RE: Jag's knuckle sandwich to the Germans: PH Blog
Discussion
Siri for setup is what's needed here.
'Siri, I want to drive enthusiastically to work on my A-road route. Set the car up for me would you?'
Given manufacturers are at the point of solving the complexity of autonomous driving, and can program a car to know what gear to be in on any road anywhere in the world I can't see why they can't just get an app to do the setup.
With the vast reservoirs of usage data that modern cars collect combined with mapping and weather data this shouldn't be too difficult, right? You could always change it afterwards if you wanted to engineer your own setup.
Alternatively I like the Ferrari setup with dial for your level of confidence and a button for the crappiness of the roads. Most customers seem to like it as well.
'Siri, I want to drive enthusiastically to work on my A-road route. Set the car up for me would you?'
Given manufacturers are at the point of solving the complexity of autonomous driving, and can program a car to know what gear to be in on any road anywhere in the world I can't see why they can't just get an app to do the setup.
With the vast reservoirs of usage data that modern cars collect combined with mapping and weather data this shouldn't be too difficult, right? You could always change it afterwards if you wanted to engineer your own setup.
Alternatively I like the Ferrari setup with dial for your level of confidence and a button for the crappiness of the roads. Most customers seem to like it as well.
Prof Prolapse said:
I think cars just need two modes;
(1) Drive like your kids are in the back.
(2) Drive like you f
king stole it.
While that's a slight oversimplification, I think you're on the right track.(1) Drive like your kids are in the back.
(2) Drive like you f
king stole it.A good user interface is one which allows you to express your intent simply and easily, and then allow the machine to get on with delivering the best it can for that intent. Having to switch individual subsystems through various modes is too complex, and forces the user to act as a chassis engineer. Having zero configurability forces the car to be compromise between different types of use.
Dan Trent said:
Many good points in your post and you'll have to beg indulgence for the 'lazy sub-editor' (actually me!) to contrive soundebitey, provocative standfirst that hopefully draws the reader into a more nuanced and detailed story plus, in PH style, an interesting conversation to follow. All part of playing the game!
I suspected it may have been you Dan. And it clearly worked! 
Whether we like it or not, customisation a genuine trend beyond just engineering/product challenges (look at how everyone has copied Mini's lead on infinite paint/roof/trim/wheel options) and even beyond the motor industry (Nike ID, Android vs iOS etc). It would be crazy of the big boys to ignore this, if it appeals to their customer base and allows them to steal a march on their competitors.
I don't think this is necessarily because Marketing has done a good job of selling it, I just think people crave individuality in a more and more homogenised world.
Where we agree is the implementation of it has been, on the whole, pretty horrible and some manufacturers have found a happier medium in allowing you to feel like you're configuring something to suit your needs without getting in the way of actually driving. I think this is the point of your article beyond the provocative sub-head (and to get some £££ from JLR, of course
)Where we disagree is that this is the work of one department vs another.
In fact, you could imagine (I have no idea...) that for every chassis engineer looking to design a suspension component to solve a problem, there's a team of software and electrical engineers in the same company campaigning for a (probably more cost-effective) 'soft' solution through the ECU and some buttons on the steering wheel. So it could be an engineering vs engineering debate!
Ex Boy Racer said:
"configurability to ensure a vehicle delivers on as many use-cases as possible" . The only product something as wooly as that works for is knitwear
Indeed. Hence the (attempted self-deprecation of) "Top Marketing Bantz" follow-up 
Unfortunately, that's how it would probably be written on the internal PowerPoint slide.
My point is I agree with you that brands need a clear proposition, but 'flexibility' is as own-able a territory as 'simplicity'.
AdamV8V said:
I suspected it may have been you Dan. And it clearly worked!
AdamV8V said:
Where we agree is the implementation of it has been, on the whole, pretty horrible and some manufacturers have found a happier medium in allowing you to feel like you're configuring something to suit your needs without getting in the way of actually driving. I think this is the point of your article beyond the provocative sub-head (and to get some £££ from JLR, of course )
Correct!)And I'm sure within these vast companies and engineering departments there are conflicting ideas of how to proceed, be that the 'we've spent the last 50 years perfecting the RIGHT spring and passive damper set up for our cars' old-guard and those who believe in sharing some of the scope of adjustability in newer tech with the customer to offer a sense of empowerment. Both are entirely noble ideals but, as we seem to agree, the devil is in the implementation. And that was the point of the article - in this instance I think Jaguar has struck a better compromise than many rivals. He said, pocketing another tenner, etc...
Cheers,
Dan
Dan Trent said:
havoc said:
Angry stuff
I'll attempt to laugh off the 'sponsored story' conspiracy theory given, on any given week, we're accused of being Audi apologists, in Porsche's pocket and, here, pro-JLR. To the substance of your complaint though, both the original F-Type SVR review and this story make it clear Jaguar uses and benefits from just as much technology as the rival product. Indeed, in many cases they're using exactly the same supplier hardware. So, yes, the F-Type has all the torque shuffling gizmos, different calibrations for DSC, EPAS, diff, throttle and all the rest.
The point I'm making here is in the application and way it is presented to the customer.
The point I'm making in this blog is that when it came to sharpening the steering of the F-Type it was felt investment in some expensive hardware - the suspension knuckle - was of sufficient importance it got signed off. I think this is an important cultural difference and an engineering mindset I find admirable and worth celebrating. Hence the blog!
Plenty of people must like having lots of modes to play with - the rivals that feature them are popular and sell well. I just thought it worth highlighting a competitor product that uses much of the same tech but just chooses a different way of applying it. Each to their own and all that.
Cheers,
Dan
article header said:
Who do you trust when it comes to chassis set-up - engineers or marketeers?
Put simply, all manufacturers have the engineers set-up the default modes, so the implication that Jaguar are doing something different is a lie...the Germans just make it easier to "mix-and-match", so you may want sharper steering and throttle response with softer dampers, for example.And this...
Dan Trent said:
Calibrating all that lot is beyond all but the cleverest of engineers. Which, thankfully, is how Jaguar keeps it, trusting the abilities of the experts to set it all up to work properly. Not the driver.
...is at odds with your explanation above. We seem to be agreeing that NONE of the manufacturers ask the driver to set the car up (!), or even to decide on a default mode (!). So that sentence stands out as guff...which was my original point (whether angrily put or not).(Oh, and lots of people are engineering clever geometry-optimising suspension-knuckles - Ford, Renault, Honda, all at much lower price-points...albeit in those instances they're to hide the weaknesses of MacPherson struts)
Personally, I could quite do without all of these modes and adjustment - give me a good expensive set of passive dampers and decently calibrated (preferably hydraulic) PAS. A 2-stage stability system is probably a good thing, given we're not all driving gods, but I'd rather take a well-set-up chassis (which I agree Mike Cross knows how to do) over an average chassis with ESP hiding the flaws.
havoc said:
Personally, I could quite do without all of these modes and adjustment - give me a good expensive set of passive dampers and decently calibrated (preferably hydraulic) PAS. A 2-stage stability system is probably a good thing, given we're not all driving gods, but I'd rather take a well-set-up chassis (which I agree Mike Cross knows how to do) over an average chassis with ESP hiding the flaws.
Amen to that; we may not have taken exactly the same route but we've reached the same conclusion! But then I'm a Megane Renaultsport fanboy so you'd expect me to say that. And, yes, I've made a comparable fuss over stuff like that car's Perfohub. And Renault's choice to ditch that from the Clio in preference for e-diffs, dual-clutches and multiple fake engine sounds. Bah, humbug, etc... 
Dan
BigBadDanT said:
I like the fact that when Jaguar sought to improve steering response on the F-Type it didn't think 'add another mode to the EPAS and be done with it'. Instead we get a rather extravagant piece of engineering in the shape of a new cast aluminium rear suspension knuckle.
And what makes you think the Germans don't do this? They do, a lot, but generally they make less fuss about a minor change to some suspensions hardware, because it happens more often (because they have been very profitable, they can afford to change stuff far more often than JLR, that design something, and are stuck with it for the next 10 years. Luckily, JLR is currently VERY profitable, on the back of significant sales volume increases thanks to the F type, Ewoke,XE, Disco, and RR all being much more current than is usual (ie they are all in the early phases of their product life cycle for a change))Well said Dan. Strikes me, even given their love of advanced tech, McLaren have got it about right. There's enough to dial in your favoured settings without over complication and you can get on with the business of driving. Interested to hear the SVR F-Type has a better ride that the standard R. Another McLaren speciality. But then you have very positive noises about Woking's best so Den's wad must be in the post too!
PH is very fond of Jag (both writers and a lot of posters).
I stop listening when anyone talks about Jag being committed to 'drivers cars'. This is the marque that produces a 2-seater 'sports car' that (1) has all FI engines and (2) tips the scales at over 1800kg in V8 form. Yet Jag can get press inches banging on about its credentials as a brand for keen drivers, even when it comes to weight-saving. Laughable.
I stop listening when anyone talks about Jag being committed to 'drivers cars'. This is the marque that produces a 2-seater 'sports car' that (1) has all FI engines and (2) tips the scales at over 1800kg in V8 form. Yet Jag can get press inches banging on about its credentials as a brand for keen drivers, even when it comes to weight-saving. Laughable.
Prof Prolapse said:
I think cars just need two modes;
(1) Drive like your kids are in the back.
(2) Drive like you fking stole it.
... And that's how I setup any uber German car. The subtle 6 levels of power, ride, steering, gear change are lost on me: lazy & soft or nuclear fast with nothing in between.(1) Drive like your kids are in the back.
(2) Drive like you f
king stole it.I think I'll stick with a set of steel springs wound around passive oil-filled dampers, a cable from the throttle pedal to the throttle body, and a single-ratio unassisted steering rack.
Having said that, I can certainly see the point in configuration options in "jack of all trades" type cars, but the modern tendency for having a few fixed settings which change everything without being able to change each setting individually is utterly moronic - all the added weight and complexity without the actual usefulness.
Having said that, I can certainly see the point in configuration options in "jack of all trades" type cars, but the modern tendency for having a few fixed settings which change everything without being able to change each setting individually is utterly moronic - all the added weight and complexity without the actual usefulness.
Edited by kambites on Monday 20th June 22:25
Configurability does not mean that you would sit and fiddle with the settings before each journey.
Rather, you would find the sweetspot of the settings and make that the default setting.
This was the case for my E92 M3 and my E60 M5 (setting suspension, gearchange speed and throttle sensitivity). In my opinion, this does not make these cars "inferior" or designed by "marketeers", rather it allows the customer to find the setting (once and for all) that suits him best.
Of course, you can be lucky and get a car where everything just works right out of the box, like the E39 M (albeit that also had a pointless Sport button that made the throttle response too sharp)
Rather, you would find the sweetspot of the settings and make that the default setting.
This was the case for my E92 M3 and my E60 M5 (setting suspension, gearchange speed and throttle sensitivity). In my opinion, this does not make these cars "inferior" or designed by "marketeers", rather it allows the customer to find the setting (once and for all) that suits him best.
Of course, you can be lucky and get a car where everything just works right out of the box, like the E39 M (albeit that also had a pointless Sport button that made the throttle response too sharp)
Prof Prolapse said:
Well responded Mr. Trent.
If we're talking about Audi, surely the whole "S-Line" suspension package is demonstrative of "Marketeers vs. Engineers"? Same for "M-sport" packages with their perceptions of track derived "fast" suspension, offering you guaranteed savings of 9/10ths of a second on your next jaunt to "the ring".
That's just what you need when you're a tiles salesman in a diesel estate on the M6.
Your viewpoint is shared by many on here.If we're talking about Audi, surely the whole "S-Line" suspension package is demonstrative of "Marketeers vs. Engineers"? Same for "M-sport" packages with their perceptions of track derived "fast" suspension, offering you guaranteed savings of 9/10ths of a second on your next jaunt to "the ring".
That's just what you need when you're a tiles salesman in a diesel estate on the M6.
When I was a young lad, I wanted a sportier model without all the chrome s
t and the baby blue colours.My wife is an interesting character that gets very motion sick in soft wallowy cars, so we actively avoided them and stuck to sporty specs through my late twenties.
Now I'm in my 30s I can afford halo models, which is a fortunate position to be in, and again, they have stiffer suspension which we just prefer.
I'm not sure I understand the hatred of S-Line and M-Sport type packages. Their sales support that many people whilst not being able or wanting to drive the big engine halo models, do not want to go full oldgit and roll and pitch their way to the bingo hall. I don't believe marketing is so powerful as to sell people cars they don't actually like repeatedly.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff