Driving enjoyment
Discussion
s m said:
Olivera said:
Regarding magazine reviews, I still find them very useful (such as EVO), primarily because the reviewers (e.g. Meaden, Catchpole, Bovington) are very skilled drivers who can give genuine feedback on the vehicle dynamics compared to peers. I find this far more useful than a review from a PHer who's never taken a vehicle on a track and couldn't drive their way out of paper bag.
There's a lot of truth in this for me - especially when you work out which journos have tastes similar to your ownSmiles per mile in a Caterham on a sunny Sunday would be high. The same car on the same route in pouring rain and traffic would be the last straw.
So smiles per mile aren't everything...
Also, FWIW I loved driving a Boxster - a 80% of the comfort of a 5 series on the motorway then 80% of the thrills of an Elise on a back road with the roof down.
So smiles per mile aren't everything...
Also, FWIW I loved driving a Boxster - a 80% of the comfort of a 5 series on the motorway then 80% of the thrills of an Elise on a back road with the roof down.
A friend and I both have Caterhams with similar power / set up, but his on sticky R888 track tyres, mine is on Yokohama a539 road tyres.
He thinks my car feels too 'loose' feeling in general, starts to slide too early and lacks positive grip on turn it.
I think his car is too tight and tied down, feels grippy but inert most of the time and lacks easy adjustability on exit.
My mum thinks driving enjoyment is a car which is quiet, automatic, easy to park with light steering and has a very simple radio with a large station preset buttons / volume dials. Also the dealer needs to be local and 'friendly'.
God only knows what car makers do when they wade through all of their customer clinic feedback comments. Driving enjoyment really is very difficult / impossible to define / measure.
.
He thinks my car feels too 'loose' feeling in general, starts to slide too early and lacks positive grip on turn it.
I think his car is too tight and tied down, feels grippy but inert most of the time and lacks easy adjustability on exit.
My mum thinks driving enjoyment is a car which is quiet, automatic, easy to park with light steering and has a very simple radio with a large station preset buttons / volume dials. Also the dealer needs to be local and 'friendly'.
God only knows what car makers do when they wade through all of their customer clinic feedback comments. Driving enjoyment really is very difficult / impossible to define / measure.
.
Lotus1478 said:
Biggest smile by the hour.
All subjective but combination of perfect damping, agility, steering feel and all controls in harmony relative to a cars acceleration and braking. A sense of connectedness to the road. An ability to feel weight transfer and its relationship to understeer and oversteer. Car must be compliant and have some body movement so not locked down too much. Nothing to do with cornering speed.
Sounds familiar to any Lotus owner. MX5, Caterham, some BMWs.
+1 to that! I like such linearity and an overt, enjoyable sense of balance (and ability to play with it) far over and above 'Top-Trump' singlular 'dimensions'.All subjective but combination of perfect damping, agility, steering feel and all controls in harmony relative to a cars acceleration and braking. A sense of connectedness to the road. An ability to feel weight transfer and its relationship to understeer and oversteer. Car must be compliant and have some body movement so not locked down too much. Nothing to do with cornering speed.
Sounds familiar to any Lotus owner. MX5, Caterham, some BMWs.
I've enjoyed every car I've ever driven though often for different reasons, the basic one being it's a car I've not driven before and is therefore interesting. I like cars that can take me on holiday without making me feel knackered and hustle along when I want it to.
The most interesting article I've ever read about driving cars was an interview in Motor Magazine (I think) with a Swedish rally driver who's name I forget who drove a bog standard 1.1 Fiesta (in the 80's) and when asked why he said he could drive it at its absolute limit without breaking too many laws. It would slide without effort and could be thrashed on public roads and barely make the legal limit. In a world where even the most basic of cars can do over 100 mph I think of this interview as making a lot of sense.
The most interesting article I've ever read about driving cars was an interview in Motor Magazine (I think) with a Swedish rally driver who's name I forget who drove a bog standard 1.1 Fiesta (in the 80's) and when asked why he said he could drive it at its absolute limit without breaking too many laws. It would slide without effort and could be thrashed on public roads and barely make the legal limit. In a world where even the most basic of cars can do over 100 mph I think of this interview as making a lot of sense.
I'm not sure I understand the question tbh.
James Hunt famously enjoyed ragging the wheels off his A35 van around London.
I read a piece by Stirling Moss about his getting more fun out of driving low powered road car at 9 10ths than a supercar at 5 10ths.
Car makers can only do the best they can with the design requirements in front of them. The enjoyment is really in the hands of the driver.
James Hunt famously enjoyed ragging the wheels off his A35 van around London.
I read a piece by Stirling Moss about his getting more fun out of driving low powered road car at 9 10ths than a supercar at 5 10ths.
Car makers can only do the best they can with the design requirements in front of them. The enjoyment is really in the hands of the driver.
Andy665 said:
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
With you on this. Sometimes the more efficient and good a car is the less you seem to feel attached to it. All new cars are pretty much great to drive, even the Koreans make perfectly acceptable cars that are well built and gone to drive. But they don't stir your soul, they don't make you look back after parking, they don't make you grin stupidly when you blip the throttle, they don't get you out on a Sunday morning tinkering with them even though there's nothing really wrong. They're just a tool, a very good tool to do the job, nothing else. 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
swisstoni said:
I'm not sure I understand the question tbh.
James Hunt famously enjoyed ragging the wheels off his A35 van around London.
I read a piece by Stirling Moss about his getting more fun out of driving low powered road car at 9 10ths than a supercar at 5 10ths.
Car makers can only do the best they can with the design requirements in front of them. The enjoyment is really in the hands of the driver.
Once Audi have eliminated all NVH, steering and brake feel it gets difficult to have fun though? Even though they're 'perfecting' the automobile.James Hunt famously enjoyed ragging the wheels off his A35 van around London.
I read a piece by Stirling Moss about his getting more fun out of driving low powered road car at 9 10ths than a supercar at 5 10ths.
Car makers can only do the best they can with the design requirements in front of them. The enjoyment is really in the hands of the driver.
Of course there's a lot of rose tint going on here and there are plenty of good cars out there. Sadly they're from small struggling manufacturers or are mainstream oddities (GT86).
Or very expensive, we still have involvement with top end Ferrari, Porsche and Mclaren but at the price of a house.
Pete317 said:
macky17 said:
cat with a hat said:
If you want something involving and enjoyable, buy a motorcycle.
This is a car discussion geez 
Andy665 said:
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
I cannot agree more to ^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
With the exception of daily drivers, each of the cars I've owned for enjoyment purposes over the last 10 years or so have been both equally enjoyable and different in their qualities. For example, the ride / handling of the XJ40 was as enjoyable as the burbling exhaust note of the MGB exiting a 2nd gear corner.
LimaDelta said:
I enjoy my 80hp smart roadster more than my former M5. I can drive the smart to the limit, redline the engine and not exceed the speed limit. The M5 was impressive in many ways, but seldom fun. I (think) I reached the limit in it once - the traction control light flickered - but it was all sorted out before I really noticed (wet roundabout at warp speed).
My wife's old mk1 Clio was great fun in the wet, urging me to handbrake turn it into my drive!
Dr C
My wife's old mk1 Clio was great fun in the wet, urging me to handbrake turn it into my drive!
Dr C
I think driving enjoyment and the enjoyment of owning a car are slightly different things. I personally never judge a car on driving enjoyment when buying, because how on earth would I know after a 10 minute drive and a read of someone else's opinion.
At least 50% of the enjoyment is in my head, before I've even seen a car in the flesh. You build up an image based on the little you know about it (aspiration, weights, looks, image), and it's as relevant as driving the thing (because most of the time, I'm NOT in the car, but still want to get some joy from my purchase! The rest of enjoyment (and its true, power, grip, stability; these are easy things to get right) comes from feeling what a car is doing. For me this is the mechanical edge of the car - interaction between me and the car. It has nothing to do with outright speed or lateral grip, it's throttle response, gear change action (why autos just aren't interesting) brake feel, and to a lesser extent steering feel. Between the image in my head, and the mechanical-ness of the drive-train, you've got a special car. No interest in McLarens or 488s here!
At least 50% of the enjoyment is in my head, before I've even seen a car in the flesh. You build up an image based on the little you know about it (aspiration, weights, looks, image), and it's as relevant as driving the thing (because most of the time, I'm NOT in the car, but still want to get some joy from my purchase! The rest of enjoyment (and its true, power, grip, stability; these are easy things to get right) comes from feeling what a car is doing. For me this is the mechanical edge of the car - interaction between me and the car. It has nothing to do with outright speed or lateral grip, it's throttle response, gear change action (why autos just aren't interesting) brake feel, and to a lesser extent steering feel. Between the image in my head, and the mechanical-ness of the drive-train, you've got a special car. No interest in McLarens or 488s here!
whitestu said:
A good start would be tyre width. The wider the tyre the lower the fun level. Anything starting with a 2 is diminishing the fun you can have on UK roads.
I'd have tended to agree with you.Until I got behind the wheel of a 911 turbo.I think enjoyment is a very complex thing and highly individual. I used to have a track-biased TVR Griffith 500, tuned to actually deliver the claimed power output for the standard car. Suspension tweeks mean that even in the wet, it was driveable, but at the same time, it still had that "not now Kato!" reaction to clumsy changes - increases or decreases - of throttle angle. On track it was a hoot and very, very fast through corners. IMHO, on the road, just too twitchy - I suffered this because most use was actually on sprints, hillclimbs or track days.
So when I started looking at 'another' fast car, I still wanted something that had the grunt to get past recalcitrant dawdlers swiftly and safely, but also something sufficiently sure-footed to be used in the cold, wet, British mid-winter.
I do also know a bloke who flogged both an F430 and a GT3 because he'd bought an Exige, beside which the other two cars felt less fun, to him. I can understand this POV too.
One of the cars I miss the most was the 2013 Defender I sold last year. Not fast but, genuinely, every drive was an occasion and a joy, even if getting mountain bikes in the back was a pain in the arse.
Dr Chuff said:
I enjoy my 80hp smart roadster more than my former M5. I can drive the smart to the limit, redline the engine and not exceed the speed limit. The M5 was impressive in many ways, but seldom fun. I (think) I reached the limit in it once - the traction control light flickered - but it was all sorted out before I really noticed (wet roundabout at warp speed).
My wife's old mk1 Clio was great fun in the wet, urging me to handbrake turn it into my drive!
Dr C
Yep, you can't beat a little car like that - my first car was a Saxo, either a 1.0 or 1.1, I can't remember which, it was terribly slow but great fun to punt down a b road as fast as possible, great fun, reasonable speed, small to medium chance of death - perfect! My wife's old mk1 Clio was great fun in the wet, urging me to handbrake turn it into my drive!
Dr C
Digga said:
I think enjoyment is a very complex thing and highly individual. .....
One of the cars I miss the most was the 2013 Defender I sold last year. Not fast but, genuinely, every drive was an occasion and a joy, even if getting mountain bikes in the back was a pain in the arse.
Absolutely... I think a lot of the fun factor comes from driving something different from most of the cars on the road. I get equal enjoyment from driving a Caterham (can I carry a bit more speed through this corner?) as I do a Defender (will I get it into 4th gear on the first attempt?). You get great reactions from (most) other road users, and you're exposed to all the sensations of driving including the smell of the fuel and the outside world, rather than being isolated.One of the cars I miss the most was the 2013 Defender I sold last year. Not fast but, genuinely, every drive was an occasion and a joy, even if getting mountain bikes in the back was a pain in the arse.
Axionknight said:
Yep, you can't beat a little car like that - my first car was a Saxo, either a 1.0 or 1.1, I can't remember which, it was terribly slow but great fun to punt down a b road as fast as possible, great fun, reasonable speed, small to medium chance of death - perfect!
I once took and Isuzu 4x4 in for a service and was provided with a Kia Pride discourtesy car. It would break traction (usually that mean understeer until you got the knack of it) at unfeasibly low speeds and felt about as safe and sturdy as a biscuit tin. It was fun, in a scary sort of way.I enjoy driving so at some level I enjoy almost any vehicle with an engine and a steering wheel. Most cars have at least something that they do well, whether it’s carrying a family and a boot full of luggage or thrashing round a track. However, there are undoubtedly those cars that are soon forgotten and those that you either keep or, once they’ve gone, you remember fondly.
In the first camp are the cars that represent mere transport. I would include my two, employer provided Vauxhall Astra diesels in that group: efficient business tools capable of a fair turn of speed and good economy but essentially very dull to drive with sluggish throttle response and rubbery gear changes. The overwhelming impression was that they had been manufactured to be “good enough” but no more.
Conversely, in the interesting group there is a very wide range, including a 2CV, Mini, Land Rovers, Lotuses, an Impreza, an MG Midget and an S2000 (to name a few). What made them enjoyable? I could say ‘character’ but that merely begs the question as what gives a car character. Speed can be a factor but it’s certainly not essential. Recognising that a car is very good at what it sets out to do – whatever that might be – also has something to do with it, even though objectively that same car might be very poor in other areas – hence the satisfaction derived from things like the 2CV and Landies! As a class, straightforward family saloons probably have the most difficult job to qualify as enjoyable. There are some properly good ones but the compromises they have to manage to satisfy "Mr Average Family Buyer" must make them more of a challenge for designers, when compared to a sports car or off-roader.
A car’s appearance is another factor. I’m actually surprised to hear myself say that because I would say that for me, style is a secondary consideration. And yet, I do enjoy a car where form follows function and does it particularly well. It engenders a feel good factor of satisfaction when you look at it on your drive.
So, small, cheap cars can most certainly be fun, as can powerful, fast ones and anything in between. But on balance, could I please leave diesel Vauxhalls out of it!
In the first camp are the cars that represent mere transport. I would include my two, employer provided Vauxhall Astra diesels in that group: efficient business tools capable of a fair turn of speed and good economy but essentially very dull to drive with sluggish throttle response and rubbery gear changes. The overwhelming impression was that they had been manufactured to be “good enough” but no more.
Conversely, in the interesting group there is a very wide range, including a 2CV, Mini, Land Rovers, Lotuses, an Impreza, an MG Midget and an S2000 (to name a few). What made them enjoyable? I could say ‘character’ but that merely begs the question as what gives a car character. Speed can be a factor but it’s certainly not essential. Recognising that a car is very good at what it sets out to do – whatever that might be – also has something to do with it, even though objectively that same car might be very poor in other areas – hence the satisfaction derived from things like the 2CV and Landies! As a class, straightforward family saloons probably have the most difficult job to qualify as enjoyable. There are some properly good ones but the compromises they have to manage to satisfy "Mr Average Family Buyer" must make them more of a challenge for designers, when compared to a sports car or off-roader.
A car’s appearance is another factor. I’m actually surprised to hear myself say that because I would say that for me, style is a secondary consideration. And yet, I do enjoy a car where form follows function and does it particularly well. It engenders a feel good factor of satisfaction when you look at it on your drive.
So, small, cheap cars can most certainly be fun, as can powerful, fast ones and anything in between. But on balance, could I please leave diesel Vauxhalls out of it!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff