the tindog coffeehouse

What happens when your computer crashes? You get ticked off, probably spew a few four-letter words, then turn it off and turn it back on. In most cases, the system comes back up and you’re good to go.

Now, what happens if your car’s computer crashes?

Rep. Henry Waxman sent a terse letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, complaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t have the expertise to properly evaluate technical problems in cars, such as those that have plagued Toyota:

According to some accounts, autos now contain more computer code than some fighter jets, nearing 100 million lines of code. Yet, NHTSA officials told the Committee staff that the agency does not employ any electrical engineers or software engineers. As a result, NHTSA appears to lack the technical expertise necessary to analyze whether incidents of sudden unintended acceleration are caused by defects in the cars’ electronic systems.

Waxman makes a good point. Cars and trucks today have extremely sophisticated computers, and a software defect can cause all kinds of problems. And yet apparently there’s no real government oversight when it comes to all that code.

Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo wrote a great essay a while back about the “beta” culture that has become the norm in the technology world:

I’m tired of this. This sense of permanent discomfort with the technology around me. The bugs. The compromises. The firmware upgrades. The “This will work in the next version.” The “It’s in our roadmap.” The “Buy now and upgrade later.” The patches. The new low development standards that make technology fail because it wasn’t tested enough before reaching our hands. The feeling now extends to hardware: Everything is built to end up in the trash a year later, still half-baked, to make room for the next hardware revision. I’m tired of this beta culture that has spread like metastatic cancer in the last few years, starting with software from Google and others and ending up in almost every gadget and computer system around. …

Clearly, the problem is the development process and the time to market, with product cycles shortened and corners cut to keep a continuous stream of cash flowing in. The rush to feed these cycles with increasingly more complex engineering seems to be at odds with shortened development and quality assurance processes, resulting in beta-state first-generation products. This beta culture, the same one that already plagues the web, breeds people who are willing to accept bugs in the name of cutting-edge gear.

Diaz was clearly talking about consumer electronics and the Internet, but the same arguments can be applied to auto manufacturers, who face the same market pressures that any other technology company does: produce more complex, more capable, and yet more efficient products year after year at a lower cost and market the hell out of them to gain whatever slight edge you can over your competitors.

If you’re talking a website or a computer operating system or a smartphone, manufacturers can probably afford to cut corners in the development cycle if they know most bugs can be patched later. After all, in the vast majority of cases a software failure is at most an inconvenience and an annoyance. But a software failure in a car can — and does — endanger lives.

It’ll be interesting to see how Toyota and other auto makers respond to these issues. Hopefully they can improve the quality control on their own, but I’m willing to bet the government will also have lots to say. It usually does.

Previously:
What the auto mileage bill really means for consumers

A new report claims that the $700,000,000,000 bailout rescue plan known as TARP may have saved the economy (debatable), but it also severely damaged the credibility of the federal government:

The mixed and blunt assessment by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general in charge of oversight for the bailout fund, appears in a quarterly report scheduled for release Wednesday. Barofsky said the Troubled Asset Relief Program has come at great cost to taxpayers, to the integrity of the financial system and to the public’s perception of the federal government.

“Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success,” he wrote, “Treasury’s actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP.”

Of course, the report assumes that Americans had any faith in the government in the first place, which is questionable.

There’s a reason our currency says “In God We Trust”.

Previously:
‘Dude, where’s my $700 billion?’
TARP is the financial equivalent of the Vietnam War

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke thinks the U.S. should try to cut its budget deficits before Asia completely destroys us with its super economy-rebounding powers.

“As the global economy recovers and trade volumes rebound, however, global imbalances my reassert themselves,” Bernanke warned. For the United States’ part, “the most effective way” to boost national savings in this country “is by establishing a sustainable fiscal trajectory, anchored by a clear commitment to substantially reduce federal deficits over time,” Bernanke said. He didn’t suggest ways to do so.

Bernanke may not have any ideas for how to cut the deficit, but I have a few suggestions. How ’bout no more bailouts for starters? Maybe stop buying banks, auto companies, and insurance companies? Also, we could stop paying people to trade in their old cars. And — call me crazy! — maybe we should abandon plans for a massive, multi-trillion-dollar health care overhaul.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. You’re welcome.

Previously:
The real ‘death panel’? The federal budget

It’s official: Hybrid cars cost more than fuel-efficient non-hybrids.

OK, so you knew that already. But now with an online calculator from the Rocky Mountain Institute (the independent, entrepreneurial, nonprofit think-and-do tank™), you have proof. With graphs!

For example, compare a (base) Toyota Corolla, which gets between 26 and 35 mpg, to a Toyota Prius, which gets between 48 and 51 mpg. At $2.61/gallon for gas, if you drive each car 15,000 miles for 5 years, the total cost of ownership of the Corolla is $5400 less than the Prius.

(Click to enlarge.)

And even with gas prices at $5.00/gallon, the Corolla would still be over $3400 cheaper.

In fact, at $5.00/gallon, you’d have to drive the Prius 27,625 miles a year for 5 years before it begins to be a better bargain than its non-hybrid competitor.

Of course, with any calculator like this, there are all kinds of caveats, not the least of which is the fact that no one would ever buy the base-model Corolla with no additional options. But still, it drives home the fact that hybrids are great for tree-huggers with money to burn, but not necessarily for those of us watching our monthly budgets.

Previously:
What the auto mileage bill really means for consumers

It’s official: Washington has no idea what it’s doing.

This is a video of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) questioning Treasury Secretary (and tax cheat) Timothy Geithner over the $700,000,000,000 bailout rescue plan (aka TARP).

Now, there’s a couple of parts to this video.

First, Sen. DeMint asks Geithner about the repayment of the bailout money. If a bank pays the government back $50 billion, he wonders, would that money go back into the general fund to be used elsewhere, or would it be re-loaned to other banks? Geithner says both.

Huh?

Geithner tells DeMint that the way TARP is designed, that $50 billion repayment would go back into the general fund, but the government would also then be able to loan out another $50 billion, in essence turning $50 billion into $100 billion. If that’s true, then TARP isn’t a one-time fixed bailout loan, but rather a perpetual debt-creating machine.

Either that, or Geithner just doesn’t know how math works. Which is also entirely possible.

Second, Sen. DeMint asks the math-challenged Treasury Secretary about the government’s plan to relinquish ownership of companies like GM and AIG. Geithner answers that he “thinks about it a lot” but it’s “too early to do that now”. That may be true (if you buy into the bailout philosophy), but DeMint’s question wasn’t so much about when but more about how. And Geithner’s answer proves he has no idea.

The reality is, the government has no clue how to get out of the business of owning businesses. It moved full steam ahead, throwing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at banks and insurance companies and automakers, buying up banks, buying up bad loans, guaranteeing auto warranties, even taking over GM and forcing Fiat to take Chrysler, and it did it all without any exit strategy.

And the media wonders why the American people have a problem with that.

Previously:
$700 Billion bailout ‘letting’ the banks win?
‘Dude, where’s my $700 billion?’
Second half of bailout: How ’bout a little oversight this time?
US Bancorp CEO rips TARP, promotes faith
Actual cost of TARP bailouts: $2.9 trillion

Move over, BioWillie. Scientists at the University of Nevada at Reno are researching the possibility of converting used coffee grounds into inexpensive biodiesel.

For the study, the team collected leftover grounds of espressos, cappuccinos and other coffee preparations from the Starbucks coffee chain.

Being that the process is not particularly energy intensive, the researchers estimated that biodiesel could be produced for about a dollar a gallon. …

“We have found that biodiesel created from spent coffee grounds is stable over a longer period of time than other forms of biodiesel that have been created from feed stocks such as soy and corn,” Misra said. “Biodiesel from spent coffee grounds is a low-cost ‘green’ form of fuel that shows a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emission. It’s an excellent source for biodiesel.”

As an added bonus, the resulting exhaust smells like — you guessed it — coffee! Finally, a reason to enjoy my morning commute!

OK, time for another cup of joe. Y’know, just saving the planet and all.

The Big 3 automakers don’t need a bailout, they just need to build amphibious cars!

Having been rejected once after asking Congress for a $25 billion bailout, the Big 3 automakers are back, this time asking for… $34 billion?! (Funny how car salesmen negotiate, huh?)

But while 61% of Americans oppose bailing out GM, Ford, and Chrysler, the reality is that a bailout is inevitable.

Why? Because of the unions.

You have a Democratic president-elect and a Democratic Congress. The unions, including the UAW, have historically been strong supporters of the Democratic Party. And the UAW “gave 99 percent of its $1.8 million in campaign donations to Democrats in this year’s election.”

Now that the Democrats are in office, don’t think for one second that they would bite the hand that feeds them. If the unions want a bailout, they’ll get it, regardless of whether it’s the right thing to do or not.

So don’t be fooled. All this huffing and puffing on Capitol Hill is largely for the press. The senators get to look tough on the evening news, and in return, the auto executives can play the martyrs. Once Inauguration Day gets here in January, a deal will be struck, and the American taxpayers will get screwed a little bit more.

Previously:
Why the American automakers are in trouble

The Wall Street Journal has a great explanation of just why the Big Three American automakers are in so much trouble while Japanese, Korean, and German companies aren’t:

It wasn’t that American auto executives were always malicious and stupid while the Japanese were always enlightened and smart. Japanese car companies have made plenty of mistakes, most recently Toyota’s ill-timed move into full-sized pickup trucks and SUVs. But just as America didn’t understand the depth of ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq, Detroit failed to grasp — or at least to address — the fundamental nature of its Japanese competition. Japan’s car companies, and more recently the Germans and Koreans, gained a competitive advantage largely by forging an alliance with American workers.

Detroit, meanwhile, has remained mired in mutual mistrust with the United Auto Workers union. …

The debilitating management-union relationship largely remains, however. In 1998, after GM moved some equipment at factories in Flint against the UAW’s wishes, workers went on strike for 54 days, costing GM $3 billion. While such headline-making confrontations have become rare, small-scale impasses occur regularly.

Not terribly long ago, says a Ford manager who must remain unnamed, Ford dispatched a team of welding experts to a factory to explore efficiency moves. The plant’s union leaders, fearing layoffs might result, refused to meet with the team, and the effort came to naught. UAW leaders aren’t bad people; far from it. But when everything is a negotiation, many things don’t get done. (Just ask any parent.)

Instead of begging for $25 billion in bailout money, GM, Ford, and Chrysler need to fix the underlying problems. As Mitt Romney wrote a few days ago:

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

The American automakers need to study Honda. Study Toyota. Study Hyundai. Engineer to the level they do. Approach the management-labor relationship the way they do. Approach manufacturing they way they do. Why, after 30+ years of getting run over by the Japanese, have they not figured that out?

A report issued by CIBC World Markets is forecasting that by 2010, oil prices will hit $200 a barrel, which translates to $7-per-gallon for gas.

From Earth2Tech:

To keep it nasty, brutish and short, here’s what that means for U.S. residents:

• Stagflation;
• Driving like Europeans (15 percent less mileage, more public transportation — except Europe has pleasant public transportation);
• Market share for SUVs/vans/light trucks cut in half; vehicle sales collapse to early 80s levels;
• 10 million fewer cars on the road; one in five homes lose their second car;
• Hundreds of thousands of auto-related jobs disappear;
• Spending more per month on gas than food; diminished purchasing power compared to consumers in Europe or Japan.

And oh yeah, the report makes it crystal clear this isn’t a return of the 1970s, when the energy crisis was a painful but shortlived event. No, this one is going to linger for a long time.

Time to look for a new job closer to home!

I got a notice in the mail last week from Allstate showing my car insurance was going up almost $40 a month starting in June even though Christy and I both have clean driving records. That didn’t make any sense …until now:

Allstate Insurance agreed Monday to refund $51.6 million to its Texas customers for overcharges in homeowners insurance….

Are my increased car insurance rates helping fund Allstate’s refund to homeowners insurance customers?!

President Bush is expected to sign the recent energy bill passed by Congress which would require auto makers to increase the fuel efficiency of their cars to 35 mpg by 2020. Sounds good, right?

The AP is reporting how manufacturers will be “getting creative” to meet those figures, rolling out more advanced hybrids, using “cylinder deactivation systems,” and experimenting with lighter materials such as carbon fiber and aluminum. Still sounds good, doesn’t it?

Until you realize what this really means for consumers:

But Merkle noted that all of these alternatives will not come cheaply. Clean diesel and hybrid technology typically adds several thousand dollars to the cost of a vehicle, and more lightweight parts will also carry additional expenses.

When will we learn that economic regulation rarely benefits the consumer? Of course, this energy bill isn’t about benefiting the consumer, is it? This is election-year legislation created by Democrats to appeal to environmentally-conscious voters and those that argue for curbing our dependence on foreign oil. It also goes over well with farmers in the midwest (Iowa, anyone?), who stand to make a killing over the increased demand for corn-based ethanol, which itself drives up prices of food and other manufactured products, straining the budgets of millions of Americans.

I bought a new car about a month and half ago, and one of the primary reasons was to save money. I wanted a more fuel efficient car, but you soon realize that going with a hybrid may actually cost you more money. Compare the Honda Civic Hybrid with the regular Civic. The hybrid is more fuel efficient but costs about $5000 more. So you save money on gas but not enough to offset the higher monthly payments versus the non-hybrid model.

Do we need more fuel efficient cars? Yes. Do we need environmentally cleaner cars? Yes. But these technologies cost more money, and by forcing consumers to pay those higher costs, Congress is ultimately hurting Americans.