Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]

[The Don of Croy]

wiggy001 said:

Wings on planes... is there an advantage to those where the wingtips curl up at the end? If so, why don't they all have that feature? And if not, why do some have it?

(Yes I am bored... albeit with a pint... at Belfast International...)

Didn't Learjet get these really early on?

Inventor of 8 track tapes too if memory serves...

Why do these irrelevant facts rest peacefully in the recesses of the brain, triggered by odd references?

[Dr Jekyll]

If the 1918 armistice hadn't happened and WW1 had continued to the point where British French and US troops had marched into Berlin. Would the 'Germany wasn't really defeated but was stabbed in the back' narrative that contributed to the Nazi rise to power still have occurred? Or might a great deal of trouble have been avoided?

[glenrobbo]

LimaDelta said:

Winglets reduce tip vortices, which in turn reduces induced drag, which in turn reduces fuel consumption. Winglets save fuel.

....is the correct answer.
Succinctly stated, we have a clear winner!

Also increases range. Or saves the weight of carrying extra fuel, so can increase the payload.

And reduces turbulence for following aircraft.

Win- win- win winglets.

[Brother D]

Dr Jekyll said:

Why are American tourists in the UK so often groups of middle aged women? Do American men go on different types of trip so the wives are looking round the UK and the husbands off somewhere else?

I would wager the young don't travel to the UK because its expensive getting there and staying there. They dont have a lot of time off, typically just a couple of weeks (and something like only 20% take their full paid time off (that includes time off for sickness)).
It also seems like travel is almost discouraged - met many people who call people who travel to london "brave".
That aside the only people who have the resources both time and money are wealthier housewives.

[droopsnoot]

StevieBee said:

Both! Just curious as you often see these programmes and magazine stories of rusting barn finds and they end up technically replacing pretty much the whole car.

I recall reading that the chap behind "American Hotrod", Boyd Coddington, got into a lot of trouble for that. His hot-rods were basically an old restored body put onto a new chassis, new suspension, new engine and box, air-con, and he should have been declaring / registering them as such. I don't know how it works in the USA, but it sounds like it's similar to here - change too much, and you need to test it to newer car standards.

[Halmyre]

StevieBee said:

Inspired by Trigger's Broom story (had the same broom for 15 years...just four new handles and five new heads)......

How much of a car has to be replaced before it's deemed a new car?

I'm assuming that the chassis number must be the same so if I had an old car and replaced everything within 20mm of the chassis number plate and or the etched number, would the DVLA still consider it to be the same car?

There has been more than one case in the classic car world where two people have claimed to own the same car, or pass a car off as something it wasn't. Ford GT40 and Jaguar D-type spring to mind.

[vonuber]

Dr Jekyll said:

If the 1918 armistice hadn't happened and WW1 had continued to the point where British French and US troops had marched into Berlin. Would the 'Germany wasn't really defeated but was stabbed in the back' narrative that contributed to the Nazi rise to power still have occurred? Or might a great deal of trouble have been avoided?

Would have depended on how the peace was. The treaty of Versailles is what was the main cause; a less punitive version of that and who knows?

[SCEtoAUX]

When it comes to English counties we have people who declare themselves to be a "Cornishman" or a "Yorkshireman" but not any others as far as I can tell. (Possibly a Lancastrian). Why don't other counties have such a thing?

[98elise]

Halmyre said:

StevieBee said:

Inspired by Trigger's Broom story (had the same broom for 15 years...just four new handles and five new heads)......

How much of a car has to be replaced before it's deemed a new car?

I'm assuming that the chassis number must be the same so if I had an old car and replaced everything within 20mm of the chassis number plate and or the etched number, would the DVLA still consider it to be the same car?

There has been more than one case in the classic car world where two people have claimed to own the same car, or pass a car off as something it wasn't. Ford GT40 and Jaguar D-type spring to mind.

I'm pretty sure a few cobras have ended up the same way. Race cars are an amalgamation of spares anyway so you can easily see how two people believe they own the rights to a single car when it's been crashed or dismantled at any stage.

[glazbagun]

Do Toyota or Citroen make profit from the sale of their WRC cars and running the competition?

I only ask as Citroen made near as no attempt to publicly capitalise on their successes and Toyotas WRC car is a Yaris, which has no hot hatch option.

[anonymous-user]

yaris grmn? Not rally edition though. Rally isn't really popular.

[Roofless Toothless]

glazbagun said:

Do Toyota or Citroen make profit from the sale of their WRC cars and running the competition?

I only ask as Citroen made near as no attempt to publicly capitalise on their successes and Toyotas WRC car is a Yaris, which has no hot hatch option.

From what I see today, cars are marketed more on the basis of their entertainment systems and sex appeal than anything related to their qualities as a vehicle.

[SpeckledJim]

I don’t know why the manufacturers bother. The profile is tiny, and the small hatchback cars are beyond saving in the cool stakes.

Does any Polo buyer give a toss about rallying? Go back to saloons and it might be a bit more useful and relevant.

[kowalski655]

SCEtoAUX said:

When it comes to English counties we have people who declare themselves to be a "Cornishman" or a "Yorkshireman" but not any others as far as I can tell. (Possibly a Lancastrian). Why don't other counties have such a thing?

Essex girls seem to be well known

[glazbagun]

SpeckledJim said:

I don’t know why the manufacturers bother. The profile is tiny, and the small hatchback cars are beyond saving in the cool stakes.

Does any Polo buyer give a toss about rallying? Go back to saloons and it might be a bit more useful and relevant.

Roofless Toothless said:

From what I see today, cars are marketed more on the basis of their entertainment systems and sex appeal than anything related to their qualities as a vehicle.

That'd why I wonder if they perhaps sell prepared rally cars for a profit, or if WRC prize money alone can make it profitable for a series. Otherwise it seems of vanishingly small marketing value in this country at least.

[StevieBee]

glazbagun said:

SpeckledJim said:

I don’t know why the manufacturers bother. The profile is tiny, and the small hatchback cars are beyond saving in the cool stakes.

Does any Polo buyer give a toss about rallying? Go back to saloons and it might be a bit more useful and relevant.

Roofless Toothless said:

From what I see today, cars are marketed more on the basis of their entertainment systems and sex appeal than anything related to their qualities as a vehicle.

That'd why I wonder if they perhaps sell prepared rally cars for a profit, or if WRC prize money alone can make it profitable for a series. Otherwise it seems of vanishingly small marketing value in this country at least.

Rallying and other forms of MotorSport is all part of a wider marketing programme by the manufacturers. There can be (but not always) a correlation to stage or track success and cars sold in the showroom. When Mansell was at his height (in a Williams Renault), sales of Renault cars increased by 11% in the UK. A similar figure was achieved in Spain when Alonso was winning his Championships in a Renault powered F1 car. Ford have long profited from their involvement in MotorSport through increased sales.

In very simple terms, if you imagine a couple in a showroom, mulling over the pros-and-cons of one make or car over another, and over the shoulder of the salesman, they see a wall graphic containing an image of a car from that company drifting round a stage in Africa, or a Touring Car taking the chequered flag or an F1 car with the company's engine in the back.....Even if that couple have no interest in Motorsport, it's an image that can tip the balance of favour towards that company's products rather than another that just had a pot-plant in the showroom.

But as Roofless touches upon, things are changing in how cars are pitched to the public. This is partly due to legislation; you can no longer promote a car on the basis of its speed and partly due to customer demand; the buying patterns have changes as have consumer's priorities. But MotorSport is still relevant in the overall 'positioning' of a certain marque.

[captain_cynic]

Chestrockwell said:

Came across a video on YouTube showing a compilation of Mustangs crashing and all the crashes follow the same pattern, acceleration, wheelspin and crashing as soon as they go into second gear.

There are a lot of powerful RWD cars out there so it can’t be down to driver error otherwise there would be videos of lots of other cars crashing in the same manner.

Why are mustangs always crashing into hedges and crowds? Is it a mechanical problem, if so, why haven’t Ford corrected it over the years.

Video here for reference

https://youtu.be/MhyLAHiNW9g

In the related video section, there’s actually so many other, longer videos of them crashing, what am I missing here?

Live rear axle. Up until the current version all mustangs had them, so they had a tendency to lose traction at the slightest provocation. Live axles provide much less control than independent rear suspension.

Combine that with the kind of person who buys a mustang. I.E. someone's who's skill level falls far short of their own opinion of themselves.

[SpeckledJim]

StevieBee said:

glazbagun said:

SpeckledJim said:

I don’t know why the manufacturers bother. The profile is tiny, and the small hatchback cars are beyond saving in the cool stakes.

Does any Polo buyer give a toss about rallying? Go back to saloons and it might be a bit more useful and relevant.

Roofless Toothless said:

From what I see today, cars are marketed more on the basis of their entertainment systems and sex appeal than anything related to their qualities as a vehicle.

That'd why I wonder if they perhaps sell prepared rally cars for a profit, or if WRC prize money alone can make it profitable for a series. Otherwise it seems of vanishingly small marketing value in this country at least.

Rallying and other forms of MotorSport is all part of a wider marketing programme by the manufacturers. There can be (but not always) a correlation to stage or track success and cars sold in the showroom. When Mansell was at his height (in a Williams Renault), sales of Renault cars increased by 11% in the UK. A similar figure was achieved in Spain when Alonso was winning his Championships in a Renault powered F1 car. Ford have long profited from their involvement in MotorSport through increased sales.

In very simple terms, if you imagine a couple in a showroom, mulling over the pros-and-cons of one make or car over another, and over the shoulder of the salesman, they see a wall graphic containing an image of a car from that company drifting round a stage in Africa, or a Touring Car taking the chequered flag or an F1 car with the company's engine in the back.....Even if that couple have no interest in Motorsport, it's an image that can tip the balance of favour towards that company's products rather than another that just had a pot-plant in the showroom.

But as Roofless touches upon, things are changing in how cars are pitched to the public. This is partly due to legislation; you can no longer promote a car on the basis of its speed and partly due to customer demand; the buying patterns have changes as have consumer's priorities. But MotorSport is still relevant in the overall 'positioning' of a certain marque.

I'd love to read the market research that says VW get their money's worth out of the tens of millions they spend rallying a Polo.

Does a Polo owner buy their Polo because of the WRC? I'd say surely not.

Do VW sell more Arteons because of the Polo's assault on the WRC? I'd say surely not again. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I might be out on a limb, but I simply don't understand the decision to make WRC all about small hatchbacks that'll never be cool in a million years.

A flying Sierra can clearly sell Fiestas, but a flying Fiesta can't sell Mondeos. IMO.

[StevieBee]

SpeckledJim said:

StevieBee said:

glazbagun said:

SpeckledJim said:

I don’t know why the manufacturers bother. The profile is tiny, and the small hatchback cars are beyond saving in the cool stakes.

Does any Polo buyer give a toss about rallying? Go back to saloons and it might be a bit more useful and relevant.

Roofless Toothless said:

From what I see today, cars are marketed more on the basis of their entertainment systems and sex appeal than anything related to their qualities as a vehicle.

That'd why I wonder if they perhaps sell prepared rally cars for a profit, or if WRC prize money alone can make it profitable for a series. Otherwise it seems of vanishingly small marketing value in this country at least.

Rallying and other forms of MotorSport is all part of a wider marketing programme by the manufacturers. There can be (but not always) a correlation to stage or track success and cars sold in the showroom. When Mansell was at his height (in a Williams Renault), sales of Renault cars increased by 11% in the UK. A similar figure was achieved in Spain when Alonso was winning his Championships in a Renault powered F1 car. Ford have long profited from their involvement in MotorSport through increased sales.

In very simple terms, if you imagine a couple in a showroom, mulling over the pros-and-cons of one make or car over another, and over the shoulder of the salesman, they see a wall graphic containing an image of a car from that company drifting round a stage in Africa, or a Touring Car taking the chequered flag or an F1 car with the company's engine in the back.....Even if that couple have no interest in Motorsport, it's an image that can tip the balance of favour towards that company's products rather than another that just had a pot-plant in the showroom.

But as Roofless touches upon, things are changing in how cars are pitched to the public. This is partly due to legislation; you can no longer promote a car on the basis of its speed and partly due to customer demand; the buying patterns have changes as have consumer's priorities. But MotorSport is still relevant in the overall 'positioning' of a certain marque.

I'd love to read the market research that says VW get their money's worth out of the tens of millions they spend rallying a Polo.

Does a Polo owner buy their Polo because of the WRC? I'd say surely not.

Do VW sell more Arteons because of the Polo's assault on the WRC? I'd say surely not again. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I might be out on a limb, but I simply don't understand the decision to make WRC all about small hatchbacks that'll never be cool in a million years.

A flying Sierra can clearly sell Fiestas, but a flying Fiesta can't sell Mondeos. IMO.

Nobody buys a car based solely upon its presence in a racing or rallying championship. But it can and does influence buying decisions along with other factors.

It's not always about the promotion of a specific model. It's sometimes about creating what marketers call 'brand positioning' that benefits all models, not just the variant being raced or rallied; conveying to customers that the company is at the cutting edge of competitive and thus engineering endeavour and so this applied to all their models will benefit the consumer.

Take the F1 example I mentioned: nobody worthy of holding a driving licence believes there is any technical relationship to an F1 car and what they will drive on the road yet the brand positioning of doing so had a positive impact on the sales of Renault and others.

Scenario....You're looking for a new car and have whittled it down to a VW Golf and a Vauxhall Astra. Both are roughly the same price and the same spec. They don't look that dissimilar either. They'll both do the same job equally well. So, you have to make a choice...but based on what? Then you catch a photo of a VW winning a rally. Ok, it's a Polo but it's still a VW. That may be enough to tip the balance and place a £17k order with VW at the expense of Vauxhall.

You then have the dealer and fleet sales opportunity. Let's say Deutsche Post are looking to renew their fleet of Post Vans in Germany and are negotiating with VW, Ford and Opel. The VW sales guy invited the buyer to see VW cars in action at a Rally, buyer is impressed and places his €10m order with VW.

These are simplistic examples, granted. And the exact marketing mechanics are complex but it does work for the simple reason that, being public companies, they wouldn't do it otherwise - the shareholders wouldn't allow it.

[SpeckledJim]

I know why car companies go racing.

What I'm not sure about is why VW and Citroen and Hyundai and Toyota bother to compete in today's all-but-invisible, shopping-cars-only, WRC.

It's done bugger-all for their brands, and sells bugger-all shopping cars, and rallying is a totally crappy corporate hospitality opportunity, as far as I can tell.