Next Question
RSS
Yes, great idea!
The Automotive X-Prize, the foundation of which will award $10 million from Progressive Insurance to the winner of its competition to design a production-viable car that people would want to drive that gets 100 MPGe or more.
What's with that little 'e' after the familiar miles per gallon? Basically, the X-Prize crew wants to convert all units of energy to a figure that's equivalent to the power from a gallon of gas. That way, a car's powerplant – regardless of where it gets that energy from – earns a rating that can be easily compared with everything else.
Hey GM, you want money? maybe you should enter the Volt in the X-Prize competition!!!
When companies like Lightning Hybrid will go for X-prize with 100 mpg biodiesel hydraulic hybrid, who needs GM?
Source(s):
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/teams
Permalink | Report
We shouldn't be giving money to any big car type company's and I really dont think we should loan this race any money either..They should fend for themselves. And regarding GM and the companys that are getting saved with bale out money...
The governess shouldn't have to save these big company's..The government doesn't save little businesses so why should the big businesses deserve to be saved?
Plus we don't need GM at all. We have foreign car company's that sell cheaper, are made faster and are far safer. The people at GM are lazy union people who just want more money for less work and a lot of American company's are like that.
Permalink | Report
srgothard
I think this solution is similar to what DARPA did with the Urban challenge and introduced small grants to teams or 2 tracks you could follow to make it to the race. Both kinds of teams were successful, but it did help teams which may not have made it as far pick up some of the bills
he interesting fact is what happens with the Intellectual Property? If the government gives loans I think the major IP should be open so that everyone can benefit from the workings. Hell with that model it might even help large automakers to bring cooler products faster.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
I think the top companies should definitely be rewarded for what the accomplish in the R&D space, but the road between a no-constraints prototype and a model that meets all DOT, EPA, and CARB regulations is long.
While these companies may be able to provide some great alternatives, mass producing a vehicle at a reasonable price is unwieldy.
In addition to the MPG goal set forth by the XPRIZE, it may be helpful to mix in an award for new ideas in the area of manufacturing, marketing, and distribution so the entire system behind the vehicle is revolutionary.
Sean
sean@seanazul.com
Permalink | Report
At the same time, focusing exclusively on the XPRIZE might have the effect of "putting all eggs in the same basket," which is probably what we're trying to avoid.
Another issue to consider is that of fundamental research. Money spent there will benefit whole industries instead of a few key players.
So, public funding for the XPRIZE is likely to have a wide range of benefits but the XPRIZE isn't the end-all solution.
Source(s):
Critical thinking.
Permalink | Report
The above question is how I would restate your question, because there are two separate purposes to the distribution of the money.
The money to GM is for the purpose of limiting the loss of jobs from the workers at GM and the workers at the various suppliers. Limiting the loss of jobs will limit the IMMEDIATE damage to the economy.
The money to each of the companies in the XPRIZE is for the purpose of encouraging innovation and therefore encouraging the creation of jobs. This is a LONG RANGE plan that will strengthen our economy.
Both purposes are legitimate, and we should not limit our vision to one purpose or the other.
Permalink | Report
It'd be nice if we could separate politics from these decisions, but the decisions are politics. You have to present a solution that enriches those already in power as opposed to what may be the most logical. Politicians jobs are to get re-elected. If you want their money, show them how this will get them re-elected.
Permalink | Report
at present the auto industry employs about 3.5 million people - a significant portion of them would be out of jobs if the big 3 collapsed.
The US labor force is about 150 million , about 13 million currently unemployed.
So unemployment would go up immediately by about 2-3% from the current 8-9% - this in addition to the impact it will have on commodity markets like steel etc that these industries consume.
For an economy in the ER, not giving the industry help now would be akin to giving a patient in the ER - a gym workout plan instead of life saving drugs.
Source(s):
just my thoughts--probably not so popular
Permalink | Report
No, we should give loans to SOME of the top companies in the X Prize. Not all of the participants in the X Prize are worthy of having $20M apiece. What American automakers need is a car that Americans want, so it only makes sense to give loans to the companies whose cars appeal to Americans the most. And MPG is not the only thing people are looking for! The Aptera 2 Series may get 300 MPG but nobody wants to buy a car that looks like it came out of "Blade Runner". As an average joe car buyer, I'm looking for 4 MAIN things when I look for a new car. 1. Affordability 2. Good Mileage 3. Durability & 4. Good Looks. Now if I was the government, and I was going to give out $20M to a couple small automaker startups instead of a slowly decaying auto powerhouse, I would want to make sure that its products had these 4 characteristics! The best plan would probably be to reward the top X Prize companies with the $10M prize earnings AND a partnership with the Big 3. That way these top X Prize cars go quickly into mass production, jobs are saved, Detroit maintains its title as Motor City, the American economy improves, and America becomes a cleaner, greener, place!
P.S. GM NEEDED a loan to stay afloat!
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$10
April 07, 2009 05:04 PM
Should we give $20M loans to each of the top 50 companies in the X Prize instead of a billion to GM?
Just read this story and it got me wondering... do you we give $20M loans to each of the top 50 companies in the XPRIZE instead of a tens of billion to GM and other failed car companies?
Teams Race to Build Super-Fuel-Efficient Car (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123905514976894585.html)
By JOSEPH B. WHITE
A field of 111 teams -- ranging India's Tata Motors Ltd., Silicon Valley startup Tesla Motors Inc. and a team backed by musician Neil Young -- will compete for a $10 million prize to build a practical vehicle capable of getting the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon of gas, the contest's backers said Monday.
The Progressive Automotive X-Prize contest, with its underlying premise that the legacy auto industry needs a shot of innovation to escape its current woes, coincides with the wrenching restructuring of Detroit's big automakers and heated debates about energy policy in Washington.
Most of the entrants are relatively small, startup car makers, such as Aptera Motors, a California company trying to drum up interest in a three-wheeled electric vehicle. Tesla Motors, which is already selling a $100,000 electric roadster, plans to enter its second car, the Model S sedan. Tata has proposed entering a hybrid and an electric version of its Nano minicar. Of the 136 vehicles entered, 91 are electric vehicles, the foundation said.
Among the more unusual entries is the LINCVOLT, a 1959 Lincoln convertible outfitted with a hybrid-electric drivetrain and promoted by Mr. Young, who's featured the car in some of his recent videos and plans a movie on the project.
The prize winners will be decided after a multistep process that will culminate with road competitions next year in four U.S. cities, X-Prize Foundation Chairman Peter H. Diamandis said in an interview Monday.
So far none of the big Detroit auto makers has chosen to enter the contest. Mr. Diamandis said that even if big car makers don't enter, they could benefit from the contest. "They have a beautiful off-balance-sheet R&D program," he said.
General Motors Corp. spokesman Greg Martin said the auto maker has had discussions with the X-Prize Foundation, but has decided to focus its resources on meeting a 2010 production target for its Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid designed to run 40 miles on electricity alone. "Everything we have is to get that vehicle to market," Mr. Martin said. "Everything beyond that would be nice to do, not need to do."
The Progressive Automotive X-Prize is one of a series of high-profile technology challenges backed by the X-Prize Foundation and Mr. Diamandis. The common theme is the use of a multimillion-dollar prize to inspire technological innovation. In 2004, the foundation awarded $10 million to a team led by aerospace designer Burt Rutan for building a vehicle that carried three people 100 kilometers above the earth twice within two weeks.
Teams Race to Build Super-Fuel-Efficient Car (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123905514976894585.html)
By JOSEPH B. WHITE
A field of 111 teams -- ranging India's Tata Motors Ltd., Silicon Valley startup Tesla Motors Inc. and a team backed by musician Neil Young -- will compete for a $10 million prize to build a practical vehicle capable of getting the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon of gas, the contest's backers said Monday.
The Progressive Automotive X-Prize contest, with its underlying premise that the legacy auto industry needs a shot of innovation to escape its current woes, coincides with the wrenching restructuring of Detroit's big automakers and heated debates about energy policy in Washington.
Most of the entrants are relatively small, startup car makers, such as Aptera Motors, a California company trying to drum up interest in a three-wheeled electric vehicle. Tesla Motors, which is already selling a $100,000 electric roadster, plans to enter its second car, the Model S sedan. Tata has proposed entering a hybrid and an electric version of its Nano minicar. Of the 136 vehicles entered, 91 are electric vehicles, the foundation said.
Among the more unusual entries is the LINCVOLT, a 1959 Lincoln convertible outfitted with a hybrid-electric drivetrain and promoted by Mr. Young, who's featured the car in some of his recent videos and plans a movie on the project.
The prize winners will be decided after a multistep process that will culminate with road competitions next year in four U.S. cities, X-Prize Foundation Chairman Peter H. Diamandis said in an interview Monday.
So far none of the big Detroit auto makers has chosen to enter the contest. Mr. Diamandis said that even if big car makers don't enter, they could benefit from the contest. "They have a beautiful off-balance-sheet R&D program," he said.
General Motors Corp. spokesman Greg Martin said the auto maker has had discussions with the X-Prize Foundation, but has decided to focus its resources on meeting a 2010 production target for its Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid designed to run 40 miles on electricity alone. "Everything we have is to get that vehicle to market," Mr. Martin said. "Everything beyond that would be nice to do, not need to do."
The Progressive Automotive X-Prize is one of a series of high-profile technology challenges backed by the X-Prize Foundation and Mr. Diamandis. The common theme is the use of a multimillion-dollar prize to inspire technological innovation. In 2004, the foundation awarded $10 million to a team led by aerospace designer Burt Rutan for building a vehicle that carried three people 100 kilometers above the earth twice within two weeks.
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Alternative Fuel Vehicles |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| April 07, 2009 07:30 PM |
The Automotive X-Prize, the foundation of which will award $10 million from Progressive Insurance to the winner of its competition to design a production-viable car that people would want to drive that gets 100 MPGe or more.
What's with that little 'e' after the familiar miles per gallon? Basically, the X-Prize crew wants to convert all units of energy to a figure that's equivalent to the power from a gallon of gas. That way, a car's powerplant – regardless of where it gets that energy from – earns a rating that can be easily compared with everything else.
Hey GM, you want money? maybe you should enter the Volt in the X-Prize competition!!!
When companies like Lightning Hybrid will go for X-prize with 100 mpg biodiesel hydraulic hybrid, who needs GM?
Source(s):
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/teams
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (10)
April 07, 2009 05:28 PM
I didnt read your whole long essay worth of infomation..But you actual queston has started me on a rant.. We shouldn't be giving money to any big car type company's and I really dont think we should loan this race any money either..They should fend for themselves. And regarding GM and the companys that are getting saved with bale out money...
The governess shouldn't have to save these big company's..The government doesn't save little businesses so why should the big businesses deserve to be saved?
Plus we don't need GM at all. We have foreign car company's that sell cheaper, are made faster and are far safer. The people at GM are lazy union people who just want more money for less work and a lot of American company's are like that.
Permalink | Report
Reply
srgothard
April 07, 2009 07:42 PM
I wish I could vote you helpful 10 times! I totally agree. I can't believe we are taking money from people's paychecks and handing it off to companies! It's bad enough that I pay for my neighbor's children to go to school, but now I'm sending money to big companies??
Tip srgothard for this comment
Report
April 07, 2009 05:30 PM
I guess the answer for me is maybe. While I see the value in multiple startups in the auto industry (tesla for example) I am not confidant that just spreading money around is the right idea. There has to be some mechanism for control so we know that the money is not being wasted. If loans are given to teams which are at a specific phase of the xprize or make it so far with MPG or innovations then yes, but wouldn't they be able to get venture money from elsewhere? I think this solution is similar to what DARPA did with the Urban challenge and introduced small grants to teams or 2 tracks you could follow to make it to the race. Both kinds of teams were successful, but it did help teams which may not have made it as far pick up some of the bills
he interesting fact is what happens with the Intellectual Property? If the government gives loans I think the major IP should be open so that everyone can benefit from the workings. Hell with that model it might even help large automakers to bring cooler products faster.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 07, 2009 05:40 PM
I think this is a brilliant idea. It would keep the auto-parts suppliers going, and in fact may even spur the creation of many new jobs as the parts makers will need to retool in order to create a more diverse set of products. This retooling will also result in a more diversified product line for the parts makers, distributing risk across multiple customers and channels.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 07, 2009 05:49 PM
Yes and No. I think the top companies should definitely be rewarded for what the accomplish in the R&D space, but the road between a no-constraints prototype and a model that meets all DOT, EPA, and CARB regulations is long.
While these companies may be able to provide some great alternatives, mass producing a vehicle at a reasonable price is unwieldy.
In addition to the MPG goal set forth by the XPRIZE, it may be helpful to mix in an award for new ideas in the area of manufacturing, marketing, and distribution so the entire system behind the vehicle is revolutionary.
Sean
sean@seanazul.com
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 07, 2009 05:50 PM
Diversifying investments in a broad range of technologies, including super-efficient cars (as well as, say, smaller vehicles and public transportation systems), may be a way to, all at the same time: stimulate economies, encourage environmental sustainability, and find ways to attain social sustainability. Clearly, much more efficient than putting General Motors on life-support. At the same time, focusing exclusively on the XPRIZE might have the effect of "putting all eggs in the same basket," which is probably what we're trying to avoid.
Another issue to consider is that of fundamental research. Money spent there will benefit whole industries instead of a few key players.
So, public funding for the XPRIZE is likely to have a wide range of benefits but the XPRIZE isn't the end-all solution.
Source(s):
Critical thinking.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 07, 2009 06:59 PM
"Should we give $20M loans to each of the top 50 companies in the XPRIZE and an additional billion to GM?" The above question is how I would restate your question, because there are two separate purposes to the distribution of the money.
The money to GM is for the purpose of limiting the loss of jobs from the workers at GM and the workers at the various suppliers. Limiting the loss of jobs will limit the IMMEDIATE damage to the economy.
The money to each of the companies in the XPRIZE is for the purpose of encouraging innovation and therefore encouraging the creation of jobs. This is a LONG RANGE plan that will strengthen our economy.
Both purposes are legitimate, and we should not limit our vision to one purpose or the other.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 09, 2009 04:27 PM
Good answer.
Anyone that succeeds in meeting the X prize challenge has a very bright future, and will have no problem getting funding from private sources.
Putting up some public seed money up front might not be a bad idea. But everything green has been having a little "dotcom" bubble of its own, with plenty of investor money rolling in these last few years.
Meanwhile if the economy has spiralled into a depression, lots of people are out of work, and no one is spending any money, it will hurt innovative companies as much as anyone else.
It's now obvious that people got too carried away with their "success" in the boom, and they were as Greenspan once put it "irrationally exuberant". In retrospect, it would have been a good thing if the authorities could have damped down that wild over-confidence and the asset bubbles it created.
By the same logic, we are now in a period when irrational despondency is the problem. And if it would have made sense to take the heat out of the boom, it also makes sense to moderate the bust.
I'm not sure how much people who put forward these arguments against govt action know about their economic history. The exact same debates were had in the 1930s, and people bought the logic for the goverment to do nothing. Result - the Great Depression, huge unemployment, extremists taking power in the worst hit countries like Germany, World War 2.
If you want a re-run, it's not too late for us to really screw up again.
Report
Anyone that succeeds in meeting the X prize challenge has a very bright future, and will have no problem getting funding from private sources.
Putting up some public seed money up front might not be a bad idea. But everything green has been having a little "dotcom" bubble of its own, with plenty of investor money rolling in these last few years.
Meanwhile if the economy has spiralled into a depression, lots of people are out of work, and no one is spending any money, it will hurt innovative companies as much as anyone else.
It's now obvious that people got too carried away with their "success" in the boom, and they were as Greenspan once put it "irrationally exuberant". In retrospect, it would have been a good thing if the authorities could have damped down that wild over-confidence and the asset bubbles it created.
By the same logic, we are now in a period when irrational despondency is the problem. And if it would have made sense to take the heat out of the boom, it also makes sense to moderate the bust.
I'm not sure how much people who put forward these arguments against govt action know about their economic history. The exact same debates were had in the 1930s, and people bought the logic for the goverment to do nothing. Result - the Great Depression, huge unemployment, extremists taking power in the worst hit countries like Germany, World War 2.
If you want a re-run, it's not too late for us to really screw up again.
April 07, 2009 07:51 PM
You actually want Obama and his friends to dump on a huge union firm like GM? Sure, it is a better idea just like tons of other ideas when it comes to spending our money. But this idea won't support the current unions who they are counting on to get re-elected. It'd be nice if we could separate politics from these decisions, but the decisions are politics. You have to present a solution that enriches those already in power as opposed to what may be the most logical. Politicians jobs are to get re-elected. If you want their money, show them how this will get them re-elected.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 07, 2009 10:08 PM
When someone is in the ER, you have to keep him alive first and when he gets a little better you ask him to eat healthy, get healthy. at present the auto industry employs about 3.5 million people - a significant portion of them would be out of jobs if the big 3 collapsed.
The US labor force is about 150 million , about 13 million currently unemployed.
So unemployment would go up immediately by about 2-3% from the current 8-9% - this in addition to the impact it will have on commodity markets like steel etc that these industries consume.
For an economy in the ER, not giving the industry help now would be akin to giving a patient in the ER - a gym workout plan instead of life saving drugs.
Source(s):
just my thoughts--probably not so popular
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 07, 2009 11:45 PM
"Should we give $20M loans to each of the top 50 companies in the X Prize instead of a billion to GM?" No, we should give loans to SOME of the top companies in the X Prize. Not all of the participants in the X Prize are worthy of having $20M apiece. What American automakers need is a car that Americans want, so it only makes sense to give loans to the companies whose cars appeal to Americans the most. And MPG is not the only thing people are looking for! The Aptera 2 Series may get 300 MPG but nobody wants to buy a car that looks like it came out of "Blade Runner". As an average joe car buyer, I'm looking for 4 MAIN things when I look for a new car. 1. Affordability 2. Good Mileage 3. Durability & 4. Good Looks. Now if I was the government, and I was going to give out $20M to a couple small automaker startups instead of a slowly decaying auto powerhouse, I would want to make sure that its products had these 4 characteristics! The best plan would probably be to reward the top X Prize companies with the $10M prize earnings AND a partnership with the Big 3. That way these top X Prize cars go quickly into mass production, jobs are saved, Detroit maintains its title as Motor City, the American economy improves, and America becomes a cleaner, greener, place!
P.S. GM NEEDED a loan to stay afloat!
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Do you think Joe Jackson should receive $15,000 a month from his son's estate? Why o...
Has the internet increased of decreased our personal freedoms? Has it changed the way...
How do I change my iPod Video 5.5 Gen serial number?
How top member feature works?Is it count both task and answers income?
Has the internet increased of decreased our personal freedoms? Has it changed the way...
How do I change my iPod Video 5.5 Gen serial number?
How top member feature works?Is it count both task and answers income?
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- dansingerman, November 10, 2009 11:20 AM
- samorchard, November 10, 2009 11:06 AM
- wil20, November 10, 2009 10:36 AM
- sportsdiscount, November 10, 2009 09:42 AM
- hariharan198410, November 10, 2009 09:41 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
