2023 Mercedes-benz Eqb 250 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Race recap: 2016 Monaco Grand Prix gets very wet, a little wild

More than at any other race, the Monaco Grand Prix question is: which combination of demolition derby, Safety Cars, and bad pit strategy will decide the podium? Last year Lewis Hamilton's late, confounding pit stop cost him victory. The year before, Nico Rosberg's qualifying "mistake" put him on pole and Mercedes-AMG Petronas' pit strategy sealed his win – good for Nico, bad for Hamilton and the rest of the field. In 2013 Hamilton dropped from second to fourth when he lollygagged in the pits. In all three years, Rosberg won. The new X factor for 2016: a Red Bull resurgence that helped Daniel Ricciardo clinch his first career pole. Nevertheless, bad pit strategy had its say in the results. Ricciardo built up a 13-second lead by Lap 15 in spite of heavy rains that forced the Safety Car to lead the first eight laps of the race. Ricciardo stopped on Lap 23 to switch to intermediate tires for the drying track, ceding the lead to Hamilton. Hamilton pitted from the lead on Lap 31 for softs, then Red Bull pulled Ricciardo in again on Lap 32 and made a snap decision to put him on ultra softs, but the tires weren't ready when Ricciardo reached his pit box. What should have been a three-second pit stop turned into a 13.6-second pit stop. Ricciardo left the pits as Hamilton came down the straight and the Aussie lost the lead into the first corner. Despite two attempts to pass later in the race, Hamilton finished first, the Aussie second. It's the second race in a row where pit strategy cost Ricciardo a near-certain win. Conversely, Force India nailed both tire strategy and pit timing with Sergio Perez. The Mexican started in eighth but got into third before half the race was done, passing four cars in the pits, and finished on the podium's final step. Otherwise the order barely changed from about half distance, with Ferrari driver Sebatian Vettel in fourth, followed by Fernando Alonso in the McLaren, Nico Hulkenberg in the second Force India, Rosberg in the second Mercedes, Carlos Sainz for Toro Rosso, Jenson Button in the second McLaren, and Felipe Massa taking the final point for tenth for Williams. Storms didn't only hover over the area, though – dark clouds hung around several teams and drivers. Mercedes' reliability is no longer so reliable. The Silver Arrows suffered engine issues on both cars in qualifying, and Hamilton's problem almost kept him from setting a time in Q3.

Aston wants to build DBX on its new platform, not Mercedes'

Aston Martin is proceeding with plans to launch the DBX as its first production crossover. It just can't say at this point what it will be based on. Speaking with Automotive News Europe, Aston's new CEO Andy Palmer indicated that basing the DBX on a Mercedes SUV platform would not be its first choice because they "clearly sit in a very different space to the one we want to go" with the DBX. Instead, the company's first choice would be to build the crossover atop the new platform it's developing for its sports cars. "It just depends how high off the ground it could go," said Palmer. "I don't exclude the possibility of using some [Mercedes] parts, but I would say very much the primary route is our platform." The prospect of building an Aston SUV on Mercedes architecture – namely that of the GL-Class – has been on the table for some time now. The Lagonda SUV concept it showcased at the Geneva show in 2009 was based on the GL, and the two automakers have been forging a tightening alliance in the years since. The British automaker's next-generation engine is to be built by Mercedes-AMG, and it is expected to source other components from the German automaker as well. For its part, Mercedes has been taking a sportier approach with its latest crossovers, as demonstrated by the GLE Coupe that debuted before the more conventional version and the Concept GLC Coupe that previewed the GLK's replacement in Shanghai last month. Aston Martin, on the other hand, is building a new sports car platform that will underpin its next generation of luxury GTs, replacing the long-serving VH architecture that has served for decades as the basis for its entire model line. Perhaps the most surprising of ANE's report, though, is that Aston seems to be proceeding with plans to build the DBX apparently without even knowing what platform it will use.

Dealers mobilize to protect their margins from automaker subscription services

Six individual auto brands — Lincoln, Cadillac, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and Volvo — have established or are trialing a vehicle subscription service in the U.S. Three third-party companies — Flexdrive, Clutch and Carma — run brand-agnostic subscription services. And three automakers — Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and General Motors — have also launched short-term rental services. Dealers, afraid of how these trends might affect their margins, are building political and lawmaking campaigns to protect their revenue streams. So far, three states are investigating automaker subscriptions, and Indiana has banned any such service until next year. It's certain that those three states are the first fronts in a long political and legal battle. Powerful dealer franchise laws mandate the existence of dealers and restrict how automakers are allowed to interact with customers to sell a vehicle. On top of that, Bob Reisner, CEO of Nassau Business Funding & Services, said, "Dealers and their associations are among the strongest political operators in many states. They as a group are difficult for state politicians to vote against." In California earlier this year, the state Assembly debated a bill with wide-ranging provisions to protect against what the California New Car Dealers Association called "inappropriate treatment of dealers by manufacturers." One of those provisions stipulated that subscription services need to go through dealers, but that item got stripped out when dealers and manufacturers agreed to discuss the matter further. In Indiana, Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a moratorium on all subscription programs by dealers or manufacturers until May 1, 2019, to give legislators more time to investigate. Dealers in New Jersey have taken their campaign to the state capitol, asking that the cars in subscription programs get a different classification for registration purposes. Automakers run the current subscription services and own the vehicles. Sign-ups and financial transactions happen online or through apps, leaving dealers to do little more than act as fulfillment centers to various degrees, with little legal recourse as to compensation amounts when they're called on to deliver or service a car. That's a bad base to build on for business owners who've sunk millions of dollars into their operations.