"What is DRL?"
Day light/time running lights?
|
What will the cars in 5 years time have that current cars dont?
Mandatory fitment of ESP stability protection, probably.
I think it's already compulsory on new HGVs, hence the chaos in last February's snow when lots of trucks' stability/traction systems threw a wobbler at the first sniff of an incline.
|
It is Dave, and was a huge embarassment to us all as well.
Pat
|
|
I thought that ESP/ABS were already compulsory.
|
|
Think ABS is, but not ESP or whatever your chosen Manufacturer calls it!
Edited by b308 on 07/11/2009 at 08:43
|
|
I think ESP next, then external pedestrian / cyclist air bags? :-)
Edited by Old Navy on 07/11/2009 at 08:56
|
Legislated or potentially legislated additions to modern motors are a disaster zone and simply lead to more expensive failures.
ESP failures on Golfs, Tourans. Alteas, Leons, Toledos, Octavias, BMW 1 Series, BMW 3 Series, Peugeot 407s, Volvo S40s, Volvo V50s.
DPF failures on FIATs, Mazda 6s, Subaru Legacy diesels, Vauxhalls, and many more.
They make money for the component manufacturers who lobby the EC for their adoption, but are actually disastrous for consumers.
Motorcycle airbags here (seriously): www.hit-air.com
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 07/11/2009 at 11:05
|
|
There already are commercially available "airbag jackets" for motorcyclists.
|
In 5 years time I think there will be more hybrids. Hybrid drive might take over from the torque-converter epicyclic gearbox as the preferred form of two-pedal motoring.
Also more pure electric cars and, in particular, electric delivery vans in large conurbations.
As for legal requirents.....
I'm a fan of daytime running lights although our old bangers don't have them. The Mark 6 VW Golf looks cool with its DRLs on, though that couldn't be said of the old Volvo ones! I can also see cars being fitted with speed limiters in the way that LGVs and coaches are now.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 07/11/2009 at 15:24
|
"airbag jackets" for motorcyclists.
My biker buddies are desperate to "set off" a guy in the pub who has a habit of turning up in one of those. He has a Ducati which they regard as ostentatious apparently....
|
|
Don't worry the thing will break down soon !
|
|
Legislated or potentially legislated additions to modern motors are a disaster zone and simply lead to more expensive failures.
I think that may be a little simplistic. Catalytic converters seem to be reasonably robust, and they were adopted on a widescale due to legislation in the USA in the late 70s and early 80s, followed by later EU rules (early 90s, IIRC).
ABS is AFAIK a legal requirement nowadays, but it seems to be fairly reliable.
However, both of those technologies were in use for a long time before becoming compulsory: catalytic converters were invented in 1950, and ABS was deployed selectively for about 15 years before becoming universal.
I was going to suggest that maybe the successful technologies were those which were rolled out slowly, being debugged through experience in small market segments and going through several iterations before hitting the mass market. Many of the things we now take for granted on cars followed that path, such as heated rear windows, dual-circuit brakes, windscreen wipers, cooling-system-powered heaters, aircon, seatbelts, radial tyres and electric turn indicators. (My father's first car, a 1948 model, had wipers, but nothing else on the list).
However, ESP seems to contradict that, because we don't yet have any legal requirements in force for its fitting, but it's on your list of problematic technologies. Could it be that the market is also capable of pushing makers to deploy inadequately-developed technologies? Common-rail diesels seem to be an example of a market-driven failure, not a legislated one -- VW only adopted CR diesels very recently, so they haven't been essential as a way of meeting emission regs, yet they still have reliability problems.
In general, I prefer legislation which sets goals to be achieved rather than requiring specific solutions. It's notable that the current pressure for low emissions is being met by a whole variety of techniques, including stop-start engines, improved aerodynamics, tweaked engine management, lighter structures, etc. However in some cases, legislation which seeks big improvements seems to produce complex solutions rather than better design.
The current pressure on C02 emissions is producing some good results (e.g. lighter and more aerodynamic car bodies), but also some messier ones such as hybrid powertrains, the stop/start devices (risks nasty engine wear), lower ride heights (which increases the risk of underbody damage), and highly-stressed supercharged engines. It'll be interesting to see how this sort of issue plays out in time. Will we see makers backing away from complex solutions such as those, and instead use composite materials to reduce the weight of vehicles?
|
ESC/ESP as a legal requirement. I knew I'd seen it said somewhere.
"The European Commission has confirmed a proposal for the mandatory introduction of ESC on all new cars and commercial vehicle models sold in the EU from 2012, with all new cars being equipped by 2014"
Thank to Wiki.
|
>> Legislated or potentially legislated additions to modern motors are a disaster zone and simply lead to more expensive failures. I think that may be a little simplistic.
Agreed. And you could argue that having safety & emissions systems in your car are part of the price to be paid for the effect that your motoring have (or potentially have) on other members of society (whether that's climate change or not running over kids).
I was going to suggest that maybe the successful technologies were those which were rolled out slowly being debugged through experience in small market segments and going through several iterations before hitting the mass market.
Exactly, you're not going to legislate a capability that can't be reliably delivered at reasonable cost into the mass-market (The OEMs are pretty hot at lobbying) - it also goes against the policy of most EU Governments to have a strong auto industry. Also, Yesterday's revolutionary hi-techs are todays dependable and boring commoditised products
Could it bethat the market is also capable of pushing makers to deploy inadequately-developed technologies? Common-rail diesels seem to be an example of a market-driven failure not a legislated one -- VW only adopted CR diesels very recently so they haven't been essential as a way of meeting emission regs yet they still have reliability problems.
It's also worth differentiating between different generations of a technology. I bet today's CR diesel systems will prove much better than the early ones - most technologies (in any sphere) are a bit rubbish when they are first introduced.
I've never actually seen any robust data that identifies how many problems these technologies cause - does anybody have any links? The internet/media is awash with anecdotal evidence that might or might not be robust. "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre is a tour de force in the media's treatment of evidence (or lack of it) in healthcare, and may have some parallels for the auto industry as even the surveys like Which? or JDPower suffer from inherent selection bias (ie people only take part if they are particularly keen to convey their view).
In general I prefer legislation which sets goals to be achieved rather than requiring specific solutions. It's notable that the current pressure for low emissions is being met by a whole variety of techniques including stop-start engines improved aerodynamics tweaked engine management lighter structures etc. However in some cases legislation which seeks big improvements seems to produce complex solutions rather than better design.
Agreed - legislating technologies constrains the scope for innovation, whereas setting e.g. a fuel consumption target on allows manufacturers to investigate a large number of ways to hit a target. However the manufacturers can only really develop towards the targets that legislators set them. For instance, I'm concerned that stop start delivers a greater effect in the EU cycle than it will in real life (but I don't live in Central London).
highly-stressed supercharged engines. It'll be interesting to see how this sort of issue plays out in time. Will we see makers backing away from complex solutions such as those and instead use composite materials to reduce the weight of vehicles?
I think turbos are pretty well understood since they've been used in mass production for a long time, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some real reliability problems on TSI engines or the Fiat multiair system (categorically not just "because it's Fiat", but because it's a new technology). Electric drive may be part of this because they're inherently simpler technologies than all the complexity that's required to optimise IC engines across a wide range of engine speeds.
Composites are a still bit of a problem in the mass market AFAIK, because:
- World carbon fibre supply was sucked up by Boeing/Airbus
- Recyclability & the EU End of Life - composite is hard to recycle compared to steel
- How to these technologies scale to and integrate with current production processes and volumes
- Basic material costs (esp. carbon fibre) and the effect on vehicle cost
|
I think that may be a little simplistic. Catalytic converters seem to be reasonably robust and they were adopted on a widescale due to legislation in the USA in the late 70s and early 80s followed by later EU rules (early 90s IIRC).
With hindsight it would have been far better if they'd banned the things, and set tough emissions standards for CO and HC for a decade down the line. We'd have a generation of lean burn engines which would have been far more efficient and have produced far less CO2 than the catalysed engines which did develop.
Ford were producing some spectacular results in the 80's with ancient technology engines using carburettors and rudimentary management. Had this design ethos continued into the 90's, forced by tough legislation and a tight, but achievable deadline, engines would have been made fundamentally more efficient with no need for the catalyst.
I personally view the catalytic converter as getting a lot of manufacturers off the hook when it came to making cleaner engines. Why bother if a "bolt on" in the exhaust ticks a box and gets you type approval? We're revisiting lean burn now as a result of the CO2 pressures, but we could have been there a decade ago. And all that platinum and rhodium would still be in the ground too.
|
|
Inflatable rear seat belts being introduced by Ford next year in US
uk.cars.yahoo.com/06112009/36/ford-debuts-inflatab...l
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, I think the sweet spot was the late 90's/early 2000's when we had sensors to make the car reliable but there was none of the silly stuff which goes wrong for people who cannot drive or the green looneys who think making a brand new car is cleaner than running a ten year old car.
|
green looneys who think making a brand new car is cleaner than running a ten year old car.
Rattle, who exactly are these "green looneys" you are talking of?
I don't know of any environmental groups supporting this scrappage system. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and the Green Party all condemned it: see www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/car_scrappag...l and www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5...9 and www.greenparty.org.uk/news/17-04-2009-car-scrappag...l
The supporters of this scrappage scheme are not the environmentalists -- they are the motor trade and its associated supporters. Unsurprisingly, they and the govt are applying plenty of greenwash to scheme to try the justify the hideous economics of it ... but blaming that on the green lobby makes no sense.
|
The supporters of this scrappage scheme are not the environmentalists -- they are the motor trade and its associated supporters. Unsurprisingly they and the govt are applying plenty of greenwash to scheme to try the justify the hideous economics of it ... but blaming that on the green lobby makes no sense.
Couldn't agree more. The green lobby may have a narrow and sometimes naive/idealiistic point of view, but they are not stupid. Scrappage had everything to do with industrial policy. It won't have a meaningful effect on our environmental targets - that's what fuel prices are for.
However, us taxpayers might like to investigate the overall effect that our investment in scrappage had on the UK industry, as the manufacturers that appear to have benefitted the most are non-UK, and frequently not even EU (At least in the EU case we might have benefitted in terms of it being effectively a reciprocal agreement with other states, and UK supply chain activity in to EU final assembly). I think when the NAO finally does the sums I would not be surprised if it transpires that it was a colossal waste of money.
|
I think when the NAO finally does the sums I would not be surprised if it transpires that it was a colossal waste of money.
I think that's very likely. But by then, the govt ministers who authorised it will have taken their last rides in their govt cars, and will be hauling in the loot in the corporate boardrooms. So the NAO can say what it likes, because scrappage will have served its purpose of buying off a powerful lobby in the dying days of this govt.
That's how it is with lame duck governments: once their chances of survival have gone, so accountablity has gone too. It's the same no matter what the system of govt.
There was a lovely example of this in Ireland back in 1977, when the coalition govt was heading for a massive defeat in the polls. So they did a deal to sell off the govt's fleet of ministerial black Mercs (a much-prized and very visible perk of the job, routinely paraded back in the ministers' constituencies as evidence of their status), replacing the Mercs with black Peugeot 604s, with the handover set for shortly after the election ... which they duly lost. So the new ministers got no Mercs.
|
Is ABS really compulsary on a new car?
|
|
BMW bikes have switchable ABS
|
Actually if I did a lot of country lane driving I would really welcome ABS, but in 30mph city roads it is just something else to go wrong.
I am not sure how effective they are anyway, my friend managed to roll her car over despite her having ABS and ESP and nice big fat tyres with 8mm grip (brand new). If you're going to do 60mph round a tight country corner no amount of gadgets will save you.
Edited by Rattle on 07/11/2009 at 18:50
|
If you hit something while doing round a tight country corner no
amount of gadgets will save you.
|
|
Unless you fit your car with CDS = cattle defence system.
|
If you're going to do 60mph round a tight country corner no amount of gadgets will save you.
Anyone who does that has nobody but themselves to blame for the inevitable accidents. It astonishes me how many people don't seem to know about Rule 126 of the Highway Code: "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear".
|
Is ABS really compulsary on a new car?
Has been since July 2004
www.engineeringtalk.com/news/bsc/bsc104.html
|
|
|
|
