CSpec

I would agree that this commercial seems to endorse fraud. I wouldn't be surprised if it abruptly stops airing.

The goal is to improve from 30% to 50% across Europe (the South was never affected), but major airports are still closed until they run more tests on test planes that have flown through the ash. As this article mentioned, even if wind patterns open up a travel window now, people will still be wary of going anywhere should winds change back and trap people far from home.

Probably because the European carriers were already pummeled by the recession, and this volcano mess could very well drag on for much longer.

Outlook: cloudy The Economist NORTHERN Europeans will not forget the name Eyjafjallajokull in a hurry, even if they may have trouble pronouncing it. Monday April 19th marked a fifth day of jet-free skies over a huge swathe of the continent as a result of the eruption of the Icelandic volcano, which began pumping significant quantities of ash into the sky last Wednesday. That fine volcanic ash could pose a risk to jet engines, which have cut out in the past after exposure to similar volcanic material. Many of Europe’s busiest airports remained out of action. Britain’s National Air Traffic Service, an organisation that co-ordinates air travel, said that the flight ban would remain in place until early Tuesday morning at the earliest. Airspace remained largely closed in the Netherlands and Germany. But across Europe a handful of planes took to the air. Norway, Sweden and Finland allowed a few mainly domestic flights to operate, taking advantage of clearing skies. And though several European airlines conducted successful test flights in the danger zone, the engines of a Finnish military jet suffered considerable damage as a result of breathing in the ash. For all the attention the troublesome cloud of ash is getting, nobody yet has a good answer as to how long the disruption will last. For one thing, the European Aviation Safety Agency says that there is currently no consensus as to what is an acceptable level of ash in the atmosphere. Furthermore, there is no way of telling what concentration of ash the test aircraft were flying through. The best source of information for the moment is a theoretical model of where the cloud might be, taking into account the prevailing wind and other weather conditions. One interesting wrinkle is that studies of natural disasters tend to be paid for by insurance companies. As volcano eruption is deemed to be an uninsurable risk, there are few studies to turn to. This uncertainty has lead the International Air Transport Association to plead on behalf of its members for Europe’s government to rethink policy on shutting airspace. The industry body reckons that its members are losing $200m a day as a result of the shut-down. On Monday British Airways said that it and other European airlines had asked for cash from the EU in compensation for the losses suffered because of the closure of airspace, citing the bail-out offered to American airlines in the wake of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. IATA reckons the situation for Europe's airlines is even worse. There are several ways that the damage wrought by Icelands’ volcano might be mitigated. If meteorologists and volcanologists can develop a dynamic model of the ash cloud’s progress it may be possible, as it has been in Scandinavia, to open up more airports and re-route planes to get passengers moving again. Wind patterns could change at any time and some reckon that they might do so by the end of the week. If the ash cloud were to drift in another direction flights could be sent around or above it. But while it currently sits over Europe’s biggest airports that is all but impossible. And passengers may decide not to make trips in case the temporary respite reverses along with the wind stranding them far from home. If it seems that the disruption could continue for days or even weeks longer the ad hoc efforts to get people home could develop into more permanent solutions for those making essential trips. Madrid’s large airport, currently unaffected by the ash cloud, could handle extra flights with passengers then continuing their journey north by land. Cross-channel ferries and the Eurostar trains that connect London with Brussels, Paris and points beyond are currently full to bursting with short-haul flyers returning home and businessmen who have no alternative but to travel. But these services and Europe’s rail and road networks could provide some with alternative means of getting to their destinations. Some air freight might take to the road or water--98% of the world’s trade is already carried by ship. And plenty of the world’s container vessels are sitting idly waiting for the world economy to pick up after the recent recession in the rich world. But for some freight, from Formula One racing cars stuck in China after Sunday's grand prix there to flowers farmed in Kenya and destined for restaurant tables in London, there is no alternative route. Even if the volcano stopped emitting ash immediately, it might take two or more weeks before airlines can restore schedules with planes and crew stuck around the globe along with their passengers. Some fear that they could be in for a long wait. Icelandic volcanic activity has been low for some time. Eyjafjallajokull is particularly prone to producing the fine ash that has caused the current mayhem. The last big eruption from Eyjafjallajokull, in 1821, belched ash into the atmosphere for over a year. Perhaps even more worrying than that is the risk that the neighbouring Katla volcano might erupt too. Archaeological evidence suggests that when roused it is even more destructive. So far, aside from airlines and air travellers, the impact has been limited. But as the shut-down continues Europe’s fragile economies will suffer as tourists fail to arrive, meetings are cancelled and businesses with supply chains that rely on air freight nervously watch stocks running down.

Basically all the Bangle cars, especially the 6. Except the X3 (shudder). I saw a pre-Bangle 7-series yesterday and it's sooooo dull and boring.

Brilliant post. Thanks for the dose of reality.

Also, the US blocks the import of Brazilian cane ethanol and insists on subsidizing the Iowa-grown garbage to the hilt.

Fascinating. So is that just a giveaway to the carmakers? It's confusing to have two different sets of numbers for fuel economy--so if you use the new (and presumably more realistic) EPA numbers, what is the actual CAFE 2016 goal?

Could you explain this further? How is its average higher than the highway rating?

While this sounds annoyingly Marxist, there is more of a "need" for V8 pickups in construction etc, while V8 cars tend to be toys. Not that that's a real defense of the different standards, but that probably explains why Congress did it that way. Regarding diesel, I draw your attention to this part of the article: "As it is, there is already a global shortage of diesel-making capacity. The catalytic crackers used in refineries throughout America are optimised to produce as much petrol as possible. Switching them over to the hydrocracking processes used widely in Europe and Asia for diesel production would take donkey’s years."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that with gas prices as they are (and perhaps, were), the cars for sale for here were rational. You were implying that all the manufacturers without exception were myopic and stupid for not building every car like the old XJ. It's not a 1-1 relationship, but it's a very high correlation. You also need to compare apples to apples. The smart and Venture have very different dimensions. You'll note that the smart doesn't have nearly the fuel economy you would expect for a car that small, because the smart is very very heavy for a car of its size.

Why so? As this article mentioned, people in the US are willing to sacrifice fuel economy for safety (and size) because of the relatively low price of gas. In an ideal world, we could have a free lunch and have the light cars also be safe and cheap, but obviously there are trade offs in real life. Heavy, safe cars seems like a rational choice to me if gas is cheap.

Yes, but how many orders of magnitude safer is the Sonata? And with how many extra toys?

. How to Meet 2016 CAFE Standards? Go on a serious diet. As The Economist reports this week, powertrain improvements can only go so far to meet the aggressive mileage improvement goals. To make up the rest, cars will have to become much lighter. This will raise prices, but will it also make cars less safe? Is it worth it? Discuss in the forums! Unbearable Lightness

Unbearable lightness? To make cars frugal, they will have to become lighter—and more expensive From The Economist. WHEN it comes to motor vehicles there is widespread belief—at least in America—that bigger is not only better, but safer too. The assumption is that nothing beats having lots of steel around you in a crash. And it is true, to some extent. All things being equal, the driver of a large SUV (sports-utility vehicle) is less likely to be killed than the driver of a small car in a head-on collision between the two. The downside is that SUV drivers are far more likely than car drivers to die in solitary roll-over accidents induced by the vehicle’s own weight, its high centre of gravity and its truck-like suspension. Collisions with other SUVs can be deadlier still. An excess of heavy metal imposes other penalties. American motorists are as aware as any that weight is the enemy of fuel economy. However, with pump prices low by international standards, the trade-off between safety and fuel consumption has understandably favoured the former. Adding air-bags, anti-lock brakes, stability control and side-impact beams has saved countless lives, but it has increased vehicle weights disproportionately. Cars and light trucks on American roads today are 30% heavier than they were in the mid-1980s. Unfortunately, heavier vehicles need beefier engines to lug their extra girth around. As a result, much of the past quarter-century’s improvements in engine and vehicle design—low-friction materials, turbo charging, direct injection, variable valve-timing, cylinder deactivation, stop-start ignition, dual-clutch transmissions, better aerodynamics and low rolling-resistance tyres—have been mopped up by increases in vehicle weight. It therefore comes as no surprise that last week’s pronouncement by the White House—that cars and trucks sold in America from the 2016 model year onwards will have to achieve a fleet-wide average of 35.5mpg (6.6 litres/110km)—should have awoken fears about vehicles becoming smaller and less safe in order to meet the latest fuel-sipping standards. The new corporate-average fuel economy (CAFE) figure, originally scheduled for 2020 but brought four years forward by the Obama administration, amounts to a 34% increase over today’s actual average of 26.4mpg. How to achieve such a whopping increase in efficiency over so short a time? The trouble is that most of the low-hanging fruit in combustion engineering have been picked already. At best, the motor industry expects only a 15-20% further improvement can be squeezed from existing petrol engines and their transmissions. A new generation of plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles will doubtless help achieve the required goal. But even if their sales triple over the next five years, they will still account for less than 10% of America’s fleet of new cars by 2016. Though themselves not cheap, clean diesels, with their 35% greater efficiency, would be a better bet—if only Americans could be persuaded to embrace them as Europeans have. Although no longer justified, the diesel’s reputation for being slow, smelly, noisy, unreliable and difficult to start in cold weather has lingered since the 1980s, when Detroit rushed out half-baked designs in response to the oil crisis. But even if the demand for diesel cars were there, the fuel might not be—at least, not at a price Americans would be willing to pay. As it is, there is already a global shortage of diesel-making capacity. The catalytic crackers used in refineries throughout America are optimised to produce as much petrol as possible. Switching them over to the hydrocracking processes used widely in Europe and Asia for diesel production would take donkey’s years. So it comes down to this: if half the increase in efficiency demanded by the new CAFE requirements is to come from further improvements in the power-train, then the other half will have to come from reductions in a vehicle’s weight. That prompts two immediate questions: how much will such a weight reduction add to prices, and will hard-won gains in vehicle safety be sacrificed in the process? Given today’s materials and know-how, automotive engineers reckon a 10% reduction in vehicle weight yields a 6% improvement in efficiency. Meanwhile, trimming the fat from a vehicle’s bodywork, components and accessories costs roughly $2 a pound. Running the numbers for a typical car—say, a Toyota Camry weighing 3,260lb (1,500kg) and averaging 26mpg—suggests it would need to shed a little under a third of its weight, at a cost of roughly $2,000, to meet the 2016 standard. The Environment Protection Agency claims average prices on the forecourt will rise by only $1,300. Someone, somewhere, seems to have got their sums wrong. In the end, the additional price for “adding lightness”—to borrow a phrase from the late Colin Chapman, the legendary founder of Lotus Cars—comes down to the materials used and how they are formed. To do the same job, HSLA (high-strength low-alloy) steels are up to 30% lighter than traditional carbon steels. They are already used in motor vehicles for components that have to withstand critical loads. Unfortunately, because of their higher strength and toughness, HSLA steels need 30% more energy to form them into useful shapes. Also, because their strength tends to be directional, they can fail under sudden loads from unexpected quarters. One of the ways that Chapman added lightness to his cars, the use of composite materials such as carbon fibre and glass-reinforced plastic, is not that practical either. Lotuses are turned out in small numbers, but composites require too much manual work for volume production. So the only sensible material for reducing a conventional car’s weight while maintaining its strength is aluminium. At present, aluminium accounts for 9% of a typical vehicle’s content—mostly in the form of castings and forgings for engine blocks, transmission cases, wheels and suspension parts. For the aluminium content to increase much further means using sheets and extrusions of the stuff for body panels and subframes. That will require further advances in laser welding and other bonding techniques to make production costs competitive. The handful of aluminium-bodied cars in production have mostly been low-volume luxury models, such as the Honda NSX, the Audi A8 and the Jaguar XJ. Their body weights have typically been 10% to 15% lower than those of their steel equivalents. However, if all the parts made of iron and steel in cars today were replaced with aluminium, the vehicle would weigh 45% less. And it would be stronger, too. Pound for pound, aluminium is up to two-and-a-half times stronger than conventional steel—and can absorb twice the energy in a crash. In short, making vehicles lighter does not mean they have to be smaller or less safe. If anything, cars with a high aluminium content have tended to be bigger and stronger than their steel-bodied predecessors. Replacing steel with aluminium allows additional interior space to be offered, along with larger crumple zones at the front and rear for even better crash protection, all without paying a heavy penalty in fuel consumption. But there is a snag: cost. Aluminium is three to four times more expensive than steel. On the plus side, aluminium cars do not rust, and therefore last longer than conventional cars. And, at the end of their lives, they have a much higher scrap value. Add in the fuel saving, and the lifetime cost of an aluminium car—from raw material and manufacturing to daily use and final disposal—can be comparable to that of a conventional car. And the higher petrol prices go, of course, the sooner an aluminium car becomes as cheap overall as a conventional one. The stumbling block in this analysis is that the person who walks into a showroom to buy a brand new aluminium car is unlikely to capture all those lifetime benefits. Nor is the manufacturer—at least, not immediately. So expect the initial sticker prices to be at least $2,000 higher for enlightened compact cars, and $4,500-6,000 more for trimmer luxury cars and SUVs. The only consolation will be not having to fill up the tank quite so often.

I'm glad to hear yet another glowing review.

Saw an R8 with a Quattroporte just behind on my way home from work yesterday.

Short wheelbase.

I saw the Regal GS concept--looked great. This would be one of my favorite cars on the market if they offer the other engines with a manual! Great alternative to the TSX and VW CC.

No roof?

70 and beautiful out today inside the beltway...

Holy crap, 9.5" of rain? Nice pics btw.

Haha, I did the same last year, but I found a job and moved to Rosslyn in the fall. DC is definitely the best place in the country to find "professional" type work at the moment (for better or worse), so consider yourself lucky to already be stationed here.

I got my BA in Economics in the spring (I was a freshman when this thread was started). Though I hope to avoid grad school and its associated debts, the most likely advanced degree I'll end up with is either an MPP or MBA or both, if I go down that path.

Philadelphia spends a huge amount on pensions for its employees. The undoing of cities and towns across the country will be their guaranteed lavish pensions, and the rest of us will face a very unpleasant and expensive future making up the massive funding shortfalls. Now that's fairness!