Design the world's best range of autos for $250 Billion?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Nomen Nescio, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt:
    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 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-******-neers.

    The truth hurts.
    Nomen Nescio, Mar 19, 2006
  2. Nomen Nescio

    jcr Guest

    Better read the free trade agreement. Your suggestion would create
    stiff sanctions from WTO.
    jcr, Mar 19, 2006
  3. 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,
    Backyard Mechanic, Mar 19, 2006
  4. Nomen Nescio

    mabar Guest

    "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?


    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

    We have become the laughing stock of the world.
    mabar, Mar 20, 2006
  5. 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?
    Backyard Mechanic, Mar 20, 2006
  6. Nomen Nescio

    El Bandito Guest

    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 :)


    (\_ _/)
    (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
    (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
    El Bandito, Mar 21, 2006
  7. Nomen Nescio

    Gosi Guest

    Can you imagine what they could have done with that money
    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
    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

    They make cars according to regulations and new cars are not bad

    That can be true in many ways but it is not the mechanical problem nor
    is it the new cars
    It is more the rules, regulations, inspections, roads and drivers that
    are unreliable

    Gosi, Mar 21, 2006
  8. Nomen Nescio

    Al Guest

    The power/weight required would make this difficult, expensive, and
    the FAA certification and product liability would make this
    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, Mar 21, 2006
  9. 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

    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.
    Bullshit, in most cases it is the driver. A good driver can compensate
    for the road or vehicle shortcomings.
    Bullshit, it is more the drivers that are unreliable.

    Ted Mittelstaedt, Mar 22, 2006
  10. Nomen Nescio

    Guest Guest

    YOU sure have! Well at least those who see your crap.
    A racist as well!
    You sure do give me a pain.
    Thank goodness the Gov. doesn't listen to you.
    Guest, Mar 22, 2006
  11. Nomen Nescio

    Gosi Guest

    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
    Gosi, Mar 22, 2006
  12. Nomen Nescio

    Gosi Guest

    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

    Yet another nail in the coffin
    Gosi, Mar 23, 2006
  13. 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.
    States and municipalities already do this, that is how they decide where
    to allocate road dollars.
    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.
    Cities are already doing what they can to do this, it isn't working very
    Even in New York City they have too many cars. People want to drive.
    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 fucking 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.
    Many places do not inspect vehicles at all other than emissions.

    Ted Mittelstaedt, Mar 25, 2006
  14. Nomen Nescio

    Gosi Guest

    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
    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
    Gosi, Mar 25, 2006
  15. 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
    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
    then the cop could demand a blow test to get the actual percentage.

    If a municipality instituted a roadblock system whereby they randomly
    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
    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.
    That isn't true at all. I know a planner and the problem isn't the
    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
    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

    Ted Mittelstaedt, Mar 27, 2006
  16. Nomen Nescio

    Gosi Guest

    I guess we are basically in agreement what needs to be done
    Strange we both agree on the main problem - drivers - but you still can
    not admit agreeing


    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
    Gosi, Mar 27, 2006
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.