Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

[Scott4139]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

'86 black and tan targa, 51K miles. Our other cars are GM.

[Scott4139]

Re: Suppliers or OEM's

ROW = rest of world

GM has a matrix model due to the legacy of multiple sites with full resources to develop vehicles. Their plan is to utilize each of the locations and eliminate redundancies. So GMDAT designs and engineers the mini/small cars for local and export and so on.
Toyota is a hub and spoke model with full control of everything in Japan. Global locations simply implement the motherlands plans. Toyota never had the global resources that GM had, so it's the best model for them.

Ford is implementing the GM model, but started later. They are strong in Europe and Australia
BMW, Mercedes use the Toyota model

[Scott4139]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

I'd rather have CEOs making $20M and employing 100K employees than paying $20M to a movie star or athlete. But then again I don't blame them for saying "yes" to the producers and owners.

[Scott4139]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

you need the middle - the business is volume dependent. Without volume you're in big trouble. Note that Porsche just took control of VW.

[jtabeb]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

70% Peroxide has been used in missiles & rockets for propulsion, and is a very powerful fuel, and has better characteristics than hydrogen gas or liquid. Can be easily pumped like gasoline. Spills bleach everything, then turns to water; not bad for the environment, better than gasoline's effect on water table. This is the fuel for the future.

It's also Highly Caustic, it would take off your skin if you touched it. If you were in a car crash you could get a free skinectomy, then you could get one of those recently perfected face transplants.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

'86 black and tan targa, 51K miles. Our other cars are GM.

LOVE IT!!

I had an 82 coupe (red, camel interior) for several years. Every time I drove the car, I couldn't get the grin off my face.

[Glenn Black]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

Agreed, it is a very reactive chemical. As gasoline is flammable, peroxide is oxidizing. It has to be handled safely. The major problem is contamination (eg. rust, grease, etc.) as you can have a very explosive reaction.

While we need to be careful with all types of chemicals and fuels, I believe peroxide can be used safely for fuel cells today, and possibly ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) way down the road.

[Sharky]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

While we need to be careful with all types of chemicals and fuels, I believe peroxide can be used safely for fuel cells today, and possibly ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) way down the road.

Hydrogen peroxide is a decent rocket fuel, but it would be a terrible fuel for almost anything else. Fuel for engines operating inside the atmosphere should not include its own oxidizer, for two reasons: (1) including oxygen with the fuel dramatically increases the weight of the fuel per BTU delivered, and therefore delivery and storage costs, and (2) such a fuel also becomes explosive under the right conditions.

From I've seen so far, ammonia seems like it might be a pretty interesting alternative to gasoline.

[Glenn Black]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

I agree that each car company needs to have different models. Some may focus and specialize in a certain area (eg. RangeRover) but make it too lucrative, and others will be unable to resist invasion.

However, having multiple models that are almost all the same, all chasing after the same customers, will fractionate the market, making it sub-optimal for all.

How do we optimize this?

[GRG55]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

I agree that each car company needs to have different models. Some may focus and specialize in a certain area (eg. RangeRover) but make it too lucrative, and others will be unable to resist invasion.

However, having multiple models that are almost all the same, all chasing after the same customers, will fractionate the market, making it sub-optimal for all.

How do we optimize this?

If "we" start trying to optimize auto production then what's next? "Optimizing" big screen TVs, the manufacturing of toasters or electric tea kettles...

Nikita Khrushchev is famously credited with telling US leaders that an economy that produced more than one model of washing machine was inefficient and wasteful [and by extension, eventually bound to collapse].

Maybe he was right.

Right now we have a global overcapacity in pretty well everything, auto manufacturing, houses and condos, mortgage brokers, investment bankers, yatch salesmen, bond traders & consumer good factories of all sorts. Why should governments decide what lives and dies? The global auto industry should sort out its own problems, that they created themselves. The market is fully capable of deciding what products and services it truly wants, and is willing to pay for.

The only objection I have is that the politicians in Washington have no right to beat up on the Big 3 automakers while pandering to and bailing out their banker friends, who behaved much, much worse.

[powersown]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...njw&refer=home

So what is the future for the Detroit 3, and other OEM car makers around the world?

I suggest that they make a hard right turn and enter the building heating business with MCHP (Micro Combined Heat and Power).

A large percentage of Japanese homes have an internal combustion engine that generates electricity and heat. These machines use the very best of technologies, with catalytic converter, electronic ignition, on-board computer, heat recovery, and electric power controls and filtering.

If excess electricity is generated, it is pushed back to the grid for the use by others. Unlike windmills, MCHP can be installed just about anywhere on the electrical grid without upgrade to the grid.

About 33% of the fuel energy (ie. from natural gas, diesel, gasoline, or propane) is used to generate electricity. The rest is given off as heat. The heat can be used to generate DHW (Domestic Hot Water), which is 25% of a home's total energy consumption. Alternatively, the heat can be used for space heating, which typically consumes 57% of a building's total energy consumption. Small MCHP units will generate 1,200 watts of electricity from a machine the size of a small bar fridge. Large MCHP systems are the size of a standard refrigerator, can generate 60 kW, and 10 of these can be daisy-chained together for a total power output of 0.6 Megawatts.

MCHP has an overall efficiency of up to 94%, as good as or better than the most energy efficient condensing furnace, but unlike a furnace that consumes electricity from the grid, MCHP also generates electricity for use inside the building, or for export to the grid.

Almost all of the technologies that the Detroit 3 have developed (and are very good at) would be used in the design and manufacturing of MCHP units.

North America has a big problem in our stock of buildings. It may seem hard to believe, but there was no thermal insulation required by the building codes prior to 1950's. Many of these buildings are very thermally inefficient. Same with the systems used to heat them. We need wholesale upgrade of our old buildings. Furnaces wear out after 20 years and have to be replaced. We have a need, but insufficient capacity in the industry to do a wholesale replacement program.

Our economy, as is the world's, is in tatters. We need jobs and projects to re-vitalize the nation.

I think we can combine these all together into one gigantic project. WIn-win-win.

This MCHP idea got me really excited. I know we can't tell them what to do, but I would think they would like to hear about this idea. They would not have to abandon autos, they could launch this project as a sideline. It might just end up pulling them out of this situation and being their top money maker.

I noticed no one carried on in the thread along this line of thought.

I am ready to order one of the MCHP units for my own home! If not the Big 3... does anyone manufacture them in or export them to the US? If not, I wonder why?:cool:

[Glenn Black]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

Honda announced the trial launch of their MCHP in New England in late Nov/08 for natural gas, propane fuel launch in Q2/09. There are others in Europe, China, etc.

If the Detroit3 get going now, and with government money, they could quickly beat out Honda.

Microsoft rarely invents anything. They buy or "borrow" the ideas of others, then role it out as a MS product, often chewing up those who originally developed it. Detroit 3 could do the same here.

If they dilly-dally, they are lost.

[Glenn Black]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

Like gasoline, ammonia is considered carcinogenic, flammable, reactive, asphyxiate, etc.

Hydrogen peroxide could burn in ICE (internal combustion engine), but is best in fuel cell, as it converts directly to water and electricity, no GHG (Green House Gasses) whatsoever. H2O2 fuel cell technology exists today.

Other fuel cells burn methanol, but these produce CO2.

On a MJ/litre basis, H2O2 contains about 50% of the energy that liquid hydrogen does.

[powersown]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

Honda announced the trial launch of their MCHP in New England in late Nov/08 for natural gas, propane fuel launch in Q2/09. There are others in Europe, China, etc.

If the Detroit3 get going now, and with government money, they could quickly beat out Honda.

Microsoft rarely invents anything. They buy or "borrow" the ideas of others, then role it out as a MS product, often chewing up those who originally developed it. Detroit 3 could do the same here.

If they dilly-dally, they are lost.

Do you have a plan for letting them know of your ideas?

[Glenn Black]

Re: Auto Sector: Saved for Now, what's next?

In many ways, the government's actions instigated, supported, encouraged, and enabled the mess we are in today.

At the same time, the Detroit 3 did a lot of changes, but not as much as they could have, or should have. To me, it has seemed that the urgency and difficulty of change forced upon the Detroit 3 decreased exponentially as you approached the Boardroom of the Detroit 3.

In other words, everybody below "me" had to make huge changes and sacrifices, but not "me".

The more layers on top, the greater the force for change. Was there sufficient pressure on the Board and Sr. management?

I don't think so. Where can the pressure come from to bear upon the Board? This tells me that government, shareholders, investors, analysts, Moody et al, press, etc. were too weak, or weren't doing their job.

Ross Perot and others tried to change Detroit 3 from the top, but were asked to leave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100700165.html Oct.7/06 Kerkorian Ally Resigns From GM Board

Jerome York, a respected auto industry veteran, said in his resignation letter obtained by The Associated Press that he had "concluded there is little point in my remaining on the board." He said he had not "found an environment in the board room that is very receptive to probing much beyond the materials provided by management."

GM stated: "11 of the 12 Board members were independent of GM management". Unfortunately, theoretical independence doesn't mean effective. If the board doesn't dig deep, it becomes a rubber stamp to GM management's proposals & recommendations.

Once upon a time, Alfred P. Sloan (GM Chairman 1937 - 1956, the man who built GM) polled all the Directors about an important decision the Board had to make. The Board was unanimous in its support of Sloan and GM management. That unanimity worried Sloan, so he postponed the decision, asking each of the Directors to do some sober second thought on the topic, and do independent investigations, and they would make the final decision at the next board meeting. When the board got back together, there was a lively discussion pro and con, and the proposed direction that had previously been unanimously supported was now defeated.

To me, that sounds like a board learning how to be better functional and effective. Do we have that today? Sadly, too rare to mention, in my experience.

Another positive example was Ted Rogers of Rogers Communication. As the major shareholder and Chairperson of the billion dollar company he founded, he grilled management on their plans in a very effective manner that kept the company on the straight & narrow for more than 40 years during his reign.

Companies need stability, and benefit from a coming together to consensus, but not too soon. Having proxy fights at the board level for control, or unfriendly takeover bids can be distracting.

If a Director is fully insulated by Director errors & omissions insurance, then acquiescence and laziness is promoted. However, without Director insurance, few would risk being Directors for fear of being sued and hounded forever.

Does errors & omissions insurance require the director to take an active role, to do independent investigations and inquiries, and perform due diligence; and if the Director fails to do so, they have no insurance, and are fully liable?

If the insurance policies don't do this, we are all at risk of a repeat of our current disaster, or may be unable to climb out until we do have this & similar protections and improvements.

I regularly have to sign separate letters acknowledging my comprehension of the limits and restrictions of the insurance policies on my companies. If I don't sign, I don't get the insurance coverage. This step ensures the insurance company that I can't come back later and argue that "I didn't know" what was covered under the policy.

If Directors think they are covered, they may be prone to actions and inactions that put us all at risk. If they are well trained, and fully know their responsibilities and authority, we are all safer.

Should there be mandatory training and certification of directors? Retraining on an annual basis?

For example, lawyers suggest that all employees, especially key personnel, sign a confidentiality and non-competition agreement every year after adequate retraining; helping ensure they stay focused on what is expected from them. In Ontario Canada, all employees have to re-certify each year on WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System). Why not Directors in their duties?

Are there some small yet significant changes that are needed in the business & incorporations act that will maintain stability, yet help minority shareholders (or government watchdogs ?) ensure that due diligence is done?