There are rumours that some auto makers are teaming up with tech companies to do away with the traditional key fobs. The main reason for this is security. Key fobs have been known to be compromised by thieves stealing security codes or it can easily be replicated with a key fob replicator machine. The idea behind better security is definitely warranted some insurance companies lose a lot of money when cars are stolen. However do away with key fobs is a real challenge. The idea is to use the smart phone to control the locking and unlocking of the car. The big problem is the smart phone is changed or upgraded more often now than before. The average ownership duration of a smart phone is 18-24 months. If the owner of the car changes his or her phone they would have to reprogram the security into the new phone and disable the old phone's function to prevent it falling into the wrong hands. If the car owner loses or damages their smart phone (which is very common these days) it would be highly troublesome if the owner of the car cannot access the car to go buy a replacement smart phone. With the traditional key fob the owner will be given a spare key fob that they can use to access the car.
The idea of replacing the key fob with the smart phone is good but it needs some serious considerations before implementation. I think it is difficult to completely do away with the key fob. I would think it would be better if they integrated the key fob functions into a smart watch and have the smart phone as a back up.
Using the smart phone to access the car doesn't make it much more secure. Smart phones have been hacked and the hackers are getting more sophisticated with their hacking easily bypassing security on the phone. There is no fool proof way of securing a car, smart car thieves will find a way to steal the car.
Car manufacturers have to outsmart the car thieves in order to secure the car. The problem is the thieves are getting smarter and they employ all kind of technology to help.
Thursday, 28 June 2018
Tuesday, 26 June 2018
Electric race cars vs petrol powered race cars
In the recent Pike's Peak race up the hill, the new VW electric race car destroyed the lap record set by Sebastien Loeb by 16 seconds! this is no joke as the electric car had blistering performance that made the previous Peugeot race car look slow!
Sebastien Loeb is the 9 time WRC rally champion and is one of the best drivers in the world. To have high record broken by a margin of 16 seconds is truly impressive.
The electric hypercar from China NIO EP9 broke the Nurburgring record and no other fossil fuelled cars could come close to beating it. It is obvious that the development of the electric motor and battery is able to jump by leaps and bounds giving car companies the ability to push the overall performance of their cars.
Porsche also showed its prototype electric car in testing mode with former F1 driver Mark Webber behind the wheel. Porsche will be launching their electric sports sedan later this year calling it the Taycan.
Performance electric cars are here to stay and is definitely the way of the future. It will also show in increasing numbers how efficient it can be and will make fossil fuel cars look slow. It is difficult for fossil fuel cars to beat the electric car. The development of the fossil fuel motor is almost at its peak and there isn't much room for further development however with the electric motor and battery the development is still at its early stage and there is a lot more room for improvements.
Tesla made electric cars cool and fast. NIO made electric hypercars super impressive... what's next?
Sebastien Loeb is the 9 time WRC rally champion and is one of the best drivers in the world. To have high record broken by a margin of 16 seconds is truly impressive.
The electric hypercar from China NIO EP9 broke the Nurburgring record and no other fossil fuelled cars could come close to beating it. It is obvious that the development of the electric motor and battery is able to jump by leaps and bounds giving car companies the ability to push the overall performance of their cars.
Porsche also showed its prototype electric car in testing mode with former F1 driver Mark Webber behind the wheel. Porsche will be launching their electric sports sedan later this year calling it the Taycan.
Performance electric cars are here to stay and is definitely the way of the future. It will also show in increasing numbers how efficient it can be and will make fossil fuel cars look slow. It is difficult for fossil fuel cars to beat the electric car. The development of the fossil fuel motor is almost at its peak and there isn't much room for further development however with the electric motor and battery the development is still at its early stage and there is a lot more room for improvements.
Tesla made electric cars cool and fast. NIO made electric hypercars super impressive... what's next?
Usable EV driving range for hybrids
What would one consider to be a practical EV driving range for hybrid cars? EV meaning electric vehicle or in the case of the hybrids driving in pure electric mode. Many car makers now have hybrids but some offer EV driving range of 30km while others can go as far as 60km. What would be considered a usable electric mode driving range. The Japanese makers like Toyota who are the pioneers in this technology use it more to improve fuel efficiency but the driving range in pure electric mode rarely exceeds 40km. BMW on the other hand like to use the hybrid system as a performance boost to allow the car to accelerate faster and offer greater driving performance.
Having a longer driving range will mean a larger battery which adds a lot more weight to the car and usually results in having a small trunk since a lot of the car companies like to place the battery at the back of the car. Bigger battery also makes it harder for the designers to package the vehicle's usable interior space. In some cases the large battery pack raises the floor reducing leg room for the rear occupants and in the case of Mercedes and Ford the rear trunk ends up having a strange kink which makes it very difficult to load cargo.
Having tried several hybrid cars from different auto makers the best trade off between EV range and compromise in terms of usable interior space, the Toyota Prius is still the best. The car's battery despite being very old tech in the present era it still works very well. The old fashioned nickel metal hydride battery is not as good as the new lithium-ion batteries but it is very reliable and stable. Toyota managed to package it well that it doesn't look out of place compare to other car models. Toyota designed the car as a hybrid from day 1 compared to other car companies that design their models as a regular fossil fuel powered car and try to squeeze some space for the battery to incorporate a hybrid setup.
A purpose designed hybrid car will always work better than a car that is designed to add on a hybrid model. The new Prius is quite ugly to say the least but the interior space is well planned and the performance from the engine + electric motors work seamlessly. Unlike the system in the Mercedes E300 diesel hybrid, the Prius's transition from combustion engine to electric mode feels seamless and you often don't realise that the car is running on electric mode. The Mercedes system is quite intrusive with the car body shaking when the diesel engine or petrol engine starts. Toyota got it right and the smooth transition in modes really is impressive. Having the car shake when the engine starts up is very annoying. This is the same for BMW hybrids.
In my opinion having an electric power driving range of up to 70km will be the best. Most city driving trips often do not go beyond 30km and with a 70km range one is able to go to the destination and back on electric mode. The battery recharging during braking and off throttle cruising will of course help with the range. Using as little fossil fuel is the aim of the game here.
I believe the newer hybrid models will soon reverse the usage of fossil fuels vs electric power meaning that the main power source that drives the wheels of the car will be electric power and the fossil fuel motor is there as a range extender. BMW have already started this with the i3 model and same for the Chevy Volt which uses a petrol engine as a range extender. I think this concept is very practical and will offer much better fuel economy than the current typical hybrid setup.
Having a longer driving range will mean a larger battery which adds a lot more weight to the car and usually results in having a small trunk since a lot of the car companies like to place the battery at the back of the car. Bigger battery also makes it harder for the designers to package the vehicle's usable interior space. In some cases the large battery pack raises the floor reducing leg room for the rear occupants and in the case of Mercedes and Ford the rear trunk ends up having a strange kink which makes it very difficult to load cargo.
Having tried several hybrid cars from different auto makers the best trade off between EV range and compromise in terms of usable interior space, the Toyota Prius is still the best. The car's battery despite being very old tech in the present era it still works very well. The old fashioned nickel metal hydride battery is not as good as the new lithium-ion batteries but it is very reliable and stable. Toyota managed to package it well that it doesn't look out of place compare to other car models. Toyota designed the car as a hybrid from day 1 compared to other car companies that design their models as a regular fossil fuel powered car and try to squeeze some space for the battery to incorporate a hybrid setup.
A purpose designed hybrid car will always work better than a car that is designed to add on a hybrid model. The new Prius is quite ugly to say the least but the interior space is well planned and the performance from the engine + electric motors work seamlessly. Unlike the system in the Mercedes E300 diesel hybrid, the Prius's transition from combustion engine to electric mode feels seamless and you often don't realise that the car is running on electric mode. The Mercedes system is quite intrusive with the car body shaking when the diesel engine or petrol engine starts. Toyota got it right and the smooth transition in modes really is impressive. Having the car shake when the engine starts up is very annoying. This is the same for BMW hybrids.
In my opinion having an electric power driving range of up to 70km will be the best. Most city driving trips often do not go beyond 30km and with a 70km range one is able to go to the destination and back on electric mode. The battery recharging during braking and off throttle cruising will of course help with the range. Using as little fossil fuel is the aim of the game here.
I believe the newer hybrid models will soon reverse the usage of fossil fuels vs electric power meaning that the main power source that drives the wheels of the car will be electric power and the fossil fuel motor is there as a range extender. BMW have already started this with the i3 model and same for the Chevy Volt which uses a petrol engine as a range extender. I think this concept is very practical and will offer much better fuel economy than the current typical hybrid setup.
Wednesday, 20 June 2018
Road tax or car registration charges
Every country implements a different system when it comes to charges for annual car registration or in some countries it is referred to as road tax. Some countries calculate the annual registration fees based on the vehicle's engine capacity while others are calculated based on vehicle weight. It is quite common to have the registration calculated based on vehicle engine capacity but this system is highly unfair. This system penalises anyone whose vehicle has a large engine capacity. The make matters worse the calculation is not linear meaning for every cc the rate of increase is not uniform. In Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand the calculation becomes exponential once the engine capacity exceeds 2,000cc. In Malaysia where the fuel is subsidised the Government wants to discourage people from owning vehicles with large engine capacity since it will affect the Government.
In countries like Australia, NZ and US the car registration is a flat fee regardless of engine capacity and hence it is common to see cars with 5 litre engines or larger. It is based on a user pays concept which makes more sense. The fuel is not subsidised and if you have a large engine capacity the fuel consumption will most likely be much more than a car with 1500cc engine hence the user will end up paying more for fuel. The comparison in types of cars sold in Australia vs South East Asians countries paints a clear picture of the country's policy. In Asia the bulk of the cars sold are small cars with engine capacities not exceeding 2 litre while in Australia it is common to see cars with 3.5 litres or 5 litre engines.
some countries implement a weight penalty for heavy vehicles. This is done to penalise those heavy vehicle owners because most road surface damage are caused by heavy vehicles. Thailand has a system like this to penalise heavy vehicles. Previously in Japan the car's registration is calculated based on the width of the car. This unique because of the narrow streets in Tokyo. This is why we used to see cars with mirrors placed on the front fender in the 1980s. Japan has since stopped using this system.
In my opinion the user pays concept is the best since the buyer is free to choose how big their vehicle's engine is and they just end up paying for the fuel that they use. There will be a more diverse range of cars on the road and also people will have more freedom of choice.
All this will of course change in the not so distant future with electric cars coming in. The question is how will the Governments calculate the registration charges for electric cars? will it be a standard fixed fee or will it be based on the battery capacity?
In countries like Australia, NZ and US the car registration is a flat fee regardless of engine capacity and hence it is common to see cars with 5 litre engines or larger. It is based on a user pays concept which makes more sense. The fuel is not subsidised and if you have a large engine capacity the fuel consumption will most likely be much more than a car with 1500cc engine hence the user will end up paying more for fuel. The comparison in types of cars sold in Australia vs South East Asians countries paints a clear picture of the country's policy. In Asia the bulk of the cars sold are small cars with engine capacities not exceeding 2 litre while in Australia it is common to see cars with 3.5 litres or 5 litre engines.
some countries implement a weight penalty for heavy vehicles. This is done to penalise those heavy vehicle owners because most road surface damage are caused by heavy vehicles. Thailand has a system like this to penalise heavy vehicles. Previously in Japan the car's registration is calculated based on the width of the car. This unique because of the narrow streets in Tokyo. This is why we used to see cars with mirrors placed on the front fender in the 1980s. Japan has since stopped using this system.
In my opinion the user pays concept is the best since the buyer is free to choose how big their vehicle's engine is and they just end up paying for the fuel that they use. There will be a more diverse range of cars on the road and also people will have more freedom of choice.
All this will of course change in the not so distant future with electric cars coming in. The question is how will the Governments calculate the registration charges for electric cars? will it be a standard fixed fee or will it be based on the battery capacity?
Tuesday, 19 June 2018
high speed rail for Malaysia
Having a high speed rail system is definitely great for any country's infrastructure but it is expensive to build. Malaysia's previous Government signed an agreement with Singapore to build the high speed rail that connects Malaysia with singapore. The route will be from Kuala Lumpur heading southwards to Singapore.
The project was ambitious and the cost when factored in with the kick-backs to certain politicians was far too expensive at RM110 billion. It is not a project that the country can afford at this point in time. The cost outweighed the benefits and it would be a massive burden to the public. Taiwan built its high speed rail system more than 1 decade ago and despite it popularity the company managing the high speed rail system is in financial trouble.
It appears that a country would require a big population with sufficient disposable income to support a high speed rail system. Japan and France have the longest serving high speed rail system and both are part and parcel of daily life in these countries. China is the 3rd country to have the high speed rail system and has the most extensive high speed rail network in the world. These countries have the money and population size to support the high speed rail system.
For Malaysia it is a nice to have not but a necessity. The second proposal that was recently discussed about is to improve the rail network and update it to allow the trains to run at higher speeds, not quite high speed rail speed of 320km/h but at 200km/h which is sufficiently fast. An improvement in efficiency and increase in frequency could help transportation to a greater degree at a lower cost.
The debate still goes on regarding the high speed rail and the new proposal. Singapore appears to be unhappy that Malaysia has announced its cancellation of the high speed rail project. There is nothing much Singapore can do since more than 80% of the rail line is in Malaysia and the bulk of the costs will be bored by Malaysia. It is unfair for Malaysia to bear the cost of the project when it is not in the financial position to do so.
The project was ambitious and the cost when factored in with the kick-backs to certain politicians was far too expensive at RM110 billion. It is not a project that the country can afford at this point in time. The cost outweighed the benefits and it would be a massive burden to the public. Taiwan built its high speed rail system more than 1 decade ago and despite it popularity the company managing the high speed rail system is in financial trouble.
It appears that a country would require a big population with sufficient disposable income to support a high speed rail system. Japan and France have the longest serving high speed rail system and both are part and parcel of daily life in these countries. China is the 3rd country to have the high speed rail system and has the most extensive high speed rail network in the world. These countries have the money and population size to support the high speed rail system.
For Malaysia it is a nice to have not but a necessity. The second proposal that was recently discussed about is to improve the rail network and update it to allow the trains to run at higher speeds, not quite high speed rail speed of 320km/h but at 200km/h which is sufficiently fast. An improvement in efficiency and increase in frequency could help transportation to a greater degree at a lower cost.
The debate still goes on regarding the high speed rail and the new proposal. Singapore appears to be unhappy that Malaysia has announced its cancellation of the high speed rail project. There is nothing much Singapore can do since more than 80% of the rail line is in Malaysia and the bulk of the costs will be bored by Malaysia. It is unfair for Malaysia to bear the cost of the project when it is not in the financial position to do so.
Monday, 18 June 2018
Malaysia's possible 3rd national car company
Malaysia first introduced Proton in the early 1980s followed with Perodua in the 1990s and now that Dr. Mahathir is back in power he is planning to setup the third national car company since Proton has been sold to China's Geely. Proton was a good idea at the time it was created but it was far too inefficient in its operation and management. The management was resting on its laurels for far too long and did nothing to improve the company. It was riddled with enormous corruption on all levels which crippled the company.
Perodua on the other hand did well under the guidance of Daihatsu Japan which started chipping away at Proton's market share. By 2010 Perodua was the market leader and secured its position as the top car company by a comfortable margin. No other company came close to challenging Perodua for the market leader status. It simple formula or building affordable and reliable compact cars worked well for Malaysia. Technical support from Daihatsu Japan made a difference and the models were extremely popular among the young buyers. Proton started slipping further back as its new models were not well received and the buyers would shy away from Proton due to its notorious reputation for poor quality assembly.
Now that Dr. Mahathir, the founding father of Proton is back again as the country's Prime Minister he is adamant in introducing another car company but this time it is likely to be an electric car rather than the traditional combustion engine car. Electric cars are the future with more countries announcing bans on combustion engine cars. Having the third car company as an electric car maker would be a sensible idea but saying that the Malaysian population is just too small to support another domestic car maker. The public is also tired of having to pay high prices due to high import taxes for imported cars. Local car makers have been protected for too long and it has deprived the public the possibility of buying imported cars at reasonable prices.
From what is speculated by the motoring media the third car company is likely to be used as a platform to export electric cars to South East Asian countries to capitalise on the Asean Free Trade Agreement. Building an electric car comes with its set of challenges mainly the charging points or lack of it at the moment. Malaysia's Go-green initiative have not really gained much traction and the emphasis on electric car charging has been weak. Only a dozen or so shopping malls have charging points and with only 3 to 4 charging bays which is nowhere near enough. In order to support an electric car company the country needs at least 2000 charging locations with 8 to 10 charging bays per location considering the fact that it takes at least 1 hour to get any reasonably usable charge in the battery when using a faster charger.
Companies such as Petronas need to get involved to provide support for charging bays at their gas stations since Petronas stations are scattered all over the country. There must be sufficient revenue for Petronas to justify this infrastructure investment.
Dr. Mahathir is now exploring the possibility of working with an existing electric car maker in China for technical assistance to setup the third national car but it still early days yet. It is unlikely that the first car will be sold in the next 2-3 years.
Perodua on the other hand did well under the guidance of Daihatsu Japan which started chipping away at Proton's market share. By 2010 Perodua was the market leader and secured its position as the top car company by a comfortable margin. No other company came close to challenging Perodua for the market leader status. It simple formula or building affordable and reliable compact cars worked well for Malaysia. Technical support from Daihatsu Japan made a difference and the models were extremely popular among the young buyers. Proton started slipping further back as its new models were not well received and the buyers would shy away from Proton due to its notorious reputation for poor quality assembly.
Now that Dr. Mahathir, the founding father of Proton is back again as the country's Prime Minister he is adamant in introducing another car company but this time it is likely to be an electric car rather than the traditional combustion engine car. Electric cars are the future with more countries announcing bans on combustion engine cars. Having the third car company as an electric car maker would be a sensible idea but saying that the Malaysian population is just too small to support another domestic car maker. The public is also tired of having to pay high prices due to high import taxes for imported cars. Local car makers have been protected for too long and it has deprived the public the possibility of buying imported cars at reasonable prices.
From what is speculated by the motoring media the third car company is likely to be used as a platform to export electric cars to South East Asian countries to capitalise on the Asean Free Trade Agreement. Building an electric car comes with its set of challenges mainly the charging points or lack of it at the moment. Malaysia's Go-green initiative have not really gained much traction and the emphasis on electric car charging has been weak. Only a dozen or so shopping malls have charging points and with only 3 to 4 charging bays which is nowhere near enough. In order to support an electric car company the country needs at least 2000 charging locations with 8 to 10 charging bays per location considering the fact that it takes at least 1 hour to get any reasonably usable charge in the battery when using a faster charger.
Companies such as Petronas need to get involved to provide support for charging bays at their gas stations since Petronas stations are scattered all over the country. There must be sufficient revenue for Petronas to justify this infrastructure investment.
Dr. Mahathir is now exploring the possibility of working with an existing electric car maker in China for technical assistance to setup the third national car but it still early days yet. It is unlikely that the first car will be sold in the next 2-3 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)