Thread: Land Rover is dead... Long live land rover!

Originally Posted by gromit

Interesting analogies.....

Aircraft
I'm not scared of tech for the right application.

Aircraft and their spare parts are highly regulated so very different to cars, despite your regular comments about how the the extensive testing will make the 'Defender' more reliable I'm not sure it will be comparable to aircraft.

Have you seen Air Crash Investigation programmes on TV ?

Daily driver, 6 years old and all the analogue instruments stop working. Dealer had no idea so it was going to cost lots of $$'s to investigate.
Removed the instrument cluster and noticed a large IC on the back, CanBus and the cluster has to be paired to the vehicle so replacement expensive and may not fix the problem.
Digital display can give digital speed reading and distance to empty so drove it without analogue instruments. 3 weeks later it came good !

Windows
You might not be old enough to remember the reply from GM when Bill Gates made a comment about the speed of development of the computer vs. cars (I'll include it at the end of this post).

I understand that the software in the vehicle will need to be regularly updated but will they make it go slower as it gets older, then you have to upgrade the vehicle to 'Defender' 2.0 ?
Will it suddenly stop for no reason and you have to turn it off & on again ?
They won't give software updates to independent service centres so you are locked into LR and their huge service costs (I sort of understand this).
At the moment the dealer has to connect the car via PC to LR head office as any upgrade is done, not sure why this is but I guess it keeps tabs on the dealer ???

Joking aside, I understand why there is so much electronics but it makes it much less likely to be a vehicle with a long life, I guess you'd argue that we'll have to go electric before the new 'Defender' reaches the age of my Defender so it's not relevant.


They are seen now as a prestige brand so the purchase price and service costs reflect this and it needs all the wizz bang features to appeal to the modern 'driver'.

Capable - yes.
Meets the demands of the current (cashed up) market - probably.
Long term investment - no.

Many buyers nowadays move a vehicle on in a few years so it'll be interesting to see the secondhand price in say 3-4 years time (out of interest, because I wouldn't consider buying one)

Interesting that it was launched well before they have vehicles to sell, I guess they are hoping the hype will generate interest and therefore sales. Also interesting they are controlling the media (you can 'test' it but you can't have the keys).



Here's the reply from GM from many years ago.

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.
For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."


Finally, no I don't believe the World is flat (before you ask).


Colin

Do you still ride a horse & carriage?
If you do, respect

Saying if your scared of tech dont fly, in no way infers that the new defender is as reliable as a plane, rather its pointing to planes as one of the most tech heavy peices of transport on earth. Its tested and proven very reliable before launch.
Tech has come a very long way and today csn be proven very reliable if done right and tested right.

I see testing done to a high standard also with the new defender for example and new rovers, something like 60,000 engineering signoffs , pre realworld tests, 1.5million ks real world tests, pre production real worlds, then SOTA and FOTA to pick up whatever is missed.

So in context of the original thread the new defender will to a large extent be the pillar for LR moving forward..we will see this come to light as journalists start to get thier hands on them and it starts winning 4x4 OTY etc around the world like the D3,D4, D5 did.

BR there are plenty of threads extolling the virtues off the new offering from JLR , you don't see me sticking my nose in there with hate speech.

This thread is on topic.
better yet if your not worried about tech in modern aircraft go for a flight in a 737 MAX.

Originally Posted by goingbush

BR there are plenty of threads extolling the virtues off the new offering from JLR , you don't see me sticking my nose in there with hate speech.

This thread is on topic.
better yet if your not worried about tech in modern aircraft go for a flight in a 737 MAX.

, there is nothing being said that's off topic and out of line with other posts here, my opinion is my opinion.

As others in charge have said before, lifes to short for hate, lets just be nice and respect each others opinion even if we dont agree.

I believe all 737 max's are grounded so thats not guna happen, due to cracks in the wings not a tech fault .

Originally Posted by blackrangie

, there is nothing being said that's off topic and out of line with other posts here, my opinion is my opinion.

As others in charge have said before, lifes to short for hate, lets just be nice and respect each others opinion even if we dont agree.

I believe all 737 max's are grounded so thats not guna happen, due to cracks in the wings not a tech fault .

Just for the record, 737 MAX aircraft were grounded because of a design flaw in a system that was introduced to make the aircraft feel the same to fly as earlier 737s. This system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System)was introduced purely to save airlines money on retraining their pilots on these aircraft. It works by controlling the jack screw that actuates the elevators - its sole purpose is to trim the nose of the aircraft down. Its design flaw was that it took its input from only one of two angle of attack indicators (AOA) meaning that if that AOA indicator failed MCAS could (and did twice) send an aircraft into the ground. So yes, grounded due to technology.

If you are talking high tech in modern cars compared to modern airliners, then the points brought up previously are probably valid.
But, when comparing affordable modern cars to affordable flying (ie own/operate/fix yourself light aircraft - ie the bulk of aircraft flying around the world), most civilian aircraft still run old tech (carburettors, magneto's, single cams, etc) for various reasons (economic, political, litigious), although thankfully this is changing. Just to throw a spanner in the works!

Originally Posted by SBD4

Just for the record, 737 MAX aircraft were grounded because of a design flaw in a system that was introduced to make the aircraft feel the same to fly as earlier 737s. This system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System)was introduced purely to save airlines money on retraining their pilots on these aircraft. It works by controlling the jack screw that actuates the elevators - its sole purpose is to trim the nose of the aircraft down. Its design flaw was that it took its input from only one of two angle of attack indicators (AOA) meaning that if that AOA indicator failed MCAS could (and did twice) send an aircraft into the ground. So yes, grounded due to technology.

Beat me to it. The original iteration of MCAS was far less intrusive, but Boeing engineers "upgraded" it so it could take over control of the elevators almost completely, and made manually trimming the aircraft extremely difficult, a disaster if the aircraft had a low above ground height.

BTW, the "cracks in the wings" are actually cracks in the 'pickle forks', they are not causing the grounding of any aircraft immediately and they are in the 737 NG, which is a different aircraft to the Max line of aircraft.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Do you still ride a horse & carriage?
If you do, respect

Saying if your scared of tech dont fly, in no way infers that the new defender is as reliable as a plane, rather its pointing to planes as one of the most tech heavy peices of transport on earth. Its tested and proven very reliable before launch.
Tech has come a very long way and today csn be proven very reliable if done right and tested right.

I see testing done to a high standard also with the new defender for example and new rovers, something like 60,000 engineering signoffs , pre realworld tests, 1.5million ks real world tests, pre production real worlds, then SOTA and FOTA to pick up whatever is missed.

So in context of the original thread the new defender will to a large extent be the pillar for LR moving forward..we will see this come to light as journalists start to get thier hands on them and it starts winning 4x4 OTY etc around the world like the D3,D4, D5 did.

I wish Tata all the best with the new 'Defender' but it isn't a vehicle I'd buy even secondhand.



Colin

Good News, Jim Ratcliffe has defeated JLR in court , he is now free to model the Ineos Grenardier on the old Defender shape. JLR failed to retrospectively copyright it.