Copenhagen - climate change conference, chewing tobacco, or both?

Holding a gigantic conference on climate change (which opens this week) in a city whose name is also that of a brand of chewing tobacco is far from being the greatest irony associated with this event.

No; I think that honour has to go to the forms of transportation the city has laid on for the tens of thousands of delegates.

According to Q107’s John Derringer - he’s never lied to me before, as far as I know, and his "Tool of the Day" feature was subsequently backed up by a reputable British newspaper - Danish livery companies have laid on some 1,200 - twelve hundred! - limousines to schlep people around.

The number of hybrids and pure electrics in that mix?

Five.

Five? As in one-two-three-four-five?

Yep.

Five.

Out of one thousand two hundred.

The rest are gasoline- or Diesel-powered.

Seems Danish taxes on new cars are so onerous that the all-foreign-made alternate-energy vehicles make even less financial sense here than they do everywhere else.

Which is to say, less-than-not-very-much.

There are also some 120 private aircraft flitting about the skies, making sure the pols and the celebs don’t have to rub shoulders with The Great Unwashed in commercial airports. (You think cars pollute? You should check out airplanes.)

The few landing fields in Denmark are so overcrowded, the planes have to fly to Sweden or Germany to park while awaiting Sir or Madam’s next transportation whim.

There’s actually a double irony working here, because generally speaking, Copenhagen is a fairly energy-conscious burg.

Among other things, Copenhagen has kabillions of bicycles.

Now, from what I remember from a couple of visits over the years, the main city is very compact, and the highest point of elevation is probably a speed bump on Hans Christian Andersens Boulevard.

Heck, the entire country of Denmark makes Saskatchewan look like Switzerland.

And the moderating effect of the near-by Gulf Stream, and whatever degree of global warming is in fact going on, mean it never gets too terribly cold here.

Which makes this city conducive to bicycles.

In stark contrast to a city chosen (by me...) completely at random - let’s say, oh, Toronto for instance, whose Lame-Duck-Thank-God Mayor and his acolytes have their heads buried coal-mine-shaft deep in the sand (or worse) on these very two issues (local geography; local weather).

So, why doesn't Copenhagen just lend a bicycle to every conference delegate for the duration of his/her stay?

Um, no - these people may be meeting here to save the planet for following generations, but needless to say they aren’t prepared to actually sacrifice their own comfort or convenience towards that goal.

You’d think that if they weren’t going to walk the walk, the least they could do is pedal the bike.

Because you know darned well they are going to talk the talk. The biggest hit our poor earth’s climate is likely to take over the coming few days will be the ‘emissions’ from the conference auditoriums, a word derived (as the old joke goes) from the Latin “audio” - to hear - and “taurus” - bull...

Which sort-of brings me around to the ‘other’ Copenhagen. Given the recent revelations and leaked e-mails from global warming alarmists that some of their data may have been fudged to fit the pre-determined conclusion, the delegates at this climate change conference sure have a lot to chew on.

Winter tires? It's about time.

This beautiful sunny weather we've enjoyed this past couple of weeks - where was it last summer when we could have really used it?

But check your Kenzie Car Calendar in support of SmartRisk (click on www.jimkenzie.com to re-order - once again, I can't seem to make hot links work in this blogging software...) - it really is mid-November.

While the temperature feels pretty nice, especially when the sun shines, thermometer usually reads in single-digits these days. And whenever it drops below seven degrees C., your summer tires, or even "all-seasons" (which I call "no-seasons" because they're not much good any time) become even less effective.

That's because modern winter tires really are not just 'snow' tires any more. Their tread compounds are softer, more pliable, and don't get rigid when the temperature drops.

The rubber can therefore conform to irregularities in the road surface, which is a big part of how tires get traction.

Of course, their tread pattern means they get better traction in snow, in slush and on ice. But they're better in winter on all road surfaces.

You also really should put four winter tires on your car. I have heard of some tire retailers still telling consumers that this advice is mere propaganda from tire manufacturers to move product, that you really only need two, and to put them on the driving wheels.

Wrong on both counts.

I participated in a tire test late last winter, conducted by Continental Tire. One of the most illuminating exercises involved three mechanically-identical Mustang GTs - rear-wheel drive V8-powered sport coupes.

Car One had four of Conti's newest winter tires. Car Two had a set of four Conti all-seasons. Car Three had all-seasons on the front, winter tires on the rears - what a lot of people still do, and which, as noted, some tire professionals are still recommending.

The test, run on packed snow at below-zero temperatures, consisted of acceleration from rest, into a fairly high-speed slalom course, with a 'keyhole' - a big circle - at the end.

Predictably and as expected, Car One was the best. It accelerated strongly, and steered fine through the slalom and keyhole.

Car Two, the all-season car, was in a way the safest - you can't get into too much trouble if you can't move. Without a shove from one of the instructors, this car could barely get off the line.

But once it got rolling, it was at least balanced. Having similar levels of grip at both ends, it could be steered safely through the twisty bits - albeit slowly, or off-course it would go.

Car Three? All-seasons up front, winters on the back? It was all but undriveable.

It got away from rest fine, thanks to the grip of the winters on the rear wheels.

But when it came time to turn - nothing. It understeered - plowed straight ahead - like the Queen Mary. Very dangerous.

If for whatever reasons you can only put on two winter tires - really, NOT recommended - they should not necessarily go on the driving wheels. They should go on the rear wheels, regardless of which pair are the drivers.

Why?

The issue isn't acceleration - it's stability, in cornering or under braking. You don't want the back end of the car swinging around and leading the way, so the tires with the best traction - the winters - should always go on the back.

Yes, it looks weird to see winter tires only on the rear wheels of a front-wheel drive car. The first time I saw this was when I was a kid, on a DKW van, a then-competitor for the VW Microvan. If I was blogging then, I probably would have ripped into the doofus with his "snow tires" on the wrong axle.

But hey - we can all learn.

And virtually every tire expert (except for that handful of ignorant sales people) is on board with this idea.

But really - four is the only way to go. Give up one latte per week, or one professional nails job a month. The extra two winter tires could save you a lot more than those luxuries would cost.

Put them on a set of steel wheel rims, so you only have to replace the wheel/tire as a unit, instead of subjecting both rim and tire to the wear and tear of mounting and re-mounting at each seasonal change.

Also, your car probably came with alloy rims; the salt and sand, not to mention increased likelihood of curb contact, means winter can really play havoc with those expensive bits of shiny metal. Let the cheap steel rims be sacrificial lambs.

True, apartment-dwellers might have a challenge finding a place to store the off-season wheels and tires. Some tire retailers offer this service.

Or, get on good terms with a friend who lives in a house with a really big garage.

Is the City of Toronto anti-car? Say it isn't so.

Because the City of Toronto keeps doing things like assigning scarce road resources to the half-dozen bicycles which will soon be plying our streets come January and taking those resources away from the twelve million cars that really need them, you might think that The Big Smoke is somehow anti-car.

Now, for once the City of Toronto IS trying to do something good for car owners, but it may not be getting the credit it deserves.

I'm talking about the proposal to change the anti-idling bylaw from a three-minute limit to a one-minute limit. It was proposed by the Toronto Board of Health to City Council recently; last time I looked it was bogged down somewhere (governmental progress can be glacial).

Some think this looks like another car-baiting cash grab.

It's not.

Well, it may be.

But it isn't ONLY that.

Why is this a Good Thing?

Because idling your car is just about the stupidest thing you can do to it.

It doesn't take a quadruple-digit IQ to understand that idling isn't the way to better fuel consumption. Obviously, it nets you zero miles per gallon, or uses infinite litres per 100 kilometres.

A study conducted in Europe some years back showed that you can switch an engine off and back on again 30 times a minute - i.e. about as quickly as it is possible to do so - and still use less fuel than leaving it idle for that minute. That study was of large truck Diesel engines ('fuel' for thought for truck owners everywhere) but I bet it can't be far wrong for any engine.

OK, so I am preternaturally cheap. But do you have that sort of money to throw away on gasoline? Even at a buck a litre - cheap by world standards - I sure as heck don't.

One of the main fuel economy advantages of hybrid cars is that they automatically shut their engines off when at rest. So-called 'idle-stop' systems are available on many models in Europe, which make some of them nearly as efficient overall as hybrids, and a lot less expensive.

Ironically, the only non-hybrid idle-stop system I can think of currently available in Canada is on that paragon of fuel efficiency, the Porsche Panamera.

Idling can hit you in the wallet other ways too. Especially when an engine is cold, it's the worst possible thing you can do to it, because unburnt fuel in the rich cold-start mixture can wash away the protective oil coating on cylinder walls, leading to premature engine wear.

Again, who's got the extra cash to rebuild an engine before its time?

If you have any concern whatsoever for the environment, idling is clearly stupid. We have to accept a minor (VERY minor) contribution to atmospheric pollution if we're driving (but probably less than those methane-generating cyclists, all half-dozen of them...).

But when just sitting there going nowhere?

That's just stupid.

So: Waiting for a friend outside her office? Flick on the four-ways and shut it down.

Stuck at a level crossing waiting for the GO Train or a slow freight? Flick on the four-ways and shut it down.

Heading for the drive-thru at Timmy's? First, improve your standards w/r/t your morning beverage (the word "coffee" does not compute with Timmy's) then park your car and walk in to the bleedin' store. The server might even be cute.

Just don't idle the car.

Don't be stupid.

Let your City help you be smarter.

Now, the current three-minute limit is not enforced very vigorously; the cops aren't likely to be any more diligent with the one-minute limit. Maybe they should stop their illegal flagging down of high-beam-flashing radar-trap-warners and do something productive and useful.

Jump-Starting Tips, and a Trick

Hard to believe with the weather we've had, but one of these days you might just have to jump-start a car.

Here's a web site that tells you all about it:

(Once again, I seem to be having trouble making hot links work. Until my on-line editor bails me out, copy-and-paste the following into your browser:)

www.aa1car.com/library/battery_safety.htm

But I had to help a friend jump-start an old BMW the other day, and I learned something new (hey - it happens).

There were two sets of jumper cables available to us, and I chose what appeared to be the thicker gauge because thin cables cannot carry as much current, and/or they get hot if you need to crank the dead car for too long (the BMW had been sitting for several months so that was a distinct possibility).

After taking all the above precautions and ensuring there was gasoline, oil, coolant, etc., we cranked it over.

Click-click-clicketty-click.

No start.

We let it sit for a while (and yes, the cables did start to get a bit warm) and tried again.

Click-click-clicketty-click.

Jiggled the connections to make sure they were solid.

Click-click-clicketty-click.

Then I thought - hmm-mm; I wanted the thicker cables for more current. What would happen if I doubled up on the cables?

So feeling very MacGyverish, I connected the second set of cables in parallel with the first set.

VROOM!!

Fired on the first crank.

I presume the extra cables did in fact allow enough current to get to the BMW's starter to turn the car over.

So instead of carrying ONE set of jumpers with you at all times, maybe you should get two?

Or maybe just buy a decent set in the first place.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the - um, EDR?

One of the all-time great movies is the 1964 Stanley Kubrick masterpiece, Dr. Strangelove. It's about nuclear warfare. It is a comedy. Kids, rent it. You won't be sorry.

One of the plot points involves something called the Doomsday Machine, a Top Secret device invented by Russia to blow up the entire world if it senses missiles heading towards the Soviet Motherland.

Alexei, the Russian ambassador to the US, brags that it was the ultimate deterrent.

Dr. Strangelove, played by Peter Sellers (who also played the US President - I told you it was a comedy) notes that the whole point of a deterrent is lost if it is kept a secret!

I think of this scene every time I drive by the signs indicating the EDR routes on our highways. OK, not a perfect analogy, but EDR stands for Emergency Detour Route.

Do YOU know anything about the EDR? Have you ever seen any instructions on what would constitute an emergency serious enough to invoke them? Or what to do when such an emergency occurs?

Would you even know WHEN it hit if it did hit?

I don't.

OK, so I Googled it.

But why don't we KNOW about these things?

Does anybody know what "openDNS" is?

From the "a little learning is a dangerous thing" file, I know just enough about computers to almost get it.

(Note: this has nothing directly to do with cars; only with this blog).

For the last couple of days, every time I tried to access almost any web site, something called "openDNS" would pop up, saying that access to that web site was blocked.

It's not like I was looking for some porn channel or something. Google; yahoo; thestar.ca - just about everything except my anti-virus software was being blocked.

I had no idea what openDNS was, or how it got installed on my computer.

I tried e-mailing the openDNS support people, asking what the heck was going on. To their credit, they did respond, saying that I could change my IP address to avoid the problem.

Um, sure... Not quite enough learning, as it happens.

The support people said it is not downloadable, so I didn't do anything to invoke it. They said it might be part of my "ISP" - Internet Service Provider (I DO know that much). I use the Rogers' Rocket Stick USB key internet access thing, the only semi-high-speed system I can get out here in the boonies.

So I still don't know how or why it openDNS was there.

All of which to say that this is why I haven't been on my blog for the past couple of days - it seems to be working today, so we're back at ya.

I also know I'm WAY behind on Comments; I have a bit of a busy first half of the week - drive to New York City for a Bentley event Monday, then back Tuesday night for a presentation at Georgian College Wednesday morning.

But the rest of the week looks fairly OK, so I'll try to start catching up then.

Thanks for your patience.

Hindenburg, meet the Ford Pinto

My daughter's recently-purchased house nearly burned to the ground the other day because a tenant's brand-new Mac computer overheated and caught on fire.

This is the battery technology that will be powering our cars in the near future?

And people wonder why I'm skeptical.

Cash for Clunkers?

One thing US President Obama did do to encourage American consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars is the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program, whereby eligible older cars (presumably, pollution-spewing gas-guzzling dinosaurs) can qualify for government rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 when traded in on newer (presumably more environment-friendly) vehicles.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

On a couple of fronts, C4C has been wildly successful. Nearly half a million cars have been moved on the promise of the rebates, which has indeed been a stimulus to the car industry, although foreign brands have benefited as much or more than the domestic brands, two of which (General Motors and Chrysler) the government(s) now have an ownership stake in.

And the technological progress that has been the hallmark of the past decade with respect to both fuel efficiency and cleanliness means that the atmosphere probably is improving for the better with these half-million new cars on the road.

It has always amazed me that the state of California, whose Air Resources Board has been one of the strongest champions of green issues, is also apparently home to the entire world’s remaining supply of 1965 Volkswagen Beetles (nothing rusts out there) whose exhaust is, comparatively speaking, truly toxic. Ironically, it's often superannuated hippies and other tree-huggers driving these air-killers.

You’d think California would have done something like this decades ago, as indeed, many countries around the world have.

But C4C has also run into a few problems.

First, the $3 billion (US, of course) allocated to the program originally intended to last through November, has almost all been spoken for. The program officially ended yesterday.

Second, many dealers, while appreciating the extra business, are on the hook for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The way it works is they give the purchaser the money, either in cash or as a discount on the car, then apply to the government for reimbursement.

If the request for funds is rejected for any reason, the dealer is on the hook. Even if the request is approved, the massive delays which have been very common do terrible things to his cash flow.

Which, if you’ve ever owned any business, you’ll know is the ONLY business there is.

As many as 70 percent of reimbursement requests have yet to be approved.

Many dealers chose to turn new C4C prospects away over the past few weeks, because they simply couldn’t afford the risk.

Nonetheless, Canadian dealers have been clamouring for a similar program. There is a $300 federal grant, which is far too low to have had any effect. B.C. has a richer program which has been quite successful. Some hybrids also qualify for various incentives in some jurisdictions.

But compared to $4,500, that’s all chicken feed.

Now, car sales in Canada aren’t quite as bad as in the US. Much of the “national” decline in 2009 has been in Alberta and B.C., and the year-over-year declines there are based on the hyperactive resource-based economies of those two provinces in 2008.

So the “downturn” in sales isn’t that dramatic when viewed in a broader context.

And if car sales get a boost, store owners in other retail sectors have a right to ask, "Why not me?"

Hyundai Canada announced last week that it will offer additional incentives of $500 to $1,000 based on the C4C principle. At least one Hyundai dealer in the GTA beat his company to the punch with a similar program. Chrysler Canada also offers $500 to $1,500.

Will these programs work?

If the incentive is big enough, consumers will go for it. Incentives like these will 'move iron' - that has been well-proven elsewhere.

What is far from proven is: is this the best use of your tax dollars to achieve either improvements to the environment or improvements to the car industry?

My guess is no.

Raise the price of fuel, keep it high, and let the marketplace decide.

This won't happen, certainly not in the United States, because the political will is simply not there.

So I guess - as usual - we will have to be satisfied with half-measures.

There's none so blind as they who will not see

Ontario's Minister of Transportation Jim Bradley says the ban on hand-held cell phones and other electronic devices will go into effect this coming October, but that the police will initially be allowed some discretion in filing charges, as part of what Bradley calls an "education" period.

Moo Poo.

If Bradley's Ministry or the Solicitor-General's department which administers the police valued education at all, they would have learned from the all-too-evident academic and real-world research which proves that this entire initiative is next to worthless.

There is no doubt that such devices are major traffic hazards; the full extent of the danger they pose is only slowly becoming apparent.

But as we have stated time and again, it is not the loss of manual dexterity caused by manipulating the devices that makes callers and texters drive as badly as if they were drunk.

It is the loss of mental focus; the car may be in gear, but the driver's brain is in neutral.

What's more, the research indicates that you don't get sober the instant you hang up - the distraction can last for up to ten minutes.

This hand-held ban is therefore mere political window dressing - they should be ashamed of themselves. But they, being politicians, have a gigantic tolerance for shame, especially their own.

It is easy to say "We have to do something" or "This is better than nothing" or "It would be impossible to ban all use of such devices".

I say that anything that lets politicians off the hook, that absolves them of the responsibility of fixing the problems they were elected to fix is NOT "better than nothing".

It IS in fact "nothing".

And we don't elect these people - and pay them, very handsomely - to do "nothing".

I apologize for the long letter...

...I didn't have time to write a short one.

Blogs are supposed to be timely, and short.

Sometimes it is hard to be both.

Well, it is always hard for me to be short.

As with the TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR subsidy the Ontario government is proposing for electric cars.

This is just so wrong from so many perspectives that it is impossible to deal with in the blogosphere.

So I encourage you to make a point of seeing next weekend's Carte Blanche, where I hope to be able to elucidate the full idiocy of this plan in a thousand words or fewer.

Even that is going to be tough, but I'll give it a shot.