SgWiki:Renaming of Bus Models (Poll/Discussion)/1

!	VOTING INSTRUCTIONS					!
	Please enter your opinion below the heading Your Opinion Below For your vote to be qualified, please insert your vote (option text or number) beside or after your name in clear implication. The list of voting options are: 1 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Demonstrator) 2 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Not a Demonstrator) 3 - Renaming of Scania K230UB without Euro Emissions 4 - No Change 5 - Abstain / To be discuss at a later date. Do note that you may cast your vote for more than 1 option.

Starter Post

Renaming of MAN ND323F

May I suggest labelling the A95 Batches by emissions, in a way like the K230UBs?

ie. Euro V Batch 1 (currently Batch 1): SMB5888H (Euro V Demonstrator); SMB5889E - SMB5904U

Euro V Batch 2 (currently Batch 2): SG5740C - SG5799J

Euro V Batch 3 (currently Batch 3): SG5800M - SG5920A

Euro VI Batch 1 (currently Batch 4): SG2017C (Euro VI Demonstrator) SG5921Y - SG6171M

Euro VI Batch 2 (currently Batch 5): SG6172K onwards

Such labelling allows to easily differentiate: - Specifications (SMRT for Euro V; LTA for Euro VI) - Euro VI buses being purchased in different orders from Euro V counterparts

Other changes include: - SG2017C labelled as Euro VI Demonstrator, carrying identical chassis specifications to newer Euro VI units and hence labeled under "Euro VI Batch 1" instead.

I hope this suggestion can open an discussion, within administrators as well as users to open up comments on personal viewpoints, thanks.

--Litlah

Renaming of Scania K230UB/MAN NL323F/MAN ND323F

In the event that this renaming exercise does not take place, I would like to instead recommend that the Scania K230UBs be renamed to the same format as the current format for the MAN ND323F instead. This is because it has to be standardised either ways, just depending on which one gives in to the other. Meaning, either classify by all bus models by emissions first or do not classify the emissions at all.

~ Themystery

Your Opinion Below

Opinion 1

I support this change as it can be an opportunity to be standardised in a similar way as SBS Transit's Scania K230UBs, which are classified in the same manner.

The only doubt I have is about the classification of SG2017C as the Euro VI MAN ND323F demonstrator as it is not really considered a demonstrator. I am not sure what other people may think, but it sounds weird to classify that as a demonstrator. Nonetheless, I fully support this renaming exercise for the MAN ND323Fs.

~ Themystery

Opinion 2

It is completely unnecessary to rename the A95s according to their emissions.

SG2017C is ordered under the same batch as SG5800M - SG5920A with a different set of internal specifications.

The bus should not be labelled as a Euro VI demonstrator since it carries the same bodywork as the later batch 3 units (SG5830B - SG5920A) with the same interior specifications.

Also, it is unnecessary to modify the KUB headings as their specifications are standardised according to their respective orders.

We will discuss and reconsider about this matter when the registration of the 50 3-Door Euro 6 A95s commence.

~ SMB315C

Opinion 3

Not necessary, even though 2017C is somewhat a demonstrator to me, I feel that the current classification should remain as it was procured under Batch 3 (SG5800M - SG5920A). Appearance-wise, it is no different in both exterior and interior too like its Euro V mates.

~ Razerboii

Opinion 4

Yes i do agreed for the Euro V Batch 1, 2 & 3 and Euro VI Batch 1 & 2. SG2017C as demonstrator. This is to prevent confusion.

~ Erwinlee95

Opinion 5

I disagree in regards to the renaming. Despite the difference in transmissions, SG2017C has the same bodywork and interior specifications as the other Batch 3 units in terms of the later facelift design.

All in all, although I recognise the existence in confusion of the naming of current batches, I think we should put this A95 batch sorting topic to a later date when all of the 2-door A95s have completed their registrations. In this way, it is easier for us to sort out the batches in a better way instead of a time when Batch 5 A95 deliveries & registrations are ongoing.

~ Wekelwrady

Opinion 6

I think that we should just leave the page as it is as SG2017C isn’t really a demo given the fact that the bus shares many similar traits as its Batch 3 counterparts and renaming it will cause more confusion.

~SG5064X

Opinion 7

leave both the scania and man A95 the way they currently are

SBS8478D

Opinion 8

Hi all,

My small input would be to remain the pages as they are now. Mainly because (imo) it does not make much sense to change the existing naming of KUB pages, just to accomodate the A95s.

Because when the KUBs were purchased previously, the jump in Euro IV to Euro V standards on the KUBs were also accompanied with obvious bodywork changes (such as the slats in the radiator panels, EDS, Aircon pods, angular shape of the rear quarter panel, dashboards, granny seats/side facing seats at the front etc)

Whereas for the A95s, we're talking about changes in emissions standards, without clear & consistent distinct differences in bodywork / any other details that are consistent with the jump in emissions (thanks to LTA).

So if you want to rename the MAN bus pages, then you should rename only the MAN pages. Leave the KUB pages as they are now. Simplifying the KUBs in the same format as the A95s disregards the obvious changes between the Euro 4 & Euro 5 KUBs.

Cheers, SBS9631X (4 - No Change)

Opinion 9

Not necessary, it would remain the same.

SG2017C was ordered as part of the batch (SG5800M - SG5920A) but with a different set of internal specifications.

GoAheadAmbassador