Advice on first car
mark
I know the idea is you pass your test, you spent the first couple years
driving round in a cheap POS to get a couple years no claims then you can
upgrade, but me being 25, a late learner I don't really want to be driving
round in a 10 year old astra. I had my eyes on a Audi A3, or even a Seat
Leon Cupra R but the insurance especially on the later is immense. I could
afford it, but maybe it is a bit OTT
So my question, what is a decent car for a new driver, with some street cred
;) that doesn't have stupid insurance? To be quite honest, money isn't that
much of an issue considering I'd spend £20k on a car *but* I do kind of
be-grudge spending £3k + on 1 years insurance.
Can anyone provide any suggestions? or alternatives.
Clive George
news:42b89211$0$3149$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Get something nice and slow, with a low insurance group. If you get
something fast, you'll only crash it - there is a reason insurance for
people who've just started driving is so expensive.
So cheap, but doesn't have to be POS - there's nothing stopping you buying
shiny stuff.
cheers,
clive
doki
You will kill yourself or someone else if you buy something like a Cupra R
without driving something slower first. It's much easier when you stuff
things up big style at 60 than at 120.
I'd go for Golf / Leon / A3 / Octavia as they're all the same car if I were
bothered about image. Not the 1.8 turbo, not the 2l turbo, not the 130 or
above diesel. Something sane and with a nice long 0-60 time. Take it from
someone who's stuffed a car into a hedge.
Or a BMW 1 series. They're slow, but they are RWD and you need to have a
brain to drive one. The best thing you can do if you get one is to buy a
Volvo 340 and drive it round and round a roundabout at 3am in the pissing
rain until you understand...
John Redman
"mark" <ma...@localhost.net> wrote
> So my question, what is a decent car for a new driver, with some street
> cred
> ;) that doesn't have stupid insurance? To be quite honest, money isn't
> that
> much of an issue considering I'd spend £20k on a car *but* I do kind of
> be-grudge spending £3k + on 1 years insurance.
Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen Healey...all
quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and nobody will know what you
paid so you won't look like a skint pikey who can't afford to insure
anything better.
Depresion
"John Redman" <johnphil...@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote in
message news:d9a743$6a0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
The rear end of KG's is good fun as well with that pendulum effect and wheel
tuck. Not much good if you want to get from A-B in a hurry but 10k should see
you in a good convertible.
doki
And pissing around with a choke at 7 in the morning. Points. Distributors.
Things that tend to not just work.
I'm all for classics, but they're mostly shit. Saab 900, Rover SD1, Porsche
356 etc, I can see the point of. Healey 3000, MK1/2 Escort etc. yes.
Beetles with a flash body on no...
Willy Eckerslyke
>>Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen
>>Healey...all quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and
>>nobody will know what you paid so you won't look like a skint pikey
>>who can't afford to insure anything better.
Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light
my fire, but I can't fault the logic.
> And pissing around with a choke at 7 in the morning. Points. Distributors.
> Things that tend to not just work.
Bollocks. You can fit electronic ignition easily enough to most
classics. My Vitesse is a lot more reliable than my wife's Passat.
Biggest problem with most classics is trying to see out of steamed up
windows in the rain of a February morning.
Andrewr At Work
news:d9a6u1$81i$1...@news.freedom2surf.net
> Or a BMW 1 series. They're slow, but they are RWD and you need to have a
> brain to drive one.
Which seems paradoxical when you'd have to be brainless to buy one :)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Depresion
"Willy Eckerslyke" <oss108...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d9b7nd$600$1...@fantastix.bangor.ac.uk...
> doki wrote:
>
>>>Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen
>>>Healey...all quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and
>>>nobody will know what you paid so you won't look like a skint pikey
>>>who can't afford to insure anything better.
>
> Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light my
> fire, but I can't fault the logic.
Not even the 300+bhp KG in one of this months vw mags?
mark
>
>
>
> You will kill yourself or someone else if you buy something like a Cupra R
> without driving something slower first. It's much easier when you stuff
> things up big style at 60 than at 120.
>
> I'd go for Golf / Leon / A3 / Octavia as they're all the same car if I
were
> bothered about image. Not the 1.8 turbo, not the 2l turbo, not the 130 or
> above diesel. Something sane and with a nice long 0-60 time. Take it from
> someone who's stuffed a car into a hedge.
To insure a 2002 GOLF 1.4 worth £6k would cost me over £2k according to
Nowich Union, the slowest Ford KA from 2001, worth £-4k is £1400 to insure.
This figures are still way too high.
Looking at it from this POV, just makes me wanna say sod it and buy a Audi
A3 which costs the same to insure as the Golf above even though it's worth 3
times as much.
AstraVanMan
> Nowich Union, the slowest Ford KA from 2001, worth £-4k is £1400 to
> insure.
> This figures are still way too high.
Get a quote for something like a 1996 1,8 Ford Mondeo, see what it says
there. Quite often, despite the theory being that something like a Ka is
the cheapest to insure, it doesn't neccessarily work out like that.
Sometimes a virtually worthless car is a good thing.
> Looking at it from this POV, just makes me wanna say sod it and buy a Audi
> A3 which costs the same to insure as the Golf above even though it's worth
> 3
> times as much.
Peter
Clive George
> Looking at it from this POV, just makes me wanna say sod it and buy a Audi
> A3 which costs the same to insure as the Golf above even though it's worth
> 3
> times as much.
The reason for this is the same as why TPFT or even TP isn't _that_ much
cheaper than FC - the expensive bit of insurance is mending people, not
mending your car. And the value of your car makes little difference to the
chances of bending somebody.
cheers,
clive
SteveH
> Something like a Seat Leon would be a good bet - part of VAG (VW-Audi
> group), so basically the same car as a Golf/A3/Octavia, but obviously the
> Skodas and Seats are much lower insurance groups (I think) due to less
> expensive panels. That is, as long as you don't go for the hot versions
> like the Cupra R - the 1.8s are still pretty good cars, apparently - not
> terrible on performance, and pretty economical.
Trouble with the 1.8 20v non-turbo is that it's as thirsty as the turbo
version but without the tree-pulling stomp at 2k rpm.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
DanTXD
Buy something new with free insurance? 206 GTi 180 might still be available
to 25 and overs with 2 years free - but i havn't seen it advertised for a
while, and they're nice to drive, easy to park, look sporty, very well
equipped etc. And at about £15k iirc, will leave you £5k to, erm, spend
money on whatever you rich people like to spend money on :)
--
Dan
AstraVanMan
> driving round in a cheap POS to get a couple years no claims then you can
> upgrade, but me being 25, a late learner I don't really want to be driving
> round in a 10 year old astra. I had my eyes on a Audi A3, or even a Seat
> Leon Cupra R but the insurance especially on the later is immense. I could
> afford it, but maybe it is a bit OTT
>
> So my question, what is a decent car for a new driver, with some street
> cred
> ;) that doesn't have stupid insurance? To be quite honest, money isn't
> that
> much of an issue considering I'd spend £20k on a car *but* I do kind of
> be-grudge spending £3k + on 1 years insurance.
Was it you that asked this a while back?
Obviously you don't want to be driving around in a heap of shit, but
seriously, *don't* spend anything like £20k on your first car. You won't be
anywhere near as good a driver immediately after passing your test as you
will with even as little as a year or two's experience, and you are fairly
likely to smack the thing - then insurance will be even more stupid amounts.
Something like a Seat Leon would be a good bet - part of VAG (VW-Audi
group), so basically the same car as a Golf/A3/Octavia, but obviously the
Skodas and Seats are much lower insurance groups (I think) due to less
expensive panels. That is, as long as you don't go for the hot versions
like the Cupra R - the 1.8s are still pretty good cars, apparently - not
terrible on performance, and pretty economical.
But yeah, to summarize, something you like, not more than 2-3k tops for your
first car, buy sensibly - don't get a worn out POS (still plenty available
at that price!), buy privately from someone who's had it a fair few years
and looked after it well and not from a dealer just shifting on a part-ex as
you won't know what the history is, plus the private sale should be cheaper,
don't go for a 'prestige' brand as insurance is generally more expensive due
to pricier panels etc., and get something that's not too high up in the
range or 'sporty', but avoid underpowered stuff as well.
That's about it.
Peter
Depresion
"DanTXD" <dan...@SdanPontAherMun.com> wrote in message
news:3ht09eF...@individual.net...
Gold plated mink coats.
That said if you spent say 3k on a car at 18 then an average of £600 a year to
insure it that would be £7200 without tax & petrol by the time you are 25 add in
the fact it's probably going to be easier to get finance by that point having
20k to spend on a car wouldn't be that hard (though it dose suggest for
planning)
JPG
You are probably 7 years too old but the current received wisdom for first car
for female driver would be a Ford Ka. A male driver's first car would seem to
be a Mk3 Fiesta, Corsa or Saxo, as basic as possible.
You would then need to add, in priority order:
1: 20Kw amplifier and sub-woofer (after removing rear seat) and set of bhangra
or drum'n'bass CDs.
2. Chrome-plated exhaust tail-pipe about the diameter of average dustbin,
preferably two or four tail-pipes, similar spec.
3. 28 inch alloy wheels with tyres sprayed on, or rotating hubcaps, LED valve
caps optional.
4. Blue LED washer nozzles.
5. Blue or green neon lights on underside.
6. Front windows that do not shut, so that the general public get the full
benefit of the music CDs in 1. above.
7. Sprayed on glass tint.
8. Permanently on front fog lights. Green headlight bulbs.
9. Rear lights colour-matched to paintwork.
10. Number plate in italic font, with Union Jack and "Eng" in small decal stuck
on side.
11. Baseball cap, to be worn backwards. Baggy trousers, to be worn with crutch
below the knees. Trainers to cost not less than £250.
JPG
doki
Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
> doki wrote:
>
>>> Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen
>>> Healey...all quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and
>>> nobody will know what you paid so you won't look like a skint pikey
>>> who can't afford to insure anything better.
>
> Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light
> my fire, but I can't fault the logic.
>
>> And pissing around with a choke at 7 in the morning. Points.
>> Distributors. Things that tend to not just work.
>
> Bollocks. You can fit electronic ignition easily enough to most
> classics. My Vitesse is a lot more reliable than my wife's Passat.
So what? You've still got carbs. Though to be fair, my car has a dizzy, my
last car had a dizzy, as did the car before that. But it's still not as
reliable as electronic ignition.
> Biggest problem with most classics is trying to see out of steamed up
> windows in the rain of a February morning.
And the crap safety.
AstraVanMan
> without driving something slower first. It's much easier when you stuff
> things up big style at 60 than at 120.
>
> I'd go for Golf / Leon / A3 / Octavia as they're all the same car if I
> were
> bothered about image. Not the 1.8 turbo, not the 2l turbo, not the 130 or
> above diesel. Something sane and with a nice long 0-60 time. Take it from
> someone who's stuffed a car into a hedge.
Yup, the 1.8 20v or 1.9TDI 90bhp would both be a good bet.
> Or a BMW 1 series. They're slow, but they are RWD and you need to have a
> brain to drive one. The best thing you can do if you get one is to buy a
> Volvo 340 and drive it round and round a roundabout at 3am in the pissing
> rain until you understand...
That's the way to learn......
Peter
James
hand). It us cheap to insure, easy to drive and reliable. I'm now getting a
bit bored of it and fancy something quicker but have found that until I have
held a full licence for a year I can't get insured on a number of hot
hatches which is understandable. HTH.
Martin
Adrian
saying :
> You are probably 7 years too old but the current received wisdom for
> first car for female driver would be a Ford Ka. A male driver's first
> car would seem to be a Mk3 Fiesta, Corsa or Saxo, as basic as
> possible.
>
> You would then need to add, in priority order:
There's a green Ka round here with gold bumpers/arch bits, and gold alloys.
But the prize for the best combination of effort and money being inversely
related to taste has to go to the M-reg 3dr Coarser I was sat next to on
for a couple of junctions on the M25 last night.
Gold with matt black roof and "bad boy" bonnet.
Tight-faired mirrors.
Single wiper.
Stripped out interior, roll cage with carbon extinguisher strapped to it.
VERY bare binnacle in the middle of where the dash was.
Number plate gaffer taped in the back window.
Silly bodykit bumpers in primer. (with even naffer ones, painted to match,
filling his mate's Coarser sat three inches behind him)
But the real clinchers were...
Big rectangular tailpipe poking out of a hole in the middle of the
tailgate, about where the plate would normally go.
Taillights panelled over, with the fuel cap in the OS one.
Spoiler at the top of the rear window including the naffest round LED
taillights I've ever seen. Which didn't work. Hence his mate being *glued*
to his arse.
SteveH
> > I'd go for Golf / Leon / A3 / Octavia as they're all the same car if I
> were
> > bothered about image. Not the 1.8 turbo, not the 2l turbo, not the 130 or
> > above diesel. Something sane and with a nice long 0-60 time. Take it from
> > someone who's stuffed a car into a hedge.
>
> To insure a 2002 GOLF 1.4 worth £6k would cost me over £2k according to
> Nowich Union, the slowest Ford KA from 2001, worth £-4k is £1400 to insure.
> This figures are still way too high.
>
> Looking at it from this POV, just makes me wanna say sod it and buy a Audi
> A3 which costs the same to insure as the Golf above even though it's worth 3
> times as much.
Something like a Passat 1.8T would be pretty ideal for you - they seem
to be incredibly cheap to insure (mine costs less to insure than a 2lt
Primula).
Ques...@forgotten.what.this.was.now.com
said:
>
>
>Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
>> doki wrote:
>>
>>>> Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen
>>>> Healey...all quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and
>>>> nobody will know what you paid so you won't look like a skint pikey
>>>> who can't afford to insure anything better.
>>
>> Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light
>> my fire, but I can't fault the logic.
>>
>>> And pissing around with a choke at 7 in the morning. Points.
>>> Distributors. Things that tend to not just work.
>>
>> Bollocks. You can fit electronic ignition easily enough to most
>> classics. My Vitesse is a lot more reliable than my wife's Passat.
>
>So what? You've still got carbs. Though to be fair, my car has a dizzy, my
>last car had a dizzy, as did the car before that. But it's still not as
>reliable as electronic ignition.
Yeah but we classic owners either go to concours pose-fests or we upgrade the
bits like electronic ignition because it's just so much better. Carbs are less
economical than injection, that's true, but they're reliable enough. The only
time I had a carb problem, the manifold had fallen off at one end and one of
the carbs wasn't really doing anything.
Damn sight easier to fix that (push on and tie to the block with a handy piece
of wire) than if an injector had come off.
>> Biggest problem with most classics is trying to see out of steamed up
>> windows in the rain of a February morning.
>
>And the crap safety.
Very subjective. My old car has a steel tube formed into box section bumper
shape that contains solid lead weights which are on springs and move a little
up and down the tube to counter scuttle shake.
The steel tube is then encased in plastic. My modern car just has the plastic
bumper. Working backwards, the car has inner and outer wings of a thick gauge
steel that you can punch with your fist and not dent, which you'll understand I
wouldn't try with the modern car as it flexes under finger pressure. It also
has a front, rigid, subframe that connects that almost solid metal bumper to
the very strong front bulkhead, and to the inner wings. It has inner and outer
sills that are rigid and again, you can kick them without anything flexing.
I've seen what one of these does to a modern car, and I feel safer in the
former in that sort of accident.
Conversely, it has no roof or roll bar, and I think rolling it would be a
challenge to survive. I think maybe modern cars are safer when they crash with
other modern cars. And things like airbags are a jolly good idea, but old cars
aren't that crap.
Steams up well though. The v8 gets it all hot so the windscreen de-ices very
nicely but the wipers are utter rubbish, and I think they were when they were
new.
SteveH
> >And the crap safety.
>
> Very subjective. My old car has a steel tube formed into box section
> bumper shape that contains solid lead weights which are on springs and
> move a little up and down the tube to counter scuttle shake.
>
> The steel tube is then encased in plastic. My modern car just has the
> plastic bumper. Working backwards, the car has inner and outer wings of a
> thick gauge steel that you can punch with your fist and not dent, which
> you'll understand I wouldn't try with the modern car as it flexes under
> finger pressure. It also has a front, rigid, subframe that connects that
> almost solid metal bumper to the very strong front bulkhead, and to the
> inner wings. It has inner and outer sills that are rigid and again, you
> can kick them without anything flexing.
>
> I've seen what one of these does to a modern car, and I feel safer in the
> former in that sort of accident.
You do understand the reasons why an old car like that isn't safe in an
accident, though?
For *some* low speed prangs, then the solid old car will definitely come
off best - in fact, even at higher speed the old car will seem to have
come off best, but, in reality, all it's done is transfer all the impact
energy into the passenger compartment.
New cars are flimsy for a reason.
doki
Ring around and ring around and ring around. A day with the phone book
reduced my quotes for a MK2 16V GTi from £1500 or so on the cheapest
websites to £500...
And there's a big wodge of depreciation on the A3, which will be less of a
factor on the second hand Golf.
doki
Unless you're in a full bucket seat with 6 point harness, a rigid shell is a
bad thing. You end up rattling around a lot and dying of internal injuries /
hitting the dash / rest of the interior. A modern car deforms and transfers
a lot less of the impact to the occupants.
Huw
"mark" <ma...@localhost.net> wrote in message
news:42b89211$0$3149$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> I know the idea is you pass your test, you spent the first couple years
> driving round in a cheap POS to get a couple years no claims then you can
> upgrade, but me being 25, a late learner I don't really want to be driving
> round in a 10 year old astra. I had my eyes on a Audi A3, or even a Seat
> Leon Cupra R but the insurance especially on the later is immense. I could
> afford it, but maybe it is a bit OTT
>
> So my question, what is a decent car for a new driver, with some street
> cred
> ;) that doesn't have stupid insurance? To be quite honest, money isn't
> that
> much of an issue considering I'd spend £20k on a car *but* I do kind of
> be-grudge spending £3k + on 1 years insurance.
>
> Can anyone provide any suggestions? or alternatives.
>
>
Old money would be happy to pootle around in an ancient Focus with 180,000
miles on the clock. They have nothing to prove.
Huw
Huw
"JPG" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tdbib15e9v92i55i1...@4ax.com...
Don't forget the hoody to wear out of the car and in the shopping centre.
Huw
Ques...@forgotten.what.this.was.now.com
said:
>Ques...@forgotten.what.this.was.now.com wrote:
>>
>> I've seen what one of these does to a modern car, and I feel safer in
>> the former in that sort of accident.
>>
>> Conversely, it has no roof or roll bar, and I think rolling it would
>> be a challenge to survive. I think maybe modern cars are safer when
>> they crash with other modern cars. And things like airbags are a
>> jolly good idea, but old cars aren't that crap.
>>
>> Steams up well though. The v8 gets it all hot so the windscreen
>> de-ices very nicely but the wipers are utter rubbish, and I think
>> they were when they were new.
>
>Unless you're in a full bucket seat with 6 point harness, a rigid shell is a
>bad thing. You end up rattling around a lot and dying of internal injuries /
>hitting the dash / rest of the interior. A modern car deforms and transfers
>a lot less of the impact to the occupants.
It's not quite like that. If the cars are roughly equal in mass, both
passengers will experience pretty much the same accelerations - impact if you
will. Granted a deforming petrol tanker driver will not suffer much from a head
on impact with a rigid Sinclair C5.
The difference when they're even weight, is that one car will penetrate further
into the other, if it doesn't deform so much. That's pretty much a definition
of a rigid shell.
Whether this penetration reaches the occupants depends on the various factors,
but it is a bad thing when it does.
For the accelerations / impact forces, the physics isn't very tricky, do some
thought experiments with drivers seats and how far they travel in various head
on accidents. It should quickly become obvious that the car which deforms the
least will, when the cars end up stopped, have travelled furthest during the
deceleration phase for both vehicles. And that will be reflected in the
distance the seats move.
And like vaccination, it's generally safer if everyone has deformable cars, but
that's not the same thing as them being safer when not everyone does.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>>Unless you're in a full bucket seat with 6 point harness, a rigid
>>shell is a bad thing. You end up rattling around a lot and dying of
>>internal injuries / hitting the dash / rest of the interior. A modern
>>car deforms and transfers a lot less of the impact to the occupants.
Even if you are, ITYF that your internal organs aren't that solidly bolted
in place.
> It's not quite like that. If the cars are roughly equal in mass, both
> passengers will experience pretty much the same accelerations - impact
> if you will. Granted a deforming petrol tanker driver will not suffer
> much from a head on impact with a rigid Sinclair C5.
Not that simple.
Two cars of even mass hitting a stationary object will have the same energy
to be dispersed.
Car 1 is deformable. The body crumples, absorbing energy. The energy
absorbed by the crumpling body reduces the energy passed to the driver.
Car 2 is rock solid. The body absorbs no energy in crumpling. It just
stops. Where's that energy go? You.
Pete M
mark <ma...@localhost.net> decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a
rant as follows
> Hi, I'm 25 in October, I hope to have passed my test by then...
>
> I know the idea is you pass your test, you spent the first couple
> years driving round in a cheap POS to get a couple years no claims
> then you can upgrade, but me being 25, a late learner I don't really
> want to be driving round in a 10 year old astra. I had my eyes on a
> Audi A3, or even a Seat Leon Cupra R but the insurance especially on
> the later is immense. I could afford it, but maybe it is a bit OTT
>
> So my question, what is a decent car for a new driver, with some
> street cred ;) that doesn't have stupid insurance? To be quite
> honest, money isn't that much of an issue considering I'd spend £20k
> on a car *but* I do kind of be-grudge spending £3k + on 1 years
> insurance.
>
> Can anyone provide any suggestions? or alternatives.
Yep. You're insane.
Buy something 10-15 years old, something medium sized, preferably rear wheel
drive and properly built. Spend a maximum of £1500 buying it. Don't buy the
highest performance model, but don't buy the slowest one either. Service it
properly and don't cover it in bullshit go faster stuff. Fit a nice radio
and a decent set of speakers. Factory fitted alloys are the way to go.
My recommendations?
If you do lots and lots of miles, a BMW 525 TDS, if you want a better cars
than the BMW, a Mercedes 260E.
Oh, before people start piping up with "You'll never insure either of
those", get a quote first.
A friend of mine followed my recommendation, lives is a *mega* dodgy area,
parks his 525TDS on the street with only its factory security measures, does
over 30,000 miles a year, the BMW is his first ever car (other than hire
cars hes run for the last 7-8 months before he bought it), he's 29,
unmarried, telecoms engineer, clean licence, passed his test 4 years ago but
zero no claims bonus,
Fully Comp on the BMW? £900 a year.
Fully Comp on an X reg Golf 1.8 SE, exact same details - £2400
Fully Comp on an X reg Vectra DTi Estate - £2600
He'll probably lose £500 this year on depreciation on the 525, and spend
£500 on servicing, but he's got a reasonably nice car which isn't flash
enough for him to panic about parking it, or precious enough for him to
worry too much if he scrapes the paintwork occasionally. It's safe, it's got
airbags and air conditioning, it's reliable(for a bmw), comfy, does 35 mpg
and looks rather good in the process.
--
Pete M
"Has owned more Alfas than Steve H"
Range Rover Vogue SE,
Ford Capri (ressurection stalling)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale)
COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
Willy Eckerslyke
>>>And pissing around with a choke at 7 in the morning. Points.
>>>Distributors. Things that tend to not just work.
>>
>>Bollocks. You can fit electronic ignition easily enough to most
>>classics. My Vitesse is a lot more reliable than my wife's Passat.
> So what? You've still got carbs.
Yup, and if one goes wrong the other will get me home.
> Though to be fair, my car has a dizzy, my
> last car had a dizzy, as did the car before that. But it's still not as
> reliable as electronic ignition.
Contactless electronic ignition is pretty reliable, and if it goes
wrong, I just bolt in my spare dizzy and carry on as normal. Try doing a
roadside repair like that with a modern car and you could be there for a
long time.
> And the crap safety.
Only in the event of an accident. IMO (and that of the insurers), you're
_far_ less likely to be involved in an accident if driving a classic. I
know I'm much more alert and careful in the Vitesse than any modern car.
This isn't because of its value to me, but because it doesn't insulate
me from the road and driving experience.
Willy Eckerslyke
> Old money would be happy to pootle around in an ancient Focus with 180,000
> miles on the clock. They have nothing to prove.
Exactly. And while the OP might think a brand new car will make him look
superkewl, everyone will simply assume he's still living at home with
his parents.
Willy Eckerslyke
>>>>Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen
>>Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light my
>>fire, but I can't fault the logic.
> Not even the 300+bhp KG in one of this months vw mags?
Oh dear! Why not just buy a Porsche in the first place?
Depresion
"Willy Eckerslyke" <oss108...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d9e2vi$hsl$2...@fantastix.bangor.ac.uk...
What's the point when you can do that with a VW engine? Besides I guess the
owner prefers the looks of the KG (even if it is a nasty shade of yellow). I
know that given the choice between a 911 and an equally quick Type 14 I'd take
the VW.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> Not even the 300+bhp KG in one of this months vw mags?
> Oh dear! Why not just buy a Porsche in the first place?
Taste? (not that a 300+bhp VW flat four sounds like a great idea)
Depresion
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967E7DB63459Aad...@204.153.244.170...
It's not a flat 4 but a blown golf GTi engine. There are plenty of high powered
flat 4's about though.
So it's not to your taste that's not to say it's not to the taste of the owner
or indeed me. Some people like the new Pug 107 or the last shape M5, they need
there heads examining.
Adrian
were saying :
>>>> Not even the 300+bhp KG in one of this months vw mags?
>>> Oh dear! Why not just buy a Porsche in the first place?
>> Taste? (not that a 300+bhp VW flat four sounds like a great idea)
> It's not a flat 4 but a blown golf GTi engine.
Oh. How... erm... different.
> There are plenty of high powered flat 4's about though.
Indeed. How long would each 300+bhp flat four tend to be "about", though?
> So it's not to your taste that's not to say it's not to the taste of
> the owner or indeed me.
ITYF that's exactly what I was saying.
Willy Eckerslyke
> Willy Eckerslyke (oss108...@bangor.ac.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>>Not even the 300+bhp KG in one of this months vw mags?
>
>>Oh dear! Why not just buy a Porsche in the first place?
> Taste?
Not sure I can see the difference. After all they're both Beetles with
flashy clothes.
Depresion
That would depend on a lot of things, how it was built and by who makes a lot of
diferance.
>> So it's not to your taste that's not to say it's not to the taste of
>> the owner or indeed me.
>
> ITYF that's exactly what I was saying.
Ah you were saying you don't have taste. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)
Adrian
were saying :
>>> So it's not to your taste that's not to say it's not to the taste of
>>> the owner or indeed me.
>> ITYF that's exactly what I was saying.
> Ah you were saying you don't have taste.
If "not wanting a Porsche" is "not having taste", then I'm proud not to
have "taste".
Albert T Cone
>>Unless you're in a full bucket seat with 6 point harness, a rigid shell is a
>>bad thing. You end up rattling around a lot and dying of internal injuries /
>>hitting the dash / rest of the interior. A modern car deforms and transfers
>>a lot less of the impact to the occupants.
>
> It's not quite like that. If the cars are roughly equal in mass, both
> passengers will experience pretty much the same accelerations - impact if you
> will.
cars have crumple zones.
> The difference when they're even weight, is that one car will penetrate further
> into the other, if it doesn't deform so much. That's pretty much a definition
> of a rigid shell.
>
> Whether this penetration reaches the occupants depends on the various factors,
> but it is a bad thing when it does.
Which is why modern cars have squishy front and back bits and rigid
middle bits, unlike older fully rigid designs which have relatively
squishy middle bits.
> For the accelerations / impact forces, the physics isn't very tricky, do some
> thought experiments with drivers seats and how far they travel in various head
> on accidents. It should quickly become obvious that the car which deforms the
> least will, when the cars end up stopped, have travelled furthest during the
> deceleration phase for both vehicles.
Um. The centre of mass of both cars will move the same distance, but
the COM of the crumpling vehicle moves backwards as it crumples, so the
passenger cell moves _further_ than for the rigid design, and so suffers
a lesser decelleration.
> And like vaccination, it's generally safer if everyone has deformable cars, but
> that's not the same thing as them being safer when not everyone does.
The other factor completely missing from this is what happens when you
hit something immovable, e.g. when you hit a patch of diesel and slide
off into a tree - the rigid design is _much_ worse than a crumpling design.
Martin
>>
>>Buy something 10-15 years old, something medium sized, preferably rear
wheel
>>drive and properly built. Spend a maximum of £1500 buying it. Don't buy
the
>>highest performance model, but don't buy the slowest one either.
Or for a bit less a Granada or a Carlton 2.0
Cheap, tough, comfy, go OK, look fine but are not flashy
Ques...@forgotten.what.this.was.now.com
said:
This isn't how things work.
At the start of any accident, you are travelling at some speed and at the end
of the accident you are travelling at no speed. In between, the initial kinetic
energy you had will be reduced over the duration of the accident, not
necessarily in a linear fashion.
The kinetic energy of your vehicle is dissipated in a variety of ways that most
likely do involve deformation of the metalwork, sound, heat, damage to what you
are hitting, and so on. None of it goes into you.
It's fairly clear that the energy depends only on the speed of your body at the
start of the accident, and the duration of the accident.
Now here, I agree, a rigid shell doesn't deform so well and therefore, the
accident will tend to have a shorter duration. Your seat will not move so far
or for as long so you will have to experience higher deceleration forces in
order to be at rest at the end of the accident.
But in the specific example of a head on crash between a modern and rigid car,
we should be able to do the same maths.
Again the speed at the start of the accident is what defines your initial
kinetic energy. Also, the duration of the accident is what defines the rate at
which you can dissipate this and therefore how high the deceleration forces
will be. But the point I was getting at is the duration of the accident will be
the same for both vehicles. Both passengers will therefore experience the same
energy change over the same period of change and the only difference is that
the rigid car driver is less likely to find metal bits entering the space his
body occupies.
Course, if you aren't strapped into your seat, it doesn't matter much what car
you are in because you won't have a deceleration spread out over the period the
cars take to crash, you will continue on with unchanged velocity until you
decelerate using yourself as a crumple zone, a trick which does not work well
with a skull.
Ques...@forgotten.what.this.was.now.com
<m...@yahoo.com> said:
>Ques...@forgotten.what.this.was.now.com wrote:
>>>Unless you're in a full bucket seat with 6 point harness, a rigid shell is a
>>>bad thing. You end up rattling around a lot and dying of internal injuries /
>>>hitting the dash / rest of the interior. A modern car deforms and transfers
>>>a lot less of the impact to the occupants.
>>
>> It's not quite like that. If the cars are roughly equal in mass, both
>> passengers will experience pretty much the same accelerations - impact if you
>> will.
>That is true, but both will experience a lower deceleration if _both_
>cars have crumple zones.
Indeed. The crumple zones do not take energy away that would otherwise be
transferred to the occupants, though. They do not make any difference to the
seat belt situation or mean you hit the dash, because whatever car you're in,
you'll experience the same acceleration forces, but in different directions.
The only factor there which varies is your initial speed.
>> The difference when they're even weight, is that one car will penetrate further
>> into the other, if it doesn't deform so much. That's pretty much a definition
>> of a rigid shell.
>>
>> Whether this penetration reaches the occupants depends on the various factors,
>> but it is a bad thing when it does.
>
>Which is why modern cars have squishy front and back bits and rigid
>middle bits, unlike older fully rigid designs which have relatively
>squishy middle bits.
I think it would be best to assume that a rigid design is just that, a rigid
design that doesn't tend to crumple in an accident. I've seen nothing to
suggest to me that anyone designed a rigid shell with flexible sills.
>> For the accelerations / impact forces, the physics isn't very tricky, do some
>> thought experiments with drivers seats and how far they travel in various head
>> on accidents. It should quickly become obvious that the car which deforms the
>> least will, when the cars end up stopped, have travelled furthest during the
>> deceleration phase for both vehicles.
>Um. The centre of mass of both cars will move the same distance, but
>the COM of the crumpling vehicle moves backwards as it crumples, so the
>passenger cell moves _further_ than for the rigid design, and so suffers
>a lesser decelleration.
Well think about a rigid body and a deforming body, and consider what happens
to the back bumper.
In each case, the bumper is, say, ten feet from the front bumper at the start
of the accident and both are travelling at 20 M/s. The accident begins, and the
KE of the cars is being converted into abstract metal art at the interface.
Let's say the accident duration is one second.
It seems fairly obvious to me that both rear bumpers experience an acceleration
of something around 20 M/s^2 for one second and come to rest.
I would rather think the same thing applies to the drivers, who will (hopefully
only) experience the same acceleration as their bumper.
Now there are possible scenarios where part of either car comes to rest before
the rest of it, but that's only going to happen in the crumpling car and means
it has accelerated in a shorter period than the rigid shell, which will
continue to move in all parts until it finally stops. I find it highly
counterintuitive that the crumpling car can significantly continue to
decelerate by crumpling when the rigid car has come to rest. It's possible I
have this wrong, but it doesn't look probable, I prefer the notion that the
rigid car simply continues to travel into the crumple zone of the other until
both cease moving as the highest forces seem as if they should be going on at
the interface.
>> And like vaccination, it's generally safer if everyone has deformable cars, but
>> that's not the same thing as them being safer when not everyone does.
>
>The other factor completely missing from this is what happens when you
>hit something immovable, e.g. when you hit a patch of diesel and slide
>off into a tree - the rigid design is _much_ worse than a crumpling design.
Agree entirely. It is true that rigid cars do still crumple when they're
exposed to massive forces. Hitting a tree or the end of a wall, etc, would
definitely have this effect on most rigid cars.
But I think the modern crumple zone is a very good idea in these circumstances.
I think it is a good idea in head on strikes too, when both do it, as it means
the accident happens over a longer period.
What I'm saying is that in car to car accidents, an old, rigid car is no worse
off and has some benefits over the modern, crumple car that it is, for the sake
of discussion, going to be hitting.
It's worse news for both drivers if they are *both* driving an old, rigid car,
of course. That's not especially likely to happen now as most old cars have
been replaced by new, crumple zone cars, so the chances are a classic car will
most likely hit a modern car, if it hits anything at all.
SteveH
> >Not that simple.
> >
> >Two cars of even mass hitting a stationary object will have the same energy
> >to be dispersed.
> >
> >Car 1 is deformable. The body crumples, absorbing energy. The energy
> >absorbed by the crumpling body reduces the energy passed to the driver.
> >
> >Car 2 is rock solid. The body absorbs no energy in crumpling. It just
> >stops. Where's that energy go? You.
>
> This isn't how things work.
<snip>
So why, in your opinion, do manufacturers spend billions on designing
deformable crumple zones? - if they went by what you say, all they'd
need is to do is go back to 'ladder' style chassis to improve crash
protection.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Redman <johnphil...@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
> Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen Healey...all
> quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and nobody will know what
> you paid so you won't look like a skint pikey who can't afford to
> insure anything better.
Are you sure you'll get cheap insurance on a classic as a new driver and
as his only car?
--
*Starfishes have no brains *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John Redman
"Willy Eckerslyke" <oss108...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote
> Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light my
> fire, but I can't fault the logic.
Yup. I just picked them because I like classics and I wouldn't know whether
a KG's worth £5k or £15k; ditto the Jensen. So if one wants pose value and
cheap insurance they'd work. And no doubt others would work better.
John Redman
"SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote
> So why, in your opinion, do manufacturers spend billions on designing
> deformable crumple zones?
Perhaps because despite all the 80s hype about lean burn engines, a lot of
fuel economy improvements initially arose from manufacturers finding ways to
make cars lighter by using thinner steel. The grossest example of this is
the Maestro / Montego family, which had a flue down the side not as a
styling feature, but because it made the panel stiffer and hence thinner
steel could be used.
This in turn made the cars more dangerous to crash in, so they started
engineering safety back in via things like side impact bars. I can't see why
you need those if the whole door is a side impact bar.
John Redman
> JPG (m...@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
>
>> You are probably 7 years too old but the current received wisdom for
>> first car for female driver would be a Ford Ka. A male driver's first
>> car would seem to be a Mk3 Fiesta, Corsa or Saxo, as basic as
>> possible.
>>
>> You would then need to add, in priority order:
>
> alloys.
>
> But the prize for the best combination of effort and money being inversely
> related to taste has to go to the M-reg 3dr Coarser I was sat next to on
> for a couple of junctions on the M25 last night.
>
> Gold with matt black roof and "bad boy" bonnet.
>
> Tight-faired mirrors.
>
> Single wiper.
>
> Stripped out interior, roll cage with carbon extinguisher strapped to it.
>
> VERY bare binnacle in the middle of where the dash was.
>
> Number plate gaffer taped in the back window.
>
> Silly bodykit bumpers in primer. (with even naffer ones, painted to match,
> filling his mate's Coarser sat three inches behind him)
>
> But the real clinchers were...
>
> Big rectangular tailpipe poking out of a hole in the middle of the
> tailgate, about where the plate would normally go.
>
> Taillights panelled over, with the fuel cap in the OS one.
>
> Spoiler at the top of the rear window including the naffest round LED
> taillights I've ever seen. Which didn't work. Hence his mate being *glued*
> to his arse.
You needed to photograph it and send it to www.barryboys.co.uk
John Redman
"James" <see....@to.address> wrote in message
news:3hsu9cF...@individual.net...
>I was 23 when I got my first car and went for a 1.6 Ford Focus Zetec (2nd
>hand). It us cheap to insure, easy to drive and reliable.
How long ago was it cheap for a 23-year-old to insure a 1.6?
John Redman
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d7fbde...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <d9a743$6a0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> John Redman <johnphil...@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
>> Buy a classic. A Karmann Ghia, maybe; a Spitfire; a Jensen Healey...all
>> quite sensible insurance compared to a modern, and nobody will know what
>> you paid so you won't look like a skint pikey who can't afford to
>> insure anything better.
>
> Are you sure you'll get cheap insurance on a classic as a new driver and
> as his only car?
It'll be cheap*er*, if my experience was anything to go by. At 29 I went
from a 1.6i Orion worth £3k to a Stag worth £9k. Both parked on the street
in London, my only car, 4000 miles a year. The Onion was ~£800 a year to
insure and the Stag was £275.
I had 40% NCB but the classic insurer wasn't interested in NCB, though did
ask about claims. I infer that a modest classic ought to be insurable. Only
way to know is to check. I suggested the KG or the Spit because both are
notoriously underpowered, and the Jensen because I nearly bought one instead
of the Stag and was quoted £130 to insure it, God knows why.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
> The kinetic energy of your vehicle is dissipated in a variety of ways
> that most likely do involve deformation of the metalwork, sound, heat,
> damage to what you are hitting, and so on. None of it goes into you.
Really? So what hurts you in an accident, then?
What causes internal injuries?
Depresion
"John Redman" <johnphil...@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote in
message news:d9fg2t$9l7$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Willy Eckerslyke" <oss108...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote
>
>> Not sure I'd recommend a JH as a first car, and a KG would never light my
>> fire, but I can't fault the logic.
>
> Yup. I just picked them because I like classics and I wouldn't know whether a
> KG's worth £5k or £15k;
Could be one or the other depending on age/condition/if it's a left or right
hand drive, drop top or not.
Depresion
Your kinetic energy not the vehicle's.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Redman <johnphil...@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
> > Are you sure you'll get cheap insurance on a classic as a new driver
> > and as his only car?
> It'll be cheap*er*, if my experience was anything to go by. At 29 I went
> from a 1.6i Orion worth £3k to a Stag worth £9k. Both parked on the
> street in London, my only car, 4000 miles a year. The Onion was ~£800 a
> year to insure and the Stag was £275.
I can see that with an experienced driver. And at that age. But new
drivers tend to be a bad risk regardless of car.
> I had 40% NCB but the classic insurer wasn't interested in NCB, though
> did ask about claims. I infer that a modest classic ought to be
> insurable. Only way to know is to check.
Yup. Some phoning around will be needed.
> I suggested the KG or the Spit
> because both are notoriously underpowered, and the Jensen because I
> nearly bought one instead of the Stag and was quoted £130 to insure it,
> God knows why.
--
*Dance like nobody's watching.
Dave Plowman (News)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The kinetic energy of your vehicle is dissipated in a variety of ways
> > that most likely do involve deformation of the metalwork, sound, heat,
> > damage to what you are hitting, and so on. None of it goes into you.
> Really? So what hurts you in an accident, then?
Depends.
> What causes internal injuries?
G forces. Hence the need for the vehicle to 'crumple' so it slows more
gradually.
--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *
James
Adrian
were saying :
>>>I was 23 when I got my first car and went for a 1.6 Ford Focus Zetec
>>>(2nd hand). It us cheap to insure, easy to drive and reliable.
>> How long ago was it cheap for a 23-year-old to insure a 1.6?
> 1 year ago
Insured in your own name?
How much?
James
>>>>(2nd hand). It us cheap to insure, easy to drive and reliable.
>
>>> How long ago was it cheap for a 23-year-old to insure a 1.6?
>
>> 1 year ago
>
> Insured in your own name?
>
> How much?
Insured in my name. 5K miles a year £400xs, legal cover and guranteed hire
car for £750.
Adrian
were saying :
> 5K miles a year £400xs
Both of those'll certainly help to pull the premium way down - as will the
fact you're 23 not 17 as a new driver.
Was your licence new, or just your first car?
James
New licence and first car. £250 of the XS was compulsory.
Albert T Cone
>>>Whether this penetration reaches the occupants depends on the various factors,
>>>but it is a bad thing when it does.
>>
>>Which is why modern cars have squishy front and back bits and rigid
>>middle bits, unlike older fully rigid designs which have relatively
>>squishy middle bits.
>
> I think it would be best to assume that a rigid design is just that, a rigid
> design that doesn't tend to crumple in an accident. I've seen nothing to
> suggest to me that anyone designed a rigid shell with flexible sills.
No, quite true, but modern cars are specifically designed to have stiff
passenger compartments. I suspect that they are somewhat more rigid
than the passenger compartments of all-rigid type cars, IYSWIM.
>>Um. The centre of mass of both cars will move the same distance, but
>>the COM of the crumpling vehicle moves backwards as it crumples, so the
>>passenger cell moves _further_ than for the rigid design, and so suffers
>>a lesser decelleration.
>
> Well think about a rigid body and a deforming body, and consider what happens
> to the back bumper.
>
> It seems fairly obvious to me that both rear bumpers experience an acceleration
> of something around 20 M/s^2 for one second and come to rest.
The centre-of mass of the overall system will remain fixed, i.e. the
individual CoMs of the cars will undergo the same accelerations.
However, the bumper of the squishy car will move relative to it's COM
more than that of the rigid car, so it will actually travel further over
the deceleration period, and average a lower acceleration.
Say we have two cars, each 2m long, which collide head on. One is
completely rigid, the other squishy. The squishy one collapses by 0.5m,
the rigid one by nothing. The CoM of the system is fixed at the point
at which they make initial contact.
After the impact, the CoM of the squishy car is shifted backwards
(relative to e.g. it's rear bumper) by 0.25m, assuming a linear collapse
of crumple zone. The interface between the two cars is shifted in the
direction of the squishy car by 0.125m (to keep overall CoM in smae place).
Since the squishy car is now only 1.5m long, it's rear bumper is now
(1.5+0.125)=1.625m from the original impact point. The rigid car is
still 2m long, and it's rear bumper is thus (2-0.125)=1.875m from the
impact point. Thus the squishy car decelerates over 0.375m, whereas the
rigid car decelerates over only 0.125m !
Obviously this is an extreme example, and the differences in the
real-life situation will be a lot less...
>>The other factor completely missing from this is what happens when you
>>hit something immovable, e.g. when you hit a patch of diesel and slide
>>off into a tree - the rigid design is _much_ worse than a crumpling design.
>
> Agree entirely. It is true that rigid cars do still crumple when they're
> exposed to massive forces. Hitting a tree or the end of a wall, etc, would
> definitely have this effect on most rigid cars.
>
> But I think the modern crumple zone is a very good idea in these circumstances.
> I think it is a good idea in head on strikes too, when both do it, as it means
> the accident happens over a longer period.
>
> What I'm saying is that in car to car accidents, an old, rigid car is no worse
> off and has some benefits over the modern, crumple car that it is, for the sake
> of discussion, going to be hitting.
I don't think that's right, as above. Unless the old car is more
massive, it is no better off. And if it is more massive, it would still
be better with crumple zones :-)
> It's worse news for both drivers if they are *both* driving an old, rigid car,
> of course. That's not especially likely to happen now as most old cars have
> been replaced by new, crumple zone cars, so the chances are a classic car will
> most likely hit a modern car, if it hits anything at all.
Yup, there probably aren't many classic-classic impacts, except at
meets, where old classic-driving fogeys absent mindedly plough into each
other whilst indicating the wrong way and wondering where they left
thier teeth :-)