Extract from Auto Express write up on BMWs 125 convertible
"with the front wheels only beginning to lose grip at the very limit"
Where else would they lose grip?
|
Makes one wonder what happens at the back!
Better not be too rude, though. That man at the top left has the same job description, too...
|
|
Where's the link between Auto Express and journalism then?
|
Trouble with motoring journalists (with certain exceptions) is that they don't live in the same real world the rest of us do. They drive expensive cars on private circuits in a way we can only dream about and often sneer at the kind of car most of us have to drive because we pay for it out of our own pockets.
|
At a previous company we were always keen to see how our products were reviewed in the press. And always keen to see how many mistakes they'd made on the technical side....
You don't expect a journalist to be an engineer, but if they're going to make technical statements you'd hope they'd be correct?
|
|
Just read a little article in an American paper describing how the diesel Jazz sold over here gets 50 mpg:)
|
|
I remember reading something about a car having improved fuel economy because it was less areodynamic!
|
I think the problem is many 'motoring journalists' these days are half-trained kids " 'avin' a bitta fun'' on the way to doing something else.
|
Yes mh, something to do with the market I guess. The Bill Boddy/John Bolster/DSJ generation is all but gone, and the modernist enthusiasts (Setright, George Bishop and one or two of the better people who used to be on Car magazine) have also moved on. I suppose there are still Autosport and the VSCC journal, but an awful lot these days is about bling, fashion, back-to-front baseball caps and even fashionista stuff and thinly-disguised erotica.
I don't mean some of the better motoring hacks aren't enthusiasts. We all know their names and we all know they could do a different sort of journalism if they were encouraged to. It's just that the idiom has somehow broadened to suit the modern mass consumer market.
Still, I love being a dinosaur.
|
|
The old adage 'we get the politicians we deserve' could equally be applied to motoring (or any other..!) journalists - and probably many other professions & public servants too. If Mr & Mrs. Can't-be-bothered-as-long-as-it's-shinybling, research, 'appreciate' & buy their cars for shallow & spurious reasons, then that's what market publications will serve up.
|
Much in what Lud and Woodbine say! Another example from a rival to DT. My response to what I think is a nonsense in the G******. As they have not troubled to respond, here is the text:
"I was interested to read the following comment in Giles Smith article today (22 March): "muddle-headed because, if we accept that manufacturing cars is worse for the environment than driving them, then a policy that encourages people to change their cars (or, in some cases, even acquire a second or third car for use as a charge-skipping runabout) must be wrong."
If we accepted that position, indeed the policy would be wrong. But, he has the issue the wrong way about. As I understand it, a vehicle will, over its lifetime consume energy/resources in the ratio of around 15/75 (depending on model) where the first number represents the proportion used in the manufacturing cycle. The majority of the energy use is in the running of the vehicle.
Much heat was emitted on this issue re the strange claims that the Hummer was less damaging to the environment than the Prius. Counter arguments have demolished the position of CNW Marketing who produced the report that posited the Hummer was less damaging.
Recent re-visit of the Pacific Institute analysis www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_s...f
Original work: www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_s...f
In this "Example 2" considers Distribution of Lifetime Energy Costs. Referring to my point on the energy costs above here is part of what Pacific Institute say on the matter:
? A report produced by a British research firm concluded that more than 90% of all energy
used in the motor industry went to vehicle operation; less than 10% went to manufacturing
and production. [14]
? The British auto industry trade group estimated in their 2006 sustainability report that life
cycle CO2 emissions ? a strong proxy for energy ? are allocated 10% to manufacturing; 85% to use; and 5% to disposal. [15]
There are further examples, plus references in the paper cited.
I look forward to a revised conclusion from Mr Smith. Candidate for your "Bad Science" column?"
BTW. The 15/75 is wrong, and it doesn't add up, even. Mea culpa
|
"15/75 is wrong, and it doesn't add up"
Don't be too hard on yourself - it adds up to 90, 15/90 one way, or 75/90 the other, although 1:6 might have been an easier way of expressing it!
WRT the environmental costs under discussion, I imagine that the whole cost of manufacture is not an easy calculation. Does it include the metal smelting energy, the disposal of manufacturing waste and solvents, or the end-of-life recycling costs, if you don't throw it all into landfill, for instance? Lives of vehicles are pretty variable, too - I don't suppose the analysing institutes have a clear idea about it. They probably think cars are thrown away after five years.
|
What about contrasting reviews? Compare Jeremy Clarkson's view of the Subaru 2 litre boxer diesel (today's Sunday Times) with that of our very own HJ who sings its praises, especially in yesterday's DT. Couldn't be more different.
Much as I like JC's writing I have much more respect for HJ's automotive opinions/advice.
|
"Much as I like JC's writing"
I do, too, up to a point, but never confuse it with serious reviewing. He's not one to be troubled by any doubts or recollections of what he wrote last week.
|
|
The institutes drew on SMMT amongst others and the SMMT 8th Sustainability Report covers, so far as I can tell, the issues raised. tinyurl.com/yqx6r3 Page 14 and references. Much data on the state of the market also.
|
|
"the modernist enthusiasts"
Blimey, Lud - you must be even older than me if you class LJKS and George Bishop as modernists!
Totally agree, otherwise. As Piet Hein put it (more eloquently than I could):
Why do bad writers win the fight?
Why do good writers die in need?
Because the writers who can't write
Are read by readers who can't read.
|
|
|
|
