Robin Hood Engineering
Adrian Kingsnorth
I've been looking around for a bit at cheapy kits. From their blur they seem
about the best. Is this true ?
Does any one have any experience of them? and if so are the Kits as
comprehensive and as well thought out as they suggest, also what problems
did you encounter during your build. How is the Robin Hood After Sales
service?
Tar in advance from a Kit Car newbie.
--
Cheers
Adrian K
Andy Laurence
> I've been looking around for a bit at cheapy kits. From their blur they
> seem about the best. Is this true ?
>
> Does any one have any experience of them? and if so are the Kits as
> comprehensive and as well thought out as they suggest, also what problems
> did you encounter during your build. How is the Robin Hood After Sales
> service?
If you scroll up/down (depending on your newsreader config), you'll see a
whole host of posts about the relative merits of the Robin Hood/MK/Tiger
offerings. I think the general consensus was that the Robin Hood was not
the best.
Andy
--
Building a community network for Bristol
http://consume.andylaurence.co.uk - updated 01/08
4x4 in town - bog brush for your teeth
NB: Email invalid, use andy at andylaurence dot co dot uk
pete
<adr...@concepthyphenheremedia.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi There,
>
>I've been looking around for a bit at cheapy kits. From their blur they seem
>about the best. Is this true ?
Far from it... they are probably the worse
>
>Does any one have any experience of them?
Yes, they're crap
> and if so are the Kits as
>comprehensive and as well thought out as they suggest, also what problems
>did you encounter during your build. How is the Robin Hood After Sales
>service?
Comprehensive yes. I have to say you do get a lot of kit. problem is
that it is a lot of cheap crap. Anyone can fill the bag up with cheap
product and poor quality parts and sell it a a cheap package.
As for after sales service - what after sales service. there isn't
any!
Do a search on this group for previous posts (there have been lots) on
this subject and you will find a lot of unsatisfactory comments etc.
Look around. Try Tiger and MK. They may cost slightly more but at
least the quality is up and they build OK.
Sam F.
multi-millionaires with money to burn on an expensive westy or something.
Name another kit which offers same value, strength etc for money, and i'll
gladly apologise.
visit http://www.rhocar.org.uk
What happens if i mention Sylva/Harlequin Jesters? Do you have something to
mock about them... cos i'd like to hear it... Let me guess the Fraud Ka is
better / the equivelent of a RH 2B vs a westfield? Lol.
HMMMM :-<
- Sam
"Adrian Kingsnorth" <adr...@concepthyphenheremedia.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aibl1j$jld$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Graeme
"Sam F." <s...@4ox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aide4i$9tb$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> I think you lot should grow up and realise not all people are
> multi-millionaires with money to burn on an expensive westy or something.
>
> Name another kit which offers same value, strength etc for money, and i'll
> gladly apologise.
>
> visit http://www.rhocar.org.uk
>
> What happens if i mention Sylva/Harlequin Jesters? Do you have something
to
> mock about them... cos i'd like to hear it... Let me guess the Fraud Ka is
> better / the equivelent of a RH 2B vs a westfield? Lol.
>
> HMMMM :-<
>
>
is easy. Strength without the weight penalty is harder. Stop trying to
justify your purchase. OK, so you made a mistake and you're stuck with an
RH. Just make the best of it. Put a large hinge on the front chassis member
a sell it as a farm gate.
Graeme
Matthew Augier (dps)
there are crap (in the expert opinions) and others are quite happy (e.g. me)
with them. However the ones who think they are crap keep bitching on about
it rather than just saying to look else where for some unkown reason.
Mat
RHOCaR webmaster and owner and proud of it with no issues on what I bought
(twice!)
pete
<Mat...@DPS.uk.com> wrote:
>Here we go yet again.... The general view by a few on this group is that
>there are crap (in the expert opinions) and others are quite happy (e.g. me)
>with them. However the ones who think they are crap keep bitching on about
>it rather than just saying to look else where for some unkown reason.
Your are very wrong. The general view that the RH is crap is not the
view of a few but the view of many.
Also, both posts replying to the initial question here (inc. mine),
and on many other occasions, have suggested alternatives.
It's not a matter of bitching, just putting people (esp. newbies) on
the right track.
pete
>I think you lot should grow up and realise not all people are
>multi-millionaires with money to burn on an expensive westy or something.
errrr, no. Just trying to post some sense and sway people to
alternatives rather than the crap RH.
>
>Name another kit which offers same value, strength etc for money, and i'll
>gladly apologise.
MK, Tiger. Your apology please.
>
>visit http://www.rhocar.org.uk
What for. To see all the other crap RH cars. Admit it. the RH is
agricultural in design. Heave, Crap and the after sales service is
appalling (and that if you gat any at all)
>
>What happens if i mention Sylva/Harlequin Jesters? Do you have something to
>mock about them... cos i'd like to hear it... Let me guess the Fraud Ka is
>better / the equivelent of a RH 2B vs a westfield? Lol.
Nowt wrong with them. Good engineering and most importantly they go
together without a whole load of grief. The RH has to be modified
right through the build which is simply no good for a newbie who may
have little experience of these things.
>
>HMMMM :-<
Ahh, "HMMMM", Titty lip and all! Poor little RH owner feeling grumpy
again.
pete
>>
>Low price and a long contents list are not the same as value. And strength
>is easy. Strength without the weight penalty is harder. Stop trying to
>justify your purchase. OK, so you made a mistake and you're stuck with an
>RH. Just make the best of it. Put a large hinge on the front chassis member
>a sell it as a farm gate.
>
>Graeme
>
Another poster with sense and quite correct. Low price and a long
contents list usually means a whole load of crap.
Sadly, there are many out there who like to buy crap. They think
they're getting a bargain when all they get is crap.
Really quite sad and whet makes it worse is when they later try to
justify their purchase.
AWM
"Matthew Augier (dps)" <Mat...@DPS.uk.com> wrote in message
news:QBr29.55$db6....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
A lot more than a few people in the group think RH rank with the plywood
Locust (the "u" is important) at the bottom feeder end of the Sevens market
and generally the ones who say this number among them real pros in various
branches of engineering.
I can't be an expert because personally I wouldn't want one in a gift
(except to saw up for parts), but then again I only have an honours degree
in mechanical engineering 30+ years of motortrade and mechanical
engineering experience behind me together with accumulated knowledge accrued
from the collective experiences my family all motor mechanics dating back
just short of 100 years. Every time I look a an RH I shudder in horror, like
others have told you MK and Tiger are a much better bet as they are built on
good sound engineering.
spanner
offers a comprehensive kit for very little money.
Of course if the savings allowed it then I would go for a better kit, but at
the moment they don't.
Don't slag off Robin Hood, as they offer a starter kit for people like
myself with not much cash, it would be a choice of not having any kit or
having a Robin Hood.
"Adrian Kingsnorth" <adr...@concepthyphenheremedia.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aibl1j$jld$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
William Turner
> multi-millionaires with money to burn on an expensive westy or something.
>
> Name another kit which offers same value, strength etc for money, and i'll
> gladly apologise.
Same? Umm, Airfix? :-)
Comparable price range but better strength and build quality
(of factory-fabricated components)?
Tiger - www.tigersportscars.co.uk
Locost - (from the book)
MK - www.mkengineering.co.uk
Stuart Taylor - www.stuart-taylor.co.uk
Sylva - www.sylva.co.uk
> What happens if i mention Sylva/Harlequin Jesters? Do you have something
to
> mock about them... cos i'd like to hear it... Let me guess the Fraud Ka is
The 'styling'? :-)
> better / the equivelent of a RH 2B vs a westfield? Lol.
Nah, I'd mock the styling of that too...
w
William Turner
news:10283011...@arrows.timewarp.co.uk...
> unfortunately some people like myself have a very limited budget and the
RH
> offers a comprehensive kit for very little money.
It does. But as pete has somewhat poorly pointed out ad nauseum,
for a fixed price, you tend to either get quantity or quality.
> Of course if the savings allowed it then I would go for a better kit, but
at
> the moment they don't.
>
> Don't slag off Robin Hood, as they offer a starter kit for people like
> myself with not much cash, it would be a choice of not having any kit or
> having a Robin Hood.
In such a situation, I'd seriously consider buying a second hand (something
like a Dutton) or unfinished kit instead. Or build a minimal starter
kit from someone like MK or Tiger, and spend the cash along the way
rather than in one lump sum.
w
andy
are looking for a vehicle in with a built by BMW from the Ford or Skoda
dealer.
Robin Hoods are semi mass produced low cost kits. You get what you pay
for........... Spend £20,000 on a kit get a BMW type approch to enginnering
. Spend £1500 on a Kit you get a Ford KA ( It works, may not be the best
but it works) type of approch!. You get what you pay for. So why don't you
go a pick bones about the westfield of this world and stop slandering Robin
Hoods just because they are cheap sorry the lower cost end of the Market
Andy!
"William Turner" <ne...@v8rush.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Guz29.3224$QZ3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Scanned By AVG 6.0 Anti-virus System
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 24/07/2002
PJ
>The way some of the people speak in this NG against robin hood is that you
>are looking for a vehicle in with a built by BMW from the Ford or Skoda
>dealer.
>Robin Hoods are semi mass produced low cost kits. You get what you pay
>for........... Spend £20,000 on a kit get a BMW type approch to enginnering
>. Spend £1500 on a Kit you get a Ford KA ( It works, may not be the best
>but it works) type of approch!. You get what you pay for. So why don't you
>go a pick bones about the westfield of this world and stop slandering Robin
>Hoods just because they are cheap sorry the lower cost end of the Market
>
>
>Andy!
You have completely missed the point, just like many other idiots
before you.
We are not slagging off RH just because it's cheap. We slag it off
because it's crap. There are other similar prices kits out there
(which have been mentioned - Tiger, Mk...) which are not crap.
So, you see, we're not saying you need to spend £20K for quality...
just a few quid more.
You say that you get what you pay for.. well I say you don't. With a
RH you actually don't get what you pay for - you just get a load of
cheap crap. A shame really, when there are many similar priced kits
to choose from which are OK.
see?
William Turner
news:aj3qiq$u48$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "William Turner" <ne...@v8rush.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Guz29.3224$QZ3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > "spanner" <To...@Spanner.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:10283011...@arrows.timewarp.co.uk...
> > > myself with not much cash, it would be a choice of not having any kit
or
> > > having a Robin Hood.
> >
> > In such a situation, I'd seriously consider buying a second hand
> (something
> > like a Dutton) or unfinished kit instead. Or build a minimal starter
> > kit from someone like MK or Tiger, and spend the cash along the way
> > rather than in one lump sum.
>
> are looking for a vehicle in with a built by BMW from the Ford or Skoda
> dealer.
> Robin Hoods are semi mass produced low cost kits. You get what you pay
> for........... Spend £20,000 on a kit get a BMW type approch to
enginnering
> . Spend £1500 on a Kit you get a Ford KA ( It works, may not be the
best
> but it works) type of approch!. You get what you pay for. So why don't
you
> go a pick bones about the westfield of this world and stop slandering
Robin
> Hoods just because they are cheap sorry the lower cost end of the Market
Seeing as you picked on me in particular, a couple of points.
1. A few years ago I was in _exactly_ this situation. After considering
all the options, I decided to build a Tiger Cat E1, having discarded the
RH due to the obvious mechanical superiority of the Cat for a very similar
cost, and also the difference in aesthetics (the RH was _huge_). Second
time round, I decided to build a Dax Rush, and spread the cost over time
(easier with the hindsight of how long kits actually take to build).
2. I have not disputed that you 'get what you pay for'. However, what
you get varies, and it's invariably, as I said, quality vs quantity for
a fixed price. In my opinion (having an engineering degree and having built
2 kits myself, assisted with a third, and observed the build of 6 others) I
very much made the right decisions. One of the reasons that the Tiger is
so much better than the RH for a similar cost is that while the quality of
the mechanical basics is way better, corners have been cut on the
completeness
of the kit, leading the builder to have to fabricate some (simple) brackets
themselves etc. Nothing more complex than a vice, hacksaw, file and _time_.
3. Not even a Westfield or Caterham is up to the build quality of a Ford
Ka, let alone a BMW. _ALL_ kits rely very much on the ability and doggedness
of the builder for their level of 'quality'. And yes, I've seen RHs finished
to
a higher level than Caterhams. However, given that level of skill and
determination, surely they're wasting their time with a 'comprehensive' kit
aimed at the novice. Especially as they tend to refabricate vital bits...
4. While I'm here, learn how to post correctly to newsgroups. Top posting
isn't
big, and it's not clever. I've rearranged this post for you, though. Heck,
I've even trimmed the irrelevant bits out for you.
w
Hairy One Kenobi
news:aiuf34$4u4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Sorry Hairy, but the S4 wasn't so bad in the chassis department. It looks
> strange because of the GRP body but if you remember the other cars around
at
> the time (Dune Buggies, Bond Bugs) it isn't so ugly.
>
> It was another attempt by Lotus to fix a live axle with a variation on an
> "A"-frame. Most live axle cars will suffer from a bit of axle wind if the
> engine is a bit too poweful for the set-up. Remember that the first Seven
> had a wheezing Ford sidevalve in it! The GRP body was the cause of the
> chassis corrosion.
Not having a dig at the chassis - just the looks. Personal thing, I know ;o)
H1K
> Robin Hood lost the way a bit with both the Exmo and the 2b with the
sliding
> pillars, but if you don't put too big an engine in them, most of the other
> RH's don't drive too badly.
>
> If you want to race, don't buy a RH (or a caterham by all accounts)
>
> "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:TSt49.21053$U44.1150849@newsfep2-gui...
> >
> > "Graeme" <gra...@adaptivedesign.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ait7ra$dhq$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > > news:R6h49.19714$U44.1093400@newsfep2-gui...
> > > >
> > > > Speaking as one with a Mech Eng degree but only 20-and-a-bit years'
> > > > experience [re]building cars for fun (and only 70 years' family
> > > experience,
> > > > rising to 170 if one includes three friends of mine), I'd be more
> > > interested
> > > > in a bit of a discussion as to *why* the suspension is soooo crap.
> After
> > > > all, the MacPherson strut is a study in compromise, and the most
> > expensive
> > > > car in the class uses copied Herald uprights and a brazed chassis!
> > > >
> > > I'll leave people way more experienced than me to comment on the rest
> but
> > > what is the issue with the 'copied Herald uprights and a brazed
> chassis!'
> > > Surely the source of the uprights is irrelevant, it's the various pick
> up
> > > points that matter. At the time the time they probably suited the
> purpose
> > > best and since the early days the 'legacy' issue has kept them in use.
> As
> > > for brazing(we all know what is meant by that so any 'brazing/bronze
> > welding
> > > threads are just noise) this has to be one of the best ways for a low
> > volume
> > > or one of car to be built. Strong joints, easy to repair, less heat
> > 'damage'
> > > to put right after assembly.
> >
> > Erm. Have you ever seen a Caterham after a season's racing? Cracks all
> over
> > the place, where the joints have shattered under stress. Let's face it,
> two
> > lumps of metal that just happen to share similar orbits around the Earth
> > aren't doing a whole lot for torsional rigidity.. brazing tends to be
used
> > these days in circumstances where people can't weld, and weight isn't an
> > issue. I'd imagine that Caterham use it these days for the same reason
> that
> > Morgan use ash.
> >
> > Just to top-and-tail my point, you will not find brazing in major
> commercial
> > use much these days 'cos it's more expensive than welding, weights more
> than
> > a welded joint, and is weaker than a welded joint. Like hand-riveting,
> it's
> > not something that one sees very often outside of a classroom, these
days.
> >
> > As for the uprights, the purpose that was suited was easy availability
in
> > the late fifties and throughout the sixties. Not a lot to do with
detailed
> > design and dynamics. The bits you couldn't manufacture economically you
> > bought in. The bits you could manufacture, you modified to suit.
> >
> > If you think back, you'll undoubtedly remember that the Lotus 7 wandered
> off
> > into the (IMHO, horrid) S4, and was dragged back when Caterham took to
> > manufacturing the S3. I'm no Caterham expert, but might I remind you
that
> > Westfield alone have gone through several completely different chassis
> > designs (mine was the MK.II, coming out in '89. We then have the SEi and
> SEi
> > wide chassis, and finally the ZEi)
> >
> > The whole thing about kits is, in *general*, there is very, very little
> > attention paid to theoretical design. Most fixes happen because things
> > break. Things break where experience didn't work.
> >
> > A *very* good example is the headlight mount used in early SEs, followed
> by
> > "the incredible shrinking propshaft", hood hoops that wouldn't go over
the
> > rollbar (and in fact were skew by about 50mm on one side), and so on.
The
> > fact that these are all obvious *visual* faults aren't exactly
indicative
> of
> > sound engineering design.
> >
> > So, the question is - what's so particular about the RH? You'll find
holes
> > in the wrong place on Westies too. And plates that don't fit. And
carpets
> > that aren't within an inch of the right size. And fade in two weeks of
> > sunlight from red to pale orange.
> >
> > Believe me, I'm not having a dig at Westfield - it's a well-handling car
> > that has been under continuous development to fix the myriad of design
> > faults. Same as most other kits (can't think of anything remotely
similar
> > turning up on the Ultima, for example - the design there seems to have
> > undergone gentle refinement rather than a few let's-start-from-scratch
> > incidents.
> >
> > H1K (who, he would just like to remind you, doesn't like the look of the
> > suspension on the early RH monocoques, but doesn't confuse aesthetics
with
> > performance)
> >
> >
>
>
Hairy One Kenobi
"PJ" <pjo-hol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d53b3e7...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
>
> >
> >I'd guess from your other comments that you made one of the early cars,
> >rather than the SS monocoques? Prefer to comment on materials *after*
> >finding this out.. it's easier to compare with (say) the cheap base mild
> >steel that other manufacturers use..
> I built an Exmo for a friend and more recently helped a neighbor on
> his 2B ( which he bought as a failed project). It was so bad we gave
> up, stripped the good parts back off and scrapped the rest. Some of
> the chassis tube was reused for a kids kart though. About all it was
> good for!
> >Absolutely. It must also be welded properly, though, with good
penetration
> >and care with the HAZ. That's one of the problems with the Caterhams,
which
> >(from stories from a friend who used to race them), require bits to be
> >periodically reattached. Let's face it - it's a very old design, and
would
> >need to be tested to determine torsional rigidity.
> The HAZ is a common problem with manual welding of round tube as the
> person welding stays on the job for too long and inputs too much heat.
> It is awkward and slow welding round tube. I thought though that RH
> has a CNC welder? If so they need to check it's programming cos some
> of the welds I've seen (recently too) have been awful.
Hmm. CNC welding.
You mean the "hardwire" monsters used by mainstream mass-productions car
factories?
AFAIK, RH have been using plazma cutters for yonks, with all "lateral"
curves as straight-line as possible to ease fabrication. Can't even imagine
what sort of machine you'd have to design to handle all of that
automatically.. IIRC Westie panels all all flat (barring a few right-angle
lips), and Scamp are, well, fairly unique ;o) Still yet to work out how all
of that goes together!
The HAZ (or "Heat-Affected Zone") is inherent to all welding. Nowt to do
with tube in particular, or even the technique used (e.g. torch, MIG, TIG, f
riction, etc). Basically, it's the stressed-out bit where all of the thermal
cracking occurs..
> >Not really. Remember that Mech Eng degree? Most people who use SS in kits
do
> >it for looks. Without any conception of its fatigue-cycle performance and
> >susceptibility to cracks. Think back to fatigue limits (which you *must*
> >have covered).
>
> Yeh but remember that modern, good quality, stainless (not like RH
> use!) is much better at coping with stress. Recent developments in SS
> are quite remarkable. It is now possible, for instance, to buy SS
> bolts which have a greater tensile strength than 8.8 steel bolts. If
> material like that was used for a chassis it would be light, strong
> and very capable. Problem is of course that it's bloody expensive,
> at least for now.
Erm. Not really. While I'd agree the modern refining techniques are better
than century-old techniques, the main differences are down to the alloy
compositions. Corus' site is broken, so here's a link to a different
company, listing the available grades:
http://www.avestapolarit.com/upload/documents/technical/datasheets/AvP-120%2
0europe.pdf
The main point of stainless has (traditionally) been twofold - the first is
the relatively high transition metal content (mostly chromium) that gives
greatly superior rigidity than pure carbon-alloy steels. That and an
/improved/ resistance to corrosion, when compared to unpainted steel. OTOH,
you don't get something for nothing - in areas where there is cyclic stress,
you *really* need to take account of fatigue resistance. Ultimate tensile
stress is all very well, but what happens if the damn thing yields so
rapidly that you lose a wheel the first time that you hit a mid-corner bump?
Bottom line is, it's still ferrous material, and still exhibits a number of
different allotropes (if that's the right word - this was a long time ago.
Alpha and gamma, with controlled quenching on a phase-transition diagram,
IIRC). If you think that sounds complicated, ask a Civil Engineer about
concrete. They can go on for hours.. ;o)
Anyone who's interested, I found a very slightly bizarre explanation at
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2002/MP10-6.pdf
Annoyingly, RH no longer state the exact grade of steel used - I remember
that it always used to be in the brochure, but I can't see it on the site.
Maybe someone can post the specification, so that you can let us know which
grade/treatment they /should/ be using..?
OH - one last point. Be damn careful what you fix together using SS bolts.
Electronegativity can make life very difficult - one of the reasons that
I've got to be careful with my hot-dip galvanised Scamp chassis..
H1K
AWM
snip
> Ka, let alone a BMW. _ALL_ kits rely very much on the ability and
doggedness
> of the builder for their level of 'quality'. And yes, I've seen RHs
finished
> to
> a higher level than Caterhams. However, given that level of skill and
> determination, surely they're wasting their time with a 'comprehensive'
kit
> aimed at the novice. Especially as they tend to refabricate vital bits...
>
Interesting point, reminds me of the old question just what is quality ? a
bit like the time Sir John Harvey Jones when to factory Morgan and found
them drawing chalk lines on the floor. I suspect most (!) of us can spot a
lack of quality but defining what quality really is is more difficult. In
the case of RH my main worry is a lack of "fitness for purpose" in the
design.
Personally I'll keep building my own chassis up unless I win the lottery in
which case I'll buy a Birkin
AWM
"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> "AWM" <not...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:ait7ak$crs$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
snip
> > were framed to discourage hotrodders shoehorning 7 litre V8s into over
> > light cars. With mods (mainly full triangulation to the front and rear
> > bulkheads and central backbone) the stiffness more than doubles very
hazy
> > memory but I seem to remember seeing figure of 4500 ft lbs/degree
quoted
> > for a modded chassis with the standard chassis 1700 to 2000.
> >
> > Trouble is most the links I had to this info are down due to site owners
> > changiner thies ISPS however try this one
http://www.mcsorley.net/locost/
>
> Ah. How does this compare? Any other sites? Yes, I'm *genuinely*
> interested.. is there likely to be a comparison with production cars, or
is
> it just the modded chassis? Generally the chassis is destruction tested,
> hence the dearth of information..
>
> H1K
>
>
Have done some scratching around a typical lotus single seater spaceframe of
the late 50s had a torsional stiffness of about 700 lbs ft/degree, I would
expect an S2 Lotus 7 to be about the same --- The lack of stiffness is
hardly surprising when you see how sparse Chapmans spaceframes were. Lotus
and Caterham frames go stiffer over the years as more powerful engines were
fitted. The latest Caterham chasis uses a central back bone and a lot of
extra diagonal stiffening arround the engine bay has probably about the
same stiffness as the Wesfield/Locost layout.
Getting figures for production cars is more difficult as manufacturers are
reluctant to quote figures certainly a lot of saloon and coupe shells are
very stiff but it varies from model to model within a range. Some year back
Gerry Marshall was racing Vauxhall Vivas for DTV. They switched from 2 door
HB Viva shells to the 2 door HC saloon without any problem, then a few
months later when the Firenza was released they adopted the coupe shell and
found they could make the car handle. AS they was no difference in the
shells apart from the roof shape they couldn't understand it untill they
looked at the torsional stiffness of the bodies, the coupe shell was about 3
times stiffer than the saloon. Immediately they reduced the spring stiffness
all round and regained race winning form.
Graeme
covered. People are not comparing the Robbing Hood against a Cateringvan or
BMW, more against MK or Tiger. The RH is a complete kit filled with poor
quality components, made with low quality materials. That is not slander,
that is opinion and fact, mainly from peoples own experience. Try to keep
up. This has been covered, not only in several other threads regarding RH
but in this thread, too.
I assume you have an RH and need to defend your disastrous decision. There
are plenty of well built RH's out there but they are just a triumph of
perseverence and skill from the owner who bought a dog but made the best of
it.
OTOH if you want to top post, go ahead. It is better than wading through the
bottom posted but unsnipped offerings of the 'correct' posters. Or worse
still, those confusing mixed in, answer each line seperately, posters.
Graeme
"andy" <m...@here.now.com> wrote in message
news:aj3qiq$u48$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
John Fitzgerald
still churning out and selling, more than the rest of them put together.
Those big magazine ads really work, or so it seems.
PJ
No, they sell because the great British public are gullible. If they
see a "cheap" price they think they have a bargain.
Like in other area's of like though... if pays to spend a few quid
more and buy quality.
PJ
>
>Hmm. CNC welding.
>
>You mean the "hardwire" monsters used by mainstream mass-productions car
>factories?
good enough for you?
>
>AFAIK, RH have been using plazma cutters for yonks, with all "lateral"
>curves as straight-line as possible to ease fabrication. Can't even imagine
>what sort of machine you'd have to design to handle all of that
>automatically.. IIRC Westie panels all all flat (barring a few right-angle
>lips), and Scamp are, well, fairly unique ;o) Still yet to work out how all
>of that goes together!
>
>The HAZ (or "Heat-Affected Zone") is inherent to all welding. Nowt to do
>with tube in particular, or even the technique used (e.g. torch, MIG, TIG, f
>riction, etc). Basically, it's the stressed-out bit where all of the thermal
>cracking occurs..
Bollocks. The HAZ can, in many ways, be controlled by the welder. If
you are quick and lay a good weld in one quick swipe then you get a
different HAZ than if you linger, placing loads of heat into the job.
>The main point of stainless has (traditionally) been twofold - the first is
>the relatively high transition metal content (mostly chromium) that gives
>greatly superior rigidity than pure carbon-alloy steels. That and an
>/improved/ resistance to corrosion, when compared to unpainted steel. OTOH,
>you don't get something for nothing - in areas where there is cyclic stress,
>you *really* need to take account of fatigue resistance. Ultimate tensile
>stress is all very well, but what happens if the damn thing yields so
>rapidly that you lose a wheel the first time that you hit a mid-corner bump?
>
>Bottom line is, it's still ferrous material, and still exhibits a number of
>different allotropes (if that's the right word - this was a long time ago.
>Alpha and gamma, with controlled quenching on a phase-transition diagram,
>IIRC). If you think that sounds complicated, ask a Civil Engineer about
>concrete. They can go on for hours.. ;o)
>
>Anyone who's interested, I found a very slightly bizarre explanation at
>http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2002/MP10-6.pdf
We can all look big & clever if we dig up info on the net.
>
>Annoyingly, RH no longer state the exact grade of steel used - I remember
>that it always used to be in the brochure, but I can't see it on the site.
>Maybe someone can post the specification, so that you can let us know which
>grade/treatment they /should/ be using..?
There again... do many kit manufacturers quote the spec of the steel?
>
>OH - one last point. Be damn careful what you fix together using SS bolts.
>Electronegativity can make life very difficult - one of the reasons that
>I've got to be careful with my hot-dip galvanised Scamp chassis..
>
>H1K
AITP you are a little with it. OHHT is the order of things in your
posts and I think that WHTF is there too.
May be your posts are just too long but LRTD a little more.
If the last two paragraphs are not understandable they are not meant
to be. I am just trying to illustrate what confusion can set in when
people use these silly abbreviations. For someone like H1K who writes
a long post anyway I am puzzled at the laziness element when he use
the odd abbreviation. I would think it actually quicker to just type
the words
I for one have no intention of learning what they mean. Never have
and never will. There's nowt wrong with the written word.
Any one else care to comment of these LURFSA's?!
>
John Fitzgerald
"PJ" <p...@nospamplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d5829c2....@news.freeserve.co.uk...
Which is what I was saying in the first place if you had cared to read 'and'
understand my post. I have owned two of the things and have now moved
onwards and upwards to a Locost, so please stop trotting out the same crap
again and again. We all know about their qualities and failings.
PJ
>
>
>Which is what I was saying in the first place if you had cared to read 'and'
>understand my post. I have owned two of the things and have now moved
>onwards and upwards to a Locost, so please stop trotting out the same crap
>again and again. We all know about their qualities and failings.
Oh I.
I'm not trotting on.
AND, not "all" know about the qualities and failings. That's why the
topic keeps coming up here. So the more it's mentioned perhaps the
more will learn not to touch them. And that's no bad thing.
Hairy One Kenobi
[snip]
> >The HAZ (or "Heat-Affected Zone") is inherent to all welding. Nowt to do
> >with tube in particular, or even the technique used (e.g. torch, MIG,
TIG, f
> >riction, etc). Basically, it's the stressed-out bit where all of the
thermal
> >cracking occurs..
> Bollocks. The HAZ can, in many ways, be controlled by the welder. If
> you are quick and lay a good weld in one quick swipe then you get a
> different HAZ than if you linger, placing loads of heat into the job.
They come in pairs.. the HAZ is inherent to any fabrication where the weld
is small relative to the substrate. Melting a similar amount of material
will avoid the problem with the substrate acting as a heat sink, but you can
often (i.e. "usually") end up with distortion. 'S why you use those funny
mole grip things..
> >The main point of stainless has (traditionally) been twofold - the first
is
> >the relatively high transition metal content (mostly chromium) that gives
> >greatly superior rigidity than pure carbon-alloy steels. That and an
> >/improved/ resistance to corrosion, when compared to unpainted steel.
OTOH,
> >you don't get something for nothing - in areas where there is cyclic
stress,
> >you *really* need to take account of fatigue resistance. Ultimate tensile
> >stress is all very well, but what happens if the damn thing yields so
> >rapidly that you lose a wheel the first time that you hit a mid-corner
bump?
> >
> >Bottom line is, it's still ferrous material, and still exhibits a number
of
> >different allotropes (if that's the right word - this was a long time
ago.
> >Alpha and gamma, with controlled quenching on a phase-transition diagram,
> >IIRC). If you think that sounds complicated, ask a Civil Engineer about
> >concrete. They can go on for hours.. ;o)
> >
> >Anyone who's interested, I found a very slightly bizarre explanation at
> >http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2002/MP10-6.pdf
>
> We can all look big & clever if we dig up info on the net.
Not really. Would you like me to explain the document? I mean, come on -
this is all first-year, first-term stuff.
It's also covered in C&G day-release courses. Or, at any rate, it was when I
was working on the shop floor..
You public library is unlikely to have a copy of anything similar - hence
the use of the Net. Can't remember what book I used at College, probably
written by Prof Moore at Imperial (I /think/ his name was).
> >Annoyingly, RH no longer state the exact grade of steel used - I remember
> >that it always used to be in the brochure, but I can't see it on the
site.
> >Maybe someone can post the specification, so that you can let us know
which
> >grade/treatment they /should/ be using..?
> There again... do many kit manufacturers quote the spec of the steel?
> >
> >OH - one last point. Be damn careful what you fix together using SS
bolts.
> >Electronegativity can make life very difficult - one of the reasons that
> >I've got to be careful with my hot-dip galvanised Scamp chassis..
> >
> >H1K
>
> AITP you are a little with it. OHHT is the order of things in your
> posts and I think that WHTF is there too.
>
> May be your posts are just too long but LRTD a little more.
>
> If the last two paragraphs are not understandable they are not meant
> to be. I am just trying to illustrate what confusion can set in when
> people use these silly abbreviations. For someone like H1K who writes
> a long post anyway I am puzzled at the laziness element when he use
> the odd abbreviation. I would think it actually quicker to just type
> the words
>
> I for one have no intention of learning what they mean. Never have
> and never will. There's nowt wrong with the written word.
RH = Robin Hood
SS = Stainless Steel
OH = a mistake with the shift key, should have been "Oh". Obvious from
context.
Long post, yes - I don't tend to snip things that are relevant, and don't
tend to complain that something's missing, when in fact I've snipped it
myself..
H1K.
P.S. C&G = City & Guilds
Hairy One Kenobi
[much snippage]
> Have done some scratching around a typical lotus single seater spaceframe
of
> the late 50s had a torsional stiffness of about 700 lbs ft/degree, I would
> expect an S2 Lotus 7 to be about the same --- The lack of stiffness is
> hardly surprising when you see how sparse Chapmans spaceframes were. Lotus
> and Caterham frames go stiffer over the years as more powerful engines
were
> fitted. The latest Caterham chasis uses a central back bone and a lot of
> extra diagonal stiffening arround the engine bay has probably about the
> same stiffness as the Wesfield/Locost layout.
Fair point..
> Getting figures for production cars is more difficult as manufacturers are
> reluctant to quote figures certainly a lot of saloon and coupe shells are
> very stiff but it varies from model to model within a range. Some year
back
> Gerry Marshall was racing Vauxhall Vivas for DTV. They switched from 2
door
> HB Viva shells to the 2 door HC saloon without any problem, then a few
> months later when the Firenza was released they adopted the coupe shell
and
> found they could make the car handle. AS they was no difference in the
> shells apart from the roof shape they couldn't understand it untill they
> looked at the torsional stiffness of the bodies, the coupe shell was about
3
> times stiffer than the saloon. Immediately they reduced the spring
stiffness
> all round and regained race winning form.
Wowsa! I hadn't realised that the cage was *that* vital to a racing saloon..
cheers for the info.
H1K
PJ
>They come in pairs.. the HAZ is inherent to any fabrication where the weld
>is small relative to the substrate. Melting a similar amount of material
>will avoid the problem with the substrate acting as a heat sink, but you can
>often (i.e. "usually") end up with distortion. 'S why you use those funny
>mole grip things..
>
>Not really. Would you like me to explain the document? I mean, come on -
>this is all first-year, first-term stuff.
Is it? Remember you are in a public forum were the majority of people
are pure novices and are having a go. DIY mechanics. My point is
that you simple don't have to come out with all this tech stuff.
>
>It's also covered in C&G day-release courses. Or, at any rate, it was when I
>was working on the shop floor..
Wow.
>
>You public library is unlikely to have a copy of anything similar - hence
>the use of the Net. Can't remember what book I used at College, probably
>written by Prof Moore at Imperial (I /think/ his name was).
Professor H1K, you really are knowledgable.
>
>RH = Robin Hood
>SS = Stainless Steel
>OH = a mistake with the shift key, should have been "Oh". Obvious from
>context.
And the others?
exoticar
Nah - I don't buy the British are gullible bit at all - okay for a few years
maximum, but not for as long as RH have been doing it, plus they'd have been
killed by the Kit Car press, or worse the Motoring press. And they would not
have been so popular with people from Benelux coming over offering decent
money for any RH they can buy.
They sell a product, at a price to a market and are successful in doing
that - how many other kitcar makers have managed that? Ron Champion didnt,
Prova didnt, Candyapple? Beauford? Bill Towns was one of the finest
designers of cars, but the Hustler? I'm not saying they're good, bad or
indifferent, but the business formula for RH works very well - and part of
that formula has to be market reputation and word of mouth. If the British
are so gullible and only buy cheap, then why havent Locost, Locust, MK,
Vindicator et al driven RH out of business?
exoticar
So exactly why don't these alternatives like Tiger and MK drive RH out of
business, if they're so much better and similar priced. What are they doing
wrong that RH is doing right? After all we don't all drive bottom of the
range cars when we can get more options on the next model up. If they're so
bad then why no letters to Which Kit every month? why no investigation by
Kit Car?
Graeme
"exoticar" <je...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:aj62tf$242$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> that formula has to be market reputation and word of mouth. If the British
> are so gullible and only buy cheap, then why havent Locost, Locust, MK,
> Vindicator et al driven RH out of business?
>
than most other kit manufacturers. Can't fault him there. Big ads, big
presence at shows, stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap, grouped collection days.
Full marks for business accumen. On the other hand, most of the others you
mention are not as good at that as they are at the engineering side of
things. And Vindicators are ugly so that doesn't help either.
Graeme
PJ
>
>So exactly why don't these alternatives like Tiger and MK drive RH out of
>business, if they're so much better and similar priced. What are they doing
>wrong that RH is doing right? After all we don't all drive bottom of the
>range cars when we can get more options on the next model up. If they're so
>bad then why no letters to Which Kit every month? why no investigation by
>Kit Car?
>
Main problem is that RH were the first to get into this corner. As a
result it is difficult to dislodge them from their perch although I
think it is happening, slowly
There may have been letters to Which Kit and KitCar BUT remember RH do
advertise with them... a full page every month.
Sometimes the income is more important than the truth and both
magazines have had a hard time financially in recent times.
PJ
>Nah - I don't buy the British are gullible bit at all - okay for a few years
>maximum, but not for as long as RH have been doing it, plus they'd have been
>killed by the Kit Car press, or worse the Motoring press. And they would not
>have been so popular with people from Benelux coming over offering decent
>money for any RH they can buy.
>They sell a product, at a price to a market and are successful in doing
>that - how many other kitcar makers have managed that? Ron Champion didnt,
>Prova didnt, Candyapple? Beauford? Bill Towns was one of the finest
>designers of cars, but the Hustler? I'm not saying they're good, bad or
>indifferent, but the business formula for RH works very well - and part of
>that formula has to be market reputation and word of mouth. If the British
>are so gullible and only buy cheap, then why havent Locost, Locust, MK,
>Vindicator et al driven RH out of business?
>
in. That means they sold kits to the gullible and kit sales make more
sales.
The British ARE GULLIBLE. If they weren't they wouldn't but RH's
would they!
Yes, they have the formula right. They sell kits - lots of them too.
BUT that doesn't mean they sell quality.
The bottom line is that they sell crap at a cheap price. This is well
documented here and other places. The fact that they sell lots of
crap is completely irrelevant.
Hairy One Kenobi
> >
> >They come in pairs.. the HAZ is inherent to any fabrication where the
weld
> >is small relative to the substrate. Melting a similar amount of material
> >will avoid the problem with the substrate acting as a heat sink, but you
can
> >often (i.e. "usually") end up with distortion. 'S why you use those funny
> >mole grip things..
> Mmmm, still disagree but hey, it's Sunday.
;o)
> >Not really. Would you like me to explain the document? I mean, come on -
> >this is all first-year, first-term stuff.
> Is it? Remember you are in a public forum were the majority of people
> are pure novices and are having a go. DIY mechanics. My point is
> that you simple don't have to come out with all this tech stuff.
Yep, it's covered. So, to my mind, that means that someone quoting a degree
and decades of experience (not you - someone else in the group!) can either
rise or not; I'm sorry, but riding on the back of someone elses argument
with an "oh yeah and a punch the air".. well, you sort of gets what yous
deserves..
> >It's also covered in C&G day-release courses. Or, at any rate, it was
when I
> >was working on the shop floor..
> Wow.
> >You public library is unlikely to have a copy of anything similar - hence
> >the use of the Net. Can't remember what book I used at College, probably
> >written by Prof Moore at Imperial (I /think/ his name was).
> Professor H1K, you really are knowledgable.
Not really - just have a god memory and a few years experience. Or was there
something sarcastic implied?
> >RH = Robin Hood
> >SS = Stainless Steel
> >OH = a mistake with the shift key, should have been "Oh". Obvious from
> >context.
> And the others?
You snipped it.
AFAIK = As far as I know. Been using it since '94.. where have you b-e-e-n?
H1K
Hairy One Kenobi
Question: do you have a Daimler on your driveway? The reason that I ask is
that they really got into this whole horseless carriage thing quite early
on, and made quite an impact.
No?
OK. So how many Duttons do you own?
After all, they were in the Kit business pretty much at the [modern] start.
Still see a Sierra on a daily basis. Looks like it used to be red gelcoat,
but that's quite hard to determine right now.. why bother competing when
they have the whole market..?
Ding ding.
H1K
exoticar
And whats Richard Stewart in this business for? to make money of course, and
thats not easy in the Kit Car game. The Spartan was ugly, but stayed in
production for 21 years because it sold product at a price to a market -
thats all its about, forget the "quality" I guess if most people want
quality they only have to look at their production car and its creature
comforts, if the average guy wants to build a car and is not too concerned
about performance, he just wants to build a car, then RH fits the bill, and
puts itself in his face at the right time at the right price.
AWM
>
> So exactly why don't these alternatives like Tiger and MK drive RH out of
> business, if they're so much better and similar priced. What are they
doing
> wrong that RH is doing right? After all we don't all drive bottom of the
> range cars when we can get more options on the next model up. If they're
so
> bad then why no letters to Which Kit every month? why no investigation by
> Kit Car?
>
>
and grew very quickly intially by word of mouth alone, essentially it was
customer demand that created the MK Indy car you see advertised.
PJ
>
>Question: do you have a Daimler on your driveway? The reason that I ask is
>that they really got into this whole horseless carriage thing quite early
>on, and made quite an impact.
>
>No?
I admit - it's in a garage.
Anyway, yews Daimler started the car bit BUT that was a long time ago.
NO mass market. NO mass advertising. NO easy sales. NO internet.
NO car shows.
Get a life H1K.
>
>OK. So how many Duttons do you own?
>
None of these.
>After all, they were in the Kit business pretty much at the [modern] start.
>Still see a Sierra on a daily basis. Looks like it used to be red gelcoat,
>but that's quite hard to determine right now.. why bother competing when
>they have the whole market..?
You are talking right through your ring piece. Once a company has a
foot hold these days then it's hard to shift them. There is power in
numbers of previous sales. That's why Ford sell so many Fiesta's.
It takes a lot of effort, time & money to mover someone from top sales
position these days. I do suspect though that RH will topple.
>
>Ding ding.
Oh another superb piece of literacy from H1K. You need to get a life.
Your opinion IS NOT always correct you know. Others here don't look
up to you for guidance. You may think you are an icon but believe me
your not.
PJ
>>
>
>And whats Richard Stewart in this business for? to make money of course, and
>thats not easy in the Kit Car game. The Spartan was ugly, but stayed in
>production for 21 years because it sold product at a price to a market -
>thats all its about, forget the "quality" I guess if most people want
>quality they only have to look at their production car and its creature
>comforts, if the average guy wants to build a car and is not too concerned
>about performance, he just wants to build a car, then RH fits the bill, and
>puts itself in his face at the right time at the right price.
Yes BUT. The questions asked here are usually about alternatives and
what is pointed out is the fact that there are some. they are better
and at a similar price.
>
John Fitzgerald
> >Ding ding.
> Oh another superb piece of literacy from H1K. You need to get a life.
> Your opinion IS NOT always correct you know. Others here don't look
> up to you for guidance. You may think you are an icon but believe me
> your not.
>
He's always struck me as one of the more capable posters on here wthout
being too argumentative.
Chill
PJ
I agree. It's just that maybe, just maybe he goes a little too far.
All the techie stuff really isn't for a forum like this and opinions
should be given - not forced.
John Fitzgerald
With the greatest possible respect - seriously - I think the very last point
should be applied to the whole Robin Hood argument. And this is coming from
someone who has had two of them, knows there not at all inconsiderable
limitations and has moved on to the very challenging but ultimately much
more rewarding Locost IRS now sitting in my garage.
My very last word on the subject.
exoticar
yes BUT and a big BUT - your average first time kit car builder probably
thinks the same as I used to - Tiger, expensive arent they, MK, lots of
welding and hard work, and who are they? Robin Hood, oh yes, big owners
club, single donor, lots of bits, decent price, and if the remit is How to
turn a rusty old Cortina / Sierra into a good looking sporty looking car,
then its hard to see past RH - and of course most RH builders, or even kit
builders per se, don't use this news group (or any news group) I agree, I
know there are lots of (better) alternatives, but only recently, and I've
been into kit cars since 1985.
exoticar
and therein lies their problem I guess - they don't turn a rusty Sierra into
a sporty little number with a few bits of GRP and brightwork - you have to
measure and weld, and do all the bits that Mr Average RH builder doesnt want
to think about. And word of mouth is going to build a happy little band of
car "fabricators" but not enough to break the RH market - but plenty to keep
the Directors of MK pleased with the growth of their company
PJ
>yes BUT and a big BUT - your average first time kit car builder probably
>thinks the same as I used to - Tiger, expensive arent they, MK, lots of
>welding and hard work, and who are they? Robin Hood, oh yes, big owners
>club, single donor, lots of bits, decent price, and if the remit is How to
>turn a rusty old Cortina / Sierra into a good looking sporty looking car,
>then its hard to see past RH - and of course most RH builders, or even kit
>builders per se, don't use this news group (or any news group) I agree, I
>know there are lots of (better) alternatives, but only recently, and I've
>been into kit cars since 1985.
And how long has RH been going. And I don't mean is a small way, I
means with this stack em high policy. 5 years? less?
Hairy One Kenobi
>
> >
> >Question: do you have a Daimler on your driveway? The reason that I ask
is
> >that they really got into this whole horseless carriage thing quite early
> >on, and made quite an impact.
> >
> >No?
> Well actually YES I have. I have a Daimler Dart. Its not on my drive
> I admit - it's in a garage.
Got me there - good car, good answer.
> Anyway, yews Daimler started the car bit BUT that was a long time ago.
> NO mass market. NO mass advertising. NO easy sales. NO internet.
> NO car shows.
>
> Get a life H1K.
Get a counter argument? After all, you were arguing about competition? About
entering markets?
> >OK. So how many Duttons do you own?
> >
> None of these.
>
> >After all, they were in the Kit business pretty much at the [modern]
start.
> >Still see a Sierra on a daily basis. Looks like it used to be red
gelcoat,
> >but that's quite hard to determine right now.. why bother competing when
> >they have the whole market..?
> You are talking right through your ring piece. Once a company has a
> foot hold these days then it's hard to shift them. There is power in
> numbers of previous sales. That's why Ford sell so many Fiesta's.
Possibily a bad emaple, given that they lost the top slot to the Vauxhall
Corsa.
> It takes a lot of effort, time & money to mover someone from top sales
> position these days. I do suspect though that RH will topple.
That's fine. Maybe they will. But someone will have to outsell them first,
not just say that they're bad cars with the argument "cos they are".
> >Ding ding.
> Oh another superb piece of literacy from H1K. You need to get a life.
> Your opinion IS NOT always correct you know. Others here don't look
> up to you for guidance. You may think you are an icon but believe me
> your not.
Personally, I don't really care whether or not people listen - that's their
look out. I don't feel the need to stoop to personal insults if I can't
think of any counter arguments, and I'm willing to listen and evaluate
responses. If the response makes sense, then I'm willing to change my mind -
after all, everyone has different experiences.
Anyway, end of subject - I'm in danger of coming up against Ben Franklin's
maxim[1].
H1K
[1] "Never argue with a fool, as bystanders have a hard time telling which
is which."
Matthew Augier (dps)
> means with this stack em high policy. 5 years? less?
About 6 I think actually, not sure how the kit before the Exmo was sold...
Mat
exoticar
More - My neighbour built his RH whilst I was building my Spartan back in
4 - him and his mate were building one each, nether of them had had any
interest in the kitcar scene before, hired vans, popped up to Nottingham and
brought back their Meccano kits. True there were few alternatives around
then, but they were perfect RH fodder, newbies, not particularly interested
in engineering but wanted to build a "different" looking car. Whats more,
both built their kits for less than £2500 each, both sold them for £5k
plus - whereas my Spartan cost me around £3k and sold for less than £2k
I agree with you entirely, if I was looking to build a 7ven (I wouldnt cos
they're ugly and common in my opinion) then I'd look at Tiger or MK. We're
all in agreement that there are alternatives that we as kitcar enthusiasts
are aware of, but just looking through a kit car magazine you can see why
people buy RH - the cheapest Tiger kit is twice the price of an RH, and MK
only show a set of component prices with things like Panhard rods and Alloy
sheeting in it, scary!!! for a first timer, its a marketing thing.
PJ
>More - My neighbour built his RH whilst I was building my Spartan back in
>4 - him and his mate were building one each, nether of them had had any
>interest in the kitcar scene before, hired vans, popped up to Nottingham and
>brought back their Meccano kits. True there were few alternatives around
>then, but they were perfect RH fodder, newbies, not particularly interested
>in engineering but wanted to build a "different" looking car. Whats more,
>both built their kits for less than £2500 each, both sold them for £5k
>plus - whereas my Spartan cost me around £3k and sold for less than £2k
>I agree with you entirely, if I was looking to build a 7ven (I wouldnt cos
>they're ugly and common in my opinion) then I'd look at Tiger or MK. We're
>all in agreement that there are alternatives that we as kitcar enthusiasts
>are aware of, but just looking through a kit car magazine you can see why
>people buy RH - the cheapest Tiger kit is twice the price of an RH, and MK
>only show a set of component prices with things like Panhard rods and Alloy
>sheeting in it, scary!!! for a first timer, its a marketing thing.
We all know the prick was in the business for may years before the
exmo but it was the exmo which out him on the map.
As for your friends building for 2.5k and selling for 5k. I'd like to
see the proof! Sorry but either they found some really soft gullible
twat to sell to or they are telling porkies.
I is a marketing strategy though in recent years - not the product.
exoticar
The proof is pretty simple to figure out really - take any Kit Car magazine
and check the classifieds - we know how much these things cost to throw
together, It was built on a £20 Cortina donor, £5 per corner capri S wheels
everything else in the kit. Sold to a pair of Dutch guys at Stoneleigh 1999
The other one sold throughKit car international - sorry but neither of them
kept copies of the cheques or photos of the money to show you. And anyway,
isnt everyone who buys RH a soft gullible twat?
PJ
>The proof is pretty simple to figure out really - take any Kit Car magazine
>and check the classifieds - we know how much these things cost to throw
>together, It was built on a £20 Cortina donor, £5 per corner capri S wheels
>everything else in the kit. Sold to a pair of Dutch guys at Stoneleigh 1999
>The other one sold throughKit car international - sorry but neither of them
>kept copies of the cheques or photos of the money to show you. And anyway,
>isnt everyone who buys RH a soft gullible twat?
>
I must agree with your final sentence though.
John Fitzgerald
> The proof is pretty simple to figure out really - take any Kit Car
magazine
> and check the classifieds - we know how much these things cost to throw
> together, It was built on a £20 Cortina donor, £5 per corner capri S
wheels
> everything else in the kit. Sold to a pair of Dutch guys at Stoneleigh
1999
> The other one sold throughKit car international - sorry but neither of
them
> kept copies of the cheques or photos of the money to show you. And anyway,
> isnt everyone who buys RH a soft gullible twat?
>
>
I sold both of my Robin Hoods for the money I bought them for - 1200 and
1800 quid respectively. On both occasions the phone rung off the hook and in
the case of the second one the buyer 'insisted' on coming up from Manchester
to Central Scotland to give me a deposit in case he lost the car even though
he couldn't transport it for another week. Both buyers knew they were
getting a bargain compared to true market value, which as is widely known as
being whatever someone will pay for something. In fact in the case of the
second one I had to convince the buyer that the pictures were of the actual
car and not some library pictures I had downloaded from the 'net.
The demand for these cars is out there - regardless of what anyone in here
has said.
PJ
>I sold both of my Robin Hoods for the money I bought them for - 1200 and
>1800 quid respectively. On both occasions the phone rung off the hook and in
>the case of the second one the buyer 'insisted' on coming up from Manchester
>to Central Scotland to give me a deposit in case he lost the car even though
>he couldn't transport it for another week. Both buyers knew they were
>getting a bargain compared to true market value, which as is widely known as
>being whatever someone will pay for something. In fact in the case of the
>second one I had to convince the buyer that the pictures were of the actual
>car and not some library pictures I had downloaded from the 'net.
>The demand for these cars is out there - regardless of what anyone in here
>has said.
>
previous posts) who "think" they are getting a bargain when in fact
all they are getting is crap. Like someone said earlier - maybe
everyone who buys a RH is a gullible soft twat.
RH's are crap. Yes they sell. Yes they may be in demand. BUT the
engineering and manufacture is crap and the finished cars are usually
crap unless the builders/owners have spent a load of dosh on them.
Crap.
Nuff said.
Chris Cowley
<jfsc10407spahm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>The demand for these cars is out there - regardless of what anyone in here
>has said.
Quite. The Sub K appears to be selling much faster than RH can produce
them -- if you ordered one today, the chances are you'd have to wait
until next year to pick it up. Good luck to them I say, not that they
appear to need it at the moment.
--
Chris Cowley http://www.grok.co.uk/
exoticar
"John Fitzgerald" <jfsc10407spahm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message news:FN969.589$5E2.39...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Blimey they were so cheap that I'd have thought there was a catch - usually
they sell easily around £4k to £5k - theres demand in the UK and Europe. PJ
is tearing his hair out trying to figure out why people buy them, and its
got nothing to do with engineering and manufacturing qualities, for the
majority of kit car builders this doesnt seem to matter.
Matthew Augier (dps)
> engineering and manufacture is crap and the finished cars are usually
> crap unless the builders/owners have spent a load of dosh on them.
I find it quite amusing that elsewhere you complain about people forcing
there opinions "and opinions
should be given - not forced." yet you are set on telling us over and over
again, and slagging off all RH owners like me who, are more than happy with
my RH. For me it is just a past time toy nothing more, I've not built it to
go racing or anything else, just the Sunday cruise and stuff...
Sorry if you feel I'm having a go at you - Just an observation, not slagging
you off or anything :)
Mat
PJ
Like I said earlier... nuff said.
Matthew Augier (dps)
John Fitzgerald
> Blimey they were so cheap that I'd have thought there was a catch -
usually
> they sell easily around £4k to £5k - theres demand in the UK and Europe.
PJ
> is tearing his hair out trying to figure out why people buy them, and its
> got nothing to do with engineering and manufacturing qualities, for the
> majority of kit car builders this doesnt seem to matter.
>
>
Number one was a dolomite based spaceframe car, Number 2 was a Sierra based
Exmo. Crap front suspension on both, but still great fun. The Locost should
have no such problems - proper twin wishbones all round.
exoticar
When you say crap suspension, what exactly is crap suspension - I drive
Beetle based kits now, and used to drive a Spartan, my daily drivers range
from Jaguar to Vectra to Austin Maxi. All very different feeling but I don't
know whats crap suspension and whats not. The best ride I get is in my Maxi,
not bumpy and doesnt seem to roll as much as the Jagua. Do different people
like different suspension types? I drove my old girlfriends Dads Westfield
which he raved about the adjustable suspension settings and how good it was,
to me it felt like an old go-kart with no suspension at all.
PJ
>
>When you say crap suspension, what exactly is crap suspension - I drive
>Beetle based kits now, and used to drive a Spartan, my daily drivers range
>from Jaguar to Vectra to Austin Maxi. All very different feeling but I don't
>know whats crap suspension and whats not. The best ride I get is in my Maxi,
>not bumpy and doesnt seem to roll as much as the Jagua. Do different people
>like different suspension types? I drove my old girlfriends Dads Westfield
>which he raved about the adjustable suspension settings and how good it was,
>to me it felt like an old go-kart with no suspension at all.
>
Crap suspension (just like crap anything else) can mean a number of
things but I think in this instance there are two highlighted
problems:
1. The suspension doesn't actually work properly. This though is
surely a matter of personal opinion as like you said some like one set
up and others another. It is not usually the fault of the suspension
design if it is set up wrong. However...
2. Crap design. I think in the case of RH, and for reasons unknown to
me, they tried to be clever in putting that silly sliding pillar job
on their car. Not only does it look awful but it simply does not have
the capability to be "tuned" to the individuals taste, at least not
without a whole load of grief. It's an old design of suspension
system which was dropped years ago by any manufacturer who had sense.
The only real reason for using it these days is if it is the only
system suitable for the particular car, either through design or
functionality. In the case of the RH they were just trying to look
clever and it was a really stupid move.
There may of course another reason for saying the RH suspension is
crap and that is that some insurance companies have refused to cover
the car due to the "iffy" design of the suspension.
I was actually present at a show (early last year I think) when the
prick from RH threw a wobbler (nothing new there) and threw a table
over containing computers etc. which belonged to one of the insurance
companies who would not cover his car. Christ only knows why the
prick wasn't marched out of the show and banned from all others.
Interestingly I was also present (Exeter 00) when the same prick
literally stood on a table on his car stand and had a 30 minute pop at
the DVLA inspectorate. On this occasion he was trying to convince the
inspector (and the public) that his pathetic little Metro based kaig
(piece of shit) was a commercial vehicle and therefor didn't require
an SVA test. He did of course lose the battle. To say a vehicle is
"commercial" just because the back was chopped off and some stickers
were placed on the doors denoting the name of a company simply did not
wash with me, the inspectorate and the public in general.
Yes, my opinion... the guy is an out and out prick. If there was a
sport for pricks this guy would have a collection of gold medals by
now.
And guess what, people still but kits off him! just how damn sad is
that?
John Fitzgerald
> When you say crap suspension, what exactly is crap suspension - I drive
> Beetle based kits now, and used to drive a Spartan, my daily drivers range
> from Jaguar to Vectra to Austin Maxi. All very different feeling but I
don't
> know whats crap suspension and whats not. The best ride I get is in my
Maxi,
> not bumpy and doesnt seem to roll as much as the Jagua. Do different
people
> like different suspension types? I drove my old girlfriends Dads Westfield
> which he raved about the adjustable suspension settings and how good it
was,
> to me it felt like an old go-kart with no suspension at all.
To be honest, we're talking mostly about aesthetics here as I only ever
drove both on the public highway and so can't comment on the 'on the limit'
handling of either, however - some observations.
The triumph based car used virtually unmodified dolomite front wishbones
which resulted in a very peculiar shape to the front of the chassis and
placed a load on the bottom ball joint which it was never designed for. I
still loved it though.
The exmo used sierra Track control arms and anti roll bar. The anti roll bar
was designed to keep a ton of sierra under control and so was much too tight
to allow the suspension to work properly on the exmo. various people have
replaced this arrangement with a tie bar which succesfully allows real
independent suspension movement. The other aspect of the exmo was that it
used a mini strut inserted into the sierra hub carrier which required an
upper mounting point. Robin hood decided on a butressed crossmember which
looked terrible and explains why most pictures you will see of an exmo are
never taken directly from the front. However, I have to say that the mini
strut system is used in the Sonny Howard designed and built Irish RT2000
saloon racers which can certainly handle, these cars also use virtually
unmodified sierra semi-trailing rear setups as does the exmo, so it can be
made to work.
exoticar
"PJ" <P...@thespidscon.com> wrote in message
news:3d5b1a40...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
A wealthy prick with one of the most successful kit car businesses of all
time.
AWM
> >Beetle based kits now, and used to drive a Spartan, my daily drivers
range
> >from Jaguar to Vectra to Austin Maxi. All very different feeling but I
don't
> >know whats crap suspension and whats not. The best ride I get is in my
Maxi,
> >not bumpy and doesnt seem to roll as much as the Jagua. Do different
people
> >like different suspension types? I drove my old girlfriends Dads
Westfield
> >which he raved about the adjustable suspension settings and how good it
was,
> >to me it felt like an old go-kart with no suspension at all.
> >
With suspension it is a case of the suspension being designed for the job it
has to do, although both saloons the Maxi suspension has a very different
job to from a rear wheel drive luxury saloon like an XJ6. On the XJ a
proper double wishbone set-up is used at the rear to give good cornering and
put the massive power output down on to the road, on the Maxi a simple
trailing arm set-up works at the back because on a fwd car the rear
suspension really only needs to keep the wheels more or less upright and
pointing in the right direction but they are both are well engineered
systems and have low wheel rates with good roll control.
The essential part of devising a suspension for a particular car is look at
the cars weight distribution and the job the car has to do.
A Seven type car usually has about 48% of its weight carried by the front
wheels and 52% by the rear this means that the front and rear suspension
have to produce roughly the same levels of grip, because it is a sports car
handling and road holding have priority over ride. So following the best
practice established by the best sports and racing cars over the years the
ideal Seven will havea double wishbone set-up front and rear with low roll
centres. As the low roll centres increase the amount of roll in a corner
roll as to be controlled by stiff suspension ideally using anti-roll
bar(s). A de Dion rear suspension set-up would also work well. A lot of
Seven manufacturers builders (Caterham anmd Westfield included) make the
mistake of making the suspension too hard, the early Seven like any Lotus
models I have driven had quite soft suspension but with stiff roll bars and
dampers.
On a rwd saloon such a Sierra the weight distribution is say about 60% on
the front 40% on the rear and the centre of gravity is higher and ride
quality is also a priority, this means ideally the front suspension should
produce a bit more grip than the rear (hence the different types of
suspension layout used front and rear) and as hard springs can't be used
because they would spoil the ride the roll is controlled by using high roll
centres in combination with a stiff anti-roll bar.
The trouble comes because of a lot of kit car designers just try and
transplant a saloon car suspension to a "seven type" sports car without
think about roll centres and spring rates, I will never forget test driving
a Spartan many years back it felt like a Cortina with the springs removed
running on the bump stops. I also remember watching an RH at quite slow
speed on a rough B road a couple of years back, because the car concerned
used the very stiff Sierra front anti-roll bar the front wheels were
bouncing about and barely making any contact with the road -- I could see 2
to 3 inches of daylight between the front wheels and the road as it bounced
along.
If a kit car uses very stiff spring or very stiff anti roll bars be
suspicious. Also be wary if changes to the suspension stiffness at one end
have little or no effect on the handling balance of the car as this
generally is a sign of a chassis that isn't stiff enough. Some years back
when I was involved racing Davrians so stiff was the Davrian grp monocoque
we could feel the effect on the oversteer/understerr balnce of the car of
changing a front or rear spring rate by as little as 10 pounds/inch.
Now to demolish the RH sliding pillar (pillock) suspension, over the years
the only other major users of the suspension type have been Morgan and
Lancia Lamba. Lancia abandoned it pre WW2 because even in those days when
not a lot was known about suspension systems they realised it had too many
draw backs to work properly. On Morgan's it worked up to a point because
the Morgan chassis flexes so much it doesn't matter what kind of suspension
they used.
A few of the basic draw backs of this type of suspension are:
(1) It doesn't keep the tyre tread square to the road as the car rolls.
(2) it has a colossal amount of bump and roll steer.
(3) it only allows a very limited amount of suspension movement
(4) because the wheel slides up and down on the kin pin it suffers from
excessive wear. For these reasons most books on suspension design put over
the message that sliding pillar is more or less the most crap front
suspension design of all the very many types available. Even the much
maligned swing axle systen is better if properly engineered..
The closest to ideal suspension system we can devise is the double wishbone
system which has been used on racing cars since the early 1930s and the only
system used front and rear in Formula single racing seater since the end
of the 1950s.
exoticar
Interesting you should mention the Spartan, mine was so comfy for long
country rides even with two adults and two children in it - drove regularly
from Birmingham to Caernarvon and arrived in comfort.
You're right, most kit cars just transplant a new body onto an existing
layout with no thought for any of the above - thats where RH wins business,
its simple, sounds simple, and is easy for people who don't know about, care
about or worry about weight distribution. RH's arent generally built by
people who want a sports car, or want to race or hill climb, and probably
imagine a double wishbone is found on Siamese Twin Chickens. Sliding pillar
looks and operates horribly, do Morgan still use it or have they finally
given it up?
PJ
>
>A wealthy prick with one of the most successful kit car businesses of all
>time.
>
well financially.
And if he is making loads of dosh isn't it sad to think he's doing it
on the back of crap and a very gullible kit car buying public.
exoticar
He's put enough away, and the Company Accounts look pretty robust - yes it
is sad
PJ
Here's one for conversation...
I remember Exeter Show 1999 when the prick announced that he was
packing up. He basically said that he could not do any more. He even
advertised the same in the mag's.
Then, he carried on as if nothing had happened.
Any idea what the prick was trying to prove with all that?
AWM
>
>
> Interesting you should mention the Spartan, mine was so comfy for long
> country rides even with two adults and two children in it - drove
regularly
> from Birmingham to Caernarvon and arrived in comfort.
>
> You're right, most kit cars just transplant a new body onto an existing
> layout with no thought for any of the above - thats where RH wins
business,
> its simple, sounds simple, and is easy for people who don't know about,
care
> about or worry about weight distribution. RH's arent generally built by
> people who want a sports car, or want to race or hill climb, and probably
> imagine a double wishbone is found on Siamese Twin Chickens. Sliding
pillar
> looks and operates horribly, do Morgan still use it or have they finally
> given it up?
>
>
I am pretty sure the new Aero 8 super car doesn't use it but all the other
Morgan models used it totally without change since the days of the 3
wheeler. To drive a well used Morgan is an experience I'd rather not repeat,
after a few years use the chassis flex gets even worse and the springs sag
and as a result the famous Morgan wobble sets in quite suddenly around the
40-50mph speed range the chassis vibrates like a tuning for, the body tries
to part company from the chassis and the car swerves as if you had a badly
loaded caravan on the back-- it can get truly horrific in proportion, but
like a motorcycle wobble to stop it keep the throttle to the floor and
drive through. Sure signs of a Morgan with a wobble problem are a cracked
dash and/or windscreen.
exoticar
>
> >Nah - I don't buy the British are gullible bit at all - okay for a few
years
> >maximum, but not for as long as RH have been doing it, plus they'd have
been
> >killed by the Kit Car press, or worse the Motoring press. And they would
not
> >have been so popular with people from Benelux coming over offering decent
> >money for any RH they can buy.
> >They sell a product, at a price to a market and are successful in doing
> >that - how many other kitcar makers have managed that? Ron Champion
didnt,
> >Prova didnt, Candyapple? Beauford? Bill Towns was one of the finest
> >designers of cars, but the Hustler? I'm not saying they're good, bad or
> >indifferent, but the business formula for RH works very well - and part
of
> >that formula has to be market reputation and word of mouth. If the
British
> >are so gullible and only buy cheap, then why havent Locost, Locust, MK,
> >Vindicator et al driven RH out of business?
> >
> BUT RH have only been doing this for a few years! They were the first
> in. That means they sold kits to the gullible and kit sales make more
> sales.
>
> The British ARE GULLIBLE. If they weren't they wouldn't but RH's
> would they!
>
> Yes, they have the formula right. They sell kits - lots of them too.
> BUT that doesn't mean they sell quality.
>
> The bottom line is that they sell crap at a cheap price. This is well
> documented here and other places. The fact that they sell lots of
> crap is completely irrelevant.
Disagree with your last statement - the fact they lots of crap is very
relevant, it means they've got it right - right market, right price, right
product. Its the same in other industries, EasyJet and Ryanair provide crap
service, compared to BA, but both appeal to the right market, right price
and right product. I regularly fly Ryanair and its cramped, I'm not
guaranteed a seat, the flight schedules change, there's little flexibility,
no refreshments or meals, but they sell this crap in bucket loads. I'm not
saying RH sell quality, but do we always want quality, Matalan outperform
Marks and Spencers. If RH wanted to change their business model to provide
quality it would probably put them out of business, and as they're showing a
full order book till the end of the year why should they. Its a business
decision, its got nothing to do with engineering or quality.
AWM
>
>>
> A wealthy prick with one of the most successful kit car businesses of all
> time.
>
>
Funny that seems any kit car of any significance has manufacturers that went
belly up usually more than once -- TVR, Marcos, Ginnetta, Clan Davrian,
Mini Jem, ..........................
exoticar
"AWM" <not...@nowhere.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajtaev$h7t$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Its a hard market to make a living out of, and unfortunately quality of
engineering and design, or even the sexiest looking cars can guarantee any
kind of success. Thats why whether you like or dislike Richard Stewart and
what he's done at RHE, you do have to respect his business acumen
PJ
>
>Its a hard market to make a living out of, and unfortunately quality of
>engineering and design, or even the sexiest looking cars can guarantee any
>kind of success. Thats why whether you like or dislike Richard Stewart and
>what he's done at RHE, you do have to respect his business acumen
>
prick, but nevertheless a prick.
Your don't always need acumen to make it, just some luck and a load of
other pricks who will swap their well earned money or a load of shite.
Hairy One Kenobi
news:3d62b414...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
One point: anyone who think that one needs to be lucky to succeed in
business is unlikely to succeed in business.
H1K
PJ
>
>One point: anyone who think that one needs to be lucky to succeed in
>business is unlikely to succeed in business.
I thought I needed luck to succeed and I succeeded in growing my
business to a £3m turn over which I sold. Trust me, you do need luck
these days. Work and product yes, but luck too.
Hairy One Kenobi
..but hopefully not as part of a fundamental business strategy!
Mind you, if you agree that - to a large extent - you make your own luck,
then we might be a little more in agreement ;o)
H1K
AWM
"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:vPG89.363$nJ....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
AWM
"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
to be lucky to succeed in
> business is unlikely to succeed in business.
>
> H1K
>
>
A really a lot of luck comes into it, I have a friend in the fruit machine
business quite successful he has a lot of accumem and intelligence but most
importantly he is one of the very few people luck always shines on,
sometimes even he can't believe how often he come up trumphs after doing
something that was a big risk undertaken against better judgement for
non-business reasons.
exoticar
Totally disagree with everything you've said apart from the fact that he is
a disrespectful prick. He's managed to get lots of pricks to swap hard
earned money for shite, for that you need to have a focussed business
strategy. Also don't agree that all you've done in business is be lucky.
Okay you can feel lucky to be in the right place at the right time, but
unless you have a modicum of business acumen you don't even realise it.
No-one else saw RHE's market, Dutton didnt, Sylva didnt, Westfield didnt,
Pilgrim didnt, but this guy did. He could not have done it on luck, in fact
, is there another kitcar manufacturer who does it the RHE way, i.e. mass
production, single pickup dates.
PJ
>
>Totally disagree with everything you've said apart from the fact that he is
>a disrespectful prick. He's managed to get lots of pricks to swap hard
>earned money for shite, for that you need to have a focussed business
>strategy. Also don't agree that all you've done in business is be lucky.
>Okay you can feel lucky to be in the right place at the right time, but
>unless you have a modicum of business acumen you don't even realise it.
>No-one else saw RHE's market, Dutton didnt, Sylva didnt, Westfield didnt,
>Pilgrim didnt, but this guy did. He could not have done it on luck, in fact
>, is there another kitcar manufacturer who does it the RHE way, i.e. mass
>production, single pickup dates.
>
start? Remember that when he first started he didn't have mass
production, single dates, etc. He simply introduced a cheap kit and
it sold well. From that he re-directed the business and that would
have been more necessity than business acumen.
Also, no one has commented on my earlier post re the pricks
announcement a couple of years ago that he was packing in.
Also, people with business acumen tend not to make silly public
speeches while standing on a chair or table. They also don't tend to
throw over tables with computers on them, especially those belonging
to someone else.
No, I think the guy is an out and put prick. No business acumen just
a lucky twat who marketed a cheap kit and then took advantage of all
those poor silly sods who bought one and spread the word.
exoticar
Yes they do - Richard Branson, the guy who runs Ryanair, Maxwell used to do
it - its called publicity, it works as you're still talking about it. Gerald
Ratner tried it but for his business it backfired, it didnt harm him outside
of the jewelery business. As you say he introduced a cheap kit and it sold
well, so did Ron Champion, wheres he? most cheap kits fail, why didnt
Richard Stewarts? I'm sorry but its not luck, its business success. I have
no time for the guy, I agree he's a prick but so what!
William Turner
> Also, no one has commented on my earlier post re the pricks
> announcement a couple of years ago that he was packing in.
To confirm you're not imagining it (or at least, not the only one),
I remember it too. It was pretty much the same time that Tiger launched
the Cat, and Avon theirs. That was the end of the Series 3, and then he
returned with the Kaig (and the Exmo?).
w
Dan Drake
>... nuff said.
Why do you append this to so many of your anti-RH posts? Do you think
that it will discourage any follow-ups? Is it attempted compensation
for your lack of a *conclusive* argument to support your dislike of
the RH and its maker?
Inquiring minds, and all that.
--
Dan Drake
AWM
crude ugly car and because it was before the Caterham Westfield legal battle
it could never look like a real "7".. Westfield saw it but saw bigger
profits from selling at higher prices to Japan.
PJ
I have only appended three times and it's because the thread keep
going on and on. I have produced conclusive argument and those
arguments have been confirmed by others in this group. It is not an
excuse to not contribute argument, it is just my way of saying that I
(and many others) have said it all and that's it.
So, for the 4th time, Nuff said.
exoticar
Agreed Westfield made a business decision not to hit the mass market, and it
paid off, Dutton were well placed to capture the maas "7" market, and were
already in the cheap market anyway, but decided to make different looking
ugly cars like the Sierra and Melos.
Matthew Augier (dps)
is
> a disrespectful prick. He's managed to get lots of pricks to swap hard
> earned money for shite, for that you need to have a focussed business
> strategy. Also don't agree that all you've done in business is be lucky.
> Okay you can feel lucky to be in the right place at the right time, but
> unless you have a modicum of business acumen you don't even realise it.
> No-one else saw RHE's market, Dutton didnt, Sylva didnt, Westfield didnt,
> Pilgrim didnt, but this guy did. He could not have done it on luck, in
fact
> , is there another kitcar manufacturer who does it the RHE way, i.e. mass
> production, single pickup dates.
Ok so now anyone who has a RH is a prick! Well gees thanks for getting to
know me first...
Mat
Hairy One Kenobi
You had an /argument/, conclusive or otherwise? Hmmm. Must check Google.
H1K (Who was quite happy to let this whole thing die out, but along came
someone who called a bunch of respected posters "pricks". Sigh)
Chris Cowley
<Mat...@DPS.uk.com> wrote:
>Ok so now anyone who has a RH is a prick! Well gees thanks for getting to
>know me first...
I think his reasoning goes: anyone who's bought a Robin Hood is a
"prick"[1], it doesn't matter that you might like your RH, or feel that
is was a worthwhile purchase. You're a prick and therefore your opinions
are irrelevant.
I don't really begrudge the bitterness or irrationality as, to be fair,
it's quite entertaining to witness the person calling him/herself PJ
getting so hot under the collar about the whole issue.
Cheers,
Chris (fellow RH-building prick, there's so many of us around!)
[1] Prick. Now there's a word that hasn't had much popular usage outside
of this newsgroup since the 1980's.
--
Chris Cowley
Dan Drake
<abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>H1K (Who was quite happy to let this whole thing die out, but along came
>someone who called a bunch of respected posters "pricks". Sigh)
'nuff said?
--
Dan Drake
Terry Hill
"Chris Cowley" <cco...@grok.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tgvamu4ajjfpjvvlg...@hobgoblin.grok.co.uk...
Well said that man!
However being a "RH-building prick" you are not entitled to an opinion!
LOL!
Terry
p.s. I like VW based kits and we all know how terrible they handle!