The Aftermarket

It amazes me how poorly designed and poorly researched 90% of all aftermarket parts are that I've come accross. For every great company developing good car parts, nine more exist that seem to have no background in engineering. I'm no engineer either- but I'm no idiot- and the flaws in some products are insultingly obvious. What do they take me for?

The most recent embarassment of a product I've come accross was from none other than Subaru Performance Tuning (SPT). SPT is Subaru's own entry into the crowded aftermarket for their own vehicles, and SPT has the trump card of being the only products for the car that will not void any part of a customer's warranty. This implies several things to me, the foremost of which is an assurance that the product does not cause any malicious changes to the car.


However, just a cursury look at the intake reveals several problems:

1. The mass air flow sensor, a very precise instrument used to measure the volume of incoming air into the engine, is placed between two bends in the pipe. The sensor therefore receives a turbulent, uneven flow of air, for which the MAF is not calibrated.
2. The diameter of the intake is smaller than stock, causing air to flow faster through the tube. The mass air flow sensor thus reads higher, causing the engine to think more air is going into the engine than really is. As a result, the car will add too much fuel to the air/fuel mixture.
3. The intake draws in warm air from the engine bay, whereas the stock airbox draws in cold air from outside the hood. Warm air results is less dense with oxygen molecules and therefore contains less energy potential. This results in less power potential.
   
4. The intake uses a cotton filter. The filtering qualities of cotton filters are questionable versus the OE paper unit, however less debatable is the the additional servicing a cotton filter imposes. The oil used in the cotton can dirty the mass air flow sensor, requiring that it be cleaned (a delicate process) every 10,000 miles or so.

Now, I'm just some John Doe on the internet and a far cry away from the engineer types I envision devloping these products. However, these flaws are still pretty obvious to me, and they're flaws that could have been easily (and cheaply) circumvented. If I can see these problems, how can SPT not see them? How did Subaru approve it?

These very questions are what lead many of SPT's customers to disregard their better sense and ignore their doubts. Subaru's stamp of approval implied that all these seemingly obvious flaw were either imaginary or overcome. Besides, SPT claimed a horsepower gain, not a loss.

Cobb Tuning, a rival company well-known for Subaru aftermarket products, echo'd the comments of others and assured the intake would result in power loss and a poorer running engine. Upon request, Cobb tested the SPT intake and released this document showing their results:
http://www.cobbtuning.com/tech/instructions/SPTLegacyGT1.01.pdf

While the document should be taken as propoganda (it is from a rival company, after all), the results were rather expected. Some tests have been since repeated independently by users, adding validity to Cobb's document. In short, every assumed shortcoming of the SPT intake turned out to be valid.

I find it repulsive that aftermarket companies release these poorly designed products, and it's unfortnate that poor engineering can be found even in "official" products. Customers buying the SPT intake over another for the sake of keeping their factory warranty are only going to reduce the lifespan of their engine, even if only by a small amount.

I wish this was an isolated case, but poorly engineered products can be found in all corners of the aftermarket.

Aftermarket brake manufacturers are keen on pushing drilled rotors because they look cool. Drilling a blank rotor only reduces its braking capacity, which defeats the purpose of a brake rotor. Drilling stock-sized rotors is downright dangerous as you cripple braking below stock levels. Unfortunately, drilled rotors make up the vast majority of the aftermarket, and each one claims the (without any data) that drilling the rotor helps braking performance. These claims are wrong.

Aftermarket springs are often designed with a total disregard to load capacity, lowering the car far beyond safe levels on stock shock absorbers. The soft spring rates and reduced suspension travel usually rely on the car's urethane jounce bumpers to carry the extra load of the car. Not only does performance and ride quality suffer, but the sudden changes to spring rate from the car hitting these jounce bumpers makes for very unpredictable handling. Shock absorber life usually deteriorates rapidly. Tein is leading the development of awful springs with their "Style Master" line of springs, and I'll give them credit for at least disclosing the intent of the springs in the product name. Other companies promise better handling, and in most applications, this won't be the case.

Extremely progressive springs, extreme plus-sized wheels and tires, and nearly anything promising better fuel economy (tornado air intake, anyone?) are other automotive no-no's.

Now, I know I've written this article without documenting my latter claims, and I admit this is irresponsible. I think an in-depth discussion of each subject is beyond the scope of this tiny little blog entry. If you don't want to take my word as gospel, Google will find you plenty of information.

Just remember: buyer beware!

Drive smart: Don't brake.

Look, everyone makes a mistake now and then. Who hasn't cut someone else off, be it deliberate or accidental? These mistakes are generally forgivable- even the aggressive ones. Nope, the problems are the people that brake.

Sure, there are lots of reasons to brake- an animal approaching the road, an upcoming stoplight, or a patch of ice are all great reasons to brake. However, braking is far too common, and braking leads to jammed traffic.

The braking epidemic stems from this: drivers today cannot respect adequate following distances. Driving courses today teach two or three second following distances, and those distances are pretty ludicrous given the congestion in today's urban traffic. There are simply too many cars on the road today to respect those guidelines. An alert driver in a capable vehicle probably doesn't need to be so conservative for safety's sake. However, short following distances lead to traffic jams, and that is a problem drivers should not ignore. Packing more cars onto a highway doesn't help its capacity if traffic slows down!

The scenario plays out like this: driver A is driving with the flow of traffic, maintaining his or her speed. Driver B is doing the same, keeping just a few car-length's behind Driver A. However, neither are using cruise control, and so there speeds vary a small amount. Driver B finds him or herself needing to slow down, and since they have such a small following distance, they need do it immediately. So what happens? That person brakes, suddenly. Perhaps they only slow themselves down 1mph, or perhaps they slow themselves down 10mph. Driver C, following driver B, doesn't know how much the car in front is braking, and that person has to brake at least as much to avoid the chance of a rear-end collision. This chain reaction continues until a driver with a sufficient following distance is able to watch the driver preceeding them vary their speed without requiring any significant variation to his or her own speed. If the road is too crowded with non-existant following distances, the chain reaction will continue until a car ends up stopped.

The other cause of traffic comes when a driver has too large of a following distance: they're not going fast enough. This causes road rage, irrational thinking, and competition for the passing lane. When drivers get too aggressive in the passing lane, we get the same problem as in the first situation.

So while both overly aggressive and under-aggressive drivers can be blamed, the common element is this: braking is bad. Braking on a freeway is almost always the result of driver error, be it your error a person ahead of you. Braking is an admission of failure. When you're brake lights illuminate, it's a waving flag to the driver's behind you reading, "Look at me, I'm part of the problem!"

Braking not only causes traffic congestion, but it's purely wasted energy. Your brakes convert your vehicles energy into heat that will never be recovered. For every little bit you brake, that's work your engine did for nothing. Wasting energy seems pretty silly with gas prices being such a popular topic nowadays, doesn't it? Learning to drive for good gas mileage means learning to drive without braking. To that extent, I do find it quite inconsiderate to the drivers behind you to brake going downhill- regardless of the posted speed limit (residential/unsafe areas excluded). You're essentially forcing them to waste gas too.

Traffic only moves as fast as the very slowest car in that lane. By respecting a reasonable following distance, you will find yourself better able to maintain a constant speed. If you do need to slow, you will be able to do so more gradually so that the drivers following you will not need to react in panic and overcompensate. The reality is that you won't get where you're going any faster (since you can't control the car in front of you), but you'll be doing your part to help all the frustrated drivers behind you.

Drive smart. Look ahead and plan ahead when driving. Don't brake.

Must sporty and practical be oxymorons?

Don't get me wrong, there are many great cars out there. I just haven't found one I want to live with.

I like sports cars. Sure, there are many sports cars out there- just about every manufacturer has produced one as an icon car. Honda has the S2000, GM has the Corvette, and BMW has the Z4. I'd absolutely love to own any of these cars, except there's room in my stall for only one car, and those aren't versatile enough to live alone.

I'm not asking too much. I want a sports car that can haul me, my wife, a dog, and a suitcase. A two-seater with a reasonable hatch would suffice, but as it turns out, finding such a car has been very difficult!

May cars appear to fulfill this demand. The Acura RSX, Volkswagon GTI, Mazda3, and countless other cars try to market themselves as practical sports cars. They're not. Underneath their sporty skins lay nothing more than an economy commuter car chassis featuring McPherson struts, an open differential, and front wheel drive. Not sporty. These cars can be entertaining commuter cars, but their inherent limitations are difficult to ignore as they interrupt spirited driving. Nope, I want a practical sports car, not a poser.

Because marketing departments have totally butchered the significance of the word, let me clarify what a sports car is. I would define a sports car as a car that has been engineered with the capabilities of a race car in mind. The car must be built with the purpose of being fast, and that rules out front-wheel drive. A sports car has aggressive caster and camber curves, a low center of gravity, and a limited slip differential. It should offer good driver feedback through the suspension and steering while always keeping the driver secured in a well-bolstered seat. Physics require that sports cars be small and especially lightweight, and that means sacrificing at least some practicality. After all, common sense says that a large car will fit more than a small car. Realizing that most sports cars are shorter than a Honda Civic, I use the term "practical" relative to the car's size. That does not mean, however, that a small sports car cannot optimize its space and use it wisely. Sport and practicality need not be mutually exclusive.

Mazda's Miata may be the finest driving car I've ever had the pleasure of racing. I love the Miata- it's an absolute joy to drive. It exemplifies all sports car qualities marvelously. Yet, as much as I want one, I know I couldn't live with one. It only comes as a convertable. I can't live with the limited utility of a convertable, and that unfortunately rules out Honda's steller S2000 too. Why is there not a hard-top, hatchback version of these cars? They were the rage in the 90's: the Mazda RX-7, Nissan 300zx, and Toyota Supra were all hatchbacks.

The Nissan 350Z had promise with its two-seater hatch configuration, but has a suspension brace in the trunk so large it overwhelms any utility that portion of the car might have had. How necessary is that huge bar, and why couldn't the bracing have been incorporated into the nearby seat-backs?


Speaking of seat-backs, the Subaru WRX STi is a suped-up four door car with a reasonable trunk. Based on Subaru's Impreza small car, it will still haul four adults and some bags. However, in upgrading the suspension, chassis, and engine to its tuned state, Subaru removed any sort of trunk pass-through. Was there a reason for this? Likewise, the less extreme model, the standard WRX, has only a tiny trunk pass-through. The wagon version of the exact same car is the only model to get proper fold-down seats. Why? Surely if the wagon can use the fold-down seats, the stiffer sedan frame should be able to accommodate them too. Subaru seems to think that the faster the car gets, the less practical it should be. How am I to haul four racing tires to the track without a fold-down seat? Suburu had a great opportunity to make a truly practical sports car, but they chose otherwise.

This seems to be a trend. Mitsubishi did the same in their Lancer Evolution and Mazda in the Mazdaspeed6. In the Mazdaspeed6, the same fold-down seats are actually installed but with no lever mechanism to actually allow the seats to be lowered! Why must sporty and practicality be oxymorons?

Sports cars can be designed with practicality in mind. They have before, and I believe they will again. Behold what I consider to be one of the greatest cars ever designed: the BMW Z3 Coupe.

The Z3 Coupe was based on a covertable, but BMW realized a drop-top does not work as a single car. They added a fixed roof in the form of a hatchback, and in doing so added nearly 10 cubic feet of cargo space- not bad! See- sport and practicality need not be mutually exclusive!

Not only did the car have some semblance of practicality, but the addition of the roof made the chassis stiffer and therefore the car actually outperformed its roadster sibling. BMW made the car more practical AND improved its performance simultaneously. Why didn't other manufacturers do this too?

Many sports cars were hatchbacks in the early 90's. Those sports cars strangely disappeared and nowadays impracticality and short-sightedness seems to be the trend. I'm happy to report this trend appears to be dying it's rightful death. BMW is introducing the tiny four-door 1-series as a driver-oriented, rear-wheel drive alternative to the economy-based hatches from Volkswagon, Mazda, Honda, and more. Unfortunately, it's price matches its performance, but BMW is a marque substantial enough to start a trend. BMW is also introducing (finally!) a Z4 Coupe, a replacement for the above Z3 Coupe.

Mazda is taking the concept of a practical sports car much further. The Kubaru concept may become the Mazda MX-3, and it has a cabin layout unlike any other car... ever. Mazda calls it 3+1 seating, and it features three full size seats and a fourth tiny fold-down half-seat. All but the driver's seat fold flat for further versatility.



This car is based on the Miata's chassis: it's rear wheel drive, lightweight, and nimble. The addition of the strength-adding roof may prove allow this versatile four-seater to outperform its parent. An engineer commented that despite the four seats and lengthened wheelbase, the Kabura may actually weigh less than the Miata, delivering many inherent benefits. It's a win-win-win design.

So why did the market become so void of these clever designs? I can't fathom choosing a slower, heavier, less versatile, less secure, and less interesting roadster over its sister coupe. I can't be alone.

The public needs LSDs!

Limited slip differentials belong on every car.

My car, just like nearly every other front-wheel drive car on the market today, has an open differential. Today, only select sports cars have limited slip differentials installed from the factory. They're seldom even offered as optional equipment. What gives?

My best guess is that the average car buyer does not know what a limited slip differential is or why they'd need one. Perhaps if buyers knew what they were missing, they'd appreciate the option of plunking down $500 for a proper differential alongside $1200 appearance packages.

If you don't have a limited slip differential, you have a differential that does not- as the name implies- limit slip. This "unlimited slip" differential is is called an open differential. An open differential is very simple, and it results in your engine sending its torque to the wheel with the LEAST amount of traction. Take a moment to think about that- today's powerful modern engine (many over 250hp) send all its power to the wheel with the LEAST amount of traction! It doesn't take much thought to conclude this is a very bad thing! All it takes is one wheel to slip before your entire car becomes crippled. With 250hp available, even the most aggressive tires are going to feel a bit overwhelmed. Once a tire starts slipping, its grip drops rather drastically, escalating the problem until the driver eases up on the gas pedal. Because only one wheel need lose its footing for the car to become immobilized, many automotive enthusiasts hence refer to open-differential vehicles as one-wheel drive.

In practical terms, an open-differential means that if one of your front tires is on slick ice and the other one on grippy ashphalt, your car won't go anywhere. It won't matter that the other three wheels are on asphalt- you're stuck. This embarassing moment is the very reason why many people feel more comfortable in all-wheel drive vehicles, which almost always have at least one limited slip differential. I think most drivers don't realize exactly why they're stuck, and car companies just love to take advantage of this by selling you a complex all-wheel drive system rather than a comparitavely inexpensive limited-slip upgrade.

A torsen (torque-sensing) limited slip differential sends your engine's torque to the tire with the MOST traction. One tire in your car will almost always have some traction, and a torsen limited slip will automatically maintain the delicate balance of traction between the two tires. It truly is the difference between one-wheel drive and two-wheel drive.

I think front or rear-wheel drive cars have bad reputations for snow vehicles not because of their drivetrain layout, but because the cars are built with open differentials. Two wheel drive isn't bad if you actually can use both wheels, but that dang open-differential only utilizes the wheel with the least amount of traction! Thus, the market for all-wheel drive vehicles is currently booming.

More often than not all-wheel drive is an overkill solution- and one that's not without penalties. In mass, a limited slip differential does not cost more than a few hundred dollars to build, making it far less expensive than all-wheel drive. Also unlike all-wheel drive, it doesn't take up extra space, reduce fuel economy, or add significantly to a vehicle's weight. A limited slip differential fits right where the existing differential resides, thus every car could accomodate one. And it's not just useful in snow, either. It's for wet roads or the occasional patch of loose gravel, too. Who hasn't accidentally spun a tire on a damp road when the light turned green? The benefits would be felt in every drive.

However, customers like the idea of "all wheel drive" when car shopping. More is better, right? Manufacturers have been quickly adopting all-wheel drive systems as optional equipment on their vehicles to attract more customers. Meanwhile, even those few cars built with limited slip differentials hardly advertise this fact. Despite their importance, America has historically not responded to the advertising of a limited slip differential. There is little demand (or perhaps little driver education), so manufacturers do not build them. Because manufacturers do not build them, consumers do not realize what they are missing.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Obesity up in America. Among cars.

You don't have to be fat in America to be part of the obesity problem- you just have to think fat.

Granted, obesity is a huge and disgusting problem in this country, considered an "epidemic". Right. Let's name it the "Prosperity Epidemic". Let's face it, if people in this country weren't so wealthy for doing so little physical work, we wouldn't have obesity. However, this "Prosperity Epidemic" goes much further than the millions that gorge themselves on super-sized American meals every day. It can be seen in other things too. Take, for instance, cars.

SUVs rule the roads. They're inefficient debacles of vehicles, about as inappropriate for city driving as a salad is at McDonalds. Yet, in America, they are the rage. And the buzz about them is all good. "A modern SUV handles as good as a sports car," one co-worker informed me. Clearly GM's advertising department has succeeded where there engineering department has failed.

SUVs do not handle like sports cars. These days, even sports cars don't handle like sports cars. Everything in America is fat. SUVs are not only models of inefficiency, but they have also become the benchmark by which cars are compared. Take, for instance, the new Chrysler 300. This is a car set to rival SUVs not in cargo space, but in heft. It weighs in at two tons and has a 5.7l Hemi V8, just like the big SUVs. It consequently has the gas mileage to rival one too. And while sucking down gasoline like Cookie Jarvis, the so-called "muscle-car" can not out-run some other cars with a full two-hundred less ft-lbs of torque under the hood.

That is the trend.

Manufacturers are not making lighter, more practical vehicles. Nope. Instead manufacturers are throwing technology at the problem. The Chrysler 300 deactivates half of its cylinders when they're not needed to improve fuel efficiency. Other manufacturers, such as Ford, Toyota, and Honda, are promising hybrid-electric vehicles as their savior. We are seeing the birth of the hybrid SUV- an even porkier version of the original.

In America, that's how we fix things- we throw technology at a problem rather than fixing the cause. Technology gives the big car companies something to market, even if they're blowing smoke. Do we stop eating when we get fat? No! Why sacrifice? Instead, we join the latest fad diet and, when it fails, blame it for our failure. Hybrids are that latest fad diet.

In case you think these opinions do not have a foundation in real science, let me explain why:

Boxy trucks have both a low drag coefficient and a large front surface area. More curvatious vehicles may be more aerodynamic, as the advertisements are quick to inform you, but so long as the vehicle is large it'll still have a large front surface area for that drag to occur on. Highway mileage is almost directly proportional to this drag because "air" is the primary force your vehicle is fighting against on the highway. Remember an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force. Wind resistance is that force. When you buy a "hybrid" SUV, you are not reducing the drag on the car, nor are you aleviating the amount of work required by the engine. Highway mileage is thus virtually uneffected in a hybrid because the "electric" portion of the engine cannot regenerate. Meanwhile, the smaller gasoline engine has to work to its full capacity just to maintain your speed. Not surprisingly, the passing power of a hybrid is unimpressive.

The drag on SUVs (and trucks in general) is so bad that your gas mileage is said to actually decrease over 45mph. A modern car sees its best mileage at a much more typical 60mph. Ever see an SUV in the fast lane going 85mph? Some vehicles get as much as 5 miles-per-gallon less by going 10mph past their optimal zone. In an SUV, you can get half the highway mileage at 75mph compared to 55mph. Now, many modern car-based SUVs have a smaller profile to aleviate this issue, but it's far from gone. Even Honda, reknown for their fuel efficiency, can only muster a 23mpg highway rating for their Pilot SUV- and that's for the standard 45-55mph test. Not surprisingly, owners often report less. Hybrids do not fix this issue, nor do they even alleviate it. Even the makers of hybrid vehicles will tell you that the highway ratings on the cars are a compelte farse- some, like Toyota, are honest and are trying to get the NHTSA to revise the fuel efficiency tests for hybrids.

What hybrids do help is stop-and-go traffic. Whenever you hit the brakes in your vehicle, you are converting energy to heat- which is essentially wasted energy. Thus, any time you use your brake, you have wasted energy and thus wasted gasoline. (A smart driver uses his or her brake less.) Hybrids aim to fix this by storing the energy that would be otherwise wasted by braking. They do this reasonably well at the expense of a huge battery and additional electronics.

However, there is a drawback to this- the heavier your car, the more work it takes to move and stop it. The vehicle needs a more powerful engine (again, proportional to its weight) just to accelerate at the same rate as a smaller vehicle. When you buy a "hybrid" vehicle, you add the weight of a huge battery pack to the car- often more than 200lbs. While this weight more than makes up for itself mileage-wie in stop-and-go traffic, its benefits stop there.

Here's where my bias enters in. I hate heavy cars on an purely emtional level, too. No matter how big the engine, they make poor sports cars. I like sports cars.

Heavy cars feel heavy when you drive them. Driving a small, lightweight car such as a Mini Cooper, and you feel the difference. If you are used to a larger car, the sensation is akin to driving a go-kart. It's incredible if you're used to large vehicles- the car changes directions much quicker, responding immediatly. Hybrids adds enough complexity to the vehicle that they could eliminate the lightweight, fun-to-drive car, and for this I admit, I'm bitter.

Hybrids are not the answer to poor gas mileage, at least the way they're currently being employed. Smaller, lighter vehicles are. That does NOT mean less comfortable vehicles are required- hardly! It only means more efficient packaging of vehicles need to infiltrate the market, and us Americans need to drop the ego and purchase cars based on value and practicality instead of image. We don't. That's why the hatchback and wagon- the two most efficiently packaged vehicles on the road- went the way of the Dodo in the early 90's. In America, the efficient-yet-practical car does not really exist in our market, with only a handful of exceptions. Mazda has introduced the Mazda6 wagon, Subaru the WRX Wagon, Mini the Cooper, and a few others- these cars are all great examples of good packaging.

I don't think wagons are uncool. I think they're smart. Wagons can be small, efficient, and roomy. They make much more sense for the average SUV shopper.

In Europe, fuel-efficient cars have been around for decades. Some of Europe's small cars have more cargo room than America's family sedans! Even better yet, those European cars best the modern hybrid for fuel efficiency, too! Jeremy Clarkson of the Top Gear motoring show reports getting roughly 40mpg in Toyota's Prius hybrid while getting double the mileage in a similarly-sized diesel car. That diesel car does not have expensive batteries to replace and- amazingly- had much more highway passing power! Diesel fuel contains more energy than our typical petrol, and because hybrids use petrol as fuel, they cannot match a diesel engine for highway fuel efficiency. Studies show that even in stop-and-go traffic, where hybrids can shine, they still fall short of a diesel.

Yet the American government gives a tax credit for hybrids. No such credit is given to diesels or petrol cars that by way of being lightweight and smart acheive the same fuel efficiency. Here the government is interfering with our free market society to create an artificial demand for these inferior designs.

But even ignoring fuel efficiency, the experience of driving a large, heavy hybrid pales in comparison to their smaller European small-car counterparts. The typical American sedan has become painfully boring- it's an appliance not unlike the ones you find in your kitchen. No wonder everyone uses their cell phone when driving- they're probably bored to tears. The emotion and fun of driving has been lost. It's no surprise that many driving enthusiasts opt for older vehicles when tuning a weekend for-fun car. Honda's Civc has grown from 2100lbs to 2700lbs in ten years. BMW's M3 had a similar growth. Actually, most cars have. For what?

The growth spurt of the American vehicle ends at the SUV- the biggest, heaviest, largest vehicles consumers can drive on the road.

SUV's (and to a lesser extent, some large cars) have a high center of gravity. I'd argue that it is impossible to drive a car with a high center of gravity safely on a crowded roadway among smaller, nimbler vehicles. Driving tests in America do not prepare drivers for the responsiblity of driving such a clumsy vehicle. Our nations's truckers have to get a special license, and while certainly less critical, the same additional skills are required for driving an SUV.

I have a high appreciation for what an automobile can do, and when driving in an SUV the slow response of the steering wheel and poor braking do anything but make me feel safe. I feel even worse when an SUV is driving behind me. If I had to do an emergency stop in my own vehicle, I know for absolute certain that the SUV behind me would not be able to stop as fast nor turn to avoid me. Those who think SUVs are safer need a wake-up call- they're no safer for you, but they're far more dangerous to other drivers. Have fun living with the consequences of that.

The marketing departments of auto manufacturers would have us believe SUVs are sporty. Their commercials tell us so. SUVs continue to come with larger, more powerful engines telling us they're faster. Isn't this just making the cars more dangerous? What hasn't changed in SUV may be the most relevent to its safety: the vehicle's height.

The higher the center of gravity a vehicle has, the more weight it transfers from wheel-to-wheel when doing normal tasks such as braking, accelerating, and turning. When more weight transfers from left to right, or fore to aft, those tires become saturated from the extra weight (one reason why lightweight cars are so much more responsive). Thus, in a car with a high center of gravity tries to turn or stop, the tires become overwhelmed much more quickly than a lighter weight vehicle's tires would. The coefficient of friction of the tire drops, and thus the vehicle does not have as much traction. SUV's typically seat the passenger as high up as possible to give an empowering feeling to the driver, when in actuallity this is hurting the mobility of the vehicle.

The end result is a vehicle with low traction, somewhat akin to driving a normal car in the rain. The amount of grip an SUV has in dry weather measures roughly the same as a car in wet weather, and often even lower. Think about that- shouldn't drivers slow down in the rain?

Ford may advertise stability control to prevent the vehicle from rolling over in an accident, but the physics governing the vehicle's mass haven't changed. Stability control cannot add grip to the tires nor can it reduce the weight transfer for a given lateral force. The only way to prevent an SUV from rolling over is to reduce the lateral force the vehicle is capable of: in other words, by reducing grip even further. Grippy tires on an SUV actually make it more of a rollover hazzard.

Despite all these traits of SUVs- many of them unavoidable- SUVs remain The Thing To Have. Perhaps we need better driver education of what they're buying, or perhaps we just need to double fines for SUVs caught speeding. I hope that rising gas prices will spark some consumer awareness about the subject, though so far all I've heard from my peers is complaints. What do you often hear: "Gas prices are too high!" or, "I drive an inefficient vehicle!" Sure, oil companies are gouging, but the drivers still allowed themselves to be trapped by the oil companies.

As I said, I'm in favor of lighter vehicles. I envy cars like the Lotus Elise, which weighs 1900lbs. Being a sports car, it certainly isn't for everyone, however what if some of the same concepts- such as an aluminum tub chassis- were applied to a commuter car? The Elise has a 1.8l 4-cylinder engine, just like economy cars, however the Lotus Elise will hit 60mph in nearly five seconds due to its light weight. It's fuel economy is stellar for a sports car, and should a child run out in front of the car, it'll stop quicker than nearly anything else on the road. Such a lightweight car means putting less stress on the brakes, engine, tires, and road, reducing ownership costs and producing less total waste.

The lightweight materials cost more, but so do the huge batteries that power hybrids. For $3000, I'd much rather have a car constructed of aluminum than a steel car with heavy batteries. The reason is this: a lightweight car drives has benefits far more numerous. The entire driving experience is improved, so paying more for a lighter-weight vehicle makes sense. There is only reason to buy a hybrid vehicle, and that is as an investment into lower gasoline costs. The decision of buying a hybrid comes down to a simple bottom line determining cost of ownership. Lightweight cars can deliver impressive fuel economy savings too, but the improvements go much further than a simple cost-of-ownership calculation. They're lively.

Now, if Lotus would convert the Elise into a wagon, it could set the industry on fire. Sure, the extremist Elise would take some refinements to get it ready for the mainstream public, but even after adding 300lbs of additional sheet metal and sound insulation, it'd still be the third lightest vehicle in America today. Maybe they could offer the car as a diesel, too? The previous European Elise was said to acheive over 50mpg with a dated petrol engine, and I'd bet a modern diesel could average over 75mpg. That's better than any hybrid ever built, and this hypothetical Elise would still out-gun any SUV on the road.

Maybe it's an extreme example, but the point remains: lighter weight vehicles need to be in sharper focus for the automotive industry.

For more information on SUV's, go here: http://www.suv.org/safety.html