TOP FIVE (5) SUPPLY-CHAIN RISKS FOR 2022

The following post is taken from the magazine “Supply-Chain Management Review” January 17, 2022. The article in that addition was written by Gary Forger.  The headings are his, the text under each heading is mine.  I have several points I wish to make in addition to Mr. Forger’s.

The top five (5) supply-chain risks are detailed in a study by Everstream Analytics for the twelve (12) months of 2022.  The risk points are as follows:

• WORLD-WIDE WATER INSTABILITY:   According to the United Nations, one in three people live without sanitation. A lack of sanitation and sanitary waste management systems can reduce a community’s access to clean water, and lack of access to clean water can allow diseases to run rampant, sometimes creating epidemics of water-borne infectious agents.  Also, water instability can and does affect the ability of a country to foster and sustain economic growth.  Water scarcity, exacerbated by climate change, could cost some regions up to six percent (6%) of their GDP, spur migration, and spark conflict. … These regions could see their growth rates decline by as much as six percent (6%) of GDP by 2050 due to water-related impacts on agriculture, health, and incomes.
• OCEAN FREIGHT BOTTLENECKS:  US retailer representatives and logistics advisors expect supply chain congestion to continue well into 2022, as strong demand persists and ports struggle to clear backlogs of containers at the country’s main import gateways. Imports at the nation’s congested container ports are expected to remain at near-record levels for the remainder of the year as retailers rush to move merchandise from docks to shelves in time to meet the expectations of holiday shoppers, according to the latest monthly Global Port Tracker report released yesterday by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates.

• CONTINUOUSLY CHANGING WORKPLACE:  As the Omicron variant of COVID-19 spreads across the world, the risk of infection will force companies to reassess how workplace safety and worker compensation to avoid the risk of long-term disruptions from industrial actions or outbreaks of disease.  “If we look at the global situation, I think it’s fair to say that we are still in very challenging times,” Rasmus Bech Hansen, CEO of Airfinity, a life sciences analytics company, said during a recent press briefing. “Cases globally are rising quite significantly. We are sadly not far from the biggest peak we had in 2021.”  This will definitely will cause companies and employees re-think working from home, if possible, and when it’s not possible to take measures, maybe extreme measures to stay safe.  These measures can cause workplace interruptions and showdowns.

• JUST-IN-TIME SHIFTS TO JUST-IN-CASE:   As the pandemic exposed flaws in “just in time” inventory systems, businesses have been exploring a shift to the “just in case” model, increasing buffer and safety stocks of critical components or best-selling products.  This coupled with considerable delays in ocean freight bottlenecks will change the supply-chain dynamic drastically.  Some companies such as Walmart and COSTCO are managing their own freight from the Pacific Rim.
• INCREASED REGULATORY SCRUTINY:  Why the federal government is getting more involved in container shipping than it has in two decades is no surprise. Public and business concerns over rising inflation are rising, as the Consumer Price Index surged six-point-eight percent (6.8%) in November, the sharpest increase since 1982. And there are few signs that US port congestion will ease anytime soon, as the number of container ships drifting and anchored off Southern California hit ninety-five (95) on Dec. 10, and another sixty-seven (67) loitering or slow steaming outside the staging ground managed by the Maritime Exchange of Southern California. US retailers say they won’t slow importing post winter holidays in the first few months of the year.

Right or wrong, the public holds the federal government responsible for port congestion and shipping disruption. According to a survey of registered voters conducted by Morning Consult and news outlet Politico, sixty-two (62) percent said President Joe Biden and Congress bear some responsibility for supply chain disruptions.

CONCLUSION:  In my opinion, we should strongly consider re-shoring as an option toward solving our supply-chain dilemma.  Let’s bring it all home and reconstitute our manufacturing base as well as getting millions of US workers back on the job.  The Fed could offer tax incentives to companies willing to re-shore their manufactured products.  I’m sure other inducements could be considered as well.

A NEW METHOD OF LEARNING

How would you go about obtaining information on a subject you knew little or nothing about?  Let’s assume your supervisor asked you to give him or her a report on the 2000s housing bubble.  Would you go to the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in your office library or your library at home?  You know the set your parents gave you before you entered the university as a freshman. 

Another ludicrous example.  Yesterday my wife gave me list of items she wanted me to get at our local grocery store.  Well, in my haste, I left the list at home.  Go figure?  What’s new?  Did I look for the nearest pay phone and give her a call?  No, I called her on my cell phone.  In other words, I used existing and current technology to get information on the items she needed.    

QUESTION:  Is our educational system preparing students for a guaranteed future where artificial intelligence, smart machines, machine learning, computational graphics and digital competencies will predominate?  Would you channel everyone into a four-year university and require them to study a curriculum developed in the last century, using a teaching methodology-passive learning through lectures-popularized in the Middle Ages?  Some would argue as does Dr. Gary Bertoline, that higher education is stuck in a different era and we are trying to prepare students for a world that is evolving at an increasingly rapid rate.  At this rate, manufacturers are confronted with talent shortages and a “yawning” skills gap that definitely threatens sustainable growth.  In my opinion, not Mr. Bertoline’s, we are looking at a national emergency and one in which we may not recover quickly within several decades unless we realize changes must be made and accommodated. 

This may be difficult to believe, but our university system of education was created in the late nineteenth (19^th) and early twentieth (20^th) centuries to train farmers, shopkeepers, factory workers, and office managers.  Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with having one of these professions or jobs. This training was very perspective, disciplinary, and specialized.  It served our country well, at least until the fourth industrial revolution, which we are in right now.

Let’s now look at where we are relative to where we have been.

The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.  With this fourth industrial revolution we stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society.  All we know at this time is—it’s coming.  The evidence is absolutely clear, and we should prepare our student population for that eventuality. 

According to Dr. Bertoline, ‘General Purpose Technologies (GPT) have historically been a major driver of society’s education curricula.  By the turn of the twentieth (20^th) century, GPTs included electricity, internal combustion engines, railroads and sanitation curricula. At that time, universities organized around majors, minors, credit hours, degree requirements, grades, class ranking, upper division electives, college entrance exams, tenure and school rankings. Well over a century later—many still do.’ Today, we need people smart enough to work with machines smarter than them.  More specifically, we need people smart enough to program machines that through AI may become smarter, more responsive and quicker than them. 

According to Dr. Bertoline, we need the following:

• Cognitive tasks requiring creativity and intuition that involve problems that require significant logical leaps of imagination.
• More quantifiable skills related to testing, programming, and overseeing machines.
• Social skills that require emotional intelligence rather than cognitive intelligence alone.

In other words, how do we prepare a future workforce for jobs that do not now exist?  I think this question is well worth asking and we had better start.  I might add, that from reading literature on this subject, we are definitely falling behind several countries, such as China, South Korea, Iran, and others who have already addressed the needs of the fourth industrial revolution.  We know for a fact that China far-exceeds our US abilities with AI. That is a known fact.  Not too late to catch up, but every year we procrastinate we fall further behind.

In my opinion, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 put our students at least one year behind.  I will not go into our educational deficiencies due to COVID but they are significant.  Just a thought.  As always, I welcome your comments.

COLLABORATIVE (COBOTS) ROBOTS—A BRIEF HISTORY

First, let us define a collaborative robot or cobot:  “Cobots, or collaborative robots, are robots intended to interact with humans in a shared space or to work safely in close proximity.  Cobots stand in contrast to traditional industrial robots which are designed to work autonomously with safety assured by isolation from human contact.   Cobot safety may rely on lightweight construction materials, rounded edges, and limits on speed or force. Safety may also require sensors and software to assure good collaborative behavior.”

A picture is probably worth a thousand words so take a look.

You will notice the lady above is “collaborating” with the robotic system above.  They BOTH are providing an assembly operation.

The robotic system shown above is drilling a hole in flat metal material while the worker watches.  The drill pattern has been previously chosen and programmed into the computer driving the system.

HISTORY:

The first definition of a cobot comes from a 1999 US patent filing for “an apparatus and method for direct physical integration between a person and a general-purpose manipulator controlled by a computer.”   This description basically refers to what we would now call an Intelligent Assist Device or IAD. An IAD is the ancestor of modern cobots, which resulted from the efforts of General Motors to implement robotics in the automotive sector of our economy.   This new device could move in a non-caged environment to help human workers in assembly operations.  For safety reasons, it had no internal source of motion power.  Please note the “non-caged” description.  For safety reasons, most robotic, non-COBOT, systems are surrounded with safety barriers to protect employees.  COBOTS are generally not of that category. 

In 2004, robotics developer KUKA released their LBR3, a lightweight COBOT with motion of its own.  This was the result of a long collaboration between company and the German Aerospace Center Institute.  Its motion-controlled capabilities were later refined in two updated versions and released in 2008 and 2013.

In 2008, Universal Robots released the UR5, a COBOT THAT COULD safely operate alongside employees, eliminating the need for safety caging or fencing.  The robot helped launch the era of flexible, user-friendly and very cost-effective collaborative robots.  These gave small-to-medium manufacturers the possibly of automating their facilities without investing in cost-prohibitive technology or in a complete make-over of their manufacturing capability.

As with all revolutionary technology, COBOTS were initially met with significant skepticism by the manufacturing industry.  Many facility managers saw them as technological marvels but questioned the possibility of integrating them into actual working environments. Today, however, the market for industrial COBOTS has an annual growth rate of fifty percent (50%) and it is estimated that it will hit three billion USD ($3.00 billion) in global revenue by the end of 2020.

There are limitations at the present time relative to applying COBOTS to manufacturing processes. The most important ones are the need for fine dexterity—for example, when picking up small and delicate pieces and the ability to make decisions rapidly to avoid obstacles without stopping production.   Some of these issues are being overcome by integrating vision systems allowing the COBOT to adapt to environmental changes.  This include obstacles of different nature and variation in the position of the object they are supposed to pick up and locations where they must be dropped off.   This new technology not only eliminates the need for precise positioning, but allows manufacturers to finally combine safety and maximum productivity.  The increased sensitivity will allow several COBOTS to work together independently, performing different tasks without colliding.

CALCULATING THE COST OF ROBOTIC SYSTEMS

The magazine “Foundry Management & Technology” is used as a source for this post.

If you follow the literature at all, you know that robotic systems have gained significant usage in manufacturing methodologies.  Now, when I say robotic systems, I mean a system of the type shown below.

This is a “pick-and-place “or SCARA (Selective Compliance Articulated Robotic Arm) type system.  We are definitely not talking about the one shown below.

Human robotic systems are well into the future.  We are talking about robotic systems used strictly in manufacturing work cells. 

From experience, the cost of deploying a robotic system can go well beyond the price tag of the robot itself.  You have direct installation costs, cost for electrical and pneumatic inputs, cost for tooling, jigs, fixtures, grippers, welding rigs, costs for engineering and robotic maintenance, insurance, etc.  All of these costs MUST be factored in to discover, or at least estimate, the overall cost of operating a system. 

A report by the Boston Consulting Group suggests that in order to arrive at a solid cost-estimate for robotic systems, customers should multiply the machine’s cost by a minimum of three.  In other words, let us say that a six-axis robot costs $65,000.00, customers should therefore budget $195,000.00 for the entire investment. This is a great “rule-of-thumb” which should represent a starting point. Due to the varying nature of manufacturing facilities, estimated costs fluctuate dramatically according to the specific industrial sector and size of the operation.  Please keep in mind that these costs are not always linear in nature and may vary during machinery lifecycle. 

Let’s look at an example. A manufacturer plans to use two SCARA robots to automate a pick-and-place process.  The robots will operate three shifts daily, six days per week, forty-eight (48) weeks per year.  Equivalent labor would require two operators per shift, equating to six (6) operators generating the same throughput over the same period of time.  Now, using the lowest average salary of a U.S. production employee, we would have to pay approximately $25,000.00 per employee per year or approximately $150,000.00 per year.  When employing robotic systems, human labor is not completely eliminated. A good rule-of-thumb for labor estimation alongside a robotic system is twenty-five percent (25%) of existing labor costs.  This would reduce the human labor to $37,500.00 per year—a great savings producing an acceptable ROI. This estimating method does NOT account for down time of equipment for maintenance and/or parts replacement.  That must be factored into the mix as well.  There will also be some expense for training personnel to monitor and use the equipment.  This involves training to set up the systems and initiate the manufacturing process. 

Robotic systems are predictable.  They can eliminate human error.  They do not take lunch breaks and if maintained properly can provide years of usable production. The payback is there and if a suitable vendor is chosen, a great marriage will occur.  Vendor support when operating a robotic system is an absolute must—a must.

A JUBILATION T CORNPONE MOMENT

Archimedes declared “Eureka I’ve found it”.  Colonel John “Hannibal” Smith of the “A-Team” said, “I love it when a plan comes together”. Boo-yah is a cry of success used by the Army. Well, down here in the South we call the act of discovery a Jubilation T. Cornpone moment.  Okay, have you ever made the statement: “I thought of that some months ago” only to lament the fact that you did not act appropriately and give your idea wings?  We all have. Let’s take a look at several “serendipity” moments that resulted in great discoveries being brought to commercialization.

• Legend has it that Archimedes was about to bathe when he discovered that an object’s buoyancy force equals the weight of the fluid it displaces. Thrilled, he ran naked through Syracuse shouting “Eureka”.
• According to biographers, Paul McCartney composed this melody in a dream at the Wimpole Street of then-girlfriend Jane Asher.  Upon waking, he rushed to a piano and played the tune to avoid forgetting it.  The tune was Yesterday.
• Riding a streetcar in Bern, Switzerland, Einstein was struck by the sight of the city’s medieval clock tower—and was inspired to devise his elegant special theory of relativity: time can beat at different rates throughout the universe, depending on how fast you move.
• We can all thank Josephine Knight Dickson for those ubiquitous adhesive bandages later known as Band-Aids.  She often cut and burned herself while cooking.  So, in 1920 these events prompted her husband, Earle, a Johnson cotton buyer, and Thomas Anderson to develop a prototype so Josephine could dress her wounds unaided.
• At the tender age of fourteen (14) Philo Farnsworth was plowing a potato field when he suddenly realized how television could work.  The back-and-forth motion of the till inspired him to imagine how an electron beam could scan images line by line—the basis for almost all TVs until LCD and plasma screens.
• 3M scientist Spencer Silver just could not interest the company in his low-tack, pressure-sensitive adhesive.  Then colleague Arthur Fry found an application—at choir practice. Coating the sticky stuff on paper, Fry reasoned, he could create stay-put paper in his hymnal as a bookmark.
• GoPro visionary Nick Woodman invented his wrist-strap-mounted, 35-millimeter camera while trying to capture his passion surfing on film. He turned it into a business that, at its height, was worth eleven (11) billion dollars.
• The quickie oven (microwave) was born while engineer Percy Spencer was working on magnetrons for military radar sets.  When a candy bar in his pocket melted near various radar components, Spencer realized microwaves could penetrate the exterior of a food and cook it from inside out-unlike old-school ovens that cook from the outside in.
• In 1905, eleven (11) year old Frank Epperson of Oakland, California mixed sugary soda power with water and left it out on a cold winter’s night.  The concoction froze-and proved delicious when he licked it off the wooden stirrer. Epperson, who died in 1983, dubbed his accidental treat the Epsicle and later patented it.  He sold the rights in 1925.
• One day in 1941, George de Mestral took his dog for a walk in the Swiss woods.  When returning, he noticed burrs stuck to his pants–which refused to be removed. Under a microscope, de Mestral saw that the burrs had tiny hooks that attached themselves to thread loops in his pants.  Sensing a business opportunity, he connected with a Lyon fabric manufacturing firm and named the product with portmanteau of “velvet” and “crochet”—French for hook.
• At the height of WWII, a mechanical engineer named Richard James was trying to devise springs that could keep sensitive ship equipment steady at sea.  After accidentally knocking spring samples from a shelf, he watched in astonishment as the springs gracefully “walked” down instead of falling. Teaming with his wife, Betty, James developed a plan for the wonderful novelty toy Slinky.

All of these “inventions” were waiting to happen but just depended upon creative minds to bring them into fruition.  This is the manner in which creativity works.  Suddenly with great flashes of brilliance.

LIST OF SPACE FLIGHT COMPANIES

With the federal government pulling out of manned space flight, it gave private companies ample opportunity to fill in the gaps.  Of course, these companies MUST have adequate funding, trained personnel and proper facilities to launch their version(s) of equipment, support and otherwise that will take man and equipment to the outer reaches of space.  The list of companies was quite surprising to me.  Let’s take a look.

These are just the launch vehicles.  There is also a huge list of manufacturers making man-rovers and orbiters, research craft and tech demonstrators, propulsion manufacturers, satellite launchers, space manufacturing, space mining, space stations, space settlements, spacecraft component manufacturers and developers, and spaceliner companies.   I will not publish that list but these companies are available for discovery by putting in the heading for each category.  To think we are not involved in space is obviously a misnomer.

 

CONCEPT CARS FOR THE FUTURE

On Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) unveiled a landmark resolution cementing the pillars of an unprecedented program to zero out planet-warming emissions and restore the middle-class prosperity of postwar America that the original New Deal helped spur.

Just three months after calls for a Green New Deal electrified a long-stagnant debate on climate policy, the Democratic lawmakers released the six-page document outlining plans to cut global emissions forty (40) to sixty (60) percent below 2010 levels by 2030 and neutralize human-caused greenhouse gases entirely by 2050.

The joint resolution stakes out a “ten-year national mobilization” plan to build “smart” grids and rapidly increase the share of American power generated from solar and wind from ten (10) percent today to as close to one hundred (100) percent as possible over the next decade. The plan reframes tired talk of repairing the nation’s crumbling bridges, highways and ports as a crisis in a new era of billion-dollar storms. It gets local, demanding upgrades to “all existing U.S. buildings” to “achieve maximum” efficiency with energy and water use.

These are tremendously ambitious goals and quite frankly somewhat misguided.  The time line is NOT realistic.  We are, at the present time, not anywhere close to achieving those goals.  No programs in action to achieve those goals and one thing the “gentle” congresswoman misunderstands—the American love for fast cars, slow cars, electric cars, hybrid cars, etc. You surely must get my drift. Our entire economy has been built on fossil fuels.  That will continue using carbonaceous fuels until viable and cost-efficient alternatives are realized and commercially available.

The automotive industry thinks that time is down the road and they are operating with that belief. Let’s take a very quick look at what the automotive industry thinks is in store for our future “rides”.  The digital pictures below will give you some idea as to the concepts the industry is working on for future sales.

The E-Legend is an all-electric modern reinterpretation Peugeot’s 1969 -504 coupe. The automotive industry is making across-the-board moves to electric vehicles, and French manufacturer Peugeot isn’t about to be left behind. Ahead of the 2018 Paris Motor Show, Peugeot has released its E-Legend concept EV with a design that harks back to the classic 504 coupes of the 60s and 70s. In a world where aerodynamics leaves automotive design with a feeling of sameness across the industry, the E-Legend breaks from convention with a classically proportioned exterior and sharp features. The interior is nearly a modern masterpiece, with seats that could be at home in a modern office and a rectangular steering wheel. Peugeot claims 456 horsepower and 590 lb-ft of torque from the electric powertrain and a range of 373 miles, putting it right in line with current EV offerings. With its good looks and solid specs, the E-Legend is begging to see production.

Mercedes has unveiled the Vision EQ Silver Arrows Concept, and it is a stunner. The concept is a feast for the senses, a product of Mercedes’ masterful use of its own heritage and reinventing it with a futuristic electric-jolted twist. As it is, the EQ Silver Arrow is a showcase concept — and what a concept, it is — that we’ll never see in production form. The good news is that the concept isn’t just a muscle-flexing design exercise, too. Parts of the concept will appear in Mercedes’ new electric brand offshoot, EQ. As to what those parts are? We’ll just have to wait and find out.

Porsche has announced that it will put the Cross Turismo into production as a variant of the upcoming Taycan EV, creating 300 new jobs at Porsche’s Zuffenhausen headquarters. The reports of the wagon’s death have been greatly exaggerated, and the Porsche Mission E Cross Turismo concept is the latest proof that the body style is alive and well. Following the path blazed by the raised ride height and plastic-clad wheel arches of its corporate cousin, the Audi A4 All-road, the Mission E Cross Turismo is an all-electric, off-road-ready wagon that’s nonetheless claimed to be capable of blasting to 60 mph in less than 3.5 seconds and to 124 mph in less than 12 seconds.That’s right, Porsche is hinting that boxer engines won’t be the only characteristic its vehicles share with Subarus, and the Mission E Cross Turismo reveals the brand is, at the very least, considering an Outback-like variant of its upcoming Mission E sedan. Presumably, such a model will accompany a lower-riding, cladding-free, and non-knobby-tired Sport Turismo wagon version of the Mission E, as well.

“In our striving for efficiency, have we lost empathy for the traveler?” These words, from Volvo’s launch video for its new 360c fully autonomous concept car, hit home with me. I fly a lot, so I’m fully familiar with efficient but unsympathetic forms of travel, and Volvo’s idea is to help people like me through the design of its future cars. The Volvo 360c is, like most concepts of our time, all-electric, fully autonomous, and covered by a big sweeping glass dome. What distinguishes it, though, is Volvo’s vision of how it fits into the broader scheme of city infrastructure, short-haul flights, working commutes, and environmental concerns.

The PB18 e-tron concept embodies a fundamentally driver-centric sports car — there are no piloted driving systems to add weight, and its relatively lightweight construction helps propel it to speeds above 186 mph. It features a large-format cockpit which is a freely programmable unit and can be switched between layouts for optimal racetrack- and road-driving. The driver’s seat and cockpit are integrated into an inner monocoque shell that can be slid laterally to accommodate for one- or two-person seating.

The all-electric I.D. Vizzion will have a production version with a steering wheel and Level 4 autonomy on board, but the concept being shown off on the Geneva floor was the one with full autonomy and no human controls. To look at the expansive opening created by the Vizzion’s vast doors and the carpeted interior and contoured seating inside, you’d be reminded of Aston Martin’s similarly grand Lagonda concept car. But where the Aston Martin is sumptuous and enticing, VW’s carpet is made out of an unpleasant synthetic material, and the entire interior feels cheaper than it looks.

There’s not much in the way of features on the inside of the I.D. Vizzion: like most concepts, it’s minimal and stripped down, with only a shelf at the front of the car for tossing your sunglasses onto. There are wireless charging pods for phones, which are increasingly becoming a standard feature even in current production models.

CONCLUSION:

As you can see, the automobile industry is planning on a long and continued future although all-electric and autonomous vehicles are definitely in the future.  Please let me have your comments. See if you and I agree at all.

1918

I want us to climb in Mr. Peabody’s Way Back Machine and travel back in time to the year 1918.  One hundred years ago.  What were things like back then; clothes, cars, entertainment, politics, technology, etc.    It’s amazing to me how many advances have been made in just one hundred years.  Let’s take a quick look.

• The average life expectancy for men was forty-seven (47) years.
• Fuel for automobiles was sold in drug stores.
• Only fourteen (14) percent of the homes had a bathtub.
• Only eight (8) percent of the homes had a telephone.
• The maximum speed limit in most cities was ten (10) MPH.
• The average wage in the US was $0.22 per hour.
• The average worker made between two hundred ($200) and four hundred ($400) dollars per year.
• More that ninety-five (95%) percent of births took place in homes.
• A dentist made $2500 per year.
• A veterinarian made between $1500 and $4000 per year.
• Ninety percent (90%) of ALL doctors had no college education. Instead, they attended so-called local medical schools. Many of which were condemned in the press and the government as substandard.
• Sugar was four cents ($0.04) per pound.
• Eggs were fourteen cents ($0.14) per dozen.
• Coffee was fifteen cents ($0.15) per pound.
• Most women washed their hair only one per month and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
• The population of Las Vegas was thirty (30).
• Two out of ten adults could not read or write and only six percent (6%) of all Americans had graduated from high school.
• There were two hundred and thirty (230) murders reported in the entire United States.

If a picture is worth a thousand words—let’s have pictures.  All of following pictures are from Getty Images and were taken in the year 1918.  Let’s take a look.

HUGE differences—right?  One thing I am certainly grateful for is advances in medical technology.  Our life expectancy for a male is now seventy-eight (78) and not forty-seven (47).  Huge advances.

TEN MOST RELIABLE CARS

Conservative design principles may be the key to building a more reliable automobile, say engineers from Consumer Reports who studied vehicle reliability for their 2018 auto issue.  Nine of the ten vehicles receiving “much better than average” overall scores in every available year of the survey were either from Toyota or Lexus.  The only exception was the Acura TSX mid-sized sedan, which received a perfect score in every model year from 2010 to 2014. This probably does not surprise anyone.

Let’s take a look at what Consumer Reports considers the ten most reliable models.

CONCLUSION:

Consumer Reports’ ratings of vehicle reliability are based on survey responses from more than half a million vehicle owners. The surveys ask questions about 17 different potential trouble spots, ranging from engines and transmissions to fuel systems, electrical, suspension, brakes, body hardware, and in-car electronics, among others.

In the ratings, the Camry received “much better than average” ratings (the magazine’s highest score) for in-car electronics in four of the last eight model years on the Consumer Reports survey. It also received perfect scores in all eight years for three engine categories and two transmission categories.

Toyota’s conservative approach does have a downside, however, Fisher added. The company’s vehicles are often dinged by automotive writers for being “dowdy,” or just plain lacking in excitement, he said. “Other manufacturers are willing to take risks for the sake of a performance increase, or for fuel economy boost, or for excitement and drive-ability,” he said. “And those manufacturers continue to get accolades from their peers. However, I would argue that none of those accolades consider reliability.”

OKAY—what are you after? Bells and whistles or a reliable vehicle to get you to and from work?

 

AUTOMOTIVE FUTURE

Portions of this post are taken from Design News Daily Magazine, January publication.

The Detroit Auto Show has a weirdly duplicitous vibe these days. The biggest companies that attend make sure to talk about things that make them sound future-focused, almost benevolent. They talk openly about autonomy, electrification, and even embracing other forms of transportation. But they do this while doling out product announcements that are very much about meeting the current demands of consumers who, enjoying low gas prices, want trucks and crossover SUVs. With that said, it really is interesting to take a look at several “concept” cars.  Cars we just may be driving the future is not the near future.  Let’s take a look right now.

Guangzhou Automobile Co. (better known as GAC Motor) stole the show in Detroit, at least if we take their amazing claims at face value. The Chinese automaker rolled out the Enverge electric concept car, which is said to have a 373-mile all-electric range based on a 71-kWh battery. Incredibly, it is also reported to have a wireless recharge time of just 10 minutes for a 240-mile range. Enverge’s power numbers are equally impressive: 235 HP and 302 lb-ft of torque, with a 0-62 mph time of just 4.4 seconds. GAC, the sixth biggest automaker in China, told the Detroit audience that it would start selling cars in the US by Q4 2019. The question is whether its extraordinary performance numbers will hold up to EPA scrutiny.  If GAC can live up to and meet their specifications they may have the real deal here.  Very impressive.

As autonomous vehicle technology advances, automakers are already starting to examine the softer side of that market – that is, how will humans interact the machines? And what are some of the new applications for the technology? That’s where Ford’s pizza delivery car came in. The giant automaker started delivering Domino’s pizzas in Ann Arbor, MI, late last year with an autonomous car. In truth, the car had a driver at the wheel, sitting behind a window screen. But the actual delivery was automated: Customers were alerted by a text; a rear window rolled down; an automated voice told them what to do, and they grabbed the pie. Ford engineers were surprised to find that that the humans weren’t intimated by the technology. “In the testing we did, people interacted nicely with the car,” Ford autonomous car research engineer Wayne Williams told Design News. “They talked to it as if it were a robot. They waved when it drove away. Kids loved it. They’d come running up to it.” The message to Ford was clear – autonomous cars are about more than just personal transportation. Delivery services are a real possibility, too.

Most of today’s autonomous cars use unsightly, spinning Lidar buckets atop their roofs. At the auto show, Toyota talked about an alternative Lidar technology that’s sleek and elegant. You have to admit that for now, the autonomous cars look UGLY—really ugly.  Maybe Toyota has the answer.

In a grand rollout, Lexus introduced a concept car called the LF-1 Limitless. The LF-1 is what we’ve all come to expect from modern concept cars – a test bed for numerous power trains and autonomous vehicle technologies. It can be propelled by a fuel cell, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, all-electric or gasoline power train. And its automated driving system includes a “miniaturized supercomputer with links to navigation data, radar sensors, and cameras for a 360-degree view of your surroundings with predictive capabilities.” The sensing technologies are all part of a system known as “Chauffeur mode.” Lexus explained that the LF-1 is setting the stage for bigger things: By 2025, every new Lexus around the world will be available as a dedicated electrified model or will have an electrified option.

The Xmotion, which is said to combine Japanese aesthetics with SUV styling, includes seven digital screens. Three main displays join left- and right-side screens across the instrument panel. There’s also a “digital room mirror” in the ceiling and center console display. Moreover, the displays can be controlled by gestures and even eye motions, enabling drivers to focus on the task of driving. A Human Machine Interface also allows drivers to easily switch from Nissan’s ProPilot automated driving system to a manual mode.

Cadillac showed off its Super Cruise technology, which is said to be the only semi-autonomous driving system that actually monitors the driver’s attention level. If the driver is attentive, Super Cruise can do amazing things – tooling along for hours on a divided highway with no intersections, for example, while handling all the steering, acceleration and braking. GM describes it as an SAE Level 2 autonomous system. It’s important because it shows autonomous vehicle technology has left the lab and is making its debut on production vehicles. Super Cruise launched late in 2017 on the Cadillac CT6 (shown here).

In a continuing effort to understand the relationship between self-driving cars and humans, Ford Motor Co. and Virginia Tech displayed an autonomous test vehicle that communicates its intent to other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Such communication is important, Ford engineers say, because “designing a way to replace the head nod or hand wave is fundamental to ensuring safe and efficient operation of self-driving vehicles.”

Infiniti rolled out the Q Inspiration luxury sedan concept, which combines its variable compression ratio engine with Nissan’s ProPilot semi-autonomous vehicle technology. Infiniti claims the engine combines “turbo charged gasoline power with the torque and efficiency of a hybrid or diesel.” Known as the VC-Turbo, the four-cylinder engine continually transforms itself, adjusting its compression ratio to optimize power and fuel efficiency. At the same time, the sedan features ProPilot Assist, which provides assisted steering, braking and acceleration during driving. You can see from the digital below, the photographers were there covering the Infinity.

The eye-catching Concept-i vehicle provided a more extreme view of the distant future, when vehicles will be equipped with artificial intelligence (AI). Meant to anticipate people’s needs and improve their quality of life, Concept-i is all about communicating with the driver and occupants. An AI agent named Yui uses light, sound, and even touch, instead of traditional screens, to communicate information. Colored lights in the footwells, for example, indicate whether the vehicle is an autonomous or manual drive; projectors in the rear deck project outside views onto the seat pillar to warn drivers about potential blind spots, and a next-generation heads-up display keeps the driver’s eyes and attention on the road. Moreover, the vehicle creates a feeling of warmth inside by emanating sweeping lines of light around it. Toyota engineers created the Concept-i features based on their belief that “mobility technology should be warm, welcoming, and above all, fun.”

CONCLUSIONS:  To be quite honest, I was not really blown away with this year’s offerings.  I LOVE the Infinity and the Toyota concept car shown above.  The American models did not capture my attention. Just a thought.