RE: SOTW: Reliant Rialto 'Dodgy Charger'

[LewisR]

No, no and thrice... no.

Firstly, it fails the No. Seats < No cylinders acid test.


The entire ethos behind SOTW is ridiculous running costs and possible bankruptcy if anything major breaks but grand status and a laugh a minute when/if it works properly.

[Fartgalen]

Slight humuor in this 'shed'. But that's all. I'd pay to not have to drive that thing.

[Geoffcapes]

Lets get a few things straight here.

1. It's a pile of sh!te.
2. It struggles with corners.
3. It would be embarrassing to be seen in one.
4. It's worth (as someone said before) about £100-200
5. It's not what the 'serious' shed types want to see.

With all of the above in mind, for those of us who like to see something a bit different, a bit thought (and comment) provoking, it's an epic shed!

But just not for me. Am oot!

[Blackpuddin]

seriously tempted

[Limpet]

It's brilliant.

[James1972]

Deliberate fail with a serious contender for the worst ever SOTW so can start with some ho-hum stuff next week and get away with it ?
I think we all kind of knew the 2015 cup run form wasn't going to be maintained so best to go out with (no) style.

[GSE]

Dodgy ad - no pictures of the engine ....

[pherlopolus]

I'd love one, just to embarrass the heck out my teenage daughters. Sadly SWMBO has ruled it out last year as being a stupid waste of money.

[Theophany]

Nearly had me on that 2.5s 0-60 time, Shed. Obviously not had my coffee intake for the morning!

[dbdb]

Shed you naughty click baiter, you!

They are interesting cars, they're certainly very unusual and noticeable and in no way bland.

[J4CKO]

Not seeing why its funny, the hilarity of the Reliant has long since been done to death as has been painting any old crap orange and putting "01" on the door, all a bit hackneyed and you would feel like a bit of a tt driving round in a joke that wasn't even all that funny in 1985, driving round in an actual Dodge Charger in the General Lee livery is a bit embarrassing but at least you have a muscle car.

[Kitchski]

On the evidence presented to us thus far in the comments thread, it appears the answer the Shed's initial question in the catchline is, in fact, no.

[Johnspex]

At the risk of appearing an idiot, why is it better to have 2 wheels at the front rather than 2 at the back if one must have 3 wheels?

[B'stard Child]

RacingBlue said:

How long until the first 'Kill it with fire!' comment?

]

Technically you've now done that....

I quite liked it - it made me chuckle (only chuckle) in places but I couldn't see me spending shed money on a novelty car

As a banger rally car it's ready to go

[B'stard Child]

Johnspex said:

At the risk of appearing an idiot, why is it better to have 2 wheels at the front rather than 2 at the back if one must have 3 wheels?

or







which would you prefer in a corner

Edited by B'stard Child on Friday 27th February 10:35

[-crookedtail-]

Bloody awful but funny too, I would smile if one of my neighbours owned that!

I wouldn't though

[Cotic]

Johnspex said:

At the risk of appearing an idiot, why is it better to have 2 wheels at the front rather than 2 at the back if one must have 3 wheels?

When cornering, the weight of a vehicle has a tendency to shift to the opposite side of the turn. If you have no wheel there to support said weight, at a certain velocity the physical inertia will overcome the gravitational forces and the vehicle will reach a moment of turning.

It'll fall over.

[Amirhussain]

KimJongHealthy][img said:

WTF is this?

[soad]

Amirhussain said:

KimJongHealthy][img said:

WTF is this?

Suspicious Chloe - "I'm not impressed".

[MadDog1962]

I remember the traffic police used to refer to these Reliant three wheelers as "plastic pigs".