RE: PH Blog: the new driving
Discussion
robinessex said:
Colin Chapman understood suspension design back in 1970 there abouts. Long soft springs matched to impecable damping. The reasoning being that if the wheels aren't in contact with the ground, you can't generate any grip at all.
But then you'd need to fit enormous anti-roll bars otherwise Mr "Semi-Works Racing Driver and Full-Time Oppo Dabber" will complain that it rolls too much.GranCab said:
Rawwr said:
The Sport Spider's (and Caterham 21's) biggest problem came from Norfolk and that was quite a success.
So why are Lotus up the financial s
t creek now ? There is not enough demand ...JuanGandini said:
Ultimately it's customers who have the final say and if they're being flogged products that they don't like then they won't buy them.
Not entirely true I feel - putting to one side the masses of company and fleet cars, if the product you want isn't there, what do you buy? For example, I want a comfortable, refined cruiser that can do 40+mpg on the motorway, yet can thrill and delight in the corners, with the power and chassis and low weight to cope with track days without eating tyres and brakes, and be able to take me and three friends to the pub without crashing over potholes, and have enough space for some golf clubs in the boot. Can I get that with a 5 year warranty and under £200/month with no deposit please? No chance - it doesn't exist. So instead I have to compromise. And unfortunately the compromise these days seems to be in the direction of economy, safety and racks of potentially fragile technology advertised as progress. Also, feature-itis is rife, and it's all because we all want MORE. MORE power, more speed, more space, more value for money. More for less (and right NOW!) seems to be this generation's mantra, and this seems reflected in the cars and products that are made 'for us'. I want more - more substance, and less 'stuff'.
Sorry 
That isnt totally fair on you CH, over the last yr you have slowly been returning to the fold with reporting on the old M5, etc. And Ill grudgingly accept you've had to earn a crust in the job and that crust is generally saying great things about new fun motors.
But it still gives me the hump :P
That isnt totally fair on you CH, over the last yr you have slowly been returning to the fold with reporting on the old M5, etc. And Ill grudgingly accept you've had to earn a crust in the job and that crust is generally saying great things about new fun motors.
But it still gives me the hump :P
Surely not all the blame should be laid against the manufacturer for this trend in new cars, I also believe a lot of the blame also has to be laid against the motoring journo's that feed their thoughts to the public.
Thinking about how car articles are written, pretty much all new cars are doomed unless they can cover off the following:
- If any car is not bigger it will get panned for not being as roomy for its occupants and their luggage as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not faster it will get panned for not being a step forward as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not quicker round a lap it will get panned for not being as “dynamically balanced” in the handling department as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not safer in a crash it will get panned for not being a step forward compared to its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not better looking it will get panned for not being as “pretty” as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not achieving a lower MPG it will get panned for not being as cheap to run as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not fitted with all the latest gadgets it will get panned for not being as well spec'ed compared to its predecessor/competitor
All of these (maybe more) make it fairly easy to see why cars are being produced in the way they are and to help achieve some of the above is where these big fast cars with computers/big wheels and poor suspension all come from.
At no point do journo’s (until now) take a step back and go, hang on a minute, why does this car need xxx bhp / be 7 foot wide and weigh 2.5 tons when it’s a family hatchback or similar, they tend to just take the easy route when writing an article and a) do a simple like for like tick box test or b) not upset the manufacturer who's given them a car to rag around for a while.
Don't get me wrong, improvements in cars is a good thing and they have come on a very long way indeed (with no signs of it stopping), but as said in the article removing driver involvement is not a good thing for us petrolheads. Ultimately though it boils down to the buyers and all the time the masses lap up the current dross that’s being produced then there’s no hope for it to change any time soon
Thinking about how car articles are written, pretty much all new cars are doomed unless they can cover off the following:
- If any car is not bigger it will get panned for not being as roomy for its occupants and their luggage as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not faster it will get panned for not being a step forward as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not quicker round a lap it will get panned for not being as “dynamically balanced” in the handling department as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not safer in a crash it will get panned for not being a step forward compared to its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not better looking it will get panned for not being as “pretty” as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not achieving a lower MPG it will get panned for not being as cheap to run as its predecessor/competitor
- If any car is not fitted with all the latest gadgets it will get panned for not being as well spec'ed compared to its predecessor/competitor
All of these (maybe more) make it fairly easy to see why cars are being produced in the way they are and to help achieve some of the above is where these big fast cars with computers/big wheels and poor suspension all come from.
At no point do journo’s (until now) take a step back and go, hang on a minute, why does this car need xxx bhp / be 7 foot wide and weigh 2.5 tons when it’s a family hatchback or similar, they tend to just take the easy route when writing an article and a) do a simple like for like tick box test or b) not upset the manufacturer who's given them a car to rag around for a while.
Don't get me wrong, improvements in cars is a good thing and they have come on a very long way indeed (with no signs of it stopping), but as said in the article removing driver involvement is not a good thing for us petrolheads. Ultimately though it boils down to the buyers and all the time the masses lap up the current dross that’s being produced then there’s no hope for it to change any time soon
There's somethings that people seem to miss - absence makes the heart grow fonder for examlpe - your memories from 20 years ago about your raw simple cars may not live up to your expectations in 2012. You may find yourself in that same car now and be horrendously let down.
It's a bit computer games. People say "Call of Duty is so complext and OTT, I prefer Paper Boy, pure, basic, brilliant"
Then they play Paper Boy and realise it was actually crap and hard to play and didnt respond how you wanted it to.
Then there's the other side of modern car design - manufacturers would hugely appreciate their customers not dying in their cars. Like it or not, that's what they think about when they make a car.
In the 1960's it was cool, evocative even to have a nickname like "The Widowmaker"
In 2012 that nickname would probably be the end of a manufacturer. Forver.
In that vein, they want to make a car go as fast as they possibly can while at the same time, having decent crash safety and driver aids to stop you dying the moment you bury the go pedal.
It is what it is and it's unlikely to ever change, so moaning about it is futile.
In fact you might want to be grateful for what you've got because like it or not, sports cars are rapidly becoming a) socially unacceptable and b) financially unviable.
It's a bit computer games. People say "Call of Duty is so complext and OTT, I prefer Paper Boy, pure, basic, brilliant"
Then they play Paper Boy and realise it was actually crap and hard to play and didnt respond how you wanted it to.
Then there's the other side of modern car design - manufacturers would hugely appreciate their customers not dying in their cars. Like it or not, that's what they think about when they make a car.
In the 1960's it was cool, evocative even to have a nickname like "The Widowmaker"
In 2012 that nickname would probably be the end of a manufacturer. Forver.
In that vein, they want to make a car go as fast as they possibly can while at the same time, having decent crash safety and driver aids to stop you dying the moment you bury the go pedal.
It is what it is and it's unlikely to ever change, so moaning about it is futile.
In fact you might want to be grateful for what you've got because like it or not, sports cars are rapidly becoming a) socially unacceptable and b) financially unviable.
"Marketing" isnt the problem here.
Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
But the world is turning again - these sort of comments have provoked the likes of Toybaru to do the GT86, the GTC VXR is running on 19in wheels and considered comfortable (enough) through some decent component choices, BMW have switched to softer settings and largely resolved the runflat problems, Honda have sorted their duff hardboard ride if the new Civic's reviews are anything to go by, and all manufacturers are exploring low weight materials to compensate for the safety regs/weight issue and improve economy.
That mainly leaves Audi to get their st together, and someone to develop a decent EPS system.
Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
But the world is turning again - these sort of comments have provoked the likes of Toybaru to do the GT86, the GTC VXR is running on 19in wheels and considered comfortable (enough) through some decent component choices, BMW have switched to softer settings and largely resolved the runflat problems, Honda have sorted their duff hardboard ride if the new Civic's reviews are anything to go by, and all manufacturers are exploring low weight materials to compensate for the safety regs/weight issue and improve economy.
That mainly leaves Audi to get their s
t together, and someone to develop a decent EPS system.I suspect we could be fast reaching a turning point with all this led by a completely unlikely source.
Dacia.
It's not necessarily duff chassis dynamics that are making cars bad to drive, it's weight. Weight as a result of luxury stuff people don't really need but ordered anyway during the boom years as a result of crippling status-anxiety, that they're fast realising in a readjusted European economy that they can't afford them and don't need them. Manufacturers are also dashing to make their cars lighter to reduce their fuel consumption too. Talking of safety equipment, Ford has recently realised that a single airbag, in effect an inflatable seatbelt, means they can get rid of a load of their multiple airbags stuffed into the dashboard and roof pillars.
But it seems to be Dacia that's leading the charge. These are cheap, but well-engineered cars that sell on what they don't have, rather than what they do. Dacia almost seems to flag up the fact that other cars are so expensive partly because they're full of stuff you don't need.
I'm reminded partly of the cars of the late '70s and early '80s. By the late '70s, the oil crisis and safety legislation had made various old favourites overweight barges, laden down by luxury tat to distract from the fact that they'd lost it in the handling department. The Datsun 280ZX, for example, or the Ford Capri.
But then the hot hatches arrived, proving that you could have fun in a much simpler, more practical car with a smaller, more efficient engine. Compared to the cars that they chased out of the market, hot hatches derived their performance from a kind of efficiency, rather than profligate big numbers. Also, it's worth pointing out that hot hatches sold at least in part on their practicality.
I'm not saying a Sandero is a hot hatch, but if it's fun to drive (and by what James May says, it sounds like it is), then peddling one of those round a set of B-roads might be a lot more fun than doing the same route in, say, an E55 AMG.
You can bet a lot of other companies will follow suit. Fiats have always been at their best when small and simplistic. If PSA has any sense they'll realise that this simplicity is also the very essence of Peugeot. Same goes for Ford. The VW Up and its Seat and Skoda siblings are great fun to drive - a lot more fun than a Polo or Golf, in fact - and I reckon Vauxhall/Opel could find a bit more success if they actually went simple and downmarket, maybe variations on Chevrolet rather than German-engineered things.
Seriously, I think the Dacia marque will take off dramatically once word gets around (say all you like about badge snobbery but there's a reason why Kia and Hyundai sell well and it's got nothing to do with the snob-appeal of their badges). The sheer success of cheap, simple cars will force all their competitors to go back to the drawing board and focus on the basics. As a result, the next generation of 'normal' cars will be more basic, cheaper and quite probably more fun to drive.
The middle classes have less money and their houses are worth less than they were. They're not going to be buying mid-range Fords or base-model BMWs again for a long while yet, and if any non-luxury players are serious, they'll be following Renault/Dacia's lead pretty sharpish.
Dacia.
It's not necessarily duff chassis dynamics that are making cars bad to drive, it's weight. Weight as a result of luxury stuff people don't really need but ordered anyway during the boom years as a result of crippling status-anxiety, that they're fast realising in a readjusted European economy that they can't afford them and don't need them. Manufacturers are also dashing to make their cars lighter to reduce their fuel consumption too. Talking of safety equipment, Ford has recently realised that a single airbag, in effect an inflatable seatbelt, means they can get rid of a load of their multiple airbags stuffed into the dashboard and roof pillars.
But it seems to be Dacia that's leading the charge. These are cheap, but well-engineered cars that sell on what they don't have, rather than what they do. Dacia almost seems to flag up the fact that other cars are so expensive partly because they're full of stuff you don't need.
I'm reminded partly of the cars of the late '70s and early '80s. By the late '70s, the oil crisis and safety legislation had made various old favourites overweight barges, laden down by luxury tat to distract from the fact that they'd lost it in the handling department. The Datsun 280ZX, for example, or the Ford Capri.
But then the hot hatches arrived, proving that you could have fun in a much simpler, more practical car with a smaller, more efficient engine. Compared to the cars that they chased out of the market, hot hatches derived their performance from a kind of efficiency, rather than profligate big numbers. Also, it's worth pointing out that hot hatches sold at least in part on their practicality.
I'm not saying a Sandero is a hot hatch, but if it's fun to drive (and by what James May says, it sounds like it is), then peddling one of those round a set of B-roads might be a lot more fun than doing the same route in, say, an E55 AMG.
You can bet a lot of other companies will follow suit. Fiats have always been at their best when small and simplistic. If PSA has any sense they'll realise that this simplicity is also the very essence of Peugeot. Same goes for Ford. The VW Up and its Seat and Skoda siblings are great fun to drive - a lot more fun than a Polo or Golf, in fact - and I reckon Vauxhall/Opel could find a bit more success if they actually went simple and downmarket, maybe variations on Chevrolet rather than German-engineered things.
Seriously, I think the Dacia marque will take off dramatically once word gets around (say all you like about badge snobbery but there's a reason why Kia and Hyundai sell well and it's got nothing to do with the snob-appeal of their badges). The sheer success of cheap, simple cars will force all their competitors to go back to the drawing board and focus on the basics. As a result, the next generation of 'normal' cars will be more basic, cheaper and quite probably more fun to drive.
The middle classes have less money and their houses are worth less than they were. They're not going to be buying mid-range Fords or base-model BMWs again for a long while yet, and if any non-luxury players are serious, they'll be following Renault/Dacia's lead pretty sharpish.
RenesisEvo said:
Not entirely true I feel - putting to one side the masses of company and fleet cars, if the product you want isn't there, what do you buy? For example, I want a comfortable, refined cruiser that can do 40+mpg on the motorway, yet can thrill and delight in the corners, with the power and chassis and low weight to cope with track days without eating tyres and brakes, and be able to take me and three friends to the pub without crashing over potholes, and have enough space for some golf clubs in the boot. Can I get that with a 5 year warranty and under £200/month with no deposit please? No chance - it doesn't exist. So instead I have to compromise. And unfortunately the compromise these days seems to be in the direction of economy, safety and racks of potentially fragile technology advertised as progress.
Also, feature-itis is rife, and it's all because we all want MORE. MORE power, more speed, more space, more value for money. More for less (and right NOW!) seems to be this generation's mantra, and this seems reflected in the cars and products that are made 'for us'. I want more - more substance, and less 'stuff'.
Personally if the product that I want isn't there, I don't buy anything. I keep whatever I have until I find a car that does all (or most) of what I want.Also, feature-itis is rife, and it's all because we all want MORE. MORE power, more speed, more space, more value for money. More for less (and right NOW!) seems to be this generation's mantra, and this seems reflected in the cars and products that are made 'for us'. I want more - more substance, and less 'stuff'.
The car you've outlined won't ever exist at that price so the compromise is then down to personal choice. My personal choice would be to get the car that has the best driving dynamics possible. The trouble is that the public comprimise on dynamics in favour of toys/badge/image which is the root of this whole sorry mess in the first place.
kpb said:
"Marketing" isnt the problem here.
Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
I think this stuff started looong before emissions were even measured - cars have been gradually getting more and more automated since they were invented and will probably continue to do so because their primary purpose for the majority of buyers is to provide personal transport. There really isn't much difference between what we're talking about here and, for example, automatic timing advance. Ultimately, we'll get to the point where cars are completely automated, and most "drivers" will be perfectly happy with that. Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
kambites said:
kpb said:
"Marketing" isnt the problem here.
Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
I think this stuff started looong before emissions were even measured - cars have been gradually getting more and more automated since they were invented and will probably continue to do so because their primary purpose for the majority of buyers is to provide personal transport. There really isn't much difference between what we're talking about here and, for example, automatic timing advance. Ultimately, we'll get to the point where cars are completely automated, and most "drivers" will be perfectly happy with that. Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP
Apache said:
kambites said:
kpb said:
"Marketing" isnt the problem here.
Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
I think this stuff started looong before emissions were even measured - cars have been gradually getting more and more automated since they were invented and will probably continue to do so because their primary purpose for the majority of buyers is to provide personal transport. There really isn't much difference between what we're talking about here and, for example, automatic timing advance. Ultimately, we'll get to the point where cars are completely automated, and most "drivers" will be perfectly happy with that. Safety and emissions regs have done more to sanitise cars than any berk in horn-rimmed glasses & a daft haircut waving a flipchart at engineers (I joke, I'm one of them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP
The automotive industry has, since the day it was born, strived to make cars more user-friendly and automated. Try driving a properly old car - say something produced before the first world war - and then a 60s car; the 60s car will feel numb and insulated and frankly rather dull.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 14th November 12:14
This is as much about subtleties as it is giant improvements in engineering. I have absolutely no problem with cars becoming faster, safer and generally better - that's a good thing. The problem for me is that I don't believe the by-products of this process - namely the alienation of the driver, and road behaviour that makes driving a car less pleasant - are compulsory. It has been a matter of choice for car makers.
Case-in-point: a 2000 BMW E39 530d is actually a more pleasant car to drive everyday on UK roads than the current model.
Why? Because it rides far, far better. Its steering feels vaguely connected to the front wheels (and the wheel is thin enough to hold) and the cabin was designed by a human being with normal eyesight.
Give me that new F10 520d motor, the build quality, the safety kit and the way the old car covered ground and I'd be a happy man.
These are not profound differences, but the recent accumulation of nonsense 'habits' has snowballed in set of conventions that defy logic.
Case-in-point: a 2000 BMW E39 530d is actually a more pleasant car to drive everyday on UK roads than the current model.
Why? Because it rides far, far better. Its steering feels vaguely connected to the front wheels (and the wheel is thin enough to hold) and the cabin was designed by a human being with normal eyesight.
Give me that new F10 520d motor, the build quality, the safety kit and the way the old car covered ground and I'd be a happy man.
These are not profound differences, but the recent accumulation of nonsense 'habits' has snowballed in set of conventions that defy logic.
leeson660 said:
I couldn't agree more.
Cars on the whole seem to be getting more powerful, but heavier, less communicative and less involving.
Unfortunately the masses don't seem to care and keep buying so it will continue.
Very frustrating!
I agree with your point, however when you say that the masses dont seem to care and keep buying, ask yourself this, if all cars are gettingheavier and less communicative, what choice do the masses have???Cars on the whole seem to be getting more powerful, but heavier, less communicative and less involving.
Unfortunately the masses don't seem to care and keep buying so it will continue.
Very frustrating!
Chris Harris said:
Give me that new F10 520d motor, the build quality, the safety kit and the way the old car covered ground and I'd be a happy man.
I think it would be valid to ask the question "is that possible?", though. Much of what you like about the new car is very, very heavy and/or has severe packaging constraints. Of course there's no reason that a heavy car can't ride well but I'd imagine that it's very much harder to give decent control feel when you're trying to control two tonnes rather than 1500kg or whatever the E39 weighed. Same with the problem of modern cars getting too big for the reads - how much wider does a modern car actually have to be, with all its side impact protection, side air-bags, etc. in order to give the same cabin space as an 80s car?
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 14th November 12:21
JuanGandini said:
Personally if the product that I want isn't there, I don't buy anything. I keep whatever I have until I find a car that does all (or most) of what I want.
That is an approach I can agree with and often commit to. My personal choice will dictate where I compromise, but I can still only compromise within the range of products offered to me that are within my budget. I certainly couldn't follow the example of Sir Henry Royce (quote - "When it does not exist, design it.") But also not buying something isn't always an option (if your car gets written off, for example. I'm fretting over the report due on my OH's car which got rear-ended the other week).Some very good posts above from NotNormal and Twincam16 - I agree with those.
Chris Harris said:
This is as much about subtleties as it is giant improvements in engineering. I have absolutely no problem with cars becoming faster, safer and generally better - that's a good thing. The problem for me is that I don't believe the by-products of this process - namely the alienation of the driver, and road behaviour that makes driving a car less pleasant - are compulsory. It has been a matter of choice for car makers.
Case-in-point: a 2000 BMW E39 530d is actually a more pleasant car to drive everyday on UK roads than the current model.
Why? Because it rides far, far better. Its steering feels vaguely connected to the front wheels (and the wheel is thin enough to hold) and the cabin was designed by a human being with normal eyesight.
Give me that new F10 520d motor, the build quality, the safety kit and the way the old car covered ground and I'd be a happy man.
These are not profound differences, but the recent accumulation of nonsense 'habits' has snowballed in set of conventions that defy logic.
Is this not purely down to weight saving and manufacturing costs? Sir Alec could be held responsible for the beginning of this with the Mini, which despite it's astounding qualities highlighted a major step forward in weight reduction and simplification of production, this has simply advanced into fly by wire throttle, electric steering etc etc Case-in-point: a 2000 BMW E39 530d is actually a more pleasant car to drive everyday on UK roads than the current model.
Why? Because it rides far, far better. Its steering feels vaguely connected to the front wheels (and the wheel is thin enough to hold) and the cabin was designed by a human being with normal eyesight.
Give me that new F10 520d motor, the build quality, the safety kit and the way the old car covered ground and I'd be a happy man.
These are not profound differences, but the recent accumulation of nonsense 'habits' has snowballed in set of conventions that defy logic.
EDLT said:
robinessex said:
Colin Chapman understood suspension design back in 1970 there abouts. Long soft springs matched to impecable damping. The reasoning being that if the wheels aren't in contact with the ground, you can't generate any grip at all.
But then you'd need to fit enormous anti-roll bars otherwise Mr "Semi-Works Racing Driver and Full-Time Oppo Dabber" will complain that it rolls too much.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff