Let's have a heated debate!

This was the most read BBC News article this afternoon - an electric bus caught fire. It's still on their front page.

There was no mention on the front page yesterday of this bus fire:

It was on their local Gloucestershire page.

Why not the front page though like today's one?

Anything to do with it not being in London?

That won't have helped but let's be honest, it was almost certainly because it wasn't an electric bus.  I've raised this bias before.  Not sure what it will take to change this.

Talking of electric vehicles, don't we all hate electric scooters?  Usually ridden with no care and attention either on the road (ignoring the rules of the road) or on the pavement (ignoring the safety of other pavement-users)

That is why the Mayor of Paris found it so easy to get them banned.

And people riding them look like tossers.

However, according to The Conversation, e-scooters are actually displacing four times as much demand for oil as all the world’s electric cars at present, due to their uptake in China and other nations where mopeds are a common form of transport.

So they are a good thing!?

Talking more of electric vehicles, The Tyre Extinguishers have been at it again.  This time targeting a Tesla Model X in Bristol.  The news sites seem perplexed that an "anti-gas-guzzler" pressure group would target an electric car but they did point out back in 2022 when I last gave them a mention, that their beef was more with SUVs - a sentiment I agree with albeit for completely different reasoning. To quote them from today's story,

"Electric cars are fair game. We can't electrify our way out of the climate crisis. The danger to other road users still stands, as does air pollution (PM 2.5 pollution is still produced from tyres / brake pads). A child killed by an SUV doesn't care if its (sic) electric or petrol."

Their grammar isn't too hot - that "(sic)" was added by drive.com.au together with another one where they talk about "SUV vehicles"

But then the electric side of the argument did point out that regenerative braking produces no brake dust - a fair point well made.

And drive.com.au also point out that, 

"Under Victoria's Litter Act of 1987, it is an offence to place leaflets on any vehicle, as the leaflet could be blown away by the wind or disintegrate in rain – with fines of more than $950 applicable for each instance."

Victorian law doesn't apply in Bristol but the potential for bits of paper (and don't forget the trees they were made from) could be floating around the River Avon doesn't sound very climate-friendly.

Three different stories for debate in one article - who would have thought that electric vehicles could be so controversial?

Bristol's Perked Up

This a follow-up to my 2011 article - Bristol's Gone Tits Up.

Basically, The Bristol Car Company is back from near-death and even has a new model.

Autocar have some photos ahead of next week's official launch of the Bristol Bullet.

I have to say I'm not that keen on its looks - like in my 2011 article, I think they seem to look too much like other generic cars from the past - in this case Austin-Healey.

The rear view is much better - I do like those fins.

 

Although 1960s Volvo anyone?

Anyway, I'm not sure next week will be the first official launch - look at the Bristol Bullet shown at the 2009 Classic Motor Show at the NEC:

 

So the design goes back to before the recent troubles.

But that doesn't matter.  As long as enough pipe-smokers are attracted to it, Bristol should be fine.

All ship-shape & Bristol Fashion.

404 Error

Actually, this is a 405 Error.  The Bristol 404 is smaller than the 405.

I'm not sure I should be commenting on this story because the Mail say "Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons."

The Evening Standard of London, from whom they admit they got the story, seem happy enough to take comments though.  Maybe they have better lawyers.

The story is actually about a lawyer - and, like those commenting within The Evening Standard, I have little sympathy for him.

Basically, the lawyer has bought one of these, a 405 saloon, for £20K...

...with the intention of paying £153K to Bristol for turning it into a 405D Drophead Coupe - ie one of these:

...with the addition of automatic transmission for good luck.

This was particularly bad luck for all concerned because it appears that Bristol don't have the expertise to perform these alterations.

So the lawyer took Bristol to Court for breach of contract (Bristol say they didn't sign any legal documentation) and the judge agreed with the lawyer.

I was always told that a verbal contract "wasn't worth the paper it wasn't signed on".

The lawyer is asking for up to £300K.

Not sure why, he's only shelled out £50K so far and I guess he still has the car.

The Evening Standard article contains a basic error as well that carries through to The Mail.  I thought it seemed strange that he would buy a car of which only 43 were built and then want to radically change it.  So I checked on Wikipedia.  Yes , I know - but I reckon this page was created by a car-nerd so will be right. 

There I found the 405 saloon picture that the Evening Standard had used plus the two pictures I have used

and I also found out that it was the Drophead Coupe that only 43 examples of were built - he was trying to create a 44th example.

I hope he doesn't get awarded big money - the decision will be next year but one of the reasons that Bristol no longer have the same expertise is redundancies after recovering from this.

Now, I wonder if anyone would be interested in turning a Peugeot 405 saloon:

into a Peugeot 405 coupe: 

Bet that wouldn't cost £153K

Bristol's Gone Tits Up

Nothing for ages then two stories from Autocar on consecutive days.
Bristol Cars have gone into Administration. Unfortunate but not surprising given their attitude towards their clientelle. They almost chose their customers - only selling vehicles to people they approved of - usually landed gentry or ex-RAF types or pipe-smokers.

But probably not Bill Bailey.

Groucho Marx once said "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" but for me the reverse is true - I'd refuse to join any club that discriminated against Groucho - and I'm no Marxist.

When I'm a famous film writer/actor/dirctor I'll only go to the post-Oscar party that lets in the plebs.

There will be many reasons for Bristol failing - not least the current economic climate. I've been looking out for the new 11-Reg cars that were let loose on Tuesday and so far, I've still only spotted one - it was still a Punto.

Another reason would be Bristol's reputation. They make old-fashioned cars and are snooty.

A third reason could be the looks of the cars. The Fighter looks like a TVR from the '90s. The Blenheim looks like a Ford from the '80s. The Blenheim Speedster looks like an Austin Healey from the '60s and the Series 6 looks like a Fiat from the same period. Check them out at the Bristol Website.

So what now? Who would want to buy them? VW are in the market for more brands. (Check out that link to see where I've just cut-and-pasted the last bit of this article from) I don't see any of the large manufacturers needing Bristol unless some of the Malaysians or Koreans just wanted the name.

Whoever takes it on (and I suppose I hope someone does - Bristol Cars is something like "Songs of Praise" or "The Archers" - I have no interest in them but am glad they are there) will have to change the Bristol philosophy to advertising and to letting the motoring media loose on their products. They make lots of claims about the performance and driving experience but don't seem to want it verified or reviewed. They need more customers and more publicity. If you search Google Images for pipe-smokers you get an awful lot of dead people: Harold Wilson, J.R.R.Tolkien, Douglas Bader, Amos & Mr.Wilks from Emmerdale Farm.

Curiously, you also get some pretty girls smoking pipes - I think that must be a particular fetish.

Anyway Bristol, YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR CUSTOMER BASE! This lot won't keep you afloat: