|
Bristol alternatives.
(Quote: Kevin Howard)
However, rather than laziness this may have been down to economics. My guess is that the company was in terminal decline by the time Mr Silverton came along. (End Quote) I think the Bristol Fighter sends out a good signal for the future of the company under Mr Silverton's stewardship. (Quote: Kevin Howard) As for whether things like air con and electric rear windows matter, it all depends upon on how you use the car. If you keep your car under wraps in a dehumidified garage and drive it only on sunny Sundays then of course it doesn't matter and you should probably strive for originality. But if you want to use a classic car as a daily driver then a few niceties become more important. (End Quote) Don't forget, Bristol Cars regularly comment that their cars are designed for daily usage, so really these things should be standard fitment. Andrew ______________________ PREVIOUS MESSAGE FROM: Jervaulx (Quote: rubbond) On the other subjects, my goodness. Who really could care a sh*t about electric rear windows? Or am I mad? (End Quote) Basically, if you have front electric windows, you should have the rear ones electric also. It also helps older and more infirm passengers in the rear to open the window when they find it difficult to reach and open the manual mechanism. Also, in a prestige car you should open the window in a more gentlemanly manner by pressing a switch by slight of hand rather than if you were in a £7000 car. I don't agree with excuses of unreliability. When you make cars costing £150,000 and above, you find a reliable mechanism and you fit it. Excuses smacks of laziness to develop and progress and to make the car a better and more passenger friendly car. I also believe this has some truth with the lack of safety features which have been proven, overwhelmingly to save many lives. Having said that, i am a fan of the current models from Bristol and would recommend them. Andrew |
Bristol Rear windows.
A tip to help prevent windows steaming up which works on bathrooms mirrors.
Take a soft dry cloth, squirt washing up liquid on it and wipe over the windscreen and/or side windows. Then take another soft dry cloth and buff it off. This should stop the misting as it really does work on bathroom mirrors. Andrew |
[quote=TLF799R;498]What is it with you boys - you claim to love the cars then all you do is run them down. If so much is wrong with them why have one???
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Fighter have a specially developed air conditioning system, designed for the car at great cost? It would have presumably been much easier, as other "supercars" do, to pinch theirs from cheap mass produced cars but Bristol didn't do that. They wanted to make their car smaller and lighter so they designed their own! How can you possibly call that lazy??? When I win the lottery I am straight off to Kensington to order my new Bristol! Lets not forget that if you have any spare pennies after forking out for your new Bristol and you don't like the dashboard, you can possibly instruct Bristol to arrange any bespoke upgrading of it. I remember seeing on these pages a Blenheim belonging to an owner that had a much better and tasteful interior upgrade utilising Rolls Royce eyeball vents and chrome switches and totally ditching the underdash chip-cutter ac. Would this upgrade have been done by Bristol or would someone else have done it?? |
I don't quite get this.
Who needs to open rear windows anyway when you have air con? What for? To ask someone for the way because the driver himself does not speak English? Regards, Markus |
Quote:
|
Bristol Rear windows.
It was claimed that the aerodynes were pressurised in order to keep the
draughts out, hence some difficulty in closing the doors with the windows shut, however, Tony Crook always said that the car should be driven with a rear quarter light open, and this is what I tend to do. Regards. Bellerophon |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't that where the chassis came from? |
Bristol alternatives.
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 |
Quote:
Regards, Markus |
It's not blind love!
But it seems to be rather misinformed... I don't know if you are right or wrong, but who was talking about the Fighter? My comments specifically mentioned V8 Bristols. I think your original comment was "When you make cars costing £150,000 and above, you find a reliable mechanism and you fit it. Excuses smacks of laziness to develop and progress and to make the car a better and more passenger friendly car." If you check your facts you will find that the Blenheim and the 411 series 6 both have integrated air conditioning behind the dash BUT still maintain the original Bristol theory of keeping air conditioning and fresh air supply separate, which means that "fresh" air is exactly what you get rather than air passed through the heater matrix which is heated even when the heater is switched off (due to residual heat) by probably at least 5 degrees. It seems rather against you "lazy theory" to me. You can't tell me that it is easier to produce your own system rather than use a cheap one off a run of the mill production car? Perhaps you need to become more familiar with the dreaded V8s... How do you know it's not straight out of the Viper? I'm afraid I've checked my facts and it is a specially developed computerised system which is as up to the minute as you can get! Isn't that where the chassis came from? Sorry Kevin but the chassis has been no where near a Viper. I've driven one and also been in a Fighter and there is no comparison. The chassis is a completely modern one of aluminium and high strength steel with integral race car roll over bars built specially for the Fighter. I don't mind considered comment about Bristols but I hate it when it is based on misinformation and "urban myth"! Philippa |
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 |
Bristol alternatives.
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. |
Bristol alternatives.
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 |
Bristol alternatives.
Sorry Philippa i thought it was you who said it, i'll smack myself on the
wrist very hard LOL. On the subject of a convertible, imagine an open top Fighter, now there's a thought..... Andrew |
Quote:
Philippa |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How is the chassis "computerised" ? What are the "facts" and how did you "check" them? Quote:
Quote:
You say you have "been in a Fighter" - have you actually driven one, in comparable circumstances to the drive in the Viper? (just wondering how you compared the chassis of the two cars). Quote:
|
Quote:
We all know the engine is a Viper engine, and presumably the transmission, but I assumed that Bristol made the chassis. However, just last week I was talking to a guy who recently visited Chrysler in Detroit. He is doing some development work on another model of car to utilise the Viper engine so he had some meetings arranged with Chrysler people. They looked after him, picked him up from his hotel, took him out for lunch and gave him a tour of the Viper production plant. These guys were very forthcoming with information until he asked if the Bristol Fighter used the Viper chassis - "No comment" was the response. Now if Bristol were not using the Viper chassis it would be very simple for the Chrysler guys to say that. But when anyone declines to comment when asked a simple yes/no question, that makes me suspicious. Why would Bristol not use the Viper chassis? It's a great chassis, well proven and successful in racing versions of the Viper. It would also have saved them a fortune in development costs. Has anyone ever seen a reasonably detailed description of the Fighter chassis? |
For such an expert on Bristol I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with the 411 series 6???
I'm afraid I can see that I am wasting my time and that you are far happier living with your conspiracy theories. Nothing Bristol do will ever be good enough for you. If it comes out of another car it is lazy, if they make it themsleves they are stupid - they can't win! Perhaps an open mind might help you get a more rounded view but I suspect anyone's else's information will never be rated as highly as your own in your mind. Is there some kind of traumatic incident you had with Bristol that I'm unaware of? You never seem to be voicing these theories on any forum bar your own??? Philippa |
Bristol alternatives.
I have read a number of times in historical blurb about Bristols that 'no driver has ever been killed in a Bristol' . I then read a year or two back that some bone parts were discovered by someone restoring a Bristol found in a barn and these included a bit if bone that was identified as human jaw. Does anyone have any recollection of this and what was the outcome?
George |
Quote:
|
Bristol alternatives.
This may be a case of adding 2 + 2 and getting 5, But I seem to remember
that David Martin who at one time owned a considerable number of Bristols in the UK (over 20) and from whom I bought my 400 in 1973, was murdered in the eighties , I think, and that his body had never been found. I seem to recall that his business partner was convicted and given a very long sentence but I have no other details that I can remember of the story. I don't recall seeing the story that you read about more recent events and my "connection" is tenuous at best, I think. Jon |
Bristol alternatives.
I knew David well, he was a Rock and Roller and found him a man to
run his company and build to the point where he was able to sell it for a fair amount of money. He was murdered by two bit conman who'd sold a him a few non existent cars and two dismantled Robinson Helicopters in a Lorry container that didn't exist either. The total bill was £200K and David's Solicitor persuaded the chap to sign a promise to repay it. He didn't have the money but he did have a collection of pistols and he used one to shoot David. I think David had two 400s, 1 Arnolt and one 411ish. Most were with specialists and taking longer than they should to be rebuilt or whatever. David was easily conned I'm afraid, but had become very famous for supplying very powerful PA systems to the biggest touring rock groups of the day. Ashley |
Wow - this thread just gets better. So out of the 3 people that have supposedly died in Bristols, one was actually murdered?
|
Bristol alternatives.
But not in or near his Bristol. They found evidence in his house of
a pool of blood that had been cleaned up and in it there were footprints made by Golfing shoes with the spikes removed, which were the preferred footwear for our moderate IQ murderer. In this instance I don't think Bristol can be held responsible. Ash |
"Bristol murders" were at 3 maybe, but by my count it's up to 4, as this thread should be deemed DEAD.
|
Quote:
|
In 2005, Jack Boxstrom, wrote:
"Max is my younger brother by 7 years. He flunked his grade 11 French about three times, including summer school. So eventually our parents said, "so what do you want to do now?" and he asked for a one way ticket to the UK (at aged approx 20 - this would be about 1965). Max got a free welding school and was hired as a chassis welder at McLaren, so I told all my racing friends not to buy a McLaren Can-Am or Formula car that year since my brother was still learning his craft! In any case, his forte was design and engineering, not welding and later he studied vehicle aerodynamics at Manchester University with Costin and designed some cars with the latter for Tiga - including a formula car that had a cockpit canopy and set a lap record at Monza. Then he designed racing wheels for cars and bikes and had a company called Dymag Wheels that eventually had about 100 employees and made pretty well all of the world's magnesium racing wheels for F-1, Prototypes and his famous 3-spoke bike racing wheel. Sold the company and went on to project consulting and race car design. His major "from scratch" car was the AMR-1 Group "C" Aston Martin for which he also built the chassis and bodies in his new kevlar-carbon fabrication shops. He is a very clever chap and there are lots of other stories and achievements - not bad for a kid that I used to get very annoyed with because he would draw "improved" bodies, chassis, etc in my Road & Track magazines, superimposed on the magazine pictures. Early, while he was still in Canada he had a motorcycle magazine and wrote technical articles for Track & Traffic magazine - one on supercharging was so complex that I could not understand it! Max also designed a new car with a Viper V-10 for Bristol called the "Fighter" and was with Jaguar on a contact basis doing "engine development". He still lives in Leicester, England and has been recently active in ocean going sail boat design." If I may add - unfortunately Max Boxstrom died last year. By the way, there was a very nice photo of a Fighter rolling chassis somewhere on the net, but I just can't find the link no more. Maybe someone knows the URL. Regards, Markus |
I am not talking about this schematic
http://www.loaditup.de/files/288597.jpg although this is also interesting. But there was a real photo somewhere of a rolling chassis taken in the Kensington showroom. Also note that the Fighter has a much longer wheelbase than the Viper and a narrower track. Regards, Markus |
More the Figher chassis, from EVO
The car is remarkably light too; just over 1500kg at the kerb (a 599 weighs 1688kg), and this despite what must be a fairly sizeable contribution from the massively strong steel box-section chassis with honeycomb flooring and a couple of heavy duty roll-hoops designed by race-car engineer Max Boxstrom whose credits include the Aston Martin AMR-1 sports racer that raced at Le Mans in ’89. The coil-sprung double-wishbone suspension with anti-roll bars front and rear is also largely Boxstrom’s work.
|
Quote:
At last, some factual information instead of bluster. It occurred to me when lying in bed last night that if the wheelbases were different then that would suggest the Fighter chassis is different from the Viper. That's good enough for me. I shall inform my friend who visited the Viper plant that his suspicions are ill founded - I'm surprised he didn't think of that! |
It's rather interesting for me to notice that even with a newly designed car like the Fighter, Bristol keep to their tradition of long wheelbase and relatively small track - in a configuration with very short front overhang and an engine moved back to the centre as much as possible.
This makes the Fighter as well as the Blenheim look a bit disproportionate for today's taste with their long hoods, but this layout is very much in tune with classic designs from the coachbuilt area. Regards, Markus |
Quote:
They have of course been doing this for a long time, the "Grief" 411 S5 being an example from 8 years ago. But the fact that they are now marketing the idea is great news for us 411 owners, because they just might start manufacturing some parts which were no longer available. It might even increase the value of the 411, which as the writer says was probably the "best looking, offering an ideal package of styling and performance". Quote:
Quote:
I believe scepticism of marketing spiel is quite healthy, and in Bristol's case there is good reason. When Bristol first started using Chrysler's engines and transmissions there were claims that these items were "Bristolised", in other words modified by Bristol's engineers to improve on Chrysler's work. There was talk of special cam shafts and even removal of hydraulic tappets which the old "A" series engines never had in the first place. Even Leonard Setright admitted in his book "A Private Car" that he had he been sucked in by these stories, to which he had unwittingly given authority that they did not deserve, by stating them as fact in his earlier book, "Bristol Cars and Engines". Mr Guy Drummond, QC highlighted these "misconceptions" in a letter published in the BOC Bulletin of Spring 1975. As a footnote to Guy Drummond's letter, LJKS, who was the Editor at the time, said "I am suitably chastened - not to mention embarrassed". I don't blame Bristol for their marketing strategy back then in the early 1970s, after all everyone was stretching the truth a bit in their marketing hype. In fact it was quite a clever marketing strategy which helped them sell cars for extremely high prices, despite the fact that they used a power train that was common as muck in the US. Fast forward to Sept 2001, and an EVO magazine article about the Bristol Fighter included comments such as "We take the basic structure of the engine and 'Bristolise' it. " Now having just torn down the engine from my 411 to find a domestic spec Chrysler 400 cid engine with nothing special about it at all (it even still had a cast crank), I concluded that if Bristol were not really enhancing Chrysler engines back in the early 1970s (my engine was made in 1973, despite my 411 being made in '76), then it was hard to believe that they were improving on the V10, which was a available as a crate engine from Chrysler with almost identical power and torque figures to that which Bristol were quoting. I expressed these views in the BOC email forum at the time. What happened next was quite remarkable. The Patron of the BOC, Mr Crook, allegedly threatened to sue the BOC and the people running it, unless they published an apology in the BOC forum and the BOC Bulletin magazine. Apparently, Mr Crook's letter to the BOC Chairman was addressed "Dear Sir/Madam" ! Unfortunately Bob Charlton, who ran the BOC email Forum at the time, published a letter from Michael Barton who stated as fact that I had defamed and libelled Bristol Cars, when I had done no such thing. So things got pretty ugly for a little while. The funny thing is, while this row was unfolding I visited Bristol in the UK to buy some parts for my 411 and no one said a word to me. In fact I never heard anything from Bristol at all. I think Mr Crook just wanted an excuse to muzzle the BOC. Quote:
People are free to voice their opinions in this forum, and enter into robust debate, even if they might irritate the establishment. |
Quote:
What's this about your mate's suspicions? |
Quote:
I am no longer suspicious, he however will remain so. Indeed he will take some convincing that his suspicions are ill founded, because he is a Chrysler devotee. In fact even when I point out the differences in the wheelbase length and track he will probably still argue that it is based upon a Viper chassis! For what it's worth he also reckons Bristol copied the torsion bar rear suspension from Chrysler, but I suggest we don't go there ... |
I don't think the high price of Bristols has anything to do with the engines, whether modified or not.
Consider Jensen, Monteverdi, Facel Vega and so on. They all used common American engines and had similar prices. It's the small series production that makes them expensive. Regards, Markus |
Who copies who?
In 1995 I bought an engineless LHD 405 from Jim Rogers of New Baltimore Michigan who used to work for Chrysler in a small department that was devoted to their relationship with Bristol Cars. He said that the sales volume to Bristol was less than a single Chrysler car dealership, but the company found the engineering brilliance to be worth maintaining the relationship. He cited one issue related to the early V8 engine where Chrysler had about 40 engineers on it, and when they visited Filton to check out what Bristol had done, they found two blokes with slide rules who were doing more than Chrysler's 40 man team. After that, Chrysler cut a deal in which Bristol would get all the performance stuff they wanted at standard cost, provided Bristol passed on their R&D for free. Chrysler deemed it valuable enough to staff it, and Jim told a number of delightful stories about his visits with Tony Crook and company. For a Michigan boy, England, pubs, fast cars and eccentric ex-race drivers is exotic stuff.
Jim had no reason to deceive. He was retired from Chrysler and was telling stories in a garage as I loaded the 405 on a trailer for the long haul home. What it suggests is that Bristolised may not mean after the engines arrived in Filton that they were changed by Bristol for the 407 to 412+ cars, but that Bristol engineers suggested changes, they were made to the Chrysler product line and then provided to Bristol. It may be that some of the police specials and hot rod parts came compliments of British engineering. The non-derivative report says Bristol was very important to Chrysler, far more important than the sale of motors would merit. It says that Bristol engineering was superior, and because they provided it to Chrysler with no charge, they got first class handling. This would suggest that there is more to the story than marketing hype as alleged. Claude |
Fatalities and survivors
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
However, from a statistical perspective, have a look at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../08/22103446/3 which states that in 2007 there were 2.6 million cars in Scotland and 282 fatalities. That is one fatality for every 9000 cars. If Bristol really has produced its maximum of three cars per week from 1946 through 2008 (about 3000 weeks) then they would have made 9000 cars. Three fatalities means that they are three times the Scottish national average. And if production is closer to half that, which the records would suggest, then Bristols are veritable death traps... either that or this demonstrates why statistics can be useless some times. On p 144 of Bristol Cars and Engines, Setright writes "It was... a hideous accident that eventually forced the withdrawal of Sir George White from the partnership at the end of 1973. Some years earlier, when he was driving his V8 through the grounds at Filton, it was attacked by an irresponsibly driven laundry van. In the subsequent mechanical melée he was very badly hurt - in a lesser car he would have been killed, for the Bristol went clean through a brick wall and ended up against a stout tree..." A few pages earlier, Setright writes "Actually Bristol do rather well in the manner of compliance with safety requirements both real and legislative - and the two are no means the same. ...As usual, the Bristol [411] was once again proved a very safe car. It is a fact that the authorities have known for years: when the Road Research Laboratory was running a traffic-hazards programme that involved some crashing, they went out and bought some old 401 and 403 Bristols, because these could be crashed four or five times - a much cheaper proposition than all the others, which were useless after one crash. No wonder MIRA was not entirely surprised when the 411 set new records for low internal decelerations in their test." Anecdotally, Bristols are known for protecting their passengers. I attach a photograph of a 410 found in Virginia in the mid 1990's when I was North American registrar (when I had business trips I would identify Bristols in the neighbourhood, make up an ID sheet to paste on the window, and take a picture for the record). This particular car was reported to have slid off a mountain into the roof of a barn. Below is my record from the time: 3-95 Chris Elliot 804-678-7552 PO Box 46 Nassawadox VA 23413 E 804-442-7374 7194 Langkdorf Hwy Nassawadox VA 410 bought from man in Port Jervis, NY, car slid off a mountain and fell through the roof of a barn! RHD. Parts car only, seats gone, tailights gone, windshield broken, no engine, rear end OK, no steering wheel, dash mostly gone, parked outside exposed to the elements. ID 7413 Elliot Automotive (NAPA) Visit VA-USA 410 1968 Bare Parts RHD Claude |
Engines
Quote:
Has any mechanic or engineer who worked in Bristol ever talked? |
Quote:
I have started a new thread about Bristol's use of Chrysler engines here http://www.bristolcars.info/forums/showthread.php?t=141 (in the 8 cyl Bristol forum). If anyone else wants to continue any of the other discussions I suggest you start a new thread in the relevant forum. If required I can copy posts to a new thread - just use the Contact Us form at the bottom of the page and tell me the post number(s) and where you want them copied to - I can create a new thread title when copying. Thanks, Kevin |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
This is the live site