Monday 20th June 2016

Jag's knuckle sandwich to the Germans: PH Blog

Who do you trust when it comes to chassis set-up - engineers or marketeers?

---

Look at the above picture for the driver control options for the Mercedes-AMG GT S and think about the decisions process required between pressing the start button and setting off along your favourite road. The start sequence in an Airbus A380 is probably more straightforward. Ditto the Audi R8 I was in the other week. Four modes in Audi Drive Select to choose from, including the configurable Individual. Then another three 'Performance Mode' options to choose from on top of that. See also 911 Turbo. Steering weight and/or gearing, anti-roll, damping, throttle response, stability control - all and more are configurable in these cars.

To what end though?

Are the Germans overcomplicating their cars?

Interesting cultural differences were revealed over dinner at the Jaguar F-Type SVR launch the other week. The F-Type has just as much electronic 'trickery', with multi-mode dampers, torque vectoring by braking, variable torque split from the Intelligent Driveline Dynamics and the fully adjustable electronically controlled rear diff. 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.

We all think of the German brands as supremely self confident when it comes to engineering and technology. But I think the bewildering array of configurability is smoke and mirrors, masking an uncharacteristic insecurity about how to set their cars up. Modern systems offer endless tweakability, and the opportunity to sign over some of that responsibility to the customer. I'd much rather entrust it to people who know more about it than me and get on with enjoying the drive, free from the distraction of wondering if I'd be having more fun if only I'd chosen a different mode.

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. The benefits this brings are rather more difficult to communicate in snappy marketing speak than an extra button on the dash and promise of more 'control' for the driver. But I remember spending some time with Jaguar's handling guru Mike Cross and him explaining tweaks to rear suspension set-up have far more influence on steering feel than most people realise.

Jaguar's approach a little simpler

I pity the salesman in the Jaguar showroom trying to explain this to a customer fresh from the Mercedes, Audi or Porsche dealer asking 'but why don't I have five different steering modes?' Because, let's face it, we don't all have the luxury of one-on-one time with Mike Cross on a test track to demonstrate why improved camber/toe stiffness and subtle tweaks to anti-roll settings are more effective than a Sport button on the dash.

People mock motoring writers for banging on about steering feel and other subjective comparisons. But it remains a crucial measure of how much enjoyment you get out of a car and, ultimately, more important than stats on a spec sheet. Thankfully it's one British firms like Lotus, Aston Martin, McLaren and - in this case - Jaguar seem more willing to devote time and expertise to perfecting than most. All power to them.

Dan

 

[richyd]

Totally agree, and I much prefer the Jag's approach.I struggle with a sport button and 3 suspension settings in my wifes car!

It's not all bad news from the Germans though - My GT4 only has a noise button for the exhaust and a sport button for throttle blipping, along with a sports suspension setting for track. All 3 are simple on/off switches on the dash. Haven't ventured into switching the stability off though - will leave that button alone for a while longer...

[V8RX7]

Does one size fit all ?

I like the idea of being able to choose how I want a car to drive - commuting I might want quiet and comfort but turning off the motorway I might want to set it to loud and hard.

[s m]

Article said:

People mock motoring writers for banging on about steering feel and other subjective comparisons. But it remains a crucial measure of how much enjoyment you get out of a car and, ultimately, more important than stats on a spec sheet. Thankfully it's one British firms like Lotus, Aston Martin, McLaren and - in this case - Jaguar seem more willing to devote time and expertise to perfecting than most

It's an interesting one for sure - re Jaguar steering and Mike Cross, just looking at the recent Jag X-type SOTW...motoring writers all praised the steering feel on the X-type 2.5/3 litre......and yet people who owned them and lived with them said it was completely numb and lifeless

[Dan Trent]

V8RX7 said:

Does one size fit all ?

I like the idea of being able to choose how I want a car to drive - commuting I might want quiet and comfort but turning off the motorway I might want to set it to loud and hard.

I guess that's the question and one manufacturers are forced to address, given technology permits a much wider range of easily accessible/tweakable dynamic attributes than we ever had back in the day. And the much-increased performance the market now expects as a base level.

I like the compromise Jaguar has struck - you've got standard mode and you've got Dynamic, which tightens up all the configurable stuff such as throttle, gearbox, steering weight, dampers and the calibration of the all-wheel drive, torque vectoring, DSC and suchlike. For the SVR the gap between Normal and Dynamic is bigger. There is also the option to personalise the Dynamic setting to a degree, so if (for instance) you want to keep the standard steering weight in Dynamic you can now set that. But it's quite deeply buried in the preferences for the compulsive fiddlers/those interested in configurability to set up as a preferred default, rather than a series of hoops you have to jump through every time you fire the car up. As an example 'my' M4 long-termer defaulted to Sport steering and dampers but Efficient engine, meaning I inevitably had to opt to either a pre-configured M1 setting or press two or three buttons just to get everything in Comfort for general commuting or mooching. Why?!

Cheers,

Dan

[DonkeyApple]

V8RX7 said:

Does one size fit all ?

No it doesn't. And that is a good thing. If each manufacturer still retained the confidence to say 'this is our product and we have set it up how we feel best' then we would have more diversity, more character and a far more interesting car market. But that isn't how committees work and so we must endure products designed by boring people who collectively have no backbone or strength of character. And how it shows.

[Ex Boy Racer]

There is certainly a lack of confidence at the moment in car manufacturers.
One of the fundamental rules of any product development is to avoid being all things to all men. Get your position, your proposition and stick to it. Be single-minded.
Works in all walks of life - nobody would expect Joe Hart to score many goals, or Vardy to be a great defender.
That is the way to be excellent at something. Trying to make a product suit everyone is weak, scared and indecisive. Sure, if it's a hard-riding sportswear the option of softening it a bit for cruising is nice, but let's not try to say a car can be everything from a track toy to a limo just by pressing a few buttons. Ferrari do it quite well; button for a bumpy road and variations for skid intervention, but that's it. It's a Ferrari; live with it.
I have had a few cars that have multiple settings and really it was a case of using 2 overall settings at most. One for ragging and one for day to day.
It would be great if more manufacturers had the courage of their convictions and gave us what they think is best.
IMHO of course

[tedman]

German manufacturers have filled their niche cars full of niche settings for niche customers.

[havoc]

I'm a little confused by this article (aside from being more Jaguar PR):-

Article said:

The F-Type has just as much electronic 'trickery', with multi-mode dampers...trusting the abilities of the experts to set it all up to work properly. Not the driver.

Four modes in Audi Drive Select to choose from, including the configurable Individual. Then another three 'Performance Mode' options to choose from on top of that. See also 911 Turbo. Steering weight and/or gearing, anti-roll, damping, throttle response, stability control - all and more are configurable in these cars.

Mike Cross elsewhere said:

The Dynamic Mode fitted to the F-TYPE enables the driver – at the push of a button – to emphasise the sporting character of the car still further. It does so by sharpening throttle response, increasing steering weighting, performing gearchanges more quickly and higher up the rev range and by allowing a greater level of slip before the stability control intervenes

So Jaguar are claiming that the old-school way (much derided by press and owners) of having to change everything together is 'better', are they? Except they're not...

another article on the F-Type said:

You can also plump for Configurable Dynamics, which exposes the individual Dynamic Drive settings via the main touchscreen, allowing you to tweak Dynamic mode to deliver your preferred mix of settings. Prefer weightier steering and quicker shifts, but don't fancy a firmer ride? Not a problem.

Game over Dan - Jaguar offer just what everyone else does, except for anti-roll (PDCC, optional and most people suggest to avoid) and adaptive-ratio steering (Audi & I think Porsche, also both optional and best avoided). The article is a whole load of sponsored guff...
(Edit: Having just read your post above, is this whole article just you saying "I personally like the Jaguar set-up" - if so, why the techno-babble and Mike Cross quotes making them out to be superior? Just voice your opinion as that, please.)


More specifically to address the other items mentioned in the article, in turn:-

- Torque-vectoring - proper rally-reps aside, I'm not aware of any car that asks the driver to decide how much torque-vectoring he wants, whether it's corner-braking or active differentials. So that's just so much guff from (either Jaguar or) the article.

- Variable torque split - you mean differentials and/or clutches. See Torque-vectoring above. Again, what are "the Germans" (sic) offering that Jag's decided not to???




I know they're British, but PH recently seems to be sponsored by JLR...can we have a little balance, please???

Edited by havoc on Monday 20th June 13:29

[MarJay]

I think sensors and computing power are so good these days that the car can probably decide the mode far better than we ever can. That is kind of what I took from the article rather than Jaguar making a compromise... Sounds like the Jag would be more fun more of the time than anything with a zillion combinations of modes.

[rb5er]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Really? My Volvo has a comfort mode (nice, soft and comfy) and advanced mode (very firm and really only much use on totally smooth roads or track) with a sport mode for the area between.

I find it quite useful depending on where and in what manner I am driving.

[Dan Trent]

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. Among the German manufacturers there seems to be a culture of offering the driver a degree of access to that configurability that, to my mind (and this is clearly flagged as an opinion piece) is both bewildering and distracting. In both this and the Range Rover Sport SVR JLR's engineers and the product guys seem to have taken a conscious decision to leave the calibration of all these systems to the engineers and let them work in the background to the best of their chosen set-up. I happen to think they do this very well.

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. When it might have been - relatively - much cheaper to contrive a sense of the same through a fiddle with the damper and EPAS calibration or any number of other software based tweaks. 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

Edited by Dan Trent on Monday 20th June 14:05

[GranCab]

My dishwasher has lots of different settings but I only ever use one ...

[AdamV8V]

Lazy Sub Editor said:

Who do you trust when it comes to chassis set-up - engineers or marketeers?

It does make me laugh how the ills of the motoring world are so consistently lain at the door of the Marketing department.

Evo are the worst but PH you seem to challenging them for this.

Yes, as petrol heads, of course we all want bold, brave car manufacturers with a clarity of purpose, engineering and design ethos etc. But we also live in the REAL world where those "committees" (aka The Board of Directors) have a responsibility to deliver mid-term shareholder value and long-term survival. The reality is, the more you can make a product appeal to as broader population as possible, the better chance you have of commercial success.

It's like saying "why does PistonHeads write about other cars and, God forbid, motorbikes (!) when in its purest form (three pedals and no driver aids) it was a forum for TVR owners". That's right, because Haymarket like making money which is based on traffic, page views, time-on-site, Classifieds etc. And the universe of TVR owners isn't going to touch the sides!

If Audi can sell more R8's by making it work for a hardcore track enthusiast AND the person who just wants a sportscar to pose in, but knows it won't break down and likes the thought of AWD then, lo-and-behold, they'll sell more than BAC will Monos.

That people think these product, engineering and investment decisions are a battle between Engineering and Marketing is, frankly, ridiculous.

Ex Boy Racer's point above about having a clear proposition and delivering against it is bang-on. But, you could argue, having "configurability to ensure a vehicle delivers on as many use-cases as possible" (top Marketing Bantz there) IS a clear proposition and one that Zee Germans seem to be hell-bent on delivering.

The user experience of having to set it up every time you get in the car is unforgivable UX design though!

I have a car with zero configuration options (except roof up/down) and don't long for them at all. But to say that's because Engineering won our over Marketing is a bit silly.

[Prof Prolapse]

I think cars just need two modes;

(1) Drive like your kids are in the back.

(2) Drive like you fking stole it.

[Ex Boy Racer]

AdamV8V said:

Lazy Sub Editor said:

Who do you trust when it comes to chassis set-up - engineers or marketeers?

It does make me laugh how the ills of the motoring world are so consistently lain at the door of the Marketing department.

Evo are the worst but PH you seem to challenging them for this.

Yes, as petrol heads, of course we all want bold, brave car manufacturers with a clarity of purpose, engineering and design ethos etc. But we also live in the REAL world where those "committees" (aka The Board of Directors) have a responsibility to deliver mid-term shareholder value and long-term survival. The reality is, the more you can make a product appeal to as broader population as possible, the better chance you have of commercial success.

It's like saying "why does PistonHeads write about other cars and, God forbid, motorbikes (!) when in its purest form (three pedals and no driver aids) it was a forum for TVR owners". That's right, because Haymarket like making money which is based on traffic, page views, time-on-site, Classifieds etc. And the universe of TVR owners isn't going to touch the sides!

If Audi can sell more R8's by making it work for a hardcore track enthusiast AND the person who just wants a sportscar to pose in, but knows it won't break down and likes the thought of AWD then, lo-and-behold, they'll sell more than BAC will Monos.

That people think these product, engineering and investment decisions are a battle between Engineering and Marketing is, frankly, ridiculous.

Ex Boy Racer's point above about having a clear proposition and delivering against it is bang-on. But, you could argue, having "configurability to ensure a vehicle delivers on as many use-cases as possible" (top Marketing Bantz there) IS a clear proposition and one that Zee Germans seem to be hell-bent on delivering.

The user experience of having to set it up every time you get in the car is unforgivable UX design though!

I have a car with zero configuration options (except roof up/down) and don't long for them at all. But to say that's because Engineering won our over Marketing is a bit silly.

"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

[Dan Trent]

AdamV8V said:

It does make me laugh how the ills of the motoring world are so consistently lain at the door of the Marketing department.

Evo are the worst but PH you seem to challenging them for this.

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'll accept it's not as black and white as perhaps framed and the car that gets signed off is a combination of the wishes of engineering, marketing, sales, board and all the rest. But surely the job of the marketing department is to express the work of the engineers and present it to the customer in a way that is appealing and shifts metal? And the impression you get from the engineers I've spoken to is they're not huge fans of multiple settings and configurable this and that because they see their expertise in delivering a set-up that works across the widest range of situations (or the particular attributes they're aiming for). Not just JLR either - someone mentioned the Cayman GT4's simpler set-up compared with regular Porsches and you'll see the same across all the GT products and a marked difference from the every which way mainstream Porsche product.

Arguably the marketeers have done an excellent job in selling us the idea we want - or need - multi-configurable modes. And many brands are delivering that. But my sense is that - given the choice - the engineers would keep the mode-based faff to a minimum. Somebody mentioned Ferrari earlier and I'd agree that's a good example of marketing and engineering delivering a solution that satisfies both mindsets - the concept of simply 'turning the car up' as the situation or your taste demands is easy to understand and elegantly implemented. And has now become a defining Ferrari character trait. Within that there's huge scope for tailoring the settings to the goals of the car/customer but much of that is 'behind the curtain' and simply integrated into the broader settings.

Dan

[Axionknight]

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.

Don't forget pro Honda due to the long term lease Civic Type R!

[Dan Trent]

Quite right. Sometimes we struggle to know what to do with all these piles of cash lying about from the manufacturer bungs.

Dan

[Axionknight]

I'll dispose of it all for you. I'll even meet you to collect it, what's the nearest service station to the Caterham factory?

[Prof Prolapse]

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.