Driving enjoyment
Discussion
What if driving enjoyment could be measured? What if the intangible feelings associated with balance and feedback and tactile controls could actually be recorded and quantified? The metrics of a performance car, the 0-60, the Nurburgring lap time, the BHP top trumps have all influenced the direction of performance car design (and ultimately lead to more weight, bigger wheels etc.), but what if you could actually, definitively, say how well a car drove with a number as real as a 0-100-0 time? Do you think this would have changed the way manufacturers build modern performance cars? While performance is progressing, driver involvement and enjoyment seems for the most part to be regressing. Of course it is not possible, handling is as subjective as looks, and motoring journo's would be out of a job, but it is an interesting 'what-if' concept.
I think that, for the likes of us on these forums, cars might have developed differently.
However, probably 97.5% of the population don't actually give a rat's arse about driving enjoyment. I think that is why companies like Lotus, TVR (if/when it returns) and the like have to exist - to cater for people like us. Will they ever sell in huge volumes - no. Will they have a dedicated following who value enjoyment over many other objective numbers - yes.
Having worked for Nissan, Ford & JLR I know that mainstream manufacturers focus on the touchy-feely stuff because that is what sells virtually all of their cars. Hence why there are loads of Golfs/Passats around and not many Mazda 3/6s - powertrain & chassis the Mazda is better but the VW has a nicer interior. I know of 2 people where I work know who bought VAG products over the Mazda because of the interior.
I really, really hope that the new Alfa Guilia will pander more to us types than the ones who want to brag about the brochure figures.
However, probably 97.5% of the population don't actually give a rat's arse about driving enjoyment. I think that is why companies like Lotus, TVR (if/when it returns) and the like have to exist - to cater for people like us. Will they ever sell in huge volumes - no. Will they have a dedicated following who value enjoyment over many other objective numbers - yes.
Having worked for Nissan, Ford & JLR I know that mainstream manufacturers focus on the touchy-feely stuff because that is what sells virtually all of their cars. Hence why there are loads of Golfs/Passats around and not many Mazda 3/6s - powertrain & chassis the Mazda is better but the VW has a nicer interior. I know of 2 people where I work know who bought VAG products over the Mazda because of the interior.
I really, really hope that the new Alfa Guilia will pander more to us types than the ones who want to brag about the brochure figures.
LimaDelta said:
handling is as subjective as looks.
There are various parameters which can be measured and will objectively define a car's "handling" - weight, weight distribution, wheelbase, polar moment of inertia etc. But you would also have to get a handle on its "ride", because whilst it's quite easy to make a car handle well it's much more difficult to combine good handling with good ride.It's a good idea - I for one get a bit fed up with the almost entirely subjective reviews of cars in UK magazines. The trouble is that it's a tricky set of things to quantify. As an example, I love driving my 3 series, but 60 pages of argument recently happened on General Gassing telling me that I was wrong and deluded and might as well be in a Mondeo, which they find logical, but I find just plain odd. Perhaps though objective measures could actually help in this muddy area, removing personal preferences and quantifying what we like about cars? Steering feel can I'm sure be measured with the right equipment showing changing forces on the wheels and changing forces at the steering wheel, likewise brake pedal feel and even clutch feel. Throttle lag and response could easily be measured, the former by datalogging throttle pedal position and engine initial response, and the latter from throttle position and then engine pickup of revs. Many a time I've read a rave review of a car only to book a test drive and find out the throttle lag is hideous - and as for throttle response, cars like the F40 are reportedly dreadful, but I don't remember it being mentioned at the time in reviews. Handling could I presume be broken down into various metrics (yaw respond to steering input as a function of slip angle, effects of weight transfer etc), but it would be an extremely difficult thing to quantify, because there are far too many variables combined that all have an effect on how a car responds. The results of handling objectivity would probably end up being misleading - better to stick with subjectivity on that one I think.
I would like to see more objective measures in car reviews though, for things that can easily be measured and are reasonably isolated and not affected by other things. Autocar have even stopped giving their decibels at 70mph readings - something I thought was very useful for cars that will be used a lot on the motorway.
I would like to see more objective measures in car reviews though, for things that can easily be measured and are reasonably isolated and not affected by other things. Autocar have even stopped giving their decibels at 70mph readings - something I thought was very useful for cars that will be used a lot on the motorway.
Ozzie Osmond said:
LimaDelta said:
handling is as subjective as looks.
There are various parameters which can be measured and will objectively define a car's "handling" - weight, weight distribution, wheelbase, polar moment of inertia etc. But you would also have to get a handle on its "ride", because whilst it's quite easy to make a car handle well it's much more difficult to combine good handling with good ride.I suppose it's not particularly hard to measure ride quality. You just need to run the car over a standardised variety of surfaces with a seismometer on board. It's also not hard to measure various facets of damping, both in terms of the quality of the units and how well matched to the spring rates they are; plus of course you can stick a car on an intentionally bumpy skid pan and see how consistent the grip is at each end of the car.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 30th July 11:27
kambites said:
There are lots of parameters which can be measured but for the vast majority of them it's subjective what the "best" result is so you need to know an awful lot more about your own personal preferences than most people do for such figures to be any use.
Exactly. One man's twitchy is another man's responsive.It's completely impossible to quantify as different cars are enjoyable in different situations and people like different things. Trying to determine which is 'best' of RWD/FWD/AWD/Turbo/Supercharged/NA/Various cylinder configurations/Auto/Manual/DSG/Front engined/Mid engined/Rear engined/Big tyres/Little tyres etc etc is pointless as they all have their place and will enhance or detract from the driving experience for different people in different circumstances.
New safety regs (crash protection) are largely to blame for the increased mass and complexity of cars of course, whilst pedestrian safety laws have impacted aesthetics and emissions laws have blunted throttle response and begun to kill interesting engines. It's difficult to see a way around it all regardless of any push towards more 'enjoyable' cars.
However, I believe there is a niche in the market in all body types: a car with the bare minimum of concessions to all of the above, with a basic interior, limited kit and no electric steering but with top spec engine/suspension/brakes. Manufacturers seem to assume that these things must be inextricably linked with a fully loaded spec in all areas.
However, I believe there is a niche in the market in all body types: a car with the bare minimum of concessions to all of the above, with a basic interior, limited kit and no electric steering but with top spec engine/suspension/brakes. Manufacturers seem to assume that these things must be inextricably linked with a fully loaded spec in all areas.
In theory you could use the A-G rating system for the handling of the car similar to how tyres are rated now for noise, grip, wet grip, etc. Assuming you could come up with an agreed way to measure turn in, stability (high and low), grip, etc. could all be rated and we'd be in a better place now for the average punter looking to by a performance car based on its driving style/ability. Its not going to be perfect obviously, but much better than what we have now, granted we will see some gaming of the system as we have with recent hot hatch Ring times.
Track day test drives and experiences do exist but are rare, outside of that it ain't easy to drive a modern performance car anywhere near the limit during a test drive. Assuming you are buying for some or all track use then how else can we currently tell how a car performs beyond reasonably easy to achieve limits on public roads? Equally how easy is it to repeat this over several different competing cars?
Track day test drives and experiences do exist but are rare, outside of that it ain't easy to drive a modern performance car anywhere near the limit during a test drive. Assuming you are buying for some or all track use then how else can we currently tell how a car performs beyond reasonably easy to achieve limits on public roads? Equally how easy is it to repeat this over several different competing cars?
Even if you could objectively measure all of the parameters in a way that would result in useful data there is another minor issue.
If you change the tyre or even tyre pressure the results will alter. Then of course you start changing the geometry setup to dial out manufacturer under steer...
If you change the tyre or even tyre pressure the results will alter. Then of course you start changing the geometry setup to dial out manufacturer under steer...
To me driving enjoyment is about how a car makes you feel rather than what it does
Last year I had an Alfa GTV V6 and a Boxster S at the same time - if you were to measure anything scientifically then the Boxster would probably be considered better than the Alfa in pretty much every area.
It was the Alfa that delivered far greater driving enjoyment, it was warm where the Boxster was efficient but cold, people wanted to talk to me when I got out of the Alfa at petrol stations etc whereas they ignored me in the Boxster. Everytime I walked away from the Alfa I couldn't help but turn and look whereas I never did with the Porsche
To me it cannot be measured because its about how you feel - and that will be different for everyone
Last year I had an Alfa GTV V6 and a Boxster S at the same time - if you were to measure anything scientifically then the Boxster would probably be considered better than the Alfa in pretty much every area.
It was the Alfa that delivered far greater driving enjoyment, it was warm where the Boxster was efficient but cold, people wanted to talk to me when I got out of the Alfa at petrol stations etc whereas they ignored me in the Boxster. Everytime I walked away from the Alfa I couldn't help but turn and look whereas I never did with the Porsche
To me it cannot be measured because its about how you feel - and that will be different for everyone
tankplanker said:
In theory you could use the A-G rating system for the handling of the car similar to how tyres are rated now for noise, grip, wet grip, etc. Assuming you could come up with an agreed way to measure turn in, stability (high and low), grip, etc. could all be rated and we'd be in a better place now for the average punter looking to by a performance car based on its driving style/ability. Its not going to be perfect obviously, but much better than what we have now, granted we will see some gaming of the system as we have with recent hot hatch Ring times.
I don't believe you can condense that into one dimension. Although you can make objective measurements of many of the factors at work, the weighting of their desirability is entirely subjective.otolith said:
I don't believe you can condense that into one dimension.
Noooo! Stick a "sport" badge on an SUV and the job's done!More seriously, although I think Nurburgring times are irrelevant for road cars I imagine it's impossible to get good time by power alone. So I'm guessing that any car with a good N'ring time must have good handling. Although as previously mentioned, the ride might be very hard indeed.
IMO the likes of Lotus and Porsche are particularly adept at finding a good handling/ride compromise for the road. At least, so long as owners avoid the rubber-band tyres.
I think the Nurburgring is a good test of competence, but much of it relates to performance in very high speed situations which are largely irrelevant to road driving, and it's telling you that it's quick, not necessarily that it's fun. I should think a car with horribly dull handling but masses of grip and masses of power could put in a good time.
tankplanker said:
Track day test drives and experiences do exist but are rare, outside of that it ain't easy to drive a modern performance car anywhere near the limit during a test drive. Assuming you are buying for some or all track use then how else can we currently tell how a car performs beyond reasonably easy to achieve limits on public roads? Equally how easy is it to repeat this over several different competing cars?
I agree entirely. I think that all manufacturers offering track biased cars, such as Lotus, Caterham, Porsche, Radical etc, should offer track sessions to try out their products properly. There are obvious hazards with this approach, but I don't think they're insurmountable (for example, I wouldn't mind paying £500 for example to drive a prospective purchase on track and to do that for each car I was considering and then pick one). For an example of how things work now, I bought my 2-Eleven after a very short road test drive, from reading magazine and from trusting Lotus and what they can do, but when I first turned a wheel on track in a 2-Eleven was when I'd already stumped up years of hard earned savings to buy it, which I agree isn't ideal, although in that case my presumptions about the car from what I had to go on were spot on.As you say, the solution does exists here and there, but it's far from standardised or common. Autocar used to do excellent track days where a manufacturer attended and had a fleet of their cars to try, which was excellent (cheap too - £170 each, which included a barbeque dinner and a 6 month subscription to Autocar!). Mercedes and Porsche of course have centres in the UK with their own tracks, which are both superb. I've experienced several of both types of familiarisation days and they have helped me enormously with purchase decisions - one day with Ariel, Radical etc in attendance changed my racing exploits completely and permanently.
Thinking about road cars though that will rarely be used on track and specifically the OP's question, I think it's important to note the distinction between a car's handling traits at track speeds and road speeds. I would define track speeds as how one drives competitively on track, so around the slip angles that give maximum grip and also beyond these. I would define road handling as how a car responds to inputs and how the balance manifests itself at modest slip angles. The two are of course inextricably linked (e.g. a Lotus feels rear engined on both road and track, a 3 series feels balanced etc), but I strongly believe that road cars should be tested (and evaluated for purchase) predominantly on the road, which goes against many magazine and TV tests which seem to put a heavy emphasis on track driving in cars that most owners will never drive on track. How a 911 handles through Eau Rouge is of very little direct relevance to virtually all owners of such a car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff