Now some could accuse us of pedantry when we draw attention to the fact that The Australian Dictionary of Motoring has within its 463 pages many mistakes, a glaring lack of consistency, and some definitions that tell only half of the story.
I mean, the confusion between 'pressure' and 'force' in the definition of 'wing' isn't much of a problem, is it? Well, yes, it is.
Why?
Cos this book's meant to be a dictionary, for Godsakes.
A reference book almost beyond reproach.
The tome you reach for when you're not quite sure what something automotive means.
The adjudicator when a bet is on.
The precise splitter of hairs.
The conduit for words picked to convey with accuracy and succinctness Australian automotive concepts and definitions.
But unfortunately, as a reference, The Australian Dictionary of Motoring simply isn't up to it. As a readable book of general interest - subdivided into short paragraphs and even shorter lines on 10,000 different automotive topics - it might cut it.
But not as a dictionary.
And why not? Well, in less than a few hours of breezing through its entries, here are just some of the problems that came to light.
Misleading & Wrong Definitions
Firstly, there are definitions that simply haven't been thought through sufficiently - or which are simply wrong.
Take 'Roll Centre' for example. The term refers to the imaginary point about which the car rolls due to the forces acting on it during cornering. Its location is entirely dependent on the geometry of the suspension linkages. Ah, but not according to this dictionary! Nope, it says that its position "depends on the suspension system's design and geometry, the vehicle's centre of mass, and other factors". And that's simply wrong - the centre of mass does not affect the location of the roll centre!
Another important error can be found in the description of a viscous coupling. The definition starts, "Viscous Coupling - Torque-responsive drive unit which...." Again this is wrong - in fact, the viscous coupling works in response to speed variations of the two shafts, not torque variations. It's an important difference because the advantage of a Torsen design is that a Torsen coupling is in fact responsive to torque. The word 'Torsen' is not defined in the dictionary....
And there are other errors of fact, too. The Scotch Yoke engine being developed by CMC at Melbourne University is discussed; unfortunately the engine the dictionary describes as "a six cylinder, two stroke" that is fitted to the company's test Subaru Liberty is actually a four cylinder, four stroke. We know; just last week we interviewed the people from the company for several hours and drove the car ...
And it goes on and on.
An aerodynamic 'Splitter' is described as "a small rise on a mudguard...." when it is much more commonly a forwards-facing projection close to the ground on a front spoiler; the supposed 'swing axle' example drawing looks very much to me like a semi-trailing arm rear suspension; a photo of a drag car is captioned 'Mickey Thompson hitting 340 km/h terminal speed' when the car is obviously just doing the burnout; there is a line saying "no carmaker recommends their use" under the Water Injection heading - when in fact Saab uses water injection to reduce full load emissions on some of their more recent turbo cars...
And then there are the entries which - while not factually wrong - are quite misleading.
Nearly a full page is devoted to the worthy topic of aerodynamics. Coverage is made of the relationship between required engine power, attained speed and aerodynamic drag (in fact, that relationship is described twice in nearly adjacent paragraphs... er, what proof reading?), but then comes the information that while not factually wrong, isn't what you want in a reference book.
Let me quote directly, "A car's aerodynamic efficiency is measured by a number, the Cd, or co-efficient of drag. All other factors being equal, the car with the lowest Cd will encounter less wind resistance or aerodynamic drag....."
So what's wrong with that? Nothing - except it is misleading by omission.
In fact, the aero drag is found by multiplying the vehicle's frontal cross-sectional area by the Cd to get a total drag figure - called CdA. But this concept is not explained anywhere on the page. Sure, the caveat "all other things being equal" prevents the statement being actually erroneous, but together with discussion a little earlier on the drag differences between a large truck and a sports car (an example where frontal cross-sectional area is the factor most responsible for the difference in drag), the uninformed reader is left with quite the wrong belief.
Simplistic Definitions
And then there are important words and terms that are simply glossed over - here's just one example.
Vital to the functioning of any car of the last 15 years is the operation of the engine's ECU, or Electronic Control Unit. This system receives input signals from sensors like the coolant temp sensor, crank angle sensor, airflow meter and so on. It then uses internally programmed maps of data (or in old analog ECUs, the hard wiring of components) to make decisions, which take the form of the output signals to the actuators such as the fuel injectors, the ignition module, etc.
Yes? That's more or less what you'd expect in a just-published dictionary of motoring? In fact, really, you'd want a bit more depth than that, wouldn't you?
Well, this is what you get:
"Electronic Control Unit: Microcomputer receiving or passing on electronic information and processes."
Oh dear me...
Bad Diagrams
The dictionary uses many small B&W photographs and line drawings to make its definitions clearer. The use of the illustrations is a good idea, but unfortunately it appears that none of the visual props were made specifically for use in the book. As a result, every diagram is to a different format (it looks as if they've just been lifted from other publications) and this leads to a variety of problems.
An example? Sure - we can give you plenty. And remember, one of the selling points of the book is its Australian, down-to-earth approach. Like, it should be relevant to car enthusiasts. So, when you look at the diagram under the heading 'Intercooler', you wouldn't expect to see items marked on the diagram such as an 'intercooler tip turbine fan' would you? Not to mention an 'air to water pre-cooler'.... Huh? Yep, that's right - the diagram is for a heavy diesel truck...not a turbo car!
And it gets worse. Where different iterations of the same concept need to be illustrated, the diagrams picked are not even based on the same format. So, the diagram showing 'Negative Offset Steering' (more commonly known in Australia as 'negative scrub radius') is illustrated with a diagram based on a MacPherson Strut suspension.
No problem.
But the diagram used in the entry for 'Positive Scrub Radius Steering' (and yes, note the lack of consistency in term use - not 'Positive Offset') is based on a wishbone front suspension. Obviously, whatever diagram available was simply picked for use. 'Zero Offset Steering' (back to 'offset' and away from 'scrub' again I see) uses a diagram from yet another car!
Now, if each of these diagrams had been purpose-drawn for the book, they would have used the same suspension design, with just the geometry changes altered from diagram to diagram. That way, a reader could clearly see how changing the relationship between the steering axis and the centre of the tyre's contact patch can be achieved by just the moving of ball joints and/or the altering of wheel offset. As it is, no comparisons of the fundamental differences are possible.
And some of the diagrams are extraordinarily bad. The one showing the 'principle of carburetion' is hand-drawn, complete with crude arrows. The set of four diagrams showing the intake-compression-expansion-exhaust strokes is so small that it is impossible to see what's going on without using a magnifying glass. Literally.
A superb diagram taken from a Mazda workshop manual showing the suspension and steering mechanisms of four wheel steering is reproduced just a little larger than a matchbox. The diagram showing a 'more modern two-shaft gas turbine' has labels so fuzzy from the poor quality scan that they can be read only under an extremely bright light.
And sometimes when a definition cries out for a diagram, none is provided. Take 'Pitch Circle Diameter'. At its most common, this refers to the diameter of a circle drawn so that its outer edge passes through the middle of the studs on a wheel hub. The opening part of this dictionary's definition, "The circle on the circumference of which lie the centres of a series of holes..." doesn't help half as much as a simple diagram would!
Obscure Terms
Any lexicographer needs to make decisions about which terms to make dominant. For example, often there are multiple expressions for the same item or concept, but the dictionary will define in detail only the 'preferred use' term. Unfortunately, the authors of this dictionary have often picked the more obscure terms as the preferred ones...
Take 'Lambda Sensor' for example. Now if you go in to your local Australian parts store - or for that matter any mechanical workshop not dealing with German cars - and ask for a Lambda Sensor, I can guarantee you that in most cases you'll simply get blank looks. But waltz into the same place and ask for an 'exhaust gas oxygen sensor' or even just an 'oxygen sensor' and you'll have no problems. And yes, 'Lambda Sensor' is defined (albeit not brilliantly) in the dictionary, while 'oxygen sensor' sends you to 'Lambda Sensor'. And 'exhaust gas oxygen sensor'? It isn't there at all.
And you've all heard of a 'Ratchet Strap' haven't you? Apparently, it's some kind of adjustable harness or strap to secure pipes, wiring, etc. I've certainly never seen what is being described. But cable ties? Seen plenty of them - but nope, 'Cable Tie' isn't in the dictionary. The obscure term 'Fuel Injector Dynamic Range' (oddly defined as the "interval between the shortest and longest time that a fuel injection nozzle can open to admit fuel") is included, but the far more widely used 'Fuel Injector Duty Cycle' and 'Fuel Injector Pulse Width' are not. 'Ignition Module' and 'Power Transistor' aren't listed, but in a diagram showing an ignition system, an 'ignition pulse amplifier' is labelled. In fact, in the area of modern ignition systems, the definitions are so poor that the likelihood of confusion on the part of the reader is high. Like, what on earth is "capacitor controlled" ignition? It appears that they're not referring to Capacitor Discharge Ignition - as you'd expect - but to a 'switching process'. Dunno what that's all about, but according to the dictionary, it's becoming "almost standard".
Inconsistencies
I've already touched on the lack of consistency in the diagrams showing different facets of the one concept - but that criticism also applies to some of the definitions. Take 'Torque' for example. Within the dictionary's definition, the units of torque are described in three different systems of units - Imperial (pounds-feet), metric (newton metres) and Japanese (kilogram-metres).
Fine.
But when you look up 'Power', you'll see only the metric (kilowatts) and Imperial units (horsepower). Where is the term for power that's universally used in Japan - Pferdestarke (PS)? Not here, that's for sure.
Conclusion
In this review I have concentrated on the technical terms - the area I feel that I know best.
However, the dictionary also contains potted marque histories, paragraphs on important people, coverage of notable cars, info on past and current racetracks - a huge amount of other material. And to me, much of this non-technical stuff looks fine. But does it look OK simply because those are areas I know less about, or in fact is the other material written to a higher standard?
I am not sure, but I do know one thing - the fact that I can find this many problems in a reference book - in just a few hours of glancing through it - means that I won't be trusting The Australian Dictionary of Motoring to define terms and words for me.....
|