RE: JLR future tech

[gsuk1]

Max_Torque said:

RacerMike said:

Absolutely get your sentiment, and personally, I like my cars analogue and slightly fighty, however, you're effectively saying that we (as engineers) should just settle for what we've got because it's 'good enough' and forget about trying to do any of this new fangled rubbish.

Not at all! What i am saying is that we should not forget what a car is actually for, and spend the money on the important bits, not the "fripperies" at the edges. For example, instead of spending £10M on some lazer headlights or gesture control, spend it on the engine program, or the chassis tuning, or on NVH, or aerodrag reduction etc etc.

Unfortunately, in 2014, in this "i" world we now live in, customers just want "gadgets" and don't seem to care about much else..........

Customers just want "gadgets"....

If customers just want gadgets, then car makers are right to make cars with more gadgets. You said it yourself what's what the customer wants and so that's what JLR makes.

That sort of stuff is easy to sell to people. This car has gesture control, that car doesn't. So you'll favour the one that has a thing, even if you don't especially want it. Its there if you do decide to use it. Quantifying better aerodynamics, better handling etc. is much harder, and in truth most customers will never notice.

[anonymous-user]

gsuk1 said:

Customers just want "gadgets"....

I agree. I do wonder however how much of this apparently "necessary" tech never gets used. My car has voice activation for example. Never use it. Why would i? Much easier, more intuitive and safer to just turn the radio on by pressing the knob on the dash (a fixed knob, that only turns the radio on, doesn't move or "hide" within 15 other menus, and a knob that can both be operated and has feedback (a nice "click") without taking ones eyes off the road.

I'm going to get my crystal ball out here and say that in not very many years, the EU is going to have to start legislating against certain "gadgets" in cars as the accidents caused by said distractions are going to become the biggest killer on our roads..........

[unrepentant]

gck303 said:

A Scotsman said:

That £3.5bn is equal to three quarters of the UK's entire science £4.6bn budget. Just saying!

In 2013 JLRs entire turnover was £13.5bn. A company normally spends 5% on R&D. In 2013 the spend just over £1bn, according to their financial report.

Spending £3.5bn in a single year?

Maybe a typo, and should be £1.5bn.

Nope. $5 billion I was told at a meeting recently. Folowing $4 billion last year.

I'm coming over to visit the factory in September, can't wait. Exciting times.

[zeppelin101]

bodhi said:

I dunno, I guess I'm just a bit disappointed JLR didn't use some of the famous British ingenuity to come up with something a little bit more inspiring than a 4 cylinder diesel engine - something like Mazda have done with SkyActiv, getting better emissions without turbos. But obviously, with a couple of extra cylinders

Mazda's skyactiv diesel engines are still turbocharged and are fairly conventional in a lot of ways. The petrol engines are a slightly different kettle of fish but then Mazda make cars like the "2" which can get away with a 1.5l N/A making not-a-lot of horsepower. Jag need sub 3.0l engines to get people in countries with high engine size based tax into their cars. Read - China. These are still luxury saloons or SUVs so they aren't going to get into sub 1400kg bracket any time soon.

I've spent the last 2 1/2 years of my life working on it, it's hardly a cut off the old block comparing it to the current Ford-sourced 2.0l that's in the cars. Far from it.

Edited by zeppelin101 on Thursday 10th July 16:12

[xRIEx]

havoc said:

You're both right. BUT...I'm also very saddened that they're really proud of a 4-pot...this is JAGUAR FFS, not Ford or Toyota or Renault. That a premium mfr is making a big deal about this suggests that the whole emissions thing is now dominating driving. Owners in the future will have a choice between an overweight mild-hybrid V6/V8 or an uninspiring un-hybrid blown 4-pot. Deep joy!

Weren't BMW making a big deal about their forthcoming 3 cylinder (diesel and petrol)?

And Jag's last 4 pot (in a prototype, anyway) was pretty impressive.

[havoc]

unrepentant said:

gck303 said:

A Scotsman said:

That £3.5bn is equal to three quarters of the UK's entire science £4.6bn budget. Just saying!

In 2013 JLRs entire turnover was £13.5bn. A company normally spends 5% on R&D. In 2013 the spend just over £1bn, according to their financial report.

Spending £3.5bn in a single year?

Maybe a typo, and should be £1.5bn.

Nope. $5 billion I was told at a meeting recently. Folowing $4 billion last year.

I'm coming over to visit the factory in September, can't wait. Exciting times.

Note it's Research AND Development though guys!

Think about definitions here...car companies typically run on a 5-8 year cycle (JLR are about 7 years), and have several model lines on the go (JLR have ambitiously stated they're launching 18 new cars in 5 years, or something along those lines. Allow for platform sharing, engine sharing and estate/convertible variants as appropriate and it's probably a dozen genuinely new cars off maybe 4 platforms).

So that's the equivalent of 2 completely new cars being designed each year, assuming each takes a year (they take more like 2 years). So the real question is does £1bn per car Design/Development costs sound OTT? Assume lifetime volumes of between 100k and 500k (more for Evoque) depending on what it is, that's £10k/car D&D costs for the big-boys (10-15% of retail price) or £2-3k/car D&D costs for the smaller/cheaper vehicles (5-10% of retail price).

I've lost the pure-research value in all that, of course - there's going to be an element of blue-sky stuff which I've not pulled out. But can you see my point - lies, damn lies, statistics...

[jacksparrow11]

don't care if its not necessary or reliable , there are a lot of things not necessary in this world. I absolutely love the sound of all this. JLR really are coming good.

[oldtimer2]

I thought JLR said that their new 4 cyl engine will be the foundation for a range of power units, petrol, diesel and hybrid, based on 500cc per pot, designed for rwd, all-wheel drive and four wheel drive, and suitable as a base for smaller and larger capacity units. From that I conclude they would be able to create a range that included a 3 cylinder 1500cc, a 3 litre V6 and a 4 litre V8 in diesel, petrol or hybrid formats as markets required. Sounds a sensible approach to me.

As for the rest, much sounds similar to the ideas set out in the recent Discovery concept. I imagine that as and when new features are developed they will be offered as options - as they are now. If you do not want them, you do not specify them. I opted for (the relatively new) adaptive cruise control on my new RR Sport and have found it both very useful and efficiently implemented. Now I would not be without it.

[gck303]

Imafreeman said:

Aaaggh. Stop filling cars with this technology. I don't want it.

Bad enough our new Evoque now is being delivered with tyre pressure monitoring sensors I don't need or want.

TPMS is mandatory in the US. When you have 60 degree temperature fluctuations over the year (-30 to +30C) they are very useful to manage your tyres.

Given that many (most?) puncture are cause by excessive heat in tyres with low pressure cause dangerous rapid deflation at speed, they are a very useful safety measure.

I would like it on my car...

[gck303]

RacerMike said:

gck303 said:

If that really were a concern of auto makers, then cars were you need to remove the front bumper to replace a headlight bulb (Renault Modus) would not exist. It does not need a 3D cave to see that, a simple glance at an early drawing would have been enough?

When I left Uni and worked as a CAD Jockey/Design engineer at a major motorcycle manufacturer, this was one of the biggest things we spent our time on. You'd think it was easy to see when something didn't fit on a drawing, but there's so many conflicting drivers for how a part is designed, that stuff like services access can be a real headache to get right. It takes quite a lot of effort to balance all of these factors, and there's a long standing joke around the phrase 'well it works on CAD'. Unfortunately, physical manufactured components just often don't work as simply as they do on the drawing board/CAD Machine.

Yes, I would have though it would have been easy. I was wrong, and now stand corrected. Thanks!

I guess it is like writing some code, and it looking okay. But, you must run it as many issues only surface this way.

It makes me think of the Wheelers Dealers with the Ferrari 308. They replace the exhaust manifolds, but they are too large to remove from the engine bay. Ed has to unbolt the engine and shift it to either side in turn, to get the manifolds out.

[jacksparrow11]

Imafreeman said:

Aaaggh. Stop filling cars with this technology. I don't want it.

Bad enough our new Evoque now is being delivered with tyre pressure monitoring sensors I don't need or want.

Better engines = yes please
Lighter = yes please
More mpg = yes please
Better handling = yes please

Useless gadgetry = hell no!

if it was left to people like you , we'd still be riding horses.

[AER]

Max_Torque said:

I'm going to get my crystal ball out here and say that in not very many years, the EU is going to have to start legislating against certain "gadgets" in cars as the accidents caused by said distractions are going to become the biggest killer on our roads..........

I dunno. I think your crystal ball gadget is faulty.

[richardaucock]

oldtimer2 said:

I thought JLR said that their new 4 cyl engine will be the foundation for a range of power units, petrol, diesel and hybrid, based on 500cc per pot, designed for rwd, all-wheel drive and four wheel drive, and suitable as a base for smaller and larger capacity units. From that I conclude they would be able to create a range that included a 3 cylinder 1500cc, a 3 litre V6 and a 4 litre V8 in diesel, petrol or hybrid formats as markets required. Sounds a sensible approach to me.

Spot on. Possibility of a 1.5 three-pot is intriguing, 2.5-litre five-pot for LR even more so...

[Vocal Minority]

Imafreeman said:

Aaaggh. Stop filling cars with this technology. I don't want it.

Bad enough our new Evoque now is being delivered with tyre pressure monitoring sensors I don't need or want.

Better engines = yes please
Lighter = yes please
More mpg = yes please
Better handling = yes please

Useless gadgetry = hell no!

I can see the point against technology - as someone who tends to speak with their hands and make a lot of gestures I do tend to think motion control would just be a pain in the neck.

However, there is a PH streak of 'I am a customer - and I don't want it. Therefore don't do it'. Well...JLRs marketing department probable haven't just been sitting round drinking tea and eating Jaffa cakes. They are becoming a successful and very savvy company, and wouldn't be spending £many millions on all this stuff if there wasn't demand for it from enough people.

[Cotic]

Vocal Minority said:

I can see the point against technology - as someone who tends to speak with their hands and make a lot of gestures I do tend to think motion control would just be a pain in the neck.

However, there is a PH streak of 'I am a customer - and I don't want it. Therefore don't do it'. Well...JLRs marketing department probable haven't just been sitting round drinking tea and eating Jaffa cakes. They are becoming a successful and very savvy company, and wouldn't be spending £many millions on all this stuff if there wasn't demand for it from enough people.

Yes. The most common complaint about JLR cars is about the MMI and Sat Nav system; which I agree is certainly not class leading (although the Meridian ICE certainly is). There has been lots of time and effort spent by JLR to improve it, and I suspect that much of the R&D for the above 'fripperies' is simply an extension of that work. I can certainly see benefits of windscreen HUD, a prettier dashboard would be nice however it's achieved and frankly I don't care if they produce a one-cylinder engine if it's flexible, refined, and gives me enough whumph to overtake a truck on the A66 before the next bend.

I doubt very much that 'braking point advice' will be available for the Coventry ring road and i suspect I'd use gesture control about as often as voice control; i.e. never.

[skyrover]

Can't see all this electrickery helping JLR up the reliability table unfortunately.

[anonymous-user]

Personally, with the current "form" limitation on LCD tech (ie basically flat) i find the new cars with these dash boards ugly!

New Merc S63:




^^^^ confusing, difficult to read, impossible to read fast and frankly ugly imo!

(It took the aircraft industry a long quite a while to make "glass cockpits" that pilots could work with under difficult conditions)

[norscot]

Apart from the new engine program, the program is scarily lacking in solid engineering content, as opposed to pie in the sky gadgetry.

Why JLR really needs is investment in quiet solid engineering, to underpin the very successful marketing. Otherwise there may be a bit of a burst bubble here in a few years time, as Tata realise they have invested billions, and got some mundane cars with some glitzy lasers and LEDs. Are there echoes here of the original hands off BMW management style that initially led to the Rover 75? JLR, ooh, we've got loads of money, what will we do with it today...

The money needs to go into more solid engineering like the engines hopefully will be.

Hopefully I am wrong and will be buying myself a class leading Discovery 5 in a year or two, and not running away from a giant evoque

[norscot]

Apart from the new engine program, the program is scarily lacking in solid engineering content, as opposed to pie in the sky gadgetry.

Why JLR really needs is investment in quiet solid engineering, to underpin the very successful marketing. Otherwise there may be a bit of a burst bubble here in a few years time, as Tata realise they have invested billions, and got some mundane cars with some glitzy lasers and LEDs. Are there echoes here of the original hands off BMW management style that initially led to the Rover 75? JLR, ooh, we've got loads of money, what will we do with it today...

The money needs to go into more solid engineering like the engines hopefully will be.

Hopefully I am wrong and will be buying myself a class leading Discovery 5 in a year or two, and not running away from a giant evoque

[VX Foxy]

That's an 'advertorial' not a story.

2/10