How can good ride be stiff ride? December 19, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 1 comment so farRIDE, schmide. It’s just about the uncoolest thing in the car world you can obsess about.
But, just as I caught myself wearing socks and sandals while queuing up at the cashpoint last night, so too do I love a nice ride (arf).
What makes a good ride, though? Surely it’s just about soft springs and marshmallows under the wheelarches? Soft = better; it’s a linear and direct connection. Well, that’s what I used to think.
Then I drove the somewhat stiffly-sprung Porsche 911 GT3 RS, and ohmylikeGod fell in love with it – despite detesting it at first, because of an intolerably stiff ride. Utterly inexplicable at the time, it was: me coming back and enthusing over its absorbency, damping quality, sheer depth of talent.
A few years later, I went on my one and only Maserati launch – the Quattroporte GTS. Similar experience; on the taut side, I thought, when I first drove it. Only to emerge at the other end wanting to marry chief engineer Paul Fickers. Luckily, I instead asked him what was going on.
Yet again, the same thing I asked to another chassis top cheese a few weeks ago – and, like Fickers, he said it’s all down to bump steer. See, at speed, it’s not so much the disturbance of ruts on our sensibilities, but the way the car physically reacts to them, that upsets us.
You can have a pretty stiffly set up car, that still seems more than fine, simply because it’s rock-solid assured over even the nastiest of surfaces. This is what the Maser does so well – and, probably, what the Porsche excels in, too.
Chuck in modern cars’ absorption of the nasty harshness that used to so pain us, plus iron-fisted control from decades of damper experience, and you’ve a stiff ride that’s also a good ride. Bizarre but true.
Such as setup also bypasses the other disadvantages of softly sprung cars that made their ride qualities so illusional:
• Roll
• Pitch
• Lean
• Free and easy body damping characteristics
• Uncanny ability to excite toddlers’ stomachs
• The way they suddenly run out of ideas when roads get really challenging
See: Ride CAN be cool. Kinda.
Land Rover’s ride quality secret
Vauxhall gives new Astra suspension a twist
Why I dig DSG September 19, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , add a commentIT all started after I loved a Golf GTI for a weekend.
You know, I mused in the office, I might even go for DSG over manual. GET OUT came the command. Call yourself an enthusiast, and eschew a manly manual?
Yup, and I’ve been thinking why. See, when I change gear, I’m always (forlornly) striving for the perfect gearchange. I like metering clutch precisely, going off and on the throttle with metronomic timing, savour the happy synchromesh, err, thanking me for saving it some work.
Thing is, it becomes an obsession. I tend to concentrate on it unduly; which makes the pain of a joltly 2-3 shift disproportionate. Which, because I’m no Jackie Stewart-like driving God, can ping up a bit too often at times.
With DSG (and other twin-clutch gearboxes), though, you’re guaranteed perfection. The satisfaction of a delay-free shift from a tricky high-revs 1st to a mid-range 2nd is removed. It does it perfectly, every time. Which means the rewards, even though I don’t have anything to do with it, still tangible.
Cheat, some still say. Yup. But while (and stay with me here) hand-writing a letter and maybe, just maybe, getting every letter just so is uber satisfying, usually it’s just a scrawl. Far better to use a word processor, take the effort out, and get the satisfaction all the same. I love technology, embrace it for the rewards it brings. That’s how I view DSG – brilliant, Apple-like tech that, well, just works.
Every gearchange gives me the feeling, the satisfaction of perfection – and, although it’s nothing to do with me, the sensations are enough for it to win through.
Automatics are different, as they’re slurry cop-outs. Clutchless manuals are, by and large, an ugly disaster. But twin-clutch DSG-style units? You know, PDK and their brethren? It’s technology that rewards me. And why I’m in the pro camp.
(Of course, if the manual alternative were a brilliant Ford or Honda-esque gem, rather than VW’s slick but detached equivalent, my decision may be different. Nothing like a motoring journo sitting on the fence, aye…)
(Oh, and on the subject of cheating, I know the Ferrari F430’s gearbox is robotised manual, not twin-clutch. But the image IS cool, isn’t it…)
Why Ford Econetics break the rules
RenaultSport past to inspire turbo future
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?
What Porsche gives to BMW M April 23, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 6commentsBMW’s M3 is the core of the M brand, Rolf Sheibner from the division told me.
So who is its closest relative? Step forward the Porsche 997 911. Yes, really. ‘In terms of dynamic skills and character, the M3 and 997 are like relatives,’ Sheibner revealed.
Well, I’ll be.
He was straight up, though. The M division hadn’t benchmarked the M3 against other M cars, but the mighty and ever-better Porsche, the definitive everyday supercar.
‘For 30 years, M3 customers have also been drawn to Porsche. When someone considers one, they’re usually looking at the other, too.’
Which presents quite a high bar for the M division to clear. That’s why they start early. Albeit, from a solid base.
‘We let the road car division develop the standard 3 Series for two years. And, once they reach a certain level, we then start to develop the M version.’
Makes sense. So how much independence do they have here? A wry smile from Sheibner. ‘Look in our papers: we’re a maker! We’re called M GmBH…’ All that was missing here was the cheeky wink.
He knows his customers pretty well, though. I asked about the eight million different settings for the V8 M3’s suspension, engine mapping and whatever else. How on earth will customers get their heads around it?
‘They will play at the beginning,’ he said. ‘But then, after 3 weeks, they’ll probably leave it, happy that they’ve explored enough.’
Hence the importance of getting the standard setup right – and why there will always be a degree of computer reprofiling as per driving conditions here.
Even if customers can’t be bothered prodding buttons, there still needs to be some reward for the money spent…
BMW tells me why its instruments are lit in orange
Porsche makes cranky Cayenne cool
Porsche makes cranky Cayenne cool March 28, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 3comments
Everyone’s least favourite Porsche is the Cayenne. (Yes, even the 924 has fans).
But here’s why it’s suddenly cool: the Porsche Design Edition 3.
Now, we’ve already seen Cayman and Boxster Design Edition models. They, like this Cayenne, are jazzed-up Porsches, by the company’s industrial and product design division in Austria.
The Design Studio over there has fairly gone to town on the Cayenne, with special paint, 21-inch wheels, unique design stripes and an Alcantara-shod interior. If that’s not quite stand out enough, there’s a double-decker rear wing offered as a no-cost option.
All rather exciting, especially as only 1000 of the £64k 405bhp V8 Cayenne will be made. But the best part is not the SUV, but the bits that come with it.
Such as, a Porsche Design Chronograph watch. Yes, really. This is a unique Design Edition 3 timepiece, and there will only be as many as there are Cayennes.
In true game show style though, that’s not all. There’s also a four-piece Porsche Design Edition 3-branded luggage set. Yes, even suitcases are made cool by Porsche.
Both are seriously wantable possessions. Both will ensure sky-high valuations, in 3 decades’ time, for any Design Edition 3 Cayenne with both still in tact.
Both are reasons why I want to buy a Cayenne Design Edition 3, squirrel the goodies away in the loft, and then… well, go up into the loft and look at them occasionally. Then hide them away again. It’s a car geek thing.
I would have done the same with those Golf GTI MkII Anniversary forged alloy wheels I almost won on eBay. I certainly do with my Golf GTI MkII 16v uncut key, complete with 16v cap-on-a-string in place.
Who understands?
Anyone..?
Fuel economy economical with the truth
Why car scrappage is now inevitable
What can I expect from a Mini?
