RE: Visibility matters more than horsepower: TMIMW
Discussion
A good point. Having changed from a Mini Cooper to a VW Scirocco (2009) it has been an education... and not in a good way. The rear visibility of the VW is utterly atrocious. However everything else about is ace so I simply take more care in parking and avoid reversing wherever possible.
My older Subarus, '92 Legacy turbo, '99 SF Forester S-Turbo, and '75 Alfasud ti all had great visibility, thanks to slim pillars, low bonnets (thanks to flat four motors?).
Corolla AE86 was OK, IIRC. My current S2000 doesn't seem too bad.
Also older Hondas had low bonnets, some of their Rover cousins too.
Shame those days are gone.
Present W204 C-Class feels invincible, which is probably not entirely a good thing.
As a previous poster said of his MG, cycle-winged cars must be wonderful!
Corolla AE86 was OK, IIRC. My current S2000 doesn't seem too bad.
Also older Hondas had low bonnets, some of their Rover cousins too.
Shame those days are gone.
Present W204 C-Class feels invincible, which is probably not entirely a good thing.
As a previous poster said of his MG, cycle-winged cars must be wonderful!
One reason to love clean sheet sports car designs that value visibility before style. Besides the ones mentioned, the Evora and the GT86 are also great. Another one that passed on the first page is the Suzuki Swift Sport, reminds me of an old Saab and has great visibility with A-pillars up straight and far removed to reduce their obstruction.
On the opposite side, some of the 'best' looking cars people that people druel over in car shows are true nightmares to look out of, with wind screens almost completely flat, thick A-pillers that because of the same windscreen angle become three times as obtrusive, side windows so low that no tints are needed as almost no light can get inside the car anyhow, etc... Just plain silly really.
On the opposite side, some of the 'best' looking cars people that people druel over in car shows are true nightmares to look out of, with wind screens almost completely flat, thick A-pillers that because of the same windscreen angle become three times as obtrusive, side windows so low that no tints are needed as almost no light can get inside the car anyhow, etc... Just plain silly really.
S10GTA said:
Leins said:
I agree, modern A-pillars might be good if you flip your car, but they also do a great job of blocking out things you can drive into
Always wondered why something along these (Volvo) lines never made it into production:
Structural integrity? Always wondered why something along these (Volvo) lines never made it into production:
Might sound weird, but as I get older, I enjoy motorcycling more and more. I find cars of today are just getting bigger and heavier. They're still getting more economical, but if you just imagine how much better they would be if they lost some weight, then that would be even better.
Bikes on the other hand seem to be dropping in weight. Whereas a good sportsbike from 20 years ago weighed maybe 205-210 kg, they are now less than that, even with the addition of the hardware for ABS, etc. Non-ABS versions are lighter again, albeit by only a few kilos. But it just goes to show that cars are getting bigger and heavier, whereas bikes are getting smaller and lighter.
Bikes on the other hand seem to be dropping in weight. Whereas a good sportsbike from 20 years ago weighed maybe 205-210 kg, they are now less than that, even with the addition of the hardware for ABS, etc. Non-ABS versions are lighter again, albeit by only a few kilos. But it just goes to show that cars are getting bigger and heavier, whereas bikes are getting smaller and lighter.
Rumblestripe said:
Whilst on the subject of visibility it should be against the law to obscure your view with dangly air fresheners, stuffed toys and especially Sat Nav/mobile phones. I honestly wonder how some people see out of their cars.
How do you suggest I watch Netflix on the motorway? If you think you have bad visibility try a Ford B max.It is that bad I would say it was dangerous at some junctions.
I drive a lhd but I assume it is the same in rhd,B pillar is huge due to the sliding rear door and then you have the passenger seat blocking more view.Reverse and the C pillar/boot curve hinders your view,that is further obscured by the rear headrest.
It is a great little car but whoever sign it off with those design flaws needs to drive around town and see the f
k up they have made.
I drive a lhd but I assume it is the same in rhd,B pillar is huge due to the sliding rear door and then you have the passenger seat blocking more view.Reverse and the C pillar/boot curve hinders your view,that is further obscured by the rear headrest.
It is a great little car but whoever sign it off with those design flaws needs to drive around town and see the f
k up they have made.
Dan Trent said:
And when you look at those spindly pillars in older cars you can't escape the sense you really, really wouldn't want to rely on their protection.
Go and sit in a (proper) Saab 900.Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
Marvel at how strong they are, because they're thick in depth and will stand this...
Then remember the original moose test...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ZK_kknP9U
...then boggle at why sodding great big girders punctuated with letter boxes are apparently now needed...
TooMany2cvs said:
Go and sit in a (proper) Saab 900.
Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
Marvel at how strong they are, because they're thick in depth and will stand this...
Then remember the original moose test...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ZK_kknP9U
...then boggle at why sodding great big girders punctuated with letter boxes are apparently now needed...
I love a 900, if I was going to be in a crash though I'd rather be in a MK3 Focus!Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
Marvel at how strong they are, because they're thick in depth and will stand this...
Then remember the original moose test...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ZK_kknP9U
...then boggle at why sodding great big girders punctuated with letter boxes are apparently now needed...
lee_erm said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Go and sit in a (proper) Saab 900.
Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
Marvel at how strong they are, because they're thick in depth and will stand this...
Then remember the original moose test...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ZK_kknP9U
...then boggle at why sodding great big girders punctuated with letter boxes are apparently now needed...
I love a 900, if I was going to be in a crash though I'd rather be in a MK3 Focus!Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
Marvel at how strong they are, because they're thick in depth and will stand this...
Then remember the original moose test...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ZK_kknP9U
...then boggle at why sodding great big girders punctuated with letter boxes are apparently now needed...
It's not completely wrong, but only right up to a point, and not a very high point at that.
Suffice to say I own and have driven lots of high and slow and low and powerful vehicles. I'm still slightly quicker (safely) on real roads in the low and powerful cars, especially in the wet.
Each type of vehicle has different limiting factors. It's just as annoying seeing it's clear for a few hundred yards but lacking the grunt for a clean, safe overtake as it is having the power but not being able to see if it's clear. Either way you're still stuck behind a Skoda Octavia doing 45mph.
Suffice to say I own and have driven lots of high and slow and low and powerful vehicles. I'm still slightly quicker (safely) on real roads in the low and powerful cars, especially in the wet.
Each type of vehicle has different limiting factors. It's just as annoying seeing it's clear for a few hundred yards but lacking the grunt for a clean, safe overtake as it is having the power but not being able to see if it's clear. Either way you're still stuck behind a Skoda Octavia doing 45mph.
TooMany2cvs said:
Go and sit in a (proper) Saab 900.
Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
Great stuff!Marvel at how little the pillars intrude in your view, because they're slender in width and angled correctly.
I find driving the later style 9-3's is OK, but I prefer the frameless windows in the longer doors of my convertible (roof up) to the shorter, framed doors of my 4 door estate. Roof down on the 9-3 is great for all 'round vision, expect for those chunky A pillars, but I'll live with those as they may keep me living one day.
I had the misfortune to drive a 2015 Corsa a couple of weeks back and it felt like you were driving with a hoody and blinkers on. The high window line and stupid quarteright windows (largely obscured by a fat door mirror) meant you had to be on your guard for vehicles and cyclists at all times and changing lanes after being in more 'airy' cars, was quite intimidating as following vehicles can easily be lost int he blind spots.
Rumblestripe said:
The worst I've driven is the Insignia which was like driving a tank whilst looking through a letterbox.
In answer to the question about the triangulated a-pillar illustrated, cost. Far cheaper to bend a nice thick heavy bit of steel.
Vauxhall have form with this. The last gen Vectra was terrible too. Slab sided with tiny narrow windows. Felt more like a pillbox than a car. In answer to the question about the triangulated a-pillar illustrated, cost. Far cheaper to bend a nice thick heavy bit of steel.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff