RE: PH Blog: the new driving
Discussion
C_Seven has it right.... the press are largely to blame for all this. Obsession with lap times leads successive generations of car to become over tyred and with wildly inappropriate chassis settings (Audi I'm looking at you, an A5 3.0 TDI I drove being particularly bad).
Case in point, Autocar review the Jaguar XJ long wheel base diesel. And the accompanying picture is of it drifting on a track. Why?!
Case in point, Autocar review the Jaguar XJ long wheel base diesel. And the accompanying picture is of it drifting on a track. Why?!
Is this not the same thing that happened/is happening with sportsbikes?
They get released at a track for the good and the great to review, so if it is cr*p on track then it gets a poor review. (although is it now Suzuki that is going a bit more back to basics?)
Tyre width is a joke. Chap at work - Audi A4 something like 17" 245 tyres. My Skoda Octavia vRS 17" 205 width.
Even better is my Pug 106 Rallye - 14" with 175 and chunky sidewalls. Now there is a car you can feel the road with
And v.fun at legal speeds!!!!
But not a car you could sell today. Add on safety, weight goes up, then 100BHP is no good, upgrade brakes to cope with weight, 14" don't fit over calipers, goto 16". It is now a different car.
They get released at a track for the good and the great to review, so if it is cr*p on track then it gets a poor review. (although is it now Suzuki that is going a bit more back to basics?)
Tyre width is a joke. Chap at work - Audi A4 something like 17" 245 tyres. My Skoda Octavia vRS 17" 205 width.
Even better is my Pug 106 Rallye - 14" with 175 and chunky sidewalls. Now there is a car you can feel the road with
And v.fun at legal speeds!!!!But not a car you could sell today. Add on safety, weight goes up, then 100BHP is no good, upgrade brakes to cope with weight, 14" don't fit over calipers, goto 16". It is now a different car.
DJRC said:
c_seven said:
Seeing as I am one of those 'berks' in a car company's marketing department I feel I should put our (MY) side of the story across!
What a marketing department does is try and meet consumer demand, and with sports cars, that 'demand' is generally a regurgitation of what they are told by the media. The average car publication will tell them what is good and not good about a car being driven around a track on it's lock-stops in a manner so far from what the average person is ever going to do with there car it's untrue (literally). To perform in these tests (and thus sell) a car has to be engineered to perform on track or being driven across Snowdonia at unimaginable speed and there in lies the problem. A car designed for a road test and not a person.
There seem to be more and more articles lamenting the loss of 'feel' and that as a petrolhead is a good thing, but a case in point is the Toyota GT86, a car designed to give you 'feel' in buckets and low and behold they get - "it's great...but can't it just be a bit faster", or "isn't it fun...but with some more torque it could perform big smoking drifts". So poor slightly baffled Toyota will undoubtedly be bringing out the supercharged TRD version on 18's soon and I would imagine every article will close with something along the line of it not quite having the 'feel' of the original... come on chaps, give us a chance!
[Goes to await P45 delivered by someone in PR!]
Well thank fWhat a marketing department does is try and meet consumer demand, and with sports cars, that 'demand' is generally a regurgitation of what they are told by the media. The average car publication will tell them what is good and not good about a car being driven around a track on it's lock-stops in a manner so far from what the average person is ever going to do with there car it's untrue (literally). To perform in these tests (and thus sell) a car has to be engineered to perform on track or being driven across Snowdonia at unimaginable speed and there in lies the problem. A car designed for a road test and not a person.
There seem to be more and more articles lamenting the loss of 'feel' and that as a petrolhead is a good thing, but a case in point is the Toyota GT86, a car designed to give you 'feel' in buckets and low and behold they get - "it's great...but can't it just be a bit faster", or "isn't it fun...but with some more torque it could perform big smoking drifts". So poor slightly baffled Toyota will undoubtedly be bringing out the supercharged TRD version on 18's soon and I would imagine every article will close with something along the line of it not quite having the 'feel' of the original... come on chaps, give us a chance!
[Goes to await P45 delivered by someone in PR!]
k someone has said it.Chris...the answer to your question is....You. Yes old son, thats right. You and your "Evo Triangle" mates delivering red meat hooning, smoking drift shots to the drooling masses. In short son...you hypocritical old sod. You and yours are actively responsible for helping to ruin cars over the last decade in precisely the ways in which you are now lamenting. Congratulations son and enjoy the whirlwind you have helped reap. Would you like to know the irony? Ten yrs ago, back around the millenium when you were a bit of a nobody, you used to write decent stuff about this. You talked about feel, feedback, ride quality and the inherent quality of a car with decent writing and not so much of the hooning. Fast forwards and with more smoke blown up your arse than a backfiring Nova...and here we are. During that time all you have done is gone from faster to faster more tech orientated missiles declaring them to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and in the cases of the 911s generally out-doing Stuttgart in the PR stakes for them.
And now you are saying...er, hold on chaps, what happened?
You and yours in the media is what happened Harris. You and yours.
Fortunately some of us remain glorious and happy red neck luddite refuseniks and stick to our old pieces of s
te when it comes to driving pleasure because we know the last decade of driving "progress" has been largely completely and utterly bks.Yours,
Ned Lud (and proud!)
It's such a bloody cliché on here that I hate to say it, but the MX5 I owned for a couple of years was objectively a better driving machine than a lot of modern so called Ultimate Driving Machines.
I currently have a new X3 which is a fantastic machine in every respect and the way it goes and grips is phenomenal for something the size and shape of a small house but it is missing that exact X-factor the author says is dead.
The R reg Fiat Seicento Sporting I drove for a fortnight before the BM arrived was small, slow and ridiculous - but it had it. I did about 100miles in the Fiat and giggled every time I drove it.
Yet my new car is infinitely faster and more capable, more opulent and better equipped than my living room, but I've yet to crack a driving-enjoyment based smile behind the wheel.
And since I'm sticking the boot in (at the industry, not CH); that type of journalism mentioned above was the reason why I cancelled my Evo subscription several years ago and haven't come back despite the numerous attempts by the Haymarket sales dept which keeps calling and trying to tempt me into a cheap subscription offer (even though I repeatedly ask them to stop hassling me and take me off their marketing list).
Amazing photography of lovely cars, yes, but not enough to counter the constant 'ring based drivel, in-jokes and mutual name dropping of other Evo journalists across articles - it was almost American in it's level of self-congratulation. Whether or not it was an attempt to make minor celebs out of the writers, the cars should have been the stars and if the writing was worthy of merit the writers names would have been remembered by the readers without having them shoved down our throats in every group test around the Evo Triangle.
Hmm...it seems that I miss old-driving and old-car magazines...
Edited by BS75 on Wednesday 14th November 12:36
Chris Harris said:
A great sports car used to be one that not only covered ground with electrifying speed, but also communicated its actions to the operator. That second definition now appears to play a minimal role in the development of a so-called drivers' car.
Completely agree and I posted about this a while back when driving a Gallardo. One of the dullest cars I've ever driven.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I recently bought a Caterham - the complete opposite end of the scale and truth be told the Caterham gives me way bigger smiles. WAY bigger.
I can't deny, and would be foolish to suggest otherwise, that the Gallardo is a far superior car to the Caterham in every single respect - bar the size of the grin it can put across your face.
My 944 rides better than an Audi A3 diesel I went in recently which I found amusing, constant annoying jiggling on the suspension, it was on enormous factory wheels, it looked the part and did 45 mpg which is all anyone in consumerland is bothered about, they would drive it if it had no suspension if it has the right badge and £20 a year VED, it is the maximumm flash for the least (perceived) running costs that sells cars these days.
We all know that the car on standard suspension and sixteen inch wheels will ride and handle best, it says it in every magazine review of every car and borne out by experience of various variants, my Saab Aero had horrible crashy suspension and biggish wheels with low profile tyres, most of the time the older bog spec one was quicker as I didnt need to pick my way through potholes.
Also, the engineers try very hard to engineer out NVH, Noise, Vibration and Harshness, you know what, I think we like a little NVH, not too much, but enough to remind us we have an internal combustion engine a few feet in front of us and we are travelling at speed over tarmac, otherwise it is very isolating, i think the reason people hoof big SUV's down the road is not that they want to be ignorant and dangerous, it is just that they want to feel something and all most can do is a slug of diesel grunt.
Old cars could be horrific but there does seem to be a couple less layers between you and operating a machine, after being kept in noiseless solitary confinement whilst being jiggled about wondering what the wheels are doing, that can be quite refreshing.
We all know that the car on standard suspension and sixteen inch wheels will ride and handle best, it says it in every magazine review of every car and borne out by experience of various variants, my Saab Aero had horrible crashy suspension and biggish wheels with low profile tyres, most of the time the older bog spec one was quicker as I didnt need to pick my way through potholes.
Also, the engineers try very hard to engineer out NVH, Noise, Vibration and Harshness, you know what, I think we like a little NVH, not too much, but enough to remind us we have an internal combustion engine a few feet in front of us and we are travelling at speed over tarmac, otherwise it is very isolating, i think the reason people hoof big SUV's down the road is not that they want to be ignorant and dangerous, it is just that they want to feel something and all most can do is a slug of diesel grunt.
Old cars could be horrific but there does seem to be a couple less layers between you and operating a machine, after being kept in noiseless solitary confinement whilst being jiggled about wondering what the wheels are doing, that can be quite refreshing.
Twincam16 said:
[...] 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.
While I wish that were true, I fully expect they'll either bury their collective heads in the sand, or think that the way forward is to differentiate their products with more clever tech such as hybrid drive systems, electric cars with massively heavy batteries, etc. None of those are likely to simplify and add lightness. Additionally, if you build a simple car but make it £1k more expensive because you've fitted better dampers and poured more money into chassis development, the vast majority of people won't buy it over the other cheaper one, because they just don't notice or care about such things.Edited by herebebeasties on Wednesday 14th November 12:51
[quote]
Well thank fk someone has said it.
And now you are saying...er, hold on chaps, what happened?
You and yours in the media is what happened Harris. You and yours.
Fortunately some of us remain glorious and happy red neck luddite refuseniks and stick to our old pieces of ste when it comes to driving pleasure because we know the last decade of driving "progress" has been largely completely and utterly bks.
Yours,
Ned Lud (and proud!)
[/quote]
THIS
Well thank f
k someone has said it.And now you are saying...er, hold on chaps, what happened?
You and yours in the media is what happened Harris. You and yours.
Fortunately some of us remain glorious and happy red neck luddite refuseniks and stick to our old pieces of s
te when it comes to driving pleasure because we know the last decade of driving "progress" has been largely completely and utterly bks.Yours,
Ned Lud (and proud!)
[/quote]
THIS
I agree with much of the above - the first thing that needs to happen if this is ever going to change, is that journalists need to start criticising "drivers' cars" that don't deliver on this front - and if that's all of them then so-be-it.
You comment in this article that the modern 911 may be an example of a car that lacks feel and hence fun, and yet if I'm remembering correctly, your review of the 991 was predominantly positive and strongly implied that overall, it was an improvement over its predecessor. If you and the rest of the media had gone out and utterly slated the 991 from the outset for its poor steering feel and general aloofness, Porsche might do something different next time... if you're saying it's an improvement and the general public are believing you (which they generally seem to), why would Porsche change their direction?
You comment in this article that the modern 911 may be an example of a car that lacks feel and hence fun, and yet if I'm remembering correctly, your review of the 991 was predominantly positive and strongly implied that overall, it was an improvement over its predecessor. If you and the rest of the media had gone out and utterly slated the 991 from the outset for its poor steering feel and general aloofness, Porsche might do something different next time... if you're saying it's an improvement and the general public are believing you (which they generally seem to), why would Porsche change their direction?
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 14th November 12:43
Unfortunately, i think a lot of the "spread" in modern cars is directly due to the motoring journalists who review them........
Lets face it, if say BMW's new 3 series was slower and more cramped and didn't handle quite as well as the last model, the jorno's would be the first to say so! It's easy to write "this new 3 series is a bit cramped in the back" when 3 series should be cramped in the back. If you want rear leg room buy a five series! Add in the "short test drive factor" under which most magazine tests are driven for short periods of time, and here the "immediate gratification" of things like flat cornering, aggressive pedal maps etc make the first few miles memorable and hence worth writing about. I suspect most people would agree that only after you have really lived with a car for some time do you find out what you really like about it etc.
So, the manufacturers are practically forced to add more grip, more space (= bigger and heavier), so a current 3 series is bigger than the last 5 series. It's in the inexorable march of "progress" which at least in the automotive world makes room for the OEM's to insert new "subbrands" like Mini to fill the gap vacated!
Electronic Feature Content is the same. With more and more of the oily bits on a car being "same sourced" from large multinational Tier 1's, OEM's feel that they need to use EFC to differentiate their models from each other and their competitors. Hence having 14 chassis settings, or gearknobs which rise out of the dash on motors and other such distractions!
Lets face it, if say BMW's new 3 series was slower and more cramped and didn't handle quite as well as the last model, the jorno's would be the first to say so! It's easy to write "this new 3 series is a bit cramped in the back" when 3 series should be cramped in the back. If you want rear leg room buy a five series! Add in the "short test drive factor" under which most magazine tests are driven for short periods of time, and here the "immediate gratification" of things like flat cornering, aggressive pedal maps etc make the first few miles memorable and hence worth writing about. I suspect most people would agree that only after you have really lived with a car for some time do you find out what you really like about it etc.
So, the manufacturers are practically forced to add more grip, more space (= bigger and heavier), so a current 3 series is bigger than the last 5 series. It's in the inexorable march of "progress" which at least in the automotive world makes room for the OEM's to insert new "subbrands" like Mini to fill the gap vacated!
Electronic Feature Content is the same. With more and more of the oily bits on a car being "same sourced" from large multinational Tier 1's, OEM's feel that they need to use EFC to differentiate their models from each other and their competitors. Hence having 14 chassis settings, or gearknobs which rise out of the dash on motors and other such distractions!
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.
Agree 100%.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.
I needed to buy a sensible car to sit alongside my Elise a couple of years back and bought an E39 530D Touring.
Since then I've looked at various alternatives and none of them came close to matching the combination of ride quality, comfort and load-lugging. The only thing I'd change about mine is the auto box and then only because I'd like something that didn't crucify the mpg quite so much. It will still do ~40mpg on a long run though so I guess I'll put up with it!
Good piece Chris....BUT - it's the bloody journalists! every test i've read from a UK magazine will mark the soft floaty-riding car down. Without fail. American cars used to (and sort of still are) the object of motoring derision precisely because they focused on a comfy ride rather than handling prowess!
While I agree that the marketing bods are these days spunking over big wheels and flat-bottomed steering-wheels, they're really not helped by the seemingly best-in-the-world journo lauding of all things German, which, funnily enough, tend to err on the side of 'firm' damping and concrete-pummelling ride-quality.
While I agree that the marketing bods are these days spunking over big wheels and flat-bottomed steering-wheels, they're really not helped by the seemingly best-in-the-world journo lauding of all things German, which, funnily enough, tend to err on the side of 'firm' damping and concrete-pummelling ride-quality.
And such is the reason that I gave up looking for a new car recently, when what i realised is, I dont really care if its new, what i actually want is my 306 gti-6 with more power so it goes forwards like a modern car.
Hence why in April its gaining a rotrex in the engine bay and some big **** off brakes.
Giving me 0-60 in 5.5
0-100 in 12.8
And still while giving me 30mpgzzz on the motorway.
Screw you current automotive industry!
Hence why in April its gaining a rotrex in the engine bay and some big **** off brakes.
Giving me 0-60 in 5.5
0-100 in 12.8
And still while giving me 30mpgzzz on the motorway.
Screw you current automotive industry!
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'.
Actually this is true. You are to blame, because you bought that new car (for the reasons you state). You could have purchased a second hand car with driver involvement but your personal decision was to not do so. It doesn't matter how much you complain about new cars, the only and I repeat only thing that will make manufacturers sit up and take notice is if they see vastly increased numbers of people buying second hand cars instead of new ones.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'.
Given that you represent a large majority of people who value a warranty, 40mpg, "comfort", and easy finance so highly, I confidently predict that the whole sorry circus will continue inexorably forward.
Oh and by the way the car that you describe doesn't exist.
kambites said:
[...] If you and the rest of the media had gone out and utterly slated the 991 from the outset for its poor steering feel and general aloofness, Porsche might do something different next time...
Guess who pays the travel expenses and hotel bills to go to new car launches?Interesting points about the media here. I don't blame the marketing departments or the media. People demand that their cars can do everything, even though they'll rarely/never use the capabilities other than "get me from A-B please". With regards to the media, one could argue that it's back to the public's publication buying habits and not wanting to be seen to be 'boring' by their mates. Tell me you don't do this (I'll admit that I used to be guilty of it):
As usual, people do it to themselves.
- Stand in shop.
- Eye up car mags.
- See slidey smokey pictures.
- See WhatCar?.
- Buy slidey smokey magazine as it looks more exciting.
- Buy car based on slidey smokey review.
- Get pissed off when it feels bad on a normal road in the manner that one drives it.
- Wish one had bought What Car?.
As usual, people do it to themselves.
It's not low-profile tyres or stiff suspension that's the issue, it's the manufacturers' meagre budget allocation for the latter's set-up time and component quality.
Lotus and Renaultsport, for example, get it right because a greater proportion of €s and hours are allocated to ride/handling/grip compared to their cabins' soft-touch plastics - ie, the antithesis of Audi's approach. Anyone else notice how each ensuing generation of the mk1 Focus has become less nimble as the cabin quality becomes more Golf-esque?
Hot-hatch/GTI-type owners' forums are full of wide-eyed 'yoofs' who fit fully-adjustable coil-overs, and then comment that their car's ride/handling has been "transformed": a 5-10mm drop with less roll/pitch and a more supple ride. How so? It's not voodoo, a set of Eibach's or KW's finest invariably costs twice, sometimes thrice, as much as the OEM tat - YGWYPF.
And while we're on the subject of James May's stance re cars developed at the 'Ring - WTF? The 'Ring is hardly known for its granite-worktop-smooth asphalt - misdirected ire, anyone?
Lotus and Renaultsport, for example, get it right because a greater proportion of €s and hours are allocated to ride/handling/grip compared to their cabins' soft-touch plastics - ie, the antithesis of Audi's approach. Anyone else notice how each ensuing generation of the mk1 Focus has become less nimble as the cabin quality becomes more Golf-esque?
Hot-hatch/GTI-type owners' forums are full of wide-eyed 'yoofs' who fit fully-adjustable coil-overs, and then comment that their car's ride/handling has been "transformed": a 5-10mm drop with less roll/pitch and a more supple ride. How so? It's not voodoo, a set of Eibach's or KW's finest invariably costs twice, sometimes thrice, as much as the OEM tat - YGWYPF.
And while we're on the subject of James May's stance re cars developed at the 'Ring - WTF? The 'Ring is hardly known for its granite-worktop-smooth asphalt - misdirected ire, anyone?
Edited by NGK210 on Wednesday 14th November 13:34
New cars are over priced and you can't find there "limits" on the road without drawing attention from the police. Example being the Nissan GTR, to find the limits of its grip on a B road you would have to be driving at serious speeds, put your self in a 205 gti or an old m3 e30/e36 on the same road and it will be alot more rewarding ! !
Problem is the world has more idiots than petrol heads so its unlikely to change !
Problem is the world has more idiots than petrol heads so its unlikely to change !
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff