You’ve got to be kidding me Department
Received a press release from Volvo the other day full of
scare tactics, doubtful science and skewed statistics. All
wrapped up in the one envelope, almost a world record in
itself.
Mr. Volvo wants me to believe, and I quote, “An independent
survey carried out by the Ecology Center in Detroit shows that
the interiors of Volvo’s cars emit lower levels of toxic
substances than other car makes.” Now is that going to keep me
out of BMW’s and Benzes forever? Come off it, Mr. Volvo! This
is scraping the ‘safety’ barrel so deep you have got splinters
under your fingernails by now.
Without wishing to re-educate Volvo’s PR department, have you
ever heard of Paracelsus? Or even by his other names of
Theophrastus Phillippus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim? This
particular gentleman said, “Dosage alone determines
poisoning,” and what’s more, he was correct. And he said this
about 500 years ago, in case you missed it on Fox News. Some
chemicals, even those which are known to kill you, are OK in
small quantities. Ethanol (AKA ‘booze’) is but one of them.
Think about that tonight while celebrating your next PR coup.
So back to Volvo and its clean living interiors. Do you really
want me to believe that today’s car interiors will kill me?
But if I buy a Volvo I will be breathing pure air and live to
be 130, I suppose. So to suggest to me that the flame
retardant PBDE and phthalates leech out of the upholstery in
toxic concentrations in the 11 other cars tested (built
between 2000 and 2005), but not so with a Volvo, is bending
scientific truth just a little too much.
The PR hand-out finished with, and again I quote, “Certain
types of phthalates and flame-retardants can promote genetic
mutations and can subject car occupant to health hazards.” I’m
sorry, in the history of mankind there are no reports of a BMW
driver giving birth to a frog from having licked the
upholstery. Utter balderdash.
Mr. Volvo, you can do better than this.
BMW goes for
the double puffer
BMW has revealed a potent new twin-turbo inline six
that delivers 225 kW of power and a grunty 400 Nm of torque.
The world debut was on February 28, just before the Geneva
Motor Show.
Twin
turbo BMW 6
Widely rumoured for some time as an effective way for BMW to
bridge the gap between its famed magnesium-alloy inline
six-cylinder engine family and the Bavarian marque’s base 4.0
litre V 8, this new engine should fit the bill very well.
At this stage, BMW has not said which models will get the
twin-turbo engine, but inside sources suggest the
all-aluminium (not magnesium) six to power the forthcoming E92
3 Series coupe in a new 335Ci-badged variant, the 5 Series
sedan (in which it should revive the 535i nameplate) and
possibly the 6 Series coupe/convertible and 7 Series sedan.
However, the next M3 remains odds-on to be powered by a
high-performance 4.0 litre V8 derived from the M5/M6’s
massively powerful 373 kW 5.0 litre V 10.
The biturbo six employs new technologies such as two
low-inertia turbos feeding a trio of cylinders each which it
is claimed will eliminate turbo lag.
The new engine features the double-Vanos and Valvetronic valve
actuation systems from its existing engines, but the addition
of direct injection from the 760 Li’s 6.0 litre V 12 is
claimed to reduce fuel consumption by a further 10 percent.
The result is the same 225 kW peak power output as offered by
the 740i and 540’s 4.0 litre V8 – which weighs 70kg more.
After extolling the virtues of naturally aspirated engines for
two decades – the last one was the turbocharged 185 kW 3.2
litre straight six, discontinued in 1986, BMW appears to have
gone the full circle. “Now BMW is ready to open a new chapter
in turbocharged petrol-engined road cars and reset the
benchmark for dynamic driving with forced-induction,” says
BMW.
Eff Wun begins March 12
Next weekend we shall see just how ready the eleven
teams are for the start of the 2006 season. Already it can be
seen from the times recorded in pre-season testing that you
can forget about seeing any driver from Midland F1, Squadro
Tosso Rora (oops, Squadro Rosso Toro) or Super Aguri on the
podium, unless they are handing out trophies down to 18th
place this year. Yuji Ide, the second string driver for Super
Aguri is currently something like nine seconds a lap off the
pace. He will be lucky to qualify if he does not pick up his
pace.
For many, the big question will be whether Ferrari can do
better than their abysmal 2005 year. Looking at the times
being recorded so far, the new Ferrari seems neither fast, nor
reliable, but reports coming from Europe say that Michael
Schumacher is not despondent (yet).
Michael Schumacher insists Ferrari is better placed to win
back their World Championships than they were to defend them
12 months ago. This was after testing in Bahrain since last
week and despite reliability problems on the new Ferrari, he
left Sakhir in positive mood.
Schumacher is confident of an improvement, telling his
personal website, “Our lap-times were really encouraging,
especially on Monday and the day before. And we’ll have time
at Mugello to take care of the rest. When we come back here
(Bahrain) for the race, we should know all the basics there
are to know about choice of tyres, set-up and about the new
engine. That’s not bad, although it shouldn’t be over-rated,
either. It looks as though we’ve got a better package this
year than we did last year and we’re all ready to compete.”
He did admit, “Of course the tests did not run 100 percent
smoothly, but that’s what most teams are dealing with, and
that’s to be expected at this time of year.”
At this stage, it looks as if the two front-runners are
Renault (bullet-proof reliability again so far) and McLaren,
but like last year, a big question mark over reliability.
Honda is in there too, with Button outpacing Barichello so far
in testing. Williams had one day of brilliance and nothing but
problems since then, while BMW and Red Bull seem like
mid-field runners at best, along with Toyota.
Autotrivia Quiz
Last week I asked from which country did the
mechanicals for the first Morris Cowleys (1915-1919) come?
This one was easy! The answer was America! Engines by
Continental, gearboxes, drive units and axles were also all
imported. “British” Morris Cowleys were not made until 1920.
So to this week. What cars had four reverse gear speeds? (And
the answer is not Italian!)
For the Automania FREE beer this week, be the first correct
answer to email [email protected]
Good luck!
Safety – whose
responsibility?
Vehicular safety is an integral part of the
automotive business these days, and with the publication many
years ago of the book, “Unsafe at Any Speed” by Ralph Nader
and the following up and hounding of the auto industry by
Nader’s Raiders, there is no manufacturer who is not aware of
the safety factor. Most countries have either testing
facilities, or rely on results from national testing
organizations, to even allow production vehicles to be
registered in that country. Numerous vehicles have been
sacrificed to the immovable concrete block, in the quest of
safety.
Crash
Testing
On the surface, it would seem that the legislators have
decreed that it is the manufacturer who has to carry the
responsibility. However, I believe the end user should also
shoulder some of the responsibility, or even blame, for road
fatalities.
For example, read a BMW handbook, where it will go in to
detail to explain their version of electronic skid control,
braking control and aids to road-holding, with all the very
latest electronic gizmos and gadgetry to assist the driver
stay on the bitumen; however, right at the end the driver’s
manual will point out that despite all the electro-trickery,
physical laws still have to be obeyed. If the corner can be
taken at 60 kph and you enter it at 120 kph, centrifugal force
will overcome ESC, ABS and all the other acronyms that the
manufacturer can throw at the car. And centrifugal force is
that physical law which must be obeyed. Yet surprisingly, when
you stop to think about it, that physical law called
centrifugal force is actually under the control of the driver.
The entry speed is controlled by the human being, not by the
manufacturer. The end user must take the ultimate
responsibility!
The vexed question of drink driving comes in here too. We know
that alcohol is involved in many car accidents, injuries and
fatalities, and there are many “Don’t Drink and Drive”
promotions all over the world, but the simple fact is that the
human element falls down at the last minute. Drunk people have
lost their sense of judgment, so it should not come as a
surprise that drivers make the wrong decision and get into
their cars to drive home.
The manufacturers have undoubtedly given us safer cars to
drive home drunk in, but that is about it. Here’s your padded
box, it has no sharp edges, it’s got airbags so you won’t hit
the dashboard, even though you forgot to wear your seat belt,
the doors won’t fly open, it won’t catch fire, the glass won’t
slash you to ribbons and many other secondary safety features,
but what is better – an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff,
or a fence at the top of the cliff? Preventive features win
every time, in my book.
International statistics also show that youngsters are clearly
over-represented in car accidents, even taking into account
that many of them are behind the wheel more often than their
older counterparts. The risk of 18 to 25 year olds being
involved in an accident is more than twice that of people aged
between 26 and 50, according to EU statistics. The accidents
often result from high speed combined with inadequate
experience. Some younger folk might disagree, but the
statistics have been up there long enough now. As pointed out
earlier in this article, despite all the technology, physical
laws have to be obeyed.
If speed is a factor, combined with inexperience, just how do
we get drivers, and young drivers in particular, to slow down
when driving the family car? One answer, according to Volvo,
is a special ignition key. This key can be programmed to limit
the car’s speed to a predetermined limit such as 80 kph. At
least Junior hits his tree at a slower speed, so, if (big IF)
he wears his seatbelt, he will survive.
Ultimately, we all have to take responsibility for ourselves.
Despite all legislations, the car manufacturer cannot take it
for you.
