Florida's Bradenton Motorsports Park played host to the GT-R World Cup last weekend, an event featuring some of the fastest Nissan GT-Rs on the planet laying down 7-second, 200-mph quarter-mile times. But the action was briefly held up when one attendee got stuck to the drag strip's treated surface, resulting in the least tragic Florida Man story of 2019.

Competition drag strips use a resin-based compound called PJ1 TrackBite (formerly known as VHT) that gets sprayed onto the asphalt to create a sticky surface for impressive launches. Hey, when a car's horsepower count is deep into the four digits, it needs all the help it can get to hook up and go.

When we say sticky, we mean sticky—step on it with a pair of shallow-tread tennis shoes like this guy, and you're not going anywhere in a hurry. The video opens with the man firmly lodged in the middle of the racing lane, standing tall like a lone tree on a great, ruined plain. He slowly alternates between looking sheepish and bending down to pry his left shoe loose.

But after 20 seconds, disaster strikes as he simultaneously frees the shoe from both the ground and his foot and sends it spiraling just out of reach. Now he's balancing on one leg, trying desperately to reach his wayward sneaker as track workers arrive with grins on their faces to help.

After putting his shoe back on and taking another step, he realizes his predicament: Every move gets him stuck in a different, equally-awkward position in front of a crowd of unsympathetic race fans. The track workers resort to literally picking his feet up off the ground and helping him with each step.

By the end of the video, he still hasn't made it off the track. It's possible he's stuck there.

Busch is taking recycling in an unusual direction by turning a race car into beer cans as part of the company's celebration of its 40 years at the Daytona 500. In fact, sheet metal and carbon fiber from Kevin Harvick’s 2018 No. 4 Stewart-Haas Racing Ford will be used in this wacky stunt, making up a special "Car 2 Can" collection.

“Busch Beer officials brought the idea to me last year, and I thought it was a great way to connect with the fans,” Harvick said. “These cans are made up of pieces of my car from the 2018 season, and I’m excited for the cans to be released. Can’t wait for the fans to see them.”

Harvick, a NASCAR Cup Series champion in his own right, won eight races during the 2018 season, tying with Kyle Busch for most races won by a single driver last year. He finished third in the championship standings behind top dog Joey Logano and the previous season’s titleholder Martin Truex Jr.

A limited number of sets from the collection will be given away through a trivia contest during the Daytona 500 TV broadcast on Feb. 17 and sold through a charity auction on Feb. 11. Proceeds from the online auction will be matched by Anheuser-Busch and got to Keep America Beautiful.

“We wanted to do something for the hardcore fans that had never been done before and give them a chance to hold the sport they love,” Anheuser-Busch Senior Marketing Director Daniel Blake said. “This year marks the 40th anniversary of our first Daytona 500, so we created the 40 collector’s edition cans to give a piece of the sport back to the fans that have been there every step of the way.”

Look, Mazda: we're not mad, we're disappointed. First, you dangle a hyper-efficient supercharged gasoline engine called Skyactiv-X with all kinds of trick technology in front of us, and then you tell us it won't be available when the new 2019 Mazda3 goes on sale this March.

Then you have the audacity to tell the Mazda3 faithful that the only way we can get a manual is on the highest trim level possible in a front-wheel-drive hatchback only. So many of us were excited about an all-wheel-drive manual Mazda3 that you didn't give it to us. What a snub to sedan fans who actually want to see what's going on behind them, too. I see how it is.

Clearly, you're trying to make this up with interior trim colors. Nothing has encapsulated our frustrating present-day more than the two seemingly opposite new interior options of "greige" and "red leather."

The term "greige" inhabits a space within my deepest nightmares. Mazda calls this new leatherette option a "color that combines the cool tones of gray with the soft feel of beige to create a pleasing sensation of vitality, warmth and sophistication."

I'm under the age of 40 and don't have a home merch deal with Target, so that sentence actually has the opposite effect on me. Greige should be pleasant in a car interior as a nice contrast to a metallic red on the outside, but elsewhere in design, it's shorthand for the color terrible HGTV homes get painted for a quick flip. Greige is the kind of color that's offensively inoffensive not for your own enjoyment, but rather, for the property values. It's a blank slate. It is the ultimate nothing. A non-color. A wholly loathsome entity.

Formerly, beige was the shorthand for a car so dull that it stands in opposite to everything that cars like the trying-to-still-be-fun-we-hope Mazda3 stand for. You may have a 2008 Toyota Camry that's red on the outside, but it's beige deep down in its soul. Beige was not a color so much as a state of being.

Lately, though, the beiges have turned to grey. I noted a couple years ago that silver is the new beige, a statement which I stand by wholeheartedly today. When neutral earth tones become too exciting, silvers and greys are there to bland everything down further.

Greige takes the world's two most loathsome non-colors and combines them into one. If anything encapsulates our current drab moment in popular design in one word, it would be "greige."

Couldn't you have called it "soft rock," "pigeon belly," "used gum," or anything else?

Under a real exterior color on a good little car like a Mazda3, greige sounds fine. It works best in the background, as the wall color behind that 8-foot-long print of David Hasselhoff on a bearskin rug that you've been hiding away in the basement. If you order a vibrant or dark color over greige, it's probably somewhat pleasant, and not too roasty in hot weather.

Do you know who's going to order a silver-over-greige Mazda3, though? People who probably should've ordered a Nissan Versa instead.

If the notion of "greige" offends you, never fear: red leather is the other interior option Mazda added for this year's Mazda3. If anything is the polar opposite to greige, this is it. There is absolutely nothing subtle about being enveloped in red leather, especially when it's the dark burgundy color they're using in the Mazda3.

Nostalgia is in, baby, and nothing throws back to the simpler time when you didn't have oppressive student loan debt quite like the ‘80s and ‘90s. The whole Radwood car show has sprung up around an appreciation for the cars of twenty- and thirty-somethings' youths, and whole auctions are now dedicated to the cars we had in high school parking lots or as bedroom posters, so it's not surprising to see a retro-tastic option like red leather interiors make a comeback.

It's clear by the pricing—$21,000 for the base model sedan, and $27,500 for the lowest trim package you can get a manual transmission—that Mazda wants to move the Mazda3 slightly upmarket. So, it makes sense that the interior color that looked best in the wild luxo-broughams and cocaine-fueled sports cars of yore would make a comeback here.

Red leather is only available on the hatchback, which Mazda's trying to position as the more premium and "sporty" of the two Mazda3 body styles. But when the hatchback's giant C-pillar blocks off a good amount of your rearward visibility, you might as well be staring in vain at a fun color, right?

Jokes aside, both of these new options will look pretty cool with the right outside color. Mazda also offers a Polymetal Gray exterior color exclusive to the Mazda3 hatchback, which will be a nice contrast to a dark red interior.

Now all they need to do is release a manual, all-wheel-drive sedan along with that trick Skyactiv-X engine. I, for one, would welcome that as a bare-bones, ultra-light trim because I love taking daily drivers to track days to annoy slower drivers in faster cars. That is, after all, what a fun compact like the Mazda3 has always been great for. These new interiors are nice, but we're still waiting on the "occasional track day, bro" trim. (Red cloth would be nice, too, while we're at it. I'm just saying!)

Two hundred and seventeen. That's how many copies of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint Zagato, a gorgeous, aluminum-bodied road racer, were built between 1960 and 1962. Fewer still survive to this day. But one example was given a second lease on life after getting rescued from a basement in Italy where it had been stuck for 35 years, and it just sold at auction for over $640,000.

Photos posted to an Alfa Romeo fan Facebook page document how the old car was brought to light. A team of workers used a giant crane to carefully extract the 1962 Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ from its subterranean tomb, where it had reportedly been trapped by a broken car lift for over three decades. Not quite a barn find, but close enough.

The post's author describes the owner as an elderly mechanic who passed away last year without a will or any locatable family, leaving the rare Alfa to be sold at a public auction. That eye-popping figure is actually pretty on-target for the collector's market; in 2015, a rough survivor sold at Gooding & Company's Scottsdale auction for $577,000. This one actually looks to be in better condition despite the thick layer of dust and number of parts the buyer will have to replace.

As the full name suggests, the Giulietta SZ was born from a fruitful partnership between Alfa Romeo and Zagato. The Italian coachbuilder made a splash in the late 1950s by taking a handful of Giulietta Sprint Veloces and recasting them with a sleek, aluminum body designed for racing. The success of those cars on track inspired Alfa Romeo to commission a production version, which debuted in 1960. Those were certainly the days.

The Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ had a shortened chassis, empty interior, plexiglass windows, and a 115-horsepower version of the company's 1.3-liter twin-carb four-cylinder in addition to that custom aluminum bodywork. Not setting the spec sheet on fire, we know, but keep in mind the car had a wheelbase of less than seven feet and weighed under 1,700 pounds.

Though it was built to be street-legal, the production car was also successful on the racetrack, even being used by privateers in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. We can only hope that after 35 years in the darkness, this one finally sees some vintage wheel-to-wheel action. It's been far too long.

Got a tip? Email the author: kyle@thedrive.com

In 2018, Tuscany Motor Company—an aftermarket outfitter for GM and Ford trucks—debuted a concept version of a new Harley-Davidson Ford F-150. The original H-D F-150 was available through Ford from 2000-2012, but the tough muscle truck has been absent from the lineup for years now. Over time, the special edition saw various different trims and engine options, at one time even featuring the 5.4-liter supercharged V-8 from the F-150 Lightning. By the end of its run, the truck had become similar to the Platinum trim on the F-150, offering many of the same features as well as using the same leather as Harley-Davidson riding jackets.

This year, Tuscany Motor Company announced it would be doing its own run of the F-150 Harley-Davidson concept. The truck features 22-inch "Fatboy" style wheels, exclusive Fox performance shocks and BDS suspension, special Harley-Davidson badging for the sides and tailgate, and a plethora of other exterior changes over the standard F-150. The grill has new honeycomb inserts, an LED light bar that's been integrated into the front bumper, power running boards, and a functional ram air hood.

On the inside, it features custom leather seat covers with an orange diamond pattern and copious amounts of Harley-Davidson logos. The door sills, floor mats, and gauge cluster all remind you that you are in an F-150 Harley-Davidson Edition. If that's not enough, the center console also features a numbered plaque on the center console. The door panels, dash, and steering wheel are also trimmed in a Harley-Davidson theme.

All of this comes at a cost, of course. Prices start at a mere $84,995 before options, but that's before you get into the specifics. According to Tuscany's website, the Agate Black version is a cool $97,415; White Platinum costs $97,710; and if you want the special order Leadfoot paint, be prepared to part with $98,433. If Harley-Davidson isn't your style, Tuscany Motor Company also makes a Shelby-inspired F-150 which starts with a naturally aspirated 5.0-liter V-8 for $93,695 or can be optioned up to a 755HP supercharged V-8 for $106,695.

The usual storm of clickbait was pierced by a lightning bolt of ignorance this week, when a Stanford roboticist demonstrated a shocking level of misunderstanding of both Tesla Autopilot and the nomenclature around autonomous cars.

Heather Knight, who works at Stanford’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, claims her research is “half social robots, half autonomous driving.” Based on her May 27th post in Medium, “Tesla Autopilot Review: Bikers will die”, she’s contributing to the very problem one would hope she’s trying to solve.

Degrees don’t bestow wisdom, nor an understanding of the tragically power of titles in a world of TL:DR.

Dear Stanford: if Journalism 101 isn’t a PhD requirement, make it one. Also, please discourage clickbait.

You don’t need to be a Stanford brainiac to know that a headline like “Bikers will die” will become the story. Incredibly, Knight actually claimed to like Tesla Autopilot in a comment posted 48 hours after initial publication, but the damage had been done. Whatever analysis of human-machine interfacing (HMI) she hoped to share was buried as the story was widely reposted.

Beyond the title, Knight’s amateurish post has so many errors and omissions it has to be deconstructed line-by-line to comprehend its naïveté. Let’s begin:

"My colleague and I got to take a TESLA Autopilot test drive on highways, curvy California roads, and by the ocean."

Knight would seem to be off to a good start. California’s highways are the ideal place to use Tesla Autopilot. Curvy roads? Not so much. Does Knight read the news? My 74-year-old mother knows not to “test” Autopilot anywhere but on a highway or in traffic.

Then Knight commits credibility suicide.

"In case you don’t live in Palo Alto (where the Whole Foods parking lot is full of these things)… the TESLA Autopilot feature is basically a button to turn the car into autonomous driving mode."

Wrong. Knight has a PhD in this autonomous driving? There is not one fully autonomous car on the market today, and—let us all be perfectly clear—Tesla Autopilot is not an “Autonomous Driving Mode.” Say it again: Tesla Autopilot is not an “Autonomous Driving Mode.”

Surely Knight knows this. If she doesn’t, the Stanford PhD program has a major problem.

Tesla Autopilot is currently a semi-autonomous system. According to the commonly accepted SAE standard, Tesla Autopilot is a Level 2 system, which at its best paints a picture of what Level 3 might look like, someday. Tesla never claimed that Autopilot in its current form is a Level 4 technology, which is what fully “autonomous driving” is. If Knight wanted to dissect potential misunderstandings of Tesla’s use of the word Autopilot, here’s a breakdown of traditional definitions. I know a lot of brilliant people at Stanford with a lot to say about this. Knight is not one of them.

"So the car will speed up or slow down based on what’s in front of it, and supposedly stay in the lane or follow the turns of a road automatically."

Just to clarify terms Knight doesn’t, the first thing she refers to is what Tesla calls Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC), which can be engaged independent of Autopilot, which is the umbrella term for what happens when a user also engages Lane Keeping Assistance (LKAS), which Tesla calls Autosteer.

A Level 2 or 3 semi-autonomous system requires that the user be prepared to take over anytime. To say that Autosteer will “supposedly” stay in the lane or follow the turns of a road automatically is like saying traction control or anti-lock brakes will “supposedly” maintain traction or stop in the shortest possible distance.

Can they? Yes, in ideal conditions. But technology is only as good as the user’s understanding of it. When your life depends on something, it’s important to call things what they are, and to do a minimal amount of research before taking unnecessary risks.

How many people have been killed because traction control didn’t guarantee traction? Or anti-lock brakes couldn’t prevent an impact? Whatever the number, a lighter foot on the gas, better drivers education, and some common sense would have reduced that number.

Can Autopilot stay in lane? Yes, in ideal conditions. What about “follow the turns of a road” automatically? Yes, in ideal conditions, which are highways with gentle turns, or in traffic, all of which is clearly stated in Tesla’s manual. Did she not read it? It’s actually built into the car, right into the enormous display in the center of the dashboard.

Until Level 4 arrives, the driver is totally responsible, and Tesla’s hands off warnings are explicit: this is a hands-on system—just like Mercedes' Drive Pilot and Volvo's Pilot Assist. It may not have appeared to be in the beginning, but it sure is now. That it works well enough for early users to exploit the system’s perceived strengths is a problem, but it is the user’s problem, and a problem solved though experience and habit.

I’m not a roboticist with a PhD, but it took me less than an hour.

Fail to heed Autopilot’s warnings three times, and the system will not re-engage until the vehicle has stopped and been put into Park. Surely Knight must have encountered these warnings, and yet her post doesn’t reference any of the common nomenclature around basic human-machine interfaces (HMI) which Autopilot so clearly highlights.

You know, terms like hands-off intervals, transitions and mode confusion.

Given that Autopilot IS NOT AN AUTONOMOUS DRIVING SYSTEM, calling it autonomous in the first paragraph and reviewing it as such is deeply irresponsible, if not foolish. For an academic in the field, it’s outrageous.

The purpose of this post is to share my first impressions of this system, particularly regarding its human-machine interfacing. I’m concerned that some will ignore its limitations and put biker lives at risk; we found the Autopilot’s agonistic behavior around bicyclists to be frightening. But as a human-in-the-loop system, this car’s features would impress Iron Man.

A level 4 self-driving car doesn’t have limitations; it's binary. It’s either self-driving, or it isn’t. If Tesla Autopilot was Level 4, then its behavior around bikers is demonstrably poor, but it isn't Level 4, it's Level 2, and as such we can agree that Tesla’s is the best on the market.

The only reason someone would mistake Autopilot for Level 4 is because of idiotic statements describing it as an “autonomous driving mode”, which come from people like Knight, and not from Tesla.

Quick background: Dylan Moore and I work for Dr. Wendy Ju’s research group at Stanford University’s Department of Mechanical Engineering. The group sometimes dubs itself “transformers,” because our research is half social robots, half autonomous driving. We often find that insights in one domain cross apply to the other. Long story short, Dylan and I are familiar with the shortcomings of robot perception systems, and care about interface design.

Yadda, qualifications, yadda.

Since it’s our field, Wendy Ju had us rent a TESLA, that way our group could experience the closest thing out there to consumer autonomous driving today. Naturally, we took it to the beach. For research. I share Dylan and my report card for its features below.

Yadda, context, yadda.

Engineering Sexiness Report

B [DOOR HANDLES THAT RECEDE INTO THE FRAME] — super sexy, but watch your fingers! the car detects the proximity of the keys and automatically locks as you walk away. it does miss some of the satisfaction of actively locking a car, because it is not initiated by you, and there is no auditory confirmation that it is locking. (note: system will not actually damage fingers)

If you don’t like the retracting door handles and automatic locking features, both can be disabled. If you like them, they deserve an A. If you don’t, Tesla deserves an A for making them optional. Boom. The advantage of software-driven design.

A+ [AUTOMATIC LANE SWITCHING] — love it: intuitive, reliable, super cool! switch your left-turn blinker on on the highway and the car will wait for an opening and automatically switch lanes. works great and makes sense to user.

Sorry, but Knight is dead wrong. Knight tested a Hardware 1 Model S, whose side and rear facing sensors are short range ultrasonics with insufficient range to detect a fast moving vehicle approaching from the rear. Tesla Autopilot may be the best Level 2 system on the market, but no one — not even the latest Mercedes E-Class with its rear-facing radar — has resolved this problem to anyone’s satisfaction, including hardcore Tesla fans.

I love Autopilot, but this system deserves no better than a B, because even when it works well, the driver cannot rely solely on the car’s sensors. To Tesla’s credit, I would give most rivals’ systems no more than a C.

Do the latest Hardware 2 Teslas do better? I don’t know. And neither does Knight.

B [CURVES] — the car turns too late to cue human trust. hard to know if it would have worked, we didn’t want to risk it. my phD thesis was about Expressive Motion, so I have ideas of how TESLA could improve people’s trust, but depending on how reliable the car actually is, that might not be a good thing. (see mental model discussion below)

What does “the car turns too late to cue human trust” actually mean? Used in the right conditions, Autosteer is light years ahead of any rival system I’ve tested. It works stunningly well on California’s 101 at speeds as high as 90 mph. Curvy roads, as in the ones that are most fun under human control? It disengages, as it should when it reaches its limits. Experience will teach any user when and where it works best. Where was Knight using it? On the very curvy roads where the Tesla manual warns against engagement?

Foolish.

Bizarrely, although she claims further down to love Tesla’s Situational Awareness Display, she makes no mention of it in the context of LKAS/Autosteer and the curvy roads where she took issue with trust. Every Tesla clearly displays whether or not Autopilot recognizes one or both lane markings and/or car(s) ahead, which is how it determines its forward path. Even though Autosteer can be engaged when it sees only one lane line, or no lane lines and a car ahead, common sense dictates that one not trust it to remain engaged when it is relying on the lowest possible level of sensor input.

Especially on a curvy road.

Trust? I don’t trust Knight’s experience as a driver (or as an Autopilot user) to analyze any of this.

C [USER-SET TARGET VELOCITY] — dangerous: autopilot seeks to achieve the cruise-control set speed as long as there is not an obstacle. this works fine on the a consistent street like a highway, but we discovered the hard way when we exited the highway onto a country road, switched autopilot on, and it tried to go from 30 to 65 mph at maximum acceleration. expert users would be familiar with this, but we think tesla can do better.

Dangerous? Sounds like Knight is dangerous.

You don’t need Autopilot to know what a safe speed is when exiting a highway onto a country road. It isn’t your highway speed, nor does Tesla claim Autopilot will determine it for you. This calls for experience, both in driving and in using Tesla’s superlative TACC to adjust speed without having to use the brakes.

Or maybe the common sense to slow down before exiting, like a human would.

I’ve driven on Autopilot from Palo Alto to Santa Monica barely touching the brakes, modulating speed solely with the TACC stalk. How did I know what the safe speed was? Decades of human driving.

Dear Dr. Knight: go to professional driving school, then read Tesla’s manual, then try again.

Would I give Tesla’s TACC an A? No. It has two issues Knight doesn’t raise, which shows how little time she spent using it: 1) TACC’s shortest lead-follow setting is approximately one car length, which I think is too short, and 2) if TACC is set at 75 mph, and a car in front slows to 55, and one engages the automatic lane change feature, your Tesla may unexpectedly deploy its prodigious power to surge forward into the passing lane the instant the cone of its forward facing radar clears the rear bumper of the slower car.

It happened to me once, after which I learned to pay attention.

Such power is a Tesla feature, courtesy of an EV manufacturer that “doesn’t make slow cars.” I would suggest a software update that slows acceleration when TACC is engaged. Luckily, Tesla can do this over the air. I think it’s inevitable they will.

I give it an A-.

A+ [SITUATION AWARENESS DISPLAY] — this display helps the human drivers have a mental model of what the car sees. I’d estimate that Autopilot classified ~30% of other cars, and 1% of bicyclists. Not being able to classify objects doesn’t mean the tesla doesn’t see that something is there, but given the lives at stake, we recommend that people NEVER USE TESLA AUTOPILOT AROUND BICYCLISTS! this grade is not for the detection system, it’s for exposing the car’s limitations. a feature telling the human to take over is incredibly important.

I totally agree. Tesla’s Situational Awareness display is amazing. No one else’s comes close. The 2017 Mercedes E-Class display is literally junk.

But WTF is Knight talking about when she says it only classifies 30% of cars and 1% of bicyclists? Does she even understand what type of sensor hardware Autopilot uses? In my experience the forward facing radar sees 99.9% of the vehicles in its field of view.

Knowing it’s field of view is a different story, and is the driver’s responsibility.

What is Knight suggesting? That it doesn’t see 70% of vehicles? Or that it doesn’t “classify” them? They are cars, or they are trucks. Sometimes one appears like the other, which is irrelevant to Autopilot and the user. If it’s a vehicle, DON’T HIT IT.

Knight’s statement is confusing and bizarre.

Ironically, she doesn’t mention motorcycles, which the radar doesn’t spot as reliably as cars and trucks. Why? Because radar waves reflect off of metal, and motorcycles have a smaller radar cross section than cars or trucks, which is why the human-in-the-loop, aware of Autopilot’s limitations through experience and reading the manual, knows to be cautious around motorcycles.

Just like smart drivers for the last 100 years.

Which brings us to bicyclists. Radar doesn’t really see them very well. Guess what? Bicycles aren’t legal on interstates and highways, and you shouldn’t be using Autopilot on roads where bikes are common.

This is a Level 2 semi-autonomous system. Read the manual. Use common sense.

C [GIANT TOUCHSCREEN] — hire UX designers, tesla!! yes, it’s a big screen. now make it intuitive to find things… it took us 5 screens to turn off the car. From a usability perspective this is a system for experts not novices. (note: car automatically turns off as you walk away with keys, but we wanted the confirmation as new users and found the menu depth suboptimal)

I love a good set of knobs, but no one has done knobs correctly in decades. OK, maybe Mazda has. Seriously, Knight needed 5 screens to turn off the car? The menus are imperfect, but again, light years ahead anything from the Germans. LIGHT YEARS. New Tesla owners get a walkthrough from a specialist that shames every luxury dealership I’ve ever been through. Knight didn’t, and seemed to learn it quickly.

Problem solved.

I’d prefer the Tesla display plus knobs, but in the absence of knobs, theirs is the best iteration I’ve seen. I like Volvo’s latest as well, but giving Tesla less than an A- suggests how few modern cars Knight has studied.

F [SELF-LOCKING FEATURE] — we stepped out of the car to take a photo, leaving the keys in the car, and this super capable intelligent car locked us out! FIX THIS BUG! engineers should account for how people will actually use a technology. the receding door handles made this action seem particularly petulant.

This annoyed me once. Then I disabled the feature. An F? Please. It’s a feature, not a bug. Install the Tesla app on your phone like every other owner, and unlock your car, which brings us to...

A+ [TESLA APP] — terrifying but awesome: our lab mate unlocked the tesla from 30 miles away, as he had ridden the car the day before. beware of a future where you can’t use your car without cell-phone service!

Wow. Those Tesla folks really are smart. Too bad Knight didn’t think about what happens if you don’t have cell service. Oh wait. She did, and later added a link to her post about that actually happening, which is why the app doesn’t deserve an A+, and the self-locking feature needs to be changed.

Our Favorite TESLA Features

Drumroll please…

Winner: The Situation Awareness Display is great because it helps the driver understand shortcomings of the car, i.e., its perception sucks. Providing the driver an accurate mental model of the system probably saves lives, and robots in general would benefit from communicating their limitations to people.

Tesla’s perception sucks? Surely it’s insufficient for Level 4, but for Level 2 it’s excellent, and as an aid to human driving it’s extraordinary. Once you’ve passed a truck at high speed with it at night, you’ll wonder why Tesla’s Situational Awareness Display isn’t mandated on all human driven cars.

Of course providing accurate mental models will save lives, but Tesla’s is the clearest display there is, and its perception levels are irrelevant to the human user who understands them, and engages Autopilot accordingly.

Woe to the user who doesn’t get past Knight’s first paragraph, and thinks this is a Level 4 system.

Runner up: The TESLA App saved our butts when we were locked out of the car and Mishel rescued us from the Stanford campus. There could have been worse places to be stuck than by the ocean in Half Moon Bay but we encourage TESLA to fix the self-locking feature.

Agree with her there. Good thing Tesla offers those wireless updates. Does anyone else? Bueller? Bueller?

So in conclusion, and despite the marketing, do not treat this system as a prime time autonomous car. If you forget that… bikers will die.

And so a really poor Medium post went viral.

If Knight had only omitted that last line, her post might have made for some good debate. Pending more research, she would seem to have some interesting things to say about mental models, but that’s not what happened. Instead of adding to the debate over Autopilot, Knight contributed to the confusion.

What's so insane is that the biker aspect of her post is so secondary, only the desire for traffic could have motivated her choice of title.

Here’s a real debate worth having: as much as I like Autopilot, I’ve argued that no matter how good semi-autonomy gets, it can never be as safe as augmentation systems. Does Knight know the difference? Given her degree, she should.

I suggest she and everyone else interested in advancing the art of HMI study Airbus flight envelope protections, and go take some flying lessons. Sully has a lot to say about this. Our ivory towers are full of people lacking in real world experience. Ironically, a little knowledge really is a dangerous thing. Not to bikers, but to anyone who trusts that a PhD in robotics know anything about driving, or what “safety” can and should be.

I can’t wait to see her full review of Tesla Autopilot. Actually, I can.

Alex Roy is Editor-at-Large for The Drive, author of The Driver, and set the 2007 Transcontinental “Cannonball Run” Record in 31 hours & 4 minutes. You may follow him on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Sideshows remain a persistent and growing problem in California, leaving local authorities to figure out how to best handle idiots briefly taking over roads and intersections for their illegal and highly dumb antics. But we have to ask: Is using California Highway Patrol air and ground units to bust a 21-year-old kid doing donuts at the end of a rural cul-de-sac the best use of resources?

The CHP triumphantly uploaded aerial video of the operation to one of its Facebook pages last week, presenting it as proof the department is cracking down on sideshows, street racing, and general automotive hooliganism. The infrared footage shows a small group of people watching a single car spin in a nice controlled circle in the middle of the night. Honestly, it makes the donut look pretty cool, as any infrared footage of burning rubber tends to do.

After a few minutes, the doomed driver heads back down to the end of the road, only to be swarmed by five patrol cars and arrested while the helicopter crew continues to observe. So for those counting along at home, that's at least 8 police officers working to catch one 21-year-old doing donuts in as safe a location as you can find. He was breaking the law, of course. But does this really make any sense?

It all went down at the end of Lynch Road, a stub of a street that terminates at the edge of a large park north of San Francisco. It's way out in the middle of undeveloped land; the closest house is miles away. It's the exact opposite of the urban areas usually targeted by sideshows, and you can see on the Google Maps satellite view that it bears the skidmarks of many a donut prior.

Does that make it excusable? As much as any victimless crime. Let's acknowledge that while it's easy to tell people to save it for the track, the opportunities for many enthusiasts to do so are extremely limited—and that's doubly true for someone interested in drifting. The bottom line is there was simply no way any innocent drivers could have possibly been endangered or inconvenienced here, making the extreme police response more than a little questionable.

Reaction to the video on Facebook is pretty split, with an equal number backing the driver and the police. But here's another way to look at it. The incident in question was actually recorded last July, while the driver was finally convicted of "participating in a speed contest" last week, the final punishment being a 30-day license suspension and an $850 fine.

Think of the time and money spent on this, between the police operation and court costs, all to yank one man's license for a month. Is there any way it was actually worth it?

Got a tip? Email the author: kyle@thedrive.com

On Thursday, Rich Energy Haas F1 Team became the first of ten Formula 1 outfits to reveal its 2019 car, the VF-19.

It will continue to use a variant of the Ferrari 062 Evo engine, a turbocharged, 1.6-liter V-6 with hybrid assist, believed to be making around 1,000 horsepower. Even with the driver inside, the VF-19's mostly-carbon fiber construction means it weighs just 743 kilograms (1,638 pounds).

Per the 2019 rule changes, the VF-19 features a simplified front wing, with fewer elements capable of generating outwash, a major contributor to the "dirty air" that makes close racing difficult. Despite speculation that the VF-19 displayed is just a vehicle to show off the team's redesigned livery, new aero elements such as a prominent "S-duct" (not featured on the VF-18) are present, as pointed out by Auto Motor und Sport.

More obvious to the untrained eye is Haas's new livery, black and gold to mesh with the team's title sponsor, Rich Energy. Company CEO William Storey told The Drive in October that the sponsorship contract would be "long-term," but declined to offer specifics.

The VF-19 is the fourth car designed by Haas, and each of which have differed significantly from one another. Technical regulations have changed each year of Haas' short history. 2016 was the last year for narrow, high-wing cars; 2017 marked the comeback for low-slung, wide cars; 2018 saw the halo's integration, and 2019 regulations dictate simpler front wings, meant to make racing closer. Haas surprised in 2018 by leaping from its eighth-place WCC finish to fifth. If not for a series of accidents early in the season, Haas could have contested Renault for fourth, despite spending significantly less money to achieve its result.

The VF-19 will be driven by Romain Grosjean of France and Kevin Magnussen of Denmark, who will make up the team's driver lineup for the third consecutive year. Grosjean finished 14th in the 2018 drivers' championship, and Magnussen, ninth. Pietro Fittipaldi of Brazil, grandson of two-time F1 champion Emerson Fittipaldi, will be Haas's test driver for the season.

The U.S. Navy says it will begin deploying a cruise missile derivative of the stealthy AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon glide bomb, or JSOW, no later than the end of 2023, as an option for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. The weapons will give these jets a significant additional extended-range strike capability, which is important given the increasingly advanced nature of integrated air defenses among potential opponents, especially Russia and China.

On Feb. 7, 2019, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced its intention to issue a sole-source contract to Raytheon for work related to the new weapon, known as the JSOW-Extended Range, or JSOW-ER, on the U.S. government’s main contracting website, FedBizOpps. The Massachusetts-headquartered defense contractor developed the unpowered JSOW and you can read about it and the cruise missile derivative in depth in a previous feature from The War Zone. The notice also said that the JSOW-ER would be compatible with the U.S. Air Force’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, but it is not clear if that service actually intends to purchase the missiles.

“The Requirements for the JSOW-ER includes: extending the range of the existing JSOW [AGM-154]C-1 variant while maintaining targeting and performance capabilities, carriage on F-18 and internal carriage on F-35A/C while minimizing any changes to existing aircraft integration and limitations, hardware and software modifications to optimize midcourse and endgame performance for the powered variant of the JSOW, and deployment to the fleet no later than FY23,” the announcement explains.

The Navy has been actively working with Raytheon on the development of the JSOW-ER since June 2017. In April 2018, the service announced it was moving the program to a more advanced phase.

That same month, Raytheon declared that the unpowered AGM-154C-1, or JSOW-C, was fully compatible with the F-35C’s internal weapons bays. “This is absolutely a critical opportunity for the Navy because now this is their top-line, medium-range precision strike weapon that is capable now of being integrated internally on JSF,” Mark Borup, a member of Raytheon's Medium-Range Strike and Attack Air Warfare Systems Division, said in an interview with Military.com at the time.

But the JSOW-ER concept actually dates back more than a decade. Raytheon had pitched the idea of a powered version with the Williams International WJ24-8 turbojet to the United Kingdom as part of the Conventionally Armed Standoff Missile (CASOM) program. This weapon lost out to European consortium MBDA’s Storm Shadow cruise missile.

In 2009, Raytheon flight tested a second iteration of the JSOW-ER using the Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50 turbojet. The company also uses this engine to power its ADM-160 Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) system, which you can read about in more detail here. The design can also reportedly hit targets out to distances of nearly 265 miles, nearly four times the maximum range of the unpowered JSOW-C when released from a high altitude.

That added range is important given that potential opponents are only fielding surface-to-air missiles, as well as associated radars and other sensors, with ever-increasing range and precision. In turn, adding extra stand-off range to air-launched weapons will only become more vital to reduce the vulnerability to launching aircraft as time goes on.

Combined with the Navy’s stealth F-35C, in particular, the JSOW-ER will also give the Navy an additional means of targeting those defenses directly. The Joint Strike Fighters could then cut a path open for non-stealth platforms to follow through for subsequent strikes. The stealthy features of the JSOW-ER itself only help reduce its own vulnerability to enemy defenses. This combat doctrine would only be more potent with the help of electronic warfare support from EA-18G Growlers.

It is not clear if the latest JSOW-ER design still uses Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50, as well as the flush-mounted intake that helps keep the weapon stealthy, from the 2009 design. It would make good sense that Raytheon would have continued to refine this version, though, which reportedly has the same basic dimensions as the unpowered AGM-154C-1. This would make it relatively easy to integrate into the F-35C’s internal weapons bays.

The JSOW-ER will otherwise retain many of the features of the existing JSOW-C, including its guidance package, according to NAVAIR’s notice. The latest Block III AGM-154C-1s added an imaging infrared seeker to the weapons existing GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) targeting system. This additional feature allows it to spot and home in on targets in the terminal stage of flight and, as a result, engage moving vehicles, like ships.

NAVAIR also says it is looking for additional “hardware and software modifications to optimize midcourse and endgame performance,” which could include things such as a two-way data link that would allow the launching aircraft to send course corrections and other targeting updates to the missile in flight. A networked capability would also allow the weapon to work within the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) construct, meaning that other platforms in the air or at sea could help direct the weapon more accurately to its target, as well.

Another potential addition might be improvements to the missile so that it could make course corrections and avoid potential threats and hazards autonomously or semi-autonomously. This would be especially valuable for dodging pop-up air defenses.

One of the biggest benefits of the unpowered JSOW's design was, and still is, its spacious modular payload bay that can accept any warhead based around the standard 500-pound-class low-drag bomb design. The JSOW-ER's need to accommodate a jet engine and fuel will have an impact on the maximum warhead size, but it's not clear whether it might still be able to readily accept new payloads that fit within those constraints.

The JSOW-ER offers all of this capability in a package this is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to larger air-launched cruise missiles, such as Lockheed Martin’s AGM-158A Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). In 2008, Raytheon said that the JSOW-ER would have a unit price of around $350,000, less than half the price of a single JASSM.

JSOW-ER’s stated range would almost be equivalent to that of JASSM, too. The powered JSOW would still have a significantly shorter range than the AGM-158B JASSM-Extended Range, or JASSM-ER, though.

By the same token, JSOW-ER, with its moving target engagement capability, might be able to act as a low-cost anti-ship missile compared to the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). The Navy is already in the process of integrating this weapon with its Super Hornets. The service expects to reach initial operational capability with the LRASM on the F/A-18E/F in 2019.

But Lockheed Martin has not yet demonstrated that any of the JASSM family of missiles can fit internally in the F-35C’s weapons bays, which would only make the JSOW-ER more attractive for when the jet's need to be in full-stealth mode. In this case, the ability for a Joint Strike Fighter to penetrate through hostile air defenses to get closer to the target would further mitigate the more limited range of the JSOW-ER.

It still remains to be seen whether the powered JSOW will still match Raytheon’s decade-old cost estimate after it adds in any additional features the Navy wants, too. The need for additional hardening against GPS jamming and spoofing, or other types of electronic warfare attacks, given the current threat environment, could easily raise its overall price point.

If the Air Force does decide to join the JSOW-ER program, it might help spread any additional cost burden around. Foreign JSOW operators, especially those that also fly the F-35, such as Australia and The Netherlands, could also be very interested in a cruise missile that shares many of the same features as they’re existing glide bombs.

If the Navy wants to get the first missiles out to operational units within the next four years, we’ll hopefully be seeing more publicly of the latest JSOW-ER design, in general. By all accounts, the service’s F/A-18E/Fs and F-35Cs look set to add an important and deadly new weapon to their arsenals in the near future.

Contact the author: jtrevithickpr@gmail.com

Apparently, when you're at the center of a major international scandal involving under-reported income, every little party you happen to host at a French palace goes under the microscope. Killjoys! But such is the strange life of ex-Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance chairman and CEO Carlos Ghosn at the moment.

Ghosn remains jailed in the Tokyo Detention House over charges that he understated his pay as chairman and CEO of Nissan to Japanese authorities. However, yesterday, it was Renault that called for French prosecutors to investigate a lavish party Ghosn hosted at the Château de Versailles to celebrate his second marriage and wife's birthday, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Renault has a sponsorship deal with the Château de Versailles that allowed it to host certain events at the palace, which is both a former French royal residence as well as a UNESCO World Heritage site, free of charge. The deal itself was worth €2.3 million ($2.6 million U.S.) according to the Financial Times. The funds were earmarked for the restoration of the Salon de la Paix reception room.

However, Renault found a document valuing Ghosn's rental of Versailles' Grand Trianon on Oct. 8, 2016—the same day as his party there—at €50,000 ($57,000 U.S.), per a source close to the matter who spoke with the Wall Street Journal. That source also said there was a receipt from a third-party organizer that noted the rental as "a gift from Versailles." Renault alleges that Ghosn misused Renault's corporate sponsorship to host a personal party, thus benefiting personally at the expense of Renault's future ability to host events there.

This party itself was a doozy, using the former royal residence for "a black-tie party where actors in 18th-century costumes roamed under the chandeliers of a Versailles château," according to the Wall Street Journal. Even better, Town & Country noted that the event was inspired by Sofia Coppola's film, Marie Antoinette. Approximately 120 guests partook in the Ghosn's pastry-tower-filled event, where the Ghosns literally let them eat cake.

In response, Ghosn reportedly offered to reimburse the Château de Versailles for the full cost of hosting his marriage/birthday combo shindig. The money would ultimately be credited to Renault's allotted usage.

Ghosn's French lawyer Jean-Yves Le Borgne released a statement to the Financial Times saying that Ghosn didn't realize that his use of the space was treated as part of Renault's sponsorship deal:

Carlos Ghosn paid for all of his wedding expenses. The event space at Versailles was made available to him without charge, and Mr Ghosn was unaware that the use of the space would be charged against Renault's allotted usage.

This is the first odd dealing to come out of Renault's investigation into Ghosn, who resigned from his roles as chairman and CEO over Renault in January. Sources close to a similar investigation underway on the Nissan side of the automaker alliance also claim that it has focused on Ghosn's use of company-owned properties, per the Financial Times.

However, documents seen by the Financial Times suggest that tensions are growing between Renault and Nissan over how to handle their investigations of Ghosn's dealings. While they all may be free of Ghosn's leadership now, the companies' partnership may be suffering as they scramble to figure out what's next.

If you're interested in an excessively large and excessively powerful vehicle (this is America, why wouldn't you be?), Chevrolet has just the pair of SUVs for you. Available at Chevy dealers, warranties included, are modified versions of the Suburban and Tahoe producing...wait for it...1,000 horsepower.

Tuned by Specialty Vehicle Engineering, a known GM supplier responsible for the current Yenko muscle cars, the SUVs get a custom-built, 6.8-liter, supercharged V-8 based on the LT1 producing precisely 1,000 ponies and 875 pound-feet of torque. For those more mechanically inclined than I, the mill features a "blueprinted LT1 aluminum block, race-quality, computer-balanced rotating assembly including forged 4340 steel crankshaft and forged steel H-beam rods, forged aluminum pistons, CNC ported high-flow LT4 cylinder heads, a custom supercharger, and an eight-rib belt drive system."

If all of that sounds like gibberish, just know 1,000 hp is 37 more from what you get out of a Ferrari LaFerrari.

The engine and supercharger are backed by a three-year/36,000-mile warranty while the heavy-duty upgraded transmission is covered for 12 months/12,000 miles.

The price of all of this excess? $66,995 on top of the purchase of a 5.3-liter 2019 Tahoe or Suburban. If that's a little too rich for your blood, Special Vehicle Engineering also offers a $44,995 package that gives your full-size Chevy SUV 810 hp. Okay, so you won't get the bragging rights that come with parking a thousand horsepower on your driveway but once it leaves the driveway and gets on the road, 810 is plenty.

Jeep has entered a 2020 Gladiator pickup into the King of the Hammers Every Man Challenge, racing in the 4600 stock class. King of the Hammers is an intense off-road race through California's desert, in which competitors must navigate high-speed sections, as well slow down to perform rock-crawling maneuvers. This year's event is taking place between Feb. 1 and 9, while the Every Man Challenge 124-mile race ran on the sixth.

The race's "stock" class does allow a few modifications, but the competing vehicles must be running with a factory spec engine, frame, and body. Tires are also limited to a 35-inch diameter in this class. To prepare the Gladiator for the Every Man Challenge, Jeep commissioned California shop Savvy Off-Road. The team at Savvy added a roll cage, winches, custom suspension with Fox Racing shocks, and Dynatrac 60 axles at the front and rear. They also removed the Jeep's rear seats and installed Sparco racing harnesses up front.

Driving the Gladiator were racers Robby Gordon and Erik Miller. Gordon has had a career in NASCAR, IndyCar, and the Dakar Rally, among many other ventures. He was chosen to take on the high-speed sections of the race. Miller is a King of the Hammers veteran with two championships under his belt, and he handled the more technical sections of the race.

“Jeep has been attending King of the Hammers for many years, listening to, observing, and engaging the group of hardcore off-road enthusiasts who gather there,” said North American head of Jeep Tim Kuniskis. "So we figured even though we haven’t built the first customer unit yet, why not bring it out and put it to the test at this ultimate proving ground – the toughest one-day off-road race in the world?”

The event results page shows the Gladiator finishing sixth in its class, 43rd overall, with a time of 10 hours and four minutes. Just completing the challenge is an accomplishment, as the results indicate that 23 of the 29 class competitors were unable to cross the finish line.

The 2019 Nissan Maxima Platinum, By the Numbers

• Base Price (Price as Tested): $42,335 ($43,835)
• Powertrain: 3.5-liter V-6, 300 horsepower, 261 pound-feet of torque; continuously-variable automatic; front-wheel-drive
• EPA Fuel Economy: 20 mpg city, 30 mpg highway
• 0-60 MPH: 5.8 seconds (Car and Driver testing)
• Highway Range: 540 miles (based on 18-gallon fuel tank and 30 mpg highway fuel economy estimate)
• Quick Take: Nissan's full-size sedan may be saddled with front-wheel-drive and a CVT, but it also delivers style (and a naturally-aspirated V-6) not often found in the segment anymore.

Back when it first appeared on the scene as a full-sized sedan in 1988, Nissan made a stink about calling the Maxima a "Four Door Sports Car"—even going so far as to slap stickers reading "4DSC" on the windows. Admittedly, even by the post-Malaise Era standards of the late Eighties, that was more marketing hype than factual statement. Front-wheel-drive has never been part of the sports car recipe, after all, and the Maxima has been routing power to the front axle for all but the first four years of its life—an era that started in Jimmy Carter's presidency, and concluded before Ronald Reagan's re-election.

Still, while it may not be the four-door Z Nissan wishes you thought it was, the Maxima's blend of size and sportiness has always helped it stand apart from the family car crowd. The Altima was the sedan for boring family folks; the Maxima was the fun one, with a bit more oomph under the hood and more joy in the suspension. It was the car you bought when your soul said M5, but your budget said Buick. (It was also the beneficiary of what your humble author still insists was the most rockin’ ad campaign of all time in fifth-gen form.)

That drift, tho

But in 2007, the front-drive handicap was joined by a second anchor weighing the car down: the dreaded continuously variable transmission, which replaced both the torque-converter slushbox and the stick shift that had been available on the car. Combine that with blobby, mid-Aughts styling, and the Maxima's appeal seemed to ebb by the day.

The 2016 model year, however, brought with it an all-new Maxima that seemed unashamed to embrace the more outgoing design cues in Nissan's DNA. The grille looked barely a generation removed from the GT-R's maw; the headlights and tail lamps wouldn't have looked out of place on a future Z; and the interior, in higher trims, looked every bit as put-together as the fashion plate Murano. Still, with full-size sedans at near-luxury price points no longer setting the world on fire, the Maxima has spent the last few years in relative exile in the corner of the Nissan dealership, waiting for those rare souls willing to drop roughly $40,000 on a car without a fancy badge, towering ride height, or all-wheel-drive. And when those folks wander by, will they wonder: Is there even a hint of sports car soul left in this big, cog-free car?

The 2019 Nissan Maxima Platinum: Exterior

For the 2019 model year, the Maxima scored a mid-life facelift. Trouble is, you'd be hard-pressed to notice; the changes are basically impossible to spot, except perhaps to Maxima connoisseurs. (and do any of those exist anymore, now that the stick shift is gone?) It's a busy look, admittedly, but the general effect is pleasing to the eye. It's certainly aggressive, with an angry beak and a narrow gaze; think of a cartoon parrot saying, “Shit just got real,” and you’re there. It’s distinctive from the rest of the Nissan lineup while still being clearly part of the family—a trait more carmakers should shoot to master.

It's not without its issues, mind you. The awkward blacked-out trim on the C pillar— is harder to notice on a black car like my tester, though the thin strip of trim running along the bottoms of the doors still has an awkward kink downwards. Regardless, however, the flowing lines and angular details do a good job of cloaking the car's size. While it's even longer than a Honda Accord, the wide hips and big, eye-grabbing face make it seem more tightly wired and well-proportioned. You might even say it makes it look a little like a four-door sports car.

The 2019 Nissan Maxima Platinum: Interior

Step inside, and the Maxima reveals a cabin that's a bit dated, but still plenty functional. Between the the control surfaces and the way the panels all seem to curl around the left-front seat, the driver's area does a good job establishing that “cockpit-esque” feeling many automakers aim for without feeling claustrophobic. The driver-canted dashboard and center console place everything within easy view and reach—except for the control knob for the infotainment system, which seems to have been designed for a species that has an extra hand where humans have elbows. (Luckily, the infotainment screen is both touch-sensitive and located at the ideal distance for tapping, making the knob redundant.) Special mention should be reserved for the steering wheel that sits front and center in the driver's world: It's a delight to hold, with perfect nests for your thumbs at 9 and 3 and a satisfying thickness to the rim. (Paddle shifters would have been nice, giving the car's sporting affectation, but they're reserved for the SR trim.)

The black-and-tan interior trim, which Nissan formally calls "Rakuda Tan Semi-Aniline Leather with Leather Inserts" but Mike Spinelli described appreciatively as “peanut butter and chocolate guts,” look really good, especially with Platinum’s quilted leather on the seats. Those seats are part of what Nissan describes as its "Zero Gravity" line of thrones, and they live up to the NASA-inspired hype; between the soft leather and the supportive padding, they feel comfortable enough to make your bladder, not your butt, the deciding factor on when to stop on a long road trip.

Look a little harder, and some of the interior choices start to reveal weaknesses—mostly related to cost. Much of the "metal" trim is plastic, as is the shiny "piano black" surround framing the infotainment area and center console. The buttons scattered off out of sight to the left of the steering wheel by the driver's knee are cheap to the touch, not that you'll be touching them very much, considering the only way to reliably hit them is by either groping blindly or trying to bend your head awkwardly around the wheel. (Which wouldn't be much of an issue if they controlled features most people rarely use, but instead, they're in charge of frequently-accessed functions like the heated steering wheel and trunk opener.)

It's reasonably roomy inside, as well. The back seat might not be Rolls-Royce roomy, but there was enough room behind my long legs to fit an average-sized adult. And should you slide four people into the cabin simultaneously, 14.3 cubic feet of cargo space in the aft compartment works out to a 100-liter duffel bag for each occupant in the trunk with a little room to spare.

2019 Nissan Maxima Platinum: The Drive

In spite of what would seem to be the myriad compromises baked into its construction—not just the aforementioned drivetrain issues, but also the fact that it's based on a Renault-Nissan architecture dating back more than a decade and shared with the likes of the Pathfinder and Infiniti QX60—the Maxima comports itself well in enthusiast hands on public roads. The gearbox transmission proves itself surprisingly responsive; it never feels laggy, and rarely suffers from the elastic throttle response common to many cars stuck with the belt-driven interface between engine and wheels. That's not to say a well-calibrated six- or eight-speed automatic wouldn't be superior, but this Nissan's driveline is certainly one of the least-objectionable CVT setups out there.

The transmission's reasonable nature is, no doubt, in part a result of the engine it's connected to: the venerable Nissan VQ35DE, a naturally-aspirated V-6 that's been kicking around in various states of tune for years. The power delivery is nowhere near brutal or surprising, the way downsized forced induction motors often are; instead, it doles out the power in a steady climb, every few hundred rpm adding a bit more urgency to the acceleration. Not only do the 300 ponies only arrive at 6,400 rpm—just a couple hundred shy of the fuel cutoff—but the 261 pound-feet don't all show up until 4,400 rpm. It may not make for afterburner-like acceleration, but it certainly makes it easier for the driver to dial in just as much go-fast as he or she wants, even in spite of the variable transmission.

While the front-wheel-drive layout means it probably wouldn't be the sort of car you'd have much fun pushing to 10/10ths on a track, it works just fine elsewhere. At the sorts of speeds and levels of engagement you're apt to encounter in the real world—even on the highways of the Tri-State Area late at night, when the broken heroes on their last-chance power drives often drive close to double the speed limit—it’s pleasant to drive; it's nimble and fast enough to get out of other cars’ way with ease, whether it's the one doing the passing or diving out the way of faster traffic.

In Conclusion

If nothing else, Nissan deserves credit for keeping the Maxima around in the face of declining sedan sales and internal competition, both from crossovers and other sedans. (Not only does the new 2019 Altima offer its own luxurious Platinum trim at a lower price point, but it actually has more passenger volume, more cargo capacity, and its turbocharged inline-four delivers more torque.) As such, sales have slipped; last year's tally of 42,337 units moved in America was down 37 percent over 2017, coming in at roughly 50 percent the sales of the slightly more expensive Murano that occupies a similar style-over-substance role on the SUV side of the carmaker's lineup.

Yet it endures—not as a sport sedan, but as a surprisingly engaging road tripper for drivers who want a little more character than average from their ride. Those 4DSC decals are long gone, but should Nissan ever feel compelled to slap an abbreviation on the Maxima's windows again, 4DGT ones wouldn't be a bad replacement.

Alfa Romeo has confirmed at the Chicago Auto Show that it will continue to sell the 4C Spider in America as a 2020 model. This stems from the news last year that Alfa would be canning the coupe version of the 4C due to poor sales. Also for 2020, the North American market will get an exclusive, extremely limited version of the 4C known as the Spider Italia. Production will be capped off at a scant 15 units.

How does the Italia differ from a standard Spider? Well, it comes in a Misano Blue Metallic paint color not available on other 4Cs. The car's front intake and rear diffuser have been given a piano black finish, and Spider Italia decals are placed on either side of the vehicle. On the inside, you get an aluminum dashboard insert bearing the Italia name, and a little plaque on the center console denoting the Spider's number out of 15.

An Alfa Romeo release states: "With seating for two, panoramic views, and the soundtrack of an Italian performance-tuned engine and exhaust, 4C Spiders are among the most exhilarating experiences in motoring—and represent the very core of Alfa Romeo’s DNA and heritage."

The Italia's minor touches come at a $5,000 mark-up over the 4C's $66,900 retail price, for a combined $71,900. Mechanically, the Italia is identical to the regular Spider, which is, in turn, unchanged from the previous year's model. A 1.8-liter, turbocharged, four-cylinder engine sits amidships in the Alfa's lightweight carbon chassis, putting 237 horsepower to rear wheels through a six-speed dual clutch transmission.

For the first time in nearly a decade, the U.S. Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment has added a new unit to its ranks. The creation of the additional separate company comes as the Regiment, also known as the Night Stalkers, which is best known for providing premier special operations helicopter support for U.S. special operators, is expanding its drone capabilities.

On Aug. 16, 2018, Company F, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment stood up at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, according to an order from U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), which we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. Fort Campbell is already home to the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 160th, as well as the Regiment’s headquarters. The remaining 3rd and 4th Battalions are based at Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia and Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, respectively.

Censors redacted the unit’s so-called “Table of Order and Equipment” code, or TOE, which defines its size, structure, and mission, as well as the total authorized personnel for the new company. We do know that the company is assigned directly to the regimental headquarters rather than placed under the control of any one of the 160th’s existing four battalions.

This is the first new unit USASOC has created under the control of the 160th since it activated Company E in October 2010. The Army had shuttered the previous incarnations of both Companies E and F, which were both equipped with MH-47 Chinooks at the time, in 2007. The personnel and helicopters from these units subsequently became part of the new 4th Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.

Though we don’t know for sure what Company F’s composition or mission set is, it seems very likely that the unit will take control of 160th’s future fleet of MQ-1C Gray Eagle Extended Range (GE-ER) drones. The order, somewhat confusingly, says that personnel destined for the new company would first go to the unrelated Company F, 2nd Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.

In September 2018, the Army publicly acknowledged that special operations aviators from this other Company F, which is the battalion maintenance company, had taken part in testing of the GE-ER drone at Fort Hood in Texas. The most recent annual report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, also stated that the Army would establish a company of the improved MQ-1Cs within the 160th.

In development since at least 2013, the GE-ER, previously known as the Improved Gray Eagle (IGE), is larger and significantly more capable than the original MQ-1C. The Army completed Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation of the GE-ER variant in October 2018, the last step before operational units begin receiving the aircraft.

The GE-ER’s maximum gross takeoff weight is 600 pounds greater, primarily due to its more powerful Lycoming DEL-120 Heavy Fuel Engine (HFE). It also has a deeper fuselage that can accommodate 50 percent more fuel and a payload bay that is 50 percent larger. This means the GE-ER can stay aloft for more than 40 hours, almost an entire extra day compared to the earlier MQ-1Cs, while also carrying a more robust suite of sensors and weaponry.

It’s easy to spot the new variant from the new winglets on the end of each wing and the relocation of the vertical mount with data link antenna on top from the middle of the fuselage to the rear. The added endurance of the MQ-1Cs will allow a single platoon of three of the drones to perform persistent surveillance of a particular area 24 hours a day without interruption, according to the latest annual DOT&E report.

The extra internal space in the upgraded model will also make it easier to integrate new sensor systems or other payloads, such as electronic warfare systems, as they become available in the future. The Army is already buying signals intelligence packages for its existing Gray Eagles, as well.

It will also have improved performance with various underwing stores. As with the earlier MQ-1Cs, it can carry up to four AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, as well as wide-area persistent surveillance systems, electronic warfare packages, and more. The Army is also exploring adding dispenser pods that can each carry a dozen of Northrop Grumman's Hatchet precision-guided miniature munitions to the Gray Eagle’s arsenal, which you can read about in more detail here.

A company of GE-ERs will significantly boost the 160th’s drone capabilities. Company E also has a mix of earlier model MQ-1Cs and pre-production Warrior Alphas, the latter of which are only capable of conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions.

The 160th has used the unmanned aircraft for armed overwatch during operations, as well as communications relays. A single drone can operate in multiple modes at once, too. The added endurance and payload capacity of the GE-ER will only add to this flexibility.

Have a company of the improved Gray Eagles will also expand the total force of medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aircraft available within the U.S. special operations community in general. At present, the vast majority of this capability comes from MQ-9 Reaper squadrons assigned to both Air Force Special Operations Command and the non-special operations Air Combat Command. There are also conventional MQ-1C units across the regular Army.

Still, the demand for this category of unmanned aircraft support has perpetually outstripped the capacity of these existing units. The Air Force has resorted In 2018, the U.S. Navy hired General Atomics, who builds the Gray Eagles and Reapers, to fly their own unarmed MQ-9s in support of U.S. Marines.

With this in mind, if Company F is indeed slated to become the 160th’s new GE-ER company, it could easily find itself very busy when it reaches initial operational capability with the type. By every indication, Company E has been heavily deployed since 2010, as well, though the Army has been very secretive about its operations.

The service did not even publicly announce its activation until 2013, at which time it was situated at Fort Huachuca, the Army’s hub for aerial intelligence and drone training, in Arizona. Later that year, it relocated to Fort Campbell, at least officially.

By that time, that unit had already received a Meritorious Unit Commendation for supporting special operators in Afghanistan. Next we heard, in 2016, Company E had deployed Gray Eagles to Garoua, Cameroon to support operations in that country, as well as neighboring Nigeria, against the terrorist group Boko Haram.

In 2018, the Pentagon also revealed that Gray Eagles were flying in the Philippines as part of a special operations forces-led mission to support the Armed Forces of the Philippines battle ISIS-linked terrorists in that country. Though we don’t know for sure, it seems very likely that these drones are also from Company E.

Whether or not it turns out that Company F will be flying the 160's GE-ERs, the Regiment's future looks set to involve increasing unmanned operations in addition to its trademark helicopter assaults.

Contact the author: jtrevithickpr@gmail.com

For truck manufacturers, the Chicago Auto Show is a battleground. Armed with chrome, four-wheel-drive, and going with a the new trend of nifty functions never before seen on a tailgate, armies of pickups fight for the biggest slice of the huge American market.

The latest front of the pickup war is the humble tailgate, the subject of this list. Automakers have knows for decades that the tailgate can be more than a folding flap of metal, and have utilized it as a canvas for decorating the truck. Only recently has the tailgate's potential to add functionality to the truck been realized, and some creative interpretations of the previously simple tailgate are on display at the 2019 Chicago Auto Show. Our five favorites from the show can be found below.

2019 GMC Sierra MultiPro

GMC's handy new MultiPro tailgate is made of three nested panels, capable of six different positions. Fully up and fully down make for two, while the top half can be folded down independently for a convenient, chest-height workstation, good for anything from gutting fish to changing diapers. A second panel can be folded up from here to serve as a load stop in both the half- and fully-open configurations. When entirely unfolded, the MultiPro tailgate forms a tailgate party-ready bench, in which customers can spec an optional audio system.

Ford F-150 Raptor

The four-year-old in all of us loves the idea of driving a truck named for a dinosaur (or maybe a bird, but probably the reptile), and the fact that the F-150 Raptor can gallivant across rough terrain without a care only endears it further. Having the Raptor name on the back in big, stylized letters—even if dwarfed by gigantic Ford script—is also a fun novelty. All that's missing is a Tonka badge somewhere, though that might be unoriginal at this point.

2019 Ram 1500 Multifunction Tailgate

Just as The Drive's Chad Kirchner predicted, FCA-owned Ram brought out a multimodal tailgate of its own. Like the competing GMC product, Multifunction Tailgate can be folded up or down like a traditional tailgate, but can be swung outward like a door. Combined with a kick-down pedal underneath the bumper, this tailgate makes the Ram 1500 the easiest full size pickup to climb into, and also puts pressure on Ford to do something similar with its F-series—ASAP.

Lego Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LT Trail Boss

Though its role as a promotional vehicle for The Lego Movie 2 flies in the face of the original film's subversive, anti-consumerism themes, there's no denying that making an entire Chevrolet Silverado out of Lego bricks is artistry. Weighing in at 3,307 pounds, this Lego-rado is made from 334,544 Lego bricks, which took 18 people over 2,000 combined hours to construct. Everything about the truck is stunning, but hidden away, between the truck's rear and a wall, is a tailgate complete with embossed Chevrolet lettering. It's a detail that almost no Chicago show-goers will notice, but it's a brilliant addition nonetheless.

Chicago Bears Ford F-150

When in Chicago, do as the Chicagoans do and have a tailgate party before the Bears game. It'll be selfie bait for the Second City's football fans for the duration of the 2019 Chicago Auto Show, provided no Vikings fans deface it while security isn't looking.

This was one heck of a week here at The War Zone. We had an exclusive update on the F-15X, a procurement initiative that has materialized exactly as we said it. We also exposed what is appearing more and more like a genuine highly-secretive superweapon that Russia was testing in the 1980s. But above all else, this week was dominated by the sudden appearance of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment over Downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach. In between, we talked about yellow submarines, secret MiG adversary squadrons, pocket-sized drones, and much more.

Still, there were many subjects we didn't get to. But it's not too late.

Welcome to Bunker Talk!

This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn't get to. In other words, literally an off-topic thread.

We can talk about Pro Publica's incredibly in-depth piece on the Navy's tragic ship collisions:

This, from @ProPublica is an astonishing piece of journalism. A must read. The implications of the disclosures in this piece are deeply disturbing for our national security. Please read: https://t.co/IRqCTxsakT

— David French (@DavidAFrench) February 7, 2019

Or we can all marvel at Qatar's new Rafales' paint scheme:

#DassaultAviation livre le premier #Rafale à l’État du Qatar https://t.co/qpX4hv0xCt#DassaultAviation First #Rafale delivery to the State of Qatar https://t.co/IfydHiUShR pic.twitter.com/e4zVyf3BqP

— Dassault Aviation (@Dassault_OnAir) February 6, 2019

Giving Dan Crenshaw proper attention for his insanely on point eyepatch game is also a must:

pic.twitter.com/5UfcDE17WY

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) February 6, 2019

Then again, maybe this Tornado flyby is all that really matters:

Tornado low pass pic.twitter.com/CjJtdy97re

— Kevin Sky????????????????????? ???????????????????? (@EmirLouise) February 5, 2019

Once again, this is an entirely open exercise, so let's enjoy some pointed debate and have some laughs.

Let's get after it!

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

If there's one annoying automotive enthusiast tic that needs to stop, it's all the fussing and hum-hawing over auction results. Every time there's a nearly perfect low-mileage example of an everyman's car that nabs an absurd amount at auction, the internet comes to a halt in outrage.

The latest participant in the boring auction outrage cycle is a nicer version of a car I own: a 5,200-mile 1986 Porsche 944 Turbo in the rare, 1986-only color of Pearl White Metallic. It's believed to be just one of 35 ever made in that color, and someone paid $74,000 for it on Bring a Trailer. It's a beautiful car with a well-documented service history, but unless you're hardcore into Concours events or a museum curator looking for that one perfect example, I can assure you that my $800 naturally aspirated 944 in all its bondoed, stripped-out glory is a lot more fun.

But because the 944 is the "cheap Porsche" that's accessible to the masses, the internet is aghast that someone would pay that much for a nice example of a high trim level with rare options on a heavily curated marketplace like Bring a Trailer.

It's the same faux-shock we've heard already for low-mileage, pristine Acura Integra Type Rs, Honda Civics and even Chevrolet Silverados. While less scrupulous sellers may use this as a reason to mark up their miserable rustbuckets for no reason, the truth is that these cars tend to be outliers.

You're already paying a mild premium when you skip the hassle of wading through barely intelligible Craigslist and Facebook postings to go to an auction platform that's tracked down most of the relevant information about the car for you and posted it somewhere in clear English. And true oddballs—be it by mileage, options, or general availability—will always fetch much more dough than even a nice, regular example.

Your average 944 seller is not going to be looking at some museum-quality showpiece to determine their sale price. Around Austin, you can still pick up a non-precious but street-legal version of the 944 to have actual fun with for around $2,000-5,000 all day long. It won't be as pretty as a $74K BaT special, but then you'll care less about ripping out the interior because track day, bro, or shredding sweet donuts because you have a fun car, and you can.

Therein lies my biggest beef with the recent obsession with auction results: It devalues a car to nothing but a monetary value, which in turn misses the entire point of a car. A car will always be a utilitarian object in my mind, if not for transportation, then to fulfill the basic human need for happiness. We love cars because of what they can do, and what we can do with them.

My most satisfying car days are track day epiphanies where I figure out how to go just a little bit faster, or the conclusions of major wrenching projects that once seemed impossible—not checking online to see if the value of my car went up.

Viewing cars as idle investments or objects that lose value with use only makes sense if your form of automotive enthusiasm doesn't involve driving. I won't knock the restoration and deep-cleaning fans out there, but I will say that I know a lot more enthusiasts who are in this hobby because they love using their cars. (Look at the title of this website, for Pete's sake!)

Some of you even watch auctions for this high-price phenomenon like a bunch of masochists. Unless you're actively looking to buy another car, that time would be better served by getting into a car that you have and enjoying it. Wrench on it! Go for a pleasant drive! A road trip! A track day! Quality time out on the trails! The world is yours to explore with your perfectly enjoyable, usable car. It is the machine which brings us giggle-inducing speed and new places to see all in one. It is best when used.

Even "bad" cars have a certain charm to them. Few things bring a more intense grin to my face than catching air in a beater. The less mechanical empathy you feel, the more you can allow yourself to cut loose and enjoy a car for what it is. I hate to say it, but a $74,000 944 Turbo would be like buying a child on the empathy scale. Every errant speck of dust is going to set off a deep panic alarm within your brain with a purchase like that. If you're into cars for the driving, you're better off plopping down $300 for a K-car you can rallycross.

Auction kvetching simply does not bring us joy, and it's time to Marie Kondo it straight into the sun.

[H/T FlatSixes for the 944 results!]

For better or worse, infotainment that aggregates most center console functions into a single touchscreen has become commonplace. As the trend is relatively new to the industry, not every automaker gets it right. Some bury it too deep into the dashboard, some don't know how to mount it, and many think they can do without the volume knob, despite AAA concluding that touchscreen-only infotainment is causing crashes.

There's also the question of how responsive many of these screens are, but the focus of this list is solely on the worst integration of infotainment, not on the quality of the systems themselves (some of the systems below may look nightmarish, but work well). There are a couple automakers that barely dodged finding themselves listed here, such as Hyundai, many of whose current infotainment screens are atrocious, but are redeemed by a promising design direction as established by the Ioniq and Palisade. Below are what The Drive considers to be the five ugliest infotainment setups of the 2019 Chicago Auto Show.

Ford Transit Connect

Most modern Ford products have respectable integration of their infotainment systems, but the Transit isn't among them. Looking like an early-2000s CD player with a Kindle jammed in its disc tray, the Transit's center console more closely resembles a bedroom that hasn't been cleaned since 2001 than it does the rest of the Ford lineup. But unlike other automakers on this list, Ford has the excuse that the Transit is a commercial vehicle, built to haul the red carpet around, not drop someone off to walk it.

Aston Martin DB11 Volante

It's trickier to make interiors work for models sold in both left- and right-hand drive, but it's not impossible. Aston Martin has mostly managed, but has strangely opted to dock a LeapFrog Epic Academy Edition kids' educational tablet in its dash. It's a design that dates from a time when tablets were still status symbols, but it's 2019, and we've moved on to AirPods.

Acura MDX/TLX

What's even going on here? Why are there two screens, on two tiers, when other automakers (or even other Acura products) make do with one? It's an infotainment system, not a wedding cake. It admittedly does make some sense from a functional standpoint, allowing the driver to keep the navigation screen up while the passenger turns up the treble, but it's still an odd departure from the rest of the industry.

Lincoln Navigator

Lincoln did a good job with the Navigator's interior, laying down dark wood everywhere, and not abusing metal trim or an imitation thereof like so many companies did last decade. It's one of the reasons why Lincoln's having trouble keeping up with demand for the model.

Unfortunately, there's a first-gen iPad lookalike wedged in the middle of the dashboard, making the front row look like the world's most luxurious drive-in movie theater. It doesn't end there; two more can be found on the backs of the front-row seats, giving second-row passengers that authentic airline experience.

Audi Q5/S5

Nothing says "I'm paying off my lease with ride-sharing" quite like these Audi's infotainment systems, which look Lyft Lux-ready from the factory. It's a strange design decision from a company that concurrently has one of the best-integrated infotainment systems in the industry, in its A6 (below). Yes, the A6 was redesigned more recently, but the A5 and Q5 were updated for 2016, which wasn't a time before Uber.

If all this negativity has you down, check out our five favorite pickup truck tailgates of the Chicago Auto Show. Some are neat to look at, others boast functions you probably haven't imagined seeing in a tailgate. Give it a look and forget the above travesties of design.

General Motors Canada was forced to stop production at its Oshawa, Ontario assembly plant on Friday as the result of a labor strike at the auto manufacturer's seat supplier, Lear Works. Over 200 Lear employees walked off the job at 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Friday and the shutdown lasted until the next shift began at 2:30 p.m.

The strike at Lear is part of the larger campaign by Unifor to keep GM from closing the Oshawa plant at the end of 2019. Unifor hopes to convince GM to extend production at the facility through September 2020, when the current union contract expires. The Oshawa plant closure was announced during GM's restructuring in November.

Like many automotive production facilities, Oshawa operates on the principles of just-in-time manufacturing, which means they keep a limited supply on-site and parts are typically delivered to the plant shortly before they are needed on the line. While this system usually offers many benefits to the manufacturing process, when a supplier shutdown such as this occurs, it can cause almost immediate issues. With a short shutdown such as this, the impact isn't massive—especially considering the large surplus of Silverado dealer supply—but it nonetheless sent a message on the workers' behalf.

As of Feb. 1, GM had a 149-day supply of Silverado trucks for sale in the United States and production continued at the two other plants GM uses to produce the pickup and its GMC Sierra platform-mate. The Oshawa plant produces around 450 GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado trucks daily as well as 250 Cadillac XTS and Chevrolet Impala models.

“The message that we’re sending is that it’s not just about General Motors’ workers. All the suppliers, including Lear Whitby, are impacted by a potential closure,” said Unifor Local 222 President Colin James in a statement to Reuters.

Production resumed at the Oshawa plant around 3:10 p.m., ending the nearly three hours long shutdown. GM did not say how big of an impact the shut down had on production numbers or whether it affected both car and truck production.