SgWiki:Definition of bus variant (Poll/Discussion)

From SgWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The discussion had ended.

Dear editors,

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

Your Opinion Below

Opinion 1

I may not be able to convey my thoughts in a better way, but I will do my best to pen down my opinion here.

In my perspective, a variant is a bus that has many distinct characteristics from another bus under the same bus model. This applies to a demonstrator as well.

~ Wekelwrady

Opinion 2

As I have mentioned in my opinion from the previous debate, the label "Variant" is to differentiate different batches of bus models. Currently, they are already differentiated by bodywork and number of doors on the bus. I do not see why these bus models cannot be fully differentiated by emission. After all, it is also a way of differentiating different batches better. While it may not be visibly seen, emission is also a key aspect of differentiating between batches of buses of the same model as well.

~ Themystery

Opinion 3

In my opinion, my definition of bus variant I would say that it is an example of MAN ND323F Euro 5 Batch 1, Batch 2, Batch 3, Euro 6 Batch 1, Batch 2, MAN NL323F Euro 5 Batch 1, Batch 2, Batch 3, Euro 6 Batch 1, Scania K230UB Euro 4 Batch 1, Batch 2, Euro 5 Batch 1 and Batch 2.

~ Erwinlee95

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).
  • 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 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.
    • 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.
      • 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 - 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.
  • 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 until an agreed standard is found.

- Mailer diablo