Editorial

Archived Posts from this Category

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: A Present to Mr. Bush (Apr 2003)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

We Asian, European and simply everyone outside the United States of America, see the US military action against Iraq as invasion rather than so-called “liberation”. Forgive me, I still don’t understand what “mass destruction weapon” is. A Hummer H2 crashes into a house will definitely cause masses of destruction. Is it a “mass destruction weapon”? Do you know how Iraq and Saddam Hussein link with 9-11? because he has a 911 in his garage? evidences from Mr. Powell seemed as slim as that. 

Anyway, I suggest we stop arguing about war or not - we can’t change it anyway. Instead, we can make the post-war world better, sowing it with seeds of love and sharing just like President Bush sowing bombs and missiles in Iraq. To amend the broken relationship between the Arabian and the Western - strictly speaking, only American and British - I suggest Muslim leaders can give President Bush a fine present - a new Cadillac Sixteen.

Why this car? there are several important reasons. Firstly, the Cadillac concept car has a wild look reassembling the attitude of its owner. “Go away! you bitch Sonata! this is My road! this is My world! No one can block me!”. Also, the thundering roar of its V16 engine should frighten any cars and police (read “UN”) around so that no one will dare to stop President Bush going where he like and doing what he want. 

Secondly, the 16-cylinder engine has 13.6 litres of capacity to ensure the newly occupied oil fields not wasted. With the world’s second largest oil reserve under control by Uncle Sam, we estimate gas price will dive to 10 cents a litre. 13.6-litre engines will be as common as today’s 3-litre. Corvette C6 will get a mega-block V8, Hummer H3 will get a 1500hp gas-turbine…. American will be wealthy enough to go to South Pole for summer vacation - they have to. Remember to bring more sun oil.

Lastly but not least, any car with 1000 horsepower and 1000 lbft must drive like a dream. With this Cadillac Sixteen as present, maybe Mr. Bush will start enjoying motoring and spend less time on either eating biscuits or playing war games. Let’s hope so.

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the April 2003 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: Brainstorming the next RX-7 (Mar 2003)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
1 Comment 

I always like the idea of Wankel engine. It is lightweight and compact, giving engineers more freedom in designing the chassis. Optimum weight distribution is easy to obtain with Wankel engine. You don’t need any expensive transaxle gearbox or aluminum bonnet. You don’t need to place the battery in the trunk. 

The down side of Wankel engine is still fuel consumption, as you can see in RX-8. We don’t know how much potential it has to reduce emission in the future, but at least it already complies with Euro IV, so Mazda has at least 5 more years to improve it to meet the next phase of tougher regulations. 

However, many people can’t help feeling a bit disappointed about the RENESIS engine of RX-8, for it is no where as powerful as the last RX-7. Although we know RX-8 is intended to be significantly cheaper and more civilized than the full-blooded RX-7, we can’t help feeling empty in our heart. Yes, the voice inside tell us that we want the Seven back. Not only us, but the RX-8 engineering team in Japan also dream about that every night. The management also revealed such intention, but whether a green light is given will be dependent on the sales result of RX-8. If the market accept it, Mazda will be confident to spend another large sum to create the new RX-7. Let’s hope so.

Now, let us brainstorm how the RX-7 would look like. We can safely assume that the car will not be sold in the same large numbers as the RX-8. Therefore it must share key components - such as engine, suspensions and steering - with RX-8. As the Seven will be a pure 2-seater, it can be based on a shortened version of the RX-8 platform. I would like its wheelbase to be cut by 250mm to 2450mm. Wheelarches are pushed out a bit to accommodate wider tracks and tyres. The rear tyres grow to 245/35, still at 18-inch rim because the lightweight RX-7 doesn’t need brakes too big. The front tyres are 225/40, narrower than the rear. The fine suspension of RX-8 just need stiffer springs and dampers to cope with extra power. 

You can get more power from a Wankel engine in 2 ways. One, simply add the third rotor. Unfortunately, the side intake and exhaust ports of RENESIS seems preventing the addition of another combustion chamber, at least that would be inefficient in the terms of packaging. Therefore, I would choose to turbocharge the current twin-rotor unit by a pair of turbochargers like the previous RX-7. Running at a light 0.8 bar, the engine can probably pump out 300 horsepower and 250 lbft of torque, sufficient to punish 350Z and Porsche Boxster S. 

On the other hand, the shorter chassis with B-pillars is not only stiffer but can be lightened in other places, such as transmission tunnel. By using aluminum bonnet, boot lid and doors, plus lightweight trimming in the cockpit, in addition to the shorter chassis and the lost of rear seats and doors compare with RX-8, weight can be down to 1200-1250 kg despite of the heavier engine. By placing the engine further back, 50:50 weight distribution can be retained while polar moment of inertia is further reduced. 

So, this is my dream new RX-7, a sports car capable of doing 0-60mph in sub-5 seconds and top 165 mph. It could be priced at US$33,000, compare with the US$26,700 RX-8, or the same as the top-spec 350Z. Sharing so high percentage of ingredients with RX-8, I think this price is feasible.

If Mazda can manage to cope with emission regulations, then the next phase will be 1.2 bar of turbo boost, creating a 360 hp / 300 lbft RX-7. It could have a higher power-to-weight ratio than the 911 GT3 !!! 

Let’s hope such a RX-7 will come one day. But first of all, the RX-8 should succeed.

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the March 2003 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: F1 to the Wrong Direction (Jan 2003)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

If you remember, in 1999 I wrote an article “F1 and Road Car” to point out that the link between Formula One and road car technology was far weaker than car makers wanted us to believe. 4 years have gone, today this not only has no improvement, but  it gets even worse.

What is the problem with our Formula One business? both FIA and the participating constructors seem miss the point in their recent debate. They argued whether F1 should be a “show” or a “sport”. They discussed about cost reduction and rescue plans to the troubled teams. But they miss one important thing - F1 is pointing towards the wrong direction, a direction leading it to be far removed from the production car business. F1 technologies can no longer be applicable to road cars, because in the 21st century the first priority of our road car technologies is to bring super-low fuel consumption and clean emission or simply zero emission. We need to invest billions of dollars in development programs of hybrid, fuel-cell, hydrogen power, direct-injection, common-rail diesel, Valvetronic, CVT transmission and the like. We want to build a car drinking 1 litre of fuel per 100km. We don’t need a 18,000rpm engine which destroys itself after 200km of running, which has no green technology at all, which drinks 1 litre of RON102 fuel per kilometer - even though the car weighs 450kg and carries 1 person only.

To align the development of road car and race car technology, F1 should consider introducing fuel consumption regulation, banning refill. Just like in the 80s it restricted the fuel tank size of turbocharged cars so that the drivers should always had fuel consumption in their mind. What about requiring the F1 cars to finish 200km distance with 50 litres of RON98 super unleaded fuel (from your regular gas station), an equivalent to 11.2mpg? and then tighten the tank size gradually to achieve higher efficiency every year?

What about introducing Euro IV emission regulations or ULEV standard to F1 racing? 

If F1 is raced under a different environment to road cars, its technology will be difficult or even impossible to be transferred to road use. Just like the funny NASCAR - they can turn to just one direction! 

Introducing environmental concern to racing is not necessarily boring. No, on the contrary to that, this will slow down the cars and make the racing more exciting. To road cars, F1 can help accelerating the development of green technology that eat no power. They can explore technologies in catalyst, electronics, combustion control, fuel system and engine breathing, helping our road cars to get more horsepower while meeting stricter government regulations. We will no longer afraid that newer emission regulations will kill our Skyline GT-R or RX-7, reducing power of our Evo or STi.

I have never doubted the power of Formula One R&D. Whenever FIA introduced a new regulation to slow down the cars, say, banning turbocharging and reducing engine capacity, F1 teams always found new solutions to make their cars faster again in just a couple of seasons. The question is whether we can make better use of such development power to help improving our road cars.

Last week FIA announced a reform in Formula One. The focus was on cost reduction. But one of the changes seems going to the right direction: from 2004, each engine must be able to complete one racing weekend, from practice, qualifying to racing. From 2005, this will extend to 2 races. Undoubtedly, F1 engine makers will have to make their engines stronger and more durable - just like our road cars.

That’s not enough though. I hope to see more useful changes in the future.

Mark Wan
Note: The editorial is reproduced from the January 2003 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: Rover to the dead-end road (Part 2) (Dec 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

The last editorial “Rover to the dead-end road” aroused some criticism from lovers of MG and Rover. Some criticized it as base on imagination rather than facts and figures. Some said it was not right to reward Phoenix’s efforts with negative comments. Originally I have no plan to respond, but then I discovered that Autocar magazine gave MG Rover an “Outstanding Achievement” award in its annual award, and that article was full of rubbish. I decided to respond.

The British magazine praised MG Rover “took less than a year to launch the MG ZS, ZR and ZT saloons, followed soon after by the all-new Rover 75 estate and the facelifted MG TF sports car.”

Well, that’s not bad, but the MG line of sports sedans are no more than tuned versions of Rover 25, 45 and 75, with breathing-enhanced engines and stiffer suspensions setting. They even look like tuner’s cars. The same goes for MG TF. Rover 75 estate was developed in the BMW-era. When BMW handed over Rover to Phoenix, the 75 estate was already caught road-testing without disguised. Therefore I don’t see creating them in short time as a special achievement.

“These have already been responsible for turning the company’s fortunes around, swelling UK sales by 2.5% year-on-year.“

MG Rover always reports good news and hide bad news. To shut up those criticizing me for without showing facts and figures, here I give you MG Rover’s sales figures in Western Europe, supplied by ACEA - the industrial organization consist of 13 biggest European car makers:

MG-Rover sales in Western Europe

Year Cars sold (rounded to thousands)
1997 349,000
1998 304,000
1999 228,000 (BMW started negotiating selling Rover)
2000 198,000 (Phoenix took over Rover in May)
2001 160,000

What about this year? according to ACEA, sales from Jan to Nov this year amounted to 130,530 units, down 12% from last year’s 148,369 units in the same period. Sales of the whole year 2002 is therefore projected to 143,000 units.

The fact is, home country UK is the only market sees sales not dropped, thanks to the effort Autocar and other British magazines which help creating an image of revival - Autocar even used advertising-style of strong phrases such as “this has to rate as one of the biggest comebacks in automotive history“. However, if we minus domestic sales from the above Western Europe figures, we may see sales dropped by as much as 25%* in Mainland Europe! this is by all means a crisis.

What about worldwide sales? MG Rover is very weak in markets outside Europe. According to my 1998 data, some 80% of the MG and Rover-brand cars were sold in Western Europe. If this ratio remain unchanged, we can see this year the company will sell under 180,000 cars worldwide.

Most industrial analysts agree that a non-premium-brand mass production car maker needs to produce 2 million or more cars per year in order to survive while remain independent. MG Rover now produces less than one-tenth of that amount. More alarming is that it needs 4 different platforms to do 180,000 cars - the Rover 25, 45, 75 and MG TF. You can see how weak the demand each model has. When demands drop, component prices increase. Also, the factory cannot utilize maximum efficiency. They are therefore impossible to be profitable. For comparison, most other European car makers, such as Renault, PSA and Volkswagen, need 6 platforms to achieve annual volume of 2-3 million cars.

Year 2003 will be a hard year to MG Rover. Apart from the image-ruining Tata and the low-volume MG SV, it won’t launch any new cars. Both Rover 25 (MG ZR) and 45 (ZS) are very outdated now. Demands of the 75 will continue to slide, as its rivals get stronger and stronger. The Longbridge plant will inevitably layoff workers.

2004 will see the replacement to Rover 45 (based on TCV concept). MG has no concrete plan yet for the replacement of 25 (may be terminated) and 75. Even the replacement of MG TF is still uncertain. MG Rover seems lack of cash to develop these cars, so it is desperately finding a partner to share development cost and platforms. Unfortunately, time and cash reserve are running out. The judgement day will be in 2004.

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the December 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: Rover to the dead-end road (Nov 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

If FIAT collapse, many car lovers will be very upset, for FIAT used to build mainstream cars having unusual characters. 

If MG Rover collapse, I think few people will be regret. People will forget it quickly, just like they forgot BMC, Leyland and Austin Rover. Changing the name to MG Rover won’t solve the problem. Changing car-making philosophy to please hardcore enthusiasts might sounds clever, but this is still a dead end road. Tell me how many people will buy a MG-brand sports car which is powered by a Mustang engine and being priced more expensive than a Porsche 911. Add more horsepower and it becomes as expensive as a Ferrari Modena. Tell me which one you will choose?

They might say the MG SV is not prepared for large-scale production, or explain that it is for part-time racing. OK, but I would choose a 911 GT3 Club Sport instead.

We can understand why British media praise the effort spent to MG TF, ZR, ZS and ZT. However, do those appreciation result in good sales? MG Rover announced that their 2nd full year “successfully” halved the loss again, but they didn’t tell you that their original plan was to break-even that year. Sales in UK was actually pretty good (thanks to the free promotion from your British magazines), but European market collapsed heavily. 

The question is: with their cash burning quickly, MG Rover is now dying. They don’t have sufficient money to develop a decent product. People hope the forthcoming replacement to Rover 45 (see the concept car Rover TCV) would bring prosperity back to MG Rover, but I doubt that. Because of tight budget, MG has to build the car based on the Rover 75 platform, which is already not renowned for space efficiency. You know, space is very important now to European small cars. If the new 45 fail, MG Rover’s fate will end in the inevitable bankruptcy. 

Think in this way, when BMW failed to save Rover, when no other big car makers were willing to take over or make alliance with Rover, you know everybody is expecting the last British car maker to collapse. Poor MG Rover had to seek partners in the third-world, such as Tata and China Brilliance. Can they save the Rover? of course not. Building or selling a Tata small car will only degrade the brand value of Rover and make no profit. On the other hand, the joint venture agreement with China Brilliance now seems over, as the chairman of the Chinese car maker has been sacked and under criminal investigation by the authority. China Brilliance has already established a joint venture with BMW, so the new management is unlikely to approve the risky project with MG Rover. 

In the end, MG Rover will finally disappear from the world, just like its predecessor BMC-Leyland, Austin-Rover and Rover. People will never regret that they lose the unattractive MG TF, ZR / S / T, Rover 25 / 45 / 75 etc. They will just be happy that Mini is in the safe hands of German.

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the November 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: Horsepower vs Fun (Oct 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

In the age when the whole Europe is pursuing 400-plus horsepower and sub-5-seconds 0-60mph, I have to remind you that fast does not equal to fun. On the contrary, fast cars are more likely to be uninteresting because of several reasons: firstly, their performance is too high that engineers have to compromise handling sensitivity with high-speed stability. Secondly, their high price inevitably put them in a market segment where buyers are likely to ask for more comfort, hence better noise insulation, ride quality, space, equipment etc. All these are enemies to pure driving fun. 

The most enjoyable car should be simple and gadgets-free. Wind back a few decades and you can find all the perfect cars we are dreaming for today - MG Midget, Lotus Elan, Porsche 356, Porsche 550 Spyder, Alfa Spider… these are called Roadsters, which are characterized by their lightweight, agility, involving handling, pureness in design and open air motoring. Sadly, today only Mazda MX-5 remains loyal to this formula.

Apart from Roadsters, there are some contemporary sports sedans or coupes worth dreaming for: Alfa Giulia GTV, BMW 3.0CSL, Lancia Fulvia… even until the first Audi Quattro and BMW M3 (and don’t forget the flawed but charismatic Alfa 75) the automotive world was still making sensible and really fun cars. Then enter the horsepower racing era. I always suspect it was triggered by the E36 M3, which suddenly jumped from 4-cylinder to 6-cylinder power plant, but actually all German car makers were also responsible. Cars such as Audi S-line and RS2, Mercedes-AMG C-with-growing-numbers-from-36-to-55, the V8 M5, the E55 AMG until today’s 450hp RS6 and 476hp E55, all participated and worsening the horsepower war.

Give me a break, OK? 

Well, if you are tired of these fast cars, try hot hatches. Not necessarily because of limited budget, but many hot hatches really deliver more fun than megapower saloons. From this year you can even specify a hot hatch capable of 0-60mph in the low 6 seconds - fast enough to most without compromising fun - and looks and feels prestige, e.g. Alfa 147GTA and Golf R32. Clio V6 is extremely attractive to look at, the same goes for Focus RS. 

Our choices are not limited to hot hatches, but also anything cheap and fun. These of course include the mighty Evo VII, Impreza STi and Lotus Elise. But in case they are too predictable, what about Smart Roadster? this car has the spirit of the old British roadsters. Cheap, lightweight, simple and fun. It proves that fun doesn’t relate to speed.

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the October 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: What? A Porsche Pickup? (Aug 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

If you are astonished by Porsche’s entering into 4×4 market, you will find this news even more astonishing: as reported by Autocar, Porsche is now considering to build a pickup version of Cayenne. 

Although this may not really come true, it let us rethink how wide the product range of a premium sports car brand can extend to. You may joke that Lamborghini also built tractors, while many trucks wear 3-pointed-star logos, but talk seriously, will you accept a Ferrari MPV, even if it were designed by Pininfarina, powered by a V12 and thoroughly tested by Michael Schumacher (and his dog)? 

If no, why did Porsche boss Wendelin Wiedeking insist to build Cayenne, the first ever SUV for Porsche? would Ferry Porsche approve that if he were still alive? will Cayenne attract wider audience to Porsche, or ruin its image as a focused sports car maker established in 4 decades? I cannot imagine how a 911 and a Boxster park beside a 2.4-ton, 1.7-meter tall, boxy-shaped Cayenne and seen as a family.

The identity of Cayenne is also embarrassed by its close relationship with Volkswagen Toureg. Both share the same chassis, 4-wheel-drive system and air suspensions. To make things worse, the Porsche will source a couple of engines from Volkswagen: the 3.2-litre VR6 and, more disgusting, Audi’s 4.0 turbo diesel V8!! this will be the first ever diesel Porsche! 

History tell us the partnership between Porsche and Volkswagen usually resulted in failure. If you remember, 914 was a joint venture between the 2 companies and, unfortunately, it was also the least successful Porsche ever. The original 924 was also a joint venture, being built in Audi’s plant using Audi’s engine and running gear, and the suspensions from Golf. It was also not very well received by the market. When Porsche redeveloped it into 944, used its own engine and built it in Zuffenhausen, the car immediately became a star. Now Cayenne even has a close sister wearing a Volkswagen badge, how can its identity not be confused?

Wiedeking’s fortune will depend on Cayenne. If the latter fail, he will be fully responsible. To be honest, although he was praised by the industry as saving Porsche from bankruptcy and turning it into the most profitable car maker, I am not convinced with some of his decisions. Cayenne is one of them, others are:

- Stopped participating in high-level motor racing such as Le Mans. He forgot that Porsche’s heritage was established in racing circuits.

- Always refused to build high-performance version of Boxster. Now this market has been lost to Mercedes SLK32 AMG and BMW M Coupe. At the same time, Boxster’s sales in the USA slowed down to the extent that dealers have to offer incentives to clear stock.

- 2 generations of forgettable Porsche GT1 road car. By the way, do you remember them?

- Decision to build the Carrera GT supercar at a time Ferrari Enzo is launched. It will be remembered as a car eclipsed by the Enzo in every aspect. The Carrera GT is halfhearted, because it is actually built around an already finished V10 engine for an abandoned Le Mans racer. Seems like Wiedeking doesn’t want to waste the money spent to the V10 program thus find some millionaires to swallow it. It won’t be a new-age 959.

So, good luck Mr. Wiedeking! if Cayenne fail to attract American, I would suggest Mr. Wiedeking to consider pump up its V8 to 7 litres, convert it to push-rod, add a big ram-air device on bonnet to block half of the driver’s view, source a 4-speed automatic gearbox from GM’s truck division (it will also be cheaper than ZF’s), add some fake wood decoration on the side body panels while employing plastic dashboard in the same quality as Mattel’s toys. That will definitely attract even wider audience. Come on, everybody, you can own a Porsche. Just contact your nearest supermarket dealers to have a test drive!

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the August 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: The Collapse of FIAT (Jun 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

Alfa Romeo is enjoying sales success, Ferrari F1 team is winning champions after champions, Lancia is improving steadily… all sounds good news to Italian auto industry. However, the sky over Italy is dark, just because of one reason - the FIAT empire is collapsing!

2 years ago, FIAT sold 20% stakes to General Motors to get a stronger partnership and cost sharing. This is the first sign that the Italian giant is no longer as powerful as it used to be. In the mid-80s, 3 out of 4 cars sold in Italy had the 4-stripe trademark on the grille. Today, FIAT’s share of domestic market drops to around 1/3, and worldwide sales is declining by 15% in the first quarter this year. During the period, it made a loss of close to US$300 million and debt is accumulated to $4 billion.

Aging chairman Giovanni Agnelli, the hero of Italian industry, used to insist the jewel of the crown, crown of the country, Ferrari, keep firmly in Italian’s hands. In fact, when he accepted the plan that sold Fiat Auto’s shares to GM, he split Ferrari from Fiat Auto (which consist of Fiat, Lancia and Alfa) and reorganized it under the control of Fiat SpA, keeping Ferrari (hence Maserati as well) away from the American. However, the situation now is so poor that Agnelli has to agree with the plan that float Ferrari on stock market. FIAT just need the one-time cash to reduce its debt.

Whether Ferrari will be shifted to foreigners’ hands is unknown. We hope not.

However, FIAT’s problems are unlikely to be solved so easy. The main problem still lies in products. Punto, once the dominating force of FIAT’s fortune, is facing strong competitions from many new superminis launched last and this year. It is still some years from replacement but is already showing its age. In fact, a couple of months ago FIAT stopped its production lines at Melfi plant for a few weeks in order to clear the stock of Punto. 

Stilo is even worse. Just launched a few months ago with high hope, FIAT is already experiencing one of its biggest sales disappointment in years. It proves that when a Fiat loses Latin taste it becomes nothing. 

There are many more deep-rooted problems of its lineup, such as the reluctance of launching a mass production Scenic-style MPV (the spaceframe Multipla is a small-scale production), the delay of the Panda / Seciento replacement, the lack of a big family car… all these are unlikely to be solved soon, especially the company is now cutting budget thus will delay future programs.

As you can see, Fiat’s management made countless of mistakes in product planning. Just cutting cost and slimming production will never solve the problems. What it needs is some sensible products just like what Nissan is introducing, or simply another Carlos Ghosn-style saviour. How about Ferrari’s Di Montezemolo?

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the June 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: Design Talk (Apr 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

40 years after launch, the lines of Lamborghini Miura is still the most beautiful.

However, we know such shape is no longer feasible in modern car design. Our safety regulations require big bumpers, our customers ask for higher roof, our aerodynamic research results in higher tail and less curvature over the body. Because all cars are subjected to the same requirements and boundaries, our cars have been evolved to more and more similar to each other.

Just like Formula 1, now no matter Ferrari or Minardi look virtually identical. It will be very interesting to date back to the 70s, where Formula 1 cars can be 6-wheelers, can have no front spoilers, can have a ground-effect fan at tail, or the whole car can be an aero foil. The 60s and 70s was so free ! they could try whatever ideas they had and explore any directions.

But the world is a small globe. One day all the directions will be explored and everybody will come up with the optimized solutions - the same solutions. Just like Formula 1.

Is that meaning our cars and racing cars designs will be increasingly hopeless ? not necessarily.

Just like Formula 1, if the set of rules change, you will face a completely unexplored area and everybody will try different solutions. In other words, to keep things fresh, we need frequent change of rules. The current situation of F1 is simply due to the relatively stable of rules since the mid-90s. If FIA switch to V8 engines or 2.5 litres of capacity, or change the dimensions / weight limit / tyre width … just any big changes, car lovers will be excited.

What about road cars ? the physical boundaries like aerodynamics may never change, but customer requirements are changing. In the past we did not have crossover vehicle between cars and off-roaders or between cars and wagon or between sports cars and off-roaders, now people want them and car manufacturers are exploring the possible designs quickly. This bring completely new design we have never seen. For instance, I would say a BMW X5 looks more exciting than the predictable 3-series. The same goes for Volvo’s first SUV XC90 or this week’s Nissan Murano.

If our scientists and engineers find a new material or new structure offering multiple strength than today’s steel, they can also come up with a new look car. A more realistic change might be Xenon bulbs which reduces the size of headlamps. That means headlamps will no longer dominate the look of cars. In short, the advancement of technology will change the face of cars, and sometimes probably give designers higher degree of freedom.

The future is not too pessimistic to me.

Mark Wan
Note: The editorial is reproduced from the April 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

Fri 7 Jul 2006

Editorial: These Automotive Journalists ! (Mar 2002)

Posted by Mark Wan under Editorial
No Comments 

After commenting so long about cars, let’s change our attention to automotive journalists. 

Some readers asked how I manage to write high quality reports and news articles. The answer is every bit predictable - 1) good observation to find out how this car differs from other cars; 2) improve my own technical knowledge; 3) work hard to gather information; 4) write and comment in my own style.

Point 4 is especially important. However, since a couple of years ago I found most car magazines have been losing their own styles. One of their bad common mistakes is using sound recorder during group tests. Car And Driver, Road & Track and Evo like this especially. Here is how they comment a car:

“Its handling is simply unflappable !” said John. 

“Fool-proof, I’d say it’s the most secured performance car I have driven for years” Tim said. One of the testers even describe it as “totally trustable”. 

Tim also likes its brakes, describing it “amazingly powerful and with superb pedal feel”. John, however, thought it needs more feel at the last 1/3 travel …

In the end, after reading the whole report I have no idea whether the braking feel is good or not. I also don’t understand what “unflappable”, “fool-proof” and “totally trustable” mean. Instead of using these subjective words, I would describe body roll, grip, understeer, steering response and steering weighting etc.

Really, I was disappointed with R&T’s comparison test for Infiniti Q45 and Lexus LS430 last year. After reading the whole report I still got no idea about the handling and ride of Q45. Normally I take notes when reading car magazines, but in that case I found nothing I could write.

Another common mistakes can be seen in Auto Express regularly. It usually says its news are exclusive or world’s first, but in fact many other media (including mine) have already reported. 

Patriotism is another problem. When somebody rate a TVR higher than a Porsche or choose a Thunderbird as COTY, you know this is not the magazine you can trust. Even a magazine as highly regarded as Autocar can have such problems - sometimes it favours the soft ride of Jaguar XJR, sometimes it can forgive the harsh ride of MG TF and rate it as the class leader. So, as long as the cars are British, they are automatically added with 1 star.

There are many more problems but I’m afraid we will never have enough space to express. The last problem I am going to discuss here is about the technical knowledge of automotive journalists. This concern individuals rather than magazines. Yesterday I read someone called Ben Oliver writing about Seat Leon Cupra R in Autocar. He said the 210hp front-drive machine has no torque steer because of strong front tyre grip and sharp steering. I’m sorry with Mr. Oliver for his confusion between “torque steer” with “understeer”. As I know, strong front tyre grip can only increase the level of torque steer. 

Automotive News’ Joe Kohn also made me laugh. He said Infiniti G35 achieves a good 52:48 front-to-rear balance by moving fuel tank from under the trunk to under rear seats. Doesn’t this make the car even more unbalanced ? This man seemed confuses “good balance” with “low polar moment of inertia” (maybe he doesn’t understand this term). As I can proof, Nissan’s press material really mentioned both things.

It is a pity that many people earn their living by being automotive journalists yet so many of them without getting sufficient knowledge to fulfil their jobs. Next time I won’t read Ben Oliver’s and Joe Kohn’s reports anymore. These guys talk about what they don’t understand.

Mark Wan

Note: The editorial is reproduced from the March 2002 Issue of AutoZine. All Rights Reserved.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »