We hate to lead off the week with this disheartening news, but Hyundai will not sell the next-generation Azera you see above in the United States. Hyundai’s Korean headquarters has just released three photos of the latest Azera, and it’s possible Hyundai may have injected some excitement into this large sedan, but we’ll never know.
The news hits us as if Hershey’s had announced it was discontinuing its Symphony lineup of chocolate bars—a semi-premium offshoot from a non-premium brand that hardly anyone takes off the shelf. Back in the early 2000s, U.S. Azera sales did amount to something—cresting above 26,000 in 2006. But this generic Toyota Avalon competitor only racked up 5500 sales last year.
Weirdly enough, the rear of the new Azera looks like a Dodge Charger and the front like a slightly underdressed Genesis G80. Perhaps that’s why, with the Genesis brand now making a go as a separate, Lexus-aping entity, there’s no room anymore for the Azera.
But all may not be lost, Azera lovers. Hyundai’s U.S. division says this: “Considering the importance of Hyundai Motor’s flagship model in overseas markets, we are currently reviewing the possibility of introducing a U.S.-specific model that reflects the needs of customers in North America. Further information will be announced in due course.”
We’d take ours with almonds and toffee. Doesn’t everyone?
Uber has already revolutionized the way many Americans get across town. But, of course, Uber cars are mired in the same gridlock as all other cars. As some have noted, the ride-sharing service could even be making traffic worse. Yet Uber is drawing up some big plans to take that very two-dimensional traffic problem and open it up to three dimensions—with flying cars.
Hold that snicker. Yes, we know flying cars have been just beyond the horizon for nearly as long as airplanes and cars have existed. But consider this: The company sees as the solution drone-like electric copters—more precisely, so-called VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) aircraft. With fixed wings and a tilt-rotor arrangement, they’d use helipads for takeoff and landing, with rotors switching the vehicle’s operation to a more conventional winged airplane mode once they’ve climbed more than 1000 feet.
The company already has a name for the service, of course—Uber Elevate—and it’s examined in a 98-page white paper from the technology company detailing how it might achieve that, contextualized through a post from Uber’s chief product officer, Jeff Holden.
Uber noted that, unlike helicopters, they won’t be reliant on a single part to stay airborne or stable, and the autonomous technology would reduce or eliminate instances of operator error. The tech company plans to use pilots at first, but over the long range it’s also—naturally—targeting autonomous operation.
Uber isn’t looking to get into the aircraft-building business, but it expresses hopes that its vision and commitment will be enough to get companies that are capable of engineering such a vehicle on board. FAA certification could be one of the biggest hurdles—more so than the technology itself, or viable manufacturing. They’d also be dependent on the more advanced, next-generation air-traffic-control system; and then there’s the massive infrastructure requirement of providing helipad space, as well as equipping those helipads with the level of commercial-duty fast-charging capable of keeping these vehicles’ high-capacity battery packs charged.
Uber targets a service that could be used daily, not just as a cheaper alternative to renting a helicopter. The company cites the rapid progress of battery packs and the relatively low 2 miles per kilowatt-hour claimed by the Cirrus SR-22, a four-passenger aircraft, as groundwork for feasibility (although perhaps with broader use of a larger vehicle like the U.S. military’s X-19, shown above). And it arrives at a surprising point: “We also believe that in the long term, VTOLs will be an affordable form of daily transportation for the masses, even less expensive than owning a car.”
If Uber and the like are turning the United States into a nation of passengers rather than drivers, the company’s flying-drones idea could take us out of cars entirely. But for those of us who will still want to drive, imagine how much less traffic there would be.
Hyundai and Kia have agreed to settle with 33 states after a four-year legal battle over the brands’ inflated fuel-economy estimates.
In total, the Korean automakers will pay $41.2 million to resolve consumer protection claims among the 33 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, which launched investigations after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the automakers had overstated estimates on 900,000 cars in November 2012. Most infamous was Hyundai’s advertisement of a 40-mpg Elantra (and its ironic dismissal of rival brands over their low-volume “eco” trims), which turned out to be completely false. Hyundai and Kia were forced to lower EPA highway estimates between 1 and 6 mpg after they admitted to errors during coasting-test procedures. Cars from the 2011, 2012, and 2013 model years were affected.
Initially, Hyundai and Kia began mailing prepaid debit cards to all affected owners to compensate for their lower mileage over the lifetime of ownership, along with 15 percent restitution, although this required customers to visit their dealers every year to have their odometers checked. A separate class-action lawsuit forced Hyundai to offer lump-sum payouts totaling $255 million (originally $395 million before it was lowered by a federal judge last year). This doesn’t include the $350 million settlement with the EPA, including $214 million in forfeited greenhouse-gas emissions credits. All told, Hyundai and Kia have been penalized somewhere north of $650 million, which, although a huge amount, pales in comparison to Volkswagen’s $14.7 billion and counting.
This latest payout doesn’t mean Hyundai and Kia owners will see any more money. The proceeds instead are headed into the states’ coffers.
The news of Audi’s upcoming departure from its long reign atop global sports-car racing was as shocking as it was inevitable. The reasoning behind the withdrawal was painfully Germanic: It’s a calculated business move, and nothing more. And even if it was inevitable, the loss of Audi from the WEC is on par with McLaren leaving F1, Ford leaving NASCAR, or Ganassi leaving IndyCar. Make no mistake, this is a big deal.
The same machine-like efficiency Audi introduced to the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1999 was applied by its board of directors—and its accounting department—to forecasting its future at the French endurance classic. With a rumored annual investment of a half-billion dollars to consider, the numbers seemingly stopped making sense for the brand.
The first axe started its slow and silent fall when VW’s Dieselgate scandal broke in September 2015. Volkswagen Audi Group (VAG) didn’t know the size of the fine at the time, but it knew its bottom line would take a massive hit at some point. It finally arrived on Tuesday.
Coming less than 24 hours after the announcement of a $15 billion buyback settlement in North America alone, Wednesday’s decision to cleave one of VAG’s two most expensive racing projects from the books was the inevitable response. Porsche’s gasoline-fueled Le Mans program, which is said to command the same half-billion-dollar investment each year, was spared.
Shortly after Dieselgate broke, insiders told me every racing program within VAG was instructed to drop whatever wasn’t turning a profit or adding to the company’s reputation. Coming off of two lopsided Le Mans losses courtesy of sister brand Porsche (and a prolonged drubbing in the FIA World Endurance Championship at the hand of Porsche’s 919 Hybrid), Audi Sport’s LMP1 program was unable to meet either of VAG’s self-imposed sustainability criteria.
Porsche’s feral 919 Hybrid has been in a class of its own since 2015.
On the engineering front, Porsche (and Toyota, to a lesser degree) also made it hard to ignore the era of Audi’s turbo-diesel dominance had reached its natural conclusion. Once the featherweight 919 and its barely-there V-4 turbo arrived, Audi’s strong-but-hefty V-6 became a glaring performance liability. Where the Porsche’s tiny drivetrain helps the 919 to turn and brake with alarming fluidity—it’s a marvel of chassis balance perfection—the R18’s higher engine weight has painted Audi’s design team into an unenviable corner. Like a giant boulder strapped to its back, every single decision made with the R18 chassis since 2015 has involved overcoming the kinematic nightmare in the engine bay.
This year’s R18—the most radical LMP1 machine ever built—took weight reduction to psychotic levels in a bid to recapture Audi’s Le Mans glory. On appearances alone, it has also managed to make the 919 and Toyota TS050 look tame.
A wild, Formula 1–inspired high nose, size-zero packaging at the front of the chassis, and revolutionary aerodynamics were employed to bridge the increasing gap to its rivals. Audi threw everything it could think of at the reimagined turbo-diesel R18 (at significant cost) and so far, through seven WEC rounds, Porsche has five wins; Toyota and Audi have one apiece. Despite all of the effort and advancement, the new R18 has failed in its mission to overtake its VAG stablemate.
To turn the tide, a new, skinny, non-diesel solution would be required, and with it, the entire concept of the R18 also would need to change. Take whatever the latest R18 cost VAG, triple it, and that’s what Audi Sport would need to reassert its dominance at Le Mans. In light of the financial clampdown, and having spent a fortune on the 2016 model, Audi Sport’s turbo-diesel decline came at the worst possible time and sealed the program’s fate.
Audi’s new-for-2016 R18 took prototype design to the outer reaches of creativity in an attempt to beat Porsche.
One friend inside the Le Mans team estimates 600 people, from Audi employees to subcontractors to outside vendors, will be impacted by the dissolution of the Le Mans project. “It’s like losing a friend,” he said. “It’s going to change the dynamics of a lot of people’s families and lives.”
Once the Le Mans program winds down at the end of November, Audi Sport will turn its full attention to the all-electric FIA Formula E open-wheel series. Thanks to the (mostly) spec nature of Formula E, only a small portion of the vast engineering and mechanical expertise contained within Audi’s Le Mans program is expected to be redeployed to the new venture.
Formula E has struggled to earn a following, meaningful TV ratings, and commercial success, but with Audi—the titans of endurance racing and forward-looking technology—opting in, the series has gained a huge legitimizing presence.
For a series built on little more than hype, Audi could be a transformative entrant in Formula E. Take everything the brand has done to drive fans towards Le Mans since 1999—all of the sport-meets-technology promotional campaigns, for example—and apply that blueprint to Formula E, and Audi could help the series connect with its target audience in new and meaningful ways.
Audi’s legacy of Le Mans prototypes dates back to 1999 and has earned the brand 13 overall wins at the 24 Hour.
Going beyond the 600-plus people who are in for significant changes, the Le Mans program’s central home, the FIA World Endurance Championship, is about to face its most daunting stress test. The WEC experienced a similar shock when Peugeot scuttled its Le Mans effort shortly before the 2012 season got under way, but it had the comforting presence of Audi and the incoming Toyota program to lean on.
Although there are similarities on the surface, Audi’s exit is unlike anything the series encountered when Peugeot packed up and left. Yes, the French manufacturer was an important part of the championship, but it came and went in five years and was rarely accused of spending the kind of money Audi lavished on the sport. With Peugeot, Le Mans only lost its second-best customer. Without Audi, the 24 Hour and the WEC series is staring into the terrifying void it always feared.
How many television, print, radio, and digital advertisements has Audi purchased each year to support its Le Mans program and the season-long WEC effort? How many race tickets, hospitality suites, catered meals, servers, valets, hosts, security guards, and trackside banners has Audi paid for at every race? How many hotel rooms, rental cars, and flights have been booked at each round, and how much have those items contributed to local economies? How many drivers, engineers, mechanics, truck drivers, marketing and PR staff, travel coordinators, and support personnel currently rely on Audi to feed their families? How many former drivers have been kept on the payroll as brand ambassadors?
Audi’s investment in Le Mans includes permanent structures at the facility.
How much money does Audi pump directly into the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the WEC through marketing rights, special promotions, renting space for hospitality compounds and trackside support buses, to have its vehicles used as the exclusive pace-car supplier, to place in-car cameras in the R18s, to use the Le Mans and WEC logos, and so forth?
After 18 intertwined years, sports-car racing’s richest financial circulation system will stop flowing. The WEC’s biggest spender is leaving and Le Mans is in for a huge budget shortfall. There are real concerns about the short-term health and long-term viability of the WEC without Audi. From a practical standpoint, and with Porsche’s formidable 919 serving as the standard bearer, how many manufacturers are prepared to match or exceed $500,000,000 per year to play for the win?
At the steep buy-in price and the three to five years needed to develop a new Le Mans prototype into a contender, there’s no guarantee a replacement for Audi will appear. The tone of the conversation would be entirely different if another manufacturer was on the horizon, but until that brand is identified or changes are made to bring the costs down, the ramifications of Audi’s departure will weigh heavily on the sport.
After losing its headliner and cash cow to Formula E, Le Mans and the WEC have a long winter ahead.
