I saw a prototype of Michelin's Tweel (tire wheel) at an SAE congress not long ago. This short, neat video about it is making the rounds on the web.
Reinventing The Wheel - Watch more free videos
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Happy Birthday USA
Have you taken the time recently to read the words of The Star Spangled Banner?
I am fortunate beyond words to live in the USA. There are many great nations, and I could probably be happy in one of them, but on the other hand, I could have been fated to live in Cuba or Zimbabwe. My country is not perfect, but compared to the alternatives, She practically is.
Happy Birthday USA!
O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,A good, solid performance of the national anthem usually leaves me choked up, it is really a powerful poem.
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
(the rest, not commonly heard)
On the shore, dimly seen thro’ the mist of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
’Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation,
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our Trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I am fortunate beyond words to live in the USA. There are many great nations, and I could probably be happy in one of them, but on the other hand, I could have been fated to live in Cuba or Zimbabwe. My country is not perfect, but compared to the alternatives, She practically is.
Happy Birthday USA!
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Side View Mirror Setting
Most people set their side view mirrors to partially show the rear quarter of their car. A few years back, I heard Tom and Ray Magliozzi of Car Talk counsel someone to try a different method. I have been using this technique ever since, and I am very happy with it. The wide setting method virtually eliminates rear quarter blind spots by moving the side mirrors out somewhat to reduce overlap with the rear view mirror. Here is a diagram (click for full size):

It is important to note that you don't move the mirrors out so far that you have no overlap at all. By having a little overlap, you continuity between your rear view and side views.
The downside to this method is that you can't automatically see what is immediately beside and to the rear of your car, which is even more of a problem for vehicles with poor rearward visibility such as trucks and SUVs. To see what is beside you, you need to lean forward and left or right a little, depending on which side you want to see. Overall, though, I find I am much more frequently interested in lane changing safely than in backing into a parking spot.
Cartalk has a detailed explanation here.

It is important to note that you don't move the mirrors out so far that you have no overlap at all. By having a little overlap, you continuity between your rear view and side views.
The downside to this method is that you can't automatically see what is immediately beside and to the rear of your car, which is even more of a problem for vehicles with poor rearward visibility such as trucks and SUVs. To see what is beside you, you need to lean forward and left or right a little, depending on which side you want to see. Overall, though, I find I am much more frequently interested in lane changing safely than in backing into a parking spot.
Cartalk has a detailed explanation here.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Automotive Darwin Award Nominee
I don't think this guy died, but I do think we need an automotive version of the famous Darwin Awards--people who do the stupidest things, and wind up wrecking their cars.
New Jeep Isnt Trail Rated - Watch more free videos
New Jeep Isnt Trail Rated - Watch more free videos
Friday, June 8, 2007
The Fuel Economy Trade-Off Game
| Technology/Technique | Cost | Safety | Convenience | Durability | Fuel Save | Total | Comments |
| Reduce Mass: downsize | +1 | -2 | -2 | 0 | +1 | -2 | Americans like big roomy cars. Safety suffers due to interface with older cars. |
| Reduce Mass: materials | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 | Al, Mg, carbon fiber cost more. |
| Reduce Engine Output | +1 | 0 | -2 | 0 | +1 | 0 | Americans like powerful cars. |
| Mild Hybrid Powertrain | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | -1 | More complexity (batteries, generator) hurts durability. |
| Full Hybrid Powertrain | -2 | 0 | -1 | -1 | +2 | -2 | Even more complexity. |
| Gas Turbo Direct Injection | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | -1 | More complexity. |
| Flex Fuel (Ethanol) | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | +1* | 0 (-1) | Fuel availability problems; less gas used, but nearly same carbon output. |
| Passenger Car Diesel | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +2 | 0 | More complexity due to emissions regs. |
| Hydrogen Fuel Cells | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +3 | +3 | Still a research project. |
How do you compare the different ways to increase fuel economy? If you are an engineer, you might make a table which assigns weights to different characteristics and then levels for each one. Combine the numbers, and you have a handy way to compare different choices.
Here is a swag at the fuel economy trade off game, according to my near-expert opinion. The method is to equally weight Cost, Safety, Convenience, Durability, and Fuel Economy. -2 means big decline (more cost, less safety, less convenience, less durability), while a +2 means a big improvement (less cost, more safety, more convenience, etc.). Minus bad, plus good.
So, the way I see it, for a modest fuel savings, the best all around technique is to reduce power, followed by gas turbo direct injection. For large fuel savings, the light diesel seems best. The Holy Grail, as always, is the hydrogen fuel cell.
What is inevitable is that you can't have everything--this is a law of engineering, where physics and economics meet. Want lots of power? Lose weight (and safety). Want safety and fuel economy? Gain cost.
We Americans need to have a serious discussion about what it is we really want, and we need to tell our legislators. What are we willing to give up?
OK, Edmunds just posted a great article which assigns grades to the various fuel saving technologies. You may not believe me, but in fact I was working on the same type of post. I was trying to figure out how to make the table work right.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Monster Camper Van
The other day, this monster van showed up in one of the parking lots not far from my house. I couldn't help but notice it, and quietly snapped a couple of pictures.


A quick trip to Google, and I learn all about it. The builder is an outfit called Sportsmobile, which starts the process with a Ford or Chevy van or Dodge (Mercedes) Sprinter. Various interior amenities are added, such as a head, beds, mini-kitchen, swiveling chairs, and cabinets. A pop-up camper roof can also be added.
The example in my neighborhood is a top of the line specimen, as it has been given a Quigley 4x4 conversion in addition to the camper treatment. This van would cost approximately $70,000!
A nice trailer or 5th wheel camper plus a 4x4 truck to tow it seems like a better deal, to me, since you can use the truck for many non-camping activities, and you would have a much larger living space as well. Even if it doesn't make the most sense to me, these monster vans are an impressive product.


A quick trip to Google, and I learn all about it. The builder is an outfit called Sportsmobile, which starts the process with a Ford or Chevy van or Dodge (Mercedes) Sprinter. Various interior amenities are added, such as a head, beds, mini-kitchen, swiveling chairs, and cabinets. A pop-up camper roof can also be added.
A nice trailer or 5th wheel camper plus a 4x4 truck to tow it seems like a better deal, to me, since you can use the truck for many non-camping activities, and you would have a much larger living space as well. Even if it doesn't make the most sense to me, these monster vans are an impressive product.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Comparing Cars--SpD
Recently, MotorTrend tested a bunch of high performance cars, and presented the results as spiderwebs, with a combined performance number based on things like steering accuracy, brake feel, roadholding, etc. The result was neat, but not practically useful because it didn't factor in cost.
Then Winding Road got in the game, and proposed the Speed/Dollar index, which is HP/weight/price * fudge factor.
A problem with the SpD metric is that it only cares about power/weight ratio, which can favor cheap cars with big engines, such as the Mustang GT, or even a V8 Chevy family hauler. Nice in a straight line, but what if you are interested in autocross or rallying?
I think a better metric would be something like (HP/Weight + Slalom Speed/60)/Price * K, which would add a dynamic handling component--the speed through a slalom course, in this example. Or perhaps a lap time or average speed around a reference track would be better.
Both Winding Road and Motor Trend put the MazdaSpeed 3 near the top of their list, in terms of bang-for-the buck. Now I want one.
Then Winding Road got in the game, and proposed the Speed/Dollar index, which is HP/weight/price * fudge factor.
A problem with the SpD metric is that it only cares about power/weight ratio, which can favor cheap cars with big engines, such as the Mustang GT, or even a V8 Chevy family hauler. Nice in a straight line, but what if you are interested in autocross or rallying?
I think a better metric would be something like (HP/Weight + Slalom Speed/60)/Price * K, which would add a dynamic handling component--the speed through a slalom course, in this example. Or perhaps a lap time or average speed around a reference track would be better.
Both Winding Road and Motor Trend put the MazdaSpeed 3 near the top of their list, in terms of bang-for-the buck. Now I want one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)