VH Methodology is it still innovative?
Discussion
Seen a few posts from people on various topics recently claiming the VH platform is still / no longer innovative. So thought it useful to start one thread to see peoiple's views.
Last time it was on PH was back in 2012 -
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=104&i=265...
To quote from that article
"What IS VH, then? The 'V' vertical bit signifies shared body construction principles across all models, while 'H' signifies systems shared horizontally through the cars - components such as front and rear suspension units, engines and dashboards.
Everything is an individual system (an 'H') and can be developed or replaced independently of others - something that can't be done with a regular platform-based architecture. It also means Aston can push boundaries with cars like the One-77, then roll out its tech on series production cars once proven: see the variable valve timing or all-carbon fibre body on the new Vanquish.
Still to be convinced Vanquish product manager Andy Haslam picks up the story. And goes back to basics: VH is, um, not a platform. Because it's a bonded monocoque of die-cast, extruded and stamped aluminium components - think of it like McLaren's carbon fibre MonoCell - to which different components can (or will be) attached. Or, Lotus' bonded aluminium chassis principle, which creates different cars from a shared central core."
I see the VH platform as still being innovative from the construction methodology - bonded aluminium chassis (Lotus technology), but engines and gearboxes are old. The interior in the Vnquish 2 was at least an update from the previous models where even the training bra V8 had an almost identical interior to the 'halo' DBS. Theoretically AM can create new models fairly quickly by re-designing the alunminium chassis and bolting on a new body (the body of the cars can already be unbolted easily to access engine etc). However, all AM seem to be 'creating' are V8 vantages with some lipstick on them.
Last time it was on PH was back in 2012 -
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=104&i=265...
To quote from that article
"What IS VH, then? The 'V' vertical bit signifies shared body construction principles across all models, while 'H' signifies systems shared horizontally through the cars - components such as front and rear suspension units, engines and dashboards.
Everything is an individual system (an 'H') and can be developed or replaced independently of others - something that can't be done with a regular platform-based architecture. It also means Aston can push boundaries with cars like the One-77, then roll out its tech on series production cars once proven: see the variable valve timing or all-carbon fibre body on the new Vanquish.
Still to be convinced Vanquish product manager Andy Haslam picks up the story. And goes back to basics: VH is, um, not a platform. Because it's a bonded monocoque of die-cast, extruded and stamped aluminium components - think of it like McLaren's carbon fibre MonoCell - to which different components can (or will be) attached. Or, Lotus' bonded aluminium chassis principle, which creates different cars from a shared central core."
I see the VH platform as still being innovative from the construction methodology - bonded aluminium chassis (Lotus technology), but engines and gearboxes are old. The interior in the Vnquish 2 was at least an update from the previous models where even the training bra V8 had an almost identical interior to the 'halo' DBS. Theoretically AM can create new models fairly quickly by re-designing the alunminium chassis and bolting on a new body (the body of the cars can already be unbolted easily to access engine etc). However, all AM seem to be 'creating' are V8 vantages with some lipstick on them.
Neil1300r said:
Theoretically AM can create new models fairly quickly by re-designing the alunminium chassis and bolting on a new body (the body of the cars can already be unbolted easily to access engine etc). However, all AM seem to be 'creating' are V8 vantages with some lipstick on them.
Yes, I suppose it is odd that with such adaptability with the design of the chassis, the core models have continued to the point of criticism.
I have always thought that it was a mistake for AML to give the chassis construction system the VH name. Journalists and others say, "VH is now very old". Without a name, they may not even think about the age. With ordinary traditional pressed steel floorpans, they don't mention the age.
I think I read recently that a large manufacturer (possibly more than one), was going to have one standard adaptable chassis structure, for all of their different models. It might be Volkswagen. The announcement made it sound as though they had discovered something really remarkable.
Jon, you're right - is it the VW/Audi/Porsche/Seat MQB "platform"? Same principle... I think it facilitates the adoption of innovation, rather than driving it.
However, what AM need, (all IMHO) especially with the F-Type on sale is have an up-to-date car (engine / electronics) and evolve the design. Many of us (including me) may not like it initially - but they need to draw in new buyers.
However, what AM need, (all IMHO) especially with the F-Type on sale is have an up-to-date car (engine / electronics) and evolve the design. Many of us (including me) may not like it initially - but they need to draw in new buyers.
Jon39 said:
Yes, I suppose it is odd that with such adaptability with the design of the chassis, the core models have continued to the point of criticism.
I have always thought that it was a mistake for AML to give the chassis construction system the VH name. Journalists and others say, "VH is now very old". Without a name, they may not even think about the age. With ordinary traditional pressed steel floorpans, they don't mention the age.
I wouldn't say it is still innovative, after all it is a licenced Lotus technology and now used by a few companies
I would say it is still fit for purpose and serving AM well
It's still light
It's still stiff
It's still easy to reconfigure for new models at low cost
I don't see any need to replace it
But I do think they have go a bit complacent with it
I would say it is still fit for purpose and serving AM well
It's still light
It's still stiff
It's still easy to reconfigure for new models at low cost
I don't see any need to replace it
But I do think they have go a bit complacent with it
Edited by mikey k on Wednesday 2nd April 14:34
It's simply lazy journalism that's to blame for most of the criticism of VH
Bottom line is that using VH architecture doesn't stop brand new engines being used, brand new interior design, new electronics, completely different looks, etc i.e. all the things AM are criticised for not bringing in. It also doesn't stop them bringing in new suspension systems (short of say the McLaren system)or sophisticated electronics that control same. S
Bottom line is that using VH architecture doesn't stop brand new engines being used, brand new interior design, new electronics, completely different looks, etc i.e. all the things AM are criticised for not bringing in. It also doesn't stop them bringing in new suspension systems (short of say the McLaren system)or sophisticated electronics that control same. S
jonby said:
It's simply lazy journalism that's to blame for most of the criticism of VH
Bottom line is that using VH architecture doesn't stop brand new engines being used, brand new interior design, new electronics, completely different looks, etc i.e. all the things AM are criticised for not bringing in. It also doesn't stop them bringing in new suspension systems (short of say the McLaren system)or sophisticated electronics that control same. S
Bottom line is that using VH architecture doesn't stop brand new engines being used, brand new interior design, new electronics, completely different looks, etc i.e. all the things AM are criticised for not bringing in. It also doesn't stop them bringing in new suspension systems (short of say the McLaren system)or sophisticated electronics that control same. S
But AM are also being a bit lazy in not bringing in many of those items 
mikey k said:
jonby said:
It's simply lazy journalism that's to blame for most of the criticism of VH
Bottom line is that using VH architecture doesn't stop brand new engines being used, brand new interior design, new electronics, completely different looks, etc i.e. all the things AM are criticised for not bringing in. It also doesn't stop them bringing in new suspension systems (short of say the McLaren system)or sophisticated electronics that control same. S
Bottom line is that using VH architecture doesn't stop brand new engines being used, brand new interior design, new electronics, completely different looks, etc i.e. all the things AM are criticised for not bringing in. It also doesn't stop them bringing in new suspension systems (short of say the McLaren system)or sophisticated electronics that control same. S
But AM are also being a bit lazy in not bringing in many of those items I'm not sure the "lazy" tag can be used accusingly here. "Cash strapped" may be a better description.
But no, the VH Lotus methodology is no longer innovative, however as it has become more mainstream, surely being commonplace can be considered a positive? Technology is only embraced if it works.
But no, the VH Lotus methodology is no longer innovative, however as it has become more mainstream, surely being commonplace can be considered a positive? Technology is only embraced if it works.
Impasse said:
I'm not sure the "lazy" tag can be used accusingly here. "Cash strapped" may be a better description.
But no, the VH Lotus methodology is no longer innovative, however as it has become more mainstream, surely being commonplace can be considered a positive? Technology is only embraced if it works.
To an extent, strictly speaking anything that is no longer 'new' cannot reasonably be called innovative, whether mainstream or notBut no, the VH Lotus methodology is no longer innovative, however as it has become more mainstream, surely being commonplace can be considered a positive? Technology is only embraced if it works.
But you rightly refer to VH as 'methodology'. The physical platforms themselves are upgraded every year
In fairness to mikey, the 'lazy' tag was more of a fun way of following on from my post on lazy journalism - I think we'd all agree that some of it is down to being cash strapped, although I'd argue some of what AM spend their money on could have been better spent on more meaningful upgrades to the cars rather than say, 27 relaunches of Q which in that sense, is lazy
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff