Bill Ford predicts ‘radical transformation’ of auto industry

Bill Ford predicts ‘radical transformation’ of auto industry

I like his attitude, is somehow a visionary like his great grand father, and yes, keeping doing the same things expecting different results is not a strong evidence of a strategy based on sanity.

Now, here the issues are:

1) There is a ‘transport” industry set implication, which has some serious issues of thermodynamic efficiency, it takes a wholistic approach of the whole industry, to obtain rational results, and the only side of ‘disposable activity’ to permit life, is, in an emergency, a substantial cut on transport waste.

2) There is an ‘economic implication’ which being based on quackery currency does not logistically predict hardly anything, in so, with the handicap of the racket of the money system, still a transportation industry that wants to chose to survive has to act in terms ‘thermodynamically sound,’ otherwise the game is equivalent than going to play in vegas, the high priests of the other religion, economics quackery, can not vision anything further that their nose, they get a (fake) nobel price for ‘three years worth of’ good predictions, flipping a coin is more sound than listening to economic quackery, and the christo-monetary fractional ponzi skim.

Now points (1) and (2) clearly require an overlapped logistic serialization and time sharing strategy, which is nothing new, computers knew how to do that in the 50s, with most efficient algorithms (resources and assets management are pretty much the same concepts,) and networks in the 70s knew how to do that (optimizing path algorithms and logistic distribution serialization are pretty much the same concepts.) so there is the concept of ‘ personal-mobility companies,’ and ‘not only,’ but also ‘fractional ownership,’ as well ‘time sharing,’ as well, there are plenty of economically and thermodynamically sound ideas, if just we were in ‘the right mindset,’ as nobody in his right mind has two 747 in his yard to fly them once a year for vacations, your average 3 cars and a half in the average american family that drive more or less few hours a week each, and sit for 99% of time accumulating rust, ‘are not’ a thermodynamically efficient way of doing things.

Then there are issues resulting from faulty choices:

3) Excessive weight for the type of deployment, (here we have many interesting concepts, from alloys that can be recycled with only 5% of the original energy to create them, to bio-compatible components such as PLC, to natural renewables such as hemp fibers and natural resins,) city cars and small trucks / suv are the first illustrious victims and perpetrators of this madness, if your load is not 10k lbs, or your trailer is not 20k lbs, why in the word would you need three tons of iron to go around ? If you just drive in the city, why would you want a car you can not park anywhere ? Why would you need a rear axle at all for city speeds ? Simplicity.

Same for all those crew cab long wheel base, you go to walmart, and you have to park a mile away to find a slot that fits your size, you could really do the same thing with something a bit more compact weighting one ton, as long as you don’t load or don’t tow too much (95% of those big trucks, my gf calls them penis replacements, have bed that never carried anything, some don’t even have complete towing accessories, so have never towed anything in their lifetime, spent at average 5mpg stop and go traffic, bummer.) What about a 4wd diesel-electric pick up, extended cab, small bed, 2k lbs towing capacity, more than enough.

4) Complexity, that has a cost and failure rates growing exponentially, (here we should go back to basics, hybrids are too complex, electronics and electrical are too vulnerable to EM factors, carriage design is too archaic, aerodynamically and engineering wise, left/right drive, parts different from the two sides, all point to a more rational tandem solution with a narrower track, and a longer wheel base, aerodynamics for dummies.)

Then there is a problem of power plants, the best would be that the engine makers were somehow different than the vehicles makers, and that modular components would be standardized (e.g. subject to an agreed ISO standard,) this would greatly enhance scale economy, interoperability among installation/infrastructure, air, land and water use, ‘and’ environmental friendly ‘reutilization,’ besides reducing life cycle cost in any phase of life.

Modular standardized power plants would be more easily adjustable to market demand, and technology retrofit, providing for the same chassis, itself modular, a number of options, all themselves less limiting and more prone to higher residual values and assurance of operational readiness, importants factors in the scavenging age of the right side of the bell.

The concept itself of ‘deployment’ would determine not only the combination and engine management program for the power plant, but also the way most proper to transfer that power, in so making ‘acceptable’ a more tailored and more efficient choice au pair with the specific use segment, and a relativelly easy and cost efficient possible re-deployment after retrofit in a different use segment.

Taking out of the books of individual transport makers, the whole R&D costs for the powerplants, could lower the impact percentage on prices, and provide sufficient release of resources to be oriented more properly towards the manufacturers segments, all the above giving more and more rational choices to the public.

Probably, at the end of this process, each manufacturer would provide one modular type of frame, with a number of configurable options, and a number of choices of powertrains, based on specific final use requirements, all at a substantially significant affordable scale of fractional use and or retrofit optiopn. (IOW, reducing the off time, increasing the side use, increasing the efficient operation, reducing the substitution increasing the retrofits, all options.)

Also, such modularity would open the highways to use at much higher density, at much diversified fuel/energy sources, and even much at worse streets in unmantained conditions, giving a further breath of oxygen to the suburbia design failure for a few decades, and being eventually convertible, in an easy to retrofit air cushon option, for the phase of the scavengers economy, of post government and lack of state, this option itself, as kit, can be exploited and made profitable, way ahead, for prepardness, and is a virgin segment at our days. (But again, would require an ISO standard, if it wants to have a minimal possibility of success.)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s