RE: 2020 Land Rover Defender | The short review
Discussion
user0000001 said:
Like I keep saying, what proof would you like?
My cdsid? My pay grade? (D), my office address (decX when at Gaydon, Gblock at CB, BIWmezz at Nitra), photos of me sleeping at Nitra factory when I was flown over there for the latest disaster mitigation? The names and inside leg measurements of the LL3+4 seniors I presented my issues to in the process chain reviews? I've got my letter from last year stating that I'm too business critical for VR due to the distressed nature of the L663 programme?
Just let me know what you want?
The point isn't about you, I know as an engineer it's probably hard for you to take.My cdsid? My pay grade? (D), my office address (decX when at Gaydon, Gblock at CB, BIWmezz at Nitra), photos of me sleeping at Nitra factory when I was flown over there for the latest disaster mitigation? The names and inside leg measurements of the LL3+4 seniors I presented my issues to in the process chain reviews? I've got my letter from last year stating that I'm too business critical for VR due to the distressed nature of the L663 programme?
Just let me know what you want?
It's the fact that people are prepared to take your post as the sole truth in the matter, and at the same time right off every journalist as lier, purely on the basis that it strengthens thier preexisting assumptions of the Defender.
You learn a lot more about seeing a car overseeing it from the CAD phase, through every component being developed fitted and tested, than you will from driving a [heavily fettled, and not entirely representative of what customers will receive] example for a few days.
I honestly don't care if you like my opinions or not, but they come from dealing with almost every part number on the vehicle (carryover and new), and not just reciting a press release.
Edited by user0000001 on Friday 27th March 19:27
Unfortunately, people close to projects are in their own way, as blinkered as those jammy journo's riding the gravy train across Namibia!
Every car project i've ever worked on has been a difficult one, mainly because the sort of project i get called to work on ARE the difficult ones! If it were easy, everyone would be doing it! I can name probably 100 "major flaws" or "omissions" or "areas that could be improved" on every single production car i've ever worked on, but, guess whatm, those cars are out their, being driven by people all the time.. Yes sometimes cars break, yes often because of flaws in the design, but there is no such thing as perfect, even for 1 million quid hyper cars, let alone £50k off roaders.
As an engineer, i am fully aware that the name of the game is compromise, but you'd be amazed at how many engineers are so blinkered that it's their way or the highway (taking VR anyone..... ;-) and fail to understand that compromises will be made in order to get a vehicle to production in any sensible time frame. The more challanging the requirements for that vehicle, the more iconic and cherished the old car being replaced is, the harder the project will be, and the more "arguments" will occur within engineering and between engineering and the rest of the business. Engineers love to talk badly about marketing, but the simple fact remains, without marketing, there would be no money to employ us engineers, and it's worth remembering that at all times.
I've had plenty of "differences of opinion" with JLR on the multitude of projects i've been involved with, there are many things i would do differently if it were 'my' project, but they weren't my project. The important fact to take away is that nothing is without compromise or perfect, and if someone tells you it is, they are lying.......
Every car project i've ever worked on has been a difficult one, mainly because the sort of project i get called to work on ARE the difficult ones! If it were easy, everyone would be doing it! I can name probably 100 "major flaws" or "omissions" or "areas that could be improved" on every single production car i've ever worked on, but, guess whatm, those cars are out their, being driven by people all the time.. Yes sometimes cars break, yes often because of flaws in the design, but there is no such thing as perfect, even for 1 million quid hyper cars, let alone £50k off roaders.
As an engineer, i am fully aware that the name of the game is compromise, but you'd be amazed at how many engineers are so blinkered that it's their way or the highway (taking VR anyone..... ;-) and fail to understand that compromises will be made in order to get a vehicle to production in any sensible time frame. The more challanging the requirements for that vehicle, the more iconic and cherished the old car being replaced is, the harder the project will be, and the more "arguments" will occur within engineering and between engineering and the rest of the business. Engineers love to talk badly about marketing, but the simple fact remains, without marketing, there would be no money to employ us engineers, and it's worth remembering that at all times.
I've had plenty of "differences of opinion" with JLR on the multitude of projects i've been involved with, there are many things i would do differently if it were 'my' project, but they weren't my project. The important fact to take away is that nothing is without compromise or perfect, and if someone tells you it is, they are lying.......
It’s patently apparent that JLR (or just the LR bit) don’t make the same cars that they used to.
For reasons of target market, or whatever, and not saying they are “better” or “worse” as a result, just different.
Different that I have no interest in being part of, but that’s my own personal opinion.
For reasons of target market, or whatever, and not saying they are “better” or “worse” as a result, just different.
Different that I have no interest in being part of, but that’s my own personal opinion.
300bhp/ton said:
By insulting me, all you are saying is you can't answer the question.
What design clues? There is practically nothing that this new model shares with the out going one. The only one I can think of is the middle seat in the front. Nothing else is Defender'esq.
Is there a single line on the new one that matches the old one?
Besides the bluff back, short rear overhang, side opening tailgate with spare, roof quarterlights, raised bonnet, round headlights all of which aren't on the current range.What design clues? There is practically nothing that this new model shares with the out going one. The only one I can think of is the middle seat in the front. Nothing else is Defender'esq.
Is there a single line on the new one that matches the old one?
In fact way more design cues in common than say the new mini or supra for that matter?
Agree the jimny probably has more in common, but so much so that LR could sue them for plagiarism 😁
Max_Torque said:
Unfortunately, people close to projects are in their own way, as blinkered as those jammy journo's riding the gravy train across Namibia!
Every car project i've ever worked on has been a difficult one, mainly because the sort of project i get called to work on ARE the difficult ones! If it were easy, everyone would be doing it! I can name probably 100 "major flaws" or "omissions" or "areas that could be improved" on every single production car i've ever worked on, but, guess whatm, those cars are out their, being driven by people all the time.. Yes sometimes cars break, yes often because of flaws in the design, but there is no such thing as perfect, even for 1 million quid hyper cars, let alone £50k off roaders.
As an engineer, i am fully aware that the name of the game is compromise, but you'd be amazed at how many engineers are so blinkered that it's their way or the highway (taking VR anyone..... ;-) and fail to understand that compromises will be made in order to get a vehicle to production in any sensible time frame. The more challanging the requirements for that vehicle, the more iconic and cherished the old car being replaced is, the harder the project will be, and the more "arguments" will occur within engineering and between engineering and the rest of the business. Engineers love to talk badly about marketing, but the simple fact remains, without marketing, there would be no money to employ us engineers, and it's worth remembering that at all times.
I've had plenty of "differences of opinion" with JLR on the multitude of projects i've been involved with, there are many things i would do differently if it were 'my' project, but they weren't my project. The important fact to take away is that nothing is without compromise or perfect, and if someone tells you it is, they are lying.......
Well put. I've been on enough projects (including many at JLR) to know that engineers always know best I am one by the way) but they never have the complete picture. Every vehicle project is compromised in some way. Every car project i've ever worked on has been a difficult one, mainly because the sort of project i get called to work on ARE the difficult ones! If it were easy, everyone would be doing it! I can name probably 100 "major flaws" or "omissions" or "areas that could be improved" on every single production car i've ever worked on, but, guess whatm, those cars are out their, being driven by people all the time.. Yes sometimes cars break, yes often because of flaws in the design, but there is no such thing as perfect, even for 1 million quid hyper cars, let alone £50k off roaders.
As an engineer, i am fully aware that the name of the game is compromise, but you'd be amazed at how many engineers are so blinkered that it's their way or the highway (taking VR anyone..... ;-) and fail to understand that compromises will be made in order to get a vehicle to production in any sensible time frame. The more challanging the requirements for that vehicle, the more iconic and cherished the old car being replaced is, the harder the project will be, and the more "arguments" will occur within engineering and between engineering and the rest of the business. Engineers love to talk badly about marketing, but the simple fact remains, without marketing, there would be no money to employ us engineers, and it's worth remembering that at all times.
I've had plenty of "differences of opinion" with JLR on the multitude of projects i've been involved with, there are many things i would do differently if it were 'my' project, but they weren't my project. The important fact to take away is that nothing is without compromise or perfect, and if someone tells you it is, they are lying.......
AngryPartsBloke said:
user0000001 said:
Like I keep saying, what proof would you like?
My cdsid? My pay grade? (D), my office address (decX when at Gaydon, Gblock at CB, BIWmezz at Nitra), photos of me sleeping at Nitra factory when I was flown over there for the latest disaster mitigation? The names and inside leg measurements of the LL3+4 seniors I presented my issues to in the process chain reviews? I've got my letter from last year stating that I'm too business critical for VR due to the distressed nature of the L663 programme?
Just let me know what you want?
The point isn't about you, I know as an engineer it's probably hard for you to take.My cdsid? My pay grade? (D), my office address (decX when at Gaydon, Gblock at CB, BIWmezz at Nitra), photos of me sleeping at Nitra factory when I was flown over there for the latest disaster mitigation? The names and inside leg measurements of the LL3+4 seniors I presented my issues to in the process chain reviews? I've got my letter from last year stating that I'm too business critical for VR due to the distressed nature of the L663 programme?
Just let me know what you want?
It's the fact that people are prepared to take your post as the sole truth in the matter, and at the same time right off every journalist as lier, purely on the basis that it strengthens thier preexisting assumptions of the Defender.
However, that doesn't always go without a hitch when ''good looking cars sell' nor 'tough choices' nor 'time limited' nor 'budget constraints'. No customer truly gives a s
t about the engineering, providing it works to their expectations, however people will very much give a st if the bumper looks odd (Disco5 aside)...or it costs too much...or it is too late & another OEM gets there first.Engineers are two-a-penny, but very good engineers are rare...where they appreciate & understand the constraints, accept the wider team's needs and ultimately deliver the best they can, whilst respecting the needs of others around them/above them. This is obviously something user0000001 failed at, hence the bitter posts.
Andeh1 said:
No customer truly gives a st about the engineering, providing it works to their expectations
But often it doesn't, so as a customer who does 'give a st about the engineering, providing it works to their expectationst about the engineering', I disagree with your premise. I fully accept I am in a minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. LimaDelta said:
Andeh1 said:
No customer truly gives a st about the engineering, providing it works to their expectations
But often it doesn't, so as a customer who does 'give a st about the engineering, providing it works to their expectationst about the engineering', I disagree with your premise. I fully accept I am in a minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. ts given about the engineering, as long as it delivers on their expectations'.300bhp/ton said:
Shakermaker said:
How have so many of you missed the part that a commercial version is due, but hasn't been launched yet?
Here is a list of attributes that define what a "Defender" was, or indeed a list that could equally apply pretty much the entire line of Land Rover models from the 1948 80" Series 1 through the vehicles evolution (Series II, IIa, III, Stage 1), right up to the final 2016 Defender model.- Modular body design
- Utilitarian premised
- Ladder chassis
- Live axles
- Birmabright panels
- Folding windscreen
- Removable door tops
- PTO capability
- Manual gearboxes
- V8 engines
- Proper suspension flex and axle articulation
- Heavy duty hub and PCD
- Pickup variants
- Boxy body design and flat panels
- Relatively small vehicle foot print and narrow width
- Function over form rather than form over function
- Native off road capability of the design and platform without needing to rely on electronics to give it any ability in the rough
- Non plush interiors (another function over form thing)
- Simple and durable design
- Sensible tough bumpers and a lack of painted plastic
- A vehicle that you feel connected to your surroundings in, rather than distanced. On road and especially off road.
Does this new model share any of the above?
You've hijacked numerous threads and it has been 'discussed' to death; Please stop!
Defender belongs to Land Rover, not you. It's up to Land Rover to decide what attributes define the Defender.
M
camel_landy said:
300bhp/ton said:
Shakermaker said:
How have so many of you missed the part that a commercial version is due, but hasn't been launched yet?
Here is a list of attributes that define what a "Defender" was, or indeed a list that could equally apply pretty much the entire line of Land Rover models from the 1948 80" Series 1 through the vehicles evolution (Series II, IIa, III, Stage 1), right up to the final 2016 Defender model.- Modular body design
- Utilitarian premised
- Ladder chassis
- Live axles
- Birmabright panels
- Folding windscreen
- Removable door tops
- PTO capability
- Manual gearboxes
- V8 engines
- Proper suspension flex and axle articulation
- Heavy duty hub and PCD
- Pickup variants
- Boxy body design and flat panels
- Relatively small vehicle foot print and narrow width
- Function over form rather than form over function
- Native off road capability of the design and platform without needing to rely on electronics to give it any ability in the rough
- Non plush interiors (another function over form thing)
- Simple and durable design
- Sensible tough bumpers and a lack of painted plastic
- A vehicle that you feel connected to your surroundings in, rather than distanced. On road and especially off road.
Does this new model share any of the above?
You've hijacked numerous threads and it has been 'discussed' to death; Please stop!
Defender belongs to Land Rover, not you. It's up to Land Rover to decide what attributes define the Defender.
M
I'm surprised 300 didn't add "random bits falling off" to his list of attributes a proper Defender needs.
longblackcoat said:
Max_Torque said:
Lots of very sensible stuff
Great post. I too work with some brilliant minds and I've often noticed they have a very 'binary' approach. Compromise is not something which comes naturally, if at all!!
There is no simple answer; sometimes explaining and walking through the other aspects helps (such as having to actually make something a commercial success) but sometimes you just have to accept it when you're told to shut-up and tow the line.
"Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die"
M
LimaDelta said:
Andeh1 said:
No customer truly gives a st about the engineering, providing it works to their expectations
But often it doesn't, so as a customer who does 'give a st about the engineering, providing it works to their expectationst about the engineering', I disagree with your premise. I fully accept I am in a minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. Customers DO give a s
t about the engineering but most of them don't care as much as you think they do.But then those that do, will often be focused on specific areas, rather than minute detail about everything. Someone interested in the engineering aspects of the drive train may not be quite so interested in the engineering of UI for the sat-nav.
...which then leads onto the customer demographics, target audiences, what's important to them, steering groups, etc. because snr management are going to want as much information to base these compromise decisions on.
M
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff