Going 52 mph in the Slow Lane
Extreme Gravity Racer
GM designers and engineers recently raced a sleek, highly aerodynamic car at two charity events in California, and The New York Times was there to report on it. The GM entry competed against cars built by other auto design teams, including Audi, Bentley, Chrysler and Ferrari. Except for its four wheels, the submarine-shaped car doesn’t have much in common with the Nextel Cup Series racecars — it’s powered only by gravity. It’s the kind of soapbox derby car you would build if you had a team of car designers and automotive engineers helping you. At one of its races, the car hit 52 mph, went into a spinout, and crossed the finish line backwards. We asked its driver, GM designer Niki Smart, to tell us about the experience.
Q. How long has GM been involved in the Extreme Gravity series?
A. Last year was the first year that we got involved. That one was in Irvine and consisted of a straight 30-foot ramp and then a runout to the finish. No turning was involved; it was a straight line from start to end. This was pretty much the same way they ran the event the first year. It was run this way, I believe, so that the regular kids’ soapboxes could run amongst the professional teams, albeit from a little further down the ramp. These cars reached speeds of around 25 mph.
Q. Tell us about the GM entry in the last series. How did it compare to your past entries?
A. The vehicle this year differs greatly from last year because we were to race on a completely different type of course at one of the two venues. The first was to be a steep, fast, wide, smooth winding drop of more than 200 feet, the “corkscrew” at Laguna Seca racetrack in Monterey, California. This is a very well-known course for racing cars.
It was an interesting challenge to design and build a gravity car for this venue. The race was due to happen during the Monterey Historic weekend in August. This was a highlight weekend with Pebble Beach Concours and also Italian Concourso at Quail Lodge. All in all, this would provide some good exposure at the track, where a lot of the corporate sponsors would have guests as part of the weekend anyway.
Now, running at up to 60 mph, the drag factor was becoming very important and entering corners at that speed meant that the lateral stability was critical for smooth cornering and maintaining speed onto the next straight. We tested last year’s car at Laguna Seca as a basis for this year’s design. We used a two and four-wheel steer set up and found gains in the four-wheel-steer system so went with that. We also found an optimum weight distribution where all four wheels were evenly loaded and did an equal amount of steering. The wide, billiard-table-smooth surface of the racetrack meant we focused on smooth progressive weight transfer through the corners, trying to upset the car as little as possible. The track was 80 feet wide at some points, so it was possible to make the corners a smooth line and maintain high speeds. At this point, there was also an intention to have a run-out onto the finishing straight to show a comparison between each team’s car’s ability to keep rolling as far as it could go with the cornering speed it maintained through the last turn onto the finishing straight.
But all this design time was somewhat wasted because the venue for the race was changed to a local park road in Monterey at the last minute. This came as a frustrating shock with less than two weeks to go. We had no time to change our design. It turned out we had a design that wasn’t best suited to the hill, but we were still very competitive and had an action-packed day with a number of spins. I kept the team busy all day, which I am sure they will thank me for one day.
Extreme Gravity Racer
Q. Who designed the GM entry?
A. This year the team consisted of: Project Manager Steve Anderson, Engineer Matt Ferguson, Fabricators Paul Day, Larry Jackson, Jay Brett, Nate Hranek and myself. I also designed and drove the vehicle. We received considerable help from outside companies with materials and processes, and our own facility squeezed in the project amongst our normal daily duties and projects. Our sponsors were: Nike, which provided clothing for the whole team; Michelin tires; Aircraft Windshield, which provided the canopy for the car; United Resin, which provided resins and glass fiber cloth; Accu-air, which provided welding supplies and nitrogen for the tires; and Pyrotect, which provided the seatbelt harness.
Q. How did you first get involved as a racecar driver in the Extreme Gravity series?
A. Designing the car and testing last year’s car as the development mule for this year, it became a natural step for me (175 lbs) to drive this year’s car. And with a maximum (combined driver and vehicle) weight of 320 lbs, it wasn’t so critical to be lightweight, as in last year’s race, when one of our Alias modeler designers, Allessandro Zezza, drove the car.
Q. What qualifications do you need to drive this vehicle?
A. You need to be smooth above all else and have the nerve to not use the brakes unless absolutely necessary. Once you brake, you can’t put your foot on the gas to get going again. Only the hill gives you the gravity you need to gain speed, yet every movement you make and every direction change you take only slows the car down. To use the brakes was never the plan at Monterey Race Track. At the park road, it was impossible not to need them.
Q. How do you practice?
A. It’s hard to practice with the cars as they are not motorized so you cannot travel with traffic, but they are very fast (given a hill to go down), so you would be breaking almost all the speed limits on public roads. We did test at a canyon road up in Malibu, but that was a disastrous day, as whenever a car came we had to close the course to let them pass * racetracks are the ideal place if you can access them.
Q. Tell us about your last race.
A. We had a few problems with the heavy demands of the park road. The road was very narrow (especially at speeds over 50 mph) and had areas of heavy braking, which upset our car violently to the point of spinning. One particular spin happened at the fastest point on the course, at almost 54 mph, and I was lucky to not to hit the rock face on one side of the track or shoot off the other side of the road where I would have dropped 30 feet or so (if I was fortunate enough to miss the hundreds of big trees that lined to course).
All in all, we were one of the fastest cars but had a design that was not best suited to the road course. We had stability issues under braking, and on that type of course, that meant our overall times were slower. The fastest car had a very rear-biased weight distribution and rear wheel braking. This was ideal for this course but would have been less optimal for the original venue. I think all the teams would like to run the cars on the Laguna Seca track at some point, just to satisfy our curiosity if nothing else.
Q. Are there learnings for GM vehicles from the Extreme Gravity cars?
A. It does make you appreciate efficiency in the most basic of terms. There is something very gratifying in attaining such high speeds and cornering forces without an engine. With the absence of a gas pedal and engine you became very focused on smooth driving and not wasting an ounce of energy unless you had to. It makes you realize how much gas you could save by not accelerating and braking unnecessarily * a practice that is tough to achieve in every day driving, but as most of us know once you get a car up to cruising speed it is much more efficient if you keep a steady speed.
Lightweight materials and build quality were also vital in designing and producing a featherweight vehicle of this type. It does make you question why cars are so heavy when there are so many gains to be had in making them lighter. Obviously our little racecar didn’t have to pass any crash tests and isn’t expected to endure a number of years of usage, so it is important not to get too carried away comparing the two. However, it does make you think about the benefit of much lighter cars.
Q. What have you learned as a designer from this experience?
A. As with any project, you always tend to gain valuable experience but what was most gratifying was to see how much a small team was able to achieve in such a small amount of time and on a small budget (even though it was largely thanks to our sponsors). I think GM could benefit a lot from allowing small teams of people to explore ideas out of the mainstream pursuits of a vehicle manufacturer. Even though they don’t directly translate to products of today, they are an invaluable exercise in getting the best out of a situation that is free from a lot of the politics and logistical constraints of our daily work. It’s like a vacation for the mind, and we all need our vacations.
46 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Soapbox Derby? I thought GM is selling actual cars?! If you’re going to do a blog, make it about someting I can actually go to the dealer and see, or at least has some relevance to upcoming products. There’s all this buzz about the NAIAS and upcoming vehicles and this is what’s run? I am baffled. I come here to learn about the new Tahoe, Impala, Sky, and “rumored rear drives” and this is what I get.
Extreme Gravity Racing by GM
We mentioned Extreme Gravity Racing before and I notice GM has a story on the Fastlane Blog about their entry. Looks pretty swoopy. The bit about spinning out and crossing the finish line backwards at 52mph was neat. Just think what happens if they can…
When will this vehicle get the employee discount price?
I’m sure you’ll get lots of complaints, but thanks for posting this piece.
I, for one, am interested in all aspects of the company and it’s good to see that GM is willing to get involved in something that a lot of people might consider “trivial”.
As noted in the article itself, even in something so “trivial”, there are lessons to be learned by GM that might otherwise be forgotten.
Greg
So, how much money was wasted on this little exercise?
Maybe it could have gone into some styling for the Impala.
Or maybe a trunk for the Solstice.
Or development on a world class DOHC V-6.
Or a new nose for the Malibu.
Or maybe you could have bought a Camry or Accord and learned something…
Does Marketing read the blog posts before they get hit the internet?! “…a vacation of the mind…” Considering what is a crisis, in my opinion, exercises with little direct immediate value to your products should not be undertaken, not to mention discussed.
This folly will prove itself to be as useful for production GM vehicles as the Sunraycer was back in the 1980s.
Which means not a thing truly is useful.
Get back to work.
It strikes me that on-the-road aerodynamic research is a worthwhile thing with today’s focus on fuel economy. Might even be worth subtracting a few dollars from the ol’ NASCAR budget to cover the tab.
The overly grumpy comments complaining that this engineering/design exercise is a waste of money are short sighted. This exercise helps GM’s engineers and designers improve their creativity and should be considered a continuing education expense. I am sure the cost of this program is very small compared to competitor’s F1 expenditures. Thank you for sharing this article with us and don’t let the grumpy comments get you down.
Respectfully,
Eric Matthew Vest
Last night, your beautiful new Buick Lucerne was showcased with Martha Stewart on “The Apprentice.” Where is any coordinated effort? You should’ve written about the Lucerne (AND what we can expect for Buick’s future) instead of this silly soapbox derby car. I’ve thought and hoped otherwise, but maybe GM REALLY doesn’t get it.
I think it is in order to give credit where it is due.
The Cadillac division is doing quite well. It has innovative products, with higher quality than it has had, and all within a reasonable price (when you consider the class of vehicles they are in).
The new Chevy Impala got high grades from a N.Y. Tri-State paper. The new HHR is a hit as is the Solstice. And although everyone considers gas prices at an all time high, the new lineup of large SUV’s from Chevy, GM, and Cadillac are outstanding.
So it’s not all one way or the other.
What a waste of resources and money. I’m sure this will pale in comparison to the huge amount of money GM will waste during Super Bowel week, seeing as the Ren Cen will be in the center of the action. They will be wining & dining writers, athletes, so-called celebs, etc. (most probably don’t own a GM vehicle). Funny how Toyota does not spend big ad dollars or sponsor these extravaganza’s and still manages to do quite well at selling vehicles
Well, I am interested to see a new post, FINALLY, after 12 grueling days of: “Let’s carefully explain our brilliant Red Tag sales strategy…” (Part 2, no less). But, here we go again, a sales and PR con instead of a true blog, posted by “Editor.” Way to go. What a way to connect with the 80% of the U.S. market that doesn’t buy your cars. Brilliant.
Wow.
Ok, here goes. Gravity cars is a cool concept. We all have to have hobbies and I’m willing to bet real money that most of the folks paid by GM to participate in the event put their OWN time, sweat and creativity into it way above and beyond what the corporation expects.
So, regardless of the questionable marketing value of the exercise, GM did a good job of motivating their employees to do something unique, creative and with passion. Can that ever be a bad thing?
Put a few of these events together every year….I’m willing to also bet that you turn out a visionary Vehicle Line Executive along the way.
Sometimes all you need is one.
We are a little harsh here. The comment above: “When will this vehicle get the employee discount price?” had me laughing out loud. Funny because it’s true!
But seriously, I agree engineers should experiment outside basic car building to learn things and expand thier technology boundaries. But in terms of vehicles I think building race cars like Grand AM Cup vehicles is alot more interesting in terms of customers/engineers connecting with vehicles. Even more so seen US superbike where you can pretty much buy what you are watching race on TV. Its been exciting this year watcing the Mustang in the Grand-Am Cup. Would be great to see a new Camero there going head to head. Or even rally racing. Much better than the scam that is NASACAR, only a matter of time until it becomes a WWE knock off.
So please explore, but show us things we can connect with, and then subsequently go and buy a reasonalble facimile of, and aftermarket parts for.
I want to experience the days of companies producing “insane” limited models so they could kick butt with them at the track, as opposed to producing stickers or thier cars to stick on organic blobs covering a tube frame.
Unfortunitly, my trip between home and work is not downhill both ways.
and how about those NAIAS teasers!!!!
Dave Lawson is correct. The project was done after hours and for free by all who worked on it. We worked many
late nights and right through the night to make it to the race the next day. We got all of our day job work done, too.
This event was a competition between the design studios of Southern California, including Audi, VW, Chrysler, Mazda, Volvo, Nissan, Pininnafarina Bentley, amongst others. So, if you value the perception of GM, you understand the need to be present at an event with all of our “real world” competitors.
The hilarity of the posts. “for those who are short sighted”? Well, as an engineer by training and former designer in a different discipline, I can surely see the correlation to soap box derby cars and smooth running, high revving engines to compete against the like of Honda and Toyota. Now, both the those teams DO have a F1 presence and it surely does translate into mind share, technological innovation and the like. Maybe not worth it but..
I would like to restate that if GM, which likely spends $5+ billion annual on R&D, and has spent enough money on research in the last thirty years to pay for the manned moon missions of the 60’s can come up with nothing better to blog about or deliver to the market, then I’d say you’d be better off jettisoning the car business and keeping GMAC to become a financial insitution that pays a healthy dividend.
I’m cautiously optimistic about the products coming down the pike but brand management, marketing, sales, employee/management cooperation, innovation, aggressive styling and general leadership for change is pathetic.
LINK LOVE: A Drive Around the Blog Block
Not quite so fast was GM’s Extreme Gravity Racer, which hit the astounding velocity of 52 mph and spun out. I kid you not. I know, you don’t believe me, so go here for the first-hand account on FastLane.
To those complaining: Car people love everything with wheels.
Who knows where the next market is?
It certainly won’t come from somebody that won’t dare to explore.
I cannot fathom the hostility directed towards this post or the project. Obviously GM was not the only competitor in the event. Why not direct the vitriol at all participants?
Secondly, off-the-clock experiments are an old tradition in the automotive and I’d expect other industries. A couple that come to mind are Saabs: the original Sonnett and also the Monster. A bunch of American Subaru guys put a Justy into the world speed record book at Bonneville.
Want Japanese examples? Toyota sponsors an “olympics” for its employees often zany creations. And doesn’t Honda have robots? Any complaints about that? If the Japanese do everything right, as some are suggesting, maybe GM employees should be doing more of this sort of thing, not less.
I don’t know what the kvetchers do for a living, but it’s good to know that they do it twenty-four hours a day.
A quick tech story for Dave and Niki:
In the fall of 1974, a group of LA cafe racers gathered along a stretch of Kanan Dume road, and ran time trials downhill to the intersection of HWY 101. We were a motley collection of cars, A Monte Carlo, a couple of Datsun 510s, a Volkswagen and my ‘66 Corvair. Using an honor system of timing, we each carried a stopwatch with us as we made the descent, with engines off, except for the Monte Carlo, who left his engine running for steering and braking.
Incidentally, we called ourselves POGO racers, (Power of Gravity Only), the term EXTREME not having been discovered yet.
The point of this story is that the Corvair was fastest, followed by the Volks, and we both felt we had an advantage over the front engine cars due to our rear weight bias, since the rear weighted cars would turn into the corners with a minimum of scrub on the fronts and minimum loss of momentum.
As the team experiments with next year’s car, experiment with increasing weight over the rear axle, until you reach the fastest downhill times.
We were so impressed with our little race, that we wanted to establish an Olympic formula, so that downhill racing could become an olympic sport.
Good luck, guys. I enjoy my GM cars and visiting this site regularly.
Whoops, after re-reading the article isaw that you guys have already discovered the rear-weight advantage!
It probably would be stretching your rules, but we had also envisioned a rear transaxle with 4-5 gears onto a flywheel, that would be spun up by downshifting into the corners, then re-applying the energy by upshifting, coming out of the corners.
It might be a separate class of downhill racer, but it would be fast, for sure!
Thanks again….
We need the New Car ” Powered by Vegetable Oil ”
~
http://www.diesel2veg.com
http://www.greasecar.com
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
Extreme Racer Gravity de GM
Vale, no va a ganar las 500 millas de Indian√°polis, pero tambi√©n tiene que ser divertido pilotarlo. Es el Extreme Racer Gravity dise√±ado por General Motors para competir contra otros gigantes de la industria en carreras californianas cuyo objetivo …
One sentence here catched my eye: “All in all, we were one of the fastest cars but had a design that was not best suited to the road course.”
Now exchange ‘fastest’ with ‘cheapest’and ‘road course’ with ‘competition’ and it tells you what’s going wrong at GM. Try harder!
Changing the subject slightly…I remember reading about a car running on compressed air.
Instead of an electric hybrid I wonder if you could create a compressed air hybrid. It could be charged during breaking and used to as needed. No batteries to deal with or any recycling issues.
Use that with cylinder deactivation. It could work! The frame of the car could be the air tank.
Anyone get the sense that the GM fans on this board are getting a little impatient with GM putting out second rate cars?
I don’t think anyone here doubts that GM designers/engineers are capable of creating the best cars in the world, or that GM workers are capable of building them.
The real problem is that designing and building the cool stuff shouldn’t just be what these guys do in their OFF hours, neat though that is.
GM management needs to get out of the way and let the designers and engineers start creating (and let the workers start building)the cool stuff ON company time!
The GM assembly line needs to be where the cool stuff is made!
New Camaros, new SS sedans with stick shift and rear wheel drive, RWD compact sport hybrids cars that get 40-50mpg and still handle, Retro cars with power, style, AND good pricing (HHR and SSR get 1 or 2 out of 3 at best).
You don’t have to worry about legacy costs if you start selling cars people want with decent warranties at fair prices from dealers they can trust.
I’m glad GM folks are getting to build cool stuff in their spare time.
I just dream of the day when they’ll get to build more of the cool stuff at work.
“Or development on a world class DOHC V-6.”
Here we go again with this drivel…
I see your heavy, down on power, torqueless, space-inefficient DOHC V6 and raise you a world-class OHV V8.
Nissan gives you a 265hp DOHC V6 Altima for $29,500…
Chevrolet gives you 303hp V8 for ~$26,000 Red Tag price on an Impala SS…
The Altima clocks in at 20/29 mpg with the automatic (worse with the stick at 20/28?!?), the Impala SS is at 18/28.
So… for $3500 more that DOHC V6 got you 2 mpg city, 1 mpg highway and you gave up FORTY HORSEPOWER TO GET IT.
Yep, them Nissan DOHC V6’s… there’s some high value engineering right there!
The Toyota DOHC 3.3 liter with variable valve timing is little more than a bad joke @ 210hp and 21/29 mpg (SE V6). In that case you get 3mpg city and 1 mpg highway and only give up a mere NINETY HORSEPOWER – nearly 50% greater output.
Here’s another little interesting fact:
The Altima with the 265hp DOHC V6 coupled with the manual transmission gets identical fuel economy (28mpg) in highway driving when compared to the 6.0 liter, 400hp, manual transmission Corvette (also at 28mpg).
So, where’s the beef? If the evidence for the superiority in the DOHC format cannot be shown relative to a “dinosaur” OHV V8 in horsepower or with a significant advantage in fuel economy, I’m at a loss as to why anyone in their right mind would choose a more expensive car that’s down between 40 and 90 horsepower merely for the pleasure of having a “DOHC” badge on their car.
Data. Fork over data.
The article was interesting, and it sounds like fun. Such activities definitely build team spirit and a sense of cooperation that the team can take back into the workplace.
That being said, I did expect to see an article mentioning the extremely high marks the new G6 Coupe got in the crash tests. Its a world-class accomplishment, and I haven’t seen it mentioned by GM anywhere, and barely mentioned in the media ! The media is very biased towards import cars, so when a GM product excels you’ll have to shout it from the rooftops to be heard ! GM advertising (except for trucks) never seems to mention these things. Unless they read the G6 brochure, the OHC fanatics won’t know the your 3.9 has an excellent wide torque band, with 85% of its peak torque available from 1600-6000 rpm ! The peaky OHC competition can’t claim that, but instead of touting excellent crash tests, great torque response, and a G6 coupe jam-packed with features, the ads just show a picture of the car apparently rotating on a stand, obscured by darkness! A “see how prety we look” ad won’t get customers into the showroom. GM makes some really world-class cars with great features, but your ads need to mention them if you want anyone to know !
PacerX comments hit the nail on the head – OHC engines, particularly V6 or V8 ones are not the efficient designs they are over-hyped to be. This is not hard to understand if you know that friction is a major enemy of any engine and the more bearings you have the more friction they will create. A pushrod “V” engine has one (1) camshaft; a typical OHC “V” engine has four (4) camshafts, most have long chains to turn them along with tensioners to keep the chains tight. There are also four (4) valves per cylinder opposed to two (2) in the pushrod engine. As you can see there are quite a bit more friction producing areas in a OHC “V” engine – and more friction equals less MPG.
There also no real need for four (4) valves per cylinder as three (3) valves – (2) intake and (1) exhaust would be sufficient for most family sedan engines since they will rarely see over 4000 RPM and cruise the highway between 1800 and 2200 RPM.
I think GM should spend some money on developing a (3) valve 3800 engine as well as the 3.5L and 3.9L. These engines would produce real world usable power with an increase in MPG especially when mated to the new 6-speed automatics. And what a great V6 the LS1 engine family would make.
With minor modifications the 3800 could be used in the Colorado and Canyon pickups, giving them a power boost along with great MPG. Of course everyone would like the 5.3L V8 in these trucks, with Active Fuel Management these trucks could get the same 28 MPG that the Corvette and Impala get (or maybe 30 MPG in a lightweight regular cab with 6-speed).
GM really needs to make the most of the fact it makes the best pushrod “V” design engines in the auto industry and should put them in vehicles no one else can. A 3.5L powered HHR and/or Cobalt with 6-speed automatic transmissions would be refined, powerful vehicles that could deliver over 30 MPG. A stretched version of the HHR for Buick with 6 or 7 passenger capacity AND V6 power would be an instant sell out. A true performer would be a 3.9L 240 HP V6 in the HHR now that would be an SS model.
The V8 family usage could be expanded by offering the 4.8L V8 with Active Fuel Management in the Lacrosse, Impala or Lucerne as a high mileage model with 290 HP (30 MPG or higher could be achieved with the 6-speed Auto). Models like these could be created overnight and with a marketing campaign focusing on the power/MPG benefits would sell – they would not be able to be copied by any other manufacturer either.
A final point, OHC designs work best on inline engines since an inline design only requires two (2) camshafts in place of the four (4) in the “V” design. They also require less complex drives with most using a timing belt in place of chains which usually results in a quieter engine. And GM does make a terrific inline 4.2L 6 cylinder engine that would be great in a Solstice sedan, it has worked for BMW for years. The one downfall of inline 5 or 6 engines is they are longer than “V” designs and cannot be used in most front drive cars, although there have been exceptions.
Come on GM be proud of the excellent powertrains you already produce and make the most of them.
I am sorry to hear that the Oklahoma City plant is going to be closed in February 2006, why doesn’t GM change over from Trailblazer and Envoy EXT models to a mid size pickup truck crew cab model using the Trailblazer/Envoy (to the back of the first row rear seats) and add a 68″ separate pickup bed on it similar to the Explorer Sport Trac? It could use the Envoy XUV dual function tailgate and sliding rear glass with 4.2L I-6 and 5.3L V8 options. There is room for a midsize truck at GM slotted between the Canyon and Sierra and GM needs a viable entrant. These pickups could offer the Envoy Self-leveling air suspension and be marketed as a sport/luxury model with an easy entry height. Most truck buyers rarely haul heavy loads and put passenger comfort ahead of cargo capacity. To avoid direct competition with the Colorado/Canyon it could be initially offered as the Buick Rainer or Saturn T420 or even a SAAB. and if successful a Chevrolet Cheyenne and GMC Sonoma could be offered. It would give Saturn customers (who realistically do not seriously consider other GM brands) a truck model to fit their needs. The SAAB model with a 2.8L turbo V6 and V-6 turbo diesel engines, a 9-7x type suspension tuning and a lowered look will create an entirely new segment in the truck market. If successful a Chevrolet Cheyenne and GMC Sonoma could be offered.
A 5 to 7 passenger Sedan Delivery version of the SSR would open some eyes, and since the SSR is based on the Trailblazer platform it could be done quickly and at low cost. Adding a high roof 50’s style Sedan Delivery body with 5 to 7 Passenger capacity would give the SSR a great combination of style and utility with the high roof making entry/exit to the rear seats easier than current SUV’s without the “minivan” look. Using Extended Cab style doors would retain the side styling and would only need glass in the side doors for driver/passenger visibility. A variation of the Trailblazer EXT rear doors could be made to look acceptable and would retain better body stiffness. The rear doors could be the standard double doors, a one piece hatch, or “Dutch Doors” similar to the Astro.
The Oklahoma City may also be used for a new Astro model based on the new Envoy, this architecture should be able to altered to create a van model at little cost and maximum platform utilization. There are thousands of Astro owners that would like a new one, and will probably go to another manufacturer to find some kind of replacement. Here is group of GM loyalists that would support it and are large enough to justify making it and GM has got to do a better job at rewarding their loyal customers.
Another usage for the plant would be for a 55-57 style Bel Air sedan, convertible, Nomad and even 2 and 4 Door El Camino models; all based on the new Trailblazer. The original Bel Air chassis is very similar to today’s truck and the Trailblazer SS, Denali and SAAB 9-7x prove that a good handling vehicle can be made from this platform. And an AWD Bel Air, Nomad and El Camino will be popular in the Snow Belt states – an area GM still retains market share.
GM does not have an overcapacity problem it has a shortage of desirable models and does not have to – there are many viable products GM offers in other countries or could create at little cost from existing architectures. I still don’t understand how paying even more workers not to make products will solve the cash flow problems. It seems GM needs to produce more vehicles to generate the cash required – just make the right products and the money will take care of itself.
Tariffs on automobiles would be a start to sustain the American auto industry. They must survive in order for us to have some wholly American owned factories! We must protect American industries as if we were a newly formed, fledgling country. Abraham Lincoln would have said so, as he was for very high tariffs. We can learn from our past.
Yes, we CAN learn from our past, but apparently some don’t. High tariffs, (see “Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930″) is credited with being a large cause of The Great Depression. Now there’s a plan most people would prefer to avoid.
Who said high tariffs. I’m talking about the ones Ronald Reagan passed for the automotive industry in the 80’s, and they helped.
Apparently, some don’t learn from recent past.
But seriously, how cool is that 2009 Camaro model/prototype that’s floating around on the web that GM doesn’t want you to see?
I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!
If it’s got a stick shift and I can afford it, that may just be my next car!
Quite correct, G.A.L.A., you did not say “high tariffs”, what you said was “very high tariffs”. And you had referred to (not very recent) President Lincoln, not Reagan.
But anyways, (more recent) President Reagan’s auto parts tariff caused the prices of US built cars to increase (of course), which cost sales, which closed plants, which cost 32,000 jobs (although GM itself profitted quite well). It also caused the foreign manufacturers to begin building all the foreign-owned factories in the US which you seem to dislike.
“the fastest car has a very rear biased weight distribution”
Would it be a 44-56 f/r weight ratio like the kick*** Fiero GT you guys cancelled?
gtjeff,
You’re trying to compare your Fiero to a soap box derby car? A rear biased weight ratio is a very poor idea, unless your driving is unpowered, and all downhill. (Think Corvair)
Good stuff
Well,
I for one think it shows there is more than 1 car guy at GM.
But instead of letting you guys build real cars, your reduced to Soap Box Derby cars……
But then again, are you guys all of the car guys? And did they give you a budget based on how many of you there were and say “go build yourselves a car-guys car with this”? But make sure you get your other work done first!
Sorry, but honestly if you guys want to prove you are car guys…. build real cars.
BTW, if I was a kid with a Derby car going up against GM, with it’s sponsorships etc, I would be upset, insulted and just all out mad. Why? Here the kids are doing their hardest to build a car, and you guys put together a team of professional designers and engineers, and on top of that get sponsorships.
I’d feel like a kid playing football in a school lot against the Bears (fully dressed with pads, helmets, etc).
Instead of building one yourselves, why not find a few kids who do this every year, and sponsor them (and help them build them)?
I for one used to write to GM all the time to find out how to become a designer and possibly meet one, I never got a reply.
GM does it again…..
Making concept cars that everyone wants but never delivers.(Nomad,Belair,etc)
And the new 2007 Tahoe and Suburban, No wonder GM is losing money…Bad looks and cheap features.
GM was the company that lead the pack. Get with the program, quit selling off.
I realize I’m a bit late in replying to this post, but I’m not a regular visitor of this site.
Seeing all the bile in the comments of this post, however, made me feel the need to speak up. I would like to point out the following words from the article:
“Lightweight materials and build quality were also vital in designing and producing a featherweight vehicle of this type. It does make you question why cars are so heavy when there are so many gains to be had in making them lighter…However, it does make you think about the benefit of much lighter cars.”
Seeing these words made me very hopeful that keeping an eye toward light weight would start becoming a design principle in future GM cars; and therefore that in the future GM would produce a car that I, myself, would want to buy. (The Solstice is almost there, but I think it’s ugly.)
As I shop for cars, I consider the weight of every option carefully. The advantages of having a lightweight (say, 2,700-lb) car are so many — better handling, better fuel economy, and better accelleration — that it seems to me that it would be worthwhile to design a platform to be lightweight, and then engineer some safety in. Unfortunately most manufacturers (Japanese and Korean included) are going the opposite way — a midsize Mazda sedan of today weighs about as much as my full-size sedan from 10 years ago, and about 700lbs more than my midsize Mazda sedan of 20 years ago.
With Toyota poised to take over the #1 position worldwide, I am seriously hoping to see an American manufacturer find the focus on engineering and craftsmanship to put us back on the globe. I really think that GM has the best chance (of the two options) to pull this off. Please don’t slam side-projects that could potentially further GM in this direction.
Concept cars and prototypes are great! Where can I find the promotional video of GM’s “Lean Machine” prototype, once featured in Epcot Center? I am sure it is somewhere in your archives… Please make it available online!
[quote]Funny how Toyota does not spend big ad dollars or sponsor these extravaganza’s and still manages to do quite well at selling vehicles
Posted by: steve at December 1, 2005 10:45 PM[/quote]
Toyota dosent advertise? it must be GM running all those Tundra ads….
Now lots of people put stuff on this site, but all i’ve seen is garbage. why do you dis this site? their trying to do good. and another thing GM should put out some of the concept cars they built.
I’ll race him …Streetluge against high tech,’ flim- flam contraption. First guy to reach the bottom wins…I’ll bring my Streetluge hand made . Any takers?