412 virtues

[TBC]

I have to say that the usual expectation of a car manufacturer is that the new product should build upon the qualities of its predecessor. As such I fail to see why the 412 wouldn't handle better than the 411.

Comparing the 412 with a new Blenheim, would, i feel, be an unfair comparison based on two factors: more than 30 years divides the two so such items as suspension units, shock absorbers, etc have improved immeasurably in that time (if we are comparing original specification). The set up on the Blenheim is considerably different to the 412 and not just in the technology used but also areas such as the track where this has been eased out over the last few years on Blenheims. These two alone would be enough to make a marked difference to the way a car handles.

As both have adjustable suspension it should be possible to adjust to suit virtually any owner. But then that was always the Bristol way.

Keith

[lansdownplace]

Good point Keith, My 412 is a product of 70s engineering, pre-
computers (lets ignore lean burn, I have). That they can compete
with modern cars at all is something of a miracle in it's self.


The Bleheim 3 is a very different to the 1 & 2 they made a lot of
changes after Toby Silverton came on board. When I was making my
mind up on what car to go for I had started out with the idea of
upgrading to a secondhand Blenheim. I drove a 1, a 2S and a 3 back
to back. It was hard to believe that the same company had built the
the 1 and the 3, the difference in quality, performance and
refinement was that great. As an aside the 2S was a special car
built to a very high spec and heavily personalised which I really
really liked. Indeed comparing the panel quality and very tight
shut lines on the new B4 it seems they have stepped up further. On
reflection at the time I wanted the quality of the 3 but applied to
an older car hence my choice. The S is a great engine. Mind you the
Brigand/Beaufighter Turbo is awesome fun. I like the smell you get
with the carburetor engines, especially when mixed with the whiff of
leather which I would miss with a fuel injected car.

On the adjustability point, I have been looking into this as I am
building a specification for my' wish list' car so that I have
something to aim for. Aside from having a Bleheim you can pick any
V8 model and then start specifying. There are so many tunable
options on the cars it beggars belief. Beyond the shocks, you can
have different spring rates and sizes, the ride height is
adjustable, you can have a 5.9 engine in three basic states of tune,
a 6.3, a 6.7, a 7.7 engine are also available with choices of
manifolds , heads, camshaft profile, exhausts in standard or sports
(I believe someone has a straight through exhaust) or anything else
you want, I asked about the 6.1 Hemi but apparently it's low end
performance is not considered good enough to add to the line up and
the bigger engines throw out more power and torque. For those who
really know their onions the engines can be custom mapped for you.
You can even specify the foam in the seats, or have different
density foam on different panels on the seat to fit your frame.
there isn't an option list, dream it and you can have it (for a
price of course). And if you don't like t it can all be readjusted
anytime you like. Once you have done that you can start on colours,
finishes and trim. You could always go the whole hog and have a
completely one off car built like the Bleinheim 4, or perhaps as we
were discussing before this part of the thread morphed, commission
your own designer to run up design.

The bottom line is there is so much choice that you really do end up
with a one off car, which makes comparison difficult however as you
point out the trend is always improvement. It is the uniqueness of
every car that appeals to me. There really are no two alike.

At a more mundane level, I think tyres make a big big difference to
handling and ride, as do tyre pressures. Also I have to say I was
both amused and astonished that Bristol still test every shock
absorber individually on the same machine they have been using for
60 years. It is powered by a small car engine with a gearbox! it
produces a small card with graph drawn on it that shows the
performance of the part. They reject many more than they accept and
they pair them to get the best match. I knew they used to do this in
the early years but I really didn't think they would still have to
do it, or bother. It is an amazing level of attention to engineering
detail. If I hadn't seen it I wouldn't have believed it.

Paul

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by TBC

I have to say that the usual expectation of a car manufacturer is that the new product should build upon the qualities of its predecessor. As such I fail to see why the 412 wouldn't handle better than the 411.

The point is Keith, beneath the skin the 412 is NOT different to the later 411's. The 411 S5 is not a predecessor to the 412. They were made at the same time and have the same, engine, transmission, suspension, wheels, tyres, diff and chassis, save for perhaps a couple of plates or box sections welded onto the chassis (to make up for the missing roof).

Only with the 412 S2 did things start to change.

I have yet to hear any rational argument as to why the 412 would handle better than the contemporary series 5 of the 411.

I concede that the 412 S2 may handle better than a *standard* 411 S5. Setright would only say "it is said to handle better", even though he himself had tested the 412 S2 for an article in an American car magazine.

I can see why the Beaufighter should handle better than a 411, because it is quite different to the original 412 (different engine, transmission, wheels, tyres and considerable chassis reinforcement). No doubt that's why Bristol gave it different name, because it was a different car.

[TLF799R]

Ah, here we get to the knub of the matter - it is just my poor series 1 that is inferior!!!!

LOL

Philippa

Originally Posted by Kevin Howard

The point is Keith, beneath the skin the 412 is NOT different to the later 411's. The 411 S5 is not a predecessor to the 412. They were made at the same time and have the same, engine, transmission, suspension, wheels, tyres, diff and chassis, save for perhaps a couple of plates or box sections welded onto the chassis (to make up for the missing roof).

Only with the 412 S2 did things start to change.

I have yet to hear any rational argument as to why the 412 would handle better than the contemporary series 5 of the 411.

I concede that the 412 S2 may handle better than a *standard* 411 S5. Setright would only say "it is said to handle better", even though he himself had tested the 412 S2 for an article in an American car magazine.

I can see why the Beaufighter should handle better than a 411, because it is quite different to the original 412 (different engine, transmission, wheels, tyres and considerable chassis reinforcement). No doubt that's why Bristol gave it different name, because it was a different car.

[Rubbond]

Regardless of all of the technical details.
I am surprised that especially Bristol owners should have lost grasp of the
english language!
It should of course be : similar to, comparable with, and different from.
Not hard to remember, but it would make reading your e-mails much easier!
With best regards,
Andrew Knox.

[Jervaulx]

I think it's also worthwhile remembering that, other people may not have
been as well educated as yourself and deserve to be treated just the same as
everybody else. Petty comments which remind me of telling naughty school
children they have done wrong, is just plain ignorant.

Andrew

[Rubbond]

Ouch! No offense intended, but I do think this is important for the future
of the english language. The BBC can't even get it right!
And as for plain ignorance, no, I don't think so.
I certainly don't want to continue this discussion further, so let's leave
it at this.
I just wanted to correct the grammer, which I found a little irritating..
And yes, I do think this is important!
Am I wrong in thinking this?
Andrew Knox.

[Peter Grace]

There's a very good story in yesterday's Financial Times Weekend, harking back to CP Snow's comments in the late 40s on the 'two cultures' - the literary intellectual and the scientist - and how little they understood each other's ground breaking discoveries. Snow more or less said that a scientist that didn't understand the Joyce was bad, but a critic that didn't understand quantum theory was even worse. Should the divide grow to great, Snow argued, where one side didn't understand 'the finer things' and the other 'how things worked', it would result not just in two clashing cultures, but perhaps the downfall of western civilisation as we know it. Stirring stuff.

Andrew's comments about grammar may seem pedantic, but after all, this is a forum of pedants, and none moreso than Kevin, Our Glorious Founder, who has got into trouble with this kind of tenacious bone-chewing before.

I have to say I enjoy it. Bristol owners are supposed to be eccentric, heretical and hole-picking. I am disappointed when they are not.

In the old days, Hugo used to cheer us all up with his anti-EU rants. The counter-culturalists, who were only interested in 'how things work' chased him away. Or maybe he was taken away. We never really learned the answer.

Andrew's pedantry is welcome. So is Paul's and so is Kevin's. I would like to think this is a forum of 'Bristol culture', which includes not only your musings on the Bristol you are restoring, but also those times when, glancing up from your great project, you stare out the dusty windows of your garage, and see fairies dancing at the bottom of the garden.

The trouble with the old BOC forum, as I understood it, was they didn't like dissent or heresy.

P

PS. Grammer, or grammar?

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by TLF799R

Ah, here we get to the knub of the matter - it is just my poor series 1 that is inferior!!!!

LOL
Philippa

Not inferior Phillippa, just not better

Originally Posted by rubbond

Regardless of all of the technical details.
I am surprised that especially Bristol owners should have lost grasp of the
english language!
It should of course be : similar to, comparable with, and different from.
Not hard to remember, but it would make reading your e-mails much easier!
With best regards,
Andrew Knox.

I believe 'english' should be 'English', with a capital E!

To the many Bristol owners out there who are not in fact English, and for whom English is a second language, please be assured that the rest of us will not criticise you for imperfect grammar or spelling and we welcome your posts on this site.

Kevin

[Rubbond]

Clearly I upset a few people with my comment on the correct use of
prepositions in the English language.
My apologies also for miss-spelling the word "grammar". Ouch!
For those who still might be interested, the prepositions "to", "with" and
"from" are governed by the original latin prefix of the modern english verb.
So, it's "commensurate with", etc.. "Compared to" and "different to" make
the hairs on my back stand on end!
I didn't mean to insult anyone - especially from outside the UK - I just
think it a pity that the roots of the English language, after about 15
centuries of Roman influence, are now being destroyed.
With best regards,
Andrew.

[Rubbond]

Dear Kevin,
You are absolutely correct and my apologies in general.
In my last mail I wrote "Roman" with a capital letter, and also apologised
to all those not native to the UK.
In retrospect it was a foolish message but even as an engineer (capital
letter, or not?), I am nevertheless very concerned about where the english
language is going. It's like well bad.
Andrew.

[Kevin H]

Andrew, I don't think you have really upset or insulted anyone, but we might upset a few people if we keep banging on about it in this thread about the Bristol 412

Therefore, I have copied your last post into a new thread in the 'Other Topics of Interest' forum here http://www.bristolcars.info/forums/showthread.php?t=228

[TLF799R]

Kevin,
U r quite rite 2 move this 2 a place different to the 412 stuf m8. Its much
2 highbrow compared to us 412 folk. LOL

Philippa