Return to index.




                A "short" story!
               
At the F1 German GP last weekend, a fire occurred on a Toro Rosso car.  

Another fire has happened in Hungary this week, but I don't have much detail at the time of writing.

In Germany, I counted fourteen bottles of fire extinguisher fluids and powders, being used on the fire and it still continued to burn.

Why?

Because it wasn't gasoline or oil, as the marshals assumed, but an electrical short in those pesky lithium batteries.
And with the massive amount ot of stored energy in those things, the fire cannot be subdued.

I know I'm going on about this ad infinitum, but the whole purpose of this website is to give the average car owner some insight into
what to choose in the way of transportation to keep over a long period of time and why it is so important to make all the right decisions
to achieve lowest ownership costs with the maximum amount of  driver satisfaction.

And battery cars are not developed enough to qualify - not yet and not for a long time.

I still think that the Malaysian Airlines MH17 disaster has something to do with the massive payload of lithium batteries that were onboard.

For further insight, take a look at my Tesalfile  page and you'll see what I mean.



I doubt that I’m alone in feeling a bit disturbed by the media’s breathless coverage of the autonomous car and the industry’s aggressive forecasts for it.

Sure, seeing a glimpse of how Google Car is driving on surface streets in Mountain View, Calif., is exciting. But when I hear BMW predicting fully automated cars by 2025, I can’t help but say, “Oh, come on, man.”

Granted: Ten years is an eternity in the Internet era.

But picture a “driver” in an autonomous car in 2025 trying to go from Russia to Germany, or New York to Florida? Each country and, in the case of the United States, each state, has different vehicle regulations. Aligning all the laws and regulations in 10 years will be no easy task.

I suspect what’s discussed today as an "autonomous car" is likely to emerge in phases. These cars in each phase will come with fine print stipulating the conditions under which they must be driven.

Obviously, the automotive industry and technology suppliers have every incentive to paint a bright future for autonomous cars. It’s not just BMW. Practically every carmaker is hot to trot out multiple ADAS (advanced driving assistance system) features in their new models.

NCAP effect

Everyone's gunning for the top overall rating of five stars from the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) -- either the Euro or North American version -- which publishes safety reports on new cars.

But when car companies start pitching ADAS as an important first step for the self-driving car era, well, let’s not hold our breath. After all, highly automated cars and autonomous cars aren’t the same thing. In fact, there’s a huge gap.

Driving ADAS won’t be just sensor ICs, radar, and cameras, although they are a big part of what constitutes the ADAS chip market today.

Other components contributing to ADAS growth include microprocessors, microcontrollers, FPGAs, and memory. If image sensors are equivalent to “cars’ eyes,” these are the “cars’ brain,”.

Either way, how many more “advanced” driver assistance features a car is designed to offer determines the level of the processors, radars, and sensors the car requires.

Evolution from ADAS to autonomous to fully autonomous.

ADAS, in fact, comes into two classes: passive and active. Passive ADAS, for example, warns a driver when the car starts to veer off the center of a lane. It takes active ADAS for the car to actually intervene, by nudging the steering wheel and putting the car back on center. Active ADAS, if necessary, would brake the car if it sees imminent danger on the road ahead. In contrast, passive ADAS would simply warn the driver.

In implementing active ADAS functions such as automatic emergency braking (AEB), adaptive cruise control (ACC), and lane keeping assist (LKA), we are asking the car to interpret road signs and road conditions, make an appropriate decision, and take the wheel from the driver. Surely, this level of control would require a redundant system to be built in, so that the extra computational power would double-check the situation.

Some ADAS functions such as automatic braking, steering, and platooning are expected to emerge in the next five years, according to the IHS analyst. But again, that’s not the same thing as autonomous cars, he cautions.

In order to make a car self-driving, carmakers need to first connect all the systems together. Separate ADAS features should no longer operate independently. They need to be integrated into one coherent system so that a car can drive itself from point A to point B without driver involvement.

But even then, autonomous cars aren’t the same as “fully autonomous cars,”. The autonomous car will initially coming with different constraints -- in terms of when, where, and how a driver can use the car in autonomous mode. More specifically, there will be specific constraints such as which streets accommodate autonomous driving, at what speed, under what weather conditions (no snow, for example!), and so on.

That’s a lot of restrictions, when you come to think of it.

My forecast? I’ll be surprised if you are riding shotgun in a fully autonomous car -- without any of those constraints -- 30 years from now.


I won't be around and I'm not sure I care - at least as a car enthusiast.




I
T'S POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE, DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MANIA
.



This revelation may not come as a surprise to you. What MAY be a surprise is how much nanny state regulation is costing you.

For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.

Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.

Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.
But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.

It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions.

But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?
In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than  35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent  of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.

This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the  US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

Why should it do this?

Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being  the impression of much faster warming. They draw their conclusions accordingly.

Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and  a standstill thereafter.

The US is, after all, only a  small proportion of the globe.

Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.

We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.

But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.

As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…
In the meantime, you can safely and with an easy conscience, buy and drive any vehicle you want. You do not have buy a battery car to save the planet, because you're not.




 


You may have noticed that I don't generally bother to mention air bag recalls on my recall page.

Lately, I've also been ignoring GMs' ignition switch problem because it's so huge that even Brian Williams has noticed,
being diverted away form his fascination with dust bowls (has happened before), floods (has happened many times before)
and forest fires (they happen all the time).
 

I have long held the opinion that airbags are credited with saving lives, when their effect in any given crash is debatable.

People call me up and ask how many air bags a particular model of car has, as though that was the only criteria by which a
new car should be chosen.

The real question is how many seat belts does the car have, because all the responsibility for your safety lies with the belts
and not with the air bags.

For instance and in confirmation of this, when New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was critically injured in an SUV crash, 
investigators now concede  that the SUV was doing 91 mph in a 65 mph zone with its emergency lights flashing.

Corzine – who was in critical condition – was on his way to a meeting between radio personality Don Imus
and the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, and was reportedly running late.

The SUV crashed into a guard-rail and Corzine, who wasn’t wearing a seat belt at the time, suffered multiple broken bones.
The trooper behind the wheel was wearing his seat belt and had minor injuries.

Corzine broke a thigh bone, ribs, his breastbone and collarbone. Doctors say it could be six months before he regains the use
of his leg.

My question is:

Where were the air bags in all of this and what were they doing? They undoubtedly deployed, but as long has been the case, they
were absolutely useless without the primary protection provided by the seat belts.

Air bags were initially designed to protect an unbelted adult male in a 30 mph crash. But do air bags protect a child passenger?
And are air bags really effective in protecting unrestrained adults?

Air bags are said to reduce the overall risk of passenger death in all crashes by 12 percent, but for some passengers
- including young children - air bags may increase the overall risk of death. 

While air bags reduced the risk of death by 15 percent for restrained passengers in crashes, air bags afforded no protection
against death or serious injury for those passengers who weren't wearing seat belts.

Air bags are associated with a net increase in the risk of death among children ages 12 and under.

Because the effect of air bags may be related to passenger age, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ruled in
1997 that vehicle owners could have a switch installed to deactivate a passenger air bag and I wonder what that tells us
- exactly? Probably that the air bag is not considered to be vital to the survival of passengers in a crash.

The agency also advised that children younger than 13 years old should ride in the rear seat and that, of-course, is a no brainer.

Children do NOT belong in the front seats of a vehicle, although I think that the specified age of thirteen is probably a bit restrictive
and over zealous.

Although air bags were intended to offer protection to passengers who aren't restrained, they are a hazard to unrestrained children
and offer little benefit to unrestrained adults. This unfortunate accident last week once again supports the conclusion that the theory
of "no seat belt, no protection" really holds true. 

Sometimes it isn't possible to put a child in the rear seat because the vehicle may lack a rear seat or that seat is already filled with
other children, in which case, a bigger vehicle may be needed, or if the transportation of children is a regular occurrence,
a seat belt switch may be installed, with a special release from the DoT.

A lot of pick up trucks already have passengers side air bag switches for this very reason..





The big yawn, heard around the world, because the numbers just don't add up.


FIAT 500e Please - don't buy me.

Who are losing out to those 35,000 annual car sales at Tesla? I assume that we can allocate those 35,000 cars into seven buckets of 5,000 cars each.

These seven competitive buckets would be Toyota/Lexus, General Motors/Cadillac, BMW/Rolls-Royce, Mercedes, VW/Audi/Bentley, Nissan/Infiniti and Ford/Lincoln. One could also envision Honda)/Acura, Subaru, Volvo, Tata)/LandRover/Jaguar and Chrysler-Fiat, but the precise breakdown is not important for this discussion.


Let's say you are one of these seven entities losing 5,000 car sales per year each, what's at stake for each of them? General Motors has annual sales of approximately $150 billion. 5,000 cars at a price similar to Tesla -- $100,000 each -- would mean $500 million in lost sales.

$500 million. Per year. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? Well, it's one-third of one percent of GM's sales.

One third of one percent is a rounding error for GM. This quarter alone, GM's recall-related charges are estimated to be $700 million. That's $2.8 billion annualized, or almost six times as large as Tesla's sales impact on GM.


$500 million in revenue is what GM books on the average day, seven days a week. So losing one such day is sort of like that once-in-a-year snow day. The day when the kids -- er, factory workers -- get to stay home. And they still have a few sick days to take out.


Lost sales, however, is just one part of the equation. To theoretically "win it back" -- those 5,000 cars -- you would have to invest in R&D. The automotive R&D cycle tends to be five years in length.


How much would you have to invest to create the car that would save you from the 5,000 unit sales loss to Tesla? We can look at how much Tesla spent on
R&D over five years, how much GM spent on the Volt program, how much Nissan spent on the Leaf, or how much BMW spent on the i series car development.

Broadly speaking, I assume the amount would be approximately $1 billion -- or $200 million per year -- to develop a Tesla Model S competitor.

$1 billion in R&D cost divided by 5,000 cars is $200,000 -- but that's not fair, given the five-year cycle of a model generation. Therefore, the real number is $40,000 per car -- one fifth of $200,000.

$40,000 in R&D cost on a $100,000 car is 40%. Tesla's gross margin is barely over 25%, which is considered a high number in the industry. For a competitor working under these kinds of economics, it therefore means a 15% loss (25% minus 40%) based on R&D expense alone.


That's a $15,000 loss per car, and we haven't even started talking about sales and marketing expense and other overhead. Perhaps FCA (Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles) CEO Sergio Marchionne had a point after all when he said he loses $14,000 per electric car he sells -- the Fiat 500e, which is sold only in California in order to comply with government red tape.


Then you have the issue of how many of Tesla's 35,000 annual sales could even be "won back." We have, after all, a new competitor in the industry. The Tesla product is great. Surely Tesla, while very small, has now secured a greater-than-zero presence in the industry. Why should Tesla somehow lose all of those 35,000 sales even if competition emerges? Just because others too eventually show up with great products?


In other words, perhaps the seven major competitors can't win 5,000 cars back, each, even if they tried. In that case, their economics for trying starts to look even worse.


One of the major counter-arguments against this whole reasoning is obviously this: Yes, we are only talking about 35,000 cars per year in 2014. However, by 2017, 2018 or 2019 Tesla will have a car that it has said it will sell for $35,000.


Clearly the a $35,000 car changes the game. The potential market for a $35,000 car is in the many millions, not anything like Tesla's current volumes where the price starts at approximately $72,000 and averages $100,000.


Fortunately for Tesla's competition, Tesla has told everyone about its intentions far into the future, 2017-2020. It's said that all of its patents are available. It's said that the Tesla's purpose is not profit maximization, but rather a social service in that it wants as much competition as possible.


Shocking as it may have have sounded at first, Tesla's competition is obviously thanking Tesla for this convenient heads-up, and is hard at work to prepare a competitive response to Tesla's mass-market car, scheduled for production in 2017 and significant revenue ramp-up in 2018 and 2019. That's when the rubber meets the road, when the market impact becomes material.


Until then, however, one way to look at the numbers is to conclude that a competitive response to Tesla before this point has been relatively uninteresting, from the vantage point of the major automakers. Their share of any recapture from Tesla's 2014 sales of 35,000 cars just is hard to defend from a financial standpoint. Too little revenue, too small profit -- indeed a loss. Seen in isolation, their realistic economic return from competing with Tesla in 2014 just isn't attractive.


That's why we have not seen any meaningful direct competition to Tesla to date.


In the coming years, this might change but probably not.





Bruce McLaren.


Picture by PGB.

In the 1960s I was a member of the American Racing Press Association (ARPA). One of my assignments was reporting on the CanAm racing series for publications in Australia and New Zealand. Consequently, I was welcome to visit the pits, or the motorhome of McLaren Racing at any time and got to know both Bruce and Denny Hulme quite well as I followed the series all over North America.

All I can say is that Bruce was one of the most affable, unassuminng and intelligent racing drivers and engineers one could posibly wish to meet and it was a pleasure to have known the man.

When Bruce was killed, I was in Philadelphia, test driving a new Japanese car brand, known as a Subaru and about to be imported by Malcolm Bricklin, of New Brunswick Bricklin car "fame".

Bruce died in a crash while testing an experimental car of his own design at a track in Goodwood, England on June 2nd in 1970.

Born in Auckland, New Zealand, Bruce contracted a childhood hip disease that would keep him in hospitals for several years. By the age of 14, he had recovered fully. His father, a part-time mechanic with an interest in racing, helped young Bruce build his first car, and he entered his first competitive event, a hill climb, when he was 15. Bruce McLaren also studied engineering at the University of Auckland. Aided by his mentor, the Grand Prix driver Jack Brabham, he became the first-ever winner of the New Zealand International Grand Prix Association's "Driver to Europe" scholarship. McLaren announced his arrival on the European racing scene in 1958, finishing fifth in the German Grand Prix at the famous Nurburgring and winning the Formula Two division of the combined Formula One and Two race.

In 1959, McLaren joined his mentor on the Cooper racing team. That December, at the age of 22, he became the youngest-ever winner of a Formula One race, capturing the U.S. Grand Prix at Sebring. The following year--a banner one for Cooper--Bruce came in second only to Brabham in the standings for the Formula One World Championship. Bruce succeeded Brabham as Cooper's top driver in 1962, and began expanding into the field of race car design and manufacturing in 1964. He left Cooper to form his own Grand Prix racing team and in 1968 he and his close friend and fellow driver Denny Hulme won three events in McLaren-Fords.

By that time, Bruce had begun to focus on the Canadian-American Challenge Cup series, sponsored jointly by the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) and the Canadian Automobile Sports Committee (CASC). As the series grew, the McLaren team came to dominate it, and in 1969 the team won 11 of 11 races. At the time of his death Bruce had been at the top of the international racing world for more than a decade. At the time of his death, Bruce was among the wealthiest driver-designers in the sport and was contemplating retirement from driving to devote more time to the business side of his racing interests. The racing team that bears his name survived him, becoming even more wealthy based on the launch pad of brilliant engineering that Bruce provided.



 

We chose another (our third) Mazda3 for several reasons:

First because the previous two had been bullet proof reliable. Secondly for "zoom-zoom" road worthiness and lastly for fuel economy.

The first four months of this cars' life, with a stiff engine, was spent on short runs and cold garage starts.

One very useful feature on this car is a fuel economy graphic read out that analyses overall economy and instantaneous economy based on this journey.

Every time you turn off the engine, the instant average fuel economy is recalculated, but you have to manually delete the long term economy  calculation.

The first four months gave a read out of 8.1 liters per 100 km ( L/100k), a disappointing 33 mpg.

However, this long weekend we made a long distance run to LaMabaie, a distance of 900 Km return.

The journey from Montreal to Quebec City is flat, straight and utterly boring. Setting the cruise control at the "forgiveness" speed of 118 Km/h produced an astounding 5.7 L/110k, or 47 mpg.

After Quebec City, along the North Shore of the St Lawrence River, the road undulates, with steep hills and equally steep declines. Cruise control mostly cannot be used, due to the varying 2 lane road system. Nevertheless, the fuel economy readout continued to say we were only using 6 L/100Km, or 45 mpg.

At the end of the run, upon arrival in LaMabaie, the range indicator said we still had enough fuel to go back to Montreal without filling up. This type of fuel economy is almost as good as the Citroen Diesel that we used in Spain. There, the speed limits are much higher and even then, the diesel gave us 5.3 L/100km (51 mpg).

Our overall lifetime fuel economy has been reduced to 7.1 from 8.1 L/100Km

On the steep and winding roads of the Charlevoix region, the brakes, handling and steering were exceptionally good. Particularly over some quite badly pot holed sections of road. On very steep hills, the manual override feature of the transmission was useful in saving the brakes, but is not put to too much use otherwise. The seats are comfortable and supportive.

Cruise control is digital. Consequently, you can dial in your desired cruising speed ahead of time. It is not necessary to wait for an indicated speed to set the system. With such memory, the resume button on the steering wheel is also very useful.

The rain sensing wipers work in a more sensitive and intelligent way than on our first 3, but still fall into the category of "nice to have, but not really necessary".

The engine is so quiet that on a couple of occasions we started to walk away from the car, leaving the engine running. This is one of the downsides of push button starting, but we've gotten used to that somewhat unnecessary feature by now. You could argue, in view of GMs' problem with ignition switches, that push button starts are better, but only if you don't know how to design an ignition switch properly. No other manufacturer has had this problem.

One disappointment is that the side mirrors have flashers built in, but for some strange reason the driver cannot see the flashing. It would have been really useful to have that extra reminder that your indicators failed to cancel, if such is the case. I'm trying to devise some sort of prism or lens that will reflect visible light around the corner of the mirror.

Finally, for now, we had 3,900 kliks on the odometer when the 4 month period arrived, at which time the owners manual tells you that you must change the oil. So, at the time of the summer tire installation, I got my friendly independent garage to show a "complimentary, no charge" oil change on my invoice. My guess is that at the time of winter tire installation we will have covered the more reasonable oil change distance of 8000 Km and we will switch to a full synthetic 5W30 and proceed from there.

Stay tuned.






I may be a luddite, forced to accept back up cameras and push button starting on our latest car, neither of which I really feel I need and haven't needed for 50 years.

Forced onto me by nanny state politicians.

I still think the more stuff you have, the more stuff you have that can go wrong, especially if it's electronic in nature.

On the other hand, I can appreciate the idea of eliminating rear view mirrors. When I started driving, the standard was just one mirror in the centre of the windshield. Side mirrors like Obamas' ears came along much later. Side mirrors are susceptible to damage
, since they stick out a long way on each side of the car. Over the years I've repaired hundreds of them. Damaged by a drivers' own garage doors, or other cars, or vandalism.
Unfortunately, modern cars have become rolling computers, with chips and code controlling everything from your engine to your entertainment. The level of technology is so advanced that we may one day soon see drivers rendered irrelevant. And yet we’re still using small squares of reflective glass to see what’s behind us.

That maybe about to change. High-def cameras streaming video to small dashboard displays are coming to cars.


On the same day that federal regulators announced that all new vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds must be equipped with back-up cameras,  the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers called for the feds to allow some flexibility to mirror requirements. The automakers are calling on the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to change the 1968 rule that requires passenger vehicles to have a mirror on the door and another on the windshield and instead allow cameras to replace them.


They argue this would increase safety by providing a wider field of view, and fuel efficiency by making cars more aerodynamic. It turns out sticking a piece of glass in a chunk of plastic on each door really cuts into efficiency.


Cameras have been a staple of concept cars since the early 1990s, but only recently have they become cheap and reliable enough for the real world.

Volkswagen brought a camera-based system to market with its hyper-efficient, 271-mpg XL1 last year, but the car is only available in Germany and Austria. Strict mirror requirements are one of many reasons you can’t get an XL1 anywhere else.


That said, many automakers already use cameras to supplement traditional mirrors. Nissan and Mercedes-Benz, for example, have systems that provide a bird’s-eye view of the car using cameras mounted on the front and rear bumpers and underneath the mirrors. Cameras are also used to track the lines in the road and alert the driver–or even correct the steering–if the vehicle begins to drift outside the lane.

Exterior side view mirrors increase total aerodynamic drag by an average of 2 to 7 percent. That might not sound like much, but automakers are under increasing pressure to improve fuel efficiency. Eliminating mirrors is one of many tricks they’re counting on.

Should automakers succeed in getting the rules changed, we could see interior mirrors replaced by screens, as seen on Audi’s R8 etron concept and R18 etron race car. Combined with camera-based systems for exterior mirrors, automakers could completely eliminate blind spots by using a wide angle lens and image processing to provide a far wider field of vision than traditional mirrors. And they can place the screens where it’s most easily seen by the driver–as opposed to mirrors, which must be positioned to afford the best rearward view.


Granted, one reason we still use mirrors is they’re essentially idiot-proof. They’re also cheap, reliable, durable, and easy to replace. They don’t crash, they don’t suffer from latency, and they can’t be hacked. But as simple and effective as they’ve been, mirrors offer a limited view, and aren’t optimally placed for a quick glance. None of the mods and hacks–from those convex mirrors you stick in the corner to those weird five-panel mirrors that span the interior–have really improved the situation.


Now that cameras offer high-def resolution in packages small and cheap enough to slap on a bike helmet and even a smartphone has the computing power to process video, it’s inevitable that mirrors will go the way of crank starters and cassette decks.


An international consortium has been evaluating the effectiveness of cameras since 2010 and wants to outline standards for future applications. That includes ensuring any such systems start as soon as the driver turns on the car and they represent the surrounding environment as accurately as a mirror.
But even if the technology meets international standards and survives the long, slow process of federal approval, there’s still all the state laws that require mirrors. California, for example, requires every vehicle to have at least two mirrors. The Auto Alliance is recommending that any change to the federal law would supersede state laws.

If NHTSA grants a compliance option that involves camera-based systems as an alternative to mirror-based systems,” the Alliance states, “the compliance option would be applicable to ‘the same aspect of performance,’ and thus would preempt any inconsistent state laws.”
  


   Other blogs worth reading


22) What's a poor widow lady supposed to do?

35) Unqualifed teenagers servicing your car at the chain stores.

40) Treat your car battery with respect, or it can kill you.

41) In praise of the good old station wagon.

44) Future shock, the unending complication of electronic devices in you car.

45) Overheating engines.


47)  The case for annual safety inspections.

50) Rusty brake rotors (or discs)- no easy solution.

51) The piston engine is going to be with us for a very, very long time.

52) Avoiding rip offs in the car repair business.

57) Paint protection and car polishing.

58) Electronic brake force distribution.

61) Hydrogen vs electricity - no contest.

63) Why flushing brake oil makes sense.

64) When should I change my oil?

66) W/W antifreeze and long term warranties.

67) Nitrogen

68) Recirc A/C

69) Inspection by test drive.

70) Electric car radiation danger

71) Fuel saving devices that don't

75) Scheduling repair appointments.

78 Modern design of alternators and batteries.

79) Autumn leaves.