Bristol alternatives.

[browning l]

Originally Posted by Kevin Howard

No I did mean the chassis. Just thought I would throw that one out there and see what the reaction was

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?

Your assumption was correct, but then you stop doing justice to Bristol's aircraft-derived engineering practices. A simple inquiry of Bristol Cars LTD elicited the facts that there is no secret about the Fighter chassis; The car has been shown in chassis form both at shows and in the showroom. The two chassis are completely dissimilar.

[Jon McCarthy]

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

[Ashley James]

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

[jimfoz]

Wow - this thread just gets better. So out of the 3 people that have supposedly died in Bristols, one was actually murdered?

[Ashley James]

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

[Richard Levine]

"Bristol murders" were at 3 maybe, but by my count it's up to 4, as this thread should be deemed DEAD.

[jimfoz]

Originally Posted by Richard Levine

"Bristol murders" were at 3 maybe, but by my count it's up to 4, as this thread should be deemed DEAD.

Apologies. For a moment I thought we were on a Bristol Cars discussion forum.

[Markus Berzborn]

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

[Markus Berzborn]

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

[browning l]

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.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by Markus Berzborn

Also note that the Fighter has a much longer wheelbase than the Viper and a narrower track.

Regards,
Markus

Good point!

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!

[Markus Berzborn]

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

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by TLF799R

For such an expert on Bristol I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with the 411 series 6???

Ironically just last night I read an article in the Sept Octane mag about the refurbished and modernised 411, which Toby Silverton is quoted as saying "what you might call a Bristol 411 Series VI". But semantics aside, what a beautiful car!

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".

Originally Posted by TLF799R

Nothing Bristol do will ever be good enough for you.

This is not correct, I have spent considerable amounts of time and money restoring a 411 to how Bristol built it in the first place, with a few "improvements" along the way, some of which I regret now, although the Octane article is encouraging. I wouldn't have done this if I wasn't very happy to be the owner of a Bristol. There are however things that I believe Bristol could have done better over the years, and I can assure you I am not alone in this belief.

Originally Posted by TLF799R

Is there some kind of traumatic incident you had with Bristol that I'm unaware of?

Not exactly "traumatic" but there is some history.

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.

Originally Posted by TLF799R

You never seem to be voicing these theories on any forum bar your own???

What other forum do you have in mind? I was barred from posting comments in the BOC Forum, which is why I created the BEEF mail list, which eventually led to the development of this forum.

People are free to voice their opinions in this forum, and enter into robust debate, even if they might irritate the establishment.

[browning l]

Originally Posted by Kevin Howard

Good point!

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!

'Arf a mo, here, Kev...you wrote, "But when anyone declines to comment when asked a simple yes/no question, that makes me suspicious.

What's this about your mate's suspicions?

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by browning l

'Arf a mo, here, Kev...you wrote, "But when anyone declines to comment when asked a simple yes/no question, that makes me suspicious.

What's this about your mate's suspicions?

He had his own suspicions because the Chrysler guys clammed up. When he told me the story I also became suspicious.

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 ...

[Markus Berzborn]

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

[Claude]

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

[Claude]

Originally Posted by GBird

I have read a number of times in historical blurb about Bristols that 'no driver has ever been killed in a Bristol' .
George

In the mid 1990's I visited Tony Crook, who said that three people had been killed in Bristols, one of whom had a high speed encounter with a very large lorry and another drove off a cliff (into the sea if I recall correctly... where are my notes when I need them?).

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

[potential]

Originally Posted by Kevin Howard

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

I think this subject is worthy of a thread of its own. I don't have the experience you do with the cars but my understanding from what I'd read was that the engines were stripped down and 'blueprinted' - no parts changed from factory but rebuilt to aircraft engineering standards with all tolerances and torques at optimum and all the castings cleaned up. It's likely this is an optimistic view of what happened.

Has any mechanic or engineer who worked in Bristol ever talked?

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by potential

I think this subject is worthy of a thread of its own.

I think this thread could spawn numerous other threads so I'm going to close it as it's now way off the original topic.

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