Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / March 2006
Design the world's best range of autos for $250 Billion?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Nomen Nescio - 20 Mar 2006 00:00 GMT Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt:
>The U.S. taxpayers' tab >Americans have spent $250 billion on military operations and >reconstruction efforts in Iraq, a war that is currently costing the >Pentagon roughly $6 billion a month, according to the nonpartisan >Congressional Research Service. > >This spending does not include so-called fixed costs that are part of >Pentagon spending such as pay for the troops but accounts for only the >direct war costs, such as bonus pay for combat operations, as well as >fuel, munitions and other war-related expenses. > >The war's true price tag, however, will include expenses not included in >this reckoning, particularly the long-term costs of providing lifetime >health care to soldiers wounded in the war or suffering from mental health >issues related to the conflict, recurring expenses certain to range in the >billions of dollars per year. > >Nor do these costs include the interest on the additional debt incurred to >finance the war. > >"There will be tail costs," said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, >head of the Government Accountability Office, a congressional agency that >oversees federal spending. "There will be costs that will be coming down >the road." > >Billions of dollars in tanks, aircraft, communications gear and other >military equipment has been worn out, destroyed or given to new Iraqi >forces during the conflict. " > >Some replacement funds are included in the Pentagon's current spending. >But military officials say billions in additional spending will be needed >to bring inventories of critical gear back up to pre-war levels. GM lost $10,000,000,000 last year, a DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared to this failed war. While government has no business investing in private enterprises like automobiles, instead of dropping $250 billion and rising into this black hole, had it invested it in auto development, as a partner, we would catch up and overtake what is now the best the world has to offer.
Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz all would be pale in comparison to what the U.S. could do if it would not squander its resources in Iraq. Its the old guns vs butter argument.
Why not a flying car? Individual inventors on $100,000 budgets have built them, though not commercially successful. Would not a few billion invested in this project reap practical rewards and a hundred thousand jobs to boot?
Its okay for government to partner with the automakers. They do it all the time with aerospace companies. Think of the level to which we could bring automotives if the government through its full weight behind its very much needed advancement. Don't count on GM, Ford, or Daimler-Chrysler to do it. They all are narrow minded, immediate gratifiers. Only the governmnent and the taxpayers who fund it have the forsight to think progressively.
Our cars remain a century behind aviation in every respect. Its Russian roulette when you have to go somewhere. Here's one of a hundred possible proofs: Travel insurance covers a missed flight due to an accident on the way to the airport, BUT does NOT COVER a mechanical breakdown which causes a missed flight (even when backed by tow and repair bills). Cars are plain unreliable and as far as travel insurance companies are concerned, uninsurable. Just $10,000,000,000 of government money would rectify this by financing the development of aviation-rated auto systems that would assure you of getting from point A to point B without worrying about a mechanical breakdown. (If that sounds like a lot, its only 1/25th of the cost of this illegal war--yes, its illegal because Congress hasn't (and wouldn't) formally declared it....read the Constitution instead of listening to politicians who need impeachment)
We have become the laughing stock of the world. We don't even make forks and spoons anymore in this country. We have reduced ourselves to having our star high school graduates flipping burgers and driving cars designed by ex-toilet bowl e-nigger-neers.
The truth hurts.
jcr - 20 Mar 2006 00:17 GMT > On 3/19/2006 6:00 PM ... Nomen Nescio wrote: > Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > The truth hurts. Better read the free trade agreement. Your suggestion would create stiff sanctions from WTO.
Backyard Mechanic - 20 Mar 2006 00:31 GMT > Our cars remain a century behind aviation in every respect. Enough, right there, to make me want to get you down and beat the snot out of you...
Nothing beats a throwaway line to make a point for the self-righteous shortsighted ass-hole! Never mind it's ridiculous if it makes your point, eh?
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
El Bandito - 21 Mar 2006 04:04 GMT THat's probably why all small consumer aircraft are still using *carburated* engines, because it's more reliable that way.
I wouldn't want an injector to fail at 25,000 thousand feet :)
 Signature (\_ _/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
>> Our cars remain a century behind aviation in every respect. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > shortsighted ass-hole! Never mind it's ridiculous if it makes your point, > eh? Spike - 21 Mar 2006 05:15 GMT >THat's probably why all small consumer aircraft are still using *carburated* >engines, because it's more reliable that way. > >I wouldn't want an injector to fail at 25,000 thousand feet :) That's about to become a thing of the past... the FAA will, by years end, approve two new small jets for about $1M US which carry 4-6 people, and another will likely be approved next year. Short runway friendly, fuel economical, etc. -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
Spike - 20 Mar 2006 01:04 GMT >Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>This spending does not include so-called fixed costs that are part of <SNIP>
>We have become the laughing stock of the world. We don't even make forks >and spoons anymore in this country. We have reduced ourselves to having >our star high school graduates flipping burgers and driving cars designed >by ex-toilet bowl e-nigger-neers. > >The truth hurts. Good God, man! Are you insane? The skies are already overcrowded now. And you want to put who knows how many people who can't avoid an accident on the ground, into the air? Can you imagine 300+ people on an airliner trying to get down though the layers of flying cars? Somebody has overdosed on SciFi. What was it? Bruce Willis in "The Fifth Element"? -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
mabar - 20 Mar 2006 03:42 GMT "Government has foresight." Now that's a new one!
"Cars are plain unreliable.." What fantasy world are you living in? Cars are pretty reliable in my world.
"We have become the laughing stock of the world." Then why are literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people trying to get into the USA every year, both legally and illegally?
Tom
Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt:
Don't count on GM, Ford, or Daimler-Chrysler to do it. They all are narrow minded, immediate gratifiers. Only the governmnent and the taxpayers who fund it have the forsight to think progressively.
Cars are plain unreliable and as far as travel insurance companies are concerned, uninsurable.
We have become the laughing stock of the world.
Backyard Mechanic - 20 Mar 2006 14:30 GMT No-brain wrote:
> Only the governmnent and > the taxpayers who fund it have the forsight to think progressively. BULLSHIT.. The history books are FULL of failed "Progressive Governments" and the news is full of those that are failing, as we speak!
And how exactly are the taxpayers to have a say? Our elected in Washington dont listen to us NOW! And dont lay that off on Corporate shenanigans... If you do away with 'corporations' TOMORROW, there will be some group or individual take their place at the trough. How's France's economy doing? That's certainly a 'progressive' society.
All you have to do is look at the UN and see what lies ahead when we place our trust in the 'enlightened alite'.
Nope... if you want a short-cut to fascism, all you have to do is create a government full of the exact opposite elitist types, and allow the fascists to play victim. That's happening right now, too... isnt it?
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
Spike - 21 Mar 2006 05:13 GMT >No-brain wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >government full of the exact opposite elitist types, and allow the fascists >to play victim. That's happening right now, too... isnt it? like anyone recall what happened before and since the French revolution?
Or how the people of Rome voted for things. Then they got lazy and elected people to represent them. And those good men, one and all, eventually got so lazy that they let Caesar do all the deciding for them... by force, bribery, or whatever he darned well pleased....which is what???? A dictatorship!
And the great Euro "experiment" is not fairing well.. Seems some countries are loathe to give up their control to the Union... like Spain refusing to sell it's government controlled oil corporation to a German concern. France passing new immigration rules, Italy backing off.... and the world questions the USA for not accepting every decision the UN makes? And knocks us for wanting to secure the borders against illegal entry (just as France wants to do)? -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
Gosi - 21 Mar 2006 10:36 GMT > GM lost $10,000,000,000 last year Can you imagine what they could have done with that money
> Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz all would be pale in comparison to what the > U.S. could do if it would not squander its resources in Iraq I am not sure just throwing money at something is a solution It matters also what you are paying for Some throw the money straight out the window
> Why not a flying car? The car industry could learn a lot from aviation
There each accident is investigated and the discoveries used to improve the plains and pilots
Gradually over the year the plains and pilots have become better
If each car accident was investigated and the cause registered in each case you could improve car safety a lot
In most cases it is either the road or the driver and not the car that is not good enough
Brand new cars are often in accident because of inexperienced driver
Old cars are very often on the street because of lax inspection
> Don't count on GM, Ford, or Daimler-Chrysler to do it. > They all are narrow minded, immediate gratifiers They make cars according to regulations and new cars are not bad
> Our cars remain a century behind aviation in every respect That can be true in many ways but it is not the mechanical problem nor is it the new cars
> Cars are plain > unreliable It is more the rules, regulations, inspections, roads and drivers that are unreliable
> We have become the laughing stock of the world True
Al - 21 Mar 2006 17:35 GMT >> GM lost $10,000,000,000 last year > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> Why not a flying car? The power/weight required would make this difficult, expensive, and noisy. the FAA certification and product liability would make this impractical.
> The car industry could learn a lot from aviation > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If each car accident was investigated and the cause registered in each > case you could improve car safety a lot Keep in mind that an inexpensive new 4 place airplane cost more than $100,000(Cessna, Piper) These aircraft and engines were certified more than 50 years ago, and have changed little since.
A well equipped travel type 4 place airplane will cost more like $250,000 - $500,000 (Cirrus, Beechcraft, Columbia. The Beechcraft was certified in the middle 1930's)
These are single engine aircraft. Depending on your attitude towards risk, you may not want to cross mountains or lakes, and you may not want to fly at night. If the engine quits, you can glide to a landing(I have several times), but you will need to be able to see where you are going to land.
Insurance will cost between $500 and $1000 per month, and the hangar another $300. Annual maintenance maybe another $2000.
The airplanes I fly are a 1964 and a 1967 Cessna. They rent for around $100/hour.
What do you think the auto industry should learn?
Al
Ted Mittelstaedt - 22 Mar 2006 19:26 GMT > > GM lost $10,000,000,000 last year > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If each car accident was investigated and the cause registered in each > case you could improve car safety a lot Aircraft accidents get the rigorious treatment for a different, historical, reason than auto accidents do. The reason is early on in the aviation industry they discovered a few spectacular plane accidents immediately and severely impacted the public's interest in flying. The aviation barons got the screaming heebie jeebies when they realized that the industry was only a few more accidents away from going completely bankrupt, and huge support appeared for rigorious accident investigation.
The dirty little secret of the aviation industry today is that the rigiorous and expensive accident investigation isn't justified by the cost compared to the death toll we accept as normal for auto traffic.
If they did only a cursory investigation it would result in an increase of crashes, but the increased death toll as a percentage of total travelling public would still be microscopic compared to the percentage of auto travelers killed and permanently maimed in car wrecks ever year.
If everyone was flying planes and crashing them at the rate that everyone is crashing cars today, the newspapers wouldn't even bother printing stories about most plane accidents. People would get immunized to it, just as they have got immunized to the death toll on the highways today.
It would be better to have rigiorous accident investigation of auto crashes, but unless the society is willing to do what is necessary to fix the problem - and that means in most cases, not allowing the drivers at fault back into vehicles without forcing them into a long and rather severe driver training class, or in the worst cases permenently preventing them from driving and jailing people caught driving with no license - then rigiorous accident investigation of car crashes is pointless. So far the society in the US is not willing to go to these lengths with auto drivers.
> In most cases it is either the road or the driver and not the car that > is not good enough Bullshit, in most cases it is the driver. A good driver can compensate for the road or vehicle shortcomings.
> Brand new cars are often in accident because of inexperienced driver > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It is more the rules, regulations, inspections, roads and drivers that > are unreliable Bullshit, it is more the drivers that are unreliable.
Ted
> > We have become the laughing stock of the world > > True Gosi - 22 Mar 2006 21:14 GMT It would be best to start at the top and take each death and investigate that rigorously
Create statististics for all car accidents and document it against where it happened
Many places are more problem prone than others
Take measures to stop cars, getting in trouble at those places
Close them down, get the speed down, remove the option of cars meeting
Increase public transport
Let the drivers get points for each incident and go through tests and reshooling after gathering certain amount of points
Let the car inspections each year on old cars be more demanding
There are lot of measures already done for airplanes that can be applied to cars and drivers
Spike - 22 Mar 2006 22:09 GMT >It would be best to start at the top and take each death and >investigate that rigorously way too costly
>Create statististics for all car accidents and document it against >where it happened already done in many jurisdictions. we used pin maps originally for everything in order to keep track of where we needed enforcement, and we checked them before hitting the streets. Still, it was a matter of priorities. Emphasis on traffic enforcement, or emphasis on drugs, etc. Today, computers spit out the same information which can then be actually given to patrolmen.
>Many places are more problem prone than others true
>Take measures to stop cars, getting in trouble at those places > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Let the drivers get points for each incident and go through tests and >reshooling after gathering certain amount of points already being done in many jurisdictions, as well as new rules for licensing young people.
>Let the car inspections each year on old cars be more demanding yep... once more it's pick on those on fixed incomes, low incomes, etc.... the ones who can't afford a new car every 3-5 years.
>There are lot of measures already done for airplanes that can be >applied to cars and drivers again... at what cost? Part of the problem is that when a car crashes, you don't lose 100-300 people in one punch. (and the airlines have been seeking planes to carry as many as 1000). -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
Bill Kitterman - 23 Mar 2006 02:22 GMT > It would be best to start at the top and take each death and > investigate that rigorously [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There are lot of measures already done for airplanes that can be > applied to cars and drivers The govenment is involved in so much why not have beacons along the highway that send speed limit signals to receivers in automobiles ?
Bill
Spike - 23 Mar 2006 20:55 GMT >> It would be best to start at the top and take each death and >> investigate that rigorously [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Bill Please don't give 'em any ideas they may not already have planned... I enjoy driving cars, not being driven by cars.... -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
Ted Mittelstaedt - 25 Mar 2006 12:29 GMT > It would be best to start at the top and take each death and > investigate that rigorously Totally not cost-effective. We don't need to investigate deaths caused by drinking drivers, for example, we already know what killed the people involved.
> Create statististics for all car accidents and document it against > where it happened > > Many places are more problem prone than others States and municipalities already do this, that is how they decide where to allocate road dollars.
> Take measures to stop cars, getting in trouble at those places > > Close them down, get the speed down, remove the option of cars meeting States already do this, but it is very expensive to come in and rebuild a problem interchange espically when you have to make it bigger and everything around it is already built up.
> Increase public transport Cities are already doing what they can to do this, it isn't working very well. Even in New York City they have too many cars. People want to drive.
> Let the drivers get points for each incident and go through tests and > reshooling after gathering certain amount of points The problem with this is that you need to catch them before they have an incident and get a point.
The absolute idea situation would be to require a DRIVERS TEST every 5 years when the license is renewed. I mean a test where a drivers instructor sits in the passenger seat and you drive him around. This business of letting people renew drivers licenses every couple years by just paying a fee is f.cking retarded. If the driver fails the test they have to attend a drivers ed weekend course before they get their license renewed.
The problem is that the states and such that issue licenses view the process as a way to fill the government coffers, not as a mechanism to insure that only qualified drivers are on the road. There's plenty of money from a drivers license renewal to pay for an instructor to do a 10 minute test.
> Let the car inspections each year on old cars be more demanding Many places do not inspect vehicles at all other than emissions.
Ted
> There are lot of measures already done for airplanes that can be > applied to cars and drivers Gosi - 25 Mar 2006 17:15 GMT I guess we are basically in agreement what needs to be done The problem with the rules the authorities give out are not enforced The roads are not good enough The plans for roads, trains, public transport and renewals as well as security are not good enough Most planners do not see further than the middle of their noses If the transport system were planned a lot of money could be saved People would live in safer environments It would be easier and faster to travel Because no plans are in place everything happens ad hoq and the whole system is very inefficient The airplane industry has done a much better job per se as the cars but they too should be part of the complete system and not be an isolated part What the airplane authorities have done well is to make the planes safe They are not very well fitted in the total transport system either
Ted Mittelstaedt - 27 Mar 2006 08:22 GMT > I guess we are basically in agreement what needs to be done No, I don't think so. I think the problem is fundamentally the drivers, playing around with redesigns of the vehicles or the transportation system is merely nibbling at the edges. I think the problem is the political will to tighten down on the drivers doesen't exist in the US at any rate. People would rather dump 10 million bucks into a newer interchange that is supposed to be "safer" than drop a million bucks into mandatory driver training, or 5 million bucks into increased traffic enforcement at 3:00 AM in the morning. They would rather drop 5 million bucks into a don't drink and drive campaign than 2 million bucks into random roadblocks with breathalizer tests.
We can, today, manufacture a breathalizer sensitive enough that all a cop would need to do is thrust it into an open window and take a sniff of the vehicle inside air to detect the presense of alcohol. If it registered then the cop could demand a blow test to get the actual percentage.
If a municipality instituted a roadblock system whereby they randomly selected arterials in a city, and stopped everyone that drove through them from the hours of 1:00 am to 5:00am, and did a quick sniff, they would probably be able to get 90% of the chronic drunk drivers in the city cited within a year, and with repeated citations requiring vehicle forfeture they could probably see a steep reduction of drunk driving crashes. But, people complain their civil rights are being violated so they don't do it. How? The roads are not the private possession of those people, they are publically owned and you must follow the will of the majority when you use them. And a roadblock stops everyone, it does not discriminate.
> The problem with the rules the authorities give out are not enforced > The roads are not good enough > The plans for roads, trains, public transport and renewals as well as > security are not good enough > Most planners do not see further than the middle of their noses That isn't true at all. I know a planner and the problem isn't the planners. The city planners know how it's supposed to be. The problem is twofold, first most cities and jurisdictions look at building permits as a cash cow to fund other projects, they do not plow the money that they get from issuing permits back into a better planning system. Second, almost the entire cities control over the city design is when permits are issued for new construction. If you have an existing setup that is a horrible setup, and no developer is interested in going in and buying out people then razing the setup and rebuilding, then nothing gets done to the existing setup.
> If the transport system were planned a lot of money could be saved > People would live in safer environments > It would be easier and faster to travel > Because no plans are in place everything happens ad hoq and the whole > system is very inefficient But that is the nature of the beast. Transport planning is a big catch-22. People use transport to get to a destination. When sitting down to plan a transportation network you have no idea what in the future is going to prove out to be a popular destination. So you take a guess and if you guess wrong (which usually happens) then your transportation network has overcapacity in one place, and undercapacity elsewhere, it's lopsided. Or, if you sit on your hands and decided to wait to see what proves out to be popular, by the time you figure that out, the popular destinations are all built up and it's horribly expensive to increase capacity in to them.
Ted
Gosi - 27 Mar 2006 09:51 GMT > > I guess we are basically in agreement what needs to be done
> No, I don't think so. I think the problem is fundamentally the drivers, Strange we both agree on the main problem - drivers - but you still can not admit agreeing
Interesting
Beside that I think the whole transport system is not planned It has just happened and individual parts are really bad
It is not enough to create a huge expensive monster if it is not improving anything
Best plans make simple effective systems
When you just spend a lot of money trying to fix old problems it only makes things more wrong and money out the window
Spam Hater - 22 Mar 2006 21:12 GMT > We have become the laughing stock of the world. YOU sure have! Well at least those who see your crap.
> We have reduced ourselves to having > our star high school graduates flipping burgers and driving cars designed > by ex-toilet bowl e-nigger-neers. > > The truth hurts. A racist as well! You sure do give me a pain. Thank goodness the Gov. doesn't listen to you.
Gosi - 23 Mar 2006 15:47 GMT GM sold 78 percent of its equity in GMAC Commercial Holding in exchange for more than $1.5 billion in cash, GM said.
The investor group was comprised of affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Five Mile Capital Partners LLC and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners.
Yet another nail in the coffin
|
|
|