![]() |
![]() |
|
Other Cars Discussion about car marques other than Bristol |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
![]() Philippa, we were talking generally about the main model the Blenheim 3 and
not the Fighter which sets a good future for the company. As far as safety, until the cars go through Euro NCap tests then your views of the safety record is not viable. Bristol cars are rare as hens teeth and so the odds of them being in severe crashes is a lot less than a higher production model. Also, are you really saying that because some of us have made a critcism of certain models, then we should go elsewhere? Anybody who really cares about a marque will make criticsm and on this occasion, it is genuine and heart felt and not done for the sake of being nasty. Other marques face criticism from their customers and enthusiasts all the time, they listen and if there is a need they will act on it. Andrew |
|
|||
![]() Hi Andrew,
Quote:
My view, unlike yours, is based among other things on informed comment from a Blenheim owner I met at the factory when picking up our car. He had been in a high speed 8 car motorway pile up where every other car had air bags (some as many as 7). He was the only driver who emerged unscathed. What the government tests fail to take into account is that should you be involved in a multiple impact your airbags have been and gone once the first car has hit you. You are then presumably sitting in a car designed to protect you through the air bags that doesn't then have them as car number two hits you! He walked away from the accident thanks to the strength in the Bristol chassis. Of the other people in the accident some were still in hospital 1 month later presumably collecting the insurance money from their write offs when he was collecting his repaired car from the factory. I would much rather rely on the design of a car to save me than some kind of "GCSEs for cars" created by a government who you all seem to have very little faith in the rest of the time! Quote:
Philippa |
|
|||
![]() Philippa,
I agree that the Fighter has a unique chassis and probably may have a uniquely configured air con system , but I suspect the air con will be based around off the shelf components matched to suit the requirements of the Fighter, not bespoke down to the ECU and sub components. That would be farcical economically and something simply not worth doing. Most large scale auto manufacturers use common components configured to their specific requirements but often shared amongst several brands/marques. A classic example (not air con) is the half shaft (drive shaft) off a Porsche 928. It is more than £450 off the shelf from Porsche and is a direct swap for the same item used on a Ford Granada of the same era (price £195). All made by GKN. Similarly air-con units largely come from 3-4 global suppliers. Bosch supplies so much to the auto industry one has to ask the question, what apart from body and chassis design do the car makers actually do (lots really). Even engines and gearboxes are routinely shared these days (Borg Warner / Getrag / etc, or Alfa/Fiat/Vauxhall/Saab with diesels or even BMW Mini/Peugeot/Citroen diesels to name a few). Everything from ABS and braking systems to other sub-systems are designed and produced by third parties. Indeed it is a strength that such outsourcing of common systems is used, especially for Bristol - makes it better for us who make the time and effort to keep them going. My 406 will have a latest model Dana Spicer rear axle and modern front disc calipers, plus other nice shiny 3rd party stuff added for convenience and ease of maintenance - including a fully integrated off the shelf air con unit. As to crash worthiness it is of great importance that energy is absorbed by the structure as much as possible instead of the people inside. Rather than blame the lack of available airbags (designed to help keep moving body parts from too much acceleration and impact damage), the issue you raise about a multiple car pile up is more related to the subsequent lack of impact (energy) absorption by an already crashed car by another impact. This is a catch 22 and unfortunate. Although having said that the basic cell structure of most moderns remains pretty strong even after front and rear impact absorption. Fewer deaths occur due to high speed (30-50mph) impact than say 20-30 years ago (pro-rata). Even better still are injuries due to impact of body parts inside the car. The Bristol (V8's) has excellent rear impact absorption (relatively weak (soft) structure) attached to a solid structure and similarly same at front above chassis line and before engine. Side impact is good too as long as the impact is below knee height until it hits the inner chassis rails. In any event, the guy in the heavier object always comes off (almost always) better than the guy in the smaller one. A V8 Bristol weighs in at 1700kgs about the same as a modern BMW 5 series or smaller 7 series. |
|
|||
![]() Philippa your comment of the guy surviving the crash is not a scientific one
and is therefore not viable as the Blenheim was not in the same posotion as all the cars involved. The official tests also show how the car deforms in a crash dissapaiting the energy and how it handles impact (modern cars deform whereas older cars didn't causing injuries to passengers) and where the pedals go for example. Recent tests also found, if a small Renault Modus was travelling at 30mph and a Mercedes E-class (W124) from the late 1980's pulled out and was hit side on, the Mercedes driver would likely be killed. Whereas if the roles were reversed, the Renault driver would walk away. Mercedes cars are known the world over for being some of the safest and toughest cars in existence. I prefer proven science on a like for like basis, rather than a guy i met happened to be ok in his car in 1 crash. Oh and most crashes aren't multiple pile ups, they are single impact. Modern crash zones are 'proven' by many reliable sources (not just government tests) to save lives, ignorance doesn't!! On the case of your argument of not needing an electric opener of the rear window. What about on days when the air con isn't needed but the passenger wants fresh air, are we to deny them because you don't see the need for it? Manual openers are a poor mans way of opening the window and an impossibility for many older generations who simply cannot reach across. Andrew |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Do you work for the road research lab (or whatever the EU say we can call it) by any chance???? Quote:
If you all drove 412s you wouldn't need it you could just drop the hood down! LOL Philippa |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Philippa |
![]() |
Tags |
alternatives, cars, ramblings |
|
|