Archive for the ‘Automobiles’ Category

« Older Entries

Will I be able to buy a “car which drives me” when I am 80?

March 20, 2026

When I bought my current car (hybrid Mercedes E) a few years ago I predicted that “it would be the last car I bought which I would drive. My next car would need to drive me”. Around 2028 would probably be the right time to get a new car. In two years I will be 80. I can already observe my reactions slowing, attention span shortening, hearing slowly deteriorating and muscle memory slackening. By then a “car which drives me” may well be a necessity.

The SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) standard J3016 defines six levels of driving automation, ranging from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 5 (full automation).

Level 0: No Automation 

  • The human driver is fully responsible for all aspects of driving, including steering, braking, and accelerating.
  • Systems: May include warnings (lane departure, blind spot) or momentary interventions like Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB).
  • Driver Role: Full-time performance of all driving tasks.

Level 1: Driver Assistance 

  • The vehicle features a single automated system that assists with either steering or speed (acceleration/braking), but not both at once.
  • Examples: Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) or Lane Keeping Assist.
  • Driver Role: Must monitor the road at all times and perform all other driving tasks.

Level 2: Partial Driving Automation 

  • The system can control both steering and speed simultaneously under certain conditions.
  • Examples: Tesla Autopilot, GM Super Cruise, and Ford BlueCruise.
  • Driver Role: Must remain fully engaged, monitor the environment, and be ready to take over instantly.

Level 3: Conditional Driving Automation 

  • The vehicle handles all driving tasks under specific, limited conditions (e.g., traffic jams), allowing the driver to disengage from monitoring.
  • Example: Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT.
  • Driver Role: Must be available to resume control when requested. [5, 10, 11, 12]

Level 4: Full Automation

  • The vehicle operates autonomously within defined, geofenced zones, not requiring human intervention for driving tasks, as defined in SAE standards.
  • Examples: Robotaxis from companies like Waymo.
  • Driver Role: None required within the designated area.

Level 5: High Driving Automation

  • Level 5 vehicles require no human attentionand the driver is eliminated.
  • No steering wheels or acceleration/braking pedals, free from geofencing, able to go anywhere and do anything that an experienced human driver can do.
  • Fully autonomous cars are undergoing testing in several pockets of the world.
Currently, no truly “fully autonomous” cars (FSD or Level 5) that can drive anywhere without any human intervention are available for general sale. However, several come close and offer advanced semi-autonomous systems that could be called Supervised Fully Self Driving.
Tesla is the only manufacturer currently selling a system marketed as “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) across its entire consumer lineup. The videos I have seen demonstrate remarkable autonomy but it is formally (legally) still classified as Level 2 and must have constant driver supervision.

  • Tesla self-classifies its systems (including FSD Supervised) as SAE Level 2 in communications with regulators.
  • NHTSA investigations and documents treat Tesla’s systems as Level 2 partial automation, requiring a fully attentive driver.
  • Level 2 systems face fewer strict regulations than higher levels (e.g., no special exemptions needed for deployment, unlike Level 3+), which is why they are the strategic choice to get the necessary approvals while gaining customer acceptance.
File:Tesla logo.png - Wikimedia Commons
Tesla “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) (Supervised)
  • Available Models: All current Tesla production models, including:
    • Model 3
    • Model Y
    • Model S
    • Model X
    • Cybertruck
  • Key Capabilities: Navigation from point-to-point on city streets and highways, responding to traffic lights and stop signs, and automated lane changes.
  • Global Availability: Currently available in the U.S., Canada, China, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.
Other Manufacturers with Advanced Autonomy
While only Tesla uses the “FSD” name, several other brands offer systems with similar or even more advanced (eyes-off) capabilities in specific regions:
File:Mercedes-Logo.svg - Wikimedia Commons
  • Mercedes-Benz (Level 3 – DRIVE PILOT): The first manufacturer to offer a certified Level 3 “eyes-off” system. 
    • Models: S-Class and EQS Sedan.
    • Availability: Limited to specific highways in California and Nevada (USA) and Germany.
  • BMW (Level 3 – Personal Pilot L3): Offers eyes-off driving at low speeds.
    • Model: 7-Series. 
    • Availability: Currently available only in Germany.
  • General Motors (Super Cruise): A robust hands-free highway system.
    • Models: Includes the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Hummer EV, and Cadillac Escalade.
    • Availability: North America (U.S. and Canada) on hundreds of thousands of miles of mapped highways.
  • Ford (BlueCruise): Hands-free highway driving.
    • Models: Mustang Mach-E, F-150, Expedition, and Explorer.
    • Availability: North America (U.S. and Canada).
Scheduled 2026 Models with High-Level Autonomy
Several specialized Level 4 vehicles (designed to drive without human intervention in defined zones) are slated for release or expanded private ownership in 2026:
  • Tesla Cybercab: A dedicated robotaxi without steering wheels or pedals, targeting volume production in 2026.
  • Tensor Robocar: Marketed as the world’s first personal Level 4 autonomous vehicle, built in partnership with VinFast and targeting the U.S., Europe, and UAE.
  • Lucid Gravity: Expected to offer Level 4 capabilities for private purchase through a partnership with Nuro.

If I were buying a car today I think the only available choice would be a Tesla (probably 80/20 in favour of a Model Y over a Cybertruck).

In 2 years though it could be a choice between a Mercedes and a Tesla (20/80 ?).

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in AI, automation, Automobiles, Behaviour, FSD, Tesla, Robotics, Automation levels, Technology, Transport | Leave a Comment »

The now withdrawn EPA endangerment finding was politics not science

February 13, 2026

The 2009 Endangerment Finding by the EPA Administrator on December 7, 2009, included two main determinations. The first found that the current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The second, the “Cause or Contribute Finding,” determined that combined emissions of these gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to this threat EPA. “Air pollution” was defined as the collective mix of these six greenhouse gases. The term “public welfare” under the Clean Air Act was interpreted to include effects on various environmental factors. The finding was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2009.

The finding was utterly dependent upon a political definition of welfare. It was unsound  and was essentially junk science for a political cause. For human health directly the effects were plain wrong or grossly exaggerated.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels from around 400 ppm to 1000 ppm, with oxygen content remaining unchanged, would likely have minimal direct acute health impacts on most healthy adults, as this concentration is commonly encountered in indoor environments without widespread reports of severe symptoms. Traditional occupational safety guidelines, such as those from OSHA, set permissible exposure limits at 5000 ppm for an 8-hour workday, indicating that 1000 ppm is well below thresholds for immediate toxicity or asphyxiation. At this level, some individuals might experience subtle effects like mild drowsiness or slight increases in heart rate and blood pressure, but these are not universal and often depend on factors such as duration of exposure, ventilation, and individual sensitivity.

On February 12, 2026, the EPA under the Trump administration finalized a rule to withdraw the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding.

What was withdrawn: The 2009 “Endangerment Finding” (and related Cause or Contribute Finding), which concluded that the current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Significance: This finding was the legal bedrock that allowed the EPA to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, and other industrial sources.
Reason for Withdrawal: The EPA stated that the 2009 analysis was “flawed,” “too pessimistic,” and did not properly analyze the scientific record. The administration argued that greenhouse gases do not pose a direct threat to public health in the way conventional air pollutants (like smog) do.

Good riddance.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Automobiles, Behaviour, Climate, Emissions, Energy, Environment, Science, Scientific Fraud, US | Comments Off on The now withdrawn EPA endangerment finding was politics not science

Woke rebranding – Disney/Jaguar mishmash

December 4, 2024

It has become a freaky world.

There seems to be a new “go woke, go broke” story every day. The Jaguar and Disney stories are like phlegm which persists forever.

Jaguar touts “copy nothing” but copies Rolls Royce among others. There were pink Ferraris long before that. The shape is similar to some old Chevys. As an old friend who is a Jaguar fanatic put it “It’s just embarrassing”. It is not going to help Tata Motors or the Tata brand very much either.

Disney has just gone mad. A Snow White who is not white. A spoilt brat actress who is not very fair and who is more hateful than the evil queen. Zegler is a real liability for Disney with very few saving graces. And dwarves who are not dwarves!!!

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Automobiles, Trivia | Comments Off on Woke rebranding – Disney/Jaguar mishmash

Does Jaguar’s rebrand target a new customer base?

November 27, 2024

Jaguar – will no longer, apparently, represent the silent, lithe, sleek, powerful predator that the cat species panthera onca is. (60 years ago the E-type was my forever dream car – even against the DB-5. Then I grew up).

The new woke rebranding apparently has different target customers in mind.

Note that the target is the older men or women who attract younger men!

Enough Jaguar wokery now.

Time to move on.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Automobiles | Comments Off on Does Jaguar’s rebrand target a new customer base?

10 months with my E300e plug-in hybrid

September 29, 2020

Normally I would do about 12,000 – 14,000 km in a year. Typically about 40 – 50% would have been as return trips of less than 100 km. However in these corona times this pattern has been drastically disrupted. I expect that my first year with my Mercedes E300e will see only 50% of my usual total usage.  But the real change is that over 80% of my actual usage has been for return trips of less than 100km. Since April there has been only one “long” trip (480km return).

Nevertheless, I am beginning to draw some conclusions.

The battery of the Mercedes E300e has a total capacity of 13.5 kWh. The usable capacity is about 10.8 kWh. The unused capacity seems to be a permanent reserve kept for all starts and when travelling at less than about 15 km/h. What I actually get is an all-electric range of 40 – 65 km. The 40 km is when trips are predominantly short with very little regenerative charging. This goes up to as much as 65 km during return trips exceeding 150 km where the regenerative charging gives about 10 – 15 km depending upon terrain. Charging the battery (10.8 kWh) takes about 1h 45m.

The nice thing about the hybrid is that running out of battery capacity is of no concern. The petrol tank (55 litres) gives a range of over 1,000 km and  is always there as the back-up for short trips which are longer than expected.  For long trips the battery provides the start/stop economy and with the regenerative capacity, petrol consumption is minimised in the uneconomic range. When operating in hybrid mode the switchover between petrol and the battery, in either direction, is automatic and almost unnoticeable.

The performance in winter still remains to be seen.

Electricity consumption thus varies from about 24 kWh/ 100 km (short trips) to about 18 kWh/100 km for longer trips. Currently my petrol consumption (which is somewhat distorted by the lack of longer trips) is at about 5.1 litres /100 km.

So far so good.

 

 

 

Tags:,
Posted in Automobiles | Comments Off on 10 months with my E300e plug-in hybrid

The last car I buy to drive myself

May 19, 2019

My current car is 10 years old. So, I have ordered my new car for delivery in September.

A hybrid with a petrol engine. Range on batteries alone – 60 km. Range with full batteries and full fuel tank is over 2,000 km. Self-parking (but which must be activated by the driver). “Driving assistance” to keep me awake and stop me from drifting on the highway, but has to be manually engaged. Automatic maintenance of distance from other cars when engaged. 360º vision cameras. Live satellite navigation assistance.

I am 71 now. I can feel my reaction times are slowing. My eyesight is still fine but glare at night on wet roads is increasingly bothersome. My neck hurts sometimes when reversing. I feel my concentration dipping on long journeys. My attention strays. With the various “assistances” now available, I reckon that I should be able to keep and drive this car for another 5 – 6 years. At that time -if I am still around – my faculties would, no doubt, have deteriorated further. But advances in technology are surging ahead and will compensate for my deficiencies. By then I expect very smart, virtually self-driving cars to have come a long long way.

This may not be the last car I buy for myself. But it probably is the last car I buy to drive myself.

 

My next car – if there is a next – will drive me. 

 

Tags:
Posted in Automobiles, Development, Engineering, Technology | Comments Off on The last car I buy to drive myself

Thermal efficiency and “emissions elsewhere” from electric cars

August 30, 2016

All electric cars shift emissions from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the place where the electricity is generated. The actual mix of fuel sources used to feed the grid then represent the emissions profile of electric cars. The efficiency of electric cars from generation of electricity to wheel-power is not much different from gasoline based automobiles and clearly inferior to diesel engines.

Fossil fuels used directly in vehicle internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency ranging from 37% for gasoline to over 55% for very large marine diesels.

source JSME

source JSME

For electricity generation the thermal efficiency varies from less than 30% to over 60% for coal, oil, gas, solar thermal or nuclear power plants. Thermal efficiency is meaningless (and undefined) for hydropower, wind power or photovoltaic solar.

thermal efficiency of power generation

An electric car being charged from the grid does so after a further 10% of transmission and distribution losses but only accrues a further 2 – 5% losses through the motor(s) to shaft rotation. (There are further mechanical losses in getting to the rotation of the wheels but these are common to all kinds of motive power).

The emissions due to the use of an electric car are entirely dependant upon the emissions involved in the generation of the charging electricity. If the grid is largely dependant upon coal (India), or coal and gas (US) then the gaseous emissions are higher than for diesel engines but slightly better than for gasoline automobiles. If, the grid is primarily hydropower as in Norway, or primarily hydro and nuclear (as in Sweden) then there are virtually no emissions from electric vehicles.

The fundamental reality is that electric cars are not yet commercially viable (range, weight, charging time and cost). Two decades of subsidies also confirms for me my contention, that subsidies are usually counter-productive, always delay commercialisation and nearly always lead to a focus on milking subsidies rather than commercialising a technology.

A recent Forbes article addresses the fantasies surrounding emissions, and Tesla cars. I wouldn’t mind owning a Tesla car where my acquisition price is heavily subsidised. But now that the initial investors have milked the subsidies, and operations – in spite of the subsidies – have yet to show a profit, I would not invest in Tesla shares.

Earlier this summer, SolarCity, Elon Musk’s rooftop solar company, appeared to be headed toward bankruptcy. So it shocked investors everywhere when Musk’s other brainchild, Tesla Motors TSLA -2.21%, itself struggling, announced plans to acquire the struggling panel maker and installer.

“Tesla Talks Big, Falls Short,” read a headline last week on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The subtitle: “Car maker has failed to meet more than 20 of CEO Elon Musk’s projections in the past five years.”

Surely combining two wrong businesses won’t make a right one. True, they’re both politically correct. But they’re economically incorrect.

Tesla’s operating losses, along with its fishy accounting practices and unrealistic investor promises, have led Devonshire Research Group to liken the car company’s business model to Enron’s.

Bad entrepreneurship is normally punished by market losses and contraction. But Musk’s market is rigged. A mountain of taxpayer subsidies is allowing Tesla’s bad show to go on — and even expand.

Musk’s various ventures have received almost $5 billion worth of government assistance. Nevada recently chimed in with $1.3 billion to incentivize Tesla to build its “gigafactory” — a new battery producing facility — near Reno. Each car sold by Tesla receives a federal income tax credit of $7,500. And California allows an additional $2,500 rebate to its citizens.

Even the White House is throwing cash Musk’s way. President Obama just announced $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle entrepreneurs. According to the president, the money will help fill garages with EVs and make charging stations ubiquitous.

Tesla is redefining “too big to fail” as “politically correct, so bail.”

….. 

So-called zero-emission vehicles reflect the fuel-profile of electricity generation. 2015 U.S. electricity generation consisted of 33% coal; 33% natural gas; 20% nuclear; 13% renewables; and 1% oil.

Fossil fuels, in other words, have a two-thirds market share for EVs, wind and solar just 5%. Nuclear power, hydropower, and biomass, account for the remainder. …..

…..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2016/08/24/investors-confront-teslas-energy-fantasy/2/#78d77bfa2bbe

 

Tags:,
Posted in Automobiles, Energy, Technology | Comments Off on Thermal efficiency and “emissions elsewhere” from electric cars

You gotta have a dream

November 2, 2015

2016 MERCEDES-MAYBACH S600

You gotta have a dream, if you don’t have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

2016 Mercedes-Maybach S600

2016 Mercedes-Maybach S600. 523-hp, 6.0-liter twin-turbo V-12 and the world’s quietest car

Tags:
Posted in Automobiles | Comments Off on You gotta have a dream

Das Auto – Unpimped and “It’s definitely sucking”

September 22, 2015

“It’s definitely sucking”.
German ingenuity!
The harder they fall …

 

VW – Das Auto – Unpimped

Tags:,
Posted in Automobiles, Ethics | Comments Off on Das Auto – Unpimped and “It’s definitely sucking”

Electric vehicles have no impact on emissions

January 22, 2014

If electric vehicles are to succeed they will have to provide the consumer with some real benefits by way of cost or convenience which are more than for feeling good. That in turn depends upon the further development of battery technology and increasing the range of the vehicle on a single charge. The cost of the vehicle and the speed of charging are other key factors.

The supposed environmental benefits are largely illusory since they merely shift the source of power generation (combustion from the internal combustion engine in a vehicle) to a power plant. In the United States this power generation is most likely to be fossil fired (coal or shale gas). A new study shows that even if electric vehicles made up more than 40% of all vehicles, emissions would be largely unchanged. As of 2012 electric vehicles made up about 0.5% of new vehicle sales and about 0.06% (170,000 of 254 million) of all vehicles on the road in the US.

(Phys.org) — A new study from North Carolina State University indicates that even a sharp increase in the use of electric drive passenger vehicles (EDVs) by 2050 would not significantly reduce emissions of high-profile air pollutants carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. … The researchers ran 108 different scenarios in a powerful energy systems model to determine the impact of EDV use on emissions between now and 2050. They found that, even if EDVs made up 42 percent of passenger vehicles in the U.S., there would be little or no reduction in the emission of key air pollutants. …..

The energy systems model also showed that key factors in encouraging use of EDVs are oil price and battery cost. If batteries are cheap and oil is expensive, EDVs become more attractive to consumers.

“How Much Do Electric Drive Vehicles Matter to Future U.S. Emissions?” Published: online January 2014 in Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4045677

Abstract Image

Energy System Model

Abstract
Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—known collectively as electric drive vehicles (EDVs)—may represent a clean and affordable option to meet growing U.S. light duty vehicle (LDV) demand. The goal of this study is twofold: identify the conditions under which EDVs achieve high LDV market penetration in the U.S. and quantify the associated change in CO2, SO2, and NOX emissions through mid-century. We employ the Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System (TIMES), a bottom-up energy system model, along with a U.S. dataset developed for this analysis. To characterize EDV deployment through 2050, varying assumptions related to crude oil and natural gas prices, a CO2 policy, a federal renewable portfolio standard, and vehicle battery cost were combined to form 108 different scenarios. Across these scenarios, oil prices and battery cost have the biggest effect on EDV deployment. The model results do not demonstrate a clear and consistent trend towards lower system-wide emissions as EDV deployment increases. In addition to the tradeoff between lower tailpipe and higher electric sector emissions associated with plug-in vehicles, the scenarios produce system-wide emissions effects that often mask the effect of EDV deployment.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Air pollution, Automobiles, Business, Technology | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries