy a SUV made by Lotus.
Lotus was literally floundering when it was under Proton. It had a dream but it was never meant to be. The name Lotus is well known but it just never grew as one expected it to. It is the same for all other British car makers which ended up in the hands of foreigners. The lucky ones made a good transition and grew like Aston Martin.
Lotus needs to seen on the world stage as a current car company, not one that is forgotten.
Wednesday, 16 May 2018
centre console designs
With every new premium or luxury car that is introduced the usage of large LCDs is increasing. All this started with Tesla's Model S with its huge LCD display in the middle of the dashboard. This concept took the automotive industry by storm. Volvo followed quickly with an equally large LCD display in the centre console which controls everything from navigation functions to climate control settings.
The original idea for the LCD was to display navigation system maps and radio channels with RDS systems however with the evolution of the smart phone and mobile tablets the idea to integrate a large LCD system with multiple control started to make sense. Audi went one better by using a LCD display to replace the analog speedometer and tachometer. Having this has many advantages such as giving the flexibility to the driver to toggle various menus and also access multiple functions and also change the display to suit their preference.
The Tesla LCD houses a lot of functions within the system such as suspension setting, climate control settings, performance settings, radio / audio system, navigation and many other in-vehicle controls. There are of course pros and cons of integrating so many functions into the LCD display. For one, it is cumbersome to search the functions when you are in motion and if the system crashes it can render the car not drivable. For example in the Volvo, the climate control is set via the LCD which is troublesome you are driving. You would have to take your eyes off the road to look at the LCD to adjust the climate control settings.
Car makers like BMW, Mercedes, Lexus and Porsche have opted to separate the climate control settings from the LCD which makes it safer when adjusting while in motion. Tesla's LCD display have been known to crash and require a reboot periodically.
This trend is unlikely to stop since more and more car makers are going in this direction. The size of the LCD has growing significantly from the previous norm of 7" to now 12" to 22" depending on the car. BMW and Mercedes have kept the LCD size to between 12" to 18" depending on the model with Mercedes going one better by creating a one piece design for the A, E and S class that houses the instrument display and the multi function audio, navigation and climate control in one large panel that has partition in the middle.
Soon the car audio makers such as Alpine, Pioneer, Kenwood and etc will struggle to find a place in the car industry with the car makers doing away with traditional audio systems. They could possibly just end up supplying only the radio receiver component since all the other parts has to be integrated into the vehicle's computer system. DVDs are a thing of the past since most drivers use MP3 or other forms of media for audio file storage.
This evolution is here to stay and computers taking over the vehicle controls will become more integrated as time passes.
The original idea for the LCD was to display navigation system maps and radio channels with RDS systems however with the evolution of the smart phone and mobile tablets the idea to integrate a large LCD system with multiple control started to make sense. Audi went one better by using a LCD display to replace the analog speedometer and tachometer. Having this has many advantages such as giving the flexibility to the driver to toggle various menus and also access multiple functions and also change the display to suit their preference.
The Tesla LCD houses a lot of functions within the system such as suspension setting, climate control settings, performance settings, radio / audio system, navigation and many other in-vehicle controls. There are of course pros and cons of integrating so many functions into the LCD display. For one, it is cumbersome to search the functions when you are in motion and if the system crashes it can render the car not drivable. For example in the Volvo, the climate control is set via the LCD which is troublesome you are driving. You would have to take your eyes off the road to look at the LCD to adjust the climate control settings.
Car makers like BMW, Mercedes, Lexus and Porsche have opted to separate the climate control settings from the LCD which makes it safer when adjusting while in motion. Tesla's LCD display have been known to crash and require a reboot periodically.
This trend is unlikely to stop since more and more car makers are going in this direction. The size of the LCD has growing significantly from the previous norm of 7" to now 12" to 22" depending on the car. BMW and Mercedes have kept the LCD size to between 12" to 18" depending on the model with Mercedes going one better by creating a one piece design for the A, E and S class that houses the instrument display and the multi function audio, navigation and climate control in one large panel that has partition in the middle.
Soon the car audio makers such as Alpine, Pioneer, Kenwood and etc will struggle to find a place in the car industry with the car makers doing away with traditional audio systems. They could possibly just end up supplying only the radio receiver component since all the other parts has to be integrated into the vehicle's computer system. DVDs are a thing of the past since most drivers use MP3 or other forms of media for audio file storage.
This evolution is here to stay and computers taking over the vehicle controls will become more integrated as time passes.
Monday, 7 May 2018
Self Driving cars, are we ready for it?
More car companies are introducing self-driving technology into their cars. Tesla was the first to introduce it and it worked reasonably well until a spate of fatal accidents put the technology into bad light. The accidents were difficult to comprehend as the drivers were not fully in control. In the most recent case in America, the car veered into a barrier and killed the driver. During the investigation it was discovered that the low angle of the sun light gave incorrect data to the camera causing the car to interpret the signal as a potential obstacle forcing the car to veer. Had the driver placed his hands on the steering wheel during that moment he could have prevented the accident. The system is definitely not perfect and there will be many early teething problems. On the flip side Tesla has claimed and also proven on numerous occasions where the self driving system saved the driver by intervening when it predicted a potential accident. The public always remember on the accidents but do not give sufficient credit to how many times the self driving system saved drivers from accidents.
Mercedes and Lexus also introduced their self-driving technology and so did Volvo. The confidence is not quite there yet since it is likely to have many more accidents before the engineers can fix programming bugs out of the system. The only way for it to work is to have adequate field tests however it is still impossible to program out the biggest problem which is humans! So long as there are humans driving on the same roads as a self driving car the compute will not be able to predict 100% what a human will do. The human mind is an unpredictable factor which the computer cannot ever understand.
The safest way to have self driving cars is to have all the car on the road be self driving. The cars can communicate with one another on a network allowing each other to know each other's proximity, speed, direction and intended movements. With this in place the self driving cars will be far safer than humans driving the cars. I believe the accident rate will be far lower and the transport efficiency will be much greater than what it is now. The traffic problems will be reduced significantly. this kind of system will only be possible if all car companies work are willing to cooperate and work on the same network system. So far it looks like a dream because car companies have a difficulty agreeing on working same charging systems for electric cars. Working on an common network will be even more difficult since they all have their own ideas and agendas.
Self-driving cars are definitely the future, the human element must be taken out and also there must be sufficient trust in the system. I doubt this will happen in the near future since many people still enjoy driving and taking away the choice of driving will be like taking away a simple human right.
Mercedes and Lexus also introduced their self-driving technology and so did Volvo. The confidence is not quite there yet since it is likely to have many more accidents before the engineers can fix programming bugs out of the system. The only way for it to work is to have adequate field tests however it is still impossible to program out the biggest problem which is humans! So long as there are humans driving on the same roads as a self driving car the compute will not be able to predict 100% what a human will do. The human mind is an unpredictable factor which the computer cannot ever understand.
The safest way to have self driving cars is to have all the car on the road be self driving. The cars can communicate with one another on a network allowing each other to know each other's proximity, speed, direction and intended movements. With this in place the self driving cars will be far safer than humans driving the cars. I believe the accident rate will be far lower and the transport efficiency will be much greater than what it is now. The traffic problems will be reduced significantly. this kind of system will only be possible if all car companies work are willing to cooperate and work on the same network system. So far it looks like a dream because car companies have a difficulty agreeing on working same charging systems for electric cars. Working on an common network will be even more difficult since they all have their own ideas and agendas.
Self-driving cars are definitely the future, the human element must be taken out and also there must be sufficient trust in the system. I doubt this will happen in the near future since many people still enjoy driving and taking away the choice of driving will be like taking away a simple human right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)