Flashback to the mid-'60's

[TomoHawk]

In 1959, Mr. K came to the U.S. to get Datsun/Nissan going, and you should here his comments on how the Datsuns were comparing to the cars on the American roads at the time. He made remarks on how he communicated to HQ about how the (fairlady) should be equipped. It's in the video about the history of the Z,and probably in his book to.

[HS30-H]

Still adding nothing. And I in no way told you you couldn't bring it up. Get you facts straight.

I think I have got my facts straight. You were - at the very least - discouraging me from bringing it up ( you just did it again ) when I think it is an important aspect to the discussion. If you don't believe me, then I'd suggest you look a little more closely at posts above this one. People still don't seem to understand the difference between targetting sales at a certain market and creating a whole car specifically for a certain market. They are not the same thing.

Do you have any knowledge of what those might have been for various markets? If not then you have an assemblage if bits with no understanding of why a particular bit was used or how that bit may have changed to work in the whole. You seem very reluctant to admit that the US market may have had unique performance targets that required specific changes to the whole.

It would be nice if you would ask these same questions to the "American Car, Made In Japan" / "Made For The USA" ( oops, I did it again... ) proponents. If the "US market" had "unique performance targets" as you suggest it might, then what were they and how did they affect the design and engineering of the model range as a whole? We know at least what some of them were, but what - speaking as an engineer - do you think might have had to have been done which is identifiably "US market" specific? Or would that too be just guesswork?

How would you know that softer springs and dampers would "fall within the parameters" and be given equal consideration?

I think I'm being diplomatic. The "equal consideration" thing is not a one way street. Those who want to tell us that one variant, one market version dominated the design and engineering to the level that all others were "irrelevant" automatically deny equal consideration. Going back to the question of suspension, it seems to me that you'd need to engineer the structure of a unibody to cater for all the spring & damper rates that would be used on it, and I can't see what is wrong with saying that lower, softer maximum rates would NOT have the same implications on 'shell design as higher rates would. You can call that guesswork, but it seems closer to common sense to me.

We are always going to be chasing our tails with this. As I've said before, I support your belief in the importance of the engineers' role in all this and it's nice to see somebody thinking of them rather than blindly quoting the advertising boys. However, without us actually having several different market versions - all built around the same period - in front of us, and being able to go all over them and compare notes, there's no way we will get very far. Question: Have you actually seen an RHD market version stripped down to component form? I'm wondering whether you have.

[doradox]

I think I have got my facts straight. You were - at the very least - discouraging me from bringing it up ( you just did it again ) when I think it is an important aspect to the discussion. If you don't believe me, then I'd suggest you look a little more closely at posts above this one. People still don't seem to understand the difference between targetting sales at a certain market and creating a whole car specifically for a certain market. They are not the same thing.

Let me make this easy for. I don't think it adds to the discussion. That is in no way shape or form telling you not to bring it up. And I seriously doubt you are in any way discouraged by anything I have to say about it.

It would be nice if you would ask these same questions to the "American Car, Made In Japan" / "Made For The USA" ( oops, I did it again... ) proponents. If the "US market" had "unique performance targets" as you suggest it might, then what were they and how did they affect the design and engineering of the model range as a whole? We know at least what some of them were, but what - speaking as an engineer - do you think might have had to have been done which is identifiably "US market" specific? Or would that too be just guesswork?

I'm asking YOU. Do you have an answer?

I think I'm being diplomatic. The "equal consideration" thing is not a one way street. Those who want to tell us that one variant, one market version dominated the design and engineering to the level that all others were "irrelevant" automatically deny equal consideration. Going back to the question of suspension, it seems to me that you'd need to engineer the structure of a unibody to cater for all the spring & damper rates that would be used on it, and I can't see what is wrong with saying that lower, softer maximum rates would NOT have the same implications on 'shell design as higher rates would. You can call that guesswork, but it seems closer to common sense to me.

Lower spring rates, roll stiffness, and damping leads to increased suspension travel, and therefor angles, in operation. On the S30 you can't change suspension geometry and any alignment settings except toe-in to compensate. The fixed suspension and steering geometry would need to be tailored so the vehicle with the most change in suspension and steering geometry during operation would still meet handling and ride requirements. Think about the aftermarket ball joint spacers that are used by some when LOWERING their car to compensate for a change in the roll center. Was chassis and suspension geometry design biased toward the version with lower spring rates, roll stiffness, and damping? Maybe. Certainly not inconceivable.

We are always going to be chasing our tails with this. As I've said before, I support your belief in the importance of the engineers' role in all this and it's nice to see somebody thinking of them rather than blindly quoting the advertising boys. However, without us actually having several different market versions - all built around the same period - in front of us, and being able to go all over them and compare notes, there's no way we will get very far. Question: Have you actually seen an RHD market version stripped down to component form? I'm wondering whether you have.

This whole, and I'm paraphrasing, "blah blah blah not made just for the US market blah blah" is really getting tiresome. I'm not saying the S30 was designed for the US market and all others were secondary. Just that it's not inconceivable that some US market requirements drove compromise in the design and may have had a higher ranking than a similar requirement for another market. And vise versa. You shouldn't be afraid of admitting that this is a possibility. It doesn't erode your core belief. I just know in my experience some customer requirements are given more weight than others. Sometimes you can achieve 100% of both requirements and sometimes you can't. That's life in engineering any product.

[HS30-H]

What I found interesting:

Statements in this thread that U.S. cars had lower power outputs than other markets. Apparently not less than in England.

Autocar magazine were repeating the figures from a press release ( unless you think they took the engine out of that car and dynoed it? ). The figures are indeed the same as those quoted for the first North American market cars ( the same - optimistic - SAE figures ) and yet the UK market cars and North American market cars had differences in engine specs. The Autocar test car was an HS30-U model ( we even know what its chassis number was ) and would not have had the same power and torque figures as a contemporary HLS30-U model. I can expand on this if you need me to.

That Autocar said it was "aimed primarily at the US market."

That would be from the same press release, and is not surprising because it is true. Many such cars were "aimed primarily at the US market" too. How about the XK120, XK140, XK150, XKSS, E-Type / XKE Jaguars, MG T-series, MGA, MGB, MGC, numerous Triumphs and Austin Healeys, not to mention various Porsches, Ferraris, VWs and who knows what else. All aimed squarely at the US market in terms of sales. They all sold more in the USA than they did in the UK, but did anyone ever try to tell you that they were made / designed "for" the USA? Did anyone ever say that they were "American Cars, Made In England"?

That Autocar called it a big and heavy car and in fact, drove as a heavy car, probably a little too burly for most women. Believe me, you would not find that Americans considered the 240Z as big and heavy. Not even for a sports car. Road and Track (April 1970) noted the lightness of the 240Z steering and that clutch and brake pressures were comfortable.

Have you not noticed that we've been discussing different spring & damper rates, differences in ARBs, differences in steering rack ratio et al in this thread? I should imagine one of the reasons that Autocar came to different conclusions than Road and Track was the plain and simple fact that the cars were different. That Autocar test HS30-U had higher spring and damper rates, different ARBs, a 'faster' ( heavier ) steering rack ratio and even different pedal rates in comparison to the R&T test HLS30-U. Different dynamics, different character.

And to your, I must say, I took as somewhat snarky, response to my repeating their statement that 3000 Datsun's had been sold in England the year before: Duh, gee you know more about the popularity of various car makes in England than I do. Would living in London have anything to do with that? In the U.S., especially in California, I wouldn't doubt there were single dealerships selling 2000 Datsuns a year in 1970. I do realize that this is an international audience, but nonetheless, most of the subscribers are American and I suspect most would be as surprised as I was to discover so few Datsuns were sold in England in 1970.

I took your comments as snarky. You didn't seem to take into account that Nissan had only entered the UK market a couple of years earlier ( as a concession ) and was still establishing itself with franchised dealerships. They faced higher shipping costs, high import duties and a much more competitive market for the kind of cars they were trying to sell here. It would be like saying that Nissan only sold a couple of thousand cars in the USA during 1963. An accurate snapshot, but not really telling us all that much more than that. So what was the point you were making when you wrote "hold your heart"?

All of which bears on the never-ending debate on whether the 240Z was designed with the American market as a major target in mind. Of course it was.

The HLS30-U was indeed "designed with the American market as a major target". Not the whole story though, is it? So was the Austin A90 Atlantic, and look what happened to that.

The Japanese understood the importance of the American car market. The English, French, and Italians apparently didn't and the combined market share of all three countries today would be lucky to break 1%.

I think the Japanese understood the importance of the World market, and for Nissan that included the single most important market to them; Japan.

For sure the "American" market was - still is - important, but looking longer term Nissan's establishment of factories all over the world seems much more important. Your comment about "The English" makes me smile, as I think you'd have a hard time to find many British owned companies making British designed and made cars on our British roads at all these days. The reasons for that are a little bit more complex than the people who want to tell us that the '240Z' destroyed the British car makers would appear to understand, and certainly much more complex than a matter of understanding "the importance of the American car market".

[HS30-H]

I'm asking YOU. Do you have an answer?

I asked you first. Politely, I think. You make great point of stressing that you are an engineer, so I wanted to hear your professional opinion of that aspect to the design / engineering.

Lower spring rates, roll stiffness, and damping leads to increased suspension travel, and therefor angles, in operation. On the S30 you can't change suspension geometry and any alignment settings except toe-in to compensate. The fixed suspension and steering geometry would need to be tailored so the vehicle with the most change in suspension and steering geometry during operation would still meet handling and ride requirements. Think about the aftermarket ball joint spacers that are used by some when LOWERING their car to compensate for a change in the roll center.

That's a good point, but different markets / variants got different struts / 'legs'. Different strut tube lengths, different spring mount heights, even different front spindle angles to give different stock camber. It would appear that such things were indeed taken into account and engineered accordingly.

Was chassis and suspension geometry design biased toward the version with lower spring rates, roll stiffness, and damping? Maybe. Certainly not inconceivable.

That's chassis and suspension geometry, but what about unibody structure? Do you still want to insist that the lowest spring & damper rates might have had just as much implication on the unibody / monocoque / bodyshell structure design as the highest? I would say that seems unlikely to me. I know you're going to tell me that we should look at all factors dynamically affecting others ( and that's not so different to my 'Family of models' viewpoint ) but how about the structure of just the 'shell?

This whole, and I'm paraphrasing, "blah blah blah not made just for the US market blah blah" is really getting tiresome. I'm not saying the S30 was designed for the US market and all others were secondary. Just that it's not inconceivable that some US market requirements drove compromise in the design and may have had a higher ranking than a similar requirement for another market. And vise versa. You shouldn't be afraid of admitting that this is a possibility. It doesn't erode your core belief. I just know in my experience some customer requirements are given more weight than others. Sometimes you can achieve 100% of both requirements and sometimes you can't. That's life in engineering any product.

Tiresome? Welcome to my world. I can point you to a frequently-recommended and influential website that insists on the "American Car..." stuff. The idea that the USA market's perceived needs completely dominated the S30-series Z's design and engineering to the exclusion of all other concerns is very real and often cited ( and people swallow it whole without question ). This is a quite different message to you stating your belief that "....it's not inconceivable that some US market requirements drove compromise in the design and may have had a higher ranking than a similar requirement for another market. And vise versa." isn't it? For the record, I agree with you. But the "American Car..." believers don't.

The cars themselves tell us the truth. It's there for all to see.

[doradox]

I asked you first. Politely, I think. You make great point of stressing that you are an engineer, so I wanted to hear your professional opinion of that aspect to the design / engineering.

Look up FMVSS if you need some light reading. Most the the FMVSS were new in 68, 69 and require very specific performance criteria to be met. A vehicle MUST meet these requirements to be sold in the US. That's a good start.

That's a good point, but different markets / variants got different struts / 'legs'. Different strut tube lengths, different spring mount heights, even different front spindle angles to give different stock camber. It would appear that such things were indeed taken into account and engineered accordingly.

But what came first the chicken or the egg? Were the changes made to a base US spec geometry or the other way around, or neither? But this is an example of the mass of compromises that need to be made. Each unique part carries a cost associated to tooling, inventory control, etc. Manufacturing and Operations don't like it when one has lots of similar bits to be kept track of. A goal would have been to minimize that cost by commonizing as many parts as possible. An example would be using a very high volume fastener on a low volume application where it might be overkill. But setting up a new part number, managing inventory, and the cost of a low volume appropriately sized fastener doesn't make sense.

That's chassis and suspension geometry, but what about unibody structure? Do you still want to insist that the lowest spring & damper rates might have had just as much implication on the unibody / monocoque / bodyshell structure design as the highest? I would say that seems unlikely to me. I know you're going to tell me that we should look at all factors dynamically affecting others ( and that's not so different to my 'Family of models' viewpoint ) but how about the structure of just the 'shell?

I didn't even respond to your example other than to give a contrasting one about the geometry. Typically a stiffer chassis is better in all cases. So that one doesn't need any compromise.

Tiresome? Welcome to my world. I can point you to a frequently-recommended and influential website that insists on the "American Car..." stuff. The idea that the USA market's perceived needs completely dominated the S30-series Z's design and engineering to the exclusion of all other concerns is very real and often cited ( and people swallow it whole without question ). This is a quite different message to you stating your belief that "....it's not inconceivable that some US market requirements drove compromise in the design and may have had a higher ranking than a similar requirement for another market. And vise versa." isn't it? For the record, I agree with you. But the "American Car..." believers don't.

The cars themselves tell us the truth. It's there for all to see.

I'm glad to see we agree. Your interjection of the "American Car" stuff into our discussion was a distraction as I was not making any attempt to prove this to be the case. I understand your frustration though.

Steve

[HS30-H]

Look up FMVSS if you need some light reading. Most the the FMVSS were new in 68, 69 and require very specific performance criteria to be met. A vehicle MUST meet these requirements to be sold in the US. That's a good start.

Yes, FMVSS affected the home market models as well as those sold as Exports to the United States. But we must not forget ( it'll be news to some ) that Japanese SAE and JIS regulation, as well as ECE regulation, would have an effect on all 'our' cars too. I'd like to see it being taken into account when such matters are discussed.

But what came first the chicken or the egg? Were the changes made to a base US spec geometry or the other way around, or neither?

Neither. I think all were designed & engineered pretty much at the same time. Or at least as at the same time enough as to be classed as contemporary designs / engineering / development. If anyone wants to single out any arbitrary point in the models' gestation we could easily wind the clock back to the point in the design process where we had the child of a Studebaker Avanti that had been 'frightened by' an anteater, and was powered by a four cylinder engine...

But this is an example of the mass of compromises that need to be made. Each unique part carries a cost associated to tooling, inventory control, etc. Manufacturing and Operations don't like it when one has lots of similar bits to be kept track of. A goal would have been to minimize that cost by commonizing as many parts as possible. An example would be using a very high volume fastener on a low volume application where it might be overkill. But setting up a new part number, managing inventory, and the cost of a low volume appropriately sized fastener doesn't make sense.

As long as we both agree that Design Concession affected the spec of all model variants then I think we are both reading from the same page. My worry - as I've been implying all along - is that this is not an accepted concensus. Don't underestimate the number and power of the '240Z Creationists'.

[26th-Z]

Thanks for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard reference. I looked it up. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN108

If we are to confine our discussion to the original "60's Flashback" premise, the FMVSS requirements for design included such items as seat belts, steering column design, interior padding and control accessibility, rear view mirrors, tire performance, wheel performance, hydraulic brake design, anti- theft (steering column lock), glass / glazing design, and headlight covers. I don’t see anything relating to the chassis / suspension design we have been talking about. The FMVSS addressed only safety items at the time. The first of the HLS30s imported into North America were certified to meet Federal requirements NTMVS 15 U.S.C. 1401 and 1407.

As an illustration, a convertible model S30 was designed, built and tested even though American legislation for roll-over protection and roof crush design was pending. I still don’t think a FMVSS argument can be made for the thought that the S30 was aimed primarily at the US market.

[doradox]

Yes, FMVSS affected the home market models as well as those sold as Exports to the United States. But we must not forget ( it'll be news to some ) that Japanese SAE and JIS regulation, as well as ECE regulation, would have an effect on all 'our' cars too. I'd like to see it being taken into account when such matters are discussed.

It's certain all regulations would have to be taken into account. With some being more stringent than others.

Neither. I think all were designed & engineered pretty much at the same time. Or at least as at the same time enough as to be classed as contemporary designs / engineering / development. If anyone wants to single out any arbitrary point in the models' gestation we could easily wind the clock back to the point in the design process where we had the child of a Studebaker Avanti that had been 'frightened by' an anteater, and was powered by a four cylinder engine...

I think it's reasonable to assume that barring any evidence to the contrary.

As long as we both agree that Design Concession affected the spec of all model variants then I think we are both reading from the same page. My worry - as I've been implying all along - is that this is not an accepted concensus. Don't underestimate the number and power of the '240Z Creationists'.

Again, I think it's reasonable to assume that barring any evidence to the contrary. My experience has been no one customer gets everything they wanted. And that's with the broad definition of customer including manufacturing, Sales, Marketing, Retailers, and end users. All of which would have had input, in some way or another, into the design requirements docs.

[doradox]

Thanks for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard reference. I looked it up. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN108

If we are to confine our discussion to the original "60's Flashback" premise, the FMVSS requirements for design included such items as seat belts, steering column design, interior padding and control accessibility, rear view mirrors, tire performance, wheel performance, hydraulic brake design, anti- theft (steering column lock), glass / glazing design, and headlight covers. I don’t see anything relating to the chassis / suspension design we have been talking about. The FMVSS addressed only safety items at the time. The first of the HLS30s imported into North America were certified to meet Federal requirements NTMVS 15 U.S.C. 1401 and 1407.

I'll assume you didn't actually read the specs. 210 isn't so bad a read.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.210

FMVSS 210 has requirements for restraint anchorages. Position, spacing, strength (S4.2) requirements. Since the S30 "chassis" and body are one and the same there would have been a need to make sure adequate strength was built in to the areas that the restraints would be mounted to to meet the 210 requirements. I don't know if other safety standards had already required a level of design that makes 210 a moot point. Could be so.

As an illustration, a convertible model S30 was designed, built and tested even though American legislation for roll-over protection and roof crush design was pending. I still don’t think a FMVSS argument can be made for the thought that the S30 was aimed primarily at the US market.

That's not an argument I am making. I never once said any such thing. Just that some aspects of the design may have been influenced by a US market requirement and may have been difficult to integrate into the whole of the design. The opposite dumbing down in other words.