RE: PH Footnote: Less is more
Tuesday 20th March 2018
I want to talk about simplicity in cars. Earlier this month I spent a day tooling around the verdant and soggy South Downs in the new Audi R8 RWS, as well as the Porsche 911 GT3 we were comparing it to. The in-depth results of that will be published soon, though you probably won't need to gaze too intently at the tea leaves in the bottom of your cup to predict the outcome.
For much the same reason I could see myself choosing the new Alpine A110 over a Porsche 718 Cayman. I adore the Alpine's simplicity and, perhaps more pertinently, its inherent rightness. Its engine is in the right place, it drives the right wheels, it's the right size and weight and in its double wishbone chassis it has the right suspension layout. With all of that working for it, the A110 just doesn't need any of those extremely trick but spectacularly tedious new technologies that we're seeing throughout the performance car world these days. The little French sports car is better for being simple.
But on a car that's low to the ground, well-balanced and not particularly heavy? It's all unnecessary complication. I have no doubt that, say, the Honda NSX is faster and more agile for being as heavily laden with computing power as it is. It isn't raw speed down a road or even the ability to turn on a sixpence that makes a car exciting to drive, though. It's the tactility of the steering, it's the power delivery and the soundtrack, it's that wonderful sense of being suspended perfectly between the two axles just as you pass the apex and - how about this for a throwback? - it's having to change gear yourself that really counts. Here's a handy litmus test: if you can only illustrate the advantage of some whizzy gizmo on a bar chart and not with a heart rate monitor, get rid.
PH Footnote: Less is more
That simpler cars are better cars is an age-old assertion, but why is it that less so often ends up seeming like more?
Whether or not it came out on top of the GT3, however, the RWS certainly did enough to convince me it's the highlight of the R8 range. Why? Because without a clever four-wheel drive system that shunts torque here and there, and without dynamic steering that changes its weight and ratio depending on, I dunno, the phases of the moon or whatever, and without adaptive dampers and the baffling second-tier Performance driving mode that you find on certain R8s, Audi's mid-engined supercar becomes a sweeter and more enjoyable machine. It's the model I would choose if it were my money, which, I can assure you, it's very unlikely to be any time soon.
Those new gadgets - active anti-roll bars, adaptive dampers, three-chamber air springs, active torque vectoring and heaven knows what else - have all been developed in order to address inherent wrongnesses. I can see their benefit on very tall and heavy cars, because they're absolutely necessary. The new Porsche Cayenne Turbo, for instance, is a better car for having a toolkit so stuffed full of technology that Tony Stark could use it to bodge-engineer a respectable moonshot.
I would like to see sports car manufacturers switch their focus to simplicity and inherent rightness, rather than belligerently ploughing ahead with those corrupting new technologies, just as Audi and Alpine have done (manual transmissions notwithstanding). Get the basics right and keep it simple, stupid.
Discussion
Dead right of course. But only to enthusiasts like us. And not even to all of us
Even on the pages of Pistonheads it's incredible how many people define a car by power output, 0-60 times, speed around the Nurburgring. Even saying that a particular car is rubbish because it can be beaten in a drag race by a Golf R or a 3 series diesel. Most of the time it's clear that the car they criticise is one they haven't even driven.
Unfortunately, BHP and 0-60 are the things that sell and I cannot see that stopping.
Alpine, Lotus and others have reduced weight and driving aids to make the drive purer, but to do that in a safe way they have had to reduce performance to a reasonable level. For that reason, people don't buy them in any large numbers, preferring the latest turbo nutter hatch. Catch 22.
Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
Even on the pages of Pistonheads it's incredible how many people define a car by power output, 0-60 times, speed around the Nurburgring. Even saying that a particular car is rubbish because it can be beaten in a drag race by a Golf R or a 3 series diesel. Most of the time it's clear that the car they criticise is one they haven't even driven.
Unfortunately, BHP and 0-60 are the things that sell and I cannot see that stopping.
Alpine, Lotus and others have reduced weight and driving aids to make the drive purer, but to do that in a safe way they have had to reduce performance to a reasonable level. For that reason, people don't buy them in any large numbers, preferring the latest turbo nutter hatch. Catch 22.
Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
Ex Boy Racer said:
Dead right of course. But only to enthusiasts like us. And not even to all of us
Even on the pages of Pistonheads it's incredible how many people define a car by power output, 0-60 times, speed around the Nurburgring. Even saying that a particular car is rubbish because it can be beaten in a drag race by a Golf R or a 3 series diesel. Most of the time it's clear that the car they criticise is one they haven't even driven.
Unfortunately, BHP and 0-60 are the things that sell and I cannot see that stopping.
Alpine, Lotus and others have reduced weight and driving aids to make the drive purer, but to do that in a safe way they have had to reduce performance to a reasonable level. For that reason, people don't buy them in any large numbers, preferring the latest turbo nutter hatch. Catch 22.
Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
This.Even on the pages of Pistonheads it's incredible how many people define a car by power output, 0-60 times, speed around the Nurburgring. Even saying that a particular car is rubbish because it can be beaten in a drag race by a Golf R or a 3 series diesel. Most of the time it's clear that the car they criticise is one they haven't even driven.
Unfortunately, BHP and 0-60 are the things that sell and I cannot see that stopping.
Alpine, Lotus and others have reduced weight and driving aids to make the drive purer, but to do that in a safe way they have had to reduce performance to a reasonable level. For that reason, people don't buy them in any large numbers, preferring the latest turbo nutter hatch. Catch 22.
Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
Well said that man.
I am kind of tired of guys where I work (who spend their bonuses on the 'latest' cool car, based on its 0-60 time, but who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree, or anything other than 'it's faster than xxxxxxx'.
A car is as 'fast' as the skill of the driver. As stated many times on this site, by me and others, I have more fun in lower powered, basic, vehicles, than I have had in much more exotic, and technically superior, metal work.
Rant over.
Ex Boy Racer said:
...
Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
No chance. Wouldn't it be nice if all motoring journalists agreed to stop quoting power outputs, 0-60 times, lap times on billiard table racetracks etc and just described the way a car drives. Put emphasis on what they feel rather than cold figures. Maybe that would really change things.
Everyone covering their arses with statistics as 'proof' in everything from education, to NHS, to policing, to every-feckitty-thing.
alorotom said:
Dafuq said:
who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree
The VAST majority of people anywhere will not be able to tell you the dev history or pedigree of most vehicles whether they own, aspire to own or are simply aware of - crazy to think otherwise really! Doesn't stop it being a really disappointing state of affairs. Suppose the point I was making is that certain Marques used to be coveted by those who knew what they were looking at and appreciated what they were, when they were somewhat less be-jazzled. They all seem so 'main stream' and blingy now. Shame.
Dafuq said:
This.
Well said that man.
I am kind of tired of guys where I work (who spend their bonuses on the 'latest' cool car, based on its 0-60 time, but who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree, or anything other than 'it's faster than xxxxxxx'.
A car is as 'fast' as the skill of the driver. As stated many times on this site, by me and others, I have more fun in lower powered, basic, vehicles, than I have had in much more exotic, and technically superior, metal work.
Rant over.
I'd imagine they're as tired of that you correcting them about the slightest slip, as you are of them to be honest. Well said that man.
I am kind of tired of guys where I work (who spend their bonuses on the 'latest' cool car, based on its 0-60 time, but who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree, or anything other than 'it's faster than xxxxxxx'.
A car is as 'fast' as the skill of the driver. As stated many times on this site, by me and others, I have more fun in lower powered, basic, vehicles, than I have had in much more exotic, and technically superior, metal work.
Rant over.
Simonium said:
Dafuq said:
This.
Well said that man.
I am kind of tired of guys where I work (who spend their bonuses on the 'latest' cool car, based on its 0-60 time, but who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree, or anything other than 'it's faster than xxxxxxx'.
A car is as 'fast' as the skill of the driver. As stated many times on this site, by me and others, I have more fun in lower powered, basic, vehicles, than I have had in much more exotic, and technically superior, metal work.
Rant over.
I'd imagine they're as tired of that you correcting them about the slightest slip, as you are of them to be honest. Well said that man.
I am kind of tired of guys where I work (who spend their bonuses on the 'latest' cool car, based on its 0-60 time, but who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree, or anything other than 'it's faster than xxxxxxx'.
A car is as 'fast' as the skill of the driver. As stated many times on this site, by me and others, I have more fun in lower powered, basic, vehicles, than I have had in much more exotic, and technically superior, metal work.
Rant over.
alorotom said:
Dafuq said:
who can tell me nothing about of their development history, pedigree
The VAST majority of people anywhere will not be able to tell you the dev history or pedigree of most vehicles whether they own, aspire to own or are simply aware of - crazy to think otherwise really! Most people just what looks nice or bragging rights or meets their image standards or the cheapest - statistics are the easiest way to have the bragging rights; biggest, fastest, quickest etc. These attitudes are why a significant number cars in the UK are M-Sport/S-Line/GTD models with a diesel engine (base or otherwise) - they appeal to our snob value & look nice but the stated high MPG and low company car tax of a diesel appeals to our tighter side (even on balance the higher purchase price doesn't pay dividends in the long run).
Apologies for being a pedant, but the Alpine does have torque vectoring which, according to the article is one of the "spectacularly tedious new technologies" touted wrongly as being absent from the A110,
Arguably none of the cars mentioned is simple, by the virtue of the fact that they're current. Can't argue with the general sentiment in the article though, but the examples given aren't great. The gearbox in the Alpine is another (albeit acknowledged) glaringly obvious gap in the argument put forward. We can only hope Alpine offer a proper cog-stirrer in due course, but I won't be holding my breath.
I can't help thinking that the ethos of the article is best fulfilled by older cars. Applied to current offerings, the shortlist gets very sparse indeed
Arguably none of the cars mentioned is simple, by the virtue of the fact that they're current. Can't argue with the general sentiment in the article though, but the examples given aren't great. The gearbox in the Alpine is another (albeit acknowledged) glaringly obvious gap in the argument put forward. We can only hope Alpine offer a proper cog-stirrer in due course, but I won't be holding my breath.
I can't help thinking that the ethos of the article is best fulfilled by older cars. Applied to current offerings, the shortlist gets very sparse indeed
Edited by D.no on Tuesday 20th March 13:11
D.no said:
Apologies for being a pedant, but the Alpine does have torque vectoring which, according to the article is one of the "spectacularly tedious new technologies" touted wrongly as being absent from the A110,
Arguably none of the cars mentioned is simple, by the virtue of the fact that they're current. Can't argue with the general sentiment in the article though, but the examples given aren't great. The gearbox in the Alpine is another (albeit acknowledged) glaringly obvious
in the argument put forward. We can only hope Alpine offer a proper cog-stirrer in due course, but I won't be holding my breath.
I can't help thinking that the ethos of the article is best fulfilled by older cars. Applied to current offerings, the shortlist gets very sparse indeed
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.Arguably none of the cars mentioned is simple, by the virtue of the fact that they're current. Can't argue with the general sentiment in the article though, but the examples given aren't great. The gearbox in the Alpine is another (albeit acknowledged) glaringly obvious
in the argument put forward. We can only hope Alpine offer a proper cog-stirrer in due course, but I won't be holding my breath.I can't help thinking that the ethos of the article is best fulfilled by older cars. Applied to current offerings, the shortlist gets very sparse indeed
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Dale487 said:
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
I'm not buying or selling torque vectoring. I'm sure it's very good.Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
The article says: "With all of that working for it, the A110 just doesn't need any of those extremely trick but spectacularly tedious new technologies that we're seeing throughout the performance car world these days. The little French sports car is better for being simple.
Those new gadgets - active anti-roll bars, adaptive dampers, three-chamber air springs, active torque vectoring and heaven knows what else - have all been developed in order to address inherent wrongnesses"
I just wanted to point out that the Alpine does, in fact, have torque vectoring, and by implication of the articles premise therefore has some inherent wrongness, which I'm sure is inherently wrong. Right?
Agree totally with the sentiment behind less is more
Unfortunately the sad truth is that "most" consumers want everything from their cars and to hell with the weight \ cost etc.
The other side of that coin is that performance in cooking models of run of the mill cars (Audi RS3 being a brilliant example) is so high that to offer a "sports" car with a performance of less than "Insert hyper hatch here" is marketing suicide.
Niche models will always appeal to enthusiasts but judging by the number of AMG A45's I see around, the marketing department isn't that interested in saying "this will be really fun to drive!" (Toyota not withstanding).
Volume keeps share holders happy and you, yes you, reading the enthusiast website, you...
You so don't count.
Unfortunately the sad truth is that "most" consumers want everything from their cars and to hell with the weight \ cost etc.
The other side of that coin is that performance in cooking models of run of the mill cars (Audi RS3 being a brilliant example) is so high that to offer a "sports" car with a performance of less than "Insert hyper hatch here" is marketing suicide.
Niche models will always appeal to enthusiasts but judging by the number of AMG A45's I see around, the marketing department isn't that interested in saying "this will be really fun to drive!" (Toyota not withstanding).
Volume keeps share holders happy and you, yes you, reading the enthusiast website, you...
You so don't count.
D.no said:
Dale487 said:
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
I'm not buying or selling torque vectoring. I'm sure it's very good.Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
The article says: "With all of that working for it, the A110 just doesn't need any of those extremely trick but spectacularly tedious new technologies that we're seeing throughout the performance car world these days. The little French sports car is better for being simple.
Those new gadgets - active anti-roll bars, adaptive dampers, three-chamber air springs, active torque vectoring and heaven knows what else - have all been developed in order to address inherent wrongnesses"
I just wanted to point out that the Alpine does, in fact, have torque vectoring, and by implication of the articles premise therefore has some inherent wrongness, which I'm sure is inherently wrong. Right?
Personal I have no problem with torque vectoring but would rather have a manual gearbox than a DCT - more entertaining at any speed.
Dale487 said:
I agree that if the A110 & it's chassis are right it shouldn't need torque vectoring - the other side point to the article was that most of these technologies are to mitigate for or disguise extra weight. The A110 is a light car already and probably has a very good chassis (with or without torque vectoring) but if it can be made better for no (or very little) weight penalty - why not? Like the GT3's rear wheel steering, it would still be a fine car without it but Porsche Motorsport feel its a better with it.
Personal I have no problem with torque vectoring but would rather have a manual gearbox than a DCT - more entertaining at any speed.
Yes I agree. If the A110 had a stirrer, I'd have a deposit placed and be on the waiting list. Unfortunately I just don't get on with any form of non-mechanical gearbox interface. I've tried, but without fail the process of changing gear with paddles leaves me stone cold.Personal I have no problem with torque vectoring but would rather have a manual gearbox than a DCT - more entertaining at any speed.
D.no said:
Dale487 said:
I agree that if the A110 & it's chassis are right it shouldn't need torque vectoring - the other side point to the article was that most of these technologies are to mitigate for or disguise extra weight. The A110 is a light car already and probably has a very good chassis (with or without torque vectoring) but if it can be made better for no (or very little) weight penalty - why not? Like the GT3's rear wheel steering, it would still be a fine car without it but Porsche Motorsport feel its a better with it.
Personal I have no problem with torque vectoring but would rather have a manual gearbox than a DCT - more entertaining at any speed.
Yes I agree. If the A110 had a stirrer, I'd have a deposit placed and be on the waiting list. Unfortunately I just don't get on with any form of non-mechanical gearbox interface. I've tried, but without fail the process of changing gear with paddles leaves me stone cold.Personal I have no problem with torque vectoring but would rather have a manual gearbox than a DCT - more entertaining at any speed.
Dale487 said:
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Not really - it's apparently brake-vectoring, not torque vectoring, which does add weight.Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Quite a few cars do BV now.
Black S2K said:
Dale487 said:
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Not really - it's apparently brake-vectoring, not torque vectoring, which does add weight.Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Quite a few cars do BV now.
Is the VAG XDS faux LSD brake vectoring?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff