The Stanley Steamer

Now that electric cars are becoming more popular, and there’s talk about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, our attention has been turned to what’s powering our cars.  In this context, it’s interesting to one of the solutions used in the past as an alternative to petrol or diesel power: steam.

A good friend of mine, during a discussion on fuels, EVs and similar topics, wondered whether steam could be used to drive a car.  I was sceptical, but it turns out that I was wrong. A little over 100 years ago, steam-powered cars were indeed a thing.  They aren’t just a steampunk fantasy, as I had thought.

One of the most popular type of steam-powered cars was invented by the Stanley twins in the USA at the end of the 19^th century. Bizarrely, F.E. and F.O. Stanley also invented one of the first photographic airbrushes, as they started their business ventures in the area of photography.  However, automobiles were a lot more interesting, and they started the Stanley Motor Company in 1902 after an earlier attempt with a company known as Locomobile. 

At that time, many internal combustion engines that ran on petrol or diesel needed a crank to start them up.  These cranks were tough to turn and required a fair bit of elbow grease.  They could even be dangerous, as if the car backfired while someone was cranking it, this could leave the person doing the cranking with a broken arm.  However, the Stanley Steamers used gasoline (petrol) to generate a good head of steam, which provided the power to turn the wheels, and they didn’t need cranking.  Stanley Steamers were designed with safety in mind, as they had a system in place to prevent the boiler from exploding if too much heat and pressure was generated.

For its time, the Stanley Steamer had some fairly impressive specs.  It was a rear wheel drive affair, and didn’t require a transmission or clutch system, meaning that they were easier to drive.  The power output varied depending on the engine type.  The basic model (the compact engine) could deliver 7.5 kW.  Two twin-cylinder engines were developed, the smaller one (3¼-inch bore and 4¼-inch stroke) also put out 7.5 kW, but the larger one (4-inch bore and 5-inch stroke) delivered a massive 15 kW.

For its time, the Stanley Steamer was quite fast.  In fact, a customised version of the Stanley Steamer known as the Stanley Rocket Racer became the holder of the world land speed record for automobiles over a mile, clocking up 204 km/h in a trial at Daytona.  This record stood for five years, and remained the best time over a mile for a steam-powered car until 2009.

As time went by, the Stanley twins refined their design, switching to lightweight aluminium bodywork and features such as condensers that harvested the steam so that the range of the water tank could be extended. 

However, the makers of cars with internal combustion engines managed to find an alternative to the crank: the electric starter motor. This meant that the drawbacks of cranks were no longer, and the Stanley Steamer lost its biggest attraction, especially with the rise of cars produced via mass production and sold cheaply, Ford being the best known example of these.  The Model T cost less than a quarter of the price of the Stanley Steamer and the engine of even the base model, which ran on petrol, kerosene or ethanol (now, that’s an idea worth revisiting), had the same power output as the best of the “Flying Teapots”, as the Steamers were known.

Given the stiff competition from the internal combustion engines inside the Model T and similar vehicles, things didn’t look good for the Stanley Steamer. Eventually, after one of the twins died (in a car crash, of all things), the company went under, ultimately closing in 1924.

The Stanley Steamer wasn’t the only steam-powered car in existence.  Others have been made and sold, especially the Doble, and the idea has come back now and again over the past century or so, especially given concerns over pollution and the availability of fuel.  Saab had a go at making a steam car in the 1970s during the fuel crisis of that decade (the project failed, unfortunately).  An Australian inventor and enthusiast named Ted Pritchard tried to develop one in the 1960s and beyond and had some success.  Until he died in the early 2000s, he was pushing for the use of steam-powered cars. 

External combustion engines (which is what a steam engine is) aren’t as efficient as ICEs but they produce a lot less pollution, as they don’t burn as much fuel.  They are heavy, thanks to the need for a strong boiler and a water tank.  They can accelerate quickly once they’ve got a good head of steam up, but they do need a fair bit of time to boil and let the pressure build; this is one of the things that experimenters wanting to bring back the steam car try to work on.

And what about the future?  Given the push towards vehicles that are less dependent on petrol and diesel, will we see attempts to make the steam car come back again?  Electric cars have made a comeback (and how!), so perhaps steam will do the same. 

What’s Behind The Automotive Supply Chain Shortage?

One thing that I’ve noticed (and perhaps you have too) is that sometimes, car manufacturers can’t quite pump out as many units as they had planned, meaning that sometimes, we have to wait for a great new model to hit the Australian market – or else we find that when it does get here, it might not quite have all the electronic features that had been planned.  What’s behind all that?  This hasn’t happened before for as long as I can remember, including during the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08. 

The problem seems to be that the automotive manufacturers can’t get hold of enough computer chips (semiconductors) to produce as much as they want to.  After all, car manufacturers make cars, not computer chips, so they have to get them from somewhere else.  These semiconductors are used in just about everything inside a new car, from the power steering through to the entertainment system, to say nothing of all the driver aids and sensors that every modern car comes with. Given their importance to motoring safety and convenience, a shortage of semiconductors obviously has an effect on the amount of cars that can be produced.

Like many things, you can blame it on COVID-19.  No, you really can.  It’s a supply and demand thing.  The problem is that the companies producing these silicone-based semiconductors can only make a finite number of these chips in a given amount of time.  After the semiconductors have been made, they have to be shipped on to the companies that put them into cars… and into other things.  During all the lockdowns and other madness of the pandemic, two things happened.  The first is that productivity in factories and in the supply chain slowed down dramatically because of the newly introduced hygiene measures. Extra cleaning meant there was less time to make, check and pack the semiconductors, staff shortages meant fewer people to do the work, and quarantines and travel restrictions meant that the products couldn’t be shipped as quickly.  So the semiconductor factories couldn’t produce as much.  This slowdown was particularly noticeable in the countries where the semiconductors were made – mostly in the East and Southeast Asia, which had stricter and stronger lockdown measures.  So that was one reason.

The second reason why COVID-19 led to a supply shortage was because the semiconductor chips are used for every single electronic device you can imagine (and in some you can’t imagine as well).  Now, what happened during the lockdown?  We weren’t driving as much, and we all had to stay home for work and for entertainment.  This meant that a lot of people invested in better home computer systems that allowed them to work from home or work remotely, and quite a few people decided to upgrade (or get into) gaming equipment.  I know I bought some new tech over this time, and you might have done so as well.  Given that the demand for new cars was going down but the demand for home-based electronics was rocketing, you can guess where the makers of the semiconductors decided to channel their products.  It didn’t help that a lot of car companies reputedly cancelled a bunch of orders at the start of the pandemic into the bargain.

Now, this slowdown was a bottleneck in the supply chain.  Things have calmed down at the supply end of the supply chain, but the after-effects are still being felt in the automotive industry, and it’s going to take a while for this to catch up.  However, things are taking longer to catch up than expected for a couple of other reasons.  One of them is strictly car-related.  There has been a push towards more electric vehicles, both BEVs and hybrids.  These cars need more silicon chips and semiconductors than ICE vehicles, and the supply of these chips is still catching up.

The other reason why it’s taking so long for supply to go back to normal is because of the Ukrainian conflict.  When armed conflicts break out, there is inevitably a huge demand for bigger, better and more sophisticated tech.  This is nothing new, and a lot of today’s big-name car manufacturers cut their teeth on producing war-related equipment 100 or so years ago.  However, this means that companies producing the componentry – such as silicone chips and semiconductors – will be on the hunt for big contracts from governmental defence departments, as these pay quite well.  Once again, this means that there aren’t as many semiconductors available for the automotive industry.

Given that Pestilence and War have led to Shortage, it would be easy to get gloomy and believe that The End Is Nigh, but I prefer to be optimistic.  If we’re patient, I think things will get better.  Stay cheerful and keep on driving safely!

Autonomous Cars With Eyes?

I’ll make no secret of the fact that I’m not a fan of autonomous cars. For one thing, a lot of people like the feeling of being in charge of where they’re going. For another, well, we’ve all had those moments when other electronic bits and pieces flop and crash, and generally don’t do what they’re supposed to do. An autocorrect fail is not usually life-threatening, and an app that refuses to open won’t kill you. However, we can all imagine what could go wrong with a car that (supposedly) thinks for itself. However, computers don’t get drunk or distracted, so the idea is that autonomous cars will make things safer overall on the roads.

However, among several things that autonomous cars have problems with, shared zones are one of them.  Shared zones are those parts of the road where pedestrians and cars can share the same space. They’re usually found in commercial areas of town with lots of shops and eateries. You’ve probably used one of these at some point – I know I have. The thing with these spaces is that the issue of who gives way to whom is often sorted out through a complex series of gestures and eye contact between drivers and passengers.  For example, if I’m the driver going through one of these shared zones, I can see a person on the side of the road who looks like they want to cross my path, make eye contact with him or her, then tell him or her to go first with a wave of my hand or a jerk of my head – and the pedestrian may do the same, or accept the offer to go first with a nod, a smile, a thumbs-up… or just stepping out.

The problem is that autonomous cars just aren’t equipped for this.  Part of the problem is that they can’t cope with body language and all the subtle nuances that humans can do without thinking. We’re good at this sort of thing.  However, another part of the problem, according to some Japanese researchers, is that pedestrians don’t know if the car is “looking” in their direction or is about to move in a certain direction.  Indicators and brake lights help, but they can only convey big-picture information: left, right and stop.  With cars driven by humans, the drivers do subtle things that suggest they’re about to do something, which another human can pick up on, such as inching forwards, adjusting positioning on the road prior to making a move.  However, autonomous cars just do it, like the Nike ad.

What if cars could somehow make eye contact with pedestrians and telegraph what they’re about to do and/or let pedestrians know that the car has “seen” the pedestrian?  Well, it’s being tried by some Korean researchers, who have decided that the solution is to give autonomous cars big googly eyes. It’s called the Gazing Car concept. The idea is that the big eyes will “look” at the part of the road that the sensors are focused on. This means that pedestrians will know if the car has registered their presence or if the car is about to move in that particular direction.

You can see the promo video for the Gazing Car here.

If you watched the video and saw the graph showing the reduction in unsafe crossings, please remember that the trial involved nine guys who crossed the road a combined total of 60 times, so it’s not conclusive and more research will need to be done. 

Is this technology likely to be taken up? Given the track record of other whimsical pedestrian safety features (e.g., Tesla’s proposal to have bleating goat noises or farts as the low-speed audio warning sound on its EVs), I’d say it may not catch on.  But what do you all think?  Are these lights useful, creepy, cute or just plain silly? And am I the only one who thinks that a car with these lights ought to talk as well?

What’s Causing Those Potholes?

Potholes are so annoying!  I know we need to be grateful that most of our roads are sealed and aren’t rutted, but a pothole was bad news. They were bad news even when roads weren’t sealed and ruts were common.  The shallow ones bump you so hard that not even the world’s best suspension system can cancel it out (unless you dodge them), and the large ones can damage your car (more on that below).  If you try to dodge a pothole, you can put yourself and/or other drivers at risk/ In the case of some modern cars that have driver aids that were designed for and tested on perfect roads, things like lane change assistance might throw a wobbly if you detect a pothole in the road ahead and adjust your driving line carefully to avoid it (the systems are smart enough to shut up if your movements are abrupt).

Why do potholes appear?  Why does what used to be a perfectly good piece of road suddenly look like a teeny asteroid hit it?  Are heavy trucks and road trains to blame?  And what can you do about them?

The thing that causes potholes is nature striking back.  They are caused by one of the most powerful elemental forces in the world: water.  As you’ve probably seen at some point in your life, whether it’s a catastrophic landslide, a cliff eaten away by the action of the sea or just a rut in your garden after someone left the hose on for too long, water sweeps away and acts on dirt. And it’s water that causes potholes.

Now, it’s not the case that a pothole will appear where a puddle has been.  It’s true that both potholes and puddles will form in parts of the road that have slumped or become rutted, but one doesn’t directly cause the other.  There are other factors at play.  The condition of the road is one of them and the amount (and weight) of traffic is another.

Water will get into the soil beneath the road and start loosening the particles of dirt, meaning that ruts and holes will form.  This has always been the case ever since roads were invented.  If anything, the whole point of road surfacing is to have something that doesn’t form ruts and holes every time it rains so that wheels can run over it smoothly.  The different layers of a modern paved road are designed to ensure that water drains away well (and that the road will hold its shape despite heavy trafficking – but that’s good story for another time) with the asphalt over the top forming a mostly waterproof and resilient seal.  However, nature will always prevail, and water will get in.

Once the water has got in, the most common thing that happens next to create a pothole in Australia is that the water will start washing away small, fine particles of dirt, then larger particles, and then a bit more.  This will weaken the ground beneath the asphalt surfacing, as there’s less holding it up.  As traffic goes over it, the asphalt surface will be pushed down a little, not so much that you’d feel it but still a little.  And this compresses the water, which increases the pressure it exerts on the surrounding particles of dirt.  Eventually, a characteristic pattern of cracks will appear on the surface of the asphalt, known as alligator cracking because the pattern looks like the skin of a big old croc.

Eventually, the friction from tyres rolling over the asphalt will break some of the surfacing loose, exposing what’s underneath. The hole will soon get wider and wider, and you’ll get a fair dinkum pothole, and it will get worse and worse the more the water gets in.

Water in its liquid state is the primary cause of potholes in Australia, although in parts of the country where you get frosts – and in other parts of the world where winters get particularly savage – another factor is at play. Water expands as it freezes, so any water in a tiny crack of the pavement or beneath the surface will expand. The asphalt, however, will become more rigid and brittle, so the expanding ice will break the asphalt and crack it more, which accelerates the process of a pothole forming.

Generally, the wetter things get, the more quickly potholes will form.  This trend has often been noticed; in fact, Shakespeare makes a passing reference to it in one of his plays, where a character compares a stupid, pointless and completely undeserved action to fixing highways in summer.

There is nothing that you personally as a driver can do to fix a pothole. That’s the job of the local roading authority. In an ideal world, these people should inspect the roads and take action to resurface and to improve the drainage as soon as they notice signs of alligator cracking.  However, in practice, we tend to see that the problem gets a temporary fix in the form of asphalt being slapped into the hole to fill it up.  This works for a short time, but if poor drainage is what has caused the water to get in and pool beneath the road, another pothole will appear before long.

Ideally, you should drive around a pothole rather than letting your wheel run through them.  If you drive through one, it can cause a lot of damage.  Tyres are the most vulnerable. The most immediate and dramatic type of damage is if the rough edge of the pothole punctures or rips the tyre. However, there are more subtle types of damage.  Going through a pothole can also cause sidewall bulges by forcing the liner apart from the sidewall – and these bulges can blow out very easily.  If the rims are damaged or the alignment is thrown out by going over a pothole too fast, this will make the tyre wear out more quickly and unevenly.

The damage doesn’t stop there.  The shock of going through a pothole will also put a strain on the suspension and steering as well as on the general alignment of the wheels (they’re all interconnected).  This won’t happen straight away, but it will be made worse by continually going over rough roads and hitting potholes (e.g., one that’s on the road you take to work during rush hour, meaning that you have no choice other than driving over it).  In the worst case, which is going into a very deep pothole that the local authorities should really have done something about ages ago, the undercarriage and exhaust system can be scraped and dented as well if it hits the undamaged surface of the road.

In the case of EVs, damage to the underside of the vehicle is particularly serious, as this is where the battery is.  The battery is protected by an underfloor protector, which is like a suit of armour for your EV’s battery.  However, if this underfloor protector is badly damaged, the battery becomes vulnerable and could go into thermal runaway (i.e., catch fire).

Obviously, if you see a pothole, you should avoid it.  If the traffic is light and the road is wide, this isn’t a problem.  However, in heavy traffic, going through that pothole may be unavoidable, as the results of hitting another vehicle would be much worse than the results of going through a pothole.  However, the damage will be less if less force is involved, so dump some of that kinetic energy by slowing down, preferably well before you get to the pothole so you don’t bang on the brakes (however, banging on the brakes will be easier on your car than driving through a pothole, especially if you have brakes with all the driver aids). 

Lastly, the question as to whether trucks are to blame for potholes. The answer “yes but”.  Yes, trucks are heavy and the extra weight wears out the asphalt more quickly.  However, cars are getting bigger and heavier in general, and EVs are particularly heavy compared with their ICE equivalents.  However, the roads are still built to the old specifications for lighter vehicles, and don’t stand up.  What’s more, budget cuts and cheapskate roading authorities mean that roads may be built to meet the bare minimum specifications rather than exceeding the standards for extra durability and resilience.  Perhaps it’s time for the standards to be revise to meet the current vehicle fleet, especially if the government wants greater uptake of the heavier EVs.