 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / November 2005US v European car technology
Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html DAS Ford Mustang By Jeremy Clarkson Bite the Bullitt, buy the fantasy The new Pontiac Solstice is America's first attempt at making a sports car in more than 50 years. And not since David Beckham's wayward penalty kick against Portugal have we seen anything go so wide of the mark. It is comically awful. And that sets a question. How come America's massive car industry can't make what is basically beans on toast? A light, zesty, pine-fresh car with an engine at the front, a simple foldaway roof in the middle and rear-wheel drive at the back? Lotus can make a sports car using nothing but a melted-down bathtub and the engine from a Rover. Alfa Romeo can make a sports car using steel so thin you can read through it, and an engine that won't start. Then there was Triumph, which made a sports car even though its entire workforce was outside the factory warming its hands around a brazier and chanting. So what's America's problem? Well, here in Europe early cars were expensive coach-built luxury goods for the tweedy and well-off. It wasn't until the 1940s that cars for the common man came to France, Germany and Britain, and it wasn't until the 1950s that they came to Italy. They haven't arrived in Spain even today. As a result we still have an innate sense that a car is something you save up for, something a bit decadent and exciting. Whereas in America the everyman Model T Ford came quickly after the introduction of internal combustion so there was never a chance for cars to earn that upmarket cachet. As a result, they've always seen the car as a tool: nothing more than an alternative to the horse. In Europe we talk about style and how fast a car accelerates. In America they talk about how many horse boxes their trucks can pull and how much torque the engine produces. If you do encounter someone over there who's fond of performance cars they're only really interested in how much g can be generated in the bends, whereas here those of a petrolhead disposition don't care at all about grip, only what happens when it's lost and the car is sliding. Then you are into the world of handling. A world where nothing but skill keeps you out of the hedge. There's more, too. From day one American motor sport was all about sponsorship, which is why the oval raceway was developed. It meant the whole crowd could see all the sponsors' names all the time. The cars never zoomed off into a wood. Here, they did. Motor racing was a rich man's game, held far from hoi polloi on airfield perimeter roads. And on twisty tracks like this, grip was nowhere near as important as decent handling. Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema. They also have the Ford Mustang and last week that's what I was using to cruise up the 101 from Monterey to San Francisco. The sun was shining, 104.3 the Hippo was massaging my ear bones with soothing West Coast sounds and, like everyone else, I was doing a steady 65mph, my heart beating in slow monotonous harmony with the big V8. This new version has been styled to resemble the original from 1965, and that's a good thing. Less satisfactory is the news that it's also been engineered to resemble the original with all sorts of technology that in Europe would have been considered old fashioned by Edward Longshanks. There's no complex double-stage turbocharging here; no elegantly machined swirl chamber to extract the best possible power and economy from the smallest possible engine. It's a 4.6 litre V8 with just one camshaft, three valves per cylinder and the sort of power output the average European would expect from a juicer. The platform for the new Mustang comes from a Jaguar S-type. But then the Americans take it back in time by fitting a solid rear axle such as you'd find on a Silver Cross pram, and a Panhard rod, dismissed by Newcomen as being "a bit too last year". So what's it like to drive? Well, the previous day I'd taken it on a hard lap of the extraordinarily beautiful Laguna Seca raceway, which, because it's the curliest track in North America, is regarded by racing drivers all over the world as one of the greats. Mansell. Villeneuve. Even Top Gear's Stig go all misty eyed at the mention of it. And frankly it was more than a match for Ford's big daft horse. Its brakes were cooked by turn six; the final slow corner completely overwhelmed the live rear axle; and through the fearsome Corkscrew, which twists down a gradient so steep you can't even walk up it, I'm afraid Mr Ed was about as pin sharp as a punt gun. I damn nearly soiled myself. Is it fast? Well, you get 300bhp, which is about 200bhp less than BMW gets from a similarly sized engine. But nevertheless it will get from 0-60mph in 5sec and reach a top speed of 150. That's not bad for an ox cart. But by European standards this car is rubbish. Its engine has wasteful, unused capacity that turns fuel into nothing, it couldn't get from one end of a country lane to the other without running out of brakes and it handles like a newborn donkey. There's more, too. It's got a gruff engine note, its interior has the panache of an Afghan's cave and . . . and . . . and I can't go on. You see, I'm running through all this car's bad points but I'm afraid my mind is consumed by the bit where I was doing 65mph on the 101, listening to some Eagles on 104.3. And then by the subsequent memory of grumbling along the waterfront in San Francisco itself, the city setting for Bullitt, the film that etched the Mustang for all time on the petrolhead's radar. You see, I kept thinking I'm in a Mustang in San Francisco on a glorious September afternoon. And I liked that a lot. I liked it so much that I became consumed with the notion of maybe taking a small part of the experience home with me. The numbers look good. Because the Mustang is made from pig iron and lava it is extraordinarily cheap: $25,000. And £13,800 for 300bhp is tempting. Even if you factor in the cost of shipping, changing the lights and paying Mr Blair some tax, it'll still only be £22,000. For that you could have a Golf GTI, which, alongside Ford's canoe looks like the Starship Enterprise. It's more practical, easier to run, and around Laguna Seca undoubtedly it'd be a whole lot more competent. Whenever I drive a GTI I'm always full of admiration for its abilities, but when I was driving that Mustang I liked it. And that's sort of more important. Of course, the American way means they'll never be able to build a sports car. It explains why the Pontiac Solstice is so dire. But the simplistic, covered wagon approach doesn't really matter on a car like the Mustang, not when you're doing 65mph in the sunshine and the Doobies are serenading you with Long Train Running. Not when it means you get a car this handsome for 13 grand. The only worry is that if I did buy a Mustang, I'd get the car over here and on a wet November night realise that, actually, what I wanted to bring home was San Francisco. The Mustang, then, is a great car in America. But here you're better off with a Golf. VITAL STATISTICS Model Ford Mustang 4.6 litre Engine 4600cc V8 Power 300bhp @ 5750rpm Torque 320lb ft @ 4500rpm Transmission 5 speed manual Fuel 18/23mpg urban/extra urban CO2 N/A Acceleration 0-60mph: 5 sec Top speed 143mph Price $25,225 (not sold in UK) Rating 3/5 Verdict Horrid but very loveable  SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- Thanks for posting this article. Its the (typical) arrogant Euro point of view, but certainly fun to read. Jeremy doesn't seem to realize that here in the US of A, driving is basically different. Reliabilty, and long distance driving are far more important here than in Europe. And yes, there are many folks here that appreciate exotic engines and good handling. Go to one of the many Brit car shows like the one held in Palo Alto earlier in the month. Lots of exotics there (cars and people). BTW, we'll be happy to sell you our new Mustangs and Corvettes, but we'll keep San Francisco! ;-) Steve > Thanks for posting this article. Its the (typical) arrogant Euro > point of view, but certainly fun to read. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Steve You forget that he was testing something called a *sports car*. If he was testing luxo barges you would have a point. And what makes you think that a Golf GTi would be any less acceptable on a long drive? Or any less reliable for that matter? Huw > You forget that he was testing something called a *sports car*. > If he was testing luxo barges you would have a point. A Mazda MX-5 or a Honda S2000 is a sports car. The Mustang is a sporty 2-door sedan. And as far as luxobarges are concerned, does the Mustang not share the platform of the Jag-you-are S-type (or is it the X-type)? So maybe one's expectations should be reduced accordingly. Speaking of which, I note that the term "platform" has replaced "chassis" ever since unibody construction became all the rage. But what is a "platform," exactly? Isn't it just a more glam- orous term for the floorpan, i.e., the foundation upon which the rest of the car is built? Sounds like a chassis to me. Should it really matter that it's made of sheetmetal rather than box girders, if it fulfills the same function? And why do the car magazines, or at least the American ones, call torsion bars "twist beams" nowadays? What's up with that? Is it because in this postliterate age, nobody knows what "torsion" means anymore? Much like the way venereal diseases are called "*sexually transmitted* diseases" now because hardly anybody is educated enough to know that Venus was the goddess of love, and to make the appropriate connection to the old in-out? Maybe we should go back to the old terms (and stop that silliness of using the term "archi- tecture" in an automotive context while we're at it). Grumble. Geoff Signature"Many of the same people who cry 'No blood for oil!' also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents - in other words, trading blood for oil." -Thomas Sowell >> You forget that he was testing something called a *sports car*. >> If he was testing luxo barges you would have a point. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (or is it the X-type)? So maybe one's expectations should be > reduced accordingly. Loosely, the S type, which is a family saloon but with a properly tuned rear end, not the live rear beam axle for goodness' sake. > Speaking of which, I note that the term "platform" has replaced > "chassis" ever since unibody construction became all the rage. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And why do the car magazines, or at least the American ones, call > torsion bars "twist beams" nowadays? What's up with that? They are talking down to their readers. However you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the typical reader so maybe they are correct. Huw Is it > because in this postliterate age, nobody knows what "torsion" means > anymore? Much like the way venereal diseases are called "*sexually [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Grumble. [the Mustang] > Loosely, the S type, which is a family saloon but with a > properly tuned rear end, not the live rear beam axle for > goodness' sake. The new Mustang has a live axle because the original Mustang did. According to what I've read in the car magazines, it works quite well, with little or no axle tramp. The upcoming Cobra version will have IRS for those who want it. Meanwhile, Ford believes that the standard car will have a strong "retro" appeal, being updated sufficiently to appeal to potential buyers while not putting off the staunch Mustang traditionalists. Since Ford is in business to make money, not to commit corporate suicide by producing things that nobody would want, I'm inclined to believe that they know what they're doing in this respect. [platforms and twist beams] > They are talking down to their readers. However you cannot > underestimate the intelligence of the typical reader so maybe > they are correct. My, what a dark view of the world you seem to have. Everything and everyone is interpreted in the worst possible way. A magazine's talking down to its readers doesn't strike me as a very sane business plan. A more likely explanation is that "twist beam" began as a sort of car-guy hipster logo, caught on and became mainsteam, and that "platform" was originally used for marketing reasons, in order to distinguish between unibody and body-on-frame construction. But that's just speculation; I'd be receptive to other theories. Geoff Signature"Many of the same people who cry 'No blood for oil!' also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents - in other words, trading blood for oil." -Thomas Sowell > [the Mustang] > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > My, what a dark view of the world you seem to have. Everything > and everyone is interpreted in the worst possible way. Not at all. You brought this subject up and I agree with you and present a possible answer as to why it should be. > A magazine's talking down to its readers doesn't strike me as a > very sane business plan. A more likely explanation is that "twist [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > construction. But that's just speculation; I'd be receptive to other > theories. I just think they are dumbing down. Just like Ford are doing with their cars. In America, apparently dumbing down sells. In Europe sohistication and design and performance sells better. Ford tried dumbing down with the last Escort and it nearly killed them off. The later Focus and Mondeo cars are genuinely good cars and have rescued their reputation in a market full of excellent cars. That does not stop the BMW 3 from outselling the Mondeo in recent times. Huw > I just think they are dumbing down. Just like Ford are doing with their > cars. In America, apparently dumbing down sells. In America, it started with the Media all fighting to get a chunk of the biggest market by playing to the lowest common denominator. > In Europe sohistication and > design and performance sells better. Whoa. We can sit here and laugh at the general stupidity of the average American who has succumbed to the mind rotting drivel force fed to him by an immoral and corrupt media machine but perhaps we would do better to stop, look and take stock of the situation. Our weather presenters don't show pressure charts anymore. BBC's horizon program now does fancy graphics instead of science. We run like lemmings to buy the cheapest, then spend hours whining and moaning at the lack of quality or the poor service. I could go on, but it seems fairly obvious to me that we are on the very same road as the yanks. It's just that they found it first and got a head start. SignatureAlan LeHun >> I just think they are dumbing down. Just like Ford are doing with their >> cars. In America, apparently dumbing down sells. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to me that we are on the very same road as the yanks. It's just that > they found it first and got a head start. We are at a slight variance here because I think today's European cars are better designed and better built than ever before. There is even a commendable amount of design innovation and product differentiation making a comeback. Yes we want cheaper cars but the success of the premium brands at the expense of mass builders and the reaction of innovative quality products from the mass shows that quality and innovation has the upper hand over price. Huw Mercedes might be a 'premium' brand in some countries but you're not suggesting it is anything other than a "mass builder"? One million Merc-branded cars p.a.... Same for BMW, e.g. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > We are at a slight variance here because I think today's European cars are > better designed and better built than ever before. There is even a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Huw > Mercedes might be a 'premium' brand in some countries but you're not > suggesting it is anything other than a "mass builder"? One million > Merc-branded cars p.a.... > > Same for BMW, e.g. Yes indeed. This is proven by the fact that the 'premium' BMW3 outsells the 'mass' Ford Mondeo here. Despite their premium status both Mercdes and BMW are very much mass market premium builders. This seems not to be widely appreciated in some geographic areas. Huw So it's just image. You were contrasting: "premium brands at the expense of mass builders". You did not really mean that, then. More like "premium image at the expense of little image" or similar. One could also bring the word "price" into it. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Yes indeed. This is proven by the fact that the 'premium' BMW3 outsells > the 'mass' Ford Mondeo here. Despite their premium status both Mercdes and > BMW are very much mass market premium builders. This seems not to be > widely appreciated in some geographic areas. > > Huw > So it's just image. You were contrasting: "premium brands at the expense > of mass builders". > > You did not really mean that, then. More like "premium image at the > expense of little image" or similar. One could also bring the word > "price" into it. I think you misunderstand. 'Premium' and 'mass' market cars are not mutually exclusive. Both Mercedes and BMW are seen as premium quality vehicles by customers while being obviously produced in massive numbers. They are able to exploit their premium quality image to sell their vehicles at a premium price. They sell in greater volume than many 'ordinary' mass market cars despite their premium price. This proves that very many people do not have the price as the main criteria when choosing a car. They may have any number of other priorities but price does not over-ride. Huw Yes, agreed, but you implied the mutual exclusivity. It's pretty clear: "premium brands at the expense of mass builders". BTW, the singular of "criteria" is "criterion". DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I think you misunderstand. 'Premium' and 'mass' market cars are not > mutually exclusive. Both Mercedes and BMW are seen as premium quality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Huw > Yes, agreed, but you implied the mutual exclusivity. It's pretty clear: > "premium brands at the expense of mass builders". But I also said "Yes indeed. This is proven by the fact that the 'premium' BMW3 outsells the 'mass' Ford Mondeo here." which indicates that the 3 actually sells more volume. > BTW, the singular of "criteria" is "criterion". You don't say. I do believe that you may have a career the in the teaching profession in front of you. Unless you are already one. Perhaps an examiner of exam papers? English as a second language perhaps? Huw I am also Hon Sec of the SPCA, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Apostrophes. :-) DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> Yes, agreed, but you implied the mutual exclusivity. It's pretty clear: >> "premium brands at the expense of mass builders". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Huw > Mercedes might be a 'premium' brand in some countries but you're not > suggesting it is anything other than a "mass builder"? One million > Merc-branded cars p.a.... > > Same for BMW, e.g. BMW and Mercedes are both premium brands for those not paying close attention. Premium brand doesn't mean not mass production. Lexus is another good example... Marty > [Excellent points concerning terminology "sports car, > "platform/chassis," and "torsion bar/twist beam" excised] > Grumble. May I add? A 4-door car with a low roofline (e.g. CLS-class) is *not* a coupé. For that matter, just because a car has only two doors doesn't make it a coupé; 2-door cars with back seats once were called "2+2" precisely because they were not coupés. --/<eith And I thought that was just marketing hype to pretend that there was room for people at the back, to make the car more appealing. ;-) DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] 2-door cars with back seats once were called "2+2" > precisely because they were not coupés. > > --/<eith I've driven cross-country (>1k miles) in a 96 GTI. A miserable experience. Lots of road noise. Fair handling. Rock-hard seats. Cramped interior. (I'm a modest 6'1" tall.) Typical VW. It's fine for short and moderate drives, but nothing more than a couple of hours and it's too tiring. My old, recently-deceased, 91 Camry is one of the best I've been in for long distance. Same with my current 97 E320. My wife's 97 Camry is so-so. Not bad, but not great. Collin KC8TKA E320/97 "Cheesehead" <dplotusnotes@yahoo.com> haute in die Tasten: > I've driven cross-country (>1k miles) in a 96 GTI. > A miserable experience. Lots of road noise. Fair handling. > Rock-hard seats. Cramped interior. (I'm a modest 6'1" tall.) > Typical VW. Forget about that. A '96 GTI probably was a Golf III - a car which I am not able to drive in properly due to a lack of room. Just lately I sat in a Golf V, this is a completely different experience. I do not remember ever having been sitting better in a car of similar size. A BMW 3' series of today is about as big and comfortable as a 5' series 10 years ago. It is the same with VW. Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance > Thanks for posting this article. Its the (typical) arrogant Euro > point of view, but certainly fun to read. Arrogant but correct. Watch the show Top Gear and you'll understand what real driving is about. Most of the episodes are available on Gnutella. > Jeremy doesn't seem to realize that here in the US of A, driving is > basically different. Reliabilty, and long distance driving are far more > important here than in Europe. You're posting on a mercedes newsgroup and you're claiming reliability is more important than in Europe? cp This scribbler seems to have stretched his cleverness and then some - to fill xxx words' space. Economics: Leaving him aside, the US auto industry has always been one of mass (vs. class). We don't produce finely tuned machines that achieve 400 HP from 3.0L - it just doesn't work that way here. We produce a cruder but simpler, low maintenance vehicle that's based on common parts, and do so for a relatively low price. Detroit must think in terms of 100,000 units, not 5,000 units. The median family income in the USA is about $44,000 - that's the US auto market's heart and when one sees annual new car sales of 17 million units, including imports, the idea of "mass" really takes hold for American's spend about 12% of their income on transportation - about $440 per month. Not a lot of money for new auto purchases. That's why some of the US auto makers don't even make money building cars! (The Big 3's retirement and health care costs are enormous ($1,500/car) vs. the foreign start-ups.) One needs a car in all but center city neighborhoods. The mass dispersion of autos, US per capita auto ownership vs. European per capita auto ownership, I'd suspect is substantially higher in the US, even when per capita income is similar. The more socially oriented Europeans have robust railway service vs. our ever regressive Amtrack service over freight rails. All these factors create demand but a profitless prosperity for Detroit's Big 3, so they "push the iron out the door" just to stay in business. Technology: A new Corvette uses an ancient push rod V-8 design that's been vastly improved over the years; I had one of these 5.7L V-8s in my '72 Chevy, it made 165 HP with a two barrel carburetor! Simple and reliable engine. The cited Pontiac model is based, I understand, mostly on common parts that have been assembled as a "sports car". And its aggressive price reflects that "heritage". So it's not a BMW, well, nobody said it WAS a BMW, or a Lotus or a Mercedes. And then to run a pick up truck through a race course and complain that it's not a sports car is truly absurd. It's a truck, designed to haul goods! Application: Then there's the actual use that cars encounter in the US. Mostly suburban - low speed and lots of idling in traffic - and speed limited (to 65 - 75 mph) freeway and interstate use. Driving 150 mph is a one time experience for one will not be driving at all thereafter. So "performance" is essentially limited to acceleration up to freeway speed and the relatively large Detroit iron does that reasonably well before it drops into overdrive to save fuel. Attitude: IMHO the US auto industry ought to stop resisting change and start embracing it. Ever since emissions controls arose - even the very simple crankcase vapor capture - the US auto makers have been resistant. Too costly, too complicated, etc. etc. But they've always done it in the end, perhaps not the most efficient way but done it. Now Toyota's Prius is showing Detroit a new path and we're seeing their same begrudging reaction to this new Castor Oil. Oh well, if we MUST! A historical parallel is the British - French Concorde vs. the 747. Class vs. mass, cutting (or was it bleeding) edge technology vs. proven technology. Passengers loved the Concorde but its economics, age and lack of new SST aircraft finally killed SST service. Detroit is in business and that, today, means avoiding big risks, keeping the doors open and collecting a paycheck. Given the industry's economics, its breadth and after market infrastructure maintenance and repair skill set I believe Detroit is delivering a good product for the price. Of course auto columnists scribble about cars but they ought to do so with a bit more perspective, IMHO. > This scribbler seems to have stretched his cleverness and then some - to > fill xxx words' space. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for a relatively low price. Detroit must think in terms of 100,000 units, > not 5,000 units. Odd then that BMW 3 series outsell the Ford Mondeo in the UK and BMW are mass market manufacturers by any measure. > The median family income in the USA is about $44,000 - that's the US auto > market's heart and when one sees annual new car sales of 17 million units, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > makers don't even make money building cars! (The Big 3's retirement and > health care costs are enormous ($1,500/car) vs. the foreign start-ups.) Does that exclude the building of fine cars. You seem to be making excuses for producing crap cars and in so doing are agreeing with Clarkson. > One needs a car in all but center city neighborhoods. The mass dispersion > of autos, US per capita auto ownership vs. European per capita auto [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Detroit's Big 3, so they "push the iron out the door" just to stay in > business. Your idea of European motoring is not accurate. There are big differences between individual Countries but in general multi-car families are normal and huge trafic problems fairly universal in towns if not in the countryside. > Technology: A new Corvette uses an ancient push rod V-8 design that's been > vastly improved over the years; I had one of these 5.7L V-8s in my '72 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > race course and complain that it's not a sports car is truly absurd. It's > a truck, designed to haul goods! What he was implying was that a number of US cars, such as his test car, use truck technology and have truck-like handling. > Application: Then there's the actual use that cars encounter in the US. > Mostly suburban - low speed and lots of idling in traffic Same in most of Europe. - and speed > limited (to 65 - 75 mph) freeway and interstate use. Driving 150 mph is a > one time experience for one will not be driving at all thereafter. The same as most of Europe except that speeds are generally about 10mph higher in the 'fast' lanes. So > "performance" is essentially limited to acceleration up to freeway speed > and the relatively large Detroit iron does that reasonably well before it > drops into overdrive to save fuel. So a 'sports car' is really just a truck just tarted up to look sporty. How can anyone buy into such dishonesty without feeling badly cheated? > Attitude: IMHO the US auto industry ought to stop resisting change and > start embracing it. Ever since emissions controls arose - even the very [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > its breadth and after market infrastructure maintenance and repair skill > set I believe Detroit is delivering a good product for the price. No doubt most of their product is perfectly good, sometimes very good, witness the Chrysler 300C. Of course auto columnists scribble about cars but they ought to > do so with a bit more perspective, IMHO. Oh but that is exactly what he did. Look at it in perspective. A spots car that is apparently not sporty because it uses ancient technology like a live rear axle in combination with all that torque, which it cannot handle and results in a car that does not handle. To-whit, a 'sports car' that is not. Huw Agreed, plus: JC did point out that in the USA motoring was always a democratric, mass activity, whereas in Europe it was a rich person's activity until quite recently. That's not critical of the US industry. As regards engine efficiency, if the price of fuel were double in the US I am sure the Big Two or Three would introduce better engines. They just have to dip into their European spares boxes... BTW, I don't think the hybrid is being embraced with enthusiasm by many manufacturers. It is the endorsement by celebrities in the USA and the resulting fashion-fad. Thus if you are a Merc or BMW you worry about market penetration in the US and do what you think is fashionable with customers. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> This scribbler seems to have stretched his cleverness and then some - to >> fill xxx words' space. [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > Huw > Agreed, plus: JC did point out that in the USA motoring was always a > democratric, mass activity, whereas in Europe it was a rich person's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DAS In Europe the 300C will soon have a V6 diesel of course, which will allow about 40mpgUK on average. I predict that it will sell very well. The Chrysler Neon el-cheapo has bombed however. Huw >> Agreed, plus: JC did point out that in the USA motoring was always a >> democratric, mass activity, whereas in Europe it was a rich person's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Huw Here in the US they put a PT Cruiser body on the Neon, pumped the price and sold more than anyone ever dreamed. They're sort of cute to look at but I'd never waste my money on one. >>> Agreed, plus: JC did point out that in the USA motoring was always a >>> democratric, mass activity, whereas in Europe it was a rich person's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and sold more than anyone ever dreamed. They're sort of cute truiser o > look at but I'd never waste my money on one. We get the PT Cruiser here in the UK also and it has sold more volume than the Neon. Still very low volume. Huw > Agreed, plus: JC did point out that in the USA motoring was always a > democratric, mass activity, whereas in Europe it was a rich person's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > market penetration in the US and do what you think is fashionable with > customers. What on earth makes you think celebrities know anything about cars? Most are idiots that can't speak three words of English without using the "F" word. If you spent 15 minutes on a stage lot you'd think they all flunked school and skipped every single grammar class ever offered. BTW this comes from personal experience and a total distain for most actors. You'd enjoy spending time with a very few.....unless, of course, you think like they do. > DAS > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >> >> Huw Mostly nothing, of course, but they can be trend-setters. If we were all discussing rationally, we would not be spending so much time on hybrids. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > What on earth makes you think celebrities know anything about cars? Most > are idiots that can't speak three words of English without using the "F" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spending time with a very few.....unless, of course, you think like they > do. [...] > What on earth makes you think celebrities know anything about cars? Most are > idiots that can't speak three words of English without using the "F" word. > If you spent 15 minutes on a stage lot you'd think they all flunked school > and skipped every single grammar class ever offered. BTW this comes from > personal experience and a total distain for most actors. You'd enjoy > spending time with a very few.....unless, of course, you think like they do. Clarkson is a journalist, not an actor. He got into motor journalism quite early in his career and hasn't looked back. He does know quite a bit about driving but doesn't seem to like to talk about it much, preferring to talk about things like his donkeys or yak herding. He is very very opinionated and vents much anger on his pet hates of cyclists, caravans, bus lanes and the environment. He has the annoying habit of dismissing extremely practical cars as being boring. Driving, a la Jeremy, is all about fun. He drives an SL (500 I think) and gave back his GT40 to Ford because getting woken up at 4am by an oversensitive alarm wasn't much fun. Most of his viewers/readers probably thought it was hilarious. His articles are, however, quite entertaining and some are available online, including the one that was quoted at the start of this thread. http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,12529,00.html Wikipedia has a more accurate and better resume of Mr Clarkson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson SignatureAlan LeHun I suggest a different reason for the failure of Concorde. When developing the aircraft, a target of about 1400/1500 mph was set. Whilst challenging, it was doable based on the existing technology with relatively little development work. Boeing, not wanting to be left out, started a project to build a rival that was faster, namely 2000 mph. There was no way this was achievable for a private company and Boeing gave up. The Concorde was launched. The US government forbade supersonic overflight of the Continental US. Other countries followed suit and the rest is history. Practically nowhere to fly, necessarily high prices, no market, no development (which manufacturer will develop a better engine for 14 aircraft?). Kaput. THAT'S what killed the Concorde. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > A historical parallel is the British - French Concorde vs. the 747. Class > vs. mass, cutting (or was it bleeding) edge technology vs. proven > technology. Passengers loved the Concorde but its economics, age and lack > of new SST aircraft finally killed SST service. [...] >I suggest a different reason for the failure of Concorde. When developing >the aircraft, a target of about 1400/1500 mph was set. Whilst challenging, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > DAS Yes of course. US protectionism in action, driven by politics, just as in the present day where four of its biggest airlines are protected from the bankruptcy they should endure. They are trading while insolvent. Huw Unfortunately state subsidies are not on one side, and Boeing/US government and Airbus/EU governments play that, too. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Yes of course. US protectionism in action, driven by politics, just as in > the present day where four of its biggest airlines are protected from the > bankruptcy they should endure. They are trading while insolvent. > > Huw > Unfortunately state subsidies are not on one side, and Boeing/US > government and Airbus/EU governments play that, too. Yes but I have a feeling that some Americans are under the impression that they live in a whiter than white free market economy. This is patently not so and the USA is damned clever in protecting its industry to the detriment of other countries. I just focused on the air industry because it was brought up and because it is topical. One can look at steel which leads to the subsidised production of cars if you like or any number of other industries. They are not unique in this of course but they have no moral high ground to stand on. Huw >> Unfortunately state subsidies are not on one side, and Boeing/US >> government and Airbus/EU governments play that, too. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Huw Anyone claiming morality of any sort exists in Washington at all is living in a fantasy world. IMHO Ronald Reagan (and I interviewed the man myself) was the last really moral individual to occupy the oval office. Judgment hasn't been passed on W yet (by those who really understand the time/history factor) but those in between were sure losers. >>> Unfortunately state subsidies are not on one side, and Boeing/US >>> government and Airbus/EU governments play that, too. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > understand the time/history factor) but those in between were sure > losers. LOL! Reagan moral! He killed more innocent people then Bin Ladden (Sp?) can dream of... >>>> Unfortunately state subsidies are not on one side, and Boeing/US >>>> government and Airbus/EU governments play that, too. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > He killed more innocent people then Bin Ladden (Sp?) can dream of... I'm sorry, can you name any innocent people killed under R. Reagan? From what I've learned in a rather long lifetime is that no one is innocent, especially those idiots in the middle east. >> He killed more innocent people then Bin Ladden (Sp?) can dream of... > > I'm sorry, can you name any innocent people killed under R. Reagan? > From what I've learned in a rather long lifetime is that no one is innocent, Including the people who died on 9/11? > especially those idiots in the middle east. ahhhh that explains everything. One thing about them idiots in the middle east, they know their mercedes! :-) cp > Anyone claiming morality of any sort exists in Washington at all is living > in a fantasy world. IMHO Ronald Reagan (and I interviewed the man myself) > was the last really moral individual to occupy the oval office. Judgment > hasn't been passed on W yet (by those who really understand the time/history > factor) but those in between were sure losers. That seems a bit cynical. How did you get to interview the Great Communicator? Did he communicate greatly? . Right. While not all politicians have been "bought", the vast majorite still "owe". Sometimes out of agreement and concensus with supporters, sometimes because of selling out to win support. That's what politics is all about -- little feifdom's and bureaucatic control -- and money. But aside from that, the US auto makers could build better vehicles. They all have the same engineers. (Yes, the same personnel.) So much is done here that it's hard to believe Detroit, in its arrogance, would continue to work for 2nd place instead of trying to win. Hungry? Eat your union membership card. Collin KC8TKA >>I suggest a different reason for the failure of Concorde. When developing >>the aircraft, a target of about 1400/1500 mph was set. Whilst [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Huw Perhaps we should do what the Europeans do and subsidize the aircraft industry here rather than handing out military contracts to build aircraft to protect the rest of the democratic nations from would-be Hitlers, Husseins, etc. That way we could stop worrying about spending American taxpayer dollars to do what others should be doing for themselves. Yeah, that the ticket! > Perhaps we should do what the Europeans do and subsidize the aircraft industry here rather than handing out military contracts to > build aircraft to protect the rest of the democratic nations from would-be Hitlers, Husseins, etc. That way we could stop worrying > about spending American taxpayer dollars to do what others should be doing for themselves. Yeah, that the ticket! Let's not go down that rabbit hole. cp Dori A. Schmettering wrote: >> The Concorde was launched. The US government forbade supersonic >> overflight of the Continental US. Other countries followed suit and the >> rest is history. Practically nowhere to fly, necessarily high prices, no >> market, no development (which manufacturer will develop a better engine >> for 14 aircraft?). Kaput. THAT'S what killed the Concorde. Huw <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> responds: > Yes of course. US protectionism in action, driven by politics, Yeah, protectionism is unknown in Europe... We all know that Europeans are devoid of sin, original or otherwise, and that the United States Of America is the root of all evil, right? Actually it was environmentalism, which was, and is, international in scope. There was fearmongering from the bunnyhuggers about the ozone layer and sonic booms. I remember. I was there. The "protectionism" explanation also makes no sense when one recalls that U.S. airlines were free to order the Concorde. Several did, in fact, but ended up cancelling their orders largely as a result of the prohib- ition against supersonic flight over the continental U.S. Other countries had no obligation to ape the American environmentalist legislation. Environmentalism then, like now, was a phenomenon that pervaded the industrial West. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," don'tcha- know. > just as in the present day where four of its biggest airlines are > protected from the bankruptcy they should endure. That they *should* endure? Says who? In what book of eternal TRVTHs is _that_ bit o'wisdom written, pray tell? Real human beings with real families to support, and who contribute real money to their local tax bases, work for those companies, Ronnie Ruthless. It makes sense to do everything possible to try and save them. > They are trading while insolvent. So was Lockheed in 1971, and Chrysler a decade later. Both survived to prosper. I detect a persistent note of anti-Americanism in your posts. You might pause to humbly reflect on the fact that were in not for America, you and your countrymen would be speaking German now. Geoff Signature"Many of the same people who cry 'No blood for oil!' also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents - in other words, trading blood for oil." -Thomas Sowell > Dori A. Schmettering wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Europeans are devoid of sin, original or otherwise, and that > the United States Of America is the root of all evil, right? I particularly didn't say that. You are being overly deffensive by trying to be offensive. Do you have a guilty concience? > Actually it was environmentalism, which was, and is, international > in scope. There was fearmongering from the bunnyhuggers about the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fact, but ended up cancelling their orders largely as a result of the > prohib- ition against supersonic flight over the continental U.S. The evironmental excuse was used as protectionism. If it was an American plane or there was a credible American competition then the environmental arguement would have been swamped by deffensive political arguement. > Other countries had no obligation to ape the American environmentalist > legislation. Environmentalism then, like now, was a phenomenon that > pervaded the industrial West. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," don'tcha- > know. At that time they were easily dismissed. >> just as in the present day where four of its biggest airlines are >> protected from the bankruptcy they should endure. > > That they *should* endure? Says who? In what book of eternal TRVTHs > is _that_ bit o'wisdom written, pray tell? They are trading while insolvent. Their protection is effectively a distortion of trade and competition, both domestic and international. It is a ditortion of the Capitalist system which should not be tolerated, especially by the many Americans who attack so loudly any 'liberal' tendencies. > Real human beings with real families to support, and who contribute > real money to their local tax bases, work for those companies, Ronnie > Ruthless. It makes sense to do everything possible to try and save > them. Either you are a socialist interventionaist or you are a fraud. Not you personally that is, but you as a Nation. >> They are trading while insolvent. > > So was Lockheed in 1971, and Chrysler a decade later. Both survived > to prosper. Yet Americans in general think of Europeans as the protectionists and the socialist supporters of industry. I am saying that you are just as guilty of subsidising your industry and agriculture, more so in fact, while trying to justify it as something else entirely. > I detect a persistent note of anti-Americanism in your posts. Again you appear deffensive. This is not the case at all. I am however for honesty and the down-to-earth realisation of what is what and how things are. There are very many peoples who are indeed anti-American in this world and it would do the average American and the Country as a whole, a bit of good to try to understand why that should be. Hint, it is NOT envy. You > might pause to humbly reflect on the fact that were in not for America, > you and your countrymen would be speaking German now. That is one good reason for a start. Not the act, but your words. I will certainly not be humbled by America and it is this kind of remark that makes people want to spit in your collective eye. Remember that empires never last long. Have a nice day :-) Huw >> Yes of course. US protectionism in action, driven by politics, : Yeah, protectionism is unknown in Europe... We all know that : Europeans are devoid of sin, original or otherwise, and that : the United States Of America is the root of all evil, right? > I particularly didn't say that. I didn't say you said that; I implied that you implied it. You used the phrase "U.S. protectionism in action" in a world-weary "here we go again"/"We're on to the bastards, ain't we?" sort of tone, which implied that protectionism was unique to, or at least characteristic of, the U.S. Why else would you have written "U.S." instead of "government protectionism" or just "protectionism?" > You are being overly deffensive by trying to be offensive. How do you know what I'm trying to be, Sigmund Fraud? > Do you have a guilty concience? No. Why should I? I've never practiced protectionism in my life. You? > The evironmental excuse was used as protectionism. If it was an > American plane or there was a credible American competition then > the environmental arguement would have been swamped by deffensive > political arguement. You seem to have rather a fixation on the concept of defensiveness. The Boeing SST project was cancelled in early 1971 due to environ- mentalist resistance. The prohibition against supersonic flight over the continental U.S. would've affected the Boeing SST as it eventually did the Concorde, so it's silly to insist that the legislation was enacted as protectionism to work against the Concorde. : Other countries had no obligation to ape the American environmentalist : legislation. Environmentalism then, like now, was a phenomenon that : pervaded the industrial West. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," don'tcha- : know. > At that time they were easily dismissed. Sure. That's why we got the Clean Air Act in 1970 (and the Clean Water Act in 1977) and why the first U.S. automotive emissions standards came into effect in 1971, getting serious two years later. The environmental- ist movement was a force to be reckoned with even in the very early '70s. Again, I know: I was there. >> just as in the present day where four of its biggest airlines are >> protected from the bankruptcy they should endure. : That they *should* endure? Says who? In what book of eternal TRVTHs : is _that_ bit o'wisdom written, pray tell? > They are trading while insolvent. You said that already. > Their protection is effectively a distortion of trade and competition, > both domestic and international. It is a ditortion of the Capitalist > system which should not be tolerated, especially by the many Americans > who attack so loudly any 'liberal' tendencies. Where is it written that "distortions" to the capitalist system should not be tolerated? What exactly constitutes such a distorion, anyway? Taxes? Any form or degree of government regulation? What? If you're not too busy conferring with the Gnome Of Zurich, Adam Smith, let's get down to brass tacks here. But wait, there's more! Aren't whether, and which, "distortions" are tolerated a matter of national discretion? Or is there some capitalist analogue to _Das Kapital_ that I've not heard about, which lays these things out in proverbial stone? One of the first lessons I learned as a young, earnest university student was expressed in a colloquial idiom by a political science professor of mine. He said "There ain't no absolutes." He returned to that saying for emphasis again and again. And you know something? Even after all these years, I still believe he was correct. (He was a bit of a leftist, too, as professors are wont to be. Make of that what you will.) : Real human beings with real families to support, and who contribute : real money to their local tax bases, work for those companies, Ronnie : Ruthless. It makes sense to do everything possible to try and save : them. > Either you are a socialist interventionaist or you are a fraud. > Not you personally that is, but you as a Nation. "There ain't no absolutes," my earnest young friend. Refraining from trying to keep large corporations afloat when it'd be in the national interest to keep them afloat, on the basis of adhering to some fundamentalist interpretation of capitalism, would be a matter of cutting off our metaphorical nose to spite our national face. Aren't you lefties the ones who are supposedly so good at "fact- based" argument? >> They are trading while insolvent. : So was Lockheed in 1971, and Chrysler a decade later. Both survived : to prosper. > Yet Americans in general think of Europeans as the protectionists and > the socialist supporters of industry. I am saying that you are just as > guilty of subsidising your industry and agriculture, more so in fact, > while trying to justify it as something else entirely. The flaw in that statement is in your careless use of the cliche "just as guilty." Practically every country has subsidies, tariffs, and the like. That isn't protectionism; it's real-world economics. The difference, or *a* difference, between Europe and the U.S. is that in the U.S., while there's such a thing as protection from creditors during reorganization under various bankruptcy laws, and sometimes gov- ernment loan guarantees as there were with Lockheed and Chrysler, the operating expenses of healthy companies and industries aren't subsidized by the government as a matter of course. You really seem to have it in for the United States. Did an American steal your girlfriend or something? Capitalism can be a good thing, as many of your countrymen discovered when Margaret Thatcher pulled down all those statues of Lenin and introduced the concept of "take- home pay." : I detect a persistent note of anti-Americanism in your posts. > Again you appear deffensive. This is not the case at all. I am > however for honesty and the down-to-earth realisation of what is > what and how things are. Pointing out some characteristic in another is defensive? Wow. It's a shame that mental gymnastics aren't an Olympic event, 'cause you'd be a gold medalist for sure. I'd say that on the contrary, I'm putting *you* on the defensive, having maneuvered you into the position of explaining and justifying your motives. Whoops! I bet you'd thought you'd hit a home run, right up until the time the second baseman caught it... > There are very many peoples who are indeed anti-American in this > world and it would do the average American and the Country as a > whole, a bit of good to try to understand why that should be. > Hint, it is NOT envy. Who said anything about envy? Until you did, I mean? Do you have a guilty conscience? : You might pause to humbly reflect on the fact that were in not : for America, you and your countrymen would be speaking German now. > That is one good reason for a start. Not the act, but your words. Hey, my mother loves me. (So does yours, as a matter of fact...) > I will certainly not be humbled by America and it is this kind of > remark that makes people want to spit in your collective eye. Oh? And to think that all this time I figured it was envy (oops) and petty resentment that did it. It seems to me that we're doing something right, considering the fact that much of the rest of the world is damned near breaking down our door to get in. Up to and including crossing 90 miles of shark-infested water on innertubes, trudging across the trackless Sonoran desert in the summer heat, and the like. Or do you think they're just coming over to hang out with Cindy Sheehan and chant "Hey hey, ho ho, George Dubya Bush has got to go"? "Being The Hyperpower(tm) means never having to say we're sorry." > Remember that empires never last long. How did I know you were going to trot that old chestnut out eventually? Maybe someday, if you work at it and try real, real hard, you'll start thinking original thoughts instead of parroting the leftist garbage that was put into your head by Marxist university professors? > Have a nice day :-) Come back after you get a few years on you, kid, and then we'll talk. In the meantime, do try and stay out from underfoot, mmmkay? Your betters across the Great Undrinkable have a world to run, and we frown on unnecessary distractions. Geoff Signature"Many of the same people who cry 'No blood for oil!' also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents - in other words, trading blood for oil." -Thomas Sowell >>> Yes of course. US protectionism in action, driven by politics, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > characteristic of, the U.S. Why else would you have written "U.S." > instead of "government protectionism" or just "protectionism?" Elswhere I clearly said "Yes but I have a feeling that some Americans are under the impression that they live in a whiter than white free market economy. This is patently not so and the USA is damned clever in protecting its industry to the detriment of other countries. I just focused on the air industry because it was brought up and because it is topical. One can look at steel which leads to the subsidised production of cars if you like or any number of other industries. They are not unique in this of course but they have no moral high ground to stand on." >> You are being overly deffensive by trying to be offensive. > > How do you know what I'm trying to be, Sigmund Fraud? You 'imply' but exclude me the same privilege? >> Do you have a guilty concience? > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > face. Aren't you lefties the ones who are supposedly so good at "fact- > based" argument? There you go, defending what are effectively left wing tools and policies while calling others 'lefties'. It seems that I am somewhat further to the right than you. LOL >>> They are trading while insolvent. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > your motives. Whoops! I bet you'd thought you'd hit a home run, > right up until the time the second baseman caught it... You can play word games if you like but the casual observer will not be fooled. >> There are very many peoples who are indeed anti-American in this >> world and it would do the average American and the Country as a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Oh? And to think that all this time I figured it was envy (oops) Yes, you do come across as the stereotypical arrogant loud bastard who boasts that 'mine is bigger/better than yours'. > and petty resentment that did it. It seems to me that we're doing > something right, considering the fact that much of the rest of the > world is damned near breaking down our door to get in. And blow you up it seems. Go figure. Up to and > including crossing 90 miles of shark-infested water on innertubes, > trudging across the trackless Sonoran desert in the summer heat, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > thinking original thoughts instead of parroting the leftist garbage > that was put into your head by Marxist university professors? It is a fact proven by history. It is also a fact that the more bellicose in those empires really did think that their prosperity would last forever. Your stratification of society was shown up in stark contrast during the recent bad weather in New Orleans and perhaps your empire will start to crumble from the inside as much as from without. >> Have a nice day :-) > > Come back after you get a few years on you, kid, and then we'll talk. > In the meantime, do try and stay out from underfoot, mmmkay? Your > betters across the Great Undrinkable have a world to run, and we > frown on unnecessary distractions. Your condescension does you no favours. Huw This is interesting as I thought that the Boeing SST project was cancelled on the grounds of being unachievable within a 'reasonable' sum of money and time frame (remember the extra 500 mph, laudable but impractical, at the time anyway). DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > The Boeing SST project was cancelled in early 1971 due to environ- > mentalist resistance. The prohibition against supersonic flight > over the continental U.S. would've affected the Boeing SST as it > eventually did the Concorde, so it's silly to insist that the > legislation was enacted as protectionism to work against the > Concorde. [...] > You > might pause to humbly reflect on the fact that were in not for America, > you and your countrymen would be speaking German now. Not so! If it were not for Japan they would be speaking German! Thank the Japanese for bombing Pearl when it was almost 1942. . Yes, and if hadn't been for that one vote in the US Congress 200 years ago the Americans would have been speaking German, and then where would we have been? This is an irrelevant road in this thread, innit? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> You >> might pause to humbly reflect on the fact that were in not for America, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > . > Yes, and if hadn't been for that one vote in the US Congress 200 years ago > the Americans would have been speaking German, and then where would we have > been? > > This is an irrelevant road in this thread, innit? So true... These usenet roads fork in the oddest ways. Clearly they lack quality german engineering. . > Yes, and if hadn't been for that one vote in the US Congress 200 > years ago the Americans would have been speaking German, and then > where would we have been? > This is an irrelevant road in this thread, innit? Ahem. The exchange about the demise of the Boeing SST was pretty irrelevant to a newsgroup about Mercedes-Benz automobiles, but that didn't stop you from participating in it. If irrelevancy is such an issue, you waited quite a long time to speak out against it. Geoff Signature"Many of the same people who cry 'No blood for oil!' also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents - in other words, trading blood for oil." -Thomas Sowell <grin> 1) The SST issue (introduced by T G Lambach) was not totally irrelevant as it involved all the words in the subject line except "car" and in my OP I said "Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple". 2) To quote greek-philosophizer, "These usenet roads fork in the oddest ways." DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Ahem. The exchange about the demise of the Boeing SST was pretty > irrelevant to a newsgroup about Mercedes-Benz automobiles, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Geoff As I remember the Boeing SST had the variable wing design to allow reasonably efficient subsonic flight which would be the mode where supersonic flight was not permitted. This development cost plus extensive utilization of titanium vs aluminum in the air frame drove up the development cost of the aircraft. One of the benefits would be the rollover of newly developed technology to military programs such as the supersonic bomber. I do not recall the extent of the financial support for the development from the U.S. Government, but it was a hot political issue at that time. The storm clouds generated by environmentalists were already forming on the horizon plus several marketing/cost studies indicated that it would be a loser financially during the entire program cycle. As it turned out Politics killed this ambitious R&D program. If my memory serves me correctly the target speed for the Concord as about 1200 mph and the Boeing SST 1800 mph. Peter > I suggest a different reason for the failure of Concorde. When developing > the aircraft, a target of about 1400/1500 mph was set. Whilst challenging, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > of new SST aircraft finally killed SST service. > [...] >I suggest a different reason for the failure of Concorde. When developing >the aircraft, a target of about 1400/1500 mph was set. Whilst challenging, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that was faster, namely 2000 mph. There was no way this was achievable > for a private company and Boeing gave up. Sort of like a private company going into space. Wait! Burt Ratan did that after he flew non-stop around the world without refueling. > The Concorde was launched. The US government forbade supersonic > overflight of the Continental US. Other countries followed suit and the > rest is history. Practically nowhere to fly, necessarily high prices, no > market, no development (which manufacturer will develop a better engine > for 14 aircraft?). Kaput. THAT'S what killed the Concorde. Anyone dumb enough to live where sonic booms were a daily occurence would probably consider living under 750,000-volt electric transport lines. > DAS > [...] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> of new SST aircraft finally killed SST service. > [...] Perhaps a little like the US space shuttle. I am not sure that a sonic boom at 50 000+ feet is such a big deal. If Boeing had launched its SST you can be pretty sure there would have been no overflight ban. The actual cruising speed was about Mach 2 - 2.2 (c. 1350 mph) DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Anyone dumb enough to live where sonic booms were a daily occurence would > probably consider living under 750,000-volt electric transport lines. [...] >I am not sure that a sonic boom at 50 000+ feet is such a big deal. If >Boeing had launched its SST you can be pretty sure there would have been no >overflight ban. You could almost bet your mother against it. Huw >>I am not sure that a sonic boom at 50 000+ feet is such a big deal. If >>Boeing had launched its SST you can be pretty sure there would have been >>no overflight ban. > > You could almost bet your mother against it. I don't think I would since American gripes get heard a lot more than you might imagine. Anyway, all they'd have to do is pop a few sonic booms over some senator's hometown and it'd stop overnight, especially if it was that idiot T. Kennedy's. Hey, he even joined in the prohibition of the installation of wind turbine generators in the Long Island Sound because he didn't want the view destroyed. I'm sure if someone wanted to grow corn next door to his summer palace there to convert into biodiesel he'd show his true environmentalist qualities. What a phony clown....I'm refering to his red bulbous nose of course. > Huw And I always wondered what type of bicycle Al Gore rode. But it seems that some are more equal than others. (IOW, he can't live by the standards sought in "Earth in the Balance", which he seeks for the rest of us.) Collin KC8TKA > been vastly improved over the years; I had one of these 5.7L V-8s in my '72 Chevy, it made 165 HP with a two barrel carburetor! That's hilarious, my '66 w110 has a 2L 4cyl engine that produces 105hp > I believe Detroit is delivering a good product for the price. $25,000 for 300bhp is quite impressive >Of course auto columnists scribble about cars but they ought to do so with a bit more perspective, IMHO. He was doing a comparison to the reality in the rest of the world. cp >> been vastly improved over the years; I had one of these 5.7L V-8s in >> my '72 Chevy, it made 165 HP with a two barrel carburetor! > > That's hilarious, my '66 w110 has a 2L 4cyl engine that produces 105hp The W110 200D produces 55HP! >Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple: >http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > By Jeremy Clarkson > Bite the Bullitt, buy the fantasy You are a poet, not less good than Sheckley.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.