WEIGHTY ISSUES
In an earlier article I touched on road rage and then went on to discuss
vehicle safety and the illusion of invulnerability created by the design
of modern cars. Since far too many pundits have pontificated about road
rage, I feel there is little need to reiterate the arguments, other than
to
observe that this particular manifestation of a lack of manners is reflected
throughout our society. Self preservation however usually intercedes and
we suppress our anger when someone elbows us out of the way. Encased in
a steel safety cage, one feels one can behave in an aggressive or unmannerly
manner with impunity. Likewise, the victim of such behaviour can retaliate.
Can you imagine the reaction if someone steamed down the outside of the
queue in a Post Office and cut in at the counter? What's the chance of your
prodding the person in front of you and yelling, "Get a move on fatso!"
merely because they fail to shuffle forward immediately the person in front
moves? Yet we see examples of this sort of behaviour on our roads every
day. Once upon a time the perpetrators of such behaviour were young tearaways
in sports cars. As cars became safer and roads more congested, this rudeness
and aggressiveness has become more widespread. Volvo drivers used to be
the most guilty, perhaps because they believed they were utterly invulnerable.
Perhaps the pundits would care to call this the Achilles Syndrome.
Well, what has all this to do with Citroëns? Unfortunately, quite a
lot since modern Citroëns are, just like all the competition, designed
to cosset and cocoon the occupants and protect them in the event of an accident.
I use the word "modern" since self evidently older Citroëns
are not as good as modern ones where passive safety is concerned - although
there are some exceptions to this. I recently read a newspaper article (the
Telegraph I think) that described a problem that afflicts most modern cars,
namely the width of the "A" or windscreen pillars and the poor
visibility such a design creates. DS aficionados will sit there with a smug
smile on their face, knowing that the pillars are both thin and situated
much further back than current designs. Citroën used to advertise this
as a safety feature. Modern cars have thicker pillars in order to create
a cage to protect the occupants in the event of a rollover. Here we have
a solution that in itself creates a problem.
Another example of retrograde engineering that has an adverse effect on
safety is the conventional location of the brake pedal on all modern Citroëns.
The DS, SM, GS, and CX all had the pedal located lower than the fully depressed
accelerator pedal - thereby reducing reaction time and thus
braking distance. The change to a conventionally located pedal was, presumably,
brought about by fashion or the need to compete with mainstream manufacturers.
A further example is the disappearance of the single spoke steering wheel.
Over the years the spoke has become bigger - just compare a Mk II BX with
a Mk I - and now, in order to accommodate an airbag, it has become utterly
conventional (i.e. multi-spoked). The single spoke wheel was aesthetically
superior and did not obscure the instruments (although why one should wish
to look at them while turning the wheel escapes me).
Side impact bars are yet another example of solutions creating problems;
in this instance the problem is one of excess weight. The successor to the
BX is heavier and thereby thirstier and slower. The latter may not be a
problem but the former most certainly is. Given the finite nature of oil
reserves and the ecological problems caused by burning fossil fuels, logic
would suggest that cars should become lighter rather than heavier. An alien
visitor from outer space, knowing nothing about the development of the Citroën
range might conclude that the BX is the successor to the Xantia but such
is the topsy turvy nature of mankind's love affair with the car that, as
any fule kno, the Xantia, overweight, bloated, thirsty and slow is an "improvement"
on the BX. This is not to say that all evolution is back to front; after
all, my Turbo Diesel BX returns the same sort of mpg as a 2CV but is, shall
we say, slightly more sprightly. Still, drivers of Xantias can rest happy
in the knowledge that the doors don't sound like someone kicking a dustbin
and that they can operate the stereo without having to let go of the (be-spoked)
wheel.
Electric windows are another cause of extra weight - four electric motors
weigh a heck of a lot. While it is true that I too enjoy the convenience
factor of merely pressing on a button to open or close the windows, I wonder
whether we might be better off without them since we continue to pay (at
the filling station) for them throughout the life of the car. Furthermore,
small children can't get trapped between the glass and the frame with manual
winders. The solution to this safety problem usually results in additional
(albeit minimal) weight in the form of a sensor to prevent the window
closing if there is an obstruction present.
Yet another cause of flab is the sunroof. Glass is heavy. An electric sunroof
has an electric motor (surprise! surprise!) and electric motors are heavy.
I am six feet tall and bald and I don't particularly like sunroofs because:-
- they restrict headroom, and
- I don't wish to have a sunburnt scalp, and
- I continue to pay for it every time I visit the filling station
Air-conditioning is no answer either since one pays a penalty in terms of
the additional weight of the aircon unit itself plus the fact that use of
the system increases fuel consumption. A fabric roof might be an answer
except for the fact that there are those possessed of sharp knives and no
intellect roaming the streets. Perhaps the answer is a lightweight, removable,
plastic panel.
© Julian Marsh 1995