There's Only One "ME" in Team

In an effort to truly understand the barriers to change in the automotive industry, our research has made it clear that there are a myriad of dynamics that led to where we are today - a fleet of vehicles with fuel efficiency that has actually decreased over the past 20 years.

Still, we're not much for looking backward and placing blame.  The situation is what it is, all for completely understandable (if not defensible) reasons.  The time is right for major changes, and the Automotive X PRIZE will set the stage to see radical breakthroughs emerge.

Today, a headline brought me back to a more direct message that underlies our efforts - U.S. Population on Track to 300 Million.

That's a lot of people using a lot of stuff.  Yes, we desperately need more fuel-efficient vehicles.  And yes, we absolutely need clean alternative fuels to help displace petroleum.

But what about you and me, two little heads in the crowd of 300 million?  Where do we fit in this dynamic?

Most of the large auto manufacturers would argue that they've just been selling you what you want for the last 20+ years.  Why?  Simple.  Because we buy what they offer.

Damn, you mean it's not just the MAN?!?

Complacency gets the better of us all the time.  History has shown that we take the easy route, rather than the right one, more often than not.

So, while the teams that compete for the Automotive X PRIZE will be rising to the challenge to do their part, what will you do?

There's something here for everyone to get behind, whether your primary concern is energy security, global warming, clean air, economics, or any of the issues that the Automotive X PRIZE touches.  If we are to change our course to preserve a livable planet for our grandchildren, we need to examine just why we do what we do.  It is time for us all to ask, "How am I a part of the problem, or a part of the solution?"

Do I really need my 8-seat SUV (which I can easily rent for the rare times I use the full capacity), or would I be better off with something less extravagant? 

If most days I travel 10-30 miles, how much vehicle do I really need?

How fast is fast enough?  Do I really care what my 0-60 time is, or do I just want to be able to merge safely on the freeway and pass someone if I have to?

Do I really need my car to last 10 years, or 100 thousand miles?  What if cars were half as expensive and built to last half that time/distance?

Is a bigger vehicle really safer?

When is the last time I walked to the market?  Took the bus?  Rode my bike?

Do I care enough to change?

I happen to believe that, if we stop to think, most of us don't really want what we're being sold.  Extra power, performance and size are nice when we don't think beyond ourselves.  But at the cost of our health, our economy, and the political and social stability of the world?

The Automotive X PRIZE will showcase the heroes that commit to bringing you clean, super-efficient vehicles that meet your needs (for price, size, capability, image, safety, performance, etc.).

It's up to all of us to support the innovation and change they bring to market.

Comments

[Jim Robb]

Neal,

I'm ready! I think Velomobiles have a promising start on the goals and desires you stated. Let's not be ruled by the "transportation bigots" who believe that less horsepower= wimp. We have need a radical shift in mindset similar to the equal-rights movement of the 60s. Keep up the good work!

[Roderick Wilde]

I do agree that each person is responsible for their own choices and to change their behavior when it comes to transportation decisions. But on the other hand our choices are greatly influenced by peer pressure and the media. Auto makers have always told us what is sexy, masculine or cool to drive through their marketing departments. We are bombarded with this daily in print ads, radio and especially TV. It is hard for the average consumer to escape this sort of intense pressure.
Part of me believes we will not see a major change in people's behavior until their pocket book is really hit hard. Three dollar a gallon gas did get some folks to thinking about transportation choices. I sincerely believe that if gas were to rise to twenty dollars a gallon within a six month period you would see a major shift in behavior. After all, it is a survival situation at this point for many.
I do however believe that change can come through education. With many organizations like this one working in concert with other organizations on a common goal change can occur. I just feel it will come much more slowly.
I do look forward to the day when someone is going to the store in their Velomobile and they get a thumbs up from passersby and the loan driver of an SUV gets a scowl and a thumbs down. Peer pressure can indeed be a powerful force for change.

Roderick Wilde

[Joe Willemssen]

"a fleet of vehicles with fuel efficiency that has actually decreased over the past 20 years."

I think the terminology needs to be clarified. In 1983, the US light vehicle fleet averaged 7,743 BTU/vehicle-mile (16.1 mpg). In 2003, that number was 6,109 BTU/vehicle-mile (20.5 mpg).

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Spreadsheets/Table2_11.xls

Now if you're talking about the rated fuel economy of new vehicles sold, then that's essentially an accurate claim.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Spreadsheets/Table4_17.xls

What's odd is that the number for 05-06 (21 mpg) in the original post, taken from the WaPo, is much closer to actual total fleet average than the average of new vehicles (which was 25.2 mpg in 2005).

Either way, not much to crow about in terms of fuel economy. You've got a worthy goal with this prize.

[Michael Kirchner]

This lame justification for the abysmal average MPG is both pre-fabricated and self fulfilling. It is safe to say that no single vehicle buyer ever preferred or requested lower gas mileage.

If this "we only build what people want" mentality were some kind of universal truth, progress as we know it would not exist. There was no clamor for e-mail when PCs were first introduced. There was no great demand for cellular phones when they were first invented. They were initially relegated to doctors and drug dealers. We wouldn't even have seat belts or air-bags. Their widespread use was forced on auto makers by governmental pressures. In fact, the automobile itself would not exist, as it was originally ridiculed as a useless toy by horse and buggy users.

As far as more efficient vehicles being "un-sellable" or having "no market appeal" (as we have heard from Detroit in the past), this was proven wrong years ago by GMs EV-1 electric vehicle. While hardly comparable in range or power, GM did lease every EV-1 it produced and faced public protests when they forcibly removed it from the market. This is not to mention the explosive popularity of today’s hybrid-electric vehicles or the continuing, if unfulfilled, interest in hydrogen, ethanol and other cleaner, renewable, alternative fuels.

Given the global automakers’ unwillingness, or inability, to introduce real change to the status quo, a public and popular contest like the Automotive X Prize is both welcome and necessary. I eagerly await the official rules of the contest and the technological innovations the many contestants will eventually bring to market.

[William Bunker]

THE REASON THAT SMALL FUEL EFFICIENT CARS ARE NOT BEING BUILT IN THE UNITED STATED.

The American car buying public is divided into two groups.

On the one hand we have the rich and upper middle class that can afford to buy, care for, insure and feed a new car every few years or so. When buying a car they have grown accustomed to paying in access of $20,000. In this price range the percentage of total cost per mile spent on gas is very small and easily over looked when faced with giving up luxuries like air conditioning, seating for 5 or more passengers, curb appeal and image status. In short they can afford to waste gas, and they do.

On the other hand we have most every one else, the ones that can not afford a new car. They must buy used cars. When they go to the used car lot they are faced with the castoffs from the upper classes. That is why you often see people who are just scraping by driving 10 year old Cadillacs that get 9 miles to the gallon.

With this in mind is it any wonder that the auto manufacturers in America do not make stripped down economy cars that get 60 to 70 MPG. To whom would they sell them? The rich don’t want them and the poor can’t afford them, opting instead for a, less expensive, used gas-guzzler, that is why cars like the Geo Metro XFI where quietly discontinued for lack of sales. As inexpensive as they where they were, they were more expensive then a used car.

Expensive high-tech cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight will never be more then a boutique market. They will be sold to those that can afford to waste gas but choose to be, or would like to appear to be, environmentally friendly. A rare bird indeed is the rich environmentalist.

The only hope for getting a large number of high fuel mileage cars on the roads in America is to build them so inexpensively that they can compete in the used car market.

But even if such a car can be built, and that is doubtful considering the cost restraints, it probable will not be built by the large American auto manufacturers. They would have to build 10 to 15 of them to make the same profit that they make on one Hummer.

So, were does that leave us? That leaves in a situation were no one who expects to stay in business very long is going to build and sell small economy cars in the US. The rich don’t wont them and the poor can’t afford them.

I am not intending to spread gloom and doom. I just think that clarification of the problem will save those that hope to solve this problem a good deal hart-ache from beating their head against a brick wall.

[netguyct]

Instead of a $20 tax on a gallon of gas, consider an IRS rebate or write off on highly efficient vehicles.

Immediately following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the President pushed through a one-time total write off of vehicles weighing over 6000 pounds (I'll refrain from my usual additional comments about this), ostensibly to spur the economy.

A tax on gas will hurt those unable to afford the newer, fuel-efficient cars. The write-off will get more of the high mileage cars on the road and into the cycle of "hand-me-downs"

Me? I own a 7000 pound truck that I need for my second job. I finally was able to save enough to buy a Scion xA for commuting to my primary job. My truck has averaged 13mpg over its life so far. My Scion is averaging mid-30s. In my analysis, I realized that if this consulting assignment lasts another 10 months, I will NOT use more than 3800 gallons of gas getting to/from work. This basic, fuel efficient car will pay for itself in gas savings in under 2 years at 2.30 /gal.
I would have been able to do this 20 thousand miles or so ago with a significant rebate or write off program.