Spannerhead Dot Com

And…it’s over.

The remaining three races on the 2011 Formula 1 season calendar suddenly became a battle for silver after Sebastian Vettel clinched his second consecutive World Champion title at the 2011 Japan Grand Prix.

Congrats to Vettel and all that for becoming the youngest double world champion in F1 history, but I sincerely hope my Formula 1 race reports will be more interesting next year. If there was anything unique about this particular race, it was the fact that Vettel didn’t win, that achievement going to his primary rival for the title, Jenson Button. It was at least a competitive race, with several lead changes, McLaren’s pit strategy and discipline vaulting Button past Alonso’s second-place Ferrari and Vettel’s Red Bull car, which finished third. Early in the race the German driver complained that his car’s rear tires were wearing abnormally fast, not an unusual declaration at a circuit known to be particularly hard on tires. Still, it did influence Vettel’s pit stop sequence and allowed Button to take the lead and the win. Truth be told, at the rate Vettel was setting fastest laps early in the race, had he chosen to let the red mist descend and go into attack mode, he could have made a stronger play for the win; however, he chose to drive more conservatively, aware that a finish anywhere in the points would allow him to claim the season title.

So the 2011 F1 season marches on, having already crowned a victor. Given the Red Bull’s and McLaren’s dominance this season, I’ll be rooting for underdogs Alonso and Schumacher to finish the season in good form.

What kind of car can you get for $617,000?

Let’s see… The incomparable Lexus LFA, a few Merc SLS AMGs, a gently used Porsche Carrera GT, perhaps a beat-on secondhand McLaren F1, a nice Ferrari 599, or…

A Bertone Spicup, which looks like a refugee from a mashup of A Clockwork Orange and Mad Max. After languishing in the styling house’s vaults for years and undergoing a complete restoration, the concept car recently sold at auction for the princely sum of £400,000, or $617 grand at the current exchange rate.

Built on a BMW 2000 CS chassis, the one-off Spicup seems to have been essentially an attempt to prove to Bertone’s designers that a car featuring a retractable metal roof panel could be made and driven. To that end, instead of building the car as a static car show sculpture, the Spicup retained all the BMW running gear and can be flung into the corners if not quite as vigorously as the car it’s based on, then certainly more than most of its brethren at the ’69 Geneva car show, where it was unveiled.

The styling, needless to say, is impossibly campy, sporting a variety of vents, bumps and surfaces textures. If a tornado ripped through the BMW parts warehouse and the scattered wreckage reassembled itself on its own, the result could hardly look more haphazard. The interior, by contrast, is actually fairly forward-looking and coherent, except for the day-glo green color, and in spite of the fact that it features possibly the most uncomfortable-looking seats ever fitted to a car. The whole project is probably one that BMW and perhaps even Bertone would rather forget, and judging by the fact that I’d never heard of the car until today, I’d say they did a good job in letting the Spicup slide into oblivion. $617 large has a way of shining a spotlight on dark corners of automotive history and proves, perhaps, that obscurity itself can be a lucrative quality.

A report from Left Lane and a comparo in this month’s issue of Car and Driver take exception to the conventional wisdom that says hybrids are the “next big thing.”

The Left Lane article cites fresh statistics that show hybrid sales as a percentage of all new car sales declined for the third straight year:

[T]he percentage of vehicles sold each year that are gas-electric hybrids is actually on a downward trend, despite the fact that the market has nearly doubled its offering since peaking in 2009 at 2.8 percent of all new cars sold… [I]t appears that buyers in 2011 are heading for a hybrid market share of just over two percent, lower than the 2.4 percent recorded in 2010.

I was surprised to read that, given the massive exposure new hybrid models are accorded on the car show circuit and in automotive publications. It’s a refreshing reminder that as much as a new technology is hyped by the powers-that-be, whether governmental or corporate, people will buy the best option available for their particular situation. Market forces are inexorable, in spite of certain institutions’ best efforts to guide the buying public’s actions in specific directions.

And as evidenced by the Car and Driver comparison test between the Chevy Volt and its stablemate, the Cruze Eco, the automotive press is starting to cut through the fanfare and hold automakers’ feet to the fire for their claims of hybrid efficiency, and examine the real-world wisdom of a hybrid purchase. The Volt has been all but hailed as the savior of the entire American automotive industry, so with such over-saturation it’s inevitable any actual scrutiny of car itself will fail to meet those sky-high expectations. Still, it’s remarkable how thoroughly the conventional-cycle gas engine-powered Cruze Eco trounces the Volt in the comparo—and not just in terms of real-world fuel efficiency, either, but also with respect to driver engagement, standard equipment and options, all at less than half the price of the Volt.

The end of the hybrid tale is yet to be written, of course, but in medias res one automaker that seems very smart is Mazda, having chosen to forego developing a hybrid powerplant in favor of their ultra-high efficiency SkyActiv gas engine technology, to be introduced in Mazda’s upcoming CX-5 mini-ute. If the hybrid downward trend continues, the Japanese automaker in particular stands to look positively visionary.

Whether you’re an individual or a corporation, standing on your own two feet is something to be proud of. Ford, the only one of the Big Three automakers not to receive bailout money during the opening months of the current administration, recently rolled out an ad pitching their relative independence from taxpayers as a selling point.

It’s understood that Ford’s relationship with their unions is just as unhealthily symbiotic as GM’s or Chrysler’s. Also, despite the fact they didn’t require bailout funding, Ford has certainly been on the receiving end of the taxpayer dole many times in the past. So they’re not “blameless” by any means. Still, I regard the company more positively than its rivals for having had the management acumen to navigate the recent downturn without requesting a public lifeline, and a recent survey shows I’m not alone: 50% of those asked said they’d be less likely to buy a GM car because of the bailout.

However, not everyone smiles on Ford’s publicizing of their independence, including some in positions of power. The Detroit News reports:

Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early ’09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can’t have that.

The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.

Behold an “intended consequence” of government takeover of private industry: The success of a company becomes a political liability, and something to be suppressed. A committee from the House of Representatives is investigating the extent to which the administration pressured Ford to yank the ad, but as they say, the damage is done. The Obama White House has amply demonstrated it has no qualms using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the private sector, and won’t hesitate to strongarm companies like Ford who remain proud of their more prudent fiscal decisions, and have every right to crow about it.

Well, sort of.

This coming Tuesday, Discovery Channel launches their new vehicle-themed spinoff channel: Discovery Velocity. I call the new network a party crasher because the much-publicized attempts to get a US-based car show off the ground are still struggling, and onto their tenuously-held turf saunters a full-fledged automotive network. Of course, it’s not like Speed hasn’t been around for years, but that’s always struck me as a more racing-focused outfit, with less emphasis on creating an “entertaining motoring show” in the Top Gear UK vein.

The “sort of” qualification stems from the fact that none of the existing shows Discovery is relegating to Velocity provides TGUK (or TGUS or The Car Show, for that matter) with any direct, head-on competition. The transplanted shows range from a custom-themed program featuring Chip Foose to a show centered on collectible classics and hosted by Keith Martin, and everything in between. At the very least, there will be a little something for everyone, contrasted with the more “one size fits all” approach of the Top Gear clones. We’ll see, but Discovery’s method of hedging their bets by spreading the programming out into a whole network may prove to be the smarter—if more expensive—solution to the Great American Car Program quandary.

Autoblog relays a report that Lincoln is planning to move away from their traditional “waterfall grille” styling cue. It had been something of a nominal addition, tacked on for years without any real context, but lately, with the ’07-present MK-generation of cars, it’s become more integrated into the cars’ overall design themes. I can’t say I’m sad to see it go—it’s the sort of brand-defining design feature that can easily completely overwhelm the front end, and so elaborate that it can make designers feel absolutely cornered aesthetically, with no way to design around the monstrosity that must live on the car’s nose. It’ll be interesting to see which direction the stylists take next.

Of course, the same could be said about the brand in general. Lincoln has been floundering for years, with no clear direction from their parent company Ford, dabbling with a few different approaches but never really committing to any. And now that their sister marque Mercury is dead, all eyes are on Lincoln as the last remaining Ford sub-brand. Will they find their way and survive? Or will they be euthanized as well, leaving Ford standing alone?

Assuming Lincoln is worth saving, let’s consider a few potential paths:

1. Go Euro. Also known as “the Cadillac path.” Lincoln could decide that American tastes have fundamentally veered away from the traditional American soft, cushy luxoboat, and opt to completely ape their European competitors. They could make all their platforms RWD (with AWD as an option), offer stickshifts and focus on balance, quality and handling. They might even consider adding a wagon and giving it a funky name like “Avant” or “Touring.” At this point, Lincoln would be late to the party, as even the Japanese competition (Lexus, Infiniti) is chasing BMW and Mercedes. Cadillac distinguishes themselves with great whacking American pushrod V8 power and knife-edged design; it’s difficult to envision how Lincoln could make themselves stand out if they chose such a route. Besides, they’ve already dabbed their toe in that product development philosophy with the unloved ’00-’06 LS V6 and V8, so they might be a bit leery of tacking that direction again. Still, in the case of the LS, I maintain the flaw lay not in the concept, but in its lackluster execution and the lack of conviction behind it. So “going Euro” is still a viable option.
2. Pull an Audi. I have in mind Audi of the early ’80s, when they spearheaded an innovative and promising technology (quattro AWD) and built their cars and brand around it. Audi became, for all intents and purposes, “the AWD automaker” and fastened lesser distinctives, such as beautifully tasteful styling, to that primary brand-defining attribute. By hitching its wagon to some up-and-coming technology, Lincoln could become “the _____ luxury automaker” going forward. It would give the company a characteristic to rally around and help elevate the brand’s profile in an overcrowded market segment.
3. Double down. With luxury automakers like Cadillac and Buick abandoning the traditional definition of the American luxury car like rats on a sinking ship, Lincoln could wager the ship is still salvageable, and attempt to establish a niche as the last refuge of the American land barge. Granted, they’d have to update the type’s image somewhat for the 21st century (read: more efficiency), but the theoretical potential does exist for the big boulevard cruiser to experience a resurgence in the marketplace. It’s a long shot, but perhaps that’s the way to point Lincoln’s tiller.

It’s profoundly ironic that for all the regulatory meddling the Formula 1 administrative body, the FIA, engages in to try to contain development costs, level the playing field and promote competitive racing, there’s one factor they can’t equalize: Driver talent. And that one factor is making this Formula 1 season into a supremely uncompetitive, lopsided farce to rival Schumacher’s rampage through the 2004 season.

What am I talking about? Sebastian Vettel’s win from pole position today at the Singapore Grand Prix, easily clinching his ninth victory of the season. As with so many events this year, the true battle was for second place, with Vettel turning in machine-like fastest laps far into the race. Apart from a couple of incidents, most notably a fender-bender between Hamilton’s McLaren and Massa’s Ferrari and a botched overtaking attempt by Schumacher that sent him into the tire wall, it really was a snoozer. A pretty snoozer, but so, so boring nonetheless. The first night F1 race I’d seen, the track certainly looked spectacular. We were treated to gorgeous aerial shots of F1 cars duking it out on the track while “mere mortal” cars coursed along the arterial highways above the circuit. One commenter on the linked Autoblog writeup mentioned the absence of views of spectators, and he’s on point: The cars looked as though they were racing around some perfectly-lit, inert urban canyon, tearing through a life-size video game with none of foliage, heat waves or general human elements that characterize other circuits.

Far be it from me to wish ill on anyone, but I do hope something happens in the remaining few races of the season to make things a little more interesting.

Reviews of the new F10 BMW M5 are starting to trickle in, and the plaudits and detractions are completely predictable. Top Gear, for instance, notes the car’s ability to

…pulverize supercars while carrying four in massive comfort

but also laments:

Despite the acceleration it delivers and the speed it carries, this is not a raw, animalistic car, even with all the buttons turned up to 11.

Expect to read a variation on that theme from just about every outlet that publishes a road test. “Awesomely fast and capable, but less visceral than the previous M5” will be the refrain. But really, what other path was there for BMW to take? New EU emissions regulations have been signing the death warrant for high-revving, naturally-aspirated powerplants across the continent (including the previous M5’s banshee V10), and with their demise goes their corresponding feel and character; namely, the endless revs, the linear powerband, the spine-tingling wail of an engine spinning into oblivion. Turbo’d engines may be more efficient and offer more low-down grunt, but they feel muffled, clipped, tamed… And such is the state of the M5, in spite of the increased power and speed. It’s a prime example of a larger trend in the industry, the way cars are simultaneously growing more capable and less involving. As evidenced by this F10 M5, we’re losing our connection to our cars’ mechanical “roots.”

That said, there are certainly some things to admire about BMW M’s latest offering. My favorite is the (mostly) unadorned engine bay. Instead of a giant M-badged engine cover, the automaker peels back the plastic to grant us a beautifully unrestricted view of the intake piping to the pair of turbos nestled in the engine’s “V,” as well as the air-to-water intercoolers and other assorted mechanical bits. It’s ironic that the car itself feels less raw than the previous iteration at the same time the engine view is more “unplugged”—not that I’m complaining about the latter.

Another pleasing feature concerns a major coup by US BMW enthusiasts. Irate at the idea of an M car offered without a proper three-pedal manual—BMW’s only transmission for the new M5 was to be their 7-speed dual-clutch semi-automatic—enthusiasts on this side of the Atlantic succeeded in pressuring the automaker to make a conventional 6-speed manual available as an option. Score one for the purists. It seems M5 customers who opt to use their right hand and left foot will at least be able to experience feedback from the car that way, if nowhere else.

Today, Left Lane compiled a selective list of 13 cars axed for the 2012 model year. From the perspective of tracking trends and shifting automotive preferences over time, it’s almost as interesting as a new cars list. It’s fascinating to consider what caught on, what didn’t, what’s “out” and what’s “in” when it comes to car offerings. Some points of interest:

• Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS and STS, Ford Crown Vic and Lincoln Town Car. Like the American station wagon and “personal car” (large 2-door coupe), the big American luxoboat seems to be going the way of the dodo. The contextual difference between the cars is their manufacturers’ vision of what’s next: Buick and Cadillac are trending smaller and more European (although Buick still clings to dynamically-inferior FWD), Ford is experiencing success with other models and has little incentive to replace the Crown Vic directly, and Lincoln is utterly rudderless and in desperate need of a focused company vision if it’s to survive—something the demise of the Town Car without any “way forward” illustrates.
• Honda Element. In my mind, this one was a bit underrated. Sure, it wasn’t exactly a looker, but it wasn’t the Quasimodo everyone seems to think it was. Its biggest problem seemed to be lack of definition: The Left Lane article references the Nissan XTerra, a much more purposeful expression of the “utilitian, rugged SUV” idiom. Perhaps if the Element had been more truck-like and rough and tumble like the XTerra, or less SUV-ish like a Subaru Forester, it would have found a more dedicated audience; who knows.
• Chevrolet HHR. Every time I saw an HHR, I was struck with how shamelessly it ripped off the PT Cruiser. However, most reviews concluded that Chevy had created the clearly superior car, not the most difficult task when you have a specific target to surpass. That said, it’s interesting to see certain companies canning their retro models, while others are updated (VW Beetle) and new ones are introduced (Fiat 500). Looking back, Chevy must have concluded that the need for a response to the PT Cruiser was gone, and that two retro-themed cars (the HHR and the Camaro) in their model line was one too many. Of the two, I’m glad they decided to keep the Camaro.