Bench Racing is a social disease. We're here to help!
I was just thinking..
I recently wrote a piece spouting my views about racing, the US auto industry and the government's action that could very well destroy them both.
I'm watching for the responses from the big team owners regarding this subject matter, and Rick Hendrick , I think, is an incredibly naive (for the purpose of press quotes) and stupidly optomistic man.
"From the standpoint of financially, I don't see [manufacturer money] being the lifeblood of the teams," says Hendrick.
Yet the underlying tone of report after report from within the garage area walls is increasingly pessimistic and the "natural ebb and flow" argument isn't holding very much water.
Rick Hendrick is , dare I say it, willing pawn in the DC dog and pony show.
The current economic situation in the country, quite simply, is financial means conditional at best, and proscriptive in fact.
Major player are frightened of what the bottom line means to those in the body politic that see success as detestable, evil or scurrilous, hurling disparaging invective at those would dare to make a profit.
Chrysler must strike a deal with its creditors, the UAW, dealers and proposed partner Fiat by the end of April or face bankruptcy.
What do I expect? Chrysler takes a dirt nap, showing everyone that The Presidential Task Force on Autos (PTFOA) is rough and tough. GM gets a politically sensitive PTFOA-designed C11 and emerges . . . to syphon some mo’.
This is truly undiscoverd country, uncharted and dangerous.
Nefarious.
There will be so much further fallout from the current administration's and the legislative body's move, probably retroactive in nature (nevermind the fact that they are completely unconstitutional and totally unethical in nature).
This action, begun by both sides the aisle, reaches far back into recent politcal history, beginning with the Carter Adminsitration. (remember gas lines, folks?)
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the United States, first enacted by Congress in 1975, are federal regulations intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States. This system would have changed with the introduction of "Footprint" regulations for light trucks binding in 2011, except that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has returned that rule to NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) for reconsideration for, among other things, being "arbitrary and capricious"
In other words, there is not enough flexibilty for congressional meddling.
The incessant tweaking of CAFE regulations and subsequent demands from the lesser courts that even more be done sounds like a good idea to those in the great unwashed.
Fleet fuel economy is calculated using a harmonic mean, not a simple arithmetic mean (average).
The 'fuzzy math' syndrome of DC continues to suit the needs of government and never the people.
The harmonic mean is the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocals of the fuel economies of the vehicles in the fleet. For a fleet composed of four different kinds of vehicles A, B, C, and D, produced in numbers nA, nB, nC, nD with fuel economies fA, fB, fC, fD the CAFE would be:
\frac{n_A+n_B+n_C+n_D}{\frac{n_A}{f_A}+\frac{n_B}{f_B}+\frac{n_C}{f_C}+\frac{n_D}{f_D}}
For example, a fleet of 4 vehicles getting 15, 13, 17, and 100 mpg has a CAFE of slightly less than 19 mpg:
\frac{4}{\frac{1}{15}+\frac{1}{13}+\frac{1}{17}+\frac{1}{100}}=18.83
While the arithmetic mean fuel economy of the fleet is 36.25 mpg:
\frac{15+13+17+100}{4}=36.25
The harmonic mean captures the fuel economy of the fleet for driving each car in the fleet for 1 mile while the arithmetic mean captures the fuel economy of the fleet for driving each car until one gallon of gas is burned (i.e. the 13 MPG vehicle would be driven for 13 miles while the 100 MPG vehicle would be driven for 100 miles).
Now, find for me the current, in-production 100 MPG vehicle.
Decrying "energy independence" and enviromentally friendly modes of transportation, Washington's group of legislators have a such a stellar record.
The United States operates special courts to deal with taxes and bankruptcies. The issues are considered too complex and specialized for regular courts to adjudicate. So if the judiciary accommodates its own intellectual shortcomings, why can’t Congress do the same?
This sounds good, if like most members of Congress, your knowledge of automobiles is historcally restricted to driving them into bodies of water (Ted Kennedy D-MA) or barricades (Patrick Kennedy D-RI), being indicted for stealing them (Darrell Issa, R-CA) or careening into utility poles (John Sweeney, R-NY who has been replaced by a centrist partisan with maybe a glimmer of hope of actually having a voice, Kirsten Gillibrand ). For anyone who knows anything about cars, the CAFE legislation is at best meaningless; at worst, it’s God awful.
Answer this question: Has any discernable quotient of less dependence on foreign oil actually happened?
The short answer is "no".
Case in point, there are cyclical rallies of increased demand, but do remember that oil is a commodity, a fungible commodity, traded without discretion as to where it came from.
OPEC can control the amount produced for market and lead to 'sanctioning' to a degree. But they will not cut into their own bank accounts, they aren't stupid. They really like those diamond-encrusted platinum Bentleys.
Pricing is controlled by free-market forces and enacted upon by public policies, i.e. taxes and the like
The failed energy policies of the government has led to the uncontrolled assualt on American automobile manufacturing.
The ultimate "scape-goat".
As the Big 2.8 have struggled to cope with government regulations and pressures to create cars that are more fuel efficient, they have seen the cycles of cars that were consumer rejected.
Every car you can think of that was a bomb in the marketplace can directly be correlated to what some Congressman thought was a 'good idea'.
From the Pinto to the Aveo.
The government response?: Damage the industry even more with non- free market solutions.
"As GM goes, so goes the nation"
Gone.
I'm watching for the responses from the big team owners regarding this subject matter, and Rick Hendrick , I think, is an incredibly naive (for the purpose of press quotes) and stupidly optomistic man.
"From the standpoint of financially, I don't see [manufacturer money] being the lifeblood of the teams," says Hendrick.
Yet the underlying tone of report after report from within the garage area walls is increasingly pessimistic and the "natural ebb and flow" argument isn't holding very much water.
Rick Hendrick is , dare I say it, willing pawn in the DC dog and pony show.
The current economic situation in the country, quite simply, is financial means conditional at best, and proscriptive in fact.
Major player are frightened of what the bottom line means to those in the body politic that see success as detestable, evil or scurrilous, hurling disparaging invective at those would dare to make a profit.
Chrysler must strike a deal with its creditors, the UAW, dealers and proposed partner Fiat by the end of April or face bankruptcy.
What do I expect? Chrysler takes a dirt nap, showing everyone that The Presidential Task Force on Autos (PTFOA) is rough and tough. GM gets a politically sensitive PTFOA-designed C11 and emerges . . . to syphon some mo’.
This is truly undiscoverd country, uncharted and dangerous.
Nefarious.
There will be so much further fallout from the current administration's and the legislative body's move, probably retroactive in nature (nevermind the fact that they are completely unconstitutional and totally unethical in nature).
This action, begun by both sides the aisle, reaches far back into recent politcal history, beginning with the Carter Adminsitration. (remember gas lines, folks?)
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the United States, first enacted by Congress in 1975, are federal regulations intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States. This system would have changed with the introduction of "Footprint" regulations for light trucks binding in 2011, except that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has returned that rule to NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) for reconsideration for, among other things, being "arbitrary and capricious"
In other words, there is not enough flexibilty for congressional meddling.
The incessant tweaking of CAFE regulations and subsequent demands from the lesser courts that even more be done sounds like a good idea to those in the great unwashed.
Fleet fuel economy is calculated using a harmonic mean, not a simple arithmetic mean (average).
The 'fuzzy math' syndrome of DC continues to suit the needs of government and never the people.
The harmonic mean is the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocals of the fuel economies of the vehicles in the fleet. For a fleet composed of four different kinds of vehicles A, B, C, and D, produced in numbers nA, nB, nC, nD with fuel economies fA, fB, fC, fD the CAFE would be:
\frac{n_A+n_B+n_C+n_D}{\frac{n_A}{f_A}+\frac{n_B}{f_B}+\frac{n_C}{f_C}+\frac{n_D}{f_D}}
For example, a fleet of 4 vehicles getting 15, 13, 17, and 100 mpg has a CAFE of slightly less than 19 mpg:
\frac{4}{\frac{1}{15}+\frac{1}{13}+\frac{1}{17}+\frac{1}{100}}=18.83
While the arithmetic mean fuel economy of the fleet is 36.25 mpg:
\frac{15+13+17+100}{4}=36.25
The harmonic mean captures the fuel economy of the fleet for driving each car in the fleet for 1 mile while the arithmetic mean captures the fuel economy of the fleet for driving each car until one gallon of gas is burned (i.e. the 13 MPG vehicle would be driven for 13 miles while the 100 MPG vehicle would be driven for 100 miles).
Now, find for me the current, in-production 100 MPG vehicle.
Decrying "energy independence" and enviromentally friendly modes of transportation, Washington's group of legislators have a such a stellar record.
The United States operates special courts to deal with taxes and bankruptcies. The issues are considered too complex and specialized for regular courts to adjudicate. So if the judiciary accommodates its own intellectual shortcomings, why can’t Congress do the same?
This sounds good, if like most members of Congress, your knowledge of automobiles is historcally restricted to driving them into bodies of water (Ted Kennedy D-MA) or barricades (Patrick Kennedy D-RI), being indicted for stealing them (Darrell Issa, R-CA) or careening into utility poles (John Sweeney, R-NY who has been replaced by a centrist partisan with maybe a glimmer of hope of actually having a voice, Kirsten Gillibrand ). For anyone who knows anything about cars, the CAFE legislation is at best meaningless; at worst, it’s God awful.
Answer this question: Has any discernable quotient of less dependence on foreign oil actually happened?
The short answer is "no".
Case in point, there are cyclical rallies of increased demand, but do remember that oil is a commodity, a fungible commodity, traded without discretion as to where it came from.
OPEC can control the amount produced for market and lead to 'sanctioning' to a degree. But they will not cut into their own bank accounts, they aren't stupid. They really like those diamond-encrusted platinum Bentleys.
Pricing is controlled by free-market forces and enacted upon by public policies, i.e. taxes and the like
The failed energy policies of the government has led to the uncontrolled assualt on American automobile manufacturing.
The ultimate "scape-goat".
As the Big 2.8 have struggled to cope with government regulations and pressures to create cars that are more fuel efficient, they have seen the cycles of cars that were consumer rejected.
Every car you can think of that was a bomb in the marketplace can directly be correlated to what some Congressman thought was a 'good idea'.
From the Pinto to the Aveo.
The government response?: Damage the industry even more with non- free market solutions.
"As GM goes, so goes the nation"
Gone.
Add a Comment
1 Comment
-
Comment by Charlie on April 11, 2009 at 11:36pm -
I can't really touch this level of thought. Bram has nailed this topic - in my opinion - and I can't add much. But I have some round-a bout thoughts that will eventually get me bak to NASCAR. Your thoughts are welcome too.
""Every car you can think of that was a bomb in the marketplace can directly be correlated to what some Congressman thought was a 'good idea'." - Bram
Thanks Bram. I don't know where else to start.
Bram's examples of our government's unintended consequences are Pint and Aveo. I would add the hybrid Escalade and the Tata Nano. As our Mindy Monday would say - WTF?
This whole deal of a bunch of temporary help (the staff of the US federal government) deciding how the US auto industry will be saved is, sadly and probably inevitably, winding its way to the first of more than a few
bad decisions.
The same bunch of folks who created the mass of mathematic bullshit that Bram explained above - the calculations of the CAFE standards - will make the moves to save the U.S. auto industry. And I am Kyle Busch
You need to read what Bram has written. Try to understand it. It's hard to do - and you are motivated. Anyone who actually voted for this shit never read it. Do you understand that?
The big three U.S. automakers are doomed as the entities that existed 2 months ago. Kiss 'em good bye.
I know - Ford hasn't taken any government bailout cash. Yet.
Ford mortgaged everything a couple years ago - every bit of equity they could find - to get to the point today where they can stand apart from GM and Chrysler and say - no thanks Uncle Sam. We're good. The problem is, when GM emmerges from the big BK, it will have such a massive competitive advantage in costs, that Ford will probably go the way of Chrysler. Bought or broken.
I'm not a smart man, as Forrest Gumpp said for me. But I can see that NASCAR will be sucking hind tit - in pig farmer lingo - when it comes to the priority of expenditures for any surviving car builder. I have always said that the car makers won't quit NASCAR because they need to promote somewhere and the track with the France's product is as good as it gets. But GM can put banners on pit walls at every track or buy a Series sponsorship for less than backing one of Rick Hendrick's teams.
Hendrick and Brian France saying, in essence that the manufacturer money is expendable is either arrogance, complacency or stupidity. If one or two auto makers pull their support for their teams, the field will change. As Bram says pull a third of the cash from a Stewart-Haas and they go from well funded operation to start and park status. From there, it's a quick trip to the end. Opportunities will increase for the leanest of teams, but they don't employ the stars.
Brian France - as always - appears clueless.
Undiscovered country indeed.
About
Badge
Music
© 2009 Created by Charlie on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of BenchRacers to add comments!
Join this social network