On 21/03/2024 17:00, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:46:34 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 16:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the
>> kudos
>>>>
>>>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>>>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>>>>> is history.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>>>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>>>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>>>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>>>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>>>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>>>
>>> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
>>> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
>>> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
>> RR were ever likely to be positioned.
>
> Doesn't matter - they're both prestige marks (or Ineos hopes it is) and charge
> accordingly. There's no shortage of punters willing to part with a lot of
> cash for stuff thats probably not worth it - eg 50K for a tea tray with a
> spiced up ford 2.0L 4 banger known colloquially as Caterhams.
>

That's not the same market RRs were aimed at.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:45:42 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
>>> mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
>>> ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
>>> knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Trouble is, a buy British requirement ends up with the likes of British
>> Leyland, or Ferguson Marine. On the other hand HMG has bailed out the likes
>> of Rolls Royce aero engines.
>
> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up for
> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.
>
> As for bailing out RR - thank god they did. They're now one of the worlds
> biggest jet engine manufacturers. Shame however that RR either didn't have
> the vision or initiative to sort out their car business but just flogged it
> off instead to BMW.

Roll-Royce didn't flog its cars division.

After the government rescue of the bankrupt parent company in 1971, the
cars division was separated from the core aero engines business. The
government subsequently looked at floating it, but realised that it was too
small to be viable, and sold it to Vickers, not BMW, in 1980. The original
business and Crewe factory was then sold on by Vickers to VW in 1998. That
business continues under VW ownership with the name of Bentley Motors. So
VW is the custodian of the Rolls-Royce Motor Cars heritage.

Today's Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited is a new company founded by BMW in
1998, which has been in production in Goodwood since 2003. Its cars were
designed from scratch, not based on the tired old Crewe RR models. It
licences the RR brand and grille from Rolls-Royce Holdings plc, but its
vehicles have no connection to the old 20th century RR cars or modern
Bentley cars. They use lots of BMW technology and components, but the cars
aren't just re-skinned BMWs.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 16:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the kudos
>>>
>>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>>>> is history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>>
>> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
>> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
>> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>>
>
> AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
> RR were ever likely to be positioned.

And they're not made in the UK. The current model is made in France, using
lots of BMW tech, while the next will be made in Austria.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
>> RR were ever likely to be positioned.
>
> And they're not made in the UK. The current model is made in France, using
> lots of BMW tech, while the next will be made in Austria.
>
>

So much for the back Britain stance by the Brexit supporting founder
who himself has moved to Monaco. , hasn’t his embryonic battery company
which he threatened to move to the US recently been sold to a Dutch
rival?
When these types enthusiastically whipped up support for taking back
control they knew exactly what they were doing and it wasn’t to make the
lives better for those who thought Brexit would return the UK to the land
of their youth ,with factories pumping out goods for the Empire and whose
products the now independent states will purchase with relish for old times
sake. Ironically many of those coffin dodgers that were easily lead have
died since 2016.

GH

On 21.03.2024 17:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the kudos
>>
>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>>> is history.
>>>
>>
>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>
> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.

At that kind of volume, essentially you are looking at being the modern
equivalent of a coachbuilder. The cost of development of engine and
power train components is beyond the economic reach of a niche
manufacurer such as that. Ironically, this is the inverse of the way
Rolls Royce started out. Originally Rolls Royce did not make finished
cars, they build engine-powertrain-chassis sets that were supplied to
custom coach builders who would finish them to the specification of the
end buyer.

Robin

In message <l63gufFem7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:43:11 on Thu, 21 Mar
2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
>>> RR were ever likely to be positioned.
>>
>> And they're not made in the UK. The current model is made in France, using
>> lots of BMW tech, while the next will be made in Austria.
>
>So much for the back Britain stance by the Brexit supporting founder
>who himself has moved to Monaco. , hasn’t his embryonic battery company
>which he threatened to move to the US recently been sold to a Dutch
>rival?
>
>When these types enthusiastically whipped up support for taking back
>control they knew exactly what they were doing and it wasn’t to make the
>lives better for those who thought Brexit would return the UK to the land
>of their youth ,with factories pumping out goods for the Empire and whose
>products the now independent states will purchase with relish for old times
>sake. Ironically many of those coffin dodgers that were easily lead have
>died since 2016.

I had a conversation with one a couple of years ago, when the lead item
in the news was delays at Dover because of passport checks.

He appeared to genuinely believe that voting "leave" would reset that
exercise to "what it was like before we joined", where waving the
cover of a UK passport vaguely in the direction of the official, was
sufficient.

Ironically, the same kind of person was rabidly against immigration from
the EU, which would hardly be controllable if the UK's border checks
were simply nodding at the cover of a counterfeit UK passport being
waved at them.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:43:19 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/03/2024 17:00, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:46:34 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 16:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the
>>> kudos
>>>>>
>>>>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>
>>>>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>
>>>>>> is history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>>>>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>>>>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>>>>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>>>>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>>>>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>>>>
>>>> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
>
>>>> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
>>>> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
>>> RR were ever likely to be positioned.
>>
>> Doesn't matter - they're both prestige marks (or Ineos hopes it is) and
>charge
>> accordingly. There's no shortage of punters willing to part with a lot of
>> cash for stuff thats probably not worth it - eg 50K for a tea tray with a
>> spiced up ford 2.0L 4 banger known colloquially as Caterhams.
>>
>
>That's not the same market RRs were aimed at.

Where did I say it was? Point is cars arn't always a rational buy - some people
will pay a lot of money for the cache and kudos of owning a particular
vehicle.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:47:50 +0100
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 21.03.2024 17:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
>> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
>> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>
>At that kind of volume, essentially you are looking at being the modern
>equivalent of a coachbuilder. The cost of development of engine and
>power train components is beyond the economic reach of a niche
>manufacurer such as that. Ironically, this is the inverse of the way
>Rolls Royce started out. Originally Rolls Royce did not make finished
>cars, they build engine-powertrain-chassis sets that were supplied to
>custom coach builders who would finish them to the specification of the
>end buyer.

Sure, but thats why all (AFAIK) niche manufacturers use someone elses engines
and gearbox. Then charge stupid money for the bits they do.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:25:55 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:43:19 +0000
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 21/03/2024 17:00, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:46:34 +0000
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 16:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the
>>>> kudos
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>>
>>>>>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>>
>>>>>>> is history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>>>>>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>>>>>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>>>>>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>>>>>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>>>>>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
>>
>>>>> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
>>>>> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
>>>> RR were ever likely to be positioned.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter - they're both prestige marks (or Ineos hopes it is) and
>>charge
>>> accordingly. There's no shortage of punters willing to part with a lot of
>>> cash for stuff thats probably not worth it - eg 50K for a tea tray with a
>>> spiced up ford 2.0L 4 banger known colloquially as Caterhams.
>>>
>>
>>That's not the same market RRs were aimed at.
>
>Where did I say it was? Point is cars arn't always a rational buy - some people
>will pay a lot of money for the
>
perceived

>cache and kudos of owning a particular vehicle.
>
...while the rest of us often perceive something else about the driver.

In message <3nprvi563b7fu7rp6oeh9mi8h028fek0g1@4ax.com>, at 20:17:11 on
Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>Point is cars arn't always a rational buy - some people will pay a lot
>>of money for the
>>
>perceived
>
>>cache and kudos of owning a particular vehicle.

And often they are simply better engineered for the purposes of the
driver.

I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*.

Main one in this weather is the [two] doors are so wide it's almost
impossible to get in and out in any form of car park. They are also
incredibly heavy.

In better weather the folding roof takes up almost all the boot space,
so you can't use it for touring holidays - leaving suitcases on the rear
seats is an obvious non-starter.

Even a folding wheelchair is impossible to carry. And while there's
plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).

To all intents and purpose it's only suitable as a second-car. My Range
Rover is far better (and drives almost as well, in traffic especially
with the automatic handbrake), apart from the lack of the open roof. But
the climate control deals with hot weather, so it's only the
wind-in-your-hair that's missing. I also much prefer the higher driving
position.

[1] But six gears is a complete pain, I generally only use 1, 3 and 5!
And the handbrake is set so far back I struggle to release it with
my left hand, and need to turn round and use my right hand.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:17:11 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:25:55 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>Where did I say it was? Point is cars arn't always a rational buy - some
>people
>>will pay a lot of money for the
>>
>perceived

Well obviously. When I see one of those arabs in knightsbridge poncing
about in their lambos my first thought is "twat" , not "well done sir for
spending your dads oil money on that toy".

>>cache and kudos of owning a particular vehicle.
>>
>...while the rest of us often perceive something else about the driver.

The point however is that some people will pay stupid money for a particular
car especially if relative to their income even the price of an RR or Ferrari
is pocket money.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>
> ... And while there's
> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
> …

I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
>> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>>
>> ... And while there's
>> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
>> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
>> …
>
>I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
>laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
>have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
>uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.
>
My car (a Dacia Logan) has three belted seats in the back but the
multinational handbook includes a version that has a beltless
not-a-seat in the middle, presumably for markets where the passengers'
backsides exceed the EN standard version.

In message <9bb10jdh2qbi4uprj1pivd0lnoqr6jsisr@4ax.com>, at 22:51:15 on
Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
>>> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>>>
>>> ... And while there's
>>> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
>>> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
>>> …
>>
>>I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
>>laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
>>have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
>>uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.
>>
>My car (a Dacia Logan) has three belted seats in the back but the
>multinational handbook includes a version that has a beltless
>not-a-seat in the middle, presumably for markets where the passengers'
>backsides exceed the EN standard version.

The problem in the BMW is much more no-where for adult lower legs and
feet, and once you have accepted that, then sculpturing the seat
cushions doesn't make the situation much worse.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:51:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <9bb10jdh2qbi4uprj1pivd0lnoqr6jsisr@4ax.com>, at 22:51:15 on
>Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
>>>> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>>>>
>>>> ... And while there's
>>>> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
>>>> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
>>>> …
>>>
>>>I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
>>>laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
>>>have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
>>>uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.
>>>
>>My car (a Dacia Logan) has three belted seats in the back but the
>>multinational handbook includes a version that has a beltless
>>not-a-seat in the middle, presumably for markets where the passengers'
>>backsides exceed the EN standard version.
>
>The problem in the BMW is much more no-where for adult lower legs and
>feet, and once you have accepted that, then sculpturing the seat
>cushions doesn't make the situation much worse.
>
There seem to be quite a lot of vehicles where putting the front seats
all the way back is often incompatible with carrying passengers in the
back

In message <4bb40j92c35omg0jfi6ve1h4tljuvc1vn4@4ax.com>, at 02:08:37 on
Tue, 26 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:51:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <9bb10jdh2qbi4uprj1pivd0lnoqr6jsisr@4ax.com>, at 22:51:15 on
>>Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
>>>>> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>>>>>
>>>>> ... And while there's
>>>>> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
>>>>> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
>>>>> …
>>>>
>>>>I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
>>>>laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
>>>>have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
>>>>uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.
>>>>
>>>My car (a Dacia Logan) has three belted seats in the back but the
>>>multinational handbook includes a version that has a beltless
>>>not-a-seat in the middle, presumably for markets where the passengers'
>>>backsides exceed the EN standard version.
>>
>>The problem in the BMW is much more no-where for adult lower legs and
>>feet, and once you have accepted that, then sculpturing the seat
>>cushions doesn't make the situation much worse.
>>
>There seem to be quite a lot of vehicles where putting the front seats
>all the way back is often incompatible with carrying passengers in the
>back

Another thing about the BMW is that the doors as so wide they go further
back than the front of the rear seat, but I suppose that helps back-seat
passengers get out. Although in any event it appears to be a non-starter
without folding the very bulky front-seat backs.

The legroom with the front seat all the way back is 2.5" (I just
measured it!)
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:33:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <4bb40j92c35omg0jfi6ve1h4tljuvc1vn4@4ax.com>, at 02:08:37 on
>Tue, 26 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:51:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9bb10jdh2qbi4uprj1pivd0lnoqr6jsisr@4ax.com>, at 22:51:15 on
>>>Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
>>>>>> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... And while there's
>>>>>> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
>>>>>> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
>>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>>I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
>>>>>laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
>>>>>have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
>>>>>uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>My car (a Dacia Logan) has three belted seats in the back but the
>>>>multinational handbook includes a version that has a beltless
>>>>not-a-seat in the middle, presumably for markets where the passengers'
>>>>backsides exceed the EN standard version.
>>>
>>>The problem in the BMW is much more no-where for adult lower legs and
>>>feet, and once you have accepted that, then sculpturing the seat
>>>cushions doesn't make the situation much worse.
>>>
>>There seem to be quite a lot of vehicles where putting the front seats
>>all the way back is often incompatible with carrying passengers in the
>>back
>
>Another thing about the BMW is that the doors as so wide they go further
>back than the front of the rear seat, but I suppose that helps back-seat
>passengers get out. Although in any event it appears to be a non-starter
>without folding the very bulky front-seat backs.

Isn't that normal with most two-door four-seaters?

>
>The legroom with the front seat all the way back is 2.5" (I just
>measured it!)

They might as well fit very long runners on the front seats. It costs next to nothing, and allows people with very long
legs to fit.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:33:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <4bb40j92c35omg0jfi6ve1h4tljuvc1vn4@4ax.com>, at 02:08:37 on
>> Tue, 26 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>> remarked:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:51:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <9bb10jdh2qbi4uprj1pivd0lnoqr6jsisr@4ax.com>, at 22:51:15 on
>>>> Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> I'm currently driving a convertible BMW (long story) but while it drives
>>>>>>> very nicely[1] there's several things about it which I *hate*. …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... And while there's
>>>>>>> plenty of width for three-across in the rear, it's been sculpted so a
>>>>>>> centre passenger is impossible (and there's no seat belt for them).
>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know someone who used to have a BMW 3-series estate. The back seat was
>>>>>> laid out for 3 passengers, but with three adults the two outer ones had to
>>>>>> have one buttock each on the slightly padded wheel arch, which was deeply
>>>>>> uncomfortable after the first couple of minutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> My car (a Dacia Logan) has three belted seats in the back but the
>>>>> multinational handbook includes a version that has a beltless
>>>>> not-a-seat in the middle, presumably for markets where the passengers'
>>>>> backsides exceed the EN standard version.
>>>>
>>>> The problem in the BMW is much more no-where for adult lower legs and
>>>> feet, and once you have accepted that, then sculpturing the seat
>>>> cushions doesn't make the situation much worse.
>>>>
>>> There seem to be quite a lot of vehicles where putting the front seats
>>> all the way back is often incompatible with carrying passengers in the
>>> back
>>
>> Another thing about the BMW is that the doors as so wide they go further
>> back than the front of the rear seat, but I suppose that helps back-seat
>> passengers get out. Although in any event it appears to be a non-starter
>> without folding the very bulky front-seat backs.
>
> Isn't that normal with most two-door four-seaters?
>
>>
>> The legroom with the front seat all the way back is 2.5" (I just
>> measured it!)
>
> They might as well fit very long runners on the front seats. It costs
> next to nothing, and allows people with very long
> legs to fit.

My father in law, who was 6’4”, always had to remove the stops from the
runners under the driver’s seat just so he could get into the car.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <ai580jhtdpqpnfhq42r5p20fd34pvk93j8@4ax.com>, at 12:52:48 on
Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>Another thing about the BMW is that the doors as so wide they go further
>>back than the front of the rear seat, but I suppose that helps back-seat
>>passengers get out. Although in any event it appears to be a non-starter
>>without folding the very bulky front-seat backs.
>
>Isn't that normal with most two-door four-seaters?

No, the BMW is far worse.
--
Roland Perry