FRANCE-UKRAINE-RUSSIA-CONFLICT-AID-SOCIAL

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a serious <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/situations/ukraine-emergency">humanitarian crisis</a>. Of Ukraine’s 44 million people, almost <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/acaps-thematic-report-ukraine-pattern-movement-people-s-needs-and-response-27-march">one-quarter</a> have been displaced. Around 3.7 million have escaped to neighbouring European countries, while around 6.5 million are estimated to be displaced inside Ukraine. Tragically, deaths and injuries continue to rise.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians are faced with catastrophic shortages of essential supplies and services. They’re <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/acaps-thematic-report-ukraine-pattern-movement-people-s-needs-and-response-27-march">in need of</a> safe shelter, food, water, access to information, psychosocial support and medicine, especially for chronic diseases (such as insulin to treat diabetes).

To access essential supplies, Ukrainian people urgently need assistance from humanitarian and government organizations. But the volatile situation presents a significant risk for humanitarian aid workers to be on the ground. There is, however, one way we could help Ukrainians while minimizing the number of additional lives put in jeopardy: by using drones and autonomous vehicles to deliver aid.

Drones and driverless cars

Unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, can be used for transporting supplies, surveillance, and search and rescue in both military and humanitarian setups. Many companies are already <a href="https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/drones-for-humanitarian-work/">manufacturing and deploying them</a> in humanitarian operations.

For instance, American robotics company <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/7xj3gd/drones-are-being-tested-in-the-fight-against-a-tuberculosis-epidemic-in-papua-new-guinea">Matternet</a>, in collaboration with Médecins Sans Frontières, has used these intelligent machines in Papua New Guinea to collect sputum samples from remote areas to identify people with tuberculosis.

Canadian drone manufacturer Draganfly <a href="https://www.airmedandrescue.com/latest/news/draganfly-provide-medical-drones-ukraine-non-profit">recently announced</a> that it will send a shipment of its medical response and search and rescue drones to Ukraine, following an order from Revived Soldiers Ukraine, a non-profit organization focused on providing aid to the country.

These drones will be used to provide humanitarian aid in cities including Kyiv and Kharkiv. The initial shipment will include ten drones which can each transport up to 16 kilograms of medical supplies, including blood, medicines, vaccines, water and wound care kits.

While this is encouraging to see, ten drones at this point is merely a gesture. To make a real impact we need to see more drones from more manufacturers.

Autonomous vehicles are capable of completing complex tasks of driving, delivering and decision making. They can move from Point A to Point B, transporting people and products without the need for active input from humans.

Yet while drones have come out of the pilot phase and we’ve already seen them used in humanitarian crises, autonomous vehicles are not quite there yet. That said, they have significant potential in this context.

Autonomous vehicles have been employed in military situations, such as by the U.S. military <a href="https://singularityhub.com/2011/08/12/autonomous-robot-truck-will-debut-in-afghanistan-this-year/">in Afghanistan</a>. Their functions have ranged from removing landmines to payload deliveries. We’re now also seeing these vehicles used in industrial settings. Automated guided vehicles are most often used to move materials around manufacturing facilities <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-warehouse-robots/">or warehouses</a>, where they follow markers or wires in the floor.

What’s more, autonomous vehicles are being tested on real roads and highways. Auto manufacturers like <a href="https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2018/jun/news-2971141.html">Volvo</a>, <a href="https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/autonomous/the-long-haul-truck-of-the-future/">Mercedes</a> and <a href="https://insideevs.com/news/482769/semi-first-fully-autonomous-tesla/">Tesla</a> have all tested some level of autonomous technology in their futuristic vehicles with a view to revolutionising the logistics and transport sector.

Humanitarian logistics is essentially a needs-driven, time-critical extension of commercial logistics. Seeing this technology in action in the commercial sector should pave the path for its adoption in the humanitarian context, and Ukraine may have a role to play here.

Putting the technology into action

Academics and small businesses have expressed support for the use of both autonomous vehicles <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542660521000780">and drones</a> to deliver humanitarian assistance. The vehicles could bring medical supplies, food and other essentials to a designated safe point in bulk. Drones could then transport these goods further into the conflict zone to specific locations where people are hiding.

In our research with representatives from international humanitarian organizations (conducted before the Ukraine war), they agreed that combining <a href="https://ajssr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41180-020-0033-7">these two systems</a> could mitigate logistical challenges and save lives. However, they were reluctant about using autonomous vehicles at this stage given the technology is still at the research and development phase. In the short term, they were more interested in using drones in humanitarian operations (with some having already begun pilot projects).

But autonomous vehicles have been tested in supervised situations and testing them in the field is the next important step. Trialing these vehicles in the current situation in Ukraine could not only provide much needed aid to Ukrainians, but could help improve the autonomous systems for future deployments.

Importantly, there are still <a href="https://www.unocha.org/fr/publication/policy-briefs-studies/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-humanitarian-response">certain caveats</a> that limit using both of these technologies to their full potential. These include legal issues, regulatory challenges, cybersecurity threats, the need for community engagement, and ethical procurement and partnerships.

The relevant regulatory bodies and the scientific community should take immediate steps towards addressing these challenges. Drawing up a universal code of conduct or standard operating procedure for deploying autonomous vehicles and drones in humanitarian settings would be a good start.

Muhammad Azmat is a lecturer is engineering systems and supply chain management at Aston University in Birmingham, England. This story was originally published by The Conversation.

&nbsp;

Drones and driverless cars could help with Ukraine’s humanitarian crisis

Briggs Cunningham, 24 Hours Of Le Mans

In 1962, Carroll Shelby envisioned building a lightweight roadster fitted with an American V-8 engine. That vision became the Cobra sports car.

But the idea for such a machine was originally developed more than a decade earlier by Briggs Swift Cunningham II, who was a sporting enthusiast, a gentleman racer and a fearless competitor. As heir to the family meat-packing fortune, Cunningham had the means to pursue practically any activity he desired. Sports was his passion, and auto racing, in particular, consumed him.

But it wasn’t until 1948 that the then-41-year-old Cunningham took his first few laps on a racecourse. In those days, as it is today, one of the most prestigious and grueling races in the world was the French 24 Hours of Le Mans. It was also an event utterly dominated by Italian, German and British race cars.

Cunningham decided to rise to the challenge. In 1950, he fielded a two-car team for the big endurance test. One was a nearly-stock Series 61 Cadillac coupe equipped with a 160-horsepower V-8 engine. The other was similarly powered but was wrapped in one of the strangest bodies ever displayed on a race car.

Its appearance was like that of a bar of soap, having both front and rear wheel skirts and a boat-tail rear end. It looked almost homemade despite being designed and built by several Grumman aircraft engineers during their off hours.

Dubbed Le Monstre (the monster) by the French press, this Cadillac-powered oddity managed a respectable 11th place finish, despite an off-track excursion where Cunningham spent more than a half-hour vigorously digging the car out of the sand with his bare hands. The stock-bodied Series 61 coupe ended up in 10th place overall.

The same year as his first Le Mans effort, Cunningham built his own sports car, called the C-1 roadster, followed in 1951 by the C-2R. The latter of these was the first to use Chrysler’s 331-cubic-inch Hemi V-8 engine, replacing Cadillac as Cunningham’s powerplant of choice. Both models were reasonably quick, but ultimately too heavy for competitive endurance racing.

Cunningham’s most successful race car by far was his 1951 C-4R, which was an aluminum-bodied roadster fitted with a modified 325-horsepower Chrysler Hemi. It could sprint from zero to 60 miles per hour in about six seconds.

Cunningham’s company in West Palm Beach, Fla., was supplied with engines and technical advice from Chrysler, whose key executives had taken a keen interest in his activities. This type of support was necessary to win, as each engine was worth about $60,000.

Cunningham’s C-4Rs were painted white with two broad blue racing stripes running the length of the car. This scheme was later copied by Cobra-maker Carroll Shelby for his Mustang-based GT350 racers. Weighing considerably less than earlier efforts, the C-4R proved competitive and virtually bulletproof.

Cunningham and his team entered the C-4R in the 1952 Le Mans race. Out of a possible 24 hours behind the wheel, Cunningham drove 19-and-a-half hours straight, allowing his copilot to drive only near the end. By the time the race was over, the C-4R had finished first in class and fourth overall. This was an amazing result for a small team with a single-car entry that lacked the kind of resources available to the factory-backed European teams.

Over the next two years, the three C-4Rs that were built collected a total of 15 first place finishes along with five seconds and five thirds at race venues including Sebring, Fla., Watkin’s Glen, N.Y., Elkhart Lake, Wis. and Riverside, Calif. During this period, the cars never broke down and none crashed. Team Cunningham was so successful and popular that it was featured in a 1954 issue of “Time Magazine.”

Aside from the C-4R, Cunningham also built the road-going C-3 coupe and convertible. These Italian-designed beauties, which also featured Chrysler Hemi power, cost a small fortune, resulting in fewer than 30 being produced between 1951 and 1955.

Cunningham made further attempts at winning Le Mans outright with newer models, but with little success. After the 1955 season, he ended his car-manufacturing business. But he and his team members continued to race other brands, such as Jaguar, Ferrari, Maserati and Porsche, for the next 10 years.

Fast forward to 2001 and the Cunningham Motor Company was revived with the hopes of reigniting the Cunningham fire. Although that effort eventually floundered, the revival would have been a fitting testament to the man who showed the world that smaller is better, except when it comes to what was under the hood.

Cunningham proved that American V-8 muscle could successfully compete against Europe’s pureblood race cars, setting the stage for Shelby’s success with his Cobra a decade later.

This racing pioneer was well ahead of Carroll Shelby

Parallel Parking

You’re driving slowly along a street, looking for a place to park. You come across a long stretch of parallel parking. But to your frustration, the spaces left by other people’s parking efforts are not quite long enough for you to fit. The search continues.

Drawn from our own frustrating experiences with parking, we decided to answer the question once and for all – what’s the best way to parallel park your car? Our research has found a simple answer.

You should always park at one end of a parking space, leaving as big a space as possible at the other end. It doesn’t matter which end – just remember to leave yourself room to get out. While this might sound obvious, a quick look at the street outside your home will show many drivers think parking in the middle of the space is best – or just don’t give it much thought at all.

Optimizing how we park our cars in cities matters, because free parking spaces are, by their nature, a limited resource. We’ve taken to our cars with a vengeance as the world slowly reemerges from lockdowns. Mobility data shows our cities are coming back to life, with our travel behaviours changing in turn.

Even though many of us are still working from home, those of us commuting are reluctant to return to public transport. You’ll have already noticed the result based on traffic. The number of cars on the roads of Australian cities has already met or gone past pre-COVID numbers, and so too the parking demand.

How can we all park better?

Everyone is familiar with marked spaces, where painted lines show you where to park. These help manage our frustrations with unreliable parking, but they are bad for density because every space needs to be able to accommodate a large car.

In our research, we focused on unmarked parallel parking, such as that found on most residential streets. That’s because here we can control exactly where we position our cars.

We tested four strategies drivers can follow in these types of parks: always park as far back as possible;

park at either end of the space; park in the middle of the space; or randomly park anywhere in the available space.

We simulated what would happen in the common situation where demand exceeds supply, in which there is always a car waiting to park, with a driver who is prepared to wait until someone else leaves.

The worst strategy for maximizing car parks? Parking in the middle of the space. You might find this useful if, say, you wanted to discourage people from parking directly outside your house. Parking in the middle of the available space makes it harder to cram more cars in.

We found parking randomly in a space can produce slightly better outcomes. Many drivers use this strategy subconsciously.

But overall, the best strategy for fitting as many cars into scarce street parking is to park at either end of the space. It doesn’t matter which end you park at, and it doesn’t even matter if you choose the same end as your neighbours. Under this scenario, we could fit the most cars onto any street.

We also analyzed what happens when there’s only a small distance between driveways or intersections. If you live in a street with shorter curbs, parking at either end of the spot becomes even more beneficial.

How significant is this technique? In many residential areas, you can almost double the number of cars able to fit on the road by parking at the front or back of the available spaces.

Issues with parking

Parking is a scarce resource that we need to manage carefully to encourage other modes of transport, such as public and active transport. Storing cars on valuable land is also a poor use of real estate. If autonomous cars arrive, we might see a future in which cars drive themselves off to remote car parks and free up all of the highly accessible land currently used for street parking.

If we wanted to reduce the demand for parking, we would have to encourage more people to return to public transport through measures such as lowering fares or increasing the cost of parking or fuel. We could also build extra car parks next to train stations or bus bays.

But given these measures are unlikely to happen in the near future, we need to make the most of the parking we have.

Until then, the management of on-street parking will remain a vexed issue, particularly in our most congested cities. In Sydney, for instance, local residents and commuters vie with visitors for the right to park in a given street.

As the amount of on-street parking is more or less fixed, we should make the most of the space we’ve got. Next time you come across an unmarked parallel park, try parking at the front or back of the space.

Benjy Marks and Emily Moylan are lecturers at the University of Sydney in Australia.

This story was originally published by The Conversation.

&nbsp;

What’s the best way to parallel park your car? We have the answer

wh-AutoTractor-Main-April30

Next time you pass a farm where a modern tractor is cruising around a field, take a closer look. While there is a farmer sitting in the cab, the vehicle might be driving itself. That tractor is often operating on auto pilot using semi-autonomous, self-driving technology.

While the tractor plows along thanks to features like autosteer and computer-assisted technologies for applying fertilizers or pesticides, the farmer can send work texts or emails, pay bills or even flip through Instagram stories or Tik Tok videos.

For farmers, this kind of efficiency is not a luxury. It is a must. Skilled farm labour is nearly impossible to find, a fact that’s long inspired livestock producers to adopt time and labour-saving technologies such as robotic feeders and dairy cow milking machines.

<a href="https://wordpress.wheels.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/wh-AutoTractor-Camera-April30.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-167885" src="https://wordpress.wheels.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/wh-AutoTractor-Camera-April30.jpg" alt="Tractor" width="1920" height="921" /></a>

It is the same with tractors. While automobile manufacturers rave about self-driving cars, that technology has been available for tractors for 20 years. In fact, autonomous technologies, like hands-free steering, is now standard on high-powered commercial tractors, including those built by John Deere.

The iconic company has always been a leader in agricultural technology going back to 1837, when Illinois blacksmith John Deere invented one of the first steel plows that could till prairie soil without clogging.

Earlier this year, the company unveiled the industry’s first fully autonomous tractor. Farmers still need to drive this tractor to their fields, but once they get there they can get out and watch it work on its own. It can be configured to perform several tasks, including pull machinery, without a driver.

“Today’s tractors can perform many driving and end-row turning functions automatically, but still require an operator in cab,” said Ryan Jardon, a product marketing manager with John Deere. “True autonomous machines take that to the next level, by automating every decision and input a machine operator must make, including performance adjustments such as tillage working depth.”

The autonomous unit’s central feature is six pairs of cameras mounted on the front and back of the tractor. They give its GPS guidance system a 360-degree view of any obstacles it might encounter. The cameras also tell the onboard computer the tractor’s exact location in the field.

<a href="https://wordpress.wheels.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/wh-AutoTractor-App-April30.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-167886" src="https://wordpress.wheels.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/wh-AutoTractor-App-April30.jpg" alt="Tractor" width="750" height="1624" /></a>

Images captured by the cameras are passed through a neural network, with each analyzed in about 100 milliseconds. The information tells the tractor’s guidance system to let it proceed or make it stop. Farmers can keep track of the tractor using an app on their phones or computers.

In a field, it all looks very natural, like a conventional green John Deere. You’d hardly notice it or give it a second glance. Until you realize there’s no one in the cab.

For now, the autonomous unit – called a “bolt on” by the company – is being added to John Deere’s most popular tractor, the 410-horsepower model 8R. As the company learns more about the system's performance, it will make it compatible with other models.

What farmers think

John Deere debuted the unit at the Computer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this year. It impressed farmers like Alberta’s John Kowlachuk, who grows grain and oilseeds near Trochu.

“It’s tough finding people to work on farms, and autonomous tractors could be a perfect fit for agriculture,” he said. “They could mean fewer human resources are needed, less time spent in the field, not so much manual labour and more time for family. In many applications they make more sense than driving self-controlled units.”

John Deere hasn’t officially announced a price for the autonomous bolt on. Jahmy Hindman, the company’s chief technology officer, has said that the figure could be around 10 per cent of the total equipment cost. The price tag on an 8R model is about $500,000 (U.S.), meaning the autonomous bolt-on could cost $50,000.

Farmers in the United States will take delivery of the first 10 to 15 units this year. No timetable has been set for the machine’s Canadian introduction. But some farmers, like Tyler Burns of Windy Poplars Farm in Wynyard, Sask., are anxious to give it a try.

“Once fully autonomous equipment can do as good of a job in the field as a farmer, there will be steady adoption,” Burns said. “It will become another tool in the farmer’s toolbox if it provides a solution to a problem, and the shortage of predictable labour could be one of them. But it will be up to farmers to decide if the cost of the technology is worth it.”

Beef producer Gordon Dibble of Dibbhurst Farms in Ingersoll, Ont., said he thinks fully autonomous tractors have a future, but he’s not sure he wants one driving around without him in it.

“I farm with my dad. Someday, when he retires, we’ll have a labour shortage and might need an autonomous tractor. But, at this time, we don’t,” Dibble said. “Maybe in 100 years all we’ll see are autonomous tractors. For now, though, I want to drive and fix my own tractor. Tractor time relaxes me.”

At the Las Vegas show, some comparisons were made between an autonomous tractor manoeuvring in a field and stories of autonomous cars driving on highways without occupants, raising concerns about safety. Alberta farmer Mike Ammeter, chair of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, said we shouldn’t worry about the tractor.

“The public might feel safer about being around a driverless tractor travelling at five miles per hour in a field, than next to a Tesla with no driver flying past you on the 401,” he said.

Owen Roberts is an agricultural journalist. Follow him on twitter @TheUrbanCowboy.

Self-driving tractors plowing ahead in the marketplace

Photoradar

The members of Friends and Families for Safe Streets (FFSS) have lost loved ones to traffic violence or survived a crash with severe injuries. I suffered serious, life-altering injuries when an SUV driver made a reckless left turn and crashed into me while I was riding my bike to work, breaking my spine.

But do not make the mistake of calling any of these collisions that destroyed our lives or killed our loved ones an “accident.” They are the result of roadways designed for speed above safety.

Vision Zero is a policy about changing street design to eliminate death and severe injury. The city of Toronto adopted this program nearly six years ago, but its failure to save lives, as it was expected to do, is because of an absence of political will to build the most effective and needed street design elements identified in it.

What specific design elements do Vision Zero streets have? They have dedicated active transportation lanes with robust barriers that prevent drivers from crashing into someone in the lane or sidewalk. They have narrow car lanes that make it difficult to speed. The deadly epidemic of speeding we see in Toronto is the product of the mismatch between the wide and straight design of our streets that invite high speeds and their much lower posted speed limits.

Safe streets have frequent pedestrian crosswalks, so people are not forced to cross mid-block, often contending with six or more lanes of speeding car traffic. Safe streets have raised crosswalks, meaning the curb-height elevation of the sidewalk is continued across the road. Raised crosswalks clearly demarcate pedestrian territory to drivers, indicating they must drive carefully. They also function as speed bumps to stop drivers from speeding through intersections, a significant cause of fatal crashes.

Safe streets have protected intersections with corner islands, tight turning radiuses to force slower turns, curb bump-outs to reduce crosswalk widths, pedestrian head starts at traffic lights and a universal ban on right turns on red lights. Safe streets are mostly self-enforcing by design, but use automated speed and red-light cameras to make sure reckless drivers don’t break the law.

The streets and intersections where vulnerable road users – people outside of vehicles – are most likely to be killed have none of these design features.

A recent Toronto Star analysis that found serious collisions in the GTA occurred around deadly suburban arterial intersections, as well as March 31’s heartbreaking triple-fatality crash on Lake Shore Boulevard, further underscore the causal relationship between design and death.

<a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/04/01/our-most-dangerous-streets-huge-new-collision-database-points-to-torontos-postwar-suburbs.html">https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/04/01/our-most-dangerous-streets-huge-new-collision-database-points-to-torontos-postwar-suburbs.htm</a>l

Compounding Toronto’s deadly street design is the fact that our leaders have failed to provide appealing alternatives to driving, forcing many residents into car dependence. It was a political choice not to support inter-city train or bus services and to starve public transit of funding for decades.

It was a political choice to build a city where using transit takes two or three times longer than driving, and where it is distressingly hostile and dangerous to walk or ride a bike.

The out-of-control housing crisis contributes to traffic violence: when people can’t afford to live where they work, they must reside far outside the city and drive long distances. Forced car dependence and long commutes mean more driving, and more driving means more death and injury.

Though blaming individual road users in the aftermath of a collision is satisfying, the time and energy we waste on blame only benefits the politicians with the power to make systemic design changes. Toronto Mayor John Tory should be the most vocal supporter of Vision Zero design. Instead, attempting to distract us from his failure to understand and support Vision Zero, he responds to horrific crashes by sternly finger-wagging and saying our streets won’t get safer until drivers slow down.

A leader who understood and supported Vision Zero would admit that our streets won’t get safer until we build safe streets.

Mayor Tory boasts of his commitment to slow, incremental change, but incrementally building disconnected stubs of infrastructure at a glacial pace only condemns more people to violent death and injury, people who could have been saved by faster progress.

Pooling collective resources to solve problems, building Vision Zero for example, is the purpose of having governments, yet all levels of government are asleep at the wheel on responding to the twin crises of road violence and climate disaster.

Perhaps it’s time to give Toronto Public Health control over street design, rather than leaving it in the domain of endless political interference and cowardice.

FFSS is here to tell everyone the anguish of traffic violence is preventable. We don’t want what happened to us and our families to happen to you. It is infinitely easier to build safe streets than it is to bury your loved one or live out your days with chronic pain and significantly reduced quality of life. The human cost of road violence is far higher than the financial cost of changing our streets. We don’t need more lip service about Vision Zero. We need our leaders to finally get serious about actually building it.

Jessica Spieker is a spokesperson for Friends and Families for Safe Streets, which wants Toronto’s leaders to build and achieve Vision Zero and eliminate severe injuries and deaths on our roads.

Political leaders need to adopt Vision to make city streets safer for all

wh-Bricklin-Main-April16

On paper, the Bricklin SV-1 should have been a dream car, but for dealers, owners and the tiny Canadian province of New Brunswick, the car ended up being a total nightmare.

Much has been said and written about just how big a failure the Bricklin actually was, but the idea behind this GT-style sports car was actually ahead-of-its-time brilliant. It was in its execution that things went south.

Malcolm Bricklin conceived his namesake in the early 1970s as reasonably priced two-seater that could withstand significant collision damage and still protect its passengers in cocoon-like safety (the model designation SV-1 stood for Safety Vehicle 1).

The front and rear bumpers were built to absorb a 10-miles per hour whack without hurting its fibreglass body, and the bolt-on body panels hid a protective safety cage with guard rails that were built to withstand rollovers and side impacts. Some of these features are considered normal today, but they were ground-breaking nearly 50 years ago.

<a href="https://wordpress.wheels.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/wh-Bricklin-Logo-April16.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-167407" src="https://wordpress.wheels.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/wh-Bricklin-Logo-April16.jpg" alt="Bricklin" width="800" height="517" /></a>

Bricklin, a former building supply store mogul and North America’s first Subaru importer, was actually on to something with his concept. The Bricklin SV-1 made its public debut on June 25, 1974, in New York City, with production beginning shortly after.

Along with its safety features, the Bricklin’s skin was made using an advanced vacuum-forming process that mixed the paint into the gelcoat in much the same way boats and personal watercraft are made. The body was then bolted to a steel frame that could be easily detached for quick repairs.

For the sake of simplicity, the vehicle was only available in five exterior shades: red, orange, green, white and tan. An eight-inch-wide black strip was painted along the bottom of the doors and fenders, supposedly to make the car appear lower and to hide stone chips and assorted road grime.

Inside its electrically operated swing-up doors, the only trim colour to be found was beige. The Bricklin was actually similar to the Chevrolet Corvette in most key dimensions and, with its rear hatchback, promised greater practicality compared with the storage-starved Chevy.

Even before the Bricklin entered production, enthusiast publications began gushing over the car. One popular automotive magazine proudly trumpeted that, “Bricklin will have no trouble selling all the cars than he can build.” It went on to refer to it as, “A tangible threat to the Corvette.”

First-year 1974 cars, 780 in total, were fully equipped with air conditioning, tilt steering wheel, AM/FM stereo radio, digital clock, tinted glass, front disc brakes and alloy wheels. The only key item lacking was a spare tire, a potential disaster well before run-flat tire technology.

The actual production volumes were nowhere near Bricklin’s plans of 12,000 units for the first year, 30,000 in the second, 50,000 in the third and 100,000 by the end of 1977. (Only 2,117 were produced in 1975.)

Problems immediately surfaced when the first batch of cars arrived at dealer showrooms with poor door and hood-panel fits, missing weatherstripping, electrical problems and a host of other glitches. What was to be a leading-edge vehicle seemed more like a poorly constructed kit car.

Price also became a bone of contention. Dealers were originally told that each Bricklin would sticker for around $6,500, which was $2,000 below the Corvette. But the final list was closer to $10,000.

The Bricklin plant teetered along until September 1975. By that time, New Brunswick, which had sunk millions of dollars into the project, finally had enough. Funding was cut off, the company placed into receivership and hundreds of employees were put out of work.

Some Bricklin die-hards argue that, with a bit more time to get its act together, the car could have become a financial success. The SV-1’s safety legacy does lives on, but lacking sufficient quality, practicality and the necessary price-point advantage, the Bricklin dream was destined to become a nightmare.

The Bricklin was New Brunswick’s nightmare

BIO-ENZO FERRARI-ITALIE-AUTO-SPORT

From the snow-capped mountains of Friuli, Italy, to the industrial epicentre of Turin, they still talk about the man with the flamboyance and the fiery temper. His presence is still felt in every showroom. His spirit still turns every screwdriver in every Formula One garage.

More than three decades after his death in 1988, mention Enzo Ferrari’s name in the streets of Italy and the reaction is like a splash of that infamous red.

“Ferrari?” says a young Italian teenager as he plays with a model race car on the street outside his suburban home 100 kilometres north of Venice. “That is what I want to race when I am older.”

There is passion in the sound of the name Ferrari. There is an Italian pride that flows from the heart. The very name is its own brand. The company is still a benchmark for many competitors. It’s a symbol of championships, performance and style. It is power and influence and results.

Ferrari, the man, would admire his place in history and his stature in his own home country, if only because it is part and parcel of the success he helped create. Ferrari demanded the discipline from everyone around him. Ferrari demanded results and got them.

But it hardly developed overnight.

Born in early 1898 to a middle-class family in Modena, Ferrari’s story is a rags-to-riches tale of automotive success. He was raised in a small engineering world where his father operated a metal-construction shop, making sheds and gangways for the nation’s railroads. Ferrari found great delight in the inner workings of the shop and had little interest in school.

As a young man, he had three ambitions: opera singer; sports journalist; and race-car driver. He never pursued the first two, and, despite some struggle, flourished with the third.

After losing his brother and father in the First World War, Ferrari was drafted into service in 1916 and served time herding mules in the countryside. After contracting a serious flu virus two years later, he was released from the army and sent home to a desperate situation and the family business had collapsed. His widowed mother was on the verge of poverty.

With his honorable discharge letter in hand, Ferrari tried to begin his career at Fiat when he was 21. But the Turin car company wasn’t interested.

Eventually, Ferrari was hired by a small sports car maker and a few years later joined Alfa Romeo’s racing department. There he helped Alfa grow the racing side of its operation by winning some of the first post-war sporting events.

Calm and composed behind the wheel, Ferrari displayed a natural talent for the sport and tried to help grow the business on his own.

Though not an engineer by nature, Ferrari knew engineering talent when he saw it. A big man with a flair for socializing, Ferrari slowly built Alfa’s race industry by luring away top talent from other companies, including his most famous recruit, Vittorio Jano, a well-known Fiat designer.

At the same time, Ferrari was also carving out his own niche. Racing under his own banner for Alfa — a prancing horse over a yellow background — Ferrari eventually built up enough credibility and success to start his own race team. A decade later, he turned it into a full-fledged company.

Founded in 1946, before Ferrari had turned 50, he created an organization that would set a new trend for motor racing and car building. The first car that carried his name set that trend for years to come.

As business publication Automotive News Europe once wrote, “his passion made the difference.”

He led by a different example. He never took vacations, and he often pitted his drivers against each other thinking it would bring better results. Sometimes it did, even though the work environment was often caustic.

During the 1950s, Italy was experiencing a post-war boom, especially in the north. As Italy grew, so did Ferrari, with Enzo at the wheel. His teams won races and his high-performance cars became the envy of every jetsetter on the planet.

There were tragedies, however. Many racing drivers died behind the wheel of Ferraris, such as Alberto Ascari (1955) and Gilles Villeneuve (1982).

When Enzo’s son, Dino, died of muscular dystrophy in 1956, it eventually led to Ferrari’s divorce. After they separated, Ferrari threw himself into his business, working seven days a week and living in an apartment above the factory.

In the 1960s, when Italy’s economy stumbled, Ferrari eventually sold part of his company to Fiat. In 1969, Fiat helped again, buying up 90 per cent of the company, with the stipulation that Ferrari would control it until his death.

On the track, the legend continued. Before Enzo’s death, Ferrari, the team, claimed 14 victories in the 24-hour race of Le Mans (France) endurance race and nine open-wheel Formula One championships. And then a young Michael Schumacher arrived on the scene to win five more F1 championships behind the wheel of Ferraris, his final time in 2004. Kimi Räikkönen won in 2007 and the company has been trying ever since to get back on top.

Over the years, a certain mythical aura prevailed over Ferrari’s sports cars. And while past machines such as the Dino, the 288 GTO, the F40, the Enzo and the Ferrari LaFerrari connect us in spirit with the company’s founder, the current lineup of a half dozen new models provide the link for future generations.

Enzo Ferrari - A man and a brand

1963 Chevrolet Corvette

The 1963 Sting Ray coupe will forever be remembered as the car that changed the fortunes of the Chevrolet Corvette brand, but not without massive controversy, General Motors infighting and a very prominent and short-lived design feature.

In fact, without the changes made for 1963, it’s quite possible that the Corvette would have died.

Truth be known, “America’s Sports Car,” as it came to be called, wasn’t given much of a chance when it first appeared at General Motors’ 1953 Motorama car show. After all, the men behind it, designer Harley Earl and engineer Ed Cole, had barely six months to convert their newly approved design into an actual running and driving automobile.

Originally to be called the Corvair, it had a fibreglass body attached to a shortened Chevrolet Bel Air frame. Other Chevy parts-bin components included brakes, suspension, steering and two-speed Power-Glide transmission, as well as a 150-horsepower version of the “Blue Flame” inline six-cylinder truck engine.

After initial positive reception for the Corvette, it soon became apparent that the lack of performance along with quality issues with its body were detrimental to sales. In its first three years of production, Corvette sales totalled just 4,640 units, which was a mere trickle compared with the 1955 production of 16,000-plus units of Ford’s then-new two-seat Thunderbird. The Corvette was on the ropes.

The one True Believer in the Corvette and its potential was Zora Arkus-Duntov, a fledgling Chevrolet engineer. Being a former racer and a racing-parts manufacturer, Arkus-Duntov understood the meaning of performance and persuades Chevrolet management to let him install the division’s new 265-cubic-inch V-8. The little Chevy turned into a rip-snorting sports machine and shed its original boulevard cruiser persona. Sales spiked and the Corvette mystique began to grow.

Although the ‘Vette received a modest styling upgrade in 1956, planning for the next-generation car was about to commence, a process that would take more than five years.

[caption id="attachment_166034" align="alignnone" width="1600"]<a href="https://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/wh-CorvetteSplit-Red-March19.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-166034" src="https://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/wh-CorvetteSplit-Red-March19.jpg" alt="1963 Chevrolet Corvette" width="1600" height="1173" /></a> 1963 Chevrolet Corvette[/caption]

The task of designing the Corvette fell to Bill Mitchell, who had taken over from Earl as Chevrolet’s vice-president of design.

The one recurring theme in Mitchell’s mind was that of a shark. With some experience deep-sea fishing, he had become fascinated with their sleek and powerful shapes. For inspiration, Mitchell even had his group carefully study a recent catch that was mounted to his office wall. Their original 1957 drawings of the new Corvette revealed a shape that was amazingly close to the production version, even if many of the ideas fell by the wayside.

Early designs featured a hardtop roof that could be folded behind the seats much like a convertible top. Other plans called for hidden headlights, a movable steering column and gull-wing-style swing-up doors. However, the Corvette’s shark-themed bulging front-fender lines were considered sacrosanct.

After two years of vehicle development, Mitchell and his team began in 1959 to shape what would become the final version of the next-generation Corvette. Among the stylists was Larry Shinoda, who would later gain fame with Ford as the creator of the high-performance Mustang “Boss” series. By then the decision was made to produce both coupe and convertible versions of the Sting Ray, a name borrowed from an earlier Corvette show car.

The Sting Ray was unique for many reasons, including the complete absence of a trunk. Instead, limited space behind the seats was the only area available for luggage or cargo.

As a final flourish, Mitchell insisted that the rear window glass be divided in two, despite the fact that Arkus-Duntov and others objected contending that the bar through the middle hindered rear vision. Mitchell eventually won the argument, and the “split-window” stayed.

Underneath Sting Ray’s seductive bodywork was a ladder-type frame and independent rear suspension, the first time such a setup had ever been offered on an American-based production car.

The vehicle’s 327-cubic-inch V-8 engine, available in four horsepower ratings from 250 to 360 (the latter being the rare fuel-injected version), carried over from the 1962 model. It was positioned well back of the front wheels, creating nearly equal front-rear weight distribution. Combined with beefier brakes and a leading-edge chassis (one that would be used for nearly 20 years) and suspension, the new Corvette could run circles around the previous model.

<a href="https://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/wh-CorvetteSplit-Mitchell-March19.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-166035" src="https://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/wh-CorvetteSplit-Mitchell-March19.jpg" alt="1963 Chevrolet Corvette" width="800" height="980" /></a>

The completely revamped 1963 Sting Ray reached Chevrolet dealer showrooms in the fall of 1962, causing an immediate sensation. By the end of its inaugural season, more than 21,500 had been sold, almost equally split (pun intended) between coupes and convertibles.

The following year, the hardtop’s split rear window was replaced by a one-piece design, a feature that would remain through to the end of the car’s production run in 1967.

In the end, Mitchell fought a losing battle to keep his original windows, claiming that changing it “spoiled the whole car.” But split-window or not, the Sting Ray’s sophisticated looks and awesome power would forever change the public’s perception of the Corvette.

A split decision

dreamstime_xxl_196123645

Ontario is Canada’s manufacturing powerhouse and has been a leader in the automotive sector for more than 100 years. Our established industrial clusters in the automotive, manufacturing and technology sectors – coupled with highly skilled talent, and a supportive government – are the best in the world.

As the automotive sector transforms through technology – electric, connected and automated – we are poised to lead this transformation and fuel it with made-in-Ontario solutions that will power the future of the sector.

Our Ontario-based innovators and entrepreneurs are unrivalled. Our industrial clusters are forces to be reckoned with, and our government gets it.

The Ontario Vehicle Innovation Network (OVIN), a flagship initiative led by the Ontario Centre of Innovation and the provincial government, is bridging our strengths and co-ordinating our efforts to make sure that local companies export their technologies and Ontario-made solutions across the world.

We’re not stopping there.

Ontario has proven its theory – if we nurture and support the companies in our province to commercialize the technologies that will shape the future of the sector, those same companies will test and pilot their solutions right here at home. That way, we can drive adoption and deployment for the benefit of our roads, infrastructure, transit and transportation systems. This ensures that we not only reap the economic advantages of this transformation, but we are also able to profit from the social and environmental benefits: increased safety, accessibility and productivity, just to name a few.

As electrification starts to take hold of the sector, we in Ontario are doing what we have done before, rallying and leveraging our strengths to bridge the gaps between technology and policy. By supporting our innovators, entrepreneurs and established small and medium-sized enterprises to pursue innovation, we can encourage Ontario companies to commercialize new technologies and think globally.

<a href="https://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/wh-OVIN-Column-Feb12.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-165376" src="https://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/wh-OVIN-Column-Feb12.jpg" alt="Ovin" width="2083" height="1244" /></a>

As battery technology is rapidly evolving, the race is on to develop, manufacture and supply increasingly more powerful and longer lasting batteries. The next few years will be crucial to any jurisdiction that wants to lead this revolution in electrification. That is why we in Ontario are ramping up our efforts to meet this demand and utilizing all the ingredients at our disposal, including access to the critical minerals required to build EV batteries. Northern Ontario is rich with the resources – some say higher grade than anywhere else in the world – that will fuel this battery revolution.

We know how important it is to remove the barriers faced by investors and pitch in to help our companies commercialize the made-in-Ontario solutions in the connected, autonomous and smart mobility space. We want to ensure that we continue to drive the transformation of technology and that our companies power the future movement of people and goods.

Ontario has proven that we are ripe for investment. Automakers are doubling down in our province and have committed to building the vehicles of the future. Our award-winning facilities, coupled with one of the most highly skilled workforces in the world, ensures we are poised to rise to the top. We get manufacturing – it’s what we do.

We have also made it easy to export goods around the world with 14 free trade agreements that cover 51 countries. We continue to work with the industry to shape our policies and regulations, with the goal of making Ontario the No. 1 jurisdiction for any company to do business and to thrive.

Ontario is all in. We have a plan. We are working together.

Our government is supportive. Our resolve is unparalleled and our ingenuity, unchallenged. The next few years will define the future of the sector. And we in Ontario are making sure that our jurisdiction and our companies are the center of the automotive sector globally.

If you’re not shaping the future of your company and your technology in Ontario – it’s time to enquire within. We are open for business.

Raed Kadri is the vice-president of strategic initiatives and head of the Ontario Vehicle Innovation Network. Follow the network on social media @OvinHub

Opinion: How Ontario is driving the future of the EV sector globally

22 Hyundai Tucson hybrid credit Kunal D'souza (2)

In any given year – even during a pandemic – automotive reviewers may get to test more than a dozen cars a year, putting them through the twists and turns of city, country and highway driving. And while some makes and models may seem familiar, there are always some vehicles that stand out from the others and stick in the reviewers’ mind. We asked five regular car review contributors to Wheels.ca to pick their favourite ride they got to drive in 2021.
<h3>2022 Hyundai Tucson Hybrid </h3>
Starting at $38,899, <a href="http://www.hyundaicanada.com/en">hyundaicanada.com/en</a>

“Deciding what makes a vehicle the top drive of the year is highly subjective. My colleagues might choose the vehicles that excited them the most regardless of category or cost, but I’m opting to add some relevance to the average Canadian family into the equation and go with the Hyundai Tucson Hybrid.

It’s an affordable, stylish and effortlessly fuel-efficient vehicle in a very popular segment where those factors matter most. That said, it’s not perfect: if you like your car to have buttons and knobs rather than relying on touch inputs then you may encounter some frustration here. And the hybrid powertrain is only included on the Tucson’s upper trims, meaning it’s still not truly a budget option. But its pricing does fall in the $40,000 range, which is close to the average amount Canadians are spending on their vehicles these days.

“And with a fuel consumption rating of 6.4 litres per 100 kilometres combined and everything else it has going for it; the Tucson Hybrid offers exceptional practicality and value.” – Stephanie Wallcraft
<h3>2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz</h3>
Starting at $38,499, <a href="http://www.hyundaicanada.com">hyundaicanada.com</a>

“Incredibly cool-looking with turbocharged power and all-wheel drive as standard, the Hyundai Santa Cruz even has a serviceable pickup bed with all sorts of features and the interior digs of a traditional crossover. With the Santa Cruz, Hyundai has answered the question traditional small pickup manufacturers have been asking for years: how do we make our pickups more attractive to non-pickup people?

“Turns out, it’s pretty simple: give it the abilities of a truck (like, say, a pickup bed and 5,000-pound tow rating), but put it on a crossover platform so it doesn’t drive like a truck, and is more efficient than a truck. Oh, and in Hyundai’s case, don’t even call it a truck, rather a Sports Adventure Vehicle. With the Santa Cruz, Hyundai has essentially invented, or at least resurrected, an entire segment.” – Dan Heyman

<a href="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/22-hyundai-santa-cruz-credit-dan-heyman-4-scaled.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-164435" src="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/22-hyundai-santa-cruz-credit-dan-heyman-4-scaled.jpg" alt="2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz" width="2560" height="1707" /></a>
<h3>2022 Toyota GR 86 </h3>
Starting at $31,490, <a href="http://www.toyota.ca">toyota.ca/toyota</a>

“The GR 86 is more fun, engaging and rewarding than any other sports cars I drove this year, including ones with three or four times the sticker price.

“My initial concerns were that Toyota would inevitably ruin what was so special about the outgoing 86 GT by increasing the weight, power and presence of electronic nannies. Instead, Toyota managed to keep everything that was great about the 86 GT, while addressing some serious quality of life issues.

“The accessible power, superb chassis and steering, low centre of gravity, analogue driving feel, and general tail-out happiness are all still very much present. And amplified. Toyota added just the right amount of performance capability to the GR 86 to maximize enjoyment, without spoiling the purity of the experience.” – Chris D’Alessandro

<a href="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/toyota-GR86-credit-Chris-DAlessandro-15-2-scaled.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-164433" src="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/toyota-GR86-credit-Chris-DAlessandro-15-2-scaled.jpg" alt="2022 Toyota GR86" width="2560" height="1920" /></a>
<h3>2022 Audi RS 3 </h3>
Pricing not yet released, <a href="http://www.audi.ca">audi.ca</a>

“Picking a car of the year is difficult given the number of deserving entries, but Audi’s forthcoming subcompact missile lingers in my memory. The outgoing RS 3 is fun, but the next-gen car is better in every way: bigger, more stylish, with more tech and, oh yeah, more power. “From its glorious 2.5-litre inline five-cylinder turbo that now produces an eye-watering 400 horsepower and 369 lb-ft. of torque, to its dazzling LED lighting technology and RS Torque Splitter (which can send 100 per cent of engine torque to one of the rear wheels for what the Four Rings calls ‘controlled drifts’) this little sedan is a true marvel.

“The exhaust baffles make for a crackling symphony of backfires off-throttle, making every downshift more fun than the last, but the biggest grins happen when you get back on the gas and the turbo five-cylinder launches the RS 3 into the next corner.” – Lee Bailie

<a href="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-Audi-RS-3_front-3-4-profile-credit-Lee-Bailie-5.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-164437" src="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-Audi-RS-3_front-3-4-profile-credit-Lee-Bailie-5.jpg" alt="2022 Audi RS 3" width="1920" height="1080" /></a>
<h3>2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E  </h3>
Starting at $50,495, <a href="http://www.ford.ca">ford.ca</a>/

“Out of all the ground-hugging sports cars, tech-heavy euro sedans and hulking, leather-stuffed SUVs I drove this year, the car that stands out most was the Mustang Mach-E. It’s about as far from a Mustang as you can get, but it’s my pick because a mainstream automaker finally produced an SUV that makes all others in the highly competitive compact SUV class feel irrelevant.

“The Mach-E looks phenomenal and is a pleasure to drive, with competent handling and a comfortable ride. The cabin is pin-drop quiet, the electric drivetrain is seamless, and it’s remarkably efficient for a vehicle of its size.

“Spending time in the Mach-E’s airy cabin makes you feel like you’ve been transported 10 years into the future with it’s large easy to use centre screen and thoughtful use of sustainable materials. It feels like the biggest leap forward in the last 50 years for traditional auto brands and that’s why it’s my pick for car of the year.” – Kunal D’souza

<a href="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/21-mustang-mach-e-credit-Kunal-Dsouza-1-scaled.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-164436" src="http://d3odfdcwc42kff.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/21-mustang-mach-e-credit-Kunal-Dsouza-1-scaled.jpg" alt="2021 Ford Mustang Mach E" width="2560" height="1707" /></a>

Wheels

Articles by Wheels