Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Harley Davidson NIGHT ROD
HONDA CBR 1000RR
Auto Designers Cater To China, the New Giant Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/automotive-design-for-china/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_me
Western automakers have started designing cars specifically for the huge Chinese market, and we don’t mean just meeting tighter pollution and fuel-efficiency standards.
The new cars and concepts have exterior contours that comport to Chinese ideas of balance, with interior colors and fabrics designed to signify status and evoke respect. The controls for entertainment and climate systems might even be moving to the back seat, because truly wealthy people don’t drive, they have drivers.
Thirty years ago, the People’s Republic of China was an automotive backwater. Today it’s the biggest market in the world, having just eclipsed the United States. So, its consumers are demanding the best from automotive designers.
The explosive growth of the Chinese market, where consumers bought 17 million new cars last year compared to about 10 million in the United States, has been a bright light in an otherwise dark time for the auto industry. As the traditional markets of North America, Europe and Japan stagnate or decline, automakers have seen their sales in China double and double again.
“This is clearly the market of the future,” says Freidhelm Engler, General Motors director of design in China. “It’s not going to slow down.”
That has automakers taking a fresh look at how they design cars for the Chinese market. Although Western designs have proven immensely popular in China, global car companies were slow to account for Chinese tastes and preferences. More often than not, automakers made a few small tweaks to the cars they sold in the West and shipped them over.
“Ten to 15 years ago, companies brought existing designs or even dated designs to the Chinese market,” says Chelsia Lau, chief designer at Ford Asia-Pacific. “Consumers in China are no longer satisfied to accept designs directly copied from overseas and are now far more discriminating and demanding.”
First, a quick history lesson on how we got here.
A little more than a generation ago, China’s GDP per capita was just over $100. As a command economy with a decrepit transportation network, it offered little incentive for Western automakers to sell there. Not that it mattered, because the governments of China and the United States didn’t want them to, anyway.
That started to change in the 1970s as the two countries normalized relations, and Deng Xiaoping (Mao Zedong’s successor) created economic zones where foreign manufacturers could build. Automakers rushed to establish joint ventures with Chinese companies and start selling cars.
As China’s economy grew, so did demand for cars. As money poured in, the increasingly wealthy population began to buy a lot of cars. China’s increasingly affluent middle class is larger than the entire U.S. population, and the Chinese market has been the fastest-growing for several years.
Last year, it surpassed the United States to become the largest automotive market in the world. It was a long-awaited marker that came unexpectedly soon after the economic recession brought U.S. car sales to a screeching halt.
Now vehicle designers in China face unique challenges and opportunities. They are being given control over large organizations and an increasingly influential voice.
Ford started building cars in China in 2003 and moved its Asia-Pacific offices from Bangkok to Shanghai last year. GM has increased its design staff in China from 80 in 2005 to 1,700.
Both are playing catch-up to Volkswagen, which was among the first companies to enter China and last year managed to sell more cars than any other automaker, Chinese or otherwise.
The challenges facing these designers is daunting. A vast cultural gulf separates China from the U.S. and Europe, requiring different design considerations and a new consumer portrait. Brands marketed in China are largely unencumbered by their legacies abroad, allowing for radical redefinitions. Buick, for example, known in the United States as a car for old people, is in China popular among wealthy businessmen.
“Just imagine, for a moment, a Buick Regal,” says Engler, “A buyer could be around 30…. This is different from a consumer who is 15-20 years older and is in a different league.”
Some design considerations are wholly different in China, where a car’s most important role is often to serve as an indicator of wealth and power. Take a look at the Buick Business concept pictured at right. See the cut of the headlights, meant to mimic traditional Chinese liuli glass? See the chrome trim? Chrome is huge in China. See the connecting line between head and taillights and how it drops at the rear seats to emphasize the passenger and increase visibility?
Inside, the back seat envelops the passenger “like a clam,” Engler says, in the same manner as an emperor’s throne. Interior coloring is nearly monotone from the rear passenger’s perspective in accordance with Chinese expectations of a car. Notice the deep purple color. GM says was “chosen to elicit the right level of attention and respect” and named it euphemistically after a rare and slow-growing Chinese tree, It was designed, Engler says, to look like a smooth fabric blowing in the wind.
“It has a nice gesture to it, something which is very Chinese,” he adds. Try finding that look in an American GM product.
Describing the Shanghai office’s influence on the update of the modest Ford Fiesta, head designer Chelsia Lau uses words like “sleek” and “elegant,” phrases that might be a stretch to a potential American buyer. But in China, where families routinely pool their money to buy a car, it makes sense to make a car sound as upscale as possible.
In China, the focus of control shifts from the driver’s seat to the passenger or rear seat, where the owner might prefer to sit, as it indicates higher status. Because the rear seat is the position of power, that’s where you’ll find controls for the radio, heat, sunroof and so forth. In the United States, of course, the driver controls everything.
The same principle requires a new focus on the entire car. Designers place special emphasis on exterior styling, which is held to higher standard than in the West. Loosely-fitted panels and extraneous add-ons are not tolerated, as the exterior is subject to a particularly laser-like focus, and buyers want to be seen in the best.
“Yin and yang, black and white, balance is very important to a Chinese customer,” says Engler, who spent two decades designing in Europe before moving to China. “Balance and harmony, those are the key words here for design. You cannot skip it, you cannot work around it.”
Automakers have begun to step outside their traditional stomping grounds to introduce vehicles exclusively to China. These cars, designed and built in China, are the first tentative steps toward adapting to Chinese consumer preferences. VW’s Lavida, for example, is a fairly conservative remaking of the ubiquitous Golf. Chevrolet’s Sail is a classic brand resurrected for China.
In some ways, China is a more advanced market. Pollution regulations, which are in some ways stricter than the U.S. and Europe, translate to limited engine size and fantastic fuel efficiency, trends which some predict will envelop the Western markets in the years to come. Research into battery technology has a higher priority in China than in the United States, one result being an already-evident edge in some aspects of batteries.
The design trend isn’t all one-way. Chinese domestic manufacturers have long eyed lucrative Western markets for their products, and they face similar challenges in producing cars that appeal to Western consumers. The result has been some pretty weird ideas, a few of which were exhibited at the recent Detroit Auto Show.
But this may be the year we’ll find out just how well Chinese manufacturers have done: BYD, well established in China, plans to introduce an all-electric car to North America, and several other domestic Chinese companies have announced plans to enter the market soon.
Volvo is likely to end up in the hands of China’s Geely, and Hummer may be China-owned by the end of the month. Bits and pieces — a Ford engine, the Wheego Whip chassis — are just the beginning.
With the demands of the enormous Chinese market, the expansion of Chinese companies into the West and the introduction of Chinese vehicles to U.S., American consumers should expect to see some Chinese characteristics make their way across the ocean. “Decoration to enhance proportion,” says Engler, “may show up in North America in coming months.”
The increasingly early influence of Chinese design bureaus on globally designed cars means we might soon recognize that new cars are a little toned-down — balanced, as a Chinese designer might say. That doesn’t mean the Chevrolet Corvette or Ford F-150 will suddenly be remade. But some of the characteristics of Chinese cars and the influences of the people buying them will inevitably make their way to the United States.
That isn’t a bad thing. Because maybe the Mustang could use a little more harmony.
Main photo: General Motors. Ed Welburn, GM VP of global design, discusses design at the 2009 Shanghai auto show.
Apple iPod nano 8 GB Digital player / radio - 8 GB flash - Black
Price: $134
Say you're listening to a song you really like and want to hear other tracks that go great with it. The genius feature finds the songs in your music library that go great together and makes a Genius Playlist for you. It's like having your own highly intelligent, personal DJ.
Tilt or turn iPod nano on its side, and you'll listen, watch, and play in new ways. You can flip through your album art with cover flow. Or, vertically speaking, see more albums and artists on the screen at one time.
Pull hundreds of photos from your pocket and share them wherever you go. Hold iPod nano upright and see your photos in portrait view. Turn it on its side to see them in landscape. Your photos look beautiful in their proper aspect ratio on the vibrant, 320-by-240-resolution display.
It's even easier to find the song you want to hear. Now you can view your album art in cover flow. Or just press and hold the center button to browse by album or artist. When you find the right song, press the center button to add it to your on-the-go playlist.
Sometimes, people could all use a little unpredictability. And now you can shake to shuffle your music. Just give iPod nano a shake and it shuffles to a different song in your music library. You'll always be surprised by what you'll hear.
Watching movies, TV shows, and videos is big fun on iPod nano. And the high-resolution picture looks crisp and vivid on the 2-inch widescreen display. So you can always have a little video with you.
Apple iPod Touch 32 GB (3rd Generation)
Global Worming
Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown.
After years of preparation for climate talks taking place in Copenhagen through Dec. 18, 2009, President Obama and other leaders announced on Nov. 15 what had already become evident — that no formal treaty could be produced anytime soon. Instead, the leaders pledged to reach a placeholder accord that would call for reductions in emissions and increased aid to help developing nations adapt to a changing climate and get access to non-polluting energy options.
This would in theory give the nations more time to work out the all-important details. Negotiators would then seek a binding global agreement in 2010, complete with firm emission targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts to aid poorer nations.
At the heart of the debate is a momentous tussle between rich and poor countries over who steps up first and who pays most for changed energy menus.
Within the United States, Congress is similarly fighting over legislation on climate change. The House in the summer of 2009 passed a bill outlining a cap-and-trade system that could, over the next few decades, lead to an early end to conventional use of coal and oil, fuels that have underpinned prosperity and growth for more than a century. But between stiff opposition from energy interests and the overwhelming distractions of health care reform and the economy, the legislation has stalled in the Senate.
In international discussions over climate, Mr. Obama has urged other countries not to be discouraged by the stasis on Capitol Hill, pointing to big investments in energy efficiency, solar and wind power and his move to restrict greenhouse gases using environmental regulations.
In the meantime, recent fluctuations in temperature, seized on by opponents of emissions restrictions, have intensified the public debate over how urgently to respond. The long-term warming trend over the last century has been well-established, and scientists immersed in studying the climate are projecting substantial disruption in water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems and coastal communities. Passionate activists at both ends of the discourse are pushing ever harder for or against rapid action, while polls show the public locked durably in three camps — with roughly a fifth of American voters eager for action, a similar proportion aggressively rejecting projections of catastrophe and most people tuned out or confused.
Background
Scientists learned long ago that the earth's climate has powerfully shaped the history of the human species — biologically, culturally and geographically. But only in the last few decades has research revealed that humans can be a powerful influence on the climate as well.
A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world's climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere's invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide in impact on the atmosphere.
That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world's leadingorganizations of climate and earth scientists.
In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.
Some fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity — because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated, according to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel shared the2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for alerting the world to warming's risks.
Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies.
For example, estimates of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations (compared to the level just before the Industrial Revolution got under way in the early 19th century) range from 3.6 degrees to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The intergovernmental climate panel said it could not rule out even higher temperatures). While the low end could probably be tolerated, the high end would almost certainly result in calamitous, long-lasting disruptions of ecosystems and economies, a host of studies have concluded. A wide range of economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justifies an aggressive response.
Other questions have persisted despite a century-long accumulation of studies pointing to human-driven warming. The rate and extent at which sea levels will rise in this century as ice sheets erode remains highly uncertain, even as the long-term forecast ofcenturies of retreating shorelines remains intact. Scientists are struggling more than ever to disentangle how the heat building in the seas and atmosphere will affect the strength and number of tropical cyclones. The latest science suggests there will be more hurricanes and typhoons that reach the most dangerous categories of intensity, but fewer storms over all.
Steps Toward a Response
The debate over such climate questions pales next to the fight over what to do, or not do, in a world where fossil fuels still underpin both rich and emerging economies. With the completion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in 1992, the world's nations pledged to avoid dangerously disrupting the climate through the buildup of greenhouse gases, but they never defined how much warming was too much.
Nonetheless, recognizing that the original climate treaty was proving ineffective, all of the world's industrialized countries except for the United States accepted binding restrictions on their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in Japan in 1997. That accord took effect in 2005 and its gas restrictions expire in 2012. (The United States signed the treaty, but it was never submitted for ratification, in the face of overwhelming opposition in the Senate because the pact required no steps by China or other fast-growing developing countries.
It took until 2009 for the leaders of the world's largest economic powers to agree on a dangerous climate threshold: an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the average global temperature recorded just before the Industrial Revolution kicked into gear. (This translates into an increase of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the Earth's current average temperature, about 59 degrees).
The Group of 8 industrial powers also agreed this year to a goal of reducing global emissions 50 percent by 2050, with the richest countries leading the way by cutting their emissions 80 percent. But they did not set a baseline from which to measure that reduction, and so far firm interim targets — which many climate scientists say would be more meaningful — have not been defined.
At the same time, fast-growing emerging economic powerhouses, led by China and India, still oppose taking on mandatory obligations to curb their emissions. They say they will do what they can to rein in growth in emissions — as long as their economies do not suffer. The world's poorest countries, in the meantime, are seeking payments to help make them less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, given that the buildup in climate-warming gases so far has come mainly from richer nations. Such aid has been promised since the 1992 treaty and a fund was set up under the Kyoto Protocol. But while tens of billions of dollars are said to be needed, only millions have flowed so far.
In many ways, the debate over global climate policy is a result of aglobal "climate divide.'' Emissions of carbon dioxide per person range from less than 2 tons per year in India, where 400 million people lack access to electricity, to more than 20 in the United States. The richest countries are also best able to use wealth and technology to insulate themselves from climate hazards, while the poorest, which have done the least to cause the problem, are the most exposed.
In Copenhagen in December 2009, negotiators had planned to try to settle on the basic terms of two new global climate agreements. One would renew the commitments of countries bound by the Kyoto emissions limits; the other would rein in emissions of all countries to varying extents, depending on their wealth and emissions history. Given the many competing interests, and the reality that any big emissions shifts would have substantial economic impacts, the negotiations have been called one of the most complex diplomatic challenges ever.
Democratic leaders in the United States Senate continue to try to follow the lead of the House of Representatives by securing passage of a bill aiming to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The chief mechanism would be a "cap and trade" system that sets a gradually declining ceiling for over all emissions. Companies and institutions could buy and sell credits from one another as a way to curb emissions at the lowest cost. Companies that made deeper cuts than required could sell credits to companies that fell short of their targets.
But a national preoccupation with the slow economy and competing issues, led by health care, threaten to delay or weaken such legislation. Another impediment is the shortage of money flowing to basic energy research and large-scale demonstrations of non-polluting energy technology. While the Obama administration and Congress directed some stimulus money toward such efforts, such spending comes only after decades of declining investment in these areas.
President Obama came into office vowing to take swift action on climate change, and under him, the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that it will regulate carbon dioxide emissions. But with the cap-and-trade bill facing an uncertain future in the Senate, his ability to take big steps on the issue has been severely constrained, and without significant actions by the United States, China and India had made it clear they would remain on the sidelines. Just weeks before the planned Copenhagen session, he and other leaders gathered for an Asian summit announced that no treaty would be reached in 2009. Instead, leaders will try to reach a political agreement that could be the basis for new treaty talks in 2010.
In the meantime, a recent dip in emissions caused by the global economic slowdown is almost certain to be followed by a rise, scientists warn, and with population and appetites for energy projected to rise through mid-century, they say the entwined challenges of climate and energy will only intensify.
Green House Effect
A Passion for Personal Flight
Jurassic Space: Ancient Galaxies Come Together after Billions of Years
3D Sun for the iPhone
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Readius - Floppy Tech!
Samsung CL65
Price:$4oo
LG - 42LH30 - 42" LCD TV - 1080p (FullHD)
Price: $614
LG EnV Touch (Verizon Wireless)
The LG EnV Touch was a surprise to us. We thought all of the EnV line of phones would be in the style of the LG EnV VX9900, the LG EnV2, and the more recent LG EnV3.Those phones had numeric keypads on the front, with QWERTY keyboards behind their flip designs. But it appears that the LG EnV Touch is actually a successor to the Voyager VX10000, due to its full touch screen-interface. Perhaps Verizon and LG are going back to the EnV name to reinforce its association with high-end messaging phones.
We gave the LG Voyager VX10000 an Editors' Choice award when it first launched, but it has been almost two years since then, so it's about time for an upgrade. The LG enV Touch definitely offers better design and features. Both the touch-screen and internal displays are bigger, the keyboard has a better layout, the 3.2-megapixel camera has more advanced settings, the 3.5mm headset jack accommodates your own headphones, EV-DO Rev. A offers faster Web browsing, and more. The EnV Touch doesn't have V Cast Mobile TV like the Voyager did, but that's about the only thing missing with this upgrade. Perhaps our only complaints were that the touch-screen interface and Web browsing could use some refinements, and the lack of Wi-Fi was disappointing.
The LG EnV Touch is available for $149.99 with a $70 mail-in rebate and a two-year service agreement, which isn't too expensive for what you're getting.
