Daimler CEO Impressed by Silicon Valley’s Progress on Automobile Projects

[Gudi]

He's a competitor - I seriously doubt Apple would show him anything at all.

What's he going to do, build a software platform? What's Apple going to do, build cars? Get serious, for years analysts expected Apple TV to grow into a full featured TV set, instead of being just a little black box connectable to any TV on the market. Now we have Apple CarPlay in all the big brands and people expect the next step must be, Apple is going to build the whole car. Remind yourself, it may just be a rumor.

 

[spacemnspiff]

There's so much wrong with this post that it's hard to know where to begin. The industry isn't ripe for disruption. What does that even mean anyway?

It was a rant focused at the so called luxury car companies, who are supposedly on the forefront of innovation in the auto industry and they are dropping the ball by using the smoke screen of psuedo-luxury. The incoherant rant was a way for me to express my frustration with the auto industry barely pushing the industry forward.

Increasing displacement? What? Pretty much all volume car manufacturers are making smaller displacement engines, using turbo charging to combat the loss of displacement power and gain in efficiency. They've also started earnest investment in hybrid/full electric alternatives.

Supercharging or forced air induction technique has been developed for quite some time, auto industry is reacting to the change in regulation and are not introducing more turbocharged engines out of their noble effort to innovate.
It is 2015, every normally aspirated engine should be as efficient as 100Hp/liter and forced induction engines should exceed 200Hp/liter. In fact forced air induction IC engines should be used exclusively because of higher efficiencies. I find it disappointing when for example Mercedes AMG 6.3l engine doesnt produce 100Hp/liter in every application that it is used in.
Reciprocating IC engine is severely limited in the amount of thermal efficiency that can be achieved, so auto companies should have invested heavily into other IC engines, I don't see any car company that has also delved into, lets say jet engines. Jet engines are far more efficient than reciprocating engines for example, so they should have tried to innovate by trying to more efficient combustion cycles. this is just an example to show that how narrowly focused the auto industry is. From my point of view, I don't see any established auto company that has heavily invested in battery technology in the past 30 years. Established auto companies are happy with the current state of affairs and would prefer to stagnate, now that Tesla has proved electric powertrain with battery technology viable, it was a rude awakening for them. Once again, they are reacting instead of staying in the forefront.
I am targeting the European luxury car companies because they have outlandish mottos like 'Truth in Engineering' or 'Best or nothing' and are really not doing enough to push the technology of transportation forward.
When Toyota came with gas-electric hybrid powertrain in 2000 with the Prius, they were mocked by the so called European counterparts. And now Europeans are following their lead and collaborating with Toyota.
I would love to see more innovation in gas-electric hybrid, diesel-electric-hydraulic hybrids, different combustion engines and full electric. Full electric with driver-less technologies might as well leap frog other efforts and completely change the transportation sector. It might be a simlar leap from horse carriages to Model T. Lot of horse lovers will revolt and then eventually be forced adapt.

I made a statement about aluminum chassis, Acura NSX introduced aluminum chassis in 1990 and Audi A8 is also based on aluminum platform. Its been 25 years since, the so called engineering has not been able to make it cheaper and widely adopt it. Carbon fiber is more intensive than aluminum, so aluminum could end up being cheaper.

I could go on, but this already ended up being a long post and I didn't have the time to coherently state my opinions, so I apologize. I dont work in the auto industry, this is an outside perspective of a mechanical engineer. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[icehockey77]

It was a rant focused at the so called luxury car companies, who are supposedly on the forefront of innovation in the auto industry and they are dropping the ball by using the smoke screen of psuedo-luxury. The incoherant rant was a way for me to express my frustration with the auto industry barely pushing the industry forward.

Supercharging or forced air induction technique has been developed for quite some time, auto industry is reacting to the change in regulation and are not introducing more turbocharged engines out of their noble effort to innovate.
It is 2015, every normally aspirated engine should be as efficient as 100Hp/liter and forced induction engines should exceed 200Hp/liter. In fact forced air induction IC engines should be used exclusively because of higher efficiencies. I find it disappointing when for example Mercedes AMG 6.3l engine doesnt produce 100Hp/liter in every application that it is used in.
Reciprocating IC engine is severely limited in the amount of thermal efficiency that can be achieved, so auto companies should have invested heavily into other IC engines, I don't see any car company that has also delved into, lets say jet engines. Jet engines are far more efficient than reciprocating engines for example, so they should have tried to innovate by trying to more efficient combustion cycles. this is just an example to show that how narrowly focused the auto industry is. From my point of view, I don't see any established auto company that has heavily invested in battery technology in the past 30 years. Established auto companies are happy with the current state of affairs and would prefer to stagnate, now that Tesla has proved electric powertrain with battery technology viable, it was a rude awakening for them. Once again, they are reacting instead of staying in the forefront.
I am targeting the European luxury car companies because they have outlandish mottos like 'Truth in Engineering' or 'Best or nothing' and are really not doing enough to push the technology of transportation forward.
When Toyota came with gas-electric hybrid powertrain in 2000 with the Prius, they were mocked by the so called European counterparts. And now Europeans are following their lead and collaborating with Toyota.
I would love to see more innovation in gas-electric hybrid, diesel-electric-hydraulic hybrids, different combustion engines and full electric. Full electric with driver-less technologies might as well leap frog other efforts and completely change the transportation sector. It might be a simlar leap from horse carriages to Model T. Lot of horse lovers will revolt and then eventually be forced adapt.

I made a statement about aluminum chassis, Acura NSX introduced aluminum chassis in 1990 and Audi A8 is also based on aluminum platform. Its been 25 years since, the so called engineering has not been able to make it cheaper and widely adopt it. Carbon fiber is more intensive than aluminum, so aluminum could end up being cheaper.

I could go on, but this already ended up being a long post and I didn't have the time to coherently state my opinions, so I apologize. I dont work in the auto industry, this is an outside perspective of a mechanical engineer. I would love to be proven wrong.

what the hell are you on about?

 

[alexgowers]

I do wonder if apple with be apple cars or a totally new brand?

I want to believe they have some super great car up their sleeves with design that actually works beyond being pretty.

However judging by the steve jobs yacht their first attempts might be a bit of a let down.

Tesla designs pretty much rock but i can't see apple being so flash or copying someone like tesla did aston martin (or at least it's inspired by).

I hope not to see an apple car really as i know i won't be able to afford it but will want to have it for the looks etc.

 

[koruki]

Every new of model year is heavier than the previous model year. How is this innovation? Aluminum chassis has been there for decades, why hasn't that propagated in all the models, especially the so called luxury makes who only focus on top 5mm layer of the car, the sheet metal and interior materials. They charge more for the same car with slight suspension modifications, but won't really innovate. For example they could start by making the car lighter than previous model year.

Germans have really tarnished the meaning of engineering, almost 100 years of reciprocating engines with horrible thermal efficiency and little progress.

What are you on about? My German car is lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more comfortable, has more storage capacity and safer than the previous generation.

 

[jessiener]

There is no real focus on improving thermal efficiency of engines

 

[Textime]

Yeah, because major Silicon Valley players were sure to tell them all about their plans to make legacy automakers obsolete and eat their lunch. Within 10 years these guys will be as relevant as buggy whip makers.

You honestly just don't know what you are talking about. To give these ignorant comments just a hint of reality:

 

[spacemnspiff]

What are you on about? My German car is lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more comfortable, has more storage capacity and safer than the previous generation.

I am not seeing the same progression that you describe in the picture above.

 

[koruki]

I am not seeing the same progression that you describe in the picture above.

I didn't mention a single cosmetic feature yet you use a photo.. nice

 

[icehockey77]

I am not seeing the same progression that you describe in the picture above.

You are seriously a good troll or a complete moron.

 

[spacemnspiff]

I didn't mention a single cosmetic feature yet you use a photo.. nice

I guess I am missing something here, my intent of this post was to indicate how each generation got heavier, which is not progression or innovation by any definition, especially considering the direct correlation between mass to size of the engine to propel the mass - which directly correlates to fuel efficiency and emissions.

You are seriously a good troll or a complete moron.

I don't see a difference between the two. Thanks for making a sweeping statement without context.

 

[icehockey77]

I don't see a difference between the two. Thanks for making a sweeping statement without context.

It was a response to the culmination of all of your posts in this thread to date. You, regardless of intention, chose to show styling as evidence of a lack of innovation. You also chose cars from a period where larger engines and more power were seen as innovations.

I don't know what innovations you expect, but your suggestion of jet engines made me laugh.

 

[dangeng]

/&6(%&%/%&/%4656v486vzusadb
fweqwef7UINJF7/JKSJKFJHKJH33ssd

 

[spacemnspiff]

It was a response to the culmination of all of your posts in this thread to date. You, regardless of intention, chose to show styling as evidence of a lack of innovation. You also chose cars from a period where larger engines and more power were seen as innovations.

I would rather not say anything about styling, which is subjective. I hoped the posters would have read between the lines and get the gist of what I was trying to portray. On the objective side of things, you are reiterating the point that I was making, the so called innovation for the past ~100 years has not moved the industry forward, it has stagnated by focusing more on aesthetics. The focus early on should have been on 'real engineering', not the psuedo engineering 'increased mass now needs increased engine size'. My example of Acura NSX in 1990 with aluminum chassis was to point out that carmakers should have been embraced the developed technique early on so that it would have propagated into all car segments eventually. Aluminum chassis would have reduced mass while carmakers were trying to increase the size. That's one example.

I don't know what innovations you expect, but your suggestion of jet engines made me laugh.

The only reason to quote jet engines is their higher thermal efficiency when compared to reciprocating IC engines. This is another example where automakers have stuck with one kind of combustion engines and not really done much to improve thermal efficiency of the prime movers in our cars today. The only alternative to conventional reciprocating IC engine is the laudable effort by Mazda to commercialize rotary engines and probably also miller cycle reciprocating IC engine.

 

[icehockey77]

I would rather not say anything about styling, which is subjective. I hoped the posters would have read between the lines and get the gist of what I was trying to portray. On the objective side of things, you are reiterating the point that I was making, the so called innovation for the past ~100 years has not moved the industry forward, it has stagnated by focusing more on aesthetics. The focus early on should have been on 'real engineering', not the psuedo engineering 'increased mass now needs increased engine size'. My example of Acura NSX in 1990 with aluminum chassis was to point out that carmakers should have been embraced the developed technique early on so that it would have propagated into all car segments eventually. Aluminum chassis would have reduced mass while carmakers were trying to increase the size. That's one example.

The only reason to quote jet engines is their higher thermal efficiency when compared to reciprocating IC engines. This is another example where automakers have stuck with one kind of combustion engines and not really done much to improve thermal efficiency of the prime movers in our cars today. The only alternative to conventional reciprocating IC engine is the laudable effort by Mazda to commercialize rotary engines and probably also miller cycle reciprocating IC engine.

RE: the NSX, Super cars and Sports cars are always going to be on the cutting edge of material technology. Lighter materials are more expensive when they are recently introduced, so it's only natural an expensive, high performance car will be the first to utilize it. Aluminum is a soft metal, however, and for everyday use is not really feasible given the unforgiving conditions of many roads around the world. It is still used in specialized performance cars (like the 40mpg Alfa 4c), but an everyday drive may be smashed to bits under normal conditions.

IC has won out because it is currently the most effective method of spinning a shaft with some gears on it to move some wheels,. that will change in the future as our needs change. Hydrogen fuel cells, hybrids, and full electrics may pose a threat to the reign of the IC engine, but a better, long term solution will still need to be found. We want a magic solution but, until the Tesla, nothing has come along that could be a viable and reliable solution. Jet engines are simply impractical for ground propulsion given their terrible acceleration, noise, and wake. Turbine engines have been used in motorcycles and such, but, again, are impractical.

It's easy to say the auto industry is "ripe for disruption," but it's like saying the same about healthcare. You are probably right, but there are a lot of regulations in place, for good reason or not, and it's not something that has a simple answer.

 

[spacemnspiff]

RE: the NSX, Super cars and Sports cars are always going to be on the cutting edge of material technology. Lighter materials are more expensive when they are recently introduced, so it's only natural an expensive, high performance car will be the first to utilize it. Aluminum is a soft metal, however, and for everyday use is not really feasible given the unforgiving conditions of many roads around the world.

IC has won out because it is currently the most effective method of spinning a shaft with some gears on it to move some wheels,. that will change in the future as our needs change. Hydrogen fuel cells, hybrids, and full electrics may pose a threat to the reign of the IC engine, but a better, long term solution will still need to be found. We want a magic solution but, until the Tesla, nothing has come along that could be a viable and reliable solution. Jet engines are simply impractical for ground propulsion given their terrible acceleration, noise, and wake. Turbine engines have been used in motorcycles and such, but, again, are impractical.

It's easy to say the auto industry is "ripe for disruption," but it's like saying the same about healthcare. You are probably right, but there are a lot of regulations in place, for good reason or not, and it's not something that has a simple answer.

The NSX that I mentioned was released in the year 1990. Its 2016 now, 26 years since the original release. This once again shows how slow auto industry is to accept and make changes. Saying that aluminum cannot be used in high performance application is false. Aluminum is widely used in the space industry for structures, a satellite that launches on a rocket (lets say Pegasus rocket) has to survive a steady state acceleration of about ~10g. That's 10 times it's own weight, and let's not talk about the space environment about how harsh it is on satellites/spacecrafts.
With car applications it's easier environment to survive loads of about 1-2g. Three generations of Audi A8 have used aluminum structure termed ASL, aluminum is used in auto applications but not widely enough. So it seems feasible to use aluminum.
I am pretty sure the reaction to this comment would be cost. Engineering also means bring the manufacturing costs down, auto makers are trying to reduce the cost of manufacturing composites and missed aluminum structures that they could have implemented long ago.
If we are talking cost, NSX that was introduced in 1990 was and is in the same price range as a Porsche 911. Yet lightweight aluminum hasn't been implemented in the 911, even though 911 is one of the most profitable cars by most standards. Profit engineering is the kind of engineering that goes on the staid auto industry.

That's the most simplistic explanation that I have heard of why IC engine won. And my intention was not to suggest that auto makers implement a jet engine directly, but explore alternate forms of combustion propulsion, which auto makers have failed to do.

Another thing to note is that GM introduced an electric vehicle EV1 in 1996, but was killed for reasons that haven't fully been revealed. The theory goes that the oil industry colluded with GM and bought all the patents related to the EV1 and as such killed the electric car, it was in the interest of the oil industry. It took someone like Elon Musk to restart the interest in electric vehicle cars, as such there was not much interest in the auto industry for the electric cars and as a result automakers have not really invested in the battery technology.

The real question is - why does it take an auto industry outsider like Elon Musk to bring electric cars to the market? Why haven't European or Japanese or Americans done it?

I can only imagine if GM had kept plugging along since 1996, that's 20 years ago, we would be in different place right now in terms of electric cars.

Anyway you get the drift.