Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'opinion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

  • Articles
    • Forum Integration
    • Frontpage
  • Pages
  • Miscellaneous
    • Databases
    • Templates
    • Media

Forums

  • Cars
    • General Car Discussion
    • Tips and Resources
  • Aftermarket
    • Accessories
    • Performance and Tuning
    • Cosmetics
    • Maintenance & Repairs
    • Detailing
    • Tyres and Rims
    • In-Car-Entertainment
  • Car Brands
    • Japanese Talk
    • Conti Talk
    • Korean Talk
    • American Talk
    • Malaysian Talk
    • China Talk
  • General
    • Electric Cars
    • Motorsports
    • Meetups
    • Complaints
  • Sponsors
  • Non-Car Related
    • Lite & EZ
    • Makan Corner
    • Travel & Road Trips
    • Football Channel
    • Property Buzz
    • Investment & Financial Matters
  • MCF Forum Related
    • Official Announcements
    • Feedback & Suggestions
    • FAQ & Help
    • Testing

Blogs

  • MyAutoBlog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


  1. Whenever the state of the taxi service is discussed, my mind goes back to 1985. That, in my view, was the last time the Government tried to tackle the problem in a fundamental way. But that experience was so painful, no transport minister since has had the appetite to take on the issue. Which is why the problems persist, almost 30 years on. What is the issue? The Straits Times carried several stories in recent weeks of taxi queues in the city during the evening, with waiting times much longer than they were a year ago. A Sri Lankan businessman was quoted as saying: "It's the worst thing I hate about Singapore - standing in taxi queues." One statistic alone tells the story of how poorly the service here compares with that in other cities: Singapore has 29,000 taxis, Hong Kong has only 18,000. But despite their fewer numbers, Hong Kong taxi drivers make more than a million trips a day, compared with fewer than a million here. So what's happening? That 1985 saga was instructive. I know because I was in the thick of it as a young officer at the then Communications Ministry. The problem then was exactly the same as it is now. Commuters complained they could not get a taxi when they wanted one, that taxi drivers were choosy, refusing to pick up passengers headed for certain destinations, or disappearing just before midnight when the surcharge kicked in. Sounds familiar? At the ministry, it seemed like a straightforward analysis - taxi fares in Singapore were too low, relative to buses and the cost of owning a car. If four people shared a cab, it would be cheaper than taking the bus. The solution? Raise taxi fares substantially to reduce demand, and solve the problem once and for all. But that wasn't all - taxi diesel taxes were also increased to make the cost of owning and running them closer to that of a privately owned car. The theory was sound but, alas, we guessed wrongly how sensitive commuters would be to a big fare hike. Demand for taxis plunged so much that taxi drivers' earnings went down despite the higher fares. There was an uproar: Commuters were unhappy over the increased cost, and taxi drivers were up in arms that their earnings had gone down. The Government had to do an embarrassing U-turn, moderating both the fare and tax increases of the original plan. More significantly though, and with serious implications for the future, it backed off from trying to intervene in the taxi business. So fares were later deregulated and no longer decided by government but left to taxi companies to determine. The number of taxis on the road was also left to the market until recently. But the problems have not gone away, hence the spate of newspaper reports lately. Many suggestions have been made to improve the situation - getting rid of the surcharges, simplifying the fare structure, imposing a minimum cruising mileage, and so on. Indeed, the Land Transport Authority has just announced changes to the rule requiring operators to have a certain proportion of their fleet on the road during peak hours. These moves are worth trying. But I am afraid they will not solve the problem unless Singapore is clear about the role of taxis in its overall transport system. Unless this is settled, the patchwork of measures that have been tried over the years will continue to frustrate. Unlike buses and the MRT, which run on fixed routes, taxi demand is more unpredictable, driven by those whose needs cannot be met by public and private transport. This includes regular bus and MRT commuters who occasionally use taxis, tourists, and even motorists who sometimes find it more convenient not to drive. How to devise a system to meet so many of these different needs with no obvious pattern to them? It turns out that getting the price right is the most important. If it is set too low, demand will surge and service levels will deteriorate unless the roads are flooded with taxis, which isn't possible without causing serious traffic congestion. If it is set too high and demand collapses, neither commuters nor drivers will be happy, as was the case in 1985. Because it is so important to get the price right, it cannot be left to taxi companies to decide. They have other commercial considerations when setting the price and may not necessarily take into account the proper role of taxis in the overall transport system. Indeed, as many critics have pointed out, because their revenues come from renting the taxis out, they have no direct interest in providing good service, apart from meeting minimum regulatory standards. For these reasons, the correct fare level ought to be decided by the transport authorities, taking into account the overall transport system. In Singapore, this price should be pegged between public and private transport. One other factor needs to be taken into account, which is often overlooked. This is the effect price has on taxi driver behaviour. If the price is set too low, cabbies have to pick many fares through the day to make a decent living. Each fare then becomes relatively unimportant because it represents a smaller part of his overall earnings, as he knows he can pick another fare just round the corner. Taxi drivers operating in this scenario tend to be choosy about the fares they pick. On the other hand, if the price is set higher and demand is lower, you can expect better service as every customer contributes a larger share to the driver's earnings. It's the difference between a supermarket and a boutique. Both types of taxi service can be found all over the world - the supermarket model prevailing in developing countries, whereas in, say, Tokyo or London, it's a boutique service. What's critical is that whichever model is chosen must not result only in better service for commuters but also give taxi drivers a better deal going forward. Their livelihood has to be a priority because a good taxi service can happen only when cab drivers believe there is a secure future for them, they earn decent wages, and have a profession that others respect. So, whenever changes are made to the taxi service, one critical question to ask is: Will taxi drivers be better off as a result? There is much work that needs to be done to make these fundamental changes that will result in permanent improvements to the taxi service: determining which taxi model is best for Singapore, setting the correct fare level, the number of taxis needed, the cost of owning and operating them, and the way the business is operated. These issues require decisions that only the Government can make. But it has to first exorcise the ghost of 1985. -- ST PHOTO: Neo Xiao Bin by Han Fook Kwang
  2. Why is it that reducing waiting and in-vehicle times does not seem to make public transport users happy? The debate on improving public transport service quality and affordability is unending. Suggestions have ranged from having more competition to ensuring efficiency to zero fares and even the nature of public transport itself. These discussions, however, skirt the central issue. A journey by public transport is actually a chain of trips. A trip from an origin to a destination typically consists of walk time to the bus stop or MRT terminal, wait time, in-vehicle time and access time to the final destination. The time of each component will vary by mode, distance travelled, trip purpose (i.e. office commute, shopping, social) and by time of the day. When a transfer between modes is involved, this makes the total time travelling by public transport unattractive compared to travel by car. In recent months, laudable efforts have been made to improve wait and in-vehicle times of bus and MRT rides by increasing the fleet of buses and reducing the time between train arrivals. In 2008, the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) stated: "Average public transport journey times will be reduced from 1.7 times of that by car today to 1.5 times by 2020 to make public transport more competitive relative to cars. "Our end in mind is to have a public transport system that will be so attractive that users with choice, i.e. those who can have access to cars, will say that 'my other car is a bus or train'." The 2013 LTMP focuses on addressing the four main components of the typical public transport journey - the first and last kilometre, wait time and in-vehicle time. This is being done through improvements such as seamless connectivity from home to terminal, more public transport infrastructure and investments in operating assets. A 2001 study by Professor Mark Wardman at the University of Leeds' Institute for Transport Studies in the UK has shown that walking and waiting times are perceived as being between two and three times more annoying than in-vehicle time regardless of the level of traffic congestion. These assessments will vary across circumstances, such as a journey to work versus participation in leisure activities. It will also vary when compared with in-vehicle time by car, bus or the MRT. The number of transfers, whether involving crossing a bridge or a long walk in-between, will also influence the way people perceive walk and wait times. So will the extent to which access involves pedestrian delays at junctions and crossings. In fact, the level of irritation caused by walk and wait times can be 1.5 to 8 times the perceived value of in-vehicle time. The point, therefore, is to view accessibility and mobility as a total experience. Minimising in- vehicle and wait times is just one aspect of the experience. It involves making the trip a pleasant one from the time a person steps out of the home to the time he arrives at his final destination. Making public transport the backbone of a city's mobility requires giving the public transport user priority. It entails minimising pedestrian delays and creating walkway connectivity within the city. But it will also mean making it more costly to drive into and park within the Central Business District. Electronic Road Pricing and limited parking facilities will lead to a more efficient allocation of scarce city space. Prioritising public transport may mean the development of "closed urban areas" where buildings are interconnected by sheltered pedestrian walkways. Walking - and perhaps cycling - will be a safe, healthy, viable and a delightful experience. Within the closed urban area, cars will not get priority. The "first and last kilometre" will then be an attractive link in the public transport trip. The 2013 Land Transport Master Plan and the just-released Fare Review Mechanism Committee Report are steps in the right direction if effectively implemented. Further, the Fare Review Mechanism Committee Report, in addressing the needs of the economically disadvantaged, enhances accessibility to jobs and centres of human capital development such as institutions of education. This together with real-time public information about public transport schedules might just nudge car users at the margin to use public transport. It might also lead to the spreading of the peak period when commuters choose to travel at alternative times, ease human congestion at MRT stations and bus terminals, and make the journey by public transport a pleasant experience. -- ST FILE PHOTO by Anthony Chin The writer is associate professor of transport economics, deputy director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, and director of the Economics Executive Programme, NUS.
  3. Singapore's great weakness is that it is an absurdly small nation. Paradoxically, one great strength of Singapore is that it is an absurdly small nation. Hence, Singapore can try things out on a national scale that few other nations can dream about. Let me suggest one such bold national project. Let Singapore become the first country in the world to have an all-electric fleet of vehicles: cars, trucks, taxis, buses, etc. Singapore can create a new chapter in world history by becoming the first country in the world not to have petrol-fuelled engines on the road. And why should Singapore do this? There will be at least three massive benefits from doing so. Healthier population First, Singaporeans will breathe much cleaner air. Without petrol and diesel engines, there will be much less carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter and other pollutants in the air. As a result, I have no doubt that the health of Singaporeans will improve. There will be fewer instances of asthmatic attacks, and incidents of cancer may also go down. Singapore will also become the quietest city in the world. Economists have not yet established simple and easy ways of measuring such “positive externalities” that will flow from an all-electric fleet in Singapore. Yet, there is no doubt that the environment will improve massively. Singaporeans will become a happier nation and Singapore will become an ever more attractive destination for the best global talent. (Oops, maybe I shouldn’t say this!) Second, Singapore would be positioning itself for the day when a global carbon tax or emissions trading system is introduced. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released its latest climate change report. The evidence is now irrefutable. Human activity, especially in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, is warming the planet. Many countries will suffer the negative effects of rising sea levels and bouts of extreme weather. Singapore will be one of the biggest losers if the worst-case scenario unfolds. While Singapore is too small to make a large difference to climate change mitigation efforts, an all-electric fleet would help us deal with a global carbon tax, thus boosting national competitiveness. Delay climate change By creating an all-electric transportation system, Singapore can help to delay climate change. How? Singapore’s behaviour alone will not make a massive difference. But bear in mind that the Asian middle-class population is about to explode, from about 500 million now to 1.75 billion by 2020. If these new middle-class citizens begin buying petrol-burning cars, the planet will be literally, not metaphorically, fried. Clearly, some powerful examples will be needed to demonstrate that the world would be better off not buying petrol-burning cars. By going all-electric, Singapore will act as a key catalytic agent to help to prevent global warming. The manufacture of electric cars emits more carbon than that of traditional vehicles because of the energy-intensive methods used to mine, smelt and process the iron, lithium and rare earth elements that go into the batteries and other components of electric cars. But studies have shown that electric vehicles make up for this by having much lower carbon emissions when they are in use. Most of Singapore’s electricity is generated from natural gas, a relatively clean fossil fuel. Using electric cars will result in an effective 66 percent reduction of carbon emissions in comparison with petrol- and diesel-powered cars. Cars as status symbols The third benefit of creating an all-electric fleet is that it will help to reduce the obsession with cars as a status symbol, as electric cars will simply be seen as functional vehicles to get from point A to point B. For the few Singaporeans who insist on having status symbols like Maseratis, Ferraris and Lamborghinis, I would like to strongly recommend the Tesla, the environmentally friendly status symbol. By moving to an all-electric fleet, we shift the status competition in Singapore away from having the most powerful and fastest cars to having the most environmentally friendly ones. So who should lead the charge to convert Singapore’s car fleet into an all-electric one? I think I know what is going on in the mind of any Singaporean who is reading this sentence. Every Singaporean will expect the Government to take the lead. Unfortunately, this is the wrong answer. If the Government tries a top-down strategy, there will be a lot of resistance. The only way such a massive change can take place smoothly is for it to be a bottom-up initiative. New developmental approach Indeed, as Singapore approaches the 50th anniversary of its independence and Singaporeans ponder on the next 50 years, the country should consider a major change of approach to the future development of the country. Singapore has been extraordinarily successful in our first 50 years because of a remarkable number of government-initiated policies. Let me just cite Singapore Airlines, Changi Airport, PSA, and the Singapore Newater story as a few examples. None of these were citizen initiatives. However, for the next 50 years, we will need a balance of government-led and citizen-led initiatives. Making Singapore the first electric vehicle nation should be the first citizen-led initiative in the nation’s history. Anyone who thinks that a single citizen cannot make a significant difference should look at the record of Tesla Motors and its chief executive Elon Musk. Mr Musk is giving a personal guarantee (including with his personal money) that the Tesla will retain as much second-hand value as the equivalent Mercedes. Even more astoundingly, he has begun building charging stations so that you can drive from Los Angeles to New York in a Tesla. If you can drive across a large country like the United States in an electric vehicle, it is surely possible to do so in Singapore. No charging station in Singapore will be more than a few kilometres away. In fact, charging stations could even be installed in private parking lots and driveways. The Government can help by creating an infrastructure that supports electric vehicles. It could also provide tax and other benefits. Currently, because of the high cost of electric vehicle batteries, such cars cost more, thus placing the vehicle in a higher tax bracket than cheaper but less environmentally friendly cars. Even the recently introduced Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) does not offset the higher costs. Sadly, Tesla had to close its dealership in Singapore without selling a single fully electric car after less than a year because it was not able to receive “green tax benefits” from the Government. But the benefits that would flow from the creation of an all-electric fleet would be far greater than the tax revenues that the Government stands to lose in giving out tax benefits. In short, it is a “no-brainer” for Singapore to become the first country in the world with an all-electric vehicle fleet. No other country can do it as easily as Singapore. The benefits in all dimensions - environmental, health, social - will far outweigh any costs. Indeed, I cannot think of any real cost to making the change. So the big question is: Which citizen of Singapore will stand up and take the lead? If the movement succeeds, it will “electrify” both Singapore and the world. The hour has come. Let the right man or woman stand up and lead the movement. -- ST ILLUSTRATION : Miel by Kishore Mahbubani for The Straits Times
  4. a company that listed in sgx pay all employee on the 5th of every month. If it fall on Sat, will pay on next Mon. any opinion about this company? i wonder is there any rule from mom about latest pay day?
  5. i've been looking for auto vans and would like to find which one has the lowest running cost (depreciation + maintenance + fuel costs), it seems the combo 1.3 is that van. anyone one has any opinion on another better van? is the combo 1.3 going to be a maintenance nightmare?
  6. As topic, any one uses these tires, & have any feedback, good/bad. Also any one know where to get this at best rates. Spec of Dunlop Direzza Z1 Star Spec Its classified under Extreme Performance Summer tires. It will be serve as replacement for my discontinued Bridegestone RE010R. My friend actually recommended me Bridgestone RE11, but I think its more expensive (branding & Yen vs SGP) but not sure if its necessary better.
  7. The current generation Mazda6 is what I believe has brought back some credibility to driving or owning a Japanese car. Prior to this I do not think of any mid-sized Japanese cars that had technology already common to the Germans and, surprisingly the Koreans. The Mazda6 is one of the first new Japanese cars with Direct Injection (like most German cars and some Korean cars these days) and one that has eco-friendly gizmos that actually make sense instead of just hybrid this and hybrid that. It also comes with decent built quality, ergonomics as well as having decent handling and drivability too. But after sitting on one recently, I think Mazda, or the Japanese manufacturers need some further polishing to do. Now the cabin of the Mazda6, or the 'Kodomobil', as I like to call it (after its 'Kodo' exterior design language) is a pretty nice place to be in. All of its controls are where you expect it to be and the materials used are pretty good to the touch. I would like more tactile feel in some of the secondary switches but it isn
  8. Buying washing machine also headache.... need it urgently. I have narrow down to Electrolux EWW1274, LG WD1485 and Samsung WD0804. All 3 are washer/dryer combo. Yup, I know some will say don't buy combo, but I need it because of space constraint at home. ok ok, take it that I insist want a combo, which one should I get? I'm impress with samsung what what bubble technology, but Electrolux have been a pioneer in washing machine, so quite trust worthy. LG have a better apearance. Samsung looks like a square safe-box. Both Samsung and LG have chrome door which light turn to rust (greenish bits) in times to come. Electrolux have grey paints coated door, which is nice, but the function is minimal compare to it's kim chi rival. Headache!!! Any one uses any of these?
  9. Which is the non conti 2L & below car you guys ever come across that has the most solid interior... Comfort Soft touch plastic (Betta if wrap in leather) Sound proof Quality build switches & knobs
  10. Hi all, I am posting this to seek advice for my troubled friend. You see, he got to know a Thai girl at the beginning of this year. During this time, they are really happy together and are very much in love. Once, when she went back to Thailand to visit her sick mother, my friend really missed her. That's when he realized he can't do without her. The thing now is, she is holding a student pass, taking up a course here which will end in a couple of months. This means that she cannot stay in Singapore for long, unless they register for a marriage. She has tried to look for job here but it seems that most don't want to consider her as she is not SC/PR. My friend has spoken to his parents who are skeptical about this marriage. His parents are worried that the girl is not serious, just seeking PR status. So if you were in my friend's shoes, what would you do? Anyone here with Thai wife or girlfriend who can comment on this? Generally, how is the idea of a Thai wife? Appreciate all comments or inputs. Thanks.
  11. Hi, Guys Anybody here have PRC wife? I am of marriage age(32) and my aging mother is pushing me to go for matchmaking sessions. The ladies are mostly from PRC with immediate family(father, mother, sister) already in Singapore(business) or already working in singapore. These lobangs are so call from friends of my mother. Mostly abt 20+ years old. Had an bad experience(although i emerge unscathed, only emotionally hurt) from a PRC girlfriend before. Therefore would like to seek you guys experience.
  12. Hello guys, Sorry to trouble you guys all over again. My current COE Car is expiring and i planned to bring it back to Indonesia. Well currently I saw a couple nice car near COE deaths and would like to ask your opinion. Perhaps whether what is the fair price and also whether its worth to keep 2-3 years time. The first would be : 1995 Lexus LS400 http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...199&DL=1103 I like the shape and own one while i was in the US. Robust body, Quiet engine and also comfortable for my trips to Kuala Lumpur Well The COE ends in about 4 years time and i am not sure whether i should get this one. Maintainance is an issue but with spare parts stockist in Singapore it shouldnt be a problem. I am not a fond of the white color exterior but it look like it has original paint which includes the 2 tone paint. This however would make me interested beside of the price. The second would be 1993 Lexus LS400 http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...530&DL=1359 Its old but i sat on them once as its very comfortable. The speedo died and the seller wish to repair them upon sale. Color is perfect as its black and i am interested in them. I throwed my idea of a v6 Crown as I drolled through the deals but i agree road tax is a killer in Singapore. Please give me a good indication whether the pricing is good and whether its worthed to use for 2-3 years time? Thanks
  13. Two interesting and related articles on hospital care in ST Forum which may affect folks like you & me. My take is that it
  14. Just how long u think she will need? There is no mention of how long she is intend to look into it. Not that i am questioning her abilities , there is a big difference between problem solving and wayang kulit , no offense but i seriously doubt she fits the job given to her. If she say the problem need 3 years we give her 3 years when others can probably get it solve in 1? Seriously problems like that , she should give us the confident look to show us that she can HANDLE the problem , not show us the SHACK look showing that she can't. If you can't even sort out your image , how do you think of my impression of you in handling this potential crisis? Seriously , she never even serve NS , show us the shack cannot think face how to be confident in her? If your officer give you this kind of face , would you shake your head? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/components/...p?id=475489?123 Given last time , if the train stopped , the CEO would be the first one to inspect what is wrong , as with the 1st gen politicians. Now the 3rd gen ? Sit in office? Hide at home? Seriously , the minister even without sleep should allocate all the resources they can find and sort this out immediately , even if it means employing the civil defense dept to help since if nothing happen they are just siting there. What happen to the fluid co-operation between garmen and private sector? One have s--t the others stand at side look? You guys telling me that those "practice" crisis management on terrorist attacks cannot be used here? HARLO ???? Stop dreaming!!! Same what got problem , use the resources lah , 3 days in the row on a NATIONAL transport where everyone needs it , you should treat this as important as a terrorist attack , it affect national interest as the economic damage is greater than what you think, to MS Saw if you need help , open your mouth and ASK for help! To those minister that aren't taking public transport which i assume 100% of them , time to wake up , your "prompt" actions are required. I as a voter is looking at how you are intending to drag this issue? While you cut COE quotas to open up traffic , yet u allow the most important public transport to break down so many times in the matter of a few days and SORRY is what we get?
  15. [extract] And the mighty Maybach has fallen. After much deliberation and deep thought, the management of Daimler AG, better known for their Mercedes Benz vehicles, had decided to axe the ultra luxury car brand. Daimler AG had made the announcement at the end of November that Maybach would cease to produce cars by 2013. This is by no means a surprise as the brand was hardly making any sales anywhere. Way back in 1997 when the Maybach brand was launched (again after vehicle sales stopped in 1940) the company was ambitious. They predicted annual sales of 2,000 units globally from an ultra luxury brand that prices started at over USD$300,000. They believed that there was a market for another ultra luxury car brand in the likes of Bentley and Rolls Royce. It could be true, but no one actually wanted a tarted up Mercedes Benz S-Class with the
  16. All bro/sis, need your opinion on this. Intend to upgrade stock 15 rims. Car manual recommends only up to 16. Problem is stocks for size 16 is limited while 17 has lots of it. So asked service engr will it affects the car warranty if change to 17 & the advice is to follow the manual. Did not gives clear Ok/Not OK. Next is insurance issue. Will the insurance company decline liability if rims were changed to 17 as car manual states only up to 16. (Think 1 insurance company did that). Should I change to 16 (limited choice = may not like) or proceed to 17 (lot of choice to choose) & risk warranty/insurance issues (touch wood). Gone are the days where you just change to what you like. :( Thanks in advance.
  17. And while journalism takes an ugly turn due to the mess concocted by the henchmen within the Rupert Murdoch media empire and while Lady Gaga still entertains us not with her songs but by her lack of clothing during her public appearances, Autocar UK has reported that the upcoming Mk7 Volkswagen Golf will look sportier than ever. This is very good news to me as I have always thought that the last few generations of everyone's favourite German hatchback looked extremely porky and minivan-like. This is especially true with the Mk5 Golf (pictured below). Park it beside its cousins the Audi A3, the Skoda Octavia or even the supposedly larger B7 Audi A4 sedan and you'd notice that the Golf Mk5 was at least 3 inches taller than all of the cars mentioned above. I know the Golf was meant to be a practical hatchback, but somehow being so much taller than even the bigger Audi A4 is a bit too much. Then when you add the fact that the overall styling of the Golf is pretty subdued, slabsided and understated without any overt aggression or signs of sportiness the minivan argument somehow makes some sense. Even in the GTI form it looked more like a bubbly loaf of bread than a hot hatch. Of course some may like the fact that the GTI only had red trimmings around the grille for some sign of power but I actually like my hot hatches fiery. The Mk6 was about an inch lower and with that wider, more defined split grille up front it looked wider and therefore lower. Ergo, the car looks sleeker. However I believe that sources within Volkswagen had told the people at Autocar that the company intends to give the Mk7 Golf a wider stance, a lower roofline with a nicely raked windscreen as well as a lower, more sportier driving position. The new MK7 Golf is scheduled for 2012 and will also have distinct models - the three door will be sportier than the five door and the five door hatch will look totally distinct from the taller Golf Plus mini MPV (now this makes more sense as the current Golf hatch does not really differ from the Golf Plus), much like the current Vauxhall/Opel Astra range where the three and five door models are pretty distinct from one another. This little bit of news makes me feel that there is still hope that Volkswagen intends to go back to the days of the Mk1 and Mk2 Golf (pictured below). The Golf in those days were proper hatchbacks
  18. By now photos of the 2012 BMW 1 series F20 have made their rounds through all the automotive websites and I have to say that this car is actually better looking than the model it replaced. Let me explain further why this new car is much better than the earlier version, the E81, in terms of styling. Firstly, is not styled by Chris Bangle. Any BMW not styled by Chris Bangle is a good BMW (with the exception of the 1st generation BMW Z4 which is messy with all the lines here and there, but still proportionate). Chris Bangle who has now quit the automotive industry (for the moment) gets his inspiration from an architectural philosophy called Deconstructivism. Now while that is all fine and dandy with buildings like the Guggenheim, in America or the Vitra Design Museum in Germany, a car with such a design tends to be too messy. Too many cris-crossing lines. Like the designer basically took an axe and started slicing the prototype clay models to get the look (example
  19. [extract] It seems that Daimler AG, parent company of Mercedes Benz is getting fed up with the low sales of Maybach, the supposedly luxury brand of the group. Somehow the rich have not been snapping up Maybachs like hotcakes. The wealthy seem to prefer the traditional Rolls Royce and Bentley models rather than choose a Maybach and Daimler AG isn
  20. -Project Kahn Audi TR8- Recently Project Kahn previewed its reworking of the Audi TT. It basically looks like an R8 with the R8 side panels in a different colour and all so much so that they have named it the Project Kahn Audi TR8. It does look good in all of its photo enhanced glory doesn't it? But we have to note that this isn't the first Audi TT that was done up to look like its bigger brother. We already have Caractere doing the same thing with their Audi TT bodykit and we also have Niche Design doing the same thing. I suppose this shows that at least a good number of Audi TT owners actually cannot afford to buy the Audi R8 and end up modifying their TT for good measure. Or bad measure. Or whatever way so that they can achieve their goal in a slightly warped sort of way. Now this is similar to those that end up making their BMW 3 or 5 series into the M versions of their car. Of course some of them end up just changing the rear badging to achieve this goal. This is actually the cheapest way of 'achieving' their dreams, and the fastest way to be laughed at by a true motorhead. Or if you're talking about the lower end of the scale we have people doing up their Proton Saga into Subaru Impreza and it isn't even the same brand! The thing is, why won't anyone who actually owns an Audi R8 decide to turn it into a TT? Now this would be a really interesting project for people like Project Kahn or any of the Audi tuners. Imagine Project Kahn selling the R-TT; an Audi R8 with an Audi TT aping bodykit. It would be fabulous. Imagine cruising down the autobahn in the R-TT and then some insignificant little Volkswagen Golf GTI giving you the 'Get out of the way' flashing headlights and you simply floor the throttle and leave the puny Golf and its driver wondering what the heck just happened. Or if a Mercedes Benz C63 AMG owner would be so humble to remove his car's AMG and '63 ' badges and stick on the C180 'Blue efficiency' badging instead. It would be a Mastercard moment indeed to watch those pesky Toyota Camry drivers on the Malaysian highways thinking that they've got a big car and that they're pretty fast. I suppose this will only happen if the owners of the higher powered Audi, BMW and Mercedes Benz would become 'humble' and be willing to step down an imaginary notch to pull a really fast one on others. Let's hope that someone affluent enough reads this and is totally willing to do what I've just suggested. So if you're rich and you couldn't care less about your Audi R8 looking like a TT, you should be the one doing such a thing. Everyone is making cheaper cars into more expensive ones so it will be something unique indeed if someone did it the other way round. -Niche Design Audi TT- -the original Audi R8 - Imagine if this was rebadged as a TT! -
  21. Even super car owners would fancy some zhng-ing Every time an unknowing poster starts a thread on car modifications, there will, within minutes, be a deluge of posts espousing certain truths, half-truths and myths to dissuade anyone from embarking on the journey to car modifications. Any helpful advice proffered will invariably get buried and lost amongst such posts. I will not dispute that some of arguments made are indeed the truth; for e.g. the fact that modifying a car can get very expensive. But, there are also many other points brought up which tend to confuse rather than enlighten someone hesitantly taking baby steps into modifying his or her car. I call those the Anti Car Mod Myths (or ACMM). ACMM #1: If XYZ mod was good, car manufacturers would have included it. Sometimes true, sometimes not true. This ACMM is on this list because it does not help anyone, in any way, with dealing with the issue of whether a mod is worth his money or not. We can never use the fact whether the car manufacturer would have included it in stock form as a gauge of the utility of a mod. Simply put, car manufacturers do face constraints. They need to cater to a large enough segment of the market to hit sufficient sales and drive per unit costs down. They also need to keep a tight leash on costs. They also need to sell worldwide. Some of their constraints do not apply to the Singaporean market. For example, they might have concerns over adopting certain technology because of reliability issues when the car age hits double digits or half a million clicks on the odometer. That scenario occurs commonly in everywhere BUT SINGAPORE. So, the next time someone raises this point, know that it doesn't add value at all. ACMM #2: The car manufacturer knows best; these aftermarket companies don't spend as much as the car manufacturers do on R&D.... A corollary of ACMM 1, this ACMM also does not aid anyone in making any decisions about car modification parts. Let me rehash the argument I made above; even if the car manufacturer knew best, they face constraints that may or may not apply to the Singapore market or the individual. Short of a super car manufacturer, car manufacturers would almost never be able to make the best car that they could. That is because everyone defines best differently. They would never be able to truly customize their cars to suit individual needs. And of course, we are working on the assumption that car manufacturers do know best (which is not always a given). ACMM #3: You pay so much, you might as well save and get a better car. This ACMM crops up with a scary regularity; perhaps because it sounds so reasonable and logical that it becomes inherently persuasive. But it ignores a critical dimension - that is, a car modification enthusiast would always want to modify his car. Be it a humble Jap sedan or an Italian raging bull, these are a breed of people who derive a separate pleasure from customizing their car. So sure, by all means save up and get a better car, but don't be surprised if the temptation to mod comes around again. Take it from a person who has been there and done that. Heard a ACMM bandied about the forum recently? Or disagree with what I said? Drop a line in the box below and who knows, there might be a part 2 to this blog post.
  22. Saab is in deep trouble according to its owners Spyker. The Swedish car manufacturer could seriously bite the dust even after the takeover by Spyker early last year. In fact, Spyker had to let go of a major shareholding of its luxury car manufacturing arm to a UK based investment company to inject some extra capital into Saab but even this little maneuver has not stopped the bleeding. Spyker's annual report had stated that Saab's future isn't certain if they do not secure new funding. I think Saab has caused the owners of Spyker to lose out big time. It had to sell off major shares in Spyker cars and now it reveals that Saab is bleeding badly. This statement is surprising as I remember writing about the Spyker-Saab deal in February 2010 where Spyker bought the beleaguered company from General Motors for a sum totaling US$74 million in cash and another US$326 million in deferred shares. Spyker took a 400 million Euro loan for Saab and another hundred million Euro loan elsewhere as backup. 400 million Euros is just part of the operating costs of Saab. Of course at that point of time Spyker wanted Saab to sell 120,000 cars per year and the bad news is Saab only managed around 80,000 or so units. It sold more cars in 2009 and obviously, selling less cars meant that Saab is in a real bad state. There was even an issue at the Saab Trollhattan plant which had to be temporarily shut down for about a day or so due to suppliers stopping the supply of parts. All of this isn't confidence building if you know what I mean. According to the annual report, Saab is losing tons of money due to trying to set up new distribution networks and sales/marketing operations. While this spending of money was necessary and budgeted for in the Saab turnaround cum business plan, Spyker did not anticipate that the actual cash needed was higher than planned. There was also talk that a Russian billionaire is interested in Saab and is willing to invest 500million Euros into Saab. But this is mere speculation and nothing is solid as yet. And why someone is willing to add more money to a sinking ship is beyond me. As if Spyker's foray into Saab isn't a lesson to others already. All this has basically shown that what I said in my earlier article written way, way, way back in December 2009 where I asked a simple question on Saab and its extinction at that point of time and whether it really matter to any of us? I basically asked and said -
×
×
  • Create New...