investment-auto-motives

Winter Interlude - Drawing on the Past - Explosions and Notes


[NB 22.11.2019 - the UK election looms, and the populist focus centres on political twists and turns; with the virtue signalling of respecting the marginally successful  British people's desires For 'Brexit'.

Yet whilst debate becomes deliberately emotionally charged by topics of Immigration and the NHS, there has been scant focus on what might be called  'The New British Business Model', that melds into the global and European economic realities.

The public has been swayed by long existing media-fuelled narratives, and yet the reality of most people's lives is that they know little or nothing about the economic realities and scenarios that lay ahead For Britain, whether a ST I Brexit, Canadian Credit or renegotiated terms outside of inside the EU.

Time perhaps to forget the emotive choices of the mass populace, and place Britain's future in the hands of those who actually know the commercial, sectors and trade terrain, on a country by country basis.

Once the fiscal and monetary massaging ends, it's all about the macro and micro fundamentals.

For the moment, I hope you enjoy the journey back in time].



Further to the previous 'Explosions and Ghosts' weblog per the contextual corporate backdrop to a notional 'Mini 3'; this article simply wishes to better convey the idea and use of exploded views with accompanying notes.

Such diagrams seek to better visually describe either the dissected operational elements of an item: as per the absorbing diagrams of machinary, or to - in design and engineering circles - better explain the concepts and operational systems being suggested or considered in New Product Development.

The accompanying graphic illustrates the coupling of 2 very basic concept sketches regards user configurability and re-configurability for the two variants of next generation Freelander, soon after the launch of Freelander 1 (CB40 / L20).

These showing exploded views of potential 'lifestyle' orientated possibilities for not the nearer-term expectant face-lift, but the replacement vehicle 7-9 years down the line, so 2004/5.

It was an effort to 'relegitimise' what was often but wrongly perceived by the 'old guard' as Land Rover as having sold its soul, so as to enter the high volume 'Soft-Roader' sector.

[NB the same argument raging today about New Defender, but with far more vigour given Defender's legendary status].

Hence this was part of an effort to re-strengthen the Green Oval badge in its new somewhat mainstream territory.

Freelander 1 had been developed as a merged effort between the Land Rover and Rover Cars divisions, with Rover conceptually exploring the market space long before the awful 200 Streetwise emerged.

From Odin and Pathfinder projects it had started to create somewhat compelling product propositions merging the notion of 4WD cars (previously seen with: AMC Eagle, Subaru, Audi) and with 'Active Lifestyle' vehicles (previously: Matra Rancho, Nissan Prarie, Honda Shuttle etc).

The concepts were decent enough and with familiar styling to late 1980s/early 1990s Cars products were a natural extension, in theory.

Aside from the 'Big Car', there was even a prototype Metro 'SUV' created which sounds hideous but was quite well resolved using the Honda Shuttle type of tall rear window. (Far better than Streetwise).

Except the product type(s) and usage did not fit-in with Rover's immediate brand values centred around driving comfort, ease and upmarket interiors; and so would have sent mixed messages to the market-place.

And could not be badged 'Road Rover' (even though echoing the 1950s and 1960s prototypes) because they would have undermined the Land Rover brands and its Range Rover sub-brand.

Obviously the natural home was with Land Rover and so Project CB40 / L20 was initiated to create a brand extension vehicle suited to mainstream vehicle drivers and users who themselves had become more demanding in the 1980s and 1990s with more lifestyle pursuits and the status derived from higher echelon automotive marques.

All this is well recognised 'history', as is the story of Freelander. Ultimately Freelander 1 was a vehicle that provided pseudo-adventurism for the singleton, couple and family with its 3-door removable hard-top and 'soft-back' and the 5 door in notional estate car station-wagon guise.

Freelander 1 was an immediate and long lasting hit with people, and was regards its mechanical architecture very innovative (car-based adapted FWD floor pan, low-cost 4x4 mechanics, first application of 'HDC' (Hill Descent Control) and made available in two model guises to maximise atraction and so sales potential and so revenues.

And giving the swelling market sector and so massive sales potential, the CB40 project had been given impetus and funding by BMW AG, and had created Land Rover products that were indeed 'Best in Class' off-road, compared to the Japanese competitor crop from Toyota (RAV4), Suzuki (Vitara), Honda (CR-V).

Yet besides its generally softened LR appearance (ie raised suspension, rounded 'shoulders', rear-door hung spare wheel, black composite bumpers - soon altered to be colour-matched) the look of the car did not invite buyer-users to be as adventuristic as the vehicle itself was certainly capable of both on grass and even up to semi-serious off-roading.

In short the first generation vehicle had already by mid 1998 become periodically lambasted as 'Car Park to Safari Park' because of the conventional suburban behaviour of its client-base.

It should be remembered that the mid 1990s was a returned short-lived economic boom period, so suburbanite holidays typically consisted of 'the Med' and 'the USA', so not involving the car. Instead increasing weekend and weeklong country-side getaways for city dwellers, for which Freelander appeared just right; able to bring back a bit of country-life glamour when returning home to the suburbs.

Freelander then was in very real terms the everyday representation of escapism, during the weekday grind, where the fantasies of country manor houses could be overlaid upon the suburban 'good life'.

[NB The vehicle was itself then to the urbane intelligencia merely a simularcrum object, representing an idea (Defender and Discovery and so true Off-Road escape) yet in detail far from the original; ie "all style and no substance"].

But that was not the case at all, since though it had its undeniable faults - engines, gearboxes, build quality, it was mechanically exactly the right solution for its rota of tasks.

It could do far more than it was generally called upon to do, but being more 'feminine' compared to its bigger siblings to match the mainstream, it did not automatically invite the buyer-user to become as adventuristic as he or she could have been.

Hence the main drawback to Freelander 1 was that it appeared 'weaker' than it actually was, and so any second generation model and its variants should do a better job of enticing the buyer-user and to become more adventuristic....to stack-up at the Supermarket Car Park, drive past the Safari Park and head to the lakes and hills for properly physically interactive 'escapes', from mountain biking in woodlands to camping to nature-watching.

Freelander needed to entice the driver and passengers into the free lands of the countryside, whether that be Cumbria in the UK, the Dolomites in Italy, near reach Bush or isolated beach in Australia or Savanna-lands of Southern Africa.

In short Freelander needed to better entice its owners to become greater participants of the Land Rover 'club' orientated around 'the land', from Farmers to Adventurer-Overlanders to Off-Roaders.
As of mid 1998, even with massively successful previous launch, it was seen that the 2nd generation vehicle would need to better self-advertise its true nature and intent.


[NB the concern was that If it did not evolved in the right direction, it could ultimately succumb to being criticised as a "hairdressers car", just as Suzuki's very capable SJ410 had done - itself later bought and adapted by true off-road enthusiasts; as has now partly happened to Freelander].

The accompanying pictorials illustrate very basic considerations as to how the DNA of the two Freelander variants could be evolved.

In real terms the mechanical package would be an evolution, so more had to be made of the BIW to yet further improve the User Experience. One aspect of CB40's Project Mission was regards 'Extra-Ordinary Customer Delight', fulfilled by the 3-door. So its successor would have to evolved the original USP, and so very basic thoughts were drafted to differentiate Freeland from its bigger stablemates, and provide yet more 'Surprise and Delight' in use.

And although the sketches were purely about 'Re-Configurability', Accesories and possible Technical Issues and not specifically Style (which was wholly the Studio's remit under Geoff Upex and George Thompson), it was inevitable that basic LR design schema and personal thoughts of the period influenced the basic bodystyle of the sketches.

So keeping to the increasingly geometric LR concepts that were 'flavour of the day' that had been drafted for the Disco 2 Update (L25 , seen a year later), Discovery 3 (L50) and Range Rover 3; but with reduced waistline height, reduced 'DLO' / greenhouse height and increased wheelbase, and possibly decreased ride height ( both W/B and H much exaggerated here for effect) so as to aid the 5 door's rear legroom and luggage space, even if it affected the 3-door's break/ramp-over angle, since it was never a 'rock-crawler'.

Freelander 2 was no where near yet becoming officially recognised as a formal NDP programme, since Freelander 1 had yet to be launched and Business and Technical Strategy was still in the motions of considering what best architectures/packages to use for all future LR products; and was thus in the midst of a major 4x4 and 4WD competitor, technical and market audit.

Specifically, the L50 programme (Discovery 3 initially called 'Heartland') and L40 (Defender 2, were being radically reconsidered, regards Advanced Suspension of the Disco, and Composite Skin Panels on the Defender), and were under major technical reconsideration.


This because the 4x4/SUV/X-Over market had advanced and so broadened so much even by late 1997. And because of the enforced possibilities of having to possibly share System Sets with BMW's upcoming X5. So much so that with concerns that X5 might compromise LR suspension capabilities (especially regards articulation and 'compliance'), thus the Concept Suspension Engineers on Heartland were initiatlly tasked with exploring various advanced systems beyond Airbags, known as 'Kinematic', into Rheo-Statically Controlled Electro-Hydraulic Systems, for very Variable Ride Height and extreme axle articulation. This was a exploratory engineering exercise in CAD modelling,when awaiting the full compliment of L50 Concept Engineers to form the team. Needless to say, it did not evolve into production].

As per Freelander 2, the shown sketch layouts show a Series/Defender influenced bodyside, which had been rightly previously dismissed on upmarket Range Rover since 1970, and so inevitably on the same platform the 'Rangie' based Discovery 1 and 2. That new Freelander bodyside, inspired by Defender, to add greater perceived shared DNA to its ancestor, with likewise implied visual strength (even if in reality Defender's body was torsionally poor).

That meant far greater visual prominence of the 'B' post, demonstrated by seperated shutlines of front and rear doors. The roll-bar of the 3dr would be seen in the shutlines of the 5-door. With the specific use of the diagonal shut-line on the 'adventuristic' 3-door, echoed in the rear closure of the 'family' 5 door (as per Defender). That gave a specific visual cue between both variants, so emphasising each variants' connectedness to the other. It made the 3 door appear more rugged, and with the rear of the 5 door inevitably be accessed by children and young teens, provided them with a direct psychological connection to the more trendy 3 door.

'Entry and Egress' had also been a bugbear of taller vehicles, especially for children and females, themselves obviously typically shorter than males. 'd always thought the visual clumsiness of typical after-market and later similar factory-fit items detracted from well considered vehicle lines and disrupted the aerodynamic boundary layer at sill level. Unless also used as 'rock sliders' (in very very rare instances) the standard types were very functional but cosmetically cumbersome.

Instead better to try to integrate a step within a structural cover to the structural inner-sill, that could obviously carry an adult's weight. This item - if possible - deformable enough to help protect the sill if lightly impacted, but also removable by after-market specialists, so as to be replaced with 'Rock Sliders' if needed.

The face of the vehicle shows the typical applied 'family' template of the period (longlasting until 2014 on Freelander). The wheels here obviously unrealistic - typically sketchy - used to echo the increasing prominance of the wheel arches, another LR 'family' trait to distinguish from less feature-line defined Range Rover. The wheel designs simply to constrast as 4-spoke 'rugged/sporty' and 8-spoke 'conventional' to enhance the personality of the variant.

Critically, onto the crux of the sketches, the variants' features:

Firstly, mention of the two bonnet types, providing choice between conventional (as shown on 3-door) and 'Castleated' version (as shown on 5-door). the latter echoing and literally expanding the 'Castleations' of original 1970 Range Rover.

The 'Castleations' mimicked the concept idea shown on the stylised version of previously illustrated 'AID' mechanical mule, with under-hinged storage pods upon either side of the bonnet top. On 'AID' used for farmer's tools etc, but here as a functional design cue to both original Range Rover and critically here what might have been Freelander's wholly off-road designed underling 'AID'. The Turrets act as access hatches for small basic storage space between the wing/fender and the inner-wing/ flitch. This for wet apparel, dried-out by the mesh inducted heat from the engine bay, that channelled airflow ducted-out at the rear. Critically, it also provided much improved aero-housing for the wing mirrors, which in cold temperatures would be de-frosted by the passing warm air. Thus in concept form at least a dual functional solution, though unfortunately unlikely as productionised.

The 3-door vehicle (simplistically then labelled 'Adventure') shows evolution of Freelander 1's BIW, with removable hardtop and so accompanying soft-back. The hardtop though with Alpine windows and no side windows, to assist rigidity. (Rear passengers look through 1/4 light windows)

However, Freelander 1 provided no open-air experience for the driver and front passenger, the sun roof a mediocre affair. So here the standard roof is replaced by what might be described as an 'intermediate fabric hood' - something between a fully insulated fabric all-weather convertible hood and a skimpy 'bikini-top' as seen on beach vehicles. Thus part insulated, but quickly removable and replacable, attached to windscreen top and new structurally significant Roll-Bar (for torsional rigidity, given no steel roof).

The idea obviously stemmed from the solution from the Lotus Type 111 (Elise Mk1), which sought a basic but durable solution to weatherproofing the car. Consisting of quick-release cant-rail bars, cross-braces and fabric hood cover. The cant-rail bars ensure tight fitment of the window into enclosed rubbers and channels water from the hood onto the windscreen. Given its inspiration from the admired sportscar, this notionally comprimised solution actually provides technical gravitas and greater useability and so enjoyment than a typical T-bar roof which requires removal and storage of 2 roof panels.

The removable hardback is similar to the 1997 car, as would be the soft-back installation. However, far greater feature made of the rear 1/4 light window. Initially seen is that its shape is reflected by that of a Side Storage 'Locker' located before the rear wheel.

[NB the term 'Locker' is also obviously synonymous with the slang for an LSD (Limited Slip Differential). Freelander's drivetrain system was effectively car derived and adapted, so not akin to the old norms of transfer-box and locking differentials. Yet the word itself provided association to the world of extreme off-road, and so was specifically used in its alternative meaning for storage].

Instead of being a fixed aspect of the BIW, the 1/4 light is a removable unit in itself, as per a Sports-Car, with eyelets for tie-down straps when securing a mountain bike or other equipment in the rear (when rear seats folded down or removed). It is locked-down with cam-levers into the roll bar and lower body. The Roll Bars and Sports Bars similarly finished in the same brushed aluminium or stainless steel to contrast with paint.

[NB there was also the idea that these 'Sports-Bars' with thick plexiglass window, would include 3 small fold-out legs in the frame, so that when removed from the vehicle able to function as either 2 low stools, or 1 stool and 1 low table. Thus in the old Land Rover spirit of dual use items; to sit and drink when camping overnight a literal Sports Bar (so providing a modern take on the Series 1 front grille, when used as a BBQ rack for outdoor cooking, and akin to Citroen 2CV's removable seats for external use].

That 'Side Storage Locker' (obviously lockable) provides greater security for items when the 2 soft-tops are removed. Deliberately mimicking the side lockers of Military Defenders and those of Motorhome and Caravan RVs. So as to be both wholly practical and cross-fertilise imagery of those arenas.
Inside the locker is an optional carry-bag or carry-case.

The carry bag itself in two versions:
a) in canvas to echo yesteryear canvas tops, and beach connotations.
b) rigid plastic and lockable itself, to echo idea of security and even possibly a stylised version of the iconic Jerry Can.

[NB This somewhat of an insider joke given Gerry McGovern's styling of Freelander 1; to be set-down in the vehicle's formal Engineering Specifications List, to which Styling would have to adhere].

These bags deliberately illustrating the diagonal of the bodyside aperture, to demonstrate its anticedance and obviously to fit snugly into the body panel recess. And as importantly, be ergonomic, since a heavier forward-biased weight in the hand assists the walking gait when carrying a load, since it assists the swing of the arm(s) in its pendulum effect.

The 5-door variant (then notionally labelled 'Interactive') echoes the diagonal of the original Series/Defender layout in its rear door, and thus critically also (as stated) evokes the 3-door vehicle. Just as the 3-door has become more open, so has this variant.

The most important elements being :
a) the Removable Rear 1/4 Light Windows.
b) the Transparant Top or Fabric Top.

Both these solutions create as far as is possible, the much sought for Open Air Effect within a closed vehicle.
The Removable 1/4 Light windows then opens the whole vehicle up when all other windows are wound down (including tailgate window that was so beloved of Freelander owners), even with a conventional roof structure. Whilst the installation of a transparent roof or retractable fabric roof further opens the car to what feels a near convertible status.

Given the pace of competition, such or similar 'Experience Features' would be needed to evolve the basic impetus of the Freelander sub-brand, create major differentiation, and so assisted the continued popularity of Freelander 2 amongst both previous owners possibly migrating elsewhere, and new buyers who could not obtain such aspects in competitor vehicles.

Besides the possibly considered extremity of the 'Turret Bonnet' and and possibly non-use of the 'Integrated Deformable Sill Step', many of these features are obviously not innovative in themselves, simply the merging of the previously very niche arena of Leisure 4x4s (typically American Jeep CJ-5 and Wrangler, with also LR NAS90) themselves obviously created from previous privateer adapted of their Utility 4x4s (Series1 and 2, and CJ-3 and 4), best exemplified in Beach and Mountain Trail America.

These vehicle feature considerations made - as either standard, part standard or options - necessary given the recognition of the new brand impetus that Jeep was via Wrangler derived/inspired Concepts: JEEPSTER, ICON and ECCO, aswell as efforts such as the DAKAR showcar upon standard 5-door Wrangler.

And so whilst Land Rover / Rover Group Powertrain Engineering had been the main proponents in creating Freelander 1's off-road credibility, Freelander 2 was envisaged by myself in Technical Stratagy as requiring as much BIW innovation (if not outright re-invention) as possible, to maintain the progress made on CB40 and grow the popularity through product uniqueness not only the UK and Europe, but critically further afield in both the obvious USA, Japan, Australia and South Africa, aswell as the then increasingly economically stable and newer EM BRIC economies.

[NB Freelander to especially shine in Brazil as the responsible 'tread lightly' off-roader, given the what was then the beginnings of the climatic spotlight upon the Amazon Rain Forest. As illustrated by the family friendly 'Rain Forest' Restaurant that had opened in Shaftesbury Avenue, Central London in that period].
Ultimately, with BMW divestment, and then under Ford's overtly tight financial regime, Freelander arguably suffered by not being given the breathing space and product planning impetus to evolve as originally intended given its two original first generation variants.

The 3 door was discontinued and the 5 door was replicated as a notionally better version of itself regards product quality and performance parameters. Critically under Ford the use of corporate common systems and components.

Moreover, Ford had its own decent margin Cross-Overs and SUVs in the USA, with Escape and Mazda Tribune, set against Freelander aswell as obviously its bigger SUVs. So Detroit sought even better margins from an 'upmarket' Freelander, especially given the costs of shipment from Halewood to North America, and that meant as much 'cost-down' on the 2nd generation programme as feasible.

Freelander's raison d'etre as a youthful 'young at heart' product for all ages - essentially offering lifestyle escapism and so freedom, effectively ceased when Ford's overtly conservative reinterpretation arrived in 2006 as a single model. Without the 3-door anymore, and without special design effort upon the 5-door to create a Land Rover spirit, the car became more soulness. This was sad given the visually perfect rendition of Discovery 3 / LR3 that reflected its own raison d'etre. Although softer in appearance, Freelander effectively became a smaller Disco.

[NB Disco 3 effectively reset the brand imagery of Land Rover. Its blocky, clean and detail punctuated look had been honed in the Studio since 1996, appearing in full resolution after Disco 2's facelift a full 8 years later. It's proud arrival was the very opposite of a near sorrowful eventual Freelander 2, and it rightly took the mantle of the archetype Land Rover].

The second generation vehicle was to the public little more than what appeared a better quality but uninspiring 're-skin' of the old car.

This was obviously not so, since it was based on a Ford-Europe derived EUCD platform (for Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover) which merged the general architecture and technical demands of mainstream Ford and PAG (Premier Auto Group) brands.

And that meant priority of common denominator Engineering and Manufacturings scale and capacity plans across both Gaydon tech centre and Halewood production plant. Maximisation of platform business model targets, supplier pricing negotiations and plant utilisation.

It would be good to believe that that central corporate ambition of reduced NPD costs, meant monies could be redirected toward Discovery 3.

Ultimately, it meant that very unfortunately Freelander 2 did not get to evolve as initially envisaged (as herein) in 1997 - before formalised investigation - continued as a distinctly two variant model range line-up.
And as such, the original ambition of the sub-brand, was also highly diluted.

Freelander 2 became effectively re-orientated by the earnings promise from the American market. And that meant aspirant suburbanites simply seeking an affordable - though far less differentiated - of Land Rover ownership and associated prestige.

The expected American demand was such that the product could be philosophically diluted to reduce development costs, yet still provide substantive revenues.

Land Rover had undoubtedly been financially fortified by its American owner of the time, yet also was simultaneously seemingly stunted when 'Ford-ified' in its C/D segment entry, and segment expansion ambitions.

For attuned Business Strategists, Product Planners, Designers and Engineers, the corporate circumstantial realities of bringing and sustaining meaningfully differentiated vehicles to market determine everything.

The global boom of the late 1980s and 1990s, corporate profitability and the need to stay one step ahead, provided the strategic backdrop by which many manufacturers explored and developed attractive, segment distinct and characterful vehicles; the examples are too many to list here.

However, when a company is effectively fragile (as Land Rover was even in the late 1990s given its subsidisation of the entire Rover Group), or regional and global economies stagnate or contract (as seen immediately after 2001 and 2008), the creation of something altogether iconic becomes extremely hard, if not impossible, given the very necessary 'baton-down the hatches' corporate mentality.

Both events so in 1998 for Solihull and Gaydon.

BMW AG looking likely to divest Land Rover to ultimately Ford (and so my departure from Rover Group onto Lotus in late 1999), and Ford thereafter required to double-down on cost-saving measures to endure the bursting of the 'dot com bubble' and shock of 9/11 attacks.

Itself an era that had a massively negative toll on innovative NPD perspectives, philosophies and ambitions for Western VMs. Once again hit in 2008-9 by the Great Financial Crisis. In essence, western auto-manufacturing was 'under the kosh' for a decade and a half, the GFC again forcing the typical reaction of consolidation and cost-down.

[NB the macro and micro effects of which were and are still with us, as exemplified with Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi and the more recent FIAT-Chrysler and PSA merger agreement].

In different circumstances, Freelander could have grown - as envisaged here - into much more than the much constrained second generation 5-door vehicle, which arguably led to its final demise in 2014. It offered little more than its mainstream badged competitors.

However, two decades earlier it had been envisaged as a new and substantive sub-brand in its own right, that actually added great value to the 'escapist absorption' that everyday people obviously desire whether on daily commute or into the countryside.

Whilst the fast developing EM nations could have become far more enchanted by the Green Oval, with Freelander, beyond the obvious aspirational trope of premium badge consumerism. Freelander 1 and 2 could have provided the true added-value of opening the eyes of the burgeoning EM middle classes regards their own country's natural beauty.

All of that early era 1997 hope for the vibrant expansion of Freelander is now well and truly "water under the bridge"; and consigned to a very small corner of the history books.

That recognised, the basic sketches shown here seek another goal.

The fact that matters here is regards the use of drawing as a powerful communication tool.
Where even basic drawings can utilise methods such as 'exploded' diagrams to relay central intent.

Yet to provide further insight regards the basis of the ideas, sketches all invariably require accompanying legibly written descriptions to assist; even if the old adage states that a picture paints a thousand words. Pictures do best when set in context.

Even the original Mini designer Alec Issigonis' sketches were rough and accompanying notations often illegible; simply done in his standard hand-writing. So even as conceptually good as he was, colleagues like Jack Daniels and others would have undoubtedly appreciated far cleaner block lettering in their explanations.

So when drawing to communicate a base idea or product to others - especially if involving alternative and specific features - do try to keep it visually 'clean and simple'.

Since instantaneous, unhindered immediate understanding and appreciation in others often helps to convince of an idea's plausibility.....if the timing is right.