SgWiki:Definition of bus variant (Poll/Discussion) - Revision history

SMB315C at 14:25, 15 October 2020

2020-10-15T14:25:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 15 October 2020
Line 16:		Line 16:

	*Scania K230UB		*Scania K230UB
	**Rename exercise will be conducted to separate Euro emission and Batch number into 2 separate brackets.		**Rename exercise will be conducted to separate Euro emission and Batch number into 2 separate brackets.<br>Scania K230UB (Euro IV Batch 1) → <font color="#01796F"><b>Scania K230UB (Euro IV) (Batch 1)</b></font><br>Scania K230UB (Euro IV Batch 2) → <font color="#01796F"><b>Scania K230UB (Euro IV) (Batch 2)</b></font><br>Scania K230UB (Euro V Batch 1) → <font color="#01796F"><b>Scania K230UB (Euro V) (Batch 1)</b></font><br>Scania K230UB (Euro V Batch 2) → <font color="#01796F"><b>Scania K230UB (Euro V) (Batch 2)</b></font>
	**Eg: Scania K230UB (Euro V Batch 1) → Scania K230UB (Euro V) (Batch 1)
	*MAN NL323F		*MAN NL323F
	**Rename exercise will be conducted to include Euro emission.		**Rename exercise will be conducted to include Euro emission.<br>MAN NL323F (Batch 1) → <font color="#01796F"><b>MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 1)</b></font><br>MAN NL323F (Batch 2) → <font color="#01796F"><b>MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 2)</b></font><br>MAN NL323F (Batch 3) → <font color="#01796F"><b>MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 3)</b></font><br>MAN NL323F (Batch 4) → <font color="#01796F"><b>MAN NL323F (Euro VI)</b></font>
	**Eg: MAN NL323F (Batch 3) → MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 3)
	**Eg: MAN NL323F (Batch 4) → MAN NL323F (Euro VI)
	**No renaming for MAN NL323F (3-Door).		**No renaming for MAN NL323F (3-Door).
	**SG3100M will not be placed in MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 2)		**SG3100M will not be placed in MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 2), a new page will be created after make & model are finalised on OM.

	*MAN ND323F		*MAN ND323F
	**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants, euro emissions.		**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants, euro emissions.
	**Details of this rename exercise will be posted at a later date.		**Details of this rename exercise will be posted at a later date.

	*ADL E500		*ADL E500
	**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants.		**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants.

Supernutorcrazy: /* Result */

2020-10-14T10:12:50Z

Result

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 14 October 2020
Line 26:		Line 26:
	*MAN ND323F		*MAN ND323F
	**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants, euro emissions.		**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants, euro emissions.
			**Details of this rename exercise will be posted at a later date.
			*ADL E500
			**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants.
	**Details of this rename exercise will be posted at a later date.		**Details of this rename exercise will be posted at a later date.

Supernutorcrazy: Results

2020-10-14T09:56:54Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:56, 14 October 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Regarding to the previous debate on renaming, please give your opinion on what constitute as a variant below.		Regarding to the previous debate on renaming, please give your opinion on what constitute as a variant below.

			==Result==
			To all editors, sorry for the late result. Some pages will be renamed to include emission as part of variant according to concensus.

			*Scania K230UB
			**Rename exercise will be conducted to separate Euro emission and Batch number into 2 separate brackets.
			**Eg: Scania K230UB (Euro V Batch 1) → Scania K230UB (Euro V) (Batch 1)
			*MAN NL323F
			**Rename exercise will be conducted to include Euro emission.
			**Eg: MAN NL323F (Batch 3) → MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 3)
			**Eg: MAN NL323F (Batch 4) → MAN NL323F (Euro VI)
			**No renaming for MAN NL323F (3-Door).
			**SG3100M will not be placed in MAN NL323F (Euro V) (Batch 2)
			*MAN ND323F
			**Rename exercise will be conducted at a later date to include door variants, euro emissions.
			**Details of this rename exercise will be posted at a later date.

	==Your Opinion Below==		==Your Opinion Below==

Supernutorcrazy at 02:14, 15 July 2020

2020-07-15T02:14:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 15 July 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			__NOTOC__
			{\| class="warning_red" style="margin:0 auto 10px;width:60%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
			!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2\|<div class="triangle">!</div>
			!style="font-size:150%;"\|<u>DISCUSSION ENDED</u>
			!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2\|<div class="triangle">!</div>
			\|-
			\|style="text-align:center"\|<big>The discussion had ended.</big>
			\|}

	Dear editors,		Dear editors,

Mailer diablo at 06:17, 20 June 2020

2020-06-20T06:17:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:17, 20 June 2020
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.		* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.
	* Therefore there should be an emphasis on Euro emissions. This is already the case for K230UBs.		* Therefore there should be an emphasis on Euro emissions. This is already the case for K230UBs.
	* Where buses were procured before BCM by operators, retain the Batches as is for historical reasons.		* Where buses were procured before BCM by operators, retain the Batches as is for historical reasons until an agreed standard is found.

	- Mailer diablo		- Mailer diablo

Mailer diablo at 06:15, 20 June 2020

2020-06-20T06:15:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 20 June 2020
Line 35:		Line 35:
	*** In other words, I consider the smaller EDS, larger EDS and the latest batch of Euro VI A95 to be of the same variant - Gemilang Mark IV bodywork.		*** In other words, I consider the smaller EDS, larger EDS and the latest batch of Euro VI A95 to be of the same variant - Gemilang Mark IV bodywork.
	*** SG5999Z will be of Gemilang Mk II bodywork.		*** SG5999Z will be of Gemilang Mk II bodywork.
	** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)		** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion - none are actual hybrid buses!)
	* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.		* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.
	* Therefore there should be an emphasis on Euro emissions. This is already the case for K230UBs.		* Therefore there should be an emphasis on Euro emissions. This is already the case for K230UBs.

Mailer diablo: /* Opinion 4 */

2020-06-20T06:13:21Z

Opinion 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 20 June 2020
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* The problem now is that users still treat a new Batch as if it is a new variant (so naming is definitely a related relevant issue).		* The problem now is that users still treat a new Batch as if it is a new variant (so naming is definitely a related relevant issue).
	* For buses procured under BCM, abolish the concept of Batches altogether as subsequent batches are likely to be mechanically identical. Now in retrospect and with a bigger picture there are very few meaningful differences to treat each Batch as a variant.		* For buses procured under BCM, abolish the concept of Batches altogether as subsequent batches are likely to be mechanically identical. Now in retrospect and with a bigger picture there are very few meaningful differences to treat each Batch as a variant.
	** For example, there is really little point differentiating B9TLs by batches these days if they are going to be passed around between operators, causing a lot of unnecessary work on wiki as users have to look up which Batch it belongs to. Likewise nobody really cares which Batch any Euro V Citaro is when they are all mechanically similar and look the ~~same~~.		** For example, there is really little point differentiating B9TLs by batches these days if they are going to be passed around between operators, causing a lot of unnecessary work on wiki as users have to look up which Batch it belongs to. Likewise nobody really cares which Batch any Euro V Citaro is when they are all mechanically similar and look similar (especially the SBST order Citaro).
	* The main issue is with how the MAN buses are defined as a variant. This is what is causing all these confusion. Euro V mechanical specs are identical across the board. Likewise for Euro VI. The main changes come from the bodywork design and exterior. I expect more bodywork variants in future. So for each noticeable change in bodywork I would confine the variant to bodywork only and name it as such - and so designate as Gemilang Mark I, Gemilang Mark II, ... , Gemilang Mark IX, Gemilang Mark X, etc.		* The main issue is with how the MAN buses are defined as a variant. This is what is causing all these confusion. Euro V mechanical specs are identical across the board. Likewise for Euro VI. The main changes come from the bodywork design and exterior. I expect more bodywork variants in future. So for each noticeable change in bodywork I would confine the variant to bodywork only and name it as such - and so designate as Gemilang Mark I, Gemilang Mark II, ... , Gemilang Mark IX, Gemilang Mark X, etc.
	** Currently I consider the MAN A95 to have four variants, Gemilang Mark I to Gemilang Mark IV. Gemilang Mark III bodywork covers the case of SG2017C against other production Euro V which is probably causing all these headaches - a newer engine on an older bodywork.		** Currently I consider the MAN A95 to have four variants, Gemilang Mark I to Gemilang Mark IV. Gemilang Mark III bodywork covers the case of SG2017C against other production Euro V which is probably causing all these headaches - a newer engine on an older bodywork.

Mailer diablo at 06:11, 20 June 2020

2020-06-20T06:11:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 20 June 2020
Line 37:		Line 37:
	** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)		** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)
	* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.		* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.
			* Therefore there should be an emphasis on Euro emissions. This is already the case for K230UBs.
	* Where buses were procured before BCM by operators, retain the Batches as is for historical reasons.		* Where buses were procured before BCM by operators, retain the Batches as is for historical reasons.

	- Mailer diablo		- Mailer diablo

Mailer diablo at 06:06, 20 June 2020

2020-06-20T06:06:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 20 June 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:
	===Opinion 4===		===Opinion 4===
	* The problem now is that users still treat a new Batch as if it is a new variant (so naming is definitely a related relevant issue).		* The problem now is that users still treat a new Batch as if it is a new variant (so naming is definitely a related relevant issue).
	* For buses procured under BCM, abolish the concept of Batches altogether. Now in retrospect and with a bigger picture there are very few meaningful differences to treat each Batch as a variant.		* For buses procured under BCM, abolish the concept of Batches altogether as subsequent batches are likely to be mechanically identical. Now in retrospect and with a bigger picture there are very few meaningful differences to treat each Batch as a variant.
	** For example, there is really little point differentiating B9TLs by batches these days if they are going to be passed around between operators, causing a lot of unnecessary work on wiki as users have to look up which Batch it belongs to. Likewise nobody really cares which Batch any Euro V Citaro is when they are all mechanically similar and look the same.		** For example, there is really little point differentiating B9TLs by batches these days if they are going to be passed around between operators, causing a lot of unnecessary work on wiki as users have to look up which Batch it belongs to. Likewise nobody really cares which Batch any Euro V Citaro is when they are all mechanically similar and look the same.
	* The main issue is with how the MAN buses are defined as a variant. This is what is causing all these confusion. Euro V mechanical specs are identical across the board. Likewise for Euro VI. The main changes come from the bodywork design and exterior. I expect more bodywork variants in future. So for each noticeable change in bodywork I would confine the variant to bodywork only and name it as such - and so designate as Gemilang Mark I, Gemilang Mark II, ... , Gemilang Mark IX, Gemilang Mark X, etc.		* The main issue is with how the MAN buses are defined as a variant. This is what is causing all these confusion. Euro V mechanical specs are identical across the board. Likewise for Euro VI. The main changes come from the bodywork design and exterior. I expect more bodywork variants in future. So for each noticeable change in bodywork I would confine the variant to bodywork only and name it as such - and so designate as Gemilang Mark I, Gemilang Mark II, ... , Gemilang Mark IX, Gemilang Mark X, etc.
	** Currently I consider the MAN A95 to have four variants, Gemilang Mark I to Gemilang Mark IV. Gemilang Mark III bodywork covers the case of SG2017C against other production Euro V which is probably causing all these headaches - a newer engine on an older bodywork.		** Currently I consider the MAN A95 to have four variants, Gemilang Mark I to Gemilang Mark IV. Gemilang Mark III bodywork covers the case of SG2017C against other production Euro V which is probably causing all these headaches - a newer engine on an older bodywork.
	*** In other words, I consider the smaller EDS, larger EDS and the latest batch of Euro VI A95 to be of the same variant - Gemilang Mark IV bodywork.		*** In other words, I consider the smaller EDS, larger EDS and the latest batch of Euro VI A95 to be of the same variant - Gemilang Mark IV bodywork.
			*** SG5999Z will be of Gemilang Mk II bodywork.
	** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)		** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)
	* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.		* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.

Mailer diablo at 06:00, 20 June 2020

2020-06-20T06:00:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:00, 20 June 2020
Line 33:		Line 33:
	* The main issue is with how the MAN buses are defined as a variant. This is what is causing all these confusion. Euro V mechanical specs are identical across the board. Likewise for Euro VI. The main changes come from the bodywork design and exterior. I expect more bodywork variants in future. So for each noticeable change in bodywork I would confine the variant to bodywork only and name it as such - and so designate as Gemilang Mark I, Gemilang Mark II, ... , Gemilang Mark IX, Gemilang Mark X, etc.		* The main issue is with how the MAN buses are defined as a variant. This is what is causing all these confusion. Euro V mechanical specs are identical across the board. Likewise for Euro VI. The main changes come from the bodywork design and exterior. I expect more bodywork variants in future. So for each noticeable change in bodywork I would confine the variant to bodywork only and name it as such - and so designate as Gemilang Mark I, Gemilang Mark II, ... , Gemilang Mark IX, Gemilang Mark X, etc.
	** Currently I consider the MAN A95 to have four variants, Gemilang Mark I to Gemilang Mark IV. Gemilang Mark III bodywork covers the case of SG2017C against other production Euro V which is probably causing all these headaches - a newer engine on an older bodywork.		** Currently I consider the MAN A95 to have four variants, Gemilang Mark I to Gemilang Mark IV. Gemilang Mark III bodywork covers the case of SG2017C against other production Euro V which is probably causing all these headaches - a newer engine on an older bodywork.
	*** In other words, I consider the smaller EDS, larger EDS and the latest batch to be of the same variant - Gemilang Mark IV.		*** In other words, I consider the smaller EDS, larger EDS and the latest batch of Euro VI A95 to be of the same variant - Gemilang Mark IV bodywork.
	** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)		** The Euro V A22s would be Gemilang Mark I, SG4002G be Gemilang Mark II, Euro VIs be Gemilang Mark III, etc. They are marketed as Lion’s City SD products, as should reflect as such rather than Lion’s City Hybrid (which causes confusion)
	* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.		* Where there is no change in bodywork but an evolution in the chassis, the mechanical distinction has to be sufficient to be deemed a new variant. As others pointed out emissions is definitely one, as with a newer engine model.