everyday

The New York Times is reporting that Toyota is planning to stop production of it’s Tundra truck and Sequoia SUV for three months this year to adjust for decreasing demand (Toyota Scales Back Production of Big Vehicles). They have also decided to re-purpose a new plant in Mississippi to manufacture their hybrid Prius instead of trucks.

I think this is a fantastic move for Toyota who, in my opinion, misjudged the market when the revised their truck lineup to make the Tundra and Tacoma trucks larger. This is especially true of the Tacoma, I owned a 2004 Toyota Tacoma and absolutely loved that truck. I thought it was sized perfectly. The new Tacoma is larger, but doesn’t really add any more utility. It seems as though Toyota made the truck larger for the sake of making it larger. I would have preferred that they focused on making the existing truck better, not just bigger.

Having recently moved I have been dealing with the unfortunate reality of an extended commute on a number of California’s highways. My commute is 39 miles, one way, the majority of which is spent on one highway or another. As a result of this commute I have found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with large trucks, spefically the lanes in which they choose to occupy.

On any given day, on any given highway I run across numerous trucks that, through their choice to violate certain sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), consume far more than their fair share of the road. Through an entirely non-scientific and casual observation of traffic, I have found that trucks make up around 15% of the road going traffic while using well over 50% of the road. I did a little research today and found the following:

21655. (a) … (b) Any … vehicle subject to the provisions of Section 22406 shall be driven in the lane or lanes designated … whenever signs have been erected… . …, when a specific lane or lanes have not been so designated, … those vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right edge or curb. If, however, a specific lane or lanes have not been designated on a divided highway having four or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, … those vehicles may also be driven in the lane to the immediate left of that right-hand lane, … When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, the driver shall use either the designated lane, the lane to the immediate left of the right-hand lane, or the right-hand lane for traffic … This subdivision does not apply to a driver who is preparing for a left- or right-hand turn or who is entering into or exiting from a highway or to a driver who must … drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his or her intended route.

This tells me that trucks should stay in the right lane (unless there are four or more available lanes). I continually run across trucks in the right 2 lanes on a 3 lane highway. I have even run across trucks in all 3 lanes on 3 a lane highway. But wait, it gets worse… I have been on a five lane highway with trucks in all but the leftmost lane! One thing that I have never seen is a truck being stopped by the California Highway Patrol for any of these violations.

So what can be done? Well, how about pressing the CHP to cite violators for starters? I for one would love to see a law enacted mandating that trucks stay in the right most lane irregardless of the number of lanes. I would also like to see a significant penalty for lane violations, including both a stiff fine and a number of “points” on the driver’s record.

Via: BBC News

Oil trades at $100 per barrel. I guess the good news is that our current administration fought against an increase to the CAFE standards, so at least we know they are working hard to help out.

via: Inhabit

MIT has created a site with a mock-up of a super compact car for use in a city. This is a really interesting concept! As you can see from the picture, the car is super compact when stacked and not too small when flattened out. A quote from MIT’s site

By placing stacks in urban spaces and key points of convergence, the vehicle allows the citizens the flexibility to combine mass transit effectively with individualized mobility.

This would certainly address a key problem associated with the use of mass transit.

Rain Heroes from FUROBOT on Vimeo.

Formula 1 racing returned to the United States this weekend. While always enjoyable, this race typically leaves quite a bit to be desired. The design of the track forces the teams to set their cars up for high speed runs through a portion of the famed Indianapolis Motor Speedway. While it is great to see these marvels of engineering hurtling down the track, I prefer to watch them battling through the infield. Unfortunately, the infield racing at Indy is less than spectacular. The trade-offs the teams have to make to achieve high speeds down the straights mean that they have to remove a majority of the aerodynamics that provide the necessary down-force for high speeds throughout the rest of the track. I think it would behoove the FIA to find a track in the United States that better lends itself to the spectacle that is F1 racing. They need a more balanced track. If I wanted to watch cars going fast in straight lines, I would watch an IRL race, or even NASCAR, but I don’t care about that kind of racing. I want to see cars slicing and dicing through tight corners and high speed arcs, not flying down a straight road.

I recently took a trip up to the central valley of California to visit some family. While the trip was altogether pleasant, the drive was not. Apart from the semi-trucks consuming more than their fair share of the available lanes, the condition of the highways was atrocious.

One would think that with the advances in technology over the last few thousand years of road making that we would be able to enjoy a relatively smooth surface on any of vast number of highways in California. This is, however, not the case. Potholes, debris, dips, humps, jumps, undulations, outdated markings and grooves make for a ride not unlike one you would experience at an amusement park. The primary difference being that driving on these highways is not amusing. While I can almost excuse potholes due to a lack of funding in recent years, there is no excuse for poor engineering and even poorer construction quality.

The worst aspect of the experience for me is the entrance and exit ramps for overpasses and bridges. I say ramps, because that is exactly what they are. I imagine that on many of these entrance ramps, my car was completely airborne! I truly hope this isn’t what was meant by everyone having a flying car.

The next most egregious flaw in the roadways is the unexplained undulations that appear to exist solely for the continued financial success of the shock-absorber and spring industries. It seems that every few miles along an otherwise flat and smooth roadway there is a dip or bump, some of which are so extreme that, again, I feel as though my car has aspirations to fly. These dips and bumps are almost always accompanied by gouges caused by the undercarriages of vehicles that are probably only slightly closer to the ground than my own.

One would think that with the enormous amount of money that we all pay in taxes to build and maintain these roads, that they should be of the highest quality.

The governing body of Formula 1 (F1), the FIA, has prescribed a roadmap for engine development in F1 that would have the teams use smaller engines running on bio-fuels in the 2010 racing season. This was decided as a result of the FIA’s decision to have the research and development of the F1 teams provide a more direct impact on the automotive industry. F1 teams have enormous development budgets, if even a small percentage of this is spent helping to increase fuel mileage, or alleviate the dependence on fossil fuels, then I am all for it.

Hopefully, this decision by the FIA will lead to some significant advancements in the automotive industry. I for one think that this is definitely the direction the FIA should be taking. In addition to these changes, I would like to see a few more changes to the rules that I think would benefit the driving public even more:

1. Decrease fuel cell size to a point where 4-5 pit stops would be required to get through a typical race with current fuel mileage ratios. This would help to increase the miles/km that the cars achieve in order to reduce the number of pit stops that a driver must make to get through a race.
2. Reinstate a number of the electronic assistance devices that have been removed from the cars. This would help the motoring public immensely by providing safer cars as a result of advancements in traction control.
3. Remove the mandate of the use of the V-8 engine configuration, but keep the displacement restrictions in place. By allowing the teams to use any engine configuration imaginable they would be using their enormous development budgets to figure out which engine they can squeeze the most power out of.
4. Allow hybrid technologies in F1 racing! Notice that I said “allow” not mandate. If an F1 team can develop a car that performs better while utilizing some hybrid technologies, then why not allow it? If they decide that storing energy from regenerative braking is worth the extra weight of a dual drive system and batteries, then why not let them do it?

Every dream that I have ever had about winning the lottery has culminated in me owning and racing in a Gran Touring racing series such as the FIA GT3 series. I have seen a number of GT races throughout the years and they are awesome! I love watching cars that, if I had enough money, I could go buy and race myself. What sets the FIA GT3 series apart from the GT races I have seen in the past is the makes and models of cars that race in the FIA GT3 series, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati and Porsche to name a few. While I have seen many of these cars in the various races I have seen, they have not been as prevalent as they are in the FIA GT3 series.

For a little FIA GT3 eye candy, check out this gallery from the Bucharest race in May 2007, courtesy of Autoblog.

Interesting article on TheStar.com (Toronto Canada based) regarding the relative cost of gasoline and it’s impact on automotive development and environmental standards. This article parallels what I have stated previously about Why Things Don’t Change. Basically, Cash Rules Everything Around Me. In order to increase environmental and fuel mileage regulations, the cost of gas must go up… exponentially!