Robin Hoods
Gary
Robin Hoods. Why? Poor design/engineering? service?
I'm thinking of starting my first build (well, once swmbo has been coaxed
around to it for a bit longer) and was going to the Newark show next weekend
to have a look around, especially at the RH - I'm very taken with the shiney
panelwork.
Any comments appreciated.
Gary
John Fitzgerald
"Gary" <Gary@somesortofaddress> wrote in message
news:ug2jt7h...@corp.supernews.com...
I've owned two and loved both. When I had mine there wasn't really anything
else on the market which offered a similar experience for anything like as
small an amount of outlay. They are the best in the world at anything apart
from being cheap - maybe - but that was good enough for me.
I have to say that nowadays one of the cars based on the locost concept is a
much more sound proposition, especially IMHO the Mk indy, although you
almost certainly won't get one on the road for under two grand whereas with
a Robin Hood Sub K you almost certainly will. Join the Hood 2B mailing list,
search the archives, listen to the grief and also listen to the elation of
all those who have now succesfully passed SVA and are enjoying every waking
minute with their cars. The dissentors have some very valid points to make,
but the succesful builders have some equally if not more valid points to
make.
Your call.
Matthew Augier (dps)
At the end of the day you are paying a low amount of money for a kit, and
some people have decided that because of this, and because they are not
precision engineered that they are therefore deemed crap. Goes with
anything, the more you spend the better anything will be!
No one can really answer these questions as at the end of the day it's your
choice.
Take a poke around my site www.rhocar.org.uk as there is plenty of info and
links to other RH builders sites...
Mat
AWM
"Matthew Augier (dps)" <Mat...@DPS.uk.com> wrote in message
news:uUjM8.431$jT2....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> Gary
>
> At the end of the day you are paying a low amount of money for a kit, and
> some people have decided that because of this, and because they are not
> precision engineered that they are therefore deemed crap. Goes with
> anything, the more you spend the better anything will be!
Nothing to do with the precision of the engineering although some people
aren't too keen on the fit and finish of some parts, for me it is a lot more
to do with what engineers (and lawyers) call "fitness for purpose" in other
words whether the design is properly thought through and executed. A lot
has been carried in this NG going right back to its inception about the
various suspension and chassis designs used by RH since the very first
Triumph based car, it is worth reading.
> No one can really answer these questions as at the end of the day it's
your
> choice.
>
If proof is needed just watch the suspension of a Sierra based Robin Hood
work on a roughish surface, even a slow speed the front wheels bounce around
loose contact with the road because of the excessive roll stiffness of the
front suspension due to the use of the very stiff Sierra anti-roll bar ---
by loosing contact I mean you can see about 2 inches of daylight between the
wheel and tarmac ! While the sliding pillar system which replaced has even
be abandoned by Morgan; one of only 2 car companies to use the other being
Lancia on the Lamba model circa 1926. I do however think RH are very good
at building a product to a price I just wish the product were based on sound
engineering knowledge after all it is possible to manufacture kit cars that
are cheap and well engineered --- look at MK, Stuart Taylor, Tiger and
others.
John Fitzgerald
> If proof is needed just watch the suspension of a Sierra based Robin Hood
> work on a roughish surface, even a slow speed the front wheels bounce
around
> loose contact with the road because of the excessive roll stiffness of the
> front suspension due to the use of the very stiff Sierra anti-roll
<snip>
Agreed
But the fix to this is very well documented indeed and the ARB replacing tie
rods that effect the cure are made and sold through the owner's club.
as regards the sliding pillock - as it is known - suspension. Tricky Dicky
has bowed to the pressures exerted by owners and would be owners and made
available a more suitable twin wishbone setup.
Unfortunately, the sierra semi trailing arm setup is still used virtually
unmodified :-(
AWM
"John Fitzgerald" <jfsc10407spahm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message news:tMqM8.5951$am3.57...@news-text.cableinet.net...
engineering "feel" exist in the company, book learing isn't always required
if enough common sense is used -- "what looks right, ( generally ) is
right".
Peter Bate
>
>At the end of the day you are paying a low amount of money for a kit, and
>some people have decided that because of this, and because they are not
>precision engineered that they are therefore deemed crap. Goes with
>anything, the more you spend the better anything will be!
You got that one right... they sure are CRAP. There are better and
similar priced kits. how about MK.
Peter Bate
>>
>If proof is needed just watch the suspension of a Sierra based Robin Hood
>work on a roughish surface, even a slow speed the front wheels bounce around
>loose contact with the road because of the excessive roll stiffness of the
>front suspension due to the use of the very stiff Sierra anti-roll bar ---
>by loosing contact I mean you can see about 2 inches of daylight between the
>wheel and tarmac ! While the sliding pillar system which replaced has even
>be abandoned by Morgan; one of only 2 car companies to use the other being
>Lancia on the Lamba model circa 1926. I do however think RH are very good
>at building a product to a price I just wish the product were based on sound
>engineering knowledge after all it is possible to manufacture kit cars that
>are cheap and well engineered --- look at MK, Stuart Taylor, Tiger and
>others.
Here Here. Someone talking sense at last.
CHEAP = CRAP and the RH is Cheap. Others are inexpensive and that's
were the difference is.
>
>
>
Peter Bate
>Agreed
>
>But the fix to this is very well documented indeed and the ARB replacing tie
>rods that effect the cure are made and sold through the owner's club.
>as regards the sliding pillock - as it is known - suspension. Tricky Dicky
>has bowed to the pressures exerted by owners and would be owners and made
>available a more suitable twin wishbone setup.
>Unfortunately, the sierra semi trailing arm setup is still used virtually
>unmodified :-(
>
Cheap shite crap..
Gerry Kemp
Don't hold back now - tell us what you really think.
With actual examples would be good. Like, I couldn't cut the stainless it
was too tough. :-)
What you expect of a kit. Like or not like a kitchen flatpack.
We await with _bated_ breath.
--
Gerry Kemp
Never cease to be amazed
AWM
"Gerry Kemp" <g...@pagodasystems.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kXNM8.4138$xU5.443700@wards...
The anti-roll bar modification is well known & documented but this goes well
beyond the scope of building a kit, it is a major modification to the whole
concept of the cars suspension. What makes this more unexceptable is that RH
direct the major part of thier advertising at first time builders stressing
the completeness of thier kit. Contrast this with MK who is basically a
seller
of components to home brew builders but all components the fit together
properly to make a well engineered well sorted vehicle.
As I remarked once before RH make me feel nostalgic for Dutton ;-()