Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   The Indian Car Scene (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/)

-   -   Overdrive's hatchback track test - Figo 1.5 diesel quickest! (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/176587-overdrives-hatchback-track-test-figo-1-5-diesel-quickest-3.html)

Good one IshaanIan. Actually you can't win in this one. Even if OD had not changed the tyres and retained the OE tyres each car comes shod with, the story would have been that this was unfair as one car had better tyres than the other giving an unfair advantage.

For example the Figo OE tyres are usually MRF ZV2K, the poorest of the lot and the Elite i20 gets Apollo Alnac 4G's which are a grade above. The Jazz is usually shod with Michelin's which could have resulted in better times.

If each car had different tyres, it would not be evaluating the cars but the tyres. It's a variable that can skew the true capabilities of the car.

I think the results were surprising to say the least. What we can take from this shootout is-
a) Some cars can surprise us - the Figo Diesel, Baleno Petrol
b) Each track will not be suitable to all the cars in the test.
c) None of the cars are track cars, but road going ones just tried on a track - not all, or rather very very few owners will take their cars on tracks. A GT TSI or Abarth owner will probably take it for a track day, but I'm positive no other cars will be taken on the track.
d) Factors like in-gear acceleration, braking and how a car feels are more critical in the real world rather than the time it took to lap a track.


Also, were the timed laps flying laps or standing starts?

The article indicates that OD were not able to get a car from VW. Even the GT tsi used was a given by a friend. Guess they did not have anyone who could loan them the GT TDi or regular tdi for the test.

Well, whatever makes you happy.
But the fact is there is no standardization among these cars to begin with, except for their hatchback body style and making only the tyres as constant does not make it a true leveller for unbiased testing.
Why stop only at tyres? Why not test cars only with manual transmission / only petrol cars / only diesel cars, etc.

Atleast with stock cars, being untouched will remain the universal rule to actually infer that "X car is fastest amongst competition in stock condition" which sounds much more real rather than say, for example, "Figo diesel with JK tyres is fastest only when competition cars are also shodded with JK tyres", which does not relate to a real situation of all cars being shod with the same tyres.

Also, this has nothing in relation to being Indian. For instance, production cars are tested at Nurbergring with nothing in common between them (not even tyres) and yet their lap times are accepted as 'official' and marketed by manufacturers the world over as bragging rights. 😀

Look buddy if you are not clear on how track shootouts and comparos are done, then I'm sorry. Let me try explaining it to you. You need not compare the diesels to the petrols if you dont want to or the automatics to the manuals. No one is asking you to buy any particular car based on this comparison. It is just a question of which is the quickest around Kari. Transmission and Engines i.e. the drivetrain, is a part of what a car is and having same tyres installed on all cars in a track shootout, is the easiest way to ensure that the car's capabilities are tested fairly. This is the only way to purely test a car's true potential. If you want standardization in the manner that you are talking about then all you can have is the same engine, same chassis, same drive-train and same weight with the only differences being styling and colours and then what will you be testing? I guess you can test which tyre is best based on which one is offered on each of your "standardized" rides :uncontrol You don't go about asking silly questions like why compare a turbo charged Mclaren to a normaly aspirated Ferrari now do you? The way a manufacturer chooses to make their car is upto them and if we want to truly check the potential of their final product on a given track, then they must all run the same tyres. Absolutely no two ways about that. MotoGP and Formula 1 both employ single tyre suppliers for each season for the very same reason. Do people care about whether Yamaha uses an inline 4 or Honda uses a V4 ? No they do not, because it does not matter how the company wants to extract performance but that they all play on a level field using the same tyres.

Please don't be naive enough to bring the ring into this. In this case it is just a platform where manufacturers test either stock cars or modified ones with race spec roll-cages. The ring is a test of how fast a car or bike can go around it in any way that the manufacturer sees fit and each manufacturer just chooses options best suited to their car to get what they feel is the best lap times. Completely different to what this track comparison is meant to be.

At the end of the day, a track shootout is a track shootout. No one has said that it is relevant to everyday driving situations and no one ever will. If you actually give a damn about the key aspects like chassis balance, grip and tuning, then you will want all cars to run on the same tyres so that these differences are not masked by better tyres or revealed too much by poorer tyres. If you dont care about these characteristics of a car, then simply read road driving impressions and be happy who is asking you to read about track comparos?

Anyway, if you have a thing against such standard universally accepted practises, perhaps you should take it up elsewhere or maybe start a new thread discussing it. :)

Firstly you are being naive in comparing this subject production cars one-off track test to the racing rules and regulations of Motogp and F1.
I am very well aware of shootouts being conducted with same tyres among other parameters for the supposed fairness but it is not a mandatory criterion. Track tests are also done to assess the track-worthiness of completely 100% stock cars and bikes.

My point is that the test results may vary, for instance, if all these test cars were shod with Michelin oems instead of JK tyres, which may still favour one car over another, and is not a true indicator.

Eventually, these tests are pointless if these do not translate to comparison of on-road perfomance of these Production cars relative to their on-road stock condition and are merely for either "assessment" / bragging rights, similar to ARAI fuel efficiency tests for example.

No one said this was the same as a race mate. However the same principles apply and the same tyres are used in rules and regulations for MotoGP and F1 for the same reasons. Let's try not to argue just for the sake of it.

That's why Overdrive has mentioned which tyres they used. Ofcourse testing using eco budget JK tyres will yield different results when testing using performance rubber. However the final standings will be similar and thus using a control tyre is a better measure of a stock cars true potential than using different rubber on each. If you cannot wrap your head around the physics of that, then I am sorry. :)

Has anyone said the track shootout is indicative of on-road performance? Have you even bothered reading any of my posts properly? Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing and actually read my posts fully and perhaps also take some time to comprehend everything before making me respond again and again.

Overdrive magazine conducted the test, and they deemed it necessary to have the same tyes on all vehicles. Test is completed, results are out and there is no use discussing the regulations now.

Since they changed tyres, people are complaining of the relevance compared to stock cars. If they hadn't, some others would have complained that since most people upgrade tyres anyways, this variable should have been equalised.

So better to leave it at that and accept the results as is. :D

PS- No point getting personal.

I should have actually started from the performance mods and kept the, "etc" after the cosmetic ones stupid:

Friend, am not arguing at all, if that's what you felt.
Apart from the highlighted observations on the cars' potential, i dont see any tangible outcome.
Wanted to seek out if there was any but found none.

Alright sorry for the hostile approach :) In that case, how about the highlighted difficulty of body control in the Punto or the lack of a good transmission that allowed a diesel Figo, to edge ahead on the track? Or the lack of a balanced chassis preventing the Jazz which comes with relatively better steering feedback than the Baleno and i20 and more power in both petrol and diesel guise, from even getting ahead of the i20? The DSGs better performance compared to the DCT even though the petrol Figo has better power? These are all relevant outcomes IMO (ofcourse only when you drive close to or on the limit of a car's capabilities) that could not have been so clearly highlighted by a regular road test.

I found the results of the Jazz to be the most interesting of the lot actually. Obviously it was nowhere close to ever coming on top, but I did expect it to do better atleast looking at it on paper and having extensively driven the Brio. I am confident the Brio would have done decently well even in this modern company. As long as you say to hell with keeping her comfortable and getting good mileage, and you work the short throw box to keep her singing at high rpms, she just flies! What do you reckon it is with the Jazz? Higher drivetrain losses? False figures? Poorly matched gear ratios for the track? Or a floppy chassis? I haven't actually driven the new Jazz much apart from a short test drive long ago when my friend was considering it. I wish they did a dyno test on these cars as well to answer few more questions.

The results aren't surprising and this further proves the ace turbo diesel engines have over petrols. A normal turbo diesel engine, properly tuned, can easily take on performance petrols. A strong low end and explosive mid range can leave many petrols in the dust and that's exactly what's happened here.

I actually would've loved to see how the Figo diesel fared against the S-Cross 1.6 and VW Polo 1.5 GTD.

Quite an interesting track test of commuter hatchbacks and some warm hatchbacks together on a track. Honestly quite surprised to see the diesels rule given that these diesels are designed to satisfy the 'mileage' crazy public and to see 'performance' cars like the Abarth and the Polo GT TSI lose out. Ok the Polo's DSG is not very track friendly which is understandable, but the Abarth especially with such a potent motor and with the best chassis, steering and brakes to go with it, should've been on top and by a good margin.

Fiat really need to address this. If your car's USP is performance and speed, these kind of shootouts are where you come out on top (by a decent margin) and attract your target audience. Its achilles heel is that slow gearbox and poor ratios which ruins the entire package. The weight hurts too. Modern cars are going lighter and lighter for better performance and efficiency. Fiat fans may love its tank like build , but competition is hot and today cars can be light and safe at the same time.

The Jazz petrol has different gear ratios vs the Brio i.e. taller ratios in the interest of better mileage. This completely kills low down performance and you really need to wring that engine to get some decent acceleration. On technical tracks which have lots of slow and medium speed corners, the Jazz is going to be difficult to keep on the boil and my guess is that's what made the times suffer.

Actually I expected the Jazz to be atleast better than the elite i20 petrol but even that was a whole second quicker.