[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: unhappy customer

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 08:21:33PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 07:26:14PM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> > Not only crazy, but more complicated to make than a separate turn
> > signal. Never seen on this side of the pond!
> I have heard claims that it is simple to do, but I can't imagine how.

Given the age of the idea, I can't see it being done with anything
less than a slightly hairy network of relays. It'd be simpler using
steering diodes, but the idea predates the ready availability of such
devices of sufficient quality and at a reasonable cost.

Two-stroke MZ motorcycles have a single telltale bulb which functions
as both the indicator telltale and the charge warning light. The
circuitry for that is surprisingly simple, but it's a pretty horrible
kludge, and prone to bizarre and puzzling behaviour under fault

> > The DS. I think someone else did it as well but I can't remember who -
> > it might possibly have been Jowett, but probably not.
> > 
> > Huh? AFAIK _all_ Saabs have been front engine/front wheel drive. The
> > original Mini certainly never had a rear engine! - that was front
> > engine, front wheel drive too. 
> Hmm, I thought I had seen an old saab many years ago that was rear
> engine, but I sure can't find any info to back that up.  I guess looks
> must have been deceiving (it was old enough that it could ahve been rust
> that looked like air vents for an engine.

I had a Peugeot 304 like that once!

> > As for better handling from a rear engine - Don't Think So! Fiat and
> > Skoda did it for manufacturing simplicity - the same reason that front
> > engine/front wheel drive is now nearly universal - in both cases you 
> > have engine, transmission and associated bits all in one lump that
> > the bodyshell can simply be dropped over, as opposed to having
> > separate bits strung along the length of the whole car.
> I didn't, and wouldn't claim they handle better. 

No, it was David Brown who wrote that bit.

> I would have thought they had moved the engine a bit further forward to
> try and aim for a bit close to 50/50 on the 911 by now.

Possibly; I know less about the modern ones as I'm more interested in
older vehicles in general. But it wouldn't be very easy to do that
without also moving the engine upwards to put it partly above the
transmission, because the transmission's in the way. The consequent
raising of the centre of gravity could make the handling very hairy

There was a car, I think it was built by the Bristol Aeroplane Company
- not one of the post-WWII Bristols, this was in 1921 or thereabouts.
It used a three-cylinder radial aeroplane engine in the rear, and
because of the awkward shape of this engine, it had to be mounted
above the axle and transmission with the crankshaft vertical. This put
the C of G much too high, and the thing had an unfortunate tendency to
turn over if you cornered it too hard... it scared the crap out of the
test drivers, and I don't think it ever made it into production, which
was probably a good thing!


Be kind to pigeons
Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21C61F7F

Attachment: pgpzFjEHTo7xC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: