Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Michael Goldfarb covers the defense industry...
I found an interesting gem on his blog from several months ago and I have highlighted the juicy part in bold (... once again, I would like to thank Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore for inventing the internet which allows us to find stuff like this very quickly....)
NYSunPolitics.com | Main | Daily Iraq Report for March 8, 2007 »
Blogging AUSA
Today was day one of the AUSA Winter Symposium in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The convention is a technology enthusiast's dream, featuring exhibits from nearly every major defense company as well as speeches from the top brass and other Pentagon officials. There is a whole lot going on here that I hope to cover over the next couple days, but I'll start off with some thoughts on what is clearly the top concern of everyone attending this conference: defeating the IED.
The first thing that strikes me from the technology on display here is that the Humvee is pretty much a disaster. The primary weakness of the Humvee is its lack of armor. The only viable solution to that problem was to add armor, in the form of up-armor kits, to nearly every Humvee operating in Iraq. But that solution had a major downside--the vehicle's weight limit is pretty much maxed out once the up-armor kit is added.
Weight isn't the only constraint on the Humvee. Technologies that aim to counter the IED are extremely power-hungry--from jammers to communications to surveillance, all demand a great deal of electricity. But the Humvee has barely enough power to run the systems that were on board when it was first deployed. Combine the lack of electricity with the excess weight, and you have a vehicle with almost no capacity to adapt to the modern battlefield. (As an aside, I was surprised to learn that upgrades to the Stryker, the Army's premier tactical wheeled vehicle, have also been constrained by a shortage of electrical power.)
So nearly every major company here is trying to hawk some kind of technology either to improve the Humvee's survivability or to replace it outright, but the emphasis is clearly on replacing it. There are mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles on display, and "technology demonstrators" for the next generation Humvee, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).
But let's start with MRAP. BAE had two trucks on display, one in a 4X4 configuration and the other in a 6X6. The Pentagon recently (in the last month) ordered 90 MRAPs from BAE for the Marine Corps which will be deployed to Iraq shortly--75 of the 6X6 variant and the other 15 in the 4X4. Both are impressive and appear highly survivable, but they are simply enormous--check out this pic of the 4X4.
The 6X6 is, of course, larger. But even the 4X4 weighs in at more than 35,000 pounds (compare that to an up-armored Humvee which weighs roughly 13,000 pounds). The vehicles were both designed last year with input from BAE's South African unit, which has been making MRAP vehicles longer than anybody else in the industry (the reason for that is an interesting story by itself), and they might be the most survivable of the models now being considered by the military--but I don't believe either would serve as an effective replacement for the Humvee. They're just too big.
More promising as a Humvee replacement (not service-wide but in theater) is Force Protection's Cheetah. The Cheetah is the smallest of a family of MRAP vehicles that we've covered here before. The Cougar and Buffalo, Force Protection's larger MRAPs, have already seen extensive service in Iraq, but the Cheetah is new. Light, fast, and well armored, the Cheetah really could replace the Humvee throughout Iraq. I think its main advantage is that it's not so intimidating as some of the other models on display. That is, its presence on Iraqi roads might not scare the heck out of the average, friendly Iraqi civilian. And at roughly 12,000 pounds, it's in the same weight class as the Humvee.
The military hasn't yet ordered the Cheetah, but it's only a matter of time. And Force Protection is turning out Cougars and Buffalos as fast as they can to meet existing contracts.
Rafael, an Israeli firm, also had an MRAP on display--the Golan. The Marine Corps ordered 60 of these vehicles at the end of February, and will likely order more in the months ahead as the Marine Corps struggles to deploy more than 4,100 MRAPs to Iraq by the end of the year. Essentially, no one firm can meet the demands of the Marine Corps and the Army, which means multiple suppliers will be needed to fill the order. That ought to be a nightmare for the guys doing logistics, let alone the mechanics. But these vehicles will save a lot of American lives as they are put into service.
What is really needed, however, is a replacement for the Humvee. The magnitude of that contract was evident inside, and outside, the convention hall. General Dynamics Land Systems had their technology demonstrator on display, a sleek looking vehicle that resembled an armored dune buggy. The fact sheet has the vehicle's top speed at 70 mph with a weight somewhere between 14,000 - 16,000 pounds. It's a neat looking vehicle, but I got the sense from the GDLS folks that the vehicle they would ultimately submit for testing would bear little resemblance to the one on display. Still, the vehicle features a hybrid diesel-electric engine, which will provide a substantial increase in the amount of electricity available for on board systems.
Oshkosh had even less to show--no technology demonstrator, no plywood mock-up, just a one page brochure with a picture of a mudflap. Oshkosh is an industry leader in this field, but they appear to be a bit behind the curve. And everybody seems to be a bit behind Lockheed Martin. I spoke with Lockheed's JLTV program manager a couple of weeks ago, and when I posted on the program they wouldn't give me so much as an artist's rendering of the vehicle--the competition to win this contract is intense. But Lockheed has a prototype at the convention, hidden in a tent about 200 meters from the main exhibit. The vehicle will be unveiled tomorrow morning and I hope to get pictures of it up as soon as possible. Right now, my sense is that Lockheed is in a pretty commanding position relative to the competition.
There was a lot of interesting technology on display besides armored vehicles, but even the other gadgets were mostly geared toward the IED defeat mission. One technology generating tremendous buzz was Rafael's Trophy Active Protection System. I can't tell you that much about it, but the video of the system in action is impressive. The system targets incoming RPGs and fires some kind of munition to tear the thing apart before it can reach the vehicle. The munition itself is classified, but highly effective by all accounts. Still, there is a concern that an active defense system will put friendlies at risk--any soldier walking alongside an armored vehicle protected by Trophy will be in danger of getting hit if an RPG is fired, either by the RPG or Trophy. Rafael claims a one percent risk of a friendly fire incident, but that is hardly insignificant. Also, there's the cost, which wasn't disclosed, but surely exceeds the cost of a Humvee.
What may have been the most elegant piece of technology on display today is also geared toward defeating the RPG, and it stands in stark contrast to the hi-tech and hi-cost Trophy system. It is the L-Rod RPG Defense Kit from BAE. The L-Rod is little more than an aviation-grade, aluminum cage that can be mounted onto an armored vehicle. RPGs rely on a shaped charge to magnify the effect of what is, in fact, a relatively small amount of high-explosives. The L-Rod does not protect a vehicle from that small warhead, but by shredding the RPG before it can strike the vehicle, it effectively destroys the shape of the warhead. The result: any lightly armored vehicle can survive a direct hit from what would otherwise be a highly lethal munition. Here's a picture of the L-Rod.
The L-Rod is already in use on a number of MRAP vehicles in Iraq, including Force Protection's Buffalo. What makes L-Rod so impressive though, is that it is a $100 solution to a $100 problem. Still, this simple defensive measure weighs too much to be extensively deployed on up-armored Humvees. While some Humvees do use the L-Rod to protect windows and side-doors, the vehicle cannot sustain the extra weight of wrap-around L-Rod protection, leaving much of the vehicle vulnerable to the RPG's shaped charge.
One last thing I should mention is Boeing's UAV helicopter, the A160 Hummingbird. The Hummingbird has a payload of 1,500 pounds, which far exceeds that of the Predator, and it can also hover--which no fixed wing UAV can claim. All of which is irrelevant in making the Hummingbird the hands-down coolest looking weapons platform on display at the AUSA convention. Still, Special Operations Command was likely less impressed by the look of the thing than its capabilities when they ordered 10 copies to be delivered this spring.
So far....
Only the 50 or so of us here have seen this, so there is roughly 9,999,950 left to see this annoucement...thats a good thing...
This excerpt from the latest CEO update takes on a new meaning now..
"We have delivered our constant velocity joints to a major military contractor per their purchase order and have been informed that the units have more than met the manufacturer’s expectations"
I wonder....
....how long it will take the Rochester D&C and Velvet Spicer to call Torvec to discuss this new development...
LOL....
Hey , if this Lockheed scenario goes where I think it will go, and Torvec goes from revenues of 500,000 annually to $500 million annually, i dont care if you never read another one of my posts...LOL
The game has now changed.....
Torvec and Lockheed Martin and Hillary...nice find tovc4me...!
Copy of link text below....let the shorts chew on this one for a while...
October 15, 2007
Senator clinton Welcomes New Partnership Between Torvec, Inc. and Lockheed Martin
Clinton Helps Bring Together Local Rochester Company and Lockheed Martin to Partner in Production of Next Generation Military Vehicles
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today welcomed the news that Torvec, Inc. a small business based in Rochester, NY, has partnered with Lockheed Martin to work on its military vehicles line of business. Torvec will offer stability and control technologies to Lockheed Martin in support of their tactical wheeled vehicle programs. Senator Clinton’s interest in the next generation of tactical wheeled vehicles allowed her to make the connection with the automotive technologies produced by Torvec, Inc. and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego.
“Our military, if they are called upon to engage in combat in defense of their nation, need to have the very best that our country has to offer,” said Senator Clinton. “I welcome these two New York companies working together to support our men and women in uniform.”
“Torvec’s innovative solutions are crucial to the next generation of tactical wheeled vehicles, as our design will allow greater articulation of suspensions for rough terrain” said Keith Gleasman, president of Torvec Inc. “Our solution will help provide the warfighters with maximum protection, performance and payload.”
“Lockheed Martin is dedicated to protecting our warfighters and providing the best possible solution,” said Louis J. DeSantis, vice president and general manager of Systems Solutions at Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego.
Senator Clinton’s role in bringing these two companies together is a continuation of her commitment to furthering the economic growth of Upstate New York by bringing together local large and small technology based companies. Following a briefing from Torvec regarding their cutting edge automotive technology, Senator Clinton was able to reach out to Lockheed Martin, who was developing the tactical wheeled vehicle program, to help initiate this mutually beneficial relationship between the two companies.
Founded in 1996, Torvec, Inc. is a publicly owned development stage automotive technology company based in Rochester, NY. Torvec is at the leading edge of design and development of articulation technologies for the automotive industry. Lockheed Martin builds high quality, functionally superior, cost competitive military vehicles to meet the evolving operational needs of the U.S. military. These survivable weapons system platforms can be easily configured to complete a wide variety of demanding battlefield missions.
As you know.....
I have a vivid imagination...LOL...I feel the trading activity late Friday and this morning are responses to people digesting the CEO update...
When you look at the highlights of the update, they indicate a momentum and positioning that is, quite frankly at a level never before seen from Torvec...
As I go through these items, I cant help but feel good about where things are...the move is almost done and is tied to strategic directional options for the company...China remains in process....the company is "extraordinarily busy" completing the following partial list of prospects...
- US auto mfg - FTV
- Another Us auto Mfg - iso-torque for cars and trucks
- Major military contractor - CV joint
- Malaysian monorail system contractor - CV joint
- Fortune 500 company - JV to acquire rights to CV joint
- American subsidiary on Korean mfg - pump and motor for construction and agricultural vehicles applications
- Nissan
I'm enjoying the developments we see....they idicate other things going on that they cannot comment on at this point...I like what I see..
Hi Breeze...
You have already alluded to shorting this stock...this run-up, accompanied with the list of 10 or 11 evolving developments from the CEO update must make for some anxious times for you...
I hope your position works out for you, but I'm thinking the long position is the way to go..
Have a nice day...
Interesting pre-open trades again...
3900 shares traded before the open this morning...
I love action verbs....
Nice open this morning...31,800 shares in first 15 minutes now at 3.50....
Perhaps you're dilusional....we've seen you dilude before..
but i dont think so....LOL
From the list provided by the update today, it doesn't appear that they have been sitting around waiting for the phone to ring...it's possible not everthing on the list will pan out, but neither does each have to...anyone of them could produce critical mass for us as shareholders...
Interestingly on FTV....when I first invested in TOVC it was the FTV that got my attention....now there are multiple products in front of multiple organizations...I am still feeling as though the Iso-Torque and/or CV Joint will be the first products to produce a score size for Torvec....
zendo...
On 9/29 you posted -
"Good questions. The Co. may have gotten distracted by the on going discussions with SIAC, the "quiet period since discussions are now at a critical stage", etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. We've never been closer and I've never been more confident (manical laughter)."
What's ironic is that is looks like the company was meeting with the Chinese that very day...LOL
As a long term shareholder.....
I appluad the amount and scope of activity that Torvec has going on...deals will emerge from the these relationships...
CEO message out...lots of info
Message from the CEO
October 12, 2007
Dear Shareholders,
My September 4, 2007 CEO Update was the first of a four-part series to highlight the most recent developments regarding Torvec’s four principal automotive technologies. In that Update, I discussed our constant velocity joint and promised that the next Update would focus on our IsoTorque differential.
I anticipate I will be able to provide you with a comprehensive Update on our differential within the next few weeks which will include the results of ongoing events with two automotive companies worldwide. I believe you will find the information disclosed about the IsoTorque to be well worth the wait.
This Update, therefore, is an “interim” one to keep our shareholders as up to date with what is going on as is possible.
Our Move
First, we have almost completed our move into our new 14,000 sq. ft. executive office and manufacturing facility. Our new plant is located at 1999 Mt. Read Blvd. Rochester, New York 14615. Our facility forms a stand-alone building within the Mt. Read Industrial Complex and is on the western side of Mt. Read, just south the Ridgeway Avenue overpass. Adequate signage to identify the facility is on order.
Our new telephone number is (585)254-1100; our new fax is (585)254-1105.
Please recall that the reason for the move is not only to house our executive offices and operations facilities in one building but to provide us with adequate space to manufacture products to fill existing and future purchase orders and enable us to complete ongoing and future projects for companies requiring, for example, multiple and larger lifts, multiple and larger dynamometers, a “clean” room for transmission refinement, gear-cutting machines as well as significant acreage for more “real world” demonstrations of our products, especially the FTV.
Our Ongoing Projects
I will repeat again what I have said before: Torvec has signed confidentiality agreements that prevent us from naming in most instances the companies we are dealing with and which restrict us from providing you with in depth information about either the nature of the project or the progress we are making. Torvec has and will continue to honor the commitments it has made, especially since we may be dealing with these companies for the foreseeable future.
I am pleased to tell you, however, that recently, one major corporation with whom we have been working has consented to be named and the project described in some detail. This announcement will be made very shortly. And, it might interest you to know that it took us over three and one-half months to obtain the company’s consent to be named.
In a similar vein, over the last six months, I have received approximately three emails about the state of our Chinese negotiations, implying by their tone that the discussions were “dead.” The reasoning, if any, behind these emails escapes me since my August 7, 2007 Update furnished everyone with very positive developments concerning our Chinese dealings (as well as our dealings with the City of Chicago). More importantly, however, the Chinese, whether it be the government or private companies, have been adamant that nothing whatsoever be disclosed concerning the fact of our negotiations with them or the progress of those negotiations. In fact, the Chinese position that nothing be disclosed was reconfirmed in no uncertain terms at a meeting with senior representatives of the Chinese government and Chinese automotive companies held on September 29, 2007 in Washington, D.C.
Despite the time being taken up with our move and our talks with the Chinese, we are extraordinarily busy completing the following partial list of projects:
A major U.S. automotive manufacturer has requested that Torvec adapt our patented FTV substructure to fit on one of its cabover trucks to determine its suitability for the manufacturer to go into production of FTVs, with initial sales to be primarily in the North American market. The truck has been delivered and is now being fitted with our substructure;
A different major U.S. automotive manufacturer has signaled its strong interest in our IsoTorque differential, not only for certain classes of its flagship vehicles but also for all of its car and truck models;
We have delivered our constant velocity joints to a major military contractor per their purchase order and have been informed that the units have more than met the manufacturer’s expectations. We anticipate that we will know more about the next steps to be taken on this project in the very near future;
A California metropolitan bus company has requested that we build a specialized version of our constant velocity joint to enable its new hybrid bus model to function. We are adapting our constant velocity joint technology to meet the bus company’s need and will be shipping them a unit very soon;
A Malaysian company has requested us to adapt our constant velocity joint technology to solve a major problem inherent in the current design of its monorail system. We are in the process of designing the adaptation;
Our NASA program continues to roll forward. We have delivered the Isotorque differentials to NASA under the existing purchase order and will be delivering electrically-modified transmissions to NASA as called for under the purchase order. I will mention that we have had to further modify our transmission to meet NASA’s ever-developing specifications as that Agency continues to improve the vehicle it is designing for our country’s return to the moon. It has become more obvious, with the Chinese entry into the moon race, that something very vital is at stake and Torvec is very proud that our technology will be at the forefront of America’s effort;
An American subsidiary of a Korean manufacturer is putting together a proposal to acquire our hydraulic pump and motor for incorporation in its construction and agriculture vehicles;
Another Fortune 500 company is putting together a joint venture proposal to acquire rights to our constant velocity joint technology. I will provide you with details as soon as I am able under the terms of the confidentiality agreement we have with the company;
Finally, please bear in mind that we are continuing to work with Nissan with specific focus on our IsoTorque differential.
As stated, this project list is partial--- we are working on other projects and we will provide you with information on such other projects as well as update you on the progress of the projects mentioned above as soon as we are able.
Our Stock Price
We here at Torvec are just as frustrated as you are about the current price of our stock. I have often said that our stock price from time to time does not reflect the inherent value of Torvec and with the catalog of in-house projects described above, this statement has never been truer. However, we cannot and do not control the stock price; it is determined by the market makers and daily fluctuations, whether up or down, bear no relationship to value or, quite frankly, the quite positive developments which, as you can see from reading the above list of projects, are now taking place at the company.
I want to point out here a very important point which can be missed by our shareholders: our daily trading volume is extremely low . A low trading volume simply means that there are few sellers in the market. In other words, by and large, our shareholders are holding firm in their resolve, are confident in our ultimate success and have not been panicked by scare tactics used by those with short positions in our stock and the rumor mill.
We have verified by reviewing our common stockholder lists that over 90% of the investors in our 1997 and 1998 private placements have not only not sold their Torvec shares but many have added significantly to their original position.
Torvec’s management wishes to thank our shareholders for their loyalty, their confidence in us and their understanding that -----
“Achievements can not be realized without risk.”
Sincerely,
James Gleasman
CEO
Whole-heartedly agree......
A toast to dread is in order....cheers
I agree......
LOL...
I suspected it was you manipulating the stock all this time...
The pubished short information....
now comes out every 2 weeks...isn't that exciting....I'm very excited...!!
It shows a slight increase in the published short position from a few weeks ago..
TOVC $
Torvec Inc.
Shares Short 204,400
Days to Cover (Short Ratio) 17.6
Short % of Float 1.21 %
Shares Short - Prior 201,000
Short % Increase / Decrease 1.69 %
Squeeze RankingTM -4
% from 52-Wk HIGH ( 6.60 ) %
% from 52-Wk LOW ( 2.31 ) %
% from 200-Day MA ( 3.64 ) %
% from 50-Day MA ( 3.53 )%
Price % Change (52-Wk) -18.10 %
Trading Volume - Today 5,330
Trading Volume - Average 11,600
Trading Volume Vs. Avg. 45.95 %
Total Shares - Float 16,950,000
Total Shares - Outstanding 31,451,025
% Held by Insiders 66.01 %
% Held by Institutions 0.10 %
Market Cap 92,780,524
EPS -0.23
PE Ratio
Sector:
Industry:
SI Record Date 2007-OctA
LOL...
I say that Torvec beats the spread by a wide margin...
I agree...
50,000 share bid...possibly one of the shorts trying to cover before an event of some type...or possibly a long buyer....either way it's positive...
Hi dino...
another nice juicy spread on the bid and ask this morning...
numbers..
You ask "can the Iso-Torque technology be utilized in an all wheel drive application?"
The G's (Vernon) invented the Torsen...
The Torsen works in an all-wheel drive set up...
The Iso-torque in the newest, most advanced version of the "Torsen"...
ipso facto, res ipsa loquitor, e pluribus unum, dominuos vobiscum......of course it can.....
Greetings...
Mt.Read Blvd vs. Romulous would appear to be a much easier commute...
That increase of 53,000 or so short shares to bring the short position to 200,000 shares represents only the published short numbers...my vivid imagination can only guess at the naked short numbers...just goes to show you that the MM's have the upper hand at the moment...some party or parties have a vested interest in helping keep TOVC shares prices in this range and are willing to throw more shares at it to slow down runs...in this case, it took 50,000 shares of reporetd short shares to do that in september...i still find it interesting as a topic and how they manuever things, but in the long run, I turst that their position will have to be unwound and it will be painful...
hope all is well with you..
From what Ive seen here over the years....
.....the company has had an open door to shareholders...why not just call them and ask to come over and visit..?
Open house thought..
My first thought was that's not a bad idea...after thinking about it, a couple things come to mind...there are something like 3500 Torvec shareholders and I'm guessing that 50 to 60 percent of them live in the Rochester area....what if they all showed up....? or even half of that number...? Given the work the company has under confidentiality agreements and the whole issue of technical espionage (sp), it would seem to be somewhat a security risk to have what could be a large number of people walking through the facility in an "open house" setting...
Just a thought...maybe they can post a photo journal of the facility..
Thats an interesting way to look at it...
It's an uber Iron man......25 mile swim....then 1000 miles on the bike and then finish off with a 250 mile run...I agree...it takes alot of grit, faith, patience, luck, determination, confidence to see it all the way through as an investor....I would suspect those same things apply to the guys inside the company peddling the bikes...
We could use zero's after either one...
...that would certainly peg the fun meter....
The published short position for TOVC is up 36% in September...
Torvec Inc.
Shares Short 201,000
Days to Cover (Short Ratio) 13.1
Short % of Float 1.19 %
Shares Short - Prior 148,100
Short % Increase / Decrease 35.72 %
Squeeze RankingTM -2
% from 52-Wk HIGH ( 6.60 ) %
% from 52-Wk LOW ( 2.31 ) %
% from 200-Day MA ( 3.68 ) %
% from 50-Day MA ( 3.18 )%
Price % Change (52-Wk) -15.80 %
Trading Volume - Today 9,675
Trading Volume - Average 15,300
Trading Volume Vs. Avg. 63.24 %
Total Shares - Float 16,950,000
Total Shares - Outstanding 31,451,025
% Held by Insiders 71.72 %
% Held by Institutions 0.10 %
Market Cap 93,095,034
EPS -0.23
PE Ratio
Sector: Consumer Goods
Industry: Auto Parts
SI Record Date 2007-Sept
Somewhat OT but hits home on one of my favorite topics...
From this mornings Wall Street journal on line....
Civil Charges Are Expected
In Probe of Stock Lending
By KARA SCANNELL and PAUL DAVIES
September 20, 2007; Page C3
Federal authorities are expected to file civil charges against current or former employees at several brokerage firms in connection to a years-long investigation into abusive stock lending, people familiar with the matter said.
The civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also may involve the filing of criminal fraud charges, could come as soon as today, these people said.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Brooklyn, N.Y., and the SEC are investigating whether current or former employees at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Morgan Stanley, Van der Moolen, and other financial institutions committed fraud by taking kickbacks or engaging in self-dealing while arranging stock-lending agreements, the people said.
Spokespersons for Morgan Stanley and Van der Moolen declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Janney Montgomery Scott said the firm reached a settlement with the New York Stock Exchange in August and that the employees involved are no longer at the firm. The firms aren't expected to be charged.
The $10 billion stock-lending business for years operated largely under the radar. Its growth is associated with the increase in short-selling, a trading strategy that requires borrowing securities.
The investigation has centered on conduct involving mostly lower-level employees across Wall Street and related to the use of "finders," or firms that act as intermediaries and assist borrowers and lenders in locating stock to borrow, these people said.
The types of alleged schemes that authorities are investigating vary. Under one such alleged scheme, an individual at a brokerage would divert money to a family member at a finder shop, a way to artificially inflate the cost of borrowing. Under another alleged scheme, loans were being passed through several firms or intermediaries without any purpose other than to drive up the cost of borrowing the stock, these people said.
Some individuals have reached settlements with the SEC and have pleaded guilty to criminal charges, these people said. In its settlement with the NYSE, Janney Montgomery Scott agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle related charges over allegations that it failed to supervise its stock-loan desk in connection with improper stock-loan transactions.
Write to Kara Scannell at kara.scannell@wsj.com and Paul Davies at paul.davies@wsj.com
US hybrid sales up 49 percent
DETROIT
U.S. sales of new hybrid vehicles were up 49 percent in the first seven months of this year, due largely to a boom in sales in the Midwest, an auto information and marketing company said Monday.
Oklahoma led all states with a 143 percent increase in registrations of new hybrid cars and trucks compared with January-July 2006, said Southfield-based R.L. Polk & Co. Hawaii was the only state to report a decline.
Polk said Americans registered 215,997 new hybrid vehicles in the 2007 period, compared with 144,721 in the same period of 2006.
Hybrid sales were up 57 percent in the Midwest, the most of any region. The Toyota Prius and the hybrid version of the Toyota Camry were the most popular models there. Hybrid sales rose 52 percent in the West, 49 percent in the Northeast and 42 percent in the South.
Lonnie Miller, director of industry analysis for R.L. Polk, said hybrids are a bright spot in a U.S. market that is otherwise down. Miller predicted total U.S. hybrid sales will exceed 300,000 this year, or more than 2 percent of all sales. U.S. consumers bought 254,545 hybrids in 2006.
Miller said hybrid sales are on the rise because of high gas prices and environmental concerns.
"The data indicates that hybrids have not hit plateau and that there is room for continued growth within the marketplace in all regions," Miller said in a news release.
There can't be anything more...
....vibrant and invigorating than a brisk bike ride to work in Chicago during February....! Does frost bite enventually turn green...?
LOL...good one...
Zendo....Is that you buying more today..?
Hello Zendo....
welcome back....!!
Thats very interesting....
There's alot of salt water in the world...Plastic fuel tanks would be needed to avoid the rust factor...somehow the oil companies would figure out a way to charge us $3 bucks a gallon for it....
i wonder if you applied "radio waves" from a "heavy metal" station if the salt water would spontaneously combust...
Bingo...!
A friend in Rochester sent me a picture of one of the brothers.....
Not sure which one it is, but he doesn't appear to be overweight....
Sounds like you are going to be roughing it in Tahoe..LOL
Have fun....I have enjoyed your contributions here...hope you pop in here once in a while...
When AG got the Humvee contract with the DOD years ago....
...it was the Torsen diff that meet the specs for the DOD contract to be awarded to AG ...if the Torvec CVJ is the only CVJ capable of meeting the current DOD specs, (ie - ground clearance..etc..) and hence the CVJ of choice for this contractor whom I would imagine has access to every CVJ manufacturing company in the universe, one can deduce a favorable outcome for this contractor and Torvec as well...
I can't help but do the math on this one.......
"The contractor has indicated that Torvec would become its exclusive, military supplier of CVJs were it to be awarded the contract, which currently calls for at least 320,000 constant velocity joints annually and at least 1,280,000 over the life of the program. A sales price of approximately $500 per CVJ would generate approximately $160,000,000 in gross revenues annually and approximately $640,000,000 over the life of the program."
This type of possibility to me is an all or none situation. If the contractor doesn't get the deal, Torvec doesn't. But what if they do....this one deal would be an absolute game changer of significant proportions literally over night...If you used a profit margin of 25% to run some rough numbers, that's $40 million in profit per year or roughly $1.32 per share. If you use a market multiple of 10 times earnings, thats a $13.00 share price on one deal, for one product, that repeats over a 4 year period based on the total value of the deal....(that multiple could be much higher when the market factors in growth multiples which could produce a 20 plus multiple) Thats one deal...on only one product....now throw in what I believe would be a very large share naked short cover pandimonium and this would run beyond those numbers for a period....now throw in a deal with a mainstream manufacturing partner to pick up some of that national annual 200,000,000 cvj market and add that in the earnings...now add a iso-torque deal or two and we've got ourselves a regulation barn burner....
For me...that is worth waiting for...
Also a timing item....
September 2007
New mpg figures to reflect real-world conditions
The government’s new test is more accurate, but numbers are still off
Illustration by Mike JonesThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating its methods for estimating the fuel economy of new vehicles. Starting with 2008 models, the window stickers that all new cars carry showing the estimated mpg will reflect the new ratings. The good news is that the numbers on the sticker should be closer to what you should expect to get in normal driving. The bad news is the predicted mpg will be lower than what people are used to seeing on the stickers.
The EPA’s change in estimating fuel economy is long overdue. Consumer Reports has been advocating for it for years. The old system, developed in the 1970s, does not accurately reflect today’s driving conditions, motoring habits, or vehicles. Many cars today spend 62 percent of their annual miles in stop-and-go traffic, where fuel economy is the lowest. Faster speeds are another big factor. The national highway speed limit was 55 mph in the mid-1970s, but vehicles now burn up to 15 percent more fuel per mile simply by traveling faster. Air conditioning, much more prevalent on new cars than it was 30 years ago, is also a factor. Running an air conditioner at 65 mph can reduce your fuel mileage by about 1 mpg and possibly more if you drive faster. The old EPA tests were conducted without the air conditioning turned on.
The new system is designed to address all of these changes. Additional tests will be run at higher speeds and while using the A/C, and will include a closer look at stop-and-go driving and more aggressive starts and stops. Cold-temperature tests are also being added to more realistically show what drivers in northern states can expect in winter.
Consumer Reports thinks the change will benefit consumers even if the lower numbers might be painful to look at in the showroom at first. A 2006 CR study showed that cars seldom meet the agency’s claims with the old system. We compared EPA figures with the mileage we measured in 303 cars and trucks for model years 2000 through 2006, and included mainstream, high-volume vehicles in a wide range of makes and models.
Our results showed that about 90 percent of the vehicles returned worse mileage than the EPA estimates. Gasoline cars averaged 9 percent fewer mpg. The biggest differences we found were in city driving. On average, the mileage was about 30 percent less than the EPA numbers. Our highway mpg more closely reflected the EPA ratings.
Consumer Reports tests fuel mileage in controlled conditions and in the real world. We use precise fuel meters spliced into the cars’ fuel lines, and adjust for outside temperature in our calculations. City mileage is conducted on our track using a 1.1-mile loop of stop-and-go driving combined with idling to simulate traffic and stoplights. Highway tests are done on a section of local interstate, run in both directions to minimize the effect of wind. We also drive all the cars on a 31-mile route that includes a mixture of highway, rural roads, and around-town driving. All tests are run several times using multiple drivers, and our overall mileage figure is an average of these tests.
While the new overall mileage ratings are closer to the results of our real-world testing, there are still discrepancies between the EPA’s lab-generated results and the mileage we got from driving the cars on roads. With the new system, our overall mileage is actually better than what the EPA predicts for some models.
Until the new system is in place, you can compare the old and new ratings online. The EPA is posting both mileage estimates for models going back to 1985 as well as an explanation of how their methods have changed, at www.fueleconomy.gov. Click on “New fuel economy ratings” on the home page. Fuel mileage for all models that Consumer Reports has tested can also be found in our individual vehicle profiles.
Well said Artguy...
...enjoy the weekend and the rest of the ride