For those interested in old cars.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, big jim said:

it’s got a few rust patches in places but I think it came with them as standard from

new 

 

Lada's approach to rustproofing was always to make the metal thicker so it could take a bit of rust.

 

Crash test results are predictably awful although the cabin remains remarkably intact for a 70's design. You do rather end up eating the steering wheel.

 

 

[Hobby]

5 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

The bland styling we have suffered the last thirty years or so is a result of production parameters, safety / type approval demands / designers being computer operators, not artists and probably most of all, the need to keep accounts happy when you are competing against cars built on third world wages elsewhere.

 

I'd have said the biggest restriction on modern car designers is aerodynamics, that's the reason we have "blobs", some manufacturers are better than others, at disguising it. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

5 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I was a little taken aback to discover this morning that the new Citroën DS9, starting price over £40k, is being built in China.....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongfeng_Peugeot-Citroën

 

It's amazing to think that Citroen have been dabbling in the Chinese market for some 40 years.

The DS9 will probably be a more "European" concept and build, so shouldn't be too bad.

Be thankful you in the UK don't have to suffer the woeful C'Elysee, the worst of a Spanish/Chinese amalgamation!

 

Mike.

[alastairq]

On a different tack, I was involved in a discussion the other day about 'new' cars versus 'old'...

Usual stuff came out...safety, environment, connectivity, air con, safety again, etc...

 

I have no desire to 'own' a new car, even if I could afford to buy one. [Do people actually 'buy' cars these days anyway?]

I'm not dismayed when needing to trumpet the benefits [from my personal viewpoint] of running, & using, old, [or, very old?] cars.

Make no mistake, it is a choice  I have, not a compulsion.

 

But when I think about it, the issue is one of 'input'.

 

Having driven for over 50 years, legally...and been an 'enthusiast' for many years more, I have acquired driving skills [and those associated with being a 'driver'].....of not unreasonable depth!    

 

Yet, sitting in a new car, I find that those skills are no longer required of a driver...the car [or the technology] is there to supplant those skills.

To the extent that my 'role' in the whole scenario of getting from A to B has been reduced to that of , almost.... a mere passenger!

 

The car doesn't let me 'do' anything it doesn't think I ought to be doing.   Almost!

{Doesn't stop me farting, but that may well be on the cards next year, I reckon?}

 

SO now I feel, a lifetime of experiences, mistakes, of learning, and figuring out, not forgetting the many weeks of training , and more training....course  upon course over the years..is all for nothing. All a wasted effort.

I might just as well have taken a job behind a desk, for all that the expertise gained means, once I get into a new car?

 

I enjoy 'driving'.....and enjoyment of driving is taken away from me, when I get behind the wheel of a new car.

 

I'm not talking about the 'enjoyment' promoted by the advertising people....ie, their idea of what driving 'enjoyment' should be......but about the sheer pleasure of getting the best out of a car that is determined to prove otherwise.

I don't want to drive, where I don't need to worry about speed, or handling, or other esoterica....

 

I 'want' to feel worried, or concerned about the car, what it is doing, how to manage it all.  I want to have to show  vehicle sympathy....I 'want' to feel I have to make compensations in how I drive, to offset inadequacies of the vehicle being driven.

I would be quite happy to drive with two wheel brakes.....[I'm no longer an ''Ooooo-errrr' driver], or dodgy steering, or whatever.

 

What I don't appreciate is when the car thinks it knows better about what to do than I do!  Or, more to the point, some computer programmer, or vehicle designer, who thinks they know better.....[Without giving me any evidence whatsoever that they do, in fact, know better? ]

 

My feelings are, we have lost the plot in the rush to embrace ever-burgeoning technological advances { If indeed, they are 'advances', and not mere sidetracks?}.   We have thrown the ''baby out with the bathwater'', automotively speaking.

 

Now, I'm not saying the vast majority of folk who want to have a new car are wrong. I agree they may have a dire need of the technologies.

 

But, I don't!

 

I am happier without. 

 

Which doesn't make me 'wrong', either.   

 

I am not alone in that view, I think...

 

But definitely in a minority!

 

It's not about nostalgia, either.  

 

It's probably more about not wanting to have wasted what I've got?

 

 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, 30801 said:

 

Lada's approach to rustproofing was always to make the metal thicker so it could take a bit of rust.

 

Crash test results are predictably awful although the cabin remains remarkably intact for a 70's design. You do rather end up eating the steering wheel.

 

 

I had no idea it had no airbags, not so much real information in that too short film……I’d like to see the footwell intrusion as well.

 

I know it will never happen but I just wouldn’t drive one (as a day to day vehicle) because of the lack of secondary safety equipment.

 

And yes of course people drive vintage/veteran/classic vehicles which have no secondary safety systems fitted but that is another thread entirely.

[boxbrownie]

6 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I was a little taken aback to discover this morning that the new Citroën DS9, starting price over £40k, is being built in China.....

Some of the most reliable components in your home would have been made in China, I don’t like it either but the alternatives we probably wouldn’t like either.

[alastairq]

My dearest Daughter decided to get married the other day.

 

Not for want of trying, this was their third attempt.

 

Due to covid more than anything else.

 

Not for 'need', either.    

 

 Mainly because, new SIL's parents were really getting old, and the pair thought Mum & Dad would like to see them hitched before it was too late, so to speak?

 

Anyway, all done, complying with the rules [as far as i could tell?]

 

I supplied the marital transport.   It was to be low key....register Office job, followed by food n drink back at their hose....where my Ex [DD's Mum]... had erected a gaze bo....

Guests [so to speak] were family, ours & his....and a few of the folk who worked for SIL.

SIL, being a notable [locally] Chef, had done much of the catering himself, although DD did all the organising, boozy miracles, etc....

 

Anyway, the marital transport was my '67 Mustang.   

 

A 30 mile round trip, one town to next and back, with the couple in question....{ I am part of their 'bubble']   Which is how things had to be 'done'.....SILs family stopped in various hotels locally....

 

Dearest Daughter observed that, although there were many folk who waved at us in passing, or came to gawp [admire?] when we were parked up outside the Registry Office, waiting .....they were really waving and gawping at the car, & not her!

Sobering thought.

 

Probably why I want to sell it on?

 

I'm not used [or comfortable] with the attention it gets....which in  my eyes is totally unwarranted.

 

Yet, I am in a way reluctant to part with it.

The reason being, for an old [50 years plus] car, it is remarkably easy to maintain, parts are incredibly cheap, from the USA [as I have noted before. elsewhere?]...

 

Aside from the attention, it is a thoroughly practical, if slightly greedy, car to use.  Even if it is on a par with an MGB GT...which was what I was looking for, at the cheap end of the market, before I got this thing.   Not many MGB's get much more than 25 to gallon in mixed driving.....no kiddin', they're thirsty beasts, those old B series on twin carbs and steel toecaps.

The Mustang is a 3.3 litre  6 pot motored car, the base model in Ford's range..[all their base models got the 6 pot engine]...yet, even though it is rated around 125 bhp, it's torque figures are quite enormous......so it has no problems keeping ahead of modern traffic.  It even has all the sensible mods, like disc brakes, lowered suspension, shl=elby drop, andan LED rear light /indicator conversion. It even has lap belts!  But the passenger space is huge compared to an MGB....as is the boot space...yet, the car overall has a smaller ground silhouette than the last Ford Mondeo [and a whole 11 inches more shoulder room inside.....]

 Yet, I am pushing myself to let it go...probably on consignment at the specialist dealers from whence it came?

 

Got a knock on the door last week, turned out to be the fella that owned the Mustang before me....seems he works almost just around the corner...and was pleased to see his old car...He has promised to pass on more of the car's history paperwork, and a load of the emblems, bits, spares, etc that he didn't fit before exchanging it for a 60's US pickup truck, getting that before the dealer had it painted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alastairq]

Quote

I had no idea it had no airbags, not so much real information in that too short film

  

 

The new one's have an air bag.

 

Out Of interest, the car which, when tested by the TUV [German]..safety bunch, had the least amount of passenger space intrusion of any car, at the time [which was quite recently] was

 

Morgan plus 4!!

 

Odd considering it's body tub has an ash frame......

 

[boxbrownie]

26 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 

The car doesn't let me 'do' anything it doesn't think I ought to be doing.   Almost!

{Doesn't stop me farting, but that may well be on the cards next year, I reckon?}

 

 

Don’t worry that’s already been covered for years, ventilated seats disperse noxious odours around the cabin very efficiently, saves having to carry those troublesome passenger people around. 

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

  

 

The new one's have an air bag.

 

Out Of interest, the car which, when tested by the TUV [German]..safety bunch, had the least amount of passenger space intrusion of any car, at the time [which was quite recently] was

 

Morgan plus 4!!

 

Odd considering it's body tub has an ash frame......

 

The Morgan is interesting as being a quite robust ash frame and a very long engine compartment (no ash frame there!) so there is a lot of (unintended) crush area before the real impact gets to the passenger cell, or tub as cell sounds too modern for a Morgan. It works, but more by luck than judgement.

 

A lot of small cars increase crush space by designing things like engines that torpedo under the passenger cell making the engine compartment fully crushable without a few hundredweight of cast iron/aluminium forcing itself into the passenger area.

Crash testing is good fun…….on the road not so much.

 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

A lot of small cars increase crush space by designing things like engines that torpedo under the passenger cell making the engine compartment fully crushable without a few hundredweight of cast iron/aluminium forcing itself into the passenger area.

 

The current Niva has a driver's side impact airbag. Presumably courtesy of the Renault supplied seats.

It also has a Fiat-like engine bay mounted spare wheel which is definitely not going to submarine downwards.

That crash test was in 2002 IIRC so a current one would be worse (than no stars?) still I'm impressed it didn't end up with the A & B pillars touching like a lot of 90's cars did when tested.

 

The Land Rover Defender I think never got any airbags and skirted crash tests by being a commercial vehicle.

[boxbrownie]

Even with side airbags I’d prefer S/W and IP bags first, TBH in any barrier test I filmed (at legislated speeds) I never saw A/B pillars touch, I started in the late 70’s just before airbags became used and in my view they are the major contributor (obviously in conjunction with seat belts) to “walk away” impacts, vehicle structure is light years ahead of early cars and stronger too, it may look like a crumpled wreck but every wrinkle is usually designed to be there, in some vehicles if you look at the side members in the engine bay you can see ridges or depressions which are the fold points, older cars are lovely but in an argument with tree or artic larger vehicle I know where I’d want to be……at home. 

[PhilJ W]

The Jimney is still in production in India but does not comply with current UK emission standards. 

[boxbrownie]

The Defender had exception by being a much older original design (in relation) JLR boxed very clever to keep it on sale for so long.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The Jimney is still in production in India but does not comply with current UK emission standards. 

 

The new Jimny doesn't comply with UK emissions regulations either, or at least the co2 emissions over the range so they're taking out the rear seats that you won't use anyway and calling it a commercial. Tada! rules no longer apply. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Even with side airbags I’d prefer S/W and IP bags first, TBH in any barrier test I filmed (at legislated speeds) I never saw A/B pillars touch,

 

Touching might be an exaggeration but this sort of thing where the structure gives up the ghost.

 

 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, 30801 said:

 

The current Niva has a driver's side impact airbag. Presumably courtesy of the Renault supplied seats.

It also has a Fiat-like engine bay mounted spare wheel which is definitely not going to submarine downwards.

Oddly…….although the engine torpedos……passengers/driver sit in anti-submarine seats 

 

I always thought that was amusing.

[boxbrownie]

3 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Touching might be an exaggeration but this sort of thing where the structure gives up the ghost.

 

 

Yes small vehicles do have issues…..but what do you expect from FIAT? 
 

But seriously offset barrier impacts are some of the worst, only half the frontal structure takes the force.

Edited June 29, 2021 by boxbrownie

[MrWolf]

On 29/06/2021 at 16:41, boxbrownie said:

I had no idea it had no airbags, not so much real information in that too short film……I’d like to see the footwell intrusion as well.

 

I know it will never happen but I just wouldn’t drive one (as a day to day vehicle) because of the lack of secondary safety equipment.

 

And yes of course people drive vintage/veteran/classic vehicles which have no secondary safety systems fitted but that is another thread entirely.

 

If I worried too much about that kind of thing, I wouldn't drive a classic car, I wouldn't ride my bicycles and I certainly wouldn't ride my motorcycles.

In fact, I'd probably stay in bed. Provided of course that all parts of said bed were fireproof and hypoallergenic.

 

[MrWolf]

On 29/06/2021 at 16:22, alastairq said:

On a different tack, I was involved in a discussion the other day about 'new' cars versus 'old'...

Usual stuff came out...safety, environment, connectivity, air con, safety again, etc...

 

I have no desire to 'own' a new car, even if I could afford to buy one. [Do people actually 'buy' cars these days anyway?]

I'm not dismayed when needing to trumpet the benefits [from my personal viewpoint] of running, & using, old, [or, very old?] cars.

Make no mistake, it is a choice  I have, not a compulsion.

 

But when I think about it, the issue is one of 'input'.

 

Having driven for over 50 years, legally...and been an 'enthusiast' for many years more, I have acquired driving skills [and those associated with being a 'driver'].....of not unreasonable depth!    

 

Yet, sitting in a new car, I find that those skills are no longer required of a driver...the car [or the technology] is there to supplant those skills.

To the extent that my 'role' in the whole scenario of getting from A to B has been reduced to that of , almost.... a mere passenger!

 

The car doesn't let me 'do' anything it doesn't think I ought to be doing.   Almost!

{Doesn't stop me farting, but that may well be on the cards next year, I reckon?}

 

SO now I feel, a lifetime of experiences, mistakes, of learning, and figuring out, not forgetting the many weeks of training , and more training....course  upon course over the years..is all for nothing. All a wasted effort.

I might just as well have taken a job behind a desk, for all that the expertise gained means, once I get into a new car?

 

I enjoy 'driving'.....and enjoyment of driving is taken away from me, when I get behind the wheel of a new car.

 

I'm not talking about the 'enjoyment' promoted by the advertising people....ie, their idea of what driving 'enjoyment' should be......but about the sheer pleasure of getting the best out of a car that is determined to prove otherwise.

I don't want to drive, where I don't need to worry about speed, or handling, or other esoterica....

 

I 'want' to feel worried, or concerned about the car, what it is doing, how to manage it all.  I want to have to show  vehicle sympathy....I 'want' to feel I have to make compensations in how I drive, to offset inadequacies of the vehicle being driven.

I would be quite happy to drive with two wheel brakes.....[I'm no longer an ''Ooooo-errrr' driver], or dodgy steering, or whatever.

 

What I don't appreciate is when the car thinks it knows better about what to do than I do!  Or, more to the point, some computer programmer, or vehicle designer, who thinks they know better.....[Without giving me any evidence whatsoever that they do, in fact, know better? ]

 

My feelings are, we have lost the plot in the rush to embrace ever-burgeoning technological advances { If indeed, they are 'advances', and not mere sidetracks?}.   We have thrown the ''baby out with the bathwater'', automotively speaking.

 

Now, I'm not saying the vast majority of folk who want to have a new car are wrong. I agree they may have a dire need of the technologies.

 

But, I don't!

 

I am happier without. 

 

Which doesn't make me 'wrong', either.   

 

I am not alone in that view, I think...

 

But definitely in a minority!

 

It's not about nostalgia, either.  

 

It's probably more about not wanting to have wasted what I've got?

 

 

 

Amen to that.

 

I don't think that I could be accused of nostalgia either. I have always been interested in cars that had become a rare sight on the roads by the time I was born. 

 

I just like them.

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

A lot of small cars increase crush space by designing things like engines that torpedo under the passenger cell making the engine compartment fully crushable without a few hundredweight of cast iron/aluminium forcing itself into the passenger area.

 Reminds me......I have witnessed[!} a lot of injurious or fatal road incidents in my lifetime...some when I was a small kid [Infants school in Cardiff, walking home, saw a Bedford builders truck run over what to me was an old falle..I was yards from his face when the back wheels went over his body.....but the one I recall  most, involved a large American car, and a Morris Minor, outside the Fire Station in Sutton Coldfield...mid 1960's. The Yanktank had careered across the road [A38] and hit the Morris head-one, pushing the whole plot into the fire station entrance.  The driver of the Morris died as a result..the Morris engine had been pushed through the bulkhead, and into the rear seat.  The Police had me as a witness to the preceding events, which included failing to stop at a zebra crossing [outside where I lived]....before careering into the Morris.  A visit to Court in Birmingham resulted, including a cross examination which more or less tried to imply I didn't see what I saw. But the 'forensic' evidence supported my eyewitness evidence... as a 14 year old lad. I didn't buckle, & stuck to my statement.

Driver got time, as I recall.....excess speed, failed to keep control....skid marks told the story too.

 Engines coming into the passenger compartment is a habit of a lot of 4x4s that look tough & solid, but in reality are not.

LAnd Rovers fold up too easily, or lozenge if a corner is hit.  I always said if a land rover was scrapped , one would find it on  one's Christmas table..the foil covering the turkey, and the tin it was roasted in?

[boxbrownie]

30 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

If I worried too much about that kind of thing, I wouldn't drive a classic car, I wouldn't ride my bicycles and I certainly wouldn't ride my motorcycles.

In fact, I'd probably stay in bed. Provided of course that all parts of said bed were fireproof and hypoallergenic.

 

It’s not about worrying, just reducing risk.

[big jim]

4 hours ago, 30801 said:

Crash test results are predictably awful although the cabin remains remarkably intact for a 70's design. You do rather end up eating the steering wheel.

 

 

my sister rolled my stepdads niva Cossack back in 1990, he bought it new and it developed rust after a few months so he had it resprayed under warranty and she was driving it back from the garage down a lane and clipped the edge, rolling it 3 times and ending up on its roof, she got out in one piece though, my stepdad wasn’t too bothered as he hated the car anyway and she was alright!

 

he got a Citroen BX estate after that which was quite nice for its time 

[alastairq]

1 minute ago, boxbrownie said:

It’s not about worrying, just reducing risk.

 I prefer to reduce the risk before there's any chance of being hit....

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

 I prefer to reduce the risk before there's any chance of being hit....

That’s primary risk, safety systems like airbags and seatbelts are secondary when the primary runs out.