|
412 virtues
Greg,
You're so right, it's such a shame not all the Bristols were as truly beautiful as the 412 but hey, that's life! There always has to be something in second place. By the way wasn't the Speedster based on the Bullet - the factory's development car? Philippa |
Blenheim Lusso
Your certitude is overwhelming. I can no longer
think of the 412 without also thinking of "beautiful". To this simple pairing, allow me one small contribution: "not". OK, I really like 412s. I would be proud to own one too. I believe that an updated 412 design with a fixed top would make a compelling new Blenheim. My only problem with the 412 is the Greenhouse. The cabin looks too tall, and the windscreen a bit to upright. Otherwise, it is pretty cool. Greg |
Blenheim Lusso
All the V8 Bristols look a bit tall from the front because they are
relatively narrow and sit on the deep chassis, canting the windows in, raking the windscreen back, dropping the roof line by a couple of inches and dropping the seats to compensate for the lost headroom would probably deal with this. Flaring the rear out would help the look of the overall stance. The Beaufort has a different screen which is much more raked back. Interesting proposition that the 412 could form the basis for a new Blenheim. Perhaps it could sit between the the Blenheim and the Fighter as a compromise option between comfort an out and out supercar. Paul |
Blenheim Lusso
I should add, I am with Philippa on the 412.
|
Blenheim Lusso
I did n`t know the Beaufighter had a different windscreen. A photo? Making
it a hard top would completely spoil the 412 concept for me. And it certainly looks at it`s best with the roof down. Incidentally, what do Bristol do to uprate the 412 (as someone`s recent post)? P |
Blenheim Lusso
One of the things I like about the 412 is that with the roof off and
because of the targa roll bar it looks like a two seater when it is actually a four seater tourer. On the upgrade front, you can have whatever you want. I am going to get my engine uprated with an extra 30% power and torque in the autumn at Bristol cars, which is as far as you can go on the carb 360 engine without compromising smoothness. I had thought about fitting a double turbocharger but with what is on offer down the normally aspirated route it isn't necessary.They have already adjusted the ride and shocks so that it really digs into corners. The 412 are the best handling of the V8s. BCL do a 6.3 and a 6.7 fuel injected option that drops straight in with well over 450 BHP, or you can have more! |
Blenheim Lusso
The 412 and Beaufighter are undoubtedly the most distinctive models Bristol ever made. The Beaufort however, to me at least, is the prettier. It's a shame they only made one.
I remember well the stories in the press in the 70's telling us that the convertible was dead due to new US legislation that would outlaw any car without a roof or roll over bar. How times have changed! As to a 'new' version of the 412, yes with the right layout it could sell in modest numbers, for Bristol, be it a 2 seater, 2+2 or full four seater. Would it have the same layout as the 412, meaning having an integral roll bar, of that i'm not so sure. Keith |
Quote:
The 412 has exactly the same chassis, suspension, steering etc as the 411, so why would it handle any better? (Should I move these later posts to a new "412 love-in" thread?) |
Blenheim 'Lusso'
Principly because of a lowered center of gravitydue to the bodywork
and the reinforcement in the chassis and a lower stance on the front. They dig into corners better. I notice the difference compared to my Brigand but the guys at BCL all say the same thing. |
Blenheim 'Lusso'
I'd be surprised if there was that much difference in handling due to
differences in chassis and body. Sure, there is no solid roof on the 412 but there is a darned great targa arrangement. There is a little more overhang at the back but it's only an empty boot. Overhang at the front is surely about the same. The one change there might be significant to handling is the 360 engine in the s2 which I believe to be considerably lighter than the earlier units in the 411 (and first few 412s). P |
Blenheim 'Lusso'
Hi Peter. The 360 engine is a lot lighter than the 400 but the
reduction in power is compensated by the drop in weight. The engine is set lower I believe but there a lot of additional steel in the chassis. There are two large reinforcing plates under the driver and passenger which sit on the polar moment of the car which also shift the weight from above the roll axis to below it which reduces body roll to a degree by reducing the roll center and concentrating mass inside the wheelbase. The shift of weight towards the lower half of the car and the fact that the 412 S1 (400 engine) weighs in at 1714 kg as opposed to 1783 for a 603 with the lighter 360 engine gives some indication of the difference in total mass reduction. As I am not an engineer so I can't explain further, I can only report that my S2 is very well balanced, especially with the front shocks on a hard setting and the rear set quite soft. Perhaps some other 412 drivers can elaborate? Paul |
Blenheim 'Lusso'
Having delved about under the thing, I didn`t see enormous weight in
"plates". Replacement of exhaust manifolds (did`nt weigh them but they are seriously heavy) plus heads (weight even more ditto) and inlet mainifold more relevant as they are all at the top of the engine. I think my new gearbox is supposed to be lighter but that is lower down. My s2 certainly handles better than ever. I think some later models have the engine lower between the chassis rails. That would be a benefit. As to suspension, I run a compromise .... exhaust scrapes if I`m careless but generally OK. P |
Blenheim 'Lusso'
[quote]
How come? The 412 has exactly the same chassis, suspension, steering etc as the 411, so why would it handle any better? (Should I move these later posts to a new "412 love-in" thread?) [End Quote] Kevin, There's no need to feel bad about having a lesser model- you too could own a 412 one day - just don't give up on your dream! As far as handling is concerned it is simple, just look how aerodynamic the 412 is! Philippa |
Hi Phillipa
to make a quote box Quote:
|
Blenheim 'Lusso'
removed email artefacts
|
Quote:
A slight change in centre of gravity, and a slight change is all that is achievable, will make no material difference to the car's cornering abilities. Any gains would be far outweighed by changes fitting wider wheels and tyres. If the chassis has been reinforced in later 412s it would only mean that BCL came to the conclusion that chassis rigidity had been compromised in the first place by losing the roof! It is in the tyres, wheels and suspension set up where the big cornering gains can be made. But between the 411 and 412 (s1) there are no differences here, (I don't know if later 412 s2/3 differ in the suspension, but I doubt it). Both 411 and 412 s1 will benefit from replacing the steel wheels with the lighter Avon Safety wheels and wider tyres. I noticed a marked improvement in my 411 with this change. As for weight reduction, simply reducing sprung weight (engine, transmission, body etc will mainly affect straight line acceleration and stopping distance. To improve cornering through weight changes you need to reduce the sprung/unsprung weight ratio by reducing the unsprung weight (not the sprung weight). In fact reducing this ratio by reducing sprung weight can have a detrimental affect. Although the weight changes between the 400 and 360 engines would not have very much affect either way given the overall weight of these cars. |
412 virtues
A couple of points, all of the 412s were reinforced underneath as
this was required by the authorities at the time to avoid having to re-crash the cars rather than for need. There is no noticeable scuttle shake on my S2, I can't speak for the earlier cars although I am told there is a very small degree of chassis flex in extremis on the all cars from the 407 to the 412, which is absent in the later 603/Blenheim series which are more rigid due to the amount and location of steel in the roof and upper structure. I can't agree with your dismissal of the effects of lowering weight, especially lowering the center of gravity and the roll axis. Try driving any car with a full roof box for a practical demonstration of the effects of this. My old BMW handled significantly differently with four passengers than two, and the shift infront/rear weight balance from that was small but it affected the cornering and roll. Sprung weight does affect cornering dependent on where it is, due to increased/decreased lateral momentum and the effects of roll. Aerodynamics have an effect over about 70 mph on cars but who knows what the positive or negative theoretic effects of this are between different Bristols other than by observation. As I previously noted I am not an engineer, but I do appreciate the accumulated effects of small changes in practice. That is, after all, why manufacturers are always tweaking their cars. The 411 has the engine set back further than a 407 for example which changes the yaw axis and transforms the handling between the two cars. The 407 was 'disappointing', although I can't personally verify that as I haven't driven a 407 so I rely on the reports in the media and Mr Setright on that one. Set up does matter greatly but it is the sprung weight that you are supporting and that does affect the dynamics. Paul |
Paul,
I was talking about handling differences between the 411 and 412 - I am not at all surprised that a 407 doesn't handle as well. Apparently incremental improvements were made between the 407 and 411/412 due to increasingly more subtle changes in steering and suspension geometry and spring rates (devised by Mr Sevier if my memory is correct). Of course a car handles differently if you put a carrier on the roof, or if it's full of people. However, my comments were in the context of what you said about engine position, and weight, centre of gravity and cornering. I still maintain that the differences you mentioned, between the 411 and 412, would not create any material difference between the handling of the two cars, all other things such as wheels/tyres etc being equal. Kevin PS. We are allowed to disagree :) |
412 virtues
Hi Kevin, We are indeed!
|
412 virtues
Hi Kevin, I started with my own experience on the relative
difference, but as 'why' was asked I thought I should go off and check for myself. I have now managed to lay my hands on some facts and figures on this handling issue, which do explain my thesis. The 412 S1 has 32% more torsional rigidity than the 411 although the beam rigidity is the same, The 412 S2 has the bars at the top of the windows connecting the A and B pillars and other chassis modifications so the torsional rigidity rises to 45% more than the 411 with 25% stiffening in beam rigidity. The effect of this is to make the car respond more readily to steering input as it maintains the alignment of the the suspension better, reduces the oscillating effect of flexion in the chassis. It explains why it hunkers down in corners more readily. The other data to hand now is that the center of gravity is 8 mm lower in the 412 than the 411, which I thought sounded small, but the effect is magnified because the center of gravity on a 411 is 80mm above the roll axis, whereas it is 72mm on the 412 ( and lower again on the Beaufighter).That represents a 10% improvement in the roll couple ratio which does make a difference to the balance of the car. In a perfect world the center of gravity would sit on the roll axis, but there you are. Some other interesting technical stuff I picked up is that the Blenheim is three times stiffer than the 411 and the Blenheim had the highest torsional rigidity of any passenger car up until '98. It is stiffer than the McLaren F1. The reason is that the chassis is further reinforced, but the body skeleton acts as a monocoque in it's own right, but in addition the panels are rigidly fixed to the skeleton and provide further stiffness an they they are thicker than normal. Anyway, yes we are free to disagree, but I am happy in my own mind that I understand the reasons behind the claims for the 412 handling and having observed them in the wild I am going to take by 412 out for a bit of a thrashing this afternoon! regards Paul |
412 Virtues
Blimey Paul,
What a lot of facts! You see I usually just rely on my unshakeable belief that the 412s are superior but you can even explain why - most impressive! Interestingly when Jeff from the factory popped by to see Bertie at the Italian car day he specifically mentioned the handling of the 412 and said that it had always been his favourite to drive from that point of view. Philippa |
412 Virtues
Hi Phillipa i will have to reluctantly conceed that the Blenheim
probably handles better. It does look like I swallowed a dictionary. Anyway I spent a very pleasant couple of hours this afternoon refining my driving technique on high speed curves and balancing the car with the throttle. I feel cofident enough to take her up over twenty tomorrow. Paul |
Quote:
It's worth pointing out that differences expressed only in percentages are all relational, and the 411 was reckoned to handle very well indeed, and not just by Setright. There is probably an optimal point for chassis rigidity, and increasing it past that point doesn't necessarily translate into better handling because it also depends upon the suspension (spring rates, damping), roll axis. C of G, wheels and tyres, tyre pressure, anti roll bar, weight distribution and probably one or two other things we haven't thought of! Quote:
I would be keen to know just how the C of G has been lowered, and if the weight distribution differs between the cars. Quote:
There is another point to consider here. Any figures that come out of BCL refer to original specification cars as they left the factory. There aren't many like that any more, especially when we are talking about 412 or earlier. For example the 412 S2 had wider, lower profile tyres than the 411, but I now have the same wheels and tyres on my 411, as do many other 411 owners. This in itself lowers the 411 slightly, lowers the roll centres, roll axis and C of G, although it doesn't reduce the roll couple value. But it does makes a very noticeable improvement to how the car handles over the standard steel wheels and tyres. Stick an uprated anti roll bar on it and it improves it further. Having completely dismantled the front end on my 411 it became clear that what appeared to be a reasonably good and standard condition suspension, was nothing of the sort. And I suspect this is the case with many of the cars that haven't been restored, in which case this all becomes theoretical! |
I give up!
Has anyone else ever noticed how Kevin only ever likes facts and figures that support his theories!!! Philippa |
412 virtues
Kevin, I have presented the facts,to back my argument, I disagree
with many of your points, but politeness has prevented me from pointing out some inconsistencies in your argument. For example you simultaneously argue that lowering the center of gravity by moving mass downwards in the car and lightening it have no effect whatever, whilst acknowledging in the next breath that putting weight on the roof(in a roof box) or by adding passengers will obviously affect handling. You can't have both sides of the argument. I scoured all the available sources for this data and when I couldn't find the information I wanted I rang the factory and asked then very nicely. Rather than answer my question I was invited out to examine the information myself, which I did yesterday, I live five miles away. I suppose it is one of the benefits of buying/ rebuilding and maintaining your car with BCL and being politely if enthusiastically interested in what they do out there. Also having the same people (individuals that is) work on the car as built it the first time around helps. The figures I quoted are figures I have seen personally from original documentation before anyone asks. Phillipa mentioned Jeff saying that his view is that the 412 was the best handling of their cars, and he has said the same to me. However unlike Philippa or I, Jeff isn't a die hard 412 fan, he loves the 411s which is what he was building when he started with the company. Yes they do refer to original spec, but fortunately for me, my own 412 which was pretty unmolested, was recently rebuilt from the ground up by the factory to the original spec so apart from 7 inch Blenheim Alloys, my car rides as built. I drove lot of V8s before buying my first Bristol, the most memorably awful was a 410 that someone in the car business had rebuilt themselves, he was proudly telling me how he had used bushes from a ford and done the front suspension himself as I plowed straight on at a roundabout at about 10 miles and hour with the most astonishing understeer ever. I didn't conclude that 410s were bad, merely that you have to be very careful where you get them from. You can get a good version or a bad version of any car, the best bet is to get one from BCL that they have rebuilt or converted to a Series 6, or better still a brand new car. I can't imagine any aftermarket version of the cars being better, or at least I haven't seen one. You get what you pay for in life I guess. I choose a 412 over a 411 although the latter has been reckoned to be more of a safe bet financially in the past because I like the styling more, it handles better (IMHO) and I can drive with the wind in (what very little is left) of my hair. It is personal choice and enjoying the car is all that matters. If it was just a financial decision I would have bought a smart car. One final point, I haven't checked the McLaren F1 figures yet. but it has completely different suspension set up, for racing and not cruising so they are not apples and apples. I am at McLaren in a couple of weeks so I will ask them for the figures. Also lack of torsional stiffness is one of the major problems in handling that no amount of suspension tweaking will overcome. A good example is the Aston Martin DB7 coupe got rave reviews for handling, whilst the rag top with exactly the same suspension gets panned. It has to be set soft because the torsional rigidity so so impaired it won't ride properly. Anyway, If the facts are with you, you can argue the facts, if principle is with you, you can argue the principle, or you can just argue. I am off to the races. Regards Paul |
Cornering Test
Hello Paul, Kevin and other Technophiles,
A relatively easy way to compare one car's cornering ability with respect to another's is to compare their respective maximum lateral accelerations around a fixed radius bend. Acceleration values can be obtained by attaching a relatively inexpensive accelerometer to the cockpit of each car in turn and drive each test car in turn at max speed (point of breaking traction) around a, say, 100m diameter "track" defined by witches hats on a safe, deserted car park or airfield. The higher lateral 'g'reading gives an indication of superior road holding. One could swap wheel/tyres from one test vehicle to the other (if they fit!) to determine the effect of tyre selection. "G Tech" offer a 3 axis accelerometer for ~ $110 US at... http://www.gtechprostore.com/cgi-bin...on&key=0400452 As a point of comparison, a 1998 Lexus SC 400 attains ~ 0.8g on a 300ft skid pan. The more advanced accelerometers can also give one a fair estimate of linear acceleration and horsepower output values - useful for other arguements!! Regards, Brett |
Cornering Test
I think you'll find that iPhone offer an application that can do the
same thing. However in Britain the traffic moves so slowly that it wouldn't test the cornering potential of a 1903 De Dion! Ash |
412
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 |
412
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Ah, here we get to the knub of the matter - it is just my poor series 1 that is inferior!!!!
LOL Philippa Quote:
|
412 virtues
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. |
412 virtues
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 |
412 virtues
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. |
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? |
412 virtues
That's fine Andrew, I was just worried if anybody with grammer issues which
I am sure I do, will feel pressured to the point that they stop posting. I'm glad you have also noticed that the BBC are poor. The BBC website has appalling grammar to such a degree, some stories don't actually make sense. Proof reading and good research would help in their case. They have even just won an award for best website LOL. Regards Andrew |
412 virtues
I do understand what you mean Peter. I was just concerned of anyone who has
poor grammar through a poorer education, shouldn't feel bullied to the point they may feel they shouldn't contribute. Of course I am not saying Andrew was bullying anybody and is entitled to his view as much as anybody else is. It just gives me concern for anyone whose grammar is not perfect through ability rather than laziness. I don't have any issues with Andrew and if he was referring to individuals who do have good grammar, but have become lazy then that is fine. I apologise if my grammar is questionable, as my education was far from perfect or priviledged as some say. I do try my best though. Andrew |
412 virtues
I have a letter sent in December 1980 from the fabled Eric Storey, of Bristol Cars, to Guy Drummond, the original owner of the 412USA. I will scan and post the letter when I replace the dead
computer my scanner is connected to. Eric States “There is something about the driving qualities of the 412 which has always appealed greatly to me." Peter McGough |
412 virtues
I find posting from my mobile is the biggest bar to good grammar (It
is spelt with an A, my english teacher literally beat that spelling lesson into me during prep in my first week at senior school!) and spelling. Personally I don't care how people write so long as they write something. I am dyslexic and I never ever hand write anything as a result, if I have to write something on flipcharts in a meeting for example I ask someone to do it for me, it never causes me the slightest embarrassment. One thing I have learned though, is that a lack of formal education is absolutely no bar to success in life, academia included (story for another place). One of the big attractions of the Bristol brand, as they put it themselves, is that they are cars for individuals. That is pretty inclusive I think and it is a passion that can be indulged on pretty much any budget. I find that wherever I turn up at in a Bristol I make new friends. My Landie doesn't seem to offend anyone which is why I drive that as a backup. Other than that I have found that pretty much every other premium brand car I have driven has caused someone a problem somewhere. I wouldn't even consider something with a prancing dobbin on the bonnet as it is the quickest possible way of getting up everyones' nose. Anyway, back to the virtues of the 412. I was at the Haynes Motor museum today enjoying the huge array of cars they have there. What I did find very striking was that some of the most iconic cars which photograph really well don't look that good in real life from many angles. I was quite gutted when I saw a real Corvette Stingray for the first time. It looks absolutely stunning in pictures, but quite odd when viewed at the front three quarters angle from eye level. It quite put me off the car. The american muscle cars were the same. The Countach lacked the presence it has in photos. On the other hand, I have always wondered what the fuss was about the Gordon Keeble, but having seen a real on today I get it now. The Jenson CV-8 headlights look marginally less awful than their pictures. The 412 doesn't always photograph very well from the conventional shooting angles, which is a shame as it has great presence and scale, it looks fantastic from other angles particularly with the roof off or with the hard top on. Because there are so few of them most people won't get to see a real one. Morgan estimated that you need 3000 cars on the road in UK to ensure that everyone will have seen one at some point. On that basis there is probably less than a 50:1 chance somebody will have seen a real 412 at some point. regards Paul |
412 virtues
There is something I like about the 412.
It is very different to the Bristols both before and after and seems to create an added attraction because of it. Maybe this is my strange tastes, but there is something I find attractive about a car that is different. Remember the Rolls-Royce Camargue? Not exactly a looker, but I have always adored that car. Then again, i've always liked those little box like road sweepers that you sit inside and are narrow enough to drive along the pavements LOL. Somebody call the psychiatrist now!! Andrew |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 AM. |
This is the live site