[Guna]

One thing I have noticed between Linea and ANHC is about the front vissibility.
ANHC has a relatively high seating with respect to the dashboard, which resluts in a very god driver's view. If you set the seat to the heighest position (which BTW you can do wihtout your head touching the roof even if you are a 6 footer) it almost gives a Fusion-like commanding view!
Even in terms of the angle of the front view, ANHC seem to provide a wider angle. I felt the A pillar (driver sider) in Linea somewhat hinders the view.

[Delta Wing]

@civic-sense

Even if you assume that there is some amount of error in measurements done, the variations would be small compared to the wrong information wrt the wheelbase of the city on which this whole thread was built upon. I am surprised that you have not cared to redo the comparo.

I do not assume anything. The errors in those line drawings are enormous as explained. The WB info being wrong, please DO CALCULATIONS OF YOUR OWN on your own line drawings and you'll find me right (I've done it). Let the hardest fact prove me wrong, not a magazine drawing with multiple errors. I am surprised you persist.

[Delta Wing]

Originally Posted by 1100D

...elevation drawings makes "BEST" sense. Coming from a well renowned magazine like Autocar (having large international presence) those would be the most authentic.

Pray explain how the erroneous elevation drawings make sense, international or galactic presence notwithstanding?

...available space when the seat is pushed fully backward might be hindered even by the backrest angle of the front seat rather than the horizontal travel.

Already answered.

But then the effort spent on the photographs is really appreciated

Thanks.

[Ricky_63]

The whole effort of putting together all the information not just between the 2 cars but also others (W, H, L, WB)

You sure spent a lot of time & constructively. Great effort.


Cheers

[vtecker]

Delta_Wing,

This is a detailed analysis, very interesting, Thank you.

What do you use to create, super impose images etc.

More of your comparisons please.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Delta Wing

@civic-sense


I do not assume anything. The errors in those line drawings are enormous as explained. The WB info being wrong, please DO CALCULATIONS OF YOUR OWN on your own line drawings and you'll find me right (I've done it). Let the hardest fact prove me wrong, not a magazine drawing with multiple errors. I am surprised you persist.

Please pick up a few autocar mags and read a few reviews/road tests. You will find many cars in which the min and max numbers do not add up.

For example in the same (Nov 2008) issue:
Outlander: Front:580-780; Rear:680-900; Difference= 20mm
Honda CRV: front:635-810; Rear:715-935; Difference=45mm

There are numerous such instances. Very rarely you would find one in which both add up. You may choose not to believe what India's most popular car magazine says because it is detrimental to your arguments.

BUT.....

Leaving all the numbers aside, lets try to answer the more pertinent questions. I am merely repeating here.

- is ergonomics limited to knee room?
- Why compare City and Linea? Linea's USP was never its space. It is ride, handling, etc. Why only Linea? Why not Fiesta, Verna, Optra and SX4?

[architect]

Originally Posted by Delta Wing

the ergonomics are still based only on approximated sizes of Indian people (the cars originally designed with the Caucasian people's dimensions in mind and also the consideration that most foreigners drive their own cars) because not much data regarding India is available.

Originally Posted by Delta Wing

Also read that ARAI is conducting a study on the anthropometric measurements on Indians.

If this is true then both foreign and Indian car manufacturers have never heard of a publication by NID (National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad) which has detailed survey of all measurements of Indian Individuals and also describes how anthropometric dimensions for any design related stuff for Indian people should be arrived at. I have a copy of this publication in my office.

I wish manufacturers would not cover up their shortcomings by claiming lack of data and foreigners would stop their obsession with "lack of rigorous reasearch in India".

[CliffHanger]

Just returned home after taking delivery of a brand new Linea for my friend. There was a remarkable difference in fit & finish between the 2010 & 2009 model. The fit and finish is top notch and right up there with the best in class, the plastics are solid and feels durable unlike the ones in earlier versions.

The NVH too has been drastically improved and the car exudes luxury. The new 2010 model is right up there with the City. It feels solid, it is designed to kill and provides all the safety features.

By comparing the legroom of these two cars, one shouldn't conclude that the City is ergonomically better than the Linea. The fact is it just has a better rear leg room.
For a prospective buyer who looks at this thread, it shouldn't be misleading that the City is ergonomically better. If it actually is, let the facts support.


OT: The Linea outnumbers ANHC in Chennai. It's more of Lineas here than Citys.

[Delta Wing]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Please pick up a few autocar mags and read a few reviews/road tests. You will find many cars in which the min and max numbers do not add up.

For example in the same (Nov 2008) issue:
Outlander: Front:580-780; Rear:680-900; Difference= 20mm
Honda CRV: front:635-810; Rear:715-935; Difference=45mm

There are numerous such instances. Very rarely you would find one in which both add up. You may choose not to believe what India's most popular car magazine says because it is detrimental to your arguments.

BUT.....

Leaving all the numbers aside, lets try to answer the more pertinent questions. I am merely repeating here.

- is ergonomics limited to knee room?
- Why compare City and Linea? Linea's USP was never its space. It is ride, handling, etc. Why only Linea? Why not Fiesta, Verna, Optra and SX4?

You seem to not read my posts in answer before posting the next one. I repeat, I never said that min/max legroom calculations add up. So before you present more such erroneous claims, I urge you to read my previous post. Detrimental to arguments or not, most popular car magazine or not, the drawings you posted have errors and you still have not checked the accuracy of my calculations on your own. So please quote FACTS from a verifiable source without errors.
-Ergonomics is not limited to knee room but you seem to be stuck up on it without reading my other comments. Read my entire posts before commenting.
-Why not compare City and Linea? What was its USP? USP of any car is everything that makes it worth buying. I like City and I like Linea so I'll compare both to the hilt on everything and right now it's ergonomics.

I WILL NOT LEAVE NUMBERS ASIDE. They give you the Citys and the Lineas and everything else.

My questions to you: instead of retracting/defending the wrong things you earlier posted from an obviously unreliable source OR by refuting the very mathematical defence I posted, you are obfuscating the issue by throwing more figures with unknown accuracy. What do you say to the simple geometric drawing I posted earlier? What does it imply regarding your line drawings of the City? Please answer these with a trigonometric/arithmetic defence and then we'll see.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Delta Wing

You seem to not read my posts in answer before posting the next one. I repeat, I never said that min/max legroom calculations add up. So before you present more such erroneous claims, I urge you to read my previous post. Detrimental to arguments or not, most popular car magazine or not, the drawings you posted have errors and you still have not checked the accuracy of my calculations on your own. So please quote FACTS from a verifiable source without errors.
-Ergonomics is not limited to knee room but you seem to be stuck up on it without reading my other comments. Read my entire posts before commenting.
-Why not compare City and Linea? What was its USP? USP of any car is everything that makes it worth buying. I like City and I like Linea so I'll compare both to the hilt on everything and right now it's ergonomics.

I WILL NOT LEAVE NUMBERS ASIDE. They give you the Citys and the Lineas and everything else.

My questions to you: instead of retracting/defending the wrong things you earlier posted from an obviously unreliable source OR by refuting the very mathematical defence I posted, you are obfuscating the issue by throwing more figures with unknown accuracy. What do you say to the simple geometric drawing I posted earlier? What does it imply regarding your line drawings of the City? Please answer these with a trigonometric/arithmetic defence and then we'll see.

If you don't want to leave the numbers aside, please go back to your first post and correct the error on wheelbase, and come back. About the legroom stats, I choose to believe a reputed car mag (which rely on actual measurement) than trigonometry. i am not a mathematician.

If you thought that the City and the Linea has the same USP, then I think there is no use us, debating on this topic.

You have the right to start any topic, and I reserve my right to criticize.

thanks

[hondadude]

Very objective, very detailed and unique comparo. Haven't seen this before anywhere. Rating this thread as 5 stars.

Regarding legroom, what should be published is not just "max rear legroom" because that doesn't tell the whole story. What should be published is the combination of max front legroom and remaining rear leg room (after front seat is pushed back to the max). That would give the real picture.

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by Delta Wing

In the line drawing of City you posted, the front seat travel is depicted as 560-780 (=220) mm. The rear legroom is 630-930 (=300) mm. As I see it, if the front seat was at 560 mm with the rear seat at max legroom of 930 mm, and you move the front seat back to 780 mm, this would reduce 220 mm from the rear legroom to a min of 710 mm (so what's the 630 then). This 220 mm travel for front vs 300 mm at rear translates to 80 mm difference in min/max legroom which is astronomically incorrect.

The danger of relying on incorrect subjective info can also be seen from the height of ANHC which is depicted as 1480 mm (actually 1470 mm), and this is also incorrectly depicted in Linea drawing. What is the guarantee and accountability of the info in the picture there?

Anyone on this transparent forum can compare anything which can be compared so far as there is some good to be derived. I would like to see the next version of Linea with more rear legroom.

The old ACI reviews usually had FLR(max) + RLR(min) = FLR(min) + RLR(max). Some of the new reviews have differences (which I believe can be the case if the legroom is measured in the angle of the seat cushion - front and rear seats could have different angles possibly).
However, some of the ACI reviews are patently wrong because the difference of 80 or 100mm (for eg.) is too large to account for.

As for the conflicting figures for the ANHC wheelbase from Honda India website (specs show 2550, and the diagram shows 26xx) - this is puzzling. Either, one of these is a typo, or Honda has changed the wheelbase for Indian ANHC relative to that outside (and the diagram reflects the longer one outside). The latter seems low on probability :-(

@hondadude, you are right, however, we need both sets of figures - {Front(max), Rear(min)}, {Front(min), Rear(max)}. I never give much importance to only Rear (max), Rear(min) figures.

[Delta Wing]

@vtecker:
Many thanks. Appreciate it.
I used the simple paint.NET in the ruler grid to get the scale correct and also for rendering sketches and layered images with appropriate contrast. It's very easy to use (though it does not have many features like say, Adobe Photoshop does). It's free on the net so you could use it too (it comes packaged in Vista onwards).

[Delta Wing]

...a publication by NID (National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad) which has detailed survey of all measurements of Indian Individuals and also describes how anthropometric dimensions for any design related stuff for Indian people should be arrived at. I have a copy of this publication in my office.

Thank you. Interesting info. Is the publication copyrighted? If you have it in soft copy, could you send it to me please?

I wish manufacturers would not cover up their shortcomings by claiming lack of data and foreigners would stop their obsession with "lack of rigorous reasearch in India".

Ditto. However, lack of research is always cited as a problem where statistical data on Indian populace is concerned. The sheer enormity of population would make it difficult and very costly proposition to gather data. It would seem easier to spend on advertisement to sell the products. My take is that developed countries have a greater ease at gathering such data by simply having the populace in government healthcare etc. the status of which is dismal in India. They would also have ease of storing and using the data centrally given the technological and financial advancement.
Your post got me thinking. So made a trip to censusindia.gov.in and it seems that in 2001 census, number of households which have:
bicycle=83,838,450(~47.3%)
2 wheeler=22,484,686(~12.7%)
4 wheeler=4,801,899(~2.7%)
None=66,198,648(~37.3%)
Total= 1,77,323,683

Wikipedia info regarding US:
In 2001, 90% of Americans drove to work in cars, national rate of households NOT owning a car being 8%.
In 2006, out of the roughly 251 million passenger vehicles, 135,399,945 were classified as automobiles.

The US Govt census website shows yearly census data. India seemingly can't afford to spend money on this and we have 9 year old data to go by.
No wonder we get the tag of third world country. But if the Govt with its massive infrastructure cannot (or would not) manage to do even census, no reason why companies would bother to carry out a detailed anthropometric survey over a populace of which only around 3-4% would be target customers (even lesser, given a company's market share).

[gemithomas]

Originally Posted by Delta Wing

My 2 cents.

You call that "2 cents" Thats much more than that. GREAT Job. You have really spent some time preparing this.

Originally Posted by basilmabraham

As per the websites of the respective cars,
Fiat India and :: Honda City ::

The WB are as follows

Linea WB = 2603 mm
City WB = 2550 mm

So the Linea has a longer WB than the City. May be the scale reductions for each picture did not work as intended, because in the 3rd picture City clearly has a longer wheelbase than Linea.

Another aspect to be compared is the underthigh support for the rear seat. By compromising on the underthigh support, the rear leg room can be improved. In the pictures, Linea seem to have a more wider seat than the City. May be this is a reason for the lower legroom. Does the Line rear seat have better underthigh support than the City rear seat? People who have researched both cars should be able to give a clear answer.

I have only briefly seen/sat in the rear seat of Linea and havent done it in the City, so cant really comment on the space.

Now this questions the accuracy and consistency of the data used for the comparison. And also about the under thigh support. The pic seems to show that the linea has better under thigh support and a more straighter seat (unlike the angled one on the city where your legs rest at a slightly upward angle). This could be one of the reasons for the less legroom when the front seat is pushed backwards.

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Why compare the Linea with the City? There are many others which sell in great numbers. Why everybody wants to compare their choice of car with the Linea? I am appalled.

Since you ask. Well there are two things you need to know.
1. The Story of the Sour Grapes.
2. What is known as Post Purchase Dissonance.

FIATs make Great Cars (at least used to.The newer versions need to prove themselves in the long run) but most indians would not touch them even with a barge pole due to their "funtabulous" after sales capabilities and spares management. This fact combined by the above two inbuilt "human mechanisms" is the sole reason the the never ending comparisons with FIAT models. The sad part is that the company is yet to realize/figure out what they need to do to turn this interest into their advantage.


This is a real great thread. Thank you for the effort you have put in to do this comparison.