Ride on time August 31, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 2commentsIN the olden days, ride quality used to be great on smooth roads.
Soft suspension, coupled with 70-profile tyres, meant it was like riding on space hopper. Rubbery absorption of all you don’t like.
Get the wheels encountering something more challenging, though – such as a rut, or a pothole, or a fag-end, and all holy hell would break loose. Your 1982 Ford Fiesta’s ride quality would show the finesse of stepping off a cliff. One minute it’s OK, the next, it’s having you check the suspension top mounts hadn’t blasted through the bonnet.
Slowly, cars became heavier. And people became less willing to see the side of their Fiestas sink to one side when they got in, because of the overtly-soft settings. Bottoming out when you had the shopping and the kids in the back wasn’t brilliant, either. With an increasing demand for less boast-like handling, so car suspension became stiffer.
For years, car makers puzzled with this. For a while, we had stiffer cars that were now pretty inept everywhere. There wasn’t even the comfort of a chance encounter with new tarmac to make you think it was any good. And, no sooner had they sorted it, when the next model became even heavier. Thus, so it went on.
Now, though, we’re reaching a plateau. Cars aren’t getting any heavier. And suspension dynamics genii have worked out how to make cars pleasing. This means we require a new judgment of what makes ride quality good.
In a few days, I’ll be putting this to the test in a new Renault Clio. See, a while back, I tried the then-new Clio III, and left it with the nuggets of a theory in my head. With the Clio 2009, I’ve another chance to theorise on this, and compare it to both my mum’s rolly old Renault 5, and my quasi-rolly 1993 Clio.
I’ll keep you posted.
Vauxhall gives new Astra suspension a twist
Advice from Ford’s Walter Hayes August 30, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , 4commentsFORD had an inspirational boss in Walter Hayes. The man who retired from the top job in 1989 rose to the top of the company through ‘exceptional vision and shrewd mind’.
Mark Hughes paid praise to him in Autocar. He explained how Hayes, more than anyone else, had masterminded a change in the public’s eyes of Ford. Fuddy-duddy to motorsport icon, performance master and, well, the exact opposite of the firm its name was once similarly joked about: British Leyland.
He was a former newspaper man, we learned. He used to work for the Daily Mail – and, when Ford decided it wanted a PR-led approach to rejuvenate itself, UK boss Sir Patrick Hennessy asked a pal of his who would be suited. That pal was Lord Beaverbrook…
Hayes subsequently jumped at the change, finding a firm, explains Hughes, packed with young talent. And one willing to listen to his public affairs ideas; after all, it was bred into the company.
Henry Ford, he explained, got it from an early age, and helped transform the company. And, what exactly is public affairs? ‘An all-encompassing external activity,’ one that covers much more than simple PR. It extends to long-term strategy, government relations, employee communications, motor sport, even the performance car strategy.
Hayes was the man behind the Cosworth DFV F1 engine. The Lotus Cortina. The Escort Mexico and RS2000. Formula Ford. Sierra Cosworth. You name all the fast Fords we idolise – and they were his doing. Surprising, for a man who admitted he didn’t like motorsport… maybe that’s why he admitted not to ever spending more than $1m a year on it?
It was because of Hayes that Colin Chapman became linked with Ford. Why? Because Chapman used to write a motoring column for him, while editing the Sunday Dispatch. Can you believe?! Proof that motoring journos do sometimes know stuff…
Former newspaper men do, too. ‘The Mini is a notorious example of a car which lost money through most of its life,’ said Hayes. So, how to approach Ford’s first-ever supermini, the Fiesta? Start in 1969 – seen years before it was launched. Spend four years taking every small car in the world to pieces, analysing every component. Then, massively research new manufacturing techniques. Result: the Fiesta made money ‘all the way through’.
He even predicted something back in 1989 that is now starting to occur – an ageing population Visionary thinker indeed: Hayes predicted that there will be a time where there is one retired person for every two in work – ‘with huge implications on car buying patterns’.
Once, the average couple had 2.2 kids and a Cortina, he said. By 1989, it was 1.7 children and an Escort. ‘This is why a changing market must be understood’.
‘If you have a good idea and the wit to sell it,’ reckoned Hayes, ‘you can do anything.’ This is what made him one of the most remarkable fellows in Ford history. Next time you hear mention of the Sir Walter Hayes Trophy, now you have a taster of why it, and he, are so highly esteemed.
Business acumen from Hayes? Includes:
• The importance of good mainstream models: There are far more poor people than rich people
• On harmonisation of legislation: ‘It does the baker a huge favour if regulations say that all cakes must have green icing and little red snowmen – he can get on with making nicer snowmen’.
• On Fords internal jingle: ‘perceived customer value,’ for appeal to customers who ‘have an almost instinctive ability to recognise good value for money’.
• On his approach to challenges: ‘I am an inveterate brain-picker; assimilating every idea that comes my way.’
• On business methodology: ‘The secret of success in the motor industry is not what you do, but who you are smart enough to get to work for you.’
How Ford put the boot into the Sierra
Why Ford Econetics break the rules
Relax: It’s ESP August 30, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , 7commentsAIRCRAFT can either show relaxed stability or positive stability.
Relaxed stability aircraft are unflyable without computer assistance – fly-by-wire. It’s impossible for a human to compensate for their sheer twitchiness. But this is what makes them so maneuverable and agile.
Positive stability airplanes, in contrast, are beauts. They’ll fly on their own, and the pilot can exhibit complete authority even if steering by their feet while watching Corrie. But, as a consequence, they are less agile, more lazy.
I felt this yesterday, when I went up in an Extra 300L. I also saw the former graphically demonstrated later, when the aerobatic jets did things so impossible, even fellow pilots couldn’t work out how it was done.
This is what F1 cars are like. They have high levels of relaxed stability: they are inherently unstable. Only drivers with the skill level of Hamilton and Schumacher can hope to control them, particularly when things get spicy.
They’re undrivable to the rest of us. In contrast to our road-going Vauxhalls, with which we can drive with our knees while sneezing and looking for a Nutri-Grain bar on the M1 at 85mph. But, get a Vectra on a track, and it’s not really as agile as an F1 car. Even if it had the power to match, it would be way slower.
I wonder, therefore, could ESP become the driver’s friend?
Instead of seeing it as a cop-out for softies (Real Men Hit The ESP-Off Button™), maybe it could help narrow the gap to road-going racers? Design a chassis that is so sharp and agile, it’s got the maneuverability of a Eurofighter – but standardise the electronic aids to make it actually drivable, too. Result? One searingly tenacious bit of kit.
Relying on the ESP would not be a pansy’s cheat, in the same way that you don’t find Eurofighter pilots turning the balancing regulator off.
And you don’t call RAF pilots girls, do you?
It’s a theory I’ll be pitching to a few chassis engineers in the coming months, to get their thoughts… which I’ll share with you – and hope you’ll share your ideas on it with me!
Why do people hate the Lotus Elan?
How Chevrolet today became cool
Audi lit the way in ’88 August 28, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , 1 comment so farFASTER cars need better headlights, said an Audi ad in 1988. Particularly models such as the 136bhp Audi 90 (136BHP? Steady…).
What’s more, it added, congested roads mean less opportunity to drive on main beam.
Audi’s solution? To extend the width of its wide-beam asymmetric headlamps. This increased beam breadth and range, on both dip and main beam, by 20 percent. Achieved because, apparently, doubling the width of the reflector doubled the luminous intensity at the side of the road.
Now, some marketing wizardry. Why doesn’t everyone just double the size of their headlights, Audi asked. Because, Audi answered, with conventional round headlights, when you increase the size of the reflector, you may also increase the height of the car’s frontal area. Result: worse aero. A slower top speed. Defeating, guffawed Audi, the point of bigger headlights in the first place.
Some manufacturers, it added, naming no names, have ‘solved’ this by using four round headlamps instead. Imagine; the very thing. Because, of course, to achieve sufficient illumination on dip beam, when only one set of lights is used, they (would) have to resort to ellipsoid lenses.
Great for fog lamps, pooh-poohed Audi, but they fail to produce breadth of beam as wide-beam asymmetric lamps. They also give an over-intense ‘white’ light. This will upset oncoming motorists, rather than the ‘soft’ light of asymmetrics.
And, driving behind an intense beam strains vision and leads to tiredness. Thanks God no foolish manufacturer did such a thing, Vorsprung Durch Technik’d the ad-reading reader.
But, hang on: four headlamps? Didn’t Audi rivals BM…?
Apple Tablet changes the game. Again
Why did people hate the Lotus Elan?
Renault Clio 2009 photostream on Flickr August 28, 2009
Posted by richard in : flickr , add a commentRenault engineers have been busy, facelifting the best-selling Clio range. Enter, thus, the Clio 2009.
I’ve just waved one goodbye, after a week’s test. Here, via Flickr, is my image road test of what it’s like!
Feel free to rock on on over there, to see what you think.
And do please leave comments on all the images!
RenaultSport past to inspire turbo future?
Why RenaultSports don’t have rear spoilers
Where have all the new cars gone? August 26, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , add a commentVOLKSWAGEN’S Golf MkVI is a delight.
Great to drive, obsessively built and more appealingly styled than first appearances reveal, it’s every inch a real Golf.
The obvious maturation of the 1974 original, and a contender for best Golf ever. (Incidentally, my preference league is at the foot of this post).
But, it’s not all new. Yes, it was ‘new’, last year. But, it wasn’t really. Instead, it was a heavily revised version of the MkV Golf. Same roof, same door apertures, same platform.
Yes indeed – the same underpinnings that also live in the Audi A3, the Skoda Octavia, the SEAT Leon, the Volkswagen Jetta, the Audi TT, the… well, you get the idea.
Volkswagen’s policy of sharing the bits you can’t see across brands is long-established.
But, sharing bits across model generations? Saving even more cash? Well, it’s little short of an economist’s panacea.
And it’s not just VW that’s at it. Fiat based the 500 on Panda bits that were introduced in 2003 – then Ford bought into the project, and launched the 2008 ‘all new’ Ka on the same platform.
Renault’s Laguna is more satisfying than people give it credit for, yet it draws heavily from the shoddy old 2002 model. Jaguar’s brilliant XF? Why, a revised version of the soapy S-Type.
Aston Martin uses the same basic underpinnings for virtually everything it builds, Jaguar Land Rover has a policy of sharing bits across all vehicle lines, Porsche can’t be too hard on Wiedeking after he gave them the 996 underpinnings that are still being stretched and squeezed today… see what I mean?
And the result of all this is… cars better than they’ve ever been. No longer do makers have to chuck away all that went before and start again – because modern cars have reached a plateau of ability. They’re so good to start with, the great leaps of improvement are not there to be made. And the huge leaps in currently-applicable technology have all been discovered.
I reckon we’ll see more of this. How can Ford improve on the current Focus? Well, by making it that bit better. It doesn’t need to be any bigger – so, with the next one, why not just polish what’s there, rather than throwing billions into something all-new?
Volkswagen’s thinking with the Golf VI was to make something as good as the MkV, that could be built more cheaply. Thanks to the inherent ability of engineers to always improve, it’s actually got something that’s considerably better. All bits have been honed, everything polished. If it’s good enough to start with – and all new cars are – there’s no end to what the mechanical wizards in car firms can do to make it better.
Which means today’s cars are, I reckon, pretty much fixed in time. So that means they’ll be made, ad infintum? Absolutely not. The next big change will come in architecture. Cars will, in time, be lighter, cheaper to build, simpler, more recyclable, all of that futuristic stuff.
To achieve this, we need an entirely different type of car. This is where the thinking will be thrown out and the clean sheets begun. It will take a huge amount of cash, and is fraught with risks. But, while car firms get their heads around it, the process of perfecting today’s machines should ensure cars in the near-future will continue to be the best, ever.
And, given how new technology is rarely perfect first time, does this mean the cars of the next few years could even mark a high point, not to be seen again for several decades?
If so, I’ll certainly it while I can…
My top Golfs…
• Golf 6
• Golf 2
• Golf 1
• Golf 4
• Golf 3
• Golf 5
Volkswagen Golf GTD photostream on Flickr
Ford gloom hides people carrier revolution?
How Ford put the boot into the Sierra August 22, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 9commentsBack in 1987, Ford invested huge amounts into the Sierra Sapphire.
Remember it? The booted, four-door version of 1982’s ‘jellymould’? That car replaced the Cortina in spirit… but not in the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Battersea.
To appease them, Ford changed every panel other than the roof. This saloon Sierra, alongside the five-door hatchback, was an 18-car range that would boost the Sierra’s share of the UK market by a boggling 8 percent.
Why? Because Ford would now be open to far more fleet car choice lists (back then, hatchbacks were a no-no for many fleets – can you imagine?!). This would see it increase market share, possibly closing to the 30 percent it held before Vauxhall and Austin-Rover got good.
(For comparison, massive recent gains by Ford have seen it edge closer to… 20 percent.)
Now, get rid of the big hole in the back of a hatch, explained top writer (the late) Jeff Daniels, and the car becomes stiffer. Enhanced, in the Sapphire’s case, by having a bonded-in rear windscreen. This meant the windscreen could also become bigger.
With a stiffer floorplan too, the ride had actually suffered, the engineers revealed to Daniels: there was now so (relatively) little flex in the chassis, so they had to take remedial action. By softening the suspension bushes, to soak up more grumbles at source.
Incidentally, the reason why Sapphires got fold-down rear seats – then, a rarity in saloons – was because of the hatchback roots. Ford chose not to fill in the gap in the rear bulkhead here, to save a bit of dosh…
Finite element analysis was in its infancy back then. I studied it at Brum Uni; even in 1997, we had to leave the computer running overnight to process. Lord knows how long it took Ford to do the Sierra’s mathematical model Ford refined on this iteration.
Meant they knew the exact force inputs, though, rather than having to predict them. Thus, the body engineers knew they’d get most benefit from floorpan stiffening, so upped sill strength, along with the crossmember running between them.
Ford’s level of detail extended even to the windows. These, revealed Daniels, were 15mm deeper, while the glass area itself was enlarged through squaring off the rounded corners of each window. Sounds simple: but ‘aint cheap. Ford saved cash by sharing the same doors on saloon and hatch, mind.
Much to the surprise of geeks, this – didn’t the Sapphire have doors that met the roof cleanly, rather than having a drip rail in the way, as on the hatch? They did indeed. But the doors were indeed identical. Cannily, developing the new body had allowed Ford to integrate the drip rail. The budget, nor the will, didn’t stretch to doing the hatch’s too.
There was one even more local change. UK Sapphire models got a tiny front grille, to differentiate them from the hatch. This wasn’t the case anywhere else in Europe – and meant yet another new set of tooling for our market alone. Blimey.
No wonder, really, that Ford forked out, to do the whole Sierra facelift/Sapphire introduction, £200 million. Big money back then. Eye-watering now. It also took no less than 1.5 million man hours…
Mind you, look at the detail of some of the things they had to do. Ford introduced a heated windscreen, for example. Great! Only, the switch for it took the slot previously reserved for the rear wash-wipe of the hatch and estate. There were no free ones left.
The engineers thus had to design an entirely new column stalk, just to accommodate a rear wash-wipe function.
Ah, how things were… mind you, as the Sapphire itself was a sticking plaster, maybe this shouldn’t be too surprising.
Why Ford Econetics break the rules
If Ford played chess, don’t take it on
Apple Tablet changes the game. Again. August 16, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , 1 comment so farAPPLE caught me unawares with the iPhone. Why do you need an iPod to make calls, I first thought? Hmm. I’ll stick with my Nokia.
What an idiot. I failed to see that call-making ability wasn’t central to the iPhone’s appeal. No, it was the other things it could do on the 3G network that mean I now wake up in mental anguish because I don’t own one.
With an iPod, you’re socially networked. You have Facebook, full Twitter, iGoogle, Flickr, YouTube… everything you need so’s not to be tied to a desk.
At the moment, I access many of these through the iMac – great, addictive, brilliant and all that – but very much a one-location activity. I can send basic Tweets from my boggo Nokia, but do not much more than that. Facebook? Window shopping, little more. And there’s not a cat’s hope of doing anything Flickry.
What about WiFi and the MacBook, you may ask? Well, you’re right. It means I can sit anywhere. And doesn’t your iPod have WiFi, plus Safari? Yup, both true.
The MacBook means I can FB away during Corrie, and the iPod means so long as there’s WiFi, there’s some form of connection – Emails too, through MobileMe.
Fine… but it does get a bit, uh, ‘hot’, lugging a hard-working laptop around. And it’s still not fully intuitive, or totally convenient, or… well, detached from work.
To lessen the risk of ‘accidentally’ opening up MSWord and subbing tomorrow’s news, I’ll turn to the iPod. And cuss Apple for being devious. No Bluetooth, you see. So, no remote 3G access. It’s WiFi or nowt. So, short of specific locations, it’s not ‘mobile net either’.
Enter the Tablet. Convenient. Flexible, Highly portable. With, I’d imagine, Bluetooth, for 3G mobily connection. Super hi-res screen. Interface to die for – and that little-demand touch-screen interface that really does make it beguilingly convenient.
Indeed, it’s so ‘easily always on’, I reckon it is a genuine game-changer. It’s come along, just as the possibilities of Real Time Web enter wider acceptance. And, RTW + Tablet = virtual excuseless reasons not to be perma-on.
Will I queue up to buy one, for circa £350? Probably: watch out Birmingham’s Bull Ring, for another tent. Because I know my life will change because of it. Will mean I really can don’t have to be sat here, typing, remote from the motorsport on Sky – I can do both at once.
Can’t at the mo, though. So, you’ll have to excuse me…
Social media brings close access to heroes!
What’s a taxi like to drive? August 16, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , add a commentWE’VE sat in the back of them many a time. Far more than some of us can probably remember (damn those cheap shot offers).
But what’s an old taxi actually like up front? Cue Autocar & Motor, from 20 years ago, who actually road-tested one. Brill!
The LTI Fairway cab had just been introduced, with a new 2.7-litre Nissan diesel from the old Terrano SUV. (As an aside, the engine was the reason Japan got 200 Fairways a year, as part of a cross-trade deal. It was called Big Ben over there…)
Over here, it was a three-model range: Bronze, Silver, Gold. But medals for none of them in the sprint, it seems: 78bhp from the lumpy engine meant Autocar clocked 23.6secs for the 0-60mph dash. It could just do 80mph.
But keep it to a natural city-centre environment, and the Fairway was pretty decent in terms of response, particularly with the test car’s optional auto. Autocar didn’t, and reported the need for full-throttle use pretty much all the time. Which is why the overall eco average was a pitiful 23.9mpg.
It was a separate chassis design, with a ladder chassis using suspension ‘remarkably similar’ to an SIII Jaguar. It was designed to yield the taxi’s famed 25-foot turning circle. Less tech at the rear – just a live axle there. Maybe that’s why the Fairway pitched noticeably oat speed, while reacting sharply to city centre bumps.
There was loads of body roll, little grip, vague yet over-responsive steering and weak brakes. No wonder on the latter – they were drums all round. Discs, apparently, wouldn’t cope well in city driving…
A screwed-up, cramped driving position was politely described by Autocar as allowing drivers to ‘get only reasonably comfortable’. If you were tall, you were (ahem) screwed. But it was well laid out inside, and visibility was superb (even if fit and finish was ‘cheap and lightweight’.
Comfort was decent for those in the rear, and if you’ve ever wondered about the heating system back there, Autocar revealed it was controlled by a separate heather blower, of which the driver had on/off and fast/slow control. They could also use a dash slider to alter the temperature.
There was little space in the boot (complete with Mini-style flip-down lid); luggage was to be stored where the passenger normally sat. But the mid-range test Silver did get trick features such as a foot-operated central locking button – to stop passengers escaping the 1950s brakes, grip and handling before paying.
That wasn’t enough to stop Autocar condemning it; ‘If we were to apply our findings to a vehicle with aspirations of all-round ability, we would have no option but to criticise its behaviour. Dynamically, the cab is 30 years behind the times. Best left to the cabbies.’
Does that make paying a stiff post-club fare to the trapped driver a little easier?
Thought not.
Why did people hate the Lotus Elan?
The 58mpg MINI and my turbo engine theory
Ford code read August 9, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 4commentsCOLOUR coding is ace. Take notes. Important? Orange highlighter. For reference? Green highlighter. Something not vital, but good to skim over? Yellow.
This logic is inbred because there’s nothing I find more satisfying than a common design whose purpose is differentiated by colour.
Utility pipes, for example.
• Red for electrical power lines
• Orange for telecoms and optical fibres
• Blue for drinking water
• Yellow for gas
• Green for sewerage and waste
That’s not all.
There’s Penguin books:
• Orange for general fiction
• Green for crime
• Pink for travel
• Red for drama
• Purple for essays
• Grey for world affairs
• Yellow for ‘misc’
Ford adopted this with the 1989 Fiesta MkIII.
How? By altering the pinstriping in the bumper. Utter genius:
• Silver for ‘posh’ Ghia
• Black for ‘cooking’ 1.6S
• Blue for ‘hot’ XR2i
• Green for the ‘scorching’ (and later) RS Turbo
Thus, you could spot the cred of the Fiesta approaching you at 100 paces – the complete antithesis of today’s manufacturer idea of badge-name-less cars.
Today, I still idolise that blue stripe, and would put the green stripe on old Gormley’s Fourth Plinth.
Why, when we know so much more about clear and easy interfaces, are car makers not doing the same today?
Why Ford Econetics break the rules
