Book Review: Zoom: The Race to Fuel the Car of the Future

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

When new acquaintances find out that I cover the automotive industry, the response is often a flood of pent-up questions on the topic. Though much of the interest converges on the future of the American automakers, the future of cars, fuel and mobility in general attract a lot of curiosity. Facile blogger that I am, I usually cop out by saying that telecommuting is the true future of mobility. In reality, the interplay of energy, economics, politics, technology and the environment that defines the cars and fuels of the future is a topic of near infinite complexity. Luckily, two correspondents for the Economist have tackled the issues in a new book entitled Zoom: The Global Race To Fuel The Car Of The Future.

One major advantage that Zoom enjoys over other titles in its genre: its authors tackle the subject with the methodical pragmatism of their day-job employers, the Economist. Iain Carson and Vijay Vaitheeswaran’s global perspective and big-time access pervade the prose. And though they work from a solidly market- and enterprise-oriented framework, they give both environmental alarmists and government interventionists a chance to present their ideas.

The first chapter’s entitled “The Terrible Twins.” But don’t worry: the oil- and auto-industry bashing is not an exercise in political point-scoring. In fact, the authors treat this history of the industries’ unique challenges and tortured symbiosis with sensitivity. From FDR and OPEC to NOCs and CAFE, Zoom hurtles towards the present (copyright 2007), and the looming question that lends Zoom‘s second section its name: “Can The Dinosaurs Dance?”

In “The Parable Of The Prius,” the authors compare Toyota’s debut of its new Camry at the 2006 Detroit Auto Show to Tommy LaSorda driving a Grand Cherokee through a plate-glass window. And the point isn’t just that Toyota is a fossil fuel-addicted “dinosaur” that is dancing to a tune that will only get louder over time. Toyota’s ability to dance at all is the product of aggressive and foresighted business practices. Meanwhile, Chrysler is, well, Chrysler. Though climate concerns are discussed, the focus is clearly on the economic impacts of oil addiction: price shocks, the oil curse and inefficiency. These factors, argue the authors, are creating new business paradigms for big oil and auto which are far more meaningful and effective than global warming hysteria.

Whether discussing the geopolitical entanglements of ever-draining oil reserves or the myriad pretenders to petroleum’s crown, Zoom manages an admirable balance between factual accuracy and narrative flow. From any fixed ideological standpoint, there are elements to both love and hate. In between, a wealth of information will tempt you to embrace the complexity and ambiguity inherent in the book’s subject matter.

Unfortunately, such committed even-handedness can cause some editorial frustration. Nearly every compelling argument and prediction in Zoom is quickly followed by a flurry of equally convincing equivocations. Accordingly, the lessons you do take away from Zoom tend to be of the simplicity-amidst-chaos nature. Understanding and embracing the reality that no single energy source will replace petroleum is one such deceptively straightforward “lesson.”

The importance of a moderate approach is another of the authors’ valuable insights—that’s both obvious and widely ignored in discourse on the topic. In the words of Amory Lovins, whose Defense Department-funded efficiency studies define much of Zoom‘s approach, “optimism and pessimism are two sides of the same coin—both dangerous!” Carson and Vaitheeswaran’s limited editorializing clearly pursues Lovins’ goal of “efficiency, not a hair shirt.”

Contrary to their own advice though, optimism gets Zoom‘s authors run into trouble. Though they quickly denounce US corn ethanol subsidies, both ethanol and vigorous government energy policy receive qualified praise. They never explain how we can enjoy the latter two without ending up with the former.

Similarly, many pages of speculation are devoted to the promise of hydrogen fuel cells. And though the caveat that fuel cells have been “the future” for a good 30 years is dutifully mentioned, descriptions of micropower- and hydrogen-based futures tend to be glimpsed through a futurist’s rose-colored glasses.

In fact, hydrogen hype infects the book’s introduction. “The Great Awakening” is bad enough to make the reader contemplate giving up on Zoom after the first five pages. Stanford Ovshinsky of Energy Conversion Devices (“no hydrogen hypester,” insist the authors) is quickly given free reign to declare a dawning “Hydrogen Age.” How did I miss it?

Then again, I don’t license technology to the likes of Sony, Samsung and BYD. Ovshinsky does. As a blogger, though, I do know that enough has changed since Zoom’s 2007 copyright date to take some shine off of its predictions. Political, economic and technological changes are coming so fast, no book could possibly keep up. Instead of reading Zoom for some repeatable, comprehensive take on “the future of mobility,” skip the introduction and read it as an admirably even-handed history of hydrocarbons and their discontents.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 8 comments
  • Engineer Engineer on Mar 23, 2009

    Scartooth, assuming all you say is true (and that takes quite the salt shaker), wouldn't the future belong to FORD? They already have a good hybrid, more feasible business plan and better management... Americans ARE innovators, GM is not.

  • Njgreene Njgreene on Apr 29, 2009

    @Scartooth, If only I'd known you were going to fire up the old flame, I'd have brought some marshmallows.

  • SCE to AUX My first car was a 71 Pinto, 1.6 Kent engine, 4 spd. It was the original Base model with a trunk, #4332 ever built. I paid $125 for it in 1980, and had it a year. It remains the quietest idling engine I've ever had. 75HP, and I think the compression ratio was 8:1. It was riddled with rust, and I sold it to a classmate who took it to North Carolina.After a year with a 74 Fiat, I got a 76 Pinto, 2.3 engine, 4-spd. The engine was tractor rough, but I had the car 5 years with lots of rebuilding. It's the only car I parted with by driving into a junkyard.Finally, we got an 80 Bobcat for $1 from a friend in 1987. What a piece of junk. Besides the rust, it never ran right despite tons of work, fuel economy was terrible, the automatic killed the power. The hatch always leaked, and the vinyl seats were brutal in winter and summer.These cars were terrible by today's standards, but they never left me stranded. All were fitted with the poly blast shield, and I never worried about blowing up.The miserable Bobcat was traded for an 82 LTD, which was my last Ford when it was traded in 1996. Seeing how Ford is doing today, I won't be going back.
  • Jeff S I rented a PT Cruiser for a week and although I would not have bought one it was not as bad as I thought it would be. Pontiac Aztek was a good vehicle but ugly. Pinto for its time was not as good as the Japanese cars but it was not the worst that honor would go to the Vega. If one bought a Pinto new it was much better with a 4 speed manual with no air it didn't have the power for those. Add air and an automatic to a Pinto and you could beat it on a bicycle. The few small cars available today or in the recent past are so much better than the Pinto, Vega, and Gremlin. A Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, and the former Chevy Spark are light years ahead of those small cars of the 70s.
  • JRED My dad has a 2005 F-150 with the dreaded 5.4 that he bought new. 320k miles on the original engine and trans and it's still not only driving, but driving well. He's just done basic maint, including spark plugs and ignition modules. Interior is pretty ratty now but who cares? Outlier I know, but that is a good truck.
  • MaintenanceCosts It is nearly 20 years later and this remains the most satisfying Hyundai product I've driven. It got a lot of middling reviews at the time but the 3.3 V6 was buttery, the transmission shifted well, and the ergonomics were fantastic.
  • Steverock PT Cruiser with the 2.4 turbo. I bought one new in 2004, and it was quick. It was kind of dorky, but it was fun to drive and had lots of room for stuff. My wife drove it to work one day with the parking brake on, and it was never the same after that. Traded it in on a 2005 Mazda6 wagon.
Next