New Automotive DNA
By Larry Burns
GM Vice President, Research & Development and Strategic Planning
I had the honor of chairing the 2006 Convergence Conference and Exposition this week in Detroit. This is a global, biennial transportation electronics event that draws industry, academia and government representatives to Detroit. I was able to spend some time walking the show floor and talking to many automakers and suppliers. The technology on display was very impressive, and quite timely.
I believe there has never been a time more ripe for automotive change than today. Not only because of the emergence of a host of ever-more promising technologies, many of which were on display at Convergence, but also because of the incredible geopolitical pressures driving change in our world today.
Given the large impact that transportation has on energy consumption and emissions, as an industry, we must do everything we can, within reason, to decrease petroleum use, reduce its impact on the environment, and increase the world's energy independence.
As an industry, I believe we have the responsibility to ask ourselves these questions:
Achieving sustainability is a huge challenge, but it is also a great opportunity. And now is the time to seize this opportunity.
While the industry has faced big challenges before, it has never been more ready to meet them. Today's automakers and suppliers have an extensive palette of technology options from which to create our future vehicles.
For example, in the powertrain arena, these options run the gamut from advanced engine and transmission technologies and alternate fuels, to hybridization, electrification, and to my favorite, fuel cells.
These new propulsion technologies, in turn, are driving the need for new and better electrical and electronic systems, controls, and connected vehicle technologies, which together will revolutionize how our vehicles operate, how we interact with them, and how they communicate with each other and the outside world.
Alongside these advances, a host of new lighter-weight and smart materials are changing the look and feel of our cars and trucks, making them more fuel-efficient and increasing their functionality.
Individually, these technologies promise to significantly increase industry growth.
But with their convergence, a new automotive DNA is emerging. A DNA that promises to be sustainable and better in all aspects than the internal combustion engine, petroleum, and predominantly mechanical controls genetics that have characterized automobiles for the past century.
This new DNA gives us the ability to completely reinvent the automobile making it more fun to drive, enhancing its value, and, importantly, changing it from a means to get from point A to point B to a node on a global network that connects the flow of transportation, information, and power.
The automobile's transformation from a stand-alone, largely mechanical device to one that is electrical and connected will be every bit as momentous as the transition from horses to horsepower and will result in a vehicle that is fundamentally better by every measure — whether you are talking about performance, design, energy efficiency, or safety.
The point here is that vehicle owners won't be faced with tradeoffs. In fact, they will get greater value at an affordable price.
These will be vehicles that excite and delight our customers and what will help this industry grow to meet the potential demand for more than one billion vehicles by 2020.
I said this during my keynote address at Convergence and want to repeat it. I would like to propose that we, GM and the entire industry, set an agenda for action to accelerate the convergence of technology and create and implement the new automotive DNA.
Now is the time to face the realities of our world. Now is the time to turn long term into near term. Now is the time to reinvent the automobile and transform our industry.
32 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.)
Mr. Burns,
I appreciate your vision and passion, but on a forum like this I don’t look forward to reading something that sounds like an internal company pep-talk speech.
I require specific examples and timelines. Not high-minded platitudes and imagery that belong in a shrug-inspiring computer company’s commercial.
I still recall the goal GM had in 2002 of making hydrogen cars a reality for the buying public by 2010. I know there are test fleets of Equinoxes out there, but there were at least a few test Opel Zafiras (?) before that. And that’s been a few years.
Why do I get the feeling that a smaller automaker, like Honda, will beat you to the 2010 goal? Has GM already moved the goalposts out to 2012 or 2015?
If its going to be that far out, then lets see more Toyota like 4-cylinder fuel economy that approaches 40mpg, and quick!
Regards,
- Jen
Mr. Burns,
As Jennifer aptly stated, we need to see action, not hollow visions, mandates and the like. In preparation for this new automotive DNA, why hasn’t GM taken steps to create a non-proprietary ‘networked’ vehicle. Every single model created by GM has a unique electrical wiring and information configuration. Why can you not in preparation for this new DNA, begin aggressive standardization on the electrical core of this new automobile you speak of. Akin to the networking done on the BMW 5 series of a year or so ago, but many steps further. Not only doing so in one off GM Hywire prototypes, but through production deadlines that would also help reduce operating costs via economies of scale in production, costs of materials through standardization, vendor control, sourcing opportunities, etc. ultimately making you more competitive and customers more apt to buy at lower prices. Not to mention preparing GM for the so-called new auto DNA you speak of.
How about the mechanical/systems standardization likened to a ’skateboard’ also on the GM Hywire prototyped in 2002. That is nearly 5 years ago, with no discernable impact made on your current manufacturing methods or strategic implementation of this future DNA. Could drive by wire yield lower vehicle weights, lower fuel consumption, lower prices? It seems that the brains and the vision exists at GM, possibly not the management drive and innovation to implement it and regain a global leadership position in the automotive market. You are getting lapped and lapped again by too narrow a focus on profitable market segments(SUVs) and burned as a result. Too little, too late so far.
Let’s see if you and GM can rise to the challenge and be true leaders in this time of change and great opportunity or commit the same blunders of the past and be followers. History indicates that the first to lead in the share of a market following the type of encompassing and fundamental changes you refer to leads for quite a while and can maintain that position through ongoing innovation. The hydrogen infrastructure is decades away, will you wait until then to begin implementing the precursors and prerequisites to bring about these glorious changes?
Investing a $100-$200 into making a standard combustion engine able to take E85 doesn’t cut it. It’s still questionable whether there are cost advantages to plant, fertilize, treat and process corn based ethanol until microbiological breakthroughs can be put into a production environment to break down the coarser cellulose components of corn. Even then, what replenishes the nutrients in the soil itself if this is consumed?
Hybrids for hybrids sake is not a solution either. What most consumers don’t know is that the purported mileage stated for hybrids is at around 55 mph or city driving at less than 25 mph. Very tight ranges that don’t represent real usage. As a result, real mileage is typically only a few MPG higher than a standard efficient 4 cylinder. Factoring the additional costs of the hybrid, many consumers will never see the return of these hybrids based on fuel savings. I’m not even comfortable with the inevitable need to cleanly recycle the batteries from these models. I’m sure that will run smoothly and not affect the environment at all.
A lot of GM hype is what I see and hear. Your competitors are eating your lunch as a result. Stop talking about innovation and innovate! Place thought leaders in positions of power and make them change agents. Formulate a strategic plan that is actionable and brings REAL value, savings and differentiation from your competitors. One that makes real progress down this path you mention to the future. Hold people accountable at GM for meeting those goals. We all get one shot at this life as I see it and let’s see if those who could potentially make a huge difference at GM will rise to the challenge. Any children I have in the future and those of other readers will surely appreciate it. How’s that for a ‘pep talk’ as Jen put it?
Sincerely,
Rich
let’s go tigers!
Let’s Go Tigers!
LET’S GO TIGERS!
Again, I say that you can’t be focusing on only one solution. People won’t accept imposed things, but you can be more subtle.
Remember that hydrogen doesn’t exist free in nature. It has to be obtained from water electrolysis, in some of the easier ways, and storaged under pressure. In my country (Brazil) it wouldn’t be a problem to make electrolysis, because the major part of our energy comes from renewable sources (hydro power the main one), but in other nations, it would be obtained from the same sources that are told to be pollutant (coal, nuclear, etc). So, a higher demand would mean higher use of these sources.
As said before, I’m completely in favour of keep the Otto and Diesel that we use to take us from point A to B, but with other fuels and, further ahead, using fuels that don’t need conversion of the existing vehicles. For diesel it’s obvious that the B100 biodiesel is the solution. But most people don’t know that butanol can be obtained from the same sources of ethanol and be used without modifications in cars meant to use originally gasoline as http://www.butanol.com proved in a 1992 Buick LeSabre.
And, as the E100 powered rides, the butanol burning ones made to use the oil derivative make the same closed carbon cycle. Yes, even a muscle-car from the 70 or a horseless carriage from the begining of 20th century can be so clean-burning as one meant to use biomass from the begining, if using pure biobutanol.
I have no doubt that all fleet in the world using biobutanol and biodiesel B100, two fuels that don’t need engine modifications, would mean a greater reduction in pollutants than a small fleet of fuel-cell hydrogen powered cars trying to get some space in a world totally used to cars as we know…
And, also, the world would be free from a lot of trash that means shredding a huge number of cars, good part of them in very decent condition and being a huge waste of energy to shred…
Completely reinvent the automobile?
You hardly need to go that far.
How about just building a RWD, v-8 powered car with a stick shift and room for 4-5, that’s affordable and doesn’t fall at the bottom of it’s class?
That car would sell.
How do I know? Because that describes almost every car that GM fans dream about.
GM shouldn’t bother competing with the front-drive boredom from Japan.
Just make a well-built RWD stick shifted V-8 that the average Joe can have some fun with, and you won’t have to worry about sales.
Think about it. Aside from the Camaro, the Firebird and the Corvette, just about every car GM fans dream about dates back before 1972.
Ask yourself why that is, and you’ve got the recipe for GM’s resurgence.
Larry,
Thanks for your column, I am very interested in what the future will bring.
Before I comment on your column I would like to make a comment on the advertisement with your signature and picutre used repeatedly in the Atlantic (and probably other magazines): “100 yrs of GM firsts.” When I first saw the ad I was not overly impressed with the five firsts shown — you guys have been #1 forever and probably have 1000s of significant firsts. But now, after seeing the ad over and over for something like a year, it is like you guys are trying to sell innovation by proving you can’t. Mix it up a bit will you!
As for the future, I am concerned about the tendency for engineers to get enomored of sexy technology and miss the often more crucial economic issues. And subtle economic points can dominate the trade space. VHS/BetaMax, IBM PC/Apple, and IDE/SCSI are some famous examples. I am sure you know more about Hydrogen for cars than I ever will (although I do have a bit of rocket propulsion in my background). However, the economic issues are likely to be far thornier than the technical ones. Fuel cells remind me of Fusion Power; my experience among the Plasma Physicists who run America’s largest Tokamak left me with “Fusion Energy, XX years away and it always will be.” (fill in your favorite number of decades in for XX). The fusion guys even have a power chart that beats Moore’s law (of course, it starts off pretty low).
Please focus your efforts on work that will gain traction and make a difference and not on what is fun and/or sexy.
Keep up your enthusiasm, keep plugging, and for Pete’s sake mix up your ads!
-Keith
Some technologies that can be exploited now, not decades in the future, are Miller cycle engines, which can be developed as gasoline/ethanol “FlexFuel” powerplants (and promise a 15% improvement in fuel economy without sacrificing performance), turbodiesels, which can be developed as diesel/biodiesel/vegoil “FlexFuel” powerplants, and ICE/electric hybrids. All of these exist now, and none have yet reached the peak of their development. Most of the other technologies you’ve mentioned are still many decades from practical use- despite the hoopla I’m convinced I’m not going to see hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars in my lifetime.
There’s an interesting report by our biggest car-magazine “Auto Bild”, which now published the result of the 100.000 km (62.500 miles)-long-term-test of the Toyota Prius. Well, the entire drive-system didn’t fail at all and it was possible to get 56 mpg by moderate driving, but as soon as the car was used more often on highways, the mileage then only was 34 mpg! There also had been found other downsides, which I wouldn’t have expected. You can get this story translated by using the Language Tools on the Google-Homepage. The URL is: http://de.cars.yahoo.com/20102006/292/hybrid-prius-besteht-dauertest.html
I do not think such innovations will come first from GM or Ford. They have neglected fuel economy issues for too long and now they pay the price. Japanese and European manufacturers are far ahead on all these technologies.
About two years ago, my company designed a more fuel efficient IC engine that could easily reach 45 mpg, with significant savings in production costs. We wanted to present our technology to both GM and Ford. They did not even bother to look at it !!!
If they don’t take their chance, competitors will !
Matt
Mr. Burns,
Gaining more customers from your rival Japanese and Korean auto manufacturer is to benchmark the performance & efficiency of their best 4 & 6 cylinder OHC engines. Your 2.4L & 3.6L OHC naturally aspirated engines is already above par but the rest of your I4 & V6, especially the OHVs performance & efficiency are way below par.
Mr. Burns,
There’s more problems with automobile transportation than carbon emissions. More and more space is being taken up with highways. Traffic is getting worse and worse, and road construction can’t keep up, partly because the growth in the number of cars is happening so fast, and partly because people don’t want to pay the taxes that pay for the roads.
A good direction for GM wouldn’t just focus on personally-owned automobiles. Car sharing and public transportation put into an easy to use transportation system that uses the strengths of each mode of transportion to offset the weaknesses of the others along with better community planning is more likely the future of transportation than continuing down the path we’re on.
Jen is right. Here we go with GM Marketing spoon-feeding spin to another insulated, isolated, GM suit. Hey you, that’s right you! Powerpoint Head!
” Very tight ranges that don’t represent real usage. As a result, real mileage is typically only a few MPG higher than a standard efficient 4 cylinder.” – Rich
Wrong. My parents 2001 first-generation Prius has been getting 47-55 mpg, a lot more than the best mileage from a four cylinder car of a similar size during normal driving.
No offense, but I think this is one of the reasons GM needs a Prius-beater right now.
Hybrids serve very basic psychological needs for many buyers–and they lend a green hue to the rest of a company’s lineup.
Toyota’s SUVs get the worst mileage intheir res[ective classes (4Runner) but their sales always rise during hard times of high gas prices.
People erroneously think they’re more efficient.
Hybrid owners don’t drive to save gas so much as to feel good about themselves–and that is the biggest wallet motivator of all.
Matt, I’d be cautious in giving such general statements, regarding fuel-efficiency. A couple of weeks ago the new Volkswagen Eos was featured on German TV (car-magazine). The average mileage of this BRANDNEW tester was only 23.5 mpg! My 2001 Alero gets 26 mpg, although it’s clearly larger, has an automatic-transmission and about the same power. By the way, the Alero doesn’t require “Super Plus”-gasoline, like that VW, which in the average costs 10 cents more per litre. So, where’s the Europeans’ progress in comparison to GM?
“Think about it. Aside from the Camaro, the Firebird and the Corvette, just about every car GM fans dream about dates back before 1972.” – from John
Hi John, of course GM had much better times in recent decades, but you also shouldn’t forget, there’s tremendously more competition than in the sixtees. Well, GM’s market-share today is only about 25 percent in the USA. But that’s still higher than the market-share of Volkswagen and Toyota combined (!) in Germany!
I agree with most of the comments made so far. GM should get their cars upgraded with the current DNA. How come every car does not come with stability control at least as an option? How come the Pontiac G6 and Aura have gas guzzling hydaulic steering? The ‘07 BMW 3 Series and ‘07 Mini is going to more fuel efficient Electric steering and reviews so far indicate they have a good feel and feedback. Now that we have low sulpher gas, how long will it take GM to apply direct gas injection to their engines for better fuel economy?
Dear Mr. Eccles,
maybe you mixed something up. The G6 has a variable-assist electric power steering system. It had been applied to Opel-vehicles over here since years, maybe a time before BMW did it. BTW, Volkswagen is using direct gas injection, meaning the so-called FSI-engines. They fall far behind Opel’s TwinPort-engines in fuel-efficiency…
Hi Mr. Burns,
During the existence of AC Electronics, GM Defense Research Labs and Delco Systems Operations, one requirement was at the top of the list during the design phase – do it with the least number of components. Less equals greater relibility, less time to build and less cost. Now, today’s vehicles have too many sensors, especially engine sensors. Bosch, for example, builds their air/fuel ratio and oxygen sensors to last 100k miles. What will be the cost of owner maintenace after this mileage?
Fred Kovol
Solvang, CA
Mr. Burns,
Your suggestion of moving to a more sustainable mode of transportation is interesting, but I think to really get a jump on your competition, you are going to need to question a couple of fundamental assumptions about the relationship between gas and electrical power in your vehicles. Currently, the basic assumption seems to be that you will have gas powered vehicles with electrical assist. For example, the standard drive train still rests on the assumption of a gas powered internal combustion engine providing the majority of the power. Even in vehicles like the Prius or the Honda lineup, the gas powered internal combustion engine is front and center.
Why not turn the tables and focus on electric powered vehicles with an internal combustion back-up? Somewhat akin to “plug-ins,” the working assumption would be that the gas powered engine (or diesel or ethanol or biodiesel) isn’t driving the vehicle as much as it is generating electricity, either used directly by an electric motor or stored in batteries or a fly wheel.
An example would be a diesel locomotive, which essentially is an electric motor with a diesel power plant behind it. Or in an automotive context, your now defunct EV-1 with a small gas powered generator recharging the batteries and providing power directly to the motor. How well would the EV-1 sold if it had a longer range and a less compromising body style and performance curve?
The advantage, I think, would be to skip all of the complicated algorithms, software and dual power system equipment that Toyota has successfully introduced into the Prius and its line of hybrids. If a car was designed from the beginning to be electric powered rather than gas, it could achieve a number of manufacturing and design efficiencies and would put the basic vehicle set on the path to fuel cells and the like when those become available.
Dear Mr. Burns,
Maybe this is the right place for me to reiterate my plea for class-busting telematics.
I must first say, that although the first poster (Jennifer) was a bit harsh, she is right. The beauty of a blog like this is that Bob and Ed and Alba (and others) all appear human–as if they were speaking to us directly.
I know you’re an engineering guy, but I’d advise you to let your personality show in your postings. That sounded like a press release.
Ask the others for advice, they’re pretty good.
I would like, however, to ask that you consider wireless (or wired) web access via Onstar (in-car from your laptop).
That is an unbelievably useful tool to people who are on the road a lot, and away from hotspots.
Think real estate agents, salesmen, field workers, road warriors etc. You could even keep in contact while on vacation.
If it’s moderately faster than dial-up access, and available as a rider on existing internet plans, by-the-minute on your OnStar plan, or as a fixed part of your monthly Onstar bill it would be a hit.
Of course you then have to know how to market it as a useful GM exclusive. Do not let Toyota eclipse you. You must offer far and away the best product, before they even know what hit them.
“GM shouldn’t bother competing with the front-drive boredom from Japan.”
I think I should point out that front-wheel-drive was an American innovation (designed by Harry Miller in the 1920s. His racing designs won at Indianapolis 4 times in that decade.) Other FWD designs originated in Europe,notably by Citroen- A French company, not Japanese. Cord (an American manufacturer, in Indiana) made (expensive) FWD cars in the 1930s, GM introduced FWD in Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs (”personal luxury” vehicles, not econo-boxes) in the 1960s.
“Just make a well-built RWD stick shifted V-8 that the average Joe can have some fun with, and you won’t have to worry about sales.”
The do that now, they call them “SUVs.” They’re especially popular with “soccer moms.” GM bailed from the RWD sedan market (taxis, police cruisers, and rental companies) some years ago, leaving that field to Ford. If you want a full-size, front engine, rear-wheel drive American Sedan, it’s going to have to be a Ford, Mercury, ot Lincoln.
“Think about it. Aside from the Camaro, the Firebird and the Corvette, just about every car GM fans dream about dates back before 1972.”
I can’t argue with this. I think it might be an interesting idea to have a small number of “retro” designs (similar in concept to the Shay Model A Ford replicas of the 1980s) built by an outside vendor and sold through GM dealerships. I would nominate the 1955 and 1957 Chevy Bel Airs and Nomads. Or, since GM has become the “truck and SUV company,” the 1953 Chevy 1/2 ton pickup, and the 1957 Chevy Suburban…
I support the idea of changing the automotive “DNA”, but this stuff is so far out in the future that the corporation may not survive to get there. When you are losing billions of dollars, you have to do something NOW.
As one blogger mentioned, the fuel cell vehicles were once advertised to be commercially available in 2010. Now it’s “later in the decade”. It’s like the donkey with the carrot on the end of the stick. You need something besides trucks to sell in the meantime. When gas goes back up to $3/gallon, watch out.
Sorry to repeat myself, but the CEO of Toyota was recently quoted as saying that the secret to improved fuel economy in the future is “Lighter cars with smaller engines”. Hello?
GM is a world leader in mass production with advanced composite technology (Corvette). How about using that to lighten up the Cobalt? Put in an existing European 1.4 Ecotec (thanks bloggers) and, God send, a better transmission. The Honda Fit has a 5 speed automatic. The Nissan Versa has a CVT. 40 mpg city might be too hard, but 30 is certainly doable. I would buy one tomorrow. You could almost parts bin the whole thing. Where is Jon Moss, now that we need him?
To maximize fuel ecomony, GM should reconsider its flawed decision to gradually eliminate the plastic panels on Saturn vehicles. Each new steel bodied model will weigh roughly 100-150 pounds more than its plastic predecessor.
Who cares what some of the auto magazine writers say about plastic panels and the bigger panel gaps, your Saturn, Fiero and Corvette owners love them. Listen to them!!!!
Thanks gtjeff, 10/24/06, 10:17 PM. Too bloody right!
Dear Larry,
Could you consider adding a special photocatalyst (Ti02) as a coating option for any vehicle that leaves the factory? Particularly the Cadillacs and Corvettes.
This would allow the cars to remain cleaner for longer, and thus present a like-new appearance on the roads at all times.
It’s already used widely in other applications, but I am sure it’d be worth it.
OT:
GM, putting a spanish language commercial on a english language station (luckily they still exist in the US) is a really stupid move. If you want to suck up to immigrants who don’t feel the need to learn the language of the country they moved to, do it on a spanish language station.
You can see by the reaction on many GM fan websites that you turned off many people, me included.
Mr Burns
I saw that someone had posted ahead of me about the painted surface of your cars needing protection.
40% of Americans live within 100 miles of an ocean and I for one have experienced a bad case of salt damage that seemed to get worse when I waxed my car.
This problem with my previous GM car was one contributor to my buying a competitors product this time. The paint on my Escalade was terrible!
I also looked at several of your cars and was astounded that your painted parts were all different colors.
I looked at an XLR and a Buick and the body was different colored than the front and rear plastic bumper covers? It was very bad and worse on GM products than on any other manufacturer.
I talked to the dealer and he said they were all like that but I continue to look and GM is by far terrible.
What is that about?
A friend looked at cars and was interested in the Buick car also but saw what I saw and was asked top pay $1000.00 for red paint?
She now owns a car just like mine and I cannot understand why two of us were both very interested and turned away by the paint quality.
I never owned a foriegn car before but have an Acura now and it is hard to say I am happier than I have ever been.
Why is this?
What I think GM must put heavy concentration into now, is the 100,000,000 or so persons born after 1980. This is a segment of the buying population now and a giant size portion of the buying population in the future.
There are a myriad of ways of doing this, but I think that consumer markets of these young are the key. Every sort of habit and way of living that they do and will do must be taken into consideration. And it must be each of the different wants of the different populations.
Sometimes there is an all or none solution to a problem, but many times amelioration to a problem takes moderation and not only exageration.
Mr. Burns: GM should be recognized as being the manufacturer offering vehicles in not only Hybrid and alternative fuels, but advanced gasoline and diesel engines.
Different vehicles are better suited to one technology than another and fit different buyer needs better. GM is the only manufacturer offering E-85, E-100, CNG, AFM, Direct Injection Gas Engines, Turbo-Diesels and Hybrids in basic low cost and more capable two mode systems as well as E85 and E100 models.
GM should expand E-85 capability to the Malibu, Cobalt Aveo and Corvette making GM the first manufacturer to offer E-85 across a lineup.
The E-85 capable Corvette tuned to maximize the performance with the higher compression that E-85 can use would show the potential of E-85.
SAAB needs to be the hybrid division of GM and the BioPower Hybrid needs to be offered in the U.S.
GM has to expand engines offering Direct Injection, few are aware that the Solstice GXP gets better highway MPG than the base model because it uses a 2.0L Turbocharged Direct Injected engine in place of a 2.4L normally aspirated one. All while delivering a substantial boost to performance.
I think GM should consider offering a Hydrogen Fuel Cell for the home to be used as both an emergency generator and a Hydrogen refueling station.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells are not a new technology they have been the power source for spacecraft for decades. Maybe GM should market that more to gain some public confidence.
It is good to see someone at GM enthusiastic about so many alternative fuels and powertrain technologies.
Thanks for your time.
Mr.Burns, You make some very interesting points in your comments.The time for change is yesterday if not now. I’m hopeful to start seeing these new technologies soon.Just to inform you, every vehicle that I’ve ever owned suffered some sort of electrical problem mostly due to oxidation and or corrosion to wiring or some other key internal component.I do hope that you can do more research in this area and perhaps find better insulating materials from the elements that cause it.The progress that you are making is vitally important for all of the obvious reasons in getting us off of the hydrocarbon reliant infrastructure and the geopolitical problems associated with it while making this country stronger and safer.Thanks for your efforts and best wishes for continued “accelerated” progress!….Sam
Mr. Burns
I have sent an e-mail a year ago to you about a new drive line idea that realy isn’t new but it might be conceivable to implement. A computer controlled hydraulic and dynamic braking system. Every automotive effert concentrates on the power source neglecting the 19th century technology of transmissions,axles,differentials,transfer cases, and of course friction brakes. This is the other half of efficiency getting the power to the road. The biggest impact I see is the infrastructure of suppliers of current drive line components as well as the impact to the engineering community at the automotive level. It is perhaps an old paridigm that will never change in the minds of automotive engineers. However some are taking the challenge…Popular science Sept. 2006 pgs.51-53, Automotive Engineering International Oct. 2006 page 20 and Associated Press article on Hybra-Drive System developed by James O’brien of O’brien Engineered Products Inc.