Be honest - let the buyer decide.

A couple of weeks ago I was browsing the VW website looking at the specs for the next model year Tiguan and I came across a 'compare' link. I figured it was a comparison with other models in their line up but it turned out not to be. It is a comparison against other crossover / mini SUVs from their competition. What is interesting is that they haven't done the usual thing, which is to pick comparison categories they could easily win. Instead it is a short list of some of the most common things buyers look for when buying a car, and what is very enlightening is that the Tiguan only comes out on top in two of the five categories - power and servicing costs. For mpg, leg room, cargo space and front crash test performance it comes out worse. Bear in mind this is on VW's own corporate website - not a car shopping or comparison site.
I find this refreshing because, however it was intended, it shows me that VW don't mind being a little more honest about their vehicles. How many times have you seen cross-manufacturer comparisons where they pick categories they know their vehicle is better at - inconsequential things like numbers of cup holders, tint on the windows and things like that? Or worse, where the competitor comparison numbers are altered to make them seem worse?
Here I'm faced with a chart that tells me the vehicle I'm interested in does pretty badly for cargo space compared to its competition. It also isn't brilliant for gas mileage, but by giving me the details up front, I'm being allowed to make an informed choice. Would I go elsewhere for this sort of vehicle? Potentially yes. For example I'd not really considered the Rav4. However the thing I get a kick out of the most - the turbo-assisted power in my current Tiguan - is where it does win out handily over the others in this particular list, and that alone is enough to sway me back into the VW camp. That's why the mpg is worse - because the engine is a lot more 'fun' to play with :-)

Safer cars mean worse drivers

If you've read my blog for any length of time you might remember that I subscribe to the theory that safer cars make for worse drivers. My argument all along has been that when you seal people into a quiet cocoon full of entertainment gear, surrounded by safety aids, the drivers begin to assume that the car will save them from their own bad driving. (most recently, see the Driver Education and Toyota Wants To Steer For You posts)
It seems that my theory on this actually has some substance. New research suggests just that - extra safety equipment in cars gives drivers a false sense of security and leads to them taking more risks.
The TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) in England studied crash statistics from 2000 to 2010 and statistical models were developed to look at casualty trends and the effects of car secondary safety improvements. They discovered that, while the number of people seriously injured in road accidents dropped for the first six years of that period, the number of fatalities barely changed. Bear in mind that during the same period there were great improvements in car safety levels with the introduction of more airbags and standard ABS, stability control and traction control on most cars. On higher-end vehicles, things like preemptive braking, radar-assisted cruise control and lane departure warning systems were also becoming commonplace. That all resulted in an increasing number of cars being awarded a five-star crash test safety rating by Euro NCAP.
These advances should have cut fatality rates, but the report's authors warn increasing safety levels may have been counter-productive:
"The reason that the fatality trend was not decreasing up to 2006... may be due to driver confidence – additional safety features in and on vehicles provide additional confidence and some drivers may have adapted their behaviour (ie drive more recklessly) as a result."
The report does go on to say that after 2006, fatalities dropped although the analysis shows that this is most likely because the economic downturn which appears to have had a beneficial effect on driver behaviour, with less speeding and drink driving. The decrease in overall traffic also contributed, especially the large reduction in HGV traffic, and a fall in the number of young male drivers.
The report is available on the TRL website for a small fee.
The TRL are not the first large study institute to come to this conclusion; the American Institute for Highway Safety published similar findings last year - you can read about those in this blog post.
This all begs the question then : why do manufacturers keep loading cars up with this stuff if it's now being proven to be of little or no use? Surely they should be removing this stuff, simplifying and lightening cars and improving fuel economy and safety as a result? Frankly, the more a driver is involved in the act of driving, the safer the roads become because concentration levels have to be higher. That's why drivers who started out on motorbikes are statistically safer car drivers, and that's why cars with manual gearboxes are involved in less accidents - motorcyclists and drivers of manual cars are both more involved in the act of driving (or riding).

Crazy Concepts - The Best Concept Cars That Never Saw the Light of Day

Some concept cars were never meant for this world; they were either too expensive to produce, or were just never designed to actually be a reality, or at least not in the immediate future. Many of the best concept cars include designs that are more abstract than practical, while others contained the germs of good ideas that would be incorporated into other car designs. Some, however, are just impressive for taking a risk on what we’d normally consider to be good car design. With this in mind, the best concept cars that never saw the light of day include:
Propeller Driven Car.

This concept was designed in 1913 by Marcel Leyat, and was notable for replacing an engine with a propeller; the car also featured spoke-less wheels and was extremely light at just 625 pounds. While it never went into full production, the propeller driven car, or the Leyat Helica to give it its full title, did make an appearance at the 1921 Paris Auto Show.

Citroen Tubik

A Type H van designed to include nine seats, the Tubik is distinguished by its sheer size - it was over 4.8 m long - and by looking like it would give most buses a run for its money. The elongated body of the car and van hybrid also contributed to its imposing frame.

Cadillac Sixteen

A 16 cylinder Cadillac with 1000 horsepower, the Sixteen was intended to demonstrate an alternative market for the brand that would make it more appealing for younger drivers; the concept’s super powered design never made it off the ground, though.

Hyundai Qarmaq

The result of a joint venture between GE and Hyundai, the Qarmaq was ahead of its time for being almost completely built using recycled plastics. The concept proved to be too expensive to build, though, although its intentions fit with today’s hybrids and electric vehicles.

Nissan Pivo

The main appeal of the Pivo came through its rotating cabin, which could turn by 360 degrees, meaning that the vehicle itself had no reverse gears. Intended as a city car that could reduce accidents, the pod style cabin remains an intriguing design idea for future cars.

Cadillac World Thorium

A nuclear powered car notable for having a front grill wider than the length of its body, and 16 wheels, the Thorium was predicted to last for a century without any maintenance.

Airflow Glass Car

Pierre Sabas designed this concept, which wraps an electric engine in glass, lowering the car’s suspension and allowing for four capsules to act as passenger seats. The Airflow Glass Car was intended to demonstrate the potential for a more aerodynamic design.

The Stackable Car

This concept involved adapting the idea of trolleys and bikes being ‘stacked’ in public for rental; small cars with omnidirectional movement, and no engine block or drive shaft (the motors were in the wheels) could be picked up and driven short distances.

Bentley SenseS

A futuristic concept from designer Arturo Peralta, the Bentley SenseS was used to promote biotechnology, whereby the car is uniquely linked to your own mood and biorhythms, presumably to encourage responses to speed and handling. The outside of the vehicle was pitched around using solid hologram technology.

Lexus LF-LC

The most believable of these concepts, the Lexus LF-LC concept is built by the Takumi (or “artisan”) master designers ensuring the sharpest eye for detail. The LF-LC’s leading concept appears to be, however, its next-generation hybrid technology which produces up to 500hp. Not your average Lexus, and a certainly not any cheaper than buying them used!

GM Hy-Wire

A vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells and by-wire technology, the GM Hy-Wire concept included a transparent glass front and rear panels, no hood, and open seat backs, allowing people to see into the workings of the vehicle’s engine.

Planes, trains and automobiles

I was recently in England again, with a rental car. A VW Golf Bluemotion as it happens - a nifty little 1.6 diesel engine that returned an easy 88mpg (UK) or about 73mpg (US). Think about that for a moment while we apparently struggle to get anything over 40mpg here in America. But that's a topic for another post.
The point of this is that owning and running a car in England is monstrously expensive. To half-fill that Golf on the way back to the airport cost me $75 - so we're looking at close to $150 to brim it from empty (thanks to a nearly 500% tax rate that the UK government levy on fuel). There's a bevy of taxes when you buy a new or used car (delivery tax, luxury car tax, sales tax, showroom tax and so on and so forth) and the annual taxes and costs of running are similarly high. Yet it's increasingly common for families over there to have two or more cars - something unheard of 15 years ago. Why is this?
I'll tell you why - because public transport in the UK is as broken as it's ever been, and even more prohibitively expensive. We needed to get in to London one day whilst there and I wasn't about to pay the extra road tax to get in to London by car (I think that's up to £8/$13 or more per day now) so we chose to take the train. To travel 49 miles to and from London Victoria station cost me £38 in train tickets each - so £76 for the pair of us (about $105). The journey was 90 minutes, averaging a whopping 32mph. Half way there the train broke down and we had to stand around at a station waiting 20 minutes for the one behind us to catch up, thus meaning double the number of commuters all jammed into a single train.
When we got to London it cost another £17 in tube tickets to travel - wait for it - two stops on the tube. They don't do single tickets any more - you need to buy an all-day TravelCard even if you're only traveling one station. Tip: if you get the TravelCard when you buy the train ticket, it's much cheaper. I found this out when I got home. Nice that the guy at the station ticket hall didn't bother to tell me this when I bought the tickets.
This situation hasn't improved since we left the UK in 2001 when it was already expensive and inconvenient to use public transport and/or run a car. Since then the cost of fuel has doubled; the underlying price-per-litre for petrol has only gone up about 20p but because of all the taxes on top, the end price to the customer goes up exponentially. In the same time the cost of public transport has doubled while the number of services have been slashed.
So it's really a case of the lesser of two evils. Sitting in your own car with your own music, even if it is in endless lines of traffic, paying through the nose for fuel, taxes and the "priveledge" to use roads that haven't seen proper maintenance in years, is still a much better option than being abused in a smelly train.

Guest post : Car Decal Questions Answered

I thought this was a timely post as the science fiction nerd in me recently caused me to put a new decal on the rear window of my daily driver.

Car decals (and car window decals) continually raise common questions for car owners about adhesive, material, and life-expectancy. These common questions are outlined and answered below.
Will car decals damage the car's paint?
Car owners asking if a decal that is applied to the body of the vehicle might ruin the paint should order a special adhesive that is produced specifically to not damage the paint. These adhesives are no less strong than other adhesives and will last just as long. The only difference is that when/if they are removed it will not bring the paint with it. Another material used as a substitute is a low-tack decal. These decals are made of fabric and apply to the car like masking tape. These can be removed damage free as well.
How are car decals installed?
Decal installation for either the body of the car or the window is simple, but must be done carefully because if done incorrectly it can be a costly mistake. Clean the vehicle or the window especially around the area in which the decal in going to be placed. Measure the window to find the center point. Tape the decal to the body or window and begin to slowly remove the backing paper and apply the decal. Use a squeegee to apply the adhesive to the car and drag out bubbles that might form. Do this slowly so that the decal does not fold on itself as the backing paper is removed. Once the decal is applied, use a razor blade to trim the edges and remove any extra material to blend the decal better.
Can car decals be washed?
Car decals and any type of car window decals are both car wash safe. The ink printed on the material is embedded in the decal. Still, it is important not to clean or scrub directly on the imagery and the decal in general. Any dramatic rubbing could potentially scratch the decal.
What is the right size for a car decal?
Measure the area of the car which the decals is being applied. This is a simple process. Suppliers of decals may have standard sizes but every car, whether by the measurement of the body or the windows, is different. Measure around the area to figure out what size the decal needs to be in order to fit that area.
How are car decals removed?
To remove car decals use a focused hear source against the decals surface. This heat source could be a heat gun or a hair dryer. That heat those machines project will loosen the adhesive that is sticking to the surface of the car. Once the adhesive is loosened the decal can be lifted of the car easily. Window decals should be removed using a razor blade to lift the adhesive.
For more information on car decals, visit Signazon.com.

Would I like to drive a Ferrari? Yes, yes please.

A few weeks ago I mentioned that I'd recently been over to Europe on business. One weekend during my stay I hopped on a train down to Milan to see an old friend, and had the whistle-stop tour of the city. At a certain point, we 'accidentally' stumbled on the Ferrari store and I was impressed by the ability of the prancing horse to market everything. The store obviously had Ferrari-branded merchandise - everything from shirts and mugs to cellphones and key rings. But upstairs they had an interesting display of used parts for sale. Fancy the crankshaft from an F2008 F1 car, used in a race? For €3850 you can take it home in a nice glass display case. Same goes for connecting rods, pistons, valves, and even smaller items like cam cover screws. If a full-sized engine is more your speed, you can have a raced F1 engine from the 2003 or 2005 season, nicely mounted on a pedestal, for a pinch under €12000. It was an impressive display of marketing and being an F1 fan I could easily see how a hard-core Tifosi would empty their bank account for some of the items on sale. I personally particularly liked the carbon fibre front wing from the F2010 that they had mounted over the stairs, but (a) - it was predictably expensive and (b) - I don't have anywhere to put it (never mind (c) - how do I get it back across the Atlantic?)
Outside the store were two Ferrari California 30s (a hardtop and a Spyder) and a Lamborghini Gallardo, and as I was browsing their forms, a store representative came over and asked if I'd like to drive one of them. Obviously, the answer was yes, but only if I could take it out of the city to the nearby Monza track. Sadly of course that wasn't what was on offer. I could drive one of these beauties around Milan's choked streets if I liked, as long as I paid the insurance and rental cost. Tempting, but pointless. Ferraris and Lambos don't drive very easily at slow speeds (so Top Gear tells me) and it would seem cruel to be behind the wheel of such a car and not be able to use it as it was intended. I'll have to wait for another time and another place.