It’s a broad topic but one worth investigating. The recent Tokyo Motor Show has once again brought to mind the question: “What on earth is going on?” Manufacturers are producing cynically small updates to their model line ups, and trying to persuade consumers to buy the latest generation, largely on the basis of a couple of new LEDs in their tail lights.
They show wild and wacky concepts of potential new vehicles, but in reality about ten percent of their features actually make it into a car that hits the road. It would seem fair to question the purpose of these showcase vehicles. Who is it really benefitting? Telling your shareholders “Don’t worry, we haven’t been entirely asleep for the past year!”? Broadcasting to fellow manufacturers “our small team of designers have consumed considerably greater quantities of drugs than yow!”? Informing the general public “We can envisage such wondrous machines, but in the meantime carry on and keep buying those Honda Jazz / BMW 2 series dull boxes”?
I’m rather of the opinion that vehicle manufacturers should only be allowed to release a new model into the wild, when they have shown it to possess significant improvement beyond its predecessor. A panel of experts and the general public would meet to discuss potential new model releases and a weighted scoring system would decide whether each offering should be given a green light. Large development leaps in powertrain would rank higher than a new roofline or wheel trim design. Changes in LED tail lights would only gain any bias if it were shown empirically that the impressive dance of coloured lamps actually improved reaction times of those following.
This could slow the rate of change of car models, but those changes would be far more impressive and, likely, needed. Audi seem to be a particular culprit of changing minor details to entice customers to change their car again. On a morning commute you can easily follow a variety of A6 models with a fair array of differing derrière illumination depending on which six month period that car was released in. Beyond that, a cynical release of a few extra horsepower with a re-programming of the ECU and a colour change to the central dash strip, are the only changes that you can identify.
I would concede that moving strips of amber LEDs do seem to make it easier to spot when closely aligned to the red brake lights, but that shouldn’t constitute the raison d’être for a whole model release. The recent habit of placing front indicator lamps right next to eye-searingly bright white daytime running lights is idiotic at best. It thus meant that manufacturers had to programme dimming of the DRLs to allow the indicators to be seen. Audis and Fords (to name a few) kept the DRLs mounted lower in the bumper in the early 2010s. Quite why they needed to be moved into the main headlamp cluster is anyone’s guess. Cost? Probably. Aesthetics? Possibly but it largely seems to be a backwards step.
I can see that there would be a considerable volume of objection to my cunning plan. How is it decided what improvements are significant? Who gets to sit on the Council? Isn’t this system open to abuse? Won’t this kill the automotive industry? From my position of absolute ruler over this plan, a flippant answer to those queries would be: “I choose”, “Me”, “Quite possibly”, “Who knows?!”
In reality, I’m sure a panel of judge similar to eCOTY could be formed and could be prevailed upon to steer a fine course between helping the automotive industry and doing right by the general public at large.
Under this scheme, exploration of new methods of vehicle propulsion would be lauded and stylistic changes to a Flying B would be laughed at. Impressive fuel economy improvements or battery efficiency achievements would be hailed with great press and fanfare, whilst a new tone of piano-black lacquered door trim would fade into insignificance.
This shouldn’t stifle research, experimentation or development. Moreover, it would encourage it, since a brand new model would be denied release if it were deemed that there were no giant steps made in any aspect of the vehicle whatsoever. A significant benefit of the constraining of new pointless models would be ecological. Our ever-dwindling resources would be stretched to better use. There might be a reduction in pointless niche vehicles, even. Speaking of “even”, BMW could end up culling its bizarre range of X2, X4 and X6. The motoring world could also do away with the Mercedes myriad of GLC & GLE models, both subdivided into SUV and Coupe models. In fact, when perusing the MB website, there are no less than 35 distinct models to choose from. Suffice to say that this is niche-plugging at its worst.
If you want a coupé, buy a coupé. No one needs a coupé with an extra 3 inches of ground clearance. If you seriously need the extra altitude, get a proper 4×4 that requires a stepladder for entry (or at least those rather smart self-stowing running boards). In a similar vein, those who need the load carrying space afforded by an Estate car are well catered for. You don’t need a “shooting brake” that has barely any improvement in capacity. Stats: 1550 litres of storage for a Mercedes CLS Shooting Brake, versus 1820 litres for the E Class Estate would indicate that passing the WCRC (Worldwide Car Release Council™) would be highly unlikely for the mere benefit of a slightly racier profile.
It would seem, however, that the contemplation of the motoring world is enough to engender wild ramblings and as I rise from my psychiatrist’s couch and wait for the inevitable sting in the wallet, we can ponder whether the motoring world at large has gone mad or whether it is a mere symptom of consumerism as a whole. Maybe the motoring world should take a stand and lead a march for more responsible production. At this point, I will take a brief pause to laud Jaguar for exploring the revitalising of the past glories of its E-Type, by supplanting the venerable XK engine with a fully reversible insertion of an electric motor and battery pack. Repackaging old motors with modern technology would surely blaze through the WCRC™ in a matter of moments. It would whilst I am King.
In the meantime, I am going back to gently rocking in the corner while considering the arrival of another Nissan Juke.
Is The Motor Industry going mad?
It’s a broad topic but one worth investigating. The recent Tokyo Motor Show has once again brought to mind the question: “What on earth is going on?” Manufacturers are producing cynically small updates to their model line ups, and trying to persuade consumers to buy the latest generation, largely on the basis of a couple of new LEDs in their tail lights.
They show wild and wacky concepts of potential new vehicles, but in reality about ten percent of their features actually make it into a car that hits the road. It would seem fair to question the purpose of these showcase vehicles. Who is it really benefitting? Telling your shareholders “Don’t worry, we haven’t been entirely asleep for the past year!”? Broadcasting to fellow manufacturers “our small team of designers have consumed considerably greater quantities of drugs than yow!”? Informing the general public “We can envisage such wondrous machines, but in the meantime carry on and keep buying those Honda Jazz / BMW 2 series dull boxes”?
I’m rather of the opinion that vehicle manufacturers should only be allowed to release a new model into the wild, when they have shown it to possess significant improvement beyond its predecessor. A panel of experts and the general public would meet to discuss potential new model releases and a weighted scoring system would decide whether each offering should be given a green light. Large development leaps in powertrain would rank higher than a new roofline or wheel trim design. Changes in LED tail lights would only gain any bias if it were shown empirically that the impressive dance of coloured lamps actually improved reaction times of those following.
This could slow the rate of change of car models, but those changes would be far more impressive and, likely, needed. Audi seem to be a particular culprit of changing minor details to entice customers to change their car again. On a morning commute you can easily follow a variety of A6 models with a fair array of differing derrière illumination depending on which six month period that car was released in. Beyond that, a cynical release of a few extra horsepower with a re-programming of the ECU and a colour change to the central dash strip, are the only changes that you can identify.
I would concede that moving strips of amber LEDs do seem to make it easier to spot when closely aligned to the red brake lights, but that shouldn’t constitute the raison d’être for a whole model release. The recent habit of placing front indicator lamps right next to eye-searingly bright white daytime running lights is idiotic at best. It thus meant that manufacturers had to programme dimming of the DRLs to allow the indicators to be seen. Audis and Fords (to name a few) kept the DRLs mounted lower in the bumper in the early 2010s. Quite why they needed to be moved into the main headlamp cluster is anyone’s guess. Cost? Probably. Aesthetics? Possibly but it largely seems to be a backwards step.
I can see that there would be a considerable volume of objection to my cunning plan. How is it decided what improvements are significant? Who gets to sit on the Council? Isn’t this system open to abuse? Won’t this kill the automotive industry? From my position of absolute ruler over this plan, a flippant answer to those queries would be: “I choose”, “Me”, “Quite possibly”, “Who knows?!”
In reality, I’m sure a panel of judge similar to eCOTY could be formed and could be prevailed upon to steer a fine course between helping the automotive industry and doing right by the general public at large.
Under this scheme, exploration of new methods of vehicle propulsion would be lauded and stylistic changes to a Flying B would be laughed at. Impressive fuel economy improvements or battery efficiency achievements would be hailed with great press and fanfare, whilst a new tone of piano-black lacquered door trim would fade into insignificance.
This shouldn’t stifle research, experimentation or development. Moreover, it would encourage it, since a brand new model would be denied release if it were deemed that there were no giant steps made in any aspect of the vehicle whatsoever. A significant benefit of the constraining of new pointless models would be ecological. Our ever-dwindling resources would be stretched to better use. There might be a reduction in pointless niche vehicles, even. Speaking of “even”, BMW could end up culling its bizarre range of X2, X4 and X6. The motoring world could also do away with the Mercedes myriad of GLC & GLE models, both subdivided into SUV and Coupe models. In fact, when perusing the MB website, there are no less than 35 distinct models to choose from. Suffice to say that this is niche-plugging at its worst.
If you want a coupé, buy a coupé. No one needs a coupé with an extra 3 inches of ground clearance. If you seriously need the extra altitude, get a proper 4×4 that requires a stepladder for entry (or at least those rather smart self-stowing running boards). In a similar vein, those who need the load carrying space afforded by an Estate car are well catered for. You don’t need a “shooting brake” that has barely any improvement in capacity. Stats: 1550 litres of storage for a Mercedes CLS Shooting Brake, versus 1820 litres for the E Class Estate would indicate that passing the WCRC (Worldwide Car Release Council™) would be highly unlikely for the mere benefit of a slightly racier profile.
It would seem, however, that the contemplation of the motoring world is enough to engender wild ramblings and as I rise from my psychiatrist’s couch and wait for the inevitable sting in the wallet, we can ponder whether the motoring world at large has gone mad or whether it is a mere symptom of consumerism as a whole. Maybe the motoring world should take a stand and lead a march for more responsible production. At this point, I will take a brief pause to laud Jaguar for exploring the revitalising of the past glories of its E-Type, by supplanting the venerable XK engine with a fully reversible insertion of an electric motor and battery pack. Repackaging old motors with modern technology would surely blaze through the WCRC™ in a matter of moments. It would whilst I am King.
In the meantime, I am going back to gently rocking in the corner while considering the arrival of another Nissan Juke.
admin
19/11/2017
Motoring
Comment, Motoring